3
Doctor Who Turned Female
YouTube Comments, Affective Fan Practices and Resistance in the Face of an
Instable Gender
Sophie Eeken
Student no.: 11929367 4 July 2018
Words: 22886
Supervisor: Joke Hermes Second Reader: Jaap Kooijman
Television and Cross-Media Culture (Media Studies) University of Amsterdam
5
Table of Contents
p.
Abstract………. 7
Introduction………. 9
1. Doctor Who and a Gendered Textuality……… 13
The institute that is Doctor Who ……….. 13
Self-reflection on gender treatment in Doctor Who……….. 15
The Doctor’s masculinity……… 17
Figure 1……… 20
The female companion……… 22
Out of the mould………. 24
2. Method……….……… 27
Selecting YouTube……… 27
Selecting the corpus……….. 29
General discourse in the comments……….. 31
Grounded theory………. 33
Figure 2……… 34
3. Analysis……….. 35
Giving Credit to Doctor Who……… 35
Praise of progress………. 35
Patience as loyalty……… 39
Love and dedication……… 41
Worshipping the Doctor as anti-feminism………. 42
Grief: let the Doctor rest in peace………. 43
Conspiracy and hostile geek masculinity……….. 44
6
Discussion and conclusion……… 53
Notes……… 61
Works Cited………. 63
7
Abstract
In the summer of 2017 the BBC released a video revealing that Jodie Whittaker will be playing the Thirteenth Doctor in the upcoming season of the popular BBC series Doctor Who (1963-today). This reveal prompted a large online discussion on the appropriateness of the casting, with a main focus on gender. It is striking that the first female casting for the role received an overwhelming backlash. Doctor Who has been a subject of scrutiny for its representational practices and its treatment of diversity on and off the screen. However, scholarly research on gender and Doctor Who has only recently gained traction and the main focus seems to lie on what happens in the series. The immense discussion the reveal generated indicates that televisual representations of gender also greatly matter to its audiences. This thesis will be concerned with how gender matters to Doctor Who fans in the wake of a female Doctor. YouTube comments concerning the reveal are analysed through a grounded theory approach. In the light of the reveal of the Thirteenth Doctor, gender seems to matter to Doctor Who fans as a (worrying) disturbance of the stability of gender categories, as perpetuated in previous series. Both scholars and fans have observed a slowly changing positioning of gender in the BBC series and recognize both the potential and the pitfalls of making the Doctor female. The fan discourse in the YouTube comments is shaped through highly affective vocabularies and it is argued that the argumentative nature of the discussion breaks up the fandom into a fragmented affective public. The themes of praise, patience and love make up a positive strain of responses based on giving credit to the series. However, the dominant discourse is shaped by a negative response in themes of grief, conspiracy, hostility, treason and trauma. These negative comments stem from a worshipping of the Doctor as a male and perpetuate an anti-feminist narrative. Feminism and ‘Social Justice’ is cast as a threatening Other, a bringer of bad feeling. These comments, but also comments praising the move as a feminist progression, work to render gender back into binary categories. In the face of broader practices of breaking down binary discourses of gender in, for example, the introduction of gender-neutral toilets, discussions like these become more and more prevalent and make for a revealing subject of study on the struggles of freeing up the understanding of gender.
9
Introduction
I see the hood being put to good use, but who is he gonna be? Oh.
Who…
And he has got the key… Oh my God… OH!
Chibnall you absolute madman, you’ve actually gone and done it. My God. It actually- They actually…
Bloody hell, that actually happened. They act- they did it!
They- They went and did it. (The Whovian Chaser)
And they actually did. After the men’s Wimbledon finale on the 16th of July 2017, the BBC released a
video, simultaneously aired on broadcast television and on different social media platforms, revealing who would be playing the next Doctor in the popular television series Doctor Who (1963 – today). For the first time since this British science fiction series first aired 54 years ago, the Doctor, who has always been played by white males, has become a woman. Filming his initial reaction to the reveal (note the initial use of the ‘he’ pronoun), the YouTuber quoted above immediately raises a concern: “Well, the reaction to this is going to be, um, explosive. I’m almost scared to check social media” (The Whovian Chaser). In many videos like his, a response of shock (and often excitement) is immediately followed by a fear of how others will react, because how is this gender change going to sit with the known to be assertive ‘Whovian’ fandom?
The posting of the reveal video on social media allowed for instant viewer feedback and with the hashtags #DoctorWho and #Doctor13, active online engagement was encouraged. A lively debate on the appropriateness of the casting filled the comment sections underneath the BBC video on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube. An online public space formed, where fans wanted to let their voices be heard. On the same platforms the BBC first acquainted the public with the new Doctor, people expanded the debate outside of the official spaces of the BBC, creating independent Facebook groups, new Twitter hashtags, dedicated Instagram accounts and reaction videos on YouTube. Outside of these platforms, dedicated threads arose on other fora (for example The Doctor Who Forum, Reddit and Fok) and an extended range of blogposts and journalistic articles were written on the newest Doctor. With just a browse across these different sites, one can get a sense of the ongoing debate; with
10 enthusiastic proponents and fierce opponents of the casting driving a divide in the online fandom. Although not all, a lot of this debate centres around the gender of the actress appointed for the role. With the change generating a large online debate, it becomes apparent that gender matters to the fans. This will also be the subject of this thesis: How does gender matter to Doctor Who fans in the wake of a female Doctor?
Doctor Who is a series about a time traveling alien, the Doctor, who is usually accompanied by a (female) human companion. Belonging to the humanoid species called ‘Time Lords’, the Doctor has the ability to regenerate, which means that instead of dying one changes their form. Regeneration was originally installed as a plot device to replace the lead actor, as the first actor to play the role of the Doctor, William Hartnell, was in failing health near the end of his run. As it consequently became an established part of the show, a regenerated Doctor meant a completely changed appearance and a slightly changed personality, whilst retaining core values and memories of the character. Regeneration has become one of the ways in which the series continually updated the show to keep it ’fresh’. It is however only since its revival in 2005, after it went off air in 1989, that regenerations have become elaborated paratextual marketing events (Hills, “Rebranding Doctor Who” 319). The reveal video introducing Jodie Whittaker as the thirteenth incarnation of the Doctor and the live show Doctor Who Live: The Next Doctor (August 4, 2013) that was hosted for the reveal of the Doctor before her, are prime examples of how a buzz is created around a new casting, encouraging viewer anticipation and speculation.
Fan involvement and discussion around changes in the series are no new phenomena to Doctor Who. Moreover, through its multimedia strategies it is encouraged. Interestingly, although “it may be assumed that fans are somehow resistant to any change” and each introduction of a new Doctor is accompanied by grief about the old one leaving and doubts about the suitability of the new one (too young, too old, too sexy), “Who’s 2005 reimagining was widely celebrated by fans, and each new Doctor and companion since 2005 has been broadly accepted by fandom” (Hills, “Rebranding Doctor Who” 322). What is striking about the discussion on the casting of Jodie Whittaker then, is the overwhelming backlash it generated. Specifically interesting is how the discussion is mainly centred around her gender, as it is not merely a change of actor, but a change in the precedent of white males playing the lead role. Gender appears as the greater issue, something that differs from other changes. This change and the discussion surrounding it, tie into a larger discourse surrounding the series and important feminist interventions in the social reality of 2017.
With the series as a flagship production of the British public service broadcaster and the 2005 reboot aimed at a more mainstream public to move it away from the cult status it had attained, Doctor Who has come under increased scrutiny for representation and diversity of race, sexuality and gender (Jowett, Dancing Introduction). With a few black actors in the leading role of the companion and gender
11 changes (from male to female) in regenerations of other Time Lord characters in the reboot, the BBC seems to have made an effort on that front. However, the execution of these characters and the fact that the Doctor has never been anything but a white male, attracted criticism (Jowett, Dancing Introduction). Apart from differing viewpoints from critics and fans alike about how well or how badly (gender) representation is handled in the series, it seems significant enough to mention that between 2008 and 2015 there were no female screenwriters and few women directors in the production team under the then newly appointed showrunner Steven Moffat (Jowett, Dancing Chapter 5). True enough, after these seven years, prior to the airing of season 9, announcements were made that a set of female writers and directors were signed for the new season. This “suggests that the BBC and the Doctor Who team are aware of its public position and realise that they need to be seen to be addressing issues of diversity” (Jowett, Introduction). However, “the gender inequalities apparent in production of the Moffat ‘era’ are certainly indicative of bigger industrial picture” (Jowett, Dancing Chapter 5).
As Lorna Jowett indicates, the television industry is strongly reliant on social capital; getting into the industry requires networks (Dancing Chapter 5). She states that “social networks tend to consist of the same kind of people, hence the preponderance of white, well-educated men with high-profile showrunner jobs in television” and in the writing and producing of Doctor Who (Chapter 5). It is in other words a “Boys’ Club” (Jowett, Dancing Chapter 5). In her research on the ‘feminization’ of television, Vicky Ball notes how “although women now represent 48 percent of the terrestrial television workforce (Skillset 2010, p. 7), research by feminist academics (Brunsdon 2000; Julia Hallam 2007; Lizzie Thynne 2000), but also reports from the British Film Institute (BFI) (1999) and Sector Skills Council for the UK (Skillset 2008, 2009, 2010), suggest that this figure betrays the extent to which gendered hierarchies continue to structure broadcasting industries” (251). Ball argues that gendered roles are still pervasive in the kinds of jobs different genders occupy, with the ‘top jobs’ still mainly held by men (251). Moreover, gendered pay gaps persist (251).
Not only has Doctor Who been an exemplary case of these industry struggles and have its moves regarding representation increasingly been scrutinized, the reveal of the gender swap is inextricably linked to a period of increased media attention for contemporary feminist activism. The Women’s Marches in the beginning of 2017 started off a year with insistent voices pleading for human rights and equality. The trending hashtag MeToo facilitated a large public discussion on sexual harassment and gender inequalities, also attracting attention to problematic actors and directors in film and television and reviving the discussion on unequal pay. With the 2018 Golden Globes award ceremony, again large media attention surrounded the feminist discussion with actresses advocating for the “Time’s up” campaign. The call for more diverse representation in films (and television) is also growing (For example:
http://variety.com/2017/film/news/2017-oscars-diversity-denzel-washington-12
viola-davis-octavia-spencer-1201968125/). With, for example, strong female lead roles in Wonder Woman (2017) and Mad Max: Fury Road (2015), steps seem to have been taken to make the industry more inclusive. Embedded in this recent activist history, the case of a female Doctor becomes incredibly topical and relevant in a much broader sense of social developments.
This thesis will thus deal with how fans give meaning to the change in gender of their beloved time travelling hero, the Doctor. The first chapter answers the question of how Doctor Who is understood as an institute in British public service television and how gender has mattered before in relation to the series. This chapter creates an understanding of what Doctor Who is and provides a framework of an ongoing critique in which the debate that has sprouted, is situated. A literature review situates this thesis in contemporary scholarly discourse on gender and Doctor Who. The main problem identified in this discourse, is how narrative structure upholds conventionally gendered roles in the characters of the Doctor and his companions, which results in a restrictive space for female representation and a narrative of male superiority. The second chapter introduces the method used to capture the discussion of the female Doctor. I analyse the discourse in comment sections of YouTube through a grounded theory approach. The third chapter provides an analysis of the themes found in the gathered data. Themes of praise, patience and love build a positive line of discourse, giving credit to Doctor Who. Grief, conspiracy, hostility, treason and trauma are the themes that shape negative responses. Making sense of the new Doctor starts from being in favour or against a female Doctor and is cast in highly affective vocabularies. The reveal of the Thirteenth Doctor works as an incitement to discourse, alike the incitement to discourse Michel Foucault recognizes in the institutional powers which incite and shape discourses on sex and sexuality. Discussion of the gender of the new Doctor works to reinstate a very transphobic, binary understanding of gender and gender roles. The discourse is subjected to ingrained patterns of male hegemony and the focus is brought back from sexuality to gender. Finally, in a discussion of the findings I assert that these affective fan practices in some instances may lead to a performance of cultural citizenship and furthermore, make up an affective public. Moreover, as the affective public stems from a fandom, which is divided through argument about the appropriateness of a female Doctor, I argue that this affective public is fragmented.
13
1. Doctor Who and a Gendered Textuality
As the longest running science fiction show ever and a flagship production of the renowned BBC, Doctor Who has become a true televisual phenomenon. It is since the reboot in 2005 that Doctor Who has sparked a wide interest in scholarly research. Within this surge of interest, the representation of gender has become a subject of scrutiny, even if relatively little has been written about it (Jowett, “The Girls Who Waited?” 77). Concerns of gender representation have been expressed by scholars like Lorna Jowett, Pierce D. Britton, James Chapman and others. In my study of the concern of fans with gender, it is useful to first explore the existing scholarly discourse on the construction of gender in Doctor Who, in order to reveal persistent problems in representation within the series that might have incited the casting of a female Doctor. This will situate my research in the larger scholarly discourse on gender and Doctor Who. However, I will first further introduce the institute that is Doctor Who to provide an understanding of the object that has brought about such an intense reaction. Secondly, I will briefly discuss an example of how the series provides a self-reflexive attitude towards its treatment of gender and the existing critiques on its representational practices. Consequently I will look at these critiques in a literature review of the existing scholarly discourse. I will elaborate on how the Doctor has been seen to be presented as a ‘different’ kind of hero, but does not escape conventionally masculine traditions of representation. Next, it becomes clear that the role of the Doctor’s companion has since its beginnings restricted the place for female characterisation and creates a problematic binary construction of male and female gender identities. Lastly, I discuss some praised attempts to create more inclusive female characters, that have preceded the casting of a female Doctor. A casting that is seen as a hopeful attempt to break down the ongoing discourse of masculine superiority.
The institute that is Doctor Who
Doctor Who follows the adventures of an alien who has adopted the name of ‘the Doctor’. The rebellious Time Lord has fled Gallifrey, the home planet of their species, in a stolen TARDIS (Time and Relative Dimension in Space), a space and time machine. On the outside the TARDIS looks like a small blue police box, an unimpressive exterior for a spaceship. However, it reveals itself to be bigger on the inside, made possible through ‘Time Lord technology’. The blue box has become a very striking and iconic part of the series. Adventures usually start with curiosity and end up with the Doctor protecting innocent beings from evil forces. The Doctor is supposed to represent a ‘different’ hero as they strive to not resolve conflict through fighting, but through ingenuity and wit. Their only weapon is a ‘sonic screwdriver’,
14 which is, instead of a deadly weapon, more of a handy versatile tool that for example keeps opponents at a distance and opens locked doors. In the series the Doctor is rarely shown to travel alone. They take one or multiple companion(s) (usually human and most often female) on their adventures, show them the wondrous universe and tackle evil together. The Doctor can be quirky, but also dark and distant in relation to life and death, as they are a centuries old alien and have seen many a horror. Companions often function to ‘ground’ them and let them connect to a more ‘human’ emotion. Additionally the companion also functions as a device for identification for the audience. Through their travels the Doctor has made numerous recurring enemies, such as the Daleks, the Cybermen and another Time Lord: the Master (or in the recent serials the regenerated female equivalent ‘Missy’). With a particular fondness for humankind, the Doctor is often shown in a kind of ‘protector of earth’ role. At one point in the reboot they even became the ‘President of the world’. The last core aspect of the show, regeneration (the ability to regenerate the body instead of dying) forms the secret to both their old age and ultimate wisdom. Furthermore, it is part of the formula that has proven to be able to sustain the longevity of the show.
Doctor Who first aired in 1963 and the ‘classic’ series ran until 1989. In 2005 the series was revived, often referred to as new Who or ‘nuWho’, and continues to this day. The classic series was originally conceived as an educational children’s programme. Yet in its early days it was quickly reformed to a more popular science fiction format after the success of the serial “The Daleks”, where “campy, science fiction monsters” were introduced and the formal education of history and science “was shunted to the background” (Aronoff 18). The show enjoyed mainstream popularity until ratings started to go down in the 1980’s. Some argue that this is the point where Doctor Who became understood as a cult show (Hills, “Doctor Who” 98). However, Matt Hills argues that the series has always been both cult and mainstream (102). Even though the show attracted more widespread cultural recognition, from early on it also cultivated a cult following which “will surely continue to operate, distinctively reading and speculating over the particular program” (102). When the show went off air in 1989, it was the cult following that kept the beloved Doctor alive. Between 1989 and 2005 Doctor Who might have disappeared from television, but it lived on in the production of both fan-made and officially sanctioned audio stories, novels, comics and a television film (Britton Introduction). Still, Doctor Who is mainly understood in the terms of the television series and the narrative of new Who only follows the narrative world as established in the classic series.
Where classic Who was mainly a family show, the 2005 revival was instigated by fans who grew up with the show: “fandom is not just an audience identity: Doctor Who’s fans have officially taken over the running of the show” (Hills, “Doctor Who” 102). New Who unsurprisingly then, caters to a demographic of old fans as well as younger generations (Salter and Blodgett, Toxic Geek 29). The revival also brought about a notion of authorship, with firstly the title of showrunner bestowed upon ‘fanboy’
15 Russel T. Davies. Davies is understood as the person who brought Doctor Who back to television and as a showrunner he is in charge of the main writing and guiding the overall narrative. There has been an effort on emphasizing multi-authorship, with writers and directors of specific episodes being credited alongside the showrunner in the opening titles. However, as Jowett argues, the understanding of the series as authored conceals much of the collaborative nature of production (Dancing Chapter 5). Authorship was something new to Doctor Who:
The notion of authorship in the new Doctor Who universe is […] tied up with the current marketplace, the reach of a global transmedia brand, the reputation of the BBC and, inevitably, the status and personae of those seen to be in creative control of a given series. (Jowett, Dancing Chapter 5)
New Who is often talked about in terms of ‘era’s’ of different showrunners, starting with the Russel T. Davies era, followed by Steven Moffat and in the year of writing this thesis the reigns have been taken over by Chris Chibnall.
Next to the main series, the revival of Doctor Who has seen the spin-off shows Torchwood (2006 – 2011) and The Sarah Jane Adventures (2007 – 2011). Together with the paratextual expansion of reveals, celebrations and theatrical releases, the scope of the Doctor Who franchise becomes clear and reveals why the series can be thought of as an institute of British television. However, in this chapter my focus will further lie on the main television series, as that is the object of the fan reactions I analyse and forms the space where the female Doctor will make her entry.
Self-reflection on gender treatment in Doctor Who
Before moving on to how scholars have assessed the treatment of gender in Doctor Who, I want to look at an interesting case of self-reflection within the series. The 2017 Doctor Who Christmas special, “Twice Upon a Time”, marks both the end of the era of the Twelfth Doctor, played by Peter Capaldi, and the end of Steven Moffat’s role as showrunner. Anticipating the historical transformation of the main Who character into a woman, this special brings back the very first incarnation of the Doctor (played by David Bradley, as the original actor William Hartnell passed away in 1975), a nod to the series’ long history and the changes it has already undergone. The Christmas special centres around the Twelfth and the First Doctor who are both resisting regeneration, not wanting to let go of their current self. Within the relatively uneventful plot, the emphasis lies on character development and self-reflection. A recurring theme seems to be the rather insensitive and sexist remarks the grumpy first Doctor makes, shocking
16 and embarrassing the contemporary Twelfth Doctor. This is for example demonstrated in how the First Doctor introduces him and his newer self to a rather confused First World War captain they encounter:
First Doctor: I am the Doctor and this is my um… Twelfth Doctor: It’s complicated actually - I am also… First Doctor: My nurse.
Twelfth Doctor: Excuse me?
First Doctor: I realise that seems a little improbable. Twelfth Doctor: Well, yes…
First Doctor: Because he’s a man. Twelfth Doctor: What?!
First Doctor: Older gentlemen, like women, can be put to use. Twelfth Doctor: You can’t… You can’t say things like that.
First Doctor: Can’t I? Says who?
Twelfth Doctor: Just about everyone you’re going to meet for the rest of your life. (“Twice Upon a Time”)
In making such assumptions about gender roles the First Doctor also continues to comment on how Bill, the female (ex)companion that has returned in this special, would be useful for cleaning the ship. The First Doctor is portrayed as a character who has no sense of gender equality and the Twelfth Doctor is put in contrast to that, trying to correct or interrupt his former self when he starts to make another sexist remark. The special thus offers a rather literal self-reflexivity, portraying how the series conceived in the time spirit of the sixties has possibly made progress, in line with changing ideas about gender equality. However, with disappointed reactions of fans, who do not feel the First Doctor had been sexist, it is not quite clear if it is truly a reflection on the series’ past or a statement on how ‘progressive’ the series has become just before the Doctor himself turns female.
Such a self-reflexivity is certainly not new to the series’ regular way of storytelling, rewarding observant fans who are able to spot references. In his book on the complex textuality of Doctor Who scholar Piers D. Britton spots a similar reference on changing roles; early on in the rebooted series there occurs a self-reflexive moment when companion Rose Tyler meets a previous companion of the Doctor, one from the classic series (chapter V). This previous companion, Sarah Jane Smith, refers to Rose as the new assistant of the Doctor, to which Rose indignantly responds: “I’m not his assistant!”, implying that being a companion means much more than that (“School Reunion” 2006). She refuses a reduction of the importance of her role. Britton states however that “in certain respects this overt rejection of the classic series’ values is at best lip service to a new ideal,” as the companion character seems to remain quite restricted (chapter V).
17 Jim Collins recognizes self-reflexivity as a characteristic of a Post-Modernist textuality, creating an ironic voice towards its own practices and recognizing its constructed nature (270). A textuality becoming more and more common in television:
Television’s discursivity is not simply direct, quasi-conversational register of the news anchor’s address to the viewer, but the I-know-that-you-know-that-I-know mise en abyme that is increasingly typical of television messages. This exchange involves not only a hyperawareness of the already said, but also of its impact on the formulation of the present message, producing an ironic discursivity that destabilizes the univocality of any sign. (Collins 271)
Collins notes how such self-reflexivity indicates not only a self-awareness in production, but also points to a shift in thinking about mass culture’s passive consumer towards a hyperconscious viewer (270). Another interesting aspect of this characterisation arises when taking into consideration that the special has been written by Stephen Moffat, who has been criticised extensively, in his run as showrunner, for not being able to promote a sufficient representation of diversity on and behind the screen and for making questionable defences when questioned about the lack of female writers, directors and strong female leads (Jowett, Dancing Chapter 5). The last reply of the Twelfth Doctor could thus be read both as a reflexivity of changes within the series as well as a reply to his personal critics (be it mocking them or self-deprecation). Just a quick look at the responses to this episode in, for example, online reviews of the episode on the Internet Movie Database shows how fans respond varyingly to the special and how indeed they reflect on the episode in a hyperconscious way. As for example one reviewer condemns the reflections on gender treatment: “The main issue was that it was trying so HARD not to be discrimate [sic] towards women. It was so cringey and in your face” (Chris DonnieDarko Jee), while another applauds the effort "Fortunately the last hurrah was absorbing from start to finish, a wonderfully clever story, dazzling effects, and a proper nod to the show's history” (Paul Evans1). These
responses reflect scholar Matt Hills’ remark on how fans often critique the series through their own lens of an ideal Doctor Who and what the essence of the show is accordingly (Triumph 5). This brief example shows how the text itself displays a self-awareness about representational issues and how fans engage with it. In the next part of this chapter I present a literature review on how scholars have assessed gender representation within the text itself.
The Doctor’s masculinity
The few scholars that have tackled the issue of gender in Doctor Who point to the dichotomy of masculinity in the protagonist. The Doctor is a character that has been seen both to adhere to
18 representations of conventional patriarchy as well as queering masculine expectations. In her 2017 book on dimensions of gender in the Doctor Who franchise, the only scholarly book that offers an in-depth treatment of gender issues concerning the series, Lorna Jowett states that the Doctor “is not a traditional hero, but seems to be a very British one. He tends to prevail through ingenuity, intelligence and persuasion rather than strength and superior firepower” (Dancing Chapter 1). She argues that this characterisation is a product of its conception in the 1960’s. The sixties were a period of rapid scientific and technological development, which was reflected in the shift from the typical action hero to a “reasoning protagonist” in science fiction of the time (Dancing Chapter 1). However even in this, as Jowett calls it, “British” and reasoning take on a hero type, the Doctor is constructed within a rather conventional masculine framework. Although the character changes with each incarnation, altering his personality as well as his exterior, Britton notes there is continuity in the portrayed masculinity of the Doctor throughout the classic series (Chapter IV).
The Doctor is portrayed as a wise, all-knowing, authoritative figure and his disposition as an age-old alien (although not necessarily visible on the outside) who saves the universe, works to justify him as “naturally superior” (Britton Chapter IV). In their essay on the identity of the Doctor, John Cordone and Michelle Cordone liken the position of the Doctor to that of an aristocratic lord, which complies with his being an alien of the ‘Time Lord’ race (8). Cordone and Cordone argue that, like a lord, the Doctor maintains a position of authority and works to “maintain order and uphold the law” (8). This is accompanied by a sense of entitlement: “viewers can […] see in his character a belief that he is the best” (Cordone and Cordone 11). Cordone and Cordone argue that this attitude is justified in that “the Time Lords' birthright is their intelligence. It is what empowers them, and grants them the right of leadership” (10). It is also this idea of superiority that allows him the authority to make decisions that impact not only himself, but also other worlds and people, putting him on top of a patriarchal hierarchy (11). In line with the idea of the Doctor as a lord, Britton argues that “the ultimately solitary and nomadic Doctor does in fact adhere to a perfectly conventional model of masculinity in screen fiction – namely, the type identified in film scholarship as the ‘narcissistic hero’” (chapter IV).
In addition to his sense of authority and superiority, the idea of loneliness also contributes to the mould of the narcissistic hero (Britton Chapter IV). Britton states that the narcissistic hero is also the lone hero, manifested in the character of the Doctor in the inability to engage in deep emotional relationships (Chapter IV). Although the classic series starts out with him travelling with his granddaughter, its premise also puts the emphasis on how he turned his back on his own species. Moreover, when he stopped travelling with his granddaughter, barely any link to family was made after. His peculiar and ‘loner’ persona, then, “generally entailed stressing his difference, his alienness, his remoteness even from the ‘normal’ members of his own super-race, the Gallifrean Time Lords” (Britton Chapter IV). In the classic series the Doctor was also never seen to engage with family matters of
19 companions, he is careful to avoid such commitments (Britton Chapter IV). Whenever a companionship ends, the emphasis is put back onto the Doctor’s role as an outcast hero, leaving his companions behind in an often rather domestic situation, but never settling down himself and never (or rarely) seeing them again (Britton Chapter IV).
Furthermore, Britton points out that there is a continuous emphasis on the Doctor’s aversion to fighting, enforced by the fact he does not carry a weapon on him, as opposed to other contemporary hero’s in for example Star Trek and Indiana Jones (Britton Chapter IV). This continuous disavowal of violence in the narrated morals of the Doctor may, however, be misleading. The Doctor has frequently instigated or ‘winked at’ violence against his opponents as a way of resolving conflict and, as Britton states, “death abounded” (Chapter IV). Jowett carries this argument as she observes that when the Doctor avoids participating in violence himself, he often lets others fight on his behalf (Dancing Chapter 3). In analysing the classic run, Britton points out that, while the Doctor may not carry a weapon, he does engage in thoroughly masculine types of violence, like fisticuffs, himself (Chapter IV). Thus, the dismissal of violence does not equal the actual portrayal of the Doctor, as violence is often offered as a conventional masculine coded solution to a problem (Britton Chapter IV). It is one of the aspects that adds to the construction of the traditional masculine gender identity of the Doctor.
However, as strongly as Britton suggests conventional masculinity is embedded in the characterisation of the Doctor, he continues to argue that in the classic series this masculinity is destabilized by his “spectacular potential” (Chapter IV). Britton contributes this spectacular potential to the visual representation of the Doctors’ persona. The Doctor’s dress, from the first series onward, and especially with the transition to colour television at the end of the sixties, “was a far cry from the neutrality and conformity which characterized sartorial stereotypes of the ‘real man’ during the same period, both in the world of fashion and in screen fiction set in the contemporary world” (Britton Chapter IV) (see Figure 1). With all Doctors wearing a heavy dress ensemble, there is a clear departure from the typical narcissistic loner hero type, which is normally associated with minimalistic (un)dress (Britton Chapter IV). This goes for all versions of the Doctor in the classic run, as we see for example the Fourth Doctor in a cricketing outfit, the Fifth Doctor with an absurdly long scarf (often used for comic effect) and the Sixth Doctor’s colourful rainbow outfit as the epitome of campiness. It is in these sartorial portrayals Britton sees the most striking aberration from normative masculinity in the classic series (Chapter IV).
20 Figure 1. Costumes of Doctor One to Eleven (the four to the left, the three to the right and the one at the back are Doctor’s from the classic series)
(Still from “The Day of The Doctor”, Doctor Who, 23 November 2013)
A tension was created between masculinity and campiness, even more so combined with his often agile way of moving (Britton Chapter IV). Britton even compares the Doctor to the ‘song-and-dance-man’ in musical comedies, exhibiting his agility and intellectual skill in almost theatrical dress (Chapter IV). Britton bases this on the idea of Steven Cohan of the song-and-dance-man as a model of new masculinity established post-war movies: “Hollywood musicals re-imagined American masculinity for post-war audiences in the kind of spectacular terms that would later come to dominate a televisual popular culture” (Chapter IV). This model contrasted the idea of conventional masculinity as it was associated with often ‘feminine’ coded indicators such as ‘masquerade’ or ‘exhibitionism’ (Britton Chapter IV). Another part of this is that like the musical man, the Doctor has mostly not adhered to conventional handsomeness (Britton Chapter IV). Something that has changed considerably in the revived series under Russel T. Davies.
With the new Doctor in the first season of the rebooted series in 2005 wearing a V-neck shirt with a leather jacket, the Doctor’s dress seemed to represent a more conventional ‘butch’ type of man (Britton Chapter IV). The fitted suit of the Doctor after him also indicated a departure from the quirky theatrical costume of the classic series (Chapter IV). Together with the casting of conventionally handsome young men, Britton detects a move away from the feminized spectacular potential of the Doctor towards a more traditional spectacle of the romantic hero (Chapter IV). Additionally, this ensued a (hetero-) sexualisation of the character, that has been omitted in the classic series. This is not to say
21 that the Doctor has completely transformed into a normative character, as the one thing that continues to undermine his established masculinity and lord-like authority is humour. Furthermore, humour has been seen to play an even bigger role in the new series, creating a sense of campiness throughout (Jowett, Dancing Chapter 1). In one episode, for example, the plot revolved around defeating a bunch of farting aliens (“Aliens of London” 2005). However, contrary to the classic series, campiness was “largely deflected from the person of the Doctor himself” with the move away from spectacular clothing and towards a romantic turn (Britton Chapter IV).
Especially the Tenth Doctor is characterized by his apparent appeal to the opposite sex, with both companions and side characters expressing an explicit attraction towards the Doctor and sharing multiple on-screen kisses with him. Britton suggests the Doctor’s spectacular potential shifted radically from former theatricalization towards a “to-be-looked-at-ness” for “(hetero-)sexual appeal” (Chapter IV). However, as Hills observes in his study of the reincarnated series, this new sexualisation of the Doctor does not equate domesticity, as the Doctor is mostly seen to avoid settling down and with that, is portrayed as an object of unrequited love (Triumph 38). Hills indicates that this unrequited love has become a recurring theme in the new series (Triumph 38).
Britton argues that the Eleventh Doctor has acted as a queering factor to this heterosexual masculine coding in the new series, with an occasional hint at queer romantic or sexual interest and “prepubescent behaviour” in a “nutty professor” outfit, whilst moving both with “awkwardness and grace” (Chapter IV). However, Jowett critiques this view, as she sees this portrayal as just a “superficial challenge to heteronormativity”, because heterosexual longing for the Doctor (of companions and sub-characters) takes the fore-front (Dancing Chapter 3). Moreover, this Doctor even engages in a long term relationship and marriage with a woman as story arch.
Jowett points to how the casting of the somewhat older Capaldi as the Twelfth Doctor, the last Doctor before Whittakers’ casting, does change this dynamic (Dancing Chapter 3). One of the first lines to his companion is: “I am not your boyfriend”, leaving the romantic sexuality plot in the past with the younger versions of his character (“Deep Breath” 2014). However, the Doctor’s patriarchal authority continues and until today the Doctor has been a white elite male, who “never experiences the ongoing complexities and sustained difficulties of racial relations”(qtd. in Jowett, Dancing Chapter 3), because of his privileged position and as Jowett adds nor does he experience “inequalities based on class, gender or sexuality” (Dancing Chapter 3). Moreover, “Doctor Who may be structured around non-conformity, personal liberty and individualism but these are valorised in the Doctor while the companions tend to get more ‘normative’ treatment” (“The Girls Who Waited?” 79).
22
The female companion
The companion has been, apart from the Doctor, the most prominent character in the series; forming one of the defining components of the show. While the companion has been both male and female, the role has predominantly been filled by women. In his feminist essay on Doctor Who, Richard Wallace argues that one of the reasons for this might be to countervail the masculine hero, allowing broader audience identifications (116). Moreover, Wallace and others have argued, mainly in relation to the classic series, that the companions have mainly served a narrative function, asking question to let the Doctor explain what is going on, and a visual function, “something for the dads” (Wallace 104; Aronoff 18; Chapman 192). This complicates the idea of the companion as a character for female audience identification, as the companion as a narrative trope and sexualized object leaves very limited space for character development and therefore for female representation (Wallace 104). The classic Doctor Who has attempted to battle these stereotypes, but as scholar James Chapman put it: “For all these valiant attempts to offer more positive female roles, […] most companions eventually slipped back into the traditional mould of ‘screamers’. Ultimately, perhaps, this is a function of form in a series where much of the drama arises from the companion getting into jeopardy” (7). As Jared Aronoff indicates, this is particularly problematic because “the companion forms the exclusive space that recurring female characters are expected to occupy”, whereas recurring male characters occupy more varied roles (20). It is not to say that the companion is the exclusive place female characters appear, but it is indeed not until a couple of seasons into the new series that stronger recurring female characters, that make a lasting impact on the narrative, outside of the role of the companion appear (Aronoff 20). These are precisely the reasons why the companion has been the subject of most scholarly work on gender representation in Doctor Who, focussing mostly on differences between the classic and the new series. In the classic series an idea of a passive companion was created, a damsel in distress type has been portrayed in characters such as the short skirted Polly, who was a companion to the First and Second Doctor. It was a passive character that fits easily in the dramatic model of the companion that had to be saved by the Doctor, dressed for the male gaze and positioned as ‘screamer’ (Wallace, 105). Attempts to change this stereotype, with for example the intelligent Time Lord Romana, a potential equal to the Doctor, ultimately failed, as her intelligence would always be positioned as inferior to the Doctor’s and did “not fit the existing dynamic” (Jowett, “The Girls Who Waited?” 82). Succeeding companions would be put back within the conventional framework (Chapman 7). The Doctor always had an authority over the characters, ultimately taking away their agency and taking on a paternal role, to which even the more progressive characters were subjected (Britton Chapter V). In his book researching the Britishness of Doctor Who, Danny Nicol furthers this argument, as “in the classic series, only very rarely was a companion allowed to play the decisive role in resolving an adventure by using
23 her intelligence and resourcefulness” (Nicol 65). Furthermore, upon leaving the show, “the narrative frequently employs the ultimate tool for normalizing gender and containing unruly women – marriage – to tuck them away” (Mclaughlin 121).
Scholar Noah McLaughlin debates how showrunner Davies has tried to alter these structural limiting roles by placing the emphasis on emotional development of characters (128). He argues that the increased depth of character draws the companion away from the restricted space of plot device and allows for a dynamic “between the adventurous, sometimes self-destructive hero, and his capable, assertive companions: they change each other in remarkable ways” (122). McLaughlin describes the new companions as “tough women”, who curb the Doctors’ “self-destructive tendencies” (123). The companions, with their own backstories and families outside the TARDIS, tend to serve as grounding factors to the Doctor, keeping him from becoming ‘too alien’ and remembering him to keep in touch with his emotional or ‘human’ side (Jowett, “The Girls Who Waited?” 79). This function of the companion is made possible in the shift from a focus on spectacle to a focus through the emotions of characters, a common strategy in contemporary television drama (Jowett, “The Girls Who Waited?” 79). Another common convention in television drama has also been added to transform the role of the companion, that of unresolved romantic or sexual tension (Jowett, “The Girls Who Waited?” 81). A strategy to avoid closure and heighten drama (Jowett, “The Girls Who Waited?” 82). The theme of romantic and sexual tension and additionally relationships of the companions outside of the TARDIS, became a very defining aspect of the new Who companions: “While the Doctor is lonely or at least solitary, the female companions are defined by relationships” (Jowett, “The Girls Who Waited?” 81). Jowett continues to argue that: “such relationships situate the female companions within traditionally feminine networks of family, the domestic and relationship building” (“The Girls Who Waited?” 81). As much as they have thus become ‘tough women’, their roles are still restricted to conventional ideas of gender identity. One companion that is not romantically associated with the Doctor, or does not seem to fall for his charms is the somewhat older, not typically conventionally pretty Donna Noble, played by Catherine Tate. She and the Doctor establish a solid non-romantic friendship. However as this is something that is continuously established in script, according to McLaughlin, it is only emphasised that ‘normally’ it is not thought possible to have this companionship without the sexual tension that has been established by previous partners Rose Tyler and Martha Jones (McLaughlin 123).
Furthermore, if not by romantic restraint, Donna’s agency is taken away in her exit where, in order to save her life, the Doctor strips her from all of her memories of him and their adventures together against her wish (McLaughlin 124). The agency that is taken away from Donna in her final exit, is something Britton strongly critiques in all companions’ exits in Davies’ run as showrunner, as they function as a moment of subservience to the Doctor (Chapter V). He even argues that the increased focus on emotional lives meant gender asymmetries became more prominent (Chapter V). Even
24 companion Martha Jones, whose character is praised for her personal decision to leave the TARDIS, makes this decision based on the fact that the Doctor will not return her romantic feelings, which still undercuts her agency (Jowett, “The Girls Who Waited?” 82). The idea that companions are forced to stop travelling with the Doctor reinforces a notion of abandonment and damage, inevitably positioning “these women at a disadvantage, with the Doctor appearing even more superior and in control, even of personal relationships” (Jowett, Dancing Chapter 2).
Aronoff however, claims one of the new companions, Clara Oswald, breaks this pattern: “The characterisation of Clara redefined the space for women in Doctor Who, not by rejecting the conventions that shaped the companion, but by working within them to deconstruct these attitudes from the inside” (Aronoff 18). Aronoff looks at how Clara’s character can be read as self-reflexive of her traditional role as a companion, working to critique its function in the series from within and to “claim agency in places where it has traditionally been denied to these female characters” (18). Aronoff argues that the character of Clara transforms Doctor Who into a feminist text through an implicit reflective response to past practices (22). Clara calls out the Doctor in moments were she feels patronized or condescended to by the Doctor, allowing for an explicit condemnation of the Doctor’s behaviour (Aronoff 25). Clara is allowed the agency to take over the role of the Doctor and resolve threatening situations in several episodes, whilst still showing insecurities and flaws in her character (27). In several episodes her story-arc even overtakes the ‘monster of the week’ format (24). Aronoff sees this as a step in normalizing a female in the role of the Doctor, paving the way for Jodie Whittaker to take on the role in 2018 (27). However, Nicol argues that even as Clara’s exit is “Doctor-like, to pursue her own adventures in her own TARDIS with a female companion of her own, Ashildr”, she has been revealed to be ‘born to save the Doctor’, and so “the notion that the very purpose of her life/lives is to save/serve the Doctor undermines her claims to equality with him” (Nicol 71). Even with the last companion at the time of writing being a non-white and openly gay female, breaking the mostly heteronormative patterns, the role of the companion stays subservient to the Doctor. The only way to truly break away from this restrictive representation within the narrative constraints of the position of the companion will be to turn the Doctor female (Nicol 70).
Out of the mould
A female role could be more diverse outside of the restrictive narrative space of the companion. As Aronoff has pointed out, for a long time the role of the companion was the exclusive space for recurring female characters (20). In the rebooted series this started to change with the introduction of Jackie Tyler, the mother of companion Rose Tyler, appearing in a recurring role over the course of several
25 seasons. However, Aronoff argues that she, “despite marking the first step to carve out a new space on the show for recurring female characters, was not allowed many opportunities to make decisions that would impact the plot or demonstrate narrative agency in the same way that someone like the Brigadier could” (20). It is only with the introduction of River Song in the fifth season of the new series that a role outside that of the companion allowed for a recurring presence and with significant agency to impact the narrative (21). Aronoff thus recognizes a “feminist significance” to her role (21).
River Song is a human character who is a time traveller herself. She is introduced to the audience and the Doctor backwards, which means that her first occurrence in the series is her last encounter with the Doctor and his first encounter with her. It is revealed that she knows intimate details about the Doctor and as the series continues it becomes apparent she is a long term love interest, and eventually even wife, to the Doctor. Yet she continues to travel on her own and away from a conventionally settled relationship. Despite her character being placed in a sexualised relationship with the Doctor, yet again working for heteronormative depictions and sexualized tension between men and women, Jowett argues she is still presented as assertive and independent, thus positioning her as potential equal to the Doctor (“The Girls Who Waited?” 84). However, there are limits to her character, as she is depicted to sacrifice herself for the Doctor and seems to be in a waiting state for his occurrence (Jowett, “The Girls Who Waited?” 85). Yet, “River was instrumental in demonstrating that female characters can function within key narrative roles that are central to the plot, paving the way for characters such as Madame Vastra, Jenny Flint, Kate Lethbridge-Stewart or Missy who were able to do so with a much more significant independence from the Doctor” (Aronoff 21). Kate Lethbridge-Stewart and Missy are particularly interesting in this because they represent formerly male time lords who regenerated into female form. The same kind of transformation that now indeed the Doctor also undergoes.
As this chapter has shown, Doctor Who has recently taken a self-aware attitude towards the kind of critiques on gender representation that circulate and can be found in scholarly discourse. Mainly the positioning of the Doctor character as superior to his companion, embedded in traditional gender roles, is seen as problematic. The casting of a female Doctor may well break this pattern and allow for a new gender dynamic within the series. However, with the announcement of the female Doctor, fans have responded varyingly. In the following sections of this thesis I will explore how fans position themselves towards the construction of gender in Doctor Who through a case study of online fan responses on the casting of Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor.
27
2. Method
In order to answer the main question of this thesis: how gender matters to Doctor Who fans in relation to the announcement of the next Doctor being female, a systematic analysis of fan discourse is needed. This chapter shows how reactions of fans were researched. It argues the merits of choosing YouTube to research those reactions over other platforms. YouTube is an easily accessible platform and allows for an effective analysis. Discussion is clearly organized and clustered in comment sections under videos relevant to the topic. Four videos that capture the full extent of the debate were eventually selected for analysis. These are the official BBC reveal video and three independent discussion videos. The comment sections underneath these videos allowed for saturation, as no new arguments arose when checking others (around 15.000 comments were studied). Near the end of this chapter I will provide an outline of the main discourse in the comments. This will be a bit more extensive and will already include a number of quotes, which might be unusual for a method chapter. However, I believe it will help bring an otherwise quite dry description of method to life. The data was analysed through a grounded theory approach and focussed on finding themes to uncover how the idea of the new doctor being a woman is made meaningful by fans. I conclude this chapter with an overview of the themes I found. In the analysis chapter I will then dive deeper into how the discourse takes shape and how meaning is produced.
Selecting YouTube
Public discussion about the reveal can be found online, and there is lots of it. Or rather, across social media platforms and other web content a large corpus is available for research. Regarding the limited time I have to conduct this research and the sheer bulk of possible data for an analysis of the discourse on gender in these online spaces, I focus on one of the platforms that seems easiest to analyse: YouTube. Elaborate discussions and explanations of positions taken can be found across Facebook, YouTube and several other fora (such as Reddit). These spaces allow for longer messages and discussion as opposed to the limited message length on Twitter, the picture based nature of Instagram and the limited possibility for interaction on blogs and online articles. As mainstream popular media platforms, Facebook and YouTube are the most accessible to the larger public and a wide range of fans (of different genders). Furthermore, these are the platforms the BBC chose for direct engagement with the official announcement. Here, the discussions are immediately visible for all who watch the announcement, creating an immediate relevant link. After a final cross check with Facebook, I have found that the themes that come up in YouTube comments correspond more or less, which further validates focussing
28 on a single platform in this analysis (see https://www.facebook.com/DoctorWho/).
Using YouTube for data selection has a number of advantages over the other platforms. Firstly, with YouTube it is easy to retrieve videos (and accompanying comment sections) that are specifically focussed on the topic of the appointment of a new Doctor. This makes it relatively easy to revisit selected data, as opposed to Facebook where the search function is quite limited and the discussion on the appropriateness of the new Doctor seems to be dispersed over unrelated posts. The retrievable nature of the data makes for a valid research, as sources can be checked. With the large amount of videos posted on the topic, relevant data is conveniently clustered on YouTube on the page of a posted video. Secondly, YouTube does not require a subscription to access content, which allows for direct access. Thirdly, although posts on all platforms are put in a public sphere when posted in open groups, for the sake of the privacy of commenters it is advantageous that users on YouTube can remain quite anonymous, if they choose, using screennames. Whereas on Facebook names of posters and commenters are directly linked to pages with personal information.
There are of course also drawbacks to using YouTube. As Peter Schultes et al. indicate in their in-depth research on YouTube user comment trends, these comments generally have a bad reputation (660). Quoting a New York Times article, which uses terms like “juvenile”, “aggressive”, “misspelled” and “sexist” to describe them, Schultes et al. illustrate that often a poor image is sketched of YouTube comments in the media (660). This might predict a more sexist oriented response in the discussion of the gender of the new Doctor. Secondly:
A generic problem for any analysis of YouTube comments is that ‘the feedback from those who did not post comments is unknown’ (Chung, 2015). Away from YouTube, the attitudes of people who do not watch relevant YouTube videos is similarly unknown. (Thelwall 313)
However, Schultes et al. argue, comments are still the main way through which people communicate on videos and thus make up an essential part of the platform (660). Furthermore, in choosing to include the comment sections of elaborate discussion videos, the chance is optimized that comments are also more elaborate and better articulated. It is true that many comments verge on the more extreme negative side, however this does not mean these comments are invalid. They may represent confessional responses one is not able to find in more (self) censored areas. A crosscheck with other platforms has additionally shown that the arguments and feelings that are aired, correspond. Next, a disadvantage of using YouTube is the inability to fully assess the variety of gender in responses, because often screennames conceal such an identity trait. Lastly, it is impossible to ask commenters to elaborate on their thoughts, as is possible in for example off-line interviews.
It must also be taken into account that the debate captured online is valid but not representative for the entire fan community. The expressions on these platforms are first from people that have access
29 to internet (or the specific relevant platforms) and are technologically savvy enough to engage in online activity. Second, they are from a select group of people that uses these platforms and actively posts messages. This might mean that one voice, in this case the opponents, might take the overhand whilst a possible positive majority is silent. This is exemplified by the amount of views opposed to the amount of comments on both YouTube and Facebook on the announcement video. At the time of writing there are 3.214.641 views versus 31.691 written comments on YouTube and 11.000.000 views versus 44.900 written comments on Facebook (These are what the platforms’ measuring system say, the accuracy can be questioned). My research will thus not claim to map the entire Doctor Who fandom, but as Margaret Wetherell and Jonathan Potter would argue, a sufficient number of divergent reactions will allow the researcher to adequately reconstruct the available cultural resources for discussion (174). The research sketches the tendencies that become apparent in the online public (and thus most visible) debate, which can be argued to be the general structure of debate about the Doctor becoming a woman.
Selecting the corpus
A YouTube search showed there were over fifty thousand videos tagged “Thirteenth Doctor” and over four million hits tagged “Female Doctor Who”. Whilst not all videos will be relevant to the topic, these results show how rich online engagement with the new casting has been. Looking at the first fifty results of these search terms, organized according to YouTube’s algorithmic most ‘relevant’, reveals that the videos that have been made about this topic can be divided into the following categories: Official BBC material, extracted clips from (tv) interviews/shows with celebrities, fan edits (e.g. fan made trailers, opening titles, compilations), first reaction videos (recorded reactions to watching the reveal clip) and discussion videos in which vloggers elaborate on their stance in favour or against the casting of Jodie Whittaker. Looking at the contents of these videos, it is mainly in first reaction videos and discussion videos that opinions of fans are voiced. The other categories mainly display creative effort or actor interviews. However, the comment sections on the videos provide an additional space for discussion underneath all types of videos. There seems to be a divide here in how much the comment sections focus on discussion of the topic of casting a female Doctor or on other matters, such as creative skill. This means that some of the comment sections provide a more condensed discussion pro- or con- the new casting, whilst others might be filled with varying degrees of ‘noise’. How to subsequently select in order to capture the debate broadly and optimize the chance of finding all relevant arguments used? As Schultes et al. point out, the kinds of comments that are generated underneath YouTube videos are often related to the kind of content that has been put out (671). Although first reaction videos and discussion videos are closely related, discussion videos that present elaborate arguments to support
30 their views seem more likely to generate elaborate discussion in the comment sections as well. Discussion videos are explicitly focussed on continuing the ongoing discussion and thus form an excellent object of study, together with their comment sections. The extensive discussion these particular videos spark can be related to how Potter and Wetherell describe that in a longer conversation, people draw on as much cultural baggage as needed to be understood, which allows for a detailed and varied discourse available for analysis (174-175).
All in all, discussion videos with a negative tone form an overwhelming majority. Which might have to do with the fact that the proponents of the female casting already have the institution in their corner and in general do not have to defend themselves as much. Whereas opponents strive to contest the change and defend themselves against a decision of an established institution. Not surprisingly then, the shorter first reaction videos, which are more focused on displaying initial affect than elaborating rationalised opinion, are mainly positively charged. Still, some proponents have produced discussion videos as well.
The first three discussion videos that turn up in my search results under “female Doctor Who”, represent both negative, optimistic and (relatively) neutral stances on the subject. These three videos all have quite high viewing rates (over 30.000 views) and are accompanied by a relatively lively comment section, with around a thousand reactions per video or more. These videos alone provide 4.230 responses. Keeping in mind that there will still be some noise in those comments, as argued above, most of the commenters are indeed engaging in a focussed discussion on the female Doctor casting. The aforementioned videos are “The Female Doctor: Why People are ACTUALLY Pissed” from Internalized Misogyny (opponent), “THE 13TH DOCTOR REACTION!! A Female Doctor Who” from Tessa Netting (proponent) and “A female Doctor Who...a pandering risk or righteous move?” from Mundanematt (undecided). The comment sections of these videos will make up the corpus for this research, together with the 31.691 responses underneath the official BBC reveal video.
The “Thirteenth Doctor Reveal - Doctor Who” video on the official Doctor Who YouTube page is the official place where fans gather to ‘meet’ the Thirteenth Doctor (apart from the live television reveal and other social media platforms) and where initial reactions take shape. However, as the BBC indicates underneath the video, this space is controlled by the BBC and comments are moderated. Although this does not seem to have an effect on the overly negative tone of the comment section, many commenters express their concern: “You mean you censored dissenting opinions” (The Rodian). Adding the three discussion videos to the corpus for this research will countervail this control as they provide an independent space for fan expression. These four videos showed saturation in arguments. Saturation occurred quickly and eventually half of all comment sections were analysed (around 15.000 comments). Furthermore, through a random check against four other YouTube videos and comments on the Doctor Who Facebook page no new elements presented themselves, which further confirmed
31 my decision for the selected corpus. Below I will shortly discuss the main elements of the selected discussion videos.
Both the video from Mundanematt and the one from Tessa Netting represent the format most discussion videos adhere to: a video recording from one camera-standpoint, through which the speaker directly addresses the viewer. The talking heads express to the audience how they feel about the casting of the new Doctor and provide arguments for why it is a good or a bad thing, or something we cannot quite decide on until the next season starts. Both Mundanematt and Tessa Netting are US based, as are a large portion of the most watched and commented upon videos I encountered in the YouTube search results. However, there is no way to determine if this influences the geographic origin of commenters as well. Moreover, many commenters express they are British in one way or another. In my analysis I will treat fandom regardless of origin. Mundanematt is a white male in his thirties and Tessa Netting is a white female, in her late twenties. Internalized Misogyny expresses herself through speech as the others do, however she does not show herself; instead of a video the viewer is presented with a still image of a drawn unrelated image. Occasionally imagery (like a photo or a screenshot of an article) appears as ‘evidence’ for her argument. In other videos posted on the Internalized Misogyny YouTube channel, it becomes clear that the speaker is a white female. Although most discussion videos are made by men, the discussion underneath the videos is still representative. Through the direct address the videos have an educational tone, trying to educate the viewer on why people should or should not accept the new casting. The casual setting also evokes a kind of ‘debate club’ feel, debating general opponents but also viewers (and thus possible commenters).
General discourse in the comments
In the comment sections people express their concerns and hopes for the change and, in the case of the discussion videos, contribute to the discussion perpetuated in the videos themselves. A clear majority of commenters that disprove of the casting relate it to a push for a progressive political agenda. These commenters describe how the casting of a female Doctor feels like a political standpoint is pushed to them and functions just to reach a diversity quota they do not agree with. A dismay of feminism comes to the front in these kinds of comments: “This feminist takeover is a joke, everything they touch, they kill” (Mark Evans). Mostly commenters do not explain their aversion to feminism, but in several cases it becomes clear that it is seen not as a movement for equality, but as a movement against (white) men in general. A fear of misandry thus becomes apparent:
The change wasnt made for diverisity sake, it was made to replace yet another ‘white male character’ with a 'minority' (which to feminism, women are classified as minorities... somehow).
