I'm sorry, but everything I hear has Rose being one of the most popular characters on Doctor Who. I don't see how anyone can call her The Scrappy with a straight face.

I was asking my wife about River last night, since she's into the show, and she didn't seem to think that River got more than her fair share of screen time and also said that while she initially disliked River, she found River growing on her as she kept watching. She doesn't know tropes so she's a good natural experiment.

Can we not be so technical about this? We should be more concerned with how useful and informative the example is then exactly how big of a hatedom the character has, especially when it comes to things that are as subjective as this. If these characters mostly fit the trope, then they should get an example saying "these characters mostly fit the trope."

Like the page says, Rose wasn't and isn't a scrappy. But after she left the show, she started receiving a very noticeable amount of hate for all the shilling she was getting. It's relevant enough to be worth mentioning.

edited 9th Aug '12 10:14:42 AM by abk0100

That would be an example of Character Shilling, then, which we have a trope for. It's not being "overly technical" to request that examples go in the proper place.

edited 9th Aug '12 10:19:38 AM by Fighteer

I'm wondering if Rose was mistakenly moved from Shilling The Wesley to Creator's Pet rather than Character Shilling. Why exactly is Shilling the Wesley a redirect to Creator's Pet anyway?

edited 9th Aug '12 10:25:53 AM by OldManHoOh

That was part of the original TRS. They were functionally identical tropes. As part of the work of merging Shilling The Wesley with Creator's Pet, examples that properly belonged on Character Shilling were supposed to be moved there.

edited 9th Aug '12 10:41:00 AM by Fighteer

I'm leaning towards Rose not being Creator's Pet per all four guidelines, even if she IS considered a pet character of her creator. Should the example be moved (and reworded a lot better) to Character Shilling?

Looking at the edit history of Shilling The Wesley, it looks like both examples should have been put on Character Shilling.

edited 9th Aug '12 11:55:14 AM by OldManHoOh

Character Shilling should have an entry on the character shilling specifically. Creator's Pet should have an entry on the fact that the characters are loved by their writers, given undue amounts of focus, shilled for, and are the recipients of hate because of it.

• Rose Tyler was a very strange and base-breaking case of this. During Series 1, most people liked and accepted her, but throughout the second, third and fourth the writers started putting her on a pedestal. Gradually, the writers changed her from a flawed and believable character to an infallible saint who was The Doctor's one true love, even continuing after she'd ceased appearing as a regular. Basically, the shilling was what turned her into the Creators' Pet.

It needs some tweaks, but it's basically a Character Shilling example already.

But Rose wasn't an infallible saint who was the Doctor's one true love. Even when she was on the TARDIS, he still went chasing after Renette. And let's not forget that there's the matter of River Song. And then of course the only reason his relationship with Joan Redfern didn't work out wasn't because he worshipped Rose, but because when she met the real him, his harshness frightened her.

And if Rose was such an infallible saint, why was Donna "The Most Important Woman in the Universe" in the same storyline where Rose came back?

Seriously, where is the Character Shilling?

Don't get me wrong, I think that bit's questionable at best. I'm just copying and pasting for context. I have a feeling that at least the perception of Rose being all perfect came during series 3, when she was technically written out, not at the time of the Reinette episode. Or possibly around "The Impossible Planet" and "The Satan Pit" onwards in the second half of the season.

In any case, maybe it isn't a good example of Character Shilling, but it's at least nearer to it than the trope Creator's Pet.

edited 9th Aug '12 4:13:34 PM by OldManHoOh

"She gets increased focus, and the arc this past season is basically about her. That I can agree on. There's also a line in one episode about the Doctor liking her gunplay, even though he admits he shouldn't. Make of that what you will."

Yes, the Doctor doesn't like guns. The Tenth Doctor in particular got upset when anybody, even someone in the military, used a gun. However, while the third and fourth Doctors never used guns themselves, they never had a problem with UNIT using them. The Ninth Doctor didn't seem to mind Jack using a gun in the end of the season. The eleventh Doctor didn't have a problem with that army of priests using guns in the Weeping Angels two-parter. When the eleventh Doctor told the Silents that he liked River's gun play, I'm pretty sure it had been when they were trying to rescue Amy from the Silents (though in hindsight, Amy was still a ganger). The Doctor's always more willing to possibly allow violence when his companions are threatened.

(Actually, the Third Doctor shot at an Ogron once, and I think the Fourth used it in The Talons of Weng-Chiang but that's beside the point)

And really, the Angels example was more to light them with the muzzles rather than as lethal force.

edited 10th Aug '12 8:24:45 AM by OldManHoOh

This argument is the reasoning why I'd like to see this trope get changed to a character getting author preference in general instead of having to be scrappies.

Rose is currently in the finals of a popularity poll of Doctor Who women on BBC America's website and leading against Sarah Jane Smith. (Update: she won, though apparently the British voters were in favour of Sarah Jane) Obviously some of the fandom dislike her, but she's far too well-liked to say she's a Scrappy (which is clearly a requirement for Creator's Pet).

edited 11th Aug '12 12:11:48 PM by OldManHoOh

My point is that the Doctor didn't make an exception for River and gunplay. People have been using guns in the Doctor's presence for a while now. All he did was lampshade it. It really doesn't qualify River as a creator's pet.

I really want to know who added that note. The edit history doesn't go back that far.

Besides, the way it's worded seems to be more "do not add and Edit War more bile to what's already here, and use discretion when adding other characters" than "don't remove this. The mods' word is law.".

Before QueenofSwords (who is not a mod) expanded it, it was the even vaguer "And let's just leave it at that, shall we Tropers?"

Unless we rework the trope entirely, I have no problem with Rose being removed. None of the four points seem to fit. She's a main character (some would say the Companion is even the protagonist, rather than the Doctor), and when her role was down to recurring, the arc was foreshadowing her return, so "put into big scenes for no reason" certainly doesn't count. And I'm not 100% what part of the show the "infallible saint" remark refers to. At least in the first series, Rose is just as much part of the show's renewed success at it is Christopher Eccleston (though as pointed out, the argument for her Creator's Pet status isn't her characterisation in series 1).

edited 11th Aug '12 12:08:30 PM by OldManHoOh

And let's take The Stolen Earth and Journey's End (why do I seem to be the only person on these forums that likes that damn story?). It's the story that, in part, is about Rose's return. I still see lots of screentime shared on many Russell-created characters (not to mention a certain journalist who was created when Russell was ten). Rose's ending is hardly any happier than the others too. As pointed out elsewhere, Donna's the "important person in existence", and she (outside of perhaps that Christmas special) also fails the "hatred by fans" count (she got third place in that poll I mentioned).

Rose is liked by Russell, I'm sure, but I can't see how other companions of that era were pushed aside for her, not even the one who was technically a "rebound" companion.

edited 11th Aug '12 2:11:07 PM by OldManHoOh

That is not a mod note. I've done some digging, and no moderator appears to have put that note. This example was originally in Shilling The Wesley, but not The Wesley. So, the logical conclusion is to move it to Character Shilling.

edited 11th Aug '12 2:11:54 PM by lu127

"My point is that the Doctor didn't make an exception for River and gunplay. People have been using guns in the Doctor's presence for a while now. All he did was lampshade it. It really doesn't qualify River as a creator's pet."

If nobody has a counter-argument, then is it safe to assume that River doesn't qualify for the guideline about being gushed over by the other characters?

Sounds like it to me.

No-one's counter-argued EMY 3 K's objection to River being Character Shilling (I know I brought it up, but I guess I wasn't thinking), and you know, what, if we're in agreement that they're not the Creator's Pet (may have jumped the gun, but if, if we are in agreement) I say Rose isn't an example of Character Shilling as well.

As stated earlier, I don't know what the hell the whole "saint" thing is, and whether that's a reference to how the Doctor praises her in episodes she's not in, or how she's characterised (which if it's the latter, I'm not sure how that fits the trope).

Either way, she's saved the Doctor's life a few times, helped in the fight against the Ood and the Devil(?), aided Donna in a hellish parallel world, helped the Ninth and Tenth Doctor out of at least some of their Time War angst and faced off the Daleks more than once (even taunting the Cult of Skaro in their face). So yeah, even if some are a little irritated by her...her...(Actually, I've never understood that. Is it her jealousy in a handful of episodes? The Doctor not forgetting about her the season after she leaves? Their headcanon is that the Doctor's asexual forever?), her attributes aren't so informed, whatever episodes the shilling refers to.

And I'm pretty sure she has enough chemistry and UST (with both the Ninth and Tenth Doctor) for the Doctor's heartbreak in series 3 and the 2006 Christmas special to be justified too.

...I am reading the trope description correctly right? Character Shilling is related to Informed Attribute?

I can't figure out who added the note full-stop. Was it the first edit in the move?

edited 11th Aug '12 5:49:45 PM by OldManHoOh

I'm starting to think this really needs a dedicated Special Efforts thread along the lines of that for Complete Monster.

The example seems to have been mistakenly moved there from Shilling The Wesley when it should have been Character Shilling, and even that's pretty shaky for both of them as an example (the Doctor loathes violence, but has permitted or otherwise not spoken out against many people other than River to commit or threaten it on his behalf. As EMY3K says, he's just lampshading it this time round.).

Also, as Rose is a lead, and River's an arc character, is there any grounds for the third bullet point of Creator's Pet?

edited 11th Aug '12 5:57:22 PM by OldManHoOh

It may well, since we've gotten a few pages out of just one example...and there's more than a few extremely contentious fandoms represented within the Creator's Pet trope pages.

I can certainly talk Doctor Who easily. But Lost? Gilmore Girls? Yea, that's gonna take someone else.

edited 11th Aug '12 6:41:06 PM by Rebochan

Points one, three and four (the shilling is at least mostly earned over two seasons. She may have ruffled some fans' feathers, but she wasn't a screaming woman that broke her ankle. She did a lot.) don't apply to Rose.

It's been a while since I've seen series 3 in full. Can someone point out if she's really shilled at every opportunity? Or is it just bitterness that Rose is mentioned post-leaving but THEIR companion isn't? And yes, I am saying that while fully aware Martha was something of a "rebound" from Rose's loss. Likewise, the comments about Rose being considered perfect (unless this is in the context of "a perfect match", then maybe I'd understand).

Point four, as put forth by EMY3K does not apply to River. Neither does point three, as she's not randomly in series 6 just to be cool or kickass. Going by the "broke the base" comment, point one is at least in contention.

And the comment note a) seems to have nothing to do with "don't delete this" and b) has no evidence it was put there by a mod to begin with.

edited 11th Aug '12 7:56:27 PM by OldManHoOh