Discussion Characters / DoctorWhoRevivalSeriesCompanions

Well first off, don't pothole trope names.

Secondly, she's not manic enough, and he's way too manic. Ten and Eleven are certainly more manic than River when they interact. Secondly, a major part of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl is the whole "drags the dour guy out of his shell due to the fact she keeps forcing herself into his life." The Doctor himself seeks her out more often than not, and "has banter" does not a MPDG make.

I wrote it, so obviously I'm in favour of it. Anyone got any objections to it?

I just think seeming "kind and decent" is only applicable when she's with Ten. With 11 (and 12), she's more herself, plus she clearly does have a conscience and wasn't just killing for mercenary reasons, as he was evil.

Personally, seems less like Flanderization and more Characterization Marches On.

But what got my interest is the fact that she's been very prone to... polarizing people, as this very page indicates. I haven't gotten to anything with 12 yet so I can't know for sure, but it definitely shouldn't be readded without discussion.

The king was evil, but that seemed to be more of an excuse than a reason; her main interest was in the diamond. Also, she says at first that she plans to use the diamond to redress the wrongs Hydroflax has done — but then reveals she just wants the money for herself.

Flanderisation is a Sub-Trope of Characterisation Marches On, isn't it? It's where one characteristic becomes exaggerated and starts to take over the character's personality. In this case, River goes from ethically flexible to psychopathic. Fits, no?

Your mileage may vary on whether her reasonings were justified or excuses I guess, but we are going in reverse order with her, and Silence/Forest was with a Doctor she didn't know/wasn't comfortable with, which would explain her "niceness" then but isn't really flanderization/characterization marches on.

Yeah, ax it. She's not presented as a Bitch in Sheep's Clothing in the series, she's just interpreted as one by fans.

Yeah, it needs one. But after the recent edits, I think the other entries explain this much better anyway, so I guess there's no need to put this previous entry back again. It's not like Clara is played up as some sort of major sexpot, given that she's also presented at times as being rather homely (in terms of dress, etc.). Isn't Ms. Fanservice a rather subjective trope anyway, even if it's not YMMV ? Personally, I don't think Ms. Fanservice is that intentional a trope with Clara's character. Her Oswin incarnation ? Maybe. But as you note, even that is a subversion and most of the flirting stuff and "sexiness" is Played for Laughs.

Another thing. The companion is the frigging audience surrogate. If you were a child when you first watched the show (which Davies undoubtedly was), then you WOULD have loved the idea of travelling in the TARDIS and being the Doctor's companion. Sex has absolutely nothing to do with it. At the introduction of Rose Tyler, Russell was 41 years old. Just...why.

And even if there's an argument which validates Rose being "Davies in a dress", I'm not actually sure what, if any of this, has to do with the trope description of Author Avatar.

Edit: OK, removing that last sentence. The two tropes I previously mentioned seem to be self-contradictory regarding what an Author Avatar IS.

Removed entry:

• Author Avatar: The Androzani Team claimed Rose Tyler was an Author Avatar of Russell T Davies, calling her 'Davies in a dress' in their review of The Stolen Earth/Journey's End. http://www.androzani.com/stolen.shtml They point out Davies said he wanted to be a companion rather then the Doctor, and so his fantasy stand-in has to have sex with the Doctor no matter what.

Karma is not simply based on anyone dying, it's based on any kind of harm, especially to the innocent. River Song's actions caused the universe to break, and only after the Doctor married her did said universe get mended; she was perfectly willing to leave it broken, condemning countless others to untold suffering, had he not stopped it. I get that you want to defend your favorite character, but this is a page for pointing out tropes, not taking away examples you simply happen to dislike. As stated on the trope page for Karma Houdini, "The character has done a number of things that deserve a karmic comeuppance, most importantly things that caused harm to the innocent." She did do this. Just because it was fixed, causing people to (mostly) forget the broken universe, does not mean it didn't happened - Amy even points out that she remembers killing someone and has guilt over it, despite said actions being "undone" (though she's thankfully able to move on from it, we haven't seen Madame Kovarian since, but I'm sure we'll learn what happened to her one way or the other). Also, it's pointed out in the example that we don't know whether meeting the Doctor out of order or the Library is an example of karma (she does seem at peace at the end, as well), as we still don't know whether or not it was an example of Redemption Equals Death or not, but it does leave it open s a possibility ("Played straight and possibly subverted").

Moved back again as discussion wasn't finished.

• Karma Houdini: Played straight and possibly subverted. After nearly tearing the universe apart during the Season 6 finale, claiming that her suffering will outweigh that of everyone else in the universe, the most she gets is a What the Hell, Hero? from the Doctor and a largely voluntary stay inside a Cardboard Prison. Possibly subverted in that they keep running into each other backwards, which means that eventually, the Doctor won't know her, but whether it's invoked as an actual punishment or simple coincidence is, as yet, unknown.

This is not a matter of me defending my favorite character, especially since there are other characters I like more. This is me trying to use the tropes fairly and appropriately. I think you may be missing where I'm coming from given that you dislike the character so much. Death fits as Karma in a Karmic Death situation, which River wound up getting. She died saving a Doctor who had no idea who she was, which was canonically, her worst fear. He never visited her because of how much it hurt him. Yes, she refused to initially fix the universe she broke, but this trope was subverted when she did. From the perspective of non-time-sensitive people or time travelers, it meant that that universe technically never really happened in the first place. Even if she went to a Carboard Prison that she could easily escape from, she always escaped, right back in and indicated an interest in earning her parole.

Qo S, it's bad form to move something back to an example before discussion is finished.

Anyhoo, seems like she's not an example. If she's inevitably moving towards a bad future, and sees it coming, that's actually a horrible fate, and directly caused by her actions.

Additionally, I think you're being too harsh on her. She almost broke reality... well who hasn't in the Doctor Who-verse? And while she's done some questionable things, her breaking reality is because of ignorance, not malice or even really selfishness. She tried to Take a Third Option to not kill a man she admired. It just so happened that it had terrible unforeseen consequences.

In that case, I apologize for doing so. I misunderstood; I thought it was frowned upon to remove such tropes before discussion.

But her timeline not being lined up with the Doctor's is not as a result of her own actions, as far as we know. It's just the way her timeline works. At this point, we have no idea as to whether or not Steven Moffat intended that as Laser-Guided Karma or as it appears at face value (I'm unfamiliar with the book "The Time Traveler's Wife", but didn't Moffat say he got the idea for River from that?). Furthermore, River's death in the Library was, (and still is) played as a Heroic Sacrifice in-universe, not as a Karmic Death. Again, until canon states otherwise, the nuances of the situation are still unclear.

Furthermore, people not remembering things and time-lines being re-written doesn't mean it didn't count. Rory's death and erasure in s5 still counted, and the universe got rebooted as of the s5 finale - does that mean the events that came before (some of which were explicitly erased) don't count? Naturally, it doesn't.

This is not an example of being too harsh. She flat-out said she believed she would suffer more than everyone in the universe. Furthermore, it wasn't until, again, the Doctor stepped in that things were put back. It was ignorance, at first, but once things were explained to her, she consciously chose to allow it to continue. That may not have been malice, but it was undeniably selfish. This isn't a matter of disliking the character (for the record, I rather like her, but I find certain matters about her backstory to be written in a problematic fashion, but that's neither here nor that), but in pointing out tropes in her story. Tropes Are Not Good, and Tropes Are Not Bad.

I'm not certain what you would consider karma then.

She did some questionable things, she doesn't get a happy ending. To be perfectly honest, I don't think her actions warrant karmic comeuppance, but in the end, she gets it anyway.

There is a difference between "karma" and "coincidence". The entry for Karma Houdini on her specifically said tht it was possibly subverted, but it's unknown as to whether or not the Library and the skewed timeline are a result of her actions, not simply the way the storyline goes, thus it's only a possible subversion until and unless Moffat states otherwise.

Also, given that the Library was a Bittersweet Ending of sorts with River (yes, she sacrifices herself, but when last seen in the Library two-parter, she seems content with the outcome), I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, here. Also, I'm quite certain that destroying the universe is not merely "questionable".

I checked with Ask The Tropers some time ago, and due to lack of continued discussion, I am restoring this trope.

The Karma Houdini entry is invalid. River does suffer punishment for her actions. It is not up to us to judge whether it is sufficient.

Yeah. I don't really care for Rose, but calling that Bitch in Sheep's Clothing isn't right. Really more Protagonist-Centered Morality.

Another point: complaining when Mickey has a girlfriend? Picking the scene line-by-line, it's not as clear-cut as that.

She got mad because Mickey was dating someone she called "nice", and also knew was completely incompatible. When Rose says that he doesn't even like the woman, Mickey says "At least I know where she is" and that he can't be with a "stupid woman from a shop" because of how he runs for Rose every time she returns to present-day Earth. From this, along with only mentioning the "other woman" after Rose catches Mickey up on where she's travelled to and after Mickey suggests a hotel room, it's very strongly implied that Mickey isn't seeing someone.

Mickey is far more unpleasant, conclusion-jumping, not to mention clingier than the worst of Rose's moments, at least here. Regardless of how to take the "exactly" line from the episode "Rose", it was a messy breakup, and when Mickey walks off at the end of "Boom Town", she basically lets him go.

The thing about the cut reason I disagreed with was the Psychic Paper bit... well, specifically that the Psychic Paper says what she wants the person to know, so even if she didn't consider herself single, she wanted the handsome stranger to think she was. Which is a little skeevy. And exactly what a 19 year old girl would do.

Still nowhere near enough to qualify for BISC, though. Just something I wanted to comment on.

I have no idea. Since no one commented, I added it back.