Skip to content

Is “Doctor Who?” a Terrible Question?

47
Share

Is “Doctor Who?” a Terrible Question?

Home / Doctor Who Series 7 / Is “Doctor Who?” a Terrible Question?
Blog

Is “Doctor Who?” a Terrible Question?

By

Published on March 4, 2013

47
Share

There’s a question that has been lurking at the back of Who fandom since… well really since the New Who season two episode “The Girl in the Fireplace.” I know some would argue that it’s the first and only question of Whovians everywhere, but in reality, asking the question “Doctor Who?” in any seriousness only began when Madame de Pompadour informed us all that it was something worth taking seriously.

It’s a question that has been on showrunner Steven Moffat’s mind, and one he seems intent on answering—whether we like it or not.

We’ve been through a lot of interesting developments with New Who, but there are certain themes that get hit hard every season. The intensity of the Doctor’s relationships with his companions is one, the effect it has on the families and friendships of those companions is another, the way that traveling with the Doctor inevitably changes their lives, and how hard it is for the Doctor to recover when he has to let them go. Those themes encompass the emotional base of the show, and are a large part of why the current audience keeps coming back. We’ve ignored deus after deus ex machina and some awfully convoluted plotting because we care about the Doctor and the people he loves.

The big arcs of the show in the Russell T. Davies era were built around the Time War, the affect that it had on the Doctor psychologically, and the idea of putting the Time Lords and Gallifrey to bed. It was a dark but thrilling direction to take the story in and had fascinating repercussions for the universe of the show. But with the Tenth Doctor’s passing, that arc was packed up and the show moved on.

The arc that we received in its place has revolved primarily around two questions. The minor one as the Eleventh Doctor emerged was “Who is River Song?” Now that that question has been clearly answered, the larger arc, the question that Steven Moffat has been asking since season two, is back with a vengeance. “Doctor Who?”

Here’s what I want to know: Why do we need an answer to this question?

The show has worked very hard to make us believe that it’s an important one. We’re led to infer that some great secret is attached to the Doctor’s true name, that it horrifies him to the point where he cannot admit it to anyone, no one except River (ostensibly because they are married after a fashion and he loves and trusts her). Epic events are attached to its revelation: Silence (Silents, maybe?) will fall when the Question is asked, so we can count on some kind of implosion, a threat to the universe most likely.

But what we already know about the Doctor from earlier canon makes it unlikely that this revelation will be even marginally satisfying. To begin with, naming conventions for the Doctor’s species have never been eked out all that well. We know the Doctor’s nickname from school on Gallifrey—he was called Theta Sigma, a bad academic grade among his people because he almost flunked his first tests at the Time Lord Academy. It’s suggested some Time Lords and Ladies have ridiculously complex names in actuality, like Romana, whose full name is Romanadvoratrelundar, and there are other names that are either outright invented or pop up in historic texts, like Borusa and Flavia. But the names that begin with “the,” indicating a title aspect—including the Doctor and the Master and the Rani—are likely assumed, perhaps once the initiates graduate from the Academy (this is suggested in Doctor Who novels). Oddly, River Song suggests that perhaps the Doctor created his name, that he is the first person in the universe to use it… more on that later.

So we’ve always really understood that “the Doctor” was not the Doctor’s real name. But suddenly that name, the one that he’s “kept hidden” is deeply important.

There have been points in Doctor Who’s history where the show has tried to imply that the Doctor has a special function or persona outside of his renegade Time Lord schtick, but those side plots have rarely been well-conceived or executed. There was a confusing in-between figure called the Watcher, who existed on the periphery before the Fourth Doctor’s regeneration, eventually merging with him to cause the event and produce the Fifth Doctor. The Seventh Doctor considered himself to be a chosen manipulator of sorts with the weight of time on his shoulders. The Sixth Doctor was put on trial by the Time Lords, prosecuted by a figure named the Valeyard, who faked evidence to make the Doctor appear guilty according to Gallifreyan law. Eventually, the Master decided to bat for the Doctor’s team, revealing that the Valeyard was in fact the Doctor’s darker side, split off into an entirely new person. While it was fun to watch the Doctor’s old enemy come to his rescue, the actual appearance of the Valeyard was awkward and unsettling, particularly since it was revealed that he would be created during the Twelfth Doctor’s regeneration. That means that he hasn’t actually come into being yet—he should arrive when the Twelfth Doctor becomes the Thirteenth.

Oo, evil!Doctor. You'll meet him in, you know, five years probably.
Oo, evil!Doctor. You'll meet him in, you know, five years probably.

So we have to consider our options with this mystery. It could be that Moffat is drawing on something from classic canon—maybe he wants to bring in the Valeyard early, maybe he wants to play with Gallifreyan legends. It’s also possible that Moffat means to use new canon to back up his claim; perhaps the Doctor’s role as the Dream Lord is more relevant than we were led to believe, for instance. But any of these steps could change the mythology of the show entirely and that—while understandably tempting now that the Time Lords are gone and there is no overseeing species guarding time—is not something that most fans would likely accept without a fight.

Making the Doctor something more, something legendary and larger than life (which Moffat is always in favor of, observing his track record) effectively destroys the premise of the character, the elements that charm us and draw us to him; if the Doctor is a saint, a savior, a great tale of the universe rather than a misfit among his own people who simply can’t resist meddling, then the alien that we have known and loved for five decades is a lie. It’s one thing to say that specific peoples call him the Oncoming Storm or the Lonely God because he did something frightening that they couldn’t comprehend, but to say that the Doctor created this name, this word, and that every culture has a different definition for the word based entirely on his behavior when they met him… that’s something else entirely. It’s fun when the show weaves the Doctor into history because we can all giggle at the impact he makes by virtue of showing up, of course. But if the Doctor turns out to be a force of nature, a figure of destiny, a guardian of all time and space, then this is a new man and the show will have to alter itself to accommodate him.

How much can it be changed before Doctor Who fails to resemble its inception? It’s not that the show has never played with these themes before, but it normally backs away from them without any in-depth expansion. Some might claim that Moffat has too much respect for canon to change it that much, but we can observe the opposite at work with even the most minor of nitpicks… such as when River berates the Doctor for leaving the brakes on when he lands the TARDIS—that’s why it makes the famous noise, according to her. That is, unless you watched Classic Who and remember that every other TARDIS landed by a Time Lord or Lady made the exact same noise. So either every Gallifreyan needs to retake their TARDIS breaking test, or Moffat ignored canon completely to make a cute joke.

It has now been heavy hinted that the end of the 7th season will provide our answer. According to Moffat, “And in the finale, the Doctor’s greatest secret will at last be revealed!” One has to wonder if the finale with also be the anniversary episode—theories among fans have suggested that the Question could fall on the 50th Anniversary with all Doctors in attendance (via special effects potentially), which might make sense—if there’s going to be a major revelation or retcon to canon, having each Doctor present is a great way to legitimize the move. But it’s still an odd choice, especially considering the other notable push in the Eleventh Doctor’s arc—that is, the attempt to become more anonymous, to melt into the shadows and make people forget that he ever existed in the first place. The Doctor becoming a mystery to the universe whilst becoming totally known to us via his true name almost seems like an oxymoron—one can only imagine how these elements will coincide. Erring on the side of optimism would be nice, but considering how often Moffat’s era has been criticized for the larger plots arcs of the series, worry isn’t unfounded.

I hope to happily eat my words by the 50th anniversary episode. Moffat has indicated that the question is bearing down on us in recent interviews, and that all might perhaps be revealed, so with any luck we’ll get the truth soon. But mostly, I find myself concerned. This subplot has been on shaky footing since it hit ground level. The Question is only pressing because we were suddenly told it was. And then told again. And again. And again. Here’s hoping that the Answer pans out to everyone’s satisfaction.

 

First Question fan art made by dalekdom-fanart on DeviantArt.


Emmet Asher-Perrin really doesn’t understand what was wrong with “the Doctor.” Just, the Doctor. You can bug her on Twitter and read more of her work here and elsewhere.

About the Author

Emmet Asher-Perrin

Author

Emmet Asher-Perrin is the News & Entertainment Editor of Reactor. Their words can also be perused in tomes like Queers Dig Time Lords, Lost Transmissions: The Secret History of Science Fiction and Fantasy, and Uneven Futures: Strategies for Community Survival from Speculative Fiction. They cannot ride a bike or bend their wrists. You can find them on Bluesky and other social media platforms where they are mostly quiet because they'd rather talk to you face-to-face.
Learn More About Emmet

See All Posts About

Subscribe
Notify of
Avatar


47 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Avatar
Dean B.
12 years ago

It’s Cosmo.

Avatar
E.E. Ottoman
12 years ago

yes, thank you. I’m glad I’m not the only person bothered by this.

Avatar
12 years ago

This is what’s bothered me about Moffat’s tenure from the beginning. It feels like he’s just too desperate to leave his own indelible mark on the series. It’s sucking the whimsical charm out.

Avatar
12 years ago

If the word “Doctor” became part of the English language by inspiration from the Doctor’s chosen moniker, then it’s a stable time loop, because Ian Chesterton bestows the name “the Doctor” on our favourite Time Lord in Episode 1. Susan used the alias “Susan Foreman” to enroll at school, told Ian that she lived with her Grandfather, who was “a doctor”, and so Ian naturally refers to him as “Doctor Foreman” when they’re first introduced. The Doctor has no idea what he’s talking about. But as people continue to refer to him as “Doctor” – using it as a title because they don’t know his real name, except for Susan who calls him “Grandfather” – he starts responding to it, and they start using it as a name.

ChristopherLBennett
12 years ago

I’m reminded of the Cartmel Masterplan from the later years of the original series — and the original novels that followed it. Script editor Andrew Cartmel and producer John Nathan-Turner decided that the Doctor had lost the air of mystery he’d originally had. At first, we hadn’t known anything about the Doctor — the name and nature of his race, the name of his planet, the reason he was an exile, etc. But over the years of the series, we’d accumulated those answers, and we’d gotten to know more and more about Gallifrey and the Time Lords and the Doctor’s backstory (although never anything about his family after a passing mention in “The Tomb of the Cybermen”). So JNT and Cartmel wanted to put some mystery back in. Starting with “Silver Nemesis” in the 25th-anniversary season, they started to hint that there was some great secret the Doctor was keeping about his identity, that he was more than just the renegade Time Lord he claimed to be. The idea, which was developed in the books, was that he’d turn out to be an incarnation of the Other, a pivotal founder figure from Gallifreyan history and a contemporary of Rassilon and Omega, the other great founders and creators of time travel.

: It isn’t the “Doctor” part that the Doctor was puzzled by in “An Unearthly Child,” but the “Foreman” part. When Ian called him “Doctor Foreman,” he replied, “Eh? Doctor Who?” — thus justifying the show’s title. And as you say, Ian only called him a doctor because Susan had said he was.

Also, later in the serial, Ian asks the Doctor to help an injured person, and the Doctor replies, “I’m not a doctor of medicine,” confirming that he does consider himself a doctor of something.

Avatar
lainey
12 years ago

I’m of the same opinion as magneticcrow, on Moffatt’s run in general. He did some brilliant eps in the past but the longer he goes on, the more gimmicks I’ve seen him do with little substance behind it. So while I’m excited for that 50th anniversay episode, I’m not holding my breath for any mind-blowing Answer. Maybe it’s time Moffatt passes the torch on.

Avatar
12 years ago

Maybe Moffat has thought of some way to subvert expectations. The prophecy says silence will fall when the question is asked — at a time and place where it must be answered and not avoided or lied about. So we all assume that the answer is some terrible secret. But maybe it’s not the answer that is terrible but the person or method of asking it. Or maybe the “silence falling” is not the end of the universe as The Silence seem to think, but something else?

Avatar
12 years ago

OR,
What if there is some revelation about the Doctor’s past that changes the universe’s view of him from a medler who is generally welcomed, to a medler who is feared and despised? (I just had a flashback to the scene in “The Wedding of River Song” that described all the sentients of the universe coming to the Doctor’s aid, which fact was immediately dropped and never referred to again.)

Avatar
Cross777
12 years ago

I would say the canon has already been ruined by having the character played by Dalton refered to as Rassilon. That runined it for me, I could forgive the destruction of Gallifrey and even the “death” of all the other timelords, idiotic as that was, but not the cartoon version of Rassilon Dalton played.

Avatar
Lalo
12 years ago

I’ve said it before and I’ll say this until Moffatt proves me wrong (which is unlikely to happen) the man lives for grand theatrics. Its mostly mitigated in Sherlock (or even Jekyll to a certain extent) because its a short ‘season’, and they have a tighter control crew (I marvel at Mark Gatniss’ ability to keep Moffatt’s crazy from infecting Sherlock too much).

But Doctor Who? The man goes bonkers like a kid in a candy shop. I sometimes wonder if he works off a stream of conscious sort of ramble. “Wouldn’t it be awesome if we introduced this woman who knows the Doctor from his future, but is really her past and then tie it in with this Companion who waited and recerated the Universe to bring him back and then had that Companion turn out to be not real and remember that kid we saw regenerate way back when have that turn out to be the Companion’s best friend from school who then turns into River because she’s really an assassin sent by a mysterious force against the Doctor but she’s bonkers so she decides to destroy time to save him instead but let’s not forget that she was the baby stolen by the myterious force when they had the Companion when she wasn’t real so she’s really the daughter of the Companion who’s in love with the Doctor–the baby not the Companion though she may have been as well can we work that you think?– and kind of marries him and then kind of kills him and then he feels mopey for a while and she keeps stopping by for wine with her Mummy. what do you think?”

That’s honestly how I think he works out his ideas. Here’s a shiny, there’s a shiny, and there’s another shiny–oh wait we have to explain all those shinies at once!
So no I’m not really caring about the importance of the Doctor’s name or that Silence Will Fall When the Question is Asked. I’m worried right now how Moffatt will screw up Clara/Oswin’s story mostly. Its a nifty concept–just like River was. (though I do want to see a throwdown between River and Clara/Oswin. I think that’ll be awesome).

Avatar
Kurt Rocourt
12 years ago

But he’s already been brought into the universe as a larger figure. The Champion of Time or the Avatar of Death from the books. He’s already a mythical figure. If I had to guess Moffat will probably try to remind us that we’ve already seen the Doctors name. In the Demons Run two parter we saw the Doctors crib with his name in ancient Gallifreyan. Sure we can’t read it but it’s not a massive secret. Really the Doctors true name would probably be the real name of the Other from Gallifreyn legends. Since the Other was one of the founders of Time Lord society and supposedly the Doctor is his reincarnation than the Doctors birth name wouldn’t be his biggest secret. A secret for sure but not his biggest.
Plus Michael Moorcock, who has written some Doctor Who stories, already included him as one of the Eternal Champions. Hero of Time, Champion of the Balance, he’s already in that group. It doesn’t take away from him I think but does expand his lore.

Avatar
12 years ago

Totally agree with you both, lainey and Lalo. Moffat has written some terrific stand-alone episodes and mini-arcs, but his longer arcs are just unwieldy and incoherent. I would really appreciate it if someone could just, y’know, step in and take the reins away from him before he breaks something and let him go back to what he’s actually really very good at.

Avatar
ravenlunatick
12 years ago

It’s Angus.

There.

Nothing else to see…

wcarter
12 years ago

Oh come on, th-s is a -dicu-ous quest- everyo- kn0ws Th- -oct-‘s name -s –*end transmission*

Avatar
Tesh
12 years ago

@13 I see what you did there.

*slowclap*

Avatar
12 years ago

Hm. If the revelation is that the Doctor is an incarnation (regeneration) of the Other, then the Hartnell doctor was #2, which makes Matt Smith the 12th, which means we could meet all the other Doctors AND the Valeyard without getting out of order. (But it makes a botch of “the fall of the 11th”, unless that doesn’t mean what we assume it means.)

Avatar
Edwing Fiorilo
12 years ago

I don’t like Moffat in many ways.
He doesn’t have the real philosophy of A Time Lord and what really means that.
Furthermore, Moffat uses language that is not appropriate for a character of that level.If we compare only the vocabulary of earthling “doctor” of “Back to the Future” … is far from the lexicon used by Matt in the Doctor Who of Moffat.
Furthermore, Russell T. Davies was careful to take appropriate vocabulary, scientific and height of a Doctor Who … of a Time Lord.

ChristopherLBennett
12 years ago

@16: No, the relationship between the Other and the Doctor was very different from the usual regeneration from one body to another. The Other came from a far more ancient time, and had his genes and personality stored for millions of years and eventually reincarnated as the Doctor, who was born with no conscious memory of his former existence, but who occasionally experienced flashes of memories from that previous life, and by his seventh incarnation had apparently figured out his origins.

Avatar
12 years ago

Eh…

It’s hard for me to get excited about this, really. The River Song arc, which had a lot of promise, ended up being kind of silly to my mind. I like River and all, and enjoy her when she’s about. But the hubris of the show has gotten a bit hefty, and too often, it makes little to no sense.

Honestly, I wash they would back away from the whole Big Ideas thing, and just tell good stories. All of time and space to play with, you know.

Avatar
12 years ago

I am sure that some sort of mystery will be answered, but if Moffat does it right, it will be in the context of an even larger mystery being revealed. The best stories are like onions, that we keep peeling and peeling, without ever finding the center.
And the fun is never in the mystery being answered, it is in how you get there. After all, think about how many scary movies are spoiled when the monster is finally revealed (not a few Stephen King films come to mind). Look at how River Song’s story became less compelling the more we knew about her.
So, give us a few answers along the way, but never wrap things up…

Avatar
TomT
12 years ago

Well the whole … The Doctor as the 3rd member of the founding triad of The Timelords was the big push for Doctor 7. It was implied over and over that The Doctor had a strange and unusual control over the tools of The Founding Triad with the big implication being that The Doctor was the unnamed mysterious 3rd member. Somehow someway.

There is the the on again and off again canon book that gave an explanation for that and how The Doctor could both be a new Timelord and the reincarnation of The Other and possibly one of the Galifrean gods incarnated.

That said The Doctor has meddled in and with the older powers enough as an equal such that one wonders about him. ::shrug::

I for one am curious what Moffet will use as his take on who and what The Doctor is or even if he actually reveals more than another slight of hand move like the death scene.

Avatar
IlyaP
12 years ago

Reading this thread is fascinating if one has a historical memory. Somewhere around season 3, back when Russell Davies was the show-runner, there were complaints (so many complaints!) about how he was running the show in the wrong manner, making the show too grim, too gritty, too realistic, somehow. And many were excited about what Moffat would do with the show.

And here we are, being as sick, or tired (perhaps?) of Moffat’s writery tendencies.

If only someone at the BBC could kindly suggest that perhaps it’s in the program’s best interests to let the show-runners function as actual show-runners, and write a minimal amount of scripts per season, so as to not lead to a creative burn-out. Show-running is a hard job. To add script-writing on top of that? Eep.

Avatar
Areteo
12 years ago

I couldn’t agree more and am dreading where this seems to be going. Thanks for bringing it up.

Avatar
a-j
12 years ago

Steven Moffat seems to suffer from Lost Syndrome (also known as BSG Dysfunction) whereby he throws ideas in without having first decided how they’re going to be resolved. This almost invariably leads to anti-climax. But then I’m with the comment above that I’m tired of these big story arcs. The bad wolf one was fun because it was understated and unexpected. Same for the Master one. The death of the Doctor did not work for me at all and I’m already bored of the Oswin mystery before it’s even started.

Avatar
12 years ago

Slightly off-topic, but BBCA has been showing OldWho episodes as part of their monthly specials on the earlier Doctors – so far, “The Aztecs” for the First Doctor in January, and “Tomb of the Cybermen” for the Second Doctor in February.

Do you think tor.com could have someone review these and put up a thread for discussion? Because I’m sure a lot of people here would have fun talking about them.

Not to mention the feminist critque possible – the problems that have shown up in both stories from the male characters trying to leave the female characters somewhere “safe” are notable.

ChristopherLBennett
12 years ago

@25: Actually I think both “The Aztecs” and “Tomb of the Cybermen” are notable for their strong portrayals of their female leads, actually rather progressive for the time. In the former, Barbara was a commanding and confident figure whose choices drove much of the story, and Susan struck a liberated tone when she refused to submit to an arranged marriage. And in “Tomb,” Victoria proved extremely plucky and capable despite everyone else’s efforts to protect her (which is surprising considering how screamy and timid she’d become by the latter part of the season, judging from the surviving episodes). And Kaftan was a pretty strong and dynamic antagonist without any stereotypical “wicked woman” aspects that I can recall. By the standards of their time, those two stories were actually fairly progressive with gender roles. (Though definitely not with racial roles.)

Avatar
Lalo
12 years ago

@22 – I enjoyed RTD’s run immensely. Martha Jones aside (and that was more the fault of the actress, I can’t seem to cotton to any character she plays no matter how much on paper I love them) I thought as a reboot to a franchise that was aiming towards an audience used to their shows being grimmer and darker, it worked quite well.

I haven’t been keen on Moffatt since he was first announced. I enjoyed his episodes–Forest of the Dead/Silence in the Library are two of my absolute FAVORITE episodes, and I adore the Weeping Angels–but from interviews and all I didn’t like where he thought the show should go.

Its so unfortunate because he HAS had so many good ideas. He just needs to hand those ideas to someone else and let them flesh them out and establish the parameters.

Avatar
12 years ago

ChristopherLBennett @26 wrote:

Actually I think both “The Aztecs” and “Tomb of the Cybermen” are notable for their strong portrayals of their female leads, actually rather progressive for the time.

Progressive for their time, perhaps.

But still quite dreadful to anyone interested in genuine equality.

Works that are “progressive for their time” are, in many ways, the ones most needing exploration and critique for their weaknesses. Because “progressive for their time” is the starting point for progress now. We need to look at the best attempts of equality up to this point in time, and figure out where it is still unequal, and then how to remedy the problems.

If we excuse problematic works that are “progressive for their time” for their problems, we wind up with smug self-satisfaction that we aren’t as bad as the worst “for their time” even though that isn’t anywhere near good enough.

You don’t get progress by looking at the worst, and focusing on making it a little better. You get progress by focusing on the very best, and demanding that it be even better, so that the worst becomes marginal and forgotten.

ChristopherLBennett
12 years ago

@28: Of course I agree that it’s vital to strive to make things better. But if things actually do get better, then the most progressive efforts of the past end up looking quite backward by the standards of a later generation. I strive to be on the forefront of progressiveness and inclusion in my own writing. I’ve just published a book where the protagonist is a bisexual woman, the most important and influential characters in the story are women, and the overwhelming majority of the characters are nonwhite. But if I succeed in increasing tolerance and inclusion, then my own works will end up looking backward to the next generation — and that’s an entirely desirable goal, because it means that in my own small way, I helped push things in the right direction.

But that means it would be hypocritical of me to look back on my counterparts in an earlier era and condemn them as monsters just because they weren’t as far ahead of their time as I am. That’s a totally unfair comparison, because I have the advantage of actually being ahead of their time, while they had to get ahead of their time the hard way.

Your critique is invalid because I never once suggested using the values of that episode as a standard for how we should think in the present or future. Obviously no rational person would think that. I only meant that their creators deserve credit for trying to move things forward from where they were, at least a little. We are where we are today because of the small, cumulative steps that our forebears made toward greater equality and inclusion. And we should give them credit for that, because we wouldn’t be so far ahead of them now if they hadn’t started the forward momentum.

Avatar
12 years ago

Doctor Who? I don’t care. I think I’ve seen ever episode in existence and the answer to the question doesn’t matter.

How much can it be changed before Doctor Who fails to resemble its inception? That’s an interesting question. I am simultaneiously annoyed and enjoy the twists that keep popping up in the new series. I didn’t like the acknowledged romance with Rose just because that’s not Doctor Who, but the Rose episodes are fine. I didn’t like Eleven spending most of his regeneration roaming the galaxy without companions because of the super-special role Amy (and Rory) played in his life. “You were there when I was first born” or some other tripe like that. The Doctor has regenerated in front of people before and was never so tied to a companion before. But Amy and Rory were good companions. River being the Doctor’s wife – that was an interesting mystery until it got silly and just petered out.

I think that the execution is mostly okay, but these attention grabbing ideas and the need to make each companion more special than the last is twisting the character of the Doctor into something different. And I don’t like it.

ChristopherLBennett
12 years ago

@30: How much change before Doctor Who no longer resembles its inception? I’d say that happened no later than 1970. In its inception, DW was a series about a heroic science teacher, his stalwart history-teacher ladyfriend, a mysterious alien teenager, and her eccentric, troublemaking grandfather wandering through time and space on a series of adventures designed to teach the show’s child viewers about history and science. The Doctor was the catalyst for the adventures and a source of exposition, but he was not the hero, and he was as likely to create the crisis of the week as to solve it.

The Doctor had become a somewhat more benevolent and heroic figure within a couple of seasons, ready and willing to fight injustice where he found it rather than thinking primarily of himself, but it was really in the Patrick Troughton era that the show became what we know it to be. And it’s been evolving and changing into different forms ever since, becoming a new thing every few years, which is part of why it’s lasted so long. So Doctor Who becoming something different isn’t something to be feared or hated; it’s the key to the series’ longevity, just as the Doctor’s own regenerations are the key to his continued survival. Different Doctors are supposed to act differently, to think and feel differently, to make choices their predecessors wouldn’t have made.

Avatar
Bozo
12 years ago

It’s “effect”, not “affect”.

Avatar
phuzz
12 years ago

Whenever people talk about the doctor’s name I always think of this:

The Naming Of Cats by T. S. Eliot
The Naming of Cats is a difficult matter,
It isn’t just one of your holiday games;
You may think at first I’m as mad as a hatter
When I tell you, a cat must have THREE DIFFERENT NAMES.
First of all, there’s the name that the family use daily,
Such as Peter, Augustus, Alonzo or James,
Such as Victor or Jonathan, George or Bill Bailey–
All of them sensible everyday names.
There are fancier names if you think they sound sweeter,
Some for the gentlemen, some for the dames:
Such as Plato, Admetus, Electra, Demeter–
But all of them sensible everyday names.
But I tell you, a cat needs a name that’s particular,
A name that’s peculiar, and more dignified,
Else how can he keep up his tail perpendicular,
Or spread out his whiskers, or cherish his pride?
Of names of this kind, I can give you a quorum,
Such as Munkustrap, Quaxo, or Coricopat,
Such as Bombalurina, or else Jellylorum-
Names that never belong to more than one cat.
But above and beyond there’s still one name left over,
And that is the name that you never will guess;
The name that no human research can discover–
But THE CAT HIMSELF KNOWS, and will never confess.
When you notice a cat in profound meditation,
The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
His mind is engaged in a rapt contemplation
Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of his name:
His ineffable effable
Effanineffable
Deep and inscrutable singular Name.

Avatar
12 years ago

Actually, they’ve already explained what the Silence means in The Wedding of River Song, when the Doctor says about the phrase “Silence will fall when the question is asked”:

“All the times I heard those words, I never realized they meant my silence. My death.”

So the Doctor is going to die when the question is asked. I’m guessing it means regenerate–“The Fall of the Eleventh.” Sorta hints to me that Smith won’t be around much longer after the 50th.

ChristopherLBennett
12 years ago

@34: On the other hand, the Doctor’s prophesied death was a major plot thread throughout the previous season that culminated with that very story, and he managed to get around that one.

Avatar
TiffanyLH
12 years ago

I personally think that revealing the Doctor’s true name will ruin the show to a certain extent. Doctor Who is about mystery and not knowing the Doctor’s name is as apart of that mystery as any other piece of the show…

ChristopherLBennett
12 years ago

@36: But Doctor Who has been many things over the decades, and sometimes it’s been more “about mystery” than at others. He started out with plenty of mysteries; it wasn’t even clear until the Second Doctor’s era whether the Doctor was an alien or just an advanced future human (he was referred to as human several times in the First Doctor’s era). But over the years, we learned the name of his species and his planet, visited that planet, learned about his past, etc. until most of the mystery was gone — which is why a couple of later producers made attempts to inject new mysteries, with limited success.

Long ago I formulated the not-very-serious theory that his name is actually pronounced “Hoo.” I remain agnostic on the question of whether he was on first.

Avatar
Roddy
12 years ago

Seriously, does anyone really believe that The Moff will reveal The Doctor’s real name? He is far too devious to do something this obvious.

ChristopherLBennett
12 years ago

@38: He’ll reveal the Doctor’s name but then the name will turn out to be an android impostor.

Avatar
Dr. Thanatos
12 years ago

I know I’m showing my age here, but the answer to the question may be found in an episode of #4 when he and Romana were talking to a police official of some sort.

Doctor: “Hello, there. I’m the Doctor and this is Romana.”
Official: “Romana who?”
Romana: “That’s correct.”

Avatar
Dr. Thanatos
12 years ago

@11
Dr. Who as Eternal Champion? Dear Lord.
“Hello, I’m the Doctor. And this is my black rune-driver.”

Avatar
greekned
12 years ago

“That means that (The Valeyard) hasn’t actually come into being yet”
In the universe of time-travelling time lords, why would that matter?

Avatar
neroden
12 years ago

“If only someone at the BBC could kindly suggest that perhaps it’s in the
program’s best interests to let the show-runners function as actual
show-runners, and write a minimal amount of scripts per season, so as to
not lead to a creative burn-out. Show-running is a hard job. To add
script-writing on top of that? Eep.”

Like it was from 1963-1989, where the producer (what we now call by the bizarre name “showrunner” because the meaning of producer has been diluted) was prohibited from writing scripts without special permission?

Yeah, that would be a good idea; it might retard the script-quality decay rate.

But I think more important is that Doctor Who benefited from repeated changes in producer. Barry Letts lasted 5 years, second-longest, and had started burning out during the last year. John Nathan-Turner, the longest-lasting, was desparately trying to quit by year 4 and the BBC wouldn’t let him. (He eventually handed off creative control to Cartmel.)

Davies stayed a bit too long, but left before running the show into the ground. I expect Steven Moffat to do the same. I liked his first season as producer a *lot*. I think this season will be OK, but he had better hand the show off at that point, because he’s starting to get repetitive (and as such boring).

Avatar
Kels
12 years ago

Agreed. “The greatest secret will be revealed!” And I had no f***s left to give. Honestly, I couldn’t care less about his name, because unless it has the power to bring me chocolate ice cream whenever I turn on the tv and Doctor Who is on, then the answer is either going to be:

1. boring, or
2. boring and played up as THE MOST IMPORTANT THING DURING THE SHOW’S RUN.

Season 5 was amazing. Season 6 dropped the ball by ignoring the tantalizing mystery of how the TARDIS blew up. This was an *actually interesting mystery* that was just ignored. Because screw you, Moffatt – an alien religious order sharing the _incredibly common noun_ “the Silence” with a significant part of the phrase preceding the explosion of the TARDIS does not automatically mean that the religious order was responsible for Universe-Go-Boom. All it means is that the TARDIS, when translating to English, recognizes the flexibility of language and doesn’t bat an eye when a standard word is employed as a proper noun. If “Well, this thing that dislikes the Doctor slapped together an after-school group and called it The Silence” is supposed to suffice as the reveal and explanation for who blew up the TARDIS and how they pulled it off, then any time Amy or Rory became irritated and told the Doctor to be quiet should have placed them under immediate suspicion. Then, season 6 decided that time would be better spent going the route of GREAT BIG CONUNDRUM that is solved in five minutes with the help of a robotic disguise but was stretched out over an entire year.

The first half of season 7 was wonderful, because as the build-up to Amy and Rory’s farewell, it didn’t waste time on stupid questions and loud proclamations of the importance of the stupid questions.

When I first heard the news that Moffatt would be taking over, and was filled to the brim with girlish glee, I never expected that the brilliant terror of Blink and the Cracks in Time would give way to “WHAT’S HIS NAME???????” and “Let’s pretend that Hitler would put up with being shoved in a closet and that he doesn’t have a single guard nearby to come and see what is making the loud noises in Mein Fuhrer’s office” and “Let’s have the men talk about responsibility and the circumstances that brought them to this point and the women will go off to drink tea and chat about boys” and “Let’s have the most independent, capable, and intriguing female character be reduced to a puppet whose sole purpose is to live a life that revolves around the Doctor.”

Avatar
RedIrish
11 years ago

This may be totally off base but I’ve always wondered about the way that question was phrased by Dorium at the end of Series 6. The obvious way to look at is ‘Doctor Who?’ as in the name of the doctor but he subtly changed it each time he said it leading me to wonder if it actually means ‘Doctor, who?’ as in Doctor who is it/them etc.

Avatar
11 years ago

Spoilers…(and how do I spell that so that EVERBODY hears it in River Song’s voice, even when they’re not Whovians?) for season 7 and the 50th anniversary…

So, they almost gave his name there during the season finale (insert minor rant – I watched Season 7 on DVD, a couple of episodes at a time, and OHMYGOD but I was sick and tired of people asking “Doctor Who?” so so SO many times during the earlier episodes, I find it fun and vaguely punny when it happens occasionally but even my kids were sick of the question – end rant, thank you for your patience), and I, for one, was happy that they didn’t.

However, a thought. I’m much more inclined to New Who than Classic (keep meaning to go back and give them another go but time never seems to make itself available), so I wasn’t aware of the ‘Dark Doctor’ plotline, but they actually did the retcon in such a way that it could make sense to pick it up. I mean (I did mention ‘Spoilers’ already, right?), the retcon let him pretty much erase the angst and anger and regret that seemed to always be clinging to 9 and 10, but it also means that the 11th Doctor is actually the 12th Doctor, so the upcoming regen will be the chance for that to happen.

It could actually make sense for there to be a split – I mean, if the Doctor has had 400+ years of time-vortex-infused rage and regret that’s suddenly just gone, I could see the next regeneration having some unexpected consequences.

Avatar
Gabriel Chase
11 years ago

Terrible question, but one that has been around since the start. The first person to utter it was the First Doctor, in the second ever episode of the series. Ian refers to him as: “Doctor Foreman”, to which William Hartnell responds with: “Doctor Who?”