From: ph9991_manfr@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: Colin Baker poll
Date: 12 Nov 92 04:50:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: rivers.1992Nov12.105018.315
Organization: University of Wisconsin - River Falls

In article <1dtsnmINNndl@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, ST101229@brownvm.brown.edu (Charon) writes:
>>Doctor should always be constrained to a personality trait.  Also, what about
>>the Valeyard?  You must have not liked his introduction to Dr. Who, or did
>>you accept him as an incarnation gone bad?  My opinion on this would be that
>>something happenned during his regeneration sequence to cause that.  Though
>>this seems contrary to what I said above, I would think that b'cse a TimeLord
>>is the sum of his memories for the most part, to change such a complete
>>change as that would involve a whole lot.  Just my opinion though.  :)
>>
>>                Mystic
>>(alex.soto@analog.com)
> 
>      Sorry, but I only saw 2 episodes of TOATL, the first one, and the one
> where the Master shows himself in the Matrix.  In my limited experience, the
> Valeyard had nothing to do with the Doctor; did he figure prominently after
> the fourth episode of TOATL?

SPOILERS FOR TRIAL OF A TIME LORD AHEAD!


Yes, you did miss a _very_ important plot point here....
the Valeyard IS the Doctor, an evil incarnation "somewhere between your
twelfth and final incarnation," as the Master put it.

> 
>      I don't know about that "portrayal of the Doctor" thing...the Doctor is a
> character, a person with certain traits and characteristics.  In a continuing
> television series like Doctor Who, you need a consistent character, like the
> Doctor or his companions.  The premise of the show was that there is a person
> devoted to changing things in the universe, to what we would consider "good".
> Unfortunately, each of the adventures is almost totally disjoint from the next.
> If it weren't for the Doctor, we'd have a sort of cheesy Twilight Zone.  Colin
> Baker had a consistent personality (arrogant, unscrupulous), but he didn't seem
> consistent to the Doctor's character or the five previous Doctors.  He didn't
> seem effective.  I seem to remember he was pretty good as Maxell in...Arc of
> Infinity?

This dark side to the Doctor was present in the First and Second Doctors,
hardly at all in the Third, and somewhat in the Fourth.  The Fifth didn't
have it at all, but after his tumultuous regeneration in "Caves," the
Sixth definitely showed it.  It settles down under more control in his
Seventh incarnation but is definitely there.  
Colin Baker's Doctor is and was meant to be a violent jarring together of
his first five personas with the intelligence and arrogance (present in 
certainly the first four) being the dominant traits.  

As for the Valeyard, he is a composite of the Doctor's every dark thought,
as the Master put it in the final episode of Trial.  

>      On an interesting side note, I got a book about the show, by JNT, a couple
> years back...he said Davison was a good choice for the fifth Doctor because he
> was young, blond, and had straight hair!  After Tom Baker being so popular, he
> wanted a completely new look for the Doctor.  Personally, I think Davison
> should have been picked no matter what his hair looked like...


That was just one reason he listed in "The TARDIS Inside Out."  He said the
others were he wanted someone who was vulnerable and who had a heroic look
about him, again to contrast with Tom.  He wanted a Doctor who could get
things wrong occasionally and who seemed more insecure, and he got it with
Peter.  Very good choice, I feel.


> 
>      -Charon, Boatman of the River Styx <st101229@brownvm.brown.edu>
> 
>    Feel free to point out anything I've said that's stupid or contradictory.


Steven.K.Manfred
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho