Talk:Susan Foreman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Doctor Who Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

I only have one question...do you stop being a grandfather (or father) just because your offspring is deceased?

Dr Constantine seemed to think so, and the Doctor was empathising. --khaosworks 09:42, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Race 2 Granddaughter 3 Another possible origin 4 "Fans are incorrect" 5 Dimensions in Time 6 More on granddaughter 7 Intent 8 Jenny 9 Target novelizations

[edit] Race

It is currently unknown if Susan is actually from the race Time Lord/Lady, she could merely just be from the planet Gallifrey. Most people think that you have to attend the Academy to be a Time Lord/Lady and there is no evidence that Susan ever attended. Thus there is no real evidence that Susan is a Time Lord/Lady so it was changed to reflect that she is merely from Gallifrey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.73.234 (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Granddaughter

The article currently says "...Although it was never explicitly stated that she was the Doctor's biological granddaughter..." I don't think this quite is true/and/or/makes sense - surely Susan & and the Doctor explicity refer to each other onscreen as "grandfather" and "granddaughter" in virtually every story. And surely the word "granddaughter", spoken in English without further qualification, always means "biological granddaughter"? If you want to qualify it, you say "adopted grandfather" or "my stepfather's dad" etc etc. Wouldn't it be more accurate to have a sentance in the article "Although Susan continually refers on screen to the Doctor as her 'grandfather', some fans have speculated that this should not be taken literally to imply a biological relation" or somesuch?--feline1 16:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

"Biological granddaughter" is certainly the default meaning of "granddaughter". I also agree that the article should first reflect the clear intentions of the original production team, and deal with fans' later interpretations afterwards. I'll see what I can do. —Josiah Rowe 18:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another possible origin

Note: This theory has absolutely no basis and/or support, but since this theory has been discussed on several sites before, I thought I might share it.

Let's just say...hypothetically...that the Doctor and Rose Tyler have a child. Now, the depths of time and space are no place for a child, but with all of the Timelords gone, where can she go? Easy--to the last remaining timelord...HIMSELF.

So the Doctor travels back and meets with his former self (the 1st Doctor) and gives him the child. As he raises Susan, he tells her that she is his granddaughter...and because of his age, she does not question this.

If this were the case, though, we would have to assume that the Doctor knew that he would fall in love with Rose all along. Opinions? -- P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 19:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ew. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ew what? I am confusèd. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 00:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Susan could hypothetically be the daughter of the Doctor's daughter from The Doctor's Daughter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Fans are incorrect"

Finallycreatedaccount (talk · contribs) wrote:

"These fans are in the minority and would seem to be incorrect. As stated above, in the episode Fear Her, the Doctor reveals he was a father once. Susan would hence be the offspring of the Doctor's child or one of the Doctor's children."

My difficulties with this are several:

• "These fans are in the minority..." - needs cite; no census has been taken, and given the popularity of the "Other" theory, this may not actually be the case.

• "would seem to be incorrect." - This is POV, production team intentions notwithstanding (since Hinchcliffe, for one, intended there to be incarnations before the First Doctor and we know how that turned out). We should not place a definitive statement; people can figure out for themselves if this theory is incorrect.

• "Susan would hence be the offspring of the Doctor's child or one of the Doctor's children." - Not necessarily. Although the default meaning of grandfather or father (as the case may be) is biologically, you can still be a grandfather without biological descent. People don't normally call their step-grandfathers "Step-Grandfather". In fathers by marriage, the use of "father" rather than "stepfather" is equally common, given the fairy-tale negative connocations of "step-mother". But again, this calls for a conclusion coming from the earlier "Doctor reveals he was a father once"; as the former is already mentioned, this conclusion is not necessary — the reader can figure it out for themselves. They're smart people. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

For a start, the title of this section of the discussion page has taken my words out of context, with no ellipse between 'are' and 'incorrect', and implies that you are trying to inflame the discussion or provoke a reaction. Anyway, in response to your points:

• The minority point comes from the fact that most literature, references, documentaries etc. give Susan as being the biological granddaughter of the Doctor. The 'Other' theory is irrelevant as it is non-canonical, or 'fanonical' at best. However, I must concede that I cannot provide a citation to support my claim.

• I disagree that that is POV - 'would seem to be' covers those who disagree.

• It is also uncommon for one to usurp one's granddfather by using this name for a following step-grandfather. Again, as you say of my earlier point 'no census has been taken', so neither of us know for sure how normal or common the use of these terms is. Whilst I take your point that the note has been made earlier and so may not require direct repetition here, I think that the speculative fan points are more worthy of removal. Why should they be included just because some fans, whom I still believe to be a minority, are uncomfortable with the idea that the Doctor has had sex? -- Finallycreatedaccount 04:37, 25 June 2006

I'm not removing it to pander to any fan sensibilites; for the record I am firmly in the camp of those who believe Susan is the biological granddaughter of the Doctor. My point is that without a cite, those statements are indeed POV. "would seem to be incorrect" is POV because it comes down on one side without mentioning the other. At best, the line should be "unclear" or "debatable" or some such to be neutral. The "Other" theory, while canonicity is unclear, is much more than fanon - it is the basis for the Cartmel Masterplan as well as the New Adventures. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I consider the 'Other' theory non-canonical as it never came to fruition on screen, despite its links with the Cartmel Masterplan. As you mentioned earlier, Hinchcliffe intended the First Doctor not to have been the first - whilst being the theory of a programme maker this has been contridicted on screen. Whilst fan media may contradict the programme makers intentions to have Susan as the biological granddaughter, something I see you agree with, to my knowledge it has not been contradicted on screen - correct me if I'm wrong, people...I'm sure someone will find something... -- Finallycreatedaccount 16:14, 25 June 2006

Isn't it correct to say that the show has never suggested a relationship other than the stated one between Susan and the Doctor? Yallery Brown 00:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dimensions in Time

Why was Dimensions in Time removed from this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ken Arromdee (talk • contribs) 07:22, August 28, 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, but it was obviously restored at some point. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on granddaughter

Considering the extremely long life that the Doctor has had, and the fact that he can almost always be found surrounded by young women, I am sure he has a plethora of children out there (acknowledged and perhaps unacknowledged). I really don't see what all the fuss is about as to whether or not Susan could be his grand-daughter or not. She says she is, he says she is, and she's the same race as he. --68.154.71.137 20:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right that Occam's razor would strongly suggest that she is his granddaughter — but the problem stems from certain aspects of Doctor Who fandom and production in the 1980s. As odd as it may seem nowadays, when the Doctor "dances" with any pretty blonde who passes his way, in the 1980s it was a cardinal rule of Doctor Who, often stated by the show's producer in the press, that "there is no hanky-panky in the TARDIS". There was a widespread assumption that the Doctor was asexual, an assumption which the production team encouraged. One obvious problem with this view of the character, though, was the existence of Susan — if the Doctor has a granddaughter, then presumably he must have had sex at some point. Therefore, two different script editors came up with different stories explaining how Susan "wasn't really the Doctor's granddaughter". Lots of Doctor Who fans at the time agreed with the premise of an asexual Doctor, and so were happy to explain Susan away. Things are different now, but that's why it was historically an issue. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the whole "asexual" thing is misunderstood. Given the portrayal of the Doctor, Time Lords are far smarter than humans, far far smarter. If you think there are difficulties with a 30-year old adult having a relationship with a 20-year old, just imagine the vast difference between a 20-something and a 900-something. Since humans look like Gallifreyans, of course there could be a physical attraction. But assuming the Doctor is past the "nail anything that moves" phase most teenagers of any species should go through, he'd likely be beyond interest in a "friend with benefits." To put it in human terms, how many people would be interested in sleeping with a beautiful 20-year old woman whose mental development is the same as a five-year old? Sure, some would be interested but to me that would seem an awful lot like pedophilia.

But that's all just a canon rationalization, just like "the TARDIS being hard to fly" is the canon rationalization for why the Doctor winds up in crazy places. In reality, we know that's just because it makes for fun stories to write. The real world reason for "no hanky panky in the TARDIS" is that this isn't what the show is about. Doctor Who is about goofy fun scifi for the whole family. It has to be safe enough for parents to show the kids and well-written enough to keep the older set engaged. Who does this brilliantly. Sure, raunchy humor can be done well. I've seen excellent examples of shows aimed explicitly at being erotic, others that try to work through the emotional turmoil of realistic relationships, etc. But that's not Who. Imagine if someone took Sex and the City and threw space aliens into it. Actually, seeing the fan reaction to that would be hysterical but it would still be rude. :) --Gmuir 16:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intent

In Background is this sentence:

The original outline for the series did not intend for the pair to be related, but writer Anthony Coburn created the family tie as he was disturbed by the possible sexual connotations of an old man travelling alone with a teenage girl.

And yet, in Relationship to the Doctor, is this:

...it is clear that the original programme-makers' intent was that the two were biologically related.

These statements contradict themselves; either originally they intended her to be his granddaughter, or they didn't. Which is true? Neither have citations - Weebiloobil 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jenny

In Series 4 Episode 6, We meet Jenny, who is the doctors daughter, it is unknown if she is the doctors biologoical daughter yet because the episode has not yet aired, should we add something about jenny to this article? Harmless 77 (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to wait until we learn if Jenny is Susan's mother or aunt. DonQuixote (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Jenny isn't his daughter as such, she's cloned from his DNA. 86.135.209.39 (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously she is not a "clone", as she is not genetically identical. The doctor refers to her as his "daughter", and she refers to him as "dad", which is, at the very least, sufficient for a premise that a daughter of hers would be regarded as the Doctor's grand-daughter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Target novelizations

I don't have any of the Target books anymore, but I remember reading one or two in the early '80s (I don't remember which story or stories, or know when the books were written) where they wrote Susan thinking of the Doctor as "the man she called Grandfather", which would imply that maybe he wasn't. Does anyone else recall anything like this? --Logotu (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC) PS: My pet theory was perhaps she was actually his daughter.