Defining "companion"

[The Nth Doctor]

I've been thinking about this a lot, especially after watching "The Waters of Mars." Defining the criteria for Doctor Who companion has always been a tricky matter, but I think it has become even harder with the new series specials (starting with "The Runaway Bride") and extended families (Mickey and Jackie in particular). Before, there had been question about the companion status of such characters as Katarina (appeared in only two serials), Sara Kingdom (who only appeared in one serial, but traveled through time and space with The Doctor and Steven for nine episodes), the UNIT characters (Liz, The Brig, Benton, and Yates), Kamelion (because of his infrequent appearances and being controlled by The Master), and Grace.

Is it a matter of number of appearances or lengh of duration? Is it a matter of whether they traveled in the TARDIS? Is it a matter of receiving an invitation from The Doctor (whether or not they accepted it)? Is it a matter of how close they come with The Doctor and/or the current companion(s)?

I've noticed that Jackson Lake, Rosita, Lady Christina de Souza, and Adelaide Brooke are all being considered companions by fans and listed as such on the BBC website. However, I would argue all of them except maybe Lady Christina de Souza (her role being similar to Grace, Donna in "The Runaway Bride," and Astrid) are not companions. Jackson Lake stands on his own and only reallly takes a back seat towards the end of "The Next Doctor" but I can't really see him as a companion, and with that said, Rosita is a companion only to Jackson. I have even further problems with calling Adelaide Brooke a companion because she's a leader of a group of people and only works alongside The Doctor for the sake of her crew. If we're to call her a companion, then suddenly countless other characters over the years should be counted as companions during their one-off appearance.

Additionally, I've sometimes noticed that Adam isn't counted or overlooked as a companion despite being in two episodes and traveled through time and space with The Doctor and companion. If one don't counts him, then one can't count Katarina or Sara Kingdom, and certainly not any of the recent one-off companions in the specials.

So what say you? How do you define "companion"?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

After "Waters Of Mars" it seems clear to me that these one-off encounters don't meet the criteria of companions, at least in the likely intentions of the writers. The Doctor has been traveling solo since Donna left, and he's losing it big time - and wasn't Donna the one who more-or-less said to him that he needed people with him to keep him from going 'round the bend?

 

[wamdue]

yes I would not call Astrid, Jackson Lake, Rosita, Lady Christina de Souza, or Adelaide Brooke, and looking back same (as you suggest) is true for Grace as well.

They could be called "one shot companion" as they only appear in one story, and whilst that sometimes includes TARDIS travel, its only in the context of that one story.

people like Adam, Mickey & Captain Jack could be considered "short term companions"

to become a companion you need to meet theDoctor get out of whatever hole you are in, and if after all that is resolved he takes you somewhere else, you can be counted as a companion.

How do you define Luke, Cylde & Rani

Cylde & Rani could be considered one shot companions, if you watched The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith as a Doctor Who episode. Luke as well (even if he was underused) however he has more of a history with the Doctor.

 

[23skidoo]

The question as to who qualifies as a companion has been asked by fandom since Sara Kingdom appeared in the last half of The Daleks' Master Plan.

Ultimately, a companion is whoever the BBC and the production team says is a companion. There's this misconception that fandom makes the rules. We don't. Whoever owns the franchise makes the rules. There may be people here who hate the 1996 TV movie and want it decanonized. But the BBC says it's canon. It's canon. (Likewise, no matter how much a particular Star Trek novel or animated series may be loved, there ain't nothing making it canon because Paramount and Roddenberry set the rules that only live action TV shows and films are canon.)

I'm kind of glad, actually, because it's sort of like the argument over whether Pluto is a "real" planet. For all of our lives, up to 3 years ago, Pluto was for us a planet. And then it was taken away. Similarly, longtime fans have always seen Sara Kingdom and Liz Shaw and the Brigadier as companions -- yet efforts to formally define companion would disqualify these beloved characters and demote them to something lesser.

Why Liz Shaw? Because she never travelled in the TARDIS, which is a criteria often used.

Why the Brigadier? Although he did make a couple of TARDIS trips, he was never "formally" invited to become a companion.

Why Sara? Because she only appeared in a single story (although in her case there have been short stories and most recently audio dramas featuring her, technically moving her out of the single-story category).

I do think it's possible to get carried away and TOO inclusive. Yes, "Lynda with a Y" from Bad Wolf/Parting of the Ways was indeed invited to be a companion, but she really didn't do a lot with the Ninth Doctor, unlike Astrid who was also formally invited and accepted by the Tenth Doctor, but killed off before she could join him. Or Grace Holloway, who was the first character shown to fall in love with the Doctor.

I do think the BBC is being a bit too inclusive sometimes. In the case of Jackson Lake, technically the Doctor was HIS companion, not the other way around, and given the fact Jackson was essentially under a similar influence as that of the chameleon arch, he more qualifies as an "honorary Doctor" alongside the Journey's End clone and Donna Noble. And listing Rosita as a companion of the Doctor is wrong as she's clearly Jackson's companion.

I do feel Christina was a companion, because she declared herself one (even if she was rejected). I also have a soft spot for Mr. Copper, who likewise was rejected after asking to travel with the Doctor. I don't agree with Adelaide being considered a companion as there is nothing companion-like about her. (Ironically, though, she satisifies a companion criteria that one universally recognized companion doesn't, but I can't say what without spoiling the episode).

If the BBC - who again call all the shots - were to be forced to make a judgement call, the only way I could see them give a true definition of companion is to perhaps do the same thing they did with planets - define "full" companions, and then maybe "honorary" or "one-time" companions.

But even then, what do we do with the likes of Jackie Tyler, who not only was a regular presence in the series for 2 years, but actually travelled in the TARDIS and acted as the Doctor's companion in Army of Ghosts? What about Martha's family, who worked alongside the Doctor for a full year aboard the Valiant? Where do Benton and Yates fit in? Jago and Litefoot? Sally Sparrow (who IMO is more a companion than some)? Reinette? Ray from Delta and the Bannermen? HG Wells and William Shakespeare? Queen Elizabeth I (per a comment in the End of Time preview)?

It's enough to make a guy cross-eyed!

Alex

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Quite so! I thought of Jago & Litefoot and Ray, as well as Marco Polo and Isobel Watkins of The Invasion (and come to think of it, Professor Travers, too), as counterpoints to anyone who would argue if Adelaide is a companion, so I'm glad you mentioned them (and others).

While BBC calls who is officially a companion or not, it seems a little silly to make it a hard and fast rule. So what if they see it that way? My point is we all see companions in a different way, not all that unlike canon in any fandom (but that's a whole another TARDIS full of worms so let's not go there). Why can't we individually say "I think Sara Kingdom, Katarina, and Kamelion are companions but not Grace and Astrid?" I'm merely curious to see how people now definie companions now with all of these "one-off companions."

 

[bismarck_1892]

It has to be more than a one episode/one story line appearence. One episode or one story arc does not a "companion" make. The term has acquared a special meaning which goes beyond "friend." We shouldn't piggen whole the role, but at the very least to qualify as a "companion" a character must travel with the Doctor on more than one occassion, and preferebly be invited or asked to join his travels.

 

[diankra]

It's a term that's impossible to lock down sensibly, but which we're so used to that it'll never go away (like planet - for more on that, try sci and tech!).
Back in the early 1980s, DWM fudged it by saying that a companion had to get two ticks out of three from
1) Travelled in the TARDIS.
2) Appeared in more than one story.
3) Been treated as a companion or assistant in press and PR at the time.
Basically, the two out of three thing was a fudge so that Katarina and Sara would count, the people watching at the time having assumed they were the new companion, as they didn't know they'd die so soon. Interestingly, if you apply that rule, Jackie counts - multiple stories, and two TARDIS trips.
Since then, Russell T's effectively added a fourth qualifier (in his comments about Donna after Runaway Bride, but before it was known she was coming back): if your name's in the titles, you count. Hence, Donna, Astrid, Christina, Adelaide, Wilf.

 

[Kelthaz]

A main (not recurring) character in Doctor Who who is not The Doctor.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

The Doctor very rarely calls them his companions anyway, does he? He calls them his friends. That's how I would define them: if the Doctor would call them his friends, and if he'd be willing to travel with them given the chance, they qualify as companions.

 

[Peacemaker]

Personally, I don't have a problem with using two different sets of criterion for companion. I'm old enough to remember Doctor Who Magazine's earliest discussion of this twenty years ago, and they listed Sara K, Katarina, Benton,Yates, Liz, and the Brig as companions. We had no problem with that then. It's only modern Who that has muddied these waters. IMO, the controversy should be limited to modern Who, not classic Who.

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

It's a nonsense. There are no "criteria". Perhaps it's everyone the Doctor lists as friends on his Facebook profile...

I just find the whole notion of official lists of companions odd to say the least. Anyone who accompanies the Doctor and assists in his adventures is a "companion", whether they're in one story or several, whether they travel in the Tardis or not. Hugo Lang, Duggan, Sam Briggs, HG Wells, Ray, Andred, Professor Litefoot, Professor Todd, Richard Mace, Jane Hampton - they'd all count... But there's no sense in trying to quantify them.

 

[captcalhoun]

i stick with the at least two stories and one trip in the TARDIS criteria.

which qualifies Jackie, Mickey, Adam and the Brig, whilst disqualifying Lady Christina, Astrid, Adelaide and Jackson.

 

[Sci]

I'd suppose that, for me, the question that ultimately defines a companion is whether or not the character puts his/her trust in the Doctor and agrees to become, for however long, the Doctor's sidekick. So I'd say it's a power thing.

By that definition, then, Astrid would be a companion, and so would everyone in the TARDIS during "Journey's End," and so would Lady Christina, but Jackson Lake, Rosita, or Adelaide. With characters like Sally Sparrow or Reinette, it's still questionable, but I'd probably say no.

 

[od0_ital]

Well, my girlfriend K (see the APGs in DW costume thread I started) says that a companion is anyone who travels with the Doctor in the TARDIS.

I say its anyone who goes on an adventure with him & contributes in a positive way. So, my standards are pretty loose like that.

But, since I only have a few friends who are fans of the franchise, we don't get into a lot of fights about it.

 

[wamdue]

I say its anyone who goes on an adventure with him & contributes in a positive way.

so not Adam then?

 

[od0_ital]

I say its anyone who goes on an adventure with him & contributes in a positive way.

so not Adam then?

His positive contribution was reinforcin' Rose's position as the Doctor's companion.

 

[The Lensman]

Seriously, I can't believe people even have the kind of debates I'm hearing about on the subject. For me a "companion" is whoever the Doctors ongoing sidekick at the moment is. Everyone else is a guest star.