the Science of Popular Characters

What kind of characters work? Do they really need to be relatable?


Relatable is a fairly easy term to use, you can actually define what makes a character relatable. But I don’t think that’s the reason characters get popular, or do they?

What’s relatable about Data? He’s not from the 21th century, he’s not even human, and yet he’s very popular. What might be relatable in him is his search for human emotions and how they work or don’t work. I’m not convinced it’s his search we identify with; his search is much more basic than ours would be. Same goes for Dr. Spock btw, but I don’t know the guy well enough, so I’ll stick to Data.

Jamie & Leela could make an interest companion combination

It’s just like in a love afair, or the reason certain people are friends. Why do we like some people more than others? Why are some people more popular than others? You can ask the same questions for characters in books, plays, films and sci-fi TV series.

Often about the Doctor Who companions it is said they are there to ask the questions to clear up the plot. Someone on Digital Spy said, therefore their level of knowledge should be like the viewer’s. I don’t agree. There are several ways of clearing the plot up. It can become clear in the story, though in sci-fi that’s tricky, because often you have to assume the viewer’s have a certain feel for typical sci-fi stuff and in some cases that’s just not possible, what with all the techno-babble. Some character could also compulsively explain everything. Yes, asking questions is the easiest way to have things cleared up. Unfortunately, this resulted in companions being unnecesarily stupid (and/or bratty).

So why are certain characters more popular than others? Why did Data become such an icon for the Star Trek franchise? Why is Rose still one of the most popular companions of the Doctor? What sets them apart from all the other characters who appeared on a regular basis in their respective franchises?

I’ll start with why I do like Data and why I don’t care much for Rose. I’ll start with Doctor Who, Rose first, then another companion I do like.

Rose Tyler

When Rose started out in 2005, she introduced the series to a whole new generation who, before that, never really had the Doctor. It was a reintroduction. Together with Rose we met the Doctor, got to know him and find out what it was like travelling with him. I can see how that is a bonding factor between Rose and the viewers; we went on an adventure together.

She was normal, cool, the girl next door, learning about the Doctor and about what the universe had to offer. She was not exceptionally smart, nor exceptionally dumb. She didn’t have any exceptional talents. She was just a girl becoming friends with the Doctor.
Later, after the 9th Doctor made place for the 10th, not only the dynamic changed between the Doctor and Rose, but also Rose’s overall behaviour. Suddenly the Doctor became a love interest. Suddenly she went from being normal and okay around the Doctor to possesive and jealous. Not only that, she also became more whiney. I specifically remember her reaction when Sarah Jane suggested Mickey should travel with the Doctor as well along with Rose. It was obvious Rose didn’t want that.

For me Rose’s possesiviness and jealousy was a turn off, as well as her whining. Neither did it help they brought Rose back after she left the series. It certainly didn’t help she was insanely jealous of all the other companions being in contact with the Doctor while she was not. Sure, I understand that’s annoying and in her situation frustrating as well. But the insane jealousy….

I do find Billie Piper (who played Rose) fascinating. She’s quite a remarkable actress and has a remarkable appearance.

Now, someone from DW I do like. The obvious reason would be Rory, wouldn’t it. I think the reason I like him is, he’s humble and he’s bumble, but he still kicks ass. He also came a long way. Unfortunately, he was the fifth wheel and ended up sidetracked a lot of the times, and sometimes he wasn’t even there (because he was dead or something).

Sarah Jane Smith

So what about another favourite of mine? What about Leela? I like Leela. She’s savage, yes. She’s also a bit violent. Opposite those traits stand honesty and eager to learn. Neither was she stupid. Streetwise, yes, but overall fairly smart. She adapted well and had an interesting innocence about her; she would always follow up the Doctor’s instructions, because she trusted his judgement. Once the Doctor had her play with a yoyo for about an hour. She thought it was important for keeping the TARDIS running, or something. With Leela you always know what to expect.

What about Sarah Jane? Sarah Jane is the ultimate DW companion. She’s very popular. Why? Possibly, because she’s another girl next door. Possibly, because she’s very inquiring and practical. She’s not particularly smart, but definitely not stupid either. If anything, Sarah Jane was very relatable, as was Rose.

What about Jamie? Jamie was from yesteryear and had no idea about modern technology. He did pick up things quickly; he loved his transistor radio. To me Jamie just seems so sweet, yet he could kick ass.

Now to Star Trek. I don’t know the characters as well as the Doctor Who characters. I do know the TNG regular characters pretty well, but everything outside TNG, not so much. That’s the characters on a shallow level. Data is the only one I paid more attention to, mainly because his popularity still puzzles me a little. I’m not surprised, I’m just trying to understand why. I want to put it into words, if you will.

So, Data…. He’s an android. I like to refer to the episode “the Measure of a Man”. In this episode some researcher whos name I do know wants to disassemble Data so he can study how he is assembled in order to be able to create more androids like Data. Data refuses cooperation, because he finds the research ill-conducted. Because of his refusal a discussion starts about if Data has the right to chose. That harkens directly back at the fact that he’s a machine. The judge in the story even refers to him as a toaster. To settle if the researcher is allowed to take Data away to disassemble him a court is opened in which Captain Picard defends Data and his right to chose for himself. In the same court Commander Riker is appointed to represent the researcher. Unwillingly Riker accepts, because the Judge would other wise rule against Data.

Data in a turned off status ("the Measure of a Man")

This is how Riker defends the researchers request:

“Data is a physical representation of a dream, an idea conceived of by the mind of a man. His purpose? To serve human needs and interests. He is a collection of neural nets and heuristic algorithms. His responses are dictated by an elaborate software program written by a man. The hardware (slapping the hand against his palm) was built by a man.”

Riker has been preambulating around the courtroom, each step bringing him closer to Data. He is now at his side, and without warning he leans down, presses the switch, and turns him off.

“And now a man turns him off.”

Data collapses like a broken toy.

Not exactly as it appears in the script, but darn close. This gives a nice description of the epside, better than mine anyway: http://catherinetjhill.blogspot.nl/2013/03/measure-of-man.html

The set up was much longer than I intended to. So long even, I forgot the point I wanted to make. It’s the love for a machine. Just like how some people love their car or boat, or whatever other inanimate object. Accept that it’s not exactly like that. Data is more than a “glorified” toaster. He behaves like a lifeform. He interacts with lifeforms all by himself. He comes across as very human minus the emotions. He has a character, or a soul, to go by the words of the beforementioned judge. A character is not something a car or a boat has, those objects only have traits caused by how it was built and with what materials. The object doesn’t chose, situations happen to it, because of external forces, and object can never force itself on situations or persons.

This is becoming a much more complicated piece than I intended to. Let me get back to my initial intent. Why is Data as popular as he is? Because he does come across as a lifeform. He’s even human like. He has a character that speaks to people. He’s the perfection people like to see in humanity. He’s fast in (nearly) everything he does from calculations to more practical duties. He has no character flaws except that he’s emotionless. He knows much more than regular people and he has an expansive memory bank. He’s very polite, innocent. He’s childlike; curious and naïve. That’s Data. And it doesn’t take away the love for a car, or a boat, or any other object.

The man who wants to disassemble Data

I think if a character is going to be popular depends on a combination of factors. They can come in all kind of combinations. That’s why the differences between the popular characters are very broad. I’m not sure popularity can really be brought back to one single factor.
I think it’s not only the writing for the character, but for a great part the actor. It’s in the performance and that’s very closely related to the actors skills and/or to who the actor is him-/herself. I think when an actor sparkles, beit because they naturally sparkle, beit because the part makes them sparkle, it’s that which sets the character apart from all other characters. It’s what I think sets people apart from anyone in any situation. It’s that what attracts the most people. It’s people liking the character that make them popular.

Not entirely happy with this piece; I might revisit later.