Spiral Mutterings 4: Just Who Is The 5:15 Hero?

There has long been debate, at clubs, in magazines, in newsgroups and just about everywhere that Who fans gather, as to which Doctor is the best. Normally, you'll find that people over forty say Hartnell, people in their late 30's will say Troughton or Pertwee. Tom Baker has the larger age range, anyone from late 20's to mid 30's, with Davison mainly adored by fans in their mid-20's. Those in their early 20's and below will be found favouring Colin Baker, or Sly McCoy. Paul McGann is a special case, and fans seem to be divided on whether he was a fantastic Doctor not given a fair chance, or whether its best just to ignore the fact that the Fox TVM was ever made.

The reason for the bias most people have towards a particular Doctor, is that its a nostalgia trip, to a time when they were kids, and the Doctor that filled their childhood TV screen is the one they associate with that time. Of course, the actual argument is made moot by people like Nic [the webmaster of www.who-central.co.uk], who at the age of 15 (its 4 years since this was written! Apologies Nic!) has not had the benefit of regular, small screen Dr Who since he was 3 years old. When we first got in touch about this series of articles, he cited Pat Troughton as his favourite Doctor. He's had the benefit of viewing video releases and re-runs, with no preconception of a particular era. His viewpoint of Dr Who is not tainted by the rose-tinted lens of his youth. So that's one reason why the debate is so ridiculous in the first place. Another is that part of the longevity of Dr Who has been the concept of regenerating the title character. A believable premise has been laid down, and has created the rationale that the Doctor's appearance AND personality can change beyond recognition (although Davros seems to manage, with alarming regularity, to recognise the Doctor after a regeneration).

There is no character guideline to say who the Doctor is, and so the idea of a "best", or indeed "definitive" portrayal is redundant. It's not like James Bond, where there is a clear blueprint for the character, in the form of Ian Fleming's original novels. Many people agree that Connery is the best Bond, but he has an advantage over his successors in that he is the only Scot to have played the part, which is introduced as a Scot quite early in the original novels.

So can we ever ascertain whether there is a "best" Dr Who? I would say not, because there are no real indicators. Although the show reached its highest regular viewing figures during Tom's tenure, we should remember that more people had TV's than in Billy's day. Conversely, Tom's greatest enemies were the Daleks, whilst Sylvester's was Coronation Street. Tom Baker had scripts written and edited by the late, great Douglas Adams, Colin had scripts written and edited by Eric Saward. This is not meant as an insult to Eric's work, which is as much apart of Who history as Adams, Holmes, and Dicks, but remember that Douglas was responsible for The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. With all due respect, how well-known is Saward outside of Dr Who?

Therefore, I put it to you, dear reader, that to debate whether Sly was better than Paul, or Tom better than Pat, is a pointless argument, and one that will never be resolved satisfactorily. I think all those who want to pursue such a question will have to settle for "Which Doctor do I like best?". If anyone asks me who my favourite Doctor is from now on, I'll refer them to Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart, who summed it up succinctly when he said "Splendid chap - all of them!"

Of course, since this article was written in about 2001, we've had another 2 Doctors. Although I would argue that Ecclestone's Doctor was weak when the scene contained humourous elements, both he and David Tennant have followed the tradition of being completely different, but comfortingly familiar. So I think the argument still stands.