Doctor Who: Wild Blue Yonder

If you're anything like me, you have been watching Doctor Who since at least the Christopher Eccleston era, and Russell T. Davies' (RTD) return with David Tennant as the 14th reincarnation of the Doctor (formerly the 10th) and Catherine Tate as Donna Noble was met with great enthusiasm. Now, I am no expect in science fiction, and episodes that take place in the future are probably better suited for people who love that area of story-telling, but my favourite episodes are always ones that took place in the past. Notably recent examples include 'Rosa' where they visit 1960's USA, and 'Demons of the Punjab' during the partition of India. I won't go into the writing side of things because I'm no expert in producing scripts, and - additionally, while I am by no means an expert in those eras, I did enjoy the fact they went to those times and touched upon those issues - barring the alien invasions and all that!

But in the latest tenure of Doctor Who, headed by RTD where 3 specials have been written for the 60th anniversary, an episode entitled: 'Wild Blue Yonder', there was something (a few things!) that stood out to me as an avid Isaac Newton nerd. 

Before I get into the details I want to stress that I have no problem with any of the cast who took part in this episode, and that my opinions are purely due to my devotion to historical facts.

So the episode starts with a scene set in 1666 at Woolsthorpe Manor, the place Sir Isaac Newton was born and grew up. It was here that he made most of his famous discoveries while avoiding a plague that that swept across England and into Cambridge (where he was enrolled at the time). It was also during this period he recalls (in contemporary accounts) that he witnessed an apple fall from the (famous) tree, sparking a legend that projected him being underneath and hit on the head by one (a memorable myth!).

In the episode the T.A.R.D.I.S. lands on the famous apple tree where Isaac Newton (played by Nathaniel Curtis) is sat underneath holding an apple. The landing causes a multitude of apples to fall - with some landing on his head. He gets up and looks at the T.A.R.D.I.S., saying: 'Odds bodkins, what the devil?'. The Doctor and Donna poke their heads out and apologise for the landing, and ends with a comment about 'mavity' (which I'll get to in a bit).

So let's address the first (and obvious) point.

There are many comments and posts on social media talking about this, and a lot of them take the general angle of: 'It's just a sci-fi show, why are you mad?'. Some have even compared it to other previous episodes, such as 'The Unicorn and the Wasp' with the character of Agatha Christie, or 'The Shakespeare Code' with (obviously) Shakespeare (an episode that ironically has the Doctor say: 'political correctness gone mad'), saying that these characters didn't do the things they were written to do. And they are correct, Christie didn't confront giant wasps, and Shakespeare didn't deal with alien witches. 

The episode with Winston Churchill entitled: 'Victory of the Daleks' is fiction since the real Churchill never met an actual Dalek (probably because they don't exist or something). 

Agatha Christie (left) portrayed by Fenella Woolgar (right).

However, what they miss is that all of the actors who were cast to play these real life historical people were chosen because they closely resembled the person they were playing. It leads the viewer to become more focused on the story at hand - however fictional because they recognise the figure from famous paintings or photographs, whether or not the events in the episode took place or not.

In 'Wild Blue Yonder', Isaac Newton's actor notably does not resemble the real Isaac Newton from the contemporary paintings he had commissioned. 

This is by no means any disrespect to Curtis, as his acting skills (albeit for only a short scene) displayed his capabilities. But, because he does not physically resemble the real Isaac Newton, I felt a little taken out of the scene.

Now, from my understanding, there is a quota the BBC have, which basically means they need to have a percentage of 'non-white' actors in each episode. But personally, I do not think this was the way to fulfil that quota since this was only the beginning and there was more than ample opportunity throughout the rest of the run time.

As far as I am aware, most people who hear 'Isaac Newton' will have a general idea of what he looked like: white hair, brown eyes, a long nose, and...white skin. 

The history geek in me was very surprised by this, and I was confused as to why they would cast an actor like Curtis to play Newton. I will get into the other inaccuracies later, but for a show that originally started as a way to educated children on history, it seemed to have neglected this point when it came to Newton. In all the previous episodes, the real life historical characters were portrayed by actors who could not just physically resemble them, but bring them to life with realistic mannerisms - even the character of Shakespeare, who has more hair and speaks with much less eloquence than the real Shakespeare and his plays could be recognised as the famous playwright without suspending disbelief.

With much backlash from fans and history lovers like myself, there has been an attempt to turn the narrative against them, calling people who are simply in line with historical accuracy 'racists' and 'bigots'. Even the casting director accuses these same people of 'villainising' minorities, when the truth is simply that people are not so closed minded to just accept that real historical figures can be played by anyone of any race, particularly when it comes to a time-travel show that is meant to educated the audience as well as have fun with the story. Had the Doctor travelled to a location in the Middle East or North Africa and met a famous scientist or innovator from there, then nobody would have batted an eyelid - especially not about their race. In all likeliness, they would have enjoyed it and been intrigued by this person from history who they may not have known much about but who contributed in their own way to human history. 

Regarding the BBC's or RTD's choices to cast Curtis. I hear a lot about actors who are cast because they were 'the right person for the role'. Perhaps this is the case in terms of enacting the behaviour of the character, but it only comes to life if the same person physically resembles them. Vinette Robinson, looks like Rosa Parks and could play her character, Ian McNeice - while larger than the real Churchill, looks like him and could recreate his mannerisms. Again going back to the quota, perhaps this was the only way they could fulfil it, although something tells me this isn't the case...

And, much like with Shakespeare, while we don't exactly know how Isaac Newton behaved or how he displayed his personality, we get an idea based on what others said about him at the time, and how he interacted with certain situations or events that have been recorded. And, while others may not like it, we certainly knew what he looked like.

I have never agreed with race-swapping - whether that be white actors playing non-white people or vice-versa. Even actors who put on an accent, such as an English actor having a Russian accent, somehow causes them to stand out a little too much from the story. And people who are race-swapping white historical figures to non-white is just doing more of the same but in a different context, and it is certainly not going to 'right wrongs' of the past.

Now, moving on to other inaccuracies relating to the scene (and me being nit-picky about it!) 

Newton in 'Wild Blue Yonder' is wearing quite fancy clothing. In 17th century rural Lincolnshire, Newton would likely not be wearing clothes that were better suited for someone in the French aristocracy, rather plain brown, cream or black wool breeches with a white cotton shirt and black or brown jacket. To me it looks like the costume designers re-used an outfit worn by one of the main actors from BBC 'Versailles', (Louis or Phillipe!) rather than Newton, who by all accounts was a University student, but who would have been living on a sheep farm at the time. Clothes like that would have been very impractical and far too extravagant for the setting (and probably a nightmare for his family to wash!). If I was to dress him in any colour, it would be crimson!

'Mavity'. This word (which the Doctor uses) is meant as a joke, since the myth/legend has Newton being struck by an apple and crying something like: 'Eureka! 'Gravity!'. The disbelief (at least for me) comes in when people at the time already knew gravity existed, but it was Newton who coined the name 'Gravity' from the Latin word 'gravitas' which means 'weight'. Literally everyone - even Newton's poor, illiterate family knew it existed, they just didn't understand how it worked or what it really was. It just seemed a bit...odd to do this, since - as I mentioned, Doctor Who was originally a series of history lessons, so for people who don't know as much about Newton might think Doctor Who was messing with history or not taking history seriously. Even when they did a similar thing with Shakespeare after 'Ten' (Tennant) gives him the line: 'All the world's a stage', it's still an original line, and the Doctor could have done the same thing with 'Gravity', but, alas.

So, with all that said, I do not claim to be an expert in all things Doctor Who, nor do I begrudge the actor taking on the role of such a famous genius. But as far as portraying real historical people, the actors cast should at least largely resemble them, otherwise it just takes you out of the story. And I leave you to have your own opinions on the episode and its subject matter. 

Explaining Hannah Ayscough-Newton-Smith

The character and personality of Hannah is fascinating. Although the mother of Sir Isaac Newton didn't live to see her son knighted, her early years with her son are not only perceived differently by Newton biographers, but her reasons for acting in the way she did are what truly make her and Newton's relationship intriguing.

Background

Hannah Ayscough was born into a well-to-do gentry family, her brother was a clergyman, and she could read and write, although not incredibly well, she had a form of education which made her position in society higher than that of Newton's father. Her marriage to Newton's father was arranged by the two families, who took into consideration her gentry background and his families success as Yeomen. Position and money dominated the reasons for her marriage to Isaac, who was 17 years her senior. She was 19 when she married, making him around 35.

As she and Isaac settled into married life, Isaac became ill, and died only 6 months into their marriage. Hannah was at the time pregnant, and the death of her husband contributed to her going into early labour. She gave birth to Isaac Newton Jr on the 25th December 1642 (Julian Calender). His premature birth led to a curious tale he told later in life, where two women who worked at the Manor were sent to fetch a woman to see to baby Newton, but dawdled due to their expectancy that he would be dead by the time they got back, so there was no need to rush! Luckily Isaac Newton Jr survived, and he was Christened on the 1st January 1643, after Hannah worried he wouldn't live to see the new year, choosing to only Christen him if he lived to see the new year in. Then she had him named after his father, as sentiment.

I believe this must have been a worrying time for Hannah, her husband had died before the birth of her premature first child, all during a time of Civil War. She was still a young woman, who was pretty much to tend the farm with a small army of servants on her own, as well as raise a baby.

Yet for the first three years of Isaac Newton's life, he had Hannah's love, her devotion, and above all, he didn't have to share her. For Hannah however, her position as a single mother meant that she was in a vulnerable place, Civil War meant the threat of soldiers, and without a husband's security, she must have felt in danger for a long time. However, I feel that she must have felt that she couldn't do anything to establish better security for her son and herself. It wasn't until her brother, William Ayscough, the clergyman suggested a marriage to the Reverand Barnabas Smith.

Barnabas was an elderly man, over thirty years Hannah's age, but he had become a widower with no issue, and he had money and security to offer.

For Hannah, her feelings about the proposal must have been mixed. If she accepted, it would more than likely mean that should Barnabas accept Isaac into the family, Isaac's title as 'Lord of the Manor' which came with the house would be stripped from him. But how could she leave her son to marry another man? And an elderly one at that! She must have thought very carefully about how she would play this, as marriage would come with security as mentioned, but due to Barnabas Smith's refusal to have Isaac at his house, meant that Isaac would have to be left at Woolsthorpe. Isaac would certainly have benefited from the marriage to Smith, as he would keep the title, and because Smith was nearing the end of his life, would mean Hannah could inherit her share of his money, which as Isaac was the eldest, would go to him. 

Her plan was to accept, where it's believed her thinking was that Smith wouldn't last long (say a couple of years). Unfortunately for Isaac, Smith died 7 years after Hannah married him. That's seven years Isaac was deprived of his mother.

Now a lot of people think that when Hannah married, she stayed permanently at Smith's house without ever seeing her son until her return 7 years later. She did in fact visit occasionally, but it was difficult for Isaac to tell when she would. Her visits weren't consistent, and it must have broken both Isaac's and Hannah's hearts to be constantly separated over the course of the marriage to Smith.

People also seem to think that Hannah 'abandoned' Isaac. I can't think for a second, even given the era they lived, that Hannah would willingly without sentiment just leave her son and marry for the hell of it. She must have been tortured, thinking about her son back at Woolsthorpe, while she patiently waited for Smith's eminent death. Prior to her marriage, Hannah's strength to leave her son behind, and well as go through with marrying another man is astounding.

Seven years past and the Reverand Barnabas Smith pops his clogs, bidding Hannah a lovely amount of money, and a ticket back to Woolsthorpe. When Isaac heard of his mother coming back for good, he must have felt partial happiness along with uncertainty. This woman who was more of a mystery now than a mother was returning for good. Was it going to be like it was before she left? Was he going to have his mother to himself once again? In Isaac's case, the ties between mother and son had been snipped at far too many times, and the damage done to Isaac's psyche was on the brink. So when Hannah did come back, she brought in hand money, and three half-siblings.

The arrival of his half-siblings must have broken Isaac, to find his mother had had three more children. Not only that, but the time Hannah had spent caring and loving Smith's three offspring, struck deep in Isaac's heart. Where was her devotion and care that should have been given to him for the past seven years?

My idea with this is that Hannah couldn't bring herself to show too much love and affection every time she visited Isaac, perhaps this made things easier for her. Yet her bond with Isaac was permanently altered, and Isaac would later feel bitter resentment towards her and his half-siblings. Her attitude toward's his well-being must have been a strain, as Isaac's refusal to agree-to disagree, meant that they were perhaps constantly arguing. What Hannah felt best for Isaac, Isaac turned round to tell her she was wrong. Yet in all the conflict that was shared between them, Isaac inherited from Barnabas Smith his vast collection of books. (Although one of the books became known as the 'Waste Book', renamed by Isaac as a jab towards Smith who had used a couple of pages in it, and where Isaac had written his 'sins' later in his Cambridge days).

In her mind, Hannah had planned Isaac's life from the start. Even in the events following Isaac Newton Sr.'s death, she still planned for her son to carry on the ways of becoming a farmer. Yet for Isaac, he had other ideas. Hannah would find as he grew that Isaac showed no interest in farming, merely because his mind was always elsewhere that he neglected it to the point where neighbourly complaints were abound. His schooling, whilst Hannah had no objections to him learning, meant that it was for a limited time until she took him out of school to become said farmer. Isaac proving that his mother's decision was wrong, as in his mind was too often, her brother William (again) suggests that he return to school and then pursue a Cambridge education. Of course Hannah believing what is best for Isaac is not education, rejected the idea. Yet after persistence from both William and Isaac, she gives in.

In this case, Hannah's way of thinking is more to do with position rather than education. Although I'm sure she had no objections to learning, she felt that her son was not of the right position in life to strive for Cambridge. With his father's history in his, she believed that young Isaac would follow his father's path, rather than the Ayscough path, which had be been born an Ayscough, would have been completely different, as William was a Cambridge man, and men did receive a better education back then than women. But that aside, her views on education conflicting with position in society meant that her idea of a future for Isaac was much different than what happened. Of course she does eventually come round to the idea, but only after when Isaac attends Cambridge, allowing him only a small sum of money to live with.

Perhaps this is her way of showing Isaac that she was still his mother, and of course, mother's know best! If Hannah had stayed with Isaac, then Isaac as we know him wouldn't have existed. Her actions to secure Isaac's future by marrying again led to the unforeseen success he gained in life. If she hadn't have abandoned him, his mind wouldn't have been shaped in the way it did, to become completely enlightened by Classics and Philosophy, to have the mind of an inventor, a genius, the Isaac Newton that is so famous today, is perhaps the subconscious work of Hannah Ayscough.

In later years they do get along better, and on her death bed, Isaac tries his hardest to save her, but once again, she is taken away from his, this time permanently. She dies in 1679 at the age of 56, leaving her funeral to be carried out as Isaac deemed fit. She is buried next to her first husband Isaac at Colsterworth Church, a place that Sir Isaac Newton wished to be buried himself, but because of his status, and the impact he made on the world, he was given a state burial at Westminster Abbey. His wish to be buried with his parents seem to suggest his fondness for his home, but also suggests his bitter regret of his resentment towards Hannah in later life. Yet I think Hannah realised the decision about Isaac attending Cambridge brought a major impact to hers and Isaac's half-sibling's lives. His success led to financial support for relatives, and on her death-bed, I can believe that they reconciled their differences before the end. 

Hannah was a true martyr for her son, and all her children, but her impact on Isaac, although may have been seen as cruel, served justice, and her love to him may have been passed down, as his kind heart opens up with age. Family becomes something that is important to him in the last decade of his life, and Hannah's family orientated mind served to be genetic in Isaac.

Why I Am Such a 'Newtonian'

My first encounter with Isaac Newton comes from almost all children's experiences with him. They start out learning about how the apple fell on his head, to which he leaps up and cries out 'Eureka!' Boom! Gravity has been discovered. After that not much happened in my exploration of him.

Then a few years ago I joined the National Trust, and being from Lincolnshire, we (my family and I) went to several of the places nearby. One of the closest was Woolsthorpe Manor. I had no idea at the time that it had anything to do with Newton, but when I read up about it prior to visiting, I thought, 'Blimey! I had no idea Newton was a Lincolnite!' But I wasn't completely hooked (pardon) on him yet.

We went, and it was lovely. The house itself is a spectrum of information, and that first visit seemed to enlighten me further, however, I wasn't even hooked then!

It was only AFTER I had read a book from the library about him that I began to like the genius to a great height. So I decided that I'd rather like to visit WM again, which, being a NT member was no problem! The second visit was also very enlightening, it's said the more times you visit a single location, the more you learn about it, or rather, you learn more about the place and the people associated with it every time you go. And it's true! Every time I went (which was a lot!) I learned something new about Newton. And one time, I remember I went to the house and walked into his room, and the painting of him as an old man dominated the design. There, the room guide was talking about his personal life and how he never married. I asked him why, to which he replied, he was either 'celibate, or asexual'.

I thought...'What the frick does 'asexual' mean'.

It turned out that the characteristics for Asexuals were 'lack of sexual attraction'.

That was the moment I realised how amazing this guy was. Isaac Newton spoke to me on levels I had never before opened up to. The lack of sexual attraction towards anyone in his circle was something I felt I could relate to. I had never before come across an Asexual idol in my life, yet here he was, and here I am now, thinking just how much more was there to this man?

So, with Asexual enlightenment came exploration. I wanted to find out if Newton really was Asexual, and if so, what else lay in his mind, his life, his personality?

Quite a lot actually.

Well, with all my biography reading of him, and with the library at my disposal, I wanted to read his correspondence, his letters and memoirs. Everything I wanted to read about him I found at Grantham, a pleasant town I've long been day tripping to since I can remember. But now with my eyes open to Newton, I began to see him everywhere! (Seriously, if you haven't been to Grantham, Newton is everywhere you look).

At the library, I spoke to the lady who was helping me to gather books about him. And she said something that really made me think. Her words were, 'I don't like Isaac Newton personally, I find him boring.'

Boring...?
My immediate thought was, 'You've been reading the wrong biographies!'

How can anyone think Newton boring?! He is one of the most interesting people I've ever read about! Apart from discovering Gravity, he split the light to reveal colours, he invented a brand new telescope, he almost went blind by looking directly into the sun AND poking a bodkin into the back of his eye, he experimented with alchemy and went temporarily insane, his hair went white at an early age due to stress and Mercury, he spent a year at home working on the future 'Principia', making small windmills, sundials, and watermills, he changed the way coins were made, as well as becoming active detective to see counterfeit criminals hang. He also cheated, lied, and stole to get his own way, as well as being rude malicious and unsociable to practically everyone he met.

Yep I'd say he's utterly dull.

Given his persona, I'd say that, although his sexuality (or lack of) meant he never married or had children, seems to suit him better than being a family man. Given his own relatives and his upbringing I'm not surprised he stayed single.

But I would never say he was without love. There were a few women and men in his life that caused him to feel emotion on an intimate level, that which I can relate to. I, although I feel I may never have sex or get married, have not been without love as well. It's only the one man I'd ever truly loved I couldn't ever have.

However, for Newton, these conflicts didn't appear for him. In his childhood, a family friend had a daughter, Katherine Storer, who believed one day she and Newton would marry. However, this unrequited love was never to be, and she became a twice married woman to other men. The other who features most prominently, is Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, the cunning and brilliant Swiss who enthralled Newton to a new level. His impact on Newton was huge, more that people realise. Not only did he cause Newton distress when he became ill, but almost cost Newton his reputation after joining the 'Camisards'. Then Newton suffered his biggest breakdown soon after Fatio's departure from Newton's life. This breakdown led to Newton heading to London and joining the Mint, shifting his interest from Philosophy to Criminal Investigation. All the while, Fatio spirals downhill and ends up losing his reputation with said Camisards and spending three days in the pillories. Despite the promise Fatio showed to Newton, he became his own enemy. Fatio later returns to add his insult to Leibniz (who Fatio was once well aquainted with) during the Calculus Wars.

But with all the support and devotion Fatio showed to Newton throughout their four years together, Newton cast Fatio aside and realised that he was going to drag Newton down with him if he didn't get out. This and Fatio's homosexuality couldn't work with Newton's lack of sexual appetite. Although some biographers refer to Newton as a 'repressed homosexual', I believe that Newton was more asexual, if not 'homoromantic' if it pleases them. From what I've read, I believe Newton felt a love for Fatio, but due to his unwillingness to engage in the activities Fatio wanted, their relationship was doomed from the start.

As almost every Asexual will say, 'If sex without love can exist, then love without sex can too'. And if Newton was asexual, I don't think he was completely without love. And my own asexuality I can relate with him. I have found an idol who's life I can't relate completely with, although the lack of a father and a feeling of isolation, and my 100mph absent mind seem to fit nicely with his.

There is so much more I shall write on him at a later date, but the conclusion to this is that these points of his life I have such an interest for. His life is far from boring, and I seriously recommend reading about him.

Do it now.