Bernard Marx wrote:As someone who wasn’t a fan of the Davison era’s overall passivity, occasional skewed morality and relative dullness (I don’t hate it as much as you, but it’s easily my least favourite of TruWho), I suppose season 22 came across as a breath of fresh air all things considered.
I think for me it was the opposite. Because I wanted some kind of corrective made to Davison's sometimes defective Doctor, the temptation was to just go with the Sixth Doctor over-correction, only for that itself to leave me more uncomfortable at what actions I'd been goaded by the era to approve and go along with. It just didn't feel right and for me added to the era's moral confusion rather than fixed it.
And yes- it would be difficult to reconcile RTD’s Who with season 22 (or even the Hinchcliffe era), given the abject hypocrisy displayed by Tennant’s incarnation concerning his stance on pacifism and how he seemed to cling to it at every moment (only to go back on it multiple times, and with little genuine recognition of such by the scripts at hand).
The thing is, I do think Eccleston's Doctor (and to a degree early Tennant, circa-series 2) did initially seem to act as his rash instincts dictated, not unlike how Tom did (hell sometimes it felt like Eccleston's Doctor was closer to the thuggish, abusive version of the Sixth Doctor described in fan complaints than even the Sixth Doctor himself was).
But then with Series 3 onwards, the writing of him seemed to instead fall back to 'he takes that sanctimonious stance now because that's what the wonderful, perfect Doctor would do and should be seen to do'. Even if, as you say, it often was contrary.
Concerning fandom’s reaction- I can certainly buy your assessment of it, although I still find it bloody pathetic that fandom perceives Doctor Who as a religion as opposed to a piece of TV, and that remaining a “believer” was all that mattered in the grand scheme of things (hell, it isn’t just fandom, but the NuWho production team in general, as evidenced by the likes of Last of the Time Lords).
Pathetic certainly, but then a lot of moral gatekeeping seemed to happen in fandom in the wilderness years (particularly among the writers' clique), so it just seemed to become the idea that to be a fan and in that particular club meant having the right sanctimonious beliefs, politics and positions, and making sure the Doctor was always written in accordance with them.
Besides, I think it was very easy for fans who felt the show was now being belittled on every point, to now feel they had to make even more of a virtue of what made the show morally superior in terms of why it deserved to return, and why TV wasn't the same without it.
Even at a time in the 90's when if anything, most popular entertainment seemed to be stressing liberal values all the more- even action films like Rush Hour, Fight Club and the Star Wars prequels seemed to be making a point of stressing the importance of 'reasonable force'..... which I think meant Doctor Who fandom had to double down all the more obtusely about how the show had to be morally superior even to that.
The bizarre thing is that I actually prefer the overall tone and direction of season 21 to seasons 19 and 20 due to the increased grit and urgency, although I think that season 20 has the more consistently good set of stories on average.
I get what you mean. It's like they put something of the righter punctuation into Season 21 (in a way that makes it feel more 'complete' than its immedite predecessor), but the problem (at least for me) was the content it was punctuating usually wasn't really there, and sometimes the gritty action punctuation was over-administered to unpleasant excess.
Season 20 I'm afraid for me almost felt as depressing and nihilistic as Season 21, but it did have the masterpiece Enlightenment to ultimately save it.