what it basically comes down to is that a character introduced later into a series has more of a burden of proof than a character introduced from the start. Because we the audience bond differently with characters we know from the beginning, versus ones introduced into an already developed dynamic; we're more inclined to be hostile. So Keller is being subjected to a double standard, but it's not because she's a female character, or a doctor, but because she's a newcomer.
Oh, absolutely! Actually, I think that's the best point anyone has made so far. Fans ABSOLUTELY do this. It's a huge part of why I didn't like Jonas in SG1, or Alex in Invisible Man. It's irrational and unfair and totally, totally a part of fanning. The new character feels like an interloper and they're resented for taking screen time away from established characters. It has nothing to do with the character's personal qualities and everything to do with the fact that they're not established and they feel out of place in the established cast.
And I honestly think I'd feel better about this whole debate if people would just admit that this is a big factor in what's going on here, rather than trying to rationally prove that the character is poorly written, poorly acted, poorly conceived, etc. This makes those of us who have warmed up to her feel as if we are being criticized, because if this character is objectively bad, and we still like her, what does that imply about us?
The only place where I'm going to disagree is that I really do think it comes down more to fan reaction than to the writing for the character. Granted, mistakes were made (to use politics-speak), but I'm really not sure if there was any way they could have written Keller that would have won over the fanbase with the character as conceived. Maybe the problem is that the character concept is flawed, but when I look back on, say, Jonas, I'm not sure what they could have done with that character to make the fans like him.
Re: second part
Oh, absolutely! Actually, I think that's the best point anyone has made so far. Fans ABSOLUTELY do this. It's a huge part of why I didn't like Jonas in SG1, or Alex in Invisible Man. It's irrational and unfair and totally, totally a part of fanning. The new character feels like an interloper and they're resented for taking screen time away from established characters. It has nothing to do with the character's personal qualities and everything to do with the fact that they're not established and they feel out of place in the established cast.
And I honestly think I'd feel better about this whole debate if people would just admit that this is a big factor in what's going on here, rather than trying to rationally prove that the character is poorly written, poorly acted, poorly conceived, etc. This makes those of us who have warmed up to her feel as if we are being criticized, because if this character is objectively bad, and we still like her, what does that imply about us?
The only place where I'm going to disagree is that I really do think it comes down more to fan reaction than to the writing for the character. Granted, mistakes were made (to use politics-speak), but I'm really not sure if there was any way they could have written Keller that would have won over the fanbase with the character as conceived. Maybe the problem is that the character concept is flawed, but when I look back on, say, Jonas, I'm not sure what they could have done with that character to make the fans like him.