Well two episodes into this series 7 part two / (mini) series / series 8 without actually calling it series 8 but actually is because bbc are tight arses and can't be bothered to have a full series in 2013 whilst fobbing us off with anniversary stuff, and one thing has already become very apparent to me. We are due for another "oooo who is the mysterious woman with the doctor? Lets ignore the integral essence of Doctor Who and focus on finding out who Clara is."

We had the same thing with River Song, with the tedious story arc and having things focused on the Ponds and their daughter. What ever happened to the essence of Doctor Who? Tardis materialises on alien planet, Doctor and assistant explores, they discover people in distress/trouble caused by alien monster, Doctor comes up with ingenious way of defeating monster and saving the day. Its called Doctor Who for goodness sake, not Whos the Doctors Assistant.

On a positive note, I actually like Clara and I think she is shaping up to be a great, if not possibly the best companion of new Who, I just wish she was just that. The companion.

I enjoy both River and Clara so I don't see your point.
Didn't care for Amy and Snory.

I know what you mean. Season 4 was so much about Donna and why she was so special and then you had Season 5 and 6 exploring what was so special about Amy

Now Season 7 part 2 is about what is so special about Clara

I would like the show to go back at some point by including a special word that is mentioned a lot throught he series or something like they did with Bad Wolf, Torchwood and Mr Saxon.

I think a lot of people here are missing the point. The companion is the second lead character in the show, so of course and downright naturally, some of the plotlines will concern them. The days of them standing around, looking pretty and screaming on cue are gone. This is how modern television works for crying out loud. And the Doctor gets enough as well, so it's not like he's being shortchanged either.

I'm not disputing they are the second lead, nor that they shouldn't get a prominent role, I'm just bored of the mystery stories that for some reason have come to the forefront of the Doctor Who storyline. Why do they have to have a mysterious story about them? Can't they just be normal without some wierd wibbly wobbly time disturbance about them?

We've had several "normal" companions from various eras. A few mystery ones here and there is hardly going to hurt the show and Clara does come across as a normal girl with a mystery. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

The first episode had to reintroduce her. After that, she got less attention than either Martha or Rose had had. She had to share her first two-parter with Martha, she shared her second two-parter with River Song, and she shared her finale with everyone but the kitchen sink - it was Rose who got the location filming to say goodbye again too (not that I would have had Donna's tragic exit filmed in any other way). Sure, she got to star in a Doctor-lite episode that focused on her a bit... but only because she was pretty much absent the week before. Donna didn't get enough screen time if you ask me.

Where Clara is concerned, we're only two episodes into her narrative. We got her in different forms on two previous occasions, which meant we got to explore a character that was, at the time, not a companion. I think it's one of the limited strengths of Series 7, to have established a companion with so much depth already. I think we should wait to see more episodes to see how it's all going to pan out - I can bet people's complaints about her hogging the limelight will be left sounding melodramatic.

-

And in general I'd say there's always a very good balance. Fans can be so demanding - they want to maintain the mystery of The Doctor and not make everything about him, but then they'll complain when we're exposed to a companion instead. They tried taking a different route and focusing on a bunch of guest stars in the 2009 specials, but then everyone complained about that too saying there was no consistency. Some people are just too hard to please.

While everyone is focusing on the companion and talking about her mysterious background, The Doctor is slipping into the shadows, don't you see how that would work?

But...normal companions are boring..i LOVE a mystery to solve Its how i couldnt get "into" Rose nor Martha...whereas with Donna there was some intrigue I ADORED The Ponds and now with Clara brilliant i just wonder where it all leads and i lvoe it.

There was a lot about Rose as well which people seem to forget. I've seen this issue raised by people who only pin it to Moffat's era without realising RTD did it just as much.

Anyway OP they tried the whole alien planet, person in distress, monster blah blah last week and i think it went ddown as the most hated episode of Doctor Who in recent history

Later in the year we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the show starting in 1963. Back then the show was as much about Ian, Barbara and Susan as it was about Billl Hartnell's First Doctor.

So if the show's as much about the companion now as it is about the Doctor it's just continuing a fine old Doctor Who tradition.

I seem to recall that right the way back to 1963 the show was predominantly focused on the companions, namely Ian and Barbara. We shared their adventures in the TARDIS, awaiting the Doctor's explanations. The wonders and horrors of history and other worlds were seen through their eyes rather than the Doctors.

Moffat has said that Clara's mystery will be resolved by the end of this series, so you can all calm yourselves down. She'll be a normal companion from the 50th onwards.

Didn't he also say the Silence arc would only span 2 series also?

It makes sense to have the companion as the centre of the narrative because that is the character that anything can happen to. The Doctor has to remain essentially mysterious, so they're very limited what they can reveal about him, and indeed do to him. Furthermore, the Doctor can't even go through any actual character development; he must always remain essentially the same; he's cast in stone as a character. So making it all about him means you can't get any real character-based drama into the stories. I love the classic series, perhaps more than the modern series, so don't get defensive with me for saying this, but it's actually one of the biggest problems with the old episodes - they're focused on the Doctor but the character actually has nowhere to go. It was perhaps RTD's biggest masterstroke to change this element with the reborn show. It was such a great idea that yes, you can expect it to always be the norm from here on in.

HOWEVER

The companions stories still need to be tied essentially to the Doctor and the influence he has on their lives. For me, this is where they went wrong with the Ponds in their last two seasons. After their initial season Amy's story was pretty much told (and Rory only ever had a story as far as he was attached to Amy; he was part of her story, so to speak) and the two of them were just there. Sure, it became a love story between the two of them but it had nothing to do with the Doctor. In fact he often seemed extraneous. For me, the character became very redundant and I went from loving Amy Pond in her first season to a sense of relief when she left. I'm enjoying this new series with this new companion who actually has a relevant connection to the Doctor again; where the show is actually about the process she goes through with the Doctor.

In fact, the Ponds overstaying their welcome pretty much brought me round to the RTD model: one companion per season. That's enough to show their story unfold and then move on before the character becomes only the plot and expository device that the technical aspect of the script requires. Because that is when it really does become boring.

Yes. And as far as we know, it did.
We don't know if the Silence will feature at all in all this Fields of Trenzalore business.

This "essence" as you call it, has been almost entirely absent from the rebooted series which has always focussed on the companion: particularly series 1 and 4. It is also true that the Doctor has been less of a fixer of problems in new-Who, this is particularly true of series 4 where he failed to fix anything in Planet of the Ood, The Unicorn and the Wasp, Midnight, Turn Left and Stolen Earth/Journeys End. His role in the Sontaran double bill was fairly peripheral as well. Undoubtedly the reason for this was that RTD had given him an arc - "The Doctor learns that pacifism makes warriors of your friends." and so the series needed people to make sacrifices for him. I disliked this aspect of series 4: the Doctor has always been a solver of problems for me, I also found the arc unconvincing for obvious reasons: the Doctor was 900 years old, been through a "time war" and many more battles and had had plenty of time to consider his philosophical position on war and his involvement in it.

And this is essentially the problem - you can't develop the Doctors character, he's been through too much and wouldn't be as wise or clever if he hadn't. So inevitably the character that develops has to be the companion.

I like the fact that Moffat has made the Doctor more of a fixer of problems and a do-er of good - better to be a "Good Man" than simply a "Wonderful man". The Beast Below and The Rings of Akaten have a common thread in that in the Companions first TARDIS trip they, rather than the Dr, solve the problem; I suppose it is a way of justifying their status as TARDIS companion - surely better than the classic series where companions were plucked from their lives with very little rationale (apart from the ability to scream ) ?

One final thought - isn't your "essence" more like a straightjacket ?

All this is so true! If you watched the recent companion special that was on the 31st of march they even said "the show is just as much about the companion if not more so than the doctor, it's relatable, enjoyable, and just helps you become attached so Steven Moffat can break your heart(s) easier.

In the classic series, the Doctor very often wasn't the 'fixer' of a problem anyway, he just mixed things up enough to trigger an avalanche of consequences. The Onion AV Club do semi-regular reviews of classic episodes, and they often highlight where the Doctor hasn't actually made any difference to events - for example where the villain gets his comeuppance through his own arrogance, or his plan being fundamentally flawed.

In that sense, lots of stories are still about watching an unfolding story through the eyes of the Doctor and his companion.

I keep thinking back to that line in "The Doctor's Wife" where Idris tells him something about "I took you where you needed to be".

I guess that could be used to explain all manner of convenient coincidences in the Whoniverse.