Katherine Pulaski

You may be looking for the 1987 British television series called Pulaski.

Character
Name:	Katherine Pulaski
Occupation:	doctor
Relationships:
Fandom:	Star Trek: TNG
Other:	Memory Alpha; Wikipedia
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Katherine Pulaski is a Star Trek: TNG character, the head doctor aboard the Enterprise. She is portrayed by Diana Muldaur.

Pulaski replaced the character of Doctor Beverly Crusher for the second season after Gates McFadden's contract was not renewed. Crusher returned and replaced Pulaski in the third season, reprising her role as for the remainder of the series.

The actress who portrayed Pulaski first appeared in an episode of Star Trek: TOS, as well as was in another Roddenberry product, Planet Earth.

Fanworks

Sample Fan Art

• 

  Lana Brown for Scorpion Publications Star Trek: TNG Calendar (1988)

• 

  Constance Simms for The Celestial Toybox #5 (1989)

• 

  from the Star Trek: TNG zine, Eridani #6 (1989), artist is Julie Nosal

• 

  Warren Oddsson for Atavachron v.7 n.2 (1992)

Sample Fanfiction

• there are several stories (Eridani)
• In the Mind's Eye by Lorraine Goodison (Make It So #4)
• Non Sequitur in Beyond the Farthest Star #4
• A Little Kindness Keeps on Going and Going by Sadie Maxwell (Haven #2)

Fan Comments

A 1988-1989 Discussion in "Interstat"

Mainly, my comments concern the new season of ST:TNG. I have found it a great disappointment, with the episodes shown so far (5 at this writing) being, in my opinion, flat and basically dull. My major "beef" is with the role of the doctor. I have no quarrel about Diana Muldaur's acting ability, and she's a great person, but there's no fire in the character anymore, and even if the scripts do improve her role as far as lines, the chemistry and ensemble to which Gates McFadden so richly contributed last season has been squandered, and it negatively affects the entire show tremendously. It isn't too late, though. Doctor Pulaski, or whoever, is still a "guest appearance" —hope remains alive—I'm really lonely for the excitement I used to feel all day Saturday—waiting—Come on, Mr. Roddenberry—give her back!

But let's look at what makes Kate Pulaski a radical departure: her inability to accept Data. This is a character trait that could not be depicted in Classic Trek, because twenty years ago the audience would not have had the perspective to accept it. She is the well-intentioned good person who would never cause harm to a living being; she just has trouble perceiving certain individuals as living beings. In 1966, a futuristic "Miss Anne" could not have been presented as a sympathetic character, and of course Classic Trek did not have a situation into which they could put such a character that would not have her unaccepting of Vulcans or such, too close to people who still could not accept blacks and other minorities. What is so clever here is that Pulaski carries over the Classic Trek attitude toward machine intelligence, a "given" in the original series: you may use it, you may interact with it, but the more intelligent it is, the less you dare allow yourself to rely on it. See "The Changeling," "The Apple," "The Ultimate Computer," and all other variations on the same theme. By giving Pulaski this particular blind spot—she doesn't seem to have any problem with Klingons, for example—TNG can get away with it because it is Trek criticizing Trek!

With Deanna and Dr. Pulaski aboard, I propose that the name of the show be changed to 'Beauty and the Bitch.' Diana Muldaur does a good job with what she is given to do, but what she is given to do is not something I care to watch. Let's face it, picking on Data is remarkably like kicking a puppy. Jean Lorrah's defense of Pulaski was ingenious, but I think she (Pulaski, not Jean) is just a plain bitch. Or, to be more exact, she's a bully. Like all of her breed, she unerringly zeroes in on the one member of the group incapable of fighting back.

[one example of TPTB interjecting both personal and professional opinion was a long, long letter written by Richard Arnold on official Paramount stationary, excerpts]: I have bitten my lip and stayed out of the Interstat discussions on TNG for a long time now, hoping that, once the show had been on for a while and the fans had had a chance to see where we were going, things would cool down. And for the most part they have, There are still a few fans upset with us over the Dr. Crusher situation, but for the most part the fans seem to have accepted Dr. Pulaski. And there are still a few fans who insist that every episode we do is a rip-off from an episode of the original series ... well, you can't please everyone. I do object, however, to the smear tactics used by some fans in their letters, in particular when they go after me because they do not like the answers they get from me in response to their letters. I have been a STAR TREK fan for more than twenty years, and I like to think that, if nothing else, I brought my love for the show with me to this job. I do not 'defend' Gene and our writers on the grounds that I am paid to, but because I believe in what they are doing, and am close enough to it to see what is happening (something I wish I could share with all of the show's fans). When a fan writes in attacking the show (I do not use the word lightly ... some letters are so vile even you wouldn't print them), I try to reason with them. That sometimes works, and then sometimes it doesn't. In one case, one I believe you are familiar with, because I wouldn't agree with her, the fan in question sent out a scathing letter about me and the show to every fan club she could find an address for, around the world.... As for the letter in #137 from another fan who apparently was unhappy because I wouldn't agree with him, it is the same set of circumstances. He wrote in a letter making accusations and giving examples that were pointless. I responded that in both of his examples he had misunderstood the dialogue or point of the story to which he was referring. And because I wouldn't say he was right and our science was @$*C&!, he too felt it necessary to go after me in print (although he wasn't fair enough to at least run my entire response, which would also have, in my opinion, exonorated me with most of your readers, especially if they had read his original letter). There is nothing I or anyone else on this show can do to avoid this ... there will always be people who will decide that their right to be right is more important than your right, and that disagreeing with them is grounds for nothing short of slander. Too bad, because that goes against everything that STAR TREK has ever stood for.

As to the good doctor...stand back kiddies, this could get ugly. The character of Dr. Pulaski is a festering boil on the nether regions of Star Trek. I realize that when they replaced Gates McFadden, a most heinous mistake, they had in mind a more assertive, ascerbic character that would add spice to the 24th century equivalent of Up With People. What they got was a woman I affectionately refer to as psycho-bitch from hell. She is pompous, self-righteous, opinionated, bigoted, abrasive, and in the case of Data, downright cruel. It makes me shudder to think that in Gene Roddenberry's oh, so rosy vision of the future, a person so sure that her limited concept of what is and isn't a representative of humanity holds a position of such high authority. At her best, Katharine Pulaski is Dr. McCoy with chronic PMS, at her worst she is the personification of a narrow-minded intolerance that we have been led to believe extinct in the 23rd century, let alone the 24th. If our future is to be polluted with Katharine Pulaskis, it makes you consider a post-nuclear anarchy a viable alternative.

1989

I've read a fair number of number of letters, mostly in Starlog, bemoaning the departure of Dr Beverly Crusher from the crew of NCC—1701-D, letters that described her as the best character in the aeries* the warmest character on the ship, and whatever would the series do without her?... and I've wondered what the writers of those letters saw in the character that I did not. Dr. Crusher was far and away my least favourite character in TNG, certainly the one I found least convincing. She was supposed to be brisk and matter-of-fact, but I felt she was too off-hand and casual in her approach; that if I needed medical attention from her, I'd get it - eventually, when she got around to bothering. In other words, it was her job, not her vocation. How much of this was the actress herself, and how much the direction - "Remember you're supposed to be matter of fact! You’re being too emotional!" - I couldn't begin to guess.

Pulaski, on the other hand, is brisk and matter of fact, but she gives the feeling that she does care about her patients (or potential patients). With her - as with McCoy - it is a vocation. So far, her relationship with Data is the most marked; she is very aware that he is a machine, and treats him very much as she would one of the ship's computers. On the other hand, she does not seem to have any prejudices against aliens, just as long as they are living people. She is a much stronger character than Beverly Crusher (not that that would be difficult), and I like her.

1990

Yes, that's right, Pulaski! I have to say that I kind of miss her on TNG, although I would prefer Beverly Crusher for my doctor if I happened to become ill on NCC1701-D (of course, I'd really prefer McCoy, but one has to take what one can get).

If I was to criticise TNG at all in regard to their representation of women, it would he about the traditional positions that women fill; that all of the major characters are either in serving or care-giving roles. Doctor, psychologist, bar maid. Tasha could have been great as their security chief officer but the job deteriorated into the secretarial "Hailing frequencies..". Something could also be said about the fact that all the women are beautiful. In fact, in the casting guide Beverly was described as having the "natural walk of a strip tease queen"!!

And why, perhaps more importantly when a woman is less than beautiful does she have to be a bitch? Kate Pulaski and the "Minder" in The Dauphin are two such examples.

Finally, it is interesting how throughout the entire Star Trek saga the "powers that be" seem to have difficulty with the concept of people having a happy marriage and a career. Ever noticed how, in general, the women are called by their first names, eg Deanna, Tasha, Beverly, and Janice, and yet the men are generally referred to by their last name, eg Picard, Riker, Kirk, McCoy, and Chekov. I know this isn't always true, but it is more often than not.

1998

God, no, you're not the only one [who misses Pulaski]. I can name three...no, four, no five *immediate* friends who'd have all paid good "protection" money to Paramount to keep Pulaski. Yes, there were similarities with McCoy. And, yes, she had a personality that had some spine, and some existence besides just "being nice to male persons when they were suffering emotional nurture deprivation." I was already annoyed with Trek for their handling of Troi, Crusher, and Yar...and just about quit for keeps when the replaced Crusher with someone as interesting as Pulaski, only to give her the hook as soon as they could. Pretty much confirmed what I thought--that they *really* wanted mindless babes who were just great at eating chocolate and holding hands. (No, Yar didn't usually hold hands--but she was still an emotionally dependent little girl with a crush on her "Daddy-captain" and a lot of nice, submissive/worshipful patterns to keep all that nasty chick-aggression safe.)