![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
DW Essay: Time Lord Nature. (Handlebars and Marble House)
Now I’m calling this an ‘essay’ although really it’s more a series of interconnected lines of thought or... something. Inspired by ‘Marble House’ (It’s all ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
hollywoodgrrl’s fault!!!), it focusses on the Doctor - who he is, what he is, what he can and can’t and won’t do, and why. And how these issues are in many ways illuminated by John Smith and the two-part episode he features in.
There are no definitive answers here, I’m just poking around in this utterly fascinating character, turning him around and looking at the different facets. It feels horribly disjointed to me, but I’ve been fiddling with it for weeks now and I’m getting fed up of re-writing.
(Btw you need to have watched Handlebars and Marble House, otherwise a lot of this will probably make no sense. Because they are brilliant and shocking in ways that words can't do justice.)
Spoilers up to and including 4.13 (Journey’s End). No spoilers for CoE. (Although I'm sure they'll show up in comments.) Mostly deals with Ten, obviously, and written before Waters of Mars aired.
Time Lord Nature. (Handlebars and Marble House)
Master: What did it feel like, though? Two almighty civilisations burning. Oh, tell me, how did it feel?
Doctor: Stop it!
Master: You must have been like God.
Doctor: Off we go! The open road! There is a burst of starfire right now over the coast of Meta Sigmafolio. Oh, the sky is like oil on water. Fancy a look? Or…back in time. We could…I don't know, Charles II? Henry VIII? I know! What about Agatha Christie? I'd love to meet Agatha Christie! I bet she's brilliant!
The Doctor’s godlike qualities/un-humanity is deeply woven into both ‘Handlebars’ and ‘Marble House’, but the aspects they highlight are different.
Firstly though, I think that when looking at the-Doctor-as-God it is a very old idea of Godhood we have to grapple with. The Doctor is like one of the deities from Mount Olympus, coming down ‘disguised as a human’ but with an outlook and agenda that is utterly his own.
When it comes to Handlebars I keep naming him ‘the Vengeful God’ which isn’t quite true, but I can’t think of a better term. He is, however, for the most part a friendly god, someone who loves humankind and helps them. Someone who desires peace and harmony and will go so far as to put his own life on the line to achieve this. And all is well, as long as you don’t anger him.
Because if you do, he can destroy you, completely. The power he has is truly terrifying.
‘Marble House’ shows the flip side to this. ‘Save us!’ the world cries. But his answer is ‘No’; he goes back to his mountain. And not just that:
...he is dancing.
John Smith and the Doctor
First of all, I have to quotescarlettgirl, because she has nailed it:
The choice of 1913 England was *perfect* for Ten. As so many have noted, John Smith embodied so many stereotypical "Time Lord" qualities: arrogance, casual cruelty, racism and an implacable sense of what is "right". And, when you think about it, 1913 England was a time period when values and morals were very fixed, they had yet to shaken by the class upheaval's brought on by war, everyone knew their place and right was right and wrong was wrong. There was very little grey in that black and white world. For the TARDIS to pick that time and that persona says an awful lot about her knowledge of *her* Doctor. She was looking out for him by placing him in a time and place that he would feel comfortable and adjust to without question because on some, deep level it harkened back to the society he knew as a child and we all know how those deep, primary memories shape us. He wouldn't waste valuable time or resources questioning the society because on an elemental level, it felt *right*.
This reminds me ofaycheb once talking about TV shows, and what they say about their country’s heritage, since she described the Doctor as ‘the Scion of Empire’, which I still think is a wonderful title. Because the Doctor *is* that Englishman, travelling the world and marvelling at the wonders, whilst at the same time not questioning his own superiority.
(It even reflects in the names by which their ‘empires’ are known: The Shining World of the Seven Systems/The Empire on Which the Sun Never Sets.)
Now the interesting stuff of course comes from the differences. The Time Lords were not interested in empire per se. ‘Sworn never to interfere, only to watch’ the Doctor explains, and it is easy to see why this would be very frustrating.
So the Doctor jumps in, time and time and time again, to help people when they can’t help themselves - when the odds are wildly uneven, he’ll be the champion who tips the balance.
But - and this is a great part of ‘Marble House’, and something I’ve been thinking about ever since I first saw it - he will not save people from themselves. Does not interfere in the wars humans wage against each other.
Could he? Well there is this:
Donna: But that's what you do. You're the Doctor. You save people.
The Doctor: But not this time. Pompeii is a fixed point in history. What happens happens. There is no stopping it.
Which could be weighed against this:
The Doctor: You’re changing history!
The Master: I’m a Time Lord. I have that right.
The Doctor isn’t the Master however. He sees it as his duty to keep history in place, however much he doesn’t like it:
Donna: You can't just leave them!
The Doctor: Don't you think I've done enough? History's back in place and everyone dies.
Of course Pompeii was particularly bitter, since he discovered that *he* was the one to set the volcano off, but still... allowing something to happen, and actively causing it, are separated only by degrees. If you have the power to stop something, does that make you guilty?
This is where we get into ‘How can God be good if the world is such an evil place?’ - how can the Doctor be the good guy when he allows so much badness to happen?
This is also the point to pull back from the the-Doctor-as-God metaphor. The Doctor isn’t omnipotent. Whenever he's been offered unlimited power he has refused, horrified at the prospect. So, apart from the question of what changing history would entail, it’s a fact that he *can’t* fix everything. So he chooses his battles, as I said above. Helps mankind when something threatens it from the outside, but does not help mankind in its own struggles. I think the reason is twofold.
One: It’s not his place, and he knows it. Humans don’t like it when he interferes with their internal affairs. Just look at Harriet Jones (’What does that make you, Doctor? Another alien threat?’), or Yvonne Hartman (‘Oh, exactly as the legends would have it. The Doctor, lording it over us. Assuming alien authority over the rights of Man.’). Would there be a way of helping without imposing his own will? I don’t think so.
Two: He can’t change human nature, and without doing that, the same patterns are bound to repeat, as we well know.
It’s a catch-22, and one he’s probably well aware of. Other sci-fi shows have tackled this too of course, just look at ‘Serenity’ (‘They think they can make people better’), ‘Watchmen’ (‘No! You haven't idealised mankind but you've... you've deformed it! You mutilated it. That's your legacy. That's the real practical joke.’) or Angel (‘Hey, I didn't say we were smart. I said it [free will] is our right. It's what makes us human.’)
Humankind has to be free to make its own choices, for better or worse. That is it’s most fundamental right, and not one that the Doctor interferes with lightly.
But not interfering comes with a heavy price.
No weapons (?)
The Doctor is famous for not carrying weapons.
Look! No weapons! Never any weapons!
‘The Doctor’s Daughter’
Oh yes. Harmless is just the word. That's why I like it. Doesn't kill, doesn't wound, doesn't maim.
‘Doomsday’
The man who abhors violence, never carrying a gun.
‘Journey’s End’
Having pondered the Doctor a lot in the light of ‘Empire’ I think there is more to this, because he is undoubtedly *dangerous*. The Daleks didn’t call him ‘The Oncoming Storm’ for nothing. But the no-weapons rule isn’t just about being unwilling to kill, although that is a big part of it. It is also about not being *expected* to kill.
Because the story I’ve had in my head for days now is Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant, where the ‘protagonist’ gets caught up in being a representative of the British Empire, and feels he no choice but to kill the elephant in question.
The Doctor, I think, sees this danger of representing ‘Authority’ very clearly, and continually plays up his non-violent role and how people should follow his example (or, rather, do as he says, not as he does):
DOCTOR: Hang on, hang on, a second ago it was peace in our time, now you’re talking about genocide!?
GENERAL COBB: For us, that means the same thing.
DOCTOR: Then you need to get yourself a better dictionary. When you do, look up genocide. You’ll see a little picture of me there and the caption will read 'Over my dead body'!
Doctor: I never would. Have you got that? I never would! When you start this new world. This world of Human and Hath... remember that! Make the foundation of this society. A man who never would!
Those statements ring awfully hollow when you know anything at all about the Doctor’s history. He ‘never would’? Hm, let’s ask the Family of Blood about that, shall we? ‘Over his dead body?’ Well I suppose that destroying the Daleks and the Timelords *did* involve him dying, so technically that’s correct. (And if Donna hadn’t called to him we know he would have died when killing the Rachnoss.) Still... he’s quite the hypocrite. (And I can’t explain how much I love that Jenny calls him on it!)
The problem is of course that he has principles, but over and over again has to break them. And that other people, inspired by him, will fight for him.
Davros talked about ‘showing the Doctor himself’:
But this is the truth, Doctor: you take ordinary people and you fashion THEM into weapons. Behold your Children of Time transformed into murderers. I made the Daleks, Doctor. You made this.
The term ‘children’ for the Doctor’s companions is a very good one, because in so many ways they truly are his children, ‘created in his own image’:
- Sarah Jane. Always looking for a peaceful solution, ready to kill herself to save the world.
- Rose. The Bad Wolf, destroyer of the Daleks.
- Martha. Never carrying weapons, but ready to destroy her own planet to save the universe.
- Donna. Not just seeing more clearly than anyone else just what the Doctor is, but literally *becomes* him.
- And Jack, of course, the most tragic of all, doomed to walk the Doctor’s path, step by painful step.
But the thing is - they all do it out of love.
...
Now I’m going to take a step sideways for a moment, and talk about the difference between the book that ‘Family of Blood’/’Human Nature’ are based on, and the TV episodes.
In the book the 7th Doctor chooses to become human to better understand human suffering - because of his companion, who’s suffered a loss. And the bad guys follow, unbeknownst to him.
I can see why people like this story, but it is not a story for Ten. I love that he hides himself out of kindness, because he doesn’t want to kill the Family. And that that action has such far-reaching consequences.
What should he have done? There is no right answer. And that might be why I love the show so much, because that catch-22 sits right at the heart of the character. In trying to save everyone he often ends up causing more misery than if he’d just pre-emptively killed the ‘bad guys’. And yet, if he killed people without giving them a chance, we could never call him a hero... (Because we do. *Is* he a hero? Can a man with so much blood on his hands ever be held up as an example?)
I love how his dancing at the end of ‘Marble House’ comes across as almost obscene. How can he be dancing when there is so much suffering? When he could help?
Yet at the same time I can’t help loving him. I makes me happy that he is delighting in all the worlds out there, that he is so utterly not human.
(Or - maybe that's what makes him human after all?)
Really, Tim Latimer said it best:
"He's like fire and ice and rage. He's like the night, and the storm in the heart of the sun. He's ancient and forever. He burns at the center of time and he can see the turn of the universe. And... he's wonderful."
If I love him despite - or because of - everything (or both), I’m not quite sure. I think it's maybe the fact that he never stops. Never stops running away, true, but also never stops believing that there is some good in this world, and that it's worth fighting for.
Although I think I shall let the Master have the final word:
“The cosmos without the Doctor scarcely bears thinking about.”
hollywoodgrrl’s fault!!!), it focusses on the Doctor - who he is, what he is, what he can and can’t and won’t do, and why. And how these issues are in many ways illuminated by John Smith and the two-part episode he features in.There are no definitive answers here, I’m just poking around in this utterly fascinating character, turning him around and looking at the different facets. It feels horribly disjointed to me, but I’ve been fiddling with it for weeks now and I’m getting fed up of re-writing.
(Btw you need to have watched Handlebars and Marble House, otherwise a lot of this will probably make no sense. Because they are brilliant and shocking in ways that words can't do justice.)
Spoilers up to and including 4.13 (Journey’s End). No spoilers for CoE. (Although I'm sure they'll show up in comments.) Mostly deals with Ten, obviously, and written before Waters of Mars aired.
Master: What did it feel like, though? Two almighty civilisations burning. Oh, tell me, how did it feel?
Doctor: Stop it!
Master: You must have been like God.
Doctor: Off we go! The open road! There is a burst of starfire right now over the coast of Meta Sigmafolio. Oh, the sky is like oil on water. Fancy a look? Or…back in time. We could…I don't know, Charles II? Henry VIII? I know! What about Agatha Christie? I'd love to meet Agatha Christie! I bet she's brilliant!
The Doctor’s godlike qualities/un-humanity is deeply woven into both ‘Handlebars’ and ‘Marble House’, but the aspects they highlight are different.
Firstly though, I think that when looking at the-Doctor-as-God it is a very old idea of Godhood we have to grapple with. The Doctor is like one of the deities from Mount Olympus, coming down ‘disguised as a human’ but with an outlook and agenda that is utterly his own.
When it comes to Handlebars I keep naming him ‘the Vengeful God’ which isn’t quite true, but I can’t think of a better term. He is, however, for the most part a friendly god, someone who loves humankind and helps them. Someone who desires peace and harmony and will go so far as to put his own life on the line to achieve this. And all is well, as long as you don’t anger him.
Because if you do, he can destroy you, completely. The power he has is truly terrifying.
‘Marble House’ shows the flip side to this. ‘Save us!’ the world cries. But his answer is ‘No’; he goes back to his mountain. And not just that:
...he is dancing.
First of all, I have to quote
scarlettgirl, because she has nailed it:The choice of 1913 England was *perfect* for Ten. As so many have noted, John Smith embodied so many stereotypical "Time Lord" qualities: arrogance, casual cruelty, racism and an implacable sense of what is "right". And, when you think about it, 1913 England was a time period when values and morals were very fixed, they had yet to shaken by the class upheaval's brought on by war, everyone knew their place and right was right and wrong was wrong. There was very little grey in that black and white world. For the TARDIS to pick that time and that persona says an awful lot about her knowledge of *her* Doctor. She was looking out for him by placing him in a time and place that he would feel comfortable and adjust to without question because on some, deep level it harkened back to the society he knew as a child and we all know how those deep, primary memories shape us. He wouldn't waste valuable time or resources questioning the society because on an elemental level, it felt *right*.
This reminds me of
aycheb once talking about TV shows, and what they say about their country’s heritage, since she described the Doctor as ‘the Scion of Empire’, which I still think is a wonderful title. Because the Doctor *is* that Englishman, travelling the world and marvelling at the wonders, whilst at the same time not questioning his own superiority. (It even reflects in the names by which their ‘empires’ are known: The Shining World of the Seven Systems/The Empire on Which the Sun Never Sets.)
Now the interesting stuff of course comes from the differences. The Time Lords were not interested in empire per se. ‘Sworn never to interfere, only to watch’ the Doctor explains, and it is easy to see why this would be very frustrating.
So the Doctor jumps in, time and time and time again, to help people when they can’t help themselves - when the odds are wildly uneven, he’ll be the champion who tips the balance.
But - and this is a great part of ‘Marble House’, and something I’ve been thinking about ever since I first saw it - he will not save people from themselves. Does not interfere in the wars humans wage against each other.
Could he? Well there is this:
Donna: But that's what you do. You're the Doctor. You save people.
The Doctor: But not this time. Pompeii is a fixed point in history. What happens happens. There is no stopping it.
Which could be weighed against this:
The Doctor: You’re changing history!
The Master: I’m a Time Lord. I have that right.
The Doctor isn’t the Master however. He sees it as his duty to keep history in place, however much he doesn’t like it:
Donna: You can't just leave them!
The Doctor: Don't you think I've done enough? History's back in place and everyone dies.
Of course Pompeii was particularly bitter, since he discovered that *he* was the one to set the volcano off, but still... allowing something to happen, and actively causing it, are separated only by degrees. If you have the power to stop something, does that make you guilty?
This is where we get into ‘How can God be good if the world is such an evil place?’ - how can the Doctor be the good guy when he allows so much badness to happen?
This is also the point to pull back from the the-Doctor-as-God metaphor. The Doctor isn’t omnipotent. Whenever he's been offered unlimited power he has refused, horrified at the prospect. So, apart from the question of what changing history would entail, it’s a fact that he *can’t* fix everything. So he chooses his battles, as I said above. Helps mankind when something threatens it from the outside, but does not help mankind in its own struggles. I think the reason is twofold.
One: It’s not his place, and he knows it. Humans don’t like it when he interferes with their internal affairs. Just look at Harriet Jones (’What does that make you, Doctor? Another alien threat?’), or Yvonne Hartman (‘Oh, exactly as the legends would have it. The Doctor, lording it over us. Assuming alien authority over the rights of Man.’). Would there be a way of helping without imposing his own will? I don’t think so.
Two: He can’t change human nature, and without doing that, the same patterns are bound to repeat, as we well know.
It’s a catch-22, and one he’s probably well aware of. Other sci-fi shows have tackled this too of course, just look at ‘Serenity’ (‘They think they can make people better’), ‘Watchmen’ (‘No! You haven't idealised mankind but you've... you've deformed it! You mutilated it. That's your legacy. That's the real practical joke.’) or Angel (‘Hey, I didn't say we were smart. I said it [free will] is our right. It's what makes us human.’)
Humankind has to be free to make its own choices, for better or worse. That is it’s most fundamental right, and not one that the Doctor interferes with lightly.
But not interfering comes with a heavy price.
The Doctor is famous for not carrying weapons.
Look! No weapons! Never any weapons!
‘The Doctor’s Daughter’
Oh yes. Harmless is just the word. That's why I like it. Doesn't kill, doesn't wound, doesn't maim.
‘Doomsday’
The man who abhors violence, never carrying a gun.
‘Journey’s End’
Having pondered the Doctor a lot in the light of ‘Empire’ I think there is more to this, because he is undoubtedly *dangerous*. The Daleks didn’t call him ‘The Oncoming Storm’ for nothing. But the no-weapons rule isn’t just about being unwilling to kill, although that is a big part of it. It is also about not being *expected* to kill.
Because the story I’ve had in my head for days now is Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant, where the ‘protagonist’ gets caught up in being a representative of the British Empire, and feels he no choice but to kill the elephant in question.
The Doctor, I think, sees this danger of representing ‘Authority’ very clearly, and continually plays up his non-violent role and how people should follow his example (or, rather, do as he says, not as he does):
DOCTOR: Hang on, hang on, a second ago it was peace in our time, now you’re talking about genocide!?
GENERAL COBB: For us, that means the same thing.
DOCTOR: Then you need to get yourself a better dictionary. When you do, look up genocide. You’ll see a little picture of me there and the caption will read 'Over my dead body'!
Doctor: I never would. Have you got that? I never would! When you start this new world. This world of Human and Hath... remember that! Make the foundation of this society. A man who never would!
Those statements ring awfully hollow when you know anything at all about the Doctor’s history. He ‘never would’? Hm, let’s ask the Family of Blood about that, shall we? ‘Over his dead body?’ Well I suppose that destroying the Daleks and the Timelords *did* involve him dying, so technically that’s correct. (And if Donna hadn’t called to him we know he would have died when killing the Rachnoss.) Still... he’s quite the hypocrite. (And I can’t explain how much I love that Jenny calls him on it!)
The problem is of course that he has principles, but over and over again has to break them. And that other people, inspired by him, will fight for him.
Davros talked about ‘showing the Doctor himself’:
But this is the truth, Doctor: you take ordinary people and you fashion THEM into weapons. Behold your Children of Time transformed into murderers. I made the Daleks, Doctor. You made this.
The term ‘children’ for the Doctor’s companions is a very good one, because in so many ways they truly are his children, ‘created in his own image’:
- Sarah Jane. Always looking for a peaceful solution, ready to kill herself to save the world.
- Rose. The Bad Wolf, destroyer of the Daleks.
- Martha. Never carrying weapons, but ready to destroy her own planet to save the universe.
- Donna. Not just seeing more clearly than anyone else just what the Doctor is, but literally *becomes* him.
- And Jack, of course, the most tragic of all, doomed to walk the Doctor’s path, step by painful step.
But the thing is - they all do it out of love.
...
Now I’m going to take a step sideways for a moment, and talk about the difference between the book that ‘Family of Blood’/’Human Nature’ are based on, and the TV episodes.
In the book the 7th Doctor chooses to become human to better understand human suffering - because of his companion, who’s suffered a loss. And the bad guys follow, unbeknownst to him.
I can see why people like this story, but it is not a story for Ten. I love that he hides himself out of kindness, because he doesn’t want to kill the Family. And that that action has such far-reaching consequences.
What should he have done? There is no right answer. And that might be why I love the show so much, because that catch-22 sits right at the heart of the character. In trying to save everyone he often ends up causing more misery than if he’d just pre-emptively killed the ‘bad guys’. And yet, if he killed people without giving them a chance, we could never call him a hero... (Because we do. *Is* he a hero? Can a man with so much blood on his hands ever be held up as an example?)
I love how his dancing at the end of ‘Marble House’ comes across as almost obscene. How can he be dancing when there is so much suffering? When he could help?
Yet at the same time I can’t help loving him. I makes me happy that he is delighting in all the worlds out there, that he is so utterly not human.
(Or - maybe that's what makes him human after all?)
Really, Tim Latimer said it best:
"He's like fire and ice and rage. He's like the night, and the storm in the heart of the sun. He's ancient and forever. He burns at the center of time and he can see the turn of the universe. And... he's wonderful."
If I love him despite - or because of - everything (or both), I’m not quite sure. I think it's maybe the fact that he never stops. Never stops running away, true, but also never stops believing that there is some good in this world, and that it's worth fighting for.
Although I think I shall let the Master have the final word:
“The cosmos without the Doctor scarcely bears thinking about.”
no subject
The Doctor is like one of the deities from Mount Olympus, coming down ‘disguised as a human’ but with an outlook and agenda that is utterly his own.
Like you say, there are pagan elements (and I remember at some point during TW S2 I finally managed to pinpoint my unease about the future of the Jack/Ianto relationship and it mostly came down to the fact that almost every time in Greek mythology when gods or goddesses fall in love with mortals it ends tragically...), and then there are the questions that are, I think, more naturally inherent in monotheist religions - God's will, free will, the existence of evil, all that. And then TW throws a character who is, not in his abilities, but in the essence of his being, something of a (unwilling) god into an otherwise atheistic universe as a lesson in existentialism, while still using quite a few biblical themes. It'd be fascinating to pick apart all these threads.
And Jack, of course, the most tragic of all, doomed to walk the Doctor’s path, step by painful step.
I'm still fiddling with a CoE, but really S1-3, Jack/Ianto post, and one of the things that occurrred to me in the process is that there is one major difference between Jack and the Doctor, although I'm not quite sure just how it will impact Jack in the long run. From what I've understood the Time Lords are still mortal; they have a choice in this. Jack never did...
no subject
I feel just the same! I mean, I know *some* [Christian] theology, but not enough to more than scratch the surface. The shows are just incredibly rich.
at some point during TW S2 I finally managed to pinpoint my unease about the future of the Jack/Ianto relationship and it mostly came down to the fact that almost every time in Greek mythology when gods or goddesses fall in love with mortals it ends tragically...
Oh absolutely. Well the tragedy is built-in of course, but there does tend to be an added element, something that twists it.
Like you say, there are pagan elements, and then there are the questions that are, I think, more naturally inherent in monotheist religions - God's will, free will, the existence of evil, all that.
Exactly. There's just so much there, all deeply woven in to the very fabric of the show, all these questions that humanity has always been grappling with. Which is of course what makes it great sci-fi! :)
And then TW throws a character who is, not in his abilities, but in the essence of his being, something of a (unwilling) god into an otherwise atheistic universe as a lesson in existentialism, while still using quite a few biblical themes. It'd be fascinating to pick apart all these threads.
*nods* Jack is impossible, and playing around with the impossible is quite incredible. *pokes shows* I wish I could write meta that did it all justice, but I think I veer towards fic when it comes to unravelling stuff like this.
I'm still fiddling with a CoE, but really S1-3, Jack/Ianto post
Looking forward to it!
From what I've understood the Time Lords are still mortal; they have a choice in this. Jack never did...
Oh I *know*. Have you read Salt the Earth (Five drabbles on a theme)? Heartbreaking and DARK but... damn.
Sorry, I ended up all incoherent. But Jack didn't deserve or choose his fate and it hurts worse than the Doctor. (I have Jack-meta brewing too...)
no subject
Oh I *know*. Have you read Salt the Earth (Five drabbles on a theme)? Heartbreaking and DARK but... damn.
That's... actually darker than I can reconcile with canon Jack (or the Jack in my head), but, yes, damn... Thanks for the rec!
no subject
It's all rolled up together, and it uses the Doctor beautifully to shed light on humanity!
But of course I've only seen a few episodes of the old DW so I can't really compare...
Old Who was very different in the way that the Doctor was a renegade, on the run from his people. Being 'the Lonely God' is a major shift in tone, I think. I really ought to watch some Old Who...
That's... actually darker than I can reconcile with canon Jack (or the Jack in my head), but, yes, damn...
Yes, that's my reaction too! And the way it's written the last part can be a dream, or a fantasy, or a nightmare, or real... fantastic writing.
no subject
Not much to add from me except on the "No weapons (?)" section. Particularly the Davros quote when taken in context with the events of Human Nature/Family of Blood.
But this is the truth, Doctor: you take ordinary people and you fashion THEM into weapons. Behold your Children of Time transformed into murderers. I made the Daleks, Doctor. You made this.
John Smith literally teaches his class to go to war, firing live weapons and all. And when the school is under attack he takes up a rifle and points it at the enemy. But does he fire a single round? No. He lets the boys do the fighting for him, even when they thought there were MEN hidden beneath the straw.
Not only is this proof that the essence of a Time Lord seeps into his fob watched version, but shows that the Doctor is somewhat of a coward. When he fought in the war with the Daleks, perhaps the easiest thing to do WAS to wipe away Gallifrey.
no subject
Yay! *is happy*
The way you used the quotes, it was like they were talking to each other! So perfect.
Oooh, I love how you put that, because I think that's what I try to do. (I always use a ton of quotes - often if I can just find the right ones they'll prove a point without me having to actually write anything! *g*)
Also adored the concept of the Doctor as Olympian god. A deity in a hot human-shaped body, just the way the Greeks liked it. :P
::laughs:: The show of course almost makes this point canon - OK, so he becomes a Roman God, but it's the same idea. (He doesn't fit in Christian theology at all - it's on a completely different level, even though the show of course touches upon so many of the same themes.)
Not only is this proof that the essence of a Time Lord seeps into his fob watched version, but shows that the Doctor is somewhat of a coward. When he fought in the war with the Daleks, perhaps the easiest thing to do WAS to wipe away Gallifrey.
I'm so glad you brought this up, since it's one of your points from our previous conversation that I've been pondering a lot. And I don't think I agree - well not as such. John Smith does indeed teach the boys to shoot and orders them to fight, only to falter himself, but I'm not sure this is cowardice as such. Well... I think that firstly he realises that the scarecrows *aren't* humans, and secondly I'm guessing that whatever part of him is Doctor-y would instinctively recoil (see The Doctor's Daughter' again).
Now you're right that he creates soldiers, but (as the Doctor) this is something that he does almost against his will, which is why Davros' revenge is so successful. The Doctor does not want people to fight [for him]:
JACK: Oh, don’t tell *him* to put down his gun.
THE DOCTOR: He’s not my responsibility.
JACK: And I am? (scoffs) That makes a change.
MARTHA: A gun in four parts scattered across the world? I mean, come on. Did you really believe that?
MASTER: What do you mean?
DOCTOR: As if I would ask her to kill.
Again it's that catch-22 - the Doctor inspires people to fight, but he also hates it, always wanting a peaceful solution... (It's even in his name: The Doctor... The man who makes people better. How sanctimonious is that?) He just wants to fix things, but it so rarely works.
What I love about the whole Family of Blood story is how it reflects the larger story of the Doctor - especially re. the Daleks and the Timewar. Because he had the opportunity to destroy them pre-emptively, and he didn't take it. And so in the end he had to wipe out two civilisations instead of one. I think this is his tragedy - that because he wants to help, (or because he is a coward - see the 9th Doctor and the Emperor Dalek) he usually ends up making things *worse*.
And that's all for now! :)
ETA: Forgot to mention that I started writing the fic I talked about. However it's... well it starts off very, very slowly and is centered around two OCs, so it might not be your thing at all. But, should you ever want to check it out, chapter one is here.
no subject
Have I had a proper timely response when you first replied to my comment I think I probably would have said, "There's no doubt that you are right, but in the end I'll still run around calling the Doctor a coward just because it's more interesting an explanation than "Well really John Smith couldn't shoot those scarecrows because the little kids who watch DW will see 'the Doctor' shoot a gun! But he hates guns! RTD couldn't ever get away with that." Anyway that's the type of thinking that really kills movie magic and isn't it just better to dig deep into his character and come up with a floofier explanation? Yes, yes it is. ;)
So there we have it.
Thanks again for the meta and for the Marble House rec! I really appreciate it. :D
no subject
I hope you had a lovely time! :)
Anyway that's the type of thinking that really kills movie magic and isn't it just better to dig deep into his character and come up with a floofier explanation? Yes, yes it is. ;)
Heeeee! Indeed it is. I actually sat down and watched the two eps in question last week, and the way it's portrayed is more that John becomes horribly aware of what he's doing and how utterly freaky the situation is. He tells Joan - when raising the alarm & arming the children - that 'what choice does he have?' but seeing the consequences he balks. What struck me actually was this exchange:
BAINES: War is coming. In foreign fields, war of the whole wide world, with all your boys falling down in the mud. Do you think they will thank the man who taught them it was glorious?
HEADMASTER: Don't you forget, boy, I've been a soldier. I was in South Africa, I used my dead mates as sandbags, I fought with the butt of my rifle when the bullets ran out, and I would go back there tomorrow for King and Country!
Ouroborus indeed...
Anyway, thank *you* for your fabulous vid and for making me think! :)
no subject
I'll have to think about it and get back to you later :D
no subject
no subject
Re: "a man who never would" - I also saw this as him applying a lesson he learned to himself. If he had just left the guy to the colonists and the colonists to themselves after Jenny's "death" and taken off without saying anything any further, it's very likely that the cycle of violence and vengeance, which was all both the Hath and the human colonists knew, would continue. What he did here was to try and show by example instead of just a lecture it did not have to. That you did not have to kill your enemy because he killed someone dear to you. And while there was no guarantee this would make any impression on the colonists or would make a difference, there was a chance it would, and that's all he ever does. He tries, with no guarantee of success.
no subject
Oh it's very manipulative, and yes, it's cheating considering the context. But... well, I'd say 'watch the vid', because thematically it fits. Yes, the vidder is trying to make a specific point (and not one I agree with, actually), but taking in the context - I'm thinking of the start of the vid and how the end ties in with that - it works. I know that one commenter saw it as the Doctor recoiling from the darkness of humanity (like Gwen in CoE), and that is certainly one way to read it.
Really, I'd say watch it. If nothing else then because it is *stunning* visually. :)
Re: "a man who never would" - I also saw this as him applying a lesson he learned to himself.
Oh absolutely. And I love that he says it, and what the colonists hopefully take from it. As I said, I'm just poking around in this wonderfully layered show, and the Doctor wouldn't be the Doctor if he didn't try to do the right thing every time.
no subject
He ‘never would’? Hm, let’s ask the Family of Blood about that, shall we?
Actually, in that case, he doesn't, does he? Yet again, he doesn't kill them. He doesn't even imprison for the few days/weeks till their lifespans end naturally. He punishes them by teaching them the true meaning of eternity, what they killed loads of people for. But the key thing is that he doesn't forget about them: he visits the sister every year, which suggests to me that he will free them one day once they've learnt their lesson, and let them live their last few days/weeks in peace, which is all he wanted for them from the start.
The situation reminds me of when someone is convicted with a hundred and something years in prison. They're getting the same punishment as someone who was convicted to 60 years: life imprisonment. If there was a way of imprisoning someone for exactly the number of years they deserve, which would be the number of years it takes them to learn the lesson, and then free them: would that really be wrong?
tl;dr What the Doctor did to The Family of Blood scared me and denotes ruthlessness, but I can see where he's coming from.
no subject
::beams:: I feel like I've only just scratched the surface, but I'm glad that even so it rings true... as you say, it's all very complicated - which of course is what makes it so interesting!
But the key thing is that he doesn't forget about them: he visits the sister every year, which suggests to me that he will free them one day once they've learnt their lesson, and let them live their last few days/weeks in peace, which is all he wanted for them from the start.
That's a fascinating interpretation. I like that.
If there was a way of imprisoning someone for exactly the number of years they deserve, which would be the number of years it takes them to learn the lesson, and then free them: would that really be wrong?
And now I'm pondering The Shawshank Redemption - Red's story in particular. Hmmm.
tl;dr What the Doctor did to The Family of Blood scared me and denotes ruthlessness, but I can see where he's coming from.
tl;dr *always* welcome! :) And I'm so pleased you shared your thoughts. Will have to ponder further.
no subject
That line really hit me in the gut. It's true. They allow the Doctor to destroy them, to break them into his image. They allow it because they love him. And isn't that a scary thought? The companions are complicit in their own unmaking. It's like the ultimate Stockholm Syndrome. They all love him so much that they beg him to break them just a little bit more (to paraphrase one of my favorite Faith quotes.) I think the biggest exceptions in this case would be Martha and Jack, since they both willingly walk away from the Doctor, but that doesn't put an end to it. Martha joins UNIT and gets involved with the Osterhagen project. How is that really walking away from the Doctor, in spirit? And we all know what happens to Jack.
no subject
Oh. This is a tangent, but you just reminded me of All The Pretty Little Horses, which shows how Jack does the same thing with his team, as the Doctor does with his companions (Just like the Doctor invites a companion aboard the TARDIS, Jack recruits his team, but they don't quite go on the same ride. They don't get the wonders of the universe.) Just in case you haven't seen it. It's one of those vids that I can almost not watch, but is all the more powerful for it.
ANYWAY! The Doctor. I absolutely loved Davros' revenge - it was so perfect because the Doctor (Ten certainly) takes their love for granted, even thinks he deserves it ("I love you"/"Quite right too"), and then it all gets thrown back at him, the perfect weapon for undoing him. The unravelling we see during the specials is a direct consequence of this, I'm sure. (Have you seen The Noose btw? Oh Ten! Am also influenced by this vid!)
I'll stop now.
no subject
The song for the last vid you linked me seems to fit Buffy in S6 even better than it does the Doctor. "I hurt myself because only the pain is real"? Classic S6 Buffy.
no subject
"I hurt myself because only the pain is real"? Classic S6 Buffy.
Ooooh yes. Poor, poor Buffy.