Of Wizards and Time-Lords

[Pitchwife]

*raises hand* Pretty please?

[Galadriel55]

So I am watching this show - nothing big, you know, just to pass the time, uh, several hours a day... It makes chemistry class more entertaining: CARBOXYLATE! PROTONATE! PRECIPITATE! Anyway, can't comment on classic Who or the last two Doctors - I've only just finished the second season of New Who, but here's a couple other things.

It's been said over and over again in cross-fandom references that the Ring is a Horcrux. Well, in a way, the TARDIS is the Ring. Or a ring. For one thing, it's not just your regular piece of technology; it's not just made, it's more alive than a collection of metal parts (dunno if the rest of the series reveals more about that). It has a sort of mind and abilities of its own... not sure if I want to call it alive, but like the Rings of Power (especially the One Ring), it certainly has some sort of independent conscience. However, it seems to be tied to to the Doctor's life as well. The TARDIS doesn't work properly without the Doctor, and the Doctor isn't complete without the TARDIS, almost like they share some part of their collective being. The Doctor without the TARDIS is like a Ring-bearer without a Ring: they may be special, but they lost the primary thing that channeled their "special" into something physical.

Looking into the TARDIS is dangerous, like it's dangerous to wear a Ring of Power without having adequate strength of will to control it. Unlike the Ring, though, the TARDIS doesn't have evil motivations, if I may say so, but rather it would help you do the good that you want to do. While the Ring gives power to do evil and eventually corrupt oneself completely, the TARDIS is like a judge of right and wrong who grants you temporary power to fulfill a wish if that wish is right.

Finally, on a more superficial level: immortality!


Regarding the Doctor himself, he seems to me the stuff of tragic heroes. Pick any tragedy from the legendarium, and there will be a parallel. (Though he reminds me most of the narrator in The Book Thief - not gonna spoil the book for you if you haven't read it, but they are so alike it's almost disconcerting). Elves have been mentioned as a parallel, but I don't think the mortal/immortal relationships have been explored yet. Classic case is the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen, or even the death of Beren. Much though the Doctor resembles Gandalf, he doesn't have the same sort of calmness and wisdom. He's wise, and he'd do the right thing even if it kills him, but he lacks a certain peace or faith that Gandalf has. Since I mentioned Luthien, I wonder if the Doctor would give up immortality for a companion. He'd die to save others' lives, but to just stop being immortal. Give up being a Time Lord. I don't know.


And last but not least: bananas! A good source of potassium!

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Anyway, can't comment on classic Who or the last two Doctors

Your analysis here is pretty interesting. I'd never really seen the TARDIS as comparable to a Ring, although I think it's an intriguing comparison, and other ideas about externalising power definitely would appear as well in Doctor Who if one looked around.

I'd also argue that it's probably going to be a different kettle of fish comparing Professor Tolkien's work with Classic than it is with New because I think in some respects the two different eras of the show have quite different sensibilities, so some things might be more comparable to things in Classic, others to things in New.

Classic is partially contemporaneous with Professor Tolkien's own lifetime as well so it's possible that their concerns could be closer from a contextual point of view.

In that regard it's possibly also worth considering the influence the Peter Jackson films might have had on New given the resurgence of interest in "fantasy" in the early 2000s as a result and the fact that Doctor Who at times is more like "science fantasy" than "science fiction".

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Finally, on a more superficial level: immortality! [...] Elves have been mentioned as a parallel, but I don't think the mortal/immortal relationships have been explored yet. Classic case is the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen, or even the death of Beren. Much though the Doctor resembles Gandalf, he doesn't have the same sort of calmness and wisdom. He's wise, and he'd do the right thing even if it kills him, but he lacks a certain peace or faith that Gandalf has. Since I mentioned Luthien, I wonder if the Doctor would give up immortality for a companion. He'd die to save others' lives, but to just stop being immortal. Give up being a Time Lord. I don't know.

The theme of mortal/immortal friendship and even marriage was explored at some length in the latest season (or series, as they call 'em now). We learned that while the Doctor can't give up being what he is, he went to such lengths to bring a companion back from the dead that he had to have his memory wiped of her for his own good and the stability of all of time and space. Watch it, it's very moving stuff (and Peter Capaldi is the best Doctor since the reboot).

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

And last but not least: bananas! A good source of potassium!

Do watch series 8 and 9, they have lots of bananas...

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Watch it, it's very moving stuff (and Peter Capaldi is the best Doctor since the reboot).

I thought we weren't meant to make value judgements about Who in this thread? (I do agree as it happens; or at least Capaldi in Series 9 and Matt Smith in Series 5 are the most Doctorish the Doctor has been in New Who in my opinion...)

The "moving" aspect is worth considering and adds weight to throwing the Peter Jackson films into the mix, in my view. Professor Tolkien's work has traditionally been seen, whether it's true or not, as "plot driven" fiction. Classic Doctor Who was also very much primarily a plot driven show for most of its run time. Modern Doctor Who is much more character driven, and it could certainly be argued that Peter Jackson's films embellished the characterisation of Professor Tolkien's characters for the sake of drama.

I think it's quite reasonable to see Modern Doctor Who as an "adaptation" in its own way of the original show, just as Peter Jackson's films are adaptations of Professor Tolkien's narratives. They both exist, in my view, as part of an ongoing trend in popular culture of the adaptation and reinvention of nineteenth and twentieth century fiction as "dramas" with twenty first century sensibilities and narrative priorities. Sherlock Holmes and Star Trek have undergone the same treatment.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I thought we weren't meant to make value judgements about Who in this thread?

I am duly chastised and apologize for my unchecked outbreak of personal enthusiasm.

I would have chosen a different verb for what Peter Jackson did with (or to) Tolkien's characters - distort and denigrate come to mind - , but I can't fault your observation that contemporary storytelling seems to be more driven by character than plot. In the case of Doctor Who and Sherlock I happen to enjoy the results - but then at least with regard to New Who I'm in the same position as a fan of Jackson's movies who has but a cursory knowledge of the books. (J.J. Abrams's reimagination of Star Trek is a slightly different thing in my opinion - I don't feel there was a lack of characterisation in the original series, although it wasn't emphasised so much, and the shift to more character-driven stories started with The Wrath of Khan. I find Abrams's take on the characters refreshing, but so far his movies have been too much preoccupied with "How much stuff can we blow up in 120 minutes?" for my taste, like many a recent Hollywood action movie.)

To get a little more back on topic, the Doctor of New Who hasn't been free of moments of hubris ("Time Lord Victorious" in The Waters of Mars), and last season's The Girl Who Died / The Woman Who Lived showed him saving a girl's life with not so pleasant consequences for the girl. I've been thinking about what his desire to save people might turn him into if unchecked by companions, Time Lords and his own wisdom, and was reminded of Gandalf if he had taken the Ring - still doing good, but making good itself seem hateful. What do you think?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

To get a little more back on topic, the Doctor of New Who hasn't been free of moments of hubris ("Time Lord Victorious" in The Waters of Mars), and last season's The Girl Who Died / The Woman Who Lived showed him saving a girl's life with not so pleasant consequences for the girl. I've been thinking about what his desire to save people might turn him into if unchecked by companions, Time Lords and his own wisdom, and was reminded of Gandalf if he had taken the Ring - still doing good, but making good itself seem hateful. What do you think?

I've got a long way to go before I get to any of the things you've mentioned, but there is one very related parallel that I noticed so far. The Doctor is often alluded to as a godly being, and for good reason. Beyond his knowledge and abilities and life span, he also frequently ends up in a position where he has power over people's lives, and his judgement decides their fate - if they get to live or die, if they get a second chance, if they deserve any mercy. And in these moments I always end up thinking of Gandalf's famous lines ("many that live deserve death, etc"), and sometimes I think that the Doctor's judgement is too harsh. However, it's all good for Gandalf to tell Frodo to reserve judgement and show more compassion when granting mercy doesn't result in the imminent end of the entire universe. It's not like the Doctor lacks compassion; on the contrary, I feel like each time he has to make one of these judgments he condemns himself for having to carry them out. But I also think that lately (middle of series 3) he's more authoritative and less flexible in that role. I suppose constantly having the weight of the stupid little humans and the entire universe on your shoulders does that to you.

(To contrast with Gandalf - he was not the only Istar, though he did remain the last truly faithful one. But even so he always knew that there are powers beyond him who will not allow the end of the world to happen. The Doctor doesn't have that luxury.)

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

I would have chosen a different verb for what Peter Jackson did with (or to) Tolkien's characters - distort and denigrate come to mind

Again, I was merely trying to use neutral language

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

To get a little more back on topic, the Doctor of New Who hasn't been free of moments of hubris ("Time Lord Victorious" in The Waters of Mars), and last season's The Girl Who Died / The Woman Who Lived showed him saving a girl's life with not so pleasant consequences for the girl. I've been thinking about what his desire to save people might turn him into if unchecked by companions, Time Lords and his own wisdom, and was reminded of Gandalf if he had taken the Ring - still doing good, but making good itself seem hateful. What do you think?

I think this also serves as an interesting comparison. I wonder if in Classic Doctor Who the Doctor is more like characters like Gandalf, Galadriel or Faramir who deny that kind of power? One sequence which came to mind is this humorous exchange from the end of Season 16 serial "The Armageddon Factor" in which the Doctor has reassembled the fabled "Key to Time":

The Doctor : "We have the power to do anything we like. Absolute power over every particle in the universe. Everything that has ever existed and ever will exist. As from this moment - are you listening to me Romana?"

Romana : "Yes of course I'm listening..."

The Doctor : "Because if you're not listening, I can make you listen. Because I can do anything. As from this moment there's no such thing as free will in the entire universe. There's only my will because I possess the Key to Time."

Romana : "Doctor, are you all right?"

The Doctor : "Well of course I'm all right... but supposing I wasn't all right?"

The Doctor, despite being threatened by the evil Black Guardian, then scatters the pieces of the Key across space and time once again so that no one can wield that power.
Similarly, at the end of Season 6 and during Season 23, when the Doctor is put on trial for his actions of "interference", as the audience we are positioned to strongly side with the Doctor. It's only in the New Series that the Doctor is shown as going "too far", which is typically the domain of villains in Professor Tolkien's work. At the most the idea of the hero going "too far" in Middle-earth might be comparable to Boromir, but unlike the Doctor (or the characters who resist the Ring's temptation) he's more of a warrior than a man of wisdom (although the New Series would often like to sell us on the idea that the Doctor is a "warrior" but personally I consider this a misinterpretation of the original character on the part of the modern writers; note that even in Series 5 of the New Series the Doctor described himself as a "space Gandalf", but the writers fell back on a more "dramatic" idea of "the Doctor as a warrior" by the end of that Series and for Series 6, parts of 7 and parts of 8).

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Beyond his knowledge and abilities and life span, he also frequently ends up in a position where he has power over people's lives, and his judgement decides their fate - if they get to live or die, if they get a second chance, if they deserve any mercy. And in these moments I always end up thinking of Gandalf's famous lines ("many that live deserve death, etc"), and sometimes I think that the Doctor's judgement is too harsh.

You usually get one chance to repent/make amends with the Doctor; forfeit that, and you're screwed - nicely illustrated in series 8's Flatlines, which has the Doctor tell the 2-dimensional aliens invading 3-dimensional space:

Originally Posted by The Doctor

I tried to talk. I want you to remember that. I tried to reach out, I tried to understand you, but I think that you understand us perfectly. And I think you just don't care. And I don't know whether you are here to invade, infiltrate or just replace us. I don't suppose it really matters now. You are monsters. That is the role you seem determined to play. So it seems I must play mine.The man that stops the monsters.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

It's not like the Doctor lacks compassion; on the contrary, I feel like each time he has to make one of these judgments he condemns himself for having to carry them out. But I also think that lately (middle of series 3) he's more authoritative and less flexible in that role. I suppose constantly having the weight of the stupid little humans and the entire universe on your shoulders does that to you.

That's the one series of New Who I haven't watched yet (David Tennant with Martha Jones/Freema Agyeman, right?), but based on what I know that's a good observation. He's going to acquire a new companion soon who'll do her damnedest to humanize him a little more.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

(To contrast with Gandalf - he was not the only Istar, though he did remain the last truly faithful one. But even so he always knew that there are powers beyond him who will not allow the end of the world to happen. The Doctor doesn't have that luxury.)

Correct.

Zigûr, thanks for your quotes from Classic Who (which, among other things, serve to show me how much I have to catch up with)! I think your post touches on one great difference between those nineteenth/twentieth century narratives you mentioned above and their contemporary retellings: whether it be Tolkien's work, Classic Who, Sherlock Holmes or Star Trek, the difference between heroes and villains is mostly clear (maybe actually a bit less in Tolkien that the others?), whereas in their modern versions we meet questionable heroes and villains who are often heroes gone horribly wrong. In the words of our own Hookbill: "What if there are no heroes but only villains who win?" - A lot less uplifiting, but closer to our ow experience, I'd say.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

although the New Series would often like to sell us on the idea that the Doctor is a "warrior" but personally I consider this a misinterpretation of the original character on the part of the modern writers

Agreed. At most I think he works like a martial artist using the enemy's strength to deflect their attacks.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

It's only in the New Series that the Doctor is shown as going "too far", which is typically the domain of villains in Professor Tolkien's work.

Hmmm, ok. When I said that, I was under the influence of a couple specific episodes (most strongly The Lost Bride and the two-episode sequence where the Doctor is an academy headmaster). The Doctor generally does not go too far, and he usually hates having to go as far as he does. For a few episodes in this series he just seemed more comfortable than usual in his "Turambar" role. I just watched the ending and the next special, though, and there he is back to the Doctor of series 1 and 2 - more like Gandalf and less like, oh, I don't know. Who would give out judgement in Eru's name?

Originally Posted by Zigur

At the most the idea of the hero going "too far" in Middle-earth might be comparable to Boromir, but unlike the Doctor (or the characters who resist the Ring's temptation) he's more of a warrior than a man of wisdom (although the New Series would often like to sell us on the idea that the Doctor is a "warrior" but personally I consider this a misinterpretation of the original character on the part of the modern writers; note that even in Series 5 of the New Series the Doctor described himself as a "space Gandalf", but the writers fell back on a more "dramatic" idea of "the Doctor as a warrior" by the end of that Series and for Series 6, parts of 7 and parts of 8).

Haven't got there yet, but if I had to pick a "category" for the Doctor, geek would come waaaaay before warrior. He doesn't travel around to save people; he travels because that's the only thing he has left to do, but then he ends up in a situation where he must save himself and everybody else. He does end up landing on doomsdays quite often. He's like Faramir in that sense: he'd give all he has when he must, and he'd bring down judgement when he must, but he doesn't love the sword for its sharpness. He likes outsmarting the problem, figuring it out, not chopping it down. I don't really see him as a warrior; he'd hate that role. He just doesn't believe in unnecessary killing.

There was one episode where they called him the rage and fire and storm... Perhaps, when he is reeeeally traumatized by something, to the point where he half loses his mind, perhaps then that could be true. But that description just doesn't fit his regular self. It's like Galadriel, when Frodo offers her the Ring - "beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth" - she certainly could be all that, but she does not, and neither does the Doctor (at least in the 3 seasons I've seen).

Maybe, in several months, when I've actually watched the entire show, my Doctor comments would be more grounded. Now, I don't have enough of an impression of him in all his incarnations, so I feel like every new episode swings my perception around.