Of Wizards and Time-Lords

[Lalwendë]

Something to think about: Davros. If Gandalf is analgous with the Doctor, and Saruman with the Master, is Davros more Sauron or Melkor?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Something to think about: Davros. If Gandalf is analgous with the Doctor, and Saruman with the Master, is Davros more Sauron or Melkor?

Interesting thought. I'd say there are elements of both:
-as Morgoth was the "creator" of Orcs (corrupter of Elves/Men), Davros is the "creator" of Daleks (corrupter of Kaleds)
-as Sauron acted to "improve" an existing creature (Orcs into Uruk-hai), Davros acted to "improve" the Kaleds - by making them into a "superior" race
-like both Dark Lords, Davros is more dangerous because of his plans and the forces he can muster at his disposal than he is as a combatant - he is dangerous, and so were Morgoth and Sauron, but personal confrontation was rarely how they operated. That being said, Davros stories tend to involve personal confrontations between Davros and the Doctor. The exception I suppose is Remembrance of the Daleks where they communicate remotely but never actually come into each other's presence
-I'd say in some respects Davros is more like Sauron in that his nihilistic tendencies are outweighed by his power-lust. For instance in Genesis of the Daleks he tells the Doctor that he would willingly commit genocide because it would make him like a god: that seems more Sauron-like than Morgoth-like to me - Morgoth, at least by the end of his character arc, would I think commit genocide out of pure hatred rather than because it made him feel powerful/important. But that might be a stretch.
It's a tough one. I think he evokes elements of both characters. At the same time, however, the crucial difference is that Davros is vulnerable to his own creatures: in Genesis he is attacked by the Daleks, in Destiny they merely want to use him to outwit the Movellans, in Resurrection, Revelation and Remembrance he only controls one Dalek faction, at war with another. There's certainly no comparison in Professor Tolkien's fiction: it would be as if Morgoth or Sauron were threatened by their own Orcs, an absurd idea.

In that respect Davros too might be more like Saruman: both are "genetic engineers" (Saruman developed his own Uruk-hai and his half-orcs) and both are betrayed by servants (the Daleks and Wormtongue respectively).

I've actually seen it argued that Davros is more accurately the Doctor's opposite number than the Master is (in a theory which perceives Davros as the more complex antagonist and the Master as more of a stock "evil twin" character). So in that respect Davros may indeed be more like the Saruman to the Doctor's Gandalf. That being said, the Master's penchant for hypnotism evokes Saruman's Voice. So it's complex.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Something to think about: Davros. If Gandalf is analgous with the Doctor, and Saruman with the Master, is Davros more Sauron or Melkor?

I would go with Melkor as a Davros comparison. Davros saw himself being immortalised through his creations, that the spread of the Dalek empire was analogous to the success of his creation. Much like Melkor's power being dissipated into his servants, and into the earth itself, one could see that as a parallel to being so invested in the spread of the military force and influence that it takes over his life.

Originally Posted by Davros, Genesis of the Daleks

To know that life and death on such a scale was my choice... To know that the tiny pressure of my thumb - enough to break the glass - would end everything... Yes! I would do it! That power would set me up above the gods! AND THROUGH THE DALEKS, I SHALL HAVE THAT POWER!

The whole 'set me up above the gods' seems very Melkor-like. Back in the music, Melkor wished for his own creations and ideas to dominate the theme, he wished to conquer others and replace them with his own.

Sauron might be better seen as the Cybermen. He is the master of other wills, can influence thoughts and twist them to his own devices, removing that which he dismisses as irrelevant. He would create a world under his mind, a single mind controlling all.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

So, for anyone who is interested, I did my talk on this very topic at Oxonmoot!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xGU2I2uxGQ

If anyone wants the full transcript just ask and I'll send it to you.

[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.

[Galadriel55]

Instead of working on my final assignments, I've been watching the Fourth Doctor. Thinking I'd extend the pleasure of procrastination, I revisited this thread and found this gem.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Something to think about: Davros. If Gandalf is analgous with the Doctor, and Saruman with the Master, is Davros more Sauron or Melkor?

Basing my answer mostly on the Genesis of the Daleks, I'd say Davros is neither Sauron nor Melkor - perhaps a bit of a Saruman, but to me he seems more like a Boromir who did not succeed (or perhaps try) in resisting the Ring. He bites the bait of power and military victory, thinking that he can use this power to shape armies that would bring down a formidable enemy. He lives with a sense of superiority over others, and looks at strangers with arrogance and a pinch of ethnocentrism. But in the end, he ends up biting more than he can chew - his power runs away from him, he is unable to control it and limit it to his own intentions. He becomes the puppet of his own creation, his own doing. Davros, in that episode, is the picture of Boromir had he taken the Ring.

In the episodes of New Who, this analogy doesn't really fit anymore. I was somewhat confused about who he was and what he did in the Tenth Doctor's episodes, but in The Magician's Apprentice / The Witches Familiar (one of my all-time favourites), he really is more of a Saruman. He has the nominal respect of the Daleks, and they do serve him - and obey him, to an extent - but really he is the one dependent on them, while they would live on perfectly fine without their leader. He wouldn't dare command anything too preposterous because his authority is so shaky, like Saruman did not really have authority over the Ruffians. They pillaged and plundered what they would - with Saruman's name and blessing - but had Saruman told them to actually risk their lives for something, that would have been the end of his rule. And weak and powerless, he rejects help and redemption, and is finally overcome by his own servants whom he had put down for too long - Wormtongue for Saruman and the Sewer Daleks for Davros. Mind you, Davros probably still isn't dead, but definitely foiled by his discarded "children".

Maybe they are the same. Maybe Saruman is indeed a Boromir who took the Ring, and Davros in Genesis is just Saruman when he starts out while in Magician's Apprentice he's the Saruman in the Scouring of the Shire. I suppose Davros is a combination of Saruman's appreciation of lore/science, and the tendency to study things by dissection and remake them his own way, and Boromir's lust for battle glory and the greatness of Gondor.

In unrelated news, I may be needing a new scarf.

[Galadriel55]

With all the talk about Saruman characters, I can't believe this scene has not been discussed yet (searched the thread, didn't come up, but might have missed a small mention).

I was just reading Scouring of the Shire - Formendacil's CbC posts prompted a haphazard reread - and I was reminded forcibly of S3E13 Last of the Time Lords ending (can watch here and here). It just struck me how similar is the role of forgiveness is in both cases - the weaker but wiser character making the whole world-wrecking campaign worthless because he forgives the revenge instead of responding to it. I think both are great examples of the power of forgiveness and non-aggression (hey kids, wanna end bullying? ).

There are a lot more things in common between the two scenes, the forgiveness aspect just struck me first. The angry vengeful petty character destroys the world most beloved by his perceived adversary (in fairly similar ways too if you think about it). Following a massive rebellion the angry character loses power and is condemned to an exile from the world / sphere of influence he formerly had. The suffering populace desires his death and even attempts execution, but is stopped by the wise sad character, who forgives the angry character's destruction and even attempt at his own life, offering understanding, pity, and hope of redemption. However, what no one realized is that the most desperate person around, the one driven to the furthest extremes, is the closest companion and partner of the angry character - and the companion is finally driven too far and unexpectedly kills him. The passing of a great being reduced to petty revenge is a sad event, but only the wise sad character really understands just how much of a loss it is. Now which story did I just describe?