Of Wizards and Time-Lords

[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.

[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?