Doctor Who Club of Australia

[Panecea]

When I said "black and white" I was referring specifically to the interaction of the characters and the constructs used to discern good from bad as you stated children ignore the finer details they identify with distinctive actions and phrases. These aspects were very "black and white" in the early days.

In regard to the layering, I was talking about the adult humour and issues, which the children wouldn't pick up on.

As for the the function of the companions, you were correct when you states that after Susan left the role of the companion changed. Instead of being used as a point of reference, they were used (and still are) as a tool for explaination. Put simply, the companions would ask the questions and the Doctor or an authoritive would answer them.

Having said this, moral "cues" are given by all the characters (both directly and indirectly) and life experience fills in the rest.

[Sulp Niar]

Yeah, I know that's what you were talking about. And now that I think about it, the Sensorites are the only aliens I can think of in the 60s with moral complexities and individuality - arguably the Monoids too, but not by much. Complexity was generally in humans... but yes.

Now that I think about it Greg, the Time Lords were manipulative and hypocritical BEFORE The Deadly Assassin. After all, didn't they condemn the Doctor for interfering with Daleks in The War Games then asked him to do so in Genesis of the Daleks?

[Greg]

[Panecea]

Either the Time Lords have great faith in the Doctor's abilities or they know he can be easily roped into carrying out missions. I've always felt that there is something important about the Doctor's past we, as observers are missing out on, what I mean to say is the reason he was picked on (and the reason he was later relied upon) by the Time Lord's has somthing to do with his bannishment. It can't have been anything too serious, otherwise he would have been imprisoned on Shada. However, bureaucracy and politics seem to influence in the Council's decisions. I can't help thinking the Doctor is a signifcant figure in the "history" of the Time Lords.

[uhumanite]

The Doctor saves many races and is not biest to his own speicies, he also has no link to the Nazi party(or any others) ideals and teachings. He has a love for life and is debateably bisexual.

nope not a facist

[charlie]

[Panecea]

Okay, If that were the case wouldn't it be more probable that the Coucil would appoint such a task to the evil outcasts first, so as to prevent their seemingly immaculate and moralistic image from being sullied?

[Sulp Niar]

Ahhh, but the Master's crap, isn't he?

In a way you're right, but from evidence we've seen, no other exiled Time Lord could possibly carry out their wishes as effectively as the Doctor. Besides which, they used the Master in The Five Doctors - though that was only cos the Doctor was captured. They could have used a future incarnation (!).

Getting back to what Greg said about the Time Lords only being hypocritical after The Deadly Assassin... I've suddenly realised that I shouldn't have been arguing this, mainly because... it's irrelevant. As I said before, I'm only pursuing this angle through the fictional world of Doctor Who here, not the sort of "80s Dalek stories stank", which has nothing to do with the fictional world and is our own interpretation of the story itself, as opposed to the ever-continuing story of the Doctor.

By the way, I really want to know who voted "yes" in this poll... mainly because, so far, no-one seems to agree with me. Hmm... probably just a joke voter.

[Panecea]

Note that I said "evil outcasts"; the term is plural. In any case your agreeing with my first point, to which charlie was adding.

As for your quest to discern a pure history, it is possible but you'd have note (at the relevent points) all the changes to the timeline, which in turn would discount certain events. Furthermore, if your going chart the Doctor's history properley then you need to take into account everthing so you know what you can discount.


The answer to your final question is simple. The majority of people voting in the poll disagree (most notablyGreg) with your use of the term "Facist" as descriptor for the Doctor. He is hypocritical on ocassion but never Fascist.

[Sulp Niar]

I know they do, that's why I wanted to know who voted that he was.

I know there have been changes to the timeline. And that ties in that surely the Doctor has been changing the timeline of OUR history, considering from '63 on he does whatever the hell he likes. BUT I don't want the return argument to that one sentence to be "it's because of the production of Doctor Who, etc.". My point is simply that we shouldn't give values to the Doctor's history which are dependent on how the story was made, and if it was the first time, as Greg said, that we saw the Time Lords intervene. Yes, it may well be, but our viewing of this has no impact on the fictional world of Doctor Who - otherwise the entire show would be like the "And a very Merry Christmas to all of you at home" moment in The Daleks' Master Plan. Furthermore, I'm not actually pursuing a history of the Doctor here, or a history of the universe (personally I couldn't care less about Dalek history and UNIT dating, for example). I'm investigating the Doctor's personality here, what drives and motivates him. Not his history.

Yes, I meant to write more about the outcasts thing. From what WE know, there is only the Rani, the Master, possibly Omega, Zero, erm, Morbius (of a sort)... a bunch of nutters most of them, and most of them really terrible. Then there's Chronotis/Salyavin, who's even more useless (and on his last life). The Master was on his last life too (although somehow Borusa could offer him more regenerations; possibly he was just lying). So from what WE know, the Time Lords would be stupid to use anyone but the Doctor. But, since before I was talking about how what WE know isn't the be-all end-all, it's true that their could be more outcasts that we've never heard of that they could use.

I'm not simply saying the Doctor is fascist. Okay, I'll admit that's what the thread title says. But that's just because it would have been an arse to call the thread, "Does the Doctor have elements of fascism to his personality and motive?". That's the question I'm truly asking, really, pointing out the elements in his character that privilege that viewpoint. That said, he's not actually a fascist per se. No, no. Just occasionally he seems to be a little bit of one.

"A little bit of a fascist", says Turlough to the Doctor in some alternate Planet of Fire...

At any rate, Greg was more disagreeing with my use of the word "fascist", which is fair enough, than my discussion of the Doctor's more... erm... fascist qualities. Must think of another word, really. I'll get back on that one.

A side note: I've now listened to Zagreus, so yes, the Rassilon thingo mentioned by Sharaz Jek is interesting. This is completely off-topic, but you know what annoyed me? The scene where the Doctor sees his "alternate selves" in the comics and books (The Adventuress of Henrietta Street and Oblivion respectively). How dare they! I'm going to ignore this and continue thinking that, continuity stuffups and all, it all happens in the one timeline of the 8th Doctor. Mainly because once something's in an alternate universe, it's difficult to really care what happens...

[charlie]

[Martin Dunne]

[uhumanite]

[Panecea]

I' believe that is the point of a punishment, charlie. If you recall, the Coucil (at the end of his second incarnation) erased the Doctor's knowledge of time / space mechanics, which inturn took away his ability to control the TARDIS and allowed the them to send him on missions against his will. He protested this fact a number of times.

[Martin Dunne]

[Sulp Niar]

Wow, I wasn't aware he was gay. I wasn't aware he had true sexual feelings for anyone. Before anyone says "ROSE!" or "CHARLEY!", I've always assumed (as cruel as this may be) that he's only doing it for procreation. Which sort of reinforces a bit of fascist element to the character doesn't it? Not that he wants Rose to stay home and cook and go to church (though she does in Father's Day, somewhat ironically... could it be called Fuhrer's Day?! Bad joke, sorry). Then again, he asked Sarah Jane and Romana I if they could make tea. This could be interpreted as pure sexism or just winding them up, but surely the Doctor is clever enough to wind them up without resorting to sexist comments like that? No wonder he never objects to them wearing high heels in quarries (sorry, alien planets). According to Goebbels, the function of the wife is to look good. That doesn't mean she has to turn the guy on. So the Doctor could be the same - he likes female companions that look good, more than for their potential sexual relationship. Of course this is pure conjecture and interpretation, but still, it's an interesting thought (or so I think, because I'm interesting...?).

Going down this line will inevitably bring in a discussion of Susan, I think. I suppose it all depends on whether you consider Lungbarrow canon. This builds on what I was saying before, but I consider most Doctor Who continuity not because I think "Oh, Davros did this and went on to do this", but because I enjoy looking at the emotional patterns and behaviour changes that the Doctor goes through throughout the series. In other words, I don't care particularly if Susan is his granddaughter or not for family tree purposes, but for the purpose of "How did this affect the Doctor?" By doing this, we can look deeper into the Doctor's character, and that's where these fascist elements have come up. Of course, nobody's perfect.

Although, going down this line would inevitably bring up John and Gilliam too... oh boy, there's an argument I can't go into. Mainly cos I haven't read the TV Comics. Still, I could go by the explanation of The Land of Happy Endings and say that they're figments of his imagination (perhaps Susan is too. Haha).

[Sulp Niar]

[Martin Dunne]

[Sulp Niar]

[Greg]