Doctor Who [6]

"I've taken lives, but worse I got clever, I manipulated people into taking their own'- the Doctor

Why can't we have a nice Dr Who for once?  

He never has been nice Orwell- he stole the TARDIS and his first act towards humans was to kidnap two of them in the very first episode- two episodes later he was going to stove in an injured cavemans skull with a rock so they wouldnt be slowed down.
He then unfeelingly risked everyone's lives by lying to them that the TARDIS needed a spare part just so he could go investigate something he was curious about and in doing so set the Daleks on their merry way to kill with imputinity and so it went on.

Spoiler:

- The Doctor to Amy.

If he was just a hero he would be a tenth as interesting, and American. What British writers have traditionally brought to scifi is darkness and Who is the exemplary of that line of scifi that goes at least back to Wells.
What British scifi has always done better than most is moral ambiguity- and Doctor Who has long been the front line in that. There are fewer characters on TV more morally ambiguous than the Doctor, the fact he is the lead character in a family show is only even more typically British!



"Tell me Doctor, can your conscience carry the weight of another dead race?"

It is a bit concerning that it is fine to expose little children to all this because it is tradition.

I find it more concerning that the women here seem to consider one bad guy implying rape (a threat never actually carried out even) far, far worse than the lead character being a multiple murderer and committing genocide on several occasions. Not to mention that he never stays to deal with the consequences of his actions-


Doctor- Im sorry there is no way we could have rescued your men.

Octavian- I know that sir. And when you've flown away in your little blue box, I'll explain that to their families.


There are now several generations of Brits grown up watching Who- and its become iconic, and its not done this by shying away from things or playing it safe or treating children like precious things that need to be wrapped up in cotton wool, and I for one hope it never does or the shows over, it will no longer be Who.

Yeah, make it about us being women. That'll win the argument. That said though, I can't help think you don't get the point because you are a man.

The difference is that "murder" is more vague. Poison? Knife? Lynching? Quick? Slow?

"Torture" is vague. What is torture? Being forced to watch youtube videos of Amy Pond? Reading bad fanfic? Having your finger nails ripped out? Beaten? Starved? Worse?

Oh look, next scene, no time to dwell on that.

Rape is very specific. You know instantly what it is. What he intends to do. What it does to people.

(As for the rape in the Viking episodes. It is what the Vikings did, and you have said they tried to be historically correct and educational in those days. This time it is used for no 'honourable' reasons. A plot device, solely.)

Yeah, make it about us being women. - Amarie


Well it does seem telling that the one thing that the women here have picked up on to be offended about is an implied rape, yet in all the time we have talked Who here not once has there been a vocal objection to the fact the Doctor has carried out genocides, acted like a God, decided who will live and die and run away from facing the consequences of what he does- and I dont see how the Doctor killing the Racnnoss offspring- which  happens on screen whilst the mother begs for her children- or the punishments dished out to the family- also on screen- is any less personal.
I would say its much more personal- we see the Doctor do these things with no compunction and little if any compassion or mercy.
I dont see whats vague about him killing.

The rape in the viking episode also serves a plot purpose- to make the locals hostile to the Doctor, suspecting him of being in cahoots with the invaders in order to create conflict in the story and up the stakes.
And the rape in the 1st Doctor story actually happens- offscreen, but we see the result of it and the shell shocked state of the victim.

In Dinosaurs its used to cap off the list of atrocities committed by Solomon, to demonstrate he has no redeeming virtues at all, and to partly justify the Doctors subsequent actions.

From a writing perspective I see no great difference.

You keep playing it down. As men has done for centuries. It's just rape. If he had said he was looking forward to beat her head in or crush her feet so she could never run away, I think you would have jumped as well.

But it is just rape. Just the biggest weapon men has against women. No biggy. Stupid chicks who react to such little things.

And it is an effective plot device. But was it really needed? I say no.

I am not playing it down- the reason its in the script is to put a cap on what a disgusting, loathsome, inhuman person Solomon is- I dont see how that is playing it down. Quite the opposite, it is used to demonstrate how totally vile Solomon is.
But as a crime, hideous and unjustifiable as it is, its not as great a crime as committing multiple genocide.
In our society we hold murder and especially genocide to be the worst crimes you can committ, not rape, which is an appalling crime, but its not genocide.
So I do find it odd that it seems to be beyond the pale for rape to even be implied when we have seen the Doctor act ruthlessly and mercilessly towards his opponents on many, many occasions onscreen right in front of us.

I have no issue with the Doctor and genocide or war, its as a plot device used sometimes intelligently by the show, the Doctor also tries to save alien races even when they are ambiguous to say the least. His fate is to make difficult moral choices, sometimes he has to kill for the Greater good and I dont have a problem with that. Its pointless of you to keep bringing up the genocide argument, its fundamental to the tv show from day one. If people dont like alien wars they dont watch the show, end of story. What is unacceptable is a writer using the potential violation of a womens body as cheap plot device, Solomon was quite clearly evil without the rape threat, it was just overkill. For kids to watch him kill the dinosaur would be a traumatic enough scene without ugly perverted rape threats being thrown in without regard. You say its 'for' the adults, but Why the hell would an adult appreciate such a scene, do women want to see it? No they dont, so its purely for the male viewer, and the male viewer has been indoctrinated from birth to look on rape as no big deal, even high court judges are part of the culture of ignorance and sexism. That a historically strong and powerful queen should be reduced to big boobs and a sexual plaything is disgusting, its a insidious message to young girls. Anyone that doesnt see its wrong is part of the problem in society, its a short hop to saying 'she asked for it' because her cleavage was showing.

I wholeheartedly agree!

I wholeheartedly disagree with almost everything you say- including the unpleasant opinion men just view rape as some minor misdemeanor.

"sometimes he has to kill for the Greater good "-Mrs Figg

And what about the times he has done it out of revenge, or anger or just because he cant see the moral line and doesnt know when to stop?

" Solomon was quite clearly evil without the rape threat, it was just overkill"- Mrs Figg

I thnik this is totally wrong- the puropse was to justify the Doctors actions at the end- if the Solomon character had not been portrayed as much worse, much more vile than the average Who villain- as someone who views people as is own private property to do with as he pleases- the Doctors actions could not have been in anyway justified- or as you saying that because he shot a dinosaur he deserved his fate?

"You say its 'for' the adults, but Why the hell would an adult appreciate such a scene"

Its not for adults- I said it would be only understood as a threat of rape by the adults watching.

The line in the episode is-

"I like my possessions to have spirit. It means I can have fun breaking them. And I will break you in with immense pleasure. Thank you, Doctor."

I dont think that crosses the line in being over implicit in terms of the broad viewing range.

"That a historically strong and powerful queen should be reduced to big boobs and a sexual plaything is disgusting"

Again I dont agree she is, or that the script supports that contention-

Amy: Sorry, what was your name again?
Nefertiti: Lady of the Two Lands. Wife of the Great King Amenhotep. Queen Nefertiti of Egypt.
Riddell: I'll be damned!
Amy: Oh my god. Queen Nefertiti? I learned all about you at school. You're awesome. Big fan.

Riddell: John Riddell. Big game hunter in the African Plains. Sure you've heard of me too.
Amy: No.
Riddell: Well you clearly have some alarming gaps in your education.
Amy: Or men who hunt defenseless creatures just don't impact on history.


Te fact she is portrayed as attractive is more down to the fact she has been famed for her beuaty historically for a long time.

What you quote is what shows that she is strong, wise and admired as well as beautiful. And apparently a temp. companion! And in the end she is there only to be threatened with rape and needing to be rescued.

Hmmm.... I've been watching this debate with mixed feelings and fell I want to raise one or two points.

I think the first is we should try to separate the gender and issue debate, but in my experience the perception of the horror of rape is different, for men and women. Yes a sweeping generalisation I know, but at the risk of shocking people I have to say that actually I find the threat of rape far more awful then murder or genocide. Yes I know that wiping out cultures and people's is wrong, I don't condone murder, I cannot imagine how painful torture may be, but rape is the act that I fear and hate above all others. I don't just mean male on female rape here either, but any kind of act of sexual aggression. I have touched on this perception before in how it impacts on women at a subconscious level. The problem is that even as other issues have, at least in public, become less acceptable. In the case of sexual violence to a certain extent, while in public people don't the actuality is there are an awful lot of double standards. The case of the lawyer here recently being one. I think it is difficult to separate this from any debate on the subject and simply dismissing those of the other gender as belittling the issue or having things out of proportion on either hand does not help. There is a difference, explanation and understanding are the way forward.

There is a second issue here of what is acceptable in what type of show, should anything be off limits. I have to confess until the episode was named I couldn't think which it would be and haven't seen it for a while so I'm not going to offer an opinion on this ep in context. It is worth noting that rape is an issue that is dealt pre watershed In the UK in program's aimed at teenage audiences. In one notable example in hollyoaks which is squarely aimed at a younger market involved male rape. Now the episode that included the events themselves were in a special post watershed episode, but the build up and aftermath, including a court case were all in the pre watershed shows. For those that say that is different to who that is aimed at families I would point out that this a weekday tea time soap that I suspect younger viewers would watch too. And I do agree that the interpretation is only understood if you are older.

On the wider issue there is a worry that if anything becomes taboo we simply hide it, or if things we end up censoring ideas and ignoring issues. This feeds into a wider idea of what creators 'owe' to audiences if anything. Some would say nothing, it is their creation. Some would say there is a responsibility to be truthful or educate, others that as the viewers are the consumers (and increasingly it seems for some who watch you tube a customer) of the show that actually they should be given what they want.

As to if I would expect it. In who I would say I was surprised, there is a strong tradition of adventure stories that involves killing the bad guys with no sexual overtones or implied sexual violence and I would put who in that bracket if asked.


Just my thoughts, hope I haven't upset anyone.

''On the wider issue there is a worry that if anything becomes taboo we simply hide it, or if things we end up censoring ideas and ignoring issues. This feeds into a wider idea of what creators 'owe' to audiences if anything. Some would say nothing, it is their creation. Some would say there is a responsibility to be truthful or educate'' Kafria

education is fine, but in this instance there was no education involved, the issue was tied up in one line of dialogue, which is hardly making an intelligent and balanced contribution to a wider debate. If the whole episode had been about tackling the issue of rape with a view to in some way educating young people about it thats perfectly ok, I am not saying I think there should be censorship or certain subjects are taboo but that it should be done with sensitivity and intelligence not for cheap thrills, as was the case in that episode. Who is a family show its not a soap where thorny subjects are thrashed out, and most issues are tackled, there was no intention to educate, it was just cliched lazy writing with a nasty edge. There is no reason on earth why a villain on Dr Who should be seen as a potential rapist, its totally unecessary and out of place.

Whilst I appreciate Kafria that women may view rape as worse than genocide in some fashion, although that one is beyond me- wiping out an entire species from existence just has got be a worse crime in my view- I dont see why in the context of what Figgs says: ' There is no reason on earth why a villain on Dr Who should be seen as a potential rapist'-  why that is different from saying 'There is no reason on earth why a villian on Dr Who should be seen as a potential murderer, a potential committer of genocide or any other severe atrocity.'
I dont get why it has to be singled out from all those other terrible things as in some way worse and taboo.

Murder is a terrible thing that happens- and the show deals with it.
Genocide is terrible thing that happens and the show deals with.
Rape is a terrible thing that happens- and you say the show should not be allowed to even allude to it.


And if you think Hollyoaks is educational, or realistic, or not sensationalist I can only assume you have never watched this 'teen soap' Mrs Figg.
Youd love it nearly all the women look like models and totter about on huge heels in tiny skirts, and all the men look like male models from underwear adverts and spend a lot of time finding excuses to take their tops off.
And most of the female cast seem to make a large part of their income taking their clothes of in magazines like Zoo, Nuts and FHM despite the show being quite clearly marketed at teens.


"in the end she is there only to be threatened with rape and needing to be rescued."- Amarie


Um, she rescues herself. She kicks his support away and then pins him to the floor by holding the blade to his throat with the words "I am not your possession, nor will I ever be."

She also chooses to give herself up in the first place to save the others, that it is her own decision could not be made clearer in the script-

The Doctor: What are you doing?
Nefertiti: I demanded to be brought here.
The Doctor: No. No no no no. No way.
Nefertiti: It isn't your choice, Doctor. It's mine.
The Doctor: Listen to me, if you go with him I can't guarantee your safety.
Nefertiti: You saved my people, I am in your debt.
The Doctor: No. No debts. You don't owe me anything.
Nefertiti: Then I do it of my own will.
The Doctor trying to stop her: Nefi! Nefi! Nefi!
Riddell: No! Take her, I shoot you.
Nefertiti: Put your weapon down. Let me make my choice.

Rape is not just physical, thats horrific enough. Its a mental cruelty that scars, burns, destroys. Affecting some women so badly they would rather HAVE died. It consumes your entire being, it ruins future relationships, you feel detest at the merest touch, you distrust everyone. You are left feeling as though an invisible evil demon is meshed, entwined, merged into your every molecule. It NEVER EVER leaves you. You CAN forget for a while, laugh, smile, joke with your mates but, sneaky, sneaky, there it is, riding your breath, gripping your heart, you wear it like a coat. Forgive ? Never. Forget ? never. THATS the battlescars your left with. Dont make light of it for cheap TV thrills, So, my answer to this debate that I have been reading is....NO, Leave educating CHILDREN to the right people at the right stage, (hopefully mentally) & not chuck it in a script just cos it might "feel right" to portray a character.

Rape is not just physical, thats horrific enough. Its a mental cruelty that scars, burns, destroys.-- Azriel

I wouldnt deny that- but I suspect so to does seeing your family tortured and killed before you or many other atrocities. Look at the psychological effect the Holocaust has had on the entire Jewish people, and that was half a century ago.

And I dont remember anyone complaining about the Masters Wife in the Tennant episodes- who was mentally abused by him to the point of insanity and which had the clear implication he was also doing as he pleased with her physically.

I would say her treatment was far more explicit in the script- and certainly her mental abuse to the point of mental collapse is right there onscreen.

I agree also with what youve just said about watching your family be tortured & killed, either one is to unbearable for words, I dont deny that ! I think its more the point here with one or two ladies about the subject of Rape in Dr Who ? Im guessing its that issue thats ruffling feathers ? I dont think we'd be having this discussion if rape had not been brought into the equation ??

But that is what I am puzzling over and trying to understand here Azriel- why even alluding to the existence of rape is beyond the pale when all these other equally terrible crimes are absolutely fine to mention in the show.

Oh dear Petty, this is a tuffy ! *shakes head * You have your point of view & the ladies have theirs, I will admit to shuffling on their side, Im thinking we've reached an impass ? stalemate ? We look to the stars & see a different night. Its a "man thing", & a "woman thing". I can only go with my feelings on subjects. Who's right & who's wrong ? who has the most valid point ? Who can decide ? God ? We have no God, so then who ? Do we rely on our own moral fibre? our conscience ?

Quite a lot of torture, death and horror going on in that episode, all the above mentioned horrors in one.

Things is though, in the dino episode it jumps out at you, the sole purpose of being a shock. You knew the Master episode wouldn't be cute. Dinosaurs in a spaceship just screams cuddly silly action. It wasn't a necessary plot device in my opinion.

It is a tuffy Azriel.
One of the many things I am struggling to understand is why this one line has provoked so much dislike- as I mentioned above the treatment of the Masters Wife is way worse and sustained for two episodes- watch the scene where she witnesses the torture, or the scene where the Master is singing the scissor sisters song and grabs her and gets off with her, when she turns away her face is a mask of self loathing and disgust- its far more implicit whats being done to her than anything in the Moffat era by a good way- yet no reaction to that at all.
I find it puzzling and cant help but wonder therefore if there is some Moffat hatred behind this as much as anything.

Amarie- the masters wife is equally a plot device- her sole purpose is so that there is someone there at the end to shoot the Master as the Doctor cant do that- he rarely pulls the trigger himself, as Davros observes 'he uses others as his weapons', including her.

Dinos is not a fluffy story- Solomon gains control of the ship by putting all the Silurians out the airlock after all. They shoot the cute dino stone cold dead.
Its a story that mirrrors the Doctor himself- fun on the surface but a lot of dark underneath.