doctor who and the waste land
over on doctor who, the dramatic argument is being made that the only moral way to respond to a total war is by becoming ambivalent about your own survival at the cost of others.
just in this season, we've already had three human characters who have responded to experiences with total war--plus daleks. both lazarus and diagoras say that, because of their war experiences, they are determined to survive, whatever the cost. this sentiment earns diagoras an honorary dalekhood. in contrast, sec somewhat doubts the survive-at-any-cost wisdom, and is ready to become more human instead (so survival at any cost, although human, is not the essence of humanity--which i think we can take primarily as moral instruction). solomon (who also fought in the war), meanwhile, is accutely aware that his own instinct for self-preservation may have led to frank's death. instead of immediately trying to fight the daleks, he puts down his weapon and urges brotherhood across species. unfortunately, the other daleks are not keen on this philosophical tact.
of course, it's not only folks who are scarred by total war who can develop this apparently malignant ethical sense. the blood sucker from the first story did, too: she survives at whatever the cost. so why am i focusing on total war?
total war is nonsense war. in it, all distinctions break down and even the eventual victors are not so sure it was worth winning. that's what comes from winning, and surviving, at all costs--it usually involves destroying what you would normally want to survive *for*. that's what t.s. eliot's wasteland was on about (in part). it's also what the hollow men is about, which is where the quotations from t.s. eliot in the lazarus experiment came from. with experience of total war, you can see folks who want to survive no matter what the cost as war-damaged individuals. without the experience of total war, they're arguably just nasties.
. . . so, the doctor has experienced total war. we have seen him being ambivalent about his own survival many times in the new series, but we have seen the other side, too. in the runaway bride, he stands there and watches the rachnos die, and it scares donna; she tells him he needs someone with him to tell him when to stop. thus, although the doctor does not usually adopt the total war attitude, he is capable of doing so, if he doesn't watch himself. or someone else doesn't watch him.
where is this all going? it's not a spoiler anymore that captain jack is coming back, and thanks to torchwood we have the general impression that he has survived more than a few total wars and is massively ambivalent about his survival. and then. . . well, we have whoever simm is playing. it doesn't have to be who everyone thinks it is in order for this to line up thematically. all he has to be is a timelord, trying to survive at whatever the cost. that's the doctor's shadow.
my goodness. i wasn't at all thrilled about the dalek episodes, but when i think about the possibilities for the overall thematic arc in this series. . . gosh, i hope it's half as good as i'm imagining it could be.
just in this season, we've already had three human characters who have responded to experiences with total war--plus daleks. both lazarus and diagoras say that, because of their war experiences, they are determined to survive, whatever the cost. this sentiment earns diagoras an honorary dalekhood. in contrast, sec somewhat doubts the survive-at-any-cost wisdom, and is ready to become more human instead (so survival at any cost, although human, is not the essence of humanity--which i think we can take primarily as moral instruction). solomon (who also fought in the war), meanwhile, is accutely aware that his own instinct for self-preservation may have led to frank's death. instead of immediately trying to fight the daleks, he puts down his weapon and urges brotherhood across species. unfortunately, the other daleks are not keen on this philosophical tact.
of course, it's not only folks who are scarred by total war who can develop this apparently malignant ethical sense. the blood sucker from the first story did, too: she survives at whatever the cost. so why am i focusing on total war?
total war is nonsense war. in it, all distinctions break down and even the eventual victors are not so sure it was worth winning. that's what comes from winning, and surviving, at all costs--it usually involves destroying what you would normally want to survive *for*. that's what t.s. eliot's wasteland was on about (in part). it's also what the hollow men is about, which is where the quotations from t.s. eliot in the lazarus experiment came from. with experience of total war, you can see folks who want to survive no matter what the cost as war-damaged individuals. without the experience of total war, they're arguably just nasties.
. . . so, the doctor has experienced total war. we have seen him being ambivalent about his own survival many times in the new series, but we have seen the other side, too. in the runaway bride, he stands there and watches the rachnos die, and it scares donna; she tells him he needs someone with him to tell him when to stop. thus, although the doctor does not usually adopt the total war attitude, he is capable of doing so, if he doesn't watch himself. or someone else doesn't watch him.
where is this all going? it's not a spoiler anymore that captain jack is coming back, and thanks to torchwood we have the general impression that he has survived more than a few total wars and is massively ambivalent about his survival. and then. . . well, we have whoever simm is playing. it doesn't have to be who everyone thinks it is in order for this to line up thematically. all he has to be is a timelord, trying to survive at whatever the cost. that's the doctor's shadow.
my goodness. i wasn't at all thrilled about the dalek episodes, but when i think about the possibilities for the overall thematic arc in this series. . . gosh, i hope it's half as good as i'm imagining it could be.