|
Post by theotherjosh on Feb 2, 2017 13:27:15 GMT
This post grew out of thoughts I had during our conversation about a female Doctor, when someone mentioned the Doctor as a rare male pacifist. Rather than dilute that thread, I decided to make a new one devoted to the topic.
Obviously, with a character like the Doctor, it varies by the incarnation and the writer, but to what extent do you consider the Doctor a pacifist, and how important is that trait to your conception of the character?
|
|
aztec
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,849
|
Post by aztec on Feb 2, 2017 13:42:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Feb 2, 2017 14:07:16 GMT
To my mind the Doctor has never been a pacifist. The majority of the time violence is his last resort, but his always been prepared to go there.
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Feb 2, 2017 14:29:15 GMT
I've never seen the Doctor as a pacifist, he will not turn the other cheek, not unless the violence is only directed at himself, but when directed at others there are many many examples of him using violence and force, indeed there are times when I have found his resort to violence unjustified.
I don't see how anybody that has watched Who (and listened) for more than handful of stories can conclude the Doctor is a pacifist.
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Feb 2, 2017 15:33:10 GMT
To my mind the Doctor has never been a pacifist. The majority of the time violence is his last resort, but his always been prepared to go there. Regards mark687 I’m not sure how I would categorize him. The trait exists on a continuum, and in the broadest sense, it can mean opposed to war, violence or militarism, which certainly describes the Doctor. (Except when he’s killing aliens or serving as a scientific advisor to a paramilitary organization.) I’m interpreting “opposed” here to mean a profound reluctance, not an outright refusal. There is the scene in the Doctor’s Daughter where the Doctor points the gun at the head of the man who shot Jenny before throwing it aware and declaring "I would never do that!" Yeah, tell it to the Vervoids or the Racnoss, but I think the implication is that the Doctor thinks of himself as a pacifist, and the writer of that scene did too. Pacifism is a notoriously difficult characteristic to get right. I don’t know if anyone remembers the War of the Worlds show from the late 1980s, but one of the characters was a self-described pacifist who refused to carry a gun and was smugly condescending towards those who did. Yet, at the end of every episode, he always managed to put together some Rube Goldberg plot to kill the aliens without the use of firearms. Even as a kid, that didn’t sit right with me. "Whether a man dies in his bed, or the rifle knocks him dead/ brief parting from those dear is the worst man has to fear/ though grave diggers toil is long/ sharp their spades, their muscles strong/ they but thrust their buried men/ back in the human mind again..." Meaning, dead is dead, no matter how you get there, and our TV pacifist is just cutting out the middleman in order to show everybody how clever he is.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Feb 2, 2017 15:41:54 GMT
I think he wants to be one. He certainly hates violence as anything other than a last resort. That said, if the situation is dire enough and there is no other way he's not rigid enough to completely oppose it. It's why he's a different hero to others, he doesn't burst into a room layden with weapons (every other Hollywood lead ever) and will try to resolve things without firing a shot, but he does recognise where that unfortunately isn't possible (though will always try other means first).
That's why in Who the Doctor taking up arms is a real this-is-desperate moment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 16:09:49 GMT
God. No. He most certainly ain't a pacifist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 17:08:22 GMT
I think he wants to be one. He certainly hates violence as anything other than a last resort. That said, if the situation is dire enough and there is no other way he's not rigid enough to completely oppose it. It's why he's a different hero to others, he doesn't burst into a room layden with weapons (every other Hollywood lead ever) and will try to resolve things without firing a shot, but he does recognise where that unfortunately isn't possible (though will always try other means first). That's why in Who the Doctor taking up arms is a real this-is-desperate moment. I watched Seeds of ... the black and white one. He runs around happily exterminating Ice Warriors throughout the story.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Feb 2, 2017 17:57:34 GMT
I think he wants to be one. He certainly hates violence as anything other than a last resort. That said, if the situation is dire enough and there is no other way he's not rigid enough to completely oppose it. It's why he's a different hero to others, he doesn't burst into a room layden with weapons (every other Hollywood lead ever) and will try to resolve things without firing a shot, but he does recognise where that unfortunately isn't possible (though will always try other means first). That's why in Who the Doctor taking up arms is a real this-is-desperate moment. I watched Seeds of ... the black and white one. He runs around happily exterminating Ice Warriors throughout the story. It's never stated he killed them, they might have just passed out. Though he does wipe out an entire fleet later on...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 22:10:57 GMT
I watched Seeds of ... the black and white one. He runs around happily exterminating Ice Warriors throughout the story. It's never stated he killed them, they might have just passed out. Though he does wipe out an entire fleet later on... Erm, he uses the same technique used by Phipps on T-Mat's moonbase which vaporises the Ice Warriors. I think he literally boiled them alive in their armour, which is pretty hardcore for any Doctor. Anyway, it doesn't cover stories like The Seeds of Death where he pops Scorby's neck or Warriors of the Deep where he causes the Myrka to die in agony from being blinded. Honestly, from all I've seen I don't think he's anti-violence, I think he's anti-killing. A proper pacifist the man is not and it's a mistake I think to assume that he is. He's more like John Drake from Danger Man than Mahatma Gandhi, a chap who will defend himself is attacked, but will hardly ever initiate the fight and certainly won't try to end your life. The Dalek Invasion of Earth is a good example, he'll beat the Roboman into unconsciousness with his cane, but when Tyler tries to shoot him the Doctor says -- "No, Tyler. No. I never take life. Only when my own is immediately threatened." I think his hatred of guns stems from the fact that they are an embodiment of everything he hates about murder -- it's easy, clinical in its sense of distance and it gives you a profoundly disquieting sense of assurance. I was watching a documentary about Africa hosted by Richard E. Grant and the thing that always stuck with me was him holding the rifle, talking uncomfortably about the sense of power it gave him to hold something that could end another creature's life. The whole experience made him deeply uncomfortable, he didn't take the shot and handed it back to his guide. That's the Doctor to me. To rely on the supposed strength of a weapon is to succumb to moral cowardice and I love stories like Lucifer Rising and Original Sin that juxtapose that ethical certitude against the reality of his actions. The intensely calm, collected and rational Zebulon Pryce of the Original Sin novel in particular is an excellent example. Some of it's lost with the extremely jittery portrayal in the audio (ymmv, but Pryce was much more convincing in print), but he has a sterling point about the Doctor. What is it that distinguishes him from a serial killer? Honestly? And marvellously, the end of the book provides the answer -- it's his capacity for mercy and willingness to consider and even admit fault. He tries. Rarely does he succeed, but he nevertheless tries to prevent any unnecessary deaths.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Feb 2, 2017 22:25:48 GMT
It's never stated he killed them, they might have just passed out. Though he does wipe out an entire fleet later on... Erm, he uses the same technique used by Phipps on T-Mat's moonbase which vaporises the Ice Warriors. I think he literally boiled them alive in their armour, which is pretty hardcore for any Doctor. Anyway, it doesn't cover stories like The Seeds of Death where he pops Scorby's neck or Warriors of the Deep where he causes the Myrka to die in agony from being blinded. Honestly, from all I've seen I don't think he's anti-violence, I think he's anti-killing. A proper pacifist the man is not and it's a mistake I think to assume that he is. He's more like John Drake from Danger Man than Mahatma Gandhi, a chap who will defend himself is attacked, but will hardly ever initiate the fight and certainly won't try to end your life. The Dalek Invasion of Earth is a good example, he'll beat the Roboman into unconsciousness with his cane, but when Tyler tries to shoot him the Doctor says -- "No, Tyler. No. I never take life. Only when my own is immediately threatened." Ah fair enough, it's been a while since I watched it. Most of these examples are quite early on, so it could be argued he becomes more pacifist as time goes on (especially after witnessing the carnage of the Time War). But I agree he's pragmatic in the sense that if he has no choice but to turn to violence to save himself, he will. But it wouldn't be his first choice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 22:51:09 GMT
Erm, he uses the same technique used by Phipps on T-Mat's moonbase which vaporises the Ice Warriors. I think he literally boiled them alive in their armour, which is pretty hardcore for any Doctor. Anyway, it doesn't cover stories like The Seeds of Death where he pops Scorby's neck or Warriors of the Deep where he causes the Myrka to die in agony from being blinded. Honestly, from all I've seen I don't think he's anti-violence, I think he's anti-killing. A proper pacifist the man is not and it's a mistake I think to assume that he is. He's more like John Drake from Danger Man than Mahatma Gandhi, a chap who will defend himself is attacked, but will hardly ever initiate the fight and certainly won't try to end your life. The Dalek Invasion of Earth is a good example, he'll beat the Roboman into unconsciousness with his cane, but when Tyler tries to shoot him the Doctor says -- "No, Tyler. No. I never take life. Only when my own is immediately threatened." Ah fair enough, it's been a while since I watched it. Most of these examples are quite early on, so it could be argued he becomes more pacifist as time goes on (especially after witnessing the carnage of the Time War). But I agree he's pragmatic in the sense that if he has no choice but to turn to violence to save himself, he will. But it wouldn't be his first choice. Absolutely. Even stories as violent as Vengeance on Varos have him thoroughly disquieted when he dispatches Quillam, the security chief and a couple guards. The Sixth Doctor gives himself hell for resorting to such violent actions in Time of Your Life and Killing Ground, fearing that they're indicative of the Valeyard and a part of him that he would likewise wish to forget .Hmm... You know, I don't think that the pacifist stance really crept in until Jon Pertwee's era and even then, not until Letts's tenure on the show. The Third Doctor's Venusian aikido allowed him to be the action hero, while simultaneously allowing him to remain as a moral character opposed to destruction. That got carried over into the Hinchcliffe era (probably by Bob Holmes) with his fourth incarnation's attitude towards fisticuffs slowly dissolving as time went on (more than likely due to Mary Whitehouse's intervention) until the Williams era where the thought nary crossed his mind. That stayed roughly until Saward took over as script editor for JNT and a desire for a more vulnerable Doctor lead him to being pretty ineffectual in a fistfight ( Kinda, The Visitation, et al.) and the gunplay started popping in with the Cyberleader's death in Earthshock, which pretty much culminated in that massacre in Cyber-Control during Attack of the Cybermen. That disappeared when Cartmel properly assumed the position and Sylvester requested that the final confrontation between the Seventh Doctor and the Dalek Supreme be changed to what it is now.
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Feb 2, 2017 22:55:29 GMT
He's more like John Drake from Danger Man than Mahatma Gandhi, a chap who will defend himself is attacked, but will hardly ever initiate the fight and certainly won't try to end your life. I don't know. I've played a lot of Civ, and Gandhi gets pretty bloodthirsty when he gets those nukes...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 22:58:54 GMT
He's more like John Drake from Danger Man than Mahatma Gandhi, a chap who will defend himself is attacked, but will hardly ever initiate the fight and certainly won't try to end your life. I don't know. I've played a lot of Civ, and Gandhi gets pretty bloodthirsty when he gets those nukes... Does it count as non-resistance if there's no one left to resist?
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Feb 2, 2017 23:01:09 GMT
A proper pacifist the man is not and it's a mistake I think to assume that he is. He's more like John Drake from Danger Man than Mahatma Gandhi, a chap who will defend himself is attacked, but will hardly ever initiate the fight and certainly won't try to end your life. I think that may actually count as a pacifist in my book. I don't think one is disqualified from being a pacifist by what they may have to resort to in order to defend themselves or especially others. I like to think that a philosophy of non-violence extents to trying to prevent violence from being perpetrated against one's immediate self and there's no need to stand there getting beaten bloody to prove that one sincerely espouses a philosophy of pacifism. I admire that The Doctor doesn't own a weapon, and that he doesn't think pugilism is an ultimate answer to everything. I also very much admire that he's a person with enthusiasm for learning, which may often help him to have the resourcefulness to avoid the use of lethal force when possible. I accept that sometimes he's called upon to use lethal force and take that with the understanding that he's trying to prevent even greater loss of life, and that it's something that's been genuinely forced upon him by circumstances. If he's forced to use someone's own weapon against them, it's not his fault if it doesn't have a stun setting.
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Feb 3, 2017 0:00:26 GMT
I can't remember where I read it, but Ghandi did acknowledge that pacifism was not always effective. He said that it worked as well as it did on the Colonial British because they could be shamed by his actions, and if they could not be, then he would have tried resisting in a different fashion. I don't like to quote Wikipedia, but I think it can often serve as a decent introduction to a subject, and the entry on pacifism observes: Pacifism may be based on moral principles (a deontological view) or pragmatism (a consequentialist view). Principled pacifism holds that at some point along the spectrum from war to interpersonal physical violence, such violence becomes morally wrong. Obviously, the Doctor isn't a total pacifist. The Tardis Wiki has an entry for the genocides committed by the Doctor. However, pacifism exists on a spectrum, and in most incarnations, I do think he's closer to pacifistic pole.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2017 6:59:52 GMT
I can't remember where I read it, but Ghandi did acknowledge that pacifism was not always effective. He said that it worked as well as it did on the Colonial British because they could be shamed by his actions, and if they could not be, then he would have tried resisting in a different fashion. I don't like to quote Wikipedia, but I think it can often serve as a decent introduction to a subject, and the entry on pacifism observes: Pacifism may be based on moral principles (a deontological view) or pragmatism (a consequentialist view). Principled pacifism holds that at some point along the spectrum from war to interpersonal physical violence, such violence becomes morally wrong. Obviously, the Doctor isn't a total pacifist. The Tardis Wiki has an entry for the genocides committed by the Doctor. However, pacifism exists on a spectrum, and in most incarnations, I do think he's closer to pacifistic pole. I was pondering that and it popped into my head how weird it would be if the Doctor used a stun gun. It doesn't kill, but nevertheless it still feels distinctly out of character for him to carry one.
|
|
|
Post by kalendorf on Feb 3, 2017 12:01:00 GMT
I've never seen the Doctor as a pacifist, he will not turn the other cheek, not unless the violence is only directed at himself, but when directed at others there are many many examples of him using violence and force, indeed there are times when I have found his resort to violence unjustified. I don't see how anybody that has watched Who (and listened) for more than handful of stories can conclude the Doctor is a pacifist. Well, I think there were some particular later stories that emphasised the Doctor having a pacifist streak now (namely Warriors of the Deep, Last of the Time Lords, Journey's End, Night of the Doctor.... some point to Genesis of the Daleks as well, but forget that (a) for all his hesitance to destroy the incubator, in the end he changes his mind and goes back to blow it up, and (b) he didn't sound like he was necessarily bluffing when he threatened to shut down Davros' life support), and the effect was an almost Orwellian one where suddenly "this new version IS the past and always has been." I've never liked the idea of the Doctor as a pacifist. I like the idea of him as a hero who's smart about how he uses violence or doesn't, isn't interested in making macho gestures or resorting to sabre-rattling, and basically wins people's hearts and minds first and foremost. But the Doctor for me has always existed as a historically informed character, who knows what it's sometimes taken to survive dark times, violent hordes, and psychotic tyrants. For him to insist that appeasement and turning the other cheek works is to me beyond ahistorical.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Feb 3, 2017 12:44:42 GMT
I laughed way to hard at this
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,677
|
Post by shutupbanks on Feb 3, 2017 13:13:16 GMT
I think that the Doctor wants to be a pacifist and always tries to choose a path of non-violence but there are times when even he realises that you have to fight fire with fire and get your hands dirty. But he always seeks another way or gives a chance to his foes.
|
|