Review: Doctor Who: Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS

Poster for Doctor Who Journey to the Centre of the TARDISWell, that was the best episode of Doctor Who we have seen in a very long time. It was near perfect in execution, nodded to a past that charts back before 2005, and had some deep, troubling and interestingly explored themes. I was impressed and captivated. There was a clear impression that this needed to be a landmark episode, and it delivered.

Hard to believe it took eight years to show an interior of the TARDIS that was more than nameless corridors, but when push came to shove we were not let down.

Plot

The Doctor decides to let Clara try and fly the TARDIS as a way of getting the two of them to feel more comfortable with each other. (The TARDIS has made it plain that it doesn’t like Clara one bit and doesn’t trust her to be aboard without the Doctor.) For some reason putting the TARDIS in some kind of safety mode to allow Clara to fly involves turning off some plot significant shields? (I said near perfect execution, didn’t I?) Anyway, the moment is provided for the TARDIS to be exposed and some likely lads in a salvage vessel spy it and try to haul it in.

During the process of this the TARDIS is damaged, and somehow the Doctor is thrown outside the TARDIS whilst Clara is trapped within (fudge fudge fudge). The Doctor convinces the salvageers to help him enter the TARDIS and find Clara on condition that they receive the ‘salvage of a lifetime’.

Meanwhile, Clara becomes lost in a very unhappy TARDIS (fires are periodically a problem, because of… reasons) and she finds herself chased by strange, dark, creepy creatures.

The Doctor and the salvageers (it’s a word, shut up*) enter a race against time to save Clara and stop the TARDIS from exploding, hampered by the fact that some of the salvageers are more intent on salvaging than saving.

To add spice to the mix, one of the salvageers is an android, and he can sense the pain of the TARDIS, causing tension as he urges against his teammates’ impulse to just loot and get out.

My thoughts

This was bright, bubbly, entertaining, nostalgic, and dark. Which is a lot of what I want out of Doctor Who. We had some lovely nods to TARDIS episodes past, including the fan-beloved swimming pool. I would have liked to see the Cloisters (we do hear the Cloister Bell), maybe the rooms of some former companions, and I’m madly curious about the Doctor’s own bedroom, but there you go. They had to go wherever the plot was relevant, so fair enough.

There were a number of notes that made me wince. It wasn’t as bad as a Moffat penned episode, but there were a few completely unnecessary gender-oriented jokes which went unchallenged, and I continue to feel uncomfortable with New Who’s (mainly Moffat Who’s) emphasis on the conception of the TARDIS as female and in some kind of romantic relationship with the Doctor. Yes, there is a tradition of referring to ships using female pronouns, but that’s a sexist time and location-centric Earth tradition, no reason for the Doctor to buy into it. No obvious reason for the Doctor to think of the TARDIS as gendered at all. Being gendered is not a requirement of sentience. I know the Neil Gaiman penned episode is popular and all, but one of the things that made me less keen on it was this emphasis on the TARDIS as female and in love with the Doctor – even thinking of herself as called ‘Sexy‘, which if you wanted to encapsulate everything that’s wrong with Moffat era Who, a lot of it is said right there.

There’s nothing wrong with the TARDIS being feminine per se (she couldn’t possibly be female (sexed), TARDISes don’t mate), she can be gendered however she fancies. The problem is that she’s in a master/slave relationship with a paradigm patriarchal figure in an epically popular television show aimed at children. And don’t get me started on the people who think the themes don’t matter because it’s a family show. Do you even know what a theme is? A theme isn’t something invented by academics, it’s something academics label as a way of identifying messages embedded in a work of literature (yes, TV is literature, just like plays, deal with it) and issues tackled. If your message is one of iconic figures with whom children will identify being engaged in deeply problematic master/slave relationships with the division being created along gendered lines in a show where the male patriarch increasingly belittles women… yeah, it’s a problem.

Let’s talk about the master/slave dialectic; it’s an important tool of societal, psychological, and literary analysis. Marx liked  and popularised it for that reason, although it originates in Hegel. One thing I think really raises the bar of this episode of Doctor Who is that it directly addresses the problematic of master/slave dynamics.

The Hegelian theory is that a consciousness cannot be self-aware unless it has encountered another consciousness which it recognises as like itself and yet distinct from itself (don’t worry about why, it goes back to Kant’s transcendental idealism, which is a whole other thing, just accept for now that it’s a theory with a good amount of history behind it). As such, any consciousness is reliant upon other minded beings for its own existence, and yet (according to Hegel) it is always trying to destroy, or at least assert dominance over the Other. It doesn’t like that there is a consciousness out there that is not its own, so it seeks to destroy or absorb it. Which it can never do without destroying itself. Thus a symbiotic relationship forms. The ‘winner’ of the struggle becomes the ‘master’, dominating the ‘slave’, and yet the master becomes completely reliant on the ‘slave’ for nearly everything. Masters are not producers.

Now, there’s a feminist history of rejecting the struggle for dominance in the master/slave dialectic as a specifically masculine view. I do not subscribe to this. I think such views rest on an unsubstantiated essentialist view of gender which reads women as fundamentally submissive or non-combative. There’s plenty of evidence that this is false, even if you think that women are, on the whole, more submissive or gentle than men. Personally, I don’t just believe, but know, that many women are neither submissive nor gentle; however, I do not assert that this is an indication of superiority. I know there’s substantial reaction against Anglo-American feminist insistence on active and assertive agency as the only legitimate and respectable way for a woman to demonstrate her worth. Gender aside, one should concede that praising only the assertive and aggressive is problematic. My point is rather that assuming that these are exclusively, or even predominantly, male attributes is both false and problematic. I do think there is a natural human drive towards dominance. ‘Natural’ merely in the sense that the genes of those that strive for the most food, the most mating opportunities, etc., have a tendency to result in continued survival, and that’s common between men, women, gender queer, monkeys, catfish, and elephants. Nevertheless I also agree that struggling for dominance is not the only successful survival trait, and often beings that expend their energies in other directions can be more successful. Megan Lindholm’s masterpiece, Alien Earth, which is also deeply concerned with analysis of the master/slave dialectic, is particularly interesting in its exploration of cooperative ecologies and their relation to combative ones.

What I’m getting at is that the master/slave dialectic as an analysis of sentient interaction is an idea with legs, but not one we should be uncritical of. The Doctor’s relationship with the TARDIS is an exemplar of the master/slave dialectic. (A point the Doctor’s relationship with the Master has flirted with drawing out under the hands of some of Doctor Who‘s more insightful writers in the past.) The Doctor is the ‘master’, yet he is almost completely dependent upon the TARDIS for just about everything. She is his slave, and must do what he tells her, yet he’s not even a Timelord without her, he’s just the last Gallifreyan, not even able to reproduce. You can see why, then, it’s problematic to phrase this particularly iconic master/slave relationship in gendered terms. I am reminded with bile in my throat of the discussions I have had with male geeks about the sexism inherent in David Eddings’s works. All the women are ultra feminine, but, it is always said, the men would be hopeless without them. Polgara may be an immortal sorceress, but she likes cooking and darning socks. And that’s fine. Many women like cooking and sewing. The problem is that the men around Polgara exploit the assumption that she will like these things by completely neglecting to develop any skills in these areas. In this way, she has to perform these services for them. Dividing labour along gendered lines enforces a restriction of women’s options even as it makes men dependent on them. The catch is, the actions that men depend on women to perform are rarely those that allow women to accumulate extra resources with which to commission services from men.

And so the feminist Marxist analysis of the master/slave dialectic goes.

So. The thing I liked about this episode is that it confronts these problematic elements embedded in Doctor Who head on. By having a character who is othered (designated as the slave role) by virtue of him being literally a machine (the theoretically non-sentient analog of the slave role) we are confronted with the deep inappropriateness of such relationships. I don’t want to transgress into the Spoiler Zone, but let us just say that the emotional impact of the inappropriateness of such a relationship is made viscerally evident.

Moreover, despite the depressing tendency towards sexism in recent Doctor Who, and some unsettling elements of characterisation of the TARDIS with respect to her gendering as female, the TARDIS has a long history of defying the Doctor’s expectations. The majority of Peter Davison’s era, for instance, is spent with the Doctor having very little  control over where the TARDIS goes at all. His repeated attempts to return Tegan to Heathrow airport in the correct era represent an utter failure of mastery. Similarly, ‘Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS’ is structured by scene after scene of the TARDIS asserting control and rendering the Doctor, his companion, and everyone else aboard her utterly helpless.

This is why I think Stephen Thompson is to be commended as the writer of this episode. This is an acknowledgement and exploration of the Doctor’s problematic relationship with the TARDIS at a level we rarely see. Like the salvageers exploiting their ‘robot’ companion, the Doctor has gained immeasurable benefits – near godlike status – exploiting the TARDIS. And when the Doctor ‘offers’ them the TARDIS in compensation for rescuing Clara (one assumes he always plans to double-cross them on this, but it’s still a startling thing to do with a being you regard as sentient) one is confronted by the narrowness of their vision as they proceed to try and dissect the TARDIS, ignoring the fact that the TARDIS as a whole is worth immeasurably more than any circuit could be. The slave, we are reminded, is usually much brighter than the masters – he or she has to be; she or he does all the work.

It should also be noted that this is probably unique as an episode of Doctor Who in which people of colour outnumbered white people, and I suspect that it no mistake. One of the factors underlying the current instability of our economic situation, after all, is that so-called first-world, predominantly white countries like the UK and the US have had their wealth bolstered by exploitation of people of colour for centuries. It is a mistake to think this ended with the abolition of legal slavery. As a relatively poor person in the UK I can still buy a top for £3 if I want to. How is that possible, but that someone, somewhere, earns far less than I do? Now, following the credit crunch, our economy struggles to stabilise in a world where developing nations we are used to exploiting are gaining greater economic power.

One might still think ‘Well, that’s all very well – elucidating the master-slave relationship, but the status quo remains unchallenged for the Doctor at the end’. I think there’s some legitimacy in that. People talk about having a female Doctor or a black Doctor as a way of balancing the scales, but I still kind of feel like that’s missing the point. Not that I’m against it. I think a black Doctor could now be possible with nothing problematic to it at all. A female one… well, I have no faith that it would be well-executed under the current regime, and the total dominance of Doctor Who by male writers is preventing a woman from gaining sufficient credibility to take the helm and challenge the way of things. But in another time, under different leadership, with different writers… sure, it could be fine. My point is rather that 50 years of the Doctor flying around acting as the Great White Male Saviour to countless cultures that have not his wealth**, his education, his technology, cannot be erased by having one iteration of the Doctor be black, or Asian, or female. The problem with viewing it like this is that we are still maintaining the wealthy white man as the ideal by making it a goal to have people of colour and women play his role. The real goal is to surround this show where a rich, educated, white man saves the day again and again with a normality where any man, women, intersex or gender queer individual can save the day in any way he/she/zie damn well likes. The Doctor should not be the standard we all seek to attain. The Doctor should be just another character. Rich, complex, exciting, amongst other rich, complex, exciting characters, each of whom is rich, complex, and exciting in different ways. The rich, white, educated male ideal is not the only one to which we should aspire.

Nevertheless, I do think credit is due to Stephen Thompson and it must be noted that although there is little he can do within the confines of the show to change the cultural context in which it appears, or the necessity that the Doctor is and always will be the title character whose centrality is determined by his possession of the TARDIS – nevertheless, he does show us that if the TARDIS wishes to assert control she is more than capable of doing so. Moreover, although the status quo is re-established amongst the salvageers as well, the way in which the wrongness of their situation has been underscored provides a counterpoint with which to remind the audience that just because things have returned to the status quo, that doesn’t mean that it’s OK.

*I might have just started reading The Three Musketeers, it’s not important, don’t look at me like that.

** Incidentally, ever notice that the Doctor never thinks to carry money and never knows what would be appropriate to give someone when he has some? That’s a classic sign of someone whose wealth has become so vast they can’t even count it anymore or relate to those who lack it with any real understanding. You may not think of him as rich, but the TARDIS offers him so much wealth that money doesn’t mean anything to him. Not caring about money is not a sign of having grown ‘beyond’ such trivial things. It’s a sign that you’re rich enough that you’ve never had to care. One thing I like about Clara is that she consistently challenges the Doctor on his privilege, and expresses concern that the opportunities the TARDIS offers have distanced him from being able to connect with other people on any normal level.

Advertisements

About Serenity Womble

I'm a writer of science fiction and fantasy short stories, as well as many, many unfinished novels. I review things of a generally speculative nature. This is my blog for writing and reviewing.
This entry was posted in Doctor Who, Review and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Review: Doctor Who: Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS

  1. WateryTart says:

    I agree with most of your post, but it’s interesting you never even mention that little sexist interaction:
    “I’ll bring it down to basic for you.”
    “Basic? Because I’m a girl?”
    “No”
    *Doctor nods and smiles when she’s not looking*

    I could not even imagine either of Davies’ doctors responding similarly.

    • Thanks for commenting.

      I did mention it, I just didn’t quote it directly. When I wrote: ‘There were a number of notes that made me wince. It wasn’t as bad as a Moffat penned episode, but there were a few completely unnecessary gender-oriented jokes which went unchallenged’ that’s the moment I had chiefly in mind. I criticise Moffat Who so much for its sexism that even I find it wearying. I felt the episode had more interesting moments to discuss from the point of view of gender issues, so I just didn’t draw it out as a focal point.

  2. hsld says:

    Fascinating review, and reading it has sparked off thoughts in all sorts of directions. One thing they keep bringing me back to – especially “a consciousness cannot be self-aware unless it has encountered another consciousness which it recognises as like itself and yet distinct from itself” – is the companion Compassion from the Eighth Doctor novels. (The basic gist of her story is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_(Doctor_Who) but I don’t know if you’ve read them and/or plan to read them, so don’t want to drop huge unprotected spoilers in here) Moffat’s Who has previously used bowdlerized versions of concepts Lawrence Miles introduced in the books, and now I’m wondering if Compassion’s story is the next one.

    Back on this episode, it’s one of the few recently that I’d have liked expanded into a two-parter (have the Doctor’s fake countdown replaced by a real crisis as the cliffhnager) because it was playing with some interesting ideas and could have used that time to go into more depth on them. I think it was a much more interesting exploration of the dynamic between the Doctor and the TARDIS than The Doctor’s Wife (apparently Moffat now claims that he heavily rewrote Gaiman’s original script for that) and harks back to the antagonistic way it communicated in The Edge of Destruction. Thompson seemed much more willing to show a darker side to the Doctor – the way he basically forces the salvageers to assist him, for instance – and I think that perspective allows him to look at the Doctor/TARDIS relationship in the Hegelian way you describe.

    • Alas, I’m not much of one for the Doctor Who books. I just find them so hit and miss – sorry!

      I have sometimes felt in the past that some Moffat era episodes could have done with being two parters, but oddly I didn’t feel like this was one of them. I feel like it had a lot of ideas that were well explored, thematically, but the plot itself was a bit thin. Most of the key plot elements (the TARDIS getting caught because the Doctor put the shields down, the solution being a big reset button) were a bit thin. Whilst it would have been fun to explore teh TARDIS a bit more, I don’t know that there was enough plot to sustain it.

      I’m interested to hear that Moffat heavily rewrote Gaiman’s episode. To be honest, I always felt like it was too much Gaiman and not enough Who – the personification of the TARDIS could have walked right off the set of Neverwhere. I love Neil Gaiman, and I liked that we got to see more of the TARDIS in that episode, but it never quite *clicked* for me. If Moffat introduced that terrible ‘Sexy’ comment it would explain how jarring and unexpected it seemed, though. It certainly has a gimmicky, bad-joke feel that I associate with Moffat rather than Gaiman.

      Agreed that Thompson showed a darker side to the Doctor – I enjoyed that. I like when Eleven skews darker. There’s something about him that’s very reminiscent of Sylvestor McCoy’s Doctor. Mind you, credit where it’s due, I think there’s been a darker element throughout the back half of this season, which is something Clara keeps pulling up on.

  3. mefinx says:

    Interesting review! I am still going back and forth on whether the all-black BAMF depiction of the salvage crew was racist, or whether the racist is myself, for even thinking about it. It made me feel uneasy, but as a fifty-something I predate the postcolonial revolution in textual analysis.

    • It’s an interesting point, but I didn’t detect any stereotyping in their casting. I didn’t find them to be BAMF – the two ‘bad’ brothers were a bit narrowminded and not especially skilled at kicking arse; the other brother was… just sort of a nice guy in a bad situation. They weren’t ‘comedic’ or stupid – or rather, they each had distinct personalities and some were smart whilst others weren’t – just as might be for anyone. They weren’t in servants roles and they weren’t presented as evil-because-of-race. Two of them were kind of dicks for what they did to their brother, but that brother was smart and compassionate. I felt, rather, that having an all-black crew with disparate personalities and moral integrities was refreshing, and allowed for a discussion of racial issues that did not rely on replacing people of colour with a ‘substitute’ other (in the form of an alien or an android). They were allowed to be a part of the discussion of othering, and addressed the complexities of internalised racism where marginalised people can to take to duplicating oppressive behaviour towards subsets of their own communities. And black people are not demonised or typed by this behaviour. Nobody within the show criticises them on race grounds and the actions of the two ‘bad’ brothers are counter-balanced by those of the intelligent, sensitive one.

      I’m open to hearing objections on it, but overall I felt it was a far more mature approach to the discussion than we see in most shows, especially science fiction, which has a habit of talking about minority or oppressed groups by replacing them with symbolic ‘others’, thus actually removing them from the picture and denying them their own voice and individuality.

      • mefinx says:

        Thanks, that’s interesting. I saw it came up in a couple of reviews, less analytical than your own.

        • NicoleL says:

          I have to disagree. I found it incredibly racist and troubling — enough so that I was curled into a little ball on the couch by the end of the show.

          The brothers are presented as thuggish, stupid thieves who are so crass they lie to their own brother and deny him his humanity. Sound familiar? TV and the movies constantly give us characters of color (especially men) who are lowlifes and thieves and so rarely give us characters of color that are awesome and wonderful. Specifically on Doctor Who, It’s not like there is a range of characters of color in the show’s past to compare them to. So why were these characters in particular casted as black men? I was so excited to see people of color on the show, but why couldn’t they have been an interesting band of salvage workers who actually help the Doctor find Clara? Why did they have to play the role of inept bad guys? As the first major characters of color to appear on the show since Martha, they can’t help but represent what the show thinks people of color are like.

          Plus they all die, just like any black character in any action movie ever. The fact that there’s a magic reset button at the end and “it never happened” doesn’t make it better.

          • I see your point of view. I just find it strange to say that ‘[T]he brothers are presented as thuggish, stupid thieves’ when in your own account you note that there is a third brother. The other brother is smart and empathic, and I don’t think the complex discussion exploitation in race relations would have the same resonance without any black characters. The contrast is there, and deliberate. We also see that the two ‘bad’ brothers are not identicle in outlook. One repeatedly adminishes his brother for treating the other brother badly.

            I grant that the presentation is not as wonderful as Martha’s was, and the general lack of people of colour in Doctor Who is problematic. I’ve criticised Moffat-Who for its presentation (or lack there of) or race before. It’s in that context that I welcome an episode where people of colour outnumber white people, especially one where they do have such clearly distinct personalities – apparently so much so that you don’t think of the third brother as their brother or black, seeing as you don’t count him in your interpretation. Unless you think that he isn’t presented as intelligent and sensitive, in which case I simply fail to understand the perspective from which you watched the episode.

            I agree that all the black characters dying is bad (although the fact that ALL the characters die if you discount the reset button is worth noting). And I also noted in my review that the reset button is problematic in its treatment of the brothers. I’m not defending it as a paragon of virtue, but that doesn’t mean I don’t consider it an interesting discussion and effort.

            • NicoleL says:

              My response was not perfect, and I struggled so much with what I wanted to say that I forgot to mention how much I enjoyed reading your perspective on the episode, which I did. Sorry about that oversight.

              I appreciate your points, and since I’m still trying to figure out what I want to say, I’ll leave it at that. I’m hoping to check out the Verity podcast where I believe they discussed this issue. Maybe it will help me be more clear.

              • Kalypso says:

                Something else that has occurred to me is that the van Baalens are a classic example of the “three brothers” trope. In folklore and fairytales, it’s standard to have three brothers (often princes), of whom the youngest is always the nicest/bravest/most intelligent/best looking, and sometimes suffers from the envy of his less talented elder siblings. (The Bible offers a twelve-brother variant: Joseph, the next-to-youngest, is his father’s favourite but is sold into slavery by the older ten.)

              • Thanks for your follow up comment – I’m not used to so many people responding to my posts, I get worried about confrontation and I appreciate someone responding in such a civilised away to my response. 🙂

  4. Kalypso says:

    Interesting; I now have an urge to go and read Huckleberry Finn to see whether “rebellious white boy and slave run away from ‘civilised’ society and float down river having adventures” is a possible model for the Doctor-TARDIS relationship.

  5. Pingback: Worth Reading 106: Housing agreements | What You Can Get Away With - Nick Barlow's blog

  6. Pingback: The Third Annual Serene Wombles | In Search of the Happiness Max

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s