The Doktor - Hero or Villain?

From doktorsleepless

The Doktor - Hero or Villain?

Posted by Mike Hills on February 4, 2008 at 12:38pm

The good Doktor.. he says he's come to save the future. And until now I'd assumed him teh_her0.

However, I'm starting to think maybe he's the Villain of the story. Or maybe both. Or maybe it doesn't matter.

But if he is.....? Then who's the hero? The Nurse? Sing? Or someone yet to come?

Place your bets...........now.

Reply by Spiraltwist on February 7, 2008 at 12:51pm

I don't think there is a "hero" male or female in the traditional sense in this book. A hero saves people, and I don't know if the people of Heavenside wish to be saved because of the "agressive apathy" in the town.

Reply by Mike Hills on February 10, 2008 at 9:22am

oh, how Warren teases us..

" K@D: A common theme through much of your fiction is the idea of resisting corrupt authority. How do Anna Mercury’s efforts in this respect differ from those seen in your other works, like Doktor Sleepless or Black Summer?

WARREN ELLIS: Hm. Hard to answer that without giving some major twists away. Let's say, for now, that Anna, in contrast to say Doktor Sleepless, is an agent of stability. It's her job to actually try and save and preserve societies – or at least pull them back from the point where they can harm themselves. "

making the Doktor an agent of instability? he sure seems to be messing with the Grinders at the moment (ie by facilitating the infections of St Terasa's Eyes)

Reply by Spiraltwist on February 13, 2008 at 1:17pm

I think the Doktor's very existance is an agent of instability. He's shaking up the status quo, when no one else is.

- thanks for the article info, I hadn't read that

Reply by 444 on April 19, 2008 at 8:40am

I didn't find no stinkin' article!

But the quote is interesting, and seems true: the Dok certainly appears to want to destabilize Heavenside, and perhaps, ultimately, the whole world! (insert mad laughter here)

Reply by Icha Westreid on February 14, 2008 at 8:46am

Argh, that article makes my brain smush.

I had been thinking, after rereading the latest ish, that perhaps the Doktor sees himself as finishing something he's started, making himself a hero, or setting himself up as someone's hero, only so he can toss it back in their face. Maybe it goes beyond the whole hero/fearo thing and into 'Doktors are doing it for themselves' type scenarios. Whether people choose to see him as hero or not might not matter, you know?

This whooooole storyline seems to be about perceptions, I'm just going with my gut feelings.

Reply by Seej Engine on February 15, 2008 at 10:42am

Are doctors heroes? Well, sure, if Dr Jack off Lost has improbably given you a heart transplant using only bundles of twine and airline cutlery (or whatever medical miracle he performed this week ::- gave up on the show half way through season 2) then that's a clear example of a hero. But what about the GP who says "It's flu. Go home, take aspirin, drink plenty of liquids" ten times a day? He's just doing his job. Serving a purpose. Making his way and using the skills he has to fulfill his function in society. Perhaps that's all the Doktor is doing.

Reply by 444 on April 19, 2008 at 8:37am

Hey, good thread--came across it moments ago.

I agree with Spiraltwist: I'm not sure there is really gonna' be a 'hero' in the traditional sense either. That said, we can see, like Icha points to, that it's likely Herr Sleepless is gonna' turn out to be a hero to some. I mean, as of issue 6 we see how it's likely the Grinder culture are gonna' take him up as such.

Reply by Spiraltwist on April 19, 2008 at 3:48pm

The Doktor could be a hero to the Grinders, but a villain to the rest of Heavenside.

Reply by Tom on April 20, 2008 at 2:53am

I remember reading an article some time ago, I forget by who (maybe Noam Chomsky), that was making the argument that all of the alliances of the various countries are actually a detriment to society as a whole. Basically the idea is that progress only comes from the struggle to bring order out of disorder, with too much order or disorder, nothing changes. Another way of saying it is that progress is a dialectic process, and right now we are stuck at one end of the spectrum. I'm not sure if I totally agree with this, but it is something to think about.

Reply by Spiraltwist on April 20, 2008 at 3:26am

Hmm....yes, it is. Good points in there; could argue for and against - I don't totally agree with everything it says either.

Reply by Tom on April 20, 2008 at 4:33am

Just thinking out loud, here . . .

I guess that my main objection to this would be that the universe tends towards disorder ::(entropy, etc.), so any deliberate attempt to create progress by fostering disorder would be just an excuse.

On the other hand, progress is usually in and of itself disruptive, and so in order to create progress, one has to be willing to create a little disorder, too. So I guess the issue is whether DS thinks that he is an agent of progress or disorder (with the goal of long-term progress).

Reply by Spiraltwist on April 20, 2008 at 4:56am

He can't be both?

Reply by Tom on April 20, 2008 at 5:00am

I guess a better way of putting it is: is he attempting to directly create progress, or is it just an end to justify the means?

Reply by Spiraltwist on April 20, 2008 at 5:03am

Not sure - when it's phrased that way. I think it depends on the mood he is in that day. And I really mean that - not being a smart ass.

Reply by Tom on April 20, 2008 at 5:24am

Personally, I want to believe the first (relatively benign) option, bit it gets a bit more complex. I mean, there are probably things that he wants to do that require him to create a certain amount of disorder (to create opportunity).

I suppose that I would, in the end, say that the determining factor here is that someone of the first type would create disorder as a part of a specific plan, while a person of the second type would create disorder with only the hope that it will lead to progress.

This creates its own dilemma, as the great villains of history usually had a specific end in mind (that they probably believed was progress), and created disorder towards that end. So, I don't want to condone the actions of the Hitlers of the world, but on the other hand, I don't want to tie the hands of an agent of progress (which could be just as bad, when you think about it). The answer must lie somewhere in-between.

I'm going to go ahead and stop thinking about this for now. Maybe by Monday my subconscious will have come up with something interesting. As for now, I'm going to go ahead and bet on DS being a . ::. . hero.

Reply by Awesine on April 20, 2008 at 5:29am

Well he is my hero at least!

Reply by 444 on April 21, 2008 at 9:19am

Sorry, off-topic but...

I guess that my main objection to this would be that the universe tends towards disorder (entropy, etc.)...

Ah, the ole Second Law of Thermodynamics, eh?

See, I've sometimes wondered: if this holds true for the universe, then how did any of these more complex structures (like stars or people or grass or pretty much whatever) come together?

Now back to yer regularly scheduled topic...

Reply by Mark Crabtree on April 20, 2008 at 8:55am

He's a mad scientist who feels like hurting people and wants to make the world burn.

What on Earth is making you people think he might be a hero?

Reply by Mike Hills on April 20, 2008 at 10:10am

cause we wanna stand there with him

Reply by Mark Crabtree on April 20, 2008 at 4:22pm

Then you may just have to come over to the dark side!

Reply by 444 on April 21, 2008 at 8:26am

Heh.

Reply by Lord Shaper on April 25, 2008 at 10:20am

Actually I think it's more of a lot different shades of Grey... Looking at where we are now and what the industrial revolution has done for us to get here shows that when we look back it is a good thing but if you look at what was happening at the time there are alot of cases of violence and rebellion against the idea of being able to bring us forward.

The whole point that that has been made throughout the book that everyone is wanting the fantastical but to get there they have to change and that starts with realising what you have right now.

So my point is that yes people will be thinking of him as a villain NOW but when everythings changed and evolved he will be looked on as the Future Science Jesus that he's claiming to be...

Reply by Leofski on April 20, 2008 at 3:20pm

The Doktor is progress. Destructive, brilliant progress bringing the future that was promised. In that sense, its not really relevant whether he's heroic or villainous, although chances are he's going to raise hell in the process, but then the struggle creates the incentive to move forwards. Heavenside has no real reason to advance, its citizens are stuck, content in their everyday lives. The Doktor is there to change that.

Reply by 444 on April 21, 2008 at 9:08am

Sure the Doktor seems poised to bring about social upheaval in Heavenside, but I'm not sure 'progress' always equals 'good'.

And who promised this future that wasn't delivered and why is the Doktor's vision of the future the 'correct' one? Does he even have a vision of the future post-revolution, and if so, what is it?

Reply by Kyle Rogers on April 20, 2008 at 7:04pm

I think he's the "hero" of the story, but I don't think he's actually a hero in the traditional superhero comics interpretation. There again, the Doktor's world isn't one that would allow superheroes, I don't think.

He's a villain in the context of being a threat to the stability of the existing social system, but then you get the same sort of idea that the Authority had, of whether freedom can be forcibly implemented in a society by an outside agent.

I think that the "Heroes" and "Villains" model is too reductive to usefully describe the characters in Heavenside. The Doktor is a force for change, which should theoretically make him benevolent, but his destructive methods and relative lack of concern for the people whose world he wants to reshape makes him more malevolent. I don't think his true nature will become apparent for some time, though, if it is ever resolved down to something simple.

Reply by 444 on April 21, 2008 at 8:47am

He's a villain in the context of being a threat to the stability of the existing social system...

Yes, this is certainly true. Moreover, if Sleepless' world is a near-future extension of our world, as several references in the series would seem to suggest, then the scale of instability he appears to desire would make him a 'terrorist'.

I think that the "Heroes" and "Villains" model is too reductive to usefully describe the characters in Heavenside.

Yeah, this seems likely to be closer to the mark; although, we might see Sing undertaking heroic actions as the series unfolds.

The Doktor is a force for change, which should theoretically make him benevolent...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "theoretically" here. Do you mean that a force of change is necessarily benevolent--that it acts as a force for good as a matter of course?

Reply by Kyle Rogers on April 21, 2008 at 10:21am

Yeah, this seems likely to be closer to the mark; although, we might see Sing undertaking heroic actions as the series unfolds.

It wouldn't surprise me to see Sing running around trying to minimise the collateral damage of the Doktor's less restrained antics, and being a hero in the sense of trying to protect the people of Heavenside from someone who appears to regard them as less important than his mission.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "theoretically" here. Do you mean that a force of change is necessarily benevolent--that it acts as a force for good as a matter of course?

Hmm, I should have said "agent of progress" rather than "change", I think. We're usually sold the idea that progress, particularly scientific or technological progress, is intrinsically benevolent, despite the tendency for such progress to be directed towards military advances before civilian applications are developed or made available (at least over the last century or so). Of course, what's good can very from person to person, which just makes the whole question even more fun...

Reply by Aodh_Rua on April 21, 2008 at 10:23am

Something perhaps Hegelian in the structure of DS running his thesis and Sing forced into running an antithesis to his actions?

Reply by 444 on April 22, 2008 at 1:30am

Ah, if it was truly an example of Hegelian dialectic, then we'd be led to expect a synthesis between the two opposites, yes?

Reply by Kyle Rogers on April 22, 2008 at 12:10pm

I suppose the Doktor's thesis is roughly "Societal progress is stagnating and lagging far behind technological progress; this must be addressed at whatever cost to preserve the long-term viability of the society" whereas Sing looks like she's going to be forced into the antithesis of "Protecting the members of society is more important than the long-term viability of the society, and the members wellbeing should take precedence over the requirements of the society itself".

Which would mean that the synthesis would among other things result in a societal model that incorporates change at a faster pace than that which is currently the case, but which also prevents Mad Scientists from killing everyone while Bringing About Teh Fuchar!

(All of which assumes the Doktor to have good intentions of some sort, if not for the current residents of Heavenside then at least for those who will inhabit its future society.)

Reply by Mike Hills on April 23, 2008 at 5:20am

the Doktor has "a terrible prescription".. he's gonna break, slash, cut away at everything he sees wrong with his Present, and the road to the Future they're on..

but he's leaving it up to Sing to put Humpty Dumpty back together again...

Reply by 444 on April 23, 2008 at 8:28am

Yeahhhh slash n' burn, baby,

SLASH!

AND!

BURN!

Disco freakin' inferno, yeahhhh, that's what I'm talkin' about:

a full on

motherfuckin'

REVOLUTION!!!!

Reply by Mike Hills on April 24, 2008 at 1:46am

SLASH!

AND!

BURN!

and RAZOR and BLADE!

Reply by Ian 'Cat' Vincent on April 24, 2008 at 9:51pm

"RAZOR and BLADE!"

I've always thought Hackers was one of the best fantasy movies of our times... it's a classic plot - a bunch of low-powered but good-hearted mages battling against the Big Evil Wizard. It's just they used computer tech instead of magic.

Rambling again...

Reply by Spiraltwist on April 24, 2008 at 11:24pm

It's just they used computer tech instead of magic.

Rambling again...

Maybe not. Consider this: 25 years ago, what we do on a normal, everyday basis now, would have been considered majic. Or left people awestruck. Or both.

We take so much tech for granted now. The younger generation doesn't even remember what is was like to have to get up and TURN on the television.

444 Permalink Reply by 444 on April 25, 2008 at 10:03am

Other than the tool for shaving, I am...

at a loss.

Reply by 444 on April 22, 2008 at 1:28am

Ah--thanks for the clarification. So: operating with the model that proclaims scientific/technological progress is good, then in theory the Doktor is a benevolent force by default (so long as the Doktor actually is such an "agent of progress").

But like I said previously in this thread--and you give nod to in your above post--it's certainly questionable that progress equals good. In other words, it seems that the model which proclaims all scientific progress as benevolent is faulty. There are those who'd like to sell us on the idea, yes, but we sure as hell don't gotta' buy it!

Reply by Ian 'Cat' Vincent on April 21, 2008 at 10:59pm

I like the way this idea was handled by JTraub of Whitechapel in the DS6 thread:

"Doktor Sleepless has turned himself into science fiction indeed, because to force the future he needs to play the villain.

The tools being provided are not there to rebuild after his apocalypse. Nope, he is going to provide the people with the tools they need to stop him, and the process of stopping him is going to create the world that should be."

DS is a villain. A hero couldn't get the job - immanentizing the eschaton - done.

I suspect Mars could be built up to be a hero-type who'll get in the way, and if there's anyone we've met yet who could be called the hero of the book once it's over, it'll be Sing.

Reply by Kyle Rogers on April 21, 2008 at 11:10pm

Hmmm, I like that idea. It smacks of someone actually sitting down and thinking about what a villain would want to achieve if they weren't just some daft cliché. (Which just adds to the irony of the Doktor deciding that he had to make himself a cartoon in order to achieve his goals).

I'm not entirely convinced that he wants to be stopped, though...

Reply by Ian 'Cat' Vincent on April 21, 2008 at 11:20pm

Perhaps not. But maybe the act of trying to stop him would result in the change he seeks.

Reply by Spiraltwist on April 23, 2008 at 2:04pm

JTraub of Whitechapel

He's here, somewhere, btw. I've been after him to post more ideas.

Reply by Ian 'Cat' Vincent on April 23, 2008 at 6:58pm

Thought I saw a familiar looking handle...

Reply by Lord Shaper on April 25, 2008 at 10:30am

Maybe the better term for him is Futurist?

Reply by Kyle Rogers on April 25, 2008 at 11:43am

But is Teh Fuchar worth more than the lives of those who have no place in the Fuchar he's trying to bring about?

Reply by Lord Shaper on April 25, 2008 at 1:51pm

I would say yes because all he's worried about is the advances... how he gets there isn't the concern.

Reply by Kyle Rogers on April 25, 2008 at 9:29pm

Yes, but the argument can be made that those advances are only as good as their applications - which means that the Doktor's apparent lack of concern for the rest of humanity could very well lead to him behaving villainously. Hell, I wouldn't put it past him to put contraceptives in the drinking water and start poisoning fast food in an attempt to control population levels.

All of which is to say, wanting to bring about the New Shiny does not stop him from being a full-on, foaming-at-the-mouth-grade Nutter and, quite possible, a psychopath to boot.

Reply by Ian 'Cat' Vincent on April 26, 2008 at 12:33am

I suspect that he's choosing to become (to the outside) "a full-on, foaming-at-the-mouth-grade Nutter and, quite possible, a psychopath to boot" in order to achieve his ends.

Of course, that's not necessarily better than just being a nutter...

Reply by Kyle Rogers on April 26, 2008 at 12:47am

Fair point - taking on the appearance of someone mad (whether cartoonishly or otherwise) will let him hide his real objectives for a while. At the same time, how deep does the pretence go? And where's the boundary between the front the Doktor is putting up to make himself a cartoon madman, and whatever (potentially quite extensive) mental quirks and aberrations already exist in his psyche?

Reply by Ian 'Cat' Vincent on April 26, 2008 at 12:53am

AHA! I have it!

He's two different kinds of nutter!

Reply by Kyle Rogers on April 26, 2008 at 12:59am

Not only two different kinds of nutter; he's two different kinds of nutter that are in conflict with each other. (Which, to refer back to the Hegel comments earlier in the thread, could then lead to a third state of resolved nuttiness!)

Reply by Ian 'Cat' Vincent on April 26, 2008 at 1:08am

Mmm... resolved nuttiness. With caramel, I hope.

I like the thesis-antethesis-synthesis idea for the Dok. Though it suddenly occurs to me that some of his symptoms (smashing mirrors etc) could be side-effects of the tulpa/copying process, and the underlying Reinhardt (if there be such) is less mad.

Reply by Kyle Rogers on April 26, 2008 at 1:15am

So the Dok's mirror-smashing antics suggest that he could be a sort of Bizarro John Reinhardt? Cool!

Return to Secret Speculation II.