Galaxy 4 is another early example that’s just come to me too, albeit unsubtle. Those Drahvins’ hatred and fear of the unsightly Rylls turns out to be not quite as it seems. It does seem as if Doctor Who has bucked the traditional trend of what makes a monster from longer ago than it’s often given credit for.
This is a very interesting topic and I really enjoyed reading, thank you!
I have a couple of points to add, mostly just from myself trying to classify things for the website when I was building it.
I initially used the term “monster” to define alien characters in the stories, and this worked fine until someone pointed something out to me. They said they thought it was insensitive to classify The Master - then played by a man of colour - as a “monster”.
I still think that was a bit of an overreaction, but it made me change the wording throughout the site to “villain” instead.
There are also other issues like the Ood, who are “Doctor Who Monsters” but are sometimes villains and sometimes friendly. There are plenty of other examples, even the Master isn’t always the villain.
My biggest issue with the show and the “monsters” is that too often an alien species is presented as completely evil, very rarely are there individuals of that species with their own agenda, or different factions, etc. I think Moffat has helped this with the Paternoster Gang for example, showing us a friendly Sontaran and Silirian, and the Zygons had different factions, but it’s still an issue that persists in the show.
Thanks for your reply. Delighted that the thread is still generating interest. I have much more to say (including my musings on the first monster to feature on Doctor Who - and why it might not be what or who you think?) and will continue to develop this line of thought and respond to people’s musings as I can. Suffice to say that the four criterion model (thanks to @sircarolyn for contributing the valuable 4th) is providing me with a great deal more insight into the concept of “monsterdom” (if you like) than I expected.
Have the Ood ever been protrayed as villains though? On screen, I would argue definitively not. Rather, when presenting a threat, they have either been possessed (and the possessor - be it the Beast or House - is the true villain of the piece). That said, under certain circumstances, the Ood may occasionally qualify as monsters (particularly in the sense of criteria 2 - omens of misfortune - and 3 (the red eye Ood definitely punish the Ood Operations personel and clients and have an intent to destroy - criterion 4).
Interestingly, I am seeing the term ‘monster’ less as a pejorative term. There is something hugely telling and symbolic about context here. I’ll take this thesis further forward when I can. Glad people are enjoying. I’m enjoying everyone’s contributions. Keep 'em coming!
And for the monster lovers amongst us, watch this space!
So I still feel like I haven’t actually properly thought this out but I wanted to get my thoughts down anyway.
So, looking at some typical monsters, starting with the Daleks and cybermen actually already gives us a lot of interesting stuff. A monster cannot necessarily be alien, since the cybermen are technically human, it isn’t necessarily mutated. Still, they both have something, that I will, as a bigger category, call monstrous. Looking further, I propose this can contain: significant alterations(cybermen), mutation (daleks), aliens (evil ood) and other things that I can’t currently think of.
Important to note here, is that, like already discussed, equating deformity and difference with evilness is deeply problematic. I therefore think that, one, all monsters are monstrous, but not all monstrous beings are monsters. And, two, this monstrousness needs to be truly nonhuman. Therefore, disability for example is not monstrous. (I feel like I’m not wording this well right now but hope I got my point across).
The second category I propose is evilness. I feel like this is kind of self-explanatory. Still, I would agree that an intent to destroy or terrorize, like mentioned earlier would fit this. This quickly becomes harder, though. Is something destroying life without being aware of it, evil? In general, I would say no, but then we need only look at the evil ood to find something that could easily be described as a monster, but that is controlled and therefore not aware. A point could be made for the cybermen here as well. So, I do think that this evilness might contain things not necessarily what we describe as evil, I’d count: significant threat to life, intent on destruction or terror, disregard of freedom and emotion, and probably others, this category is rather hard to define.
Now, a last problem I found came about when I looked at the beings around the daleks and cybermen, namely Davros and Ashad. I don’t think they are monsters, even though they certainly act like it. It took me a bit until I figured out what precisely bugged me about that. For one, I don’t think they meet the category for monstrous since they are still recognizably human/kaled. But more than that, what bothered me was there individuality. And, having a short tangent on Frankenstein here because that is the only other time I’ve discussed something similar, something that really strikes me about Frankenstein’s monster is the fact that it does not have a name. It is able to express itself eloquently and doesn’t have evil intentions, but what ultimately makes it a monster is the fact that it is only ever described as such. Therefore I propose as a third category namelessness. I wouldn’t say a monster needs to literally not have a name, but the dehumanization, the lack of individuality, the outcast should be present, I think.
So, I would say a monster needs to monstrous, evil and nameless, all at least to a certain degree (this is hard to define though). Anything that only meets two or less of these categories is not a monster.
(Also some further thoughts I had that I couldn’t properly fit in there: the horror of cybermen coming from their missing emotions, the monstrosity in the psyche more than physical form. Beings we can’t understand such as the midnight entity. The horror of cybermen converting people. Dalek s as allegories for the Nazis)
Anyway that’s it for now, would love to hear what others think of this.
Very interesting and thorough. I certainly will be replying to this @Jae, but am going to have to wait until I have time to do justice to your well considered response. For now, however, if briefly; I have come to the conclusion that evil is not a requisite for something to be classified as a monster.
Your namelessness catgory has real merit and I think may be worthy of addition as a new criterion (criterion 5?) for reasons that I shall elaborate on when I am able to do so with a little more time and care. This, of course, encompasses the Lovecraftian end of things (which, on occasion, certainly do impinge upon the Whoniverse). Perhaps not namelessness per se (as names may be attributed - the Fendahl, perchance?) but there is something in being unknowable to some degree. This may, in fact, be an important distinction.
I’ll play with the concepts more when I have the time, but I really appreciate and value your thoughts here. Just wish I could give them more time right now!
Oh, and I still maintain that (on TV at least) we have yet to meet an evil Ood, merely Ood that have been used to evil ends by an other.
Poor Ood!
I’m not exactly sure how to explain the connection this just made in my mind, but I’ll do my best. It goes along with everything @realdoctor said about the Ood never being evil of their own volition. It’s a similar distinction to antagonist vs. villain. Antagonists are the bad guys of the story, but that doesn’t necessarily make them evil. In their first appearance, the Ood are antagonists, but the villain is the devil. I’m not really sure what point I’m trying to make here. Maybe someone more eloquent can piece together my meaning.
It’s certainly something interesting, and something very difficult, if not impossible, to define. I love the distinction between antagonist and villain. The trouble with evil, I find, comes from both the moral judgement that is inherently implied and also the fact that while true evil must come with intent, how much can one ever be in control of their own mind, when is the intent truly given. It’s certainly not there in the ood, but I do actually feel a similar argument could be made for the cybermen. Since they no longer have their emotions, can they really make free decisions? (And I could get out the sociology stuff on [German Sinn which is too complicated for me to try to translate accurately right now] I learned last semester now but frankly that is too much right now) same with the sales, they were engineered to hate so are they fully evil if they can’t make the choice not to be?
Add to that, that I find it rarely if ever useful to call a person or an action evil in real life since there are usually more accurate terms, and it is so loaded, that I had great difficulty describing it here.
Also I’m not sure how much this pertains to your answer but these are some of my additional thoughts.
I completely agree that individual cybermen are not evil, though their society most certainly is. Cybermen are, however, good candidates as monsters. Interestingly, their society doesnt have intent to cause terror or destruction (they actually believe it is a kind of benevolence to other humanoids). They are however a near perfect example of the “monster as warning” criterion (3), with the warning being against the dehumanising effects of replacing the biological with technological. This shows, once again, that context and symbolism may matter more than intent in the case of many monsters.
Is there anything of the unknowable (criterion 5) in them? In some respects, yes. We may know what they are, but we cannot really comprehend what it is like to be a part of cyber-society (or, perhaps more accurately, a node in the system). That, in itself, is a frightening prospect.
Absolutely. The terms; monster, villain, and antagonist (yes, I use the Oxford comma. Deal with it! ) are not synonymous, nor are they mutually exclusive. Indeed, it is possible for a creature (or individual) to incorporate any mix of these three traits.
Thanks to ALL who have contributed to this thread (or even just enjoyed reading it) so far. It’s really helping me to crystallise my thoughts on the matter. Getting pretty close to a central thesis on monsters and the monstrous now. Much more to come!
OK, some time (at last) to think and respond with a little more depth:
(I always enjoy coming back to this thread)
I can see this point though, like you, I would argue it is possibly an overreaction (particularly with my evolving understanding of the concept of ‘monsterdom’). Nevertheless, there is a distinction between monsters and villains. They are, however, not mutually exclusive concepts. There is no doubt, for example, that some personifications of the Master have certainly portrayed the character as more monstrous. Specific examples would include the cadaverous Pratt/Beevers Master (ol’ crispy) and the gelatinous snake ‘metamorph’ / Eric Roberts Master. Even when inhabiting Bruce’s body, this Master was much more bestial at times and certainly portrayed as frightening.
Then, of course, there is the behavioural and psychological aspect of the Master. In many ways, the Master is a true monster. Ignoring the (discredited) first criterion (malformation), we can consider the remaining criteria we are left with:
Criterion 2: Omen of Misfortune
To the Doctor, the Master is almost always an omen of misfortune. On first realising the involvement of the Master, the Doctor invariably recognises that the threat level has escalated (both at a personal level and also in relation to others). Interestingly, however, the Master usually deceives and manipulates others so that they, initially at least, do not recognise the threat and may even see the Master as an ally or benevelonet force. The Master, thus, displays this characteristic of monsterhood as dependent on context.
Criterion 3: Warning/Punishment/Instruction
This seems to me as a less common criterion for the Master. Nonetheless, we do see it on occasion. One memorable example is the behaviour of Dahwan’s Master towards Gallifrey AND towards the Doctor in “The Timeless Children”. His actions seem overtly driven by hatred, yes, but also a desire to punish the Time Lords for the lies, and to punish the Doctor for not being the person that they had always thought.
Criterion 4: Intent to Terrorise or Destroy
This is a slam dunk for the Master. Indeed, in pretty much every appearance the Master either employs terror or seeks to cause destruction (and often both). The Master definitely meets this criterion.
Criterion 5: Namelessness/Unknown/Unknowable
The Master is relatively well-known as a character, but there are significant questions regarding the Master’s origins (in a similar way to the Doctor). Indeed, many people hypothesised that, perhaps, the Master was the true timeless child. Whilst that doesn’t seem to be the case, the fact that it seemed such a plausible option raises the question here. Moreover, the Master is different to all other Time Lords in so many ways and does bear striking similarity to the Doctor in their non-conformist personality and behaviour. This, however, does not seem a strong enough case for inclusion via criterion 5 (though the possibility is there).
In short, the Master routinely meets three of the four criteria (and may qualify for the fifth). Is the Master a monster? By this model, categorically yes!
Does this make the Master irredeemable? Nope. Because, being a monster may not always be a bad thing.
Really?
Indeed. There is much more to be said on this.
Yes, I do agree to an extent. It’s complex and we can see plenty of evidence that the show has, since season 1 (1963-1964) been bold enough to show alien species as complex and nuanced, with some individuals behaving honourably or with good intent, whilst others are malicious. ‘The Sensorites’ is a good example. Initially, we are presented with a species that appears to be (to our uneducated eyes) monstrous. Their first appearance is startling and they are presented as something to be feared (here, we are applying the discredited criterion 1 (malformation - not because they truly are malformed but because they do not conform with our expectations of humanoid form). Quickly, we learn that we are mistaken and that the Sensorites are a peace loving species, highly civilised and largely benign. The City Administrator, however, is suspicious, xenophobic (with, as it turns out, good cause to be fair), highly ambitious and murderous. Overall, we can see, the portrayal of the Sensorites is a lovely exploration of how initial prejudices and snap judgements can be very wrong. The Sensorites are a people like any other people.
That said, you are quite right in that DW has often portrayed alien species as uniformly evil. As I believe I’ve commented earlier in this thread, this becomes particularly pervasive during the Second Doctor’s tenure (with the much vaunted season 5 as a prime example). Fortunately, however, if we take the Ice Warriors for example, we learn during the Third Doctor’s era, that the Ice Warriors are not evil by definition. Again, there are villainous members of the species and others (e.g. Izlyr) who behave with honour and clearly have a well developed sense of morality.
I agree that DW, as a series, has been uneven in its treatment of alien species, though I am convinced that there is a long standing thread which portrays alien species as not definitely evil but as diverse, occasionally wonderful and frequently fallible (just like humanity). This is to be commended.
Does this preclude these species from being seen as monsters, though? There is a contextual and deeply psychological dimension to the concept of the ‘monster’. It, typically, says more about the person perceiving the so-called monster than it does about the creature itself. Sometimes there is ample justification to this perception whereas, on other occasions, knowledge teaches us that those we used to perceive as monstrous are, in fact, no different from ourselves.
So, at last, to the question of “What is the first monster that we see in Doctor Who?” Maybe I should rephrase this as “Who” because the answer isn’t the Daleks.
A monster is something perceived to be monstrous because it meets one or more of the key criteria of monsterdom. I’ve repeatedly commented on why criterion 1 (malformation) should be discredited, though it does still lead to unjustified perceptions of the monstrous. Let’s focus, instead, on the remaining criteria:
- Omen of Misfortune
- Punishment/Warning/Instruction
- Intent to terrorise or destroy
- Nameless, unknown or unknowable
Armed with these criteria, I posit that the first monster to appear in Doctor Who was Susan (or, at least, created by Susan). In episode 4 of “An Unearthly Child” (The Firemaker), Susan places a skull on a burning brand:
“Hey Grandfather, look! It’s almost alive!”
Ian, seeing the potential, responds:
“Not alive, Susan. Almost dead. We’re going to make four torches. We’ll find the sticks. And we’ll use the fat from the meat. And then…”
Using the burning brands and skulls, our heroes have clear intent to terrorise, may be perceived as omens of misfortune and presented a spectacle to the tribespeople that couldn’t be understood by their frame of reference and was therefore unknown to them. Of course, it doesn’t make the TARDIS team evil or villainous but, at least to the Tribe of Gum, they most certainly ARE monsters.
Where to next, on this thread, as we explore the concept of ‘the monster’ and the criteria that help us to define monsters in a more consistent and meaningful way?
I’m pretty happy with our listing of five criteria, one discredited but oft used versus four that have specific meaning and are tied, in all cases, to the psychological, symbolic/allegorical and behavioural origins of the word ‘monster’.
The separation from the physical (criterion 1) to the more psychosocial (criteria 2-3), behavioural (criterion 4) and epistemological (criterion 5) is particularly important and very fitting for Doctor Who. We should not judge by appearance nor by pedigree. By contrast, meaning and intent offer us a much more tangible view of the monsters, for what we see as monstrous frequently reveals much about who we really are.
My thoughts are now leading me towards discriminating between those criteria that are necessary and those that are sufficient. Are there any of our criteria which must always be true for something to be classified as a monster or is any one of those criteria sufficient? Have we, perhaps, missed something important that might yet bring the monster into closer focus or do we already possess all the puzzle pieces we need to solve this age old problem?
I think in order to answer that question, we first need to figure out why we’re trying to define A Monster. What role does A Monster play in a story? Is it the villain/antagonist, or something that might at first appear to be, such as a red herring? What is the narrative purpose of a monster? Why bother defining it at all? I think figuring that out will help us understand which criteria are more or less important for the definition. Of course it’s all very subjective, but personally I find this question even more interesting than the main one.
We are thinking along similar lines, it would seem. Yes, I think these are all useful questions for us to reflect on as we work our way through this topic. Narrative purpose is very important and ties in pretty strongly to our 5 critieria. Indeed, during the less enlightened examples throughout the history of DW (especially during the Classic years), narrative purpose also explains now discredited use (overuse/inappropriate use) of disfigurement and/or disability. Criterion 1 may well be discredited (of course it is) but the psychosocial connections explain its prevalence at times.
As for your “Why define it at all?” question, I have this to say:
- Because it’s fun;
- Because it’s instructive; and
- Because… Well, just because!
I’m back on this thread again, and this time I’m considering whether any of our criteria are either necessary or sufficient for classification as a monster. Alternatively, is there a critical mass of agreement with criteria at which point a creature becomes definitively ‘monstrous’? I think this is a much more difficult area to explore, though a topic well worth consideration.
@uss-genderprise suggested that we first need to figure out the narrative role of the creature in the story. What is its narrative purpose? These are excellent questions and most pertinent to the discussion. In Doctor Who, all monsters are the result of a creative process, they have authorial intent. In a sense, I would argue this is true of all monsters (even those in the real world - it’s just that we are the authors in those cases). Monsters serve to make us cautious. A monster is what happens when a creature triggers certain responses, certain connections in our psyche. This, therefore, is why our discredited criterion 1 (malformation) has historically been so strongly associated with monsterdom. Those that look different are not truly monsters (of course) but ignorance causes unfortunate associations to be made and thus the monster is born.
Ignorance, I strongly believe, is frequently associated with perceptions of the monstrous. It ties in, most immediately, with criterion 5 (nameless/unknown/unknowable), but also lies at the root of discriminatory perceptions of the monster (criterion 1 again). Of course, there are other ways people’s ignorance leads to discriminatory perception beyond appearance alone, hence (utterly unjustifiable) prejudices against people for not conforming to other people’s expectations of ‘normality’, be it appearance or behaviour etc.
Writers can, and do, use this to create responses in the audience. Often, although not always, in Doctor Who there is a lesson that initial perceptions are misguided or judgements are flawed. As Conan Doyle wrote so eloquently, “…one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” Thus, oftentimes (though not exclusively), the best Doctor Who writers create monsters that we learn are not monsters to teach us this valuable lesson… to hold a mirror up to us and to make us question our own values. They show us that we jumped to conclusions without knowing all of the facts and that, like Sherlock Holmes (or the Doctor himself - most of the time [he sometimes gets it wrong- just like Sherlock in The Yellow Face]) we should make sure of our facts before passing judgement.
Stand up Malcolm Hulke and take a bow! (That man was genius!)
I have more to say but have sadly run out of time for now. I’ll be back…
I’m going to drill deeper into the monstrous portrayal of the Daleks in their debut serial (today known simply as The Daleks, though growing up this one was always known as The Dead Planet to me, in recognition of the first episode). I’ll be considering authorial intent (insofar as it is possible), perceptions of the characters AND in serial traits of the Daleks themselves.
Why am I doing this? My thinking is that, if I select a range of creatures from throughout Doctor Who and subject them to a degree of scrutiny via application of our five criteria, it may help to gain a handle on common or most important criteria / combinations of criteria. The Daleks? Seemed an obvious starting point.
Let’s get started:
It seems clear that Nation wrote the Daleks as a warning of the horrors of nuclear holocaust (criterion 3). He also frequently used the term ‘mutations’ to highlight horror and danger (criterion 1). Whilst using the Daleks as a warning is fine, Nation’s use of mutation to signify horror and monstrosity is, obviously, deeply problematic. It isn’t even just that the titular creatures themselves are mutated that is the problem (In a biological sense, we all are riddled with mutations - this is grist to the mill of evolution, of course). No, the problem here is that Nation explicitly connects mutation and malformation with threat and monstrosity. Note how the Dalek’s refer to the Thals as ‘disgustingly mutated’. Worse still is the reference to mutations going ‘full circle’ in the case of the Thals (this has no real biological meaning) and returning them to a state of perceived perfection (as explicitly stated by Susan). So, those beings with the appearance of ‘normality’ are deemed perfect and show themselves to be idealistic as well as peaceful, but those creatures that are most different are shown to be the monsters. Here, Nation relies very heavily on criterion 1. This is neither a useful nor accurate measure of true monstrosity.
So, in this regard, are the Daleks in this story monstrous because of appearance? They are presented this way but we must discount it. Are they monstrous because they stand as warning? It’s certainly a step in the right direction.
You may be wondering why I’ve not considered criterion 2 (omen of misfortune) yet. This is a fair question. I don’t see this as intended by Nation or recognised by the characters in this story for one simple reason; this is our first encounter. Even the Thals who have history with the Daleks don’t perceive them (initially at least) as omens of misfortune and are willing to take them at face value (to their tragic loss). In future stories, however, Daleks very much become omens of misfortune (two stories which exemplify this aspect particularly well are; The Power of the Daleks (note Troughton’s response when everyone else is in ignorant oblivion) and The Stolen Earth (note the responses of Jack, Martha and Sarah Jane on hearing “EXTERMINATE!” for the first time). No, the Daleks aren’t omens of misfortune in their first appearance but, from hereon in, this will very much be the case!
Onto criterion 4 (intent to terrorise and/or destroy). This is the easy one. It’s a yes, yes, YES! Nation’s intent was always for the Daleks to be aggressive antagonists. From the word go, they cause fear and harm. It isn’t long before they’re plotting genocide. Moreover, the camera gets in on the act here as well. That famous cliffhanger to episode 1, the Dalek plunger menacing Barbara, is shot deliberately to maximise impact, to showcase Barbara’s terror and to make the audience feel that visceral stab of uncertainty (the camera uses uncertainty to terrorise, we are seeing things from the Dalek’s point of view so we have a visual insight into the Dalek intent - more on this later).
The final word on intent, of course, must go to the Daleks themselves who repeatedly state their intent throughout:
“Follow and kill her!”
“Only one race can survive!”
"The only interest we have in the Thals is their total extermination.
By criterion 4, from author, via the production team and, most definitively, from the stated intent of the creatures themselves, the Daleks are monsters!
Our final criterion is 5 (nameless/unknown/unknowable). Whilst the Daleks certainly aren’t nameless as a species, they possess no individual names, they are faceless, their true nature is unknown to our protagonists and, even, to the Thals initially. They are certainly unknown to the audience. The work of the camera in that episode 1 cliffhanger highlights what we do not know - focusing only on the plunger. We cannot see what Barbara sees and that, in itself, is frightening. We see something similar later on, where we see only the grasping claw of a single Dalek creature with Ian’s reaction doing much to convince us that what he is gazing upon is well beyond his (or our) experience. Moreover, there is something about the psyche of the Daleks that will ever remain unknowable. By criterion 5, therefore, in this serial the Daleks are, in part, shown as monstrous.
In summary;
- Malformation: Yes, but this should not influence our interpretation
- Omen of Misfortune: Not yet (but this will come to pass)
- Warning: Yes, by authorial intent
- Intent to terrorise/destroy: Yes, from all perspectives
- Nameless/Unknown/Unknowable: Partially
Key criteria: 3 and 4
Supporting criterion: 5
Dalek Sec and Dalek Caan would like to have a word with you other than that, a deep, layered and interesting analysis as always!
I absolutely agree, and yet…
…they will have to wait until Doomsday and beyond. Until then, the Daleks are indeed presented as nameless.
They will have their day… but not in 1963!
I take responsibility for the confusion. I intended to make clear that I’m explicitly considering their presentation in the specific named story.
Thank you for the compliment. I’m glad you enjoyed reading. Any suggestions for the jext monster to come under scrutiny? I was thinking, perchance, a Troughton era foe.
Maybe the chamelons from The Faceless Ones, or the Ice Warriors?