Carrionites, Sycorax, Judoon, Vashta Nerada.
8 Likes
Great suggestions, yes. The Vashta Nerada are interesting because of a) motivation and b) lack of physical appearance. Judoon… hmmm, huge potential here as well (and very different). Sycorax definitely have clear intent to present themselves as monstrous, so there’s plenty to unpack there as well.
Thank you!
9 Likes
How about the Weeping Angels? Those are very monstrous in my opinion
11 Likes
You are quite right. Weeping Angels should definitely be on the list. Thank you.
9 Likes
+1 for Weeping Angels.
Also the Silence - aliens bent on world domination or religious order?
The Adipose - these poor babies were not at fault, it was the nanny who was breeding them for their parents.
The Slitheen - I find it funny that they are used as an example that families can be bad, but not whole species, and yet even when we are introduced to the Blathereen they are also bad (and related). Where are the good Raxacoricofallapatorians?!
10 Likes
Wow! We are positively overflowing with excellent candidates. OK, I’ll put together a poll.
9 Likes
POLL for Nu Who candidate for ‘Monster Analysis’
- The Crooked Man (Hide)
- The Sycorax (The Christmas Invasion)
- The Carrionites (The Shakespeare Code)
- The Judoon (Smith and Jones)
- The Vashta Nerada (Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead)
- The Weeping Angels (Blink)
- The Silence (The Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon)
- The Adipose (Partners in Crime)
- The Slitheen (Aliens of London/World War Three)
0
voters
I’ll only analyse for the first televised appearance, with the understanding that portrayals do change over time.
Thank you in anticipation, everyone. Let’s get voting!
7 Likes
How about the Toclafane
5 Likes
Gah, too late
7 Likes
Oh, I wish I’d seen that in time. Filed away. Worth pursuing in the future. LOVE the Toclafane!
8 Likes
I completely forgot what the Toclafane were lol, so I looked then up and… I DIDN’T WANT TO BE REMINDED NOOO ALL THE HUMANS WHYYY CREET WHYYY?!?
8 Likes
It’s just such a brutal concept. Absolutely savage. I love it when RTD lets that side of his psyche come out to play. That’s what leads us to places like Finetime. Happy days! (And, no, I don’t mean that Finetime is a happy place - but Dot and Bubble - pure class!)
8 Likes
Yes, I love how the guy who brought us Space Babies also brought us Turn Left!
You know what else I love? The fact that, in Space Babies, everyone on board the Baby Station is doomed, and it’s all the Doctor’s fault! He was told they had no controls, and then he just boosted the ship, and they can’t maneuver it! I like to think Russell knes exactly what he was doing with that one…
10 Likes
You know what RTD ALSO wrote?
“…your funny little happy-go-lucky life leaves devastation in its wake.”
He’s one of those writers who definitely gets that the Doctor means well but can cause real problems. In fact, lovely as the Fifteenth is, he’s also one of the most reckless and impulsive incarnations we’ve had. Consider the consequences of him not pausing to think things through (or the associated consequences) in; Boom, 73 Yards, The Legend of Ruby Sunday (e.g. the time window scene).
10 Likes
The Vashta Nerada (Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead) was my vote. Also interesting to hear the analysis of their origins from Classic Doctors, New Monsters 2.
7 Likes
Well, the Weeping Angels were clear winners on the poll, so I’ve turned my attention to them. Don’t blink. Don’t look away. Not even for a second! Look away and you’re dead!
Since there are only four full stories that properly feature them, I’ve decided to broaden my approach this time and look at their evolving portrayal as monsters. Let’s get started:
Criterion 1 (Malformation/Disfigurement/Inhuman Appearance): This is particularly interesting for our Weeping Angels since their default appearance is elegant and strongly humanoid (with the exception of the wings). The one BIG difference, of course, is the fact that they are made of stone. Oh… and those eyes. When we DO see the eyes, they are utterly blank. For every element that makes them look familiar and human, they only move further into uncanny valley territory, which heightens the monstrous by drawing stark attention to their ‘otherness’. Interestingly, this is not appearance as ‘monstrous’ because it just looks different, but because there’s something wrong about it. What really heightens that very wrongness is the fact that we see them as statues (which we know cannot move) yet we see plentiful evidence of them having moved. It’s chilling. Like a predator resembling something innocuous, we are very right to be wary of these creatures. As for heightening the inhuman - when about to strike we frequently see their fanged mouths, snarling visages (that effectively portray ill intent). These features are true across ALL their televised stories to this point, with an additional observation that in The Time of Angels we also see them as malformed in many cases (as a result of decay). What’s interesting is that these ‘malformed’ Angles are not initially presented as a threat. In this way, Moffat is one of very few writers to effectively subvert the often damaging and prejudicial criterion 1. On this occasion, I actually think criterion 1 is, in part, a justifiable and effective part of their monstrous classification. Bravo, Moffat!
Because of the approach I’ve taken, I’ll break this down into multiple posts. Criterion 2 (and the rest) to follow.
10 Likes
Analysis of the Weeping Angels - continued
Criterion 2 (Omen of Misfortune): So much about the portrayal of the Weeping Angels leans on tropes common to omens of misfortune/portents of doom. Particularly noteworthy is the cultural significance of their form as statues. Far from typical garden statuary, their form resembles something much more likely to be encountered in a graveyard. This clearly foreshadows an association with death. Their portrayal relies heavily on cultural associations and dark imagery. However benign their ‘resting form’ (with hands over eyes) may appear, we cannot escape the graveyard link. They are shown to be harbingers of doom from the very beginning. Indeed, before we’ve even seen an angel, in Blink we get the line (inscribed on the wall) “Beware the weeping angel.” Then, in The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone, we see the image of the Angel on the monitor and, again, this serves as a powerful portent. Again and again, throughout their stories, is symbolism and imagery highlighted to reinforce their role as omens of misfortune.
Indeed, in The Halloween Apocalypse (an episode I feel is sorely underrated), though Swarm and Azure are introduced and shown to be powerful, it is arguably the brief (yet very disconcerting) appearance of the Angel (in a standout scene) that really heightens audience expectations of just how dire things are. The fact that the opener of Flux isn’t even a Weeping Angel story actually highlights just how powerful these creatures are as portents of doom. Suddenly, we’re not messing about any more.
We can take this criterion even further. The very best portents of doom are traditionally heavily ambiguous. Context and prior experience leads strongly to interpretation. Out of the context of their prior appearances (or the Doctor’s warning at the beginning of Blink which primes both Sally AND the audience to beware), they do appear to be benign statuary. But, to those of us who know… they are so very much more.
Finally, for this criterion at least, effective omens need to be iconic or memorable and often with a degree of repetition. The Angels ALL have the same outward form, and it’s a striking form indeed. By connecting them so strongly to memory, visual imagery (and, even, mental imagery), they become more deeply ingrained as portents than ever.
10 Likes
Analysis of the Weeping Angels - Continued
Criterion 3 (Warning): Whereas I could say a resounding “yes” to the first two criteria, this is the first time I’ve not found a clear warning in the narrative role of the Weeping Angels. The Daleks were Nation’s warning against both fascism AND nuclear holocaust, the Ice Warriors (in their first portrayal) can be shown as a warning against the dangers of technology (it’s a less strongly developed theme for the Martians, but it is there). With the Weeping Angels, I’m not really sure their stories consistently have a warning for us as the audience. Are they warning us to be vigilant (“Don’t blink!”) or the dangers of looking where we shouldn’t (“If you open your eyes now, for more than a second, you will die!”)? Weeping Angel stories are fundamentally different to those previously explored featuring the Daleks and Ice Warriors. They are much more about digging into our psyches, our fears. They are, in many respects, a reflection of our worst fears and the darkest worries of our own psyches. They are an existential horror, threatening to take away our futures, to remove our potential. They are our fear of the unknown personified, a profound comment on our perception and the limits of this perception, but are they written as a warning as with our previous subjects? I would, for the first time in our analyses of monsters, argue that this criterion is not a significant factor in their monsterdom.
Criterion 4 (Intent to Terrorise/Destroy): The Angels score very highly here. Whilst terror is not high on their intent in Blink (although it was certainly high on Moffat’s intent as writer), they explicitly destroy futures. Moving onto The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone, however, and we see an explicit intent to terrorise as well. Angel Bob’s words are chosen to make the Doctor angry, sure, but they also spread fear which affects the behaviour of Amy and the Clerics, thus potentially playing into the hands of the Angels. We see a similar tendency in Village. One of their most horrifying Criterion 4 portrayals comes in The Angels Take Manhattan where it is explicitly stated that they are using Manhattan as a farm. This is absolute objectification of humans, utilising people as a never ending food source, stealing lives, parasitising potential, taking all of our could-have-beens and making sure they are never-weres. Explicitly, then, we see the Angels portrayed as malicious, deriving sadistic pleasure from terror, objectifying people as sources of energy, treating us as livestock. Time is their weapon of choice, and they wield it like a butcher’s knife.
9 Likes
Analysis of Weeping Angels - Continued
Criterion 5 (Nameless/Unknown/Unknowable): So, onto our final criterion. Once again, this is fertile ground for the Weeping Angels. Despite four appearances (and a handful of cameo appearances) in televised episodes, they remain one of the most mysterious and least knowable creatures in the Whoniverse. They seldom, if ever, speak of motivation (they seldom speak at all, with their appearance in The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone and Village of the Angels being their most verbose episodes. Even here, however, so much of their true motive and background remains a mystery. If anything, their appearances in Flux only serve to increase the mystery surrounding them. We understand that they are sadistic but we know pretty much nothing about their culture, their psyches and their purpose (beyond their desire to feed off potential energy). Indeed, they are clearly highly intelligent and capable of strategic thinking yet we are only able to define their intent by their need to feed. This, we understand, for an intelligent species is wholly inadequate. We KNOW there must be more (much more) to them, yet it remains shrouded in mystery and is all the better for that.
Angel stories post Blink have often been critiqued for demystifying the Angels, yet we still know so little of them. All we’ve really learned is that their abilities are more far reaching than initially appeared in Blink and that they’re smarter/more strategic than they appeared in their debut story. Oh, and they (or some of them, at least) are associated with the equally shadowy Division. The Angels are one of a handful of truly iconic new monsters. They’ve been an ever present threat in the series since 2007. In the following 17 years, we’ve learned so very little. Compare and contrast with how MUCH we learned in the first 17 years of Dalek stories (taking us up to Destiny of the Daleks). Similarly, consider the huge depth we have learned about the Ice Warriors in the short 7 years spanning Classic Ice Warrior appearances (and that’s four stories - identical to the number of full Angel stories we’ve had to date), and you can see why I believe that the mystery of the Angels has been remarkably well preserved.
11 Likes
Analysing the Weeping Angels as Monsters: An Overview
Thus, my analysis comes to a close on these creatures and it is time to collate our thoughts in a simple overview:
Inhuman Appearance: YES. Here, for the first time, I’m willing to accept that appearance is a valid element of their monsterdom, especially given how it combines with their intent. It is the ‘wrongness’ and the fact that they are a living trap that really score highly here. On the sole occasion they were shown as malformed, this was used to distract us AWAY from their existence as a threat. Very nicely done.
Omen of Misfortune: YES. In spades. This is a hugely important part of their portrayal. They tick all the boxes here, from the way they’re used to the choices and associations of their imagery. Indeed, even to THINK of an Angel becomes laden with dread and foreboding in stories like The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone and Village of the Angels.
Warning: NOT THIS TIME. For the first time in our analyses (in my opinion, of course), the Angels do not appear to be used as a consistent warning of anything in particular. They are a reflection of our own existential anxieties. That’s something rather different.
Intent to Terrorise/Destroy: YES. Across the board, and with them delighting in causing terror. Their use of humans as livestock, their sadistic pleasure in killing. Monstrous.
Nameless/Unknown/Unknowable: YES. Despite featuring in four dedicated stories and being a well known threat for 17 years of televised DW, they remain more inscrutable than pretty much any other returning monster in the Whoniverse. This, in itself, makes them damnably monstrous.
Key criteria: 2, 4 and 5
Supporting criteria: 1 (I just love the way Moffat actually flips this trope in their second appearance).
11 Likes