Doctor Who: the Almost People

[miss_s_b]

I liked the first five minutes of that. Then the continuity errors started annoying me - how many sonic screwdrivers? - then Rory falling for Jennifer!Ganger doing the helpless female act annoyed me. Then Jennifer!Ganger/monster looking like Mark Gatiss in the Lazarus experiment really annoyed me.

Then the Doctor committed murder. He's spent the entire two-parter telling us that gangers are people too, that the flesh remembers, that it is sentient, that it feels pain... And then he murders Amy!Ganger in cold blood. I'd figured out that Amy was going to be a ganger, and was wondering how they would resolve it, but I never, never thought they would do it like that.

And yes, I know, he has killed before - notably sending the hand of omega after the daleks - but only EVER after giving people a choice. He gave Davros a choice. He gave the silents a choice. He didn't give Amy!Ganger a choice. He just aimed and fired.

My Doctor is not a murderer. This episode is going into the Definitely Not Canon box in my brain.

I feel genuinely quite ill after that.

Comments

[apathysketchpad.com]

To be fair, Amy's ganger wasn't sentient like the ones in the factory. It was still being controlled by the link with Amy. When it melted, Amy immediately woke up in maternity. And there was no way around that; either the ganger melts or the real Amy never wakes.

[ggreig.livejournal.com]

That was how I read it. The dialogue seemed to suport that interpretation, but they're certainly taking a risk (assuming we're right) by leaving that aspect of it to be explained in a future episode. That seems to be the Moffat style though.

[miss_s_b]

But that was not clear from the episode; I agree that's how they'll probably fanwank it away, but on the content of the episode what you just posted is a theory which will make it all better, not a reading of the content of the show.

[(Anonymous)]

It was clear from the episode.

[sir_guinglain]

I thought it was implied in the episode, and Matthew Graham on Confidential stated that it was the authorial intention; the Amy duplicate was made using a more advanced version of Flesh, one infers, which could not develop sentience on its own.

[gwenhwyfaer]

One might wonder, whilst one is busy inferring, how "possessing designed-in stupidity" qualifies it as "more advanced". Besides, we've had sentience-linked clones before in Dr Who, with the Sontarans; there was really no need to introduce another kind of clone.stuff into it, especially not one with a tendency towards sentience. "One should not multiply entities unnecessarily" shaves fiction even more effectively than it does thesis. I wish the Dr Who staff would understand that, and soon.

My greater misgiving is that I'm beginning to feel as though Mr Moffat doesn't entirely know what he's playing at here. Feels like a kid has got his hands on the best train set ever, and has built a track so complicated and chaotic, with so many of his favourite "train tracks should have this in them!" features, that he doesn't actually know where the train is going to end up going, or even if it's capable of staying on the rails...

Cartmel II?

[sir_guinglain]

The gangers were disposable technology; however accepted Dicken and Jimmy became, the designers of Flesh would surely always have regarded them as technological flaws. Advanced Flesh would reliably disintegrate once the link was broken.

I wasn't keen on the Flesh technology looking so like the cloning tanks used by the Sontarans, just three years after these were central to 'The Sontaran Stratagem'/'The Poison Sky'; but don't see any problem with similar devices being used by different people in different contexts. It's a big universe.

At the moment, I think Steven Moffat is proving more competent than Andrew Cartmel was, though I do wonder if elements such as Dicken's sneeze (not carried over this week) have suffered from poor script-editing.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it qualifies as more advanced in that they meant to use the gangers a certain way, but they certainly never meant to create sentient life that could feel and suffer. With "built in stupidity" the gangers now better serve the purpose they were created for without the unintended side effect. (I don't know if I agree with that thought line, but I do know that it seems to make a certain sense of logic from a corporate stand point.)

See, I freaking hate Moffett, but I think he knows exactly where he's going. Fandom my not love the final destination - but I'm pretty sure he's driving that train straight down the tracks to his intended destination... and he's doing it so well that he's managed to stump most of the people most of the time - something almost unheard of in this day and age. And I have to tip my hat to him for that, I didn't think we as an audience could be surprised anymore.

[millenniumelephant.blogspot.com]

They had just spent two whole episodes telling us that gangers *are* sentient - even the ones not zapped by lightning (hence the scene with the pile of ganger corpses). If the Amy-ganger is different, they really needed to go the extra mile to make that difference clear.

[davegodfrey]

The way I see it is that gangers become sentient when the person controlling them stops controlling them. So because Amy was always controlling her ganger right up until the point that the Doctor destroyed it, it was never sentient. So the Amy-ganger isn't any different from the others, it just never became sentient.

I certainly agree that the script needed to be clearer on this rather important detail. It also brings in something I don't like that much about Moff's writing, in that the Doctor ends up being secretive about things that if they aren't explained means you end up with easily avoidable plot holes, and we end up with discussions like this.

[matgb]

gangers become sentient when the person controlling them stops controlling them. So because Amy was always controlling her ganger right up until the point that the Doctor destroyed it, it was never sentient

This?

This would actually make sense. And if it's shown that's the case in the next episode then perhaps it becomes acceptable.

[yoyoangel]

The way I see it is that gangers become sentient when the person controlling them stops controlling them. So because Amy was always controlling her ganger right up until the point that the Doctor destroyed it, it was never sentient. So the Amy-ganger isn't any different from the others, it just never became sentient.

That was my reading of it.

[miss_s_b]

Except that a big thing was made about even the unprogrammed flesh being sentient.

[davegodfrey]

Yes. But while Amy's driving a ganger the flesh becomes a copy of her. This overrides the sentience that the flesh they used to make it had before. It stops being unprogrammed flesh and becomes Amy, and if Amy stopped driving the ganger it would then be an independent copy of her.

So I think the only way you can not commit murder is by doing what the Doctor did- destroy the flesh body while the person its a copy of is still controlling it.

[(Anonymous)]

It's still murder, because the sentience that was inherent to the flesh, that was pushed aside by Amy's consciousness, was destroyed. That sentience was still in there somewhere; it just wasn't in control. That was the entire point of the two-part episode. That intelligence was living, feeling, and thinking. It might not have been aware to experience the pain of death, but it still died. It still deserved to be treated as a person and not summarily executed.

[davegodfrey]

I don't agree. I think the sentience inherent to the flesh is replaced by the sentience inherent to Amy. There's nothing in the episode that indicates that the flesh's inherent sentience continues after its been formed into a ganger. Reverting a ganger to the base flesh is clearly stated to (very probably) destroy the consciousness of the ganger created from it, recreating the base consciousness of the Flesh. They're separate entities inhabiting the same matter in sequence.

There's also no indication (yet) that the Doctor has destroyed the Flesh that made Amy's ganger. Its reverted to its original form, and now we have the problem of what to do with it.

[(Anonymous)]

No, actually, the exact opposite is clearly shown in the second episode, when Jennifer!Ganger shows Rory the used-up Gangers that have been left in a pile. It is clearly shown that they are still conscious and aware. That's why Rory was so determined to help her and stop the abuse of the Flesh. Jennifer!Ganger states that she remembers dying, whenever an accident happens in the factory. She tries to tell the other gangers, saying "The eyes are the last to go!"

If they were "separate entities inhabiting the same matter in sequence," its still murder.

I hope that last bit is true and that the Flesh that was Amy is alive and well in the TARDIS. It is the only thing that will redeem that scene in my eyes.

[davegodfrey]

No, actually, the exact opposite is clearly shown in the second episode, when Jennifer!Ganger shows Rory the used-up Gangers that have been left in a pile. It is clearly shown that they are still conscious and aware

Its left-over flesh that used to be a ganger and has retained the memories of its user- I didn't say it wasn't still aware and conscious.

Jennifer!Ganger states that she remembers dying, whenever an accident happens in the factory. She tries to tell the other gangers, saying "The eyes are the last to go!"

And she is contradicted by one of the other gangers who says she cannot remember it.

If they were "separate entities inhabiting the same matter in sequence," its still murder.

Not if the flesh while it is in the form of Amy shares her consciousness- which it does. At that point its one entity distributed over two bodies, but only aware of being one of them.

However we'll have to see what actually happens- I think there's too much ambiguity in the two episodes to be able to state things categorically (either deliberate or due to bad writing). Hence the continuous debate here. (I should probably step away from this discussion really- I think I'm in something of a minority here).

I've seen in a couple of places remarks by people who have presumably seen the next episode (on Radio Times, and in the Confidential after the second part) that they have got themselves out of this hole.

I suspect one reason we haven't been told the whole truth is that Amy waking up in a strange place with Frances Barber makes a good cliffhanger, and Rory shouting at the Doctor for an explanation makes a better opening.

[(Anonymous)]

Whether the discarded flesh retains some echoes of the memory of the human that used and discarded it or not, isn't really relevant, imho. The bottom line is that the Flesh has sentience *separate* from it's human user, an awareness that is shoved aside, when humans forcibly take control of it. That awareness still exists, when the humans are done and toss it away.

The whole point of the two-parter is that the Flesh are people, not equipment to be used and discarded. Yes, Jennifer!Ganger retained more memories, than the others, but the point is, she remembered. The memories and potential are there.

Not if the flesh while it is in the form of Amy shares her consciousness- which it does.

What does sharing Amy's consciousness have to do with it? It's not sharing her consciousness after the Doctor cuts the link. That's the important point. What happens to the Flesh's original consciousness, that was shoved aside by Amy's mind by their link? It appears as if it is destroyed and that makes the Doctor's action murder.

At that point its one entity distributed over two bodies, but only aware of being one of them

No. There are always two bodies and two entities. There's the Flesh body and mind and Amy's body and mind. Amy's mind temporarily takes up possession of the Flesh's body, making it appear to be her and suppressing the mind of the Flesh, who is somewhat aware, but lacking in autonomy. Amy has control, but she is not the only entity occupying the body.

Well, nothing was resolved by the next episode, to my disappointment. In order to maintain my respect for the Doctor and handwave Moffat's mistakes, I'm going to assume the TARDIS or the Doctor had made plans for the Flesh and that is is somehow alive and being cared for.

Moffat really needs to be more careful with these morality issues. I'm having to handwave a lot this season. *sighs*

[andrewhickey.info]

In which case the 'Doctor' wouldn't say "Given what we've learned, I'll try to do this as humanely as possible."

He was killing a sentient, sapient being, and knew he was doing so. A sentient, sapient, being that was defenceless, that had done nothing wrong, and that trusted him and thought of him as her best friend. And he did so *unnecessarily*. We have seen that the 'gangers' can have separate existences along with their originals. The 'Doctor' killed an innocent, over whom he was in a position of power, rather than be bothered to think of a way to rectify the situation.

That is, simply, as evil as it gets.

[davegodfrey]

The only way around that is if ganger's don't have an independent existence while they're being controlled by someone.

I'm not quite sure what that line means- possibly the fact that breaking the connection between Amy and the ganger and having Human-Amy wake up when/wherever she is is going to be unpleasant. And that breaking the connection is going to destroy the Flesh-Amy, or at least revert it to its unformed state. We then of course have the problem of what happens to the white goo sloshing round the Tardis that remembers being Amy.

I suspect that the only way the Doctor could break the link from his end was by destroying the ganger. The Confidential episode does state that "no Amys were harmed in the process"- but of course that doesn't quite fit with what they've told us about gangers. I have enough faith in Moffat that he'll be able to write his way out of this, but as I said, I do worry that he won't bother and we'll be left with a really problematic plot hole.

[telegramsam]

That's what I thought when I saw it.

I could be wrong of course.

[miss_s_b]

except that the flesh is sentient in non programmed form as well as in human-looking form.