Human Nature/Family of Blood

[purplecat]

I responded to a comment in parrot_knights post on Human Nature/Family of Blood to note that in several places I felt that the script wanted me to conclude something which I did not feel followed from the action. I thought I ought to try and elaborate on this a bit so here follows a list of notes, in no particular order:



Firstly, we appear to be intended to think very highly of John Smith, and indeed many fans do, but I failed to see a lot of this. Joan Redfern was splendid in providing a moral compass: her disapproval of the militarism of the school, her resolution to do her duty none-the-less, her willingness to accept the incredible when presented with sufficient evidence and I think we are expected to project these qualities she displays onto John Smith. However he does little (especially in Family of Blood) except vacillate, panic and deny. Arguably he makes a stand when he refuses to allow the boys to actually fire on a 10-year-old girl (however inhuman she may be) underlined by their earlier relief that they had not actually killed anyone when they destroyed the scarescrows. However, in context, his appears to follow more from his own inability to act under fire than any actual concern over the pschological effect on the boys. As bunn has pointed out he then entirely fails to follow through on this by managing an orderly retreat or even protecting those boys who do escape the School and who are in his care. In the end, almost every decision John Smith makes is taken through fear or because Joan has told him to.

Obviously, there was an authorial tension here between underlining the difference between the Doctor and John Smith and making John Smith seem admirable in his own right. I think there was too much emphasis on the former and not enough on the latter, although by and large, this does not appear to be the case for most fans.

Secondly if there was an anti-war message in the story it was quite muddled. It had a clear message about the use of child soldiers. On an "anti-war" level, however, at the end Timothy Latimer explicitly says he sees that he must fight. It's possible that this is actually a statement about "fate" but it is presented more as if Timothy accepts or adopts some moral standpoint at this moment. This is very odd. The common presentation of the first world war is that it was largely senseless (as opposed to the second world war where (even if it was not, as I understand it, exactly presented to the public at time) there is a moral argument to be made for the necessity of participation). This is emphasised of course, by Baines speech about fighting for King and Country. The only reading I could make is that following from John Smith's decision to sacrifice himself for the greater good and the Doctor's example in general Timothy has decided to put his own life the line for greater good but since, in this case, the only greater good we are shown is the "King and Country" so roundly condemned earlier the whole thing appears more than a little nonsensical. An alternative reading, since the King and Country bit is delivered by a bad guy, is to conclude that this is a paen to patriotism - however given the additional context of the writer I find it unlikely that this is the intended reading.

Lastly, the Doctor's punishment of the Family of Blood seems rather arbitrary. The impression is that we are supposed to get a sense of scary Doctor if you push him too far. But why, in this case, has he been pushed too far? John Smith and Joan have lost much but surely from the Doctor's point-of-view the Family of Blood have caused comparatively little damage compared to, say, the Autons in Rose, the Cybermen in season 2, or even the Daleks in Manhattan and it can't be simply that they pursued him since his first impulse was to compassion... we are led to suspect (but never shown) that many villagers have been killed but, in particular, we never actually see the Family kill any of the boys explicitly in John Smith's care which might have been an argument for his retaliation. Did he punish them for Joan? possibly but that's only interesting if we get the follow through of her reaction when she finds out what he did.


I should stress that, I loved the episode, but having got this odd sensation of mismatch at several places it seemed worthwhile trying to explore that a bit.

Comments

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

I have commented at one point that Ten's actions towards the Family are cruel, and remind me, if anything, of the Batman (who does not kill, but is not above a bit of torture).

I would like to think that (as has been suggested elsewhere, and not by me) Ten's tendency to act from anger, not thought, might be punished in some way by the end of the season.

I agree that John Smith is not admirable - I'm not sure, though, that he or the Doctor are actually meant to be, at least by the scriptwriter. (I must really read the original book, so I can get a better idea of what he was about.)

There are a good many plot holes, and, as other friends of mine have suggested, a good deal of mawkishness and sentimentality. However, what I thought the punishment of the Family achieved was to make the Doctor alien and scary (which he should be), and the ending was wonderful.

[purplecat]

Oh Absolutely

Like lordshiva I think all may be fine if this is going somewhere

[bunn.livejournal.com]

I felt that the author was being pushed by his own 21st century beliefs into his shaping of John Smith, and that caused him to lose the plot.

I think it would have been entirely reasonable to have a 1913 schoolmaster character be prepared to give up his life to protect people, or to have him admirably realise that a do-or-die defence wasn't working and organise a planned retreat.

The problem is, he doesn't behave like a 1913 schoolmaster at all. He just seems panicky and confused.

[parrot-knight.livejournal.com]

There is a lot of John Smith that is, if not admirable, than recognisable. He comes across as a good man of limited ability, but nonetheless with many parallels with the Doctor. (I'm not sure what Joan sees in him - a 'good husband' who will confirm and add solidarity to the pattern of her life? Or is it, as Martha suggests, that it's the otherworldiness, the echoes of the Doctor in the man he has left behind?) He's established in the first episode as a rather unimaginative product of his society, someone disturbed by his dreams, which are at odds with the person he believes himself to be in his day to day life, but kindly and prone to flashes of ingenuity. The challenge of facing the attack of the Family coincides with an attack on his identity itself, so when we see him mishandle the defence of the school, it's part of an attempt (perhaps) to dig a defensive trench around his own sense of identity. When this proves inadequate, all he can do is run and perhaps hope that the fact that he seems to be the target can draw the Family away from anyone else; but he is increasingly self-absorbed by this point.