Howling:Doc Murders a Ganger



I don't ... I ... why isn't... how isn't... how can people... (and now please pretend the following is written in allcaps, while I refuse to assault your eyes with allcaps) ... Why has nobody apparently noticed that, at the end of a 2-parter extolling that the Flesh-people are perfectly valid people, the Doctor murders one in cold blood? And Rory lets him do it?

Rory, who spent 2 episodes protecting the Jen Ganger, is perfectly OK with letting the Doctor murder his wife's Ganger? With next-to-zero information? Based on just a foreboding facial expression?

I'm honestly aghast as to how this question isn't pouring out of people's mouths like an angry Double Rainbow. What did Ganger Amy do to make her so much more vile and murderable than the others? Did I miss a scene where she eats live kittens slathered in the living embodiment of purity, after throwing the living embodiment of purity into a wood chipper? Because the Doctor is generally not in the habit of murdering innocents and neutrals in cold blood. In front of their husbands. Agonaga 01:58, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * The only answer I have so far is that she was created by an evil/malicious source so who knows what traps may have been laid in her mind or on her person. It seemed he was very upset over having to do kill the ganger but I'm sure the only reason he did it is because she was created as a trick/trap so she could not be trusted to live. V00D00M0NKY 02:59, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * There should have been another way. :-/ But I hated every minute of this episode... so I was definitely predisposed to flying into a nerd rage over something that may be explained later. To me it just looks like a horrible writer undermining his entire episode and committing character assassinations without even realizing it. Agonaga 03:05, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ganger Amy is not sentient. She's just a body, being remotely controlled (unknowingly) by the real Amy in her soporific stupor (refer to what the Doctor says about 'the signal' to/from the Flesh a few minutes before dissolving her). I don't think the Doctor should have any problems with destroying her, since she's not sentient on her own. I thought this was quite obvious. :\
 * Ganger Amy is not sentient. She's just a body, being remotely controlled (unknowingly) by the real Amy in her soporific stupor (refer to what the Doctor says about 'the signal' to/from the Flesh a few minutes before dissolving her). I don't think the Doctor should have any problems with destroying her, since she's not sentient on her own. I thought this was quite obvious. :\
 * Ganger Amy is not sentient. She's just a body, being remotely controlled (unknowingly) by the real Amy in her soporific stupor (refer to what the Doctor says about 'the signal' to/from the Flesh a few minutes before dissolving her). I don't think the Doctor should have any problems with destroying her, since she's not sentient on her own. I thought this was quite obvious. :\

That's true. The gangers in the old monastery became independently sentient because of the solar "tsunami". Ganger-Amy remained a duplicate body controlled by real-Amy's mind. 89.240.247.33 13:16, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Which brings me back to my original point... they spent the whole episode trying to beat it into our heads that -all- forms of Flesh abuse is wrong, whether or not the Gangers get independence due to freak accidents. Then they undermine it because the plot demands a shocking reveal. 76.188.199.142 14:59, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

ganger amy had no real emotions and was controlled by real Amy. it was like destroying remote control car. (Unsigned)

The complaint that the ending undermines the message of the preceding 2 episodes does have some force, even though there's an important difference between Ganger-Amy and the gangers who became autonomous. What the Doctor did can be justified but I think the writers did miss a trick. 78.146.191.14 17:48, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

The writers missed nothing. The doctor said "Given what we've learnt, I'll be as humane as I can." The writers clearly considered this but thought it important that Ganger Amy was killed. Also as both doctors stated, they dont know for sure that there wasnt a way back for the gangers so I guess we will have to wait and see. --188.221.207.214 21:13, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that it would be OK to kill someone as humanely as possible, just because you think it's important that they should be killed? If you are, you ought to bear in mind that gas chambers using Zyklon B were devised as a humane way of killing people it was thought important should be killed. Even if you were to add not being sure there wasn't a way for the victims to come back, it would still be a disastrously bad piece of reasoning.

What the writers missed, I think, is not the internal logic of the plot. There was a very important difference between Ganger-Amy and the gangers who became autonomous. What the writers missed was the need to draw far more attention to that difference than they did draw, in order to avoid producing the emotional effect that led a viewer to create this page. 78.146.176.60 22:56, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Agonaga. Despite the attempts of the writers to fix it, it's still a problem. Boblipton 22:58, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

It is still a problem. As I said, above, there actually is a genuine difference but it needed to be made far, far more obvious than it was. And I'm not really sure it could ever have been made obvious enough to avoid the trap into which they fell. 78.146.176.60 23:08, May 31, 2011 (UTC)