"The Dalek Masterplan" (the previous story) was certainly a hard act to follow. The Doctor Who production office had quite a task set out before it to keep viewers equally interested in the next couple of stories, and as the ratings and viewer appreciation figures from this time indicate, they did not do such a great job of it. We now enter a run of stories that I often like to call "the dregs" of season three....


The Massacre
(of St. Bartholomew's Eve)

This story is not known to exist in its complete original format (4 black-and-white 25-minute TV episodes).
Paperback Novelization


(hardcover)
CD Audio - 2 discs
(Doctor Who Story No. 22, starring William Hartnell)
  • written by John Lucarotti vs. Donald Tosh
  • directed by Paddy Russell
  • produced by John Wiles
  • featuring library music tracks
  • 4 episodes @ 25 minutes each, all missing:
    1. War of God
    2. The Sea Beggar
    3. Priest of Death
    4. Bell of Doom
Story: Landing in Paris in August of 1572, the Doctor decides to pay a visit to biologist Charles Preslin to discuss his discovery of germs. As Steven becomes more and more worried about the Doctor's prolonged absence, he finds himself getting more deeply embroiled in the rising religious tensions between Protestant Huguenots and Catholics. Has the Doctor been caught up as well? Trouble seems to escalate as the familiar face of the antagonistic Abbot of Amboise is revealed, and historical events veer towards catastrophe....

In-Depth Analysis Review

by Martin Izsak

WARNING: This review contains "SPOILERS", and is intended for those who have already seen the program. To avoid the spoilers, read the Buyers' Guide version instead.


Most well-versed Doctor Who fans know that the auditory remains of this lost TV story (now preserved on Audio CD) are very different from the official novelization. What many don't seem to recognize yet is just what a VAST improvement the book is. To illustrate this, we go first to the earlier of the two versions which debuted on the small screen....


An equally apt title for the TV version of this next story might be "The Massacre of the Script". After a careful investigation of what the television serial must have been like, John Lucarotti can hardly be blamed for wanting to have his name taken out of the writing credits. Fundamentally speaking, we see here a group of conflicting writers all using various deeply flawed criteria in which to construct stories for this time travel sci-fi adventure show. Witness these choices and think them through:

Dennis Spooner and John Lucarotti wanted to do a historical story. First it was to be in India in the 1700's. Apparently the story was axed from on high because Doctor Who was not supposed to venture between the years 1600 and 1960. Not only is this the lamest cause of rejection I've ever heard, but who stopped Terry Nation from setting the second half of "The Feast of Steven" in 1920's Hollywood, or Donald Tosh from commissioning Donald Cotton for a story set in 1880's Arizona? 1700's India was not to be, at any rate.

Next, Lucarotti came up with his "Vikings" story-line. This story once more flaunts the same fundamental plot-motivation weakpoint that infamously dragged Lucarotti's "Marco Polo" story to the bottom of season one's rankings. That weakpoint is that the regular characters are only motivated by a desire to leave in the TARDIS and explore some other place - in other words, the trip from Greenland to Newfoundland in a Viking ship isn't interesting enough in itself, and the formula is once more in place for the audience to not take interest in the Viking crossing and to look forward impatiently to moving on to next month's sci-fi story just as the regular characters are doing. This is sufficient cause in my book for at least having the motivations for the regular characters completely re-written. As it turns out, this story idea was completely rejected anyway, which may have been going too far.

According to Andrew Pixley's Archive feature in Doctor Who Magazine, issue #233, it is actually script editor Donald Tosh who suggests the time, place, and major historical event that "The Massacre" is based upon. Producer John Wiles pushes for the concept of the horror of religious conflict. Another most notable idea is that of the Doctor's double, with star William Hartnell coming from one angle by suggesting that he be allowed to play a second role, and John Wiles coming at it from completely the opposite direction in wanting to get other actors to play the Doctor. Lucarotti threw himself into the task of scripting the ensuing tangle at Donald Tosh's request. One has to wonder, however, if Tosh wasn't already itching to write it all himself. At any rate, it appears that the script that actually went before the cameras was a complete re-write by Tosh, and this version represents for me one of the lowest quality failures of imagination and spirit that Doctor Who has ever produced. The proof is that it resulted in a never before seen depth of all-time low ratings for Doctor Who, a sharp change from what had just come before, and it's not at all hard to see why.


Notice first how cleverly they shot themselves in the foot with logistical gimmicks: They craft a story with two roles for the lead actor, and then give him a planned holiday for an episode in the middle of it. Stupendous! Now, not only is the Doctor absent from episode two, but his doppel-gänger the Abbot of Amboise is now also limited to a brief, silent, pre-filmed insert. "The Massacre" goes on to become the epitome of a Doctor-less Doctor Who story, as Donald Tosh proceeds to play it so safe with the re-scripting that there is no longer any point in shooting it after he's done. The Doctor is also absent in episode three, so that William Hartnell only has to play the Abbot. Well, that's pretty boring, and shows no faith in the creativity of the production personnel and their techniques. What's more, the doppel-gänger is killed off in episode three, so of course William Hartnell once more has only one role to play the following week. What's actually left for the Doctor to do in this story? Absolutely zilch in episode four as far as the Paris 1572 setting is concerned, and his contributions to episode one don't amount to much more than idle conversations in streets, taverns, and shops. For those looking forward to William Hartnell performed "Doctor's Double" adventures, I suggest episodes four and five of "The Chase" (story no. 16) as a much more interesting example. Thank you Terry Nation and Richard Martin for pulling off a better collaboration of writing and production creativity than Donald Tosh dared dream of here.

"Steven finds himself alone in Paris once more. For a while, he wanders the streets aimlessly...."

Perhaps this story should belong to "The Adventures of Steven Taylor" rather than to the Doctor Who program. Steven is as close to a main character as this story gets, yet his motivation throughout is simply to find the Doctor, who may or may not be impersonating the Abbot for reasons unknown, and leave in the TARDIS. This is the "Marco Polo" mistake again, which does next to nothing in getting viewers interested in the events of Paris 1572 or creating a riveting story, while also merely helping the audience focus on the Doctor's absence from his TV program. What's more, if you know the story, you know how wrong are most of the assumptions that Steven bases his actions on, which distances the viewer even more from emotionally investing in his struggle throughout the bulk of the piece.

Next, we come to the guest characters themselves. Denominations such as Protestant Huguenots and Catholics are mentioned in the same manner and vein as ethnicity and nationality, but questions of religion and spirituality are not discussed in the slightest, nor are our time-travellers able to comment on the absence of discussion of the crucial issues. Once more, Wiles and Tosh play it so safe that there isn't any point to play this game at all. Did Tosh achieve his aim of "historically accurate" portrayal of all "real" characters? In terms of writing, directing, and acting, there seems to be a focus on recreating a somewhat Shakespearean style here. But it is style... window dressing. The dialogue is the type Tosh always seemed keen to take credit for, with the most thoughtful moments mumbled quietly, and the more audible portions consisting of too much whining and self-centered explosions. Maybe historical figures did act that way 400 years ago. The trouble is, that kind of behaviour generally doesn't, and shouldn't, evoke much empathy with audiences today.

These guest characters are also presented in a very haphazard order, disappearing early and/or appearing suddenly late in the story, maintaining a great deal of confusion over which characters are important or even relevant to the proceedings. The Abbot of Amboise fits this description as equally as any of the others. Even after narration has been added for the CD version of the story, I still find it extremely difficult just to know who is talking much of the time, or what role each of the characters is trying to play in the unfolding plot.

What's really missing from this tale is a character, either regular or guest, who has motives above petty self-interest, one whose struggle an audience will want to invest in emotionally. Without that, we needn't bother turning the cameras on. When the actual "Massacre" of the title eventually takes place, it feels as though there is no reason to care one way or the other. It's just bloody, horrific, and ugly, and why are we watching / listening to it anyway?


Episode Four bears some closer scrutiny, because it has a few extra opportunities to salvage the story and provide us with something worthwhile, and again it fails. Firstly, the conversation between Steven and the Doctor in the console room seems to impart more actual historical information in an interesting way than the serial has managed to do by re-enacting the drama cinematically. However, Steven is ticked off at the Doctor for not doing anything to save anyone, particularly saving Anne by bringing her on board the TARDIS, and quite rightly too. The Doctor has clearly and sadly lapsed back into the dogmatic non-interference brain-washing of his home planet at this point, and argues to that effect. It is fitting that he then finds himself alone in the TARDIS, without companions, and without viewers as well. The viewers prefer an interactive hero. Interaction is paramount for the main character(s) in any narrative. If you can't teach history while having main character time-travelers interact compellingly with historical ones, then do a historical show without time-travelers, and let a noble historical figure take the lead. Doctor Who's writing requires greater understanding of, and ultimately celebration of, the hero's role. Sadly, "The Massacre" really has no historical lead character, and no successful time-traveling lead character either.

William Hartnell certainly knows how to deliver a soliloquy when he puts his mind to it, and for once I found myself glued to the audio recording, hanging on every word, as the atmosphere became thick with the sense that something very deep and crucial and important was about to be imparted. His speech is riveting, but redundant.... essentially lousy content in terrific packaging. Here Hartnell basically gives voice to the formula Donald Tosh had a conviction to adhere to at the time, unfortunately a formula that reliably produces crap in science-fiction everywhere. If the Doctor believes what he's saying here, then he's in complete heroic relapse. The illusion of the danger of a timeline changing, being rewritten, or ceasing to exist, coupled with the change-fearing character-immobilizing notion that a good deed might lead to a worse timeline - this illusion is the single worst anti-moral plaguing science fiction writers then and now. Its major motivation seems to be in the worshipful preservation of history books, real or future-fictional, as though this should be more important than exploration, discovery, adventure, the desire to do good, help save lives, stay true to inner principles, show others who you really are inside, and make a positive difference wherever and whenever one may find oneself.

Well, let's talk Achilles' heel. If so many writers can get warped around this one, it's surely going to happen that a fictional character can do so as well. The Doctor's caught the bug, and his beliefs are setting back into it, and hey, that's okay. He is free to be wrong sometimes. He's all alone in the TARDIS, so that should teach him how popular and widely held his stance is.

Haha, and in pops Dodo, a total opposite, frantically looking for a phone to call help for someone involved in an accident. Just what the Doctor ordered, and needed. Move over, Doc, a real hero has arrived on the scene. Alas, the Doctor is so entrenched in his own miserable philosophy that he can only grumble at Dodo and dig more firmly into his position. Doc, your last fleeting chance to redeem yourself at the end of this "Massacre" fiasco is fast slipping away! Grab it while you still can!

Yet worse, Steven runs back in, suggesting that they dematerialize to avoid two policemen. Excuse me? Why should you be a-feared of policemen? Why should you not lend assistance to the accident victim? And why, oh why oh why, do you want to abduct Dodo in a manner that does not allow you to confidently return her to her own time and place, when all you need to do is lock the TARDIS doors for half an hour at most to keep the policemen out? The character motivations here smack of pure cowardice and fear, lacking not just courage but reason and logic as well, and set the poorest examples in all of Doctor Who history. In hindsight, considering the sheer number of orphans "adopted" by the Doctor during his travels from all time periods, and the fact that time is relative and one character's future is another character's past, there was absolutely no good reason why Anne of Paris 1572 should not have become the next traveling companion of the Doctor. It is certainly a nicer name than Dodo. Sadly and bizarrely, Donald Tosh and John Wiles have really shown no tolerance for any female companion while they ran this show. It seems they didn't know how to write for them, and mistakenly blamed it on their characters' biographies. Shoddy.


So basically, we have here four episodes in which nothing with the potential to be of interest to the audience is allowed to happen. In short, the TV script for "The Massacre" is such a pure and utter disaster, that no amount of production values (Shakespearean or otherwise) could have saved it. Thankfully, 20 years later, rewriting was still in the cards....




I feel it is only fair to also review the official novelization here, because it is such a VAST improvement over the television version and shows us what John Lucarotti really had in mind for this story. It also addresses most of the concerns I raised above in a powerful and beautiful way.

The differences in this version take time to be seen, as episode one retains an almost identical plot structure, with emphasis shifted to exploring the geography and timeline of Paris, and less emphasis on sitting around in taverns. But although the Doctor does still disappear from public view, he does not disappear from the story, as we continue to follow his activities and his moral dilemma. His motivations in this version are given their due, as he struggles to find the common ground between his "fatalist" view of not being able to alter history and the driving sense of heroism which is the longer-term character's true dominant trait. His initial agreement to help the Huguenots is simply a deal of circumstances at first, and his role in the story and in their plans quite limited. As such it is not very interesting, yet. But the Doctor quickly becomes more and more interested in the people and their situation, until before long he is acting out of his own sense of justice and fairness, and doing everything he feels he is temporally "allowed" to in helping them.

This also does wonders for the guest characters, as the reader now tends to empathize with Huguenots first, and Catholics second, making the actual looming "Massacre" event much more emotional. Preslin, Lerans, and Nicholas Muss now evoke the readers' sympathies, for the Doctor and Steven both get to know their better sides and empathize with their goals. But the Doctor's motivations and allegiances do not do it all - the restructuring of the guests' appearances in the plot must also take much credit. Catholic Simon Duval (The Abbot's right hand man), quickly comes to the fore as THE lead villain that we love to see humorously fooled by the confusion of the Doctor's resemblance to the Abbot and all the impersonations that follow. Viscount Gaston de Lerans in particular feels like a completely different character, occupying the archetype of the local lead good guy that our regulars want to help - a far cry from the forgettable imbecile who merely hampered Steven in a fit of his own confusion in the audio CD. Also, by the middle of episode two, all major guest characters have been introduced, and remain active until the final scenes of episode four. King Charles grows from an episode three extra to an important figure - his illness and his relationship (read: power-struggle) with his mother become evident. Admiral De Coligny's attempted assassination moves from late episode three to late episode four, allowing his character to do more, and also allowing the Doctor's heroic efforts to AID the natural course of history rather than making "unallowed" alterations to it. The Abbot of Amboise also manages to continue to hamper our friends until the very end, when the much anticipated confrontation with the Doctor finally occurs. And here, it is the Doctor's greater mastery of spiritual and Godly issues which allow him to maintain the upper hand, and make obvious the limitations of the guest characters that would cause atrocity in the name of religion. Even for all of Admiral De Coligny's noble efforts to unite the religious differences in France, he would do so through war in the name of nationality, which is one more excuse for the same evil. As he sows, so he eventually reaps. This novel thus proves far more effective at teaching history and providing insight into it than the TV version.


Proper Charles, Other Charles, and King Charles

Historical accuracy provides this story with two famous characters named Charles: one being the noteworthy scientist Mr. Preslin, and the other being Charles IX, King of France. That's easy enough to take, as there is little chance of getting the two mixed up. But it seems a third character that Lucarotti invented himself, purely for the novelized version, was a red-bearded dog-cart driver who could have been called anything. Lucarotti names him Charles, despite the fact that almost all of his scenes are in the company of Mr. Preslin, making the reader wonder which of them he means each time he indicates that Charles speaks, or Charles does something. All we need now is John Cleese asking, "Is your name not Charles?" "No, it's Gaston." "That might be a bit confusing. Mind if we call you Charles instead?" And the Doctor thought he had problems getting mixed up with the Abbot....

The novelization perhaps still suffers from a slow pace in earlier sections, a pace which still only accelerates slowly. But thankfully the pace continues to build until everything is rolling full steam ahead during the final quarter of the book, and the entire journey is definitely far better than the dreary rubbish that went out on TV.

The Doctor is very busy at the end of this book version, putting heroic touches in everywhere and staying true to his inner character struggle with his history-alteration issue, which wraps up all the events of the Paris 1572 setting in both a historically accurate and Who-ishly heroic manner very satisfactorily. Is there any disappointment to be had at the loss of the Doctor's in-TARDIS soliloquy? Considering what anti-moral crap it actually tried to say, not at all. It is no longer necessary in the slightest. I would not have wanted Dodo's introduction to have followed the TV version verbatim either, but this is an important element in the continuing series, and it deserves more than a casual "flashback" mention, even if it were completely restructured/remotivated as well.

The wrap-around "inquiry" idea in the book doesn't seem to fit Doctor Who chronology very well, stemming more from the fact that "The Trial of a Time Lord" (season 23) must have been first airing and influencing Lucarotti as he did his novelization, but it is an important element in heightening the Doctor's issue with his inner principles, and in showing definitively where his issue stems from. His adamancy in not altering history, seen here and in "The Aztecs" (story no. 6), is not so much his own well-thought out idea, but rather just an environmental influence ingrained into him by the officials and teachers of his own, slightly twisted planet.


So, read the book, enjoy, and never mourn the loss of the televised version.



Audio CD - Doctor Who - The Massacre. (2 discs)

This 2 CD set features the complete audio tracks of all 4 television episodes of this story in one format:
  • The CD Audio version features narration by actor Peter Purves (who also played Steven Taylor) to help listeners follow what used to be visual aspects of the story. This version spans both discs and is playable in any normal audio CD player.

Paperback Novelization - HIGHLY RECOMMENDED over the CD version.

in the U.S.
in Canada
in Canada (hardcover)
from the U.K.


Comments on this article are welcome. You may contact the author from this page:

Contact page


LYRATEK.COM


Read the In-depth Analysis Review for the next story: "The Ark"



Home Page Site Map Star Trek Sliders Doctor Who William Hartnell Era Episode Guide Catalogue