Thursday, 30 July 2026

Shakespeare on Valour: the Lion, the Wren and the Warpath

Abstract

William Shakespeare's dramatic take on valour is complex and multifaceted, yet we can distinguish a recurring pattern of fake/dubious valour contrasted with real/idealised valour, which in turns leads to a consideration on what valour is for.

Introduction

Let us give a working definition of valour as 'conspicuous courage, typically in conflict'. It has to be conspicuous, to appear to audiences and characters onstage. And drama typically revolves around conflict anyway. We are concerned with actions, the externalised aspect of courage, and sometimes but not always the prospect of witnesses, inciters, mockers or adversaries on the receiving end. And this must imply an appreciation of risk and hazard.

3-part illustration: man in lion headdress stands over a woman threatening her with a club; a wren defends her nesting chicks from a large owl; a crown hangs from a pitchfork.
Shakespeare on valour: the Lion (mere appearance), the Wren (paragon), and the Warpath (collective purpose)

We will first take a brief run through the plays in the (probably unsatisfactory) categories of Tragicomedy, Comedies, Histories and Tragedies. We will ignore for now the idea of 'problem plays' or satires/parodies.

Our aim here is to pick out patterns and themes, and identify questions for a more searching analysis later. Rough notes rather than polished prose will be the style used for brevity, with uncertainty of what is most significant to the question of valour.

Then we will consider how Shakespeare distinguishes between false appearances, true natures and ethical purpose of valour, before concluding.

'Tragicomedy'

In The Tempest, a mature work, Prospero oppresses Caliban by terror, Caliban resists but finds his new masters lack valour (I’ll not serve him; he is not valiant.) Prospero could strike at his foes, but The rarer action is in virtue than in vengeance.

Valour here is shown often stupid, stubborn, defensive or drunk, striking at air, achieving little. Sailors need unhampered professionalism to contend with storm, not valour. Mad valour drowns self?

The 'Comedies'

In Two Gentlemen of Verona, a servant lists his sacrifices for a dog, though dogs don’t give medals, nor thanks, nor recognition for taking their pillories. Solidarity is presented as a base attribute. Does a servant’s cheeky retort count as valour when they face a beating? Women are held to hate cowardice (along with falseness and poor descent, says Proteus). Valentine says I take your offer and will live with you, provided that you do no outrages on silly women or poor passengers. Valour is presented in the list of gentlemanly virtues.

In Merry Wives of Windsor, outsider valour is encouraged and mocked in Welsh and French duellists. Some things are deemed contrary to self-styled valour: as Pistol says Shall I Sir Pandarus of Troy become, And by my side wear steel? then, Lucifer take all! The Knight of the Realm Falstaff hides and flees.

In Twelfth Night, Viola implies her lack of valour is due to her sex, yet Sir Andrew Aguecheek’s lack of valour (gift of cowardice says Maria) suggests valour is not determined that way. Antonio follows Sebastian, saying But, come what may, I do adore thee so, That danger shall seem sport, and I will go. Olivia: If one should be a prey, how much the better To fall before the lion, than the wolf?. Fabian to Andrew: to awake your dormouse valour. Do women love valour (in men? by report of valour)? Andrew’s stated preference for valour over policy is more like action over thought. Antonio is not boastful about exploits, says he refused to pay for them (Act 3 scene 3). Swearing terrible oaths and swaggering may give reputation for valour (Toby). Putting quarrels on to taste valour (Viola).

In Measure for Measure, sister Isobel calls brother Claudio coward for preferring his life at her rape’s cost. Pompey the tapster: The valiant heart is not whipped out of his trade. Takes much valour to confront authority figures in Vienna, who have awful tortures at their command.

In Much Ado About Nothing, is there (sometimes) valour in declaring love (if you fear rejection or ridicule, say)? Beatrice cannot become a man by wishing to get revenge for Hero, condemns the courtesy of modern valour, He is now as valiant as Hercules that only tells a lie and swears it. The Watch would rather sleep than tackle criminals. Benedick: In a false quarrel there is no true valour.

In A Midsummer Night's Dream Titania’s defence of Indian boy for votarist’s sake seems to risk much; until her will is subdued by Oberon’s cowardly poisoning. valour flies in face of love?

LYSANDER: This lion is a very fox for his valour.
THESEUS: True, and a goose for his discretion.
A Midsummer Night's Dream (Act 5 scene 1)

In Love's Labour Lost, we see: warriors against desire? Valour in performance (stage fright)? In pursuing love (deer)?

In Merchant of Venice, the Prince of Morocco comes closest to valour in a suitor. Mere appearance (or excrement) of valour in Bassanio's beards of Hercules and frowning Mars.

In As You Like It, we see combatants wrestle for credit or in despair; swashing disguises; breaking a sword on a stone; a bullying approach rebuked; and brave lovers mocked.

In All's Well that Ends Well, animal valour is conjured in an image of a hind-lion love-death. Helena says torture me to death King if I cannot effect your cure in 24 hours. Meanwhile Parolles’ valour is extensively mocked. Valour seems empty at court. Frenchmen serve Mars not Woman? Reputation of Commanders' valour is comically disputed. When innkeeper's daughter Diana faces death within the hour, she faces down the King of France.

In Taming of the Shrew, men fear women’s scorn.

In Winter's Tale, Paulina is the exemplar of valour, standing between jailer and danger, confronting jealous King Leontes, shaming others as she would offer combat to defend the Queen if she was a man (but see later). Hermione shows great composure during trial but perhaps not outright valour since she seeks death. Autolychus represents anti-valour.

Summary of Comedies

So, in the Comedies, valour is seen as an admirable quality in men (and possibly a rare one, given the many examples of cowardice, 'mouth honour', empty oath-laden bragging or simply preferring to pick on the weak). Women seem to need valour as much as men in their declarations of love. But some women are particularly forward in defending other women or children, and their valour shines in opposition to powerful men (at the point the play wobbles between comedy and tragedy).

The 'Histories'

In Macbeth we early on hear some suspect testimony from the captain on his thane's extreme battle prowess valour’s minion. Lady Macbeth sees herself as a valour-imparter: the valour of my tongue? But stabbing an old man to death in his sleep is surely contrary to valour. The wren (paragon) against the owl (we'll return to this). Macbeth’s disputed valiant fury is still of an unruly kind. The play ends with a battle of unnatural cowards, charmed Macbeth and flighty Macduff. A few characters do show approximate valour (and die with wounds in front).

In King John we see a badge of proclaimed valour in a lion skin. Hubert risks disobeying king; young Arthur faces horror without falling apart; bastard Faulconbridge tells King John to inspire others against the valour of the invading French The youth says well!

In Richard II, Henry and Mowbray chafe for single combat (defending reputation). Ross says Urge doubts to them that fear. By the exchange of gages after Richard’s fall, we hear sympathy as spur to valour. Banished Mowbray seemed to have turned crusader. Valour can become silliness which gets in the way of truth-finding public investigations. Valour as abnegation of one’s own interests. Valour as standing up to an authority (king). Valour from (self and other) endurance. Valour as strongest and surest way to get.

In Henry IV part 1 Henry4 wants to kill pagans in their homes for crusading glory; praises friend and foe for valour (Hotspur’s is source of envy). Poins predicts cowardice of Falstaff and confederates. Valorous deeds obsess Hotspur, but his wife Kate tells of his other side (PTSD? Peacetime melancholy?). Is valour compatible with love, or a competitor? Falstaff’s valiant lion won’t touch the true Prince excuse (valour versus loyalty?); aged valour more valiant. Glendower mixes valour with restraint contrasting Hotspur’s harsh rage, defect of manners, want of government, pride, haughtiness, opinion, and disdain. Hotspur disdains poetry yet speaks nothing else in praise of valour; is the report of valour necessarily poetic? Does valour typically require haste? Henry4: nothing can seem foul to those that win. Henry4 is a vile hypocrite in all-abhorred war: the unprovoked war he wishes to pursue in crusades. Does Henry5 vowing to save others’ blood (single combat) constitute the highest form of valour, or posturing? Henry5 says Falstaff owest God a death. Falstaff’s soliloquy on honour. Relation of honour (valour?) to detraction. Hotspur talks so much he is cut off by imminent battle. Valour as becoming a target instead of your lord; as persistence. Hotspur associates Henry5’s valour with vanity (human valour as self-love?). So, valour can be deceitful? What are the rewards of valour? Falstaff, opposite of valour perhaps, has 3 of 150 ragamuffins left alive, those 3 destined for beggary (implied maiming). Does valour encompass jests that endanger comrades (sack a city)? Henry5 delivers captive Douglas free in respect of his valour. What is the goal of valour?

In Henry IV part 2 after war, true valour is turned bear-herd (Falstaff: I have the wars for my colour). In what sense does valour rely on imagination? Women’s tailor Feeble envisaged as valiant as the wrathful dove or most magnanimous mouse but Feeble accepts conscription with We owe God a death. Falstaff: I never knew yet but rebuke and check were the reward of valour. What is the reward of valour? Falstaff: and this valour comes of sherris (Dutch courage) not natural to many. Lord Chief Justice shows valour in standing up to Henry5?

In Henry V we see class comparisons of valour. Face-saving de-escalation (show thy valour, put up thy sword). Valour facing exposure for treason and death sentence. Physical bringing on of valour in to the breach. Inherited capacity for valour. Boy’s observation on (cowardly) companions. Terror used when valour fails? Does wind and sun produce more valour than beer and fog? Brave words (of Pistol) unreliable measure of valour. Can you have hidden valour (Dauphin’s)? Over-valiant mastiffs. Valour depending on (beef) full stomachs? Does having more time and opportunity to consider dangers increase valour shown? Can (care and) valour go out of fashion)? Do few die well that die in battle? Divine aid adding valour. Can valour be transmitted by bodily fluid (horse blood)? Is there valour in evening the odds for a disadvantaged foe? Or wish no advantage being the underdog? How to deal with shame? With unexpected victory? After victory, how should valour present? The price of valour (disordered nature etc). Relation of valour to (lifelong) constancy?

In Henry the Sixth Part 1 we see valour in reclaiming hostages. Do you fear valour more or madness? Joan (later made France’s saint) lets Talbot live. Slack of duty undoing valour. How easily is valour impersonated for pecuniary gain? How is women’s valour smeared? Does prior warning approve valour? Does ambition count against? Is the greatest source of valour maternal (Joan-Burgundy)? Shared intergenerational battlefields. Joan’s offer of supernatural sacrifice. Treatment of prisoners. Joan’s valour in denying ‘father’s’ (vicious?) offer of salvation from execution. What can valour gain (on the long term)? Recognised valour can catapult family to high aristocracy.

In Henry the Sixth Part 2, Jack Cade rails against English who won’t fight for their ancient freedoms but give themselves up to slavery to the nobility, breaking their oaths and betraying their families to rapine. Nobles invent enemy in France. Escalation: you killed our fathers, we’ll kill your children.

In Henry the Sixth Part 3 Henry6’s weapons are words etc but is Henry6’s self-interested peace opposite to valour? Margaret: The soldiers should have tossed me on their pikes before…. Valour and oaths. Valour or revenge? Richard’s testimony of his sons’ valour towards his life’s end. What is inhuman? Tigers? Chivalry and valour. Valour and fame/glory. Response to battlefield loss. Numbers in battle. Draw sword in right or for the crown? Effect of valour on opponents. Is valour a lie, told by aristocracy? Valour on civil war where you might kill kin. Grief and valour. Dying of wounds. Variable mercy. A mother stands up alone to a king. Valour and (newmade or old) friendship. Is valour loyalty- or honour- or kin- or principle-oriented? Queen Margaret: you have no children, butchers (irony). Is there valour in killing a future killer? Is the goal of valour really just to lift a baby to the throne?

In Richard III, we see valour in self-destruction. Sleep-stabbing seems cowardly. Conscience makes cowards? Angels and valour. Guilt and valour. Richard3 prepares for final battle berating subordinates, is haunted (Tomorrow, in the battle, think on me, And fall thy edgeless sword. Despair and die!). Richmond prays and encourages, has angels’ wishes in dreams. Does valour gain strength from clear consciences? Radcliffe: Nay, good my lord, be not afraid of shadows. Omens of success. God’s soldiers. Fight for wives and children, boldly and cheerfully. Stanley’s son held hostage. Richard3 disses foes as badly-led scum: Shall these enjoy our lands, lie with our wives, Ravish our daughters? Calls on St George. What would Richard3 do with a horse, without a kingdom? Dies with wounds in his front.

In Henry VIII Queen Katherine stands up to brace of cardinals.

Summary of Histories

Valour in the Histories is pretty much an aristocratic construct, a kind of weaponised propagandistic class war lie based on a truth embodied by very few examples, and some of those are very much not lords or knights.

The 'Tragedies'

Troilus and Cressida may rather be a satire on war? Valour invoked as defending/competing attributes (wiser, fairer, truer) of women-loved. Cressida's valour is defensive and watchful. Complex debate among Trojans gravitates towards Helen’s beauty/worth inspiring valour. Achilles called ‘lion-sick’, with a pride that eats valour? Animal valours crammed into slow-as-bear Ajax. Factionalism and hollow tents (Odysseus), competition kills in various ways. Does heat breed both love and valour? Voices of lions and acts of hares. How to treat contests (of unequal strength). Valour requires motion? Thersites would rather be a tick in a sheep than such a valiant ignorance: a theme of wars, lechery and incontinent varlets. Corruption encased within armour. Diomede condemns both sides. Sometimes war is murder.

In Timon of Athens senators rebuke Alciabides' character testimony saying there is no valour in drunken quarrelling and revenge. He’s truly valiant that can wisely suffer.

Coriolanus says he cannot make my heart consent to take a bribe to pay my sword in a play largely revolving around questions of valour and class war, where cicatrices — scars of wounds — are esteemed as badges of martial courage (as long as they aren't on the back, one imagines). Coriolanus rejects rewards and honours of valour while embracing combat and comradeship (though his mother Volumnia initially says she’d accept his good report and a dead son), and doesn’t want to hear of deeds in council.

Why do Patricians hold that valour (the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver) is the best qualification for Consulship? While in the same speech Cominius' shows disrepect in woman in the scene throway jibe, do the Patricians fear their power along with that of commoners? Coriolanus reckons speaking openly is valorous, diplomacy is base, while cowardice in war should disenfranchise commoners. But if commoners were valorous and armed, why would they need a smaller military class of nobles to defend them?

What are the Stratocracy’s virtues? Coriolanus, bred i’ th’ wars since he could draw a sword, says (of Rome's commoners, the plebians) On fair ground I could beat forty of them. How should wisdom harness valour? you are too absolute: Volumnia’s arguments are worth quoting her telling rebuke:

To beg of thee, it is my more dishonour
Than thou of them. Come all to ruin. Let
Thy mother rather feel thy pride than fear
Thy dangerous stoutness, for I mock at death
With as big heart as thou. Do as thou list.
Thy valiantness was mine; thou suck’st it from me,
But owe thy pride thyself.
Coriolanus (Act 3 scene 2)

When Coriolanus tells his frenemy Aufidius I also am longer to live most weary, and present my throat to thee and to thy ancient malice is any valour annulled by a deathwish? Indeed, Aufidius later says to a Volsci lieutenant that our virtues lie in the interpretation of the time, a clear indication that behaviour which might be seen as appropriate valour in one situation will be inappropriate in others, and with this he plans to bring down Coriolanus. When Aufidius tells Coriolanus You keep a constant temper, this in not so much an acknowledgement that constancy is a requirement of valour, than a mock.

As the play's final crisis unfolds, Coriolanus appears to re-evaluate his long-suffering/silent wife best of my flesh Virgilia: stubborn-constant, worldview-accurate, an integrated if limited personality. Where is valour in this scene? Perhaps for Coriolanus' martial version, the end of valour is destruction, but the women show a valour that leads to salvation.

In Julius Caesar armies march forward to demonstrate courage. Suicide is taken as a better option than being paraded in triumph, glory is found in losing. Caesar may despise base spaniel fawnings, but is he really supernaturally fearless? Cowards die many times before their deaths; The valiant never taste of death but once. When Octavius calls the third member of the triumvirate, Lepidus, a tried and valiant soldier, Antony replies:

So is my horse, Octavius, and for that
I do appoint him store of provender.
It is a creature that I teach to fight,
To wind, to stop, to run directly on,
His corporal motion governed by my spirit;
And, in some taste, is Lepidus but so.
Julius Caesar (Act 4 scene 1)

which is a decidedly unglamorous view of valour, from a commander who — here at least — seems to appreciate obedient, drilled and disciplined subordinates.

Antony and Cleopatra: Antony may have once thrived on horse piss and human corpses, but do these hardships make him a valiant soldier? Antony tells Cleopatra she has conquered him, uses a metaphor for valour my sword, made weak by my affection.

Enobarbus, long loyal to Antony, now distances himself from the latter's excess of valour:

Now he’ll outstare the lightning. To be furious
Is to be frighted out of fear, and in that mood
The dove will peck the estridge; and I see still
A diminution in our captain’s brain
Restores his heart. When valour preys on reason,
It eats the sword it fights with. I will seek
Some way to leave him.
Antony and Cleopatra (Act 3 scene 13)

Antony calls self-stabbing 'Valiant Eros' Thrice nobler than myself, and at the end Octavius gives much the same accolade to Cleopatra: Bravest at the last.

Cymbeline compares valour and recklessness, considers valour in (social etc) unequals, valour as redemption, valour in treating prisoners and vanquished, valour in dangerous confession. The play is ambiguous about inherited qualities, the supposed genetic valour of the King's lost sons contrasts with the surprisingly dim son of a clever Queen.

Posthumus shows a leonine association of habitual show and valour, although he is beginning to see the light:

Let me make men know
More valour in me, than my habits show.
Gods put the strength o’ the Leonati in me!
To shame the guise o’ the world, I will begin
The fashion, less without, and more within.
Cymbeline (Act 5 scene 1)

In Titus Andronicus, a particularly unvalorous act — sacrifice of captive — sets off a chain of events. Goth Queen Tamora pleads:

But must my sons be slaughtered in the streets
For valiant doings in their country’s cause?
O, if to fight for king and commonweal
Were piety in thine, it is in these!
Titus Andronicus (Act 1 scene 1)

Titus chooses revenge over mercy, clearly there are double standards in Rome's treatment of patriotic valour. Titus the centrist (approved valour, but poor judge of character?) chooses madly unfit Saturninus. Gives away daughter Livinia in arguable act of despicable cowardice. Titus cannot escape unvalorous son-slaying act by disowning sons. Valour and piety. Marcus calls on Titus not to be barbarous. Aaron’s defence of newborn. Tamora’s exposition of strength: sun, eagles, is your city strong? When we see free Goths, they profess valour. But Lucius calls to hang a child. Superdad villain Aaron desperately bargains for the life of his baby. Valour against Rapine and Murder.

In Pericles Prince of Tyre valour in competition combat (and possibly some dancing) wins the Princess. Marina shows more than just undaunted valour and wit in defying brothel culture (more spine than her would-be murderer Leonine).

In King Lear, daughter Cordelia and liegeman Kent stand up to Lear’s apparent rage. Gloster would die to relieve his old master the king, stands the course against terror. Servant stands armed up to Cornwall, both die. The baddies attack weakness. Goodies more insistent on level playing field. Edgar harps on a theme: Men must endure their going hence even as their coming hither. Valour of prisoners? The wages of generalship. Was Kent battle-promoted?

Romeo and Juliet: valour as in standing (servants, innuendo). Nurse rebounds after being sexually assaulted in public. Does voluntary duelling constitute valour or perhaps mimic it? Romeo laments that Juliet's beauty has effected him and softened valour’s steel, but then why does Romeo immediately get the better of Tybalt (without apparently sustaining a scratch) when Mercutio didn’t? The Prince uses a line reminiscent of Angelo in Measure for Measure: Mercy but murders, pardoning those that kill. which relates to both civil administrations' suppression of high-spirited deeds. Friar Lawrence dares Juliet’s valour in death-defying, to which she replies (and how can we doubt her):

O, bid me leap, rather than marry Paris,
From off the battlements of any tower,
Or walk in thievish ways, or bid me lurk
Where serpents are. Chain me with roaring bears,
Or hide me nightly in a charnel house,
O’ercovered quite with dead men’s rattling bones,
With reeky shanks and yellow chapless skulls.
Or bid me go into a new-made grave
And hide me with a dead man in his shroud
(Things that to hear them told have made me tremble),
And I will do it without fear or doubt,
To live an unstained wife to my sweet love.
Romeo and Juliet (Act 4 scene 1)

Hamlet: facing the supernatural is not the valour expected of guards. Hamlet seeks examples (will his mother see Denmark in ruins like Hecuba did Troy? Will assassination lead to civil war as in Julius Caesar?), looks for words to fire mood of revenge. Should you aim to send your enemies to hell? Hamlet and Laertes see failing to take revenge for father as moral failing.

Othello’s actual valour is not shown but much attested. Valour in drink? Othello is a play about the suppression of valour (until Emilia at the end). Ophelia dares Othello’s rage. Deceitful Iago declares Rodrigo’s valour is apt. Unarmed Emilia I care not for thy sword. I’ll make thee known, Though I lost twenty lives. stands up to armed lord Othello and equally armed husband Iago.

Summary of Tragedies

The Tragedies are often more explicate of valour, unsurprisingly since the genre deals with high deeds and purer (if not worthier) motivations. In non-Christian Rome, Greece-Troy, Egypt, different cultural standards and expectations of piety apply, and suicide (rejected by Hamlet) may be approved. The consequences are as great as in the Histories, but the characters are generally a bit more reflective, some to the point of self-absorption, as they weigh their actions. Some consider Macbeth to be a tragedy, not a history, and that fits.

Questions Arising

The topics in Shakespeare's plays are often treated ambiguously, tropes are undercut, conventions subverted. The questions raised are often open-ended.

  • Is valour (in)compatible with: desperation; deathwish; wrath; vengeance; professionalism; deceit; injustice; conscience; fear; vanity; ambition; pride; reward?
  • If compatible with reward, what are the rewards of valour: honour, reputation, love, survival (of others, maybe), promotion, loot, even a kingdom? And what of the costs of valour: wounds, possible humiliation and dispossession, death?
  • Can valour be: taught; habituated; inherited; inconstant; imparted by speech or environment or alcohol?
  • Does valour incline to: selfishness or selflessness? Preserving or changing the world? Haste or deliberation? Competition or grace? Imagination or immediate focus? Loyal obedience or dangerous dissent? Heat and motion, or weighed wisdom and justice?
  • Is unseen courage a worthier attribute than obvious valour?
  • Is there valour in disarming yourself (famously Prospero; or (re)arming an opponent) or exposing vulnerabilities? Is there valour in evening the odds for a disadvantaged foe?
  • Can some forms of valour even be scandalous? Woman’s lone pilgrimage in man’s world (Julia in Two Gentlemen of Verona; cast as impudent strumpet, maybe).
  • Or to the contrary, is true valour a feature of the underdog, the undervalued and socially disadvantaged?
  • Is there a time and place for valour? A formality owing to it? A class, gender, role or species determinant? Does it go in and out of fashion? How do we recognise valour?
  • How easy is it to fake valour? In what common ways is this attempted? Is there a playbook, like a code of chivalry?
  • To what extent might legal challenges or whistleblowing (perhaps against powerful authorities) or breaking social codes/expectations require valour?
  • What reactions might valour provoke: envy; desire; emulation; mockery; respect; fear?

Drama may not give definitive answers, but shows patterns of interaction in favouring some interpretations over others, otherwise we could not tell comedies from tragedies.

The Lion (guise or customary form of valour)

The lion is, of course, a heraldic charge in the coats of arms of English Queens and Kings (including Elizabeth I and James I/VI of Scotland), and earlier Richard 'Lionheart'. So it is quite a bold move of Shakespeare to play so subversively with lions. Not least by Falstaff likening himself to a valiant lion, and calling Prince Hal a lion's whelp.

Real lions may be ambush predators, eaters of carrion, sometime predators on much weaker or less aggressive animals. Male lions may kill lion cubs sired by another, and scavenge while female lions do most of the actual hunting. Their family grouping (pride) is named after a Christian deadly sin, and Shakespeare uses 'lion-sick' to mean over-proud.

Moreover, Shakespeare's lions are often hollow skins, trappings and disguises such as Snug the Joiner's theatrical costume or the Duke of Austria's robe. A lion's destiny might to be beguiled by foxes, outwitted by wolves, ultimately becoming old and fangless. Yet referenced lion myths show a gentler, more merciful side than many human characters. The lion's roar may shake the forest, but it gets hungry and tired all the same. When Shakespeare really wants unbridled savagery, he tends to refer to tigers instead of lions.

So we see a pattern in characters with lion names. Leonatus Posthumus hardly inherits his father's valour, remotely instructing his servant to murder his wife over a false accusation of infidelity. Leonato decries his own innocent and unjustly-accused daughter Hero (whose accuser-fiancé is described as a lamb doing lion-like martial feats). Leontes condemns his innocent wife to death on mere suspicion of adultery, kills his son with grief, and orders the murder of his daughter. Leonine is set to murder innocent Marina on the orders of her ungrateful-envious foster-mother Dionyza. In each case a positive reputation is at odds with foul and cowardly actions.

This is a pattern repeated throughout the works. Macbeth (inexplicably woundless in battle) buys golden opinion, then murders his king under his wife's battlements (gold is, of course, the colour of lions and crowns). The martially-reputed Othello turns to sordid spouse murder. Parolles' vaunted valour seems not to extend beyond his scarves, though his arc is more redemptive.

And most signficantly, these outward shows are mocked throughout the plays, as in many of the examples already noted. Mocked, and contrasted…

The Wren (paragon or true nature of valour)

While there are a few warrior characters who might embody valour, they tend to muddy or undermine their own claims. Typical of these, Harry 'Hotspur' Percy is a hothead craving honour. Hector initially seems to argue virtuously, but (perhaps Godspelled) rejects Cassandra's warnings and fights a stupid war. Joan of Arc represents at least four kinds collective-valour cases that we have not especially touched on: nationalism (she fights for France); class (she fights for peasants); sex (she fights for women); and religion (she fights for God); however, Joan is a complex character, who is somewhat changeable (though even the valorous flinch at being burnt at the stake), and pursues some elevated place by the Dauphin's side.

A purer form of valour is presented in contrast to warrior stereotypes and authority figures, and particularly in defiance of them.

The Duke of Cornwall's unnamed servant takes up arms and fatally wounds his evil master, dying in the action. The woman's tailor, Francis Feeble, impresses recruiter Bardolph — Well said. Th’ art a good fellow. — with a stoic response to being called up to fight (and likely die) in the Prince's service, while others buy their way out (although we don't see Feeble in action, where he may flee). Doll Tearsheet stands up against 'Captain' Pistol, knife against sword, peppering him with ridicule. But what if you have no human weapons? What if, like the dove that pecks the estridge, you only have fury (or some other driving emotion)?

Unarmed Emilia stands up to not just one but two armed men, saying to her lord Othello: Thou hast not half that power to do me harm as I have to be hurt which is a fascinating statement that seems to stop him in his tracks, and to her husband Iago.

IAGO: Be wise, and get you home. Offers to stab his wife
EMILIA: I will not.
Othello (Act 5 scene 2)

But Emilia has unfairly punched down on Bianca in the previous scene: O fie upon thee, strumpet!, been a too-easily-duped party to Iago's plots, and her undoubted valour (the only heroic action in a play centring around male martial posturing) comes a little too late, though she pays the ultimate price.

Physician Paulina stands up against the tyranny (he disputes this) of her jealous king Leontes, inspiring her husband to try to save the life of the royal newborn, facing a stream of royal threats and insults:

LEONTES: I’ll have thee burn'd.
PAULINA: I care not:
 It is a heretick that makes the fire,
 Not she which burns in’t. I’ll not call you tyrant;
 But this most cruel usage of your queen
 (Not able to produce more accusation
 Than your own weak-hing'd fancy) something savours
 Of tyranny, and will ignoble make you,
 Yea, scandalous to the world.
Winter's Tale (Act 2 scene 3)

Yet Paulina is too crafty to be a pure exemplar of valour, though valour she displays.

Another female physician, Helen, boldly invites the King of France to torture her to death if she cannot cure his fatal sickess. Yet there is something unsavoury about her motivation to force Bertram to marry her.

It is in Macbeth, a play which ends with a duel between two cowards (the mass-murderer and protection-charm-relier Macbeth, and family-abandoner Macduff), that Shakespeare produces the greatest contrast.

LADY MACDUFF: What had he done to make him fly the land?
ROSS: You must have patience, madam.
LADY MACDUFF: He had none.
 His flight was madness. When our actions do not,
 Our fears do make us traitors.
ROSS: You know not
 Whether it was his wisdom or his fear.
LADY MACDUFF: Wisdom? To leave his wife, to leave his babes,
 His mansion and his titles in a place
 From whence himself does fly? He loves us not;
 He wants the natural touch; for the poor wren,
 The most diminutive of birds, will fight,
 Her young ones in her nest, against the owl.
 All is the fear, and nothing is the love,
 As little is the wisdom, where the flight
 So runs against all reason.
Macbeth (Act 4 scene 2)

So there you have it. Shakespeare's paragon of valour is the tiny mother wren, hurling herself at the mighty owl to defend her young.

The Warpath (goal or best use of valour)

We have seen examples of self-abnegation, service to others, willing sacrifice, dissent, holding power accountable, defending the weak. Shakespeare turns to nature: not ultimately to the haughty lion, but humbler beasts. As Clifford appeals to Henry VI in face of looming battle for the crown:

My gracious liege, this too much lenity
And harmful pity must be laid aside.
To whom do lions cast their gentle looks?
Not to the beast that would usurp their den.
Whose hand is that the forest bear doth lick?
Not his that spoils her young before her face.
Who scapes the lurking serpent’s mortal sting?
Not he that sets his foot upon her back.
The smallest worm will turn, being trodden on,
And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood.
Henry VI part 3 (Act 2 scene 2)

As social animals, in the human world, valour must also work at a collective, social, crowd scale.

A generation after Shakespeare's death (in 1616) and the publication of his works in the First Folio (1623), the English staged a revolution (c1640) and cut the head off their King (1649). Whatever the causes, whatever Shakespeare's take on the monarchomachs ("those who fight against monarchs") was, his dramatic works interacted with the times. Under tyrannical oppression, even dormouse valour may awake.

Shakespearean drama is very much concerned with tyranny, with unjust power relations, and more or less cruel abuses, but whilst a keen political analyst and commentator, Shakespeare the dramatist was no utopia-builder (his anarchist idylls seem impractical daydreams or naturalistic musings). Shakespeare satirises war and shows its heinous, criminal, aristocratic and stupid side. But he also mocks the populist uprisings of Jack Cade, and in many cases the multi-headed and changeable commons. Shakespeare's disinterest in parliaments is countered by perhaps a view of the London stage as one, with crowd participation. However, his depiction of Republics (Roman and Venetian) suggests his interest in exploring alternatives to the dynastic rule his plays so mercilessly skewer.

We need valour because the world is unjust, to defend ourselves and others, and to right wrongs, we must confront wrongdoers and their accomplices, who so often hold positions of power or advantage. Shakespeare does not glorify political violence, nor does he shun it. The path to war leads to many harms, but who would prefer to live under Macbeth's regime, and watch their children murdered before them? And dynastic rule may throw up another Macbeth at any time.

Conclusion

We've looked at portrayals and examples of valour in the plays of Shakespeare, looking for patterns in categories and discovering open questions. Where we have identified patterns and answered questions, we find that: conventional appearances of valour (the warrior, the Lion) fall short or are false; underdog characters are more likely to represent true valour when standing up to powerful figures in defence of others without craft or ulterior motives (the healer, the Wren); and we consider that collective valour must be needed to overcome tyranny.

Shakespeare's take on valour is multifaceted and more angles could be pursued. A semi-automated textual analysis might reveal more, as would comparisons with other works. Shakespeare may have been familiar with the works of political theorists like Machiavelli, whose writings may have provoked some dramatic treatments. Many questions raised here remain unanswered.

What is clear, is that examples of valour inspire others, on stage, in animal paragons, or in real life. Just don’t imagine that dressing in a lionskin and waving a sword about will fool anyone. Or that valour alone is nearly enough: remember Shakespeare's portrayal of fighting thin air in The Tempest, and Hotspur's deficiencies. In our world, the Wren is always fighting off the predatory owl.

Shakespeare on Valour: the Lion, the Wren and the Warpath © 2026 by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Friday, 20 March 2026

Machiavelli on Alliances

Abstract

Political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli wrote some observations on alliances, particularly their problems.

Alliances

Machiavelli, for example in The Prince, chapter 21, observed that political alliances of varying types were fraught with problems.

Strong ally pulling sword arm. Mercenary ally accepting bribe. Militant ally trying to take you over. Weak ally dragging you into a fight.
Strong, mercenary, militant and weak allies doing their typical thing

As a rule of thumb, a stronger partner will use you, mercenaries will sell you out, militants will take you over, and weaker partners can drag you into needless conflict.

Military alliances do not prevent wars: they may accelerate the march to war, extend war's theatres, increase war's damages, prolong the war, and sometimes give the most vindictive allies the final say in the following peace (piling up new problems). Allies may end up becoming subjects of empire run by a power they once considered a partner (as in the Athenian Empire which grew out of the Delian League).

In war, or other kinds of conflict, it is not only the result (which can sometimes be ambiguous or contested) but the whole conduct of the conflict that can vary the outcomes on alliances. Allies are often written out of nationalistic histories, or downplayed, or even turned into villains.

Common Causes

However, common causes are different, and may not even need formal alliances. Although just because you have a common cause doesn't mean that you will fight side by side. When the Persian Empire began invading Greece, the Greek cities had common cause to resist, but only a relatively few city states committed to armed resistance.

It is likely that states will find common causes with most enemies too, which is generally how wars end without total annihilation.

Machiavelli on Alliances © 2026 by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Tuesday, 4 November 2025

Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors considered as a multiverse tale

Abstract

Might William Shakespeare's play The Comedy of Errors be essentially a multiverse story, arguing against predeterminism, and for human agency (to some extent)?

Introduction

The plot of Comedy of Errors features an unlikely pair of identical twins, separated by an accident at sea. My argument is that this accident constitutes a Sliding Doors moment, which is what the play is really concerned with, despite appearances.

This is not the fan-fiction/multiple interpretations take on Shakespearean drama. Rather we see in one tale how the lives of two people (joined by a master and servant relationship) could play out in two different (yet somewhat similar) ways.

This approach begs the question of whether other plays in Shakespeare's ouevre have similar encoded divergences. And does this happen elsewhere in literature? I would argue that folktale siblings sometimes represent divergent paths that a single person could take. You could view it as the serialisation of a decision tree, where multiple outcomes of choice or random events are simultaneously presented.

Four outline faces in a symmetrical grid.
Antipholus and Dromio of Syracuse | Antipholus and Dromio of Ephesus

But why would Shakespeare be interested in presenting a multiverse model? I have some ideas, but first, the Play.

The Play

After the shipwreck (recounted by Aegeon), one set of the Antipholus and Dromio infant twins go with him to Syracuse (I'll refer to them as Ant/Syr and Dro/Syr), the other with Aemilia to Ephesus where the action takes place (Ant/Eph and Dro/Eph, I'll highlight the home team). Right at the start, Aegeon describes:

two goodly sons,
And, which was strange, the one so like the other
As could not be distinguished but by names
The Comedy of Errors (Act 1 scene 1)

Confusion

But each son is given the same name, Antipholus. And the pattern repeats for the sons' servants, both identical, both called Dromio. You could argue the play would not 'work' otherwise, requiring this for mistaken identity, but why write such an improbable tale in the first place? Furthermore, at least one set of twins is seeking the other, which Ant/Syr confirms on arriving for the day's events in Ephesus.

Fatal Attraction

In another Shakespeare play, the character Ford comes to the conclusion:

In love the heavens themselves do guide the state.
Money buys lands, and wives are sold by fate.
The Merry Wives of Windsor (Act 5 scene 5)

However, attraction seems variable for the twins, the Antipholuses towards different sisters, the Dromios towards and away from kitchen maid Dowsabel.

Status Effects

Ant/Eph is joined to his wife Adriana after wartime service to the Duke of Ephesus, and gains elevated status from this. Ant/Eph has put down roots and appears outwardly to be thriving and is reportedly well-liked and trusted, yet Adriana has noted her husband to be heavy, sour, sad in the past week before the arrival of itinerant twin Ant/Syr upsets his ordered life.

Systematic Beatings

However, both twin masters beat their twin servants. This could be Shakespeare saying this is structural form of behaviour, borne out of the master–servant relationship, with its inbuilt power imbalance. The servant-beating is normalised, though never accepted by the Dromios who persistently complain, and Ephesus society apparently frowns on excessive public abuses. There is a seed of dissent here.

Dividing and rejoining paths

Of course, some differences may be temporary. Ant/Syr is a bachelor, but marriage is only delayed not deferred.

Mirror, Mirror

Mirrors (or as Shakespeare sometimes calls them, glasses) play significant parts in some multiverse stories, as physically-crossable portals, or as transmitters of information (or both). They can also represent self-knowledge, or vanity. What would we do if we could see alternate paths, alternate futures? What personal growth (or otherwise) do the Dromio's exhibit on seeing their mirror counterparts? Would the Antipholuses continue to beat the Dromios so enthusiastically if they could, as it were, see their own behaviour from outside?

The Point

Agency

At a basic level, Shakespeare shares the general dramatist interest in human agency, questions of chance, circumstance, personal history and fate.

Fate

But on another level, Shakespeare plays with the repudiation of Christian predestination, sometimes associated with protagonists like Hamlet, sometimes with antagonists like Edmund, other times with comedic characters (as in Benedick's predestinate scratched face mock).

Shakespeare seems interested in what we can change about our human condition. There is very little sense that heredity plays an important role shaping Shakespeare's characters. As even heiress-to-a-dukedom Miranda says, Good wombs have borne bad sons..

Society and structure have a hold (hence the servant-beating, which features in other plays). Education and experience combines with innate qualities (the age-old Nature–Nurture debate). Shakespeare is also clear we are not tabula rasa (blank slates) either.

Other Plays with Doubles

Macbeth and Banquo are an interesting pair. They encounter prophecy together, but take different paths, although their circumstances are not identical.

Edmund and Edgar (see also Bastard and Faulconbridge) represent pairs of step-brothers where one is deemed illegitimate, a status which acts as a driving force for plotting, though Nature presumably doesn't care either way.

Viola and Sebastian are another pair which are closer to the multiversal Sliding Doors moment, though they are different sexes, yet are mistaken for each other.

Sebastian and Antonio in the Tempest are differentiated by one deposing a brother while the other is stopped in the act, which presents an interesting question about their different capacities for regret.

Trouble with Triples

The folktale sibling pattern of youngest-wisest-kindest-sibling-of-three is not evident in the three sons of Richard of York, which is rather a reflection on the sibling rivalry proximate to the throne.

Possibly the closest match is Cordelia as youngest of three daughters of King Lear, but none of these dynastic dynamics is really a fair comparison, there's just too much interaction (and competition) between the siblings.

Conclusion

In the Comedy of Errors, moreso than in the other surviving plays, Shakespeare seems to be exploring the multiverse in terms of how one character (or rather a pair of characters) might take different paths in alternate universes, even though it is presented as a pair of identical twins seeking and comically finding another in just one universe.

Shakespeare is interested in similarities and differences, and what may cause these. Nature versus Nurture, ideas of Christian predestination or 'there but for the grace of God go I', human agency, slight starting variations leading to larger divergences down the line (as in complexity theory's butterfly effect), as well as convergences (from structural, society or predisposition causes, for example).

Consider this was a comedy, with a happy ending, multiple marriages in the offing, no great bloodshed, family reunion, etc. How might Shakespeare have treated the topic in a tragedy? When a tragedy could be (especially if easily) avoided, the drama can become a cautionary tale. Learn to swim, young man!. Perhaps in some respects Shakespeare's plays were the public information warnings of their day. But that's a subject for another post.

Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors considered as a multiverse tale © 2025 by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Monday, 29 September 2025

Democracy's flaws: Population Races: Democracy 0 – Biocracy 5

Abstract

One of democracy's fatal flaws is its exploitation in population growth, depopulation and disenfranchisement.

Introduction

As a corollary of our thought experiment on the Sea-People’s Citizen Assembly Scenario, we consider how democracy foments population growth races (or depopulation, or disenfranchisement). See for example Northern Ireland, Israel, total war, genocide, ethnic cleansing, settler colonialism, Jim Crow, nativism, denial of votes for women.

Abstract sketch of two groups of opposing people on a tug-of-war rope, surrounded by civil and military symbols.
The outcome of Population Races hangs in the balance

In many cases, there is an assumption that people from certain demographics will vote in a predictably derivative way. Many political parties are set up to represent an interest group, or at least claim to be doing so. This could be a religion, a working class, a racist/nativist group, a pensioners party, a party of (aspirational or overt) riches, and so on. Or a geographical distinction, perhaps with a separatist goal.

By manipulating demographics, if other means like gerrymandering aren't enough, an electoral majority or at least plurality of seats may be sufficient to gain power for a party that represents a segment of the electorate. This could mean a long-term strategy of high birth rates, or disenfranchising opponents, or making use of concentrations or dilutions of population, or moving demographic groups in or out of areas. In the past, various requisites (like property-owning requirements, sex, age, ancestry, literacy tests and so on) have been used to manufacture an electorate, deny citizenship, or deny voters at polling booths.

At the more extreme end, this could mean settler colonialism, ethnic cleansing, forced sterilisation, culturecide, ecocide and genocide. All of which have been done in so-called democracies.

Conclusion

Yet another essential flaw in democracy, a political system which can be expressed through contesting populations. This is not a flaw of biocracy, a political system which is fundamentally concerned with how populations can coexist peacefully and fruitfully.

More flaws of democracy will be explored later.

Democracy's flaws: Population Races: Democracy 0 – Biocracy 5 © 2025 by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Wednesday, 30 April 2025

Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice is not an Antisemitic Play

Abstract

William Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice is not antisemitic, for though it contains anti-Jewish expressions and anti-Jewish characters, the main Jewish character Shylock is really the play's only honest dealer, if not necessarily likable.

Introduction

On a superficial level, The Merchant of Venice might appease members of a audience who looked for and wanted some negative traits in a Jewish stereotype, but the character of Shylock is complex and multi-valued. In fact, we are treated to an extraordinary number of other things that Shylock values often moreso than money, which latter may even be a proxy for other things.

Portrait of Shylock surrounded by icons.
Shylock's essentially positive characteristics

Shylock

For a start, Shylock is asked by Antonio what rate of interest he will charge, but Shylock refuses to take interest, preferring a contract that will let him hold Antonio at least temporarily in his power. Later we see Shylock pursue his revenge (for the undisputed wrongs he and his people have suffered) in disdain of money and profit.

Salarino: Why, I am sure if he forfeit, thou wilt not
take his flesh! What’s that good for?
Shylock: To bait fish withal; if it will feed nothing else,
it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me and
hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses,
mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted
my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies—
and what’s his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not
a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions,
senses, affections, passions? Fed with the
same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to
the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer
as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not
bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you
poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall
we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,
what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong
a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian
example? Why, revenge! The villainy you teach me I
will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the
instruction.
The Merchant of Venice (Act 3 scene 1)

We see Shylock mourn his dead wife Leah whose ring he would never sell, and his lost daughter, and her lost respect for him.

Tubal: One of them showed me a ring that he had of
your daughter for a monkey.
Shylock: Out upon her! Thou torturest me, Tubal. It
was my turquoise! I had it of Leah when I was a
bachelor. I would not have given it for a wilderness
of monkeys.
The Merchant of Venice (Act 3 scene 1)

We see particularly in the court case that Shylock prizes the law, and learning, and wisdom, and his religion. We see in his condemnation of Christian slavery a side of Shylock that may be empathy, or value honesty over (Christian) hypocrisy (and it is Venice's Christians who are portrayed as hypocrites, not the Jews). We see a man demanding respect and justice, standing up (rather bravely even) against his enemies to demand his rights.

What judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong?
You have among you many a purchased slave,
Which, like your asses and your dogs and mules,
You use in abject and in slavish parts
Because you bought them. Shall I say to you
“Let them be free! Marry them to your heirs!
Why sweat they under burdens? Let their beds
Be made as soft as yours, and let their palates
Be seasoned with such viands”? You will answer
“The slaves are ours!” So do I answer you:
The pound of flesh which I demand of him
Is dearly bought; ’tis mine and I will have it.
If you deny me, fie upon your law:
There is no force in the decrees of Venice.
I stand for judgment. Answer: shall I have it?
Shylock, The Merchant of Venice (Act 4 scene 1)

Shylock is not perhaps a popular or greatly likable man. He has moral convictions without being a moral hero. He seems to yearn for but never quite deserve respect. His vindictiveness is understandable but perhaps excessive. He is tricked in the end because he is not a trickster, but an honest dealer. He is the butt of jokes, the target of abuse in the streets and of false representations. He does complain about expenses, but who would not be horrified by his daughter Jessica's extravagance?

There are many clues to Shylock's character that would be completely unnecessary in an antisemitic play, but to end on just one, in Shylock's summary of Launcelot Gobbo's unsurprisingly unsatisfactory stint of service, weighed against his unprofitable points, his Jewish master says the patch is kind. This is Shylock's valuing of kindness against all the other negatives; he has kept his servant all this time, not solely for productive reasons, but of something that must approach fondness (a fondness which is piquantly unrequited). And Shylock says farewell by putting in a good word to his new Christian master, and warning his servant that he may not be treated so well in his new employ.

The Christians

We might as well ask, with slightly more profit, if The Merchant of Venice is an anti-Christian play. No, it's not, but the Christian characters, polities and institutions are as a whole more questionable and questioned in the play.

Portia is explicit about the hypocrisy the Christians display, telling us she is better at setting rules than following her own. For all Portia-disguised’s banging on about mercy, it is Bassanio who offers to meet Shylock’s post-blood 3 times 3000 ducat claim, and Portia who pursues punishment upon Shylock, perhaps out of spite (at Bassanio's apparent disloyalty), and her anti-patriarchal sentiments (she has already implied she has a hot temper).

Christians of all ranks appear to lie and deceive; the sense is that Venice's competitive trading culture encourages sharp elbows.

Several of the Christians make racist remarks, which are clearly signposted as bias or bigotry or ignorance. We can take it that Launcelot Gobbo is an unreliable narrator, who deceives his own father with relish, as well as Shylock.

The play also contains criticism of corrupt obtaining of estates, degrees and offices in Christian Europe.

Jessica

Shylock's daughter Jessica is a Jew with a contrasting personality to her father, but her ambition is to elope and become a Christian wife. It is unclear if she regrets this decision by the end of the play. It is left to production and performance how Jessica plays her doubt-expressing love dialogue and receives the court-imposed inheritance.

I am never merry when I hear sweet music.
Jessica, The Merchant of Venice (Act 5 scene 1)

The Continuum of Life

There is also a consideration if animals and humans are on a continuum, broadening Shylock's powerful universalist plea beyond humanism.

Conclusion

The play successfully treats the subject of antisemitism while giving Shylock some of the best lines and the most powerful arguments. Where Judaism and Christianity are compared, the hypocrisy of Christians is shown up, whereas Shylock pursues an honest, open and for a while apparently legal revenge.

Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice is not an Antisemitic Play by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Monday, 31 March 2025

Democracy's flaws: There are no Good Guys: Democracy 0 – Biocracy 4

Abstract

That is, there are no 'Good Guys' as any class, faction, faith, ideology, nation etc.

Introduction

It may be very difficult to build popular support for a movement or party without flattering at least one set of people. And to create contrast, the flipside is often demonising, patronising or ignoring Others.

Drawing of jar decorated with scales holding two opposing military tanks with flags, each drooping to the ground.
There are no 'Good Guys'

Valorisation and Heroisation

Political parties, movements, factions, religions, activist groups are typically (and perhaps nearly always) partisan in character.

Nationalists spin myths of their compatriots' glorious past. Right-wing populists imagine their 'pure people'. Religions for the divinely chosen, favoured or rewarded. Class war activists proclaim the virtues of the working class, or on the other side the ruling class. Erotic alliances paint their membership in pretty colours or whitewash. New subcultures emerge with their own positive spins, grievances, othering and supremacy cults. Old established cultures like European imperialists perform primitive ancestor worship, whether direct descendants or not, and their racism reverberates around the world.

Such classes are thus valorised: bigged-up as a group, leading to well-known in-group and out-group tendencies. Mythical pasts are favoured over accurate histories. And individuals from these groups are selected for heroisation: hagiographies rather than warts-and-all portraits. Narratives about victims, martyrs, convenient villains, glorious struggles, national or endemic characteristics are created and pushed.

The Biocratic Alternative

The point of good examples is to abstract from, not idolize.

Biocracy rejects theist and humanist hierarchies in Nature. Humans have learnt to live poisonously on Earth. Therefore humans should learn from other lifeforms how to govern better. These lessons learnt, humans can contribute positively to living planet self-government.

So other hierarchical categories, such as favoured animal 'good guys', 'vermin', 'weeds' and so much be rethought, rejected. We can still keep distinctions between invasive species and aliens which disrupt and degrade ecosystems, often carried by human agency or carelessness. Unhealthy monocultures are the result of human favoritism too.

The aim of biocratic governance, as we have described elsewhere, is the promotion and maintenance of Health at every level. And this does mean defending humans, other lifeforms, their environment and planetary systems from 'Bad Guys' (without justifying collective punishment). It is reasonable to prioritise defence against ecocide and work down from there.

Conclusion

The democratic partisan is reduced to slandering opponents and defending the indefensible, flattering a powerbase with word-bribes and ego-stroking.

The biocratic planet-defender transcends poisonous partisanship and rejects the idea of 'good guys', favouring clear-sighted self-reflection and universalist sciences wherever these come from, in the service of (planetary) life.

Democracy's flaws: There are no Good Guys: Democracy 0 – Biocracy 4 by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Sunday, 16 March 2025

Doctor Who and the Ideal Immigrant

Abstract

The remarkable themes of Doctor Who Special: Joy to the World, briefly unpacked.

Introduction

I have previously written about the problems and lurch to the political right of the reboot of BBC television drama Doctor Who. In the 2024-12-25 Special, Joy to the World (the dire plot of which has been adequately addressed in other places), these trends continued. So, onwards, with spoilers.

Painting of a green-skinned alien in a suit dying in bed.
Death of an alien

Some old favourites

The Doctor abuses women

Not for the first time, harsh negging used by the male protagonist for a female’s (Joy's) ’own good’. Also, wouldn’t it have been kinder not to screw up the hotel-worker woman Anita's life? Coercive control and all that.

Nature Traduced

Dinosaur (and Nature) reduced to a bitey oubliette cameo.

No threat to capitalism

Even Doctor’s sworn ‘enemy’ seems to thrive while he parties around.

The waiting game

Perhaps not so extreme as the writer’s previous obsession with waiting, Joy waits on return, Anita waits for Doctor to leave.

Don’t make me think

Feels. Is ‘some people are lonely at Christmas’ really the height of insight the show aims at? Why yet another ‘Blitz’ reference that ignores the vastly larger number of people the British have bombed? Or are helping bomb right now?

That old one-way door granting strange adults access into a vulnerable young person's bedroom

Seriously, if one of these writers is your landlord, get out now! Don't stay to grab your kettle, just bolt out the front door and never come back. This is not going to work out like Monsters Inc. Anyway, I've summarised previous red flags.

Various others

Once could also add 'Kissing-up to Christians', 'Badly Misjudged Joy' (it was going around), the problem with characters, the deadening Earth-and-Human-centricness of it all…

The 'Good' Immigrant

However, what really stood out for me was the depiction of the 'Silurian' hotel manager character, killed off third-way through. Here's some of the excruciating dialogue, as we are treated to unnecessary racism as the unnamed character dies.

17:03 Doctor: You’re a Silurian, the proudest race I know.

17:10 Dying ’Silurian’: I was lost. In the caves. There was a door. This place. They were so kind. It was so exciting.

From this depiction, we can see how the writers envisage the perfect immigrant:

  1. Dehumanised: this 'Silurian' doesn't even get a name (and 'Silurian' is a misnomer, not a great term then).
  2. Is singular (absolutely no hordes).
  3. Point of entry is singular and sealed… no more to follow.
  4. Doesn't reproduce.
  5. Works in the service industry.
  6. Works in public, brightly-lit spaces with comforting security (is quite unthreatening).
  7. Wears western-style clothing.
  8. Is polite and speaks perfect English.
  9. Is pathetically grateful.
  10. Enthusiastically boosts the wonderful nation of his saviours.
  11. Disses own (mere caves, etc)
  12. Dead.
  13. And dies in the most convenient, tidy and least consequential way imaginable, without imposing any obligations at all (nobody even needs to email their next of kin or whatever).
  14. Quickly forgotten.

Now, I don't have to explain why this panders towards far-right, xenophobic tendencies, but combined with the Doctor's emoting does suggest how foke Doctor Who is these days. Has Modern Who been captured by the far right, is this BBC-core or pragmatic pandering to retain its licence fee?