Genesis of the Daleks

There's a painful bit in "Destiny of the Daleks" where, after ranting on about how his Daleks should control the Universe, Davros then wants to "talk as scientists" with the Doctor. It's a ham-fisted, transparent copy of a near-identical scene in "Genesis", where Davros was a more considered, calculating and consequently frightening creation. It's indicative of how masterful "Genesis" is and how careless they were when slapping together its sequel.

It's hard to know who to credit for the success of "Genesis". You want to pretend Robert Holmes did it all, given Nation was relatively fresh from the by-numbers "Death". Yet there's more than a little of early Blakes 7 in Skaro's ruthless regime, and it seems ignorant to refuse to believe that one of Doctor Who's longest serving writers couldn't weave some actual magic a couple of times and turn out a truly wonderful script. Whoever it was that deserves the most credit for this long-standing favourite pulled his best masterstroke when he decided to focus the story on Davros, and not the Daleks (and here it's worth noting that Nation is the writer that complained on more than one occasion when eighties writers apparently didn't give his creations a hefty enough role). Davros not only states his case as a scientist, as bungled in "Destiny", but actually outargues the Doctor in proving that his warped reasoning for the genocide of possibly everyone is justified; the Doctor can't argue that Davros' solution would, in fact, bring peace. He knows he's not right of course, just as you and I know that anyone who kills to bring about peace is wrong, but it's at that point that you know you arn't going to change their mind.

And there, as clear as a shiny pin, is where the focus of Davros' (and "Genesis") genius lies. Davros isn't evil, he just has a twisted view of what's right. It's hard to remember now (and the point is often missed by the over-repetition of a familiar scene) but Davros wants the same as the Doctor does - peace. It's just that his ends are justified by any means, and that leads us to question who is right. We know killing is wrong, but how do we know? Because we have been told. But can we trust the person that told us? If killing one person means the survival of two others (the logic Davros seems to adopt when annihilating the Thals), does that make it right? It doesn't matter that Davros superfluously does want the same as most Doctor Who villains - as the Doctor puts it, an insane desire to live on in his creations - if "Genesis" makes us ask these questions, it's a better story than the countless others that just tell us upfront who is right and who is wrong.

Somebody once said the most frightening Davros moment is the bit where he snaps his fingers together around the imaginary virus just after deciding he could end "everything". I'd disagree; I think it's where he is out-shouted by the council but instead of raising his voice even further he simply stops, blank-faced, and turns away before calmly operating the switch that will destroy them all, in the manner of a chemist calmly disposing of specimens that have grown out of control. It's in marked contrast to the character's last TV appearance, where he destroys Skaro by accident because he is too wound-up to realise what's going to happen. Making Davros a 'mutant'/cripple/something that's never been explained (I've yet to catch up with Big Finish) was another inexplicable mark of brilliance. Like a Cyberman, there are no eyes to show fear, no changes of expression. But because he is almost human, Davros represents something far more terrifying - a thinking, reasoning, compassionless mind. That's what it is about the death of the Thal Council in that scene that gets me - you can't even see what he's thinking.

Now that's true misguided evil.