Work Text:
“Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know,”-- These infamous nine words are the opening of Albert Camus’s, The Stranger--arguably the most iconic piece of absurdist literature. Stemming from existentialism, absurdism is defined by the belief that both the world and one’s existence are absurd and meaningless and that attempting to find purpose in either is futile. The ideal Absurd Man is comprised of two key characteristics:
- Being fully aware that both his existence and the world are ultimately meaningless
- Surrendering to the absurdity that surrounds him by not pursuing meaning or purpose but simultaneously rebelling against said absurdity by living authentically and passionately despite knowing the meaninglessness of it all.
This paper aims to not only analyze the parallels of Meursault and Dottore, but to examine the Doctor from the perspective of Albert Camus’s absurdism as a whole. Despite the drastic difference of media these two characters are found in, through the lens of absurdism, one can argue that through the Doctor’s disconnect and consequential ostracization from society, relentless pursuit of knowledge and meaning in a fundamentally absurd universe, hypocritical desire of acceptance from his peers, and the juxtaposition of character between himself and the Traveler, Dottore proves to be narratively absurdist man-- just one that has neither accepted nor completed this role yet.
The Strangers of Society
Both Meursault and Dottore exhibit abnormal personalities that directly oppose societal norms. Hence, they are rejected by society. Throughout the novel, Meursault is detached, almost despondent to his surroundings as he lucidly floats through the majority of the novella. This is exemplified in his disjointed, detached narration such as when Marie asks if Meursault will marry her and he replies, “I said I didn't mind; if she was keen on it, we'd get married. Then she asked me again if I loved her. I replied, much as before, that her question meant nothing or next to nothing…” (Camus 28). Meursault does not cry during his mother’s funeral, he treats his romantic ties with Marie with apathy, and is eerily calm in the aftermath of killing the Arab man. Meursault’s behavior is obviously abnormal compared to the norm. Camus wants to make this obvious to the reader with the prosecutor explicitly stating, “‘Has he so much as expressed any remorse? Never gentlemen. Not once during the preliminary hearings did this man show emotion over his heinous offence.’” (Camus 100). From an outsider’s perspective, Meursalt’s nonchalance can lead one to assume that even cold-blooded murder are trivial, almost trifling, to him. It is this assumption that both enrages and terrifies the court and ultimately leads to Meursault’s death sentence, a ludicrous sentence for such a seemingly unimportant crime. In fact, the actual murder is repeatedly overshadowed by the topic of his mother and his lack of emotion during her funeral. When the defendant takes note of this and quips, “‘Come now, is my client on trial for burying his mother or for killing a man?’” (Camus 96) he is quickly rebutted by the prosecutor saying, “‘I accuse this man of burying his mother with crime in his heart!’”(Camus 96). Meursault’s crime is not murder, but rather his alienation from society. This is proven by the prosecutor’s ending speech, “…But here in this court the wholly negative virtues of tolerance must give way to the sterner but loftier virtue of justice. Especially when the emptiness of a man’s heart becomes, as we find it has in this man, an abyss threatening to swallow up society.’” (Camus 101). The crime is not killing a man, but rather, defying society and refusing to integrate with it. Meursault is a threat to the very society that he is alien to.
Likewise, Dottore demonstrates an obvious disconnect that exiles him from society. Apart from his obvious evil misdeeds, even at his most neutral, Dottore still exhibits amoral tendencies. Dottore is well aware of this and actually revels in the fact stating, “...it is more often than not the villains who strive tirelessly to push the boundaries of progress… I do not conceal my wicked deeds, my selfish desires, or my greed. A true researcher must act as I do if they are to understand and speak of the truth.”. To no surprise, this demeanor has led to Dottore being constantly ostracized from societal circles, whether it be familial, in academics, or even with the Fatui, whom he recently was labeled a traitor with the Tsaritsa ruling, “‘While these exceptional circumstances persist, the Harbingers are hereby authorized to use unilateral executive powers. Should Dottore pose a threat, Arlecchino and Sandrone are permitted to eliminate him.’". Whether or not this verdict is fair or not considering how much Dottore has done for the Fatui is not of importance. This judgement parallels that of Meursault’s. Dottore is not being judged on his current actions, but rather his adamant rejection to integrate into society.
It can be argued these two characters’ dispositions are merely a natural reaction to the realization of life’s meaninglessness. Perhaps Dottore and Meursault have reached a level of philosophical awareness not yet comprehensible by a majority of society or perhaps they, specifically Dottore, are simply too intellectually superior for the common man, as some would like to reason. Whatever is the case, they both reject the world, and as such, the world rejects them.
On the other hand, one could argue that it is neither intellect nor philosophical superiority that ostracizes Meursault and Dottore, but rather it is because that, at this point, they have yet to truly accept the absurdity of the universe and their roles as Absurd Men because of the lack of responsibility in their respective lives.
The Avoidance of the Responsibility is the Avoidance of the Absurd
Despite The Stranger being such a notorious absurdist piece, Meursault does not actually fit Camus’s concept of the Absurd Man until the very end of the novella. Camus’s notion of the Absurd Man is not one set in stone. In fact, the Absurd Man is a concept constantly growing and changing as “Camus tells us that ‘A deep thought is in a continual process of becoming, it attaches itself to the experience of a lifetime and is shaped by it.’...And so his absurd man has evolved dialectically with time and the exigencies of cataclysmic events.” (Rossi 400). Ironically, who many herald as an Absurd Hero (Meursault) can very well be the opposite in the eyes of his creator.
Meursault's lack of responsibility is most obviously demonstrated in the murder of the Arab man. Meursault’s most prominent defense is to blame the sun for his actions, stating “Fumbling a little with my words and realizing how ridiculous I sounded, I blurted out that it was because of the sun. People laughed.” (Camus 103). Besides the absurdity of such a defense, this statement serves as an example of Meursault’s lack of accountability, blaming the sun despite having completely emptied the gun into the Arab man, even when the victim was already dead . In Albert Camus: The Plague of Absurdity when Rossi writes, “Until this moment Meursault had vaguely sensed but had not really accepted his guilt; he had repeated the words that appear in the very first lines of his narrative (‘It’s not my fault’) with only slight misgivings.” (Rossi 404). As stated above, the two key components of an Absurd Man includes both the understanding of the absurd and deliberate rebellion against it. While Meursault seemingly shows an understanding of the absurdity of the world, deliberate rebellion against it is not possible without conscious effort-- and it is impossible to defend Meursault’s actions as conscious when he himself does not realize that. It is ironic-- by denying his role in the death of the Arab man, Meursault subconsciously denies the concept of death itself-- the most absurd truth of them all. It is at this point that Meursault cannot possibly fit the role of Camus’s Absurd Man and aligns more with absurdity itself-- a paradox that culminates in the ultimate sentence. It is from this perspective that Meursault’s death sentence becomes more fitting. Perhaps the death penalty is not an outcome attributed to his lack of participation in society nor simply an incidental, unfortunate event brought by the absurdity of the universe, but rather, the consequence of being an Absurd Man who refuses to accept absurdity.
The Absurd Man is one who lives authentically despite the meaningless that surrounds him. On the surface, Meursault seems genuine, acting in a way that directly opposes society and uncaring of the events that unfold around him because he refuses to project a false sense of self in return for society’s approval. This cannot be farther from the truth. Meursault is not dispassionate because he is authentic. He holds no responsibility for his actions. How can someone possibly be true to themselves when they hold no autonomy over themselves? Rossi writes, “A world without moral standards is a prison of total responsibility, but when necessity and fatality are accepted they become the measure of man’s greatness, the definition of his freedom.” (Rossi 411). Meursault acts more of someone stuck in a lucid dream. He is not uncaring because that is how he truly is-- he is being subconsciously performative, pretending to be what one fantasizes an Absurd Man is like. This statement is further defended by Lee’s words, “Denying or unaware of causation, Meursault can have no sense of responsibility for his acts. As he moves through disconnected events and apparently endless time, choice becomes meaningless and conscious self-definition impossible…He is not consciously rebelling against life's absurdities.”(Lee 366). In essence, responsibility is essential in order for one to truly accept the absurd. The Absurd Man is deliberate in his actions as he knows the weight of them despite their meaninglessness. In order to be a true Absurd Man, Meursault needs to accept responsibility despite the absurdity of life-- which he ultimately does. It is only after Meursault is resolved to his fate and his role in the events that led to it does Meursault truly embrace death, and by extension, absurdity. Juxtaposed by Meursault’s initial reaction to his trial, “I had this stupid urge to cry, because I could feel how much all these people hated me.” (Camus 90), Meursault ends his story with these words, “For all to be accomplished, for me to feel less lonely, all that remained to hope was that on the day of my execution there should be a huge crowd of spectators and that they should greet me with howls of execration.” (Camus 123). The latter extremely contrasting reaction for his predicament could only surface after Meursault accepted responsibility for himself. It is only then that he can properly rebel against the absurd, his fate, and the people who will his demise.
The Doctor’s Rejection of Time, Godhood, and Death
Whether it be internal or external, Dottore is a character built upon rejection. One of the most obvious examples is also a fan-favorite attribute: the segments of himself split between different times of his life. This act is seen as heretical in-universe with the god of wisdom herself stating, “It’s an insult to the very concept of life.”. For this argument, however, the morality and ethics of such a decision are irrelevant. From a philosophical perspective, an act of this nature is a common, almost natural response for someone faced with existentialism as, “a frequent response to the pervasive existential anguish experienced by the protagonists of twentieth-century fiction is the attempt to deny time as a continuum.” (Lee 364). The Doctor’s segments are a direct defiance against time and death and if death is the ultimate absurd truth as established above then this in turn can additionally be seen as a defiance towards absurdity.
Dottore’s pervasive defiance is continued in his multiple attempts to ascend to godhood. The disdain that Dottore holds for the gods of Teyvat permeates every action of his. One of his core principles as a scholar is that knowledge is superior to humans and gods alike. In the most recent Archon Quest, Dottore steals the three moon marrows and says, “Reason, life, death, time, and space...They all believed I would fail...But Teyvat's primordial power never did belong to the throne of heaven And now they are mine.”. This statement directly reprimands the divinity of Teyvat, while also mocking them for keeping such powers from him. Dottore’s pursuit of knowledge is the pursuit of absolute control over all which makes life absurd.
Thus far, it may seem as if the Doctor is, in fact, already an Absurd Man. Has the Doctor not realized the meaninglessness of the universe and life and defied every aspect of it? From a glance, this seems to be the case, except for one glaring argument: Dottore does not accept responsibility in either actions or his own life. In fact, Dottore’s segments are not a rebellion against time, but an avoidance of it. Dottore attempts to control time because he cannot submit nor accept the absurdity of the concept of time. Time is not only impossible to conquer, but also “to deny the relation between time periods is to deny causality and thus to remove the possibility of responsibility - moral or otherwise - for one's acts. Choice becomes meaningless if it has no perceptive effects.” (Lee 364). Without time, Dottore forsakes accountability in his actions. His defiance is null, akin to Meurseult’s demeanor before his transcendence as the Absurd Man for Dottore, “is not consciously rebelling against life's absurdities. Time, for him, is a series of discontinuous moments where self-contained experiences are affected by no past, affect no future.” (Lee 365).Without the consequences of time, it is impossible for Dottore to hold himself accountable.
In addition, Dottore’s belief that his purpose is to transcend godhood defies the most fundamental principle of absurdism-- to surrender any attempt of finding purpose in this life. Camus writes that, “Art aggravates man’s worldly tensions; it does not soothe them. Absurd art makes more piercing the acute distresses of man by portraying them artistically… Art does not offer a refuge from reality; it cannot be the consolation for life.” (Sefler 419). For Dottore, it is not out of the realm of possibility to call his research, his art. Dottore pursues research, not only as a scholar, but as a man who runs from the absurdity of life. In this way, he has committed philosophical suicide, finding a false purpose in his art to avoid the absurdism that would cause his complete ego death. No, Dottore’s disobedience is not as an Absurd Man but rather as a common one who secretly yet vehemently fears and avoids death and the painful truth of the actual lack of purpose and control he actually holds in the universe. It is the defiance of a man who refuses to be held accountable for his own self.
O Born Heretic, Why Do You Run From Your True Desires?
On the surface, the Doctor fits the trope of the villainous, evil scientist who believes science trumps whatever human connection or sincerity can provide. The player repeatedly sees the Doctor commit heinous deeds that can only ostracize him further from society. It seems like Dottore has no qualms with his role. In fact, he proudly concedes to enjoying it, stating, “I have never been afraid to step up and play the role of the villain.”. Dottore even goes as far as to chide other characters who choose companionship, believing that his mindset is one that should also be followed by those around him, expressing disappointment for his fellow researcher Sandrone when he says, “...she never was one for basic courtesy. But I have to admit, I was a little surprised to see her showing concern for someone besides herself…Does everyone you [the Traveler] associate with undergo such a change in temperament? Speaking as a researcher, I have to say — it is not a change for the better. It threatens one's ability to remain objective.”. On the contrary, Dottore’s criticisms are a projection of his own faults. He is merely a front-- and a sloppy one at that-- as despite Dottore’s commitment to villainy, it is painstakingly clear that the Doctor craves the very human connection that he holds in such disdain.
Perhaps the most damning evidence of this sentiment can be found in the Wise Doctor’s Pinion artifact description, “"Will you treat me like the Akademiya did? Will you call me a monster, a madman? Or will you treat me as my hometown did, and chase me away with pitchforks and clubs...?". Dottore loathes his title as the heretic and the outcast, fearing inevitable ostracization and abandonment. Hence, the Doctor’s desire for belonging and acceptance is all but too obvious. No clearer is this seen than in the Doctor’s most recent interactions with the Traveler, whom he tries so desperately to appeal to in joining his side. He repeatedly gives the Traveler chances to change their mind despite initially telling them he would only give them one. He uses the rhetorical triangle, appealing to the traveler’s ethos, pathos, and logos, and when that doesn’t work, simply tries to manipulate the Traveler by dangling their lost sibling in front of them, promising a surefire reunion. Dottore reasons, "Think back to Tartaglia, Arlecchino, Capitano, Columbina, and now, even Sandrone...You've worked with each of them in the past. I believe you can work with me as well…Human relationships end with conflicts of emotions and interests. But relations between humans and gods are different, and ours is even more unique.”. It seems odd for the Doctor to be so adamant about the Traveler befriending him despite the two being on such opposite paths of life. Could it be that the Doctor finds resemblance in the Travel-- a descender, an alien, and an arguable outcast of this world? Dottore even outright likens both their backgrounds, saying “Your long life and unique origins make you fundamentally different from them. How long will it be before they start to treat you like the alien you are? Before you are ostracized, outcast?”. Of course, the Traveler refuses all of the Doctor’s advances. A man with such high intellect should see this as a very predictable outcome, yet Dottore seems disappointed and confused. Perhaps, Dottore reasons, an outcast like the Traveler could have finally been the one who understands the Doctor’s predicament.
It is, in this moment, natural to feel sympathy, even empathy, for Dottore’s constant ostracization, especially for those who enjoy his character. Nevertheless, the reactions of those around him are arguably justified. Even putting aside the discussion of morality and ethics surrounding his actions, Dottore cannot possibly gain companionship at this moment because he holds absolutely no responsibility for himself. Hence, it is narratively fitting for Dottore to be the scapegoat of Teyvat. Whereas Meursault can accept the cries of hate that come with his wrongdoings, Dottore continues to deny the consequences he receives for his. As previously noted, both Meursault and Dottore can be argued as being well aware of the meaninglessness that inhibits their lives, however, their cold, callous nature and rigid rationality are merely a facade masquerading as the Absurd Man. This is especially true for Dottore. As a matter of fact, Dottore’s character currently leans more towards nihilism than absurdism. Though often seen as direct dichotomies of one another, Camus never explicitly condemned nihilism. In fact, Camus’s absurdism directly builds upon Nietzsche's ideas as “Camus built upon a Nietzschean foundation, altering, modifying, and rejecting elements of his thought. Within the world of aesthetics, Camus's position has transfigured Nietzsche…” (Sefler 420). One such way Camus entwined nihilism and absurdism is through the foundational thought shared by both philosophies that, “If one is to see the inevitability of suffering in life and the wisdom gained through this suffering, he must accept the responsibility for his actions and resign himself to the inevitable punishments for his unjust deeds.” (Sefler 420). It is with this particular point of interest that one must scrutinize Dottore’s intrinsic flaws.
Even in his conversation with the Traveler, the Doctor admits his lack of accountability as he tempts them with the prospect of, “...experienc[ing] the thrill of never being held accountable for your actions? You could crush people like ants without consequence. Or tear off their heads, or limbs, as you please.”. Dottore seeks validation and acceptance when his deeds directly defy those things. Dottore's actions and expectations are unequivocal conflicts of one another. In this way, the Doctor is reminiscent of Meursault in his holding cell-- an embodiment of the absurd but not yet the Absurd Man. If Dottore had Meursault’s accountability then he would be able to truly embrace his role as the heretic, the villain, and the outcast. He would not care about the acceptance or judgement of others. It is this paradox that becomes the seed of internal conflict that ultimately makes Dottore his own biggest adversary. He fights against the absurd, and in doing so, his own interests and fulfillment. In the last Archon Quest, Dottore angrily yells, “Stubborn world... Do not try to control me...!” Is this an exclamation towards his fate in Teyvat, or as one who refuses his role as an Absurd Man in a broader narrative sense? Whether consciously or not, by rejecting responsibility, Dottore refuses the notion of the Absurd Man-- and this is his greatest crime and it is towards himself. Dottore rejects the ability to live freely and authentically, withholding himself from finding fulfillment in acceptance. It is possibly this reason that he so harshly criticizes Sandrone-- even if it is right before her death, she accepts the responsibility of her actions and finally frees herself from the absurd. Her final act of rebellion is one that simultaneously achieves his true desires (companionship) and curses him in the same breath.
The Traveler As The Ultimate Absurd Hero
If Dottore is the unfulfilled Absurd Man, then the Traveler is the epitome of Camus’s Absurd Hero, akin to Sisyphus, and a direct juxtaposition of the Doctor. The original Myth of Sisyphus tells of a Sisyphus, who defied the Greek gods and was punished by being condemned to eternally roll a boulder up and down a mountain. In his essay, Myth of Sisyphus, Camus argues that one must imagine Sisyphus is happy rolling the boulder as “Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart.” (Camus 24). Sisyphus accepts his punishment without contempt and continues to roll his boulder despite the inevitable fact that it will roll down again once he reaches the top. In doing so, Sisyphus rises above his sentence and his joy is a direct rebellion against the gods who sentenced him.
Likewise, the Traveler is separated from their beloved sibling by an unknown god and thrust into an unfamiliar world wherein they are soon inundated with an epic, seemingly endless adventure. For many, this can be seen as a morbid purgatory, even hell. Both the Traveler and Sisyphus are chained to their punishment, but even so, they still have the freedom to choose how they feel about their predictaments. In Myth of Sisyphus, Camus writes, “The only one I know is freedom of thought and action … if the absurd cancels all my chances of eternal freedom, it restores and magnifies, on the other hand, my freedom of action. That privation of hope and future means an increase in man's availability.” (Camus 24). If a task has no choice to be done, what is the point of doing it miserably? Everything may be meaningless, but not everything has to be miserable. Like Sisyphus, the Traveler chooses to take their punishment in stride. As they explore Teyvat, they may greatly miss their sibling, they may be injured, hurt, saddened, angered, or discouraged-- but they do not falter. They do not turn back. They do not quit. They do not delude themselves with false meaning or purpose. For that, Camus would laude them as an Absurd Hero. On the contrary, Dottore sees this as foolish, telling the traveler, “You have traveled to all corners of the world and met many people… you have spent your days doing some of the most mundane jobs in the world. You fight and toil, claim minuscule rewards from my friend Pantalone, then you fight some more, winning some battles and losing others as your search goes on. And this cycle continues with no end in sight...Surely, you must sometimes grow weary of being stuck in this same loop day after day?”. Whether the purpose of the Traveler’s adventure is meaningless or not is not the debate (for one already knows the answer to that). What matters most is what they do during this journey, how they make this punishment their solace. To the Doctor, the Camus would probably raise these questions:
If all one does is meaningless anyway, then why shouldn't one enjoy life to the fullest? Why would one deprive themselves of joy when there is nothing to gain from misery?
If the traveler’s adventure is their boulder, then their love for their companions and experiences are a direct rebellion against the unknown god who punished them to this fate. Yes, there are hardships during the journey as with Sisyphus who struggles to push his boulder. However, there are also moments of reprieve when the boulder rolls back down. It is these small moments that truly matter as the Absurd Hero is able to find true happiness and fulfillment in them. The Traveler experiences a multitude of hardships but is equally able to enjoy the people they meet, the food they eat, and the places they experience. After all, in his last moments of life, Meursault doesn’t ponder a pursuit of meaning or attempt to conjure a way to escape his fate. Rather, his mind flows back to the times in his life that he enjoyed as ““[Meursault] was assailed by memories of a life that wasn't [his] anymore, but one in which [he’d] found the simplest and most lasting joys: the smells of summer, the part of town I loved, a certain evening sky, Marie's dresses and the way she laughed.”. (Camus 104). In order for one to be a true Absurd Hero, they must be an active and eager participant in the absurd world that they live in. Camus continues, “I don't know whether this world has a meaning that transcends it…In this particular case and on the plane of intelligence, I can therefore say that the Absurd is not in man (if such a metaphor could have a meaning) nor in the world, but in their presence together. For the moment it is the only bond uniting them.” (Camus 24). The Absurd Hero embraces the absurdity of their predicament and, in turn, are free to enjoy that which surrounds them, authentically and passionately. This is exactly what the Traveler does. Though their initial goal was to find their sibling, the Traveler has come to love their journey as much as the one that they search for. To someone like Dottore, who still cannot accept the absurdity of his world, who still grasps on to finding purpose and meaning in a chaotic universe, who denies himself even the joy of friendship for fear of the responsibility that it comes with-- this concept is foreign and even laughable. It is why the Doctor gives the Traveler this ultimatum:“Even I feel bad for you, sometimes. This world has made you into a slave. So many times, you have served its will ... and not once have the powers that be ever thought to grant you the one, simple thing you wish for…I, on the other hand, am far more considerate. Join my experiment, and in return, I will bring your meaningless journey and all its struggles to an end.”. It is only natural at this point for the Traveler to question their journey, as one questions their existence in the midst of absurdity. However, this is not a flaw because ultimately, the Traveler denies the Doctor and actively chooses to continue their journey. In Albert Camus and the Ethics of Rebellion, Caraway writes, “The rebel revolts against death and for life… In realizing the absurdity of his relation to the world, he revolts, but the revolt does not eradicate, circumvent, or even mitigate the absurd. The absurd is maintained simultaneously with the revolt.” (Caraway 130). Everything in the absurd world is meaningless, so without the journey, what good is the end? There is nothing to gain from skipping hardship. There is no sweetness from wine that is not given time to age. As Camus writes, “There is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night.” (Camus 24). True rebellion comes by knowing and cementing one’s place in the absurd, not refusing to participate. This is the crucial difference between Dottore and the Traveler. Whereas one experiences the world around them wholly, the other rejects it.
The Doctor would likely argue against this judgement, saying “I, too, embrace what life brings, researching everything that interests me. Think of all the novel things I've managed to create...:” Even still, the Doctor tries to assign purpose by shedding light on his creations. Dottore cares only for the results and discards the process of the journey when both are equally meaningless and should paradoxically, be treated with equal respect. To research what interests one while ignoring what he does not is also admittance to the denial of uncomfortable truths. Dottore researches and scrutinizes all around him, except himself. It is ironic that a scholar is unable to learn from his own flaws. Yet, it is because of this that he cannot fathom the Traveler’s mindset towards their adventure. The Doctor does not embrace life, but rather tries to control it, to bend it to his will. This is the source of his suffering that he only has himself to blame for.
Of course, this isn’t a write-off of the Doctor as a character. Dottore’s tale is far from over. Even Meursault did not become the Absurd Man till the very end. However, for Dottore to truly rebel as the Absurd Man, he will have to either ultimately reject his desire for acceptance or change his ways in order to receive the latter. Whichever way, the Doctor cannot do either of these things without acknowledging the weight of his crimes and wrongdoings. One can argue that if rebellion against the absurd is to live a passionate, fulfilling life, then the only way that Dottore can rebel as an Absurd Man is by finally acting in a way that warrants his acceptance. This is not to say that Dottore’s character arc will end in forgiveness or a “watering down” of character that so many fans fear. His prior actions may very well be deemed unforgivable by those around him and the Doctor cannot change the past--time has already been stated to be uncontrollable. The best that Dottore can do at this point is to, like the Traveler, take this punishment in stride and move forward with deliberate actions in which he holds himself accountable and becomes his most authentic self without hiding behind research, villainy, or godhood.. In doing so, Dottore will surely find belonging-- whether that be with the characters the player currently knows or ones of the unknown future.