The Master could be happy, and it wouldn't even involve fanfic!
This essay is brought to you by caring way too much about the Master because Sacha Dhawan’s superbly psychologized portrayal of the Spymaster presents heartbreaking glimpses into the pain and loneliness motivating the character.
I also feel sorry for the Master, no matter who plays them, because they’re narratively stuck in the role of villain, and they’ll never be happy.
From Roger Delgado’s first appearance, the Master has been defined by the showrunners as the Doctor’s greatest enemy [in competition with Daleks and Cyber people]. The show’s repeated reference to the Master’s past friendship with the Doctor complicates the portrayal of the Master as the Doctor’s enemy. So does New Who’s periodic exploration of the Master’s affinity with the Doctor. However, the Master ultimately functions as the Doctor’s opponent, enemy, and antagonist.
And from the beginning, DW has defined the Master’s antagonism as one in which the Master embodies the opposite of what the Doctor [supposedly] stands for. The Doctor spreads happiness and wonder; the Master spreads misery and suffering. The Doctor explores, creates, and discovers; the Master hides, retreats, and destroys. The Doctor represents good things, which leaves the Master to represent bad things.
The definition of the Master as antagonist/opposite of good/cruel wretch confines the character to a miserable status quo. The show allows the Doctor’s companions, as well as tertiary characters, to experience arcs over which they change and often become more mature and happier. The show even allows various Doctors to learn things over their tenures [for good or for ill]. The Master never has the chance to learn and change and develop as a character in a way that would grant them any insight, maturity, peace, or contentment, however. If they did, they would cease being the Doctor’s evil antagonist, and the show depends on the Master’s perpetual, restricted existence as the Doctor’s mean/bad/wrong counterpoint.
It doesn’t have to be that way, though. The Master could be a dynamic character who experiences arcs of development and change. The character’s role as antagonist would need to be reworked, however.
DW assumes that the Master, as the Doctor’s antagonist, must necessarily be evil, bad, wrong, and miserable in contrast to the Doctor. But that’s wrong. Antagonists aren’t necessarily enemies. A protagonist is the character that the story is about--the Doctor, in this case. An antagonist is merely a character who works against the protagonist. Conflict often arises between protagonist and antagonist because the antagonist is thwarting the protagonist. But that doesn’t mean that the antagonist is an enemy or wrong or unhappy. Nothing about the protagonist/antagonist relationship requires that the protagonist = good guy/moral exemplar/happy person, while antagonist = bad guy/bad example/unhappy loser. The Master/antagonist functions as the villain in opposition to the Doctor/protagonist only because the showrunners have decided that the Master is mad, bad, and sad.
The Master doesn’t have to be a villain, though!
We can imagine many alternative ways for the Master to play antagonist to the Doctor’s protagonist. Perhaps the Doctor makes an impulsive, hearts-based decision to save someone, while the Master, analyzing potential complications, tries to stop and think before acting. Relatedly, maybe the Doctor trusts people and thinks the best of everyone they meet, while the Master prefers to wait and see. Or the Doctor, a staunch pacifist, hates guns, violence, and war, while the Master believes that guns, violence, and war have their place as self-defense. While the Doctor/protagonist and Master/antagonist would be angry at and frustrated with each other in such cases, nothing about these setups dictates that the Doctor has to be happy, morally right, and surrounded by friends, while the Master is unhappy, morally wrong, and lonely.
The Doctor and the Master don’t even need profound philosophical differences to act as counterpoints to each other. The Doctor could be a quiet person who prefers a few close friendships with their companions, while the Master prefers loud parties where they’re the center of attention. That’s a much more comedic framework than the political themes that DW often touches on, but DW has its funny side too. It’s entirely possible for the show to explore different sides of a topic through the Doctor’s and the Master’s divergent viewpoints, while also entertaining us because, say, the Doctor likes fish fingers in custard, and the Master has sensory ICK over custard.
None of these scenarios that I describe are predicated on the protagonist being good and happy and the antagonist being evil and sad. Instead, these scenarios depend on differences, but the differences are neutral. Because the Master’s beliefs and personality differ from the Doctor’s in these cases, the Master has many opportunities to work against the Doctor as an antagonist. Nevertheless, these scenarios say nothing about the Doctor/protagonist being good/happy/right and the Master/antagonist being evil/sad/wrong. By moving beyond a simple binary framework, these scenarios allow the Doctor and the Master the possibility of learning from each other, understanding each other, respecting each other.
And that is how the Master could have a chance at insight, change, and happiness, while still being the Doctor’s antagonist.
