Cornell pisses on R.A.D.W (again!)
Braveheart
another swipe at R.A.D.W!! God, that guy really seems to hate this
newsgroup .
At the end of his article he states "......the pit of spite & fascism that
rec.arts.drwho has become..."
What does he mean "..has become"? Imagine having the gall to suggest that
this NG was EVER left wing, or tolerant of others' opinions/lifestyles/
religions etc.
Listen up, Paulie: you won't find any gays, jews, Arabs, blacks, Indians or
lefties in THIS newsgroup. Never has been, never will be. Dr Who fans are
all white Anglo-Saxon Aryan-looking Christian heterosexuals.
Unless you apologise to the group IMMEDIATELY , we're all coming round to
your house to burn all your books. After all, that's what us " fascists" are
supposed to do, isn't it?
What a twat!!
Braveheart
Robwhite22
of spite & fascism that rec.arts.drwho has become..."
>What does he mean "..has become"? Imagine having the gall to suggest that
>this NG was EVER left wing, or tolerant of others' opinions/lifestyles/
religions etc.
So calling it that is unfair how? I'm not sure about fascism, but this place is
certainly full of types so totally intolerant to views not matching their own,
they're prepared to vent spleen instead of arguing. Which matches spite pretty
well in my book.
>Listen up, Paulie: you won't find any gays, jews, Arabs, blacks, Indians or
>lefties in THIS newsgroup. Never has been, never will be. Dr Who fans are
>all white Anglo-Saxon Aryan-looking Christian heterosexuals.
I assume you're joking. If radw is comprised entirely of heterosexuals, I'm the
Rod of Rassilon.
>Unless you apologise to the group IMMEDIATELY , we're all coming round to
>your house to burn all your books. After all, that's what us " fascists" are
>supposed to do, isn't it?
Oh, go and have a lie down, there's a good boy.
Rob.
PS - the "Deathtospammers" in the addy, is the same as Dangermouse used in his
time here. I really hope this crappy feud isn't kicking off again. If it is,
I'm well out of it...
Braveheart
"Robwhite22" <robwh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000711205555...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
> So calling it that is unfair how? I'm not sure about fascism, but this
place is
> certainly full of types so totally intolerant to views not matching their
own,
> they're prepared to vent spleen instead of arguing. Which matches spite
pretty
> well in my book.
Can't really dissagree with the "spiteful" bit, but I find blindly labelling
the group fascist very offensive. It's an easy label to throw around, but
nothing I've seen in this group justifies such a tag,
> >Listen up, Paulie: you won't find any gays, jews, Arabs, blacks, Indians
or
> >lefties in THIS newsgroup. Never has been, never will be. Dr Who fans are
> >all white Anglo-Saxon Aryan-looking Christian heterosexuals.
>
> I assume you're joking. If radw is comprised entirely of heterosexuals,
I'm the
> Rod of Rassilon.
Of course it's a joke! One of the things I like about RADW (& Usenet in
general) is the chance to "talk" to people with such a wide variety of
backgrounds. I was just trying to demonstrate how totally ridiculous the tag
of "fascist" for this newsgroup truely is (by using what was obviously very
poor satire, if you couldn't see this)
.
>
> PS - the "Deathtospammers" in the addy, is the same as Dangermouse used in
his
> time here. I really hope this crappy feud isn't kicking off again. If it
is,
> I'm well out of it...
2+2 =......5! Nope, I'm not McIntee, although I do enjoy his books.
Braveheart
Adam Richards
<Brave...@deathtospammers.msn.com> wrote:
>Can't really dissagree with the "spiteful" bit, but I find blindly labelling
>the group fascist very offensive. It's an easy label to throw around, but
>nothing I've seen in this group justifies such a tag,
It's also - let's face it - totally predictable and disappointing of
Paul to label the entire group with that over-the-top term. Paul's a
genius on some occasions admittedly, but on others, like this, he's a
sad caricature of himself.
I haven't read the SFX piece so can't comment on whether he actually
argued his case convincingly or not; if he did, then I'm sorry. But if
not, how do you think certain people (Snarky, WDS, yourself, *me*)
feel about being labelled "fascists" by someone who ought to be more
careful with his opinions, knowing full well the influence he has as
an author in fandom?
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
Matt Michael
Adam Richards wrote in message ...
>I haven't read the SFX piece so can't comment on whether he actually
>argued his case convincingly or not; if he did, then I'm sorry. But if
>not, how do you think certain people (Snarky, WDS, yourself, *me*)
>feel about being labelled "fascists" by someone who ought to be more
>careful with his opinions, knowing full well the influence he has as
>an author in fandom?
I don't think Cornell has any real "influence" over fandom, and he'd
probably be horrified if he thought he did.
matt
Steve Day
>So calling it that is unfair how? I'm not sure about fascism, but this place is
>certainly full of types so totally intolerant to views not matching their own,
>they're prepared to vent spleen instead of arguing. Which matches spite pretty
>well in my book.
A bit like Cornell's article then.
*
'...a brilliant piece of television...'
http://www.redimp.freeserve.co.uk/ghostwatch
*
Steve Day
<matt.m...@virgin.net> wrote:
>I don't think Cornell has any real "influence" over fandom, and he'd
>probably be horrified if he thought he did.
>
>matt
>
Hes just happy earning thousands from fandom though, isn't he? Earning
from the same people on here that he slags off - 'I don't like you,
but I'll take your cash'.
Dangermouse
Robwhite22 <robwh...@aol.com> wrote
> PS - the "Deathtospammers" in the addy, is the same as Dangermouse used
in his
> time here. I really hope this crappy feud isn't kicking off again. If it
is,
> I'm well out of it...
Nothing to do with me, I'm glad to say.
I suspect if you check the more detailed headers you'll notice the
difference.
And I don't get SFX these days anyway.
.
Meddling Mick
<steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Matt Michael" wrote:
>
>>I don't think Cornell has any real "influence" over fandom, and he'd
>>probably be horrified if he thought he did.
>>
>Hes just happy earning thousands from fandom though, isn't he? Earning
>from the same people on here that he slags off - 'I don't like you,
>but I'll take your cash'.
That's the sort of impression I was left with after his appearance on
RADW last year. This is, of course, just MO and not a fact, but it
seemed like PC woke up and thought 'Hey, maybe I should pop over to
RADW because I've got a new book coming out in a few months' time.
I'd better ingratiate myself with the book readership a bit, hopefully
it'll shift a few more copies. Oh look - there's Dave McIntee, a guy
I don't like on a personal level. I can kill too birds with one
stone. Publicise my upcoming book *and* piss off one of RADW's
regular contributors to the point that he'll leave. Oh cool - my
Cunning Plan has been successful. My work here is done. I'm off.'
As I say, that's just the impression I was left with (undoubtedly
others have their own interpretations of how things played out), but
any sort of respect I may have had for the guy plummeted big time.
(Aah, I've been wanting to say that for a good few months. Please
take no notice, I'm not attempting to rake up all *that* again...)
Now, although I've not read the article and so everything could be
taken out of context, I suppose, PC's comments about RADW - which he's
made before, AFAICR - just reinforce my negative opinion of him.
Oh dear. These comments probably actually make me look like part of
that 'pit of spite and fascism' PC was talking about. The guy is
obviously right.
<Marvin the Martian voice>
He makes me so mad. Oh how I wish he was black, jewish and gay so I
could have a big pop at him...
</Marvin the Martin voice>
--
(Meddling) Mick Gair
'Why... that power would set me down among the dead men!'
(excerpt from 'The Davros Summerfield Adventures')
Adam Richards
<matt.m...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>Adam Richards wrote in message ...
>
>>I haven't read the SFX piece so can't comment on whether he actually
>>argued his case convincingly or not; if he did, then I'm sorry. But if
>>not, how do you think certain people (Snarky, WDS, yourself, *me*)
>>feel about being labelled "fascists" by someone who ought to be more
>>careful with his opinions, knowing full well the influence he has as
>>an author in fandom?
>
>
>I don't think Cornell has any real "influence" over fandom, and he'd
>probably be horrified if he thought he did.
I'd love to believe that Matt, but just remember what happened after
his DWB "Terror of the Autons" review: most of fandom suddenly turned
its back on the Pertwee era. All authors have influence in fandom;
they're fools if they don't know that.
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
Adam Richards
Sutur...@SutureSelf.freeserve.co.uk (Meddling Mick) wrote:
>That's the sort of impression I was left with after his appearance on
>RADW last year. This is, of course, just MO and not a fact, but it
>seemed like PC woke up and thought 'Hey, maybe I should pop over to
>RADW because I've got a new book coming out in a few months' time.
>I'd better ingratiate myself with the book readership a bit, hopefully
>it'll shift a few more copies. Oh look - there's Dave McIntee, a guy
>I don't like on a personal level. I can kill too birds with one
>stone. Publicise my upcoming book *and* piss off one of RADW's
>regular contributors to the point that he'll leave. Oh cool - my
>Cunning Plan has been successful. My work here is done. I'm off.'
Hmmm, interesting hypothesis. ;-)
>As I say, that's just the impression I was left with (undoubtedly
>others have their own interpretations of how things played out), but
>any sort of respect I may have had for the guy plummeted big time.
It was very regrettable. I think a lot of Paul's bile is entertaining,
just that it's so often flung at the wrong (IMO) targets.
>(Aah, I've been wanting to say that for a good few months. Please
>take no notice, I'm not attempting to rake up all *that* again...)
IMO, you've said what you wanted to say with admirable tact and made
it clear it's all just your impression as opposed to "the facts".
>Now, although I've not read the article and so everything could be
>taken out of context, I suppose, PC's comments about RADW - which he's
>made before, AFAICR - just reinforce my negative opinion of him.
It's difficult. I quite like Paul as a person (and had one or two
conversations in email with him around the time that whole business
took place), so I don't want to say anything which might hurt him.
Trouble is, I also very much like Dave McIntee and think he was one of
the friendliest authors who've posted to this group. Still, at least
Paul knows how I feel about Dave. It's a lot like the dilemma I was in
when WDStarr and Steve Day had their big feud - I would have liked to
have been friendly with both posters, really.
>Oh dear. These comments probably actually make me look like part of
>that 'pit of spite and fascism' PC was talking about. The guy is
>obviously right.
Maybe he just lashed out at us in that article because he's under the
impression that we've fallen head over heels in love with Lawrence
Miles? It can seem that way on occasion - especially after the Gary
Russell bashing a couple of weeks back - and as you know, Miles has
said some of the most hurtful, tactless (IMO) things about Paul I've
ever heard from anyone.
A while ago, I got the impression that Paul was the darling of fandom.
Certainly he seemed to be, around the time of his DWB "Terror of the
Autons" review. He seemed to have captured the imagination of the sort
of fan who likes a "pied piper". Now I get the impression that "pied
piper" figure has become Lawrence Miles, for a lot of fans. And maybe,
even only subconsciously, Paul feels hurt at losing his place in the
spotlight?
Oh dear, Paul is "being discussed", and I dare say if he were in a bad
mood and read what I've just said he could see it as me being spiteful
- as could anyone, I imagine. I'd hope not, though - I don't want to
be spiteful, I just want to understand, and perhaps help, whatever my
help is worth. Not much, probably.
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
Braveheart
"Adam Richards" <Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:u7qnms892tvp27npa...@4ax.com...
> argued his case convincingly or not; if he did, then I'm sorry. But if
> not, how do you think certain people (Snarky, WDS, yourself, *me*)
> feel about being labelled "fascists" by someone who ought to be more
> careful with his opinions, knowing full well the influence he has as
> an author in fandom?
He didn't argue his case at all. It was a "throwaway" line at the end of the
column, when he was recommending readers to check out the "Doctor Who
Worships Satan" web site (I kid you not!!!).
Braveheart
Ed Stradling
>
> >I don't think Cornell has any real "influence" over fandom, and he'd
> >probably be horrified if he thought he did.
> >
> >matt
> >
> Hes just happy earning thousands from fandom though, isn't he? Earning
> from the same people on here that he slags off - 'I don't like you,
> but I'll take your cash'.
I don't have a problem with that attitude at all. And Cornell does, or
certainly did, have a big influence on a small but substantial group of
fans, obviously primarily the NA fans.
--
And we'll all be lonely tonight, and lonely tomorrow...
Ed Stradling
> Just finished reading the latest SFX (#67), only to see Paul Cornell take
> another swipe at R.A.D.W!! God, that guy really seems to hate this
> newsgroup .
>
> At the end of his article he states "......the pit of spite & fascism that
> rec.arts.drwho has become..."
It should be pointed out here, that the last time Paul spent any time on
this group seemed to be *solely* in an effort to bully Dangermouse off the
group. Not that I had a particular problem with that, but it seems amusing
in the light of the above commentary.
Douglas B. Killings
> I'd love to believe that Matt, but just remember what happened after
> his DWB "Terror of the Autons" review: most of fandom suddenly turned
> its back on the Pertwee era. All authors have influence in fandom;
> they're fools if they don't know that.
So he's the one that kicked off this whole anti-Pertwee movement? Blah.
Sigh The more I read and hear about PC, the less I think I like him. And
that whole thing in regards to McIntee/Dangermosue was just disgraceful.
:::shaking head::: (DANGERMOUSE: good to see you back!)
I do think, however, he has a point about the bitterness and intolerance
that occures on this group. However, I take issue with his contention that
this is anything new. Seems to me that intolerance and flames have been an
integral part of this ng at least ever since I became aware of it back
around 1990.
Could it be that he feels a little bitter, now that attention has shifted
away from the things he did for the NAs?
--
Douglas B. Killings,
Video Czar, ChiCon 2000 (58th WorldCon)
DeTr...@EnterAct.Com
Fanfiction Website:
http://www.enteract.com/~detroyes/teotp/teotp.html
"Any fool can walk on water if the world is cold enough."
Daniel O'Mahony
> I'd love to believe that Matt, but just remember what happened after
> his DWB "Terror of the Autons" review: most of fandom suddenly turned
> its back on the Pertwee era
That's overstating the case a bit. The anti-Pertwee and Pertwee-spoofing
trends had been gathering strength among hardcore fanzine readers through
the 1990s (in, for instance, 'Purple Haze', 'Perigosto Stick', 'Top', etc).
I think the 'Terror of the Autons' review brought that attitude to the
attention to a wider fan audience than before but the big response through
the DWB letters page was generally horrified by his perfectly valid
viewpoint and there was a big debate about it on the letters page for a few
months. It's not only simplistic to ascribe fandom's "turning away" from
Pertwee (whatever that might be) as the result of one article - it's also
not true.
Paul's articles have generally been very successful in bringing fringe
arguments to the fore of fandom's discourse - the gay subtext of 'Happiness
Patrol', for instance, was knocking around quietly for a few years before
Paul referenced it in 'Skaro'. And I don't think there's anything terribly
wrong about that.
Ed Jefferson
>
>>I don't think Cornell has any real "influence" over fandom, and he'd
>>probably be horrified if he thought he did.
>>
>>matt
>>
>Hes just happy earning thousands from fandom though, isn't he? Earning
>from the same people on here that he slags off - 'I don't like you,
>but I'll take your cash'.
>
I wish I was clever enough to come up with such a scheme- if I could take a
penny or two from everyone who didn't like me, I'd be a billionare!
--
Or something...
Ed Jefferson, posting through time from 2004
"My eyes! They fit perfectly."
http://members.xoom.com/radwdatabank Are *you* in the RADW databank?
http://.../upgbook/ The Alt. Book Programme Guide
not iluvjam BTW
Daniel O'Mahony
> So he's the one that kicked off this whole anti-Pertwee movement?
Actually he's not. Please refer to my earlier post, etc.
I imagine one of the reasons that Paul took a swipe at radw in his column
was precisely because we make it so easy for disinformation, damned lies
and statistics to get spread around.
john long
review? I don't quite remember it.
--
john long -- AIM Cracker499
The Doctor
Daniel Frankham <dan...@oztek.net.au> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:53:55 +0100, "Braveheart"
><Brave...@deathtospammers.msn.com> wrote:
>
>>He didn't argue his case at all. It was a "throwaway" line at the end of the
>>column, when he was recommending readers to check out the "Doctor Who
>>Worships Satan" web site (I kid you not!!!).
>
>Henry Vizi, he calls us all spiteful fascists? Ah...
>
Him and Billy and Long for you.
>--
>Daniel Frankham
--
God Queen and Country Member - Liberal International
Never Satan President and Republic This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
Society MUST be saved! Republics must dissolve.
HEy Hey USA - call for a referendum to dissolve your nation and dissolve
Cliff Bowman
news:8ki9c9$e43$1...@supernews.com...
of spite & fascism that
become a little testy, as I recall it.
Aside from said visit - how would he know? Does anyone know Paul well enough
to know whether he's got a "lurker" type of personality?
--
Cheers,
Cliff Bowman
http://www.geocities.com/who3d/
PS change "2" to "1" and remove "inter" to reply by e-mail
Marcus Durham
pammers.msn.com> shared the following with us in rec.arts.drwho:
[snip]
>Listen up, Paulie: you won't find any gays, jews, Arabs, blacks, Indians or
>lefties in THIS newsgroup.
Rubbish! There's John Long for a start!
--
Marcus Durham
The UMTSDW Homepage. News, Reviews, Features and Locations.
http://www.zenn.demon.co.uk/drwho/drwho.htm
Robwhite22
>Robwhite22 <robwh...@aol.com> wrote
>> PS - the "Deathtospammers" in the addy, is the same as Dangermouse used
>in his
>> time here. I really hope this crappy feud isn't kicking off again. If it
>is,
>> I'm well out of it...
>
>Nothing to do with me, I'm glad to say.
>
>I suspect if you check the more detailed headers you'll notice the
>difference.
Eeep.
Fair enough, I'm glad that's the case.
It wasn't meant as an accusation. It was just "one of those things that occurs
to you mid way through a pissed radw posting session". Pay no attention.
Rob.
Daniel Frankham
<Brave...@deathtospammers.msn.com> wrote:
>He didn't argue his case at all. It was a "throwaway" line at the end of the
>column, when he was recommending readers to check out the "Doctor Who
>Worships Satan" web site (I kid you not!!!).
So, while recommending a web site showcasing the wit and wisdom of
Henry Vizi, he calls us all spiteful fascists? Ah...
--
Daniel Frankham
The Doctor
Adam Richards
wrote:
>Adam Richards wrote:
>
>> I'd love to believe that Matt, but just remember what happened after
>> his DWB "Terror of the Autons" review: most of fandom suddenly turned
>> its back on the Pertwee era
>
>That's overstating the case a bit. The anti-Pertwee and Pertwee-spoofing
>trends had been gathering strength among hardcore fanzine readers through
>the 1990s (in, for instance, 'Purple Haze', 'Perigosto Stick', 'Top', etc).
>I think the 'Terror of the Autons' review brought that attitude to the
>attention to a wider fan audience than before
AFAICR, it was the first quite well-known or "professional" zine to
print that kind of extreme attitude against Pertwee. Not before time,
of course - all opinions should get a fair hearing IMO, trouble is, it
seemed to me like that opened the floodgates - soon you had mainstream
reviews which read as if they were simply knocking Pertwee for the
sake of it, to appear "cool" (Their review of Green Death was an
example IIRC).
>but the big response through
>the DWB letters page was generally horrified by his perfectly valid
>viewpoint and there was a big debate about it on the letters page for a few
>months.
Oh, yes, I do remember that as well, but as with most things in
fandom, the "rad" viewpoint became fashionable and won out against the
"trad". If it weren't something DWB endorsed fully I don't believe DWB
would have printed it, really. Reevaluation became that mag's stock in
trade for a while, didn't it?
>It's not only simplistic to ascribe fandom's "turning away" from
>Pertwee (whatever that might be) as the result of one article - it's also
>not true.
Oh well. It certainly seemed true at the time, as a reader of DWB, but
even the surest of convictions can be wrong as we all know. I suppose
we'd have to ask fandom what they think to get the "hard fact" of the
matter: "Q: Did you change your opinion of the third Doctor after the
rumpus in DWB over Paul's article?" I do think even if Paul wasn't the
first to knock Pertwee, he was the one whom people remembered doing
it; he got the biggest impact doing it and he more or less made it
fashionable.
>Paul's articles have generally been very successful in bringing fringe
>arguments to the fore of fandom's discourse - the gay subtext of 'Happiness
>Patrol', for instance, was knocking around quietly for a few years before
>Paul referenced it in 'Skaro'. And I don't think there's anything terribly
>wrong about that.
I do think there was something wrong with it - wasn't it he who said
the victim of the fondant surprise was wearing a pink triangle? Thing
is, he's not wearing one. I have to wonder, didn't he watch the story
closely enough, or did he just make that up to strengthen his
argument?
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
john long
>
> Braveheart wrote:
> >Listen up, Paulie: you won't find any gays, jews, Arabs, blacks, Indians or
> >lefties in THIS newsgroup.
>
For a start, I am none of those things.
Charles Martin
<steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Hes just happy earning thousands from fandom though, isn't he? Earning
> from the same people on here that he slags off - 'I don't like you,
> but I'll take your cash'.
Oops, you know *I* didn't screen the readers of my last major article to
find out if they agreed with me before I picked up the cheque either! DOH!
<smacks head>
--
_Chas_
(non-spammers should use "chasm" at mac-dot-com instead of the email above!)
Check out VAN THE MAN, my Van Morrison & friends streaming MP3 radio station!
Visit http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/directory.cgi?autostart=chasdos or point
your streaming MP3 player of choice to http://216.32.166.83:11492 -- thanks!
Ed Stradling
> >> his DWB "Terror of the Autons" review: most of fandom suddenly turned
> >> its back on the Pertwee era
When was the DWB Terror of the Autons review. I reckon the Pertwee backlash
started in about 1989 - if his review was before that then maybe that's
right.
Braveheart
Braveheart.
PS: I TOTALLY agree with your comments in SFX, Ed!!
Daniel Frankham
I'm guessing spammers should probably keep away from Scotland...
--
Daniel Frankham
Duncan Harvey
IIRC would be early 1993.
IF its the one I think it is, Paul was commenting on the change
in direction from season 7 and the introduction of the "UNIT
family" with Jo (and by extension the Master). The infamous
phrase "the Doctor became a Tory" was used which sparked
controversy in the letters page.
Now whilst I can see what PC was getting at - the Doc was always
extremely paternalistic and patronising towards Jo with an "I
know best attitude". In Axos theres also the time when the docs
talking to Chinn and refers to discussions in the club "wrong
sort of chap..."
I think PC was being deliberately controversial when he used the
word "Tory" and I cant believe someone of his intelligence
really believes in this. Without turning this into a debate on
the Pertwee Doctor, I think theres more evidence against than
for the "Tory" label. And I should point out I'm not talking
about crass political labels, but more the conservative,
establishment supporting state of mind - a bit Reithian in the
sense of "we know whats good for you and by god we'll make sure
you get it"
I also remember PC at a convention saying about one of those
ghastly 30th anniversary polls that it was dead easy - just give
all the Pertwee's nil and all the Graham Williams stories 10...
What I suspect is the case is that PC enjoys a bit of mischief
making, knowing that a large proportion of active fandom dotes
on his every word, and hence decided to "let the games commence"
by making a few controversial statements and letting the anoraks
do the rest. If thats the case then I cant say I blame him!
Mind you I remember reading his "dissent is good" piece and
feeling pretty nauseous at its self righteous tone - so maybe in
prompting that reaction I was wearing an anorak myself!
Duncan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Daniel Frankham
<edstradlin...@lineone.net> wrote:
>> >> I'd love to believe that Matt, but just remember what happened after
>> >> his DWB "Terror of the Autons" review: most of fandom suddenly turned
>> >> its back on the Pertwee era
>
>When was the DWB Terror of the Autons review. I reckon the Pertwee backlash
>started in about 1989 - if his review was before that then maybe that's
>right.
About the time the videos started becoming available, you mean? People
actually seeing the episodes is a far more likely cause of the
backlash IMHO.
--
Daniel Frankham
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition
> "Daniel O'Mahony" wrote:
> >Adam Richards wrote:
>
> >It's not only simplistic to ascribe fandom's "turning away" from
> >Pertwee (whatever that might be) as the result of one article - it's also
> >not true.
>
> Oh well. It certainly seemed true at the time, as a reader of DWB, but
> even the surest of convictions can be wrong as we all know. I suppose
> we'd have to ask fandom what they think to get the "hard fact" of the
> matter: "Q: Did you change your opinion of the third Doctor after the
> rumpus in DWB over Paul's article?" I do think even if Paul wasn't the
> first to knock Pertwee, he was the one whom people remembered doing
> it; he got the biggest impact doing it and he more or less made it
> fashionable.
My opinion of Pertwee wasn't changed -- of course, I don't believe I've
read the article...(unless it was in his book on fandom, which I tend to
find doubtful -- a bit egotistical, it'd be, methinks -- though I may be
overstating the case, as it appears to have been significant within
fandom)
--
========================================================================
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!! We must stick apart!!!
Lola, called Snarky, the Chocolate Snark, Queen of the Snarks; Queen of
Rice; loud and flaming queer Demon of Mockery and Silliness, Demon Lord
of Confusion, Demon Prince of Absurdity; Pope Snarky Goodfella of the
undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK; the Very Long, Multi-Coloured
Scarf of Tom Baker; The Black Goat With A Thousand Young; the Goat In
Black; Cardinal of the Fannish Inquisition
The Principia Discordia: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tilt/principia/body.html
SPONGE: http://www.s-p-o-n-g-e.com/
The Coming Out Show: http://geocities.com/comingoutshow/
"Remember: Red meat isn't bad for you. Fuzzy blue-green meat is."
-- Zog the etc. (in alt.discordia)
Paul E. Curtis
> Now whilst I can see what PC was getting at - the Doc
> was always extremely paternalistic and patronising
> towards Jo with an "I know best attitude". In Axos
> theres also the time when the docs talking to Chinn and
> refers to discussions in the club "wrong sort of
> chap..."
Doesn't he actually say that to Brownrose, in part three of "Terror of the
Autons"?
> What I suspect is the case is that PC enjoys a bit of mischief
> making, knowing that a large proportion of active fandom dotes
> on his every word, and hence decided to "let the games commence"
> by making a few controversial statements and letting the anoraks
> do the rest.
"Fandom is almost entirely queer."
"The vast majority of interesting Who is gay."
Need I go on? ;-)
Although I wasn't really offended by those remarks, I will admit to being
annoyed by his inference that 'trad' fans are bound to be culturally and
politically conservative, whereas 'rad' fans are likely to be enlightened
and progressive. For every fan who fits into this pattern [Kate Orman,
Azaxyr, et cetera], there is surely another for whom it *doesn't* fit [Steve
Day, Adam Richards, et cetera]. The implication seems to be that if you
don't like Sylvester McCoy, aren't interested in the NAs, or simply happen
to dig the Pertwee era, then you're clearly a rabid Tory at heart. This, of
course, is utter frogwash.
Remember Cornell's anorak-baiting RADW post from awhile back, asserting that
Innes Lloyd ruined _Doctor Who_ by abandoning the sophisticated adult drama
of the John Wiles era in favour of rubber monsters and bases under siege?
In one sense, he was right--Wiles's episodes *were* a good deal more adult
and cerebral than those of his successor. OTOH, although the Lloyd era may
have been somewhat "dumbed down," there's no denying that it packs a
tremendous visceral wallop. It, too, is worthy of our admiration, for
despite the tremendous time and budget constraints under which it was
produced, it still succeeded in delivering a jolt of sheer adrenaline to
millions of viewers, week after week. And in any case, if Lloyd *hadn't*
steered _Doctor Who_ away from high drama and toward populist entertainment,
I doubt the show would've lasted very much longer!
(This also applies to season seven vs. the rest of the Pertwee era. Sure,
we all know that S7 kicks serious arse, and that the rest of the Letts era
is, from today's perspective, mega-tacky. But if Letts hadn't positioned DW
toward a younger demographic, would it have gone on for another 19 years? I
rather doubt it.)
--
--Paul Curtis
Adam Richards
Oh, wow... I just want to quote that whole thing because it was so
very, very well said, Paul.
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
Paul E. Curtis
> Paul E. Curtis <pecu...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Oh, wow... I just want to quote that whole thing
> because it was so very, very well said, Paul.
<curtsies>
Thank you!
--
--Paul Curtis
Duncan Harvey
McCoy, aren't interested in the NAs, or simply happen to dig the
Pertwee era, then you're clearly a rabid Tory at heart. This, of
course, is utter frogwash."
well said Paul!!
I havent watched, and to be honest havent felt any inclination
to watch any of the McCoy stories for years as they just dont
interest me enough to bump them up the viewing list (the
exception is Fenric which I showed to my girlfriend as an
example of a "good" 7th Doctor story, and yes we're still
engaged despite this!)
Similarly the only NA that I read was Nightshade as I'd heard
this was as close to my gut instinct of "proper Who" as you
could get.
My reasons - I was put off by interviews and reviews of the NAs
which seemed to suggest a "year zero" approach, and that the
McCoy Doctor was the only "true" Doctor - any others especially
Pertwee were crap. Whether or not this was the intention - the
feeling I got was that those which did not conform to this were
unwanted and unwelcome and that an "idealogically pure cadre" of
7th Doc fans could then go forward and create Who in their own
image.
Now this may seem completely OTT but it was how I felt at the
time. And the continuing heated debates about the merits of the
McCoy TV and NA era would suggest that this split in fandom
still exists.
Nick Lancaster
<Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 07:46:43 +0100, "Matt Michael"
><matt.m...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Adam Richards wrote in message ...
>>
>>>I haven't read the SFX piece so can't comment on whether he actually
>>>argued his case convincingly or not; if he did, then I'm sorry. But if
>>>not, how do you think certain people (Snarky, WDS, yourself, *me*)
>>>feel about being labelled "fascists" by someone who ought to be more
>>>careful with his opinions, knowing full well the influence he has as
>>>an author in fandom?
>>
>>
>>I don't think Cornell has any real "influence" over fandom, and he'd
>>probably be horrified if he thought he did.
>
>I'd love to believe that Matt, but just remember what happened after
>his DWB "Terror of the Autons" review: most of fandom suddenly turned
>its back on the Pertwee era. All authors have influence in fandom;
>they're fools if they don't know that.
What does this Terror of the Autons review say, then?
love,
Nick
-moving back instead of forwards seems to me absurd
http://go.to/lanky
Ed Stradling
> I think the Terror review was when it came out on video, which
> IIRC would be early 1993.
In that case it didn's kick-start anything. The Pertwee backlash was well
established by then.
Adam Richards
<edstradlin...@lineone.net> wrote:
>Duncan Harvey <duncanrv...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
>
>> I think the Terror review was when it came out on video, which
>> IIRC would be early 1993.
>
>In that case it didn's kick-start anything. The Pertwee backlash was well
>established by then.
Not in DWB it wasn't. I suspect we all have our own little necks of
the woods where fandom is concerned, the Pertwee backlash hit yours
before it hit mine. I think Cornell was responsible for the Pertwee
backlash in my area, because as soon as the fuss from that article
died down, new members in our group kept appearing, quoting lines from
Paul Cornell articles and all saying that Pertwee was their least
favourite Doctor.
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
Daniel O'Mahony
> AFAICR, it was the first quite well-known or "professional" zine to
> print that kind of extreme attitude against Pertwee.
This sentence doesn't make much sense. Quite how giving 'Terror of the
Autons' a bad review constitutes an 'extreme attitude' is beyond me. It
certainly drew on the Pertwee-unfriendly currents of 1993's fanzine
culture, but that was neither the point nor the effect of the review. In
fact a lot of the flak the review picked up in the lettercols had little to
do with Paul's ruminations on Pertwee or his era, but because he'd made
some pertinent criticism of Robert Holmes and a swipe at Toryism.
Compare Paul's review with Anthony Brown's piece on 'The Claws of Axos' run
by DWB exactly a year earlier. Paul's review seems rather elliptical and
unfannish whereas Anthony's - a real passionate hatchet job, also drawing
on the fan-background of the period - is much more fan-traditionalist and
analytical in approach, while still expressing unexpectedly radical
viewpoints about Pertwee's sacred cow stories. The reevaluation of
Pertwee's stories was built into DWB's late flowering (under Anthony and,
particularly, David Gibbs). But the first explicit argument about the
failings of the era in DWB appeared in a 1993 article by Tat Wood (paired
with a pro-Pertwee piece) several months after the 'Terror of the Autons'
review.
> Oh, yes, I do remember that as well, but as with most things in
> fandom, the "rad" viewpoint became fashionable and won out against the
> "trad".
Now this is just gibberish - applying today's critical cliche, meaningless
enough when talking about the EDAs, to a context where it makes - if
possible - even less sense!
>f it weren't something DWB endorsed fully I don't believe DWB
> would have printed it, really. Reevaluation became that mag's stock in
> trade for a while, didn't it?
See above. But I don't understand this at all. Why did DWB need to
'endorse' a review of a newly-released videotape. Anthony commissioned
someone to review it and he did. There's a probably a little disclaimer
somewhere saying that the views of contributors do not necessarily
reflect... etc. etc. etc.
> I do think there was something wrong with it - wasn't it he who said
> the victim of the fondant surprise was wearing a pink triangle?
He said that the victim looks like an image of a "proud gay man", which at
least is open to interpretation (I wonder what Cy Town thinks). But I think
the point is you don't have to believe everything Paul says, you just have
to understand. Perhaps our 'fascism' is found in our need to believe
everything that other people have written.
Matt Michael
Paul E. Curtis wrote in message ...
>The implication seems to be that if you
>don't like Sylvester McCoy, aren't interested in the NAs, or simply happen
>to dig the Pertwee era, then you're clearly a rabid Tory at heart.
I think you're confusing imply with infer here. I don't think Cornell
believes that all Pertwee fans are rabid tories any more than he believes
everyone who likes his books is a loony leftie. Basically, Cornell was
probably havin' a larf, which all of us do from time to time. Being
deliberately controversial, after all, is a surefire way to get people to
discuss something.
matt
john long
>
> The implication seems to be that if you
> don't like Sylvester McCoy, aren't interested in the NAs, or simply happen
> course, is utter frogwash.
I fit this category, as do many others - but sadly, most of the people
who post to this newsgroup are quite the opposite. They love the
seventh doctor because of the NA's and have turned their back on the
other doctors because their love of the books is so strong. And while
they might be fewer in number, they are very loud. All the normal TV
fans aren't hardcore enough to be posting to forums such as this, since
the show has been over for many years. But with nothing new coming out
but fanfic, this demographic is far to vocal in RADW, hence all the
Pertwee slamming, etc. The people that like the 7th doc are so wrapped
up in their fanfic they seem to forget how shitty the TV show was at
this point, hence the 7th doctor's illogical popularity. As for
Cornell, I have no respect for him or his actions.
Matt Michael
>I'd love to believe that Matt, but just remember what happened after
>his DWB "Terror of the Autons" review: most of fandom suddenly turned
>its back on the Pertwee era. All authors have influence in fandom;
>they're fools if they don't know that.
But that's a patently absurd statement since (a) the article was part of the
backlash, not the initiator of it (IIRC there are fanzines from the late 80s
which slag off Pertwee like mad); and (b) "most of fandom" doesn't despise
Pertwee, as the high number of Pertwee fans on this ng testify. It's just
that the most active fans tend to be the more forward-looking ones.
And are you suggesting that because Cornell wrote a few books he's no longer
allowed to hold an opinion? Surely it's more pertinent to question those
fans who turned their backs on Pertwee on the basis of one article.
matt
Paul E. Curtis
> I think you're confusing imply with infer here.
Yes, you're quite right. I realised that shortly after I posted my message,
but I was hoping no-one else would spot it! ;-)
> I don't think Cornell believes that all Pertwee fans are
> rabid tories any more than he believes everyone who
> likes his books is a loony leftie. Basically, Cornell
> was probably havin' a larf, which all of us do from time
> to time. Being deliberately controversial, after all,
> is a surefire way to get people to discuss something.
Well, he was obviously exaggerating to make a point...and that's exactly
what I did in response.
--
--Paul Curtis
R.J. Smith
Braveheart <Brave...@deathtospammers.msn.com> wrote:
>We finally get to see what Ed Stradling looks like :-)
>Braveheart.
He looks like Tegan...? I'm suddenly moved to re-evaluate his posts.
- Robert Smith?
Joxer
Adam Richards <Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gapomscht0v74g41r...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 07:46:43 +0100, "Matt Michael"
> <matt.m...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Adam Richards wrote in message ...
> >
> >>I haven't read the SFX piece so can't comment on whether he actually
> >>argued his case convincingly or not; if he did, then I'm sorry. But if
> >>not, how do you think certain people (Snarky, WDS, yourself, *me*)
> >>feel about being labelled "fascists" by someone who ought to be more
> >>careful with his opinions, knowing full well the influence he has as
> >>an author in fandom?
> >
> >
> >I don't think Cornell has any real "influence" over fandom, and he'd
> >probably be horrified if he thought he did.
>
> his DWB "Terror of the Autons" review: most of fandom suddenly turned
> its back on the Pertwee era. All authors have influence in fandom;
> they're fools if they don't know that.
Obviously I can't speak for 'most of fandom', but on a personal level, I
never much liked the post S7 Pertwees - my guess is that many others of
my generation, the first to have been too young to grow up with Jon,
felt pretty much the same, but felt kowtowed by the prevailing fan
orthodoxy that the Pertwee years were the Golden Age, a sentiment
expressed mostly by those who did grow up with him. I don't think
Paul's article changed fan opinion - goddess help us all if we're *that*
fickle, especially as Paul was no more than an unpublished fan author
at the time - but it was one of the first times I saw my own opinions
reflected in print, and it probably made me more confident to express
them without the expectation of being automatically shouted down.
I'd certainly agree that as an author he has influence, more so now
than back then for sure, but I don't believe that influence is enough
to do more than perhaps sway the undecided and terminally
insecure - Ok, we're talking about Who fans here, that may be a
loaded statement ;-)
--
Colin B.
"There's nothing like the thwack of leather on Willow..."
Joxer
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 06:43:40 -0700, "Paul E. Curtis"
> <pecu...@teleport.com> wrote:
...
> >(This also applies to season seven vs. the rest of the Pertwee era.
Sure,
> >we all know that S7 kicks serious arse, and that the rest of the Letts
era
> >is, from today's perspective, mega-tacky. But if Letts hadn't positioned
DW
> >toward a younger demographic, would it have gone on for another 19 years?
I
> >rather doubt it.)
>
> very, very well said, Paul.
I'll spare everyone a third reading, but I'd like to echo the rest of Adam's
statement, especially the bit I've left in - blindingly obvious when said
like that, but easy to miss.
Joxer
Ed Stradling <edstradlin...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:8kkva2$l3d$1...@supernews.com...
> Duncan Harvey <duncanrv...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
>
> > I think the Terror review was when it came out on video, which
> > IIRC would be early 1993.
>
> In that case it didn's kick-start anything. The Pertwee backlash was well
> established by then.
I'm sure it was earlier than that - hadn't dwb transmogrified into
Dreamwatch by then? I seem to recall it being late 80s, but I
could be mistaken - I'm sure it was before Revelation was
published, in any case.
Ed Stradling
> >
> >> I think the Terror review was when it came out on video, which
> >> IIRC would be early 1993.
> >
> >In that case it didn's kick-start anything. The Pertwee backlash was well
> >established by then.
>
Possibly not. But then only a few hundred people read DWB in those days.
> I suspect we all have our own little necks of
> the woods where fandom is concerned, the Pertwee backlash hit yours
> before it hit mine.
I would theorize that it hit groups when the more vocal of those groups hit
the age of 18-20 and didn't enjoy the Pertwee stuff any more because it is
aimed at 12 year olds. I had tired of Pertwee long before 1993, that's for
certain.
> I think Cornell was responsible for the Pertwee
> backlash in my area, because as soon as the fuss from that article
> died down, new members in our group kept appearing, quoting lines from
> Paul Cornell articles and all saying that Pertwee was their least
> favourite Doctor.
At least he was doing some good then :)
Ed Stradling
> >When was the DWB Terror of the Autons review. I reckon the Pertwee
backlash
> >started in about 1989 - if his review was before that then maybe that's
> >right.
>
> About the time the videos started becoming available, you mean? People
> actually seeing the episodes is a far more likely cause of the
> backlash IMHO.
Not in our case. We had all the Pertwee stuff on video by 86 or 87. But I
was only 14 then so I still thought a lot of it was good!
Adam Richards
wrote:
>
>Ed Stradling <edstradlin...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>news:8kkva2$l3d$1...@supernews.com...
>> Duncan Harvey <duncanrv...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
>>
>> > I think the Terror review was when it came out on video, which
>> > IIRC would be early 1993.
>>
>> In that case it didn's kick-start anything. The Pertwee backlash was well
>> established by then.
>
>I'm sure it was earlier than that - hadn't dwb transmogrified into
>Dreamwatch by then?
It was still DWB when the "Terror" review appeared. Issue 108? I've
got it somewhere, I think.....
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
Adam Richards
<edstradlin...@lineone.net> wrote:
>Daniel Frankham <dan...@oztek.net.au> wrote
>
>> >When was the DWB Terror of the Autons review. I reckon the Pertwee
>backlash
>> >started in about 1989 - if his review was before that then maybe that's
>> >right.
>>
>> About the time the videos started becoming available, you mean? People
>> actually seeing the episodes is a far more likely cause of the
>> backlash IMHO.
>
>Not in our case. We had all the Pertwee stuff on video by 86 or 87. But I
>was only 14 then so I still thought a lot of it was good!
By 1998 our group had videos of everything that existed in the
archives (I was the first person in the Derby group to get War
Machines, Faceless Ones 3, Evil of the Daleks 2). I think by very late
'88 the only stuff we didn't have were the recently returned Ice
Warriors episodes.
I've always thought of Pertwee as very average. Certainly not
important enough to warrant half the bile written about him in those
last few issues of DWB. I thought, "You mean to tell me they've only
just watched those stories... And they have opinions about them that
are *THAT* strong?"
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
Adam Richards
wrote:
>Adam Richards wrote:
>This sentence doesn't make much sense. Quite how giving 'Terror of the
>Autons' a bad review constitutes an 'extreme attitude' is beyond me.
Oh dear, is that what you thought I meant? I meant that the attitude
in the review itself was a bit extreme, to my way of thinking.
>It
>certainly drew on the Pertwee-unfriendly currents of 1993's fanzine
>culture, but that was neither the point nor the effect of the review. In
>fact a lot of the flak the review picked up in the lettercols had little to
>do with Paul's ruminations on Pertwee or his era, but because he'd made
>some pertinent criticism of Robert Holmes and a swipe at Toryism.
The Tory angle was what seemed odd. The Doctor, a Tory? That's a bit
warped if you ask me. Especially the big-corporation-hatin',
alien-luvvin' hippie-huggin' Third Doc, man! (makes peace sign)
>Compare Paul's review with Anthony Brown's piece on 'The Claws of Axos' run
>by DWB exactly a year earlier. Paul's review seems rather elliptical and
>unfannish whereas Anthony's - a real passionate hatchet job, also drawing
>on the fan-background of the period - is much more fan-traditionalist and
>analytical in approach, while still expressing unexpectedly radical
>viewpoints about Pertwee's sacred cow stories.
Perhaps I am misremembering things. As I saw it, the Claws of Axos
piece (issue 100) wasn't anything to get excited about. It was just
like any other old DWB review, really. For one thing, it started with
the words, "I HATE the Claws of Axos", which tells you 'abandon all
hope of this being a positive review' - fair enough. Secondly, it
seems to be the opinion of only that writer - he doesn't imply there's
anything the matter with you if you *do* like it. In fact he's quite
apologetic about the review, saying "I'm being unfair".
I can't seem to lay hands on the "Terror" review just at the moment
(I'll have another look through my DWBs), but by comparison it did
seem much more extreme than that. I dug the sentiment behind that
"Terror of the autons is not your mother" remark actually. "A Doctor
who story is not your mother!" meaning that if it's slagged off, you
shouldn't get upset as if someone just called your mum a whore.
I think I need to find it before I say anything more about it. I
accept I haven't read it in about two years, so I could be saying
wrong things about it, if so I apologise. The trouble was, IIRC, he
wasn't quite careful enough about it. It came out as something of a
strawman of the story's fans by implying that they *all* think the
story is "their mother".
>The reevaluation of Pertwee's stories was built into DWB's late flowering (under
>Anthony and, particularly, David Gibbs).
That's when it started to go downhill IMO; my fave DWBer was Tim Munro
- I guess that tells you where I'm coming from.
>But the first explicit argument about the
>failings of the era in DWB appeared in a 1993 article by Tat Wood (paired
>with a pro-Pertwee piece) several months after the 'Terror of the Autons'
>review.
It seemed like after that it became "the fashion" is what I was
saying. Just look at their Green Death review a few months later -
almost a "Cornell-by-numbers" re-write.
>> Oh, yes, I do remember that as well, but as with most things in
>> fandom, the "rad" viewpoint became fashionable and won out against the
>> "trad".
>
>Now this is just gibberish - applying today's critical cliche, meaningless
>enough when talking about the EDAs, to a context where it makes - if
>possible - even less sense!
Who's being fascist now, eh? To tell us we're not allowed to use words
like "rad" or "trad" just because someone doesn't think it's cool to
describe EDAs that way seems a bit severe to me. Nowt to do with the
EDAs; I've been using those terms long before any EDAs were written,
mate. Why are you playing dumb? I think you ought to know what I mean
from my context. For "rad" read "pushing the boundaries of the current
fashion" and for "trad" read upholders of whatever status quos
(whether they're real or perceived - insert joke about dinosaur rock
bands here) that fashion is breaking away from. Trends happen with all
things, not just Dr Who fandom, and to me that makes perfect sense.
<snip>
>> I do think there was something wrong with it - wasn't it he who said
>> the victim of the fondant surprise was wearing a pink triangle?
>
>He said that the victim looks like an image of a "proud gay man", which at
>least is open to interpretation (I wonder what Cy Town thinks).
It's amazing that you missed the very next part of that sentence: in
the Discontinuity Guide, cowritten by Paul, it does say, "the victim
of the fondant surprise is every inch the proud gay man, wearing, as
he does, a pink triangle," on page 343. The thing is, there is no pink
triangle. Perhaps Martin Day or Keith Topping made that mistake, so
I'll give Paul the benefit of the doubt. Don't call me a fascist,
Paul. Please? I'm gay - does that excuse me? :-)
>But I think the point is you don't have to believe everything Paul says, you
>just have to understand.
We have to understand. OK. Understand *what*, exactly? I think you
mean "all that's important is that we get the gist of what he's
saying", is that right?
>Perhaps our 'fascism' is found in our need to believe
>everything that other people have written.
What a peculiar response...
It's funny - we're fascists if we believe what he says, and we're
fascists if we point out that what he says is wrong.... Hmmmm, seems
like we can't win. :-)
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
Adam Richards
<matt.m...@virgin.net> wrote:
>And are you suggesting that because Cornell wrote a few books he's no longer
>allowed to hold an opinion?
Where on earth do you get that from, Matt? Of course I'm not
suggesting that. So now I'm having to re-state things I've said before
in my arguments, because it appears people have forgotten I've said
them. When that happens, you know it's time to kill-file the thread
and move on.
>Surely it's more pertinent to question those
>fans who turned their backs on Pertwee on the basis of one article.
Well obviously! I just thought Paul was aware of how these things tend
to work in Who fandom. Compare it to the really outspoken Gary Russell
bashing which seemed (to me) to become more prevelant here after the
Lawrence Miles interview.... Fans love a pied piper, and do tend to
copy them wholesale.
I don't suppose anyone will agree with that, I mean hey - who here
would admit to that? Oh well, bye bye.
Thread goes >PLONK!<
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
Joxer
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:28:43 +0100, "Joxer" <willo...@clara.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Ed Stradling <edstradlin...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> >news:8kkva2$l3d$1...@supernews.com...
> >> Duncan Harvey <duncanrv...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
> >>
> >> > I think the Terror review was when it came out on video, which
> >> > IIRC would be early 1993.
> >>
> >> In that case it didn's kick-start anything. The Pertwee backlash was
well
> >> established by then.
> >
> >I'm sure it was earlier than that - hadn't dwb transmogrified into
> >Dreamwatch by then?
>
> It was still DWB when the "Terror" review appeared. Issue 108? I've
> got it somewhere, I think.....
Looks like my bad then - everyone seems to agree it was 1993 dwb -
just shows how the passage of time distorts one's timescale, I still
remember it in my own mind as being late 80s, when it obviously
wasn't. At least on a personal level that's more proof that my disliking
of Jon's era had nowt to do with PC, even to the extent I earlier thought
it might have done...
Finn Clark
> I don't suppose anyone will agree with that, I mean
> hey - who here would admit to that? Oh well, bye bye.
You make it almost impossible to reply to your comments after that... :-)
> Well obviously! I just thought Paul was aware of
> how these things tend to work in Who fandom.
> Compare it to the really outspoken Gary Russell
> bashing which seemed (to me) to become more
> prevelant here after the Lawrence Miles interview....
> Fans love a pied piper, and do tend to copy them
> wholesale.
There's actually something weird going on here, as Gary Russell appears to
enjoy significantly lower esteem on radw than he does in the wider world of
fandom, if the DWM poll results are anything to go by. He was the eighth
favourite author in the 1999 DWM Book Awards, with Divided Loyalties scoring a
healthy 70% (as opposed to third-worst-of-all-time 45% in Shannon's online
rankings.)
I've been sad enough to dig out the All-Time Poll Results (DWM 265-6) and the
Shelf Life Awards (DWM 278) in search of further data. My online figures come
from the Rankings posted by Shannon on 3 July 2000.
DWM poll results:
Business Unusual 74% 3rd PDA out of 6
Placebo Effect 73% 3rd 8DA out of 11
Scales Of Injustice 72% 11th MA out of 33
Legacy 71% 20th NA out of 61
Divided Loyalties 70% 5th PDA out of 10
Deadfall 67% 11th Benny book out of 16
Invasion Of The Cat-People 58% 29th MA out of 33
Online rankings:
Scales Of Injustice 73.3% 10th MA out of 33
Business Unusual 72.0% 10th PDA out of 30
Legacy 67.1% 35th NA out of 61
Deadfall 62.8% 19th Benny book out of 23
Placebo Effect 59.9% 24th 8DA out of 34
Invasion Of The Cat-People 52.1% 32nd MA out of 33
Divided Loyalties 45.0% 30th PDA out of 30
That looks like a pretty marked difference to me, with the two Divided
Loyalties results being so different as to be positively freakish. Dark words
were muttered here after DWM 292 hit the stands. The magnitude of the
difference still looks peculiar, but perhaps less so its direction.
Obviously these online rankings have been accumulated over time, with some
books having hundreds of votes, so it isn't just a recent thing. (Though
having said that, the two biggest differences come with his two latest books.)
Personally I was openly bashing Gary while he was still posting here; it's
rather embarrassing to recall. I hope I'd be nicer now. If you're looking for
an influential opinion-former regarding the Big Fish, I'd look no further than
the esteemed Robert Smith? and in particular his reviews of Placebo Effect and
Divided Loyalties. (Both can be found on http://members.xoom.com/dwrg1001 and
are most amusing.)
If you've noticed more Gary-bashing in the light of Lawrence's comments,
perhaps they simply provided an impetus. I guess it kind of... got old. :-)
BTW, if you're reading this, Robert... "Big Fish"? Where'd that come from?
That's another thing I've always wanted to know...
Finn Clark.
http://members.aol.com/kafenken/
James
john long <jl...@epix.net> wrote in message news:396CD6...@epix.net...
> Would it be possible for someone to post Cornell's Terror of the Autons
> review? I don't quite remember it.
I wouldn't mind seeing it either... and I read somewhere about a famous
Genesis of the Daleks review by some lady which had a profound effect on
fandom, or some crap... anyone know what that was, and have they got a copy?
--James.
Daniel Frankham
wrote:
You mean Disgusted, of Croydon? (Or whatever.)
--
Daniel Frankham
Keith Topping
>It seemed like after that it became "the fashion" is what I was
>saying. Just look at their Green Death review a few months later -
>almost a "Cornell-by-numbers" re-write.
If you're referring to the 'Green Death' video review ("How Green Was My
Valley? The Green Death - Love, Peace and Mushrooms") in DWB issue 123,
then I *really* resent these comments because a) *I* wrote it, b) I gave
the story (one I still admire) a *very* favourable review (8 out of 10),
and c) I specifically avoided the kind of comments that you are
ascribing to me, even noting "I _could_ be politically correct and call
The Green Death a misguided blind alley, but that would be a betrayal of
my childhood". Having just re-read the review, seven years later, I
stand by just about everything it says.
>It's amazing that you missed the very next part of that sentence: in
>the Discontinuity Guide, cowritten by Paul, it does say, "the victim
>of the fondant surprise is every inch the proud gay man, wearing, as
>he does, a pink triangle," on page 343. The thing is, there is no pink
>triangle. Perhaps Martin Day or Keith Topping made that mistake, so
>I'll give Paul the benefit of the doubt. Don't call me a fascist,
>Paul. Please? I'm gay - does that excuse me? :-)
It was, indeed, Paul who wrote 75% of the Happiness Patrol piece in TDG
(and all of 'The Bottom Line'), however, in the spirit of 'cabinet
responsibility' the book bears all of our names so I'm as much to
"blame" for this error as he is.
--
Keith -- Net Day 1699/Post US Day 3
"Everything begins and ends at exactly the right place"
Steve Day
<Mas...@allisurvey.freeserve.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
>
>And I don't get SFX these days anyway.
>.
>
Who does? And that goes for that travesty called, ahem, D****watch.
*
http://www.redimp.freeserve.co.uk/ghostwatch
'...a brilliant piece of television...'
*
Gordon Dempster
I missed this, did anyone clean it up?
--
"Make a cup of tea, put a record on..."
Gordon Dempster
"You promised to show me puppies. I'm still waiting."
www.bhfh.fsnet.co.uk
Matt Michael
Adam Richards wrote in message ...
><matt.m...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>>And are you suggesting that because Cornell wrote a few books he's no
longer
>>allowed to hold an opinion?
>
>Where on earth do you get that from, Matt? Of course I'm not
>suggesting that. So now I'm having to re-state things I've said before
>in my arguments, because it appears people have forgotten I've said
>them. When that happens, you know it's time to kill-file the thread
>and move on.
>
>>Surely it's more pertinent to question those
>>fans who turned their backs on Pertwee on the basis of one article.
>
>to work in Who fandom. Compare it to the really outspoken Gary Russell
>bashing which seemed (to me) to become more prevelant here after the
>Lawrence Miles interview.... Fans love a pied piper, and do tend to
>copy them wholesale.
>
>would admit to that? Oh well, bye bye.
>
Gordon Dempster
I wondered what the smell was.
Daniel Blythe
news:01bfec33$285353a0$386d8cd4@LineOne...
> I think the 'Terror of the Autons' review brought that attitude to the
> attention to a wider fan audience than before but the big response through
> the DWB letters page was generally horrified by his perfectly valid
> viewpoint and there was a big debate about it on the letters page for a
few
> months.
My essential problem with the DWB review of "Terror" - at the risk of
exhuming a 7-year-old dispute - was that it didn't satisfy *as a review*. It
was a splendid piece of opinionated, politicised polemic, very wittily and
engagingly written, but it told me bugger-all about whether I should go out
and spend my hard-earned 12 quid on a copy of a 23-year-old video. After
reading the review, I had no more of a clear idea about whether "Terror of
the Autons" was a decent story than I'd had before.
(The "Tory" comment is another kettle of fish entirely - I'll just say that
I think the "Gentlemen don't talk about money/"Gentlemen never talk about
anything else" exchange is obviously an ironic comment on human society on
the Doctor's part, rather than an espousal of right-wing capitalist values.)
OK, the opinionated approach was partly the point - I know Paul hates the
traditional fan division of stuff into "classics" and "turkeys" ranked on
points, and I'd agree with him there. I'm all for reading original and
incisive articles which re-assess stories in the light of a new viewing,
whether for better or for worse. Some of the best fan reviews I've read in
recent years have been those which either :
(a) just took pints and pints of piss, e.g. the review of "The Time Meddler"
in DWB when it was repeated on BBC2 nine years ago
or
(b) slaughtered the sacred cows (e.g. the "Disco Guide" damning "The
Daemons" with faint praise, )
or
(c) injected new life into seemingly BSE-ridden ones (Jonathan Morris's
fantastic "Ten Things That Are Great About The Happiness Patrol" on this
very newsgroup, which made me want to run downstairs and put the tape in the
VCR that very moment).
However, I still think any piece which tells you more about the reviewer
than about the thing being reviewed will always disappoint (see, for
example, Julie Burchill's occasional book columns in the "Guardian").
Having said that, I've got the review out and read it again since this
thread came up, and I still found it original and entertaining. But I've
also watched "Terror of the Autons" at some point in the last seven years,
and formed my own rather more positive judgement.
--
Daniel Robert Blythe Esq., of this Parish
****************************************************************************
**
"Now everyone's a Rocket Man, as long as it's served with a
balsamic dressing."
****************************************************************************
**
Keith Topping
>(b) slaughtered the sacred cows (e.g. the "Disco Guide" damning "The
Thank you, that was one of mine, that was!!!!
--
Keith -- Net Day 1700/Post US Day 4
Adam Richards
>(b) slaughtered the sacred cows (e.g. the "Disco Guide" damning "The
>Daemons" with faint praise, )
>or
>(c) injected new life into seemingly BSE-ridden ones (Jonathan Morris's
>fantastic "Ten Things That Are Great About The Happiness Patrol" on this
>very newsgroup, which made me want to run downstairs and put the tape in the
>VCR that very moment).
>
>However, I still think any piece which tells you more about the reviewer
>than about the thing being reviewed will always disappoint (see, for
>example, Julie Burchill's occasional book columns in the "Guardian").
>
>Having said that, I've got the review out and read it again since this
>thread came up, and I still found it original and entertaining. But I've
>also watched "Terror of the Autons" at some point in the last seven years,
>and formed my own rather more positive judgement.
Exactly my attitude, Daniel - I've only just looked at this thread for
the first time in about 4 days since killfiling it, and may I say what
a pleasure it was to see your post. Sir, YOU ROCK!!!
(hic) I'm pissed a s a fart tonight and will probabkly reallllllly
regret this in the morningsd!!!!
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
Luke Curtis
wrote:
Video was released in April 1993, and was reviewed in DWB 112.
--
"Some days are like bouncers, they don`t let you in"
(U2)
Luke Curtis
<Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 13 Jul 2000 19:15:06 GMT, "Daniel O'Mahony" <dani...@lineone.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Adam Richards wrote:
>
>>This sentence doesn't make much sense. Quite how giving 'Terror of the
>>Autons' a bad review constitutes an 'extreme attitude' is beyond me.
>
>Oh dear, is that what you thought I meant? I meant that the attitude
>in the review itself was a bit extreme, to my way of thinking.
>
>>It
>>certainly drew on the Pertwee-unfriendly currents of 1993's fanzine
>>culture, but that was neither the point nor the effect of the review. In
>>fact a lot of the flak the review picked up in the lettercols had little to
>>do with Paul's ruminations on Pertwee or his era, but because he'd made
>>some pertinent criticism of Robert Holmes and a swipe at Toryism.
I reads to me as if PC is saying this OK to good script choked by the
Pertwee-UNIT formula
>
>The Tory angle was what seemed odd. The Doctor, a Tory? That's a bit
>warped if you ask me. Especially the big-corporation-hatin',
>alien-luvvin' hippie-huggin' Third Doc, man! (makes peace sign)
The point for me is that the Doctor works within the "establishment",
something none of the other Doctor would do consistently.
>
>>Compare Paul's review with Anthony Brown's piece on 'The Claws of Axos' run
>>by DWB exactly a year earlier. Paul's review seems rather elliptical and
>>unfannish whereas Anthony's - a real passionate hatchet job, also drawing
>>on the fan-background of the period - is much more fan-traditionalist and
>>analytical in approach, while still expressing unexpectedly radical
>>viewpoints about Pertwee's sacred cow stories.
>
>Perhaps I am misremembering things. As I saw it, the Claws of Axos
>piece (issue 100) wasn't anything to get excited about. It was just
>like any other old DWB review, really. For one thing, it started with
>the words, "I HATE the Claws of Axos", which tells you 'abandon all
>hope of this being a positive review' - fair enough. Secondly, it
>seems to be the opinion of only that writer - he doesn't imply there's
>anything the matter with you if you *do* like it. In fact he's quite
>apologetic about the review, saying "I'm being unfair".
>
>I can't seem to lay hands on the "Terror" review just at the moment
Issue 112.
>(I'll have another look through my DWBs), but by comparison it did
>seem much more extreme than that. I dug the sentiment behind that
>"Terror of the autons is not your mother" remark actually. "A Doctor
>who story is not your mother!" meaning that if it's slagged off, you
>shouldn't get upset as if someone just called your mum a whore.
from the letters Page of that very issue....
"On reading some rival fanzines (notably Skaro) I couldn`t help
noticing a faction of fans slating the era. Being an avid follower of
the era I find this petty slanging of the era intollarable...."
(Garrett McGovern)
Looking at the 2 reviews side by side, the Claws is a far more of an
attack on the era, a vicious one at that, (which i agree with
virtually every word) whereas the Terror review for me says look we
have this great Robert Holmes script, dripping with humor, which has
been massacred by crap direction & crap production. It then points out
the fact that the whole of the UNIT format had been fatally undermined
by the dumbing down of the concept, which further undermined
The only thing which seems to be controversial at all in the Terror
review was stating that the was only 2 good actors in the Pertwee era,
Nick Courtney and Katy Manning. Compare that to the Claws review:
"The superb, adult sci-fi drama of the preceding year back into a
shallow 'family' adventure"
"Jo was [...] incompetent from the word go"
"[I regret] the waste of 3 years in such an uninspired style.."
>======================================================
>Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
Luke Curtis
<dan...@drblythe.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"Daniel O'Mahony" <dani...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>news:01bfec33$285353a0$386d8cd4@LineOne...
>> I think the 'Terror of the Autons' review brought that attitude to the
>> attention to a wider fan audience than before but the big response through
>> the DWB letters page was generally horrified by his perfectly valid
>> viewpoint and there was a big debate about it on the letters page for a
>few
>> months.
>
>My essential problem with the DWB review of "Terror" - at the risk of
>exhuming a 7-year-old dispute - was that it didn't satisfy *as a review*. It
>was a splendid piece of opinionated, politicised polemic, very wittily and
>engagingly written, but it told me bugger-all about whether I should go out
>and spend my hard-earned 12 quid on a copy of a 23-year-old video. After
>reading the review, I had no more of a clear idea about whether "Terror of
>the Autons" was a decent story than I'd had before.
>
It seemed obvious to me at the time (and now), an reasonable story
with crap direction and production.
--
Luke Curtis
<ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Adam Richards <Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> writes
>>It seemed like after that it became "the fashion" is what I was
>>saying. Just look at their Green Death review a few months later -
>>almost a "Cornell-by-numbers" re-write.
>
>If you're referring to the 'Green Death' video review ("How Green Was My
>Valley? The Green Death - Love, Peace and Mushrooms") in DWB issue 123,
>then I *really* resent these comments because a) *I* wrote it, b) I gave
>the story (one I still admire) a *very* favourable review (8 out of 10),
>and c) I specifically avoided the kind of comments that you are
>ascribing to me, even noting "I _could_ be politically correct and call
>The Green Death a misguided blind alley, but that would be a betrayal of
>my childhood". Having just re-read the review, seven years later, I
>stand by just about everything it says.
>
I think looking at it Adam my be thing of the
"Top Ten Things that are wrong with The Green Death
(The worst DW story evey made)
By Nicholle Fisher "
article which appeared right under your review in DWB 123....
Luke Curtis
wrote:
>
>Adam Richards <Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:gapomscht0v74g41r...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 07:46:43 +0100, "Matt Michael"
>> <matt.m...@virgin.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Adam Richards wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >>I haven't read the SFX piece so can't comment on whether he actually
>> >>argued his case convincingly or not; if he did, then I'm sorry. But if
>> >>not, how do you think certain people (Snarky, WDS, yourself, *me*)
>> >>feel about being labelled "fascists" by someone who ought to be more
>> >>careful with his opinions, knowing full well the influence he has as
>> >>an author in fandom?
>> >
>> >
>> >I don't think Cornell has any real "influence" over fandom, and he'd
>> >probably be horrified if he thought he did.
>>
>> I'd love to believe that Matt, but just remember what happened after
>> his DWB "Terror of the Autons" review: most of fandom suddenly turned
>> its back on the Pertwee era. All authors have influence in fandom;
>> they're fools if they don't know that.
>
>Obviously I can't speak for 'most of fandom', but on a personal level, I
>never much liked the post S7 Pertwees - my guess is that many others of
>my generation, the first to have been too young to grow up with Jon,
>felt pretty much the same, but felt kowtowed by the prevailing fan
>orthodoxy that the Pertwee years were the Golden Age, a sentiment
>expressed mostly by those who did grow up with him. I don't think
>Paul's article changed fan opinion - goddess help us all if we're *that*
>fickle, especially as Paul was no more than an unpublished fan author
>at the time - but it was one of the first times I saw my own opinions
>reflected in print, and it probably made me more confident to express
>them without the expectation of being automatically shouted down.
Same here.
>
>I'd certainly agree that as an author he has influence, more so now
>than back then for sure, but I don't believe that influence is enough
>to do more than perhaps sway the undecided and terminally
>insecure - Ok, we're talking about Who fans here, that may be a
>loaded statement ;-)
--
Alex LaHurreau
>Paul E. Curtis wrote in message ...
>>The implication seems to be that if you don't like Sylvester McCoy,
>>aren't interested in the NAs, or simply happen to dig the Pertwee era,
>>then you're clearly a rabid Tory at heart.
>I think you're confusing imply with infer here. I don't think Cornell
>believes that all Pertwee fans are rabid tories any more than he
>believes everyone who likes his books is a loony leftie. Basically,
>Cornell was probably havin' a larf, which all of us do from time to
>time. Being deliberately controversial, after all, is a surefire way
>to get people to discuss something.
Gee thanks Paul Cornell. :-( A little mischief is nice and neat but a
little foresight is DEFINITELY NEEDED. <swear>I mean, this g**damn
thing has been dragged on for HOW MANY F***ING YEARS???</swear> He just
*had* to put gas on the fire???? C'mon, people, THINK!
"Oh, yeah, they'll really get going with this one... why don't I pit the
Troughton fans against the C.Baker fans with my magical review of _The
Two Doctors_..."
--
AlexDW <halah...@tristate.edu> -- KB9SYM -- DOCTOR WHO FOREVER
On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.
Visit The Home of AlexDW at http://www.locl.net/homes/alexdw/
The rec.arts.drwho FAQ: http://www.locl.net/homes/alexdw/drwho/faq/
Luke Curtis
>Would it be possible for someone to post Cornell's Terror of the Autons
>review? I don't quite remember it.
Terror of the Autons review by Paul Cornell, as originally printed in
DWB 112, April 1993.
THE FIRST THING anybody thinks of encountering season eight,
concerning Delgado's master, concerning Terror of the Autons is a
circus.
Rossini's Circus. And a circus was a good place to start the season
for two reasons, because the big top could contain many of Robert
Holmes' obsessions, and because the big top is a place to demonstrate
tricks. The trick was that Holmes' obsessions weren't going to be
entertained at all. And neither were we.
We remember a lot of the Perwee era as being well written because
Dicks' and Hulke's books of the time are so great. Malcolm simply
increases the characterization and depth. Terrance edits the
dialogue, the details, and even the plots to make sweeping positive
changes. The book of Terror is miles better than the video.
Let's examine Holmesian touches in Terror.
Firstly, little lines like "Ham fisted bun vendor!" shine through,
although they do play a part in characterizing the Pertwee Doctor as
dislikable. From Tom Baker's mouth, a Holmes put down is countered by
a villain, a situation, or an equally capable assistant to make the
Doctor sound charmingly petulant. From Pertwee's mouth, a Holmes put
down smacks the other characters round the face, none of them having
the wit to retaliate. Only Nicholas Courtney's impregnable Brigadier
survives the onslaught, and that's because he's one of only two good
actors in the Pertwee team. I`ll get to the other one in a minute.
Holmsian humour appears in Terror too, though if you blink you'll miss
it. Firstly, there's the 'clubbish' aspect, Pertwee displays
worryinglyknowledge of (token zero-plot material civil servant)
Brownrose's boss, Tubby Rowlands. His reply to Rossini' s cliche that
gentlemen don't talk about money is the absolutely Holmsian "gentlemen
never talk about anything else". It's a Curious phrase, a Beau Brummel
bon mot that marks Pertwee out as one of the bourgeoisie, a man at
home with brandy and cigars. Indeed, the way the Master holds that
weapon of his is exactly like a cigar. Cast Orson Welles and we'd have
got to Revenge of the Rotarians by season ten. This clubby trait isn't
anything to do with characterization, it's the standard Holmes motif
for absolutely everything. It extends through Avon's inexplicable cry
of "you dummy" in Gambit, to the hugely uncharacteristic Davison
dialogue in The Caves of Androzani, to the selfish and bitter piece
Holmes wrote about himself for the Peter Haining book.
One can imagine Holmes and Hitchcock getting on, chuckling over death
and pornography. Not that makes him a bad writer. Indeed his honesty
and character mark him out from some of the later fakes. No, the
trouble with the Holmesian jokes in Terror is that the rest of the
production fights against them so much.
Consider the Master's gloating lines: "I'm simply trying out a new
product" "He just slipped away." They're delivered not with the
indulgent black comedy that Williams developed. but with absolute lack
of meaning by Delgado. It's possible that the actor wanted to put them
over as single entendres. There's the difference between Delgado and
Pertwee. Delgado had just started to act his part, would develop into
something reasonably impressive. Pertwee had just stopped. However,
Delgado' s infant skills apart, I'd guess that he was directed to play
the lines straight, because the production team wasn't going along
with what Holmes was trying to do.
Like many of the best things about Doctor Who, Terrance Dicks had
obviously been involved in shaking up the show's format between
seasons seven and eight. The new format he comes up with is actually
quite good, and I'd go so far as to say that it's the key that led to
the in creasing fortunes of the show and the audience (if not
creative) triumph of the Hinchcliffe years. In season seven, for all
its quality and depth, Doctor Who looked like a show just struggling
to avoid cancellation. Things changed from week to week, nothing was
ever settled. The viewer didn't know to expect. It may be said that
these traits are also the hallmarks of serious drama, but serious
drama has never been what Doctor WHO needed. The reformatting put
Doctor Who in the same bracket as any number of BBC drama series, fire
bracket that would later be epitomized by Robot Banks Stewart's
control over form and function in Shoestring, Bergerac, etc. It a
smoothed out a lot of edges, giving the Doctor a permanent base in
the shape of the lab, and a friendly looking lab it was too, unlike
that Warehouse in Spearhead. UNIT was tuned into four actors and some
stuntmen, rather than the anonymous body of variable soldiers it had
been.
The other characters were people out of BBC drama, who had human needs
like cocoa and human problems like a need to challenge their parents.
All in all, the format was built to last.
Unfortunately, it was also designed to smooth over the cracks,
particularly the cracks that Holmes enjoyed, Hence the po-faced
reaction to his jokes, and the way that Pertwee stops trying to put
any emotion into his character at all. While the Brigadier is given
his last shreds of decent dialogue (recognizing the Doctor doesn`t
need a scientist but a bimbo) even in this story he has to be told to
search the plastics factories. If final proof were needed that the
production is fighting Holmes, look at the scene where McDermot is
wallowed by the chair. Rather than milk the Master's failing to trap
him because of his Irish garrulousness (it's probably a blessing that
this wasn't as played-up as Holmes would want) and then having to
order him to sit down, it's all treated as terribly serious drama.
Perhaps there' s been some tinkering with the script.
Does the scientific accuracy of 'schizoid dissociation' seem Holmesian
to you? And is this Bondish lurch from set piece to set piece
something that the grand master of structure would have been proud of?
As an aside, it's interesting note that some features of the format
weren't retained. The Brigadier's line about 'not being totally
desk-bound yet', and the rather strange disagreement that results from
it show that he was going to be a bit more of a Picard figure, giving
Benton and Yates the action roles. And the Doctor is given great
screen time to boil out the contents of the Master's bomb, thus
allowing the very last mention of what would have been an interesting
conflict, as UNIT want alien technology for the weapons boffins, and
the Doctor wants to deny them it.
Hopefully Letts not to take the credit because he's ashamed. He does
make two good decisions: using a different actor to portray the Master
in disguise, and declining an action man to use CSO in examining the
contents of the scientist's lunchbox. Unfortunately, Baz's love for
CSO extends beyond all rational limits. In a show where there's
obviously the ability to film exterior shots and cars, we get a CSO
car interior. And a CSO wall. And a CSO kitchen. Indeed, the show
becomes a comic strip visually at the same time as it does in dramatic
terms, the typical Letts shot being somebody's face stepping into
frame in front of a CSO background and shouting. Captions like
'Meanwhile' ought to have appeared at the top of the screen. Often, we
don't see who's speaking, and the incredible prissiness of not letting
us see the Doctor dissect solid plastic... the mind fails to boggle.
This is the place where any hint of feminine is stamped on. Zoe was
quite a feminist character, mainly because Troughton refused to
suppress her. Liz was a real sister. Jo was a bimbo. You can see Katy
Manning (the other good Pertwee actor thinking bimbo, you can imagine
her pacing the set beforehand and repeating "think bimbo, think
bimbo..." As the exchange goes: "I'm not the tea lady." "Then what
the blazes are you doing here?" We're expected to swallow the idea
that Jo, having recently UNIT training, doesn't actually believe in
aliens. And as for all the ordering her about and getting her to be
cute and not get her pretty head into trouble... what a load of sexist
nonsense.
The UNIT family are set up as a circus, a lot of sound and fury
signifying tea time. Toy soldiers who emphasize their family status by
traveling in a family saloon. There's even a big black actor,
employed to be strong, silent and drunken. Real seventies
entertainment. And there are hardly any Autons in it. They don't get
to say anything or show off their gun business until part three. And
the ending' scrap too, the Master suddenly deciding to change sides
for no reason at all. Again, in the book, Terrance at least has the
Brigadier threaten to shoot him.
So no, it could actually have been good, if they'd let Holmes have his
head, and the new format should have allowed a little more life and
humanity into the series. But no, they exiled the Doctor to Earth and
made him a Tory.
(3) [out of 10]
James
Daniel Frankham <dan...@oztek.net.au> wrote in message
news:6i6umssjiqca1gm6e...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:43:00 +1000, "James" <gumb...@SPAMhotmail.com>
> wrote:
> You mean Disgusted, of Croydon? (Or whatever.)
It's been a while since someone's replied to me, so I'm going to return the
favour.
There, I just did :p
--James.
Cameron Mason
Alex LaHurreau <ale...@locl.net> wrote in message
news:8l0sk7$o60$1...@Braxiatel.locl.net...
<snip>
> "Oh, yeah, they'll really get going with this one... why don't I pit the
> Troughton fans against the C.Baker fans with my magical review of _The
> Two Doctors_..."
Now that gives me an idea...
Cameron
--
:(|) Official Sponser and web host of the 1999 - 2000 Adrics
Visit the Adrics on-line:-
http://www.fortunecity.com/tatooine/forbidden/392/adrics.html
Jack Beven
wrote:
>Adam Richards wrote:
>
>> I'd love to believe that Matt, but just remember what happened after
>> his DWB "Terror of the Autons" review: most of fandom suddenly turned
>> its back on the Pertwee era
>
>That's overstating the case a bit. The anti-Pertwee and Pertwee-spoofing
>trends had been gathering strength among hardcore fanzine readers through
>the 1990s (in, for instance, 'Purple Haze', 'Perigosto Stick', 'Top', etc).
>I think the 'Terror of the Autons' review brought that attitude to the
>attention to a wider fan audience than before but the big response through
>the DWB letters page was generally horrified by his perfectly valid
>viewpoint and there was a big debate about it on the letters page for a few
>months. It's not only simplistic to ascribe fandom's "turning away" from
>Pertwee (whatever that might be) as the result of one article - it's also
>not true.
>
>Paul's articles have generally been very successful in bringing fringe
>arguments to the fore of fandom's discourse - the gay subtext of 'Happiness
>Patrol', for instance, was knocking around quietly for a few years before
>Paul referenced it in 'Skaro'. And I don't think there's anything terribly
>wrong about that.
I'll never match Paull Cornell in eloquence of prose, but there is a
simple counter-statement to anyone who would slag off any Doctor,
Pertwee, McCoy, or otherwise. Ironically enough, it was written by
Terrance Dicks and delivered by Nicholas Courtney:
"Ah, the Doctor. Wonderful chap. *All* of them!" (poster's emphasis)
IMHO anyone who calls themselves DW fans should have this
concept as a core essential of their fandom.
Paul, if you happen to read this, I have a question for you: Is this
concept a core essential of your fandom?
(My apoplogies if this comes across as facist. However, IMHO it's
not the least bit spiteful.)
Jack Beven (a. k. a. The Supreme Dalek)
Tropical Prediction Center
http://people.delphi.com/jbeven/ jbe...@mindspring.com
Disclaimer: These opinions don't necessarily represent those of my employers...
Alex LaHurreau
>Paul E. Curtis wrote:
>> The implication seems to be that if you don't like Sylvester McCoy,
>> aren't interested in the NAs, or simply happen to dig the Pertwee
>> utter frogwash.
>I fit this category, as do many others -
You mean that there are actually people who fit this category? I
thought it was just a stereotype!
>but sadly, most of the people who post to this newsgroup are quite the
>opposite. They love the seventh doctor because of the NA's and have
>turned their back on the other doctors because their love of the books
>is so strong.
WTF??? "Oh, Human Nature, oh yeah!!! That's right!!!
>And while they might be fewer in number, they are very loud.
Loud enough to get arrested when they are "loving" their books?
>All the normal TV fans aren't hardcore enough to be posting to forums
>such as this, since the show has been over for many years.
It has?? It is _still_ being shown in the States, as well as in it's
own country of origin. You can't tell me that there aren't people who
watch the series ON TELEVISION. That sort of thing can generate lots of
new "trad" fans... I've introduced two people at my college to the
programme within the past year.
>But with nothing new coming out but fanfic, this demographic is far to
>vocal in RADW, hence all the Pertwee slamming, etc.
I belive that that bullshit can be put down to the print "Fanzines". I
personally, like both Pertwee AND McCoy. I only know one Real Life
Person who absolutely _loves_ McCoy but thinks that Pertwee was an
asshole.
>The people that like the 7th doc are so wrapped up in their fanfic they
>seem to forget how shitty the TV show was at this point, hence the 7th
>doctor's illogical popularity.
If they like SylvDoc, why should they think the TV show was "shitty" at
this point? I personally cannot think of _any_ *season* that was, on
the whole, a load of horseshit. I can think of individual _stories_
that were crap (The Chase, most of War Games, Ambassadors of Death,
Planet of Evil, Four To Doomsday, Timelash, Time and the Rani, etc..),
but whole _seasons_? Whole *eras*???
>As for Cornell, I have no respect for him or his actions.
I don't really think that it was a good idea (of his) to stir up all
this Pertwee vs. McCoy sentiment.
Alex LaHurreau
>> the Troughton fans against the C.Baker fans with my magical review of
>> _The Two Doctors_..."
>Now that gives me an idea...
>Cameron
Do you plan on writing a letter to Dreamwatch? :-)
--
AlexDW <halah...@tristate.edu> -- KB9SYM -- DOCTOR WHO FOREVER
Reality always seems harsher in the early morning.
Alex LaHurreau
>In article <g89pms8dmg8qahcpv...@4ax.com>,
>Daniel Frankham <dan...@oztek.net.au> wrote:
>>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:53:55 +0100, "Braveheart"
>><Brave...@deathtospammers.msn.com> wrote:
>>>He didn't argue his case at all. It was a "throwaway" line at the end
>>>of the column, when he was recommending readers to check out the
>>>"Doctor Who Worships Satan" web site (I kid you not!!!).
>>So, while recommending a web site showcasing the wit and wisdom of
>>Henry Vizi, he calls us all spiteful fascists? Ah...
>Him and Billy and Long for you.
Maybe we should add Paul Cornell to that list of troublemakers?
--
AlexDW <halah...@tristate.edu> -- KB9SYM -- DOCTOR WHO FOREVER
Don't hate yourself in the morning -- sleep till noon.
Alex LaHurreau
>On 12 Jul 2000 08:07:11 GMT, "Dangermouse"
><Mas...@allisurvey.freeserve.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
>>And I don't get SFX these days anyway.
I do, for one. They are the only two magazines that I can get in my
area that have even _token_ Doctor Who coverage.
MAPPY
> > >In that case it didn's kick-start anything. The Pertwee backlash was well
> > >established by then.
> >
> > Not in DWB it wasn't.
>
> Possibly not. But then only a few hundred people read DWB in those days.
If that is any sign of its circulation, no bloody wonder it was so hard
for me to get my hands on the bloody thing!
--
MAPPY the Mouse - Pro Colin Baker Troll Extraordinaire ^_^
High on Life, Cheese and Caffeine >^.^< Squeak!
--
A Sailormoon Romance Fanfic Archive - http://www.moonromance.com/
MAPPY
> "Oh, yeah, they'll really get going with this one... why don't I pit the
> Troughton fans against the C.Baker fans with my magical review of _The
> Two Doctors_..."
Won't work. We Baker fans are maturely superior enough to realise that
there is some worth in the characters of other Doctors. Mostly. ;)
Alex LaHurreau
>Alex LaHurreau wrote:
>> "Oh, yeah, they'll really get going with this one... why don't I pit the
>> Troughton fans against the C.Baker fans with my magical review of _The
>> Two Doctors_..."
>Won't work. We Baker fans are maturely superior enough to realise that
>there is some worth in the characters of other Doctors. Mostly. ;)
Ahh, yes... fannish treatment of C.Baker is quite unfair, IMO. If it
wasn't for the series being nearly cancelled combined with his original
"insane" characterization, perhaps fan reaction might have been
different.
The "lets bash Baker & Turner" debates of old seem to ring true here...
--
AlexDW <halah...@tristate.edu> -- KB9SYM -- DOCTOR WHO FOREVER
Time is but the stream I go a-fishing in.
-- Henry David Thoreau
Martin Day
Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:39749803...@news.mindspring.com...
> I'll never match Paull Cornell in eloquence of prose
[snip]
The great thing about Paul is, you might disagree with everything he
writes, but he has this way with words... That review of 'Terror of the
Autons' (which I don't think I've ever read before) was a magnificent bit
of journalism - I've never written anything that comes close, frankly.
Cor.
Cheers
Martin
deX!
Am I the only person who _doesn't_ see Paul's prose as the
end-all, be-all of the current batch of authors? I mean, _Human
Nature_ is a great book and _Shadows of Avalon_ has a fantastic
chapter in it and _Oh No It Isn't_ was grand (possibly the best book
he's written, but other than that... "adequate" leaps to mind (and in
the case of that short story in iambic pentameter, "painful").
I mean, Magrs is way better. Stone is way better. Orman is way
better. Blum is way better. McIntee is way better. Richards is
way better. BULIS is way better.
What is it about his writing that people love so much? I just don't
understand.
deX!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Matt Michael
deX! wrote in message <8l53r8$9ln$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I mean, Magrs is way better. Stone is way better. Orman is way
>better. Blum is way better. McIntee is way better. Richards is
>way better. BULIS is way better.
>
>What is it about his writing that people love so much? I just don't
>understand.
If you think Bulis' prose style is better then you probably never will.
matt
Jonn Elledge
>>better. Blum is way better. McIntee is way better. Richards is
>>way better. BULIS is way better.
>>
>>What is it about his writing that people love so much? I just don't
>>understand.
>
>
>If you think Bulis' prose style is better then you probably never will.
>
Yeah, I have to agree with this one. The easily readable Who author is a
surprisingly rare creature - Cornell, Miles, Parkin, OrmanBlum, Lane, are the
only ones that spring to my mind, i.e you can read them without _effort_. The
number of times I've started a Bulis - and my mind has fucked off down the pub
without me, just because of his style.
----
Jonn Elledge, the thinking woman's bit of rough
If you're so good in bed, what d'you need me for?
-"Off the Top of Our Heads", a new play by Jonn Elledge and Michael Hall,
Greyfriars Kirkhouse (studio 2), Edinburgh
10:15pm, August 7th-19th
MAPPY
> Ahh, yes... fannish treatment of C.Baker is quite unfair, IMO. If it
> wasn't for the series being nearly cancelled combined with his original
> "insane" characterization, perhaps fan reaction might have been
> different.
Nobody said the series was perfect during his time. Just Colin
himself. Colin was the best Doctor ever and you know it, you all just
can't bring yourselves to publucly admit this truth! ;D
> The "lets bash Baker & Turner" debates of old seem to ring true here...
Oh, people can bash Turner for all they are worth, as far as I'm
concerned. Just because I'm the C.Baker troll doesn't mean I love
everything about his time. In fact, I find it hard to like anything
about his time, except Revelation and Vengeance, but apart from that....
^_^
MAPPY
> I mean, Magrs is way better. Stone is way better. Orman is way
> better. Blum is way better. McIntee is way better. Richards is
> way better. BULIS is way better.
>
> What is it about his writing that people love so much? I just don't
> understand.
His amazing self-promotion? ^_-
Gordon Dempster
"Jonn Elledge" <jonnyo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000719195412...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
> >>I mean, Magrs is way better. Stone is way better. Orman is way
> >>better. Blum is way better. McIntee is way better. Richards is
> >>way better. BULIS is way better.
> >>
> >>What is it about his writing that people love so much? I just don't
> >>understand.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, I have to agree with this one. The easily readable Who author is a
> surprisingly rare creature - Cornell, Miles, Parkin, OrmanBlum, Lane, are
the
> only ones that spring to my mind, i.e you can read them without _effort_.
The
> number of times I've started a Bulis - and my mind has fucked off down the
pub
> without me, just because of his style.
>
Jonn's hit it right on the head here. Shadowmind is one of two NAs
I've never managed to finish because I'm so bored with the book from
the start and it doesn't get any better within the first fifty pages. The
Eight Doctors may be the worst Who novel I've read, but because it
was easy to get into I finished it in a couple of hours. Cornell's books
are all highly readable, as are the others Jonn mentions above. I also
find Jim Mortimore and David McIntee a bit heavy going at times, but
ultimately their books have usually been interesting enough for me to
finish.
--
"Make a cup of tea, put a record on..."
Gordon Dempster - Tim's Champion
"You promised to show me puppies. I'm still waiting."
www.bhfh.fsnet.co.uk
Alex LaHurreau
>> Ahh, yes... fannish treatment of C.Baker is quite unfair, IMO. If it
>> wasn't for the series being nearly cancelled combined with his
>> original "insane" characterization, perhaps fan reaction might have
>> been different.
>Nobody said the series was perfect during his time. Just Colin
>himself. Colin was the best Doctor ever and you know it, you all just
>can't bring yourselves to publucly admit this truth! ;D
Well I wouldn't say best... but he was showing signs of being a great
actor during ToaTL. :-)
>> The "lets bash Baker & Turner" debates of old seem to ring true here...
>Oh, people can bash Turner for all they are worth, as far as I'm
>concerned. Just because I'm the C.Baker troll doesn't mean I love
>everything about his time. In fact, I find it hard to like anything
>about his time, except Revelation and Vengeance, but apart from
>that.... ^_^
Oooh, Vengeance on Varos... ooh. Actually, the only thing I find
remotely awful about ToaTL was "Megabyte Modem". :-)
--
AlexDW <halah...@tristate.edu> -- KB9SYM -- DOCTOR WHO FOREVER
JOHN PAUL ELECTED POPE!!
(George and Ringo miffed.)
deX!
"Matt Michael" <matt.m...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> deX! wrote in message <8l53r8$9ln$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> >better. Blum is way better. McIntee is way better. Richards is
> >way better. BULIS is way better.
> >
> >What is it about his writing that people love so much? I just don't
> >understand.
>
> If you think Bulis' prose style is better then you probably never
> will.
>
Now that you feel intellectually superior, would you like to try
answering my question?
deX!
jonnyo...@aol.com (Jonn Elledge) wrote:
>
> Yeah, I have to agree with this one. The easily readable Who author
> is a surprisingly rare creature - Cornell, Miles, Parkin, OrmanBlum,
> Lane, are the only ones that spring to my mind, i.e you can read them
> without _effort_.
First off, thanks for actually giving me an answer.
I find it very odd that you're making a list of authors who are
easy to read that doesn't include Dicks, Bulis, and Peel. I mean,
regardless of whether you like them or not, their prose styles are
very straight-forward and unambiguous.
Magrs is NOT easy to read when he's writing well. It seems to me
that the clearer his prose is, the more stilted it is. I think his
best book is _The Blue Angel_ by LIGHT-YEARS.
I think the thing about Cornell that irritates me (and it crops up in
Ormanblum books from time to time, too) is his tendency to include
false banter at inappropriate times. A good example would be
practically everything Cavis and Gandar say in _Shadows of Avalon_.
Every time those characters opened their mouths, I wanted to reach
into the narrative and smack them. They were wholly inappropriate
caricatures and the ending epilogue which attempted to graft some
deeper emotion onto them REALLY pissed me off.
_Timewyrm: Revelation_ was an adequate story. The setting was cool,
but the descriptions of the inside of the Doctor's head didn't set my
imagination on fire. _Love And War_ had a great story, but my
attention wandered off about 2/3 of the way through. _Human Nature_
was practically flawless. _Happy Endings_ was a conceptual mistake
that wasn't helped by being painfully sentimental. (It was also
undercut by having Benny reappear four times afterwards, but I blame
that on the editors.) _Oh No It Isn't!_ was fantastic. _Shadows
of Avalon_ had some moments of unparalleled brilliance that were
blackened by moments of unparalleled tripe.
> The number of times I've started a Bulis - and my mind has fucked off
> down the pub without me, just because of his style.
>
Including _Vanderdeken's Children_ and _City At World's End_? Those
are the books that made me change my mind about his writing style.
Cliff Bowman
news:8l72e9$m8f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
It's possible that Cornell's writing style screams out to people "Look at
this! Real literature! This isn't just some skanky TARGET novelisation for 3
years olds, it's a real book!". For those primarily interested in the
*story* I guess it's possible for that to be intrusive, to make reading less
easy. For those who have a side-interest in reading something a bit more
adult than a TARGET novel perhaps it acts as a comforting pat on the
shoulder - "You're old and complex enough to move on to this kind of level"
style of thing (although less patronising than I'm putting it. Now while
Terrance Dicks and Christopher Bullis write more to "get the story across"
than to amaze you with their wonderful writing skills, this may be "harder
to read" for anyone who really wouldn't want to be seen reading a TARGET
novelisation on the bus. Perhaps the (internal) embarrassment of the
simplicity acts as a similar jerk to suspension of disbelief to those as the
"look - I'm an author!" does to others.
Note:-However favourably or unfavourably I seem to be painting either "side"
of the audience in the above, I was aiming to paint neither as better than
the other. Indeed - it's entirely possible that neither opinion exists,
anywhere. It's just a stab at a possible answer.
--
Cheers,
Cliff Bowman
http://www.geocities.com/who3d/
PS change "2" to "1" and remove "inter" to reply by e-mail
R.J. Smith
>In article <20000719195412...@ng-fa1.aol.com>,
> jonnyo...@aol.com (Jonn Elledge) wrote:
>> Yeah, I have to agree with this one. The easily readable Who author
>> is a surprisingly rare creature - Cornell, Miles, Parkin, OrmanBlum,
>> Lane, are the only ones that spring to my mind, i.e you can read them
>> without _effort_.
>First off, thanks for actually giving me an answer.
>I find it very odd that you're making a list of authors who are
>easy to read that doesn't include Dicks, Bulis, and Peel. I mean,
>regardless of whether you like them or not, their prose styles are
>very straight-forward and unambiguous.
I agree, but (Dicks excepted), they're also hard to read in the sense that
there's no motivation for you to keep turning the pages. IMO, this is
what the above list was referring to: authors you *want* to read, rather
than do so because you feel you have to.
>Magrs is NOT easy to read when he's writing well. It seems to me
>that the clearer his prose is, the more stilted it is. I think his
>best book is _The Blue Angel_ by LIGHT-YEARS.
I've only read two, but I agree.
>I think the thing about Cornell that irritates me (and it crops up in
>Ormanblum books from time to time, too) is his tendency to include
>false banter at inappropriate times. A good example would be
>practically everything Cavis and Gandar say in _Shadows of Avalon_.
>Every time those characters opened their mouths, I wanted to reach
>into the narrative and smack them. They were wholly inappropriate
>caricatures and the ending epilogue which attempted to graft some
>deeper emotion onto them REALLY pissed me off.
I agree 100% with this. That was just awful.
>_Timewyrm: Revelation_ was an adequate story. The setting was cool,
>but the descriptions of the inside of the Doctor's head didn't set my
>imagination on fire. _Love And War_ had a great story, but my
>attention wandered off about 2/3 of the way through. _Human Nature_
>was practically flawless. _Happy Endings_ was a conceptual mistake
>that wasn't helped by being painfully sentimental. (It was also
>undercut by having Benny reappear four times afterwards, but I blame
>that on the editors.) _Oh No It Isn't!_ was fantastic. _Shadows
>of Avalon_ had some moments of unparalleled brilliance that were
>blackened by moments of unparalleled tripe.
I agree with all of this as well.
I still think Cornell's an amazing writer... better than his actual books,
I'd say. They might not always hold together, but some of the individual
parts are just mingblowingly fantastic. I'd rather have that than a
consistent but forgettable Bulis, any day.
- Robert Smith?
deX!
smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) wrote:
> In article <8l742h$nkm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, deX! <djp...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>
> >easy to read that doesn't include Dicks, Bulis, and Peel. I mean,
> >regardless of whether you like them or not, their prose styles are
> >very straight-forward and unambiguous.
>
> I agree, but (Dicks excepted), they're also hard to read in the sense
> that there's no motivation for you to keep turning the pages. IMO,
> this is what the above list was referring to: authors you *want* to
> read, rather than do so because you feel you have to.
>
If we go there, I'd only list Peel as an offender, and that's only with
_Legacy of the Daleks_ adn _Evolution_. I really enjoyed _Timewyrm:
Genesis_, his "Power" and "Evil" novelizations, and _War of the Daleks_
(clumsy retcon aside).
I'd also say that, under that definition, Miles, Aaranovitch and
Stone are far and away the authors I find easiest to read.
> >_Timewyrm: Revelation_ was an adequate story. The setting was cool,
> >but the descriptions of the inside of the Doctor's head didn't set my
> >imagination on fire. _Love And War_ had a great story, but my
> >attention wandered off about 2/3 of the way through. _Human Nature_
> >was practically flawless. _Happy Endings_ was a conceptual mistake
> >that wasn't helped by being painfully sentimental. (It was also
> >undercut by having Benny reappear four times afterwards, but I blame
> >that on the editors.) _Oh No It Isn't!_ was fantastic. _Shadows
> >of Avalon_ had some moments of unparalleled brilliance that were
> >blackened by moments of unparalleled tripe.
>
> I agree with all of this as well.
>
You're very agreeable today. :)
> I still think Cornell's an amazing writer... better than his actual
> books, I'd say. They might not always hold together, but some of the
> individual parts are just mingblowingly fantastic. I'd rather have
> that than a consistent but forgettable Bulis, any day.
>
I'd rather have a book of consistently good quality (_Cities At World
End_) than a book of wildly inconsistent quality (_Shadows of
Avalon_). I'd rather have ten books that I enjoy than one stellar
chapter.
Basically, until he starts working with an editor who can get him
to produce more books of _Human Nature_ and _Oh No It Isn't!_
quality, Paul Cornell is going to remain an extremely hit-or-miss
author for me.
deX!
Matt Michael
Gordon Dempster wrote in message <8l5gb4$gn5$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>are all highly readable, as are the others Jonn mentions above. I also
>find Jim Mortimore and David McIntee a bit heavy going at times, but
>ultimately their books have usually been interesting enough for me to
>finish.
My problem with McIntee's stuff is how massively variable it is in quality.
First Frontier and Sanctuary are brilliant - and very well written.
However, his stuff for the BBC has just not come close, particularly
Mission: Impractical, which was very clumsily composed. Weird.
matt
Matt Michael
deX! wrote in message <8l72e9$m8f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> If you think Bulis' prose style is better then you probably never
>> will.
>Now that you feel intellectually superior, would you like to try
>answering my question?
Sorry, that's not what I was trying to do at all and I apologise if it
sounded like that. What I should have said is that if you don't appreciate
the kind of prose Cornell writes (and you think that Bulis' style is far
better) then you probably simply don't appreciate the same kind of writing
as I do. I find Bulis' style workmanlike - functional but flat. Bland,
basically. OTOH, I think Cornell's stuff is brilliant, well observed, with
an excellent eye for detail, however insignificant. It's like, for
instance, the difference between a play by Oscar Wilde and a play by Agatha
Christie - the former is full of brilliant dialogue and much wit; the latter
is perfectly adequate, advancing the often-complex plot without undue
flourish and getting the job done. Or like the difference between The Sun
Makers and Image of the Fendahl - the former is witty but maybe
silly-seeming and rather pointless, whereas the latter has a weighty threat
and takes the plot from A to B in a suitably structured way. *I* just
happen to find The Sun Makers about a billion times more engaging (and, by
extension, entertaining). *You*, OTOH, might think quite the reverse. It's
entirely personal and based on which you prefer.
Therefore, if you can't see why people enjoy Cornell's stuff then you
probably never will - it's based on your personal preferences and is
unlikely to be changed by anything I say.
matt