Group Poll: Should Jack Beven STFU about books he hasn't read?
Brett O'Callaghan
I say, yes.
Byeeeee.
--
Gadzooks - here comes the Harbourmaster!
http://www.geocities.com/brettocallaghan/stats.html - RADWM Stats
Selaboc
> I say, yes.
>
>
> Byeeeee.
I suggest if you don't like what Jack has to say, you don't read what
Jack has to say and STFU about what Jack has to say. But that's just
me :-)
Solar Penguin
> I say, yes.
>
>
> Byeeeee.
Group Poll: Wouldn't Modish be a better place for this?
--
Solar Penguin, the cuddliest androgyne in RADW(M).
"As I said, things were settling down by now and she was
finally unmasked by his impact on the Doctor." -- MegaHal
Alan S. Wales
>I say, yes.
No. As I understand his issue with the EDA's, he's simply asking for some
evidence that the attitude of the book line to the Doctor's past has changed.
So far, no author or other poster on radwm has provided him with evidence that
the treatment of the Doctor's past continuity has changed to something more
acceptable to him. Therefore, he's not reading the books.
I'm not reading them because:
a. The last few that I read weren't very good.
b. I can't get the new ones anyway. Even if I could, they're not worth spending
$7.00 on because
c. I can get the NA's from my library at no cost. The ones that I've read are
vastly superior to almost all of the EDA's I've read.
--
"When you argue with a fool be sure he is not similarly occupied."
Paul Harman
> As I understand his issue with the EDA's, he's simply asking for some
> evidence that the attitude of the book line to the Doctor's past has
changed.
> So far, no author or other poster on radwm has provided him with evidence
that
> the treatment of the Doctor's past continuity has changed to something
more
> acceptable to him. Therefore, he's not reading the books.
Which is fine, but it'd be nice if he (and those like him) didn't seize on
every possible opportunity to stick the knife in the books' collective back.
If book fans did that with the Audios, there'd be hell to pay. For example,
if I were to say "Based on 'Divided Loyalties', all of the BF audios must be
screaming fanwank of the highest order, and so I haven't listened to them
since The Fearmonger - but Chimes of Midnight was rubbish" then I'd be
taking flak from all directions.
To me that seems exactly analagous to the situation here - not accepting a
product line because of a stance that some chief creative person took some
time in the past.
Paul
Alan S. Wales
>>"Alan S. Wales" <powr...@aol.compost>
>> As I understand his issue with the EDA's, he's simply asking for some
>> evidence that the attitude of the book line to the Doctor's past has
>changed.
>> So far, no author or other poster on radwm has provided him with evidence
>that
>> the treatment of the Doctor's past continuity has changed to something
>more
>> acceptable to him. Therefore, he's not reading the books.
>Which is fine, but it'd be nice if he (and those like him) didn't seize on
>every possible opportunity to stick the knife in the books' collective back.
"Knife in the back"? Seems to me it is (dogged) reasoned criticism on his part.
>If book fans did that with the Audios, there'd be hell to pay. For example,
>if I were to say "Based on 'Divided Loyalties', all of the BF audios must be
>screaming fanwank of the highest order, and so I haven't listened to them
>since The Fearmonger - but Chimes of Midnight was rubbish" then I'd be
>taking flak from all directions.
I'm not following you here--Divided Loyalties is a book and not an audio,
correct?
>To me that seems exactly analagous to the situation here - not accepting a
>product line because of a stance that some chief creative person took some
>time in the past.
But Jack is not changing product lines from the books to the audios, he's
comparing books to books, even within the same book line, the EDA's. So far, no
one is denying his charges that the latest batch of EDA's is playing down the
Doctor's past, they're simply telling him to read the books, while not
answering his question.
Charles Martin
c64...@hotmail.com (Selaboc) wrote:
I'm closing this thread because a) it's trolling and b) it's flaming.
--
_Chas_
Moderator, rec.arts.drwho.moderated
FAQ: www.thecabal.org/~radwm/radwm-faq.txt
Charter & Styleguide: http://www.thecabal.org/~radwm/
Discussion group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/modish/
Quotefile nominations: radwm-q...@thecrazyones.com
Brett O'Callaghan
>"Brett O'Callaghan" <brettoc...@iinet.net.au>
>> I say, yes.
>I suggest if you don't like what Jack has to say, you don't read what
>Jack has to say and STFU about what Jack has to say.
If there weren't 4000 threads about it, I would.
I only suggest it it Jacks interest, as he clearly doesn't realise how
foolish he looks having taken the postion he's taken.
And it's incredibly tedious to read the same points over and over and
over again, seemingly capable of infecting any thread in one way or
another.
Cameron Mason
Alan S. Wales <powr...@aol.compost> wrote in message
news:20030324131928...@mb-fn.aol.com...
Gary Russell wrote Divided Loyalties.
Gary Russell comissions, script edits, produces and directs the Big Finish
audios (though if you ask him if he acts in them, he'll deny it outright
:) )...
Cameron
--
"I'm half-human on the Other's side."
http://members.fortunecity.com/masomika/
http://members.fortunecity.com/jpcovers/
Alan S. Wales
You learn something new every day. You can see how familar I am with BF
products.
Jack Beven
wrote:
>> "Paul Harman" chatt...@doctorwhowebguide.net
>>To me that seems exactly analagous to the situation here - not accepting a
>>product line because of a stance that some chief creative person took some
>>time in the past.
>
>But Jack is not changing product lines from the books to the audios, he's
>comparing books to books, even within the same book line, the EDA's. So far, no
>one is denying his charges that the latest batch of EDA's is playing down the
>Doctor's past, they're simply telling him to read the books, while not
>answering his question.
BINGO!!!!!!!!!
Jack Beven
Tropical Prediction Center
http://www.mindspring.com/~jbeven/index.html jbe...@mindspring.com
LSU 1984 FSU 1988 & 1994
Jack Beven
wrote:
>> "Paul Harman" chatt...@doctorwhowebguide.net
>>To me that seems exactly analagous to the situation here - not accepting a
>>product line because of a stance that some chief creative person took some
>>time in the past.
>
>But Jack is not changing product lines from the books to the audios, he's
>comparing books to books, even within the same book line, the EDA's. So far, no
>one is denying his charges that the latest batch of EDA's is playing down the
>Doctor's past, they're simply telling him to read the books, while not
>answering his question.
BINGO!!!!!!!!!
Jim Vowles
[snip]
> But Jack is not changing product lines from the books to the audios, he's
> comparing books to books, even within the same book line, the EDA's. So far, no
> one is denying his charges that the latest batch of EDA's is playing down the
> Doctor's past, they're simply telling him to read the books, while not
> answering his question.
He's not asking questions; he's making demands that authors (or
readers) prove that the books he *hasn't* read are compatible with his
view of what the books *should* be. Jack is unhappy with the
direction the books have taken, overall, for at least two years. He's
perfectly within his rights to feel that way, but where the irritation
factor comes in is that he insists on pre-judging books he hasn't
read, on criteria that are not universally shared. (He's not the only
one.)
SKMDC
[snip]
> He's not asking questions; he's making demands that authors (or
> readers) prove that the books he *hasn't* read are compatible with his
> view of what the books *should* be. Jack is unhappy with the
> direction the books have taken, overall, for at least two years. He's
> perfectly within his rights to feel that way, but where the irritation
> factor comes in is that he insists on pre-judging books he hasn't
> read, on criteria that are not universally shared. (He's not the only
> one.)
He's asking a question not demanding, and you're right... he's not the
only one whose been turned off by the books in recent years. I'm not
sure you can call it "pre-judging" when it's obvious he *has* read a
large number of the books and is basing his judgement on what he's
read. If you don't like Adam Sandler movies and someone says, "but
you'll like this one, I swear!" Your first response will be, "Why?" If
that person then says, "It's Adam Sandler and he's great!" over and
over again, that's not an answer. I think that's all Jack is on about.
Why should he give the books another chance, and what makes them
different now than when he stopped reading them? If anything it's the
novel-defenders that "demand" that the criteria for judgement be
"universally shared."
jb...@zipworld.com.au
SKMDC <lance...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho.moderated
Subject: Re: Group Poll: Should Jack Beven STFU about books he hasn't read?
Summary:
Expires:
References: <03ae01c2f226$d2097770$fd75b290@MONDAS> <20030324131928...@mb-fn.aol.com> <a312a079.03032...@posting.google.com> <6cba7a65.03032...@posting.google.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization:
Keywords:
Cc:
In article <6cba7a65.03032...@posting.google.com>,
SKMDC <lance...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>He's asking a question not demanding, and you're right... he's not the
>only one whose been turned off by the books in recent years. I'm not
>sure you can call it "pre-judging" when it's obvious he *has* read a
>large number of the books and is basing his judgement on what he's
>read.
There's a big gap between saying "this book isn't likely to be my cup of
tea" and "this specific scene from this book I haven't read is *obviously*
there to fulfill an agenda I insist the authors have". You can't do
detailed criticism without having read the details, and their context.
>If you don't like Adam Sandler movies and someone says, "but
>you'll like this one, I swear!" Your first response will be, "Why?"
By this stage we're well past first responses (or even first *years* of
responses) on this subject -- and you'll notice that no one is actually
telling Jack "You'll like this one!" by this point. Almost the reverse!
>If anything it's the
>novel-defenders that "demand" that the criteria for judgement be
>"universally shared."
Hardly -- the only "criteria" I'm calling for is that you know what you're
talking about for yourself.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jim Vowles
> jvo...@yahoo.com (Jim Vowles) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > He's not asking questions; he's making demands that authors (or
> > readers) prove that the books he *hasn't* read are compatible with his
> > view of what the books *should* be. Jack is unhappy with the
> > direction the books have taken, overall, for at least two years. He's
> > perfectly within his rights to feel that way, but where the irritation
> > factor comes in is that he insists on pre-judging books he hasn't
> > read, on criteria that are not universally shared. (He's not the only
> > one.)
>
> He's asking a question not demanding,
No, he's demanding. He's demanding that we prove the books have
changed back to being more like he wants them to be. He's not asking
whether they're good or bad, he's asking about the continuity
politics of those writing them.
> and you're right... he's not the
> only one whose been turned off by the books in recent years. I'm not
> sure you can call it "pre-judging" when it's obvious he *has* read a
> large number of the books and is basing his judgement on what he's
> read.
That's fine when he's discussing the ones he's read -- but he's also
demanded clarification from the editor about comments made 2 years ago
at a con, which he's decided are the hidden manifesto of the books
since that time. He's actually asked for objective means of
determining whether a book is good or not, which is just *silly*.
I have no problem with Jack or anyone else seeing a pattern that I
don't see in books that the complainant _has_ read, but when they
argue facts or even interpretations oflines in books they *haven't*
read, it becomes surreal.
> If you don't like Adam Sandler movies and someone says, "but
> you'll like this one, I swear!" Your first response will be, "Why?" If
> that person then says, "It's Adam Sandler and he's great!" over and
> over again, that's not an answer. I think that's all Jack is on about.
> Why should he give the books another chance, and what makes them
> different now than when he stopped reading them? If anything it's the
> novel-defenders that "demand" that the criteria for judgement be
> "universally shared."
It's *Jack* who brings these things up -- this isn't an endless effort
to get Jack to read the books. Jack says "I want to read the books,
but I want them to be different than they are. I think they're like
xxxxxx because all the books since Interference have been like xxxxx.
I want them to be more like yyyyyy." And we say "But Jack, the books
aren't like xxxxx. They're more like xyxyxyxyxyyy." And then he says
"But Justin said that the past was excess baggage!" And then we say
"But the books don't *treat* it as excess baggage, and anyway the
folks who work with him and write hte damned things say that he
doesn't view it as excess baggage and that you took an offhand remark
far too much to heart." And Jack says "I know what I read two years
ago convinced me that xxxxx was the mode du jour." And we say "yes,
fine, but now it isn't, and it hasn't been for some time." And Jack
says "But I didn't like book 0101010 because the Doctor didn't know
who he was, and it cheapens the character. And nobody called him Time
Lord." And we say "That's because in the previous book, he got
amnesia and one of hte continuing issues he has to deal with is that
fact." And he says "Well I don't llike it -- prove to me it'll
change."
To which, at long last, many of us have recently said "No. If you
don't like book 001111, odds are you won't like the ones after it.
Which is a shame, because you're missing out on some cracking good
stuff in book 001122. " And then he says "Prove to me that the
author's attitude about the things I don't like is more like mine."
And we say "If you want to know what the author is saying in the book,
you'll have to read it." And then he doesn't read it, but instead
says it can't really be Doctor Who because nobody says Time Lord in
it...
Fact is, I only get annoyed when someone makes claims that are untrue
-- or prattle on about things they clearly know nothing about. Jack
seldom does either of these things, but he will insist on demanding
that past references be explicit and that ambiguity is always bad, and
that book 9999 must be bad because the author hasn't specifically come
out in favor of Jack's pespective on the importance of past
references. That attitude confounds me, because in my mind the
obvious way to judge whether a book's any good is to actually read it.
It's like saying that all Adam Sandler movies are like Happy Gilmore,
or that Robin Williams always plays the same wacky OTT character in
all his flicks -- until you actually see them, you don't know; at best
you can suspect. (Who'd have suspected that Jim Carrey was capable of
The Truman Show, or that the guy who did The Frighteners and Bad Taste
could produce an epic like Lord of the Rings? Nobody -- but if someone
prattled on about how the LOTR movies must be bad-taste crap because
that's what some of his other movies were, well, the proof is right
there in a dozen Oscar nominations, overwhelming critical and
commercial success, and of course the wonderful films themselves.)
And finally, a minor point -- the person who started _this_ thread
wasn't even involved in any of the discussions.
SKMDC
> tea" and "this specific scene from this book I haven't read is *obviously*
> there to fulfill an agenda I insist the authors have". You can't do
> detailed criticism without having read the details, and their context.
I agree 100%, and from what I've seen it doesn't matter a jot if
someone *does* cite specific references to books they *have* read,
because then they'll just get a list of books they haven't read thrown
back at them as examples of why they're wrong. It's a catch-22 for the
disenfranchised reader... In order to explain why the books turn me
off I have to read *all* the books?
> >If you don't like Adam Sandler movies and someone says, "but
> >you'll like this one, I swear!" Your first response will be, "Why?"
>
> By this stage we're well past first responses (or even first *years* of
> responses) on this subject -- and you'll notice that no one is actually
> telling Jack "You'll like this one!" by this point. Almost the reverse!
I think Jack's point is that all he's gotten is first responses for
the years he's been asking the question.
> >If anything it's the
> >novel-defenders that "demand" that the criteria for judgement be
> >"universally shared."
>
> Hardly -- the only "criteria" I'm calling for is that you know what you're
> talking about for yourself.
Nice flip of the discussion there. We were talking about criteria for
judging a book, now you're talking about the criteria for judging a
*reader*... Interesting. Besides, that's completely unrelated to what
the actual point was, and it was even a little snippy for a friendly
discussion of this nature.
jb...@zipworld.com.au
>> tea" and "this specific scene from this book I haven't read is *obviously*
>> there to fulfill an agenda I insist the authors have". You can't do
>> detailed criticism without having read the details, and their context.
>I agree 100%, and from what I've seen it doesn't matter a jot if
>someone *does* cite specific references to books they *have* read,
>because then they'll just get a list of books they haven't read thrown
>back at them as examples of why they're wrong.
You might want to check the actual recent threads with Jack -- he's cited
plenty of specific references to books he has read, and no one's
complained about them. It's when he's citing specific references to books
he *hasn't* read that people raise a red flag.
(People have also complained that his premises about continuity are
fundamentally skewed, but that's got nothing to do with reading the books
either way -- that's an "elephants *aren't* pink" argument.)
>It's a catch-22 for the
>disenfranchised reader... In order to explain why the books turn me
>off I have to read *all* the books?
Not if you say "I don't like these books I've read", rather than "all the
books are like this". The latter is a claim of fact, which opens you up
to counter-examples.
>> >If you don't like Adam Sandler movies and someone says, "but
>> >you'll like this one, I swear!" Your first response will be, "Why?"
>> By this stage we're well past first responses (or even first *years* of
>> responses) on this subject -- and you'll notice that no one is actually
>> telling Jack "You'll like this one!" by this point. Almost the reverse!
>I think Jack's point is that all he's gotten is first responses for
>the years he's been asking the question.
Which is patently untrue -- when asked "Why?", in the past I've responded
with things like "cause they've got vivid characterization, emotional
depth, great prose, clever dialogue, tension and drama and charm, and some
nice links which resonate with the past". It's when Jack's response to
that is "But does the seventh Doctor's cameo actually use the words 'the
seventh Doctor, previous incarnation of the Time Lord from Gallifrey in
the constellation of Kasterborus', or is it a shameless bit of
past-bashing fan-hating weaselling?", that the second response becomes
"Erm, check please." :-)
And after several years, when he starts yet another thread saying
"Convince me I'll like these books!" in pretty much so many words, my
other response is "Why should I bother trying, when you haven't really
approved of a book I've written since 1997?"
>> >If anything it's the
>> >novel-defenders that "demand" that the criteria for judgement be
>> >"universally shared."
>> Hardly -- the only "criteria" I'm calling for is that you know what you're
>> talking about for yourself.
>Nice flip of the discussion there. We were talking about criteria for
>judging a book, now you're talking about the criteria for judging a
>*reader*...
No flip needed -- the first criteria for being able to judge a book is
having read it. If Jack wants to judge "Tigers", he's a reader. But if
he wants to pass judgement on the handling of continuity in "Camera
Obscura", he isn't. And simply as the chronometer flies, talking about
the current state of the books when you haven't read one since June 2001
is about up there with critiquing "Ghost Light" when you haven't watched
the show since "Dragonfire".
>Interesting. Besides, that's completely unrelated to what
>the actual point was, and it was even a little snippy for a friendly
>discussion of this nature.
Sorry about that. But you might have guessed that, after several years of
being told that you don't have to read my work to tell me I've Got It
Wrong, my patience is a bit worn on the subject...
Regards,
Jon Blum
SKMDC
>
> No, he's demanding. He's demanding that we prove the books have
> changed back to being more like he wants them to be. He's not asking
> whether they're good or bad, he's asking about the continuity
> politics of those writing them.
You said it yourself... "he's asking"... I haven't seen him take
anyone hostage or hold anyone at gunpoint and demand anything.
> That's fine when he's discussing the ones he's read -- but he's also
> demanded clarification from the editor about comments made 2 years ago
> at a con, which he's decided are the hidden manifesto of the books
> since that time. He's actually asked for objective means of
> determining whether a book is good or not, which is just *silly*.
Maybe so, but I've seen plenty of *silly* UNIT dating theories over
the years and no one gets the STFU for that?
>
> I have no problem with Jack or anyone else seeing a pattern that I
> don't see in books that the complainant _has_ read, but when they
> argue facts or even interpretations oflines in books they *haven't*
> read, it becomes surreal.
No, it becomes intelligence. What would be surreal is if jack
*continued* reading all the books even though he didn't enjoy them any
longer. I totally don't buy the argument that you have to read all the
books to comment on them. I've also stopped reading the books (last
one was Turing Test) and I have to doubt that I have a good idea of
what the current books are like. Therefore, I am speaking from
experience.
> It's *Jack* who brings these things up -- this isn't an endless effort
> to get Jack to read the books. Jack says "I want to read the books,
> but I want them to be different than they are. I think they're like
> xxxxxx because all the books since Interference have been like xxxxx.
> I want them to be more like yyyyyy." And we say "But Jack, the books
> aren't like xxxxx. They're more like xyxyxyxyxyyy." And then he says
> "But Justin said that the past was excess baggage!" And then we say
> "But the books don't *treat* it as excess baggage, and anyway the
> folks who work with him and write hte damned things say that he
> doesn't view it as excess baggage and that you took an offhand remark
> far too much to heart." And Jack says "I know what I read two years
> ago convinced me that xxxxx was the mode du jour." And we say "yes,
> fine, but now it isn't, and it hasn't been for some time." And Jack
> says "But I didn't like book 0101010 because the Doctor didn't know
> who he was, and it cheapens the character. And nobody called him Time
> Lord." And we say "That's because in the previous book, he got
> amnesia and one of hte continuing issues he has to deal with is that
> fact." And he says "Well I don't llike it -- prove to me it'll
> change."
Didn't Renee Zelwegger and Catherine Zeta-Jones do this bit in
Chicago?
I think what you say is more like xxyxyxxxyyx is really exactly like
xxxxxxx and that's completely cool as long as people aren't constantly
claiming the books are more xxyxyxxxyyx when they are in fact NOT. I'm
waiting to see when a new novel triggers an uproar from the current
crop of novel defenders. When that happens we'll probably have a
pretty decent Who book. Since the BBC took over the best ones I've
read have been written by either Terrence Dicks or Chris Boucher...
But to read the threads on here you'd think *they* were the hacks. Now
that's irony.
Jim Vowles
> >
> > No, he's demanding. He's demanding that we prove the books have
> > changed back to being more like he wants them to be. He's not asking
> > whether they're good or bad, he's asking about the continuity
> > politics of those writing them.
>
> You said it yourself... "he's asking"... I haven't seen him take
> anyone hostage or hold anyone at gunpoint and demand anything.
Aren't you the one who accused *me* of bandying semantics once before?
Demands don't require threats of violence at any rate. He's asking
for a total change of the way the books have been handled for the last
two years; in return he will stop criticizing them and begin buying
them again. So in your parlance, he *is* holding his book-reading
hostage. He's laying requirements for his readership -- which is fine,
but those aren't questions that one expects to learn something new
from, but rather requirements that one expects action in response to.
> > That's fine when he's discussing the ones he's read -- but he's also
> > demanded clarification from the editor about comments made 2 years ago
> > at a con, which he's decided are the hidden manifesto of the books
> > since that time. He's actually asked for objective means of
> > determining whether a book is good or not, which is just *silly*.
>
> Maybe so, but I've seen plenty of *silly* UNIT dating theories over
> the years and no one gets the STFU for that?
Of course they do, but that's beside the point, as I'm not the one who
started this rather offensive thread. You'd have to take that up with
Brett.
> > I have no problem with Jack or anyone else seeing a pattern that I
> > don't see in books that the complainant _has_ read, but when they
> > argue facts or even interpretations oflines in books they *haven't*
> > read, it becomes surreal.
>
> No, it becomes intelligence.
Since when is it intelligence to argue facts that you have no direct
knowlege of, with those who *do* have direct knowledge of those facts?
> What would be surreal is if jack
> *continued* reading all the books even though he didn't enjoy them any
> longer. I totally don't buy the argument that you have to read all the
> books to comment on them.
That's fine, but when you're factually incorrect or basing your
conclusions on an incomplete set of data, you're bound to get a pie in
the face. It's rather stupid to go on insisting something's the case
when you've got no proof and the other fellow's got a dozen books'
worth.
> I've also stopped reading the books (last
> one was Turing Test) and I have to doubt that I have a good idea of
> what the current books are like. Therefore, I am speaking from
> experience.
I'm not sure if you've got a typo there or not -- but if you've read
no books since Turing Test, then at best you'd be making wild guesses
as to what the current books are like, so you would have to doubt your
ideas about the current books. In short, you *don't* know what you're
talking about when discussing the current books.
> > It's *Jack* who brings these things up -- this isn't an endless effort
> > to get Jack to read the books. Jack says "I want to read the books,
> > but I want them to be different than they are. I think they're like
> > xxxxxx because all the books since Interference have been like xxxxx.
> > I want them to be more like yyyyyy." And we say "But Jack, the books
> > aren't like xxxxx. They're more like xyxyxyxyxyyy." And then he says
> > "But Justin said that the past was excess baggage!" And then we say
> > "But the books don't *treat* it as excess baggage, and anyway the
> > folks who work with him and write hte damned things say that he
> > doesn't view it as excess baggage and that you took an offhand remark
> > far too much to heart." And Jack says "I know what I read two years
> > ago convinced me that xxxxx was the mode du jour." And we say "yes,
> > fine, but now it isn't, and it hasn't been for some time." And Jack
> > says "But I didn't like book 0101010 because the Doctor didn't know
> > who he was, and it cheapens the character. And nobody called him Time
> > Lord." And we say "That's because in the previous book, he got
> > amnesia and one of hte continuing issues he has to deal with is that
> > fact." And he says "Well I don't llike it -- prove to me it'll
> > change."
>
> Didn't Renee Zelwegger and Catherine Zeta-Jones do this bit in
> Chicago?
LOL. yes, but they were sexier at it.
> I think what you say is more like xxyxyxxxyyx is really exactly like
> xxxxxxx and that's completely cool as long as people aren't constantly
> claiming the books are more xxyxyxxxyyx when they are in fact NOT.
Nope, you lost me.
> I'm
> waiting to see when a new novel triggers an uproar from the current
> crop of novel defenders. When that happens we'll probably have a
> pretty decent Who book. Since the BBC took over the best ones I've
> read have been written by either Terrence Dicks or Chris Boucher...
> But to read the threads on here you'd think *they* were the hacks. Now
> that's irony.
I'd say it was a matter of taste -- to my mind, both of them deliver
workmanlike Who -- stuff that would be entertaining on the television.
Without intending any disrespect, it's lowbrow fun for the most part
-- and that's fine. But like many readers, I like a bit more meat
with my novels than I get on TV. I like emotional depth that is
generally lacking in Uncle Terry's stuff and Chris Boucher's, but
that doesn't mean I dislike what they write -- it's just less
emotionally satisfying than stuff like City of the Dead. I wouldn't
want a steady diet of either, but then, I haven't had a steady diet of
either.
Since I'm hungry at the moment, i'll put it this way: Dicks and
Boucher are like fish & chips or hamburgers -- tasty, filling, and
generally enjoyable, and when done right, something that can be a
comfort to the soul. But sometimes one likes a dish with a bit more
flavor, more unusual and exotic ingredients, and prepared with
slightly fresher ingredients -- like the excellent rockfish and
basmati risotto I had last wednesday. At worst, Who books are a meal
enjoyed with friends. At best, they can be a culinary experience --
and that's the direction the books have been heading. If you don't
care for fancy food, and prefer plain vittles, then you're going to be
unhappy with them because they err on the side of experimentation
rather than on the side of the familiar. But with all of the universe
at our disposal, why settle for *just* the comfort of fish & chips or
burgers when you could try something new?
SKMDC
> > anyone hostage or hold anyone at gunpoint and demand anything.
>
> Aren't you the one who accused *me* of bandying semantics once before?
I really don't think so... but I could be wrong.
> Demands don't require threats of violence at any rate. He's asking
> for a total change of the way the books have been handled for the last
> two years; in return he will stop criticizing them and begin buying
> them again. So in your parlance, he *is* holding his book-reading
> hostage. He's laying requirements for his readership -- which is fine,
> but those aren't questions that one expects to learn something new
> from, but rather requirements that one expects action in response to.
Well, that may very well be the case. I haven't followed the
Jack-Beven-Demands-Continuity threads over the years. Only the
previous one where he simply asked for an answer to what's different
between now and then, and then this one where everyone got all "you
gotta read everything to know anything"... Which I don't agree with.
You may be right that he expects action and not simply knowledge, but
I didn't get that from his original post.
> Since when is it intelligence to argue facts that you have no direct
> knowlege of, with those who *do* have direct knowledge of those facts?
Since when is a person's opinion of a book considered a fact? Having a
billion facts about something is no better than having 10, if those 10
facts are all that's required for coming to a conclusion.
> That's fine, but when you're factually incorrect or basing your
> conclusions on an incomplete set of data, you're bound to get a pie in
> the face. It's rather stupid to go on insisting something's the case
> when you've got no proof and the other fellow's got a dozen books'
> worth.
But I don't think "imcomplete set of data" is accurate. It's not as if
Jack, or I, have never read any of the books. Or stopped after the
NAs. I think there's a very complete set of data, for me anyway,
starting with The 8 Docs and going through The Turing Test.
> I'm not sure if you've got a typo there or not -- but if you've read
> no books since Turing Test, then at best you'd be making wild guesses
> as to what the current books are like, so you would have to doubt your
> ideas about the current books. In short, you *don't* know what you're
> talking about when discussing the current books.
Of course I do. It's not like The Turing Test came from a completely
different planet. It's not like the difference between Season 3 and
Season 17. Besides, it brings us right back to the same question. If
the books are different now and therefore I should spend my money and
time on them to "rediscover" what I'm missing, then tell me *how* they
are different... Inform me what makes Camera Obscura so diametrically
opposed to The Turing Test...
> I'd say it was a matter of taste -- to my mind, both of them deliver
> workmanlike Who -- stuff that would be entertaining on the television.
Well that can't be good... Who like on TV!? Heresy!
> Without intending any disrespect, it's lowbrow fun for the most part
> -- and that's fine.
Disrepect obvious, intented or not. Low brow? So basically with those
two sentences you're saying the novels are of higher merit than the TV
show. The TV show is low brow and the novels high brow? Without
intending disrespect... that's wack. Compare DW TV to other tv... can
we agree it's fairly close to the top in the annals of television
series? Now compare DW novels to other novels... You see what I'm
getting at here?
> But like many readers, I like a bit more meat
> with my novels than I get on TV.
Me too. And when I want that, I don't pick up a TV tie-in book.
> I like emotional depth that is
> generally lacking in Uncle Terry's stuff and Chris Boucher's, but
> that doesn't mean I dislike what they write -- it's just less
> emotionally satisfying than stuff like City of the Dead. I wouldn't
> want a steady diet of either, but then, I haven't had a steady diet of
> either.
Well, it's refreshing to hear someone say they don't dislike what
Dicks and Boucher writes, seeing as how the entire *line* is based on
much of their work. Well, Terry's anyway. As for emotional depth...
Once again, if I want a DW story i want a DW story, emotional depth or
not, and as it stood when I stopped reading the novels, they didn't
feel much like Who anymore so I stopped.
> Since I'm hungry at the moment, i'll put it this way: Dicks and
> Boucher are like fish & chips or hamburgers -- tasty, filling, and
> generally enjoyable, and when done right, something that can be a
> comfort to the soul. But sometimes one likes a dish with a bit more
> flavor, more unusual and exotic ingredients, and prepared with
> slightly fresher ingredients -- like the excellent rockfish and
> basmati risotto I had last wednesday.
Well, that's fine, but you shouldn't put up a McDonald's sign, and
then try and sell sushi. I 'spose those who like pretentious food also
like pretentious literature.
> At worst, Who books are a meal
> enjoyed with friends. At best, they can be a culinary experience --
> and that's the direction the books have been heading.
Oh please. A culinary experience? I've never read *any* of the novels,
NA or BBC, that reached the artistic expression of The Daleks, The
Time Meddler, Tomb of the Cybermen, Terror of the Autons, Deadly
Assassin, City of Death... Of course that's "low brow" TV... Do you
know how pretentious all this sounds?
> If you don't
> care for fancy food, and prefer plain vittles, then you're going to be
> unhappy with them because they err on the side of experimentation
> rather than on the side of the familiar. But with all of the universe
> at our disposal, why settle for *just* the comfort of fish & chips or
> burgers when you could try something new?
But the universe isn't at our disposal in the BBC line... there's one
particular corner of the universe that seemed off limits in the books
I read: the Doctor Who universe. If every meal is supposedly 'fancy
food' then that's just as limiting and just as disenfranchising as
always plain vittles. I like your analogy with food, because it shows
very clearly how pretentious the novels are... culinary experience
indeed... and how die hard DW fans like me can be turned off by them.
SKMDC
> >I agree 100%, and from what I've seen it doesn't matter a jot if
> >someone *does* cite specific references to books they *have* read,
> >because then they'll just get a list of books they haven't read thrown
> >back at them as examples of why they're wrong.
>
> You might want to check the actual recent threads with Jack -- he's cited
> plenty of specific references to books he has read, and no one's
> complained about them. It's when he's citing specific references to books
> he *hasn't* read that people raise a red flag.
I'm speaking more about the recent thread where you and I were
discussing this same thing... et al... and you launched a grand list
of books that refuted everything I mentioned I found wrong with the
line. I'm not going to fall for that. I fell for it with Shadows of
Avalon, I fell for it with The Turing Test... I don't need to read
this month's BBC book to know I won't like this month's BBC book.
Trust me. Granted I can't slag it for specific reasons out of the
actual book... but when did choosing not to read something become an
uninformed opinion?
> >It's a catch-22 for the
> >disenfranchised reader... In order to explain why the books turn me
> >off I have to read *all* the books?
>
> Not if you say "I don't like these books I've read", rather than "all the
> books are like this". The latter is a claim of fact, which opens you up
> to counter-examples.
I never saw Jack actually say that though. I thought he wanted some
assurances, some proof, that all books *weren't* like that, and no one
could provide him with that.
> >I think Jack's point is that all he's gotten is first responses for
> >the years he's been asking the question.
>
> Which is patently untrue -- when asked "Why?", in the past I've responded
> with things like "cause they've got vivid characterization, emotional
> depth, great prose, clever dialogue, tension and drama and charm, and some
> nice links which resonate with the past". It's when Jack's response to
> that is "But does the seventh Doctor's cameo actually use the words 'the
> seventh Doctor, previous incarnation of the Time Lord from Gallifrey in
> the constellation of Kasterborus', or is it a shameless bit of
> past-bashing fan-hating weaselling?", that the second response becomes
> "Erm, check please." :-)
Okay, I missed that post. Maybe I should Google your past experience
with Mr. Beven. He's never seemed that loopy to me... In fact, he's
always seemed pretty level headed and actually quite polite with
everyone that piles on with STFU threads like this one. You wouldn't
be painting "word-pictures" that exagerate the truth a bit would you?
Of course it's all cool 'cause you used an emoticon to prove you're a
friendly sort after all.
> >Nice flip of the discussion there. We were talking about criteria for
> >judging a book, now you're talking about the criteria for judging a
> >*reader*...
>
> No flip needed -- the first criteria for being able to judge a book is
> having read it. If Jack wants to judge "Tigers", he's a reader. But if
> he wants to pass judgement on the handling of continuity in "Camera
> Obscura", he isn't.
But from what I've seen he hasn't passed judgement on Obscura... He's
simply said what his judgement will be if it is anything *like*
Tigers. The most honest responsed to him have been the ones that
say... "Nope, it's the same, you'll hate it, go read the next Harry
Potter instead."
> And simply as the chronometer flies, talking about
> the current state of the books when you haven't read one since June 2001
> is about up there with critiquing "Ghost Light" when you haven't watched
> the show since "Dragonfire".
But if someone hated McCoy's portrayal of the Doc, and loathed the
acting of Sophie Aldred and decided to stop watching after Dragonfire,
would their personal opinions not still be valid for Ghost Light? If
someone bases their opinion on a specific criteria, as Jack has, then
jumping up and down whining about how he hasn't read a current book
does nothing if his criteria is still valid.
> Sorry about that. But you might have guessed that, after several years of
> being told that you don't have to read my work to tell me I've Got It
> Wrong, my patience is a bit worn on the subject...
For what it's worth, I have read your work and you don't have anything
wrong. You're a talented writer in a stable of talented people working
very hard to turn out the best Who stories they can. The ones that
have it wrong are the Powers That Be that guide the line as a whole.
They're the ones that need to take a few Script Editing lessons from
Uncle Terry. :-)
Jonathan Blum
> pretty decent Who book. Since the BBC took over the best ones I've
> read have been written by either Terrence Dicks or Chris Boucher...
> But to read the threads on here you'd think *they* were the hacks. Now
> that's irony.
Actually, a bigger irony is that Chris Boucher is probably the
clearest example of an author who's interested in their own vision of
Who far more than in anyone else's history or mythos. In his three TV
stories and three novels, I think there's a grand total of *one*
reference to a story outside of Boucher's own work -- the references
to the Time Lords in "Fendahl" -- and I think that might be the result
of the script editor!
Cheers,
Jon Blum
Cameron Mason
"Jonathan Blum" <jb...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:75d9a022.03033...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> Actually, a bigger irony is that Chris Boucher is probably the
> clearest example of an author who's interested in their own vision of
> Who far more than in anyone else's history or mythos. In his three TV
> stories and three novels, I think there's a grand total of *one*
> reference to a story outside of Boucher's own work -- the references
> to the Time Lords in "Fendahl" -- and I think that might be the result
> of the script editor!
His three novels were reworkings of the themes of his three TV stories - now
that's recycling!
Cameron
ZC TGS
Nah, that's nothing... Go read Terrence Dicks Virgin/BBC novels....
.
SKMDC
That's a bigger irony? Maybe you're getting your definition of irony
from Alanis Morrisette. :-) IIRC, Robert Holmes suggested to Boucher
the subject matter for both "Face of Evil" and "Robots of Death", and
didn't Anthony Read do serious rewrites to "Image of the Fendahl" when
Boucher got the Script Editing gig at Blake's 7? How is that Boucher's
"own vision" of Who? At any rate, what you say about Boucher is
exactly what I meant earlier about the editors of the BBC line being
the piston that's not firing, as opposed to the authors. IMO, many of
the current authors were creating an excellent continuation of the
series at Virgin. Now, those same talented people are writing books
that aren't as enjoyable to read, therefore I think it's a problem
with BBC Books and their "vision" or what have you. And to bring this
back to Jack, I think he's expressing his view of, and frustration
with, a small part of that percieved "vision".
Jonathan Blum
> > clearest example of an author who's interested in their own vision of
> > Who far more than in anyone else's history or mythos. In his three TV
> > stories and three novels, I think there's a grand total of *one*
> > reference to a story outside of Boucher's own work -- the references
> > to the Time Lords in "Fendahl" -- and I think that might be the result
> > of the script editor!
> That's a bigger irony? Maybe you're getting your definition of irony
> from Alanis Morrisette. :-) IIRC, Robert Holmes suggested to Boucher
> the subject matter for both "Face of Evil" and "Robots of Death", and
> didn't Anthony Read do serious rewrites to "Image of the Fendahl" when
> Boucher got the Script Editing gig at Blake's 7? How is that Boucher's
> "own vision" of Who?
It's true that Boucher -- as usual for Who authors -- collaborated
with the script editor throughout the development process. But the
point remains, the works which result *make practically no reference
to any other Doctor Who stories*... which according to various things
said in these threads in the past, is a sign of profound authorial
arrogance and disrespect for the past when the EDA authors do it. :-)
> At any rate, what you say about Boucher is
> exactly what I meant earlier about the editors of the BBC line being
> the piston that's not firing, as opposed to the authors. IMO, many of
> the current authors were creating an excellent continuation of the
> series at Virgin. Now, those same talented people are writing books
> that aren't as enjoyable to read, therefore I think it's a problem
> with BBC Books and their "vision" or what have you.
But Chris Boucher is doing the *exact same thing* he was doing when he
was writing the show -- getting on with his own story and not paying
any attention to anyone else's! Why was it kosher then and a sign of
editorial incompetence now? Especially when you consider that, since
he's not writing an EDA, he's not even trying to follow the EDA
guidelines which Jack was complaining about. :-) If you compare
"Last Man Running" with "Psi-ence Fiction", you won't see a visible
change of direction, despite one being produced under the (supposedly)
continuity-crazed Steve Cole editorship and one under the (supposedly)
continuity-hating Justin Richards one.
Cheers,
Jon Blum
Cameron Mason
"ZC TGS" <pri...@spam.junk> wrote in message
news:ua6j8v4m4igns534g...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> Nah, that's nothing... Go read Terrence Dicks Virgin/BBC novels....
If we all recycled like Terrance Dicks, the world would be a better place...
Cameron
--
New Laptop, New Signatures
http://members.fortunecity.com/masomika/
http://members.fortunecity.com/jpcovers/
Lance Parkin
wrote:
No, the biggest irony is that people think that Terrance Dicks
is Mr Defender Of All That Is Traditional And Whoish. His first
six months on Doctor Who and he basically tipped over everything
that had been established before: got rid of all the companions,
helped establish UNIT, took the Doctor's TARDIS away, regenerated
him, was there when the annual episode total halved, completely
restructured the storytelling into shorter stories and introduced
the Time Lords. The Ancestor Cell, Lawrence Miles, the Earth arc -
we should take a look at Terrance! In thirty plus years of writing for
the series, no-one has done as much to 'pervert' continuity. The
1971 series bears almost no relationship at all to the 1969 one.
Lance
Brett O'Callaghan
>No, the biggest irony is that people think that Terrance Dicks
>is Mr Defender Of All That Is Traditional And Whoish. His first
>six months on Doctor Who and he basically tipped over everything
>that had been established before:
32 years ago Lance, 32 years ago. I think it's conceivable to think
that "Terrance Dicks is Mr Defender Of All That Is Traditional And
Whoish" based on things he's done since, well, after I was born!
SKMDC
> >clearest example of an author who's interested in their own vision of
> >Who far more than in anyone else's history or mythos. In his three TV
> >stories and three novels, I think there's a grand total of *one*
> >reference to a story outside of Boucher's own work -- the references
> >to the Time Lords in "Fendahl" -- and I think that might be the result
> >of the script editor!
>
> No, the biggest irony is that people think that Terrance Dicks
> is Mr Defender Of All That Is Traditional And Whoish. His first
> six months on Doctor Who and he basically tipped over everything
> that had been established before: got rid of all the companions,
> helped establish UNIT, took the Doctor's TARDIS away, regenerated
> him, was there when the annual episode total halved, completely
> restructured the storytelling into shorter stories and introduced
> the Time Lords. The Ancestor Cell, Lawrence Miles, the Earth arc -
> we should take a look at Terrance! In thirty plus years of writing for
> the series, no-one has done as much to 'pervert' continuity. The
> 1971 series bears almost no relationship at all to the 1969 one.
Hear, hear! I think the powers that be behind the BBC line of books
*should* take a look at Terrence and study how he managed to make so
many changes without sacrificing the tone and quality of the show. The
fact he made all those changes successfully is a testament to his
knowledge of what makes Who Who.
Ian Moore
(Lance Parkin) wrote:
>No, the biggest irony is that people think that Terrance Dicks
>is Mr Defender Of All That Is Traditional And Whoish. His first
>six months on Doctor Who and he basically tipped over everything
>that had been established before: got rid of all the companions,
>helped establish UNIT, took the Doctor's TARDIS away, regenerated
>him, was there when the annual episode total halved, completely
>restructured the storytelling into shorter stories and introduced
>the Time Lords. The Ancestor Cell, Lawrence Miles, the Earth arc -
>we should take a look at Terrance! In thirty plus years of writing for
>the series, no-one has done as much to 'pervert' continuity. The
>1971 series bears almost no relationship at all to the 1969 one.
>
Agreed up to a point, but am I the only one who thinks that 1971 Who
is *exactly* the same as 1969 Who, in all the ways that matter anyway.
--
Regards
Ian
The Doctor Formerly Known As Spong
SKMDC
> > from Alanis Morrisette. :-) IIRC, Robert Holmes suggested to Boucher
> > the subject matter for both "Face of Evil" and "Robots of Death", and
> > didn't Anthony Read do serious rewrites to "Image of the Fendahl" when
> > Boucher got the Script Editing gig at Blake's 7? How is that Boucher's
> > "own vision" of Who?
>
> It's true that Boucher -- as usual for Who authors -- collaborated
> with the script editor throughout the development process. But the
> point remains, the works which result *make practically no reference
> to any other Doctor Who stories*... which according to various things
> said in these threads in the past, is a sign of profound authorial
> arrogance and disrespect for the past when the EDA authors do it. :-)
Fair enough. I'm not going to argue that only stories with references
to earlier stories are worth a damn. In fact, too much past-love
smacks of fanfic. What I will argue is that there is a fundamental
problem with the EDAs in the way they approach the DW Universe, and
some of that has to do with a conscious shift in the tone of the
stories from the series to the books... or even from the NAs to the
EDAs. I believe that shift has as much to do with a view that the the
TV show was more "low brow", to use Jim Vowles term, than the novels.
> But Chris Boucher is doing the *exact same thing* he was doing when he
> was writing the show -- getting on with his own story and not paying
> any attention to anyone else's! Why was it kosher then and a sign of
> editorial incompetence now?
Because the producers and editors *then* were better at creating an
overall Who-product than the powers *now*. Chris Boucher *should* be
doing the exact same thing. Writers should write... then the editors
should edit, assist and help the story become a Who story, not simply
a Boucher story. It was the Script Editor's job to maintain the tone
and consistency throughout the seasons.
>Especially when you consider that, since
> he's not writing an EDA, he's not even trying to follow the EDA
> guidelines which Jack was complaining about. :-) If you compare
> "Last Man Running" with "Psi-ence Fiction", you won't see a visible
> change of direction, despite one being produced under the (supposedly)
> continuity-crazed Steve Cole editorship and one under the (supposedly)
> continuity-hating Justin Richards one.
That may be true, but I think it has to do with Boucher already having
gone through the process of Script Edited Who, and been a script
editor himself on B7. He's an "old hand" at getting Who right, and
would obviously need less supervision with getting it right now. Same
thing for Terrence.
Cameron Mason
"Brett O'Callaghan" <brettoc...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:9i4l8v878i8j0p9js...@4ax.com...
> la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:
>
> >No, the biggest irony is that people think that Terrance Dicks
> >is Mr Defender Of All That Is Traditional And Whoish. His first
> >six months on Doctor Who and he basically tipped over everything
> >that had been established before:
>
> 32 years ago Lance, 32 years ago.
So?
In the conext of its time, the change to the show's format was just as rad
as today's changes...
Lance Parkin
wrote:
>Agreed up to a point, but am I the only one who thinks that 1971 Who
>is *exactly* the same as 1969 Who, in all the ways that matter anyway.
I suspect that if the internet had been around then, then people
may have begged to differ. Possibly many of the same people who do
today ...
Lance
Jim Vowles
That's pretty much the exact same argument I've been making about the
book line and its supposedly drastically different take on Dr Who; for
me, Who has never been *about* cheesy monsters and plots that simply
rip off other sci-fi/detective/horror stories, nor even about time
travel or Time Lords....they're all just tools and toys to play with
in a playground diverse as imagination.
SKMDC
> "Brett O'Callaghan" <brettoc...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:9i4l8v878i8j0p9js...@4ax.com...
> > la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:
> >
> > >No, the biggest irony is that people think that Terrance Dicks
> > >is Mr Defender Of All That Is Traditional And Whoish. His first
> > >six months on Doctor Who and he basically tipped over everything
> > >that had been established before:
> >
> > 32 years ago Lance, 32 years ago.
>
> So?
>
> In the conext of its time, the change to the show's format was just as rad
> as today's changes...
Well, not really. The concept of taking a tv show to a series of
ongoing novels is by definition a much more "rad" (I assume you mean
radical) shift than simply messing about with the format of an
existing and ongoing television series. Step One of the TV:Novel
transition is more rad than *anything* Terrence did between Season 6
and 7.
jb...@zipworld.com.au
SKMDC <lance...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Fair enough. I'm not going to argue that only stories with references
>to earlier stories are worth a damn. In fact, too much past-love
>smacks of fanfic. What I will argue is that there is a fundamental
>problem with the EDAs in the way they approach the DW Universe, and
>some of that has to do with a conscious shift in the tone of the
>stories from the series to the books... or even from the NAs to the
>EDAs. I believe that shift has as much to do with a view that the the
>TV show was more "low brow", to use Jim Vowles term, than the novels.
I don't think it has much to do with lowbrow-ness; more to do with
contemporary-ness. Just as Malcolm Hulke in the early '70s was more
influenced by "Spearhead From Space" (and indeed more by "The Avengers"
and "Department S" and "Doomwatch") than "Marco Polo", so "Fallen Gods" is
more influenced by "Camera Obscura" and "The Burning" (and indeed by
"Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" and "Angel") than "The Time Monster".
Which isn't to say that it *isn't* influenced by "The Time Monster" at
all, in fact it definitely is, but even so... pop culture has gotten
rather more consciously sophisticated than it was thirty years ago.
>> But Chris Boucher is doing the *exact same thing* he was doing when he
>> was writing the show -- getting on with his own story and not paying
>> any attention to anyone else's! Why was it kosher then and a sign of
>> editorial incompetence now?
>Because the producers and editors *then* were better at creating an
>overall Who-product than the powers *now*. Chris Boucher *should* be
>doing the exact same thing. Writers should write... then the editors
>should edit, assist and help the story become a Who story, not simply
>a Boucher story. It was the Script Editor's job to maintain the tone
>and consistency throughout the seasons.
I don't think anyone's accusing the EDAs of not having a consistent tone
-- it's just a tone you're not fond of! (And the book editors, unlike the
TV ones, aren't in a position to maintain that consistency by writing
about 70% of each final draft themselves...)
>>Especially when you consider that, since
>> he's not writing an EDA, he's not even trying to follow the EDA
>> guidelines which Jack was complaining about. :-) If you compare
>> "Last Man Running" with "Psi-ence Fiction", you won't see a visible
>> change of direction, despite one being produced under the (supposedly)
>> continuity-crazed Steve Cole editorship and one under the (supposedly)
>> continuity-hating Justin Richards one.
>That may be true, but I think it has to do with Boucher already having
>gone through the process of Script Edited Who, and been a script
>editor himself on B7. He's an "old hand" at getting Who right, and
>would obviously need less supervision with getting it right now.
Chris worked on Who for about a year back when Jimmy Carter was President,
writing a total of maybe sixty thousand words worth of scripts,
where someone like Lance Parkin has had five or six successful Who novels
published in the past few years, or somewhere around 400,000 words. I'm
not sure which one qualifies as the "old hand" there!
Cheers,
Jon Blum
jb...@zipworld.com.au
SKMDC <lance...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Well, not really. The concept of taking a tv show to a series of
>ongoing novels is by definition a much more "rad" (I assume you mean
>radical) shift than simply messing about with the format of an
>existing and ongoing television series. Step One of the TV:Novel
>transition is more rad than *anything* Terrence did between Season 6
>and 7.
Even if you accept that as a premise (which I'm not convinced by)... look
who wrote one of the first original novels! Heck, look who'd been
transforming TV stories into novels for nearly two decades by that
point... :-)
Cheers,
Jon Blum
SKMDC
> I don't think it has much to do with lowbrow-ness; more to do with
> contemporary-ness.
That's may be true, but the attempt at contemporary-ness is what leads
to Jim's claim of the TV Series being lowbrow. His exact analogy was
fast food as compared to gourmet dining... which I have problems with.
It's more like a simple recipe handed down over generations versus a
Starbucks frapacino. Contemporary isn't always timeless.
> Just as Malcolm Hulke in the early '70s was more
> influenced by "Spearhead From Space" (and indeed more by "The Avengers"
> and "Department S" and "Doomwatch") than "Marco Polo", so "Fallen Gods" is
> more influenced by "Camera Obscura" and "The Burning" (and indeed by
> "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" and "Angel") than "The Time Monster".
>
> Which isn't to say that it *isn't* influenced by "The Time Monster" at
> all, in fact it definitely is, but even so... pop culture has gotten
> rather more consciously sophisticated than it was thirty years ago.
That's a good point, and maybe I'd have the same problems with the
series if it were still going. Still, I think appealing to a
consciously sophisticated pop culture isn't what the novels should be
trying to do.
> I don't think anyone's accusing the EDAs of not having a consistent tone
> -- it's just a tone you're not fond of! (And the book editors, unlike the
> TV ones, aren't in a position to maintain that consistency by writing
> about 70% of each final draft themselves...)
I don't mean consistent within the book line, I mean consistent with
the source material. The TV Series. I know in some cases the Script
Editors were rewriting much of the final drafts, but isn't 70% a bit
of an exageration?
> Chris worked on Who for about a year back when Jimmy Carter was President,
> writing a total of maybe sixty thousand words worth of scripts,
> where someone like Lance Parkin has had five or six successful Who novels
> published in the past few years, or somewhere around 400,000 words. I'm
> not sure which one qualifies as the "old hand" there!
I'm not sure Word Count is the criteria to judge succesful Who. In
that case, Jeri Massi on alt.drwho.creative is the "oldest hand" among
us. :)
Besides, you're kind of under-playing Boucher's experience are you
not? In addition to the work he turned in for Who, he was also the
Script Editor on Blake's 7 for the entire series was he not? Working
with Terry Nation and Robert Holmes the entire time. I think his
understanding of the tone and style of storytelling associated with
Who is obvious, and goes beyond simply counting his words.
SKMDC
> book line and its supposedly drastically different take on Dr Who; for
> me, Who has never been *about* cheesy monsters and plots that simply
> rip off other sci-fi/detective/horror stories, nor even about time
> travel or Time Lords....they're all just tools and toys to play with
> in a playground diverse as imagination.
So... if Who for you has never been *about* plots involving
monsters/scifi/detective/horror/time travel/time lords... then what is
the tv show *about* to you? You seem to have distinct views on what
makes the novels superior to the show, but what do you like about the
show itself? I'm not being sarcastic, either. I find it interesting
when I run across people that don't care for the original show, but
love the novels. I wanna know what makes them tick. "A playground as
diverse as imagination" is overstating it a bit... I've seen some
products of imagination on the web that have no place in the Who
playground. :)
SKMDC
True. However, I never said the process of taking a TV show to a
novel, or novelisation, was wholly invalid or should never be
attempted. I was merely pointing out that Uncle Terry's work on the
*tv series* couldn't be cited as "more radical" than the jumping of
mediums. Whether it's him doing it or not.
Jim Vowles
> jvo...@yahoo.com (Jim Vowles) wrote in message
> >
> > That's pretty much the exact same argument I've been making about the
> > book line and its supposedly drastically different take on Dr Who; for
> > me, Who has never been *about* cheesy monsters and plots that simply
> > rip off other sci-fi/detective/horror stories, nor even about time
> > travel or Time Lords....they're all just tools and toys to play with
> > in a playground diverse as imagination.
>
> So... if Who for you has never been *about* plots involving
> monsters/scifi/detective/horror/time travel/time lords...
That's not what I said. I said it was never about cheesy monsters and
rip-off plots. They have their place, as do time travel and Time
Lords, but none of them is vital to Doctor Who -- we've had episodes
with no space monsters, several wholly original concepts, an entire
season without the TARDIS, and no time lords at all until the Monk
shows up (and unnamed, as are the Doctor's "people" even then). That's
just on the TV show -- the books are, as Virgin once put it, broader
and deeper than the TV series simply because there's more space for
that breadth and depth.
> then what is
> the tv show *about* to you? You seem to have distinct views on what
> makes the novels superior to the show, but what do you like about the
> show itself?
I don't think the novels in general are superior to the show in
general; that said, there are books that I consider to be among the
best Who stories ever, much better than many of the TV tales. I think
the novels have potential to far outdo the show in specific ways -- by
tackling topics too tricky for the TV, by not being bound by the
special effects budget, by dealing with plots that require more than 4
or 6 episodes to play out.
Google me a bit; you'll see what I love about the TV show, and there's
plenty.
> I'm not being sarcastic, either. I find it interesting
> when I run across people that don't care for the original show, but
> love the novels. I wanna know what makes them tick.
I'm not your man, then.
> "A playground as
> diverse as imagination" is overstating it a bit...
Is it really? It's quite literally true, thanks to the Doctor's
foray(s) into the Land of Fiction.
All of time and space, all of earth's history and potential future,
all of the planets one can imagine, past and future, are available.
Not content with that, we've popped into alternate universes, e-space,
parallel timelines, and fictional settings.
If you can imagine a story in any setting, you can fit it into the
Doctor Who universe.
> I've seen some
> products of imagination on the web that have no place in the Who
> playground. :)
Me too. I don't have a problem with slash fiction, but I'm not really
a consumer of it either.
Jim Vowles
> jb...@zipworld.com.au wrote in message news:<b6gscv$a1g$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au>...
>
> > I don't think it has much to do with lowbrow-ness; more to do with
> > contemporary-ness.
>
> That's may be true, but the attempt at contemporary-ness is what leads
> to Jim's claim of the TV Series being lowbrow. His exact analogy was
> fast food as compared to gourmet dining... which I have problems with.
> It's more like a simple recipe handed down over generations versus a
> Starbucks frapacino. Contemporary isn't always timeless.
Please don't keep using that "lowbrow" comment out of context. I
didn't say that the TV series was lowbrow; I said that certain sorts
of stories were.
Besides, there's absolutely nothing *wrong* with lowbrow
entertainment, though I wouldn't have chosen that word if I'd thought
about it a bit more. It's everyday, it's not as demanding, it's
comfortable and relaxing, easily accessible, pure escapism. It has a
definite, central role in Doctor Who, or indeed any TV show. But for
every run-of-the-mill excuse for a corridor chase, there's a story
that explores something truly new; there's a Kinda for every Timelash.
You have to push the boundaries; that said, I'm not sure that there
*are* limits to what can be done in Who, unless you get away from the
core character of the Doctor and turn him into a cowardly, cruel
person. (That's distinct from showing the Doctor as fallable, capable
of fear or error or poor judgement, which is good on occasion.)
A frequent complaint by those who disparage the TV series (and I'm not
one of them) is that the cheesy effects and other production defects
ruin otherwise gripping stories. The series is guilty of that on
occasion, as well as of padding stories with needless runarounds to
fill air time or needless cliffhangers because we happen to be 22
minutes in. The novels are freed of the constraints that production
budgets, lack of rehearsal time, unexpected cast and crew changes, and
inferior technology impose on the TV series, and my own opinion is
that this should result in a generally superior product. Some people
see the cheese factor as a plus---kitschy effects and dated costumes
and concepts are a draw to them. To each his own, but that to me is
not the essence of Who; it's the essence of Ed Wood. Cheapness and
tattiness isn't a draw for me; it's not what Who's about, even if it's
one of the things that we get a chuckle or groan out of.
My enjoyment of the novels doesn't mean that I care less for the TV
series.
jb...@zipworld.com.au
>> I don't think it has much to do with lowbrow-ness; more to do with
>> contemporary-ness.
>That's may be true, but the attempt at contemporary-ness is what leads
>to Jim's claim of the TV Series being lowbrow. His exact analogy was
>fast food as compared to gourmet dining... which I have problems with.
I think we're talking about contemporary-ness in quite different senses...
Something can be of its time without being disposable; look at the way
"2001" is visibly 1968, but isn't limited by its 1968-ness.
>It's more like a simple recipe handed down over generations versus a
>Starbucks frapacino. Contemporary isn't always timeless.
Except that when you look at TV Who, often what you're looking at is a
recipe for Starbucks frappaccino that's been passed down for forty years
and *treated* like an heirloom. When it was made, Doctor Who was produced
according to the standards of thoroughly disposable television, designed
to be shown once and forgotten. The fact that a bunch of the stories
rise above these origins is a sign of alchemy and luck.
The books certainly aren't immune to constraints of time or money, but
most of them are designed to stand up to re-reading from the word go...
and when you compare the production schedule for, say, the "Keys of
Marinus" scripts (one month for about 30,000 words) with a novella like
"Fallen Gods" (5+ months for 45,000 words), there's a significant
difference. Maybe the difference between Subway and Bennigans. :-)
>> Just as Malcolm Hulke in the early '70s was more
>> influenced by "Spearhead From Space" (and indeed more by "The Avengers"
>> and "Department S" and "Doomwatch") than "Marco Polo", so "Fallen Gods" is
>> more influenced by "Camera Obscura" and "The Burning" (and indeed by
>> "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" and "Angel") than "The Time Monster".
>> Which isn't to say that it *isn't* influenced by "The Time Monster" at
>> all, in fact it definitely is, but even so... pop culture has gotten
>> rather more consciously sophisticated than it was thirty years ago.
>That's a good point, and maybe I'd have the same problems with the
>series if it were still going. Still, I think appealing to a
>consciously sophisticated pop culture isn't what the novels should be
>trying to do.
It's what the show was constantly trying to do -- the series visibly surfs
the zeitgeist from 1963 straight through 1989.
>> I don't think anyone's accusing the EDAs of not having a consistent tone
>> -- it's just a tone you're not fond of! (And the book editors, unlike the
>> TV ones, aren't in a position to maintain that consistency by writing
>> about 70% of each final draft themselves...)
>I don't mean consistent within the book line, I mean consistent with
>the source material. The TV Series.
The books are *part* of the source material -- in many ways, for the EDAs,
the most relevant part. We don't treat Doctor Who as something which
ended in 1989/1996 which we have to imitate; we're concerned with fitting
in with the ongoing series.
> I know in some cases the Script
>Editors were rewriting much of the final drafts, but isn't 70% a bit
>of an exageration?
Chris Bidmead said it was about 70% in his year; apparently he did major
rewrites on "Full Circle", "Warriors' Gate", and "Keeper of Traken", and
substantial work on things like "Leisure Hive" as well. (Apparently some
of his rewrites on "State of Decay" were reverted to the original, but
it's not clear.) Robert Holmes also had his fingerprints all over his
scripts -- each year 8-10 final draft scripts were entirely his own
material, and he made substantial additions to the others. Saward was
similar -- in season 21 he did major rewrites on "Warriors", "Awakening",
"Resurrection", "Planet of Fire", and "Twin Dilemma" -- five out of seven
stories. The next year it was only four out of six stories ("Varos" and
"Two Doctors" were the least rewritten).
>> Chris worked on Who for about a year back when Jimmy Carter was President,
>> writing a total of maybe sixty thousand words worth of scripts,
>> where someone like Lance Parkin has had five or six successful Who novels
>> published in the past few years, or somewhere around 400,000 words. I'm
>> not sure which one qualifies as the "old hand" there!
>I'm not sure Word Count is the criteria to judge succesful Who. In
>that case, Jeri Massi on alt.drwho.creative is the "oldest hand" among
>us. :)
"Successful" could cover actually getting commissioned, or coming near the
top of the DWM polls, or getting good words from the major reviewers --
all of which put Lance in a rather different league than Jeri. :-)
>Besides, you're kind of under-playing Boucher's experience are you
>not? In addition to the work he turned in for Who, he was also the
>Script Editor on Blake's 7 for the entire series was he not? Working
>with Terry Nation and Robert Holmes the entire time.
Holmes wrote about four episodes in the entire run of Blake's Seven, and
Terry almost never wrote a second draft. But I come to praise Boucher,
not to bury him -- my point is not that he doesn't know his stuff, but
that novelists like Lance who have made studying Who their life's work (as
opposed to a year or two out of their career) know it as well. And if
anything, Chris would be more likely to need editorial guidance on his
prose because "Last Man Running" was his first published *novel*, IIRC.
Cheers,
Jon Blum
Cameron Mason
"SKMDC" <lance...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6cba7a65.03040...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> True. However, I never said the process of taking a TV show to a
> novel, or novelisation, was wholly invalid or should never be
> attempted. I was merely pointing out that Uncle Terry's work on the
> *tv series* couldn't be cited as "more radical" than the jumping of
> mediums. Whether it's him doing it or not.
I was looking at shifts in overall story style rather than shifts in medium
for telling the stories...
Alan S. Wales
<snip>
>Except that when you look at TV Who, often what you're looking at is a
>recipe for Starbucks frappaccino that's been passed down for forty years
>and *treated* like an heirloom. When it was made, Doctor Who was produced
>according to the standards of thoroughly disposable television, designed
>to be shown once and forgotten. The fact that a bunch of the stories
>rise above these origins is a sign of alchemy and luck.
Oh boy. Of course you have statements by the producers and directors of the TV
show testifying that they were creating something that was designed to be
forgotten and if the stories were any good (that would be a story worth
remembering or rewatching by your definition) they were "lucky" or it was
magic.
>The books certainly aren't immune to constraints of time or money, but
>most of them are designed to stand up to re-reading from the word go...
You know, I've read a lot of crap about how the TV show is supposed to be some
weaker sister to the book line but this is appalling.
--
"When you argue with a fool be sure he is not similarly occupied."
jb...@zipworld.com.au
Alan S. Wales <powr...@aol.compost> wrote:
>> jb...@zipworld.com.au
>>Except that when you look at TV Who, often what you're looking at is a
>>recipe for Starbucks frappaccino that's been passed down for forty years
>>and *treated* like an heirloom. When it was made, Doctor Who was produced
>>according to the standards of thoroughly disposable television, designed
>>to be shown once and forgotten. The fact that a bunch of the stories
>>rise above these origins is a sign of alchemy and luck.
>Oh boy. Of course you have statements by the producers and directors of the TV
>show testifying that they were creating something that was designed to be
>forgotten
It's in the contract everyone signed in the early days: the BBC had the
rights to show each episode once in the regular run, possibly repeat it on
one occasion (which only happened once in the entire B&W era and maybe
half a dozen times in each decade after that), sell it to other countries
under similar terms... and that was it. Even if the writer was aiming for
literary immortality through their stories (and you'd find it very hard to
find quotes to that effect from anyone -- witness Terry Nation's comments
about how little he thought about his original Dalek script), the actual
episode produced was inherently ephemeral.
>>The books certainly aren't immune to constraints of time or money, but
>>most of them are designed to stand up to re-reading from the word go...
>You know, I've read a lot of crap about how the TV show is supposed to be some
>weaker sister to the book line but this is appalling.
Don't overreact. The TV show is a classic example of magic overcoming the
inherent production-line demands of series TV. The books aren't quite as
limited by these practical constraints, but that doesn't mean the series
didn't hit the same high targets as the books have managed.
Regards,
Jon Blum
SKMDC
>
> I was looking at shifts in overall story style rather than shifts in medium
> for telling the stories...
Then you were having a different conversation than me. Which is fine
and all, but the *point* I was making is that a shift in medium trumps
a shift in style in regards to the "radical-ness" of the change. You
said the changes made by Dicks during the show were more "rad" than
the changes now... I contend that cannot be the case because the mere
step of transforming to novel, regardless of story style, is a much
bigger change the creators are asking the consumers to make. The key
words there are "regardless of story style". Medium trumps story
style. You can talke about *just* the story style within novel length
prose and compare the shift from Target to Virgin to BBC, but when you
pull the TV show into the mix, then you can't then claim you weren't
"looking at" the medium.
SKMDC
> > to Jim's claim of the TV Series being lowbrow. His exact analogy was
> > fast food as compared to gourmet dining... which I have problems with.
> > It's more like a simple recipe handed down over generations versus a
> > Starbucks frapacino. Contemporary isn't always timeless.
>
> Please don't keep using that "lowbrow" comment out of context. I
> didn't say that the TV series was lowbrow; I said that certain sorts
> of stories were.
Jim Vowles: "I'd say it was a matter of taste -- to my mind, both of
them deliver workmanlike Who -- stuff that would be entertaining on
the television.
Without intending any disrespect, it's lowbrow fun for the most part
-- and that's fine. But like many readers, I like a bit more meat
with my novels than I get on TV."
Am I misinterpretting something? If I have presented these comments
"out of context" in a way that implies another meaning than the one
you intended, then I apologize.
> Besides, there's absolutely nothing *wrong* with lowbrow
> entertainment, though I wouldn't have chosen that word if I'd thought
> about it a bit more.
I agree, so why do the authors of the novels shy from the term "TV-Tie
In", which is exactly what they're writing?
>It's everyday, it's not as demanding, it's
> comfortable and relaxing, easily accessible, pure escapism.
More than that it's *accessible* in a Who kind of way.
>It has a
> definite, central role in Doctor Who, or indeed any TV show. But for
> every run-of-the-mill excuse for a corridor chase, there's a story
> that explores something truly new; there's a Kinda for every Timelash.
> You have to push the boundaries; that said, I'm not sure that there
> *are* limits to what can be done in Who, unless you get away from the
> core character of the Doctor and turn him into a cowardly, cruel
> person. (That's distinct from showing the Doctor as fallable, capable
> of fear or error or poor judgement, which is good on occasion.)
So, you could tell a hardcore erotica story as long as the Doctor was
a hero? You see, I don't think so. :)
> A frequent complaint by those who disparage the TV series (and I'm not
> one of them) is that the cheesy effects and other production defects
> ruin otherwise gripping stories. The series is guilty of that on
> occasion, as well as of padding stories with needless runarounds to
> fill air time or needless cliffhangers because we happen to be 22
> minutes in. The novels are freed of the constraints that production
> budgets, lack of rehearsal time, unexpected cast and crew changes, and
> inferior technology impose on the TV series, and my own opinion is
> that this should result in a generally superior product.
*Should* being the operative word in that sentence. What's impressive
about the series is they told gripping stories *in spite* of the
production constraints. Maybe since there are no production
contstraints on the novels, they don't have to strive as hard to tell
a gripping story, so they fall a bit shorter than the series
scriptwriters. They can fall back on the crutch of razzle dazzle and
hide the weak story. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just pointing
out that your argument can be made in the opposite direction with just
as much ease.
> My enjoyment of the novels doesn't mean that I care less for the TV
> series.
>From your posts, it does appear that your enjoyment of the novels
*exceeds* that of the TV Series. :)
SKMDC
> In article <6cba7a65.03040...@posting.google.com>,
> SKMDC <lance...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >jb...@zipworld.com.au wrote in message news:<b6gscv$a1g$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au>...
> >> I don't think it has much to do with lowbrow-ness; more to do with
> >> contemporary-ness.
>
> >That's may be true, but the attempt at contemporary-ness is what leads
> >to Jim's claim of the TV Series being lowbrow. His exact analogy was
> >fast food as compared to gourmet dining... which I have problems with.
>
> I think we're talking about contemporary-ness in quite different senses...
> Something can be of its time without being disposable; look at the way
> "2001" is visibly 1968, but isn't limited by its 1968-ness.
I think we're talking about the exact same thing. City of Death is
both contemporary and timeless. What I meant was the conscious attempt
at making the novels *more* contemporary is *causing* the novels to be
disposable.
> >It's more like a simple recipe handed down over generations versus a
> >Starbucks frapacino. Contemporary isn't always timeless.
>
> Except that when you look at TV Who, often what you're looking at is a
> recipe for Starbucks frappaccino that's been passed down for forty years
> and *treated* like an heirloom. When it was made, Doctor Who was produced
> according to the standards of thoroughly disposable television, designed
> to be shown once and forgotten. The fact that a bunch of the stories
> rise above these origins is a sign of alchemy and luck.
Alchemy and luck? That's your assesment of the success formula for the
TV series? The fact the TV Series was made as a "disposable" medium
has as much to do with the quality as the word count. :) Incidentally,
many many many different writers, producers, and directors managed to
find that "luck".
>
> The books certainly aren't immune to constraints of time or money, but
> most of them are designed to stand up to re-reading from the word go...
How's that? I'm much more inclined to rewatch a TV show than reread a
novel. There's a few novels read over and over; Tolkein, Stephenson,
Fleming... but for a TV Tie-In paperback range?
> and when you compare the production schedule for, say, the "Keys of
> Marinus" scripts (one month for about 30,000 words) with a novella like
> "Fallen Gods" (5+ months for 45,000 words), there's a significant
> difference. Maybe the difference between Subway and Bennigans. :-)
There we go with word count again. Please explain to me how more words
= greater quality. Of all the arguments, this seems the weakest and
frankly the most laughable. It makes writing novels sound like a
school assignment.
> >That's a good point, and maybe I'd have the same problems with the
> >series if it were still going. Still, I think appealing to a
> >consciously sophisticated pop culture isn't what the novels should be
> >trying to do.
>
> It's what the show was constantly trying to do -- the series visibly surfs
> the zeitgeist from 1963 straight through 1989.
Which is why I said I would possibly have the same feelings for the TV
series as I do for the novels if it was still going on. Personally, I
think Star Trek:TNG is vastly inferior and more *dated* than the
Original Series. So maybe I'm just an old fogey and think all this
newfangled Sci-Fi is crackers. :) However, I still think that the TV
series never 'surfed the zeitgeist' to the point that it got in the
way of the stories being DW.
> >I don't mean consistent within the book line, I mean consistent with
> >the source material. The TV Series.
>
> The books are *part* of the source material -- in many ways, for the EDAs,
> the most relevant part. We don't treat Doctor Who as something which
> ended in 1989/1996 which we have to imitate; we're concerned with fitting
> in with the ongoing series.
No. The source material is the 26 years of televised Who. I'm not
saying imitate the TV Series. On a bad day I might argue that the
novels should imitate the Target books, but not today. :) Why is it
imitation to recognize the fact that the TV series it the source
material? In order to fit in with an ongoing series, you *must* fit in
with the TV show. Otherwise you're working on a "What if?" or
"Unbound" series that has no validity within the context of the
original show.
> >I'm not sure Word Count is the criteria to judge succesful Who. In
> >that case, Jeri Massi on alt.drwho.creative is the "oldest hand" among
> >us. :)
>
> "Successful" could cover actually getting commissioned, or coming near the
> top of the DWM polls, or getting good words from the major reviewers --
> all of which put Lance in a rather different league than Jeri. :-)
If you recognise that other factors lead to successful stories besides
the number of words, then I suppose Boucher may indeed be in a
different league than Lance.
> But I come to praise Boucher,
> not to bury him -- my point is not that he doesn't know his stuff, but
> that novelists like Lance who have made studying Who their life's work (as
> opposed to a year or two out of their career) know it as well. And if
> anything, Chris would be more likely to need editorial guidance on his
> prose because "Last Man Running" was his first published *novel*, IIRC.
Okay, a couple of points here... One, I'm not sure people who have
"made studying Who their life's work" should be let out on the
streets, much less allowed to write a novel. ;) Seriously though,
using the level of fandom of the show is about as good a barometer for
quality as simply counting words. Second, I'll concede that Boucher
may need more editorial guidance on his prose than an experiences
novelist, but that's not even close to what we were discussing. We
were discussing the editorial guidance on *story development*. Surely
those two aspects are completely different. If the novel editors are
*only* concerned with prose style and grammar, then that could be the
problem right there!
Jonathan Blum
> jb...@zipworld.com.au wrote in message news:<b6m3g8$grr$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au>...
> > In article <6cba7a65.03040...@posting.google.com>,
> > SKMDC <lance...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >jb...@zipworld.com.au wrote in message news:<b6gscv$a1g$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au>...
> > >> I don't think it has much to do with lowbrow-ness; more to do with
> > >> contemporary-ness.
> > >That's may be true, but the attempt at contemporary-ness is what leads
> > >to Jim's claim of the TV Series being lowbrow. His exact analogy was
> > >fast food as compared to gourmet dining... which I have problems with.
> > I think we're talking about contemporary-ness in quite different senses...
> > Something can be of its time without being disposable; look at the way
> > "2001" is visibly 1968, but isn't limited by its 1968-ness.
> I think we're talking about the exact same thing. City of Death is
> both contemporary and timeless. What I meant was the conscious attempt
> at making the novels *more* contemporary is *causing* the novels to be
> disposable.
Again, I can't really see that in this case. The "contemporary"
approach of the novels looks to me like the same sort of thing which
distinguishes "City of Death" from "Marco Polo": more sophisticated
storytelling techniques (the abstract-ness of the "The centuries that
divide me shall be undone!" scene, the greater emphasis on Scarlioni's
characterization), faster pace and more use of shorthand for a savvy
audience (count the number of sets and scenes in each episode, look at
the way in which "City" doesn't bother showing the TARDIS arriving,
note the un-emphasized in-jokes surrounding Bulldog Duggan), greater
use of homage (both to caper movies and to the *real* attempt to steal
the Mona Lisa early last century), and radical changes in assumed
capability of the storytelling (taking for granted a large-scale
location shoot which would have been unthinkable to the production
team of 1963).
> > >It's more like a simple recipe handed down over generations versus a
> > >Starbucks frapacino. Contemporary isn't always timeless.
> > Except that when you look at TV Who, often what you're looking at is a
> > recipe for Starbucks frappaccino that's been passed down for forty years
> > and *treated* like an heirloom. When it was made, Doctor Who was produced
> > according to the standards of thoroughly disposable television, designed
> > to be shown once and forgotten. The fact that a bunch of the stories
> > rise above these origins is a sign of alchemy and luck.
> Alchemy and luck? That's your assesment of the success formula for the
> TV series? The fact the TV Series was made as a "disposable" medium
> has as much to do with the quality as the word count. :)
I think it has more to do with that; how many of the people involved
in the making of "The Chase" thought they were doing quality TV, and
how many were treating it as a here-and-gone cash-in on Dalekmania
before it died out?
> Incidentally,
> many many many different writers, producers, and directors managed to
> find that "luck".
Oh, certainly -- but many didn't. Look at the first production block;
there are episodes of outright genius, like Christopher Barry's debut
Dalek episodes, next to the plodding pedestrianism of the caveman eps.
Or the four polished scripts of "The Aztecs" nestled between twelve
weeks of largely mindless quickies in "Marinus" and "Sensorites". And
in other cases, some peoples' high level of skill and effort covers
for other people who simply aren't sparking... do you really think
the set designer of "The Sea Devils" saw his aim as being to create an
atmospheric masterpiece?
TV Who, like all production-line creativity (including the books), was
inherently hit-and-miss; the fact that it hit as often as it did
depended on a the abilities of a scattering of talented individuals,
not on something which inherently makes TV better than books.
> > The books certainly aren't immune to constraints of time or money, but
> > most of them are designed to stand up to re-reading from the word go...
> How's that? I'm much more inclined to rewatch a TV show than reread a
> novel. There's a few novels read over and over; Tolkein, Stephenson,
> Fleming... but for a TV Tie-In paperback range?
Well, that's you. But when I'm creating the thing, I'm holding it to
a higher standard than that. Certainly no less of a standard than
Fleming's crafted pulp thrillers.
> > and when you compare the production schedule for, say, the "Keys of
> > Marinus" scripts (one month for about 30,000 words) with a novella like
> > "Fallen Gods" (5+ months for 45,000 words), there's a significant
> > difference. Maybe the difference between Subway and Bennigans. :-)
> There we go with word count again. Please explain to me how more words
> = greater quality.
That's not what I'm saying; the important bit of that is the *time*
spent on the story, and the word-count figures are just there to allow
you to adjust the amout of time for the different lengths. If Terry
Nation had to do 7,500 words a week, and Kate and I had to do maybe
2,200 words a week, who was more likely to have the time to polish and
refine their work?
> Which is why I said I would possibly have the same feelings for the TV
> series as I do for the novels if it was still going on. Personally, I
> think Star Trek:TNG is vastly inferior and more *dated* than the
> Original Series. So maybe I'm just an old fogey and think all this
> newfangled Sci-Fi is crackers. :) However, I still think that the TV
> series never 'surfed the zeitgeist' to the point that it got in the
> way of the stories being DW.
The zeitgeist in 1970 featured ITV action shows like "The Avengers"
and "Department S", and this coincided with the show scrapping the
TARDIS and stranding a dandified Doctor on Earth with government ties
and a brainy yet leggy older assistant. I'm not sure what bits of
"being DW" survived that transition which haven't survived the recent
books!
> > The books are *part* of the source material -- in many ways, for the EDAs,
> > the most relevant part. We don't treat Doctor Who as something which
> > ended in 1989/1996 which we have to imitate; we're concerned with fitting
> > in with the ongoing series.
> No. The source material is the 26 years of televised Who. I'm not
> saying imitate the TV Series. On a bad day I might argue that the
> novels should imitate the Target books, but not today. :) Why is it
> imitation to recognize the fact that the TV series it the source
> material? In order to fit in with an ongoing series, you *must* fit in
> with the TV show. Otherwise you're working on a "What if?" or
> "Unbound" series that has no validity within the context of the
> original show.
You say I *must*, I say no. You're treating that as a premise, but
I'm starting from a different one. For me, the source material
includes 26+ years of TV, twelve years of novels, three of audios, and
if the wind's blowing right things like comic strips as well. It's
all grist for the mill.
> > "Successful" could cover actually getting commissioned, or coming near the
> > top of the DWM polls, or getting good words from the major reviewers --
> > all of which put Lance in a rather different league than Jeri. :-)
> If you recognise that other factors lead to successful stories besides
> the number of words, then I suppose Boucher may indeed be in a
> different league than Lance.
Chris has one story in the top ten of the DWM all-of-TV poll. That
same month, Lance had three in the top ten of the DWM all-the-books
poll. I don't see this as a profound difference in success...
> > But I come to praise Boucher,
> > not to bury him -- my point is not that he doesn't know his stuff, but
> > that novelists like Lance who have made studying Who their life's work (as
> > opposed to a year or two out of their career) know it as well. And if
> > anything, Chris would be more likely to need editorial guidance on his
> > prose because "Last Man Running" was his first published *novel*, IIRC.
> Okay, a couple of points here... One, I'm not sure people who have
> "made studying Who their life's work" should be let out on the
> streets, much less allowed to write a novel. ;) Seriously though,
> using the level of fandom of the show is about as good a barometer for
> quality as simply counting words.
I thought your point was that the books needed to be consciously aware
of what the Who "source material" was so they could conform to it? In
which case, who's more aware -- someone whose expertise is confined to
three TV stories, or who has an awareness of Who's breadth and depth
across the entirety of its run?
> Second, I'll concede that Boucher
> may need more editorial guidance on his prose than an experiences
> novelist, but that's not even close to what we were discussing. We
> were discussing the editorial guidance on *story development*. Surely
> those two aspects are completely different.
If you want to talk story development, Lance Parkin has more TV
storylining experience now than Chris Boucher did when he was writing
for Who...
> If the novel editors are
> *only* concerned with prose style and grammar, then that could be the
> problem right there!
Cute, but not quite -- you'll notice that the reviews of Boucher's
first two books both point out things like rushed endings and dropped
plot threads, which are part of his unfamiliarity with the demands of
cranking out a novel. The practicalities of doing a novel are
distinctly different from scriptwriting -- especially when your
scripts were produced under the eye of Robert "if you go fast enough
they won't notice the plot holes" Holmes! :-)
Cheers,
Jon Blum
SKMDC
> approach of the novels looks to me like the same sort of thing which
But how is comparing two TV stories proving anything about the novels?
I've already conceded that something can be contemporary yet
timeless... i.e. City of Death. My argument is the novels, in the
unsubtle attempt at being contemporary are missing the mark on other
things that make the stories distinctly Who. In other words, it all
goes back to my contention that the editors in charge of the novels
don't do as good a job as the ol' Script Editors.
> > Alchemy and luck? That's your assesment of the success formula for the
> > TV series? The fact the TV Series was made as a "disposable" medium
> > has as much to do with the quality as the word count. :)
>
> I think it has more to do with that; how many of the people involved
> in the making of "The Chase" thought they were doing quality TV, and
> how many were treating it as a here-and-gone cash-in on Dalekmania
> before it died out?
How does the perceived longevity of the art have anything to do with
the quality of the final product? What is a more valuable work of art,
a sandcastle or a bit of bathroom graphiti? Maybe the problem with the
novels is there is too much of a conscious attempt to create something
non-disposable. If the novels were serialised in issues of DWM, would
the fact that they were appearing in a "disposable" magazine medium
mean the authors would use less skill or offer less effort in writing?
Like the "word count" argument, the fact that the original creators
didn't plan on the shows lasting forever has absolutely nothing to do
with the quality of the product.
> Look at the first production block;
> there are episodes of outright genius, like Christopher Barry's debut
> Dalek episodes, next to the plodding pedestrianism of the caveman eps.
> Or the four polished scripts of "The Aztecs" nestled between twelve
> weeks of largely mindless quickies in "Marinus" and "Sensorites". And
> in other cases, some peoples' high level of skill and effort covers
> for other people who simply aren't sparking... do you really think
> the set designer of "The Sea Devils" saw his aim as being to create an
> atmospheric masterpiece?
Maybe the people with high levels of skills at BBC Books are failing
to cover for the ones who aren't sparking. It all goes back to the
editiing process. Furthermore, I rather like "Keys of Marinus" and
take issue with the desription "mindless quickies". At the very least
Keys was a template for Season 16 and Season 23.
> TV Who, like all production-line creativity (including the books), was
> inherently hit-and-miss; the fact that it hit as often as it did
> depended on a the abilities of a scattering of talented individuals,
> not on something which inherently makes TV better than books.
I never said there was something that made TV inherently better than
books. The fact that the TV show hit as much as it did is evidence of
a something central to the makeup of the show that traversed
producers/directors/writers/actors. The fact that the BBC books miss
as often as they do is evidence that the book editors have lost this
central something. Who can be done extremely well in prose form. David
Whitaker's novelisation of "The Daleks" is evidence of that. Many of
the NAs are evidence as well, Set Peice, Love and War, Blood
Harvest...
> But when I'm creating the thing, I'm holding it to
> a higher standard than that. Certainly no less of a standard than
> Fleming's crafted pulp thrillers.
Fleming crafted pulp thrillers that were eventually recognized as
classics, like Burrough's Tarzan books, but neither of them set out to
create something more than a read and throw away adventure stories.
They had no delusions of creating classics of Western Literature. Do
the Who authors and editors believe their work is of a higher standard
than Fleming or Burroughs?
> That's not what I'm saying; the important bit of that is the *time*
> spent on the story, and the word-count figures are just there to allow
> you to adjust the amout of time for the different lengths. If Terry
> Nation had to do 7,500 words a week, and Kate and I had to do maybe
> 2,200 words a week, who was more likely to have the time to polish and
> refine their work?
Ok, I honestly don't know. :) Are you saying you and Kate spend *more*
time or *less* time than Terry Nation on polishing and refining your
work. Does more words per week mean more time for polishing or less
time for polishing, or is it that you and Kate are 2 people instead of
just 1 and therefore have more time for polishing or since you're
writing less words per week, you're spending less time on the work...
I lost you somewhere in the middle of the mathematical formula you
evidently use to quantify art. And let me be clear that I'm not
pointing any fingers at you or Kate or Lance or any of the writers. As
you should be able to tell from my arguments, I think there's a
problem at the editorial level, not the creative...
> The zeitgeist in 1970 featured ITV action shows like "The Avengers"
> and "Department S", and this coincided with the show scrapping the
> TARDIS and stranding a dandified Doctor on Earth with government ties
> and a brainy yet leggy older assistant. I'm not sure what bits of
> "being DW" survived that transition which haven't survived the recent
> books!
Oh dear. Back to Season 7. If Season 7 hadn't occured there would be
so little to talk about, eh? ;) Once again... Season 7 wasn't *that*
big a change. The process was still there that led to distinctly Who
stories. Is "Inferno" really that different than "The War Machines"?
I'm not sure what bits of "being DW" are missing from the novels
either. If I knew that I would definitely let everyone know! However,
I think Jack Beven, when starting his thread on Camera Obsura, was
simply stating what he saw as one of the problems with the novels and
their respect for the original series. I'm not even sure I completely
agree with Jack, but it irks me to see him jumped on for *attempting*
to find out why the novels don't work anymore. I can't speak of the
recent novels, because as I've mentioned The Turing Test was when I
finally got off the bus.
> > No. The source material is the 26 years of televised Who. I'm not
> > saying imitate the TV Series. On a bad day I might argue that the
> > novels should imitate the Target books, but not today. :) Why is it
> > imitation to recognize the fact that the TV series it the source
> > material? In order to fit in with an ongoing series, you *must* fit in
> > with the TV show. Otherwise you're working on a "What if?" or
> > "Unbound" series that has no validity within the context of the
> > original show.
>
> You say I *must*, I say no. You're treating that as a premise, but
> I'm starting from a different one. For me, the source material
> includes 26+ years of TV, twelve years of novels, three of audios, and
> if the wind's blowing right things like comic strips as well. It's
> all grist for the mill.
If *everything* is source material, then *nothing* is source material.
Don't you see that? When I say "source material" I'm not making a
value judgement. I'm using an accurate description that's not up for
debate. The TV Show is the source material for the DW novels. Just as
the Fleming books are source material for the Bond films. Even the
current films that are no longer based on any actual Fleming books.
How you want to treat the source material is debateable ad naseum...
as we're currently proving. :)
> > If you recognise that other factors lead to successful stories besides
> > the number of words, then I suppose Boucher may indeed be in a
> > different league than Lance.
>
> Chris has one story in the top ten of the DWM all-of-TV poll. That
> same month, Lance had three in the top ten of the DWM all-the-books
> poll. I don't see this as a profound difference in success...
It's really good that you don't see DWM polls as a relevant gauge of
artistic success.
> I thought your point was that the books needed to be consciously aware
> of what the Who "source material" was so they could conform to it? In
> which case, who's more aware -- someone whose expertise is confined to
> three TV stories, or who has an awareness of Who's breadth and depth
> across the entirety of its run?
Nice flip of the argument there again. Did Boucher really only ever
watch his 3 stories? Who's more aware of the source material, someone
whose expertise is confined to watching episodes and writing TV tie-in
novels or someone who actually wrote 3 of the stories from the source
material for those novels? My point here, in case you're still not
sure, was that for the most part the novels don't recognize the TV
show as source material, as you have proudly admitted, and I believe
they should. Whether you know how many moles were on Tegan's left knee
doesn't matter a whit if you're starting from a point that dismisses
the source material as disposable.
> If you want to talk story development, Lance Parkin has more TV
> storylining experience now than Chris Boucher did when he was writing
> for Who...
I heard a "so there, bleh!" at the end of that sentence. :) Okay, when
did this turn into a Lance vs. Chris argument? Have I somehow led you
to believe I have a problem with Lance? ...I come to praise Parkin,
not to bury him... :)
> you'll notice that the reviews of Boucher's
> first two books both point out things like rushed endings and dropped
> plot threads, which are part of his unfamiliarity with the demands of
> cranking out a novel. The practicalities of doing a novel are
> distinctly different from scriptwriting -- especially when your
> scripts were produced under the eye of Robert "if you go fast enough
> they won't notice the plot holes" Holmes! :-)
Now he's havin' a go at Holmes! What'll it be next the birdies?
Do we really want to start talking about book reviews? I'm sure I can
scour the web and find plenty of ammo for that if need be. At any
rate, regardless of your obvious disdain for Robert Holmes and Chris
Boucher's work, I feel very confident in saying that they produced
some of the best DW. It worries me to see the current creators
attempting to undermine the ones that have come before in some "pull
down the statues of Lenin" kind of Oedipal rage. Admitting that the
original series is the source from where the current books spring
doesn't undermine the validity or quality of the books! Why does
Holmes have to be a hack for Parkin to be a genius? I don't get that.
Alan S. Wales
<snip excellent discussion>
>At any
>rate, regardless of your obvious disdain for Robert Holmes and Chris
>Boucher's work, I feel very confident in saying that they produced
>some of the best DW. It worries me to see the current creators
>attempting to undermine the ones that have come before in some "pull
>down the statues of Lenin" kind of Oedipal rage. Admitting that the
>original series is the source from where the current books spring
>doesn't undermine the validity or quality of the books! Why does
>Holmes have to be a hack for Parkin to be a genius? I don't get that.
Yet another person who has discovered one of Jon's argument techniques. In
order to make that part of Who that he adores look better, he has to drag down
some other part of Who.
SKMDC
> rip-off plots. They have their place, as do time travel and Time
> Lords, but none of them is vital to Doctor Who --
I disagree.
> we've had episodes
> with no space monsters, several wholly original concepts, an entire
> season without the TARDIS,
Which season was that?
> and no time lords at all until the Monk
> shows up (and unnamed, as are the Doctor's "people" even then).
The Doctor and Susan. That's 2 more than none.
>That's
> just on the TV show -- the books are, as Virgin once put it, broader
> and deeper than the TV series simply because there's more space for
> that breadth and depth.
Broader and deeper implies encompassing. I think the term "a galaxy
far far away" fits better. Besides, I've only been talking about the
BBC books in this thread. I actually quite liked many of the NAs and
don't think they suffer the same pretention and lack of vision that
many of the BBC books do.
>
> > then what is
> > the tv show *about* to you? You seem to have distinct views on what
> > makes the novels superior to the show, but what do you like about the
> > show itself?
>
> I don't think the novels in general are superior to the show in
> general; that said, there are books that I consider to be among the
> best Who stories ever, much better than many of the TV tales. I think
> the novels have potential to far outdo the show in specific ways -- by
> tackling topics too tricky for the TV, by not being bound by the
> special effects budget, by dealing with plots that require more than 4
> or 6 episodes to play out.
Again, I'm crystal clear on the plethora of things you believe the
books can do better than the show. I'm just unclear on if you think
the show can do *anything* better than a novel. If not, then why
bother watching the show?
> Google me a bit; you'll see what I love about the TV show, and there's
> plenty.
That's an answer? I'm starting to feel like Beven now. :)
> > I've seen some
> > products of imagination on the web that have no place in the Who
> > playground. :)
>
> Me too. I don't have a problem with slash fiction, but I'm not really
> a consumer of it either.
But should slash fiction be a part of the official DW novel or audio
line?
Jonathan Blum
> jb...@zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum) wrote in message news:<75d9a022.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > lance...@yahoo.com (SKMDC) wrote in message
> > Again, I can't really see that in this case. The "contemporary"
> > approach of the novels looks to me like the same sort of thing which
> > distinguishes "City of Death" from "Marco Polo": [snip]
> But how is comparing two TV stories proving anything about the novels?
Because every one of the points I mentioned is a direct analogy for
the novels developing along the same lines: more sophisticated
storytelling techniques, faster pace and more use of shorthand for a
savvy
audience, greater use of homage, and radical changes in assumed
capability of the storytelling.
> > I think it has more to do with that; how many of the people involved
> > in the making of "The Chase" thought they were doing quality TV, and
> > how many were treating it as a here-and-gone cash-in on Dalekmania
> > before it died out?
> How does the perceived longevity of the art have anything to do with
> the quality of the final product?
You're the one who brought up the Starbucks analogy, with all its
connotations of disposability versus care and craft.
More later, gotta run,
Jon
Jonathan Blum
> >lance...@yahoo.com (SKMDC)
> >At any
> >rate, regardless of your obvious disdain for Robert Holmes and Chris
> >Boucher's work,
> Yet another person who has discovered one of Jon's argument techniques. In
> order to make that part of Who that he adores look better, he has to drag down
> some other part of Who.
Ah, the sheer disdain of saying "I don't think that author is
significantly better than this REALLY GOOD AUTHOR".
Please don't distort my words, Alan.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
> jb...@zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum) wrote in message news:<75d9a022.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > lance...@yahoo.com (SKMDC) wrote in message
> Like the "word count" argument, the fact that the original creators
> didn't plan on the shows lasting forever has absolutely nothing to do
> with the quality of the product.
You didn't understand my "word count" argument, and simply saying that
it's got "nothing to do with the quality" doesn't make that the case.
I think it's obvious on its face that if you think people are going to
be scrutinizing your work closely, you'll put in more effort to be
sure that it will stand up to that scrutiny.
> > Look at the first production block;
> > there are episodes of outright genius, like Christopher Barry's debut
> > Dalek episodes, next to the plodding pedestrianism of the caveman eps.
> > Or the four polished scripts of "The Aztecs" nestled between twelve
> > weeks of largely mindless quickies in "Marinus" and "Sensorites". And
> > in other cases, some peoples' high level of skill and effort covers
> > for other people who simply aren't sparking... do you really think
> > the set designer of "The Sea Devils" saw his aim as being to create an
> > atmospheric masterpiece?
> Maybe the people with high levels of skills at BBC Books are failing
> to cover for the ones who aren't sparking. It all goes back to the
> editiing process. Furthermore, I rather like "Keys of Marinus" and
> take issue with the desription "mindless quickies". At the very least
> Keys was a template for Season 16 and Season 23.
(Quick aside: that's fan rationalization. Can you give me any
evidence that Graham Williams or Anthony Read had paid any attention
to the existence of "Keys of Marinus" when they came up with their own
idea?)
Whether or not you like "Marinus", it's a fact that it was a
last-minute filler script cranked out at high speed. Yes, you like
it, but you're claiming that it's somehow *better* than what the
people at BBC Books are doing. I dispute that. Please point to how.
> > TV Who, like all production-line creativity (including the books), was
> > inherently hit-and-miss; the fact that it hit as often as it did
> > depended on a the abilities of a scattering of talented individuals,
> > not on something which inherently makes TV better than books.
> I never said there was something that made TV inherently better than
> books. The fact that the TV show hit as much as it did is evidence of
> a something central to the makeup of the show that traversed
> producers/directors/writers/actors. The fact that the BBC books miss
> as often as they do is evidence that the book editors have lost this
> central something.
There's no fact, just your opinion. The "something central", I think,
tends to come down to a few talented people. If all you're really
saying is that you like Robert Holmes and Rebecca Levene as editors
and you don't like Justin Richards as an editor, that's fine -- it's
when you generalize from that that you fall down.
> Who can be done extremely well in prose form. David
> Whitaker's novelisation of "The Daleks" is evidence of that. Many of
> the NAs are evidence as well, Set Peice, Love and War, Blood
> Harvest...
I'm glad we agree on that. I'd easily add half a dozen of Justin's
EDA's to that list of the best of the best.
> > But when I'm creating the thing, I'm holding it to
> > a higher standard than that. Certainly no less of a standard than
> > Fleming's crafted pulp thrillers.
> Fleming crafted pulp thrillers that were eventually recognized as
> classics, like Burrough's Tarzan books, but neither of them set out to
> create something more than a read and throw away adventure stories.
> They had no delusions of creating classics of Western Literature. Do
> the Who authors and editors believe their work is of a higher standard
> than Fleming or Burroughs?
Put the goalposts down; you're the one who contrasted "mere TV tie-in
paperbacks" as being *less* likely to be re-read than Fleming's pulp,
so therefore they shouldn't be crafted with even *that* much of an eye
to re-reading.
And comparing Lloyd Rose to Ian Fleming is like comparing chocolate
mousse to steak. Really, which one is the higher standard?
> > That's not what I'm saying; the important bit of that is the *time*
> > spent on the story, and the word-count figures are just there to allow
> > you to adjust the amout of time for the different lengths. If Terry
> > Nation had to do 7,500 words a week, and Kate and I had to do maybe
> > 2,200 words a week, who was more likely to have the time to polish and
> > refine their work?
> Ok, I honestly don't know. :) Are you saying you and Kate spend *more*
> time or *less* time than Terry Nation on polishing and refining your
> work. Does more words per week mean more time for polishing or less
> time for polishing,
More words per week means you have to do more writing in the same
amount of time. That means you have less time to spend on getting the
writing right. Do you see what I'm getting at now?
> I lost you somewhere in the middle of the mathematical formula you
> evidently use to quantify art.
You've grabbed the wrong end of the stick again. The numbers were
just an example to reinforce the general principle: if you're dashing
something off at high speeds without time to think, you're far more
likely to produce hackwork than art.
> > The zeitgeist in 1970 featured ITV action shows like "The Avengers"
> > and "Department S", and this coincided with the show scrapping the
> > TARDIS and stranding a dandified Doctor on Earth with government ties
> > and a brainy yet leggy older assistant. I'm not sure what bits of
> > "being DW" survived that transition which haven't survived the recent
> > books!
> Oh dear. Back to Season 7. If Season 7 hadn't occured there would be
> so little to talk about, eh? ;) Once again... Season 7 wasn't *that*
> big a change. The process was still there that led to distinctly Who
> stories. Is "Inferno" really that different than "The War Machines"?
Aside from the opening credits, what can you point to that they have
in common? Everything from the Doctor's role (absent-minded professor
versus dandified action hero) to the style of his companions to the
TARDIS (which does things in "Inferno" which it's never done before or
since) has changed radically.
> I'm not even sure I completely
> agree with Jack, but it irks me to see him jumped on for *attempting*
> to find out why the novels don't work anymore.
As people have said already, he hasn't been jumped on for disagreeing
-- but for disagreeing *in ignorance*, repeatedly, for several years
running without a break.
> > You say I *must*, I say no. You're treating that as a premise, but
> > I'm starting from a different one. For me, the source material
> > includes 26+ years of TV, twelve years of novels, three of audios, and
> > if the wind's blowing right things like comic strips as well. It's
> > all grist for the mill.
> If *everything* is source material, then *nothing* is source material.
> Don't you see that?
Erm, no.
If the source material is "Doctor Who", then all the bits of Doctor
Who can be part of the source material. That actually seems like a
pretty clear dividing line, between things that *are* called Doctor
Who and things which *aren't* called Doctor Who.
> When I say "source material" I'm not making a
> value judgement. I'm using an accurate description that's not up for
> debate. The TV Show is the source material for the DW novels.
Yes, and so are the books, and pretty much everything else with the
"Doctor Who" name on it. Of course, as a writer, my concept of
"source material" also extends to everything from "Frankenstein" to
"Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" to "The Importance Of Being Earnest",
but that's a separate subject.
> > > If you recognise that other factors lead to successful stories besides
> > > the number of words, then I suppose Boucher may indeed be in a
> > > different league than Lance.
> > Chris has one story in the top ten of the DWM all-of-TV poll. That
> > same month, Lance had three in the top ten of the DWM all-the-books
> > poll. I don't see this as a profound difference in success...
> It's really good that you don't see DWM polls as a relevant gauge of
> artistic success.
Those goalposts keep running around the field, don't they? You've
been discussing what you like as your barometer for success. Given
that, I've been pointing to what a lot of people like -- which appears
to be your criteria for singing the praises of Boucher above Parkin.
> > I thought your point was that the books needed to be consciously aware
> > of what the Who "source material" was so they could conform to it? In
> > which case, who's more aware -- someone whose expertise is confined to
> > three TV stories, or who has an awareness of Who's breadth and depth
> > across the entirety of its run?
> Nice flip of the argument there again. Did Boucher really only ever
> watch his 3 stories?
He said, in the preview for "Psi-ence Fiction", that one of the
reasons that he only writes for the fourth Doctor and Leela is because
if he wrote for another team, he'd actually have to watch their
stories.
> Who's more aware of the source material, someone
> whose expertise is confined to watching episodes and writing TV tie-in
> novels or someone who actually wrote 3 of the stories from the source
> material for those novels?
Again, you're going for that false dichotomy between "the source
material" and "the tie-in novels". From where I'm standing, that
doesn't exist, and Lance Parkin has written a big share of the source
material, Doctor Who.
> My point here, in case you're still not
> sure, was that for the most part the novels don't recognize the TV
> show as source material, as you have proudly admitted,
No, go back to my quote above. "For me, the source material includes
26+ years of TV, twelve years of novels..."
> > If you want to talk story development, Lance Parkin has more TV
> > storylining experience now than Chris Boucher did when he was writing
> > for Who...
> I heard a "so there, bleh!" at the end of that sentence. :) Okay, when
> did this turn into a Lance vs. Chris argument?
Somewhere around the point where you said that Chris Boucher's year
and a bit of Who experience more than 25 years ago trumped the Who
experience of the old hands of the novel range...
> > you'll notice that the reviews of Boucher's
> > first two books both point out things like rushed endings and dropped
> > plot threads, which are part of his unfamiliarity with the demands of
> > cranking out a novel. The practicalities of doing a novel are
> > distinctly different from scriptwriting -- especially when your
> > scripts were produced under the eye of Robert "if you go fast enough
> > they won't notice the plot holes" Holmes! :-)
> Now he's havin' a go at Holmes! What'll it be next the birdies?
Robert Holmes was under no illusions of his flawlessness. Neither am
I, despite the fact that I really like his stuff, just the way I like
Chris Boucher's. The comment above about plot holes is Holmes' own
words, IIRC talking about "Pyramids of Mars" -- a story which works
really well on screen, thanks in part to some inspired direction and
performances, but in novel form would fall apart at the slightest
application of thought.
> At any
> rate, regardless of your obvious disdain for Robert Holmes and Chris
> Boucher's work, I feel very confident in saying that they produced
> some of the best DW.
Again, we agree. What I'm objecting to is the idea that the best of
the TV authors belong on a *higher* pedestal to the best of the book
authors. And to the bald-faced lie that mentioning any imperfections
of our "betters" represents some kind of "Oedipal rage". If it was
just J. Random Fanboy pointing out those same examples of Holmes'
dodgy plot-logic, would you try to discredit his argument with an ad
hominem attack like that?) Holmes isn't a hack, he's a working writer
with his own strengths and weaknesses, who generally does really good
stuff -- just like Lance, or Lloyd, or Paul Cornell, or any of the
usual suspects.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Bokman7757
>Whether or not you like "Marinus", it's a fact that it was a
>last-minute filler script cranked out at high speed. Yes, you like
>it, but you're claiming that it's somehow *better* than what the
>people at BBC Books are doing. I dispute that.
Surely subjectivity comes into it at some point.
>Again, you're going for that false dichotomy between "the source
>material" and "the tie-in novels". From where I'm standing, that
>doesn't exist,
Surely a change in mediums creates at least something vaguely resembling a
rift.
Cameron Mason
"Jonathan Blum" <jb...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:75d9a022.03040...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> > Maybe the people with high levels of skills at BBC Books are failing
> > to cover for the ones who aren't sparking. It all goes back to the
> > editiing process. Furthermore, I rather like "Keys of Marinus" and
> > take issue with the desription "mindless quickies". At the very least
> > Keys was a template for Season 16 and Season 23.
>
> (Quick aside: that's fan rationalization. Can you give me any
> evidence that Graham Williams or Anthony Read had paid any attention
> to the existence of "Keys of Marinus" when they came up with their own
> idea?)
>From what I've read, Graham came up with the idea for a season spanning
storyline for Season 15, but held it over to Season 16 after The Witch Lords
got pulled.
No mention of Keys of Marinus forming his ideas...
Season 23 was based on the structure of "A Christmas Carol".
Geoffrey D.Wessel
wrote:
>And comparing Lloyd Rose to Ian Fleming is like comparing chocolate
>mousse to steak. Really, which one is the higher standard?
Who cares, sounds like a dinner/desert I'd drop money for anyway. :-)
--- Geoff
Selaboc
> > rip-off plots. They have their place, as do time travel and Time
> > Lords, but none of them is vital to Doctor Who --
>
> I disagree.
>
> > we've had episodes
> > with no space monsters, several wholly original concepts, an entire
> > season without the TARDIS,
>
> Which season was that?
I'm guessing he's refering to season 7 (Doctor stuck on earth) but by
golly there's the TARDIS right there in the season opener and in the
back ground of Unit HQ in most epidodes, and the Doc even takes the
TARDIS console for a spin to the parallel world in the season ender.
I'd say maybe he's refering to season 8, but then how does he explain
"Colony in Space"?
> > and no time lords at all until the Monk
> > shows up (and unnamed, as are the Doctor's "people" even then).
>
> The Doctor and Susan. That's 2 more than none.
exactly. And the monk shows up in Season Two, which is very early on
in relation to the 26 seasons of the show.
> > Google me a bit; you'll see what I love about the TV show, and there's
> > plenty.
>
> That's an answer? I'm starting to feel like Beven now. :)
I'm begining to think most people that argue with Jim end up feeling
that way :-)
SKMDC
> > > lance...@yahoo.com (SKMDC) wrote in message
> > > Again, I can't really see that in this case. The "contemporary"
> > > approach of the novels looks to me like the same sort of thing which
> > > distinguishes "City of Death" from "Marco Polo": [snip]
>
> > But how is comparing two TV stories proving anything about the novels?
>
> Because every one of the points I mentioned is a direct analogy for
> the novels developing along the same lines: more sophisticated
> storytelling techniques, faster pace and more use of shorthand for a
> savvy
> audience, greater use of homage, and radical changes in assumed
> capability of the storytelling.
That's making the assumption that the development of the novels are
analogous to the development of the series. Instead of City:Polo,
compare The Time Meddler and The King's Demons, or The Space Museum
and Four to Doomsday. The changes in technique are there admittedly,
but they are as subtle as the changes in writing techniques for
screenplays, or any other form of literature, from 1963 to 1983.
However, what didn't change in that 20 year span was the quality of
the storytelling. What's changed between 1983 and 2003, or at least by
2001 when I stopped reading them, is that the novels are not offering
the same well crafted stories. They are creative to be sure, and
oftentimes they're very well written with witty dialog and very self
aware hip 21st century characters, but the overall storytelling has
faltered. Again, this is only my opinion.
> > > I think it has more to do with that; how many of the people involved
> > > in the making of "The Chase" thought they were doing quality TV, and
> > > how many were treating it as a here-and-gone cash-in on Dalekmania
> > > before it died out?
>
> > How does the perceived longevity of the art have anything to do with
> > the quality of the final product?
>
> You're the one who brought up the Starbucks analogy, with all its
> connotations of disposability versus care and craft.
No. Jim Vowles brought up the gourmet food vs. fast food analogy, with
it's connotations of ill-prepared mass consumed garbage vs. lovingly
crafted haut quisine... I was simply clarifying it a bit. Anyway, the
analogy still fits perfectly. The Starbucks corporation *thinks* it's
product will be around a lot longer than Grandma Mamies biscuits and
gravy. Just because Starbucks percieves it's product to be timeless,
doesn't mean it is, and just because Grandma Mamie perceives her
biscuits and gravy won't last past noon on Sunday, doesn't mean the
recipe hasn't been nicked by everyone in the family and "rerun" all
over the country every Thanksgiving. :)
Jim Vowles
That's a bit unfair, Alan. Analogy is a pretty standard argument
technique -- perhaps the crucial one.
I don't recall anyone saying Holmes was a "hack" or that Parkin was "a
genius". Jon was pointing out that the standard seemingly applied
didn't make a lot of sense. It's very much an apples and oranges
thing.
Writing novels that you hope will survive re-reading does not
necessarily use the same skills as writing entertainment you view as
disposable -- if anything, that says to me that Holmes and Boucher
were churning out stuff that was entertaining, and a bit too good to
be simply disposable, so they were exceeding the demands of what they
were up to. That speaks very well of them, but their skill at TV
doesn't make them automatically good as novelists. Nor does the
ability to craft novels mean you're automatically skilled at writing
gripping movies, TV shows, radio dramas, or stage plays.
Jim Vowles
> >From: jb...@zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum)
>
> >Whether or not you like "Marinus", it's a fact that it was a
> >last-minute filler script cranked out at high speed. Yes, you like
> >it, but you're claiming that it's somehow *better* than what the
> >people at BBC Books are doing. I dispute that.
>
> Surely subjectivity comes into it at some point.
That's kinda what Jon's saying -- he's disputing that it's
_objectively_ better simply because it was part of the TV show. You
can certainly prefer one or the other, but in terms of crafting the
story, one was a rush job that turned out to be very entertaining,
whereas novels are almost never rush-jobs (though of course that does
happen sometimes). Writing a script, you can rely on solid cast and
crew and competent direction to make it shine; you don't have that
option in a novel.
> >Again, you're going for that false dichotomy between "the source
> >material" and "the tie-in novels". From where I'm standing, that
> >doesn't exist,
>
> Surely a change in mediums creates at least something vaguely resembling a
> rift.
Sure -- but "rift" implies that it breaks things apart. A "shift"
would be more appropriate, IMHO.
Take it in two stages. First, jump from the TV series to the
novelisations. There's Whitaker's Daleks novelisation, which is pretty
damned good, and there's the vast majority of the novelisations, which
often read like they were knocked out while Uncle Terry was sitting on
the loo. They're not carefully crafted works, for the most part. Are
they entertaining? Sure. Do they capture the essence of the story?
Sure -- even though they often reveal weaknesses and omissions in the
source material. But take that Dicksomatic approach in one hand (and
8 Doctors is rather like that, sadly), and "Players" or one of his
better Who novels in the other, and see which one makes a better
*novel*. Dicks is the same fellow, with a solid grasp of the
characters and what makes who tick; yet in one case the demands are
far, far different (quick TV-tie-ins written to a 10-year-old audience
versus the "adventures too broad and deep for the small screen"
geared at a college-age audience).
SKMDC
> You didn't understand my "word count" argument, and simply saying that
> it's got "nothing to do with the quality" doesn't make that the case.
>
I do understand your word count argument. However, You evidently don't
realize how silly it sounds.
> I think it's obvious on its face that if you think people are going to
> be scrutinizing your work closely, you'll put in more effort to be
> sure that it will stand up to that scrutiny.
I don't think it's that obvious. Every professional I've ever met will
be quick to tell you that the size of the customer base has no
relation to how well they do their jobs. Since I'm a teacher, using
your "obvious" logic, I should use less effort with a smaller class?
With something as subjective as art, it's even shakier. Does a stage
actor use less effort than a screen actor? The stage is fleeting....
one night/one audience... the film is forever... HBO/MST3K... Is the
stage actor going to "phone in" their part since there's no permanent
record? All of that is still beside the point that it doesn't matter
at all the motives or effort put in by the artists, it's the final
product that really counts anyway.
> > Maybe the people with high levels of skills at BBC Books are failing
> > to cover for the ones who aren't sparking. It all goes back to the
> > editiing process. Furthermore, I rather like "Keys of Marinus" and
> > take issue with the desription "mindless quickies". At the very least
> > Keys was a template for Season 16 and Season 23.
>
> (Quick aside: that's fan rationalization. Can you give me any
> evidence that Graham Williams or Anthony Read had paid any attention
> to the existence of "Keys of Marinus" when they came up with their own
> idea?)
(Aside to the aside: You mean beyond the on screen story elements?
You're probably right about the fan rationalization. You only ask for
evidence because you know there is none, but no evidence doesn't
necessarily mean the assumption is false. Agreed? Is there evidence
beyond the story itself that Holmes borrowed elements from the Star
Trek episodes "Shore Leave" and "Arena" when he penned "The Deadly
Assassin"?)
> Whether or not you like "Marinus", it's a fact that it was a
> last-minute filler script cranked out at high speed. Yes, you like
> it, but you're claiming that it's somehow *better* than what the
> people at BBC Books are doing. I dispute that. Please point to how.
I will as soon as you point Jack Beven to how the BBC Books are
respectful of the series continuity... just kidding. :)
Seriously, I like how *you* brought up Marinus and then sudddenly
thrust it onto me as what I evidently claim the BBC Books should be
living up to! Sneaky, sneaky... I never claimed Marinus was better
than the *entirety* of the BBC Books line. What I will declare is...
stand back:
I, SKMDC, being of sound mind and body declare that, in my opinion,
Season 1 of the Doctor Who television series is superior in
storytelling impact to the Doctor Who BBC Line of novels published in
2001.
You see, I'll make my own declarations, you don't have to make them
for me!Pointing you to how I can make that claim, in quantifying terms
you like so much, can be done in any number of ways... 1) viewing
figures compared to book sales. 2) timelessness (granted the books
will have to age about 40 years, but I think I'm safe on this one.) 3)
age ranges of consumers. 4) fanbase generated... I'm sure there's
more, but that's all silly bean counting and no way to judge art....
it's like counting words to find value. :) There is no way I can point
to proof that one thing is *better* than another. To each is own, but
I can tell you what my *opinion* is of why Season 1 is better than
current BBC Books. I feel the *adult* tone used in the BBC Books is in
conflict with the source material, and the books should be lighter
pulpier affairs. However, I did enjoy much of the adult toned NAs, so
how is that? My only answer is that the NAs had efforts being made at
the editorial level to keep the stories firmly DW, in spite of the
adult tone. The BBC Books I've read are often not distinctly Who, the
amnesiaDoc books, and when that's added to a the annoying "adult" tone
I've been tolerating for 12 years, it creates a product that is so
different than Season 1 Doctor Who, that in my opinion it is inferior.
> > I never said there was something that made TV inherently better than
> > books. The fact that the TV show hit as much as it did is evidence of
> > a something central to the makeup of the show that traversed
> > producers/directors/writers/actors. The fact that the BBC books miss
> > as often as they do is evidence that the book editors have lost this
> > central something.
>
> There's no fact, just your opinion.
You are the slippery one, Mr. Blum! Reading my post above, the terms
"hit" and "miss" (your terms) are assumed to be subjective. The
"facts" I'm referring to are the FACT ONE: My opinion is the TV hits
much of the time. FACT TWO: My opinion is the novels miss much of the
time. Gotta watch you... you tricksy tricksy little hobbit!
> The "something central", I think,
> tends to come down to a few talented people. If all you're really
> saying is that you like Robert Holmes and Rebecca Levene as editors
> and you don't like Justin Richards as an editor, that's fine -- it's
> when you generalize from that that you fall down.
All I'm really saying is that the Script Editors were better at
continuing an existing Who product than the recent BBC Book editors.
Is that a generalization that causes problems? I have to generalize to
some degree because I don't know the names of all the BBC Book editors
and when they changed hands and who edits which bits of what. (and I
call myself a fan!)
> > Fleming crafted pulp thrillers that were eventually recognized as
> > classics, like Burrough's Tarzan books, but neither of them set out to
> > create something more than a read and throw away adventure stories.
> > They had no delusions of creating classics of Western Literature. Do
> > the Who authors and editors believe their work is of a higher standard
> > than Fleming or Burroughs?
>
> Put the goalposts down; you're the one who contrasted "mere TV tie-in
> paperbacks" as being *less* likely to be re-read than Fleming's pulp,
> so therefore they shouldn't be crafted with even *that* much of an eye
> to re-reading.
But I was saying Fleming's pulp was written as "mere TV tie-in" and
the BBC authors should write with same eye to rereading as Fleming.
NOTE: I don't put the word "mere" in front of TV Tie-in.
> And comparing Lloyd Rose to Ian Fleming is like comparing chocolate
> mousse to steak. Really, which one is the higher standard?
I'm not following you here. Sorry, I know I'm thick sometimes. Are you
saying that Rose and Fleming books are so different in content they
shouldn't be compared, or are you saying that they are so different in
quality they shouldn't be compared. I'll agree with the latter, but
not necessarily the former.
> More words per week means you have to do more writing in the same
> amount of time. That means you have less time to spend on getting the
> writing right. Do you see what I'm getting at now?
Frankly? No. If Writer A had to write 2000 words a week and Writer B
had to write 5000 words a week, then using your logic Writer A has
more time for tweaking. But what if Writer B typed 120 word per minute
and Writer A typed 60 words per minute? What if Writer B used a
computer and Writer A used a pen and paper? What if Writer A was from
1963 where he had to mail in his script 2 days in advance and Writer B
was from 2003 where he emailed submissions instantaneously? What if
Writer B was from 1963 and spent less time sitting in traffic or
watching reality TV, and Writer A was from 2003 and spent hours on the
interenet responding to idiot fans who won't shut up? Word count
equals nothing other than the number of words. It's no reflection of
time spent, and no reflection of effort, and *still* no reflection of
quality.
> > I lost you somewhere in the middle of the mathematical formula you
> > evidently use to quantify art.
>
> You've grabbed the wrong end of the stick again. The numbers were
> just an example to reinforce the general principle: if you're dashing
> something off at high speeds without time to think, you're far more
> likely to produce hackwork than art.
Tell that to Hunter S. Thompson or Jack Kerouac. The general principle
is that art can't be quantified by math. The only thing that creates
the art is the artist. If Robert Holmes has to sit down and rush
through a four part script to meet a deadline, like he did for "Ark In
Space", does that mean he's more likely to turn in hack work than me
sitting down for six months pounding out my pet Doctor Who meets
Bucakroo Banzai fanfic? Art can suffer from lack of time to complete
to be sure, but art isn't "lifted" simply because of more time. Ask
any painter what the most important thing about painting is, and
they'll say "knowing when to stop". That's getting way off my original
point about the editors taking a more active role anyway.
> > Oh dear. Back to Season 7. If Season 7 hadn't occured there would be
> > so little to talk about, eh? ;) Once again... Season 7 wasn't *that*
> > big a change. The process was still there that led to distinctly Who
> > stories. Is "Inferno" really that different than "The War Machines"?
>
> Aside from the opening credits, what can you point to that they have
> in common? Everything from the Doctor's role (absent-minded professor
> versus dandified action hero) to the style of his companions to the
> TARDIS (which does things in "Inferno" which it's never done before or
> since) has changed radically.
The Doctor is very much an absent minded professor in Inferno dontcha
think? And the near future Earth setting in The War Machines is almost
identical to the setting of Inferno. The new state of the art drilling
machine leading to a "possesion and control" of innocents in a
"technology gone awry" cautionary tale as compared with the new
computer WOTAN doing the same thing in War Machines. All those are
details though, and not really the point. The strongest thing that
both episodes have in common is a definite DW tone and story. Nomatter
the changes in Season 7, the producers and script editors were *still*
keeping the show true to the tone and style of what went before.
> > I'm not even sure I completely
> > agree with Jack, but it irks me to see him jumped on for *attempting*
> > to find out why the novels don't work anymore.
>
> As people have said already, he hasn't been jumped on for disagreeing
> -- but for disagreeing *in ignorance*, repeatedly, for several years
> running without a break.
I guess I'm in danger of being the next poor soul tarred with the
phrase "in ignorance" since I have yet to see posts where Jack makes
specific criticisms of books he hasn't read. Anyway, I thought Jack
was on about the current arc in the novels? If that's the case, then
how has he complained about the current arc for "several years"?
> > > You say I *must*, I say no. You're treating that as a premise, but
> > > I'm starting from a different one. For me, the source material
> > > includes 26+ years of TV, twelve years of novels, three of audios, and
> > > if the wind's blowing right things like comic strips as well. It's
> > > all grist for the mill.
>
> > If *everything* is source material, then *nothing* is source material.
> > Don't you see that?
>
> Erm, no.
>
> If the source material is "Doctor Who", then all the bits of Doctor
> Who can be part of the source material. That actually seems like a
> pretty clear dividing line, between things that *are* called Doctor
> Who and things which *aren't* called Doctor Who.
So, you don't think the original TV series is in anyway the 'father'
or 'progenitor' of non-TV Who? I'm curous, is it just Who you see this
way, or can the Droid cartoons from the 80s be considered source
material for Star Wars?
> > When I say "source material" I'm not making a
> > value judgement. I'm using an accurate description that's not up for
> > debate. The TV Show is the source material for the DW novels.
>
> Yes, and so are the books, and pretty much everything else with the
> "Doctor Who" name on it. Of course, as a writer, my concept of
> "source material" also extends to everything from "Frankenstein" to
> "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" to "The Importance Of Being Earnest",
> but that's a separate subject.
So now not just everything that's ever had DW on it, but *everything*
in existence is source material. I truly admire your "one with the
universe" approach to the subject. :) It reminds of the posts around
here recently that approach all fiction as taking place in the same
universe. However, I must say that when using such a wide pallette to
paint from, don't you find that mixes so many colors that it
eventually all turns to black?
> > > Chris has one story in the top ten of the DWM all-of-TV poll. That
> > > same month, Lance had three in the top ten of the DWM all-the-books
> > > poll. I don't see this as a profound difference in success...
>
> > It's really good that you don't see DWM polls as a relevant gauge of
> > artistic success.
>
> Those goalposts keep running around the field, don't they?
Yes, everytime you bring up DWM polls or numbers of stories =
experience. Those are your goalposts mate, I just keep scoring through
'em. :)
> You've
> been discussing what you like as your barometer for success.
As it's the only barometer I have.
>Given
> that, I've been pointing to what a lot of people like -- which appears
> to be your criteria for singing the praises of Boucher above Parkin.
It does? I don't think so. My only criteria for singing the praises of
Boucher has been my personal enjoyment of his work. Have I said
otherwise? Did I bring up numbers of successful story polls in DWM, or
the number of words written... I don't believe so. I said it was
ironic that Boucher and Dicks, who *in my opinion* are responsible for
so much classic Who, are slagged off in the discussions of the novels.
> > Nice flip of the argument there again. Did Boucher really only ever
> > watch his 3 stories?
>
> He said, in the preview for "Psi-ence Fiction", that one of the
> reasons that he only writes for the fourth Doctor and Leela is because
> if he wrote for another team, he'd actually have to watch their
> stories.
And the Fourth Doctor and Leela were only in 3 stories? Seriously,
does the above mean he's never even *seen* the other Doctors? I don't
think so. I think he means he's *very* familiar with the Tom/Leela
team because he *created* it, and if he switched to another era he'd
have to study more of the episodes to get that team right.
> > Who's more aware of the source material, someone
> > whose expertise is confined to watching episodes and writing TV tie-in
> > novels or someone who actually wrote 3 of the stories from the source
> > material for those novels?
>
> Again, you're going for that false dichotomy between "the source
> material" and "the tie-in novels".
False in your opinion, which as you pointed out earlier, is not a
fact.
> From where I'm standing, that
> doesn't exist, and Lance Parkin has written a big share of the source
> material, Doctor Who.
>From where you're standing so has Mary Shelley and Tennessee Williams.
You'll have to pardon me if I stand over here... slowly backing
away... :-)
> > My point here, in case you're still not
> > sure, was that for the most part the novels don't recognize the TV
> > show as source material, as you have proudly admitted,
>
> No, go back to my quote above. "For me, the source material includes
> 26+ years of TV, twelve years of novels..."
No, go back to my quote... "novels don't recognize the TV show as
source material..." When you add novels, comics, and Frankenstein, it
ceases to be the TV show that's the the *source* material. Source
implies one... or at least first.
> > > If you want to talk story development, Lance Parkin has more TV
> > > storylining experience now than Chris Boucher did when he was writing
> > > for Who...
>
> > I heard a "so there, bleh!" at the end of that sentence. :) Okay, when
> > did this turn into a Lance vs. Chris argument?
>
> Somewhere around the point where you said that Chris Boucher's year
> and a bit of Who experience more than 25 years ago trumped the Who
> experience of the old hands of the novel range...
Which was only a response to your arrogant assertion that the novel
writing experience of Lance Parkin meant that he was somehow a "more
accomplished" creator of Who than Chris Boucher. So we're getting
closer... Everything I've said about Boucher/Parkin has been in
defense of the fact that the art has to be viewed on its own, not
based on the number of years spent or words typed.
> > Now he's havin' a go at Holmes! What'll it be next the birdies?
>
> Robert Holmes was under no illusions of his flawlessness.
Yet another thing the novelists could learn from the TV writers! :)
>Neither am
> I, despite the fact that I really like his stuff, just the way I like
> Chris Boucher's.
For a minute there I thought you meant that you weren't under
illusions of *your own* flawlessness... I should've known better. :) I
see now you're just agreeing with Holmes that he was indeed flawed.
That's big of you, really.
> The comment above about plot holes is Holmes' own
> words, IIRC talking about "Pyramids of Mars" -- a story which works
> really well on screen, thanks in part to some inspired direction and
> performances, but in novel form would fall apart at the slightest
> application of thought.
Where can I find comments about plot holes in the novels posted by the
novelists themselves in the selfless way Holmes has evidently
commented? Or are there no plot holes in the BBC novels?
> > At any
> > rate, regardless of your obvious disdain for Robert Holmes and Chris
> > Boucher's work, I feel very confident in saying that they produced
> > some of the best DW.
>
> Again, we agree. What I'm objecting to is the idea that the best of
> the TV authors belong on a *higher* pedestal to the best of the book
> authors.
Well, like other things we've discussed here... that's an opinion and
another one I'm going to have to disagree with, again not because of a
lack of talent with the book authors, but because of a lack of vision
from the book editors.
>And to the bald-faced lie that mentioning any imperfections
> of our "betters" represents some kind of "Oedipal rage". If it was
> just J. Random Fanboy pointing out those same examples of Holmes'
> dodgy plot-logic, would you try to discredit his argument with an ad
> hominem attack like that?)
Oooh, I haven't been called a liar on usenet in years! (Is that
against some sort of modish rules, or do those only apply to us J.
Random Fanboys? (I'm just joking Cameron, put the stick down!)) For
all I know you *are* J. Random Fanboy, Jon. I haven't responded to you
in a tone any different than someone who *hadn't* written DW novels or
the tone I would respond to Holmes, Boucher, or even William Hartnell
during a similar discussion. I'm sorry you think otherwise. If the
specifics of what I say are determined by the fact I know who you are,
that's something that I can't help... it's no more than you responding
to me in a way that shows you consider me *just* a J. Random Fanboy.
That's quite the attitude about your customers you've suddenly found
there. And the fact that you're an active *part* of the works we're
discussing means the discussion will be different than if you weren't.
Goethean science... the scientist can't be separate from the
experiment and all that. (There's a wonderful thread about this topic
in the Tenth Planet forums at Outpost Gallifrey.)
>Holmes isn't a hack, he's a working writer
> with his own strengths and weaknesses, who generally does really good
> stuff -- just like Lance, or Lloyd, or Paul Cornell, or any of the
> usual suspects.
Wow, we finally agree on an entire paragraph!
Jim Vowles
> > rip-off plots. They have their place, as do time travel and Time
> > Lords, but none of them is vital to Doctor Who --
>
> I disagree.
Then write off everything before War Games, because the Time Lords
aren't mentioned by name.
> > we've had episodes
> > with no space monsters, several wholly original concepts, an entire
> > season without the TARDIS,
>
> Which season was that?
Um....did you not see any Pertwee episodes prior to 3 Docs? The TARDIS
is hobbled enough to be useless, just a thing for the Doctor to tinker
with, like Bessie or his latest wine-bottle-tech-based gadget...
>
> > and no time lords at all until the Monk
> > shows up (and unnamed, as are the Doctor's "people" even then).
>
> The Doctor and Susan. That's 2 more than none.
They are not called Time Lords, nor is a home planet named, for the
entirety of the Hartnell era and the vast majority of the Troughton
era. If you honestly don't see what I'm talking about, that's fine,
but please don't nitpick--nobody had thought up the concept "time
lord" before War Games.
> >That's
> > just on the TV show -- the books are, as Virgin once put it, broader
> > and deeper than the TV series simply because there's more space for
> > that breadth and depth.
>
> Broader and deeper implies encompassing.
Does it? To me it merely implies a larger scope, a bigger range of
possiblities.
> I think the term "a galaxy
> far far away" fits better. Besides, I've only been talking about the
> BBC books in this thread. I actually quite liked many of the NAs and
> don't think they suffer the same pretention and lack of vision that
> many of the BBC books do.
The memory cheats. Some of them were pretty pretentious, I thought.
Still enjoyed them; tastes change over time and what was cool and new
in 1993 may be old hat now.
> > > then what is
> > > the tv show *about* to you? You seem to have distinct views on what
> > > makes the novels superior to the show, but what do you like about the
> > > show itself?
> >
> > I don't think the novels in general are superior to the show in
> > general; that said, there are books that I consider to be among the
> > best Who stories ever, much better than many of the TV tales. I think
> > the novels have potential to far outdo the show in specific ways -- by
> > tackling topics too tricky for the TV, by not being bound by the
> > special effects budget, by dealing with plots that require more than 4
> > or 6 episodes to play out.
>
> Again, I'm crystal clear on the plethora of things you believe the
> books can do better than the show. I'm just unclear on if you think
> the show can do *anything* better than a novel. If not, then why
> bother watching the show?
It can be a television show a hell of a lot better, for one thing.
Look, I love the Tolkien books. I also love the movies. They're
different entities, and one definitely looks to the other for
inspiration, guidance, source material....but in that case, one is a
filmable work and the other simply isn't. Many books I very much enjoy
would be unwatchable without major changes.
Because two things are different doesn't mean that one is better than
the other.
> > Google me a bit; you'll see what I love about the TV show, and there's
> > plenty.
>
> That's an answer? I'm starting to feel like Beven now. :)
It's an answer I've given many, many times.
I love it despite its many flaws, first off. I love the occasionally
brilliant moments; the actors who rise above material and the stories
that rise above the actors; the sets that evoke other worlds while
being rather obviously made of crap from the back room; the stories
that bring something new to the table even when the writers obviously
got "inspired" by a sixpack and an old Frankenstein movie. I enjoy it
for its sheer plotty entertainment value, the fun of the characters
and the dialog and the absurdity of talking to the business end of an
amorphous blob tipped into a pit. I love it for taking a wobbly
tricycle-mounted tank (armed with a plunger) and turning it into one
of the most dangerous menaces in all of time and space.
I love that candy can solve the mysteries of intergalactic diplomacy,
that wit can overcome terror, that entire worlds can be visited
without ever leaving the local quarry or corridor set. I love that the
good guys always win, but sometimes at too high a price. I love the
charming side characters, the cameraderie and affection between the
Doctor and his companions, even when they squabble.
I even love the music most of the time. :)
I love it for what it tries to do, and for how often the magic works.
There's a lot more, of course.
I don't love it *for* the wobbly sets and crap, tired old plots -- I
love that it's able to rise above them. I don't love the shitty rat in
Talons of Weng-Chiang -- I love that it doesn't wreck the story; I
also love that the story is a wonderful nod to both Sherlock Holmes
and My Fair Lady.
> > > I've seen some
> > > products of imagination on the web that have no place in the Who
> > > playground. :)
> >
> > Me too. I don't have a problem with slash fiction, but I'm not really
> > a consumer of it either.
>
> But should slash fiction be a part of the official DW novel or audio
> line?
No. Who claimed that it should?
jb...@zipworld.com.au
>> > > lance...@yahoo.com (SKMDC) wrote in message
>> > > Again, I can't really see that in this case. The "contemporary"
>> > > approach of the novels looks to me like the same sort of thing which
>> > > distinguishes "City of Death" from "Marco Polo": [snip]
>> > But how is comparing two TV stories proving anything about the novels?
>> Because every one of the points I mentioned is a direct analogy for
>> the novels developing along the same lines: more sophisticated
>> storytelling techniques, faster pace and more use of shorthand for a
>> savvy
>> audience, greater use of homage, and radical changes in assumed
>> capability of the storytelling.
>That's making the assumption that the development of the novels are
>analogous to the development of the series. Instead of City:Polo,
>compare The Time Meddler and The King's Demons, or The Space Museum
>and Four to Doomsday. The changes in technique are there admittedly,
>but they are as subtle as the changes in writing techniques for
>screenplays, or any other form of literature, from 1963 to 1983.
>However, what didn't change in that 20 year span was the quality of
>the storytelling.
You're citing "Four To Doomsday" and "The Space Museum" as benchmarks of
consistent quality.
I think we might be posting from different universes.
Many, many people would disagree: check out the DWM poll, in which three
out of those four stories were in the bottom 20 of all TV Who. And far
from a sign of consistency, the fact that "Four To Doomsday" is structured
and paced like a nearly-twenty-year-old Hartnell story in 1982 is often
seen as a bigger problem for it than it would actually have been twenty
years earlier. "The King's Demons" is far less subtle in its changes in
storytelling style -- it's got a whacking great robot and a castle
location which Douglas Camfield would have killed for -- but still suffers
from an overfamiliarity and resulting slightness which was commented on
even as early as its DWM review in '83.
The fact that occasional bits of Doctor Who didn't change was often part
of the *problem*, producing stories which went clunk, or supporting
characters drawn from creaky templates. But if you still want that kind
of familiarity, the books make the effort for an occasional revisit of old
templates -- "Eater of Wasps" or "Anachrophobia", "Festival of Death" or
"Relative Dementias". Just like the TV show occasionally did something
similarly old-fashioned. But I think the books are rather more successful
when they do it than "Four To Doomsday" was!
>What's changed between 1983 and 2003, or at least by
>2001 when I stopped reading them, is that the novels are not offering
>the same well crafted stories.
You keep saying this, but we can't seem to get down to brass tacks.
Could you tell me what bits of storytelling craft you see in, say,
"Four To Doomsday" which aren't present in "Casualties of War", let alone
"The Turing Test" or "Father Time"?
>> > How does the perceived longevity of the art have anything to do with
>> > the quality of the final product?
>> You're the one who brought up the Starbucks analogy, with all its
>> connotations of disposability versus care and craft.
>No. Jim Vowles brought up the gourmet food vs. fast food analogy, with
>it's connotations of ill-prepared mass consumed garbage vs. lovingly
>crafted haut quisine... I was simply clarifying it a bit. Anyway, the
>analogy still fits perfectly. The Starbucks corporation *thinks* it's
>product will be around a lot longer than Grandma Mamies biscuits and
>gravy. Just because Starbucks percieves it's product to be timeless,
Don't put words in Starbucks' mouth. They're selling a product because
there's a demand right now... just like the market-researched,
demographic-targeted, timeslot-filling TV Doctor Who. And given that the
writers of the books generally *don't* take a Starbucks approach, your
analogy still only works if you turn it back around 180 degrees.
Regards,
Jon Blum
jb...@zipworld.com.au
Selaboc <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'm guessing he's refering to season 7 (Doctor stuck on earth) but by
>golly there's the TARDIS right there in the season opener and in the
>back ground of Unit HQ in most epidodes,
Which episodes are you watching? The TARDIS itself doesn't appear after
"Spearhead" 3, and the console appears in one sequence in *one* episode
out of the next *fifteen weeks*. That's nearly four months with only one
token appearance. It had more of a presence in the Earth arc!
At the time in season 7, there's nothing to indicate that the TARDIS
hasn't been dismantled, and indeed the console being removed would tend to
indicate that...
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jim Vowles
> > > we've had episodes
> > > with no space monsters, several wholly original concepts, an entire
> > > season without the TARDIS,
> >
> > Which season was that?
>
> I'm guessing he's refering to season 7 (Doctor stuck on earth) but by
> golly there's the TARDIS right there in the season opener and in the
> back ground of Unit HQ in most epidodes, and the Doc even takes the
> TARDIS console for a spin to the parallel world in the season ender.
> I'd say maybe he's refering to season 8, but then how does he explain
> "Colony in Space"?
The TARDIS is effectively out of commission until 3 Docs. It's visible
occasionally as a background presence, and once or twice we see the
Doctor tinkering with the console. I may have missed an episode, but
you could revise it to "most of a season" or say "essentially without
the TARDIS" and the point would still stand. It's hardly critical to
the show at that stage, though it certainly factors in an episode or
two. I don't remember offhand when Inferno happens in that season, but
let's face it, it doesn't require the TARDIS to get him to that
alternate universe; he could just as easily have attached a teacup to
a slinky and put a glowing light on top--he's not travelling in time
or space, but sideways into a parallel reality.
>
> > > and no time lords at all until the Monk
> > > shows up (and unnamed, as are the Doctor's "people" even then).
> >
> > The Doctor and Susan. That's 2 more than none.
>
> exactly. And the monk shows up in Season Two, which is very early on
> in relation to the 26 seasons of the show.
And we don't hear the name Time Lord until near the end of War Games,
and we don't hear Gallifrey until the 3rd Doctor's on the scene. The
concepts and names hadn't been put together yet.
> > > Google me a bit; you'll see what I love about the TV show, and there's
> > > plenty.
> >
> > That's an answer? I'm starting to feel like Beven now. :)
>
> I'm begining to think most people that argue with Jim end up feeling
> that way :-)
I answered more fully in another post, which will no doubt show up
eventually. At a certain point it becomes silly to keep repeating
one's self. I have posted at length about the many things I love
about Doctor Who, but I've summed up some of them in another post, so
you'll have to read that instead.
I love the TV series -- but it's been almost 14 years since the TV
series went off the air, and I've got over 200 full-length novels
sitting on a shelf about 20 feet away that say that "Doctor Who" is
not *just* the TV show. I happen to agree -- that doesn't mean I think
TV is any better or worse than books, nor do I write off the source
material, but that Doctor Who is broader than the TV series now.
Jim Vowles
>
> > You didn't understand my "word count" argument, and simply saying that
> > it's got "nothing to do with the quality" doesn't make that the case.
> >
>
> I do understand your word count argument. However, You evidently don't
> realize how silly it sounds.
>
> > I think it's obvious on its face that if you think people are going to
> > be scrutinizing your work closely, you'll put in more effort to be
> > sure that it will stand up to that scrutiny.
>
> I don't think it's that obvious. Every professional I've ever met will
> be quick to tell you that the size of the customer base has no
> relation to how well they do their jobs.
Nope, you're missing his argument.
Do you put in more effort when you type an e-mail or instant message,
or when you're typing a resume and cover letter to apply for a new
job? It's not the number of readers; it's the expectations of the
intended audience. It wasn't until the 80s and the repeats and
widespread video availability that the audience for Doctor Who got the
opportunity to see things a second time. At a certain point, we
noticed that many of these episodes stood up well to repeat
viewings--hooray for that, because otherwise none of us would be here
-- but the fact remains that they weren't crafted for that purpose;
they were built to be one-shot saturday night fare.
> Since I'm a teacher, using
> your "obvious" logic, I should use less effort with a smaller class?
> With something as subjective as art, it's even shakier. Does a stage
> actor use less effort than a screen actor? The stage is fleeting....
> one night/one audience... the film is forever... HBO/MST3K... Is the
> stage actor going to "phone in" their part since there's no permanent
> record? All of that is still beside the point that it doesn't matter
> at all the motives or effort put in by the artists, it's the final
> product that really counts anyway.
A writer whose work is performed understands that the actors,
directors, set designers, etc. will all have input in the process
before it's performed; a writer whose medium is novels doesn't have
those other participants in the process and must rely on his own
narrative abilities to communicate all of the visual, audio, and other
stuff. On the other hand, you have to accommodate all those variable
when you write stuff that will be performed. It's not and has never
been a case of better or worse; it's a case of a different purpose.
Cameron Mason
"SKMDC" <lance...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6cba7a65.03040...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> >And to the bald-faced lie that mentioning any imperfections
> > of our "betters" represents some kind of "Oedipal rage". If it was
> > just J. Random Fanboy pointing out those same examples of Holmes'
> > dodgy plot-logic, would you try to discredit his argument with an ad
> > hominem attack like that?)
>
> Oooh, I haven't been called a liar on usenet in years! (Is that
> against some sort of modish rules, or do those only apply to us J.
> Random Fanboys? (I'm just joking Cameron, put the stick down!))
Eh?
Selaboc
> In article <3c20e9e9.03040...@posting.google.com>,
> Selaboc <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm guessing he's refering to season 7 (Doctor stuck on earth) but by
> >golly there's the TARDIS right there in the season opener and in the
> >back ground of Unit HQ in most epidodes,
>
> Which episodes are you watching?
The Jon Pertwee ones. What ones are you watching?
> The TARDIS itself doesn't appear after
> "Spearhead" 3, and the console appears in one sequence in *one* episode
> out of the next *fifteen weeks*.
Which is more than it appears in the 11 weeks between Faceless Ones 1
and Evil of the Daleks 7. And we were not discussing 15 weeks of a
season the assertion was that there was no TARDIS for an entire
season, which is total bull.
> That's nearly four months with only one
> token appearance. It had more of a presence in the Earth arc!
Which is more than in the nearly three months mentioned from season 4!
> At the time in season 7, there's nothing to indicate that the TARDIS
> hasn't been dismantled, and indeed the console being removed would tend to
> indicate that...
Except for the dialog of the Doctor talking about trying to repair it.
Now granted it's been a while since I've watch anything from season 7
outside of spearhead, but the point stands: there is NO such thing as
a TV season without the TARDIS. Heck the Tardis console probabbly has
more screen time in season 7 then it did in seasons 5 or 6!
Selaboc
> > > I said it was never about cheesy monsters and
> > > rip-off plots. They have their place, as do time travel and Time
> > > Lords, but none of them is vital to Doctor Who --
> >
> > I disagree.
>
> Then write off everything before War Games, because the Time Lords
> aren't mentioned by name.
>
> > > we've had episodes
> > > with no space monsters, several wholly original concepts, an entire
> > > season without the TARDIS,
> >
> > Which season was that?
>
> Um....did you not see any Pertwee episodes prior to 3 Docs? The TARDIS
> is hobbled enough to be useless, just a thing for the Doctor to tinker
> with, like Bessie or his latest wine-bottle-tech-based gadget...
Um.... did you not see any pertwee episodes prior to 3 docs? the
TARDIS shows in all those seasons, there is no such thing as "an
entire season without the TARDIS".
> >
> > > and no time lords at all until the Monk
> > > shows up (and unnamed, as are the Doctor's "people" even then).
> >
> > The Doctor and Susan. That's 2 more than none.
>
> They are not called Time Lords, nor is a home planet named, for the
> entirety of the Hartnell era and the vast majority of the Troughton
> era. If you honestly don't see what I'm talking about, that's fine,
> but please don't nitpick--nobody had thought up the concept "time
> lord" before War Games.
And Kryptonite didn't appear in Superman stories until years after
Action #1 (and then first on Radio). Doesn't prevent it from havnig
become an integral part of the Superman mythos. If you don't see what
others are talking about, fine, but please don't nitpick--that is
wasn't there is episode 1.
> > >That's
> > > just on the TV show -- the books are, as Virgin once put it, broader
> > > and deeper than the TV series simply because there's more space for
> > > that breadth and depth.
> >
> > Broader and deeper implies encompassing.
>
> Does it? To me it merely implies a larger scope, a bigger range of
> possiblities.
everybody has different viewpoints.
> > I think the term "a galaxy
> > far far away" fits better. Besides, I've only been talking about the
> > BBC books in this thread. I actually quite liked many of the NAs and
> > don't think they suffer the same pretention and lack of vision that
> > many of the BBC books do.
>
> The memory cheats. Some of them were pretty pretentious, I thought.
Again, different people differ on what is pretentious. One's man's
trash is another man's treasure and all that.
SKMDC
> >> Because every one of the points I mentioned is a direct analogy for
> >> the novels developing along the same lines: more sophisticated
> >> storytelling techniques, faster pace and more use of shorthand for a
> >> savvy
> >> audience, greater use of homage, and radical changes in assumed
> >> capability of the storytelling.
>
> >That's making the assumption that the development of the novels are
> >analogous to the development of the series. Instead of City:Polo,
> >compare The Time Meddler and The King's Demons, or The Space Museum
> >and Four to Doomsday. The changes in technique are there admittedly,
> >but they are as subtle as the changes in writing techniques for
> >screenplays, or any other form of literature, from 1963 to 1983.
> >However, what didn't change in that 20 year span was the quality of
> >the storytelling.
>
> You're citing "Four To Doomsday" and "The Space Museum" as benchmarks of
> consistent quality.
Well yes. I think I am.
> I think we might be posting from different universes.
>
Probably so. I'm discussing the Doctor Who Universe. :)
> Many, many people would disagree: check out the DWM poll, in which three
> out of those four stories were in the bottom 20 of all TV Who.
Which has nothing to do with their consistency within the series or
quality when compared to the novels. I was simply picking stories that
demonstrated my point the same way you chose Marco Polo:City of Death
to demonstrate yours.
>And far
> from a sign of consistency, the fact that "Four To Doomsday" is structured
> and paced like a nearly-twenty-year-old Hartnell story in 1982 is often
> seen as a bigger problem for it than it would actually have been twenty
> years earlier.
So you agree that the pacing and structure are similar between the two
stories though? That's what I was trying to get accross.
>"The King's Demons" is far less subtle in its changes in
> storytelling style -- it's got a whacking great robot
And of course The Time Meddler had no anachronisms did it? Again, the
details aren't what I'm on about. I was simply comparing two stories
from each end of the series to find similarities in tone and style,
the same way you chose episodes that seemingly proved the show had
"developed" into something completely different between Polo and City.
> The fact that occasional bits of Doctor Who didn't change was often part
> of the *problem*, producing stories which went clunk, or supporting
> characters drawn from creaky templates.
I agree. And when those problems occured in the TV show, it was
usually to such a subtle degree that the stories didn't become
unwatchable. The *vision* of the editors and the foundations of the
show were strong enough to support a clunky story occaisionally.
Conversely, when a clunkly story hits in the EDAs, the foundation and
editorial vision isn't there to hold it up and it clunks harder than
the show ever did.
> >What's changed between 1983 and 2003, or at least by
> >2001 when I stopped reading them, is that the novels are not offering
> >the same well crafted stories.
>
> You keep saying this, but we can't seem to get down to brass tacks.
> Could you tell me what bits of storytelling craft you see in, say,
> "Four To Doomsday" which aren't present in "Casualties of War", let alone
> "The Turing Test" or "Father Time"?
The storytelling craft that's missing is an attempt to make the
stories accessible to all readers of all ages. The adult tone of the
books doesn't match the "family" tone of the TV show. That doesn't
mean that *all*, or indeed any, of the books are inferior to the TV
Show in their storytelling craft. But when the storytelling craft
falters in the novels it's got no net, the foundations that would
catch a Time Flight in the midst of a dull episode 3 don't exist when
The Turing Test becomes dreadfully dull about halfway through when the
narration voice switches. Again, I've never said I have a problem with
the *writing* or the *authors*, although you continue to push that
opinion on me. I've said it time and time again in this thread that I
think there's a problem with the editor's vision of Who.
> >> You're the one who brought up the Starbucks analogy, with all its
> >> connotations of disposability versus care and craft.
>
> >No. Jim Vowles brought up the gourmet food vs. fast food analogy, with
> >it's connotations of ill-prepared mass consumed garbage vs. lovingly
> >crafted haut quisine... I was simply clarifying it a bit. Anyway, the
> >analogy still fits perfectly. The Starbucks corporation *thinks* it's
> >product will be around a lot longer than Grandma Mamies biscuits and
> >gravy. Just because Starbucks percieves it's product to be timeless,
>
> Don't put words in Starbucks' mouth. They're selling a product because
> there's a demand right now... just like the market-researched,
> demographic-targeted, timeslot-filling TV Doctor Who. And given that the
> writers of the books generally *don't* take a Starbucks approach, your
> analogy still only works if you turn it back around 180 degrees.
I never accused the writers of taking a Starbucks approach to their
writing. Again, I was simply defending the accusation that the TV Show
took a "fast food" approach to storytelling and using the same analogy
to show a different point of view. I don't have the access to
"market-research" and "targeted demographics" and can only speak from
my experience, and that experience is that the novel line appears to
me to attempt a falsely higher-brow approach to Doctor Who and in the
process loses the central tone that appealed to me in the first place.
For the millionth time: I don't think this is the fault of the
writers.
Selaboc
> > lance...@yahoo.com (SKMDC) wrote in message news:<6cba7a65.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> [me]
> > > > we've had episodes
> > > > with no space monsters, several wholly original concepts, an entire
> > > > season without the TARDIS,
> > >
> > > Which season was that?
> >
> > I'm guessing he's refering to season 7 (Doctor stuck on earth) but by
> > golly there's the TARDIS right there in the season opener and in the
> > back ground of Unit HQ in most epidodes, and the Doc even takes the
> > TARDIS console for a spin to the parallel world in the season ender.
> > I'd say maybe he's refering to season 8, but then how does he explain
> > "Colony in Space"?
>
> The TARDIS is effectively out of commission until 3 Docs. It's visible
> occasionally as a background presence, and once or twice we see the
> Doctor tinkering with the console.
Which is a far cry from saying it doesn't appear AT ALL for an entire
season.
> I may have missed an episode, but
> you could revise it to "most of a season" or say "essentially without
> the TARDIS" and the point would still stand.
That would be a completely differnt point, so NO the point doesn't
stand, but mine (that there is no such thing as a season without a
TARDIS) does.
> It's hardly critical to
> the show at that stage,
Quite the opposite in fact. The TARDIS brings him to and strands him
on Earth, all that follows is a result of that (particularily as from
that point on he *IS* seen "tinkering with the console" or other part
(demat circuit) in an effort to repair it until it finally is repaired
in 3 Docs. He longs to escape being "trapped" in one small corner of
time and space, the state of the TARDIS in that time period motivates
the Doctor's actions.
> though it certainly factors in an episode or
> two. I don't remember offhand when Inferno happens in that season, but
> let's face it,
Final Story of the season.
> it doesn't require the TARDIS to get him to that
> alternate universe; he could just as easily have attached a teacup to
> a slinky and put a glowing light on top--he's not travelling in time
> or space, but sideways into a parallel reality.
And it doesn't require the TARDIS to get him anywhere in any story. He
could just as easily have used rocketships, timerings, T-mats, or
whatever other mcguffin the writers wanted. But since he didn't use
those other mcguffins but did use the TARDIS in those other stories
and the TARDIS console in Inferno, such excuses don't wash.
> > > > and no time lords at all until the Monk
> > > > shows up (and unnamed, as are the Doctor's "people" even then).
> > >
> > > The Doctor and Susan. That's 2 more than none.
> >
> > exactly. And the monk shows up in Season Two, which is very early on
> > in relation to the 26 seasons of the show.
>
> And we don't hear the name Time Lord until near the end of War Games,
> and we don't hear Gallifrey until the 3rd Doctor's on the scene. The
> concepts and names hadn't been put together yet.
Yeah, so what? As I pointed out in another post today, Kryptonite
doesn't appear in the superman mythos until years later (and on radio
at that). But I don't think you'll find a person alive that doesn't
automatically think "kryptonite" when discussing Superman. When
something becomes a part of the mythos doesn't really matter, the fact
is it *IS* an integral part of the mythos from the point it enters
onwards is what matters.
Selaboc
> > > > jb...@zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum) wrote in message news:<75d9a022.03040...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > You didn't understand my "word count" argument, and simply saying that
> > > it's got "nothing to do with the quality" doesn't make that the case.
> > >
> >
> > I do understand your word count argument. However, You evidently don't
> > realize how silly it sounds.
> >
> > > I think it's obvious on its face that if you think people are going to
> > > be scrutinizing your work closely, you'll put in more effort to be
> > > sure that it will stand up to that scrutiny.
> >
> > I don't think it's that obvious. Every professional I've ever met will
> > be quick to tell you that the size of the customer base has no
> > relation to how well they do their jobs.
>
> Nope, you're missing his argument.
>
> Do you put in more effort when you type an e-mail or instant message,
> or when you're typing a resume and cover letter to apply for a new
> job?
You're mixing apples an oranges. he's discussing two types of
profesional works (Writing for TV vs writing for books) whereas you
are analogizng with two diverse things that are more akin to comparing
writing a letter to Grandma and writing a Doctorial thesis. Sorry but
you analogy holds no water.
> It's not the number of readers; it's the expectations of the
> intended audience. It wasn't until the 80s and the repeats and
> widespread video availability that the audience for Doctor Who got the
> opportunity to see things a second time. At a certain point, we
> noticed that many of these episodes stood up well to repeat
> viewings--hooray for that, because otherwise none of us would be here
> -- but the fact remains that they weren't crafted for that purpose;
> they were built to be one-shot saturday night fare.
If that were the case, then they would never have had an option for a
second viewing OR overseas sales (which could result in as many
viewings as overseas were willing to buy). Again, you analogy holds no
water.
> It's not and has never
> been a case of better or worse; it's a case of a different purpose.
Atleast we can agree on that.
Selaboc
> You're citing "Four To Doomsday" and "The Space Museum" as benchmarks of
> consistent quality.
>
> I think we might be posting from different universes.
>
> Many, many people would disagree: check out the DWM poll, in which three
> out of those four stories were in the bottom 20 of all TV Who.
Populatiry (or lack there of) is no measure of quality. Just because
something ranks in the "top ten" does not mean it is of good quality
anymore than being placed in the "bottom ten" indicates bad quality.
One need look no futher than all the rap songs that manage to make it
to "top ten" status on music charts in the past two decades to see
that, IMHO (in case you can't tell, I think rap is crap). So once
again, we have an analogy that doesn't hold it's water.
SKMDC
> > > > jb...@zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum) wrote in message news:<75d9a022.03040...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > You didn't understand my "word count" argument, and simply saying that
> > > it's got "nothing to do with the quality" doesn't make that the case.
> > >
> >
> > I do understand your word count argument. However, You evidently don't
> > realize how silly it sounds.
> >
> > > I think it's obvious on its face that if you think people are going to
> > > be scrutinizing your work closely, you'll put in more effort to be
> > > sure that it will stand up to that scrutiny.
> >
> > I don't think it's that obvious. Every professional I've ever met will
> > be quick to tell you that the size of the customer base has no
> > relation to how well they do their jobs.
>
> Nope, you're missing his argument.
I'm really not. Promise.
>
> Do you put in more effort when you type an e-mail or instant message,
> or when you're typing a resume and cover letter to apply for a new
> job?
If my *job* was writing emails, if I were a *professional* email
writer who got paid money to write emails then there would be no less
effort put into emails than into a resume or a cover letter.
> It's not the number of readers; it's the expectations of the
> intended audience.
Is there a different expectation for the novels than for the TV show?
Which has higher expectations? Which lower? Keeping those expectations
in mind which is more successful in consistently fulfilling
expectations? In my opinion, the expectations of the consumer are the
same for both.
>It wasn't until the 80s and the repeats and
> widespread video availability that the audience for Doctor Who got the
> opportunity to see things a second time. At a certain point, we
> noticed that many of these episodes stood up well to repeat
> viewings--hooray for that, because otherwise none of us would be here
> -- but the fact remains that they weren't crafted for that purpose;
> they were built to be one-shot saturday night fare.
So it took repeated viewings for you to be a fan of the show? Maybe
I'm a weirdo but most of the Doctor Who that I like, I liked the first
time I saw it. :) Anyway, apply all you just said to the argument
about stage vs screen actors below. You honestly think the
scriptwriters put in *less* than their best effort when writing TV Who
simply because it wasn't being repeated? I guess then all first run TV
is written at a subpar level and only after a show goes into repeats
do the writers really *kick it up a notch* and start working hard!
> > Since I'm a teacher, using
> > your "obvious" logic, I should use less effort with a smaller class?
> > With something as subjective as art, it's even shakier. Does a stage
> > actor use less effort than a screen actor? The stage is fleeting....
> > one night/one audience... the film is forever... HBO/MST3K... Is the
> > stage actor going to "phone in" their part since there's no permanent
> > record? All of that is still beside the point that it doesn't matter
> > at all the motives or effort put in by the artists, it's the final
> > product that really counts anyway.
>
> A writer whose work is performed understands that the actors,
> directors, set designers, etc. will all have input in the process
> before it's performed; a writer whose medium is novels doesn't have
> those other participants in the process and must rely on his own
> narrative abilities to communicate all of the visual, audio, and other
> stuff. On the other hand, you have to accommodate all those variable
> when you write stuff that will be performed. It's not and has never
> been a case of better or worse; it's a case of a different purpose.
I think you misunderstand... I wasn't comparing the writing process
for stage vs. novels vs. screen. I was comparing the "temporary"
performances of the actors to the assertion that the Who writers were
writing "temporary" stories for TV.
Let's try this again... Assume the same story, same actors... scenario
one: Stage... scenario two: Screen. Is there a difference in effort on
the part of the actors? According to the "logic" of repeated viewings
and higher expectations, the actors on the stage should be putting in
less effort than the ones on film. Is this accurate? How is this
different than what you're saying about the TV writers vs the novel
writers?
SKMDC
> In article <3c20e9e9.03040...@posting.google.com>,
> Selaboc <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm guessing he's refering to season 7 (Doctor stuck on earth) but by
> >golly there's the TARDIS right there in the season opener and in the
> >back ground of Unit HQ in most epidodes,
>
> Which episodes are you watching? The TARDIS itself doesn't appear after
> "Spearhead" 3,
Nor in episodes 1,2,3 of Revenge of the Cybermen... The Doctor doesn't
even appear in several complete episodes in the early days...
>and the console appears in one sequence in *one* episode
> out of the next *fifteen weeks*. That's nearly four months with only one
> token appearance. It had more of a presence in the Earth arc!
How often did the console appear in Season 25 and 26? Ya know, while
we're pointing out the fundamental differences between Season 7 and
the rest of Who.
> At the time in season 7, there's nothing to indicate that the TARDIS
> hasn't been dismantled, and indeed the console being removed would tend to
> indicate that...
I've always assumed the Doctor had "inverted" the dimensional
transcendental thingy mabob and the bits of the TARDIS we didn't see
in Inferno were actually *inside* the console itself. Similar to what
the Doctor did to the Meddling Monk's TARDIS in The Time Meddler.
jb...@zipworld.com.au
>> You're citing "Four To Doomsday" and "The Space Museum" as benchmarks of
>> consistent quality.
>> I think we might be posting from different universes.
>> Many, many people would disagree: check out the DWM poll, in which three
>> out of those four stories were in the bottom 20 of all TV Who.
>Populatiry (or lack there of) is no measure of quality.
"Well I like it", which is all that's being offered to the contrary so
far, is even less of one.
Regards,
Jon Blum
jb...@zipworld.com.au
>> or when you're typing a resume and cover letter to apply for a new
>> job?
>You're mixing apples an oranges. he's discussing two types of
>profesional works (Writing for TV vs writing for books) whereas you
>are analogizng with two diverse things that are more akin to comparing
>writing a letter to Grandma and writing a Doctorial thesis.
The sad truth is that professional work comes in different grades too.
The company I work for in my day job will assign me to spend more time on
projects which get them a lot of revenue, and less time on lower-yielding
ones. Similarly, a script that's paying me a thousand pounds, or which
has other benefits attached, will probably get more extra effort put into
it than one which is paying three hundred pounds. It's all part of making
a living.
Regards,
Jon Blum
jb...@zipworld.com.au
Selaboc <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>jb...@zipworld.com.au wrote in message news:<b6vkfq$at0$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au>...
>> In article <3c20e9e9.03040...@posting.google.com>,
>> Selaboc <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >I'm guessing he's refering to season 7 (Doctor stuck on earth) but by
>> >golly there's the TARDIS right there in the season opener and in the
>> >back ground of Unit HQ in most epidodes,
>> "Spearhead" 3, and the console appears in one sequence in *one* episode
>> out of the next *fifteen weeks*.
>Which is more than it appears in the 11 weeks between Faceless Ones 1
>and Evil of the Daleks 7.
Erm, no, IIRC the TARDIS itself appears in "Faceless Ones" 6 and "Evil" 1
on the lorry, and possibly "Evil" 6 when the Emperor is discussing
spreading the Human Factor through time.
>And we were not discussing 15 weeks of a
>season the assertion was that there was no TARDIS for an entire
>season, which is total bull.
You were discussing that; I was discussing your assertion that it's "in
the back ground of UNIT HQ in most episodes", which is at least as wrong.
Regards,
Jon Blum
SKMDC
> > > I said it was never about cheesy monsters and
> > > rip-off plots. They have their place, as do time travel and Time
> > > Lords, but none of them is vital to Doctor Who --
> >
> > I disagree.
>
> Then write off everything before War Games, because the Time Lords
> aren't mentioned by name.
That's a bit simplistic isn't it? Do you disagree that the First
Doctor and Susan were Time Lords who time travelled?
> > > we've had episodes
> > > with no space monsters, several wholly original concepts, an entire
> > > season without the TARDIS,
> >
> > Which season was that?
>
> Um....did you not see any Pertwee episodes prior to 3 Docs? The TARDIS
> is hobbled enough to be useless, just a thing for the Doctor to tinker
> with, like Bessie or his latest wine-bottle-tech-based gadget...
But that's not an *entire* season without the TARDIS, is it? And in
fact didn't the TARDIS still exist just as much as it had up to that
point? Because something is *off screen* does that mean it ceases to
be?
> >
> > > and no time lords at all until the Monk
> > > shows up (and unnamed, as are the Doctor's "people" even then).
> >
> > The Doctor and Susan. That's 2 more than none.
>
> They are not called Time Lords, nor is a home planet named, for the
> entirety of the Hartnell era and the vast majority of the Troughton
> era. If you honestly don't see what I'm talking about, that's fine,
> but please don't nitpick--nobody had thought up the concept "time
> lord" before War Games.
In my eyes, you're the one nitpicking. The words "time lord" and
"Gallifrey" were never used so therefore they don't exist? If you
honestly don't see what I'm talking about, that's fine, but please
don't nitpick -- nobody had used the phrase "Time Lord" before War
Games, but the Doctor and Susan were still Time Lords... the concept
of them being from an advanced time travelling race had certainly been
thought up prior to War Games.
>
> > >That's
> > > just on the TV show -- the books are, as Virgin once put it, broader
> > > and deeper than the TV series simply because there's more space for
> > > that breadth and depth.
> >
> > Broader and deeper implies encompassing.
>
> Does it? To me it merely implies a larger scope, a bigger range of
> possiblities.
To me all of that implies the source material is a part of the
"larger" and "bigger" range.
> > I think the term "a galaxy
> > far far away" fits better. Besides, I've only been talking about the
> > BBC books in this thread. I actually quite liked many of the NAs and
> > don't think they suffer the same pretention and lack of vision that
> > many of the BBC books do.
>
> The memory cheats. Some of them were pretty pretentious, I thought.
> Still enjoyed them; tastes change over time and what was cool and new
> in 1993 may be old hat now.
But something that was of a high quality in 1993 is still high quality
in 2003. I don't necessarily think DW should strive to be "cool and
new"...
> > > > then what is
> > > > the tv show *about* to you? You seem to have distinct views on what
> > > > makes the novels superior to the show, but what do you like about the
> > > > show itself?
> > >
> > > I don't think the novels in general are superior to the show in
> > > general; that said, there are books that I consider to be among the
> > > best Who stories ever, much better than many of the TV tales. I think
> > > the novels have potential to far outdo the show in specific ways -- by
> > > tackling topics too tricky for the TV, by not being bound by the
> > > special effects budget, by dealing with plots that require more than 4
> > > or 6 episodes to play out.
> >
> > Again, I'm crystal clear on the plethora of things you believe the
> > books can do better than the show. I'm just unclear on if you think
> > the show can do *anything* better than a novel. If not, then why
> > bother watching the show?
>
> It can be a television show a hell of a lot better, for one thing.
That's a relief. Do you think it can tell visual stories or action
based stories better? Do you think it does comedy better?
> Look, I love the Tolkien books. I also love the movies. They're
> different entities, and one definitely looks to the other for
> inspiration, guidance, source material....but in that case, one is a
> filmable work and the other simply isn't. Many books I very much enjoy
> would be unwatchable without major changes.
>
> Because two things are different doesn't mean that one is better than
> the other.
Agreed %100... So how can you say "...there are books that I consider
to be among the best Who stories ever, much better than many of the TV
tales..."
So basically, you enjoy it because *something* in TV Who raises it
above what you would normally consider crap? I guess that's what many
of the novels are missing for me.
>
> > > > I've seen some
> > > > products of imagination on the web that have no place in the Who
> > > > playground. :)
> > >
> > > Me too. I don't have a problem with slash fiction, but I'm not really
> > > a consumer of it either.
> >
> > But should slash fiction be a part of the official DW novel or audio
> > line?
>
> No. Who claimed that it should?
You did, when you said there were no limits to the Doctor Who
Universe.
jb...@zipworld.com.au
Pulling one thread of the conversation -- all relating to "source
material" -- out into a separate posting!
> > (Quick aside: that's fan rationalization. Can you give me any
> > evidence that Graham Williams or Anthony Read had paid any attention
> > to the existence of "Keys of Marinus" when they came up with their own
> > idea?)
> (Aside to the aside: You mean beyond the on screen story elements?
Curiously, the idea of a quest through a variety of settings to collect a
whole bunch of mythical gemstones / plot devices predates Terry Nation.
It's such a well-worn formula that it's made it into the Turkey City
Lexicon (see the entry on "plot coupons"). I'd say it's far more likely
that Williams and Read, being generally well-read folks, were aware of
these ideas from outside of the Programme Guide. In fact, I'd even go so
far as to say that most things inside Doctor Who were inspired by things
*outside* of Doctor Who.
When I talk about "source material", here and below, I'm talking about all
the stories and assorted material which feed into a writer's work. When
you talk about it, you seem to be confining it to the supposed Doctor Who
Canon -- on the assumption that this is the primary overriding influence
on a writer of Doctor Who.
The thing is, that often isn't the case. When Innes Lloyd turned up, his
primary influence on what he wanted Who to be came from *outside* what Who
had previously done. Ditto for Derrick Sherwin, or Philip Hinchcliffe.
Previous Who styles were there to draw on, but not to circumscribe their
playing field. Many of their most overt influences, from "The Avengers"
to "Frankenstein", came very much from outside of Who.
> You're probably right about the fan rationalization. You only ask for
> evidence because you know there is none, but no evidence doesn't
> necessarily mean the assumption is false. Agreed? Is there evidence
> beyond the story itself that Holmes borrowed elements from the Star
> Trek episodes "Shore Leave" and "Arena" when he penned "The Deadly
> Assassin"?)
No, because he's too busy borrowing from the same stories which inspired
those episodes, like "The Most Dangerous Game". A case in point -- Holmes
casts a wide net, wider than other Who or Star Trek.
[...]
> > > If *everything* is source material, then *nothing* is source
> > > material. Don't you see that?
> > Erm, no.
> > If the source material is "Doctor Who", then all the bits of Doctor
> > Who can be part of the source material. That actually seems like a
> > pretty clear dividing line, between things that *are* called Doctor
> > Who and things which *aren't* called Doctor Who.
> So, you don't think the original TV series is in anyway the 'father'
> or 'progenitor' of non-TV Who?
No more and no less than season 9 is the "father" of season 21. (They
even feature three of the same baddies, and visible influences in story
content.) It's a continuous evolution, not a sharp generational divide.
> I'm curous, is it just Who you see this
> way, or can the Droid cartoons from the 80s be considered source
> material for Star Wars?
Funnily enough, Lucasfilm considers all that stuff to be just as canonical
as the films; you can't contradict any of it.
> > Yes, and so are the books, and pretty much everything else with the
> > "Doctor Who" name on it. Of course, as a writer, my concept of
> > "source material" also extends to everything from "Frankenstein" to
> > "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" to "The Importance Of Being Earnest",
> > but that's a separate subject.
> So now not just everything that's ever had DW on it, but *everything*
> in existence is source material. I truly admire your "one with the
> universe" approach to the subject. :) It reminds of the posts around
> here recently that approach all fiction as taking place in the same
> universe. However, I must say that when using such a wide pallette to
> paint from, don't you find that mixes so many colors that it
> eventually all turns to black?
No, no more than Robert Holmes painted everything black when he used "The
Manchurian Candidate" and "The Most Dangerous Game" and real-world
politics as his source material for "The Deadly Assassin". Here, again,
I'm talking about a *writer's* source material -- not The Canon, but the
vast spread of stories and ideas which feeds into the story they're
telling now.
[...]
> > > Nice flip of the argument there again. Did Boucher really only ever
> > > watch his 3 stories?
> > He said, in the preview for "Psi-ence Fiction", that one of the
> > reasons that he only writes for the fourth Doctor and Leela is because
> > if he wrote for another team, he'd actually have to watch their
> > stories.
> And the Fourth Doctor and Leela were only in 3 stories?
They'd been in none by the time he wrote his first two scripts. I suppose
it's possible he might have watched "Weng-Chiang" as well before work
started on "Fendahl", since it had been shot by then. So that might make
four.
But of course, all this is just another diversion; none of it affects the
fundamental point, which is that Chris Boucher's Who stories bear
practically no signs of any influence from other Doctor Who; their style
isn't "Doctor Who" so much as "Holmes and Boucher". If he did watch any
other Doctor Who, ever, the scripts show no clear sign of it. Boucher's
own personal style dominates that of any series he's writing for -- as
shown by the ease with which the "Kaldor City" audios blend the "Robots of
Death" backdrop with the Blake's 7 Federation. You could probably drop
Nathan Spring into that mix as well, give or take a few hundred years'
worth of technology, and not miss a beat. ("Kaldor City" is fab, BTW,
especially "Death's Head", the one Boucher wrote himself -- he's
definitely on fine form.) Even something as apparently atypical as
"Fendahl" is still packed to the brim with Boucherisms, from every line
uttered by Adam Colby to the duelling baddies in Fendelman and Stael.
Can you think of anyone else in Doctor Who on TV who talks like a Chris
Boucher character? (Bonus points for any characters who weren't also
rewritten by the same script editor.)
Other peoples' Doctor Who is not Chris Boucher's primary source material;
Chris' own interests are. The only reason I can think of why you accept
Boucher doing his own thing without regard for surrounding tone and style,
and condemn the recent books for doing the same sort of thing, is that
Boucher did it on TV when you were a kid.
> > > Who's more aware of the source material, someone
> > > whose expertise is confined to watching episodes and writing TV
> > > tie-in novels or someone who actually wrote 3 of the stories from
> > > the source material for those novels?
> > Again, you're going for that false dichotomy between "the source
> > material" and "the tie-in novels".
> False in your opinion, which as you pointed out earlier, is not a
> fact.
All opinions are not created equal. You're saying you think things work
like X. I *do* those things, and I'm saying they work like Y. I win.
> > From where I'm standing, that
> > doesn't exist, and Lance Parkin has written a big share of the source
> > material, Doctor Who.
> >From where you're standing so has Mary Shelley and Tennessee Williams.
See above about the difference between a writer's source material, and the
way you're using the term. When I say they're writing source material,
that doesn't mean they're writing Doctor Who.
> > > My point here, in case you're still not
> > > sure, was that for the most part the novels don't recognize the TV
> > > show as source material, as you have proudly admitted,
> > No, go back to my quote above. "For me, the source material includes
> > 26+ years of TV, twelve years of novels..."
> No, go back to my quote... "novels don't recognize the TV show as
> source material..." When you add novels, comics, and Frankenstein, it
> ceases to be the TV show that's the the *source* material. Source
> implies one... or at least first.
Only to you, apparently. A river may be said to have one source, but
journalists are expected to have at least three. We obviously recognize
the TV show as source material, if not as the *sole* source material.
Even so, you're lumping 150 stories, produced under wildly different
circumstances and philosophies over a variety of years, together as a
single "source" and claiming they're indivisible, the single unit of Real
Doctor Who. I'm much doing the same, except that my total is probably
closer to 450-500 stories making up Real Doctor Who.
And of course, that's a separate matter from the question of all the other
bits of writer's source material to draw on, of which Doctor Who is only
one part.
Regards,
Jon Blum
jb...@zipworld.com.au
Another chunk to factor out -- this time to do with the way in which
season 7 was a departure from earlier Who...
> > > Oh dear. Back to Season 7. If Season 7 hadn't occured there would be
> > > so little to talk about, eh? ;) Once again... Season 7 wasn't *that*
> > > big a change. The process was still there that led to distinctly Who
> > > stories. Is "Inferno" really that different than "The War Machines"?
> > Aside from the opening credits, what can you point to that they have
> > in common? Everything from the Doctor's role (absent-minded professor
> > versus dandified action hero) to the style of his companions to the
> > TARDIS (which does things in "Inferno" which it's never done before or
> > since) has changed radically.
> The Doctor is very much an absent minded professor in Inferno dontcha
> think?
Erm, no. He's a dashing Venusian Aikido master who gets into punch-ups on
gantries and chases and action sequences. He's an engineer, like Greg
Sutton, but he's hardly off with the fairies the way Hartnell wanders
through the action. His one bit of apparent woolly-minded-boffin-ness --
sending Liz to the main computer in part two -- is a ruse to allow him to
further his own aims, which have little to do with the primary sci-fi
threats he's facing at that time. He serves a very different, more
hands-on role throughout "Inferno" than Hartnell does in "War Machines"...
Hartnell spends much more of his time on the sidelines, rather than mixing
it up on the front lines the way Ben and Polly do.
> And the near future Earth setting in The War Machines is almost
> identical to the setting of Inferno. The new state of the art drilling
> machine leading to a "possesion and control" of innocents in a
> "technology gone awry" cautionary tale as compared with the new
> computer WOTAN doing the same thing in War Machines. All those are
> details though, and not really the point. The strongest thing that
> both episodes have in common is a definite DW tone and story.
You keep saying things like this -- but what can you point to that makes
the difference? Because I see a "definite DW tone and story" in "City of
the Dead" and "Father Time" and "Tigers" and "Eater of Wasps" (another
"possession and control" story) and "Vanishing Point" and so forth. It's
very much Justin's aim that, when you strip away all the continuity
trappings, what's left in stories like "The Burning" is that unique Whoish
tone, a combination of whimsy and horror and infinite imagination. You
say it's not there; what details can you give me on what makes these
stories different from your Real Who?
> Nomatter
> the changes in Season 7, the producers and script editors were *still*
> keeping the show true to the tone and style of what went before.
But ironically, the story you're pointing to as "what went before" is the
story which was in itself a radical departure from anything the show had
done before. "The War Machines" took a show which up to that point had
been set anywhere, everywhere but recognizable late-twentieth-century
England, and dragged it kicking and screaming into Swinging London, with
wholesale cast changes along the way. It has a sharply different tone and
style from anything that went before it -- even more so than the
action-sequence-heavy, mass-destruction-and-slaughter,
weighty-concepts-like-free-will-pondering "Inferno" is from "War
Machines"' comparatively bloodless B-movie thriller territory.
Regards,
Jon Blum
jb...@zipworld.com.au
Another bit to factor out -- this one on the question of whether Who
writers should aim for rereadability.
SKMDC kicked this off with:
> > How's that? I'm much more inclined to rewatch a TV show than reread a
> > novel. There's a few novels read over and over; Tolkein, Stephenson,
> > Fleming... but for a TV Tie-In paperback range?
I responded:
> Well, that's you. But when I'm creating the thing, I'm holding it to
> a higher standard than that. Certainly no less of a standard than
> Fleming's crafted pulp thrillers.
SKMDC again:
> > > Fleming crafted pulp thrillers that were eventually recognized as
> > > classics, like Burrough's Tarzan books, but neither of them set out
> > > to create something more than a read and throw away adventure
> > > stories. They had no delusions of creating classics of Western
> > > Literature. Do the Who authors and editors believe their work is of
> > > a higher standard than Fleming or Burroughs?
> > Put the goalposts down; you're the one who contrasted "mere TV tie-in
> > paperbacks" as being *less* likely to be re-read than Fleming's pulp,
> > so therefore they shouldn't be crafted with even *that* much of an eye
> > to re-reading.
> But I was saying Fleming's pulp was written as "mere TV tie-in" and
> the BBC authors should write with same eye to rereading as Fleming.
That looks like the exact opposite of the meaning of your "There's a few
novels [I] read over and over; [...] Fleming... but for a TV Tie-In
paperback range?". Looks to me like you're saying that you *would*
re-read Fleming, but *not* a TV tie-in, so we shouldn't bother holding
ourselves to Fleming's lofty standards.
(I apologize for putting the "mere" phrase in quotes -- that made it look
like you'd actually said that bit as well, as opposed to implying it.)
> > And comparing Lloyd Rose to Ian Fleming is like comparing chocolate
> > mousse to steak. Really, which one is the higher standard?
> I'm not following you here. Sorry, I know I'm thick sometimes. Are you
> saying that Rose and Fleming books are so different in content they
> shouldn't be compared,
Yes. They have very different styles, aims, and means of achieving their
aims. I rarely read Fleming for poetry or Gothic atmosphere, or vivid
emotional journeys. I rarely read Lloyd Rose for machismo.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Alan S. Wales
<snip>
>So basically, you enjoy it because *something* in TV Who raises it
>above what you would normally consider crap? I guess that's what many
>of the novels are missing for me.
LOL. Me too. BTW, the last EDA I read was The Turing Test. I haven't been back
to the series either. I, too, find the NA's to be much better and believe they
will stand the test of time much longer than, say, Henrietta Street. To preempt
the EDA defenders, no, I haven't read it. But other people whose opinions I
respect have read it. Nyctolops didn't like it for example, and wrote:
...Tantric sex opens a gateway to a dimension peopled by very hostile apes.
Okay, I can deal with that. Then the apes turn out to be an incarnation of
Man's ignorance and violence. Ugh. Scarlette has a magic talisman -- a piece
of glass that is from a riot in which people were killed (is that right? I
don't remember exactly.). The Doctor is going to mystically tie himself to the
Earth (Gaia principle in full play here) by marrying Juliette. Sabbath
performs psychic surgery on the Doctor. Since that last bit actually takes
place in the dimension of the
Babewyn, I could take that on its own, but added in with all the other
stuff, it just added to my annoyance.
Lancer, see all this high-falootin' quality stuff that couldn't possibly be
shown (on the limited canvas that is TV) that we are missing?
--
"When you argue with a fool be sure he is not similarly occupied."
jb...@zipworld.com.au
This is the main piece here.
lance...@yahoo.com (SKMDC) wrote in message
news:<6cba7a65.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> jb...@zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum) wrote in message
news:<75d9a022.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > You didn't understand my "word count" argument, and simply saying that
> > it's got "nothing to do with the quality" doesn't make that the case.
> I do understand your word count argument. However, You evidently don't
> realize how silly it sounds.
Perhaps the reason it sounds silly, to you, is because you've profoundly
misunderstood it.
The numbers, after all, were merely a simple way of demonstrating that
Lance, at the time, had written about four times as much Doctor Who as
Chris had. And that it was recent successful work, as opposed to having
to reach back more than two decades in his memory bag.
> > I think it's obvious on its face that if you think people are going to
> > be scrutinizing your work closely, you'll put in more effort to be
> > sure that it will stand up to that scrutiny.
> I don't think it's that obvious. Every professional I've ever met will
> be quick to tell you that the size of the customer base has no
> relation to how well they do their jobs. Since I'm a teacher, using
> your "obvious" logic, I should use less effort with a smaller class?
Again, you've misunderstood: you're confusing audience size with
intensity of scrutiny. I suspect you'd put more work into a doctoral
dissertation, or a videotaped lecture which you knew people were going to
be seeing again and again, than into an off-the-cuff daily lecture to
students who you know aren't going to be going over your words with a
fine-tooth comb.
> With something as subjective as art, it's even shakier. Does a stage
> actor use less effort than a screen actor?
A stage actor who knows he's facing a tough crowd -- critics from the
paper scrutinizing his performance -- may well put in more effort than on
a random Saturday matinee. More generally, if an actor screws up one
night on stage, it's ah well, on to the next; if they screw up in the
studio while making "Timelash", they'll be mocked by fans for decades to
come.
[...]
> > More words per week means you have to do more writing in the same
> > amount of time. That means you have less time to spend on getting the
> > writing right. Do you see what I'm getting at now?
> Frankly? No. If Writer A had to write 2000 words a week and Writer B
> had to write 5000 words a week, then using your logic Writer A has
> more time for tweaking. But what if Writer B typed 120 word per minute
> and Writer A typed 60 words per minute? [snip]
This is the third time in this post alone that you've gotten hung up on
the finer points of a simple analogy. Remember, the analogy is not the
same thing as the point. None of your quibbles actually dent the basic
point that having more time to polish the work makes it more likely that
you'll get it right. And as a general rule, the book writers do have a
more leisurely pace than most TV scriptwriters.
> > You've grabbed the wrong end of the stick again. The numbers were
> > just an example to reinforce the general principle: if you're dashing
> > something off at high speeds without time to think, you're far more
> > likely to produce hackwork than art.
> Tell that to Hunter S. Thompson or Jack Kerouac.
Hence "far more likely" rather than "guaranteed". (And I've seen some of
the stuff Thompson's written on an off day, as published in the Washington
City Paper by editors who prefaced it with an apology. He, at least,
isn't immune.)
> The general principle
> is that art can't be quantified by math. The only thing that creates
> the art is the artist. If Robert Holmes has to sit down and rush
> through a four part script to meet a deadline, like he did for "Ark In
> Space", does that mean he's more likely to turn in hack work than me
> sitting down for six months pounding out my pet Doctor Who meets
> Bucakroo Banzai fanfic?
Holmes is an apple, you're an orange. If Holmes had more time to craft
his version of "Pyramids of Mars", he may well have fixed its plot holes.
The same applies to another professional of roughly similar stature, as
opposed to an untried fanfic writer.
[...]
> > > The fact that the BBC books miss
> > > as often as they do is evidence that the book editors have lost this
> > > central something.
> > There's no fact, just your opinion.
> Reading my post above, the terms
> "hit" and "miss" (your terms) are assumed to be subjective. The
> "facts" I'm referring to are the FACT ONE: My opinion is the TV hits
> much of the time. FACT TWO: My opinion is the novels miss much of the
> time.
"The fact that my opinion is that the BBC books miss" is rather different
from "The fact that the BBC books miss" -- if you mean the former rather
than the latter, then you might want to put in the extra words. :-)
(And the terms "hit" and "miss", while flexible, can at least vaguely be
judged objectively; you can easily declare "Androzani" a hit and
"Timelash" a miss, judging by a broad spectrum of fan reactions.
Similarly you can more or less declare "Father Time" a hit and "Escape
Velocity" a miss. Hence the confusion, because the terms are not solely
subjective.)
[...]
> > > > Chris has one story in the top ten of the DWM all-of-TV poll.
> > > > That same month, Lance had three in the top ten of the DWM
> > > > all-the-books poll. I don't see this as a profound difference in
> > > > success...
> > > It's really good that you don't see DWM polls as a relevant gauge of
> > > artistic success.
> > Those goalposts keep running around the field, don't they?
> Yes, everytime you bring up DWM polls or numbers of stories =
> experience.
There they go again! First it was "success", then "*artistic* success" (a
quite different thing), then "experience". The fact remains, if you can
claim "artistic success" for Boucher based on your own personal tastes,
that doesn't invalidate pointing to a whole bunch of peoples' personal
tastes to make a similar claim.
[...]
> > > > If you want to talk story development, Lance Parkin has more TV
> > > > storylining experience now than Chris Boucher did when he was
> > > > writing for Who...
> > > I heard a "so there, bleh!" at the end of that sentence. :) Okay,
> > > when did this turn into a Lance vs. Chris argument?
> > Somewhere around the point where you said that Chris Boucher's year
> > and a bit of Who experience more than 25 years ago trumped the Who
> > experience of the old hands of the novel range...
> Which was only a response to your arrogant assertion that the novel
> writing experience of Lance Parkin meant that he was somehow a "more
> accomplished" creator of Who than Chris Boucher.
I never said that. You, OTOH, put Boucher's work above that of Lance and
all the other recent novelists, so I responded to that.
(Note: "Boucher isn't significantly better than Parkin" does not equal
"Boucher is significantly worse than Parkin".)
[...]
> > The comment above about plot holes is Holmes' own
> > words, IIRC talking about "Pyramids of Mars" -- a story which works
> > really well on screen, thanks in part to some inspired direction and
> > performances, but in novel form would fall apart at the slightest
> > application of thought.
> Where can I find comments about plot holes in the novels posted by the
> novelists themselves in the selfless way Holmes has evidently
> commented? Or are there no plot holes in the BBC novels?
Try Google -- you'll see Lance talking about "Cold Fusion", or Kate about
"Set Piece" or "Return", or Paul Cornell about his tendency to scurry from
one set piece to the next, or me about the plotting problems in "Seeing I"
and "Unnatural History" (though those are more to do with pacing and
structure than holes per se).
[...]
> > And to the bald-faced lie that mentioning any imperfections
> > of our "betters" represents some kind of "Oedipal rage". If it was
> > just J. Random Fanboy pointing out those same examples of Holmes'
> > dodgy plot-logic, would you try to discredit his argument with an ad
> > hominem attack like that?)
> I haven't responded to you
> in a tone any different than someone who *hadn't* written DW novels
Are you really saying that if Jim Vowles or Cameron Mason had pointed out
Holmes' attitude towards plot holes, you would have responded to them with
"Now he's havin' a go at Holmes! What'll it be next the birdies?" I find
that difficult to believe.
> If the
> specifics of what I say are determined by the fact I know who you are,
> that's something that I can't help... it's no more than you responding
> to me in a way that shows you consider me *just* a J. Random Fanboy.
Well, except for the detail that we're talking about a field in which I'm
a professional, with inside knowledge, and you're not. This does tend to
produce situations where I know what I'm talking about more than you do.
More to the point, though, after all these years I'm also thoroughly sick
of the usual Usenet games of clever point-scoring and one-upmanship, often
disguising shoddy arguments with a shower of tangents. If I sound like a
blunt instrument at the moment, that's probably why. Not because I'm an
author and you're some sort of peasant, but because I'm tired of people
waving bright shiny things instead of acknowledging each others' points.
I really don't mean to take my impatience out on you -- but at the same
time, I don't want you taking out the usual Usenet routines on me. So if
you actually do want to discuss things with me, please try to keep things
as restrained and focused as possible. If, on the other hand, you keep
taking little digs at me like the Gollum quote I snipped, I probably won't
respond any more. Just a word.
Cheers,
Jon Blum
jb...@zipworld.com.au
Just a bit of historical context in this one.
> > > I'm not even sure I completely
> > > agree with Jack, but it irks me to see him jumped on for
> > > *attempting* to find out why the novels don't work anymore.
> > As people have said already, he hasn't been jumped on for disagreeing
> > -- but for disagreeing *in ignorance*, repeatedly, for several years
> > running without a break.
> I guess I'm in danger of being the next poor soul tarred with the
> phrase "in ignorance" since I have yet to see posts where Jack makes
> specific criticisms of books he hasn't read.
See his complaints about the man with the rosette's identity, or his
complaints about the non-mention of UNIT in "Father Time" and the handling
of the Gallifrey explanations in "Escape Velocity" (both of which started
long before he read the books in question), or indeed his complaints about
"Interference" based on second-hand reports (which started in about August
1999, long before he read the book).
> Anyway, I thought Jack
> was on about the current arc in the novels? If that's the case, then
> how has he complained about the current arc for "several years"?
Before the amnesia arc, he was condemning the "Dangling Retcon" in
"Interference" (and its effect on every single subsequent book) without
having read it. He also once announced he was boycotting the books
because Steve Cole had apparently closed the EDA line to newbie authors,
when in fact he hadn't read any EDAs since "Vampire Science" at the time
of his boycott.
I hope that's an accurate summary!
Regards,
Jon Blum
jb...@zipworld.com.au
> Season 1 of the Doctor Who television series is superior in
> storytelling impact to the Doctor Who BBC Line of novels published in
> 2001.
> You see, I'll make my own declarations, you don't have to make them
> for me!Pointing you to how I can make that claim, in quantifying terms
> you like so much, can be done in any number of ways... 1) viewing
> figures compared to book sales. 2) timelessness (granted the books
> will have to age about 40 years, but I think I'm safe on this one.) 3)
> age ranges of consumers. 4) fanbase generated... I'm sure there's
> more, but that's all silly bean counting and no way to judge art....
I'm glad you admit this, because none of that has anything to do with
anything I've asked at any point. You're the one saying that these things
are superior, so I asked you to show what *you* feel makes them superior.
(If you look back, you'll find that I never *have* done the "judging art
by word counting" things you've claimed; judging success by fan response
is a quite different thing.)
> To each is own, but
> I can tell you what my *opinion* is of why Season 1 is better than
> current BBC Books. I feel the *adult* tone used in the BBC Books is in
> conflict with the source material, and the books should be lighter
> pulpier affairs. However, I did enjoy much of the adult toned NAs, so
> how is that? My only answer is that the NAs had efforts being made at
> the editorial level to keep the stories firmly DW, in spite of the
> adult tone. The BBC Books I've read are often not distinctly Who, the
> amnesiaDoc books, and when that's added to a the annoying "adult" tone
> I've been tolerating for 12 years, it creates a product that is so
> different than Season 1 Doctor Who, that in my opinion it is inferior.
See, that's an opinion I can respect, as an opinion. I just hope that you
can accept that the fact that you at most tolerate the "adult" tone
doesn't do anything to convince me that I should change my approach --
because that tone is part of what I love about Who. Even when I was
young, it was a show that was more grown-up than anything else in its
league.
Regards,
Jon Blum
jb...@zipworld.com.au
Selaboc <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yeah, so what? As I pointed out in another post today, Kryptonite
>doesn't appear in the superman mythos until years later (and on radio
>at that). But I don't think you'll find a person alive that doesn't
>automatically think "kryptonite" when discussing Superman. When
>something becomes a part of the mythos doesn't really matter, the fact
>is it *IS* an integral part of the mythos from the point it enters
>onwards is what matters.
Some of these iconic images can also fall out of the mythos; when's the
last time you saw a reference to Superman changing clothes in a phone
booth, or saying "Up, up, and away!"?
(One was already the subject of a gag about how much it had dated by the
time of the first Christopher Reeve film about 25 years ago, and the other
had begun to fade even as early as the transition off of radio.)
Heck, right now they're doing a Superman series without the costume, and
where Clark can't fly... again, back to the roots of the early Action
comics where leaping tall buildings was the extent of his flight ability.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Daibhid Ceannaideach
>From: jb...@zipworld.com.au
>Date: 09/04/03 15:39 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <b71era$r4u$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au>
>
>In article <3c20e9e9.0304...@posting.google.com>,
>Selaboc <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Yeah, so what? As I pointed out in another post today, Kryptonite
>>doesn't appear in the superman mythos until years later (and on radio
>>at that). But I don't think you'll find a person alive that doesn't
>>automatically think "kryptonite" when discussing Superman. When
>>something becomes a part of the mythos doesn't really matter, the fact
>>is it *IS* an integral part of the mythos from the point it enters
>>onwards is what matters.
>
>Some of these iconic images can also fall out of the mythos; when's the
>last time you saw a reference to Superman changing clothes in a phone
>booth, or saying "Up, up, and away!"?
Action Comics #800, cover date April 2003, for both. Sorry.
--
Dave
Now Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc for FOUR years
"The real reason for the whole thing is that it was just too much effort *not*
to have a war."
-Cpt Edmund Blackadder, Blackadder Goes Forth
Jim Vowles
[snip quite a lot]
> I think you misunderstand... I wasn't comparing the writing process
> for stage vs. novels vs. screen. I was comparing the "temporary"
> performances of the actors to the assertion that the Who writers were
> writing "temporary" stories for TV.
>
> Let's try this again... Assume the same story, same actors... scenario
> one: Stage... scenario two: Screen. Is there a difference in effort on
> the part of the actors? According to the "logic" of repeated viewings
> and higher expectations, the actors on the stage should be putting in
> less effort than the ones on film. Is this accurate? How is this
> different than what you're saying about the TV writers vs the novel
> writers?
Let's try all over again. You're clearly *NOT* seeing what I'm talking
about.
There is a big difference between how one writes work that will be
performed versus work that will be read at leisure. Things that work
well on the pages of a novel do not always work well, or have the same
effect, on stage/screen/audio. And the reverse is true -- after all, a
picture is worth a thousand words. And performances have a major
impact, as actors and directors can bring in their own interpretations
of the words on the page, sometimes improving them and sometimes not.
A writer creating a dramatic work should be concentrating on dialog
and clear instructions, among other things, but always with an eye to
how humans will act out what he's written. He concentrates on things
that make good entertaining screen time -- zingy dialog that's quickly
understood, etc. Drama allows for a lot of shorthand and
corner-cutting because it relies on performance and direction.
A writer creating a novel concentrates on those things, but also on
evoking a sense of place, a subtlety of tone, etc. that are, in drama,
largely the purview of other people and the interpretation they bring
to it (though of course based on the descriptions provided). A novel
writer cannot count on such help; he must be able to get into words
and convey succinctly everything that he wishes the reader to know.
Being skilled at one does not necessarily translate into being skilled
at the other, even though there are many core skills that both share.
Selaboc
> In article <3c20e9e9.03040...@posting.google.com>,
> Selaboc <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >jb...@zipworld.com.au wrote in message news:<b6vkfq$at0$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au>...
> >> In article <3c20e9e9.03040...@posting.google.com>,
> >> Selaboc <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >I'm guessing he's refering to season 7 (Doctor stuck on earth) but by
> >> >golly there's the TARDIS right there in the season opener and in the
> >> >back ground of Unit HQ in most epidodes,
>
> >> The TARDIS itself doesn't appear after
> >> "Spearhead" 3, and the console appears in one sequence in *one* episode
> >> out of the next *fifteen weeks*.
>
> >Which is more than it appears in the 11 weeks between Faceless Ones 1
> >and Evil of the Daleks 7.
>
> Erm, no, IIRC the TARDIS itself appears in "Faceless Ones" 6 and "Evil" 1
> on the lorry, and possibly "Evil" 6 when the Emperor is discussing
> spreading the Human Factor through time.
Is it visible or are we just told it's on the lorry? Since it's
missing I've never seen the scene. Same for Evil 6.
> >And we were not discussing 15 weeks of a
> >season the assertion was that there was no TARDIS for an entire
> >season, which is total bull.
>
> You were discussing that; I was discussing your assertion that it's "in
> the back ground of UNIT HQ in most episodes", which is at least as wrong.
Well it is, just that season 7 most episodes take place outside of
UNIT HQ :-)
As I said earlier, It's been awhile since I've watch season 7 (bar
Spearhead), so It's possible I was thinking more of the episode that
do take place in UNIT HQ in Season 8. Point remains, there is NO such
thing as a season without the TARDIS.
Kiri
Kiri
Jim Vowles
> jvo...@yahoo.com (Jim Vowles) wrote in message news:<a312a079.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > c64...@hotmail.com (Selaboc) wrote in message news:<3c20e9e9.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > > lance...@yahoo.com (SKMDC) wrote in message news:<6cba7a65.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> [me]
> > > > > we've had episodes
> > > > > with no space monsters, several wholly original concepts, an entire
> > > > > season without the TARDIS,
> > > >
> > > > Which season was that?
> > >
> > > I'm guessing he's refering to season 7 (Doctor stuck on earth) but by
> > > golly there's the TARDIS right there in the season opener and in the
> > > back ground of Unit HQ in most epidodes, and the Doc even takes the
> > > TARDIS console for a spin to the parallel world in the season ender.
> > > I'd say maybe he's refering to season 8, but then how does he explain
> > > "Colony in Space"?
> >
> > The TARDIS is effectively out of commission until 3 Docs. It's visible
> > occasionally as a background presence, and once or twice we see the
> > Doctor tinkering with the console.
>
> Which is a far cry from saying it doesn't appear AT ALL for an entire
> season.
It's not crucial to any story that season. It also appears in every
story in the Earth Arc in the books. The Doctor is equally unable to
make use of it in any meaningful way.
> > I may have missed an episode, but
> > you could revise it to "most of a season" or say "essentially without
> > the TARDIS" and the point would still stand.
>
> That would be a completely differnt point, so NO the point doesn't
> stand, but mine (that there is no such thing as a season without a
> TARDIS) does.
The point isn't how many episodes we see the police box in, but
whether it's crucial to telling stories about The Doctor.
>
> > It's hardly critical to
> > the show at that stage,
>
> Quite the opposite in fact. The TARDIS brings him to and strands him
> on Earth, all that follows is a result of that (particularily as from
> that point on he *IS* seen "tinkering with the console" or other part
> (demat circuit) in an effort to repair it until it finally is repaired
> in 3 Docs. He longs to escape being "trapped" in one small corner of
> time and space, the state of the TARDIS in that time period motivates
> the Doctor's actions.
No, the TIME LORDS bring him to and strand him on Earth. As we see
later in Tom Baker's era, a TARDIS is not required for that purpose.
> And it doesn't require the TARDIS to get him anywhere in any story. He
> could just as easily have used rocketships, timerings, T-mats, or
> whatever other mcguffin the writers wanted. But since he didn't use
> those other mcguffins but did use the TARDIS in those other stories
> and the TARDIS console in Inferno, such excuses don't wash.
You've just made my point for me. The TARDIS' main value is an iconic
one, but it's not a requirement for any story in particular. For
pretty much the entirety of that first season, the ol' police box
stands in a corner, not taking the Doctor anywhere in time and space.
It's not his base of operations, it's another gadget. Does that make
the season bad? No -- they get on with telling stories in which the
TARDIS isn't needed. It's there to remind us of his exile and to
provide continuity. It's *useful*, and iconic -- but no more so than
the Sonic Screwdriver.
>
> > > > > and no time lords at all until the Monk
> > > > > shows up (and unnamed, as are the Doctor's "people" even then).
> > > >
> > > > The Doctor and Susan. That's 2 more than none.
> > >
> > > exactly. And the monk shows up in Season Two, which is very early on
> > > in relation to the 26 seasons of the show.
> >
> > And we don't hear the name Time Lord until near the end of War Games,
> > and we don't hear Gallifrey until the 3rd Doctor's on the scene. The
> > concepts and names hadn't been put together yet.
>
> Yeah, so what? As I pointed out in another post today, Kryptonite
> doesn't appear in the superman mythos until years later (and on radio
> at that). But I don't think you'll find a person alive that doesn't
> automatically think "kryptonite" when discussing Superman. When
> something becomes a part of the mythos doesn't really matter, the fact
> is it *IS* an integral part of the mythos from the point it enters
> onwards is what matters.
You're shifting the goalposts here -- the show did just fine for two
entire Doctors with nary a mention of Time Lords (bar War Games) or
Gallifrey. I fully accept that they're part of the mythos, but that
doesn't mean the show can't exist without them. It did so prior to
their invention.
Or are you actually claiming that you can't have DOctor Who without
mentioning Time Lords or Gallifrey? We all know that the Time Lords
*must* have been around, but they were retconned into existence and
weren't part of the basic toolkit used to construct the show.
"Time Lord" can't be crucial to the concept of the Doctor precisely
because it was a late addition; "mysterious time-traveller who looks
human but isn't quite like us" *is* crucial to the concept of the
Doctor, and "Time Lord from Gallifrey" is but one expression of that
"outsider" guise -- not even the one originally envisioned!
-Jim
Kiri
appear to from here.
Daibhid Ceannaideach
>From: "Kiri" kyr...@core.com
>Date: 09/04/03 21:53 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <v992r4h...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>What is STFU and why are you picking on Jack?
STFU means "kindly be quiet, thank you". More or less.
--
Dave
Now Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc for FOUR years
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Jim Vowles
> jvo...@yahoo.com (Jim Vowles) wrote in message news:<a312a079.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > lance...@yahoo.com (SKMDC) wrote in message news:<6cba7a65.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > > >That's
> > > > just on the TV show -- the books are, as Virgin once put it, broader
> > > > and deeper than the TV series simply because there's more space for
> > > > that breadth and depth.
> > >
> > > Broader and deeper implies encompassing.
> >
> > Does it? To me it merely implies a larger scope, a bigger range of
> > possiblities.
>
> To me all of that implies the source material is a part of the
> "larger" and "bigger" range.
I'm sorry, i've lost what you're trying to say here. The books have a
scope unlimited by budget constraints, don't have to have a
cliffhanger every 25 minutes, don't need to worry about making fare
suitable for 8 year olds. That inherently broadens the possibilities,
as does having 300+ pages of dense prose to deliver a story versus 4
25-minute blocks (appx 100 pp following the "page a minute" rule).
There is more space, and fewer restrictions, in the books, meaning
they can deliver things the TV series was clearly aiming for but
unable to fully realize---because of budget constraints and time and
politics and scheduling, etc.
>
> > > I think the term "a galaxy
> > > far far away" fits better. Besides, I've only been talking about the
> > > BBC books in this thread. I actually quite liked many of the NAs and
> > > don't think they suffer the same pretention and lack of vision that
> > > many of the BBC books do.
> >
> > The memory cheats. Some of them were pretty pretentious, I thought.
> > Still enjoyed them; tastes change over time and what was cool and new
> > in 1993 may be old hat now.
>
> But something that was of a high quality in 1993 is still high quality
> in 2003. I don't necessarily think DW should strive to be "cool and
> new"...
That depends on how one defines "quality" -- the effects, the filming
techniques, the sets, and often as not the acting, are often pretty
crummy. I like to think that the stories and performances often rise
above those limitations; but those limitations don't exist at all in
the books.
DOctor Who has often striven to be "cool and new", which is why it's
got a feedbacky base guitar as the foundation for the theme, why Susan
was listening to then-current pop sensation The Beatles, why it kept
attempting to put contemporary companions in miniskirts and the like
on the screen.
> > > > > then what is
> > > > > the tv show *about* to you? You seem to have distinct views on what
> > > > > makes the novels superior to the show, but what do you like about the
> > > > > show itself?
> > > >
> > > > I don't think the novels in general are superior to the show in
> > > > general; that said, there are books that I consider to be among the
> > > > best Who stories ever, much better than many of the TV tales. I think
> > > > the novels have potential to far outdo the show in specific ways -- by
> > > > tackling topics too tricky for the TV, by not being bound by the
> > > > special effects budget, by dealing with plots that require more than 4
> > > > or 6 episodes to play out.
> > >
> > > Again, I'm crystal clear on the plethora of things you believe the
> > > books can do better than the show. I'm just unclear on if you think
> > > the show can do *anything* better than a novel. If not, then why
> > > bother watching the show?
> >
> > It can be a television show a hell of a lot better, for one thing.
>
> That's a relief. Do you think it can tell visual stories or action
> based stories better? Do you think it does comedy better?
That depends on the story. There are action stories in the books that
are better than some action stories in the TV series, and vice versa.
What I'm reacting to is what appears to be a blanket assumption that
*anything* in the TV series is more "real" or "true" than that which
happens in the books -- even when we're talking about the books.
> > Look, I love the Tolkien books. I also love the movies. They're
> > different entities, and one definitely looks to the other for
> > inspiration, guidance, source material....but in that case, one is a
> > filmable work and the other simply isn't. Many books I very much enjoy
> > would be unwatchable without major changes.
> >
> > Because two things are different doesn't mean that one is better than
> > the other.
>
> Agreed %100... So how can you say "...there are books that I consider
> to be among the best Who stories ever, much better than many of the TV
> tales..."
Because there are certain books that ARE better than certain TV
stories.
[snip WHy I Love Who]
> So basically, you enjoy it because *something* in TV Who raises it
> above what you would normally consider crap? I guess that's what many
> of the novels are missing for me.
I'm saying that the show is a series of magic moments made out of
cardboard and bubblewrap. How much more magical can they be when
you've got proper construction materials? Check out the much nicer
looking Nerva Beacon and answer that. Pretend the giant rat in Talons
of Weng Chiang wasn't so pathetic, or that the Power of Kroll wasn't
so obviously a bad special effect, or that the control sphere in
Remembrance wasn't something that would be a toy in Spencer's by the
time the show was aired in the US.
I see similar magic in the books, where you have things happening like
the Doctor gaining in one book something he hasn't had since Susan
left--a sense of family. I see a pillowfight to relieve the tension
and mistrust; that would certainly have been a boon back when Tegan
and Turlough were fighting night and day. I see Benny, I see the later
socially-well-adjusted Ace, I see Chris and Roz and Fitz and even
Anji, and yes, even Sam as she was occasionally realized. I see
Compassion and a war of possibilities.
>
> >
> > > > > I've seen some
> > > > > products of imagination on the web that have no place in the Who
> > > > > playground. :)
> > > >
> > > > Me too. I don't have a problem with slash fiction, but I'm not really
> > > > a consumer of it either.
> > >
> > > But should slash fiction be a part of the official DW novel or audio
> > > line?
> >
> > No. Who claimed that it should?
>
> You did, when you said there were no limits to the Doctor Who
> Universe.
That doesn't mean I think we want to see all of them! In particular,
there are a few that I wish I'd never seen....