Are TSE and TBA REALLY magic realism?
turlo...@my-deja.com
realism to develope in DW. First of all, i am all for incorperating
magic realism in to DW. The problem is, the main two MR novels so
far, 'The Scarlet Empress' and 'The Blue Angel' have both been (IMHO)
crap, and i wont bother repeating the reasons now, i've said them often
enough.
But there is definately a place for it. This view was re-enforced
when i watched 'The Fisher King' recently (Robin Williams and Jeff
Daniels) and i realised that that would have worked brilliantly as a DW
story. It's more ambiguos, and maybe it really was the Holy Grail, or
maybe it was a madman's obsession. Does it matter? Not really. If
you've not seen the film, watch it, it's great and maybe you'll see
what i mean.
Personally, i would have loved seeing what Italo Calvino would have
done with a DW story. His novels don't contain all these mystical
creatures and rediculous plot devices that Magrs' novels do, they are
more down to earth, but still more magical realism because the problem
is, Margs (and Hoad) forgot the 'realism' part. They have written
two 'magical' novels but forgot the realism element completely, which
is probably why they don't work for me. Compare the way 'If On A
Winter's Night a Traveller' or 'Invisible Cities' are firmly grounded
in realism with a bit of magic on top, indeed in IC there is no magic
beyond Marco Polo's imaginative stories.
Ok, you can start slagging me off now.
--
Stay Beautiful y'all,
Philip Craggs.
Paradise Towers: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/3694/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mike Williams
turlo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> <snip>
>
> But there is definately a place for it. This view was re-enforced
> when i watched 'The Fisher King' recently (Robin Williams and Jeff
> Daniels) and i realised that that would have worked brilliantly as a DW
> story.
<snip>
>
> --
> Stay Beautiful y'all,
> Philip Craggs.
> Paradise Towers: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/3694/
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Jeff Bridges was in "The Fisher King" not Jeff Daniels.
Not to be too nitpicky.
BTW, what is magic realism? Sounds interesting.
Mike Williams
--
"I eat the celery."
Richard Jones
discussion of the books has got lately? Radw's really growing up.
I'd say that TSE wasn't. There's an ambiguity in the magic realism
stuff I've read (mostly loads of Carter) about whether magic elements
are being introduced to a realist setting or whether a realist
mentality is being brought to bare on a magical setting. TSE is very
much set within the fantastical world of 'Doctor Who', and so the most
it can do is appropriate Magic Realist techniques and approaches.
TBA on the other hand is, in the sections where Sally and Canine
exist, more or less exactly the sort of thing that comes to my mind
when someone says Magic Realism. Fuck knows what the rest of it is.
A few responses to Phillip's points...
On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:12:33 GMT, turlo...@my-deja.com wrote:
[snip]
> But there is definately a place for it. This view was re-enforced
>when i watched 'The Fisher King' recently (Robin Williams and Jeff
>Daniels) and i realised that that would have worked brilliantly as a DW
>story. It's more ambiguos, and maybe it really was the Holy Grail, or
>maybe it was a madman's obsession. Does it matter? Not really. If
>you've not seen the film, watch it, it's great and maybe you'll see
>what i mean.
Probably my favourite film ever. But then I've got this odd obsession
with stories about redemption. Might have something to do with the
same unfortunate bit of my brain that makes me keep falling in love
with Christians.
Can't imediately see it working well as Who though...how would you do
it?
> Personally, i would have loved seeing what Italo Calvino would have
>done with a DW story. His novels don't contain all these mystical
>creatures and rediculous plot devices that Magrs' novels do, they are
>more down to earth, but still more magical realism because the problem
>is, Margs (and Hoad) forgot the 'realism' part. They have written
>two 'magical' novels but forgot the realism element completely, which
>is probably why they don't work for me. Compare the way 'If On A
>Winter's Night a Traveller' or 'Invisible Cities' are firmly grounded
>in realism with a bit of magic on top, indeed in IC there is no magic
>beyond Marco Polo's imaginative stories.
"Magic = storytelling?" is hardly something TSE ignores either.
Still, your paragraph is interesting. What is similarly relevant and
illuminating is that I also understand Calvino's work to include no
Time Lords or TARDISes.
--
Richard Jones.
turlo...@my-deja.com
tige...@net.ntl.com (Richard Jones) wrote:
> Good question this. Anyone else noticed how much generally better the
> discussion of the books has got lately? Radw's really growing up.
>
> I'd say that TSE wasn't. There's an ambiguity in the magic realism
> stuff I've read (mostly loads of Carter) about whether magic elements
> are being introduced to a realist setting or whether a realist
> mentality is being brought to bare on a magical setting. TSE is very
> much set within the fantastical world of 'Doctor Who', and so the most
> it can do is appropriate Magic Realist techniques and approaches.
>
> TBA on the other hand is, in the sections where Sally and Canine
> exist, more or less exactly the sort of thing that comes to my mind
> when someone says Magic Realism.
Hmm. I thought the bit about the Doctor's mother being a mermaid went a
bit beyond that...
Fuck knows what the rest of it is.
Boy, am i tempted. No i wont say it.
> A few responses to Phillip's points...
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:12:33 GMT, turlo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > But there is definately a place for it. This view was re-enforced
> >when i watched 'The Fisher King' recently (Robin Williams and Jeff
> >Daniels) and i realised that that would have worked brilliantly as a
DW
> >story. It's more ambiguos, and maybe it really was the Holy Grail, or
> >maybe it was a madman's obsession. Does it matter? Not really. If
> >you've not seen the film, watch it, it's great and maybe you'll see
> >what i mean.
>
> Probably my favourite film ever. But then I've got this odd obsession
> with stories about redemption. Might have something to do with the
> same unfortunate bit of my brain that makes me keep falling in love
> with Christians.
>
Oh, you poor man :)
> Can't imediately see it working well as Who though...how would you do
> it?
>
Well, it can work in one of two ways. Either, Jeff Bridges' (thanks to
the other person who replied for the correction) character meets this
nutter who keeps going on about an alien object in a millionaires house
and he convinces him to help him get it (the nutter being the Doctor -
he always seems nuts to humans doesn't he?), or, the Doctor meets a
nutter who is convinced that there is an important artifact in the
buildingand decides that it's wrth checking out and helps him get it.
Both ways fit easily in to a Dr Who context.
> > Personally, i would have loved seeing what Italo Calvino would
have
> >done with a DW story. His novels don't contain all these mystical
> >creatures and rediculous plot devices that Magrs' novels do, they are
> >more down to earth, but still more magical realism because the
problem
> >is, Margs (and Hoad)
That should be 'Hoard' shouldn't it, now i think about it? Apoloies to
the author, i don't have a copy of it in Bolton, my copy's in Grimsby.
forgot the 'realism' part. They have written
> >two 'magical' novels but forgot the realism element completely, which
> >is probably why they don't work for me. Compare the way 'If On A
> >Winter's Night a Traveller' or 'Invisible Cities' are firmly grounded
> >in realism with a bit of magic on top, indeed in IC there is no magic
> >beyond Marco Polo's imaginative stories.
>
> "Magic = storytelling?" is hardly something TSE ignores either.
>
Not quite what i meant, but a fair point anyway. This story-telling is
more overt. Polo is actually telling the story, in TSE the Doctor just
comments on him being in a narrative occasionally.
> Still, your paragraph is interesting. What is similarly relevant and
> illuminating is that I also understand Calvino's work to include no
> Time Lords or TARDISes.
>
Hmm. Is your point that magical realism as i have defined it is
impossible in a Doctor Who context because part of it's mythology is
fantastical alien races et?
--
Stay Beautiful y'all,
Philip Craggs.
Paradise Towers: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/3694/
'What is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason for dyin
turlo...@my-deja.com
Mike Williams <mwil...@mcld.com> wrote:
>
>
> turlo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > But there is definately a place for it. This view was re-enforced
> > when i watched 'The Fisher King' recently (Robin Williams and Jeff
> > Daniels) and i realised that that would have worked brilliantly as
a DW
> > story.
>
>
> Jeff Bridges was in "The Fisher King" not Jeff Daniels.
> Not to be too nitpicky.
Thanks for the correction.
> BTW, what is magic realism? Sounds interesting.
>
Ok, i'll give it a go. It's a type of literature that either a)
places 'magical' events over a 'real' (normal if you like, although i
hate the word) setting. It has also been pointed out to me that it can
also be the attemt to place a realist writing structure over
fantastical events, but check the first reply to this post for a better
explanation.
Not that i claim to be an expert you understand.
Richard Jones
>> TBA on the other hand is, in the sections where Sally and Canine
>> exist, more or less exactly the sort of thing that comes to my mind
>> when someone says Magic Realism.
>
>Hmm. I thought the bit about the Doctor's mother being a mermaid went a
>bit beyond that...
Oh God no. Mermaids are par for the course.
The tradition of Magic Realism that Magrs identifies with in the
afterword of TSE is that of Rushdie and Carter... and they've got
angels and werewolves popping up every five minutes. *Lots* of
werewolves.
What makes it MR, if I've got a handle on the genre, is that you can
introduce a Mermaid character and the rest of your cast will say, "Oh
right. A mermaid. Okay." Magic realist Mermaids can live in houses
with wheelchairs and record players. It doesn't become a "Oh my God! A
Mermaid! How can this be?" exploration of mermaidness.
Magrs's mainstream Phoenix courts novels, which are *total* magic
realism, include a telekinetic called Penny. Throughout most of the
stuff she's in then it's all "Oh right. A telekinetic. Okay." Then in
her second book a character gets introduced who sees everything in the
world in terms of Marvel and DC comics. His relationship with Penny
perfectly draws out the differences between conventional Fantasy
genres' aproach to Weird Stuff and the magic realist view. It also
leads to the most unfortunately motivated cunnilingus in fiction.
>> Fuck knows what the rest of it is.
>
>Boy, am i tempted. No i wont say it.
I'm impressed. :-)
[snip]
>Hmm. Is your point that magical realism as i have defined it is
>impossible in a Doctor Who context because part of it's mythology is
>fantastical alien races et?
Mostly. And the fact that Doctor Who's pretty much got to have an
Adventure! in it. Also, there's the strong possibility that close
Calvino-imitation wasn't the sort of thing Magrs wanted to do anyway.
I think sections of TBA are textbook magic realism (he says never
having gone near a textbook on such things! :-) but that most of his
Who stuff is best thought of as being very closely *associated* with
the genre rather than squeezed into it.
--
Richard Jones.
turlo...@my-deja.com
tige...@net.ntl.com (Richard Jones) wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 11:43:07 GMT, turlo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >> TBA on the other hand is, in the sections where Sally and Canine
> >> exist, more or less exactly the sort of thing that comes to my mind
> >> when someone says Magic Realism.
> >
> >Hmm. I thought the bit about the Doctor's mother being a mermaid
went a
> >bit beyond that...
>
> Oh God no. Mermaids are par for the course.
> The tradition of Magic Realism that Magrs identifies with in the
> afterword of TSE is that of Rushdie and Carter... and they've got
> angels and werewolves popping up every five minutes. *Lots* of
> werewolves.
>
Rushdie has either a set text on one of my courses, or i've a short
story of his in a short story book we had to get).
> What makes it MR, if I've got a handle on the genre, is that you can
> introduce a Mermaid character and the rest of your cast will say, "Oh
> right. A mermaid. Okay." Magic realist Mermaids can live in houses
> with wheelchairs and record players. It doesn't become a "Oh my God! A
> Mermaid! How can this be?" exploration of mermaidness.
>
Yeah, i'm with you there, i just thought it was a bit extreme, but not
impossible. In fact, thinking about it i see your point. (que Bottom
live 3 knob gag).
> Magrs's mainstream Phoenix courts novels, which are *total* magic
> realism, include a telekinetic called Penny. Throughout most of the
> stuff she's in then it's all "Oh right. A telekinetic. Okay."
That's sci-fi really though isn't it? Psi-powers?
Then in
> her second book a character gets introduced who sees everything in the
> world in terms of Marvel and DC comics. His relationship with Penny
> perfectly draws out the differences between conventional Fantasy
> genres' aproach to Weird Stuff and the magic realist view.
So it's not actually magic realism, just about magic realism?
It also
> leads to the most unfortunately motivated cunnilingus in fiction.
I'd ask what 'cunnilingus' meant but i'm afriad you'd tell me...
[snip]
> >Hmm. Is your point that magical realism as i have defined it is
> >impossible in a Doctor Who context because part of it's mythology is
> >fantastical alien races et?
>
> Mostly. And the fact that Doctor Who's pretty much got to have an
> Adventure! in it.
What about Calvino's 'If On A Winter's Night a Traveller'? That has an
adventure in it.
Also, there's the strong possibility that close
> Calvino-imitation wasn't the sort of thing Magrs wanted to do anyway.
>
Except that he compared The Blue Angel to Calvino 9admittedly maybe not
entirely seriously) himself.
> I think sections of TBA are textbook magic realism (he says never
> having gone near a textbook on such things! :-) but that most of his
> Who stuff is best thought of as being very closely *associated* with
> the genre rather than squeezed into it.
>
Hmm. You see, my major problem with the way Magrs works is that too
often he uses magic realism to get him out of a difficult narrativ
situation. ie in The Scarlet Empress, the Doctor is about to be killed
until he just happens to pull out a book that he just happened to steal
earlier and it just so happens that a dragon flies out of it when he
opens it and it rescues him. That isn't magic realism, it's terrible
plotting.
--
Stay Beautiful y'all,
Philip Craggs.
Paradise Towers: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/3694/
Richard Jones
>> Magrs's mainstream Phoenix courts novels, which are *total* magic
>> realism, include a telekinetic called Penny. Throughout most of the
>> stuff she's in then it's all "Oh right. A telekinetic. Okay."
>
>That's sci-fi really though isn't it? Psi-powers?
If you want to be fussy then I suppose it's in both sci-fi and fantasy
(though I can never understand how straight sci-fi gets away with such
an obvious use of magic as psi-stuff). What's important is just that
it's a fantastical element that you wouldn't normally get in realist
fiction.
> Then in
>> her second book a character gets introduced who sees everything in the
>> world in terms of Marvel and DC comics. His relationship with Penny
>> perfectly draws out the differences between conventional Fantasy
>> genres' aproach to Weird Stuff and the magic realist view.
>
>So it's not actually magic realism, just about magic realism?
Well... that depends on whether or not you'd also be prepared to say
"TSE isn't actually Doctor Who, just about Doctor Who." Some might, I
wouldn't.
> It also
>> leads to the most unfortunately motivated cunnilingus in fiction.
>
>I'd ask what 'cunnilingus' meant but i'm afriad you'd tell me...
You're in your first year of Uni, yeah Phillip?
There is much to be learned besides Calvino. :-)
[snip]
>Except that he compared The Blue Angel to Calvino 9admittedly maybe not
>entirely seriously) himself.
We've been through that....:-)
I don't think anything he said, especially since it's buried under two
distinct layers of Joke, means we've got grounds to mark as failures
parts of his work that don't precisely emulate someone else!
>Hmm. You see, my major problem with the way Magrs works is that too
>often he uses magic realism to get him out of a difficult narrativ
>situation. ie in The Scarlet Empress, the Doctor is about to be killed
>until he just happens to pull out a book that he just happened to steal
>earlier and it just so happens that a dragon flies out of it when he
>opens it and it rescues him. That isn't magic realism, it's terrible
>plotting.
As you say, it's got nothing to do with Magic Realism... if it were
sci-fi then we could have had a tendril from an Exlilon City, or
whatever instead of a dragon. It's not a genre issue in that sense.
Lots of my recent posts have been about why I think criticising the
plot of TSE is a boring thing to do. The article with which Finn
started the recent 'The Scarlet Empress' thread is particularly worth
reading.
--
Richard Jones.
William December Starr
tige...@net.ntl.com (Richard Jones) said:
>>> Magrs's mainstream Phoenix courts novels, which are *total* magic
>>> realism, include a telekinetic called Penny. Throughout most of
>>> the stuff she's in then it's all "Oh right. A telekinetic. Okay."
>>
>> That's sci-fi really though isn't it? Psi-powers?
>
> If you want to be fussy then I suppose it's in both sci-fi and
> fantasy (though I can never understand how straight sci-fi gets away
> with such an obvious use of magic as psi-stuff).
What's "magic"?
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Lord of deXness
>
> What's "magic"?
>
Isn't Magic the dog in those horrible Old Navy commercials?
deX![1]
[1] My original response was "my fingers", but I realized immediately
that that would be taken the wrong way.
William December Starr
>> What's "magic"?
>
> Isn't Magic the dog in those horrible Old
> Navy commercials?
A Public Service Announcement for the benefit
of our overseas friends who have no idea at
all what deX! is referring to:
"Oh, you lucky, *lucky* people!"
Nick Caldwell
Jones) wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:02:35 GMT, turlo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>> Magrs's mainstream Phoenix courts novels, which are *total* magic
>>> realism, include a telekinetic called Penny. Throughout most of the
>>> stuff she's in then it's all "Oh right. A telekinetic. Okay."
>>
>>That's sci-fi really though isn't it? Psi-powers?
>
>If you want to be fussy then I suppose it's in both sci-fi and fantasy
>(though I can never understand how straight sci-fi gets away with such
>an obvious use of magic as psi-stuff).
Heh. That gets into one of those lovely SF definition wars, and
everyone enjoys those!
--
Nick Caldwell-----------------------------------------
s32...@student.uq.edu.au | http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/
------------------------------------------------------
Richard Jones
Caldwell) wrote:
>Heh. That gets into one of those lovely SF definition wars, and
>everyone enjoys those!
I hoped bracketing it off as a passing comment would be enough to
avert one...but if it isn't then at least at least a Magic Realism
definition war will have been avoided.
--
Richard Jones.
Daniel Frankham
>Hmm. You see, my major problem with the way Magrs works is that too
>often he uses magic realism to get him out of a difficult narrativ
>situation. ie in The Scarlet Empress, the Doctor is about to be killed
>until he just happens to pull out a book that he just happened to steal
>earlier and it just so happens that a dragon flies out of it when he
>opens it and it rescues him. That isn't magic realism, it's terrible
>plotting.
It's just as (or probably more) likely that he wrote that "Doctor about to
be killed scene" *so* he could use the "dragon flies out of a book" idea.
I doubt anyone sits down to write a Doctor Who book, and the first thing
that comes to their mind is "Hey, wouldn't it be great to have a scene
where the Doctor almost gets killed? That hasn't been done a million times
before!" Whereas I can believe someone might think "Hey, how about a scene
where a dragon flies out of a book -- that'd be a great metaphor for the
breaking of the often fuzzy barrier between fiction and reality!"
--
Daniel Frankham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We love television because television brings us a world in which
television does not exist. In fact, deep in their hearts, this is what
the spuds crave most: a rich, new, participatory life.
(Barbara Ehrenreich)
turlo...@my-deja.com
tige...@net.ntl.com (Richard Jones) wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:02:35 GMT, turlo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >> realism, include a telekinetic called Penny. Throughout most of the
> >> stuff she's in then it's all "Oh right. A telekinetic. Okay."
> >
> >That's sci-fi really though isn't it? Psi-powers?
>
> If you want to be fussy then I suppose it's in both sci-fi and fantasy
> (though I can never understand how straight sci-fi gets away with such
> an obvious use of magic as psi-stuff).
Quite simple. Human beings only use about 10% of our brains (coerrect
me if i'm wrong). What could we do with the rest? It can explained in
any number of sci-fi ways.
What's important is just that
> it's a fantastical element that you wouldn't normally get in realist
> fiction.
>
Again, also describes some sci-fi.
> > Then in
> >> her second book a character gets introduced who sees everything in
the
> >> world in terms of Marvel and DC comics. His relationship with Penny
> >> perfectly draws out the differences between conventional Fantasy
> >> genres' aproach to Weird Stuff and the magic realist view.
> >
> >So it's not actually magic realism, just about magic realism?
>
> Well... that depends on whether or not you'd also be prepared to say
> "TSE isn't actually Doctor Who, just about Doctor Who." Some might, I
> wouldn't.
>
Oh, TSE IS Doctor Who, i'm not debating that. i'm debating 'Is TSE and
good?' and 'Is it magic realism?'. But i still see a differnece between
your example about the Marvel comics guy. After all, does he actually
DO anything, or just spark off some thoughts?
> > It also
> >> leads to the most unfortunately motivated cunnilingus in fiction.
> >
> >I'd ask what 'cunnilingus' meant but i'm afriad you'd tell me...
>
> You're in your first year of Uni, yeah Phillip?
> There is much to be learned besides Calvino. :-)
>
Yeah, like how to spell my name. It's only got one 'l' as i have to
remind everybody even though my name is spelt in the sig of all the e-
mails i send.
Oh, and i had guessed at it's meaning, but i'd just never heard the
term before.
> [snip]
>
> >Except that he compared The Blue Angel to Calvino 9admittedly maybe
not
> >entirely seriously) himself.
>
> We've been through that....:-)
> I don't think anything he said, especially since it's buried under two
> distinct layers of Joke, means we've got grounds to mark as failures
> parts of his work that don't precisely emulate someone else!
That isn't why i'm marking his work as a failure...
>
> >Hmm. You see, my major problem with the way Magrs works is that too
> >often he uses magic realism to get him out of a difficult narrativ
> >situation. ie in The Scarlet Empress, the Doctor is about to be
killed
> >until he just happens to pull out a book that he just happened to
steal
> >earlier and it just so happens that a dragon flies out of it when he
> >opens it and it rescues him. That isn't magic realism, it's terrible
> >plotting.
>
> As you say, it's got nothing to do with Magic Realism... if it were
> sci-fi then we could have had a tendril from an Exlilon City, or
> whatever instead of a dragon. It's not a genre issue in that sense.
>
Didn't say it was. Remember, i LIKE magic realism, i want it in Dr Who.
I'm not criticising the genre.
> Lots of my recent posts have been about why I think criticising the
> plot of TSE is a boring thing to do.
Why, because you disagree? I could give you loads of reasons why it's
boring to criticise 'The Pit' and 'War of the Daleks' but a) people
still would, and b) all my reasons would boil down to the same one - i
like them.
The article with which Finn
> started the recent 'The Scarlet Empress' thread is particularly worth
> reading.
Was i involved in that one? I think i was.
turlo...@my-deja.com
>
> >>> Magrs's mainstream Phoenix courts novels, which are *total* magic
> >>> realism, include a telekinetic called Penny. Throughout most of
> >>> the stuff she's in then it's all "Oh right. A telekinetic. Okay."
> >>
> >> That's sci-fi really though isn't it? Psi-powers?
> >
> > If you want to be fussy then I suppose it's in both sci-fi and
> > fantasy (though I can never understand how straight sci-fi gets away
> > with such an obvious use of magic as psi-stuff).
>
>
A form of amazingly advanced technology isn't it? :)
--
Stay Beautiful y'all,
Philip Craggs.
Paradise Towers: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/3694/
'What is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason for dyin
turlo...@my-deja.com
dan...@oztek.net.au wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:02:35 GMT, turlo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Hmm. You see, my major problem with the way Magrs works is that too
> >often he uses magic realism to get him out of a difficult narrativ
> >situation. ie in The Scarlet Empress, the Doctor is about to be
killed
> >until he just happens to pull out a book that he just happened to
steal
> >earlier and it just so happens that a dragon flies out of it when he
> >opens it and it rescues him. That isn't magic realism, it's terrible
> >plotting.
>
about to
> be killed scene" *so* he could use the "dragon flies out of a book"
idea.
> I doubt anyone sits down to write a Doctor Who book, and the first
thing
> that comes to their mind is "Hey, wouldn't it be great to have a scene
> where the Doctor almost gets killed? That hasn't been done a million
times
> before!" Whereas I can believe someone might think "Hey, how about a
scene
> where a dragon flies out of a book -- that'd be a great metaphor for
the
> breaking of the often fuzzy barrier between fiction and reality!"
>
That is exactly the type of reasoning that has kept Shakespeare on A-
level English courses. I can't believe that anyone sits down to write a
book and thinks 'hey, how about a scene where a dragon flies out of a
book...' for the intellectual reason you gave. You are creditting the
author with more for-sight than he actually has i feel. If he wanted to
make that point, why not do it where it either a)wouldn't matter, or b)
at least make it more realistic, at least have the Doctor come across
the book properly and have some idea as to it's magic powers, because
at the moment it stands only as a immense cop-out.
Basically, the way i judge it is, if i don't think i could get away
with it in a fan-fic, i think that you can't get away with it a
professional novel. So that makes the scene as below amateur standard.
Finn Clark
> If you want to be fussy then I suppose it's in both sci-fi and
> fantasy (though I can never understand how straight sci-fi
> gets away with such an obvious use of magic as psi-stuff).
Maybe because many people believe that telepathy et
al. exist in the real world, so don't see a problem with
extrapolating more fancy versions in SF. Even a couple
of Dick Francis novels have a telekinetic lead character!
That's my guess, anyway!
Finn Clark.
Finn Clark
> Maybe because many people believe that telepathy et
> al. exist in the real world, so don't see a problem with
> extrapolating more fancy versions in SF. Even a couple
> of Dick Francis novels have a telekinetic lead character!
Oh dear, oh dear.
*Telepathic* lead character.
Not telekinetic.
Sorry...
Finn Clark.
Nicholas Smale
> What's "magic"?
Someone try wagging his tail...
--
Nick Smale <http://www.smale.demon.co.uk>
Manchester, UK
Richard Jones
>> If you want to be fussy then I suppose it's in both sci-fi and fantasy
>> (though I can never understand how straight sci-fi gets away with such
>> an obvious use of magic as psi-stuff).
>
>Quite simple. Human beings only use about 10% of our brains (coerrect
>me if i'm wrong). What could we do with the rest? It can explained in
>any number of sci-fi ways.
All fine... but the explaination that "That 10% of our brains can
directly manipulate unconected objects in the external world" quacks
to me like a particularly magic duck. Not that it bothers me.
> What's important is just that
>> it's a fantastical element that you wouldn't normally get in realist
>> fiction.
>
>Again, also describes some sci-fi.
I was TRYING to describe some sci-fi !
I was saying that it wasn't important whether the elements are from
SF, Fantasy, or Horror (Carter likes her vampires) etc... just that
they are the sort of thing normaly too sensational for mainstream
literature, but treated in a non-sensationalist way.
>> > Then in
>> >> her second book a character gets introduced who sees everything in
>the
>> >> world in terms of Marvel and DC comics. His relationship with Penny
>> >> perfectly draws out the differences between conventional Fantasy
>> >> genres' aproach to Weird Stuff and the magic realist view.
>> >
>> >So it's not actually magic realism, just about magic realism?
>>
>> Well... that depends on whether or not you'd also be prepared to say
>> "TSE isn't actually Doctor Who, just about Doctor Who." Some might, I
>> wouldn't.
>
>Oh, TSE IS Doctor Who, i'm not debating that. i'm debating 'Is TSE and
>good?' and 'Is it magic realism?'. But i still see a differnece between
>your example about the Marvel comics guy. After all, does he actually
>DO anything, or just spark off some thoughts?
I said he was a character "who sees everything in the world in terms
of Marvel and DC comics." Happily that corresponds very closely to
what I meant. He's not a superhero - he's a fanboy.
>> > It also
>> >> leads to the most unfortunately motivated cunnilingus in fiction.
>> >
>> >I'd ask what 'cunnilingus' meant but i'm afriad you'd tell me...
>>
>> You're in your first year of Uni, yeah Phillip?
>> There is much to be learned besides Calvino. :-)
>
>Yeah, like how to spell my name. It's only got one 'l' as i have to
>remind everybody even though my name is spelt in the sig of all the e-
>mails i send.
>Oh, and i had guessed at it's meaning, but i'd just never heard the
>term before.
A lot of bitchy remarks could have been made at that point. I'm
surprised you're not pleased that an amiable comment that happened to
mispell your name was made instead.
BTW...How many Uni's offer the "How to Spell 'Philip'" module? Sounds
an untaxing way to build up academic credits.
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Except that he compared The Blue Angel to Calvino 9admittedly maybe
>not
>> >entirely seriously) himself.
>>
>> We've been through that....:-)
>> I don't think anything he said, especially since it's buried under two
>> distinct layers of Joke, means we've got grounds to mark as failures
>> parts of his work that don't precisely emulate someone else!
>
>That isn't why i'm marking his work as a failure...
It seemed to be one of the things you were doing towards the end of
your original post, where you were pointing out the differences. I
think the problem might be that the "Is it MR?" and "Is it any good?"
debates are getting muddled because they're being conducted
simultaneously.
[snip]
>> Lots of my recent posts have been about why I think criticising the
>> plot of TSE is a boring thing to do.
>
>Why, because you disagree?
Because I think it's fairly obvious that TSE isn't meant to be
plot-based. William's arguments that all novels *should* be plot-based
have been fascinating. Arguments to show that TSE fails as a big
discursive love-letter would have me on the edge of my seat. Arguments
pointing out that it has a crap plot are about as useful as saying
that there aren't many Cybermen in Autumn Mist.
>I could give you loads of reasons why it's
>boring to criticise 'The Pit' and 'War of the Daleks' but a) people
>still would, and b) all my reasons would boil down to the same one - i
>like them.
I don't think there's any work that's above criticism, or that can't
be interesting to criticise - just that some particular criticisms are
not very insightful.
>The article with which Finn
>> started the recent 'The Scarlet Empress' thread is particularly worth
>> reading.
>
>Was i involved in that one? I think i was.
Oh were you? Sorry, I missed the middle bits of that thread.
--
Richard Jones.
Nick Caldwell
True. Actually, I was trying for a way to wince elegantly at the term
"sci-fi" but realised I couldn't be bothered and decided to go for a
different tangent instead.
...these insights into the banality of Nick's thought processes
brought to you by... um... well, Nick actually.
William December Starr
tige...@net.ntl.com (Richard Jones) said:
>>> What's important is just that it's a fantastical element that you
>>> wouldn't normally get in realist fiction.
>>
>> Again, also describes some sci-fi.
>
> I was TRYING to describe some sci-fi !
>
> I was saying that it wasn't important whether the elements are from
> SF, Fantasy, or Horror (Carter likes her vampires) etc... just that
> they are the sort of thing normaly too sensational for mainstream
> literature, but treated in a non-sensationalist way.
Question: does "treated in a non-sensationalist way" mean (a) the
author doesn't make a big deal out of the presence of the fantastical
elements, (b) the _characters_ don't make a big deal out of it (i.e.,
they don't react as if something mind-blowing or impossible has just
happened), (c) both of the above or (d) something else?
William December Starr
ni...@smale.demon.co.uk (Nicholas Smale) said:
>> What's "magic"? [wdstarr]
>
> Someone try wagging his tail...
No, Nick, that's "non sequitur." Not magic.
Joxer
<turlo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
...
> Quite simple. Human beings only use about 10% of our brains (coerrect
> me if i'm wrong). What could we do with the rest? It can explained in
> any number of sci-fi ways.
Useful storage space? Maybe fit in a cd rack...
--
A great big admitting that joking aside Philip is quite right here old Colin
B.
Paul Andinach
> In article <380e0b3a...@news.net.ntl.com>,
> tige...@net.ntl.com (Richard Jones) wrote:
>
> > (though I can never understand how straight sci-fi gets away
> > with such an obvious use of magic as psi-stuff).
>
> Quite simple. Human beings only use about 10% of our brains
> (coerrect me if i'm wrong).
You're wrong.
Paul
--
The Pink Pedanther
"It needed to be said." "Why did it need to be said?"
Daniel Gooley
>Nicholas Smale said:
>
>>> What's "magic"? [wdstarr]
>>
>> Someone try wagging his tail...
>
>No, Nick, that's "non sequitur." Not magic.
Okay then. As I recently hazarded once before, there are all sorts of
understandings of magic. In things like RPGs, they codify magic into a
system cause and effect. Chant this cantrip while making that
prestidigitation and burning the cat's ear in a dish of rotting fish, and a
globule of green goo will fall from the sky at a nominated target, doing
6d4+3 worth of damage. You can categorise the magic effects by spell levels
and have to generate certain energy levels by being of a certain experience
rank before that spell can be cast. You can divide the magical effects into
categories (illusions, pyromancy, necromancy, etc). It's all codified in a
very systemic way which reflects our view of the world, to make the magic
useable, and playable. This seems to be the way you would like to regard
magic, which is why you have trouble seeing how it is different in anything
but name from the current system.
However, at a more basic level, magic is simply "the inexplicable". It's
difficult to give you a solid definition of this idea of magic, because the
whole concept is basically that it is unknowable, mysterious. Under this
perspective, strange things happen without any direct cause. Use of verbal,
somatic and material components by a "practitioner" of this sort of magic
(if that concept even applies) may produce some entirely random effect, or
none at all. A genie which can be defeated in a certain way one time need
not suffer the same weaknesses again. AD&D tried to get a hold of this sort
of character with the Wild Magician class, a sort of extension of the Wand
of Wonder in human form.
However, while that "unknowable" characteristic isn't sufficiently systemic
to be easily reproduced for RPGs, it's what infuses old Celtic tales with
their off-beat strangeness, or the Arabian Nights with their exotic
otherworldness, or medieval Christian religion with it's mystical quality.
You're just never sure when a Lady of the Lake is going to rise from the
deeps, or a Green Man will wander out of the woods. The allure of this
magic is precisely that it is *not* just another way of describing the way
the universe works. It's a way of describing the unknown, and the way the
universe sometimes just *doesn't* work.
Danny
(hoping this hasn't all been covered far too many times before in this
thread)
Charles Daniels
> In things like RPGs, they codify magic into a
> system cause and effect. Chant this cantrip while making that
> prestidigitation and burning the cat's ear in a dish of rotting fish, and a
> globule of green goo will fall from the sky at a nominated target, doing
> 6d4+3 worth of damage. You can categorise the magic effects by spell levels
> and have to generate certain energy levels by being of a certain experience
> rank before that spell can be cast. You can divide the magical effects into
> categories (illusions, pyromancy, necromancy, etc). It's all codified in a
> very systemic way which reflects our view of the world, to make the magic
> useable, and playable. This seems to be the way you would like to regard
> magic, which is why you have trouble seeing how it is different in anything
> but name from the current system.
Science Versus Magic
By Charles Daniels
Shocking allegations rocked all of the corporeal plane today when a team
of scientists released a new study which goes to undermine many of the
mystical and magical forces of the universe.
The first revelation in the study is that Ulee's Potion Of Illusion,
popular with both Illusionist and Clerics, is nothing more than LSD
diluted in water.
Ulee has not commented about the secret ingredients of the potion but
still stands by his claim that it is "euphoric and mystical in nature.
Made merely to temporarily confuse opponents harmlessly". Ulee has
denied all rumors that he uses his own potion recreationally and has
spoken out on this subject on a number of occassions.
"Illusionists and Clerics are professionals, who adhere to a very strict
philosophy of conduct. I can't speak for every young apprentice, nor will
I use this opportunity to mock trolls who may genuinely enjoy the
experience, but as far as I am aware no one is abusing my product. I
also believe that The Cigarettes Of Nico, are not addictive."
Furthermore the report also accused 16th Level Dari Sheath of selling
useless enchanted items. Most notoriously his "Daggers Of Dragon
Protection" which promise that the owner will never encounter a dragon
whilst wearing the blade. The scientific study showed Fighters were just
as likely to encounter dragons WITH or WITHOUT the daggers, noting that
this is most likely due to the fact that dragons are fictional creatures
which do not exist.
Dari Sheath has reacted angrily to these accusations and was quoted saying-
"I stand by my products. I feel these blantant lies are an attack on me
not only as a gnome, but also as a Magic User. Magic Users have often
come under suspicion in history because they are excellent scapegoats for
any unexplainable event. Also Gnomes are incredibly small and larger
races, such as giants, humans, and even dwarves like to kick the crap out
of us for laughs."
Dari Sheath is already under investigation for his level 16 status.
Reports are that he bribed his way to level 16 instead of performing
the usual spells of passage and other rites of the higher level.
Dari Sheath defends his status saying "I'd like to see my opponents
walk across the Sea of Fire. It would be amusing to see them try to
battle against the One Eyed Toad of The UnderKingdom. Who bravely
fought the Cockatrice of The Northern Hills, Who slain the choatic evil
Wood Elves, who sacrificed a large idol to the Emperor of The Guild of
Thieves? ME! That's WHO!"
The final and most crushing news revealed by the recent report was that
Gandalf, The Master Wizard, who is most famous as a 323rd Level Magic
User, was exposed to be Darren McKnight, a 25 year old acne sufferer,
who has not left his trailer in 10 years and had only reached the heights
of Master Wizardy by abusing a misprint in the 1977 edition of
The Player's Handbook.
William December Starr
"Daniel Gooley" <daniel...@detya.gov.au> said:
> However, at a more basic level, magic is simply "the inexplicable".
> It's difficult to give you a solid definition of this idea of magic,
> because the whole concept is basically that it is unknowable,
> mysterious.
I have to be a wise-ass here. I'm sorry, but there's no way around it.
"How do you know that it's unknowable?"
[ *snip* ]
> However, while that "unknowable" characteristic isn't sufficiently
> systemic to be easily reproduced for RPGs, it's what infuses old
> Celtic tales with their off-beat strangeness, or the Arabian Nights
> with their exotic otherworldness, or medieval Christian religion with
> it's mystical quality. You're just never sure when a Lady of the Lake
> is going to rise from the deeps, or a Green Man will wander out of the
> woods. The allure of this magic is precisely that it is *not* just
> another way of describing the way the universe works. It's a way of
> describing the unknown, and the way the universe sometimes just
> *doesn't* work.
Except it doesn't describe anything -- it just reports on events. To
_describe_ something requires an understanding of it; the examples you
give are of things that just happen.
Daniel Gooley
>Daniel Gooley
>
>> However, at a more basic level, magic is simply "the inexplicable".
>> It's difficult to give you a solid definition of this idea of magic,
>> because the whole concept is basically that it is unknowable,
>> mysterious.
>
>I have to be a wise-ass here. I'm sorry, but there's no way around it.
>
>"How do you know that it's unknowable?"
Because we're talking conceptually here, and the concept I'm talking about
is "unknowability" :c)
In all seriousness, I'm a child of a rational era, just as you are. I
understand things in the same sort of causal context that you do. So, the
only way I can understand "magic" is in a theoretical context, since even if
magic does exist, I'd rationalise it away in terms I can understand. The
form of magic I'm talking about above is one in which I'm never sure whether
turning on the light switch is going to: make a vase float into the air;
make the air smell like pine trees; change me into a cow with bananas for
horns; nothing whatsoever; or even, incredibly, light up the room. If it
turns out that it is possible to work out which of these things would
happen, then I'm no longer talking about the same inexplicable kind of
"magic". So, in order to progress any further down this particular academic
exercise, you simply have to accept the conceit that the unknowable can be.
>
>[ *snip* ]
>
>> The allure of this magic is precisely that it is *not* just
>> another way of describing the way the universe works. It's a way of
>> describing the unknown, and the way the universe sometimes just
>> *doesn't* work.
>
>Except it doesn't describe anything -- it just reports on events. To
>_describe_ something requires an understanding of it; the examples you
>give are of things that just happen.
Perhaps we are using the word in different ways? I really just mean
"observe" or "mark out" (as in "his finger described a circle in the sand").
Danny
turlo...@my-deja.com
> All fine... but the explaination that "That 10% of our brains can
> directly manipulate unconected objects in the external world" quacks
> to me like a particularly magic duck. Not that it bothers me.
>
Well, more like 90% because that's how much is spare.
> > What's important is just that
> >> it's a fantastical element that you wouldn't normally get in
realist
> >> fiction.
> >
> >Again, also describes some sci-fi.
>
> I was TRYING to describe some sci-fi !
>
Oops, sorry.
> I was saying that it wasn't important whether the elements are from
> SF, Fantasy, or Horror (Carter likes her vampires) etc... just that
> they are the sort of thing normaly too sensational for mainstream
> literature, but treated in a non-sensationalist way.
>
A bit like the way Ultraviolet used Vampires in a real setting so it
seemed more like a stright thriller than a sci-fi or horror?
(apologioes if you are outside the UK, you probably wont have a clue
what i'm talking about).
> >Oh, TSE IS Doctor Who, i'm not debating that. i'm debating 'Is TSE
and
> >good?' and 'Is it magic realism?'. But i still see a differnece
between
> >your example about the Marvel comics guy. After all, does he actually
> >DO anything, or just spark off some thoughts?
>
> I said he was a character "who sees everything in the world in terms
> of Marvel and DC comics." Happily that corresponds very closely to
> what I meant. He's not a superhero - he's a fanboy.
>
Hmm. That's what i thought. So how des that make it magical realism.
i'm confused.
> >> > It also
> >> >> leads to the most unfortunately motivated cunnilingus in
fiction.
> >> >
> >> >I'd ask what 'cunnilingus' meant but i'm afriad you'd tell me...
> >>
> >> You're in your first year of Uni, yeah Phillip?
> >> There is much to be learned besides Calvino. :-)
> >
> >Yeah, like how to spell my name. It's only got one 'l' as i have to
> >remind everybody even though my name is spelt in the sig of all the
e-
> >mails i send.
> >Oh, and i had guessed at it's meaning, but i'd just never heard the
> >term before.
>
> A lot of bitchy remarks could have been made at that point.
Oh? Could they? I'm far too nice to know what you mean :). Sorry if i
came over a bit strong there, but it gets incredably annoying when
everyone gets your name wrong.
I'm
> surprised you're not pleased that an amiable comment that happened to
> mispell your name was made instead.
>
> BTW...How many Uni's offer the "How to Spell 'Philip'" module? Sounds
> an untaxing way to build up academic credits.
>
Oh i don't know, i think a lot of people around here would fail...:)
> >> [snip]
> >That isn't why i'm marking his work as a failure...
>
> It seemed to be one of the things you were doing towards the end of
> your original post, where you were pointing out the differences. I
> think the problem might be that the "Is it MR?" and "Is it any good?"
> debates are getting muddled because they're being conducted
> simultaneously.
>
If you say so.
> [snip]
>
> >> Lots of my recent posts have been about why I think criticising the
> >> plot of TSE is a boring thing to do.
> >
> >Why, because you disagree?
>
> Because I think it's fairly obvious that TSE isn't meant to be
> plot-based.
I don't care about that. Arguably, 'The Crusade' episode one isn't plot
based, it's character/dialogue based and i still that it's great. TSE's
failure is in being incredably boring.
William's arguments that all novels *should* be plot-based
> have been fascinating. Arguments to show that TSE fails as a big
> discursive love-letter would have me on the edge of my seat. Arguments
> pointing out that it has a crap plot are about as useful as saying
> that there aren't many Cybermen in Autumn Mist.
>
See above.
> >I could give you loads of reasons why it's
> >boring to criticise 'The Pit' and 'War of the Daleks' but a) people
> >still would, and b) all my reasons would boil down to the same one -
i
> >like them.
>
> I don't think there's any work that's above criticism, or that can't
> be interesting to criticise - just that some particular criticisms are
> not very insightful.
>
That argument could still be expnaded to 'I ((don't) like that book but
your arguments aren't insightful enough to consider.'
Richard Jones
>In article <3810df34...@news.net.ntl.com>,
> tige...@net.ntl.com (Richard Jones) wrote:
>> I was saying that it wasn't important whether the elements are from
>> SF, Fantasy, or Horror (Carter likes her vampires) etc... just that
>> they are the sort of thing normaly too sensational for mainstream
>> literature, but treated in a non-sensationalist way.
>
>A bit like the way Ultraviolet used Vampires in a real setting so it
>seemed more like a stright thriller than a sci-fi or horror?
>(apologioes if you are outside the UK, you probably wont have a clue
>what i'm talking about).
Well I'm in the UK, but didn't watch Ultraviolet.
What you say sounds right though, however I think Magic Realism tries
to go a touch further. Here's a G. K. Chesterton quote I came across
on the weekend, while reading something totally unnconected :
"Folk-lore means that the soul is sane, but that the universe is wild
and full of marvels. Realism means that the world is dull and full of
routine, but that the soul is sick and screaming. The problem of the
fairy tale is - what will a healthy man do with a fantastic world? The
problem of the modern novel is - what will a madman do with a dull
world?" [1]
The Big and Useful thing that magic realism manages to do is say, "Sod
that dichotomy for a game of soldiers."
It's a way of storytelling that maintains a discourse appropriate to
an objective and realistic narrative, but includes fantastical
elements integrated with the sort of stuff you expect to happen in
real life. It's vitally important that it be grounded in an honest
attempt at the real world - Moving vampires into ModernThillerWorld
isn't as big a step as moving vampires into the
JustGoingDownTheShopsForAPacketOfFagsWorld.
You couldn't do outright Magic Realism in Doctor Who because you start
so far away from JustGoingDownTheShopsForAPacketOfFagsWorld. You'd
have to be stripping fantastical stuff away to get there - which is
hardly the aproach from which to do it. I think the closest we can get
are the stories of the Passion Flower Doctor in TBA, who's been
relocated to allow it.
That doesn't stop anyone using techiques borrowed from the genre in
Who. That's what I reckon TSE does. Also, I think the convincing depth
of character Jon and Kate give thier Doctor gives him a kind of
'internal magic realism' if that makes any sense.
In the interests of keeping the arguments distinct and knowing what
each other are talking about... relevance to the subject heading
ceases...
--------------------------------------Now----------------------------
[On Craig in Could it be Magic?]
>> I said he was a character "who sees everything in the world in terms
>> of Marvel and DC comics." Happily that corresponds very closely to
>> what I meant. He's not a superhero - he's a fanboy.
>
>Hmm. That's what i thought. So how des that make it magical realism.
>i'm confused.
It makes it a fairly brave challenge to MR using it's own rules.
Craig is the sort of person who can participate in a brutal assault on
a woman while conceptualising it as a daring escapade of the Justice
Leauge of America. Such people exist in reality, so are fine to be in
realist fiction. So what happens when one such character exists in a
world where the writer is trying to integrate the fantastic with the
realistic? He'd be disruptive, but it would be *cheating* to say he
couldn't exist there.
It's not that Craig makes it MR, it's Penny that makes it MR and Craig
that problematises it in daring bits of writing that are probably
Magrs's biggest literary innovation. TSE examines Doctor Who while
being part of it. 'Could it be Magic?' does the same to magic realism.
Title's a bit of a giveaway there.
[snip]
>I don't care about that. Arguably, 'The Crusade' episode one isn't plot
>based, it's character/dialogue based and i still that it's great. TSE's
>failure is in being incredably boring.
That doesn't fit very well with the criticisms you've been making so
far in this thread. You've been singling out the use of the Aja'ib as
bad ploting.
>> I don't think there's any work that's above criticism, or that can't
>> be interesting to criticise - just that some particular criticisms are
>> not very insightful.
>That argument could still be expnaded to 'I ((don't) like that book but
>your arguments aren't insightful enough to consider.'
Not if I was prepared to *consider* criticisms I felt were untelling
and ill-applied, and argue why I thought they were so.
See a number of recent threads for me doing just that.
[1] Hoom.
--
Richard Jones.
William December Starr
tige...@net.ntl.com (Richard Jones) said:
> The Big and Useful thing that magic realism manages to do is say,
> "Sod that dichotomy for a game of soldiers."
>
> It's a way of storytelling that maintains a discourse appropriate to
> an objective and realistic narrative, but includes fantastical
> elements integrated with the sort of stuff you expect to happen in
> real life. It's vitally important that it be grounded in an honest
> attempt at the real world - Moving vampires into ModernThillerWorld
> isn't as big a step as moving vampires into the
> JustGoingDownTheShopsForAPacketOfFagsWorld.
I can follow all this reasoning. Really, I can. But... once the
fantastical elements are added to the "the sort of stuff you expect
to happen in real life," um, where are you? Add vampires to a story
of mundane people leading mundane lives in a mundane world, and don't
you still have a mundane this that and the other thing, only now with
vampires?
I realize that part of the answer to my question lies in how
imaginative and talented the author is, but still... okay, there's
vampires -- now what? What I'm getting at is, what does adding
fantastical elements to a mundane setting _do_? What's it *for*?
(And, on a slight tangent, what's the real difference between a pack
of vampires -- which has to be added to the mundane world -- and a
gang of thrill killers, which doesn't? What _is_ fantastical these
days, anyway?)
turlo...@my-deja.com
tige...@net.ntl.com (Richard Jones) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:38:04 GMT, turlo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >In article <3810df34...@news.net.ntl.com>,
> > tige...@net.ntl.com (Richard Jones) wrote:
A bit like the way Ultraviolet used Vampires in a real setting so it
> >seemed more like a stright thriller than a sci-fi or horror?
> >(apologioes if you are outside the UK, you probably wont have a clue
> >what i'm talking about).
>
> Well I'm in the UK, but didn't watch Ultraviolet.
>
Ah, you don't know what you missed! Buy the videos.
> What you say sounds right though, however I think Magic Realism tries
> to go a touch further. Here's a G. K. Chesterton quote I came across
> on the weekend, while reading something totally unnconected :
>
> "Folk-lore means that the soul is sane, but that the universe is wild
> and full of marvels. Realism means that the world is dull and full of
> routine, but that the soul is sick and screaming. The problem of the
> fairy tale is - what will a healthy man do with a fantastic world? The
> problem of the modern novel is - what will a madman do with a dull
> world?" [1]
>
But who is to judge what is sane?
> The Big and Useful thing that magic realism manages to do is say, "Sod
> that dichotomy for a game of soldiers."
>
What i like about magic realism (and i could dig myself in to a big
hole here) is how it does not conform to rules. But in a Doctor Who
context (this is me trying to build a ladder out of the hole) that
doesn't work if you ignore all rules because it makes a non-sence of
every other Dr Who story that has used certain rules. But as i said, it
can be done ie 'The Fisher King' which could have been a Dr Who story.
> It's a way of storytelling that maintains a discourse appropriate to
> an objective and realistic narrative, but includes fantastical
> elements integrated with the sort of stuff you expect to happen in
> real life. It's vitally important that it be grounded in an honest
> attempt at the real world - Moving vampires into ModernThillerWorld
> isn't as big a step as moving vampires into the
> JustGoingDownTheShopsForAPacketOfFagsWorld.
>
That is my ENTIRE reason for saying that TSE isn't magical realism!
> You couldn't do outright Magic Realism in Doctor Who because you start
> so far away from JustGoingDownTheShopsForAPacketOfFagsWorld.
Survival?
You'd
> have to be stripping fantastical stuff away to get there - which is
> hardly the aproach from which to do it. I think the closest we can get
> are the stories of the Passion Flower Doctor in TBA,
I'm sorry?
who's been
> relocated to allow it.
>
> That doesn't stop anyone using techiques borrowed from the genre in
> Who.
Of course not.
That's what I reckon TSE does. Also, I think the convincing depth
> of character Jon and Kate give thier Doctor gives him a kind of
> 'internal magic realism' if that makes any sense.
>
Hmm.
> In the interests of keeping the arguments distinct and knowing what
> each other are talking about... relevance to the subject heading
> ceases...
>
Ok.
> --------------------------------------Now----------------------------
>
> [On Craig in Could it be Magic?]
>
> >> I said he was a character "who sees everything in the world in
terms
> >> of Marvel and DC comics." Happily that corresponds very closely to
> >> what I meant. He's not a superhero - he's a fanboy.
> >
> >Hmm. That's what i thought. So how des that make it magical realism.
> >i'm confused.
>
> It makes it a fairly brave challenge to MR using it's own rules.
> Craig is the sort of person who can participate in a brutal assault on
> a woman while conceptualising it as a daring escapade of the Justice
> Leauge of America. Such people exist in reality, so are fine to be in
> realist fiction. So what happens when one such character exists in a
> world where the writer is trying to integrate the fantastic with the
> realistic? He'd be disruptive, but it would be *cheating* to say he
> couldn't exist there.
>
Ah. I see. Fair enough.
[snip]
>
> >I don't care about that. Arguably, 'The Crusade' episode one isn't
plot
> >based, it's character/dialogue based and i still that it's great.
TSE's
> >failure is in being incredably boring.
>
> That doesn't fit very well with the criticisms you've been making so
> far in this thread. You've been singling out the use of the Aja'ib as
> bad ploting.
>
That is just one of the criticisms. I don't generally hate a book
because it has one thing wrong with it. The Aja'ib was just the most
relevant criticism at the time, but there are others. In this case, the
Aja'ib was redundant because you have been arguing that plot isn't the
main point of TSE so i use a different criticism now,.
> >> I don't think there's any work that's above criticism, or that
can't
> >> be interesting to criticise - just that some particular criticisms
are
> >> not very insightful.
>
> >That argument could still be expnaded to 'I ((don't) like that book
but
> >your arguments aren't insightful enough to consider.'
>
> Not if I was prepared to *consider* criticisms I felt were untelling
> and ill-applied, and argue why I thought they were so.
>
yes, but you haven't, at least not in this thread.
> See a number of recent threads for me doing just that.
>
Oh, ok.
Paul Andinach
> In article <3810df34...@news.net.ntl.com>,
> tige...@net.ntl.com (Richard Jones) wrote:
>
> > All fine... but the explaination that "That 10% of our brains can
> > directly manipulate unconected objects in the external world"
> > quacks to me like a particularly magic duck. Not that it bothers
> > me.
>
> Well, more like 90% because that's how much is spare.
Actually, 10% is closer to the amount of brain people don't use.
5% is closer still.
0% would be about right.
> > I was saying that it wasn't important whether the elements are
> > from SF, Fantasy, or Horror (Carter likes her vampires) etc...
> > just that they are the sort of thing normaly too sensational for
> > mainstream literature, but treated in a non-sensationalist way.
>
> A bit like the way Ultraviolet used Vampires in a real setting so it
> seemed more like a stright thriller than a sci-fi or horror?
I'm not sure Ultraviolet is a good example, because it still
acknowledged the fantastic nature of vampires. The setting was
different, but the vampires weren't much.
Richard Jones
>Ah, you don't know what you missed! Buy the [Ultraviolet] videos.
I'm sure I'll get round to having a look at some point.
>> What you say sounds right though, however I think Magic Realism tries
>> to go a touch further. Here's a G. K. Chesterton quote I came across
>> on the weekend, while reading something totally unnconected :
>>
>> "Folk-lore means that the soul is sane, but that the universe is wild
>> and full of marvels. Realism means that the world is dull and full of
>> routine, but that the soul is sick and screaming. The problem of the
>> fairy tale is - what will a healthy man do with a fantastic world? The
>> problem of the modern novel is - what will a madman do with a dull
>> world?" [1]
>
>But who is to judge what is sane?
Spot on. Just the sort of question with which MR can jab at that
paragraph. Chesterton here's making a lot of assumptions about worlds
and minds that can be argued with. After all "adapted to the world" is
one definition we might use of sane.
>> The Big and Useful thing that magic realism manages to do is say, "Sod
>> that dichotomy for a game of soldiers."
>
>What i like about magic realism (and i could dig myself in to a big
>hole here) is how it does not conform to rules. But in a Doctor Who
>context (this is me trying to build a ladder out of the hole) that
>doesn't work if you ignore all rules because it makes a non-sence of
>every other Dr Who story that has used certain rules.
I disagree. We're all used to, conciously or not, recognising that
different bits of Doctor Who use different rules of storytelling. If
an NA has the internal rule that soldiers swear realisticly, it
doesn't make a nonsense out of the Pertwee era using the rule that
nobody says "fuck" or seems to be aware of it. If a Bullis novel has a
cast that are all... lets say 'Archetypes', it doesn't make a nonsense
out of novels that write rounded individuals.
There are fundamental differences in the flavour of fictional world
that 'Rememberance' and 'The Chase' happen in, differences in the
rules of fiction in operation, and I don't think that causes a
problem. I think that's what you get if you want a worthwhile series
written by different people.
> But as i said, it
>can be done ie 'The Fisher King' which could have been a Dr Who story.
>
>> It's a way of storytelling that maintains a discourse appropriate to
>> an objective and realistic narrative, but includes fantastical
>> elements integrated with the sort of stuff you expect to happen in
>> real life. It's vitally important that it be grounded in an honest
>> attempt at the real world - Moving vampires into ModernThillerWorld
>> isn't as big a step as moving vampires into the
>> JustGoingDownTheShopsForAPacketOfFagsWorld.
>
>That is my ENTIRE reason for saying that TSE isn't magical realism!
Something I've clearly agreed with you on since my first post to this
thread.
>> You couldn't do outright Magic Realism in Doctor Who because you start
>> so far away from JustGoingDownTheShopsForAPacketOfFagsWorld.
>
>Survival?
Oooh, very good. (The only example my mind threw up when it ran my 'Am
I talking bollocks?' check on that sentance was Damaged Goods. Then I
remembered that Manchester got eaten.)
Been a long time since I watched Survival as it's one of my least
favourite McCoy stories. I'd probably argue that it doesn't qualify as
magic realism because the fantastical stuff is the story, rather that
the story being "these people's lives of which Cheetah People are
part". But I might not.
> You'd
>> have to be stripping fantastical stuff away to get there - which is
>> hardly the aproach from which to do it. I think the closest we can get
>> are the stories of the Passion Flower Doctor in TBA,
>
>I'm sorry?
Oh, sorry. The Doctor who lives in Sally's world muses at one point
(P.155) about whether he's an extrusion of this world, or whether this
world has been made to contain him. Eggs laid on Passion flowers, and
the plant's defense against this, is used to illustrate.
> who's been
>> relocated to allow it.
>>
>> That doesn't stop anyone using techiques borrowed from the genre in
>> Who.
>
>Of course not.
>
> That's what I reckon TSE does. Also, I think the convincing depth
>> of character Jon and Kate give thier Doctor gives him a kind of
>> 'internal magic realism' if that makes any sense.
>>
>Hmm.
It doesn't does it? No need to spare my feelings. :-)
I think what I mean is that they characterise and motivate him with
the care of a "discourse appropriate to the objective and realistic"
while stressing that he's a magic man. The worlds they send their hero
to aren't magic realist places, but the inside of his head is.
[snip]
>> Not if I was prepared to *consider* criticisms I felt were untelling
>> and ill-applied, and argue why I thought they were so.
>>
>yes, but you haven't, at least not in this thread.
Well no...because I'd been making the arguements I'd use elsewhere
here that week and I'd just be cutting and pasting.
Contary to appearances, and to what must by now be becoming general
opinion, Paul M doesn't have me on a salary. I couldn't be bothered
when there was stuff on your server/deja in which I could refer you
to.
>> See a number of recent threads for me doing just that.
>>
>Oh, ok.
--
Richard Jones.
turlo...@my-deja.com
tige...@net.ntl.com (Richard Jones) wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:24:50 GMT, turlo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >> What you say sounds right though, however I think Magic Realism
tries
> >> to go a touch further. Here's a G. K. Chesterton quote I came
across
> >> on the weekend, while reading something totally unnconected :
> >>
<G.K.Chesterton quote snipped>
> >But who is to judge what is sane?
>
> Spot on. Just the sort of question with which MR can jab at that
> paragraph. Chesterton here's making a lot of assumptions about worlds
> and minds that can be argued with. After all "adapted to the world" is
> one definition we might use of sane.
Oh, sorry. I thought you were agreeing with him.
>
> >> The Big and Useful thing that magic realism manages to do is
say, "Sod
> >> that dichotomy for a game of soldiers."
> >
> >What i like about magic realism (and i could dig myself in to a big
> >hole here) is how it does not conform to rules. But in a Doctor Who
> >context (this is me trying to build a ladder out of the hole) that
> >doesn't work if you ignore all rules because it makes a non-sence of
> >every other Dr Who story that has used certain rules.
>
> I disagree. We're all used to, conciously or not, recognising that
> different bits of Doctor Who use different rules of storytelling. If
> an NA has the internal rule that soldiers swear realisticly, it
> doesn't make a nonsense out of the Pertwee era using the rule that
> nobody says "fuck" or seems to be aware of it. If a Bullis novel has a
> cast that are all... lets say 'Archetypes', it doesn't make a nonsense
> out of novels that write rounded individuals.
I disagree. The issues you have put forward are minor, and how do we
know that th soldiers don't sware the moment they're off the screen.
Also, you get archetypes for a reason, namely that there are people
like that.
>
> There are fundamental differences in the flavour of fictional world
> that 'Rememberance' and 'The Chase' happen in, differences in the
> rules of fiction in operation, and I don't think that causes a
> problem. I think that's what you get if you want a worthwhile series
> written by different people.
The difference there is in quality which is inevitable in a series by
toher writers. What i am saying is that magrs changes the rules of the
Universe so that makes a mockery of other stories. Why doesn't the
Doctor accept magic in ie 'Battlefield' (in terms of this dimension)
when he's already been to Hyspero so he should know that magic in soem
form exists. (TSE says he's been there before).
>
> > But as i said, it
> >can be done ie 'The Fisher King' which could have been a Dr Who
story.
> >
> >> It's a way of storytelling that maintains a discourse appropriate
to
> >> an objective and realistic narrative, but includes fantastical
> >> elements integrated with the sort of stuff you expect to happen in
> >> real life. It's vitally important that it be grounded in an honest
> >> attempt at the real world - Moving vampires into ModernThillerWorld
> >> isn't as big a step as moving vampires into the
> >> JustGoingDownTheShopsForAPacketOfFagsWorld.
> >
> >That is my ENTIRE reason for saying that TSE isn't magical realism!
>
> Something I've clearly agreed with you on since my first post to this
> thread.
>
Oh, so it is in fact YOU who has got the 'Is it MR?' and 'Is it any
good?' arguments mixed up! :) You keep arguing against me when i argue
about it not being MR even though we agree! :)
> >> You couldn't do outright Magic Realism in Doctor Who because you
start
> >> so far away from JustGoingDownTheShopsForAPacketOfFagsWorld.
> >
> >Survival?
>
> Oooh, very good. (The only example my mind threw up when it ran my 'Am
> I talking bollocks?' check on that sentance was Damaged Goods. Then I
> remembered that Manchester got eaten.)
>
I didn't really mean it as Survival being magic realism, just that it
was the type of thriller where you could get killed going out for fags
which i thought was your point about Ultraviolet. Still, i suppose the
sae applies.
> Been a long time since I watched Survival as it's one of my least
> favourite McCoy stories.
I quite like it myself, the Master's one of my fave villains.
I'd probably argue that it doesn't qualify as
> magic realism because the fantastical stuff is the story, rather that
> the story being "these people's lives of which Cheetah People are
> part". But I might not.
>
Yeah, but all that 'contamination' business is hardly scientific is it?
How can being on a planet turn you in to a Cheetah person? Sounds very
much like MR to me.
> > You'd
> >> have to be stripping fantastical stuff away to get there - which is
> >> hardly the aproach from which to do it. I think the closest we can
get
> >> are the stories of the Passion Flower Doctor in TBA,
> >
> >I'm sorry?
>
> Oh, sorry. The Doctor who lives in Sally's world muses at one point
> (P.155) about whether he's an extrusion of this world, or whether this
> world has been made to contain him. Eggs laid on Passion flowers, and
> the plant's defense against this, is used to illustrate.
>
Oh.
> >> That doesn't stop anyone using techiques borrowed from the genre in
> >> Who.
> >
> >Of course not.
> >
> > That's what I reckon TSE does. Also, I think the convincing depth
> >> of character Jon and Kate give thier Doctor gives him a kind of
> >> 'internal magic realism' if that makes any sense.
> >>
> >Hmm.
>
> It doesn't does it? No need to spare my feelings. :-)
>
> I think what I mean is that they characterise and motivate him with
> the care of a "discourse appropriate to the objective and realistic"
> while stressing that he's a magic man. The worlds they send their hero
> to aren't magic realist places, but the inside of his head is.
I THINK i'm with you but i could be wrong. You're saying that the
Doctor is a magic element, whenever he lands somewhere he changes it in
a magical way, but using technology? To outsiders he appears magical,
and his thought processes, because they are alien, seem magical to us.
Richard Jones
>Oh, sorry. I thought you were agreeing with [Chesterton].
Philip, if I'd thought the dichotomy outlined in the passage was a
Good Thing, then the very first thing I said after quoting it would
hardly have been...
>>>> The Big and Useful thing that magic realism manages to do is
>>>> say, "Sod that dichotomy for a game of soldiers."
I'm sorry to get frustrated, but I really don't think you've been
reading a word I've said. Half this thread has been me re-explaining
things I said fairly clearly the first time, and the other half has
been you protesting in places where we both agree!
I can see you're reading this online, so I understand that you feel a
little rushed. In the long run though, time taken to read what the
other person is saying is probably more efficient than guessing.
>> I disagree. We're all used to, conciously or not, recognising that
>> different bits of Doctor Who use different rules of storytelling. If
>> an NA has the internal rule that soldiers swear realisticly, it
>> doesn't make a nonsense out of the Pertwee era using the rule that
>> nobody says "fuck" or seems to be aware of it. If a Bullis novel has a
>> cast that are all... lets say 'Archetypes', it doesn't make a nonsense
>> out of novels that write rounded individuals.
>
>I disagree. The issues you have put forward are minor,
They're also specific. What are the rules at work in TSE that you feel
make a nonsense of other rules being used in other stories?
> and how do we
>know that th soldiers don't sware the moment they're off the screen.
The same way we know that Clark Kent doesn't have a sly wank when
we're not looking. We've identified the sort of fiction they live in.
>Also, you get archetypes for a reason, namely that there are people
>like that.
I strongly disbelive there are any people in the real world like Chris
Bullis characters. That doesn't bother me - I just accept that he's
writing a certain sort of non-realist fiction with a certian set of
criteria for charactisation and I go on to enjoy some of his books. It
also doesn't bother me when Paul Cornell comes along and uses
different criteria to write characters in a different sort of
non-realist fiction.
>> There are fundamental differences in the flavour of fictional world
>> that 'Rememberance' and 'The Chase' happen in, differences in the
>> rules of fiction in operation, and I don't think that causes a
>> problem. I think that's what you get if you want a worthwhile series
>> written by different people.
>
>The difference there is in quality which is inevitable in a series by
>toher writers.
Okay, bad example on my part (Though in a way, I like The Chase)
Take Original Sin and Sky Pirates!
I know you probably hate one of those, but many people consider them
both to be stories of 'quality'. I think they both featured on some
people's top tens.
Even given that most of SP! is set in the System, they obviously both
use totally different rules of storytelling, despite being sequential
and both being 'good'. I think that this is to the detriment of
nothing, and adds to a colourful, varied, idiosyncratic series.
>What i am saying is that magrs changes the rules of the
>Universe so that makes a mockery of other stories. Why doesn't the
>Doctor accept magic in ie 'Battlefield' (in terms of this dimension)
>when he's already been to Hyspero so he should know that magic in soem
>form exists. (TSE says he's been there before).
Where does Battlefield show the Doctor unaccepting of magic?
Last time I watched it (2 weeks ago) it showed the opposite.
Where does TSE show that the last time the Doctor was on Hyspero he
accepted the magic as magic?
Last time I read it P.58 suggested he didn't.
>> >That is my ENTIRE reason for saying that TSE isn't magical realism!
>>
>> Something I've clearly agreed with you on since my first post to this
>> thread.
>
>Oh, so it is in fact YOU who has got the 'Is it MR?' and 'Is it any
>good?' arguments mixed up! :) You keep arguing against me when i argue
>about it not being MR even though we agree! :)
I've not once argued against you on that. Quote me where I have.
My position since the second paragraph of first reply has consistently
been...
"I'd say that TSE wasn't... TSE is very much set within the
fantastical world of 'Doctor Who', and so the most it can do is
appropriate Magic Realist techniques and approaches."
[snip]
[On Survival...]
>> I'd probably argue that it doesn't qualify as
>> magic realism because the fantastical stuff is the story, rather that
>> the story being "these people's lives of which Cheetah People are
>> part". But I might not.
>
>Yeah, but all that 'contamination' business is hardly scientific is it?
>How can being on a planet turn you in to a Cheetah person? Sounds very
>much like MR to me.
Rargh! That's got nothing to do with it. Whether the fanastical
elements are Fantasy, SF, Biblical, Horror, etc...isn't the point!
This isn't the "magic vs science" debate. My copies of some later
Phillip K Dick novels all say on the blurb that they belong in the
tradition of Calvino...and I think that's right.
The German art critic Franz Roh invented the term magic realism (or
something very similar in German) as a way of talking about
post-expressionist painting. It was meant to describe "a magic insight
into reality." It was not meant for picking out stray bits of
SwordnSorcey irrationality and thinking you've defined a new genre.
[On MR in Jon and Kate's stuff...]
>> I think what I mean is that they characterise and motivate him with
>> the care of a "discourse appropriate to the objective and realistic"
>> while stressing that he's a magic man. The worlds they send their hero
>> to aren't magic realist places, but the inside of his head is.
>
>I THINK i'm with you but i could be wrong. You're saying that the
>Doctor is a magic element, whenever he lands somewhere he changes it in
>a magical way, but using technology? To outsiders he appears magical,
>and his thought processes, because they are alien, seem magical to us.
No, that's not what I was trying to say. Read my bit again without
being so hung up on this 'science/magic' thing and thinking of the
'fantastical/realistic' thing instead.
I think you've misread the 'magic' in the genre's name. It's talking
about people running through rooms balancing beer bottles on thier
erections in Marquez - not about dragons fighting aeroplanes.
--
Richard Jones.
turlo...@my-deja.com
tige...@net.ntl.com (Richard Jones) wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:16:44 GMT, turlo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Oh, sorry. I thought you were agreeing with [Chesterton].
>
> Philip, if I'd thought the dichotomy outlined in the passage was a
> Good Thing, then the very first thing I said after quoting it would
> hardly have been...
>
> >>>> The Big and Useful thing that magic realism manages to do is
> >>>> say, "Sod that dichotomy for a game of soldiers."
>
> I'm sorry to get frustrated, but I really don't think you've been
> reading a word I've said. Half this thread has been me re-explaining
> things I said fairly clearly the first time, and the other half has
> been you protesting in places where we both agree!
>
> I can see you're reading this online, so I understand that you feel a
> little rushed. In the long run though, time taken to read what the
> other person is saying is probably more efficient than guessing.
>
This reminds me of when i play chess. i see the plan the other person
is making, but then i forget i noticed it and play in to their hands. i
remember you putting about 'Sod that...' etc, but forgot when it came
to writing the reply. I'm sorry. I'm irritating enough without this as
well.
> >> I disagree. We're all used to, conciously or not, recognising that
> >> different bits of Doctor Who use different rules of storytelling.
If
> >> an NA has the internal rule that soldiers swear realisticly, it
> >> doesn't make a nonsense out of the Pertwee era using the rule that
> >> nobody says "fuck" or seems to be aware of it. If a Bullis novel
has a
> >> cast that are all... lets say 'Archetypes', it doesn't make a
nonsense
> >> out of novels that write rounded individuals.
> >
> >I disagree. The issues you have put forward are minor,
>
> They're also specific. What are the rules at work in TSE that you feel
> make a nonsense of other rules being used in other stories?
Well, the dragon coming out of a book for one...
>
> > and how do we
> >know that th soldiers don't sware the moment they're off the screen.
>
> The same way we know that Clark Kent doesn't have a sly wank when
> we're not looking. We've identified the sort of fiction they live in.
>
Do we know that? I don't.
> >Also, you get archetypes for a reason, namely that there are people
> >like that.
>
> I strongly disbelive there are any people in the real world like Chris
> Bullis characters. That doesn't bother me - I just accept that he's
> writing a certain sort of non-realist fiction with a certian set of
> criteria for charactisation and I go on to enjoy some of his books. It
> also doesn't bother me when Paul Cornell comes along and uses
> different criteria to write characters in a different sort of
> non-realist fiction.
Actually, i thought the characters in 'Vanderdeken's Children' were all
pretty good.
>
> >> There are fundamental differences in the flavour of fictional world
> >> that 'Rememberance' and 'The Chase' happen in, differences in the
> >> rules of fiction in operation, and I don't think that causes a
> >> problem. I think that's what you get if you want a worthwhile
series
> >> written by different people.
> >
> >The difference there is in quality which is inevitable in a series by
> >toher writers.
>
> Okay, bad example on my part (Though in a way, I like The Chase)
> Take Original Sin and Sky Pirates!
> I know you probably hate one of those, but many people consider them
> both to be stories of 'quality'.
I've not read Sky Pirates. The blurb puts me off. But 'Original Sin'
was great.
I think they both featured on some
> people's top tens.
>
> Even given that most of SP! is set in the System, they obviously both
> use totally different rules of storytelling, despite being sequential
> and both being 'good'. I think that this is to the detriment of
> nothing, and adds to a colourful, varied, idiosyncratic series.
>
> >What i am saying is that magrs changes the rules of the
> >Universe so that makes a mockery of other stories. Why doesn't the
> >Doctor accept magic in ie 'Battlefield' (in terms of this dimension)
> >when he's already been to Hyspero so he should know that magic in
soem
> >form exists. (TSE says he's been there before).
>
> Where does Battlefield show the Doctor unaccepting of magic?
His explanation of it as an advanced for of technology for one thing.
> Last time I watched it (2 weeks ago) it showed the opposite.
>
> Where does TSE show that the last time the Doctor was on Hyspero he
> accepted the magic as magic?
> Last time I read it P.58 suggested he didn't.
>
Yeah, he didn't the first time, but now he accepts it without any
trouble.
> >Oh, so it is in fact YOU who has got the 'Is it MR?' and 'Is it any
> >good?' arguments mixed up! :) You keep arguing against me when i
argue
> >about it not being MR even though we agree! :)
>
> I've not once argued against you on that. Quote me where I have.
> My position since the second paragraph of first reply has consistently
> been...
>
> "I'd say that TSE wasn't... TSE is very much set within the
> fantastical world of 'Doctor Who', and so the most it can do is
> appropriate Magic Realist techniques and approaches."
This dabate has touched so many different apets of so many different
stories that i'm getting dizzy.
>
> [snip]
>
> [On Survival...]
>
> >> I'd probably argue that it doesn't qualify as
> >> magic realism because the fantastical stuff is the story, rather
that
> >> the story being "these people's lives of which Cheetah People are
> >> part". But I might not.
> >
> >Yeah, but all that 'contamination' business is hardly scientific is
it?
> >How can being on a planet turn you in to a Cheetah person? Sounds
very
> >much like MR to me.
>
> Rargh! That's got nothing to do with it. Whether the fanastical
> elements are Fantasy, SF, Biblical, Horror, etc...isn't the point!
>
> This isn't the "magic vs science" debate. My copies of some later
> Phillip K Dick novels all say on the blurb that they belong in the
> tradition of Calvino...and I think that's right.
>
I've only read 'Do Androids Dream...'
> The German art critic Franz Roh invented the term magic realism (or
> something very similar in German) as a way of talking about
> post-expressionist painting. It was meant to describe "a magic insight
> into reality." It was not meant for picking out stray bits of
> SwordnSorcey irrationality and thinking you've defined a new genre.
>
Oh.
> [On MR in Jon and Kate's stuff...]
>
> >> I think what I mean is that they characterise and motivate him with
> >> the care of a "discourse appropriate to the objective and
realistic"
> >> while stressing that he's a magic man. The worlds they send their
hero
> >> to aren't magic realist places, but the inside of his head is.
> >
> >I THINK i'm with you but i could be wrong. You're saying that the
> >Doctor is a magic element, whenever he lands somewhere he changes it
in
> >a magical way, but using technology? To outsiders he appears magical,
> >and his thought processes, because they are alien, seem magical to
us.
>
> No, that's not what I was trying to say. Read my bit again without
> being so hung up on this 'science/magic' thing and thinking of the
> 'fantastical/realistic' thing instead.
Hey, calm down. i'm sorry, i misunderstood. But this time i don't think
you explained clearly whereas you probably did on other occasions.
>
> I think you've misread the 'magic' in the genre's name. It's talking
> about people running through rooms balancing beer bottles on thier
> erections in Marquez - not about dragons fighting aeroplanes.
>
'100 years of Solitude' was certainly very odd in places...
Richard Jones
[snip]
>> They're also specific. What are the rules at work in TSE that you feel
>> make a nonsense of other rules being used in other stories?
>
>Well, the dragon coming out of a book for one...
Okay, good start. Now how do you think a dragon coming out of a book
in TSE makes a nonsense of a dragon not coming out of a book in other
stories?
>> The same way we know that Clark Kent doesn't have a sly wank when
>> we're not looking. We've identified the sort of fiction they live in.
>
>Do we know that? I don't.
Maybe 'know' is too strong a word - someone can come along and write a
genre-busting account of his furtive masturbatory life, but in the
meantime it seems clear that it's not part of his world in the same
way a third dimension isn't part of the Simpsons' world.
>> >Also, you get archetypes for a reason, namely that there are people
>> >like that.
>>
>> I strongly disbelive there are any people in the real world like Chris
>> Bullis characters. That doesn't bother me - I just accept that he's
>> writing a certain sort of non-realist fiction with a certian set of
>> criteria for charactisation and I go on to enjoy some of his books. It
>> also doesn't bother me when Paul Cornell comes along and uses
>> different criteria to write characters in a different sort of
>> non-realist fiction.
>
>Actually, i thought the characters in 'Vanderdeken's Children' were all
>pretty good.
I've not read VC, so I can't coment, though I can point out that I
never said his characters weren't good. Just that they're not, in any
of his books I've read, convincing imitations of Real People. That's
not a bad thing - they're very convincing imitations of B-Movie stock
figures and Fantasy cliches - and that's what he's going for.
[snip]
>> >What i am saying is that magrs changes the rules of the
>> >Universe so that makes a mockery of other stories. Why doesn't the
>> >Doctor accept magic in ie 'Battlefield' (in terms of this dimension)
>> >when he's already been to Hyspero so he should know that magic in
>> >soem form exists. (TSE says he's been there before).
>>
>> Where does Battlefield show the Doctor unaccepting of magic?
>
>His explanation of it as an advanced for of technology for one thing.
He doesn't give that explaination.
There's an *implied* endorsement of Clarke's Law, but only with the
addition of his own inverted rule - that any sufficiently advanced
magic is indistingushable from technology.
>> Where does TSE show that the last time the Doctor was on Hyspero he
>> accepted the magic as magic?
>> Last time I read it P.58 suggested he didn't.
>
>Yeah, he didn't the first time, but now he accepts it without any
>trouble.
So that doesn't show a mockery of different things having been
accepted previously, it shows the Doctor having changed his mind.
[snip]
--
Richard Jones.
"No.12: The Little Book of Unwanted Gifts.
No.53: The Little Book of Crap Attention Spans."
- From The Little Book of Little Books.
turlo...@my-deja.com
tige...@net.ntl.com (Richard Jones) wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 14:28:10 GMT, turlo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
feel
> >> make a nonsense of other rules being used in other stories?
> >
> >Well, the dragon coming out of a book for one...
>
> stories?
>
You yourself have explained that one. For the same reason we don't
think Clarke Kent has 'a sly wank' when the camera goes off him. See
below (*)
> >> The same way we know that Clark Kent doesn't have a sly wank when
> >> we're not looking. We've identified the sort of fiction they live
in.
> >
> >Do we know that? I don't.
>
> Maybe 'know' is too strong a word - someone can come along and write a
> genre-busting account of his furtive masturbatory life, but in the
> meantime it seems clear that it's not part of his world in the same
> way a third dimension isn't part of the Simpsons' world.
>
(*) There we have it. Now, you might argue that TSE is that genre
busting novel that makes it ok. But i don't, i consider it an aberation
because (unless explained) this kind of thing is not part of the
Doctor's world.
[snip]
>
> >> >What i am saying is that magrs changes the rules of the
> >> >Universe so that makes a mockery of other stories. Why doesn't the
> >> >Doctor accept magic in ie 'Battlefield' (in terms of this
dimension)
> >> >when he's already been to Hyspero so he should know that magic in
> >> >soem form exists. (TSE says he's been there before).
> >>
> >> Where does Battlefield show the Doctor unaccepting of magic?
> >
> >His explanation of it as an advanced for of technology for one thing.
>
> He doesn't give that explaination.
> There's an *implied* endorsement of Clarke's Law, but only with the
> addition of his own inverted rule - that any sufficiently advanced
> magic is indistingushable from technology.
True. But that is only an *implied* endorsement of magic. You can't
have it both ways.
>
> >> Where does TSE show that the last time the Doctor was on Hyspero he
> >> accepted the magic as magic?
> >> Last time I read it P.58 suggested he didn't.
> >
> >Yeah, he didn't the first time, but now he accepts it without any
> >trouble.
>
> So that doesn't show a mockery of different things having been
> accepted previously, it shows the Doctor having changed his mind.
>
Yes, with absolutely no reason to, no evidence, nothing.
marky_mark
realism: Sky's new cartoon series FAMILY GUY - with the talking dog
and psychotic baby!!
xx
Richard Jones
>> >> They're also specific. What are the rules at work in TSE that you
>> >> feel make a nonsense of other rules being used in other stories?
>> >
>> >Well, the dragon coming out of a book for one...
>>
>> Okay, good start. Now how do you think a dragon coming out of a book
>> in TSE makes a nonsense of a dragon not coming out of a book in other
>> stories?
>
>You yourself have explained that one. For the same reason we don't
>think Clarke Kent has 'a sly wank' when the camera goes off him. See
>below (*)
Oh are you accepting that now?
Good-oh.
Next stage then... Sandman, Doom Patrol, etc take place in the same
continuity as Superman but it's plausable that masturbation goes on
between thier panels. Same universe, but different STORIES with
differents rules of storytelling. You wouldn't read or write an isue
of Swamp Thing in the same way you'd read or write an issue of
Detective Comics, but you wouldn't stress about them co-existing.
Similarly, I wouldn't insist Placebo Effect and TSE share the same
conventions and rules. Why should they have to?
>> >> The same way we know that Clark Kent doesn't have a sly wank when
>> >> we're not looking. We've identified the sort of fiction they live in.
>> >Do we know that? I don't.
>> Maybe 'know' is too strong a word - someone can come along and write a
>> genre-busting account of his furtive masturbatory life, but in the
>> meantime it seems clear that it's not part of his world in the same
>> way a third dimension isn't part of the Simpsons' world.
>
>(*) There we have it. Now, you might argue that TSE is that genre
>busting novel that makes it ok. But i don't, i consider it an aberation
>because (unless explained) this kind of thing is not part of the
>Doctor's world.
...said the Unnaturalist to the Basilisk.
What's part of the Doctor's world is a constantly changing thing. The
Comedy genre (rather than just bits of comedy) and its conventions
weren't part of his world until The Romans. Outer Space battles with
BEMs and thier conventions weren't part of his world until the second
serial. The Fantasy genre and its conventions weren't part of his
world until Steve Parkhouse. Aberations are how we get innovations
rather than the formula generator the Doctor offers the kingdom of
birds (TSE P.159).
Besides, any reading of recent BBC books would show that the weird new
stuff Magrs has introduced has become part of the Doctor's wider
world.
>> >> Where does Battlefield show the Doctor unaccepting of magic?
>> >
>> >His explanation of it as an advanced for of technology for one thing.
>>
>> He doesn't give that explaination.
>> There's an *implied* endorsement of Clarke's Law, but only with the
>> addition of his own inverted rule - that any sufficiently advanced
>> magic is indistingushable from technology.
>
>True. But that is only an *implied* endorsement of magic. You can't
>have it both ways.
People are always trying to tell me that. :-)
I'm pretty sure I can here though, because the Doctor does.
Here are the lines...
ACE : ...How do they fly?
DOCTOR : Magic.
ACE : Oh be feasable Professor!
DOCTOR : What is Clarke's Law?
ACE : Any advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic?
DOCTOR : Well, the reverse is true.
Now, the endorsement of Clarke's Law is only implied, since he never
does say it's true. He does though say exactly that about "Any
suffiencetly advanced form of magic is indistinguishable from
technology." For this to be true, magic would have to exist in the
first place.
I'd drop this example if I were you - you're never going to be able to
show that someone who spends four episodes worrying about "Sorcery" on
its own terms is "unnaccepting of magic". Try using The Daemons
instead.
>> >> Where does TSE show that the last time the Doctor was on Hyspero he
>> >> accepted the magic as magic?
>> >> Last time I read it P.58 suggested he didn't.
>> >
>> >Yeah, he didn't the first time, but now he accepts it without any
>> >trouble.
>>
>> So that doesn't show a mockery of different things having been
>> accepted previously, it shows the Doctor having changed his mind.
>
>Yes, with absolutely no reason to, no evidence, nothing.
Execept the one given... that he now sees a value in setting himself
within the paramenters of a group and using thier perspectives. If
"People change thier minds" isn't enough for you as to why he's now
into this then there's a number of possible reasons...
The first concerns the concept of "regeneration" in which minds are
known to change. The Eighth Doctor sees the world in a number of
different ways to his predecessors. This is one.
The second concerns a series of novels featuring the Doctor were
published between 1991 and 1997. These 'new adventures' were set
before TSE and after Battlefield (Either the version I saw, or yours
in which the Doctor presuambly says, "No such thing as magic
Brigadier, so we might as well leave that Morgaine to make a tit of
herself while we sod off to play croquet")
A major plotline running through those books was to do with how
Gallifrey had once been a place of Magic, before being turned into a
place of Science. "Sky Pirates!" and "Christmas on a Rational Planet"
took this a stage further by saying that the whole universe had run on
nonsensical magical laws before the Watchmakers reformatted it into an
explicable, scientific cosmos.
The resolution to this came in 'Lungbarrow', a book Magrs frequently
references, where Gallfrey and the Sisterhood, Male principles and
Female principles, Magic and Science, etc kissed and made up. This
lead to the return of fertility to Gallifrey and the rebirth of the
Goddess Life.
The Dying Days, Vampire Science and Seeing I show that the Doctor is
now associated with Life - who was born out the reconcilation of Magic
and Science.
--
Richard Jones.
LennyTyke
--------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, I wouldn't insist Placebo Effect and TSE share the same
conventions and rules. Why should they have to?
<snip>
What's part of the Doctor's world is a constantly changing thing. The
Comedy genre (rather than just bits of comedy) and its conventions
weren't part of his world until The Romans. Outer Space battles with
BEMs and thier conventions weren't part of his world until the second
serial. The Fantasy genre and its conventions weren't part of his
world until Steve Parkhouse. Aberations are how we get innovations
rather than the formula generator the Doctor offers the kingdom of
birds (TSE P.159).
Besides, any reading of recent BBC books would show that the weird new
stuff Magrs has introduced has become part of the Doctor's wider
world.
>>Here are the lines...
ACE : ...How do they fly?
DOCTOR : Magic.
ACE : Oh be feasable Professor!
DOCTOR : What is Clarke's Law?
ACE : Any advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic?
DOCTOR : Well, the reverse is true.
Now, the endorsement of Clarke's Law is only implied, since he never
does say it's true. He does though say exactly that about "Any
suffiencetly advanced form of magic is indistinguishable from
technology." For this to be true, magic would have to exist in the
first place.
I'd drop this example if I were you - you're never going to be able to
show that someone who spends four episodes worrying about "Sorcery" on
its own terms is "unnaccepting of magic". Try using The Daemons
instead.
<snip>
The first concerns the concept of "regeneration" in which minds are
known to change. The Eighth Doctor sees the world in a number of
different ways to his predecessors. This is one.
The second concerns a series of novels featuring the Doctor were
published between 1991 and 1997. These 'new adventures' were set
before TSE and after Battlefield (Either the version I saw, or yours
in which the Doctor presuambly says, "No such thing as magic
Brigadier, so we might as well leave that Morgaine to make a tit of
herself while we sod off to play croquet")
A major plotline running through those books was to do with how
Gallifrey had once been a place of Magic, before being turned into a
place of Science. "Sky Pirates!" and "Christmas on a Rational Planet"
took this a stage further by saying that the whole universe had run on
nonsensical magical laws before the Watchmakers reformatted it into an
explicable, scientific cosmos.
The resolution to this came in 'Lungbarrow', a book Magrs frequently
references, where Gallfrey and the Sisterhood, Male principles and
Female principles, Magic and Science, etc kissed and made up. This
lead to the return of fertility to Gallifrey and the rebirth of the
Goddess Life.
The Dying Days, Vampire Science and Seeing I show that the Doctor is
now associated with Life - who was born out the reconcilation of Magic
and Science.
---------------------------------------------------
Well, at least I now know just what it is I hate about the Virgin novels so
much - the fact that so many of their ideas are based on New Age bullshit!
This said, I can prove Clarke's Law, and its reverse, since this formed a part
of the philosophy part of my degree. If magic is to be usable, then it has to
operate on certain principles that can be determined and learned, and then
applied to produce the desired results (such as a dragon flying out of a page,
or turning water into wine, or raising the dead). Thus magic forms two
branches - the theoretical, 'philosophy' of the magical system being used (such
as the Tao or whatever), and the practical aspect of producing magical spells.
Now, when I want to produce an effect (such as curing a disease, lighting a
room or making alcohol) I use something that is operated by certain principles
that can be determined or learned, and then applied to produce the desired
results. Thus, science has two branches, the theoretical side of Theories,
Laws and Models; and technology, which puts these into practise.
All that differs between the two is that thus far we have not been able to pull
quantitative results from magic, but the Doctor *has*. The Doctor knows
therefore something about how magical theory interects with scientific theory
(they must do so, since mass, distance and time all play parts in magical
events as much as in non-magical events). Whatever Sky Pirates! and COARP
might say, it is impossible to have nonsensical laws (magical or otherwise) for
the universe. Either they form an ordered universe or they don't, and life is
not possible in the latter case. Meaning, and therefore sense, is only
interpreted by those observing such a universe, and if magical laws govern the
universe, then magical laws have sense. If the laws governing the universe
change, then so does what makes sense.
The Doctor is a scientist and an engineer, and he presumably knows something
about how Hyspero events work, or he would want to find out. But he doesn't
explain any of it (perhaps it is too complicated). This tacit acceptance by
the Doctor is most uncharacteristic for him, and despite regeneration, he has
*always* retained a sceptical attitude and attempted to explain or determine
the cause of 'magical' events.
To the Doctor, magic is just another branch of science, like physics or
biology, and this is the way the Whoniverse has always been presented in the
past (at least by the TV series and BBC novels prior to TSE).
OJT
Lance Parkin
Jones) wrote:
>Next stage then... Sandman, Doom Patrol, etc take place in the same
>continuity as Superman but it's plausable that masturbation goes on
>between thier panels. Same universe, but different STORIES with
>differents rules of storytelling. You wouldn't read or write an isue
>of Swamp Thing in the same way you'd read or write an issue of
>Detective Comics, but you wouldn't stress about them co-existing.
>
>Similarly, I wouldn't insist Placebo Effect and TSE share the same
>conventions and rules. Why should they have to?
And, of course, TSE *isn't* a TV story, so it needn't have the
conventions of the TV stories.
Lance
turlo...@my-deja.com
tige...@net.ntl.com (Richard Jones) wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 12:20:38 GMT, turlo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >> >> They're also specific. What are the rules at work in TSE that
you
> >> >> feel make a nonsense of other rules being used in other stories?
> >> >
> >> >Well, the dragon coming out of a book for one...
> >>
> >> Okay, good start. Now how do you think a dragon coming out of a
book
> >> in TSE makes a nonsense of a dragon not coming out of a book in
other
> >> stories?
> >
> >You yourself have explained that one. For the same reason we don't
> >think Clarke Kent has 'a sly wank' when the camera goes off him. See
> >below (*)
>
> Oh are you accepting that now?
> Good-oh.
>
> Next stage then... Sandman, Doom Patrol, etc take place in the same
> continuity as Superman but it's plausable that masturbation goes on
> between thier panels. Same universe, but different STORIES with
> differents rules of storytelling. You wouldn't read or write an isue
> of Swamp Thing in the same way you'd read or write an issue of
> Detective Comics, but you wouldn't stress about them co-existing.
>
> Similarly, I wouldn't insist Placebo Effect and TSE share the same
> conventions and rules. Why should they have to?
Just because in one comic strip a character might have a wank doesn't
make them incompatable. It just means that one character enjoys a wank
and the other one doesn't. In TSE, we're talking rules of the universe.
There is more than a slight difference there.
>
> >> >> The same way we know that Clark Kent doesn't have a sly wank
when
> >> >> we're not looking. We've identified the sort of fiction they
live in.
>
> >> >Do we know that? I don't.
>
> >> Maybe 'know' is too strong a word - someone can come along and
write a
> >> genre-busting account of his furtive masturbatory life, but in the
> >> meantime it seems clear that it's not part of his world in the same
> >> way a third dimension isn't part of the Simpsons' world.
> >
> >(*) There we have it. Now, you might argue that TSE is that genre
> >busting novel that makes it ok. But i don't, i consider it an
aberation
> >because (unless explained) this kind of thing is not part of the
> >Doctor's world.
>
> ...said the Unnaturalist to the Basilisk.
>
> What's part of the Doctor's world is a constantly changing thing. The
> Comedy genre (rather than just bits of comedy) and its conventions
> weren't part of his world until The Romans.
There have been jokes in most Dr Who stories. Just because we view 'The
Romans' in a particularly comedic way doesn't mean that if we assume
the characters are real, that they would realise they were in a comedic
situation. They'd just think people were trying to kill them as usual.
Outer Space battles with
> BEMs and thier conventions weren't part of his world until the second
> serial. The Fantasy genre and its conventions weren't part of his
> world until Steve Parkhouse. Aberations are how we get innovations
> rather than the formula generator the Doctor offers the kingdom of
> birds (TSE P.159).
>
Who the hell is Steve Parkhouse?
There's no point giving me page references to TSE because my copy is
miles away from me.
> Besides, any reading of recent BBC books would show that the weird new
> stuff Magrs has introduced has become part of the Doctor's wider
> world.
>
Er...which ones exactly?
> >> >> Where does Battlefield show the Doctor unaccepting of magic?
> >> >
> >> >His explanation of it as an advanced for of technology for one
thing.
> >>
> >> He doesn't give that explaination.
> >> There's an *implied* endorsement of Clarke's Law, but only with the
> >> addition of his own inverted rule - that any sufficiently advanced
> >> magic is indistingushable from technology.
> >
> >True. But that is only an *implied* endorsement of magic. You can't
> >have it both ways.
>
> People are always trying to tell me that. :-)
>
I REALLY don't want to get in to that.
> I'm pretty sure I can here though, because the Doctor does.
> Here are the lines...
>
> ACE : ...How do they fly?
> DOCTOR : Magic.
> ACE : Oh be feasable Professor!
> DOCTOR : What is Clarke's Law?
> ACE : Any advanced technology is indistinguishable from
> magic?
> DOCTOR : Well, the reverse is true.
>
> Now, the endorsement of Clarke's Law is only implied, since he never
> does say it's true. He does though say exactly that about "Any
> suffiencetly advanced form of magic is indistinguishable from
> technology." For this to be true, magic would have to exist in the
> first place.
>
Or something that Ace would recognise as magic. Not necessarily actual
magic.
> I'd drop this example if I were you - you're never going to be able to
> show that someone who spends four episodes worrying about "Sorcery" on
> its own terms is "unnaccepting of magic". Try using The Daemons
> instead.
>
I'd rather not, it would mean watching the damn thing again.
> >> >> Where does TSE show that the last time the Doctor was on
Hyspero he
> >> >> accepted the magic as magic?
> >> >> Last time I read it P.58 suggested he didn't.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah, he didn't the first time, but now he accepts it without any
> >> >trouble.
> >>
> >> So that doesn't show a mockery of different things having been
> >> accepted previously, it shows the Doctor having changed his mind.
> >
> >Yes, with absolutely no reason to, no evidence, nothing.
>
> Execept the one given... that he now sees a value in setting himself
> within the paramenters of a group and using thier perspectives.
Oh yes, the ethnomethodologist stuff. But that doesn't mean that he
believes in magic per se, just that he is willing to accept it until it
is proved either right or wrong. He starts off with a clean slate.
If
> "People change thier minds" isn't enough for you as to why he's now
> into this then there's a number of possible reasons...
>
> The first concerns the concept of "regeneration" in which minds are
> known to change. The Eighth Doctor sees the world in a number of
> different ways to his predecessors. This is one.
>
Fair point.
> The second concerns a series of novels featuring the Doctor were
> published between 1991 and 1997. These 'new adventures' were set
> before TSE and after Battlefield (Either the version I saw, or yours
> in which the Doctor presuambly says, "No such thing as magic
> Brigadier, so we might as well leave that Morgaine to make a tit of
> herself while we sod off to play croquet")
>
The version i saw clearly states that Morgaine is from another Universe
where magic probably is possible.
> A major plotline running through those books was to do with how
> Gallifrey had once been a place of Magic, before being turned into a
> place of Science. "Sky Pirates!" and "Christmas on a Rational Planet"
> took this a stage further by saying that the whole universe had run on
> nonsensical magical laws before the Watchmakers reformatted it into an
> explicable, scientific cosmos.
ie before the big bang perhps? Or just after when the matter of the
universe was still maliable?
>
> The resolution to this came in 'Lungbarrow', a book Magrs frequently
> references, where Gallfrey and the Sisterhood, Male principles and
> Female principles, Magic and Science, etc kissed and made up. This
> lead to the return of fertility to Gallifrey and the rebirth of the
> Goddess Life.
>
> The Dying Days, Vampire Science and Seeing I show that the Doctor is
> now associated with Life - who was born out the reconcilation of Magic
> and Science.
I don't see how you've made that last jump.
William December Starr
tige...@net.ntl.com (Richard Jones) said:
> In both cases we're dealing with fictional universes so what we're
> ultimately talking about are rules of *storytelling*. What you say
> above confuses me because feel I've been being perfectly clear that
> I've not been talking about the personal preferences of of the
> characters, but about the rules within thier stories. I don't think
> Clark Kent doesn't wank because he doesn't choose to, I think he
> doesn't because it isn't part of his world. Similarly I belive Minnie
> Mouse will never have an abortion. This is not because I've read the
> character as passionately pro-life, but because I don't think it
> exists as a possibility in her world.
Whereas I've always thought of Superman as being set in a world that's
supposed to be what our world would be like if (a) the physical laws
and vagaries of happenstance were such that superheroes and
supervillains could and did exist and (b) one hell of a lot of the
people were one hell of a lot dumber (and more forgetful) than people
are in real life. Neither of those conditions rules out sex and
masturbation. (Though admittedly the near-complete non-interest that
bad guys have in molesting captured barely-costumed utterly gorgeous
female superheroes and the like does argue for there being _something_
odd about the sex drive in the Marvel and DC universes...)
[ *snip* ]
> People don't say "Fuck" in Eastenders. Hundreds of working class
> Londoners live, drink and fight in front of us for hours a week
> without ever once saying "fuck". The cumulative effect of this, and
> specific situations where extreme taboo langauge would obviously get
> used if it could be, is to make it incredible that people in Albert
> Square are saying "Fuck" when we're not looking either. The viewer can
> either assume that everyone in that area has a special chip implanted
> in thier heads that will kill them if they do, or that the word simply
> doesn't exist in thier world. I suspect almost everyone who watches
> EastEnders has made the second assumption, the vast majority
> unconciously.
I'd suspect that they (the viewers) just take the fact that "The BBC
doesn't let characters say 'fuck'" into account when watching the show.
That _isn't_ quite the same thing as your Assumption #2 -- it doesn't
lead to the conclusion "the word 'fuck' does not exist in these people's
world" or even "these people never say 'fuck'" but rather to "the BBC is
placing a distortion filter between us and what's really going on in
Albert Square (where "really going on" acknowledges that this is all
make-believe, of course)."
[ *snip* ]
One other thing, referring back to something you said a few iterations
earlier in this thread:
>>> The resolution to this came in 'Lungbarrow', a book Magrs frequently
>>> references, where Gallfrey and the Sisterhood, Male principles and
>>> Female principles, Magic and Science, etc kissed and made up. This
>>> lead to the return of fertility to Gallifrey and the rebirth of the
>>> Goddess Life.
I read _Lungbarrow_. I liked _Lungbarrow_. But seeing this summation
compels me to quote the end of Dorothy Parker's "Constant Reader"
review of _The House at Pooh Corner_: "And at this point, my dear
little darlings, Tonstant Weader trowed up."
James Bennetts
>In article <3822ef3f...@news.net.ntl.com>,
> tige...@net.ntl.com (Richard Jones) wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 12:20:38 GMT, turlo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> Similarly, I wouldn't insist Placebo Effect and TSE share the same
>> conventions and rules. Why should they have to?
>
>Just because in one comic strip a character might have a wank doesn't
>make them incompatable. It just means that one character enjoys a wank
>and the other one doesn't. In TSE, we're talking rules of the universe.
>There is more than a slight difference there.
What's the difference, though, between the events of The Sorcerer's
Apprentice or The Daemons, where magic works, and the events of The
Scarlet Empress, where magic works?
So Magrs doesn't explain why the magic works. That's not what his
novel is about - just assume that either Bulis' or Letts' explanation
applies here too, or make up your own if you feel creative!
>Or something that Ace would recognise as magic. Not necessarily actual
>magic.
Okay, so there's no actual magic in TSE; just what readers would
recognise as magic. No problem.
[Battlefield]
>The version i saw clearly states that Morgaine is from another Universe
>where magic probably is possible.
Of course, she also uses magic when she's in our Universe...
James
Richard Jones
Richard:
>>>> Okay, good start. Now how do you think a dragon coming out of a
>>>> book in TSE makes a nonsense of a dragon not coming out of a book in
>>>> other stories?
Philip:
>>>You yourself have explained that one. For the same reason we don't
>>>think Clarke Kent has 'a sly wank' when the camera goes off him. See
>>>below (*)
Richard:
>> Oh are you accepting that now?
>> Good-oh.
>>
>> Next stage then... Sandman, Doom Patrol, etc take place in the same
>> continuity as Superman but it's plausable that masturbation goes on
>> between thier panels. Same universe, but different STORIES with
>> differents rules of storytelling. You wouldn't read or write an isue
>> of Swamp Thing in the same way you'd read or write an issue of
>> Detective Comics, but you wouldn't stress about them co-existing.
>>
>> Similarly, I wouldn't insist Placebo Effect and TSE share the same
>> conventions and rules. Why should they have to?
Philip:
>Just because in one comic strip a character might have a wank doesn't
>make them incompatable. It just means that one character enjoys a wank
>and the other one doesn't. In TSE, we're talking rules of the universe.
In both cases we're dealing with fictional universes so what we're
ultimately talking about are rules of *storytelling*. What you say
above confuses me because feel I've been being perfectly clear that
I've not been talking about the personal preferences of of the
characters, but about the rules within thier stories. I don't think
Clark Kent doesn't wank because he doesn't choose to, I think he
doesn't because it isn't part of his world. Similarly I belive Minnie
Mouse will never have an abortion. This is not because I've read the
character as passionately pro-life, but because I don't think it
exists as a possibility in her world.
Back up the thread it you appear to see what I was saying when you
said "You yourself have explained that one. For the same reason we
don't think Clarke Kent has 'a sly wank' when the camera goes off
him." Now I've shown that that explaination doesn't work against TSE
after all, then you appear to be misreading the explaination again. It
would be easy to accuse you of being twisty and disingenous here, but
instead I'll labour the point with some more examples.
People don't say "Fuck" in Eastenders. Hundreds of working class
Londoners live, drink and fight in front of us for hours a week
without ever once saying "fuck". The cumulative effect of this, and
specific situations where extreme taboo langauge would obviously get
used if it could be, is to make it incredible that people in Albert
Square are saying "Fuck" when we're not looking either. The viewer can
either assume that everyone in that area has a special chip implanted
in thier heads that will kill them if they do, or that the word simply
doesn't exist in thier world. I suspect almost everyone who watches
EastEnders has made the second assumption, the vast majority
unconciously.
Okay. That's stage one. That's what I take to be equivalent to the
absence of masturbation in mainsteam DC comics. Now, stage two...
Lets say someone comes along and makes Grant Mitchell - The Movie. Or
one of those direct-to-video things that soaps often do. Lets say it
opens with the line "Fuckin' leve it out. You 'eard." Does this being
set in the same universe as EastEnders mean that we were wrong to read
the earlier episodes in the way we did? I don't think it does, and...
oh dear, I've just spent ages typing all this and I've realised I
could have gone with a much better example. Mulder and Scully
suddenly, after five years with only the occasional "bastard", start
swearing in every line of 'Fight the Future'. Has something happened
to make them less guarded around each other? Are they under situations
of unprecedented stress? No - they've shifted from the storytelling
conventions of a TV show to those of a Movie.
This sort of thing is what I take to be equivalent to the existence of
masturbation in certain Vertigo comics (and I'm not talking about the
quality of the writing this once) set in the same universe as
Superman.
One last example (I promise! My very last :-)
It's established in any number of 70s stories that certain types of
puppets are what convincing Dinosaurs look like in Who. We have to
take it as a rule of "Invaision of..."'s fictional universe that that
is what a convincing dinosaur looks like - otherwise why are these
characters scared of puppets? Should Doctor Who roll into production
next year with "Invaision of the Dinosaurs II" then whoever was making
it, it would have different rules and conventions that the viewer
would have to accept as what constituted a dinosaur. If someone who
looks like a ST:TOS Klingon walks onscreen in ST:TOS then we know it's
a Klingon. If someone who looks like a ST:TOS Klingon walks onscreen
in ST:DS9, we know it's a human dressed up or a human who had a
Klingon great-great-grandfather, or whatever. Same universe, different
rules for this bit of it.
I'd much rather have tried to make this case by talking about
conventions of character and plot, but since you've said you consider
Christopher Bullis characters to be realist, I don't think we've got
enough common ground for that to be possible. :-)
I do think though that in a fictional world there isn't an important
difference between changing one rule of storytelling and changing
another. That Dragons can fly out of books in TSE and that they can't
in Eternity Weeps doesn't mean that they make a mockery of each other
anymore than people having rich and complex internal lives in Seeing I
makes a mockery of people not doing so in Players.
[snip]
Richard:
>> What's part of the Doctor's world is a constantly changing thing. The
>> Comedy genre (rather than just bits of comedy) and its conventions
>> weren't part of his world until The Romans.
Philip:
>There have been jokes in most Dr Who stories.
As I acknowledge above ("rather than just bits of comedy").
There are jokes in The Blair Witch Project, they're the only good
bits, but that doesn't make it in any sense a comedy.
There are jokes in the Aztecs, but that's not a comedy either. The
Romans is - it's playing a different game with a different set of
rules.
> Just because we view 'The
>Romans' in a particularly comedic way doesn't mean that if we assume
>the characters are real, that they would realise they were in a comedic
>situation. They'd just think people were trying to kill them as usual.
If you feel that pretending the characters are real and asking them
what they think is a good way to determine a the story, then why start
conversations about "Are X and Y really genre Z?" in the first place?
If the mode of inquiry you suggest above is valid or useful then
*everything* should be considered realist. Asking Dracula, The
Terminator and the Tin Woodsman what genres their stories fell into
then they'd all tell us thier worlds were cold, harsh realism.
Assuming fictions are real is the best way to get nothing out of them.
Philip:
>Who the hell is Steve Parkhouse?
Worked on the DWM strips in the '80s.
Some people like Daniel Gooley don't get excited by TSE because they
feel his world of talking penguins, colour, vibrancy and dismissals of
logic gave them years ago what some TSE fans say that novel has to
give. Others seem to love the book because they feel this overtly
fantastic and poetic side of Who has been sidelined for too long since
him.
Richard:
>> Besides, any reading of recent BBC books would show that the weird new
>> stuff Magrs has introduced has become part of the Doctor's wider
>> world.
Philip:
>Er...which ones exactly?
Despite the fact that it seems to begin more sensibly with
Interference, the Steve Cole quote on The News Pages says it's The
Blue Angel that "Kicks off" the arc. Paul Cornell has said Shadows of
Avalon will deal with much of the background to TBA. The Magrs stuff
can't just be an isolated "abberation" if it's threaded right through
the current epic.
More interestingly, TSE's projects of examining whether continuity,
canon, etc do more harm than good seem to be very current at the
moment. I'm putting this mildly.
Obviously dfferent writers have approached it from different angles
and I know full well that the genesis of books like Unnatural History
was nothing like "Hey! Let's run with that stuff from Empress!" but in
many places they fit together perfectly - The Unnaturalist as a device
fuctions almost exactly the same as Fortalice does, the Boy from the
Faction dies exactly the sort of Genre Death on p.252 of UH that the
Doctor and Iris spoke about in the belly of the whale.
[Snip forward to investigating if Philip's claim that Battlefield
shows a Doctor "unaccepting of magic" holds up]
>> Now, the endorsement of Clarke's Law is only implied, since he never
>> does say it's true. He does though say exactly that about "Any
>> suffiencetly advanced form of magic is indistinguishable from
>> technology." For this to be true, magic would have to exist in the
>> first place.
>Or something that Ace would recognise as magic. Not necessarily actual
>magic.
Though not only would that make the conversation pointless, but as the
quote shows, Ace is unwilling to recognise anything as magic. And when
acted, then Sylvester says "Magic" such an unappologetic tone of voice
that I really think it's hard to get to your reading unless you've a
prior commitment to thinking the Doctor dismisses magic.
>> I'd drop this example if I were you - you're never going to be able to
>> show that someone who spends four episodes worrying about "Sorcery" on
>> its own terms is "unnaccepting of magic". Try using The Daemons
>> instead.
>I'd rather not, it would mean watching the damn thing again.
Oh, it's not that bad! :-)
But if you're going to stick with Battlefield, then could you please
quote any line or cite any moment that shows the Doctor dismiss the
existence of magic? I'm pretty sure there aren't any.
>> Execept the one given... that he now sees a value in setting himself
>> within the paramenters of a group and using thier perspectives.
>
>Oh yes, the ethnomethodologist stuff. But that doesn't mean that he
>believes in magic per se, just that he is willing to accept it until it
>is proved either right or wrong. He starts off with a clean slate.
Sort of - though the way you put it there suggests he's just found a
new way of investigating the existence of magic. That's not what he's
up to. Like he tells the Unnaturalist when he's accused of being a
crap scientist, he's found more "interesting questions to ask."
The Doctor says on P.89, "See? I'll belive anything. I'm entirely,
entirely credulous." He'll belive in magic per se if that means he
gets to experience it, feel it and *play* with it.
[Snip to some more discussion of Battlefield, that well-known bastion
of rationality]
>> (Either the version I saw, or yours
>> in which the Doctor presuambly says, "No such thing as magic
>> Brigadier, so we might as well leave that Morgaine to make a tit of
>> herself while we sod off to play croquet")
>
>The version i saw clearly states that Morgaine is from another Universe
>where magic probably is possible.
Mine has her *using* it in this one too, so it's got to be possible
here if not in widespread use.
Also, I don't recall any clear statement that there was a difference
in the physical laws of the universes. I remember that Morgaine's
culture is based around different principles, and that thier history
is closer to our myth, but not what you're suggesting.
[snip]
>> A major plotline running through those books was to do with how
>> Gallifrey had once been a place of Magic, before being turned into a
>> place of Science. "Sky Pirates!" and "Christmas on a Rational Planet"
>> took this a stage further by saying that the whole universe had run on
>> nonsensical magical laws before the Watchmakers reformatted it into an
>> explicable, scientific cosmos.
>
>ie before the big bang perhps? Or just after when the matter of the
>universe was still maliable?
Alterations to the very meaning of 'history' are hard to place in a
history. :-) Anyway, it would have been done after the overthrow of
the Pythia, but in such a way that it was ever so. The Carnival Queen
(The Time Lord's jettisoned magical/irrational part) says that the
whole pre-big bang universe of the Great Old Ones we hear so much
about was really no such thing, but in fact THIS universe before it's
rationalisation. The Doctor says she's lying and that there are
contradictions in her account. She points out that *of course* there
are - she's a creature of nonsense.
>> The resolution to this came in 'Lungbarrow', a book Magrs frequently
>> references, where Gallfrey and the Sisterhood, Male principles and
>> Female principles, Magic and Science, etc kissed and made up. This
>> lead to the return of fertility to Gallifrey and the rebirth of the
>> Goddess Life.
>>
>> The Dying Days, Vampire Science and Seeing I show that the Doctor is
>> now associated with Life - who was born out the reconcilation of Magic
>> and Science.
>
>I don't see how you've made that last jump.
Which jump? :-)
The Doctor being Life's champion is explicitly said by the Doctor in
TDD, hinted by Harris in VampSci, and demonstrated by Life in Seeing
I.
Life being reborn out out of the reconcilation is pretty explicit too.
She's strongly identified with fertility - her return to Gallifrey
after coincides with the lifting of the Curse and the original placing
of the curse comes from the spliting of magic from Gallifeyian
society.
Magic comes back through Romana's negotiations with the Sisterhood,
Motherhood comes back through Leela, Life returns and ten million
years of winter come to an end.
--
Richard Jones.
Finn Clark
> Obviously dfferent writers have approached it from
> different angles and I know full well that the genesis
> of books like Unnatural History was nothing like "Hey!
> Let's run with that stuff from Empress!" but in many
> places they fit together perfectly
I think they tie together even more than you suggest.
The Scarlet Empress introduced magic realism to the
Doctor Who books, which was a point that got picked
up on in the discussion of Unnatural History. IIRC Jon
and Kate were deliberately trying to go for magic
realism in the prose style at least, in the sense of
describing magical stuff in a down-to-earth way.
And as you noted, they both attack the same fanboy
canon assumptions in a big way.
> He'll belive in magic per se if that means he
> gets to experience it, feel it and *play* with it.
Last last, official confirmation that the TVM did
indeed turn the Doctor into a sex maniac!
"That's magic, Doctor! Feel me there! Yes! Yes!"
Finn Clark.
http://members.aol.com/kafenken/
Richard Jones
Starr) wrote:
>Whereas I've always thought of Superman as being set in a world that's
>supposed to be what our world would be like if (a) the physical laws
>and vagaries of happenstance were such that superheroes and
>supervillains could and did exist and (b) one hell of a lot of the
>people were one hell of a lot dumber (and more forgetful) than people
>are in real life. Neither of those conditions rules out sex and
>masturbation.
Okay then, since I'm not particularly interested in discussing the
rules of Superman in and of itself then I won't argue. But your point
'b' could be used to make the same points.
[snip]
>I'd suspect that they (the viewers) just take the fact that "The BBC
>doesn't let characters say 'fuck'" into account when watching the show.
>That _isn't_ quite the same thing as your Assumption #2 -- it doesn't
>lead to the conclusion "the word 'fuck' does not exist in these people's
>world" or even "these people never say 'fuck'" but rather to "the BBC is
>placing a distortion filter between us and what's really going on in
>Albert Square (where "really going on" acknowledges that this is all
>make-believe, of course)."
I'm not sure that having a conception of an Albert Square hidden from
us from by the filter can possibly acknowledge that's it's
make-belive. To assume there's Albert Square In Which People Really Do
Say Fuck, means beliving that there's an Albert Square somewhere other
than the videotape, reader's minds, broadcast signals, writers minds,
scripts etc.
In none of those places where an 'Albert Square' exists do people say
"Fuck", so where can this realer, filter-free Albert Square exist?
>[ *snip* ]
>
>One other thing, referring back to something you said a few iterations
>earlier in this thread:
>
>>>> The resolution to this came in 'Lungbarrow', a book Magrs frequently
>>>> references, where Gallfrey and the Sisterhood, Male principles and
>>>> Female principles, Magic and Science, etc kissed and made up. This
>>>> lead to the return of fertility to Gallifrey and the rebirth of the
>>>> Goddess Life.
>
>I read _Lungbarrow_. I liked _Lungbarrow_. But seeing this summation
>compels me to quote the end of Dorothy Parker's "Constant Reader"
>review of _The House at Pooh Corner_: "And at this point, my dear
>little darlings, Tonstant Weader trowed up."
<g> Lungbarrow stuff always looks horrible out of context (It can't be
a coincidence that all but one of it's most dogged attackers are
people who've never read it) but I'll admit that I've put it
particularly horribly there. IMHO Platt only gets away with this sort
of thing because he's as much satirising myth as using it, and keeps
an eyebrow raised at all times.
BTW the reason I've broken my self-imposed rule against having any
more of these sort of conversations with you is because I really want
to say how FREAKY it is that you've quoted Parker.
*All* the time when you were (possibly bravely, possibly the reverse)
explaining to me how you felt your life was so vile that fiction had
to be build for hiding in, I kept hearing bits of her poetry in my
head. Especially when you said life-enriching fiction wasn't
worthwhile as life wasn't worth enriching... I got left with lines
from "Coda" all day -
"Oh, hard is the struggle, and sparse is
The gain of the one at the top,
For art is a form of catharsis,
And love is a permanent flop"
All bollocks of course.
--
Richard Jones.
Richard Jones
>I think they tie together even more than you suggest.
>The Scarlet Empress introduced magic realism to the
>Doctor Who books, which was a point that got picked
>up on in the discussion of Unnatural History. IIRC Jon
>and Kate were deliberately trying to go for magic
>realism in the prose style at least, in the sense of
>describing magical stuff in a down-to-earth way.
I don't think they quite get there though. Wasn't one of the
criticisms in your review that they made a category error and didn't
notice they were writing MR?
Not that I agree with this (or much else in your brilliantly savage
review), but I think the prose is way too technobabbly to look even
slightly like magic realism. The plot's got impossible stuff in it but
as part of a sci-fi story rather than as part of a realist story. The
characters work in a magic realist way - but then they always have
done in Orman novels. Bits of Magic Realism get through in UH (being
mugged by Unicorns, the back-rub slut line, etc) but on the whole I'd
be more inclined to read the decent bits of Seeing I in an MR way than
I would UH.
Scarlet Empress is kind enough to have the Doctor stop and give an
almost dictionary definition of the genre when he tells Sam, "You must
have grown up with an idea of vampires existing only in horror
stories, in vauge, musty legends. But you've met them...They are both
as fabulous and ordinary as you are." That's a big thing for Magic
Realism - treating everyone as a fantastic creature. Being a ghost in
"House of the Spirits" doesn't guarantee you a big fuss and lots of
storytime because of that.
On p.210 of UH though, when the Doctor tells Sam that she, he and the
unicorns are fantastical "impossible" creatures it's because there are
odd things at work in her biodata, not because twenty-something
dropouts are intrinsicly as amazing as mythic horses.
[snip]
>> He'll belive in magic per se if that means he
>> gets to experience it, feel it and *play* with it.
>
>Last last, official confirmation that the TVM did
>indeed turn the Doctor into a sex maniac!
>
>"That's magic, Doctor! Feel me there! Yes! Yes!"
Christ, I've perpetrated some bloody awful writing on the group during
this thread. Can I plead my usual excuses of too much coffee and 2 AM?
--
Richard Jones.
Finn Clark
> I don't think they quite get there though. Wasn't one
> of the criticisms in your review that they made a
> category error and didn't notice they were writing MR?
Not quite. I felt that the book was being presented as
a standard SF adventure when its plot could scarcely
have passed muster for the back of a fag packet, while
if they'd decided to write it as magic realism they might
have scored a triumph. The Scarlet Empress has no
discernable plot, which is a bad point in the eyes of
some people but you and I know better... :-)
It was during the discussions after that review that
Jon said (IIRC) that the prose had been written in an
aiming-for-magic-realism spirit. Or something like that.
> Not that I agree with this (or much else in your brilliantly
> savage review), but I think the prose is way too
> technobabbly to look even slightly like magic realism.
Clearly you disagree with me! You like the book! :-)
But I can buy what you're saying here.
> Christ, I've perpetrated some bloody awful writing on
> the group during this thread. Can I plead my usual
> excuses of too much coffee and 2 AM?
Hey, that's a better excuse than any I could muster!
Richard, you've perpetrated some bloody wonderful
writing on the group and long may you continue!
Finn Clark.
http://members.aol.com/kafenken/
Gareth Thomas
Richard Jones:
> People don't say "Fuck" in Eastenders. Hundreds of working class
> Londoners live, drink and fight in front of us for hours a week
> without ever once saying "fuck". The cumulative effect of this, and
> specific situations where extreme taboo langauge would obviously get
> used if it could be, is to make it incredible that people in Albert
> Square are saying "Fuck" when we're not looking either. The viewer can
> either assume that everyone in that area has a special chip implanted
> in thier heads that will kill them if they do, or that the word simply
> doesn't exist in thier world. I suspect almost everyone who watches
> EastEnders has made the second assumption, the vast majority
> unconciously.
I suspect that everyone watching it assumes it's a telly programme on before
eleven
and if anyone says "fuck" some producer's knackers will be dog food. They
assume it quite consciously too.
--
Gareth Thomas
William December Starr
tige...@net.ntl.com (Richard Jones) said:
> I'm not sure that having a conception of an Albert Square hidden from
> us from by the filter can possibly acknowledge that's it's
> make-belive. To assume there's Albert Square In Which People Really
> Do Say Fuck, means beliving that there's an Albert Square somewhere
> other than the videotape, reader's minds, broadcast signals, writers
> minds, scripts etc.
>
> In none of those places where an 'Albert Square' exists do people say
> "Fuck", so where can this realer, filter-free Albert Square exist?
Inside the viewer's "Suspension of Disbelief" machine. Putting on my
"Hypothetical viewer of a British television show that I have never, in
fact, seen" hat, I say:
"I know that 'Eastenders' is just a piece of fiction. Nonetheless, I
find that I derive more pleasure from it when I suspend my disbelief
and pretend that it's actually a window into reality than when I
don't, so that's what I generally do when watching it on the telly.
"Because I'm pretending it's real, I view the pictures and sounds coming
from my television set through the filter of my own understanding of how
real people who were similarly situated to these fictional characters
might act. Where there is a significant divergence between that
understanding and what I see the fictional characters do -- with regard
to the use of strong language, for example -- I have to decide which is
more likely: (a) that the character is "really" doing that, i.e., is
diverging from my understanding of how he should act, for a reason
that's part of the story, or (b) that the anomalous action is merely an
artefact of some real-world constraint upon the people who are staging
the production. If the former, I take it at face value; if the latter I
try to compensate for it, to bring my view of the events into accordance
with what I believe the storytellers _wanted_ to portray rather than that
which they _did_ portray."
Did that make any sense? Basically, it means that if the characters are
supposed to be closely modeled upon people who would say "fuck" a lot
but they, in fact, never say it, the assumption for purposes of the
suspension-of-disbelief exercise is that they "really" _are_ saying it
at the appropriate times, regardless of what words are or aren't coming
out of the actors' mouths.
Um, did _that_ make any sense? I think I'll stop before I muddle any
further...
Len Thornton
that has been fixed...
And now return to the point:
----------
In article <19991113034448...@ngol05.aol.com>, kafe...@aol.com
(Finn Clark) wrote:
>Richard Jones wrote:
>
>> Obviously dfferent writers have approached it from
>> different angles and I know full well that the genesis
>> of books like Unnatural History was nothing like "Hey!
>> Let's run with that stuff from Empress!" but in many
>> places they fit together perfectly
>
>I think they tie together even more than you suggest.
>The Scarlet Empress introduced magic realism to the
>Doctor Who books, which was a point that got picked
>up on in the discussion of Unnatural History. IIRC Jon
>and Kate were deliberately trying to go for magic
>realism in the prose style at least, in the sense of
>describing magical stuff in a down-to-earth way.
>
>And as you noted, they both attack the same fanboy
>canon assumptions in a big way.
The Scarlet Empress is in not magic realism, since far too often the story
steps outside of itself to comment on the setting, the nature of fiction,
the personality of the characters. This would be more like magic
surrealism, if such a term has any sense to it at all. I would question
equally the statement that TSE challenges anything about ideas of canon,
only the believability of the story (well, that might be construed as
something to do with canon). TSE sets out as what I construe to be a ,'if
you believe in this, then you are not as sophisticated as I am' attitude,
which is distracting to say the least. 'Magic' seems to be simply a tool
to accentuate this, by presenting preposterous events with little or no
justification.
Unnatural History, on the other hand, starts with the notion that anything
should be believed, and sees where that takes us. In this respect, the
Faction are used to great effect, and the diametrically opposed view is
presented as a straw man in the shape of the Unnaturalist. Magic events
here are caused, and understandable, but not necessarily understood. This
is the core of making magic 'real'.
Magic realism, if such a concept is to have meaning, must surely treat magic
as an integral part of the universe, not something bolted on the side. If
it exists as part of our universe, then there is a way in which magic is a
part of the physical laws of our universe, and this is what is lacking in
TSE and also to a certain extent TBA; it is what has always been a
fundamental assumption in Dr. Who, and one of the key elements of what makes
Dr. Who so interesting to me as an adult. UH captures this idea of magic
andscience as a unified whole. Daemons, Battlefield, these are realistic
magic. TSE is not.
Richard Jones
<gar...@shaggaz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I suspect that everyone watching it assumes it's a telly programme on before
>eleven and if anyone says "fuck" some producer's knackers will be dog food.
I agree, but that's answering a different question.
That's to do with "Why is the convention there?" rather than "What is
the convention?"
Pedantry: I doubt "everyone" watching Eastenders knows it'd be the
producer held responsible, or that eleven would be point after which
his bollocks would be safe.
--
Richard Jones.
Lance Parkin
You can, generally speaking, with a warning, say 'fuck' at nine
o'clock, as long as you only say it once or twice and it's
artistically valid. It is the producer's responsibility (or the
host's, in the case of live TV - as anyone who remembers
that bit in I'm Alan Partridge will know).
'Bad language' gets far more people writing in to a British
TV show than anything else. You can cut off body parts
with a rusty knife, no problem, but if the victim said 'fuck,
that hurts' there would be half a dozen letters. The
convention exists to represent public opinion. And, yes,
there are strict guidelines. Coronation Street is allowed
three 'shits' a year (it's never used them). You may
make the obvious constipation jokes now, if you so wish.
Lance
Richard Jones
Starr) wrote:
[snip clear and detailed explaination]
>Did that make any sense? Basically, it means that if the characters are
>supposed to be closely modeled upon people who would say "fuck" a lot
>but they, in fact, never say it, the assumption for purposes of the
>suspension-of-disbelief exercise is that they "really" _are_ saying it
>at the appropriate times, regardless of what words are or aren't coming
>out of the actors' mouths.
>
>Um, did _that_ make any sense? I think I'll stop before I muddle any
>further...
Well, it all makes sense in that you've done a wonderful job of
explaining it. I'm not so sure it actually makes sense as something to
do.
To run your mechanism you've got to postulate a second fiction (An
EastEnders more imitative of the real world) and you've got to
maintain a fictional truth (That the EastEnders you experience is just
a mediation of this hypothetical more realist EastEnders).
It's a lot of work to go to for something that results in a situation
where you've got less posibilities of understanding and knowing
things about the text. Doesn't stike me as being as likely or useful
as just deciding the world we're watching has different rules.
Also, I'm interested that the way of reading you're talking about here
differs from the way you read Xena, in which you say you can "accept
that the laws of of physics are somewhat non-Newtonian" (Approximate
quote)
From what you've said I got the impression that you don't see episodes
of Xena as mediations of a more real New Greeceland. So why do
differences in the Laws of Physics cause you less trouble than
differences in the Laws of Sociolinguistics?
--
Richard Jones.
Richard Jones
>Not quite. I felt that [Unnatural History] was being presented as
>a standard SF adventure when its plot could scarcely
>have passed muster for the back of a fag packet, while
>if they'd decided to write it as magic realism they might
>have scored a triumph.
There's truth in this. I've never had such an odd realtionship with a
book as I do with UH - I really, really like it and I'm really aware
of it's failings. When Seeing I collapses towards the end then that
comes close to ruining the whole book for me, but that UH keeps on
collapsing and digging itself out almost adds to the excitement and
fun of reading it! I think the reason the good will always outweigh
the bad in the book for me is that I like it foremost as a character
piece and secondly as a polemic, and think it succeds very well at
both of those.
[snip]
>Richard, you've perpetrated some bloody wonderful
>writing on the group and long may you continue!
Thanks lots. Since I've somehow ended up writing eighteen or so
paragraphs about Superman wanking I've become so self-concious that I
really needed some reassurance.
--
Richard Jones.
Finn Clark
> I think the reason the good will always outweigh
> the bad in the book for me is that I like it foremost
> as a character piece and secondly as a polemic,
> and think it succeds very well at both of those.
Hmmm. I'll admit that the characterisation is all very
nice, but I found the polemic to be a big problem.
Basically it came across to me as a particularly strident
Jon Blum radw post, of the kind that makes you automatically
go "yes, but" even when you agree with what he's saying.
It's blatant soapboxing, hammering home the Moral Of The
Story like the very worst of political fiction-with-a-message.
It could have been wonderful had it been satire, but it's too
earnest to be that. It could have been fascinating had it
been a real debate instead of a tirade, but the other side
of the argument is never presented.
The fact that the book attacks a chunk of its audience should
IMO have been another reason for even-handedness. The
message is put forcefully and imaginatively, but in a manner
more suited to an essay than a novel.
> Thanks lots. Since I've somehow ended up writing eighteen
> or so paragraphs about Superman wanking I've become so
> self-concious that I really needed some reassurance.
That's more or less what I've done with Finn Fang Foom,
except that I've now produced about 80,000 words of it... :-)
Finn Clark.
http://members.aol.com/kafenken/
Richard Jones
> [Unnatural History] could have been wonderful had it been satire, but it's too
>earnest to be that. It could have been fascinating had it
>been a real debate instead of a tirade, but the other side
>of the argument is never presented.
I think it's in there more than a little... The Boy is as much a
strawman for destructive "Smash the continuity!" writing as the
Unnaturalist is for "Preserve it at all costs!" writing.
Also, Sam gets to say lots of things about not feeling real or
worthwhile that are allowed to stand. After she shags Fitz she talks
about how she wants the experience to remain part of the continuity of
her life, wants it to matter in the years to come. It's (hopefully)
the only post-coital canon debate that anyone's ever had, and I think
a very powerful argument for not wanting a universe of 'moments'.
That's why I think UH makes a more interesting contribution to the
debate than it would have done had it been written as an essay like
you suggest. It's got characters running around in it giving thier
feelings on what it would be like to know you lived in a universe like
that.
--
Richard Jones.