EDAs, Gallifrey, The Ancestor Cell
Peter Anghelides
North America who haven't yet had a chance to buy the
book; copies are now available from online book stores.
This article runs to 1,500 words. Hope it provokes some
discussion, but please quote thoughtfully and don't
repost the entire thing! Incidentally, I reposted it myself
and canceled the original, when I realised that I'd
screwed up the line breaks. Sorry, I hope this doesn't
appear on the ng a zillion times.
/
/
/Spoilers
/
/in
/
/the
/
/very
/
/next
/
/paragraph
/
/of
/
/this
/
/post
/
/
/
/
Several recent threads have discussed the merits or
otherwise of destroying Gallifrey, and then gone on the
speculate about "The Ancestor Cell" (sometimes based not
on reading it, but on what other people have said about
it). Anyway, FWIW, here are a few thoughts that the
recent threads have prompted me to jot down.
1. Getting cross?
2. What's it about?
3. Gone for ever?
4. Paradox?
1. Getting cross?
-----------------
Someone, I forget who, suggested I was cross about
people who comment on my book when they haven't
actually read it. No, I'm not, I rarely get cross
about "Doctor Who", because if hobbies make me cross
then I stop doing them. I'm occasionally baffled,
though :-) I invariably avoid disagreeing with
people's judgements about examples in my writing;
but if people comment on what they've heard rather
than what they've discovered for themselves (as is
their prerogative) then they shouldn't be surprised
when I lampoon them for their credulity (which is my
prerogative).
In future, therefore, I plan to respond to any
criticisms of my books without bothering to reading
what people post , I'll just rely on pub conversations
with my mates about what they remember of a post that
they read here the previous week. (Note to readers:
this is sarcasm, not anger.)
2. What's it about?
-------------------
Some of the conversation about "The Ancestor Cell"
has focused on one aspect alone, the destruction of
Gallifrey, as though that's what the book's "about".
Perhaps that's not entirely surprising, since that was
one of the elements that we kept very quiet (even from
most of the other authors) so that the events would
have more impact--like not having a Radio Times
article for "Earthshock" and calling that show
"Freighter of the Cybermen".
Apart from giving me yet another chance to use the
crap old gag "What's it about? It's about seven
dollars," it also demonstrates why it's worth reading
the book to See For Yourself. Certainly, the
destruction of Gallifrey is a very significant
event in the narrative, but the book is no more
"about" that than "The Daemons" is about a church
blowing up, or "The War Games" is about the Doctor's
exile to Earth. As a contrast, "Logopolis" is much more
obviously about change and decay, including the
Doctor's forthcoming regeneration--but it's not
*just* "about" the regeneration. It's about 96
minutes. (Hang on, I've done that gag already,
haven't I?)
I think that "The Ancestor Cell" is about lots of
things, of which *one* is: how do "good" people
behave when impossible situations cause them to make
"bad" decisions? I suppose we could have underscored
it with (say) a lot of Fitz-related WWII debate about
the bombing of Dresden, or some more contemporary
discussion about Bomber Harris--but I preferred the
way Steve and I had a variety of characters (some we
knew, some we didn't) face their own personal decision,
and showed how/ if/ why they made them.
Given that Steve and I knew the brief for "The
Ancestor Cell" meant that we would be unable to
satisfy *all* fans with the book (because the range
of fan opinion contains diametrically opposed views
on some things), it seems appropriate to have that
as one of the leitmotifs of the book itself.
Incidentally, I think there's an amusing parallel in
some of the (far easier) decisions on this newsgroup.
You sometimes see people asking for definite answers
(Yes/No, Black/White, Always/Never) whereas in Real
Life there are often occasions where there is no
completely right answer, no entirely satisfactory
solution, no unambiguous position, or no unanimous
agreement. (The cliché example of this is: "Yes or
No: Have you stopped beating your wife?" Not a cliché
that Steve and I used verbatim in "The Ancestor Cell",
but if you've read the book then perhaps you'll
recognise the occasions when such questions were posed.
(No, I'm not going to provide Coles Notes for all of
them--if you spot them, great; if you don't then I'm
sorry we didn't write it well enough for you to
recognise them.)
3. Gone for ever?
-----------------
Has Gallifrey gone for ever? After "The Ancestor Cell",
did it ever exist? Many zeros and ones have been
expended o this newsgroup, and elsewhere, on this.
So I hope you won't be too disappointed in my opinion.
But first... an example. (I'm such a tease.)
When I wrote "Kursaal", I didn't specify a date, nor
even that the location was connected with any way with
specific parts of the "Doctor Who" universe (albeit it
used conventional language for animals, such as wolves,
and in a moment of weakness I briefly included an
Ogron). This was partly because I didn't want to spend
too much valuable writing time researching the history
of the programme to ensure I hadn't contradicted
something from a show in the 1970s or in a book
published five years before. (I mentioned this at
GallifreyOne, and not all authors agree with me--Simon
BJ wasn't impressed with my attitude that it was "too
much like hard work", and that I shouldn't have avoided
being more exact--though that was my own, trivial
example of handling a "difficult" narrative
decision :-)
Yet subsequent EDAs, particularly "Seeing I", made it
clear that "Kursaal" fitted in to a particular time in
Earth-related history. This was not planned ahead. It
didn't matter that it was done. It wouldn't have
mattered if it had not been done. But it was, and I
certainly didn't mind. (I also seem to recall some
link reference to Kadijk's I-card, but perhaps I'm
just hallucinating.)
And the same is now true of the status of Gallifrey,
as far as the authors and the commissioning editor are
concerned. EDA authors can concentrate on the things
that matter: the structure of the novel, the Doctor
as a central figure without whom the story could
not be resolved, the build-up to a decision point/
confrontation that the reader knows/ anticipates/
fears, the fact that neither the Doctor nor the
readers can rely on easy solutions from the past...
instead of fixating on whether some item of continuity
or knowledge that 0.1% of the readership would notice
has been contradicted (and which, for that vocal 0.1%,
would become what the book was "about").
You can say that's avoiding the issue if you like,
or that you'd do it differently--but deal with what
is, not what might have been. Blowing up Gallifrey,
and the Doctor's loss of memory, wasn't *essential*
to make all this happen, but it's one of the things--and
not the only one--that makes it a lot easier.
Now, when Steve and I wrote "The Ancestor Cell", we
were pretty sure that we'd blown up Faction Paradox
good and proper in an explosion so enormous that
there weren't enough pieces left to stick together
with an infinite quantity of Scotch Tape. And that
the thing that exploded was the one remaining
Gallifrey. It isn't said in the book that Gallifrey
*never* existed--but, just as "Seeing I" drew
inferences from "Kursaal", readers and subsequent
writers can derive that from "The Ancestor Cell".
There are (consciously written) loopholes, because
the book does not deal in absolutes--for all that
commentators (especially those who haven't actually
read the book) see it as Absolute Closure.
What's important, however, is that the book *is* an
inflexion point in the series. And you've heard from
Jon B what the writers are concentrating on in the
series.
Such apparent uncertainty doesn't have to affect
the writing of the new books. As far as the devisors
of the book series are concerned at the moment, it
doesn't matter--any more than worrying if Professor
Zaroff really escaped from Atlantis (or some other
such unspeakable horror). By all means worry about
it yourself, but acknowledge that the writers
aren't--and the judge the series on what it
actually delivers, not what it might deliver under
some unlikely set of circumstances. (Of course,
this may entail having to read the books, but feel
free to speculate without bothering too-equally,
I'll feel free to tell you that your mother was a
hamster and your father smelled of elderberries.)
4. Paradox?
-----------
The PDAs are unaffected by the future absence of
Gallifrey. You're allowed to watch "Planet of the
Spiders" even if you've read "Interference". You're
allowed to enjoy Serial B even if you've watched
"Genesis of the Daleks" and read the Terry Nation
Dalek Annual. Similarly, writers may get Gallifrey
PDAs accepted, without feeling that they're
wasting their time. "What a waste of time that film
"Titanic" was--I knew how it was going to end,
y'know." (SPOILER: the ship sinks.)
Summary
-------
"Doctor Who" is a story that's contradicted itself
many times; it has an inventive fandom that can invent
ways of resolving the TV series' worst goofs; and
it's a universe, which featured the "logic" of Faction
Paradox. It'll never be *impossible* to ignore,
explain, or undo this in the future. Just don't
assume that at the moment, no matter how much you
wish it was otherwise, that it affects the
commissioning and writing of the books.
Peter Anghelides
http://anghelides.org
Dangermouse
lines here - but this is such a great response, which should hopefully
settle the argument if not people's opinions, that it really should be
quotefiled for future reference.
Peter Anghelides <peter-an...@cwcom.net> wrote
> /
> /Spoilers
> /
> /in
> /
> /the
> /
> /very
> /
> /next
> /
> /paragraph
> /
> /of
> /
> /this
> /
> /post
> /
> /
> /
> /
especially this:
> Gallifrey. It isn't said in the book that Gallifrey
> *never* existed
Which is my favourite part.
Not that I'm necessarily against it having never existed; the place was
never very interesting...
---
Redemption 03 - 25th Anniversary Blake's 7/ 10th Anniversary Babylon 5
Convention
Feb 21st-23rd 2003. Guests include Chris Boucher, Damian London, and others
TBA
http://www.smof.com/redemption
Charles Martin
"Peter Anghelides" <peter-an...@cwcom.net> wrote:
> SPOILERS for "The Ancestor Cell"--especially for those in
> North America who haven't yet had a chance to buy the
> book; copies are now available from online book stores.
Thanks for weighing in on this, Peter. I'm not sure it does much to dispel
my concerns, but we'll see ...
> /
> /
> /Spoilers
> /
> /in
> /
> /the
> /
> /very
> /
> /next
> /
> /paragraph
> /
> /of
> /
> /this
> /
> /post
> In future, therefore, I plan to respond to any
> criticisms of my books without bothering to reading
> what people post , I'll just rely on pub conversations
> with my mates about what they remember of a post that
> they read here the previous week. (Note to readers:
> this is sarcasm, not anger.)
Heh. Funny.
Nevertheless, I think you *can* comment on a book without reading it. In
broad, general terms, obviously. I don't need to actually read TAC to know
that Gallifrey got blown up, though obviously I'll know more about WHY if
I do read it.
Speaking strictly for myself, I've tried to point out that I'm commenting
from a perspective of only knowing part of the story, and that I'm willing
to wait for an explanation to emerge.
> 2. What's it about?
> -------------------
> Some of the conversation about "The Ancestor Cell"
> has focused on one aspect alone, the destruction of
> Gallifrey, as though that's what the book's "about".
Again, this is where I think Jon and you have Got It Wrong. Those of us
who read TAC know perfectly well that the book is not *about* blowing up
Gallifrey, that's just one event that happens in it.
"Castrovalva" is not about the Doctor regenerating, as you say. But
because that's such a significant event, that portion of the story has
been discussed and debated many, many more times than what was ostensibly
the larger plot.
Ditto blowing up Gallifrey in TAC. Such an event has big repercussions,
and the repercussions get positively HUGE when you add in the ambiguity
that the Time Lords and Gallifrey may have been removed from all history.
> 3. Gone for ever?
> -----------------
> Has Gallifrey gone for ever? After "The Ancestor Cell",
> did it ever exist? Many zeros and ones have been
> expended o this newsgroup, and elsewhere, on this.
> So I hope you won't be too disappointed in my opinion.
> And the same is now true of the status of Gallifrey,
> as far as the authors and the commissioning editor are
> concerned. EDA authors can concentrate on the things
> that matter: the structure of the novel, the Doctor
> as a central figure without whom the story could
> not be resolved, the build-up to a decision point/
> confrontation that the reader knows/ anticipates/
> fears, the fact that neither the Doctor nor the
> readers can rely on easy solutions from the past...
And this is STILL no explanation of why you couldn't just embargo
Gallifrey stories, or its use in other stories, for a time.
> instead of fixating on whether some item of continuity
> or knowledge that 0.1% of the readership would notice
> has been contradicted (and which, for that vocal 0.1%,
> would become what the book was "about").
If a book EVER gets continuity exactly right, what would we have to
discuss about it? A thumbsup thumbsdown and then its on the next one,
that's what.
We don't mind minor continuity issues -- indeed, they give the series some
depth and substance, and reflect our (humankind's) ability to somehow only
occasionally get everything exactly right. It reflects our foibles.
Major alterations on the scale of Gallifrey unhappening, however, are a
little too big to be explained away as "falling through the cracks."
I still believe that unhappening Gallifrey/The Time Lords/FP etc is every
bit as much of a crutch as K-9, or perhaps an anti-crutch if you will.
It's a not-really-very-tenable catch-all that writers can now refer to in
justifying ... well, anything they like, really. It's just another deus ex
machina.
> You can say that's avoiding the issue if you like,
> or that you'd do it differently--but deal with what
> is, not what might have been. Blowing up Gallifrey,
> and the Doctor's loss of memory, wasn't *essential*
> to make all this happen, but it's one of the things--and
> not the only one--that makes it a lot easier.
Part of what would help us "deal with what is" is if we knew exactly what
"is" was (sheesh, I'm starting to sound like Clinton here!). :)
In other words, since it's not clear whether Gallifrey et al was just
blown up or removed from all history, it's hard to decide if this was a
Good Idea or just Fan Wank.
Because the *ramifications* of doing something like removing the Time
Lords/Gallifrey et al from all of history haven't been explored or even
addressed, if this *has* happened then I think you've "simplified" the
Doctor's past to death, pitted it to a grudge match against *fan* memories
of the Doctor and dared them to slug it out for supremecy. In effect,
you've created two Doctors: the one we used to have, and Mark II who has
to start over.
> Now, when Steve and I wrote "The Ancestor Cell", we
> were pretty sure that we'd blown up Faction Paradox
> good and proper in an explosion so enormous that
> there weren't enough pieces left to stick together
> with an infinite quantity of Scotch Tape. And that
> the thing that exploded was the one remaining
> Gallifrey. It isn't said in the book that Gallifrey
> *never* existed
Right.
> There are (consciously written) loopholes,
Do you mean in your book, or in the subsequent books? Do you mean literal
explanations for the discrepancy that would make sense and we just haven't
thought of them, or just fuzziness that's supposed to leave us confused
indefinitely?
> What's important, however, is that the book *is* an
> inflexion point in the series. And you've heard from
> Jon B what the writers are concentrating on in the
> series.
Same thing they always should have concentrated on -- telling good
stories. I just don't see where this digression aids that goal. I *do* see
where it could *hinder* that goal. Thus, my confusion.
> Such apparent uncertainty doesn't have to affect
> the writing of the new books. As far as the devisors
> of the book series are concerned at the moment, it
> doesn't matter--any more than worrying if Professor
> Zaroff really escaped from Atlantis (or some other
> such unspeakable horror).
It *will* matter, because it's damn difficult if not impossible to write a
Doctor Who book and not mention anything that ever came from or was
affected by Gallifrey/The Time Lords/The Rani/The TARDIS/The Master/Susan
et al and so on ad infinitum.
If you wanted to make a clean break from the past, why not just tell the
writers:
"We want to make a clean break from the past. No stories involving
elements of the series -- or even past novels -- will be allowed."
How would this NOT have worked, whereas the approach taken will?
> By all means worry about
> it yourself, but acknowledge that the writers
> aren't--and the judge the series on what it
> actually delivers, not what it might deliver under
> some unlikely set of circumstances.
You're missing the point. It's one thing to do a novel or TV story that
doesn't reference the past. It's another to set the past ablaze and expect
people who've been following it for years on end not to be perturbed.
> 4. Paradox?
> -----------
> The PDAs are unaffected by the future absence of
> Gallifrey.
But they SHOULD be affected by the PAST absence of Gallifrey, since it's
been removed from ALL history. Otherwise, you DIDN'T remove Gallifrey from
the timeline and it was all a big fanwanky joke. HA HA, Superman *ISN'T*
dead after all! He's now four people!! Oh WAIT! No he isn't, he's the same
guy you remember, only more bitter! HANG ON! The other incarnations still
exist! How can THAT be?! STOP THE PRESSES! No they don't anymore, they
weren't popular enough!
I'm drawing this analogy to the Superman Debacle VERY deliberately, btw ...
> Summary
> -------
> "Doctor Who" is a story that's contradicted itself
> many times;
Never on this level of contradiction. Nor has it ever been the goal of the
production team (until now apparently) to deliberately contradict itself.
It's this attitude of "contradiction or destruction of previous elements
of Doctor Who = good storytelling" that I would find laughable if it
wasn't so appalling.
> it has an inventive fandom that can invent
> ways of resolving the TV series' worst goofs;
Yes, we usually refer to that as "fanwank." We're being told now that THIS
convoluted retcon is NOT fanwank, it's Good Policy.
Sorry, looks/smells/walks like fanwank to me. So far.
--
_Chas_
(non-spammers should use "chasm" at mac-dot-com instead of the email above!)
"Call me old-fashioned, but I want to read email with an email client, news with
a newsreader, and browse with a browser. A Swiss army knife is no substitute for
a toolbox." -- Kevin Craig, comp.sys.mac.apps
Andrew J. Brook
>
> In article <%LDK6.11677$mB4.51609@news2-hme0>,
> "Peter Anghelides" <peter-an...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
> Sorry, looks/smells/walks like fanwank to me. So far.
I agree. Zaroff survived? What nonsense.....
AJB
The Count
:/
:/
:/Spoilers
:/
:/in
:/
:/the
:/
:/very
:/
:/next
:/
:/paragraph
:/
:/of
:/
:/this
:/
:/post
:/
:/
:/
:Blowing up Gallifrey, and the Doctor's loss of memory,
:wasn't *essential* to make all this happen, but it's one
:of the things--and not the only one--that makes it a lot
:easier.
I think that the discussion about the events in and immediately following
the
Ancestor Cell and the discussion about the issue raised in Escape Velocity
are
really two different debates, that have become tangled up with each other.
The whole thing about the Doctor being caught on Earth without his
memories really smacks of 'been there, done that', even if it is for a
longer
period of time this time.
I also think that a very big problem was that the idea of Faction
Paradox was actually more of a threat to the credibility of the storytellers
than a threat within the story.
Robert Cole
>In article <%LDK6.11677$mB4.51609@news2-hme0>,
> "Peter Anghelides" <peter-an...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>> SPOILERS for "The Ancestor Cell"--especially for those in
>> North America who haven't yet had a chance to buy the
>> book; copies are now available from online book stores.
>> 3. Gone for ever?
>> -----------------
>> Has Gallifrey gone for ever? After "The Ancestor Cell",
>> did it ever exist? Many zeros and ones have been
>> expended o this newsgroup, and elsewhere, on this.
>> So I hope you won't be too disappointed in my opinion.
>> And the same is now true of the status of Gallifrey,
>> as far as the authors and the commissioning editor are
>> concerned. EDA authors can concentrate on the things
>> that matter: the structure of the novel, the Doctor
>> as a central figure without whom the story could
>> not be resolved, the build-up to a decision point/
>> confrontation that the reader knows/ anticipates/
>> fears, the fact that neither the Doctor nor the
>> readers can rely on easy solutions from the past...
>And this is STILL no explanation of why you couldn't just embargo
>Gallifrey stories, or its use in other stories, for a time.
Given that Peter admits there are loopholes to this, it can be said that
this is precisely what was done. Gallifrey stories are embargoed for now
and the method of doing so was to remove Gallifrey (potentially from
history). Given that time travel and being able to change history are
major elements of Who there really never was a way to make this an
absolute other than by editorial fiat. Gallifrey is really only gone as
long as it is gone. But for now, it is gone. And the story of how it went
*foom* and subsequent stories have been quite good.
--
Robert G Cole
Bokman7757
>Gallifrey stories are embargoed for now
>and the method of doing so was to remove Gallifrey (potentially from
>history). Given that time travel and being able to change history are
>major elements of Who there really never was a way to make this an
>absolute other than by editorial fiat.
And what would have been wrong with that? Editorial fiats are easy to justify,
if Gallifrey stories/references were such a problem than saying "this is why
they're such a problem, so stop it for now" would've been easy. There didn't
need to be an in-book explanation for no stories about the Valeyard, or not
using the Daleks because of rights issues, etc.
There are basically two reasons I dislike the destruction of Gallifrey/the Time
Lords: the first is that they're a good counterpresence to the Doctor. They're
something he's always going against, always resisting- it helps further his
image as an antiestablishment figure. Even in the 60s when the Time Lords
hadn't been named yet, we knew the Doctor was on the run from *something*. The
second reason is I don't like there being a final end to Gallifrey or the Time
Lords, much as I didn't like there being a final end to the Daleks or Cybermen
or anyone. It's too concrete for the Whoniverse, which is supposed to be
flexible and contain infinite possibilities. It's kind of hard to be too
concerned over the events in, say, THE INVASION OF TIME if I know that at some
point in history Gallifrey stops existing anyway.
I'm not condemning the novels as a whole, of course not. I'm just saying I find
this one metaplot decision to be a tad drastic. It'd be like having England
sink into the sea in one novel to make sure nobody did anymore UNIT stories.
Peter Anghelides
but then I noticed that your e-mail address was
"stare...@myhairyballs.com", and I'm fairly sure
that's an ISP I've not heard of before. And if
I'm throwing data packets over the net, I'd hate
myhairyballs to bounce.
I can understand that some folk worry about all this,
and think a straightforward "embargo" would have
been better, and that the way it was done was a
deus ex machina or fanwank. And I don't think I
could persuade them otherwise, anyway; so we must
agree to disagree. For me (biased, of course),
I think it's worked really well so far--ten
novels on, and the writers haven't struggled.
To pick up just two snippets from what you wrote,
just as examples, if I may:
On the PDAs:
>But they SHOULD be affected by the PAST absence
>of Gallifrey, since it's been removed from ALL
>history.
Since "The Ancestor Cell" was published, I still
have my copy of "Deadly Assassin", and great fun
it is too (especially the freeze frame); and I
can still write a "Fifth Doctor visits the
Panopticon" story if I want to. You may read such
a story and worry "why does this story matter, it
all goes boom sometime in the future, and this
place never existed at this point in time"; my
approach is that it exists at the point it is
being experienced by the Doctor and the reader,
the "moment" of the story. (We're unlikely to agree,
but my starting point is rather prosaic: I can read the
words on the page.)
What I'd assert, furthermore, is that "The Ancestor
Cell" would not stop the BBC commissioning such
a story, nor prevent me writing it, nor mean that
other people could not buy, read, and enjoy it.
(Though admittedly "Davison on Gallifrey" stories
don't exactly have an auspicious track record,
do they?)
On the rationale that you dislike:
> "contradiction or destruction of previous elements
> of Doctor Who = good storytelling"
I can quite understand that you see it that way,
but I don't agree. Real life isn't neat and tidy,
decisions are not always clear-cut, and cause and
effect are rarely a balanced equation. As I hope
I explained in my original post, the destruction
of Gallifrey is neither necessary nor sufficient
to write good stories; but it was one way of
facilitating good novels. There are other ways,
and there are other elements. You think it's a
rotten idea, but I don't--it's a taste thing, and
I can't give you a cost/benefits analysis because
creativity isn't like spreadsheet management.
You're looking for certainty, for definite answers,
and I'm declining to give them. As I said, a lot
of "The Ancestor Cell" is about how people make
impossible decisions (or avoid actually making the
decision--which can be a decision in itself, of
course). Clarity and certainty seem to be important
to you, and you'd prefer it if "what happened to
Gallifrey and the Time Lords" was on the writers'
agenda. The writers and editor don't have (or even
want) it on their agenda; it's as unimportant
(shriek!) to the writing and commissioning of the
latest books as, say, whether the Daemons are
lurking somewhere in the background ("hang on,
they died out in the Pertwee years... and didn't
Interference say...").
If anyone wants me to parse the books to help them
decide whether the Gallifrey thing was a good idea
or fanwank, then they'll be disappointed. The whole
thrust of what I'm saying is: decide for yourselves.
Specifically, judge it on what appears in the books,
because if that's not enough then the forthcoming
books are not going to give you any more information
about it. No matter how nicely you ask :-) And if
the existing books don't give you the answers you
need, then they didn't work for you--sorry.
Anyway, I'll stop going on about this now :-)
Peter Anghelides
http://anghelides.org
gregg
>
>SPOILERS for "The Ancestor Cell
<snip>
/
/
/Spoilers
/
/in
/
/the
/
/very
/
/next
/
/paragraph
/
/of
/
/this
/
/post
/
/
/
/
Context:
1) I have read 'The Ancestor Cell'. I have successfully recovered, and done
my best to block it from my mind. But I have flash backs.
2) I don't care about the destruction of Gallifrey. For the following
reasons:
a) As a fanboy, I don't have a problem with final ends - especially since
they never are. The embarrasingly anal and stupid side of my fanboy
personality, the side that makes lists and worries about continuity (and
he's peeping out less and less these days, thankfully), has long ago
severed the EDBs from "continuity" (it's just the Tv series, the NAs and
the TVM).
b) As a critical reader, I found it to be another cheap gimmick (why do
these keep popping up in Doc8 stories - first the comics, now several times
in the books, and you just know why BF are taking him to Gallifrey), a
fanwanky deus ex machina, but the book had worse problems (and many other
EDBs have had even worse problems).
c) As a wannabe writer, I have no wish or intention to write a DW book for
the Beeb, least of all an EDB (and it's no use pouting or begging, you
discerning readers - I'm not going to). So, while I do have a story idea
involving Gallifrey - and one day you may all be privileged to witness it,
but that will require DW to return as a TV series and me to be hired to
write a story for that series (the sheer, over-bearing excellence of the
story guarantees its acceptance, should those two conditions ever be met),
so, it ain't going to be any time soon - it doesn't affect me.
On no level did the destruction of Gallifrey affect me. I mean that
sincerely.
Wiping the Doctor's memory and personality, OTOH...
<snip>
>if hobbies make me cross then I stop doing them.
I wish I had such will-power. I'd never have even got to past the first of
John Peel's EDBs. I'd have a lot more money, and be less pessimistic about
human nature and literary talent in the modern world.
<snip>
>I'm occasionally baffled, though :-)
Quite right. But I think people have been commenting on the destruction of
Gallifrey, rather than the book itself. At least, that's what I think they
meant to do.
<snip>
>I think that "The Ancestor Cell" is about lots of
>things, of which *one* is: how do "good" people
>behave when impossible situations cause them to make
>"bad" decisions?
I wish that came across more strongly in the book.
>I suppose we could have underscored
>it with (say) a lot of Fitz-related WWII debate about
>the bombing of Dresden, or some more contemporary
>discussion about Bomber Harris
I think you missed at least one very handy thing about Harris that
resonated with Gallifreyan traditions and the Doctor's history. Unless I
missed that, too.
>Given that Steve and I knew the brief for "The
>Ancestor Cell"
Assuming that the brief was, "destroy Gallifrey and Faction paradox, close
the whole War issue, and wipe the Doctor's memory and personality;
essentially re-boot the EDBs", and without wishing to cause any offence, it
does strike me as odd that that brief was given to you and Steve. That
'TAC' was meant to be this very rad book, and was written by two quite trad
authors. And it also struck me that Justin Richards was making exactly the
same mistake Natalie Thingy with 'The Eight Doctors'. And 'The Burning' did
little to make me think - well, it did little to me think anything good,
really. Just, "oh dear, here we go again, another step backwards".
<snip>
>When I wrote "Kursaal", I didn't specify a date, nor
>even that the location was connected with any way with
>specific parts of the "Doctor Who" universe (albeit it
>used conventional language for animals, such as wolves,
>and in a moment of weakness I briefly included an
>Ogron). This was partly because I didn't want to spend
>too much valuable writing time researching the history
>of the programme to ensure I hadn't contradicted
>something from a show in the 1970s or in a book
>published five years before.
This might explain why I liked 'Kursaal'.
>Yet subsequent EDAs, particularly "Seeing I", made
>it clear that "Kursaal" fitted in to a particular time
>in Earth-related history. This was not planned
>ahead. It didn't matter that it was done. It wouldn't
>have mattered if it had not been done. But it was, and
>I certainly didn't mind. (I also seem to recall some
>link reference to Kadijk's I-card, but perhaps I'm just
>hallucinating.)
>
>And the same is now true of the status of Gallifrey,
>as far as the authors and the commissioning editor are
>concerned.
I'm sorry, I'm being dense, but that wasn't entirely clear to me: What,
exactly, is now true of the status of Gallifrey, as far as authors and the
comissioning editor are concerned? That nothing was specified? That
subsequent EDBs might make it fit into a wider continuity (say, by bringing
Gallifrey back, or un-doing its destruction, or taking us to the place set
up in it's wake [which has now been done in a subsequent EDB, sort of], or
whatever), that it doesn't matter if they do or do not do that but it
certainly wasn't in your or Steve Cole's minds? Or that they are just
hallucinating about it? Or, as you later said, that the non-existence of
Gallifrey has merely been drived by the authors and editor, and wasn't your
intention?
>EDA authors can concentrate on the things
>that matter: the structure of the novel, the Doctor
>as a central figure without whom the story could
>not be resolved, the build-up to a decision point/
>confrontation that the reader knows/ anticipates/
>fears, the fact that neither the Doctor nor the
>readers can rely on easy solutions from the past...
(A-hem) What, like (most) NA authors managed to concentrate on for six
years or so? Good. But I think it's a bit of a shame, and resolutely bogus,
that such odd steps had to be taken character wise. (I liked the TVM,
'Dying Days' and 'Vampire Science', and I'd quite like to read [or even
hear - grief] a few more stories with the eighth Doctor in.) Espeically
since they seemed to be geared towards drawing a line under the things that
the most proficient and talented EDB authors (which isn't an especially
challenging posiiton to reach) had been writing about. That the authors who
do seem to have been concetrating on structure, characterisation, dramatic
plotting and good prose, have been involved in. (i.e., the War, FP,
Compassion.)
And it also occurs to me that one step forward, while always good, is not
something to be particularly enamoured of after so many steps back. That
step forward had already been half taken around 'Resolution Man' and
'Unnatural History', lead to 'Shadows of Avalon' and was boosted by Steve
Cole's departure. And this specific step - destroying Gallifrey, wiping the
Dr's memory and personality (essentially regenerating the Dr, though Doc8
does seem to creep back onto the scene during 'Casualties of War' and 'The
Turing Test').
>You can say that's avoiding the issue if you like,
>or that you'd do it differently
I'd do it differently. As an editor, I'd just tell writers to concentrate
on what I wanted them to concentrate on - and not comission those I didn't
think were likely to.
>--but deal with what
>is, not what might have been. Blowing up Gallifrey,
>and the Doctor's loss of memory, wasn't *essential*
>to make all this happen,
No. And I'm not convinced, in the long term, it will be successful in
making all this happen, either. (And I'm even less convinced, after
'Endgame' and 'Escape Velocity', that I can really muster the energy to
find out - my first reaction, when I heard what was going to happen with
the Dr's character, was that it would be a return to the bad old days of
EDBs, a step back after a run of some good books - books almost good enough
to have been NAs - and while 'CoW' and 'TTT' denied it, 'TB' and the last
couple of EDBs I read rather confirmed it.)
>but it's one of the things--and
>not the only one--that makes it a lot easier.
Not only is it not the only one (ugh), it's surely one of the least
original and least interesting ways of doing it. And it also brings us back
to it not being essential - why was anything actively needed. Why on Earth
- espeically since the books had been showing signs of improvement, things
were getting back on track ('UH', some bits of 'Inty', 'BA', 'TOP5', 'FW',
'SoA', 'SA', were all markedly improved on the first couple of years of
EDBs - it's probably interesting to note that these were all part of a
storyline that 'TAC' sought to tie-up, a story-line that didn't greatly
interest me but didn't adversely affect the books that comprised it - while
the pendulum seems to have swung the other way around 'TAC' and 'TB') - do
this? Why? Why, why, why?
<snip>
>By all means worry about
>it yourself, but acknowledge that the writers
>aren't--and the judge the series on what it
>actually delivers, not what it might deliver under
>some unlikely set of circumstances.
Fair enough - but isn't it equally fair to offer the opinion on how stories
may have been improved by the absence of certain wider developments in the
series? For instance, 'TB' has has the remnants of an interesting story. It
also has some very interesting, philosophical transactions between the Dr
and the priest (wonderful, fireside scenes). These scenes seem to belong in
a different book, seems to have been written long before the rest of this
book - long before, even, the idea of regenerating Doc8. The eighth Dr,
absent from the rest of the book, is in these scenes. And he's interesting,
likeable, not at all like the Dr who runs around doing stuff in 'TB'. Is it
wildly unfair of me to speculate that, without the memory and personality
wipe, we might have had a much better book here? Something more interesting
and less fanwanky? That combining the bare bones of this plot, and the
characters, with the eighth Dr as we briefly see him in those fire-side
scenes, without this being the aftermath of 'TAC' or the begginning of the
Earth arc, we'd have ended up with something readable and good? Never mind
worrying about how these issues might affect future books, we've already
seen the detrimental effect they had on at least one book. And it's not as
if we haven't seen this before in the EDBs, from day one.
>(Of course,
>this may entail having to read the books,
And that's the nasty part - does one have the energy, is one willing to
take the risk. Will my cat continue to be fast enough to avoid EDBs as they
ricochet angrily off my walls?
<snip>
>You're allowed to enjoy Serial B even if you've
>watched "Genesis of the Daleks"
'Genesis of the Daleks' doesn't actually affect serial B - I mean, not just
in the "the video still exists way", it seriously doesn't do anything along
the lines of what we're talking about here. But I agree with your point
wholeheartedly.
<snip>
>It'll never be *impossible* to ignore,
>explain, or undo this in the future. Just don't
>assume that at the moment, no matter how much you
>wish it was otherwise, that it affects the
>commissioning and writing of the books.
So, if I can get this straight: The destruction of Gallifrey will be
impossible to ignore, explain or undo in the comissioning and writing of
the books; or: The future ignoring, explaining or undoing of the
destruction of Gallifrey, will not affect the comissioing and wrtiing of
the books?
Not that I wish it were other wise. The memory thing, on the other, I do
wish was otherwise. And if I were comissioned to write a DW book (which I
won't be, and I'd say no anyway), I would ignore it. (And then argue
endlessly with the editor, and eventually get over-ruled, obviously.)
Jack Beven
<peter-an...@cwcom.net> wrote:
[snip]
>You're looking for certainty, for definite answers,
>and I'm declining to give them. As I said, a lot
>of "The Ancestor Cell" is about how people make
>impossible decisions (or avoid actually making the
>decision--which can be a decision in itself, of
>course). Clarity and certainty seem to be important
>to you, and you'd prefer it if "what happened to
>Gallifrey and the Time Lords" was on the writers'
>agenda. The writers and editor don't have (or even
>want) it on their agenda; it's as unimportant
>(shriek!) to the writing and commissioning of the
>latest books as, say, whether the Daemons are
>lurking somewhere in the background ("hang on,
>they died out in the Pertwee years... and didn't
>Interference say...").
Peter, IMHO it is *NECESSARY* for what happened to Gallifrey
and the Time Lords to be on the writers' agenda. In the
context of the series, the Time Lords had their fingers in so many
pies (including some that likely had indirect influences on the
Earth) that it is impossible to remove them completely from the
series and still have the series past be anything resembling
believable. And this has impact on the series *present* and
*future*. I for one do not believe it is possible for the Caught
on Earth books (or any other subsequent story set on a
familiar Earth) to exist as written because the history of Earth
should be altered enough so the familiar settings used
don't exist.
Now, if you and your fellow authors want to ignore that
little problem, feel free to do so. However, don't try to convince
me that the stories thus written are good stories. Stories written
into settings that other stories in the series say can't exist is
IMHO one definition of bad storytelling. It comes under my
category of improper use of series elements.
The bottom line is that the existence of Gallifrey up to the
time of "The Ancestor Cell" is *NECESSARY* for both the
past and the present, and this needs to be nailed down
in the stories.
>If anyone wants me to parse the books to help them
>decide whether the Gallifrey thing was a good idea
>or fanwank, then they'll be disappointed. The whole
>thrust of what I'm saying is: decide for yourselves.
>Specifically, judge it on what appears in the books,
>because if that's not enough then the forthcoming
>books are not going to give you any more information
>about it. No matter how nicely you ask :-) And if
>the existing books don't give you the answers you
>need, then they didn't work for you--sorry.
I'm judging by what I see in the books, as well as by what your boss
said at the Gallifrey con. And my interpretation is that you all need to
change your current plans for the series to one of writing to do damage
control. Once that's done you can get back onto whatever course you're
on right now.
Jack Beven (a. k. a. The Supreme Dalek)
Tropical Prediction Center
New URL: http://www.mindspring.com/~jbeven/index.html jbe...@mindspring.com
Disclaimer: These opinions don't necessarily represent those of my employers...
Dangermouse
Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote
> Peter, IMHO it is *NECESSARY* for what happened to Gallifrey
> and the Time Lords to be on the writers' agenda.
Your opinion is wrong. Gallifrey has been blown into a million tiny pieces.
Do we really need or want a Friday The 13th type series of Gallifrey's
Revenge, Gallifrey the Final Chapter, Gallifrey Takes Manhattan...
> In the
> context of the series, the Time Lords had their fingers in so many
> pies (including some that likely had indirect influences on the
> Earth) that it is impossible to remove them completely from the
> series and still have the series past be anything resembling
> believable.
Bollocks. They existed. They don't now. The series past is the series past.
Killing someone or something doesn't mean that all the things they did
never happened.
And this has impact on the series *present* and
> *future*. I for one do not believe it is possible for the Caught
> on Earth books (or any other subsequent story set on a
> familiar Earth) to exist as written because the history of Earth
> should be altered enough so the familiar settings used
> don't exist.
Then don't read them. Obviously for you Dr Who ended with tAC, so go and
read Farscape or Buffy or something.
>
> Now, if you and your fellow authors want to ignore that
> little problem, feel free to do so. However, don't try to convince
> me that the stories thus written are good stories.
How stupid can you get? A story is good or bad regardless of whether it
refers to one from from a year ago. I've never heard anything so fucking
stupid in my life.
> Stories written
> into settings that other stories in the series say can't exist is
> IMHO one definition of bad storytelling.
It's just as well this doesn't happen then.
> It comes under my
> category of improper use of series elements.
>
> The bottom line is that the existence of Gallifrey up to the
> time of "The Ancestor Cell" is *NECESSARY* for both the
> past and the present,
No it isn't, though by a curious quirk of fate, Gallifrey did exist until
tAC.
> I'm judging by what I see in the books, as well as by what your boss
> said at the Gallifrey con. And my interpretation is that you all need to
> change your current plans for the series to one of writing to do damage
> control. Once that's done you can get back onto whatever course you're
> on right now.
There's no damage.
But the bottom line is: if that's the way you feel about it, either give up
the series, or (and maybe this is too flaky a thought) pitch your own idea
to BBC Books and see if you can change things.
Charles Martin
The Count <coun...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
> I think that the discussion about the events in and immediately following
> the
> Ancestor Cell and the discussion about the issue raised in Escape Velocity
> are
> really two different debates, that have become tangled up with each other.
That's right. And they're generating about 100 posts a day in various
threads, and I'm having a hell of a time keeping up. In fact, I'm way
behind!
> The whole thing about the Doctor being caught on Earth without his
> memories really smacks of 'been there, done that', even if it is for a
> longer
> period of time this time.
In short, I agree.
Charles Martin
co...@unity.ncsu.edu (Robert Cole) wrote:
> >And this is STILL no explanation of why you couldn't just embargo
> >Gallifrey stories, or its use in other stories, for a time.
>
> Given that Peter admits there are loopholes to this, it can be said that
> this is precisely what was done. Gallifrey stories are embargoed for now
> and the method of doing so was to remove Gallifrey (potentially from
> history). Given that time travel and being able to change history are
> major elements of Who there really never was a way to make this an
> absolute other than by editorial fiat. Gallifrey is really only gone as
> long as it is gone. But for now, it is gone. And the story of how it went
> *foom* and subsequent stories have been quite good.
I'm making the case that this is, while a perfectly plausible explanation,
a cop-out.
Not only is it a cop-out, it's an UNORIGINAL cop-out -- we just went
through this almost exact same thing with the "Old Blue" arc.
Charles Martin
"Peter Anghelides" <peter-an...@cwcom.net> wrote:
> Hello Chas. I was going to copy you on this reply,
> but then I noticed that your e-mail address was
> "stare...@myhairyballs.com", and I'm fairly sure
> that's an ISP I've not heard of before. And if
> I'm throwing data packets over the net, I'd hate
> myhairyballs to bounce.
LOL!
Rest assured, its a real email address. It's reverse psychology on the
spammers, and oddly enough it seems to work -- I don't get an undue amount
of spam despite posting here rather heavily!
> I can understand that some folk worry about all this,
> and think a straightforward "embargo" would have
> been better, and that the way it was done was a
> deus ex machina or fanwank.
The fact that you can understand this is EXTREMELY reassuring, Peter. The
vibe I was getting from Jon was that he *couldn't* understand that
perspective, which was actually more worrying than the development itself.
> And I don't think I
> could persuade them otherwise, anyway; so we must
> agree to disagree. For me (biased, of course),
> I think it's worked really well so far--ten
> novels on, and the writers haven't struggled.
Obviously you're ahead of me on this, and nowhere in any of my posts have
I said that the novels have suffered. I do still think the credibility of
the line suffers when you have to do this this sort of radical surgery
*twice* in two years time (first the TARDIS, now Gallifrey/The Time Lords)
to remove elements of the show that have become sticky with overuse. (that
didn't come out quite right, but you know what I mean). :)
The repetitive nature of "this is troublesome so we'll get rid of it," on
top of the "Doctor is exiled AGAIN and loses his memory for a time AGAIN"
is troubling.
> To pick up just two snippets from what you wrote,
> just as examples, if I may:
>
> On the PDAs:
> >But they SHOULD be affected by the PAST absence
> >of Gallifrey, since it's been removed from ALL
> >history.
>
>
> Since "The Ancestor Cell" was published, I still
> have my copy of "Deadly Assassin", and great fun
> it is too (especially the freeze frame); and I
> can still write a "Fifth Doctor visits the
> Panopticon" story if I want to.
Yes, but that's REAL reality; we're talking about the effect the removal
of the Time Lords from all history has on Doctor Who reality.
> You may read such
> a story and worry "why does this story matter, it
> all goes boom sometime in the future, and this
> place never existed at this point in time";
No, I don't care about that; what I care about is that if you DO have the
balls to remove Gallifrey/Time Lords/et al from all of history, then you
should have the balls to stick by your decision. If the purpose of this
was to avoid any more waxy yellow Gallifrey continuity fanwank build-up,
then you need to embargo Gallifrey/the Time Lords from the PDAs as well,
because cruft can happen there as well.
To declare in an EDA that Gallifrey has been removed from all time and
then to have a PDA about Gallifrey a few months later is just saying to me
and the other people who pay attention to these books that you're just
pushing the Just Kidding button again and that we should take less and
less of what you say in the books seriously.
And when I can't suspend my disbelief of the novels anymore, I might
realise that it looks a bit daft of a nearly 40-year-old man to be reading
these things, and sensibly give them up in order to persue more adult
hobbies like girls and beer. :)
> What I'd assert, furthermore, is that "The Ancestor
> Cell" would not stop the BBC commissioning such
> a story, nor prevent me writing it, nor mean that
> other people could not buy, read, and enjoy it.
> (Though admittedly "Davison on Gallifrey" stories
> don't exactly have an auspicious track record,
> do they?)
You're right that The Ancestor Cell doesn't do such a thing, but Escape
Velocity does (or tries to). YOUR book doesn't say Gallifrey unhappened;
Colin's does. I'm sorry for any confusion that may have erupted. The only
reason TAC was dragged into this is that it is the book in which the event
happened which has now been retconned.
> On the rationale that you dislike:
> > "contradiction or destruction of previous elements
> > of Doctor Who = good storytelling"
>
> I can quite understand that you see it that way,
> but I don't agree. Real life isn't neat and tidy,
> decisions are not always clear-cut, and cause and
> effect are rarely a balanced equation. As I hope
> I explained in my original post, the destruction
> of Gallifrey is neither necessary nor sufficient
> to write good stories;
Finally someone with authority sees what I've been saying! Not that
blowing up Gallifrey is a good OR a bad idea, but that doing so was not
MANDATORY to continue writing good stories! Thank you!!
> but it was one way of
> facilitating good novels. There are other ways,
> and there are other elements. You think it's a
> rotten idea, but I don't--it's a taste thing, and
> I can't give you a cost/benefits analysis because
> creativity isn't like spreadsheet management.
Which is fine. We're not really in that much disagreement.
> You're looking for certainty, for definite answers,
> and I'm declining to give them. As I said, a lot
> of "The Ancestor Cell" is about how people make
> impossible decisions (or avoid actually making the
> decision--which can be a decision in itself, of
> course). Clarity and certainty seem to be important
> to you, and you'd prefer it if "what happened to
> Gallifrey and the Time Lords" was on the writers'
> agenda. The writers and editor don't have (or even
> want) it on their agenda; it's as unimportant
> (shriek!) to the writing and commissioning of the
> latest books as, say, whether the Daemons are
> lurking somewhere in the background ("hang on,
> they died out in the Pertwee years... and didn't
> Interference say...").
Removing Gallifrey/The Time Lords is just too big of a retcon to ignore.
Mucking about with the Daemons would, at most, affect the original story
by reflecting well or badly on it.
Simply blowing up Gallifrey is a good (or bad) idea; I have no idea and I
don't particularly care if it gets undone or not later. Removing the Time
Lords from all of history is a major, major recon and simply has to be
addressed in order to asset the credibility of what we are being told in
the books. It is vital that we believe the books in order to follow along
with the story beyond the plot of the one tale. If we KEEP doing things
like "TARDIS blew up! Oh no it didn't! " and "Gallifrey doesn't exist!
What, anywhere in space and time? Yes! I mean, NO! I mean, who cares, cuz
we don't!" you damage the credibility of the entire series of novels.
> The whole
> thrust of what I'm saying is: decide for yourselves.
We have. A fair few of us have judged it (the retcon, NOT the actual
explosion) to be Ill-Conceived Fanwank. We HOPE we are wrong about this
and wait for evidence that we are.
Charles Martin
"Dangermouse" <Mas...@allisurvey.freeFROMSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Killing someone or something doesn't mean that all the things they did
> never happened.
You're missing something here, Dave. Page 58 of Escape Velocity explicity
says that Gallifrey and the Time Lords have been UNHAPPENED, to use Jon
Blum's term for it.
If they'd just been blown up and ended, we wouldn't be having this
discussion. That's what we ALL thought had happened at the end of TAC and
you didn't see much debate about it.
It's the *RETCON* of removing them from all history that we're arguing
about.
> Then don't read them. Obviously for you Dr Who ended with tAC, so go and
> read Farscape or Buffy or something.
Very clever, suggesting alternative books you either write or would like
to write for!! :)
For Jack, DW didn't end with TAC, but with the retcon in EV. And I'm not
sure he meant "ended," but rather "got annoyingly silly enough to end it
for [him]."
> How stupid can you get? A story is good or bad regardless of whether it
> refers to one from from a year ago. I've never heard anything so fucking
> stupid in my life.
Again, misunderstanding alert.
Jim Vowles
Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
> In article <01c0dabb$0b9aae80$cdaa893e@default>,
> "Dangermouse" <Mas...@allisurvey.freeFROMSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Killing someone or something doesn't mean that all the things they did
> > never happened.
>
> You're missing something here, Dave. Page 58 of Escape Velocity explicity
> says that Gallifrey and the Time Lords have been UNHAPPENED, to use Jon
> Blum's term for it.
Charles, you keep saying that this makes it all clear that it
UNHAPPENED. Yet the book in which the deed was done clearly says no such
thing--this according not only to my own quite recent reading of the
book, but to one of the book's authors. Official policy in the books
seems to be neither to confirm nor deny uberstory elements (a wise
policy--why on earth would you want to spoil your long-term plot by
providing "how will this all turn out?" answers on demand?). Justin's
off-hand comments at a convention could just as easily be deliberately
misleading, or could merely represent one state in an evolving thought
process regarding how permanent this should be.
But to insist that Fitz's thoughts on the matter--and about a dozen
people have explained to you that this quote is NOT empirical evidence,
but merely Fitz's take on things, expressed using a standard narrative
technique that is pretty much the house style for the series--to insist
that his musings represent a greater degree of fact than (at last count)
four authors stated beliefs, on top of the lack of other evidence, is
just silly. It's either an alarmist overreaction, or you just like to
argue WAY too much. :)
>
> If they'd just been blown up and ended, we wouldn't be having this
> discussion. That's what we ALL thought had happened at the end of TAC and
> you didn't see much debate about it.
>
> It's the *RETCON* of removing them from all history that we're arguing
> about.
Um...it's an unproven, possible retcon that may represent one possible
direction, but NOT the direction that will be actively presented in the
books, because by editorial decree, they're not to bring it up.
Jack is arguing this point arduously, and he hasn't even read the books
in question. You have, by your own admission, merely skimmed the book
that costs you so much emotional capital. I'm just not sure there's any
point in going about demanding concise, clear answers about what the
future of the series may or may not hold. At very least, it takes some
of the fun out of it for me to know the ending of a story before I've
finished the beginning.
Dangermouse
Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote
> You're missing something here, Dave. Page 58 of Escape Velocity explicity
> says that Gallifrey and the Time Lords have been UNHAPPENED, to use Jon
> Blum's term for it.
You mean Fitz thinks this happened.
> If they'd just been blown up and ended, we wouldn't be having this
> discussion. That's what we ALL thought had happened at the end of TAC and
> you didn't see much debate about it.
Except that this whole argument started when tAC came out...
> It's the *RETCON* of removing them from all history that we're arguing
> about.
>
> > Then don't read them. Obviously for you Dr Who ended with tAC, so go
and
> > read Farscape or Buffy or something.
>
> Very clever, suggesting alternative books you either write or would like
> to write for!! :)
Actually I've never even seen Farscape and the Buffy books seem aimed at
teenagers, so not really. Though it'd be fun to a Giles book...
The Count
:Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote
:>agenda.
:
:Your opinion is wrong. Gallifrey has been blown into a
:million tiny pieces. Do we really need or want a Friday
:The 13th type series of Gallifrey's Revenge, Gallifrey the
:Final Chapter, Gallifrey Takes Manhattan...
Dave, this is precisely one of the biggest problems that people have with
The
Ancestor Cell. The way that Gallifrey was blown up seems to have been set up
with loopholes that will make what you say there very likely to happen.
Maybe
not while Justin is editor, but the next time they change editors, and/or in
the unlikely event that there is a movie or a new series. Do you think that
it
is unreasonable to think that far ahead?
:> In the context of the series, the Time Lords had their
:> fingers in so many pies (including some that likely had
:> indirect influences on the Earth) that it is impossible
:> to remove them completely from the series and still have
:> the series past be anything resembling believable.
:
:Bollocks. They existed. They don't now. The series past is
:the series past.
But is the series past still the past of the present series? (Yes, I know
that
that sounds funny, but it is a legitimate question, and I do not that anyone
who cares about it is stupid or a freak.)
:Killing someone or something doesn't mean that all the
:things they did never happened.
No, but it could mean that they only happened in another universe. Which is
bad writing, especially if it is just hand-waved.
:>And this has impact on the series *present* and
:>*future*. I for one do not believe it is possible for the
:>Caught on Earth books (or any other subsequent story set
:>on a familiar Earth) to exist as written because the
:>history of Earth should be altered enough so the familiar
:>settings used don't exist.
:
:Then don't read them. Obviously for you Dr Who ended with
:tAC, so go and read Farscape or Buffy or something.
:
:> Now, if you and your fellow authors want to ignore
:>that little problem, feel free to do so. However, don't
:>try to convince me that the stories thus written are good
:>stories.
:
:How stupid can you get? A story is good or bad regardless
:of whether it refers to one from from a year ago. I've
:never heard anything so fucking stupid in my life.
I know that you are venting here, but will you calm down a bit? You and Jack
are talking about two different things. You are talking about whether a
story
is good or bad as a single story by itself, ignoring everything else. From
that point of view, you are right. But Jack is talking about whether a story
is good or bad as a 'story within a story', which is a similar but broader
view. That is also a valid viewpoint, and you should take it into
consideration before reacting.
:>Stories written into settings that other stories in the
:>series say can't exist is IMHO one definition of bad
:>storytelling.
:
:It's just as well this doesn't happen then.
If we assume that there is only one universe except where explicitly told
otherwise (which is a necessary assumption for many of us to suspend
disbelief
and still enjoy it at the same time), there seems to be some legitimate
doubt
about that.
Jack Beven
wrote:
[snip]
>Jack is arguing this point arduously, and he hasn't even read the books
>in question. You have, by your own admission, merely skimmed the book
>that costs you so much emotional capital. I'm just not sure there's any
>point in going about demanding concise, clear answers about what the
>future of the series may or may not hold. At very least, it takes some
>of the fun out of it for me to know the ending of a story before I've
>finished the beginning.
Jim, that's the second time today that you've said I haven't
read the books. What are you basing that particular assetion on?
The Count
: Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
:> It's the *RETCON* of removing them from all history that
:> we're arguing about.
:
:Um...it's an unproven, possible retcon that may represent
:one possible direction, but NOT the direction that will be
:actively presented in the books, because by editorial
:decree, they're not to bring it up.
It already has been brought up. And no matter how much you say that it 'it
is
just Fitz's point of view', that is the only point of view that is going to
stick out in the readers minds if it is not brought up again.
:I'm just not sure there's any point in going about
:demanding concise, clear answers about what the
:future of the series may or may not hold.
I do not think that that is what people are demanding. But based on the
facts
that they have been given, some of them are wanting to know simply whether
we
will be able to go from the present to the future without some incredibly
fanwanky retcon, and they are not feeling very reassured to be told 'it does
not matter'.
:At very least, it takes some of the fun out of it for me
:to know the ending of a story before I've finished the
:beginning.
Babylon 5. (I think you know what I mean.)
Jim Vowles
jbe...@mindspring.com (Jack Beven) wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2001 20:07:22 -0400, Jim Vowles <alab...@capu.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Jack is arguing this point arduously, and he hasn't even read the books
> >in question. You have, by your own admission, merely skimmed the book
> >that costs you so much emotional capital. I'm just not sure there's any
> >point in going about demanding concise, clear answers about what the
> >future of the series may or may not hold. At very least, it takes some
> >of the fun out of it for me to know the ending of a story before I've
> >finished the beginning.
>
> Jim, that's the second time today that you've said I haven't
> read the books. What are you basing that particular assetion on?
I could have sworn that you said you hadn't read them--which is one of
the reasons I couldn't understand your vehement resistance to the
concepts. If I'm misremembering or confusing your posts with someone
else's, I apologize. With so many posts on the matter, it can be hard
to keep track. :)
Of course, if you have read the books, your perspective makes much more
sense to me. You have every right to complain about things you've read
but don't like. It's when people start complaining about stuff they
*haven't* read that perplexes me, but shagging off things without
knowing anything about them is sadly common around these parts. :(
I still think demanding the clarification is a bit silly, though.
Raising the flag and saying "have you thought this through?" is a
perfectly sensible approach. Saying "I don't think you've thought this
through, I demand that you clarify everything right now" doesn't seem
that reasonable to me.
Jim Vowles
The Count <coun...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
> Jim Vowles wrote:
> : Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
>
> :> It's the *RETCON* of removing them from all history that
> :> we're arguing about.
> :
> :Um...it's an unproven, possible retcon that may represent
> :one possible direction, but NOT the direction that will be
> :actively presented in the books, because by editorial
> :decree, they're not to bring it up.
>
> It already has been brought up. And no matter how much you say that it 'it
> is
> just Fitz's point of view', that is the only point of view that is going to
> stick out in the readers minds if it is not brought up again.
It certainly is *now*...now that everyone's been hammering on about it
for ages.
> :I'm just not sure there's any point in going about
> :demanding concise, clear answers about what the
> :future of the series may or may not hold.
>
> I do not think that that is what people are demanding. But based on the
> facts that they have been given, some of them are wanting to know simply whether
> we will be able to go from the present to the future without some incredibly
> fanwanky retcon, and they are not feeling very reassured to be told 'it does
> not matter'.
"Stay tuned" is the best answer an editor, or an author, could give,
frankly. The "it does not matter" was in reference to the individual
stories, IIRC.
> :At very least, it takes some of the fun out of it for me
> :to know the ending of a story before I've finished the
> :beginning.
>
> Babylon 5. (I think you know what I mean.)
<kosh>...yes...</kosh>
But then, that's selective bits of foreknowledge, carefully doled out
for a particular effect. That may or may not be what we are dealing
with here--and if it *is*, then I don't want the fun spoiled. :)
Lance Parkin
<stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
>In article <01c0dabb$0b9aae80$cdaa893e@default>,
> "Dangermouse" <Mas...@allisurvey.freeFROMSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Killing someone or something doesn't mean that all the things they did
>> never happened.
>
>You're missing something here, Dave. Page 58 of Escape Velocity explicity
>says that Gallifrey and the Time Lords have been UNHAPPENED, to use Jon
>Blum's term for it.
No it doesn't. That's what *Fitz* thinks happened. Fitz might be
right, but he saw less of what happened at the end of The
Ancestor Cell than anyone who's read it. From his perspective,
that's how Fitz explains it.
If it makes people happy / not give up on the books, then I pitched a
Master story to Justin for a post-EV book, and he was happy with
the idea of using the Master (although he didn't like the book).
Jack will also be pleased to know that Justin looked at me
funny, too. So that proves I must be right.
Lance
Charles Martin
Jim Vowles <alab...@capu.net> wrote:
> In article <fvjL6.205259$fs3.34...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <01c0dabb$0b9aae80$cdaa893e@default>,
> > "Dangermouse" <Mas...@allisurvey.freeFROMSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Killing someone or something doesn't mean that all the things they did
> > > never happened.
> >
> > You're missing something here, Dave. Page 58 of Escape Velocity explicity
> > says that Gallifrey and the Time Lords have been UNHAPPENED, to use Jon
> > Blum's term for it.
>
> Charles, you keep saying that this makes it all clear that it
> UNHAPPENED. Yet the book in which the deed was done clearly says no such
> thing--this according not only to my own quite recent reading of the
> book, but to one of the book's authors.
Re-read what's said above, and in my reply to Peter Angelehides. You're
absolutely right that in THE ANCESTOR CELL there is no indication that the
Time Lords/Gallifrey have been removed from the timestream. It is in a
LATER book, called ESCAPE VELOCITY, in which the Gallifrey explosion is
RETCONNED into a "removal of the Time Lords from all history." I didn't
have and *continue* not to have any major problems with The Ancestor Cell.
> Official policy in the books
> seems to be neither to confirm nor deny uberstory elements (a wise
> policy--why on earth would you want to spoil your long-term plot by
> providing "how will this all turn out?" answers on demand?).
I'm not interested in having the writers reveal their hands early. All I'd
like to know is if the line in Escape Velocity should be ignored as
editorial error or not. It pretty much directly contradicts what was said
in TAC, and despite what some would have us believe it is actually very
rare for two books to directly contradict each other so explicitly.
So, is the retcon in Escape Velocity:
1. Right?
2. A Very Bad Idea?
3. All of the Above?
4. None of the Above?
> Justin's
> off-hand comments at a convention could just as easily be deliberately
> misleading, or could merely represent one state in an evolving thought
> process regarding how permanent this should be.
Perhaps. Justin's comments don't affect my interpretation or thinking on
this matter, since although I was at the Gallifrey panel in question I
didn't actually hear Justin's comments. You're confusing me with Jack
Beven (who DID hear Justin's comments) just because our positions on this
issue are somewhat similar
> But to insist that Fitz's thoughts on the matter--and about a dozen
> people have explained to you that this quote is NOT empirical evidence,
> but merely Fitz's take on things,
Problem is, this is NOT Fitz's "take on things" -- that section of the
book is told in *exactly* the same kind of third-person narrative the
entire rest of the book is told in. Unless Fitz has started referring to
himself in the third person in his innermost thoughts, ie "Fitz was
tired," then what you're saying is false.
I have read the vast majority of all the BBC and Virgin novels so far
realeased. I have *yet* to notice this bizarre third
person-change-to-first-person-referring-to-themselves-in-third-person-then-
back-to-REAL-third-person shits (on the fly, I might add) in *any* other
novel.
Does that mean that they didn't do that in EV? No, I suppose it doesn't.
There's a first time for everything. I can find no evidence that supports
the theory that the clearly third-person author's voice suddenly and
indetectably shifts to third-person/first-person conjoined and then
imperceptibly shifts back to third-person in the section in question or
anywhere else in the book (haven't finished the book yet, however).
Which means either Colin Brake is a simply terrible writer and Justin
didn't do a very good job editing EV (highly unlikely), or they invented
this new authorial shifting persona narrative technique SOLELY to feed us
misinformation (possible, but dubious and a really find example of Very
Bad Writing), OR they intended to retcon TAC and left that line exactly as
it was on purpose (extremely silly).
There are other alternative explanations, but they are insulting to people
who'd I'd really rather not insult because I know them to be good people
who do what they do very well. Perhaps now you can understand my
irritation and desire to get things cleared up a bit.
> expressed using a standard narrative
> technique that is pretty much the house style for the series--
I'd be quite happy to entertain the notion that I somehow missed the
introduction of this "standard in-house style" of modifying traditional
third-person into Bob-Dole-like-first-person-speaking-as-third-person if
only I could find some examples.
Not that I'm going to go and re-read all the books I've read, but I really
can't recall any book of the many, many, many DW novels I can recall where
I was ever confused as to whether it was first-person or third-person
narrative.
> to insist
> that his musings represent a greater degree of fact than (at last count)
> four authors stated beliefs,
I'd be interested to know where you got this count. I'm a little behind on
the posts since there are so many, but looking at my dancecard I see the
following:
1. Jon Blum -- believes "Fitz's musings" are absolutely correct, that the
Time Lords have indeed been taken completely out of time, that we
shouldn't care because there is fuck all we can say or do about it, and is
a little fatootsed (hideous mispelling of Yiddish there, I know) that
anyone would have the nerve to challenge the validity of the idea.
2. Peter Angelehides -- incorrectly believes that it is his book TAC that
is being attacked when it isn't. Explicity contradicts Jon Blum and states
that it was neither his intention nor his current belief that
Gallifrey/Time Lords et al have or should be retconned out of existance --
just that they should be blown up. :)
3. Dangermouse (Dave McIntee) -- doesn't appear to understand that TAC is
not being attacked, nor is the idea that Gallifrey was blown up, just the
retcon in EV. Seems to be firmly in favour of Gallifrey being blown up,
which I don't have any problem with at all.
So, as of this posting, there's two authors who appear to agree with me
that Gallifrey shouldn't have been retconned but it's okay to just blow
them up. There's one author who disagrees. I don't know who the other
author is but I'll get to that post eventually.
> on top of the lack of other evidence, is
> just silly. It's either an alarmist overreaction, or you just like to
> argue WAY too much. :)
I sincerely hope it's neither. I'm a bit surprised by the fierceness of
Jon's defense of the notion of Gallifrey unhappening (and I'd like to
point out that this is HIS term), but I'm not going to get all bitchy
about it.
I'm just raising a concern with one element (which I see as important).
Peter and Dave and Jon all seem to think that the element I mean is
Gallifrey and/or the Time Lords.
It's not.
It's the principle of "suspension of disbelief." It's vital to the novels.
If you keep writing in ridiculous notions that don't make sense within the
constructs of the defined universe of the book, you risk breaking that
suspension. If you start throwing away any element you just find
inconvenient to deal with anymore, you're seriously eroding the suspension
of disbelief.
It's particularly in jeopardy when you pull basically the same
unbelieveable stunt over and over again. We've already DONE this
"unhappened" thing with the TARDIS, and there was much gnashing and
wailing of teeth -- indeed, I got the distinct impression that although
the fan community seem to like Compassion as a character, they didn't care
much for the "delete Old Blue" ploy. So why are we doing it again, only on
a bigger scale?
> Um...it's an unproven, possible retcon that may represent one possible
> direction, but NOT the direction that will be actively presented in the
> books, because by editorial decree, they're not to bring it up.
And the reason you'd throw in "unproven, possible retcons that may
represent a possible direction but won't be addressed or presented" after
being mentioned IS ...??
What? What's the point then? Why do it? See "suspension of disbelief,"
above.
The day the Doctor Who novels seem to get silly is the day I stop reading
them, because I won't be able to suspend my disbelief. Gratuitous things
like the convoluted and fanwanky notions you present above do a lot to
damage the credibility of the line and make it look silly.
> Jack is arguing this point arduously, and he hasn't even read the books
> in question. You have, by your own admission, merely skimmed the book
> that costs you so much emotional capital.
I have now carefully read the book up to and beyond the point of the
actual retcon, but I haven't finished the book and won't be able to do so
for a while due to a small change in location.
> I'm just not sure there's any
> point in going about demanding concise, clear answers about what the
> future of the series may or may not hold.
I'm not sure there is either. Luckily, that's not what I'm doing. I just
would like to know if:
1. The retcon was either a mistake, some Bad Writing, or something that
should be taken "seriously"
2. If I'm to take this fanwanky idea "seriously," will it then be
addressed?
I don't see this as a lot to ask.
Charles Martin
"Dangermouse" <Mas...@allisurvey.freeFROMSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote
> > You're missing something here, Dave. Page 58 of Escape Velocity explicity
>
> > says that Gallifrey and the Time Lords have been UNHAPPENED, to use Jon
> > Blum's term for it.
>
> You mean Fitz thinks this happened.
As I've said elsewhere, I've read this passage carefully and I can't see
anything definitive that marks it as only Fitz's thoughts. In fact, I see
the opposite: as Fitz is referred to in the third person throughout the
relevant passage, the narration must therefore be in the third person.
> > If they'd just been blown up and ended, we wouldn't be having this
> > discussion. That's what we ALL thought had happened at the end of TAC and
>
> > you didn't see much debate about it.
>
> Except that this whole argument started when tAC came out...
I didn't see any arguments about Gallifrey/The Tme Lords being retconned.
I *did* see a lot of debate over whether blowing it up was a good idea or
not, but I didn't participate in that discussion because I didn't have a
big problem with it.
As Peter and others have pointed out, there's passages in TAC that make it
clear (to me, anyway) that this is NOT what happened. Gallifrey was blown
up, yes, but not removed from the timestream.
I have to say I find it mildly amusing that when John Peel goes and does a
retcon, people get so annoyed over it, and the authors are quick to
poo-poo it.
But when the EDITOR does a retcon (or appears to do a retcon, anyway) ...
ah, that's different. That's freeing the writers, that is. That's good
storytelling, that is.
Perhaps you can see why I'm a little confused.
Charles Martin
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2001 23:16:27 GMT, Charles Martin
> <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <01c0dabb$0b9aae80$cdaa893e@default>,
> > "Dangermouse" <Mas...@allisurvey.freeFROMSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Killing someone or something doesn't mean that all the things they did
> >> never happened.
> >
> >You're missing something here, Dave. Page 58 of Escape Velocity explicity
> >says that Gallifrey and the Time Lords have been UNHAPPENED, to use Jon
> >Blum's term for it.
>
Aha! Fourth author spotted! :)
> No it doesn't. That's what *Fitz* thinks happened. Fitz might be
> right, but he saw less of what happened at the end of The
> Ancestor Cell than anyone who's read it. From his perspective,
> that's how Fitz explains it.
Lance, I respect you guys tremendously (this means Justin, Jon, Dave
McIntee and Peter). I'm sorry if I'm just confused and am missing it, but
due to this thread I've read the relevant chapter of Escape Velocity about
50 times and I just *do not see* where the narrative slips invisibly
between third-person (the standard voice of all novel writing and, I
thought, the usual voice in all DW novels) into
first-person-referring-to-himself-in-third-person, which for shorthand
reasons I will henceforth call third/first persepective, and back again.
As best as this old Communications Major/English Lit minor can make out,
that entire chapter is in third person.
But even if I'm wrong and there IS such a thing as third/first perspective:
1. What is the point of employing it so unbelievably sparingly?
2. Why has it been used almost solely to feed us misinformation (or
perhaps more accurately -- DISinformation)?
3. This is distinguishable from Bad Writing how, exactly?
4. What on earth could be the point of mentioning a major retcon as the
unhappening of the Time Lords in passing and then steadfastly refusing to
mention it again?
> If it makes people happy / not give up on the books, then I pitched a
> Master story to Justin for a post-EV book, and he was happy with
> the idea of using the Master (although he didn't like the book).
You're the only person besides Peter who's commented on this who seemed to
care if any misunderstanding might be alienating readers or not.
Though I know and like Jack Beven (though I don't generally agree with him
about the books), and don't know and don't much care for Dave Becker, and
don't know WDS or Ray C Tate well enough to comment, I find it interesting
that all five of us are having similar misunderstandings with this
metaplot point. It's good to know that *somebody* thinks that perhaps it's
not just us that's got it wrong.
> Jack will also be pleased to know that Justin looked at me
> funny, too. So that proves I must be right.
LOL!
Let me reiterate one more time: this discussion we're having about the
POSSIBLE retcon of the Time Lords does NOT mean the books have become
shit, that the stories are worthless or that they are filled with Bad
Writing. Indeed, I'm enjoying the stories very much -- precisely *because*
I can read them as individual entries (as Jon seems to suggest we do).
My "issues" concern only the damaging of the suspension of disbelief that
occurs when some metaplot element -- like a major retcon of any sort -- is
introduced and not handled with great care. The line in EV -- whether
exclusively the thought of Fitz or not -- directly contradicts the story
and evidence presented in TAC. That, to me, is something of a problem and
ought to be addressed.
Ed Jefferson
>> But to insist that Fitz's thoughts on the matter--and about a dozen
>> people have explained to you that this quote is NOT empirical evidence,
>> but merely Fitz's take on things,
>
>Problem is, this is NOT Fitz's "take on things" -- that section of the
>book is told in *exactly* the same kind of third-person narrative the
>entire rest of the book is told in. Unless Fitz has started referring to
>himself in the third person in his innermost thoughts, ie "Fitz was
>tired," then what you're saying is false.
>
Just because you don't understand a standard literary device doesn't make it
false.
Writing a third person perspective showing Fitz's thoughts does not mean that
he thinks of himself in the third person- it's not a transcript of his
thoughts, but a description of them- if he was thinking 'Well, isn't it awful
that Gallifrey has been destroyed.' the writer could say 'Fitz thought it was
awful that Gallifrey had been destroyed.', but in this case it isn't necessary.
The section of text featuring the lines in question begins "I wish I knew,
thought Fitz with a touch of panic." which is a followed by a short passage in
the first person effectively transcribing Fitz's thoughts on the Doctor's
mental state. The next paragraph, featuring the "not just destroyed it but
completely removed it from history" line, is a description of Fitz's thoughts
on the Doctor- it's Fitz that's musing on how the destruction of Gallifrey will
have affected the Doctor.
>I have read the vast majority of all the BBC and Virgin novels so far
>realeased. I have *yet* to notice this bizarre third
>person-change-to-first-person-referring-to-themselves-in-third-person-then-
>back-to-REAL-third-person shits (on the fly, I might add) in *any* other
>novel.
>
>Does that mean that they didn't do that in EV? No, I suppose it doesn't.
>There's a first time for everything. I can find no evidence that supports
>the theory that the clearly third-person author's voice suddenly and
>indetectably shifts to third-person/first-person conjoined and then
>imperceptibly shifts back to third-person in the section in question or
>anywhere else in the book (haven't finished the book yet, however).
>
As has been pointed out by other people (probably far more eloquently than I
can manage), it's something that features in most novels, let alone DW novels.
--
Or something...
Ed Jefferson, posting through time from 2004
"My eyes! They fit perfectly."
http://www.geocities.com/randomstuffage/
not iluvjam BTW
Lance Parkin
<stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
>Does that mean that they didn't do that in EV? No, I suppose it doesn't.
>There's a first time for everything. I can find no evidence that supports
>the theory that the clearly third-person author's voice suddenly and
>indetectably shifts to third-person/first-person conjoined and then
>imperceptibly shifts back to third-person in the section in question or
>anywhere else in the book (haven't finished the book yet, however).
>
>Which means either Colin Brake is a simply terrible writer and Justin
>didn't do a very good job editing EV (highly unlikely), or they invented
>this new authorial shifting persona narrative technique SOLELY to feed us
>misinformation (possible, but dubious and a really find example of Very
>Bad Writing), OR they intended to retcon TAC and left that line exactly as
>it was on purpose (extremely silly).
Or it means that you're not only seriously misreading the novel, but
the majority of novels you've ever read.
OK.
Escape Velocity. Page Five.
'Dave watched carefully as Anji's eyes narrowed almost
imperceptibly, a sure sign of annoyance. He let his quotation
from the pocket guide go unfinished and attempted not to sigh
audibly, knowing it would only make things worse.'
Third person narration, obviously. But who's thoughts
are they? Colin Brake's? Some impartial observer of the
scene?
Try switching it into the first person:
'I watched carefully as Anji's eyes narrowed almost
imperceptibly, a sure sign of annoyance. I let my quotation
from the pocket guide go unfinished and attempted not to sigh
audibly, knowing it would only make things worse.'
Gosh, isn't that odd ... I only changed three words, and
it's suddenly absolutely clear who's thinking
those thoughts. It's not Anji, it's not Colin Brake ... it's
Dave. The sentiments expressed in the first passage,
the one Colin Brake wrote, are *Dave's*. He's the
one trying not to sigh.
Would Anji be thinking those things, at that point? Nope. Would
a passer by watching the scene? Nope - they wouldn't
know what it meant if Anji narrowed her eyes. Dave
does, because he knows her very well.
Right.
Now, let's take Fitz's first appearance on p24.
'Fitz was fed up with the future. He couldn't work
out if this was contempt bred of familiarity or a
continued sense of disappointment. He'd been here
in the twenty-first century for eight hours now
and it already seemed like an age'.
Again it's the third person, again I'll do the same trick
to make it the first person.
'I was fed up with the future. I couldn't work
out if this was contempt bred if familiarity or a
continued sense of disappointment. I'd been here
in the twenty-first century for eight hours now
and it already seemed like an age'.
OK. Again, someone's point of view. Dave's,
like it was in a previous scene? Nope - Dave's
not even in the scene. It's someone for whom
2001 is 'the future'. He thinks of this year as
the future. It's Fitz.
Now, p 57-8.
That passage in full:
'I wish I knew, thought Fitz with a touch of panic. Trouble
is, although I saw him just the day before, he won't
have seen me for over a hundred years. Anything could
have happened to him. He might even have lost that
weird dress sense of his.
And as to his mental state ... Fitz didn't even want to
go there. The Doctor had destroyed his homeworld
totally - not just destroyed it but completely removed
it from history'.
Right. So who's viewpoint is this? Colin Brake's? Justin's?
Dave's?
Now, you'll spot straight away that there's a slip into
first person narration at the start. We're *right* inside
Fitz's thoughts, now. It's not so much signposted
as got twelve foot letters of flame and big arrows -
this is what *Fitz* is thinking. Look at that 'I' at the
start, look at the telltale phrase 'thought Fitz'.
This is what Fitz believes to be the truth. No
arguments there. Fitz thinks Gallifrey unhappened.
But Fitz could be wrong. He could be right, of
course, but for the moment, the line is one
character's speculation. He may yet encounter
something on his travels that brings into question
that belief.
'The Master ... but I thought all the Time Lords
had unhappened.'
'Did you? Rest assured it's your last mistake, ha ha!'
Now, if you're not going back to re-read any of
the previous EDAs ... well, try the technique
on the *next* one you read. Chances are it's
mostly told in exactly the same way, with each
scene having a viewpoint character. It's not
rocket science - most scenes make it clear
very quickly who's viewpoint it's meant to
see. And you'll see that most viewpoint
characters only give a partial account, because
they aren't omniscient, and can only be in one
place at a time. And it's precisely that that gives
a scene texture, and connection to characters.
Lance
Lance Parkin
<stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
>But even if I'm wrong and there IS such a thing as third/first perspective:
You are wrong. There's no if about it. Trust the writers on this
one.
>1. What is the point of employing it so unbelievably sparingly?
It's employed almost continuously in all the Who novels, and the
vast majority of all other novels. Nowadays, it's the standard
form for the novel.
>2. Why has it been used almost solely to feed us misinformation (or
>perhaps more accurately -- DISinformation)?
Because that's what narrators are for - to be unreliable. The
textbook example of that is Gulliver's Travels. First person
narration - and he's a person with very fixed views. He doesn't
think his native Britain is perfect, but he does believe it's the
standard by which other countries should be judged. What
he says is his *opinion*, and Swift undercuts it a lot of the
time - we can often tell what's *really* going on, and that
Gulliver's got it wrong. Even though we're never *told*.
Now, the third person narration of a first person viewpoint
is used to get a little bit of distance from the viewpoint
character. It's not as intrusive. Which is why you
don't notice it. It colours a book, gives it texture, but
it does it more subtly than other methods.
>3. This is distinguishable from Bad Writing how, exactly?
It can be done badly.
But good writing isn't about telling you everything straight
away. Exactly the opposite.
OK ... imagine the following.
A Dalek comes down to a planet and tells its president that
they are peaceful space travellers and they want to land
their ship for repairs.
Which is the best way to tell that story?
There are an almost infinite number of ways to play
it.
The president's POV - 'A robotic creature came gliding
into the chamber. It was squat, conical, with a single
camera eye. "I come in peace", it squawked. The president's
heart lifted in joy. He had longed for this day, meeting a
representative of a culture more advanced than his own.'
Now ... if the reader read that, they'd realise it was
a Dalek. Worse, that it was a *lying* Dalek, one up
to no good. But by following the thoughts of the
president, the reader would feel for the president,
see an honourable man making a terrible mistake.
How about: 'The Dalek entered the human throne
room. The president sat at one end, without a guard.
The battle computer warned it may be a trap.
The Dalek's targeting computer calculated a firing
solution as it's translator box told the human it came
in peace'.
Same events, but a different perspective. And we
don't know for certain that it *isn't* a trap for
the Dalek.
Better, surely, than.
'The Dalek entered the control room. "I come in
peace," it lied, utterly fooling the stupid president.'
>4. What on earth could be the point of mentioning a major retcon as the
>unhappening of the Time Lords in passing and then steadfastly refusing to
>mention it again?
If that's what we're doing, then we'd be doing it for a very good
reason. There's a difference between *refusing* to mention
it, and choosing not to. Or not to *yet*.
Lance
Steven Kitson
> Does that mean that they didn't do that in EV? No, I suppose it doesn't.
> There's a first time for everything. I can find no evidence that supports
> the theory that the clearly third-person author's voice suddenly and
> indetectably shifts to third-person/first-person conjoined and then
> imperceptibly shifts back to third-person in the section in question or
> anywhere else in the book (haven't finished the book yet, however).
Um... that would be because for most of the book it's in what you call
'third-person/first-person conjoined'. It doesn't slip from that to
tpomniscient because almost none of the book is told in third person
omniscient -- it's _all_ written from the point of view of particular
characters.
--
I'm made of steel, soul and metal
I'll be human 'til the day I die
The Count
:Charles Martin wrote:
:
:>But even if I'm wrong and there IS such a thing as
:>third/first perspective:
:
:You are wrong. There's no if about it. Trust the writers
:on this one.
I agree that Charles is mistaken about the third/first perspective thing,
but
'trust the writers' has become a real complication...
:>3. This is distinguishable from Bad Writing how, exactly?
:
:It can be done badly.
:
:But good writing isn't about telling you everything
:straight away. Exactly the opposite.
...and this is why. Are you really so obvlivious as to how absolute that
statement you just made is? 'Exactly the opposite' implies that you think
that
good writing is about telling the reader *nothing* straight away. Why should
the the reader trust a writer who appears to believe that?
:OK ... imagine the following.
If this is all some clever hoax that involves deception on some characters'
part, then I hope that it was very well thought out. Unfortunately, it is
coming across as deception on the writers' part to try to cover up things
not
being well thought out.
I can tell you right now that IF this is all some fanwanky attempt to
try to make it so that 'The Infinity Doctors' fits into EDA continuity, it
is
not clever at all, and frankly I do not think that the writers should even
be
hinting at this much less doing it.
:>4. What on earth could be the point of mentioning a major
:>retcon as the unhappening of the Time Lords in passing
:>and then steadfastly refusing to mention it again?
:
:If that's what we're doing, then we'd be doing it for a
:very good reason. There's a difference between *refusing*
:to mention it, and choosing not to. Or not to *yet*.
So are you saying that that Justin *does* have a specific plan to deal with
this that he intends to implement while he is still editor? Because this is
the exact opposite of what Jon Blum has been implying, suggesting that it
can
all be hand-waved.
There are a number of ways that this can be resolved, and I
completely
agree that it should not all be given away ahead of time. But I think that
it
is reasonable to expect that the the really bad/fanwanky/reboot/reset
solutions should be ruled out, and the fact that the writers and editor are
not willing to rule them out is very disconcerting and cause for legitimate
concern, IMO.
Dangermouse
The Count <coun...@MailAndNews.com> wrote
> Dave, this is precisely one of the biggest problems that people have with
> The
> Ancestor Cell. The way that Gallifrey was blown up seems to have been set
up
> with loopholes that will make what you say there very likely to happen.
Probably because the last time they blew up a planet without such
loopholes, it got retconned anyway...
But I don't see it the same way- Gallifrey got blown up. If someone else
fucks it up later, that's not tAC at fault.
> Maybe
> not while Justin is editor, but the next time they change editors, and/or
in
> the unlikely event that there is a movie or a new series. Do you think
that
> it
> is unreasonable to think that far ahead?
Yes it is. Things change, people have better ideas as they gain
experience... If everything was planned out so far ahead, it'd be like the
opening BBC Office sketch from the Dr Who night, or people here would be
complaining that the Doc's identity as a refugee from the 49th century had
been retconned.
> :Bollocks. They existed. They don't now. The series past is
> :the series past.
>
> But is the series past still the past of the present series?
Yes.
> :Killing someone or something doesn't mean that all the
> :things they did never happened.
>
> No, but it could mean that they only happened in another universe. Which
is
> bad writing, especially if it is just hand-waved.
No, only fiddling with the timelines could do that, not just destroying it
in one timeline.
> :How stupid can you get? A story is good or bad regardless
> :of whether it refers to one from from a year ago. I've
> :never heard anything so fucking stupid in my life.
>
> I know that you are venting here, but will you calm down a bit? You and
Jack
> are talking about two different things. You are talking about whether a
> story
> is good or bad as a single story by itself, ignoring everything else.
From
> that point of view, you are right. But Jack is talking about whether a
story
> is good or bad as a 'story within a story', which is a similar but
broader
> view. That is also a valid viewpoint, and you should take it into
> consideration before reacting.
If Jack thinks EV is crap because one ambivalent line, then fine. But to
say that a separate story later must also be crap because of that one line
is just silly.
> :>Stories written into settings that other stories in the
> :>series say can't exist is IMHO one definition of bad
> :>storytelling.
> :
> :It's just as well this doesn't happen then.
>
> If we assume that there is only one universe except where explicitly told
> otherwise (which is a necessary assumption for many of us to suspend
> disbelief
> and still enjoy it at the same time), there seems to be some legitimate
> doubt
> about that.
I think not.
--
Dangermouse
Luke Curtis <luke....@virgin.net> wrote
> And you think this make commercial sense? how many other fans have
> been alienated by the destruction of Gallifrey and the "Continutity is
> Verboten" policy?
>
Not a lot, I should think. Frankly that's well into "get a life
ferchrissakes" territory. Most readers just hope they've bought an
entertaining book.
Dangermouse
Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote
> Time Lords/Gallifrey have been removed from the timestream. It is in a
> LATER book, called ESCAPE VELOCITY, in which the Gallifrey explosion is
> RETCONNED into a "removal of the Time Lords from all history." I didn't
> have and *continue* not to have any major problems with The Ancestor
Cell.
Though some people have this problem which they do claim dates to tAC and
is confusing the thread no end.
> Problem is, this is NOT Fitz's "take on things" -- that section of the
> book is told in *exactly* the same kind of third-person narrative the
> entire rest of the book is told in. Unless Fitz has started referring to
> himself in the third person in his innermost thoughts, ie "Fitz was
> tired," then what you're saying is false.
<boggle>
Almost every straightforward novel in existence is written that way!
Bloody hell, Bullet Time's really going to screw with your mind if you
haven't figured that style out yet. (What with an unreliable narrator and
deliberate discontinuities...)
> 3. Dangermouse (Dave McIntee) -- doesn't appear to understand that TAC is
> not being attacked,
Not by you, but by Jack. I'm just trying to address several different
things.
> It's the principle of "suspension of disbelief." It's vital to the
novels.
> If you keep writing in ridiculous notions that don't make sense within
the
> constructs of the defined universe of the book, you risk breaking that
> suspension. If you start throwing away any element you just find
> inconvenient to deal with anymore, you're seriously eroding the
suspension
> of disbelief.
Like, say, getting rid of the Hartnell Doctor?
I just happen to feel that each book has (or ought to) it's own suspension
of disbelief. If your s.o.d. for EV is broken, then fine, dislike that
book. But the next book should be given a fair start.
For example, the Doctor's quite out of character in, say, Seeds Of Doom,
but that has no bearing on Masque Of Mandragora.
Lance Parkin
<coun...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>...and this is why. Are you really so obvlivious as to how absolute that
>statement you just made is? 'Exactly the opposite' implies that you think
>that
>good writing is about telling the reader *nothing* straight away. Why should
>the the reader trust a writer who appears to believe that?
No. The exact opposite of 'telling you everything straight
away' is '*not* telling you everything straight away'.
Writing is about telling a story in the most engaging
and dramatic way. Often, by witholding a vital piece
of information, you can make a story more dramatic.
>If this is all some clever hoax that involves deception on some characters'
>part, then I hope that it was very well thought out. Unfortunately, it is
>coming across as deception on the writers' part to try to cover up things
>not being well thought out.
> I can tell you right now that IF this is all some fanwanky attempt to
>try to make it so that 'The Infinity Doctors' fits into EDA continuity, it
>is
>not clever at all, and frankly I do not think that the writers should even
>be
>hinting at this much less doing it.
Oh for heavens sake. I've heard of people jumping
to conclusions, but 'two plus two = *infinity*'. I think you've
just set a new record, and it might stand for a while.
>So are you saying that that Justin *does* have a specific plan to deal with
>this that he intends to implement while he is still editor? Because this is
>the exact opposite of what Jon Blum has been implying, suggesting that it
>can
>all be hand-waved.
Justin has made very clear, in public, that this is a non-issue. We're
not doing Gallifrey stories. Is the destruction of Gallifrey going to
have implications? It has. The Earth arc was an implication, and
even a cursory reading of the books since shows that all has not been
been forgotten. Except by the Doctor, ho ho.
> There are a number of ways that this can be resolved, and I
>completely
>agree that it should not all be given away ahead of time. But I think that
>it
>is reasonable to expect that the the really bad/fanwanky/reboot/reset
>solutions should be ruled out, and the fact that the writers and editor are
>not willing to rule them out is very disconcerting and cause for legitimate
>concern, IMO.
Which would be fine ... except we keep saying, over and over,
that we're not doing reboots and resets. The books clearly show
we're not. Jack Bevan's claimed that Justin waggled his face
at him, telling him (in Delphon?) one thing ... all I can say is that
I was sitting *next* to Justin on that panel. I was listening to
the words Justin was saying.
Lance
Dangermouse
Steven Kitson <ski...@greenend.org.uk> wrote ).
>
> Um... that would be because for most of the book it's in what you call
> 'third-person/first-person conjoined'. It doesn't slip from that to
> tpomniscient because almost none of the book is told in third person
> omniscient -- it's _all_ written from the point of view of particular
> characters.
As indeed is... um... just about everything.
Dangermouse
Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote in article
<r1tL6.211632$fs3.35...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>...
> In article <01c0db40$4ec07700$7ca8893e@default>,
> "Dangermouse" <Mas...@allisurvey.freeFROMSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote
> > > You're missing something here, Dave. Page 58 of Escape Velocity
explicity
> >
> > > says that Gallifrey and the Time Lords have been UNHAPPENED, to use
Jon
> > > Blum's term for it.
> >
> > You mean Fitz thinks this happened.
>
> As I've said elsewhere, I've read this passage carefully and I can't see
> anything definitive that marks it as only Fitz's thoughts.
As Lance pointed out:
> 'I wish I knew, thought Fitz with a touch of panic. Trouble
> is, although I saw him just the day before, he won't
> have seen me for over a hundred years. Anything could
> have happened to him. He might even have lost that
> weird dress sense of his.
> And as to his mental state ... Fitz didn't even want to
> go there. The Doctor had destroyed his homeworld
> totally - not just destroyed it but completely removed
> it from history'.
See?
? In fact, I see
> the opposite: as Fitz is referred to in the third person throughout the
> relevant passage, the narration must therefore be in the third person.
<boggle>
Don't take this the wrong way, but... have you read *any* other novels? The
vast majority of fiction - including all but maybe half a dozen Dr Who
books - is written this way.
Dangermouse
Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote
> But even if I'm wrong and there IS such a thing as third/first
perspective:
Evidently you're wrong.
> 1. What is the point of employing it so unbelievably sparingly?
Sparingly? It's almost always used!
>
> Let me reiterate one more time: this discussion we're having about the
> POSSIBLE retcon of the Time Lords does NOT mean the books have become
> shit, that the stories are worthless or that they are filled with Bad
> Writing. Indeed, I'm enjoying the stories very much -- precisely
*because*
> I can read them as individual entries
I'm greatly relieved to hear that. I'm not trying to be hostile or
anything, but I do find it hard to understand how such a huge
misunderstanding of the situation can occur.
Jim Vowles
Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
> In article <alabaster-236A5...@news.abs.net>,
> Jim Vowles <alab...@capu.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <fvjL6.205259$fs3.34...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <01c0dabb$0b9aae80$cdaa893e@default>,
> > > "Dangermouse" <Mas...@allisurvey.freeFROMSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Killing someone or something doesn't mean that all the things they did
> > > > never happened.
> > >
> > > You're missing something here, Dave. Page 58 of Escape Velocity explicity
> > > says that Gallifrey and the Time Lords have been UNHAPPENED, to use Jon
> > > Blum's term for it.
> >
> > Charles, you keep saying that this makes it all clear that it
> > UNHAPPENED. Yet the book in which the deed was done clearly says no such
> > thing--this according not only to my own quite recent reading of the
> > book, but to one of the book's authors.
>
> Re-read what's said above, and in my reply to Peter Angelehides. You're
> absolutely right that in THE ANCESTOR CELL there is no indication that the
> Time Lords/Gallifrey have been removed from the timestream. It is in a
> LATER book, called ESCAPE VELOCITY, in which the Gallifrey explosion is
> RETCONNED into a "removal of the Time Lords from all history." I didn't
> have and *continue* not to have any major problems with The Ancestor Cell.
I don't believe that you can retconn Ancestor Cell with Fitz's thoughts
as the only real textual evidence. How can questionable opinion outweigh
an entire book's description of events?
[snip]
> So, is the retcon in Escape Velocity:
> 1. Right?
> 2. A Very Bad Idea?
> 3. All of the Above?
> 4. None of the Above?
You forget 0: Is it a retconn, or merely the character's opinion? Loads
of folks have tried telling you that it's Fitz's opinion.
> > Justin's
> > off-hand comments at a convention could just as easily be deliberately
> > misleading, or could merely represent one state in an evolving thought
> > process regarding how permanent this should be.
>
> Perhaps. Justin's comments don't affect my interpretation or thinking on
> this matter, since although I was at the Gallifrey panel in question I
> didn't actually hear Justin's comments. You're confusing me with Jack
> Beven (who DID hear Justin's comments) just because our positions on this
> issue are somewhat similar
Actually, i know that it was Jack who heard this; I was merely trying to
be thorough in presenting both sides.
> > But to insist that Fitz's thoughts on the matter--and about a dozen
> > people have explained to you that this quote is NOT empirical evidence,
> > but merely Fitz's take on things,
>
> Problem is, this is NOT Fitz's "take on things" -- that section of the
> book is told in *exactly* the same kind of third-person narrative the
> entire rest of the book is told in. Unless Fitz has started referring to
> himself in the third person in his innermost thoughts, ie "Fitz was
> tired," then what you're saying is false.
[snip Chas basically restating his claim]
Seeing innermost thoughts does NOT require first person. Seeing it in
their own voice does, but merely having access to innermost thoughts
only requires a somewhat omniscient narrator. And using third person
narrtion doesn't require that you are told everything, either.
> Which means either Colin Brake is a simply terrible writer and Justin
> didn't do a very good job editing EV (highly unlikely), or they invented
> this new authorial shifting persona narrative technique SOLELY to feed us
> misinformation (possible, but dubious and a really find example of Very
> Bad Writing), OR they intended to retcon TAC and left that line exactly as
> it was on purpose (extremely silly).
OR you are wrong, the technique has been in use for ages, and the line
doesn't reflect any of these things.
> There are other alternative explanations, but they are insulting to people
> who'd I'd really rather not insult because I know them to be good people
> who do what they do very well. Perhaps now you can understand my
> irritation and desire to get things cleared up a bit.
Then why the heck don't you listen to them? :)
> > expressed using a standard narrative
> > technique that is pretty much the house style for the series--
>
> I'd be quite happy to entertain the notion that I somehow missed the
> introduction of this "standard in-house style" of modifying traditional
> third-person into Bob-Dole-like-first-person-speaking-as-third-person if
> only I could find some examples.
But they're NOT introducing a new style, it's stock-standard throughout
fiction, for crying out loud. And numerous examples have been pointed
out to you--you may not have got to read those messages yet, however.
> > to insist
> > that his musings represent a greater degree of fact than (at last count)
> > four authors stated beliefs,
>
> I'd be interested to know where you got this count. I'm a little behind on
> the posts since there are so many, but looking at my dancecard I see the
> following:
> 1. Jon Blum -- believes "Fitz's musings" are absolutely correct, that the
> Time Lords have indeed been taken completely out of time, that we
> shouldn't care because there is fuck all we can say or do about it, and is
> a little fatootsed (hideous mispelling of Yiddish there, I know) that
> anyone would have the nerve to challenge the validity of the idea.
I think that's a misrepresentation (and not just an exaggeration) of
Jon's stated opinion here. He has said that there is no textual evidence
of Gallifrey being removed from time, and if there was, it simply
doesn't matter to most of hte books anyway. If your theory insists that
the existence of the time lords is necessary for the Earth to be as we
see it in the books, then assume that they are only destroyed in the now
and yet-to-come. The books are not going to be saying much on the matter
for now.
> 2. Peter Angelehides -- incorrectly believes that it is his book TAC that
> is being attacked when it isn't. Explicity contradicts Jon Blum and states
> that it was neither his intention nor his current belief that
> Gallifrey/Time Lords et al have or should be retconned out of existance --
> just that they should be blown up. :)
It isn't by *you*--others have stated that blowing up Gallifrey was
unnecessary in the first place.
> 3. Dangermouse (Dave McIntee) -- doesn't appear to understand that TAC is
> not being attacked, nor is the idea that Gallifrey was blown up, just the
> retcon in EV. Seems to be firmly in favour of Gallifrey being blown up,
> which I don't have any problem with at all.
See above.
You're omitting Lance Parkin, who's made the same point as I and many
others have regarding the use of third-person narration.
[snippy]
> > on top of the lack of other evidence, is
> > just silly. It's either an alarmist overreaction, or you just like to
> > argue WAY too much. :)
>
> I sincerely hope it's neither. I'm a bit surprised by the fierceness of
> Jon's defense of the notion of Gallifrey unhappening (and I'd like to
> point out that this is HIS term), but I'm not going to get all bitchy
> about it.
What Jon has defended is the notion that Gallifrey being excised from
history doesn't, by and large, matter to most of the books, specifically
to the books we're going to see in the next year.
> I'm just raising a concern with one element (which I see as important).
> Peter and Dave and Jon all seem to think that the element I mean is
> Gallifrey and/or the Time Lords.
>
> It's not.
>
> It's the principle of "suspension of disbelief." It's vital to the novels.
> If you keep writing in ridiculous notions that don't make sense within the
> constructs of the defined universe of the book, you risk breaking that
> suspension. If you start throwing away any element you just find
> inconvenient to deal with anymore, you're seriously eroding the suspension
> of disbelief.
Agreed--that's the principle in question, moreso than anything else. At
best, you have *one* hint that Gallifrey was undone, and loads of far
more explicit evidence that it was merely blown up. Why is one line
enough to undo everything else? You say that Justin's con-statement
doesn't matter here, but that is the only other evidence to support the
claim. Jon was merely arguing hypotheticals, as far as I can see.
> It's particularly in jeopardy when you pull basically the same
> unbelieveable stunt over and over again. We've already DONE this
> "unhappened" thing with the TARDIS, and there was much gnashing and
> wailing of teeth -- indeed, I got the distinct impression that although
> the fan community seem to like Compassion as a character, they didn't care
> much for the "delete Old Blue" ploy. So why are we doing it again, only on
> a bigger scale?
Because we need to try new things? Because once Faction Paradox--which
DID capture our imaginations--was presented, it was inevitable that
Gallifrey was doomed. Part of me saw this coming. But by destroying the
Faction, doesn't the Doctor create an even bigger paradox---because now
the Faction will never exist, even though it DID exist?
Everything about the Faction makes my brain hurt. Gotta love 'em. :)
> > Um...it's an unproven, possible retcon that may represent one possible
> > direction, but NOT the direction that will be actively presented in the
> > books, because by editorial decree, they're not to bring it up.
>
> And the reason you'd throw in "unproven, possible retcons that may
> represent a possible direction but won't be addressed or presented" after
> being mentioned IS ...??
Mistake? Deliberate ambiguity? Red herring? Fitz being paranoid? All of
the above?
Wait and see.
> What? What's the point then? Why do it? See "suspension of disbelief,"
> above.
>
> The day the Doctor Who novels seem to get silly is the day I stop reading
> them, because I won't be able to suspend my disbelief. Gratuitous things
> like the convoluted and fanwanky notions you present above do a lot to
> damage the credibility of the line and make it look silly.
Convoluted and fanwanky notions? Gallifrey got blowed up good. That's
all we know for sure, Charles. We're told extra-textually that there's a
ban on in-book answers to further Gallifrey musings. Hence, whatever the
truth, whatever implications it will have, won't matter to the books, at
least not for a while.
This and a mountain of other reasoning says it WASN'T removed from the
timelines--but we don't know what damage Faction Paradox wrought before
it was blown up, so things might have changed a bit. We're not saying
they HAVE, we're not saying they HAVEN'T. We're saying they MIGHT have.
We're giving the out for good stories to be told despite not having a
100% compliance rating with prior continuity and prevailing fan theories.
That, IMHO, is the entire reason for having Faction Paradox in the first
place.
> > I'm just not sure there's any
> > point in going about demanding concise, clear answers about what the
> > future of the series may or may not hold.
>
> I'm not sure there is either. Luckily, that's not what I'm doing. I just
> would like to know if:
>
> 1. The retcon was either a mistake, some Bad Writing, or something that
> should be taken "seriously"
>
> 2. If I'm to take this fanwanky idea "seriously," will it then be
> addressed?
>
> I don't see this as a lot to ask.
It is if by answering your questions either way, they spoil some future
plan.
The Count
:The Count <coun...@MailAndNews.com> wrote
:>people have with The Ancestor Cell. The way that
:>loopholes that will make what you say there very likely
:>to happen.
:
:Probably because the last time they blew up a planet
:without such loopholes, it got retconned anyway...
You know, statements like this are what lead me to sometimes suspect that
this
is all some crappy piss-take rather a sincere attempt at good
story-telling...
:But I don't see it the same way- Gallifrey got blown up.
:If someone else fucks it up later, that's not tAC at
:fault.
You seem to be confusing criticism of tAC with criticism of the events
leading
up to, including, and following Gallifrey getting blown up. For which the
editors are at fault.
:>Maybe not while Justin is editor, but the next time they
:>change editors, and/or in the unlikely event that there
:>is a movie or a new series. Do you think that it is
:>unreasonable to think that far ahead?
:
:Yes it is. Things change, people have better ideas as they
:gain experience... If everything was planned out so far
:ahead,
Thinking ahead is not the same thing as planning that far ahead. Doctor Who
is
a shared universe, whether the writers like it or not. Does this mean that
they should be limited by every single pedantic line of dialogue? No. But
they
should use common sense and play fair.
:> :How stupid can you get? A story is good or bad
:> :regardless of whether it refers to one from from a year
:> :ago. I've never heard anything so fucking stupid in my
:> :life.
:>
:> I know that you are venting here, but will you calm down
:> a bit? You and Jack are talking about two different
:> things. You are talking about whether a story is good or
:> bad as a single story by itself, ignoring everything
:> else. From that point of view, you are right. But Jack
:> is talking about whether a story is good or bad as a
:> 'story within a story', which is a similar but broader
:> view. That is also a valid viewpoint, and you should
:> take it into consideration before reacting.
:
:If Jack thinks EV is crap because one ambivalent line,
:then fine.
Nowhere have I seen Jack say that *EV* is crap because of that line. If he
has, could you point it out to me? What I have been seeing him saying is
that
the decision to include that line by the writer and editor was a crap
decision.
:But to say that a separate story later must also be crap
:because of that one line is just silly.
Again, I have not seen anyone say anything like this. We are not talking
about
separate stories being crap here. We are talking about the overall story arc
being crap. Which unfortunately distracts from the individual stories,
whether
we like it or not.
:>:>Stories written into settings that other stories in the
:>:>series say can't exist is IMHO one definition of bad
:>:>storytelling.
:>:
:>:It's just as well this doesn't happen then.
:>
:>If we assume that there is only one universe except where
:>explicitly told otherwise (which is a necessary
:>assumption for many of us to suspend disbelief
:>and still enjoy it at the same time), there seems to be
:>some legitimate doubt about that.
:
:I think not.
You do not think that Fitz's 'mistaken' point of view being the only one
that
is presented in the books casts doubt on that?
The Count
:The Count <coun...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
:>...and this is why. Are you really so oblivious as to
:>how absolute that statement you just made is? 'Exactly
:>the opposite' implies that you think that good writing is
:>about telling the reader *nothing* straight away. Why
:>should the the reader trust a writer who appears to
:>believe that?
:
:No. The exact opposite of 'telling you everything straight
:away' is '*not* telling you everything straight away'.
Unfortunately, that is not the impression that the writers have given.
:Writing is about telling a story in the most engaging
:and dramatic way. Often, by witholding a vital piece
:of information, you can make a story more dramatic.
Witholding information about whether the larger story is going to be crap or
not is a very stupid thing to do. And whether you like it or not, the events
leading up to the destruction of Gallifrey and the 'mistakes' since then
have
really placed that doubt in the readers mind.
:>If this is all some clever hoax that involves deception
:>on some characters' part, then I hope that it was very
:>well thought out. Unfortunately, it is coming across as
:>deception on the writers' part to try to cover up things
:>not being well thought out.
:> I can tell you right now that IF this is all some
:>fanwanky attempt to try to make it so that 'The Infinity
:>Doctors' fits into EDA continuity, it is not clever at
:>all, and frankly I do not think that the writers should
:>even be hinting at this much less doing it.
:
:Oh for heavens sake. I've heard of people jumping to
:conclusions, but 'two plus two = *infinity*'. I think
:you've just set a new record, and it might stand for a
:while.
Gee, on one hand the writers are telling us to try to think up the possible
solutions, and then they turn around and insult us when we do. What the hell
are we supposed to think about this?
Dangermouse
The Count <coun...@MailAndNews.com> wrote
>
> Thinking ahead is not the same thing as planning that far ahead. Doctor
Who
> is
> a shared universe, whether the writers like it or not.
I'm one of the ones who likes it, actually.
> :If Jack thinks EV is crap because one ambivalent line,
> :then fine.
>
> Nowhere have I seen Jack say that *EV* is crap because of that line. If
he
> has, could you point it out to me?
I'm saying that that would be a reasonable level of complaint, whereas
condemning all following books is not.
> You do not think that Fitz's 'mistaken' point of view being the only one
> that
> is presented in the books
Which it isn't- at the very least, tAC presents a different viewpoint- and
one that's a direct statement of what happened rather than a character's
opinion of it.
---
Andrew McCaffrey
You know, when this debate first started an interesting question to learn
the answer to was: "Have you all actually read these books that are being
dicussed?" Upon reflection now, after seeing people getting confused over
a writing technique that's used in over 75% of books published today, I
think I better question is: "Have you all ever read *any* book before?" ;>
--
+------------------------Andrew McCaffrey+[amc...@gl.umbc.edu]---------+
|"Star Wars is adolescent nonsense, Close|"My thumbs have gone weird!" |
|Encounters is obscurantist drivel [and] | -- _Withnail & I_ |
|Star Trek can turn your brains into |"I can't do chords. No sir." |
|puree of bat guano." -- Harlan Ellison| -- B.B. King |
+----------------------------------------+------------------------------+
Steven Kitson
> Steven Kitson <ski...@greenend.org.uk> wrote ).
> > Um... that would be because for most of the book it's in what you call
> > 'third-person/first-person conjoined'. It doesn't slip from that to
> > tpomniscient because almost none of the book is told in third person
> > omniscient -- it's _all_ written from the point of view of particular
> > characters.
>
> As indeed is... um... just about everything.
Yes -- so much so, in fact, that it often leaps out at me when a writer
slips _out_ of point-of-view narration and says something the character
couldn't know. Because when I'm reading a book I automatically,
subconsciously, idnetify which character each particular section is
written from -- and only notice when something breaks that. And _that's_
what I'd call Bad Writing -- doing most things in point-of-view, but not
having the discipline to stick to it. Sign of an inexperienced writer,
often -- see how much online fanfiction can't make up its mind who's the
viewpoint character in a scene, or whether there's an omniscient
narrator.
'Course, some things are told in first person still. And some are
altogether more complicated -- PKD springs to mind, as does Woolfe.
The Count
:> :If Jack thinks EV is crap because one ambivalent line,
:> :then fine.
:>
:>Nowhere have I seen Jack say that *EV* is crap because of
:>that line. If he has, could you point it out to me?
:
:I'm saying that that would be a reasonable level of
:complaint, whereas condemning all following books is not.
Again, I do not see him doing that either. He is criticising the editor's
apparent position, and is wary and suspicious that the line in EV was
deliberate. Even if it was not, as far as the average reader knows, most of
them have no way to know that it was a mistake.
:> You do not think that Fitz's 'mistaken' point of view
:> being the only one that is presented in the books
:
:Which it isn't- at the very least, tAC presents a
:different viewpoint- and one that's a direct statement of
:what happened rather than a character's opinion of it.
Where in tAC does it explicitly contradict Fitz's point of view in EV?
Daibhid Chiennedelh
>Date: 13/05/01 17:10 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <3B28...@MailAndNews.com>
>
>Witholding information about whether the larger story is going to be crap or
>not is a very stupid thing to do.
Setting aside for a moment whether the larger story actually is crap or not, it
seems to me that if it is, and you are getting paid by the amount of copies
sold, withholding this information is a very intelligent thing to do 8-).
--
Dave
Elected for a second glorious term as Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.ed.ac.uk/~sesoc
"I would be sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct!"
(Einstein, asked how he'd react if experiment disproved general relativity)
gregg
<3B27...@MailAndNews.com>...
> Lance Parkin wrote:
>:Charles Martin wrote:
>:>3. This is distinguishable from Bad Writing how, exactly?
>:
>:It can be done badly.
>:
>:But good writing isn't about telling you everything
>:straight away. Exactly the opposite.
>
>...and this is why. Are you really so obvlivious as to how absolute that
>statement you just made is? 'Exactly the opposite' implies that you think
>that good writing is about telling the reader *nothing* straight away.
>Why should the the reader trust a writer who appears to believe that?
Because it is or has been the agenda and belief that every great, good or
even passable novelist has followed for well over a century.
Seriously: you can worry about the authors because we were subjected to a
couple of years of utter shit in the EDB range; you can object to them
because even books like 'UH' and 'SoA' have failed to live up to the
respective authors NA promise - and the only author to do a BBC book that
betters their Virgin book(s) is PDE; you can object to them because just
because they seemed to be really getting their act together as a series,
despite the obvious problems with the Compassion arc as an arc, they launch
off into wiping the Dr's memory and personality and giving us several books
that are a direct step back to the crapness of the first few EDB years; you
can object to the direction the uber-story seems to be going in. But I
think it's rather questionable to worry about them, object to them, or
mis-trust them (or, at least, Lance) for expressing a desire to be proper
novelists. If only this ambition had been more at the forefront of a few
minds since '97.
David Cameron Dixon
(Lance Parkin) wrote:
>
>Third person narration, obviously. But who's thoughts
^^^^^
>are they?
and:
>
>Right. So who's viewpoint is this? Colin Brake's? Justin's?
^^^^^
>Dave's?
and:
>most scenes make it clear very quickly who's viewpoint it's
^^^^^
>meant to see.
Lance... loved "Father Time"... quoted the best bits of it to
non-Whovian friends in bars until they begged me to stop, except that
they didn't... grammar/spelling flame bad newbie netiquette... but
jeez Louise, particularly in a thread about grammar and bad writing,
*please*, "whose". WHOSE. Please. Thank you.
Jonathan Blum
Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Jim, that's the second time today that you've said I haven't
>read the books. What are you basing that particular assetion on?
Possibly your track record, of arguing at length about the EDA's current
storylines at a time when you hadn't read any since "Vampire Science".
Arguing about "Interference" in particular for eighteen months before
actually reading it. I know you don't think it's very important to do so,
but it's not like people *can* assume you've read the books you're talking
about...
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
Jim Vowles <alab...@capu.net> wrote:
>In article <eYsL6.211591$fs3.35...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
>> 1. Jon Blum -- believes "Fitz's musings" are absolutely correct, that the
>> Time Lords have indeed been taken completely out of time, that we
>> shouldn't care because there is fuck all we can say or do about it, and is
>> a little fatootsed (hideous mispelling of Yiddish there, I know) that
>> anyone would have the nerve to challenge the validity of the idea.
>I think that's a misrepresentation (and not just an exaggeration) of
>Jon's stated opinion here. He has said that there is no textual evidence
>of Gallifrey being removed from time, and if there was, it simply
>doesn't matter to most of hte books anyway. If your theory insists that
>the existence of the time lords is necessary for the Earth to be as we
>see it in the books, then assume that they are only destroyed in the now
>and yet-to-come. The books are not going to be saying much on the matter
>for now.
Cheers, Jim -- that's a very good summation of what I actually said,
except that I'd say "little to no" textual evidence. As I've said, Fitz
is hardly a reliable source of information on how time travel works.
>> I sincerely hope it's neither. I'm a bit surprised by the fierceness of
>> Jon's defense of the notion of Gallifrey unhappening (and I'd like to
>> point out that this is HIS term), but I'm not going to get all bitchy
>> about it.
Charles, have you read the message I posted last Friday, in which I said
"the punchline to all this just hit me"? Search for that phrase in Google
(from me, in r.a.dw, with a May 2001 date) -- I think you might need a
little clarification on what it is I've been saying all this time.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Accushla
<9dmgpo$u96$1...@news.umbc.edu>:
>
>You know, when this debate first started an interesting question to
>learn the answer to was: "Have you all actually read these books that
>are being dicussed?" Upon reflection now, after seeing people getting
>confused over a writing technique that's used in over 75% of books
>published today, I think I better question is: "Have you all ever read
>*any* book before?" ;>
Your right. I'm astonished that such a commonly used literary device as
viewpointing is an alien concept to people who claim to read books.
To take Douglas Adams (topically) as an example, read the first two pages
of Hitch Hiker's Guide. It's all very clearly written from Arthur Dent's
point of view. It's in third person, but we're reading about his thoughts,
how he sees the world, the questions he asks himself.
Escape Velocity is a terrible terrible book, but Brake's decision to use
third person viewpointing to tell the story is not something I'd choose to
criticize. There's plenty of other things instead.
Go read some books!
Happy Halibut VII
Happy Halibut II
<Xns90A0F2E98CF2Ca...@24.2.9.58>:
OK, so why did this one get posted with my girlfriend's mail address?
Hmm.
Happy Halibut VIII (who really should go to bed)
Charles Martin
edjef...@aol.comiluvjam (Ed Jefferson) wrote:
> The section of text featuring the lines in question begins "I wish I knew,
> thought Fitz with a touch of panic." which is a followed by a short passage
> in
> the first person effectively transcribing Fitz's thoughts on the Doctor's
> mental state. The next paragraph, featuring the "not just destroyed it but
> completely removed it from history" line, is a description of Fitz's thoughts
> on the Doctor- it's Fitz that's musing on how the destruction of Gallifrey
> will
> have affected the Doctor.
1. Okay, but it could have been made a lot clearer.
2. It's annoying to have a (possible)major retcon done in third person,
because if it's wrong then that approach lent it a lot more weight than it
should have.
3. No evidence was presented prior to this that would cause Fitz to
believe this in either tAC, FT or the lead up to page 58 of EV. Had there
been, we could have more easily discerned that Fitz could be wrong, or
understand why he thought that.
--
_Chas_
(non-spammers should use "chasm" at mac-dot-com instead of the email above!)
"Call me old-fashioned, but I want to read email with an email client, news with
a newsreader, and browse with a browser. A Swiss army knife is no substitute for
a toolbox." -- Kevin Craig, comp.sys.mac.apps
Charles Martin
Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
> In article <01c0db40$4ec07700$7ca8893e@default>,
> "Dangermouse" <Mas...@allisurvey.freeFROMSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote
> > > You're missing something here, Dave. Page 58 of Escape Velocity explicity
> >
> > > says that Gallifrey and the Time Lords have been UNHAPPENED, to use Jon
> > > Blum's term for it.
> >
> > You mean Fitz thinks this happened.
>
> As I've said elsewhere, I've read this passage carefully and I can't see
> anything definitive that marks it as only Fitz's thoughts. In fact, I see
> the opposite: as Fitz is referred to in the third person throughout the
> relevant passage, the narration must therefore be in the third person.
I've apologised to others, and now it's your turn: Dave, I'm sorry I
misintepreted you.
Third-person restricted is still third person. To me, that means that even
when you tell something from their POV, you generally don't contradict
previous information.
To contradict previous information, you usually go to first-person.
After having a think about what you and Lance and Jim have all said, I
understand what you all mean: that the pasage in question could just be
Fitz's opinion.
I still have issues with it, but at least we're on the same page about the
correct way to read the passage. Thanks for your patience.
Charles Martin
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:
> Escape Velocity. Page Five.
>
> 'Dave watched carefully as Anji's eyes narrowed almost
> imperceptibly, a sure sign of annoyance. He let his quotation
> from the pocket guide go unfinished and attempted not to sigh
> audibly, knowing it would only make things worse.'
>
> Third person narration, obviously. But who's thoughts
> are they? Colin Brake's? Some impartial observer of the
> scene?
>
> Try switching it into the first person:
>
> 'I watched carefully as Anji's eyes narrowed almost
> imperceptibly, a sure sign of annoyance. I let my quotation
> from the pocket guide go unfinished and attempted not to sigh
> audibly, knowing it would only make things worse.'
>
> Gosh, isn't that odd ... I only changed three words, and
> it's suddenly absolutely clear who's thinking
> those thoughts. It's not Anji, it's not Colin Brake ... it's
> Dave. The sentiments expressed in the first passage,
> the one Colin Brake wrote, are *Dave's*. He's the
> one trying not to sigh.
Yes. Notice how much clearer that is. Notice how I know throughout that
the entire passage is from Dave, rather than in the first version where
the first sentence is third-person omnicient.
I'm not saying all inner monologues should be written first-person -- not
at all. But in cases where the line is blurry, changing to first-person
really helps.
> Right.
>
> Now, let's take Fitz's first appearance on p24.
>
> 'Fitz was fed up with the future. He couldn't work
> out if this was contempt bred of familiarity or a
> continued sense of disappointment. He'd been here
> in the twenty-first century for eight hours now
> and it already seemed like an age'.
>
> Again it's the third person, again I'll do the same trick
> to make it the first person.
>
> 'I was fed up with the future. I couldn't work
> out if this was contempt bred if familiarity or a
> continued sense of disappointment. I'd been here
> in the twenty-first century for eight hours now
> and it already seemed like an age'.
I can't resist pointing out that to shift this to first-person you should
really also shift it to present tense, ie "I'm fed up with the future,"
Fitz thought. "I can't work out" etc.
> Now, p 57-8.
>
> That passage in full:
>
> 'I wish I knew, thought Fitz with a touch of panic. Trouble
> is, although I saw him just the day before, he won't
> have seen me for over a hundred years. Anything could
> have happened to him. He might even have lost that
> weird dress sense of his.
> And as to his mental state ... Fitz didn't even want to
> go there. The Doctor had destroyed his homeworld
> totally - not just destroyed it but completely removed
> it from history'.
>
> Right. So who's viewpoint is this? Colin Brake's? Justin's?
> Dave's?
>
> Now, you'll spot straight away that there's a slip into
> first person narration at the start. We're *right* inside
> Fitz's thoughts, now. It's not so much signposted
> as got twelve foot letters of flame and big arrows -
> this is what *Fitz* is thinking. Look at that 'I' at the
> start, look at the telltale phrase 'thought Fitz'.
Yes, you're right. I was wrong (or wasn't thinking/speaking along the
right track). Thank you for your patience till I got onto the same page. :)
> This is what Fitz believes to be the truth. No
> arguments there. Fitz thinks Gallifrey unhappened.
But why??
There's no evidence presented -- quite the opposite, actually -- up to
this point. Your own book FT seems to say clearly that Gallifrey *didn't*
uphappen.
Wait and see, you say? Okay, fine, I was ready to wait and see (though it
*really* should have been resolved no later than the end of the book). I
haven't reached the end of the book so I can't say, but as I raised the
issue of what this retcon was doing here Jon Blum essentially said YES,
Gallifrey has unhappened. Like it or lump it, but don't expect us to
address it cuz it's not important.
> But Fitz could be wrong. He could be right, of
> course, but for the moment, the line is one
> character's speculation. He may yet encounter
> something on his travels that brings into question
> that belief.
>
> 'The Master ... but I thought all the Time Lords
> had unhappened.'
> 'Did you? Rest assured it's your last mistake, ha ha!'
LOL! How is it you can write a good Master story AND retcon the retcon in
two sentences??? :)
My objection that Fitz's musing shouldn't have been brought up without at
least some HINT of where that conclusion came from, however, stands.
And now that it HAS been brought up, it should be resolved quickly.
> Now, if you're not going back to re-read any of
> the previous EDAs ... well, try the technique
> on the *next* one you read. Chances are it's
> mostly told in exactly the same way, with each
> scene having a viewpoint character. It's not
> rocket science - most scenes make it clear
> very quickly who's viewpoint it's meant to
> see.
Yes, I agree and I should have agreed all along.
My point, however, in that discussion was that I don't tend to get
*confused* by the shifts between third-person restricted and third-person
omniscient when I read the novels, but I did this time.
Thanks again for your time and patience.
Douglas B. Killings
> Though it'd be fun to a Giles book...
Considering that Joss Whedon seems to be on the verge of getting a Giles
miniseries spin-off (with BBC help, no less!), you might get your chance... :-)
--
Douglas B. Killings
Email: DeTr...@EnterAct.Com
Website: http://www.enteract.com/~detroyes/teotp/teotp.html
"Any fool can walk on water if the world is cold enough."
A Bigger Government is Not the Answer!
http://www.libertarian.org
Charles Martin
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:
> Now, the third person narration of a first person viewpoint
> is used to get a little bit of distance from the viewpoint
> character. It's not as intrusive. Which is why you
> don't notice it. It colours a book, gives it texture, but
> it does it more subtly than other methods.
"which is why you don't notice it" is the key phrase here.
I was tripped up by it on page 58 of EV. I am not normally tripped up by
it -- as you say, one really never notices it.
There's probably a reason I was tripped up by it in EV.
> >3. This is distinguishable from Bad Writing how, exactly?
>
> It can be done badly.
Which is what I suspect is the case here.
<snippage>
> 'The Dalek entered the control room. "I come in
> peace," it lied, utterly fooling the stupid president.'
Why am I reminded of Lawyers of the Daleks just now? :)
> >4. What on earth could be the point of mentioning a major retcon as the
> >unhappening of the Time Lords in passing and then steadfastly refusing to
> >mention it again?
>
> If that's what we're doing, then we'd be doing it for a very good
> reason. There's a difference between *refusing* to mention
> it, and choosing not to. Or not to *yet*.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting Jon Blum, but he seems to be saying that it will
*not* be addressed. At all. Because it's not important.
Charles Martin
"Dangermouse" <Mas...@allisurvey.freeFROMSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote
> > I can read them as individual entries
>
> I'm greatly relieved to hear that. I'm not trying to be hostile or
> anything, but I do find it hard to understand how such a huge
> misunderstanding of the situation can occur.
At no point have I ever thought you or anyone else who took the trouble to
clear this up for me were being anything but gracious.
It was entirely my inability to reconsile my definition of third-person
restricted to what was being said that was the problem.
Adding to the confusion was the fact that tAC sets up the events that are
retconned in EV, which can lead to thinking that tAC was the problem.
I still have plenty of issues with this retcon, but as I say we all appear
to be on the same page (more or less) now.
Charles Martin
ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
> Dangermouse <Mas...@allisurvey.freeFROMSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > Steven Kitson <ski...@greenend.org.uk> wrote ).
> > > Um... that would be because for most of the book it's in what you call
> > > 'third-person/first-person conjoined'. It doesn't slip from that to
> > > tpomniscient because almost none of the book is told in third person
> > > omniscient -- it's _all_ written from the point of view of particular
> > > characters.
> >
> > As indeed is... um... just about everything.
>
> Yes -- so much so, in fact, that it often leaps out at me when a writer
> slips _out_ of point-of-view narration and says something the character
> couldn't know.
BINGO!
And Stephen Kitson flip-flops BACK to the Chas side of the bench! :)
The problem with that passage is that we're given NOTHING that indicates
why Fitz thinks this -- or even any reason why he MIGHT think it.
Indications and evidence in the two books prior contradict him.
THAT'S why the passage jumps out at you.
Charles Martin
The Count <coun...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>
> Where in tAC does it explicitly contradict Fitz's point of view in EV?
>
In at least two places, pointed out before in the other thread (though
perhaps not here, so I'll repeat it)
1. Compassion (a time machine, remember) tells the Doctor that the
timeline has been restored to it's proper place (and that Fitz is no
longer Faction).
2. Compassion is able to stand on the ruins of the planet, which would be
difficult to do if it had been unhappened.
Father Time makes further comments on this that support the idea that
Gallifrey hasnt unhappened.
Charles Martin
jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
> Charles, have you read the message I posted last Friday, in which I said
> "the punchline to all this just hit me"? Search for that phrase in Google
> (from me, in r.a.dw, with a May 2001 date) -- I think you might need a
> little clarification on what it is I've been saying all this time.
Haven't seen it yet (and I'm *trying* to get through all the messages
about this, honest!). I'll go and have a look on Google.
<does so>
Well ... hmmm.
Yes, your tone in your messages seemed to say to me *not* that you thought
unhappening Gallifrey/The Time Lords was necessarily a *good* idea, but
that:
1. I'm silly to be concerned that a line in EV could be a retcon and
wanting to know if it is.
2. Retcons *of this nature* are a good idea if they free the writers.
I was arguing against the notion that inserting a throwaway line that
could be a major retcon shouldn't cause any fuss; and I was arguing that
if it *did* cause a fuss then the authors should address it.
I've since seen concern voiced by Peter and Lance that readers who are
distressed by a retcon (even an unintended/subjective one) should be
listened to and their concerns addressed. The impression I got from *your*
responses was "it doesn't matter what you think."
Jonathan Blum
Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
>If a book EVER gets continuity exactly right, what would we have to
>discuss about it? A thumbsup thumbsdown and then its on the next one,
>that's what.
I think this is probably the most telling comment in this whole damn
thread.
Everyone knows I'm old and crusty from an r.a.dw point of view, but there
was a time not too long ago when book discussions were about the *books*.
People talked about the characters, and how well individual books
portrayed them; they discussed thematic material, and larger issues like
the representation of gay characters or religion. Occasionally there
was even a look at _how_ some of the books achieved their effects -- a
discussion of recurring images within a book (or through several), a look
at the startling prose devices Paul Cornell used to reveal Jan's death
through fragments of scenes, an analysis of some images pinched from
mythology. They could talk about how a book put the Doctor in a different
role than we were used to, the limitations placed on the story by the use
of a specific companion, moments which jarred or encapsulated our ideals.
All this has been squeezed out by the old obsession with continuity.
To the point where it seems some people can't _imagine_ discussing these
other subjects at any length.
To be fair, it's not just the general collapse of r.a.dw over the past few
years which has caused these discussions to shrivel; it's also to do with
the sheer flood of new Who we've got at the moment, and patchier worldwide
distribution. It's harder to get people to read and discuss a book at the
same time when they're arriving so fast and so irregularly. But even
if such a discussion were to get started, it would be submerged beneath
*hundreds* of postings barely one step up from canon arguments.
Don't believe me? Use Google to look back in early/mid-'97, and you'll
actually find postings about "Lungbarrow" which *don't* hinge around "do
the Looms violate continuity".
But if continuity is all you can *imagine* having a significant discussion
about -- or more basically, if it's all we respond to -- then we've shut
ourselves in a little tiny closet at the edge of the book realm and turned
out the light.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jim Vowles
Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
> In article <1etd2wv.eh3qn3rtkvrrN%ski...@greenend.org.uk>,
> ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
>
> > Dangermouse <Mas...@allisurvey.freeFROMSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Steven Kitson <ski...@greenend.org.uk> wrote ).
> > > > Um... that would be because for most of the book it's in what you call
> > > > 'third-person/first-person conjoined'. It doesn't slip from that to
> > > > tpomniscient because almost none of the book is told in third person
> > > > omniscient -- it's _all_ written from the point of view of particular
> > > > characters.
> > >
> > > As indeed is... um... just about everything.
> >
> > Yes -- so much so, in fact, that it often leaps out at me when a writer
> > slips _out_ of point-of-view narration and says something the character
> > couldn't know.
>
> BINGO!
>
> And Stephen Kitson flip-flops BACK to the Chas side of the bench! :)
>
> The problem with that passage is that we're given NOTHING that indicates
> why Fitz thinks this -- or even any reason why he MIGHT think it.
> Indications and evidence in the two books prior contradict him.
>
> THAT'S why the passage jumps out at you.
I think it's safe to say that at THIS point, the passage will jump out
at me because it's been discussed to death.
The Count
:Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
:>If a book EVER gets continuity exactly right, what would
:>we have to discuss about it? A thumbsup thumbsdown and
:>then its on the next one, that's what.
:
:I think this is probably the most telling comment in this
:whole damn thread.
:
:Everyone knows I'm old and crusty from an r.a.dw point of
:view, but there was a time not too long ago when book
:discussions were about the *books*.
:People talked about the characters, and how well]
:individual books portrayed them; they discussed thematic
:material, and larger issues like the representation of gay
:characters or religion. Occasionally there was even a
:look at _how_ some of the books achieved their effects --
:a discussion of recurring images within a book (or through
:several), a look at the startling prose devices Paul
:Cornell used to reveal Jan's death through fragments of
:scenes, an analysis of some images pinched from
:mythology. They could talk about how a book put the
:Doctor in a different role than we were used to, the
:limitations placed on the story by the use of a specific
:companion, moments which jarred or encapsulated our
:ideals.
Gee, do you think that if the books ever bothered to try to get continuity
right, that people might be forced to talk about these things again?
:All this has been squeezed out by the old obsession with
:continuity.
No, all this has been squeezed out by the *new* obsession with continuity,
since certain clueless writers decided to draw even *more* attention to the
continuity issue by being 'controversial' about it.
:To the point where it seems some people can't _imagine_
:discussing these other subjects at any length.
They might seem like that to you, because you seem to be obsessed about it.
:To be fair, it's not just the general collapse of r.a.dw
:over the past few years which has caused these discussions
:to shrivel; it's also to do with the sheer flood of new
:Who we've got at the moment, and patchier worldwide
:distribution. It's harder to get people to read and
:discuss a book at the same time when they're arriving so
:fast and so irregularly.
It is nice to see you at least acknowledge this.
:But even if such a discussion were to get started, it
:would be submerged beneath *hundreds* of postings barely
:one step up from canon arguments.
Again, because the recent books have made this a major issue. Many of your
comments here have made it even more controversial and sparked more
discussion. It does not make much sense to provoke readers into discussing
an
idea that you put forward, and then whine and complain when they actually
do.
:But if continuity is all you can *imagine* having a
:significant discussion about -- or more basically, if it's
:all we respond to -- then we've shut ourselves in a little
:tiny closet at the edge of the book realm and turned
:out the light.
Agreed. Which is all the more reason why you and other writers have made a
major mistake by giving the impression that it is not *a* important aspect
of
the series, which is what is forcing people who care about it at all to
focus
more on it.
The Count
: The Count <coun...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
:>
:> Where in tAC does it explicitly contradict Fitz's point of view in EV?
:>
:
:In at least two places, pointed out before in the other thread (though
:perhaps not here, so I'll repeat it)
:
:1. Compassion (a time machine, remember) tells the Doctor that the
:timeline has been restored to it's proper place (and that Fitz is no
:longer Faction).
:
:2. Compassion is able to stand on the ruins of the planet, which would be
:difficult to do if it had been unhappened.
:
:Father Time makes further comments on this that support the idea that
:Gallifrey hasnt unhappened.
Thanks for the info. Since Dangermouse and I were discussing whether the
line
in EV raises doubts in the readers mind, I think that those things are
rather
outweighed by the events of the past few years in the books, which
unfortunately give a lot more weight to the line in EV, at least
psychologically.
James Bennetts
(Lance Parkin) wrote:
>Better, surely, than.
>
>'The Dalek entered the control room. "I come in
>peace," it lied, utterly fooling the stupid president.'
You know, it occurs to me that far from being bad this is arguably
bang on for third-person restricted when the viewpoint is a
low-ranking Dalek...
James
Steven Kitson
> ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
> > Dangermouse <Mas...@allisurvey.freeFROMSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Steven Kitson <ski...@greenend.org.uk> wrote ).
> > > > Um... that would be because for most of the book it's in what you call
> > > > 'third-person/first-person conjoined'. It doesn't slip from that to
> > > > tpomniscient because almost none of the book is told in third person
> > > > omniscient -- it's _all_ written from the point of view of particular
> > > > characters.
> > > As indeed is... um... just about everything.
> > Yes -- so much so, in fact, that it often leaps out at me when a writer
> > slips _out_ of point-of-view narration and says something the character
> > couldn't know.
Okay, and once again I ask who the Hell is this 'Stephen Kitson' you
keep talking about? Do I have a brother who posts here or something?
> The problem with that passage is that we're given NOTHING that indicates
> why Fitz thinks this -- or even any reason why he MIGHT think it.
> Indications and evidence in the two books prior contradict him.
>
> THAT'S why the passage jumps out at you.
Ah, no, actually, that passage never jumped out at me. I said that 'it
often leaps out at me when a writer slips _out_ of point-of-view
narration and says something the character couldn't know.' In this case
that didn't happen -- this particular passage didn't leap out at
mebecause it was obvious that the writer hadn't slipped out of Fitz's
point of view.
Ed Jefferson
>3. No evidence was presented prior to this that would cause Fitz to
>believe this in either tAC, FT or the lead up to page 58 of EV. Had there
>been, we could have more easily discerned that Fitz could be wrong, or
>understand why he thought that.
It's fairly obvious from tAC and FT that he's wrong, though. Unless Richards
has been a very silly boy indeed. Now, if the erasing of Gallifrey from history
becomes a major plot point, I will be very annoyed indeed because it'd be
fucking lazy editing, I hope EV was a slip, I don't recall whether EW was more
specific than 'destroyed' (I don't believe so, though). The evidence for
non-erasure far outweighs the evidence against it.
For:
tAC, FT, the fact that Earth's history hasn't changed, the fact that the Doctor
exists, ditto the TARDIS, ditto Compassion at the end of tAC.
Against:
A single line in EV which is from an unreliable person who doesn't have all the
facts. (and Fitz, ho ho).
A vague section in tBL.
--
Or something...
Ed Jefferson, posting through time from 2004
"My eyes! They fit perfectly."
http://www.geocities.com/randomstuffage/
not iluvjam BTW
Charles Martin
ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
> Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
> > ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
> > > Dangermouse <Mas...@allisurvey.freeFROMSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Steven Kitson <ski...@greenend.org.uk> wrote ).
> > > > > Um... that would be because for most of the book it's in what you call
> > > > > 'third-person/first-person conjoined'. It doesn't slip from that to
> > > > > tpomniscient because almost none of the book is told in third person
> > > > > omniscient -- it's _all_ written from the point of view of particular
> > > > > characters.
> > > > As indeed is... um... just about everything.
> > > Yes -- so much so, in fact, that it often leaps out at me when a writer
> > > slips _out_ of point-of-view narration and says something the character
> > > couldn't know.
> > And Stephen Kitson flip-flops BACK to the Chas side of the bench! :)
>
> Okay, and once again I ask who the Hell is this 'Stephen Kitson' you
> keep talking about? Do I have a brother who posts here or something?
He's your Evil Twin. :)
> > The problem with that passage is that we're given NOTHING that indicates
> > why Fitz thinks this -- or even any reason why he MIGHT think it.
> > Indications and evidence in the two books prior contradict him.
> >
> > THAT'S why the passage jumps out at you.
>
> Ah, no, actually, that passage never jumped out at me. I said that 'it
> often leaps out at me when a writer slips _out_ of point-of-view
> narration and says something the character couldn't know.' In this case
> that didn't happen -- this particular passage didn't leap out at
> mebecause it was obvious that the writer hadn't slipped out of Fitz's
> point of view.
I know you were making the point against me but the end of what you said
rang true ... that something becomes jarring when a character says
something they couldn't know.
That's exactly what Fitz does. He has (or rather we've seen) NO evidence
that supports his opinion, and a lot of evidence that contradicts it.
So why does he think that?
William December Starr
"Dangermouse" <Mas...@allisurvey.freeFROMSPAMserve.co.uk> said:
>> Peter, IMHO it is *NECESSARY* for what happened to Gallifrey and
>> the Time Lords to be on the writers' agenda. [Jack Beven]
>
> Your opinion is wrong. Gallifrey has been blown into a million tiny
> pieces. Do we really need or want a Friday The 13th type series of
> Gallifrey's Revenge, Gallifrey the Final Chapter, Gallifrey Takes
> Manhattan...
??? Where did Jack say that Gallifrey had to be reconstituted from
the cloud of dust it'd become?
[ *snip* ]
>> Now, if you and your fellow authors want to ignore that little
>> problem, feel free to do so. However, don't try to convince me that
>> the stories thus written are good stories.
>
> How stupid can you get? A story is good or bad regardless of whether
> it refers to one from from a year ago. I've never heard anything so
> fucking stupid in my life.
You are John Long and I claim my five dollars.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Steven Kitson
> ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
> > Okay, and once again I ask who the Hell is this 'Stephen Kitson' you
> > keep talking about? Do I have a brother who posts here or something?
> He's your Evil Twin. :)
Is he? Oh, good, that sorts some things out. I can never remember
whether I'm the good twin or the evil one.
> >[On the contentios passage on page 58 of 'Escape Velocity']
> > Ah, no, actually, that passage never jumped out at me. I said that 'it
> > often leaps out at me when a writer slips _out_ of point-of-view
> > narration and says something the character couldn't know.' In this case
> > that didn't happen -- this particular passage didn't leap out at
> > mebecause it was obvious that the writer hadn't slipped out of Fitz's
> > point of view.
> I know you were making the point against me but the end of what you said
> rang true ... that something becomes jarring when a character says
> something they couldn't know.
Mm, yes, but in this case Fitz isn't saying something he couldn't
possibly know, he's guessing wildly. And that's what it comes across as:
Fitz running over thoughts in his head, _not_ an incongrous bit of
onmiscient knowledge.
That would be something like:
Fitz was worried about the Doctor. He'd blown up his planet -- at least,
Fitz thought he had. In fact, it was still safe and sound, having been
moved out of the way at the last millisecond by the Guardians. And now
he'd slept with Sam, despite (or perhaps because of) not remembering who
she was. Who could tell what his mental state would be?
Or (slightly) less blatantly:
Fitz approached the barrier carefully. It looked pretty unstable, as it
the slightest breath of wind would collapse it: but he knew it had just
withstood an assault from a full Dalek tactical unit. What the Hell kind
of weapons did they have in there?
The Doctor was safe, at least; he'd left him back at the Thal base.
Anji would probably have found her way back too, he mused as the
Grebulon warrior slipped silently from the shadows behind him. So the
only one in danger was him.
Suddenly that train of thought became less comforting.
The knife slashed down towards his back, stopping only inches from
his exposed neck.
Perhaps this wasn't such a good idea after all. He turned back the
way he had come -- and found himself face to battle-mask with the
Grebulon.
He didn't scream. He hadn't screamed in a long time. What he did do
was say, in a small voice, 'Oh shit. Not again.'
> That's exactly what Fitz does. He has (or rather we've seen) NO evidence
> that supports his opinion, and a lot of evidence that contradicts it.
People don't need evidence to support their opinions -- they're quite
capable of leaping to conclusions. And sometimes they'll even hold
opinions in the face of evidence to the contrary -- but, to be fair,
Fitz hasn't seen most of the evidence to the contrary that we have.
> So why does he think that?
I can think of two reasons off the top of my head: Compassion told him
(which doesn't make it true: she's not the most reliable person ever) or
he's just got the wrong end of the stick. Hey, it happens!
Daibhid Chiennedelh
>Date: 14/05/01 22:36 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <1etf6qe.cwauuu1ijjetsN%ski...@greenend.org.uk>
>
>Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
>
>> So why does he think that?
>
>I can think of two reasons off the top of my head: Compassion told him
>(which doesn't make it true: she's not the most reliable person ever) or
>he's just got the wrong end of the stick. Hey, it happens!
>
the defence, her statement being that history is back to normal.
--
Dave
Elected for a second glorious term as Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.ed.ac.uk/~sesoc
"I would be sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct!"
(Einstein, asked how he'd react if experiment disproved general relativity)
Rayctate
>Writing a third person perspective showing Fitz's thoughts does not mean that
>he thinks of himself in the third person- it's not a transcript of his
>thoughts, but a description of them- if he was thinking 'Well, isn't it awful
>that Gallifrey has been destroyed.'
You know I did try to explain the difference between point of view and
narration to him, but I guess it didn't sink in, or he just refused to listen
based upon my trashing Turing and applauding Endgame.
Ray
"I'm half-human, on my mother's side."--The eighth Doctor
Colin Brake
I think I've read enough of this thread now and now a single paragraph of my
bloody book has been under the microscope long enough.
I wrote those words - badly, apparently, but let me tell you this...
It is the OPINION of FITZ that Gallifrey has been uncreated. Okay.
Like he's an expert on space-time stuff.
Ok.
COLIN
Sorry about the "Bad Writng" Charles, I'll try better next time.
COLIN BRAKE
"Charles Martin" <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote in message
news:EitL6.211761$fs3.35...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> In article <3afe2a8b...@news.freeserve.net>,
> la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 12 May 2001 23:16:27 GMT, Charles Martin
> > <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <01c0dabb$0b9aae80$cdaa893e@default>,
> > > "Dangermouse" <Mas...@allisurvey.freeFROMSPAMserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Killing someone or something doesn't mean that all the things they
did
> > >> never happened.
> > >
> > >You're missing something here, Dave. Page 58 of Escape Velocity
explicity
> > >says that Gallifrey and the Time Lords have been UNHAPPENED, to use Jon
> > >Blum's term for it.
> >
>
> Aha! Fourth author spotted! :)
>
> > No it doesn't. That's what *Fitz* thinks happened. Fitz might be
> > right, but he saw less of what happened at the end of The
> > Ancestor Cell than anyone who's read it. From his perspective,
> > that's how Fitz explains it.
>
> Lance, I respect you guys tremendously (this means Justin, Jon, Dave
> McIntee and Peter). I'm sorry if I'm just confused and am missing it, but
> due to this thread I've read the relevant chapter of Escape Velocity about
> 50 times and I just *do not see* where the narrative slips invisibly
> between third-person (the standard voice of all novel writing and, I
> thought, the usual voice in all DW novels) into
> first-person-referring-to-himself-in-third-person, which for shorthand
> reasons I will henceforth call third/first persepective, and back again.
>
> As best as this old Communications Major/English Lit minor can make out,
> that entire chapter is in third person.
>
> But even if I'm wrong and there IS such a thing as third/first
perspective:
>
> 1. What is the point of employing it so unbelievably sparingly?
>
> 2. Why has it been used almost solely to feed us misinformation (or
> perhaps more accurately -- DISinformation)?
>
> 3. This is distinguishable from Bad Writing how, exactly?
>
> 4. What on earth could be the point of mentioning a major retcon as the
> unhappening of the Time Lords in passing and then steadfastly refusing to
> mention it again?
>
> > If it makes people happy / not give up on the books, then I pitched a
> > Master story to Justin for a post-EV book, and he was happy with
> > the idea of using the Master (although he didn't like the book).
>
> You're the only person besides Peter who's commented on this who seemed to
> care if any misunderstanding might be alienating readers or not.
>
> Though I know and like Jack Beven (though I don't generally agree with him
> about the books), and don't know and don't much care for Dave Becker, and
> don't know WDS or Ray C Tate well enough to comment, I find it interesting
> that all five of us are having similar misunderstandings with this
> metaplot point. It's good to know that *somebody* thinks that perhaps it's
> not just us that's got it wrong.
>
> > Jack will also be pleased to know that Justin looked at me
> > funny, too. So that proves I must be right.
>
> LOL!
>
> Let me reiterate one more time: this discussion we're having about the
> POSSIBLE retcon of the Time Lords does NOT mean the books have become
> shit, that the stories are worthless or that they are filled with Bad
> Writing. Indeed, I'm enjoying the stories very much -- precisely *because*
> I can read them as individual entries (as Jon seems to suggest we do).
>
> My "issues" concern only the damaging of the suspension of disbelief that
> occurs when some metaplot element -- like a major retcon of any sort -- is
> introduced and not handled with great care. The line in EV -- whether
> exclusively the thought of Fitz or not -- directly contradicts the story
> and evidence presented in TAC. That, to me, is something of a problem and
> ought to be addressed.
Colin Brake
I was on the verge of suicide here!
COLIN
"Lance Parkin" <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3afe5ea4...@news.freeserve.net...
> On Sun, 13 May 2001 10:01:46 GMT, Charles Martin
> <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
>
> >Does that mean that they didn't do that in EV? No, I suppose it doesn't.
> >There's a first time for everything. I can find no evidence that supports
> >the theory that the clearly third-person author's voice suddenly and
> >indetectably shifts to third-person/first-person conjoined and then
> >imperceptibly shifts back to third-person in the section in question or
> >anywhere else in the book (haven't finished the book yet, however).
> >
> >Which means either Colin Brake is a simply terrible writer and Justin
> >didn't do a very good job editing EV (highly unlikely), or they invented
> >this new authorial shifting persona narrative technique SOLELY to feed us
> >misinformation (possible, but dubious and a really find example of Very
> >Bad Writing), OR they intended to retcon TAC and left that line exactly
as
> >it was on purpose (extremely silly).
>
> Or it means that you're not only seriously misreading the novel, but
> the majority of novels you've ever read.
>
> OK.
>
> Escape Velocity. Page Five.
>
> 'Dave watched carefully as Anji's eyes narrowed almost
> imperceptibly, a sure sign of annoyance. He let his quotation
> from the pocket guide go unfinished and attempted not to sigh
> audibly, knowing it would only make things worse.'
>
> Third person narration, obviously. But who's thoughts
> are they? Colin Brake's? Some impartial observer of the
> scene?
>
> Try switching it into the first person:
>
> 'I watched carefully as Anji's eyes narrowed almost
> imperceptibly, a sure sign of annoyance. I let my quotation
> from the pocket guide go unfinished and attempted not to sigh
> audibly, knowing it would only make things worse.'
>
> Gosh, isn't that odd ... I only changed three words, and
> it's suddenly absolutely clear who's thinking
> those thoughts. It's not Anji, it's not Colin Brake ... it's
> Dave. The sentiments expressed in the first passage,
> the one Colin Brake wrote, are *Dave's*. He's the
> one trying not to sigh.
>
> Would Anji be thinking those things, at that point? Nope. Would
> a passer by watching the scene? Nope - they wouldn't
> know what it meant if Anji narrowed her eyes. Dave
> does, because he knows her very well.
>
> Right.
>
> Now, let's take Fitz's first appearance on p24.
>
> 'Fitz was fed up with the future. He couldn't work
> out if this was contempt bred of familiarity or a
> continued sense of disappointment. He'd been here
> in the twenty-first century for eight hours now
> and it already seemed like an age'.
>
> Again it's the third person, again I'll do the same trick
> to make it the first person.
>
> 'I was fed up with the future. I couldn't work
> out if this was contempt bred if familiarity or a
> continued sense of disappointment. I'd been here
> in the twenty-first century for eight hours now
> and it already seemed like an age'.
>
> OK. Again, someone's point of view. Dave's,
> like it was in a previous scene? Nope - Dave's
> not even in the scene. It's someone for whom
> 2001 is 'the future'. He thinks of this year as
> the future. It's Fitz.
>
> Now, p 57-8.
>
> That passage in full:
>
> 'I wish I knew, thought Fitz with a touch of panic. Trouble
> is, although I saw him just the day before, he won't
> have seen me for over a hundred years. Anything could
> have happened to him. He might even have lost that
> weird dress sense of his.
> And as to his mental state ... Fitz didn't even want to
> go there. The Doctor had destroyed his homeworld
> totally - not just destroyed it but completely removed
> it from history'.
>
> Right. So who's viewpoint is this? Colin Brake's? Justin's?
> Dave's?
>
> Now, you'll spot straight away that there's a slip into
> first person narration at the start. We're *right* inside
> Fitz's thoughts, now. It's not so much signposted
> as got twelve foot letters of flame and big arrows -
> this is what *Fitz* is thinking. Look at that 'I' at the
> start, look at the telltale phrase 'thought Fitz'.
>
> This is what Fitz believes to be the truth. No
> arguments there. Fitz thinks Gallifrey unhappened.
>
> But Fitz could be wrong. He could be right, of
> course, but for the moment, the line is one
> character's speculation. He may yet encounter
> something on his travels that brings into question
> that belief.
>
> 'The Master ... but I thought all the Time Lords
> had unhappened.'
> 'Did you? Rest assured it's your last mistake, ha ha!'
>
> Now, if you're not going back to re-read any of
> the previous EDAs ... well, try the technique
> on the *next* one you read. Chances are it's
> mostly told in exactly the same way, with each
> scene having a viewpoint character. It's not
> rocket science - most scenes make it clear
> very quickly who's viewpoint it's meant to
> see. And you'll see that most viewpoint
> characters only give a partial account, because
> they aren't omniscient, and can only be in one
> place at a time. And it's precisely that that gives
> a scene texture, and connection to characters.
>
> Lance
Colin Brake
I really shouldn't have an office with a two storey drop and an open window
should I...
Colin Brake
"Accushla" <accu...@hotmail.com> wrote
Cameron Mason
Colin Brake <Colin...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9dqk9t$82$3...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any worse for me.
>
> I really shouldn't have an office with a two storey drop and an open
window
> should I...
Still, it could be worse, you could have an office with a thirty storey drop
and an open air wall...
Cameron
--
"I'm half-human on the Other's side."
http://members.fortunecity.com/masomika/
Cameron Mason
<snip>
> I wrote those words - badly, apparently, but let me tell you this...
>
> It is the OPINION of FITZ that Gallifrey has been uncreated. Okay.
But in 'The Ancestor Cell' Fitz was there when Compassion explored the ashes
of Gallifrey and found a lump of TARDIS.
> Like he's an expert on space-time stuff.
Well he would be with that wall of degrees in Space/Time theory...
Charles Martin
daibhidc...@aol.comedy (Daibhid Chiennedelh) wrote:
> >From: ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson)
> >Date: 14/05/01 22:36 GMT Standard Time
> >Message-id: <1etf6qe.cwauuu1ijjetsN%ski...@greenend.org.uk>
> >
> >Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
> >
> >> So why does he think that?
> >
> >I can think of two reasons off the top of my head: Compassion told him
> >(which doesn't make it true: she's not the most reliable person ever) or
> >he's just got the wrong end of the stick. Hey, it happens!
> >
> The latter one, I think, since Compassion is currently considered a witness
> for
> the defence, her statement being that history is back to normal.
Again, people don't just leap to conclusions without SOMETHING from which
to leap. Or is it just Bad Writing?
Charles Martin
ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
> Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
> > ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
> > I know you were making the point against me but the end of what you said
> > rang true ... that something becomes jarring when a character says
> > something they couldn't know.
>
> Mm, yes, but in this case Fitz isn't saying something he couldn't
> possibly know, he's guessing wildly.
Now look ... he's most clearly NOT guessing. He seems to know it as a
certainty. I'm not saying he's right, but I *am* saying there's no doubt
in the passage that this is what Fitz believes happened. So where did he
get the idea?
Charles Martin
"Colin Brake" <Colin...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Thank Lance,
>
> I was on the verge of suicide here!
>
> COLIN
Oh, please don't suffer any undue distress on MY account -- I haven't even
finished the book yet (so far so good, btw).
But now that we have you here ...
So what can YOU say about why Fitz would have this notion of Gallifrey
unhappening so firmly fixed in his mind when evidence points rather
strongly the other way?
Charles Martin
"Colin Brake" <Colin...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Okay,
>
> I think I've read enough of this thread now and now a single paragraph of my
> bloody book has been under the microscope long enough.
>
> I wrote those words - badly, apparently, but let me tell you this...
>
> It is the OPINION of FITZ that Gallifrey has been uncreated. Okay.
>
> Like he's an expert on space-time stuff.
>
> Ok.
>
> COLIN
>
> Sorry about the "Bad Writng" Charles, I'll try better next time.
Colin:
Thanks for writing, but I think you misunderstand me (not difficult; loads
of people do apparently!) :)
I'm *not* saying that the book is bad, or that you engaged in Bad Writing,
or that you're a Bad Writer.
From what I've read of EV so far, this is not the case at all.
We're (I'm) simply trying to decide if this ONE point of continuity is a
case of Bad Writing or not.
Because it's merely Fitz's opinion, as you state, doesn't necessarily
clear up the question.
If Fitz has spontaneously popped this opinion out into the narrative based
on nothing (and so far I haven't seen anything that he's based it on),
then as a Red Herring I would have to say it's poorly set up.
If it's based on information Fitz knows but has yet to be revealed, well
then it's confusing now but won't be later, I suppose. Not sure if that's
Bad Writing or Bad Foreshadowing.
If it's true, then that's a Disasterously Silly Thing to Do but that's
hardly your fault (is it?).
Please don't take this discussion of this one point of your book
personally. It's not a reflection of the book as a whole in any way, shape
or form -- it's really a debate about the Larger Continuities within the
book range of late and whether they are Good Things and Make Sense or not.
Steven Kitson
> ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
>> Charles Martin <stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
>> > ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
>> > I know you were making the point against me but the end of what you said
>> > rang true ... that something becomes jarring when a character says
>> > something they couldn't know.
>> Mm, yes, but in this case Fitz isn't saying something he couldn't
>> possibly know, he's guessing wildly.
>Now look ... he's most clearly NOT guessing. He seems to know it as a
>certainty. I'm not saying he's right, but I *am* saying there's no doubt
>in the passage that this is what Fitz believes happened. So where did he
>get the idea?
The fact that he's convinced of it doesn't necessarily mean it's not a
wild guess.
I mean, someone could be convinced that their wife was having an affair
without any actual evidence at all. Where did they get the idea? It
originated in their head, and they become convinced of it.
If you said to Ftiz, 'what happened to Gallifrey', He'd probably say
'Well, the Doctor blew it us, didn't he? Removed it from history. Wiped
it. Pffft. Gone.'
So you then say: 'Why do you think this?' and he says ''Cause I was
there! I saw it!'
'You mean you saw it be erased from history?'
'Well, I saw it blow up.'
'So why do you think it's removed from history?'
'Because... well... um...'
Do you actually have any reason, Fitz, for thining Gallifrey was removing
from all history?'
'Well... now that you come to mention it, I suppose...'
'Fitz, would you say you had an over-active imagination?'
--
Goodnight, America -- wherever you are.
M.H. Stevens
see things from a author's perspective. But readers and authors are
like apples and oranges. I can understand how you'd look at the books
as simply books and dissect them that way. But try to understand that
most of us go from the point of view of the TV series and how the books
relate to them.
It's no surprise to me that the book discussions are mired in
continuity crossfires. Most people who read them could care less about
the execution and more about the storyline and how it relates to
previous ones. Alot of people like to treat the books as potential
television episodes not literary exposition.
Mark H. Stevens
Steven Kitson
> But try to understand that
>most of us go from the point of view of the TV series and how the books
>relate to them.
Blatant baseness assertion of numerical superiority detected! Awooga,
awooga!
> Most people who read them could care less about
>the execution and more about the storyline and how it relates to
>previous ones.
Awooga, awooga! It's still going on! Awooga!
Jonathan Blum
M.H. Stevens <cra...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Jon, the whole point of your argument, as is most of yours is that you
>see things from a author's perspective. But readers and authors are
>like apples and oranges. I can understand how you'd look at the books
>as simply books and dissect them that way. But try to understand that
>most of us go from the point of view of the TV series and how the books
>relate to them.
I can understand that point of view; I used to share it to an extent.
But I learned how to look at things from a different angle, and I think
I'm a happier reader as a result. I can still enjoy a Doctor Who story
without worrying about how crap a previous one was -- it's easy if they
don't refer to that previous story directly, and even if they do put in
some small references it's easy to shrug them off.
You can learn to do it too.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Lance Parkin
<stare...@myhairyballs.com> wrote:
>Again, people don't just leap to conclusions without SOMETHING from which
>to leap. Or is it just Bad Writing?
Charles - you're the only person that seemed to be confused by
the line. And you've now said you realise that it isn't as confusing
as you thought.
Lance
Lance Parkin
<ski...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>If you said to Ftiz, 'what happened to Gallifrey', He'd probably say
>'Well, the Doctor blew it us, didn't he? Removed it from history. Wiped
>it. Pffft. Gone.'
The Ancestor Cell is a book in which things are paradoxed out
of existence. Think about the walls of the Panopticon - they aren't
just vanishing, they never existed. Gallifrey is being whittled
away.
Fitz thinks Gallifrey's been reduced to No Walls, in the same
manner.
In books like Unnatural History and Interference, he
became aware that time can alter. If Sam can be altered,
if Faction Paradox can alter time, then surely Gallifrey
can, too. And, yes, it causes problems and the solution
isn't obvious to a twentieth century bloke ... and usually
it would normal be up to the Doctor to sort out, and gosh,
wouldn't you know it, that's *exactly* what Fitz is worried
about on p58 of Escape Velocity.
Lance
Ed Jefferson
>Ed wrote:
>
>>Writing a third person perspective showing Fitz's thoughts does not mean
>that
>>he thinks of himself in the third person- it's not a transcript of his
>>thoughts, but a description of them- if he was thinking 'Well, isn't it
>awful
>>that Gallifrey has been destroyed.'
>
>You know I did try to explain the difference between point of view and
>narration to him, but I guess it didn't sink in, or he just refused to listen
>based upon my trashing Turing and applauding Endgame.
>
HE HAD A CAT CALLED TIMOTHY, HOW COULD HE NOT BE A STEREOTYPICAL HOMOSEXUAL etc
etc etc.
The Count
:Charles Martin wrote:
:
:>Again, people don't just leap to conclusions without
:>SOMETHING from which to leap. Or is it just Bad Writing?
:
:Charles - you're the only person that seemed to be
:confused by the line. And you've now said you realise that
:it isn't as confusing as you thought.
No, Charles was the only one who was confused about whether it was
omniscient
third person or not. Even with the understanding that it was not, the line,
seen in the context of the events of the past few years, still gives the
reader basis to extrapolate conclusions from.
The Count
:M.H. Stevens wrote:
:>Jon, the whole point of your argument, as is most of
:>yours is that you see things from a author's
:>perspective. But readers and authors are like apples and
:>oranges. I can understand how you'd look at the books
:>as simply books and dissect them that way. But try to
:>understand that most of us go from the point of view of
:>the TV series and how the books relate to them.
:
:I can understand that point of view; I used to share it to
:an extent.
As opposed to not sharing it to any extent?
:But I learned how to look at things from a different
:angle, and I think I'm a happier reader as a result. I
:can still enjoy a Doctor Who story without worrying about
:how crap a previous one was -- it's easy if they don't
:refer to that previous story directly, and even if they do
:put in some small references it's easy to shrug them off.
:
:You can learn to do it too.
Yeah, man, just take our drug and you will be happy. You should think the
way
that we want you to think, not the way that you want to think. It would be
so
much easier if everyone thinked alike, and we are going to make it easier by
weeding out and offending those bad people who think for themselves...
Ed Jefferson
>Okay,
>
>I think I've read enough of this thread now and now a single paragraph of my
>bloody book has been under the microscope long enough.
>
>I wrote those words - badly, apparently, but let me tell you this...
>
>It is the OPINION of FITZ that Gallifrey has been uncreated. Okay.
>
>Like he's an expert on space-time stuff.
>
>Ok.
>
>COLIN
Out of interest, what was exactly the point of the line? Were we meant to
chortle at Fitz's stupidity or something?
Ed Jefferson
>Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any worse for me.
>
>I really shouldn't have an office with a two storey drop and an open window
>should I...
>
Radw in SHOCKA as people express opinions about a book they didn't like.
Andrew McCaffrey
> Out of interest, what was exactly the point of the line? Were we meant to
> chortle at Fitz's stupidity or something?
Well, it certainly colours the view that Fitz has of the Doctor, doesn't
it?
--
+------------------------Andrew McCaffrey+[amc...@gl.umbc.edu]---------+
|"Star Wars is adolescent nonsense, Close|"My thumbs have gone weird!" |
|Encounters is obscurantist drivel [and] | -- _Withnail & I_ |
|Star Trek can turn your brains into |"I can't do chords. No sir." |
|puree of bat guano." -- Harlan Ellison| -- B.B. King |
+----------------------------------------+------------------------------+
Chris Rednour
>
> Colin Brake <Colin...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9dqk9t$82$3...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> > Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any worse for me.
> >
> > I really shouldn't have an office with a two storey drop and an open
> window
> > should I...
>
>
> Still, it could be worse, you could have an office with a thirty storey drop
> and an open air wall...
But what would support the window???
-Chris Rednour
_________________________________________________________________
Joey Scales, Undiscovered Bum
<3B0E...@MailAndNews.com>...
>
>Blum wrote:
>:You can learn to do it too.
>
>Yeah, man, just take our drug and you will be happy. You should think the
>way
>that we want you to think, not the way that you want to think. It would be
>so
>much easier if everyone thinked alike, and we are going to make it easier by
>weeding out and offending those bad people who think for themselves...
This is the second riff I've seen from someone gankin' on another person, saying
their trying to instill a Groupthink. And I've been here but part of a day.
What's up with that? I don't see any need for that crap. Opinions are like
assholes, everyone has one, and the collorary is if you don't use either of
them, you end up being dangerously full of shit.
Everyone's gonna see things differently, that's the beauty of it. If someone
disagrees with you, and the disagreeing opinion happens to be a quasi-popular
one, then it's not Groupthink, its someone saying a popular opinion. Jesus.
- Joey Scales, Undiscovered Bum
- jsca...@hotmail.com
Ed Jefferson
>Ed Jefferson <edjef...@aol.comiluvjam> wrote:
>> Out of interest, what was exactly the point of the line? Were we meant to
>> chortle at Fitz's stupidity or something?
>
>Well, it certainly colours the view that Fitz has of the Doctor, doesn't
>it?
How would it alter the effect of the line if it simply said 'The Doctor had
destroyed his home planet and this can't have had a good effect on him' or
words to that effect? It's quite specifically noted by Fitz that he didn't just
destory the planet, and this isn't followed up in anyway- if it was just one of
a series of things Fitz was mistaken about it might fit in. As it stands the
contradiction with tAC can be justified by saying Fitz is wrong, but it doesn't
make much sense within the context of EV, IMHO- sure, there's no reason why
Fitz couldn't think that, but it just could have been handled better within the
context of the book.
Andrew McCaffrey
> Andrew McCaffrey amc...@linux1.gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>>Ed Jefferson <edjef...@aol.comiluvjam> wrote:
>>> Out of interest, what was exactly the point of the line? Were we meant to
>>> chortle at Fitz's stupidity or something?
>>Well, it certainly colours the view that Fitz has of the Doctor, doesn't
>>it?
> How would it alter the effect of the line if it simply said 'The Doctor had
> destroyed his home planet and this can't have had a good effect on him' or
> words to that effect? It's quite specifically noted by Fitz that he didn't just
> destory the planet, and this isn't followed up in anyway- if it was just one of
> a series of things Fitz was mistaken about it might fit in. As it stands the
> contradiction with tAC can be justified by saying Fitz is wrong, but it doesn't
> make much sense within the context of EV, IMHO- sure, there's no reason why
> Fitz couldn't think that, but it just could have been handled better within the
> context of the book.
As I haven't read the book yet, I can't really get too specific, but I
think that "Fitz thinks the Doc blew up his own home planet" would have a
much different impact than "Fitz thinks the Doc removed his home planet
from ever existing". I mean, it certainly got a reaction around here! ;>
The Count
:The Count wrote:
:>Blum wrote:
:>:You can learn to do it too.
:>
:>Yeah, man, just take our drug and you will be happy. You
:>should think the way that we want you to think, not the
:>way that you want to think. It would be so much easier if
:>everyone thinked alike, and we are going to make it
:>easier by weeding out and offending those bad people who
:>think for themselves...
:
:This is the second riff I've seen from someone gankin' on
:another person, saying their trying to instill a
:Groupthink. And I've been here but part of a day. What's
:up with that?
Yeah, what is up with someone who allegedly has been here part of a
day jumping into the middle of a thread and reacting without knowing
the all the facts? Try learning some netiquette.
:I don't see any need for that crap. Opinions are like
:assholes, everyone has one, and the collorary is if you
:don't use either of them, you end up being dangerously
:full of shit.
:
:Everyone's gonna see things differently, that's the beauty
:of it. If someone disagrees with you, and the disagreeing
:opinion happens to be a quasi-popular one, then it's not
:Groupthink, its someone saying a popular opinion. Jesus.
^^^^^
And try to avoid starting religious debates.
kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk
> I think I've read enough of this thread now and
> now a single paragraph of my bloody book has
> been under the microscope long enough.
Agreed! I couldn't believe it myself; it seemed perfectly obvious to
me what was going on. You have my sympathies, BTW; what would
anywhere else be modest criticism becomes almost hysterical on a
newsgroup, as the mob descends upon its victim and rips it into bloody
chunks. Escape Velocity has taken its lumps here, but you've always
come across as a decent bloke in your postings.
Finn Clark.