REVIEW: Dead Romance (NO SPOILERS)
Kafenken
meaning when discussing Dead Romance. I'll start by quoting Thornton Wilder...
"Toward the end of the twenties I began to lose pleasure in going to the
theatre. I ceased to believe in the stories I saw presented there. When I did
go it was to admire some secondary aspect of the play, the work of a great
actor or director or designer... I was like a schoolmaster grading a paper; to
each of these offerings I gave an A+, but the condition of mind of one grading
a paper is not that of one being overwhelmed by an artistic creation."
"These audiences fashioned a theatre which could not disturb them. They
thronged to melodrama (which deals with tragic possibilities in such a way that
you know from the beginning that all will end happily) and to sentimental drama
(which accords a total license to the supposition that the wish is father to
the thought)"
Thank you, Mr Wilder, and I wish you were still alive. Quite apart from
anything else, your words sum up too many Doctor Who books.
Villains lay evil plans, but the Doctor beats them. All well and good, but all
too often one searches in vain for anything more. Is the writer saying
anything? Would this have any intrinsic merit without its Whoish elements?
Since the very first NA we've seen book after book in which the writer is
simply trying to recreate Doctor Who as seen on television. They're being
"traditional". Nothing wrong with that; it's the essential backbone of any Who
book line. But that wasn't what TV Who was like! Think of your favourite
story; was it simply a regurgitation of past glories? The only TV story I can
think of offhand in which the production team was actively trying to be
traditional is The Twin Dilemma. The best Doctor Who always had a spark,
something lifting it above the childish adventure formula of monsters and
corridors.
Lawrence Miles has always chafed at the adventure serial format of Who.
Frankly, he's not very good at it. Christmas on a Rational Planet gets buried
under the weight of all the other things he's trying to do with it. Down
simply isn't the psychological descent into hell that Lawrence claims to have
been aiming for. Alien Bodies (which he describes dismissively as a big, noisy
SF epic) is wonderful almost until the end, but there it falls apart. I
suspect Lawrence got bored and gave up on trying to sustain the action. It's
just not what he's interested in.
What does Lawrence want? What is his philosophy of writing? To find out, read
Dead Romance. It's almost a textbook on the subject.
Remember Thornton Wilder's definition of melodrama? It fits most Doctor Who to
a tee... but not Dead Romance. This book deals with appalling possibilities
and makes it explicit right from the beginning that tragedy is inevitable.
Everything will go spectacularly arse over tit and our faces will be rubbed in
the horror. This story isn't even slightly cosy or comfortable. There are no
corridors; no black-clad villains. By any definition, this isn't an adventure.
Kate Orman comes in for special ire (see my postscript for details). It's easy
to criticise the bad melodrama of Terrance Dicks or Gary Russell, but I think
Lawrence's point is that Kate writes good melodrama. Her books are very
popular and rightly so, but she's doing basically the same stuff as her less
talented peers. It's better, not different.
Readers expecting a happy runaround will find Dead Romance a shock. Lawrence
isn't even slightly interested in action and dramatic confrontations. This is
too explicitly stated even to be called a subtext. When his heroine eventually
does something heroic, Lawrence apologises! He talks about where the end of
the story "should be", before going on to something completely different. This
is a proper novel, make no mistake. It's not action-adventure; it's not a
transcribed TV episode.
There is of course the controversial author's note, in which Lawrence claims
that his Virgin and BBC books don't take place in the same universe. I for one
am very grateful that he stated this, since a reader without this at the back
of their mind would probably come away in a state of shock. To put it crudely,
Lawrence Miles takes the Whoniverse by the nuts, scrunches it into a ball and
throws it away. It's exhilarating and thought-provoking, but I don't think the
BBC line could long survive many books like this. Virgin, however, is charging
delightedly down this path and good luck to them.
And of course, if you believe in a near-infinity of parallel universes, then
you can doubtless accommodate the BBC and Virgin continuities without pain.
(Not to mention every other fictional universe that's ever seen print, but
let's not go there.)
But enough about writing philosophy. I'd better talk a bit more about the
book...
The scale is magnificent. Lawrence's earlier books were characterised by their
throwaway ideas, rewriting the Whoniverse in a million little ways - some
dazzling, some irritating. Dead Romance ups the ante, rewriting the Whoniverse
in a million gigantic ways. Lawrence Miles has spread his wings and I really
don't think he could go back to his old ways again.
The main character isn't very strongly characterised; she's of her historical
period, but not much more. Dave Stone used the first-person narrative format
more successfully in The Mary-Sue Extrusion (though Lawrence largely avoids the
classic first-person dangers into which Dave Stone gleefully plunged,
head-first).
There's a lot of discussion and philosophising which might have become
terminally indigestible if Lawrence hadn't had the bright idea of dividing the
book into about 350 numbered mini-sections. It's easier to read just a bit
longer when you know there's a possible stopping point on almost every page.
Horrible things happen, so nasty that I feel confident in predicting violent
reactions from many readers. I won't elaborate for fear of spoilers, but a
certain character's emotional trauma is the main thing one takes away from this
book. That and the amazing ideas, of course.
Is it a good book? In the end, yes, though it's a shock to the system. It's
world-shaking, or even universe-shaking if such a description exists. It's a
violent attack on the melodrama conventions of Doctor Who, but that's just
Lawrence's private agenda and not what most readers will remember afterward.
Do I agree with what it says? To an extent, yes. Traditional adventure must
always be the backbone of Doctor Who and rhetorical fervour makes Lawrence
overstate his case, but he has a point. There are alternatives to mindless
action. Variety is the spice of Who and I think we need far-out books like
this alongside the more regular fodder.
With caution, I'd recommend Dead Romance. If you read Doctor Who for the
whizzes and bangs, be warned that it's meant to stimulate the brain, not the
adrenaline. The ideas are jaw-dropping, if possibly a little impenetrable to
non-fans. IMO the book heavily depends for its impact on reader knowledge of
Doctor Who's mythology. It's not particularly easy to get into, but it's
arguably the culmination of almost ten years' Doctor Who novels.
Finn Clark.
P.S. SPOILER SPACE
The Kate Orman attack comes on pages 156-7, if anyone's interested.
"You get the same shit told to you over and over, the same old stabs at
rewriting history, whether the stories are set in the French Revolution or
ancient Babylon."
It doesn't mention her by name, but I really can't imagine how Lawrence could
have been more explicit...
mastermaus
wow.
Thanks! that's kind of review that books deserves, and what i couldn't
give it.
I still think his writing style lacks something, but that's pure opinion
on my part.
I still surprised more hasn't been said about this book, considering
it's 'nut-wrangling' approach to the Universe; possibly the lack of
availability in the states might be the problem... i think it was just
released
maus
<didn't get the orman bit either ;) >
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
William December Starr
have a simple answer):
So far I've been reading the New Adventures in order, with a few
"people are saying such interesting things about this book that I'm
going to read it right now" exceptions. Right now, I'm reading --
skimming, actually -- Parasite by Jim Mortimore, which puts me over 25
books short of even reaching the Great Divide and 40-mumble away from
Dead Romance. So, the question: Can I read Dead Romance right now and
be sufficiently clueful regarding back-story, references, etc., or is
there a whole pile of books I'd have to go through first to really
understand/appreciate it?
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Kafenken
> wow.
> Thanks! that's kind of review that books deserves,
You know how to say all the right things! :-)
> and what i couldn't give it.
Hey, don't put yourself down! I earmarked your discussion with Richard Jones
for further reading and I'm very glad I did. It's brimming with spoilers, of
course, but for anyone who's read the book it's absolutely fascinating. Anyone
reading this can Dejanews for "Dead Romance Review - Spoilers".
Finn Clark.
Kafenken
> Can I read Dead Romance right now and be sufficiently clueful
> regarding back-story, references, etc., or is there a whole pile of
> books I'd have to go through first to really understand/appreciate it?
Nah, I'd say you can read it now. It's the latest instalment of the gods
storyline which began with Down, Where Angels Fear and Mary-Sue Extrusion...
but I don't think they're required to understand this story at all.
In fact, reading this will probably enhance your enjoyment of those earlier
books when you finally reach them. It's certainly answered one or two
questions I had about Where Angels Fear.
Probably the main thing you'd lose by reading it now is that you haven't yet
met Chris Cwej. The dear old lunk is a big player in Dead Romance and knowing
what he's like is important for quite a bit of the novel's impact. However if
you've been hanging around on RADW for any time, you've probably picked up a
reasonable mental image of him - enough to run with, anyway. If you think
that's true, then go for it. Read the bugger!
Finn Clark.
mastermaus
kafe...@aol.com (Kafenken) wrote:
> mastermaus wrote:
>
> > wow.
> > Thanks! that's kind of review that books deserves,
Well, after the work miles did on the cast of the Benny's (thankfully B
and Wosley aren't really an issue) i shudder to think what will happen
in Interference...
<shuddering being a good thing, well it must be cause I haven't bought a
bbc book since Infinity Docs <bad shudder> and i _must_ buy
interference>
>
> You know how to say all the right things! :-)
>
No worries, just part of my new personal campaign to help make radw a
brighter, happier place.
of course it took me a while to realize that people who _aren't_ from
new york actually take offense to the use of the F word.
strange world.
of course I was using 'bugger' constantly in england and had no idea
what it actually meant. now i do, but the word is still too silly.
<and then he heads for australia, and learns what silly english really
is... :)
--
David Blauvelt
Unemployed Volcanologist: Will Save Villages for food.
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/stermaus
Kate Orman
Kafenken <kafe...@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
>P.S. SPOILER SPACE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The Kate Orman attack comes on pages 156-7, if anyone's interested.
>
>"You get the same shit told to you over and over, the same old stabs at
>rewriting history, whether the stories are set in the French Revolution or
>ancient Babylon."
>
>It doesn't mention her by name, but I really can't imagine how Lawrence could
>have been more explicit...
He probably is referring to "Walking to Babylon", given his remarks about
it in that Web interview. But I've blanked - which "Doctor Who" novel is
set during the French Revolution? (Perhaps Lawrence is referring to "The
Reign of Terror", drawing a comparison with the TV stories?)
I can't complain too much - I included a rather naughty remark about
another author's work in "Set Piece". :-) Luckily Rebecca pointed out that
this could be taken as a bit rude and unprofessional, and we agreed to
delete it.
--
Kate Blum Orman <kor...@zip.com.au> http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~korman/
"I have no idea what that meant." - Dot Warner
Zebee Johnstone
Kate Orman <kor...@zipper.zip.com.au> wrote:
>
>He probably is referring to "Walking to Babylon", given his remarks about
>it in that Web interview. But I've blanked - which "Doctor Who" novel is
>set during the French Revolution? (Perhaps Lawrence is referring to "The
>Reign of Terror", drawing a comparison with the TV stories?)
Set Piece I suspect :) No, it's not the Reign of Terror but something
completely different, however many people are hardwired to think
"nasties in pre-20thC France = French Revolution"
So both references were to you :)
Zebee
Kate Orman
Actually, I have to admit I did wonder if that might be the case. :-)
Stephen Graves
Kate Orman wrote in message <7j7pt5$nja$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>...
>In article <slrn7lelnq...@zipper.zip.com.au>,
>Zebee Johnstone <ze...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>>In rec.arts.drwho on 4 Jun 1999 04:30:46 GMT
>>Kate Orman <kor...@zipper.zip.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>He probably is referring to "Walking to Babylon", given his remarks about
>>>it in that Web interview. But I've blanked - which "Doctor Who" novel is
>>>set during the French Revolution? (Perhaps Lawrence is referring to "The
>>>Reign of Terror", drawing a comparison with the TV stories?)
>
>>Set Piece I suspect :) No, it's not the Reign of Terror but something
>>completely different, however many people are hardwired to think
>>"nasties in pre-20thC France = French Revolution"
>
>Actually, I have to admit I did wonder if that might be the case. :-)
It might have been "Man in the Velvet Mask" which was set immediately after
the Revolution, and was about rewriting history.
SG
Kate Orman
read Benny's remarks on page 156-7 for myself. (I'm looking forward to
reading the whole novel.)
The context makes Lawrence's intentions a lot clearer. Here's the quote:
"I keep thinking about all those Barbara Cartland novels... Full of shy,
good-hearted, blushing Victorian gentlemen, making nervous passes at noble
and free-minded heroines. Never mind the fact that Victorian gentlemen
were nothing but misogyny and VD, never mind the fact that they spent most
of their time beating up their wives and hanging around male brothels. You
get the same shit told to you over and over, the same old stabs at
re-writing history, whether the stories are set in the French Revolution
or Ancient Babylon. You never get told about the lies, or the brutality,
or that desperate paranoid fight to stay in control when someone else gets
his claws into you." (pp 156-7)
So what Lawrence is criticising, via Benny, is a stereotype of shy and
kindly Victorian gentlemen which whitewashes historical truth. Assuming
the "French Revolution" is a mistaken reference to the Paris Commune, then
Lawrence is referring to "Set Piece" and "Walking to Babylon".
I know very little about romance novels or Barbara Cartland. But if there
*is* a stereotype of the "shy, good-hearted, blushing" Victorian
gentleman, then Lafayette from "Walking to Babylon" is probably a good
match. :-)
Lafayette's "blushing" attitude to sexuality is meant as a deliberate
contrast to the Babylonian's free acceptance of prostitution and
homosexuality. Lawrence is quite right that the Victorians were
hypocritical about sex - brothels thrived, sexually transmitted disease
was rampant. (Although I'd question the insistence that *all* Victorian
gentlemen were disease-riddled wife-bashing closet homosexuals.)
It might have been interesting to write a WTB with a Victorian gentleman
who spouted sexual propriety but didn't practice it, as so many did. But I
think this hypocrisy would have undermined the point I was trying to make
- that attitudes towards sex are a product of time and culture, not moral
absolutes. Lafayette - bookish, naive - genuinely believes what his
culture preaches.
"Set Piece" contains two Victorian gentlemen. One is a notorious
womaniser. The other is a wife-basher, whose spouse's situation is
compared with the Doctor's torture aboard Ship. If Lawrence is referring
to "Set Piece", he's forgotten both when it was set and what actually
happened in it. :-)
Lawrence's remarks seem to be part of a general attack on "romance" - not
just the Barbara Cartland variety, but the tradition of unlikely adventure
stories, often unrealistic and cliched. (Hence the novel's title.) "Down"
was a similar attack on the pulp tradition.
In my view, the draft of "Interference 1" which I've read is a far more
effective bit of subversion, because it's far more subtle - Lawrence
doesn't tell us why the books we're reading are stupid, he sets out to
show us. In doing so he creates a startling powerful story which I hope
will influence future books.
Jonathan Blum
Kate Orman <kor...@zipper.zip.com.au> wrote:
[much snipped, about the apparent bashes at Kate's work in "Dead Romance"]
>"Set Piece" contains two Victorian gentlemen. One is a notorious
>womaniser. The other is a wife-basher, whose spouse's situation is
>compared with the Doctor's torture aboard Ship. If Lawrence is referring
>to "Set Piece", he's forgotten both when it was set and what actually
>happened in it. :-)
After reading that bit of "Dead Romance", I also couldn't help but wonder
if Lawrence had gotten another of Kate's books wrong as well. The two
paragraphs _before_ the "Barbara Cartland" bit are as follows:
"I can't believe I said it. I can't believe I actually asked whether
Charles Manson, whose followers had hacked up nine innocent Hollywood
lounge lizards (one pregnant movie actress among them), might have been
some kind of alien. Luckily, I don't remember how Cwej reacted. I must
be blotting the embarrassment out of my memory.
"Romance. If 'romance' is the word. Hammer Horror romance, the kind that
makes people think Jack the Ripper was a vampire or a magician or a
science experiment gone wrong. I'd say that things don't happen that way
in the real world [...]"
I have to wonder whether this is a reference to "Hummer" -- it's a common
misconception that the alien presence in that book _causes_ the Charles
Manson murders (as well as the Lennon assassination and other events in
the book). Several people, including Jean-Marc Lofficier, have attacked
the book on these grounds... seeming to miss the fact that the book
deliberately subverts this expectation, and reveals at the climax that the
Blue was pretty much just along for the ride. (P. 243)
Lawrence is right that the "Hitler was really Neebor from the planet
Vashig" routine is a grinding cliche, and a somewhat dangerous one -- but
I don't know if he spotted that Kate's approach was to confront this point
within the context of the story, rather than by breaking the narrative
fourth wall and telling the audience directly.
OTOH, it's also quite possible that Lawrence wasn't referring to "Hummer"
at all, and I'm just doing to this bit of prose what Manson did to the
White Album. :-) I wouldn't want to read too much in. But considering
Lawrence's reputation as someone who deconstructs and (often caustically)
comments at every opportunity in his books, I feel like I have to
wonder...
Regards,
Jon Blum
R.J. Smith
Jonathan Blum <jb...@zipper.zip.com.au> wrote:
>In article <7jun54$1s4$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>,
>Kate Orman <kor...@zipper.zip.com.au> wrote:
>[much snipped, about the apparent bashes at Kate's work in "Dead Romance"]
>>"Set Piece" contains two Victorian gentlemen. One is a notorious
>>womaniser. The other is a wife-basher, whose spouse's situation is
>>compared with the Doctor's torture aboard Ship. If Lawrence is referring
>>to "Set Piece", he's forgotten both when it was set and what actually
>>happened in it. :-)
Of course, considering what the book's all about, this might just be
deliberate! :-)
>After reading that bit of "Dead Romance", I also couldn't help but wonder
>if Lawrence had gotten another of Kate's books wrong as well. The two
>paragraphs _before_ the "Barbara Cartland" bit are as follows:
>"I can't believe I said it. I can't believe I actually asked whether
>Charles Manson, whose followers had hacked up nine innocent Hollywood
>lounge lizards (one pregnant movie actress among them), might have been
>some kind of alien. Luckily, I don't remember how Cwej reacted. I must
>be blotting the embarrassment out of my memory.
>"Romance. If 'romance' is the word. Hammer Horror romance, the kind that
>makes people think Jack the Ripper was a vampire or a magician or a
>science experiment gone wrong. I'd say that things don't happen that way
>in the real world [...]"
>I have to wonder whether this is a reference to "Hummer" -- it's a common
>misconception that the alien presence in that book _causes_ the Charles
>Manson murders (as well as the Lennon assassination and other events in
>the book). Several people, including Jean-Marc Lofficier, have attacked
>the book on these grounds... seeming to miss the fact that the book
>deliberately subverts this expectation, and reveals at the climax that the
>Blue was pretty much just along for the ride. (P. 243)
Of the three suspicions here, only WtB rings right for me. When I read the
"Jack the Ripper as a magician" bit, my first thought was the original
Trek episode, Wolf in the Fold. I can just about see how you might twist
it as Hummer, but it takes quite some doing and I'm not convinced that's
it at all.
BTW, for anyone thinking about the picking up book, don't let these
discussions, or the fact that it's a Benny book put you off reading it.
I'm 2/3 through and thus far it's one of the greatest pieces of Doctor Who
fiction I've ever read!
- Robert Smith?
Jonathan Blum
R.J. Smith <smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA> wrote:
>Of the three suspicions here, only WtB rings right for me. When I read the
>"Jack the Ripper as a magician" bit, my first thought was the original
>Trek episode, Wolf in the Fold.
Possibly -- it could also fit everything from "Weng Chiang" to
"Birthright". But it was the "Charles Manson was possessed" bit, as
opposed to the Jack the Ripper bit, is what made me think of "Hummer".
Regards,
Jon Blum
Dangermouse
R.J. Smith <smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA> wrote
> Of the three suspicions here, only WtB rings right for me. When I read
the
> "Jack the Ripper as a magician" bit, my first thought was the original
> Trek episode, Wolf in the Fold.
No, that was Jack the Ripper as disembodied alien possessing someone. I
suspect here Lawrence is referring to the real-life theory that the murders
were committed by someone trying out black magic. I forget the name of the
book that proposes this, but it was non-fiction.
Either that or he's talking about The Pit.
--
"This path has been placed before you; the choice to take it is yours
alone"
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/4845/
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Bistro/7312/
Stephen Graves
Dangermouse wrote in message <01beb64f$4bec46c0$LocalHost@lgwujvnl>...
>
>
>R.J. Smith <smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA> wrote
>> Of the three suspicions here, only WtB rings right for me. When I read
>the
>> "Jack the Ripper as a magician" bit, my first thought was the original
>> Trek episode, Wolf in the Fold.
>
>No, that was Jack the Ripper as disembodied alien possessing someone. I
>suspect here Lawrence is referring to the real-life theory that the murders
>were committed by someone trying out black magic. I forget the name of the
>book that proposes this, but it was non-fiction.
>
>Either that or he's talking about The Pit.
Or Matrix.
SG
Dangermouse
Stephen Graves <Stephen...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> >No, that was Jack the Ripper as disembodied alien possessing someone. I
> >suspect here Lawrence is referring to the real-life theory that the
murders
> >were committed by someone trying out black magic. I forget the name of
the
> >book that proposes this, but it was non-fiction.
> >
> >Either that or he's talking about The Pit.
>
>
> Or Matrix.
Unlikely - Dead Romance would have been written before Matrix actually hit
the shops, I suspect.
--
"This path has been placed before you; the choice to take it is yours
alone"
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/4845/
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Bistro/7312/
-------
Kate Orman
R.J. Smith <smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA> wrote:
>Of the three suspicions here, only WtB rings right for me.
Benny is chatted up by a Victorian gent in "Set Piece", which makes me
think the "French Revolution" bit is probably referring to SP. Although
Denon is far from a shy, blushing gentleman - the first time we see him,
he's painting Benny in the nude. (And she's not wearing anything either,
boom boom. :-)
>BTW, for anyone thinking about the picking up book, don't let these
>discussions, or the fact that it's a Benny book put you off reading it.
Amen. Lawrences' stuff is always thought-provoking - I'm looking forward
to giving "Dead Romance" a proper read.
Lance Parkin
<mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
>
>
>Stephen Graves <Stephen...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> >
>> >No, that was Jack the Ripper as disembodied alien possessing someone. I
>> >suspect here Lawrence is referring to the real-life theory that the
>murders
>> >were committed by someone trying out black magic. I forget the name of
>the
>> >book that proposes this, but it was non-fiction.
>> >
>> >Either that or he's talking about The Pit.
>>
>>
>> Or Matrix.
>
>Unlikely - Dead Romance would have been written before Matrix actually hit
>the shops, I suspect.
Lawrence knew what happened in Matrix in January 98, six months
before Dead Romance was commissioned. Steve Cole took a few
of us (including Kate and Jon) out for lunch, and Lawrence spent a
great deal of time telling him just how annoyed he was that someone
was doing a Ripper book (Lawrence is something of a Ripper
expert).
Lance
Dangermouse
Lance Parkin <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
> Lawrence knew what happened in Matrix in January 98, six months
> before Dead Romance was commissioned. Steve Cole took a few
> of us (including Kate and Jon) out for lunch, and Lawrence spent a
> great deal of time telling him just how annoyed he was that someone
> was doing a Ripper book (Lawrence is something of a Ripper
> expert).
Still no reason to stop Lawrence doing a Ripper book - by definition
Matrix's very title indicates that it isn't in the "real" world, so...
R.J. Smith
Jonathan Blum <jb...@zipper.zip.com.au> wrote:
>In article <7k20ek$g...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA>,
>R.J. Smith <smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA> wrote:
>>"Jack the Ripper as a magician" bit, my first thought was the original
>>Trek episode, Wolf in the Fold.
>Possibly -- it could also fit everything from "Weng Chiang" to
>"Birthright". But it was the "Charles Manson was possessed" bit, as
>opposed to the Jack the Ripper bit, is what made me think of "Hummer".
I've now finished the book (it was absolutely amazing!) and a few pages
after the Babylon bit, he has a (very, very amusing) go at Edge of
Destruction as well (which is absolutely incredible, because he manages
to poke entirely-deserved fun at it, yet also seamlessly comes up with a
way that it all makes sense). Given Miles' obvious fascination with the
Hartnell era (see, um, every single page in Christmas on a Rational
Planet, for example), I think the French revolution stuff might well be
the Hartnell serial, not Set Piece.
- Robert Smith?
Dave Owen
experience that Dead Romance was the best thing I've read all year. Perhaps
because it ties in with my view of Doctor Who fiction as something I used to
almost live in but can now roll up into a ball and throw into the bin, and
only visit occasionally.
And boy, Lawrence Miles must take lots of cocaine and have lots of sex. And
have possibly dozens of ovaries.
Dave.