The Shadows of Avalon
Paul Cornell
wanted to clear up a couple of things.
Yes, Avalon will provide a proper ending to the Interference arc, but it
won't clear up *all* your questions, mainly because it'll send the TARDIS
crew off in a new direction which will work out several novels down the line
(not an arc plot, just a new factor in their lives). However, it should
demonstrate that we still have all the answers in mind and are still on the
right track. And, incidentally, it provides a little more background to the
events of The Blue Angel and a couple of the other books in the arc. I like
to think of it as a satisfying conclusion, and I'm happy for people to judge
it on those terms: just don't expect 'all the answers' like we all did for
the end of Babylon 5! There are quite a few, just not all!
Mind you, and this is what really worries me, it's an incredibly
traditional piece of Who, my closest approach to Terrance (in terms of
style) ever. I've been delighted with the radicalism of books like The Blue
Angel, but one of the nice things I think this arc does is find how the
traditions slot into good storytelling, in much the same way we used to do
at Virgin. Personally, I like the fact that we end on an old-fashioned note,
but if you're expecting another Interference you'll be disappointed.
And yes, as someone very perceptive noted in this group before I
rejoined it, I do find hope where there wasn't any before, and the overall
tone is very positive.
Ian Mond
Paul Cornell <paulc...@owlservice.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7ssd3h$ava$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I've become a little worried about the power of expectation, and I just
> wanted to clear up a couple of things.
> Yes, Avalon will provide a proper ending to the Interference arc, but
it
> won't clear up *all* your questions, mainly because it'll send the TARDIS
> crew off in a new direction which will work out several novels down the
line
> (not an arc plot, just a new factor in their lives). However, it should
> demonstrate that we still have all the answers in mind and are still on
the
> right track. And, incidentally, it provides a little more background to
the
> events of The Blue Angel and a couple of the other books in the arc. I
like
> to think of it as a satisfying conclusion, and I'm happy for people to
judge
> it on those terms: just don't expect 'all the answers' like we all did for
> the end of Babylon 5! There are quite a few, just not all!
Good.
IMHO what the EDA's needed was a shake-up . . . the first two books of the
arc have definitely done that.
And it would be silly if Shadows answered everyone's questions and then
pressed the reset button . . . Doctor Who needs to grow and hopefully the
arc will facilitate that process.
As long as someone out there knows all the answers, and as long as those
answers are actually written down so that if -- God forbid -- said person
should die those answers don't die with him/her . . . I'm a happy little
munchkin.
Seeya
Ian
--
"This is fucked, no money, no weed, and its all been
replaced by a pile of corpses."
5th Dr at the end of Warriors from the Deep
STEVEN MOFFAT
to the stars, me) and it's terribly good. And definitely
canonitous.
I added "Long ago in an English January" in biro at the
end. So he's got eleven more books to go now.
Steven Moffat
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Zygon Curry
>
> Just to boast a bit, I've already read it (oh, yes - friend
> to the stars, me) and it's terribly good. And definitely
> canonitous.
>
> I added "Long ago in an English January" in biro at the
> end. So he's got eleven more books to go now.
Your Evil!!!! :)
Regards,
Zygon Curry.
Si Jerram
What about his Evil?
Steven, how long have you owned an Evil? Is it any good?
--
Simon Jerram Email:si...@telos.clara.co.uk
Life keeps getting complicated.
Daniel Frankham
>Zygon Curry wrote:
>> Your Evil!!!! :)
>
>What about his Evil?
>Steven, how long have you owned an Evil? Is it any good?
Your evil is my good.
--
Daniel Frankham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We love television because television brings us a world in which
television does not exist. In fact, deep in their hearts, this is what
the spuds crave most: a rich, new, participatory life.
(Barbara Ehrenreich)
David Brider
<01dfed54...@usw-ex0106-041.remarq.com>...
>Just to boast a bit, I've already read it (oh, yes - friend
>to the stars, me) and it's terribly good. And definitely
>canonitous.
>
>I added "Long ago in an English January" in biro at the
>end. So he's got eleven more books to go now.
Tch, I dunno, as if Curse of Fatal Death wasn't bad enough, he goes and
inflicts a potential twelve-book sequence of Cornell books on us...you're
gonna get lynched when you start guesting at conventions, y'know?!
;op
David.
--
This week I have been mostly reading: "City at World's End" by Christopher
Bulis.
http://www.dwjbrider.freeserve.co.uk/homepage.htm
Dr. Evil
Si Jerram wrote:
>
> Zygon Curry wrote:
> > STEVEN MOFFAT wrote:
>
> > > Just to boast a bit, I've already read it (oh, yes - friend
> > > to the stars, me) and it's terribly good. And definitely
> > > canonitous.
>
> > > I added "Long ago in an English January" in biro at the
> > > end. So he's got eleven more books to go now.
>
> > Your Evil!!!! :)
>
> What about his Evil?
> Steven, how long have you owned an Evil? Is it any good?
I've been a possession of Mr. Moffat for 40 years now, but I
can't say I've enjoyed the association.
And he still won't let me read his proof copy of Shadows of
Avalon.
--
dr-...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk
If you want a friend, feed any animal
http://www.belisarius.freeserve.co.uk/
M.H. Stevens
>
> IMHO what the EDA's needed was a shake-up . . .
No they do not!!!!!!!
> the first two books of the
> arc have definitely done that.
>
Unfortunately
>
> And it would be silly if Shadows answered everyone's questions and then
> pressed the reset button . . . Doctor Who needs to grow and hopefully the
> arc will facilitate that process.
>
A tripping of the reset switch is clearly indicated by Interference...........
M.H. Stevens
Paul Cornell wrote:
> I've become a little worried about the power of expectation, and I just
> wanted to clear up a couple of things.
> Yes, Avalon will provide a proper ending to the Interference arc, but it
> won't clear up *all* your questions, mainly because it'll send the TARDIS
> crew off in a new direction which will work out several novels down the line
> (not an arc plot, just a new factor in their lives). However, it should
> demonstrate that we still have all the answers in mind and are still on the
> right track. And, incidentally, it provides a little more background to the
> events of The Blue Angel and a couple of the other books in the arc. I like
> to think of it as a satisfying conclusion, and I'm happy for people to judge
> it on those terms: just don't expect 'all the answers' like we all did for
> the end of Babylon 5! There are quite a few, just not all!
> Mind you, and this is what really worries me, it's an incredibly
> traditional piece of Who, my closest approach to Terrance (in terms of
> style) ever. I've been delighted with the radicalism of books like The Blue
> Angel, but one of the nice things I think this arc does is find how the
> traditions slot into good storytelling, in much the same way we used to do
> at Virgin. Personally, I like the fact that we end on an old-fashioned note,
> but if you're expecting another Interference you'll be disappointed.
> And yes, as someone very perceptive noted in this group before I
> rejoined it, I do find hope where there wasn't any before, and the overall
> tone is very positive.
I don't car about the rest of the questions that will pop up , I just want the
regeneration business put back the way it was and for all of these authors to
leave well enough alone.................
Mark H. Stevens
John Pettigrew
and fluffy "M.H. Stevens" <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> massaged the
keyboard erotically and blessed us all with this:
Why?
Personally, I find the whole paradox fascinating! Just because
Interference makes out that Planet of the Spiders didn't play out the
way it did before (or maybe didn't now happen at all) doesn't mean
that you or I can't watch or read that story in Real Life.
If you think about it, a Time Lord, especially a Time Lord with such a
bizarre existence as the Doctor has is almost inevitably going to face
this sort of thing at some stage in his lives.
Having an established adventure rewritten is just as much a Big Deal
as meeting a different incarnation of himself, having a thrilling
adventure in time and space and then not remembering the experience
before the adventure comes round again from his other perspective.
I think it's good that the authors are trying something interesting
and groovy.
Daniel Frankham
>On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 03:59:44 -0500, the wonderfully sexy, delicious
>and fluffy "M.H. Stevens" <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> massaged the
>keyboard erotically and blessed us all with this:
>>I don't car about the rest of the questions that will pop up , I just want the
>>regeneration business put back the way it was and for all of these authors to
>>leave well enough alone.................
>
>Why?
>Personally, I find the whole paradox fascinating! Just because
>Interference makes out that Planet of the Spiders didn't play out the
>way it did before (or maybe didn't now happen at all) doesn't mean
>that you or I can't watch or read that story in Real Life.
>
>If you think about it, a Time Lord, especially a Time Lord with such a
>bizarre existence as the Doctor has is almost inevitably going to face
>this sort of thing at some stage in his lives.
>
>Having an established adventure rewritten is just as much a Big Deal
>as meeting a different incarnation of himself, having a thrilling
>adventure in time and space and then not remembering the experience
>before the adventure comes round again from his other perspective.
>
>I think it's good that the authors are trying something interesting
>and groovy.
Whar's especially interesting about the Interference situation is that the
events in a mere novel have inspired so much distress and fear and anger
in so many readers. The Doctor faces a lot of nasty things in the novels:
his own certain death, torture, genocide, war etc etc, which is all par
for the course; but now that a novel threatens *continuity* it's --
perhaps for the first time since the readers emerged from behind the sofa
-- having a real effect. For once, the novels have managed to strike (some
of) the readers somewhere where it really hurts, provoking real life
emotions. Not many books, in or out of Doctor Who writing, can claim that.
Paul Cornell
M.H. Stevens wrote in message <37F5C98...@postoffice.swbell.net>...
>I don't car about the rest of the questions that will pop up , I just want
the
>regeneration business put back the way it was.
I don't do that.
John Hutton
You, of course, realise that the implications of that sentence.
Ethier:
A) I don't do it in my book (and it doesent happen at all)
OR
B) It happens, just not in my book.....
OR
C) I have the 3rd Doc regenerating again on Metibalis 3, but fuck things
up royally in the process (thus not putting "things back the was it was").
As the old saying goes: Thanks for making that clear Paul... Clear as mud. ;)
John (can't wait for the flame wars to start over that little post) Hutton
por...@calweb.com
Paul Cornell
John Hutton wrote in message <37f63...@news.calweb.com>...
>Paul Cornell <paulc...@owlservice.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> As the old saying goes: Thanks for making that clear Paul... Clear as
mud. ;)
Well, while I want to deal with what people are expecting, I don't want to
give anything away that might harm the pleasure of reading the arc, or
reveal the secrets of other authors. Given that: I don't deal with the
matter of the Dust regeneration at all. It wasn't my assignment to do so.
And I think that's as much as I can say, because I don't want to throw out
hints or tease people.
Ian & Mary
in this one, if anyone still wants to avoid them.
OK?
John Pettigrew <our....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:37f5d1eb...@news.virgin.net...
> On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 03:59:44 -0500, the wonderfully sexy, delicious
> and fluffy "M.H. Stevens" <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> massaged the
> keyboard erotically and blessed us all with this:
>
> >Paul Cornell wrote:
[Some stuff about his forthcoming book]
> >I don't car about the rest of the questions that will pop up , I just
want the
> >regeneration business put back the way it was and for all of these
authors to
> >leave well enough alone.................
>
> Why?
> Personally, I find the whole paradox fascinating! Just because
> Interference makes out that Planet of the Spiders didn't play out the
> way it did before (or maybe didn't now happen at all) doesn't mean
> that you or I can't watch or read that story in Real Life.
>
> If you think about it, a Time Lord, especially a Time Lord with such a
> bizarre existence as the Doctor has is almost inevitably going to face
> this sort of thing at some stage in his lives.
Well, absolutely. Isn't it worth remembering that the whole point of Genesis
Of The Daleks was that the Time Lords wanted the Doctor to change history,
which would have a tremendous knock-on effect on the rest of the Universe?
The series itself made it abundantly clear that the Doctor Who Universe is
changeable - it's just that this is the first time we've seen it happen so
dramatically to the Doctor himself.
Love,
Ian Edmond
John Hutton
Oh I realise that, I just wanted to jump in and say, just coz Paul isn't
dealing with the Dust issue, doesn't mean it isn't gonna be delt with... :)
John Hutton
por...@calweb.com
PS "It wasn't my assignment to do so" ehh... Is that another hint? ;)
<Urkhart>
"You might very well say so. I however couldn't possibly comment"
</Urkhart>
M.H. Stevens
John Pettigrew wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 03:59:44 -0500, the wonderfully sexy, delicious
> and fluffy "M.H. Stevens" <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> massaged the
> keyboard erotically and blessed us all with this:
>
> >
> >
> >Paul Cornell wrote:
> >
> >> I've become a little worried about the power of expectation, and I just
> >> wanted to clear up a couple of things.
> >> Yes, Avalon will provide a proper ending to the Interference arc, but it
> >> won't clear up *all* your questions, mainly because it'll send the TARDIS
> >> crew off in a new direction which will work out several novels down the line
> >> (not an arc plot, just a new factor in their lives). However, it should
> >> demonstrate that we still have all the answers in mind and are still on the
> >> right track. And, incidentally, it provides a little more background to the
> >> events of The Blue Angel and a couple of the other books in the arc. I like
> >> to think of it as a satisfying conclusion, and I'm happy for people to judge
> >> it on those terms: just don't expect 'all the answers' like we all did for
> >> the end of Babylon 5! There are quite a few, just not all!
> >> Mind you, and this is what really worries me, it's an incredibly
> >> traditional piece of Who, my closest approach to Terrance (in terms of
> >> style) ever. I've been delighted with the radicalism of books like The Blue
> >> Angel, but one of the nice things I think this arc does is find how the
> >> traditions slot into good storytelling, in much the same way we used to do
> >> at Virgin. Personally, I like the fact that we end on an old-fashioned note,
> >> but if you're expecting another Interference you'll be disappointed.
> >> And yes, as someone very perceptive noted in this group before I
> >> rejoined it, I do find hope where there wasn't any before, and the overall
> >> tone is very positive.
> >
> >I don't car about the rest of the questions that will pop up , I just want the
> >regeneration business put back the way it was and for all of these authors to
> >leave well enough alone.................
>
> Why?
> Personally, I find the whole paradox fascinating! Just because
> Interference makes out that Planet of the Spiders didn't play out the
> way it did before (or maybe didn't now happen at all) doesn't mean
> that you or I can't watch or read that story in Real Life.
>
> If you think about it, a Time Lord, especially a Time Lord with such a
> bizarre existence as the Doctor has is almost inevitably going to face
> this sort of thing at some stage in his lives.
>
> Having an established adventure rewritten is just as much a Big Deal
> as meeting a different incarnation of himself, having a thrilling
> adventure in time and space and then not remembering the experience
> before the adventure comes round again from his other perspective.
>
> I think it's good that the authors are trying something interesting
> and groovy.
Dangerous and destructive is what you should be saying.
M.H. Stevens
Paul Cornell wrote:
> John Hutton wrote in message <37f63...@news.calweb.com>...
> >Paul Cornell <paulc...@owlservice.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > As the old saying goes: Thanks for making that clear Paul... Clear as
> mud. ;)
>
> Well, while I want to deal with what people are expecting, I don't want to
> give anything away that might harm the pleasure of reading the arc, or
> reveal the secrets of other authors. Given that: I don't deal with the
> matter of the Dust regeneration at all. It wasn't my assignment to do so.
> And I think that's as much as I can say, because I don't want to throw out
> hints or tease people.
The the 3rd Doctor's regeneration wrecked, I doubt I'll get any pleasure out
of the next few books at all!!
Mark H. Stevens
John Pettigrew
fluffy "Ian & Mary" <ian&ma...@spacemen3.co.uk> massaged the keyboard
erotically and blessed us all with this:
>Just thought it worth pointing out that there are big Interference spoilers
>in this one, if anyone still wants to avoid them.
>
>
>
>
>OK?
>
OK!
>
>
>
>John Pettigrew <our....@virgin.net> wrote in message
>news:37f5d1eb...@news.virgin.net...
>> On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 03:59:44 -0500, the wonderfully sexy, delicious
>> and fluffy "M.H. Stevens" <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> massaged the
>> keyboard erotically and blessed us all with this:
>>
>> >Paul Cornell wrote:
>
>[Some stuff about his forthcoming book]
>
>> >I don't car about the rest of the questions that will pop up , I just
>want the
>> >regeneration business put back the way it was and for all of these
>authors to
>> >leave well enough alone.................
>>
>> Why?
>> Personally, I find the whole paradox fascinating! Just because
>> Interference makes out that Planet of the Spiders didn't play out the
>> way it did before (or maybe didn't now happen at all) doesn't mean
>> that you or I can't watch or read that story in Real Life.
>>
>> If you think about it, a Time Lord, especially a Time Lord with such a
>> bizarre existence as the Doctor has is almost inevitably going to face
>> this sort of thing at some stage in his lives.
>
>Well, absolutely. Isn't it worth remembering that the whole point of Genesis
>Of The Daleks was that the Time Lords wanted the Doctor to change history,
>which would have a tremendous knock-on effect on the rest of the Universe?
>The series itself made it abundantly clear that the Doctor Who Universe is
>changeable - it's just that this is the first time we've seen it happen so
>dramatically to the Doctor himself.
Indeed! And I think the DisContinuity Guide speculates that there is
one Dalek history and then, after the results of Genesis, there is a
second, different Dalek history.
So stuff like Power and Evil happened and then ceased to happen...
(Keith?)
"When it's Spring again, I'll sing again, 'Talons of Weng-Chiang'..."
The RADW Rogues Gallery - http://freespace.virgin.net/our.hero/index.html
John Pettigrew
and fluffy "M.H. Stevens" <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> massaged the
keyboard erotically and blessed us all with this:
>
>
>John Pettigrew wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 03:59:44 -0500, the wonderfully sexy, delicious
>> and fluffy "M.H. Stevens" <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> massaged the
>> keyboard erotically and blessed us all with this:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Paul Cornell wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've become a little worried about the power of expectation, and I just
>> >> wanted to clear up a couple of things.
>> >> Yes, Avalon will provide a proper ending to the Interference arc, but it
>> >> won't clear up *all* your questions, mainly because it'll send the TARDIS
>> >> crew off in a new direction which will work out several novels down the line
>> >> (not an arc plot, just a new factor in their lives). However, it should
>> >> demonstrate that we still have all the answers in mind and are still on the
>> >> right track. And, incidentally, it provides a little more background to the
>> >> events of The Blue Angel and a couple of the other books in the arc. I like
>> >> to think of it as a satisfying conclusion, and I'm happy for people to judge
>> >> it on those terms: just don't expect 'all the answers' like we all did for
>> >> the end of Babylon 5! There are quite a few, just not all!
>> >> Mind you, and this is what really worries me, it's an incredibly
>> >> traditional piece of Who, my closest approach to Terrance (in terms of
>> >> style) ever. I've been delighted with the radicalism of books like The Blue
>> >> Angel, but one of the nice things I think this arc does is find how the
>> >> traditions slot into good storytelling, in much the same way we used to do
>> >> at Virgin. Personally, I like the fact that we end on an old-fashioned note,
>> >> but if you're expecting another Interference you'll be disappointed.
>> >> And yes, as someone very perceptive noted in this group before I
>> >> rejoined it, I do find hope where there wasn't any before, and the overall
>> >> tone is very positive.
>> >
>> >I don't car about the rest of the questions that will pop up , I just want the
>> >regeneration business put back the way it was and for all of these authors to
>> >leave well enough alone.................
>>
>> Why?
>> Personally, I find the whole paradox fascinating! Just because
>> Interference makes out that Planet of the Spiders didn't play out the
>> way it did before (or maybe didn't now happen at all) doesn't mean
>> that you or I can't watch or read that story in Real Life.
>>
>> If you think about it, a Time Lord, especially a Time Lord with such a
>> bizarre existence as the Doctor has is almost inevitably going to face
>> this sort of thing at some stage in his lives.
>>
>> Having an established adventure rewritten is just as much a Big Deal
>> as meeting a different incarnation of himself, having a thrilling
>> adventure in time and space and then not remembering the experience
>> before the adventure comes round again from his other perspective.
>>
>> I think it's good that the authors are trying something interesting
>> and groovy.
>
>Dangerous and destructive is what you should be saying.
>
Er, what exactly is dangerous or destructive about an imaginative
Doctor Who novel?!!!
Isn't that just a little melodramatic?
John Pettigrew
and fluffy "M.H. Stevens" <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> massaged the
keyboard erotically and blessed us all with this:
>
>
>Paul Cornell wrote:
>
>> John Hutton wrote in message <37f63...@news.calweb.com>...
>> >Paul Cornell <paulc...@owlservice.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > As the old saying goes: Thanks for making that clear Paul... Clear as
>> mud. ;)
>>
>> Well, while I want to deal with what people are expecting, I don't want to
>> give anything away that might harm the pleasure of reading the arc, or
>> reveal the secrets of other authors. Given that: I don't deal with the
>> matter of the Dust regeneration at all. It wasn't my assignment to do so.
>> And I think that's as much as I can say, because I don't want to throw out
>> hints or tease people.
>
>Then the 3rd Doctor's regeneration wrecked, I doubt I'll get any pleasure out
>of the next few books at all!!
>
It may sound changed, but how is it *wrecked*? Don't you find the
paradox interesting? Why are people so pissed off with this concept?
BTW
The Blue Angel was OK, if odd. The Taking of Planet 5 is a bit of a
chore. Not too keen on Simon Buchar-Jones' writing style (I never did
finish The Death of Art for the same reason. Moan, mumble....)
Dangermouse
M.H. Stevens <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote
> > I think it's good that the authors are trying something interesting
> > and groovy.
>
> Dangerous and destructive is what you should be saying.
Ooh, where do I sign up?
--
"This path has been placed before you; the choice to take it is yours
alone"
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/4845/
Steven Kitson
> John Hutton wrote in message <37f63...@news.calweb.com>...
> >Paul Cornell <paulc...@owlservice.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > As the old saying goes: Thanks for making that clear Paul... Clear as
> mud. ;)
> Well, while I want to deal with what people are expecting, I don't want to
> give anything away that might harm the pleasure of reading the arc, or
> reveal the secrets of other authors. Given that: I don't deal with the
> matter of the Dust regeneration at all. It wasn't my assignment to do so.
> And I think that's as much as I can say, because I don't want to throw out
> hints or tease people.
So were you actually commissioned to write the book that concludes the
Arc, or did you submit a proposal and were then asked to have it finish
(at least in part) the events started in 'Interference'?
Just curious.
PS Any grammatical mistakes are the fault of my illiterate split
personality, and the fact that my copy of Fowler's is five hundred miles
away.
PPS I know what's wrong with Lawrence Miles! He went mad from having to
type the word 'interference' so many times. Does anyone else find it a
trying experience?
--
When Brian Boitano travelled through time to the year 3010
He fought the evil Robot King and saved the Human race again
William December Starr
"Paul Cornell" <paulc...@owlservice.freeserve.co.uk> said:
> Well, while I want to deal with what people are expecting, I don't
> want to give anything away that might harm the pleasure of reading
> the arc, or reveal the secrets of other authors.
Why _not_ reveal the secrets of other authors? After all, from the
sound of things _they_ certainly aren't going to do it...
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
William December Starr
our....@SQUIDvirgin.net said:
> It may sound changed, but how is it *wrecked*? Don't you find the
> paradox interesting? Why are people so pissed off with this concept?
Consider this:
"If X, which we saw happen, can later be made to not have happened,
then logically Y, which we're seeing happen right now, is also subject
to being unhappened later on down the line. And if that can happen
then why should I care about Y happening right now? Why should I be
deeply moved by events that may be transitory?"
Now substitute "The events of 'Planet of the Spiders'" for "X" and the
works of any of the current or future authors for "Y."
("Oh look, [name of character] is dead. How awful, what a tragedy.
Oh well, let's wait a while and maybe he'll be alive again.")
John L Beven II
>
>John Hutton wrote in message <37f63...@news.calweb.com>...
>>Paul Cornell <paulc...@owlservice.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> As the old saying goes: Thanks for making that clear Paul... Clear as
>mud. ;)
>
>give anything away that might harm the pleasure of reading the arc, or
>matter of the Dust regeneration at all. It wasn't my assignment to do so.
>And I think that's as much as I can say, because I don't want to throw out
>hints or tease people.
In that case, Paul, I'm going to ask you a straight-forward question, and
I would appreciate the courtesy of a straight-forward answer: Is the
3rd-4th Doctor regeneration going to be set back to what it was in
Planet of the Spiders by the end of the arc? Please answer yes or no.
I would also ask you not to hide behind the excuse of not giving away
secrets or hide behind telling me to read the books. IMHO this
particular matter is a little too important and has pissed off too many
people for either of those responses to be acceptable.
I'll put it this way: I'll get no more pleasure out of reading the arc if
it
permanently perverts the DW past than I would have out of reading
War of the Daleks. And one way or another, I'm going to find out what
really happens *before* I buy the books of the arc.
Jack Beven (a. k. a. The Supreme Dalek)
Tropical Prediction Center
http://people.delphi.com/jbeven/ jbe...@mindspring.com
Disclaimer: These opinions don't necessarily represent those of my
employers...
Michael Lee
>In article <7t5hqa$1v9$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>"Paul Cornell" <paulc...@owlservice.freeserve.co.uk> said:
>> Well, while I want to deal with what people are expecting, I don't
>> want to give anything away that might harm the pleasure of reading
>> the arc, or reveal the secrets of other authors.
>Why _not_ reveal the secrets of other authors? After all, from the
>sound of things _they_ certainly aren't going to do it...
Because some secrets *shouldn't* be revealed -- the series is called
Doctor Who, after all, and while much of the mystery around the character
has been revealed, all of it shouldn't be. And sometimes, it's the *debate*
that is more interesting than anything else -- not knowing *exactly*
who Joyce was in Unnatural History is part of the point; and it isn't
at all uncommon for the questions to be more interesting than the answers.
And sometimes it's better for them to be *left* as questions.
Now, in a continuing series it's not uncommon for one author to do something
different than what the original author intended -- for example, I gather
that the use of Faction Paradox in Unnatural History doesn't match up with
how Lawerence Miles sees FP. So maybe someone will "answer" who Joyce
was -- but it's probably not going to be as satisfying as the question.
--
Michael Lee
http://www.execpc.com/~michaell
Michael Lee
[Interference Spoilers]
"John L Beven II" <jbe...@mindspring.com> writes:
> In that case, Paul, I'm going to ask you a straight-forward question, and
>I would appreciate the courtesy of a straight-forward answer: Is the
>3rd-4th Doctor regeneration going to be set back to what it was in
>Planet of the Spiders by the end of the arc? Please answer yes or no.
> I would also ask you not to hide behind the excuse of not giving away
>secrets or hide behind telling me to read the books. IMHO this
>particular matter is a little too important and has pissed off too many
>people for either of those responses to be acceptable.
> I'll put it this way: I'll get no more pleasure out of reading the arc if
>it
>permanently perverts the DW past than I would have out of reading
>War of the Daleks. And one way or another, I'm going to find out what
>really happens *before* I buy the books of the arc.
So you have to find out what happens at the end before you get there? That's
too bad -- I think the ride is part of the fun.
I still haven't gotten to Interference -- and I'm glad I'm not worrying too
much about spoilers -- but I don't think Paul should say anything more
than he has about his book. Obviously, it's going to be highly anticipated,
for lots of reasons. But what the arc *is even about* is a bit of a
spoiler, after all.
Personally, I think the results of Intereference are fantastic, without
reading the novel, and judging it on the idea. Not because it disrespects
continuity -- but it explains how multi-Doctor stories can have a genuine
threat; or even now, past Doctor stories in any format can be "new" stories
in a way that they weren't before.
I think not knowing *what* the writers are doing is part of the fun. If
Marvel had said "oh, we'd never really regenerate the Doctor" when they
did their comic storyline, it wouldn't have been as effective. This is
*exactly* the same thing.
This is, after all, a time travel series. And while there are still important
rules that the authors should follow -- we need to have some day to
day pay-off to the characters, it is difficult to care about
the death of Adric if the character comes back at some time. But I think
what this arc addresses is *why* that doesn't happen all the time in a
series where it is established that the past can change. The novels, I think,
are exploring the consequences of that.
(And I think what Interference does is different than War of the Daleks,
in a lot of significant ways.)
Paul Cornell
Steven Kitson wrote in message <7t63cu$dam$4...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
>So were you actually commissioned to write the book that concludes the
>Arc, or did you submit a proposal and were then asked to have it finish
>(at least in part) the events started in 'Interference'?
I had the initial idea, then heard about the arc, then wrote it as the end
of the arc from the ground up as it were. And I've stopped doing the whole
spelling crusade business and am now looking for a new kind of fun.
Paul Cornell
William December Starr wrote in message <7t6bou$h...@crl4.crl.com>...
>In article <7t5hqa$1v9$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>"Paul Cornell" <paulc...@owlservice.freeserve.co.uk> said:
>Why _not_ reveal the secrets of other authors? After all, from the
>sound of things _they_ certainly aren't going to do it...
They will in the right books at the right time. And you wouldn't want it
any other way.
Paul Cornell
John L Beven II wrote in message <7t6ool$ji2$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>...
> In that case, Paul, I'm going to ask you a straight-forward question,
and
>I would appreciate the courtesy of a straight-forward answer: Is the
>3rd-4th Doctor regeneration going to be set back to what it was in
>Planet of the Spiders by the end of the arc? Please answer yes or no.
I won't tell you the answer to that question because no writer would.
You're asking Agatha Christie who committed the murder because you really
like one of the suspects. But the murder and the suspect you like are all
ficticious, and you're asking Agatha to ruin her own game.
Steven Kitson
> In article <37f67e7d...@news.virgin.net>,
> our....@SQUIDvirgin.net said:
> > It may sound changed, but how is it *wrecked*? Don't you find the
> > paradox interesting? Why are people so pissed off with this concept?
> Consider this:
> "If X, which we saw happen, can later be made to not have happened,
> then logically Y, which we're seeing happen right now, is also subject
> to being unhappened later on down the line. And if that can happen
> then why should I care about Y happening right now? Why should I be
> deeply moved by events that may be transitory?"
> Now substitute "The events of 'Planet of the Spiders'" for "X" and the
> works of any of the current or future authors for "Y."
Consider this:
"If X, which we saw happen, is fictional, then why should I care about X?
Why should I be deeply moved by events which didn't happen to people who
didn't exist?"
Now substitute "The events of 'Planet of the Spiders'" for "X".
For what it's worth, actually, I would agree with you, but for one thing -
nothing ever goes away completely. Having read 'Interference' (I hate
typing that word - all those 'e's!), and just starting on 'The Blue
Angel', and from comments made here, I think that that's basically going
to be the point of the arc. You can't make 'Planet of the Spiders' not
happen. You can change time, but it still happened - even if no one
remembers it - and it'll come back and bite you later on.
So you care about what happens now, because, even if someone goes back and
changes it, it still happenned. If you see what I mean.
Sorry if that's not very clear, but talking about this sort of thing is
bound to get complicated. Perhaps an example of the dramatic possibilities
this can lead to would help:
Imageine the Virgin New Adventures are still going. Roz died in the 30th
century. Suddenly, Faction Paradox changes things so that she survived
the assault on wherever-it-was. She's alive and well, and travelling with
the Doctor, who doesn't even remember her dying.
You feel cheated. You think 'Why did I bother feeling anything about her
death? Look, she's running around again.'
But the TARDIS, linked as it is to the Vortex, knows something has
changed. It tris to warn the Doctor in subtle ways throughout the next
couple of books, always stopping when Roz walks in the room.
Then the Doctor notices shockwaves in the Vortex. A veritable timequake,
if you will. History has noticed something is wrong, and the forces of
temporal inertia are trying to put it right. He traces the epicentre back
to the 30th century, and realises what has happened. In order to save the
continuum, he knows he must make sure that Roz dies in action.
Then Roz walks into the console room...
Now wouldn't that be an interesting book?
Lance Parkin
<jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Paul Cornell wrote in message <7t5hqa$1v9$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>
>>John Hutton wrote in message <37f63...@news.calweb.com>...
>>>Paul Cornell <paulc...@owlservice.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> As the old saying goes: Thanks for making that clear Paul... Clear as
>>mud. ;)
>>
>>Well, while I want to deal with what people are expecting, I don't want to
>>give anything away that might harm the pleasure of reading the arc, or
>>reveal the secrets of other authors. Given that: I don't deal with the
>>matter of the Dust regeneration at all. It wasn't my assignment to do so.
>>And I think that's as much as I can say, because I don't want to throw out
>>hints or tease people.
>
>
> In that case, Paul, I'm going to ask you a straight-forward question, and
>I would appreciate the courtesy of a straight-forward answer: Is the
>3rd-4th Doctor regeneration going to be set back to what it was in
>Planet of the Spiders by the end of the arc? Please answer yes or no.
Are you seriously saying that your enjoyment of a story
is spoiled if you *don't* know how it ends before you get to
the end?
If you want to know Paul's answer, can I humbly suggest you
read his book?
Lance
William December Starr
"Paul Cornell" <paulc...@owlservice.freeserve.co.uk> said:
>> Why _not_ reveal the secrets of other authors? After all, from the
>> sound of things _they_ certainly aren't going to do it... [wdstarr]
>
> They will in the right books at the right time. And you wouldn't
> want it any other way.
From an article posted on 28 September by Jonathan Blum:
> So, Jon, do _you_ have any comment on that? Do you agree that
> we readers _are_, in fact, eventually going to be told all?
> [wdstarr]
Yes, and I completely disagree with that. For example, I have
no intention of telling the readers who Daniel Joyce is. Or,
for that matter, who the Doctor is.
Doesn't that sort of contradict your "they will" statement, above?
(Not saying who the Doctor is doesn't really matter; that was never
Jon's (and Kate's) mystery in the first place. But the identity and
story behind Joyce _does_ seem to be their secret.)
William December Starr
sj...@thor.cam.ac.uk (Steven Kitson) said:
> Consider this:
>
> "If X, which we saw happen, is fictional, then why should I care about
> X? Why should I be deeply moved by events which didn't happen to
> people who didn't exist?"
>
> Now substitute "The events of 'Planet of the Spiders'" for "X".
It's a side effect of "Suspension of disbelief." You pick up the book
and you say "Okay, I'm now going to put my mind in a mode in which it
can, while not relinquishing its grip on reality, *pretend* that the
fictional construct it builds from the text is real too, albeit a
separate reality." And then, while in that special mode of thought, you
allow yourself to be deeply moved (or not) by the events which are
transpiring in that quasi-reality.
Unfortunately -- and I'm going to shift from "you" to "me" now, because
I may only be speaking for myself here -- I'm still a child of the real
world even when I'm immersed in some storyteller's artificial "reality."
Tell me about a reality in which the laws are _really_ alien to those in
my own -- e.g., give it at least two temporal dimensions instead of just
one, thus causing "history" as measured by one of them malleable rather
than fixed -- and I'm going to have some trouble "feeling" it the way I
feel the real world.
In the real world, for example, when Fred dies -- assume Fred's somebody
I care about -- it hits me hard because I know that dead is dead and he
isn't going to be alive again. In a bog-standard normal fictional
reality, fictional Fred's death also hits me (though not as hard as in
the real world because I know that this _is_ after all, fiction) because
I know that in this reality dead is dead too and that's all for Fred
unless we go to a prequel. But in a fictional reality with malleable
history, Fred dies and... what? Is he really dead? I mean, sure, he's
really dead _now_, but that's rather subject to change without notice,
isn't it? I don't rightly know how to react to this situation, and that
can really undermine a story's dramatic impact.
> For what it's worth, actually, I would agree with you, but for one
> thing - nothing ever goes away completely. Having read 'Interference'
> (I hate typing that word - all those 'e's!), and just starting on 'The
> Blue Angel', and from comments made here, I think that that's basically
> going to be the point of the arc. You can't make 'Planet of the
> Spiders' not happen. You can change time, but it still happened - even
> if no one remembers it - and it'll come back and bite you later on.
>
> So you care about what happens now, because, even if someone goes back
> and changes it, it still happenned. If you see what I mean.
>
> Sorry if that's not very clear, but talking about this sort of thing
> is bound to get complicated. Perhaps an example of the dramatic
> possibilities this can lead to would help:
Example snipped, because you did make it clear. You're suggesting that
Doctor Who really does have a "real" history, a "true" timeline that
people or events can wander a bit away from but back to which they'll
always be eventually -- where "eventually" is measured along one of
those other, additional temporal dimensions -- be pulled.
Fine. I just wonder whether that gestalt loosely referred to as "BBC
Books and The Authors" have the same idea that you do.
John L Beven II
>
>[Interference Spoilers]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"John L Beven II" <jbe...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>> In that case, Paul, I'm going to ask you a straight-forward question,
and
>>I would appreciate the courtesy of a straight-forward answer: Is the
>>3rd-4th Doctor regeneration going to be set back to what it was in
>>Planet of the Spiders by the end of the arc? Please answer yes or no.
>
>>secrets or hide behind telling me to read the books. IMHO this
>>particular matter is a little too important and has pissed off too many
>>people for either of those responses to be acceptable.
>
>> I'll put it this way: I'll get no more pleasure out of reading the arc
if
>>it permanently perverts the DW past than I would have out of reading
>>War of the Daleks. And one way or another, I'm going to find out what
>>really happens *before* I buy the books of the arc.
>
>So you have to find out what happens at the end before you get there?
That's
>too bad -- I think the ride is part of the fun.
IMHO the ride is the fun! Do you remember certain plot lines in B5 -
the ones that JMS let you see the end of and put you on a roller coaster
figuring out how you were going to get there? IMHO that probably drove
the audience more nuts than an unknown ending, and left just as much
room for plot twists or turns.
It's the B5 treatment I think is needed here. I don't want to know how we
get to the end result. I just want to know if the end result is going to be
the crash landing I'm currently fearing. If it's not, I'll gladly let the
authors
keep their secrets on how we'll get there.
The B5 approach IMHO also reduces the chance that some of the
audience will pack up and leave in disgust before the end of the arc.
[snip]
>I think not knowing *what* the writers are doing is part of the fun. If
>Marvel had said "oh, we'd never really regenerate the Doctor" when they
>did their comic storyline, it wouldn't have been as effective. This is
>*exactly* the same thing.
I have a different view. If Marvel actually did regenrate the Doctor,
then
it was a continuity buster with which I totally disagree. And they didn't
really regenerate the Doctor (which is my understanding), then it comes
across as a stunt. IMHO it was a poor idea either way.
>This is, after all, a time travel series. And while there are still
important
>rules that the authors should follow -- we need to have some day to
>day pay-off to the characters, it is difficult to care about
>the death of Adric if the character comes back at some time. But I think
>what this arc addresses is *why* that doesn't happen all the time in a
>series where it is established that the past can change. The novels, I
think,
>are exploring the consequences of that.
I don't want to get into too deep of an arguement about the issue again,
but IMHO the Doctor's personal timeline is the one thing that should be
unchangable.
I think what bothers me more, though, is that stories like Interference
give me the impression the authors don't think there *are* any rules.
I hope I'm wrong. But if I'm right, I'm afraid the series will soon
degenerate into the chaos that Jean-Marc L'Officier predicted a while
back.
>(And I think what Interference does is different than War of the Daleks,
>in a lot of significant ways.)
In what ways? To me, a retcon is a retcon, whether you do it like John
Peel did or in some other fashion. If the end of the Interference arc
does not put things right, why shouldn't it be considered in the same
light as War of the Daleks?
John L Beven II
>On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 01:19:26 -0400, "John L Beven II"
><jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul Cornell wrote in message <7t5hqa$1v9$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>>
>>>John Hutton wrote in message <37f63...@news.calweb.com>...
>>>>Paul Cornell <paulc...@owlservice.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As the old saying goes: Thanks for making that clear Paul... Clear as
>>>mud. ;)
>>>
to
>>>give anything away that might harm the pleasure of reading the arc, or
>>>reveal the secrets of other authors. Given that: I don't deal with the
>>>matter of the Dust regeneration at all. It wasn't my assignment to do so.
>>>And I think that's as much as I can say, because I don't want to throw
out
>>>hints or tease people.
>>
>>
and
>>I would appreciate the courtesy of a straight-forward answer: Is the
>>3rd-4th Doctor regeneration going to be set back to what it was in
>>Planet of the Spiders by the end of the arc? Please answer yes or no.
>
>is spoiled if you *don't* know how it ends before you get to
>the end?
Not normally. But this is a personal special case, as this to me is
the most sensitive point in all of DW writing. If the regeneration in
Planet of the Spiders is not put back to right by the end of the arc, then
the arc has peformed a retcon on the TV series the same as War of the
Daleks did. And if you remember the Peel Wars, you'll remember what my
reaction is to that sort of thing (i.e., a long fight with John and a
personal
boycott of his book). Can you think of any reason I shouldn't do the same
things to the Interference arc and the associated authors if it does
retcon Planet of the Spiders?
>If you want to know Paul's answer, can I humbly suggest you
>read his book?
I'll be glad to, just as soon as as someone tells me whether the
Interference arc ends up as War of the Daleks II or not.
John L Beven II
>>and I would appreciate the courtesy of a straight-forward answer: Is the
>>3rd-4th Doctor regeneration going to be set back to what it was in
>>Planet of the Spiders by the end of the arc? Please answer yes or no.
>
>You're asking Agatha Christie who committed the murder because you really
>like one of the suspects. But the murder and the suspect you like are all
>ficticious, and you're asking Agatha to ruin her own game.
Suit yourself. It suffices to say I disagree, and that revealing the end
of
the story doesn't necessarily spoil the fun.
In Babylon 5, JMS revealed the ends of several plot lines long before
the story ever got there. He then takes the viewer on a roller coaster
ride going from point A to point B that provides numerous opportunities
for surprises and strange plot twists despite knowing the endpoints. That's
the approach I believe should have been taken with the Planet of the
Spiders twist.
I realize that Steve Cole and the authors have gone to a lot of trouble
to
keep this arc a secret, and given the subject matter involved I can
understand why. However, I think revealing whether the Planet of the
Spiders regeneration is set back to rights by the end of the arc would
really help settle down some of the criticism that has erupted and do
more good than harm. (Unless, of course, the plan is *not* to set things
right. In that case, I predict the worst of the storm is still to come for
fans and authors alike.)
John Pettigrew
fluffy wds...@crl.com (William December Starr) massaged the keyboard
erotically and blessed us all with this:
>In article <37f67e7d...@news.virgin.net>,
>our....@SQUIDvirgin.net said:
>
>> It may sound changed, but how is it *wrecked*? Don't you find the
>> paradox interesting? Why are people so pissed off with this concept?
>
>Consider this:
>
>"If X, which we saw happen, can later be made to not have happened,
>then logically Y, which we're seeing happen right now, is also subject
>to being unhappened later on down the line. And if that can happen
>then why should I care about Y happening right now? Why should I be
>deeply moved by events that may be transitory?"
Because it's interesting and fascinating? No?
Besides, when you're dealing with a paradox, who's to say that the
tangled webs can *ever* be resolved. It's like the classic example of
the man who goes back to shoot his own grandfather...
>Now substitute "The events of 'Planet of the Spiders'" for "X" and the
>works of any of the current or future authors for "Y."
>
>("Oh look, [name of character] is dead. How awful, what a tragedy.
>Oh well, let's wait a while and maybe he'll be alive again.")
But you can't take it for sure that any old event can simply be
rewritten. Besides, it's a more complex issue with Time Lords due to
their Biodata and their nature. Not just a "history is rewritten",
but a Time Lord's biodata can be changed and affect his history in as
much as he can evolve.
M.H. Stevens
>>> I think it's good that the authors are trying something interesting
>>> and groovy.
>>
>>Dangerous and destructive is what you should be saying.
>>
>Er, what exactly is dangerous or destructive about an imaginative
>Doctor Who novel?!!!
>
Imaginative is hardly the word I'd use. Don't you think that in 36 years of
existence that somebody didn't try to come up with something like this
before and it was turned down? Creating a paradox is bad enough(as stated
by someone else the Star Trek novels long ago past the point of a single
line of continuity being possible), but doing it at one of the most crucial
points in the Doctor's timeline, a regeneration of all things sets up a
dangerous precedent that if allowed to continue could easily erase
everything back to Unearthly Child! The Interference business should be
corrected and Faction Paradox destroyed, they are one aspect of Doctor Who
that should be filed and forgotten.
>Isn't that just a little melodramatic?
>
>
M.H. Stevens
>>
>>Then the 3rd Doctor's regeneration wrecked, I doubt I'll get any pleasure
out
>>of the next few books at all!!
>>
>paradox interesting? Why are people so pissed off with this concept?
>
usually right them off with corny one liners("I hate Temporal Mechanics" for
example), but Doctor Who is strictly time travel, and that is the sort of
thing that should be avoided simply because of all of the mess that can be
created(What's real anymore?) by this sort of cavalier attitude towards
established continuity.
>BTW
>The Blue Angel was OK, if odd. The Taking of Planet 5 is a bit of a
>chore. Not too keen on Simon Buchar-Jones' writing style (I never did
>finish The Death of Art for the same reason. Moan, mumble....)
>
There I agree, the only part I really liked was the Agatha Christie
reference.
>
M.H. Stevens
Dangermouse wrote in message <01bf0d24$0d1dbe20$LocalHost@lgwujvnl>...
>
>
>M.H. Stevens <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote
>> > I think it's good that the authors are trying something interesting
>> > and groovy.
>>
>> Dangerous and destructive is what you should be saying.
>
>
Lance Parkin
wrote:
Joyce's role in the story will be made clear, that's the
important thing. His identity is not the most important
thing about him.
Lance
Lance Parkin
<jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Not normally. But this is a personal special case, as this to me is
>the most sensitive point in all of DW writing. If the [spoiler]
> is not put back to right by the end of the arc, then
>the arc has peformed a retcon on the TV series the same as War of the
>Daleks did. And if you remember the Peel Wars, you'll remember what my
>reaction is to that sort of thing (i.e., a long fight with John and a
>personal boycott of his book). Can you think of any reason I shouldn't do the same
>things to the Interference arc and the associated authors if it does
>retcon [spoiler]?
Because it's an exciting and interesting story that is *about* the
dangers of retconning? Because you want to know how it ends?
Because they are engagingly written? Because you like
it when things change and new ideas are introduced?
>>If you want to know Paul's answer, can I humbly suggest you
>>read his book?
>
> I'll be glad to, just as soon as as someone tells me whether the
>Interference arc ends up as War of the Daleks II or not.
Fine. Then wait until Paul's book comes out and someone
tells you how it ends, then decide whether you want to read it.
But I can't help but think that you're missing the whole point
of reading an ongoing series. A year ago, when this arc was
being drawn up and (to prevent surprises) new authors were
temporarily asked not to submit EDAs, you were at the forefront of the
'Steve Cole has commited an evil act' brigade. Finally, though,
there are some surprises in the range, and not just 'surprises'
that anyone with net access have known for a year. For the
first time since, god, *Earthshock*, fans don't know all the
twists and shocks that are coming. That's a *good* thing,
and it's not a coincidence that the EDAs have just
hit their strongest patch since they began and everyone's
talking about them.
Surely, surely, the *point* of hating retcons is that you
want there to be big changes (ie: the destroying of
Skaro, the death of a companion) without the threat that
those changes will be reversed. These events have to
*matter*, or there's no point following them. If the
Interference retcon is retconned back, then isn't that
a bad thing, too?
Lance
Lance Parkin
<jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>(And I think what Interference does is different than War of the Daleks,
>>in a lot of significant ways.)
>
>
> In what ways? To me, a retcon is a retcon, whether you do it like John
>Peel did or in some other fashion. If the end of the Interference arc
>does not put things right, why shouldn't it be considered in the same
>light as War of the Daleks?
Because it's part of an ongoing story, and has sparked new ongoing
stories. The War retcons were just an attempt to turn the clock back
to the good old pre-Davros days - but ultimately a pointless one,
because it didn't have any impact on the range: it didn't clear the
way to tell a new kind of Dalek story, and the only other Dalek book
to date didn't even mention it.
What has happened in Interference will affect the EDA story in any
number of ways, and it *will* act as a springboard for new adventures.
Lance
Lance Parkin
wrote:
>
>
>>>> I think it's good that the authors are trying something interesting
>>>> and groovy.
>>>
>>>Dangerous and destructive is what you should be saying.
>>>
>>Er, what exactly is dangerous or destructive about an imaginative
>>Doctor Who novel?!!!
>>
>Imaginative is hardly the word I'd use. Don't you think that in 36 years of
>existence that somebody didn't try to come up with something like this
>before and it was turned down? Creating a paradox is bad enough(as stated
>by someone else the Star Trek novels long ago past the point of a single
>line of continuity being possible), but doing it at one of the most crucial
>points in the Doctor's timeline, a regeneration of all things sets up a
>dangerous precedent that if allowed to continue could easily erase
>everything back to Unearthly Child! The Interference business should be
>corrected and Faction Paradox destroyed, they are one aspect of Doctor Who
>that should be filed and forgotten.
Gosh, it's almost as though the Faction are an effective new race of
baddies, isn't it? Instead of just killing a companion or two or
chasing the Doctor around, there's someone out there after the
Doctor's timeline. Sounds exciting.
Everything erased, all the way back to An Unearthly Child? No, it'll
never happen. Trust me.
Lance
Lance Parkin
wrote:
>
>Dangermouse wrote in message <01bf0d24$0d1dbe20$LocalHost@lgwujvnl>...
>>
>>
>>M.H. Stevens <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote
>>> > I think it's good that the authors are trying something interesting
>>> > and groovy.
>>>
>>> Dangerous and destructive is what you should be saying.
>>
>>Ooh, where do I sign up?
>>
>Dangermouse would you please tell me what point you are trying to make?
That it sounds interesting.
Lance
Lance Parkin
wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Then the 3rd Doctor's regeneration wrecked, I doubt I'll get any pleasure
>out
>>>of the next few books at all!!
>>>
>>It may sound changed, but how is it *wrecked*? Don't you find the
>>paradox interesting? Why are people so pissed off with this concept?
>>
>I dislike paradoxes of any kind, especially temoporal ones, Star Trek can
>usually right them off with corny one liners("I hate Temporal Mechanics" for
>example), but Doctor Who is strictly time travel, and that is the sort of
>thing that should be avoided simply because of all of the mess that can be
>created(What's real anymore?) by this sort of cavalier attitude towards
>established continuity.
So ... the implications of time travel should be ignored in a series
about time travel? That's an ... interesting ... school of thought.
Instead of Trek's rubbish ol' reset button, we're showing precisely
that this sort of thing does have consequences. You *can* retcon
stuff away, but that doesn't make things simpler or better, it's the
start of the problem, not the end of it.
The Faction are a race that revel in the 'mess', the Doctor and the
Time Lords are dead set against it. It's good v evil, and I don't
think any of the writers are 'pro-mess' any more than a Dalek
writer is pro-fascism or Roger Sloman was pro-pollution. Sometimes
a mess is more interesting to read about than a nice, tidy
situation. If you're unsettled by the actions of the baddies, isn't
that a good thing?
Lance
Lance Parkin
<jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Paul Cornell wrote in message <7t70ii$laq$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>
>>John L Beven II wrote in message <7t6ool$ji2$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>...
>>
>>> In that case, Paul, I'm going to ask you a straight-forward question,
>>>and I would appreciate the courtesy of a straight-forward answer: Is the
>>>3rd-4th Doctor regeneration going to be set back to what it was in
>>>Planet of the Spiders by the end of the arc? Please answer yes or no.
>>
>>I won't tell you the answer to that question because no writer would.
>>You're asking Agatha Christie who committed the murder because you really
>>like one of the suspects. But the murder and the suspect you like are all
>>ficticious, and you're asking Agatha to ruin her own game.
>
>
> Suit yourself. It suffices to say I disagree, and that revealing the end
>of
>the story doesn't necessarily spoil the fun.
>
> In Babylon 5, JMS revealed the ends of several plot lines long before
>the story ever got there. He then takes the viewer on a roller coaster
>ride going from point A to point B that provides numerous opportunities
>for surprises and strange plot twists despite knowing the endpoints. That's
>the approach I believe should have been taken with the Planet of the
>Spiders twist.
We've revealed *lots* of things about where this is going, we've
introduced all but a handful of the players, and we've flashforwarded
half a dozen times, now. You know a great deal about where we are
going, including the ends of several plot lines. You just don't know
the end to *this* one. I don't see the harm in giving you a
rollercoaster ride where you *don't* know where the car is
heading.
Frankly, if you *want* to know how this ends, that's a good
thing. Speculate away. Tell radw what a terrible thing we're
doing. That's exactly what sustained B5 fandom - interest in
the future. I'd much rather have that than a bunch of books
that treated the TV series as a carcass to be picked at. Doctor
Who is alive and well, and nothing's set in stone any more.
Lance
Dangermouse
M.H. Stevens <cra...@swbell.net> wrote
> >>
> >> Dangerous and destructive is what you should be saying.
> >
> >Ooh, where do I sign up?
> >
> Dangermouse would you please tell me what point you are trying to make?
That i fancy doing something dangerous and destructive.
Jonathan Blum
Lance Parkin <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On 3 Oct 1999 17:22:40 -0700, wds...@crl.com (William December Starr)
>wrote:
>> > So, Jon, do _you_ have any comment on that? Do you agree that
>> > we readers _are_, in fact, eventually going to be told all?
>> > [wdstarr]
>> Yes, and I completely disagree with that. For example, I have
>> no intention of telling the readers who Daniel Joyce is. Or,
>> for that matter, who the Doctor is.
>>Doesn't that sort of contradict your "they will" statement, above?
>>(Not saying who the Doctor is doesn't really matter; that was never
>>Jon's (and Kate's) mystery in the first place. But the identity and
>>story behind Joyce _does_ seem to be their secret.)
>Joyce's role in the story will be made clear, that's the
>important thing. His identity is not the most important
>thing about him.
Well said, Lance. Though if this keeps up, I might have my next book
reveal that he's really the Doctor's accountant...
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
M.H. Stevens <cra...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Imaginative is hardly the word I'd use. Don't you think that in 36 years of
>existence that somebody didn't try to come up with something like this
>before and it was turned down? Creating a paradox is bad enough(as stated
>by someone else the Star Trek novels long ago past the point of a single
>line of continuity being possible), but doing it at one of the most crucial
>points in the Doctor's timeline, a regeneration of all things sets up a
>dangerous precedent that if allowed to continue could easily erase
>everything back to Unearthly Child! The Interference business should be
>corrected and Faction Paradox destroyed, they are one aspect of Doctor Who
>that should be filed and forgotten.
And that, as Lance has just pointed out, is why Faction Paradox are such
effective villains. Thanks to them, *scary* things can happen in the
Doctor Who universe -- things which horrify and disgust a fan down to his
very soul. :-)
Regards,
Jon Blum
Steven Kitson
> Gosh, it's almost as though the Faction are an effective new race of
> baddies, isn't it? Instead of just killing a companion or two or
> chasing the Doctor around, there's someone out there after the
> Doctor's timeline. Sounds exciting.
> Everything erased, all the way back to An Unearthly Child? No, it'll
> never happen. Trust me.
But wat I like is that it could. For the first time in a long while, the
Doctor is actually in real danger. I, as a reader, don't know what's going
to happen next, and with the Faction involved, and the War, it could be
just about anything.
This is exciting. It's not safe 'Doctor Who', where you know how things
are going to end. That's the point of this whole discussion, isn't it? We
don't know the ending. And, personally, I'd rather get there to long way.
I will be reading Mr Cornell's book.
Steven Kitson
> Lance Parkin <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >Joyce's role in the story will be made clear, that's the
> >important thing. His identity is not the most important
> >thing about him.
> Well said, Lance. Though if this keeps up, I might have my next book
> reveal that he's really the Doctor's accountant...
I don't know if this was asked before, but was he named after James? I'm
slogging my way through 'Ulysses' at the moment, and it was slightly
disconcerting to come across a character called 'Joyce'...
Dangermouse
Jonathan Blum <jb...@zipworld.com.au> wrote
>
> And that, as Lance has just pointed out, is why Faction Paradox are such
> effective villains.
They're villains?
Melmoth
> <DELETIA>Finally, though,
> there are some surprises in the range, and not just 'surprises'
> that anyone with net access have known for a year. For the
> first time since, god, *Earthshock*, fans don't know all the
> twists and shocks that are coming. That's a *good* thing,
How right you are. I was talking to folk at the DWM bash about that very thing, saying
that the conclusion to Earthshock Ep one was the last time I was ever REALLY stunned by
a DW episode because organized fandom had yet to get its claws into my consciousness,
DWB wasn't around yet, or if it was I'd not encountered it, and every story wasn't
called -of the Daleks or -of the Cybermen.
I LIKED that sense of surpise, it exhilerated my nine year old self, and that sense of
exhilaration is what I want from DW, and the books are, at last, providing that.
'Bout bloody time, say I.
Scott
Peace, Love and OH MY GOD did Nicola Bryant look AMAZING on Saturday or what!?!?!?
John Pettigrew
fluffy "M.H. Stevens" <cra...@swbell.net> massaged the keyboard
erotically and blessed us all with this:
>>>> I think it's good that the authors are trying something interesting
>>>> and groovy.
>>>
>>>Dangerous and destructive is what you should be saying.
>>>
>>Er, what exactly is dangerous or destructive about an imaginative
>>Doctor Who novel?!!!
>>
>Imaginative is hardly the word I'd use. Don't you think that in 36 years of
>existence that somebody didn't try to come up with something like this
>before and it was turned down?
Well *I've* never heard of any.
Besides, it all seems extremely well thought out and well written. It
isn't just a simple case of "let's rewrite the Doctor's history".
It's a great story!
> Creating a paradox is bad enough(as stated
>by someone else the Star Trek novels long ago past the point of a single
>line of continuity being possible), but doing it at one of the most crucial
>points in the Doctor's timeline, a regeneration of all things sets up a
>dangerous precedent that if allowed to continue could easily erase
>everything back to Unearthly Child!
Actually I am *fascinated* by the concept of paradoxes and time
travel. One of my favourite films ever was Back to the Future (and
part II) which was all about paradoxes and subverting personal
histories etc. It was fab and really well done. IMO Doctor Who the
TV series should have done much more along these lines.
For a start - all that has really been rewritten is the geographic
location of the Third Doctor's regeneration. At the most, you could
argut that Planet of the Spiders now didn't happen.
You could, but that's a bit silly - everything that has happened
doesn't stop having happened. It's just that a parallel time stream
has been opened up. Both histories now exist - that's the nature of a
Paradox!
> The Interference business should be
>corrected and Faction Paradox destroyed, they are one aspect of Doctor Who
>that should be filed and forgotten.
Yes, but only because *you* don't like it! Personally, I thought that
"Sky Pirates!" was utter drivel but that's only one opinion (er, sorry
Dave)
Personally, I think the whole concept is fascinating and makes for a
good arc. You seem to be focussing on the Third Doctor's regeneration
- Interfeence shows us that the Doctor's biodata has been changed and
is only really affecting him now in his Eighth incarnation.
Once the majority of this story arc is resolved, it seems highly
unlikely that future books and novels will recover old ground. That
would be plageristic, surely?
I also can't see the point in erasing so much of the Doctor's
established history that you suggest. What would the point be? That
also smacks of one writer's personal agenda to reshape the Doctor Who
universe into his/her version. I really can't see that happening.
Thing is, this Paradox stuff isn't a retcon - it's not as though
Planet of the Spiders never, ever happened. Evidently it did - right
up until the change occured. It's a paradox. It happeend one way,
now it happens another. All just part of the risk of living a life
like the Doctor's!
Hmm, if Faction Paradox ceased to be and were dismissed, then the
Doctor's original time stream would occur as it always did - therefore
encountring Faction Paradox in his Eighth incarnation, thus changing
his biodata, thus changing his history...
John Pettigrew
sj...@thor.cam.ac.uk (Steven Kitson) massaged the keyboard erotically
and blessed us all with this:
>Lance Parkin wrote:
>> Gosh, it's almost as though the Faction are an effective new race of
>> baddies, isn't it? Instead of just killing a companion or two or
>> chasing the Doctor around, there's someone out there after the
>> Doctor's timeline. Sounds exciting.
>
>> Everything erased, all the way back to An Unearthly Child? No, it'll
>> never happen. Trust me.
>
>But wat I like is that it could. For the first time in a long while, the
>Doctor is actually in real danger. I, as a reader, don't know what's going
>to happen next, and with the Faction involved, and the War, it could be
>just about anything.
We're not even sure what *has* happened now! Brilliant!
>This is exciting. It's not safe 'Doctor Who', where you know how things
>are going to end. That's the point of this whole discussion, isn't it? We
>don't know the ending. And, personally, I'd rather get there the long way.
>I will be reading Mr Cornell's book.
And I'll even read The Leading Angel's book! Especially if he signs a
copy and mails me it free of charge!
John Pettigrew
fluffy "M.H. Stevens" <cra...@swbell.net> massaged the keyboard
erotically and blessed us all with this:
>
>Dangermouse wrote in message <01bf0d24$0d1dbe20$LocalHost@lgwujvnl>...
>>
>>
>>M.H. Stevens <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote
>>> > I think it's good that the authors are trying something interesting
>>> > and groovy.
>>>
>>> Dangerous and destructive is what you should be saying.
>>
>>Ooh, where do I sign up?
>>
>Dangermouse would you please tell me what point you are trying to make?
I *could* be wrong but DM likes to have a "dangerous and destructive
reputation". Even if he is really cute, pink and fluffy (allegedly)
:-)
John Pettigrew
fluffy "M.H. Stevens" <cra...@swbell.net> massaged the keyboard
erotically and blessed us all with this:
>
>>>
>>>Then the 3rd Doctor's regeneration wrecked, I doubt I'll get any pleasure
>out
>>>of the next few books at all!!
>>>
>>It may sound changed, but how is it *wrecked*? Don't you find the
>>paradox interesting? Why are people so pissed off with this concept?
>>
>I dislike paradoxes of any kind, especially temoporal ones, Star Trek can
>usually right them off with corny one liners("I hate Temporal Mechanics" for
>example), but Doctor Who is strictly time travel, and that is the sort of
>thing that should be avoided simply because of all of the mess that can be
>created(What's real anymore?) by this sort of cavalier attitude towards
>established continuity.
I suppose that's where we just disagree - I find the whole idea of a
paradox fascinating and interesting.
To take your point, though - if "Doctor Who is strictly Time Travel"
then surely that's the sort of thing that should be cropping up again
and again and again. The very nature of the concept of time-travel
simply attracts paradoxes, surely?
I would imagine time travel to be a VERY messy business. Besides who
is top say what established continuity is? How do we know that what
we know is the way it should have been.
What if the Doctor's established continuity was the fact that the
Third Doctor was always supposed to regenerate on Dust and that Planet
of the Spiders was never really meant to happen. But then a future
race of Time Lords found that they would lose the War with The Enemy
because Planet of the Spiders never happened so they allow a temporal
fix to occur where established history is deliberately changed so that
the spiders story now DID take place...
>>BTW
>>The Blue Angel was OK, if odd. The Taking of Planet 5 is a bit of a
>>chore. Not too keen on Simon Buchar-Jones' writing style (I never did
>>finish The Death of Art for the same reason. Moan, mumble....)
>>
>There I agree, the only part I really liked was the Agatha Christie
>reference.
Good on you!
John Pettigrew
fluffy "John L Beven II" <jbe...@mindspring.com> massaged the keyboard
erotically and blessed us all with this:
> In Babylon 5, JMS revealed the ends of several plot lines long before
>the story ever got there. He then takes the viewer on a roller coaster
>ride going from point A to point B that provides numerous opportunities
>for surprises and strange plot twists despite knowing the endpoints. That's
>the approach I believe should have been taken with the Planet of the
>Spiders twist.
Yes, but there was a reason for that - JMS didn't think he was going
to get another series and knew it wouldn't be fair for his audience
not to get hte answers they were expecting. Then in the end, he got
the go ahead for another series after he had revealed the major
threads.
IMO the Interference arc (or rather the Faction Paradox stuff) has
been well-thought out, not a spur of the moment whim. The events of
this, as Lance has gone to great pains to tell us, will forever change
the Doctor's ongoing adventures.
I really can't imagine a single author deciding "Right, I'm going to
retcon all this junk with my wonderful Reset Switch" and have it
published.
> I realize that Steve Cole and the authors have gone to a lot of trouble
>to
>keep this arc a secret, and given the subject matter involved I can
>understand why. However, I think revealing whether the Planet of the
>Spiders regeneration is set back to rights by the end of the arc would
>really help settle down some of the criticism that has erupted and do
>more good than harm. (Unless, of course, the plan is *not* to set things
>right. In that case, I predict the worst of the storm is still to come for
>fans and authors alike.)
But why are people so upset about this fascinating plot strand? Do
you feel compelled to dismiss Planet of the Spiders as never having
happened because of the events in a novel?
Besides, what would the point be of having everything that is
happening now to be put back to the way it was. A waste of time and a
bloody cheat, if you ask me!
John Pettigrew
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) rubbed the keyboard
and blessed us all with this:
>But I can't help but think that you're missing the whole point
>of reading an ongoing series. A year ago, when this arc was
>being drawn up and (to prevent surprises) new authors were
>temporarily asked not to submit EDAs, you were at the forefront of the
>'Steve Cole has commited an evil act' brigade. Finally, though,
>there are some surprises in the range, and not just 'surprises'
>that anyone with net access have known for a year. For the
>first time since, god, *Earthshock*, fans don't know all the
>twists and shocks that are coming. That's a *good* thing,
>and it's not a coincidence that the EDAs have just
>hit their strongest patch since they began and everyone's
>talking about them.
I don't want to sound like a bum licker but personally, I'm
*engrossed* in the current story arc, *enthralled* in the paradox and
am far more interested in reading the next book in the series than I
was when I felt obliged to read things like Beltempest, The Face
Eater, The Logest Day, etc...
In fact, until this story arc thingy came around, I would say that I
was far more interested in the PDAs.
So, thanks!
Michael Lee
>In the real world, for example, when Fred dies -- assume Fred's somebody
>I care about -- it hits me hard because I know that dead is dead and he
>isn't going to be alive again. In a bog-standard normal fictional
>reality, fictional Fred's death also hits me (though not as hard as in
>the real world because I know that this _is_ after all, fiction) because
>I know that in this reality dead is dead too and that's all for Fred
>unless we go to a prequel. But in a fictional reality with malleable
>history, Fred dies and... what? Is he really dead? I mean, sure, he's
>really dead _now_, but that's rather subject to change without notice,
>isn't it? I don't rightly know how to react to this situation, and that
>can really undermine a story's dramatic impact.
I think those are *exactly* the right questions to ask in the context of
the current arc. After all, every time a companion dies, the Doctor has
to tell his other companions that no, he can't go back and save the
character. Why can't he? It's not that it is *physically* impossible
-- we've seen enough evidence (both in TV & in print) that it would
be entirely possible -- but that the results of doing so would be worse
than the the loss of a friend.
I have confidence that the authors know that they have to maintain that
death *means* something in DW -- and in fact, I think that the results of
this thread make the threat even *more* so, because it adds a perceived
threat to the past Doctor novels as well.
It's *because* of those questions that I can't wait to reach Interference
and the upcoming books in the arc -- because I think they are approaching
some long standing questions about the DW universe and how time travel
works in it. It explains why multi-Doctor adventures *shouldn't* happen,
and what the risks are.
--
Michael Lee
http://www.execpc.com/~michaell
Michael Lee
"John L Beven II" <jbe...@mindspring.com> writes:
> I realize that Steve Cole and the authors have gone to a lot of trouble
>to
>keep this arc a secret, and given the subject matter involved I can
>understand why. However, I think revealing whether the Planet of the
>Spiders regeneration is set back to rights by the end of the arc would
>really help settle down some of the criticism that has erupted and do
>more good than harm. (Unless, of course, the plan is *not* to set things
>right. In that case, I predict the worst of the storm is still to come for
>fans and authors alike.)
Just like setting back Skaro in "War of the Daleks" was setting everything
back to rights. (And there's ample evidence that this was *exactly* what
John Peel thought he was doing)
You are right. The parallels with War of the Daleks are there. And you're
on John Peel's side.
Michael Lee
>Jonathan Blum wrote:
>> Lance Parkin <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Joyce's role in the story will be made clear, that's the
>> >important thing. His identity is not the most important
>> >thing about him.
>> Well said, Lance. Though if this keeps up, I might have my next book
>> reveal that he's really the Doctor's accountant...
>I don't know if this was asked before, but was he named after James? I'm
>slogging my way through 'Ulysses' at the moment, and it was slightly
>disconcerting to come across a character called 'Joyce'...
Got it in one. (In some of the treatments for the Segal Doctor Who series,
the Doctor's father was named Ulysses, and there is certainly reason to
believe that Joyce *may* be the Doctor's father, but this could also
be misdirection by using elements from those unproduced pilots and movies)
Michael Lee
>Michael Lee wrote in message <37f6f4a9$0$10...@news.execpc.com>...
>>
>>[Interference Spoilers]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> IMHO the ride is the fun! Do you remember certain plot lines in B5 -
>the ones that JMS let you see the end of and put you on a roller coaster
>figuring out how you were going to get there? IMHO that probably drove
>the audience more nuts than an unknown ending, and left just as much
>room for plot twists or turns.
But Doctor Who is not Babylon 5 -- and I think it is a fair criticism that
Babylon 5 was terribly anti-climatic. A lot of time was spent setting
things up, and the resolutions weren't that inspiring, and there were a lot
of episodes at the end that were almost mechanical -- there was only
one place the story could go at that point, and you had a good idea about
what had to happen to have the series end up where it did.
And Babylon 5 had a fixed experation date -- a beginning, a middle, and
an end. Doctor Who doesn't; there will be Doctor Who stories in a year
or two that will be much like they were a year or two ago, or ten years ago,
or twenty or thirty years ago. We'll still have stories of the Doctor
and his companion fighting alien invasions, causing rebellions and toppling
dictators, trying to survive in some period of history, or whatever.
Doctor Who is a format to tell stories in, not a story itself.
> It's the B5 treatment I think is needed here. I don't want to know how we
>get to the end result. I just want to know if the end result is going to be
>the crash landing I'm currently fearing. If it's not, I'll gladly let the
>authors
>keep their secrets on how we'll get there.
But if I know that all of the pieces will go *exactly* back to where they
are -- and they might not, just like lots of comics arcs don't completely
reset the universe back to where they started, that a Doctor Who story
will still share some fundemental characteristics with the ones three years
ago, ten years ago, and thirty years ago.
> The B5 approach IMHO also reduces the chance that some of the
>audience will pack up and leave in disgust before the end of the arc.
Like no one gave up on Babylon 5 in the fifth season? Or people that felt
that the payoff for the Shadow War was unsatisfying? I liked Babylon 5
a great deal -- it is one of my favorite series -- and I think DW
can learn *some* things from it -- but Doctor Who is not Babylon 5,
and the same approach wouldn't work.
> I have a different view. If Marvel actually did regenrate the Doctor,
>then
>it was a continuity buster with which I totally disagree. And they didn't
>really regenerate the Doctor (which is my understanding), then it comes
>across as a stunt. IMHO it was a poor idea either way.
Why was it a continuity buster? If we assume that the comics take place
in the same continuity as the books, which we have reason to believe
they don't, not really, we don't know *when* they take place in the
Doctor's time line -- we've been casually slotting them in between
"The Eight Doctors" and "Vampire Science", say, but we could be way,
way off base there and the gap comes in a point in time that we haven't
seen....so maybe they were really going to permenantly regenerate him.
After all, I think the likelyhood of a Paul McGann / Ninth Doctor regeneration
sequence is absolutely zero, and shouldn't impact the writers of the comics
or the books at all.
(and it is well known that Virgin was going to do the exact same stunt,
after all, until the TVM got in the way.)
> I don't want to get into too deep of an arguement about the issue again,
>but IMHO the Doctor's personal timeline is the one thing that should be
>unchangable.
But it clearly is changable; and we've had evidence (almost every multi
Doctor story) for quite some time.
Whether or not it *should* change is a different thing -- and I think
that is one of the issues the arc is addressing.
> I think what bothers me more, though, is that stories like Interference
>give me the impression the authors don't think there *are* any rules.
>I hope I'm wrong. But if I'm right, I'm afraid the series will soon
>degenerate into the chaos that Jean-Marc L'Officier predicted a while
>back.
Maybe it will. I don't think the current arc is saying "ok, don't worry
about it being a series, tell whatever story you want without worrying
about whether or not we have to sell a book next month either". That's
not what I think they are doing at all -- and the fact that it is an
*arc*, rather than everyone doing completely their own thing, is proof of that.
>>(And I think what Interference does is different than War of the Daleks,
>>in a lot of significant ways.)
> In what ways? To me, a retcon is a retcon, whether you do it like John
>Peel did or in some other fashion. If the end of the Interference arc
>does not put things right, why shouldn't it be considered in the same
>light as War of the Daleks?
Actually, I think if the Interference arc doesn't put things "right" it
is exactly the same as War of the Daleks --- after all, wasn't one of
John Peel's arguments that Skaro couldn't have been destroyed in
Remembrance *because* the last Dalek story is supposed to be
Evil of the Daleks, and that Remembrance happened *before* The Daleks
Masterplan? So changing it "back" is, in my opinion, not the solution you
are really looking for.
I really have to read Interference before I comment on the particulars
-- I've actually read War of the Daleks, and actually, the "retcon" isn't
as big of a deal as it was presented in the book, and there are definitely
loopholes there to believe that not everyone was telling the truth, and it
wasn't the biggest problem with the novel.
Lance Parkin
<mas...@allisurvey.freeserve.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
>
>
>Jonathan Blum <jb...@zipworld.com.au> wrote
>>
>> And that, as Lance has just pointed out, is why Faction Paradox are such
>> effective villains.
>
>They're villains?
Antagonists.
Lance
thad a doria
John Pettigrew <our....@SQUIDvirgin.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 02:27:36 -0500, the wonderfully sexy, delicious and>erotically and blessed us all with this:
>
>>>>> I think it's good that the authors are trying something interesting
>>>>> and groovy.
>>>>
>>>>Dangerous and destructive is what you should be saying.
>>>>
I highly doubt Loz Miles woke up one day and said "Think I'll erase Planet
of the Spiders". PotS happened. Interference happened. This is how the
Faction strikes. This is what they're capable of. These are the stakes
they play for. Thematically, they already ranked as (IMO) one of the
Great Who Menaces. Now they're shooting up to the top five.
--
"I can call it 'magic,' with all the nice feelings of wonderment that word in-
spires; or I can waste your time with half an hour of technobabble that you
could never possibly understand a word of anyway. Which would you prefer?"
--The Eighth Doctor
Dangermouse
Lance Parkin <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
> >> And that, as Lance has just pointed out, is why Faction Paradox are
such
> >> effective villains.
> >
> >They're villains?
>
> Antagonists.
That's not what I meant - I reckon they'd make great heroes...
M.H. Stevens
Dangermouse wrote in message <01bf0e8d$a49578a0$0c09883e@lgwujvnl>...
>
>
>Lance Parkin <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
>> >> And that, as Lance has just pointed out, is why Faction Paradox are
>such
>> >> effective villains.
>> >
>> >They're villains?
>>
>> Antagonists.
>
>That's not what I meant - I reckon they'd make great heroes...
>
M.H. Stevens
John Pettigrew wrote in message <37f8a3eb...@news.virgin.net>...
>Doctor's original time stream would occur as it always did - therefore
>encountring Faction Paradox in his Eighth incarnation, thus changing
>his biodata, thus changing his history...
Now you see how much trouble has been caused, they should never have been
allowed to used in the first place.
Richard Jones
(Lance Parkin) wrote:
>On 4 Oct 1999 12:49:53 GMT, "Dangermouse"
><mas...@allisurvey.freeserve.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
[RE: The Faction]
>>They're villains?
>
>Antagonists.
Myself I've been wondering why they've got so many 'nasty' traits
other than those to do with what they represent. We keep being shown
how murderous they are and (this one very noticable) how mysogynistic.
It feels really odd. If they are Scary Monsters because they dare to
threaten continuity, then why are these extraneous and IMHO
ill-fitting evidences of their monstrosity needed? Other than to stop
readers like me sending off for a membership badge.
It's almost as if the first Dalek serial had established that the
creatures smelled really bad, so that any fascists watching the show
could join in and find them revolting too.
Oh no! I know what it's like! Giving two of the most prominent Faction
characters so far some weird issues with women is the novels'
equivalent of TomDoc warning us against the Rani because, "She even
hates children." ;-)
--
Richard Jones.
Lord of deXness
>
> John Pettigrew wrote in message <37f8a3eb...@news.virgin.net>...
> >On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 02:27:36 -0500, the wonderfully sexy, delicious and
> >fluffy "M.H. Stevens" <cra...@swbell.net> massaged the keyboard
> >erotically and blessed us all with this:
> >
Spoiler space, just in case people haven't read _Interference_...
> >
> >> Creating a paradox is bad enough(as stated
> >>by someone else the Star Trek novels long ago past the point of a
> >>single line of continuity being possible), but doing it at one of
> >>the most crucial points in the Doctor's timeline, a regeneration of
> >>all things sets up a dangerous precedent that if allowed to continue
> >>could easily erase everything back to Unearthly Child!
> >
[snip]
> >
> >Thing is, this Paradox stuff isn't a retcon - it's not as though
> >Planet of the Spiders never, ever happened. Evidently it did - right
> >up until the change occured. It's a paradox. It happeend one way,
> >now it happens another. All just part of the risk of living a life
> >like the Doctor's!
> >
> >Hmm, if Faction Paradox ceased to be and were dismissed, then the
> >Doctor's original time stream would occur as it always did -
> >therefore encountring Faction Paradox in his Eighth incarnation, thus
> >changing his biodata, thus changing his history...
>
> Now you see how much trouble has been caused, they should never have
> been allowed to used in the first place.
You appear to have missed the entire point of Faction Paradox as well
as an entire realm of implications about the dangers of being a time
traveller. You also don't seem to realize that the reasons you're
trumpeting to decry the use of Faction Paradox are exactly what makes
them so dangerous in the first place. You also seem to have missed
the fact that the third Doctor's last words in _Interference_ are,
"This is wrong."
I really, really like the idea of Faction Paradox, if only because
this is the first time since _The Pit_ that I've seen the Doctor put
up against a foe that completely outclasses him. This is the first
time in a long time that I've seen him struggle to come out the victor.
_Interference_ feels like the first salvo in a war between our icon
of "good" and a force of chaos which is malevolent by side-effect rather
thn by definition.
Faction Paradox are the type of credible threat that the Daleks and
the Master used to be. They are amoral along the same lines as the
Rani, only they aren't ineffectual. They're highly dangerous and they
play for keeps. They're a tremendous idea which should have been
introduced into the series much, much sooner (although shades of the
consequences of their actions can be seen in the scene in "Pyramids Of
Mars", where the Doctor shows Sarah that Sutekh actually _could_
destroy the Earth in the past, despite the fact that she came from
1970's London).
The thing I love the most about Faction Paradox is that their very
existence renders the canon argument moot. If you're dealing with
players who have the resources and the drive to completely bugger
continuity in several places simultaneously, you've explained exactly
how the comic strips and the books and the tv shows and the movies
and the specials can all be linked together. They may not form one
coherent continuity, but they represent a continuum of experiences
which have happened to the Doctor. It _can_ all make sense. There's
a _reason_ why the dates of particular UNIT events seem to change
all of the time. There's a reason why there is a group of companions
who've never been seen on film. Hell, even fan-fiction can get slotted
into the canon. It can all happen now. The possibilities are
endless.
Personally, I think there's little doubt that _The Shadows of Avalon_
will see the Doctor getting rid of the Faction's hold on him. "Planet
of the Spiders" will go back to being the third Doctor's final
adventure. Until then, I'm really looking forward to what I feel may
be truly unfettered Doctor Who stories.
deX!
Dangermouse
> >> >They're villains?
> >>
> >> Antagonists.
> >
> >That's not what I meant - I reckon they'd make great heroes...
> >
> For who? Revisionist Historians?
Twisted minds like mine who have a warped sense of what's right and how to
make it so...
Michael Lee
>Spoiler space, just in case people haven't read _Interference_...
Which I haven't yet but I'm well spoiled anyways....
>The thing I love the most about Faction Paradox is that their very
>existence renders the canon argument moot. If you're dealing with
>players who have the resources and the drive to completely bugger
>continuity in several places simultaneously, you've explained exactly
>how the comic strips and the books and the tv shows and the movies
>and the specials can all be linked together. They may not form one
>coherent continuity, but they represent a continuum of experiences
>which have happened to the Doctor. It _can_ all make sense. There's
>a _reason_ why the dates of particular UNIT events seem to change
>all of the time. There's a reason why there is a group of companions
>who've never been seen on film. Hell, even fan-fiction can get slotted
>into the canon. It can all happen now. The possibilities are
>endless.
Exactly. Also, if there is a future movie or tv series that doesn't pay
any attention to the fans to get to the wider audience, these sorts of
things allow for there to be some links between "classic" Who and the
Doctor Who of the 21st Century.
(and this *isn't* saying that continuity isn't important for a continuing
series, just that it isn't the most important, or that there aren't reasons
-- sometimes good reasons -- to break continuity; in order to make a better
story or a more accessible one.)
Future TV series or movie producers will likely not pay two cents of
attention to the book series -- or perhaps even "classic" Who. So I think
stories like the "Interference" arc prepare fans for that inevitability.
(Just like, in its own way, a book like "Human Nature" could be seen to
prepare fans for the more romantic Doctor of the TV Movie.)
Paul Freeman
>I don't want to sound like a bum licker but personally, I'm
>*engrossed* in the current story arc, *enthralled* in the paradox and
>am far more interested in reading the next book in the series than I
>was when I felt obliged to read things like Beltempest, The Face
>Eater, The Logest Day, etc...
Without wanting to sound like I'm just copying everything that John
Pettigrew has just said, but personally, I'm *engross.... shit erm
*fascinated* in the present set of books, *immersed* by the
pardoxicality(sp?) and looking forward to reading the next book in the
series. Especially as a felt I had to read things like Beltempest.
Actually, I liked The Face Eater. So that makes me completely
different to John. :)
Seriously, the books are doing what I hoped a BBC Doctor Who book
would do. Expanding the DW universe, challenging the reader, making
me think about what I am reading about, providing new challenges for
the Doctor (and a real threat, making you think that he might not get
out of this one unscathed) and providing a real character for the 8th
Doctor (even if he's rather human).
You get the feeling that the 7th Doc would have eaten Faction Paradox
for breakfast, and that Faction have waited until the human-ish Doctor
came along before trying this.
The other point I'd like to make is that some people seem to be
confusing a Gallefrayian rule for a universal rule. That is to say
that messing around with the past (your own, or Gallefrays own) is
perfectly possible and doable, but the Time Lords thought it was a
very bad idea and possibly very dangerous (for obvious reasons).
Faction Paradox are the punks of Time Lord society.
Paul
--
to reply via email replace the well known, but rather
cliched phrase with _bigfoot_
Daniel O'Mahony
> And that, as Lance has just pointed out, is why Faction Paradox are such
> effective villains. Thanks to them, *scary* things can happen in the
> Doctor Who universe -- things which horrify and disgust a fan down to his
> very soul. :-)
"Some agents of the Faction Paradox crossed our paths once. Nonce. They
never were now."
(Sorry, couldn't resist that one!)
Richard Jones
pfre...@reverse.the.polarity.of.the.neutron.flow.com (Paul Freeman)
wrote:
>You get the feeling that the 7th Doc would have eaten Faction Paradox
>for breakfast,
God, wouldn't it be fantastic to read a post-Interference PDA in which
they *try* and mess with him? :-)
Oooh! New thought, new thought... (To me at least)
Maybe the reason SylvDoc is always so hung up on his arduous
responsibilities and his role as Time's Champion is because he KNOWS
that he's the last incarnation before the Paradox-matter he contracted
on Dust kicks in and he looses his shadow.
--
Richard Jones.
Ian McIntire
(Richard Jones) wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Oct 1999 15:51:34 GMT, la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk
> (Lance Parkin) wrote:
>
> >On 4 Oct 1999 12:49:53 GMT, "Dangermouse"
> ><mas...@allisurvey.freeserve.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
>
> [RE: The Faction]
>
> >>They're villains?
> >
> >Antagonists.
>
> Myself I've been wondering why they've got so many 'nasty' traits
> other than those to do with what they represent. We keep being shown
> how murderous they are and (this one very noticable) how mysogynistic.
>
> It feels really odd. If they are Scary Monsters because they dare to
> threaten continuity, then why are these extraneous and IMHO
> ill-fitting evidences of their monstrosity needed? Other than to stop
> readers like me sending off for a membership badge.
FWIW, I tried to show the Faction's "sympathetic" side in my PT2 story. I
worked on the assumption that everyone, no matter how twisted their
agenda, is doing what they believe is right.
"The tyranny of 'now.'"
--
Ian McIntire i...@cwru.edu
AOL IM: IanMcIn
William December Starr
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) said:
> The Faction are a race that revel in the 'mess', the Doctor and the
> Time Lords are dead set against it. It's good v evil, and I don't
> think any of the writers are 'pro-mess' any more than a Dalek writer
> is pro-fascism or Roger Sloman was pro-pollution. Sometimes a mess is
> more interesting to read about than a nice, tidy situation. If you're
> unsettled by the actions of the baddies, isn't that a good thing?
Again, as I asked you in a slightly different context, how sure are you
that you speak for "the authors" as a group?
(Oops -- just checked my records and it wasn't you; it was Paul Cornell.
Oh well, the question still stands...)
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
William December Starr
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) said:
>> But this is a personal special case, as this to me is the most
>> sensitive point in all of DW writing. If the [spoiler] is not put
>> back to right by the end of the arc, then the arc has peformed a
>> retcon on the TV series the same as War of the Daleks did. And if
>> you remember the Peel Wars, you'll remember what my reaction is to
>> that sort of thing (i.e., a long fight with John and a personal
>> boycott of his book). Can you think of any reason I shouldn't do
>> the same things to the Interference arc and the associated authors
>> if it does retcon [spoiler]? [John L Beven II]
>
> Because it's an exciting and interesting story that is *about* the
> dangers of retconning? Because you want to know how it ends?
> Because they are engagingly written? Because you like it when things
> change and new ideas are introduced?
I think you're missing a vital point, Lance: If I understand him
correctly, John isn't sure that he really and truly _trusts_ the
authors (and BBC Books) to not screw this grand enterprise up
something horrible and leave a great big permanent steaming pile of
shit sitting astride the Doctor Who EDA universe.
I think you're assuming that when this arc is finally complete --
assuming that it _is_ going to have a point that we can all point to
and say "Yup, that's where it ends, all right" -- the majority's
reaction upon seeing the completed work will range from "Okay, not
bad" to that "Ooooh" that you get when you say "Now watch!" and plug
in the Christmas lights and by god they all *actually* *go* *on*.
That's a fine assumption, but not everybody is making it.
William December Starr
jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum) said:
>> Joyce's role in the story will be made clear, that's the important
>> thing. His identity is not the most important thing about him.
>> [Lance Parkin]
>
> Well said, Lance. Though if this keeps up, I might have my next
> book reveal that he's really the Doctor's accountant...
It's interesting how you probably see that as a threat (albeit a
joking one), while I, well, er, don't.
Here's a question: If David Copperfield -- the illusionist, not the
Dickens character -- got mad at a heckler and said "Listen, you behave
yourself or I'll tell you how I made that airplane disappear!" would
you call that a threat?
William December Starr
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) said:
> Joyce's role in the story will be made clear, that's the
> important thing. His identity is not the most important
> thing about him.
I don't want to sound hostile, but isn't that up to the
reader to decide?
William December Starr
our....@SQUIDvirgin.net said:
> You could, but that's a bit silly - everything that has happened
> doesn't stop having happened. It's just that a parallel time stream
> has been opened up. Both histories now exist - that's the nature of
> a Paradox!
Hmm. I thought "there are now two parallel time streams" was how
time-travel paradoxes got _solved_.
William December Starr
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) said:
>>> And that, as Lance has just pointed out, is why Faction Paradox
>>> are such effective villains. [Jonathan Blum]
>>
>> They're villains? [Dangermouse]
>
> Antagonists.
Lance, in another article you posted the same day, in the same thread,
you said to M.H. Stevens:
> The Faction are a race that revel in the 'mess', the Doctor and the
> Time Lords are dead set against it. It's good v evil, and I don't
> think any of the writers are 'pro-mess' any more than a Dalek writer
> is pro-fascism or Roger Sloman was pro-pollution. Sometimes a mess is
> more interesting to read about than a nice, tidy situation. If you're
> unsettled by the actions of the baddies, isn't that a good thing?
Which do you see them as, "evil" and "baddies," or mere "antagonists?"
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.
That's the only way to be sure.
Paul 'Ozymandias' Harman
news:37f6f4a9$0$10...@news.execpc.com...
> So you have to find out what happens at the end before you get there?
That's
> too bad -- I think the ride is part of the fun.
No.
He doesn't like the idea.
He doesn't like the idea to the extent that he'd rather not waste his
money - and we're looking at about £30 here - in order to find out if the
toys get put back in the box or not.
And I can understand that position.
Ozzy
Paul 'Ozymandias' Harman
news:37f85f20...@news.freeserve.net...
> Everything erased, all the way back to An Unearthly Child? No, it'll
> never happen. Trust me.
What's that old adage about people who end promises with "Trust Me"? };*)
Ozzy
Paul 'Ozymandias' Harman
> Just like setting back Skaro in "War of the Daleks" was setting everything
> back to rights. (And there's ample evidence that this was *exactly* what
> John Peel thought he was doing)
>
> You are right. The parallels with War of the Daleks are there. And
you're
> on John Peel's side.
You know, I find myself see-sawing backwards and forwards between 2
viewpoints over this whole issue.
On the one hand, I'm a "traditionalist fundamentalist", in that I'd rather
the books bore a little more than a nodding aquaintance with the show's
history.
On the other hand, I'm in favour of the books treading new ground, because I
know that even if I don't like the results 90% of the time, I get 10% of
absolute gems. And I don't like being compared to John Peel, or being
written off as a boring stick-in-the-mud. };*)
The see-saw is usually thrown according to how calm and collected vs
patronising the proponents of each viewpoint are being at the time.
Now, back to specifics.
What everyone claims that John Peel did in "War of the Daleks" was a Bad
Idea. Going around rewriting bits of the show's past because the author
thinks it's a Kewl Idea/ratifies the author's own fan theory is a Bad Thing.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't be done, nor that the book
is instantly terrible for doing it. There were other things wrong with the
book that made it less than a masterpiece, shall we say. Besides, John Peel
was mature enough to put in enough doubt and fuzziness about the
trustability of the narrator to let us make up our own minds.
And you can search-and-replace John Peel with Jon Blum [Unnatural History,
flexible history], or Lawrence Miles [Interference, PotS paradox], and it
still makes sense, to a certain degree.
Now then, what this should really boil down to is this: are the books any
good?
Well, so far they have been. It's possible to do Very Bad Things with the
things that have escaped from Paradox^H^H^H^H^Hndora's box, but I trust the
authors to do good stuff with it. Sort of. And once these toys are released,
just like Pandora's box, there's no stuffing them back in again.
On the other hand, this is bound to annoy fandom, and since this is a public
forum there's nothing to stop us complaining that we don't like it!
I'm wittering now. Sorry.
While I'm reading the books, I don't (usually) take time out to worry about
what this is going to "mean" to the Whoniverse. I just accept that it has
happened. But in the cutthroat world that is radw, one can't help dissecting
the books and having wild opinions on things. It's the nature of the medium.
So what am I saying? Well, I guess I'm saying that we have to trust the
authors and the editorial staff to do their job. Which is to produce
interesting, fun, thought-provoking stories. After all, if they stuff it up,
it's their own jobs on the line };*)
We can sit here and whinge about it as much as we like, but it's worthwhile
baring the following in mind: that the last set of whinging we had was about
the disconnectedness of the novels, which directly resulted in the current
arc; and that those who can, do, and those who can't, talk about it.
And having annoyed just about everyone, I think I'll quit! };*)
Ozzy
Paul Cornell
William December Starr wrote in message <7tbkdc$8...@crl.crl.com>...
>In article <37f85fbe...@news.freeserve.net>,
>la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) said:
>Again, as I asked you in a slightly different context, how sure are you
>that you speak for "the authors" as a group?
>
>(Oops -- just checked my records and it wasn't you; it was Paul Cornell.
>Oh well, the question still stands...)
We all know there's a plan, because we've all been kept up to date with it.
I'm not as close to it as many of the others, but even I know that
everything's been sorted out and buttoned down. You won't get an answer to
the Dust question in Avalon, but if you trust us, you'll find everything
working out in a fun and satisfying way eventually. The arc isn't about the
Dust question.
Lance Parkin
wrote:
>In article <37f8b439...@news.freeserve.net>,
>la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) said:
>
>>>> And that, as Lance has just pointed out, is why Faction Paradox
>>>> are such effective villains. [Jonathan Blum]
>>>
>>> They're villains? [Dangermouse]
>>
>> Antagonists.
>
>Lance, in another article you posted the same day, in the same thread,
>you said to M.H. Stevens:
>
>> The Faction are a race that revel in the 'mess', the Doctor and the
>> Time Lords are dead set against it. It's good v evil, and I don't
>> think any of the writers are 'pro-mess' any more than a Dalek writer
>> is pro-fascism or Roger Sloman was pro-pollution. Sometimes a mess is
>> more interesting to read about than a nice, tidy situation. If you're
>> unsettled by the actions of the baddies, isn't that a good thing?
>
>Which do you see them as, "evil" and "baddies," or mere "antagonists?"
I think they're baddies, but I don't have a problem with another
author seeing them as more sympathetic. I see the Federation in
Trek as the problem, not the solution. Writers are weird like
that.
Baddies are at their most interesting when the person writing
them tries to see something from the baddy's point of view -
it's what Just War is about: the Nazis didn't wake up in the
morning and say 'Hey, must do something evil today', even
though they were the most evil regime the human race has
ever produced.
Lance
Lance Parkin
wrote:
>In article <37f85fbe...@news.freeserve.net>,
>la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) said:
>
>> The Faction are a race that revel in the 'mess', the Doctor and the
>> Time Lords are dead set against it. It's good v evil, and I don't
>> think any of the writers are 'pro-mess' any more than a Dalek writer
>> is pro-fascism or Roger Sloman was pro-pollution. Sometimes a mess is
>> more interesting to read about than a nice, tidy situation. If you're
>> unsettled by the actions of the baddies, isn't that a good thing?
>
>Again, as I asked you in a slightly different context, how sure are you
>that you speak for "the authors" as a group?
Again, as I said before, the authors are not an homogeneous
group with one single agenda, but I do know the authors of
this arc quite well, and I know where the story is heading,
so the answer to your question is 'Very'.
Lance
Lance Parkin
wrote:
>In article <37f84b06...@news.freeserve.net>,
>la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) said:
>
>> Joyce's role in the story will be made clear, that's the
>> important thing. His identity is not the most important
>> thing about him.
>
>I don't want to sound hostile, but isn't that up to the
>reader to decide?
At the moment, the reader hasn't been told enough
about Joyce to make that call. They will be.
Lance
Lance Parkin
wrote:
>In article <37f84b8e...@news.freeserve.net>,
>la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) said:
>
>>> But this is a personal special case, as this to me is the most
>>> sensitive point in all of DW writing. If the [spoiler] is not put
>>> back to right by the end of the arc, then the arc has peformed a
>>> retcon on the TV series the same as War of the Daleks did. And if
>>> you remember the Peel Wars, you'll remember what my reaction is to
>>> that sort of thing (i.e., a long fight with John and a personal
>>> boycott of his book). Can you think of any reason I shouldn't do
>>> the same things to the Interference arc and the associated authors
>>> if it does retcon [spoiler]? [John L Beven II]
>>
>> Because it's an exciting and interesting story that is *about* the
>> dangers of retconning? Because you want to know how it ends?
>> Because they are engagingly written? Because you like it when things
>> change and new ideas are introduced?
>
>I think you're missing a vital point, Lance: If I understand him
>correctly, John isn't sure that he really and truly _trusts_ the
>authors (and BBC Books) to not screw this grand enterprise up
>something horrible and leave a great big permanent steaming pile of
>shit sitting astride the Doctor Who EDA universe.
I know he doesn't trust us - but *not* reading the books isn't
going to increase that level of trust. We might crash and burn,
true, but the alternative is to never do anything risky. For my
money, the 'Interference Arc' has already produced some
rather good books, and got readers looking forward again.
At the moment, yes, you have to take it on trust that this
isn't just an 'electric Superman' gimmick, it's going
somewhere. No, I'm not going to say where, no I'm
not going to say when.
>I think you're assuming that when this arc is finally complete --
>assuming that it _is_ going to have a point that we can all point to
>and say "Yup, that's where it ends, all right" -- the majority's
>reaction upon seeing the completed work will range from "Okay, not
>bad" to that "Ooooh" that you get when you say "Now watch!" and plug
>in the Christmas lights and by god they all *actually* *go* *on*.
>That's a fine assumption, but not everybody is making it.
To me, either of those things is preferable to sitting at home
for six months waiting for an email to tell you what happened
to the Christmas lights.
Lance
Dangermouse
Lance Parkin <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
> I think they're baddies, but I don't have a problem with another
> author seeing them as more sympathetic. I see the Federation in
> Trek as the problem, not the solution. Writers are weird like
> that.
That's not weird - everybody knows the Federation is a Facist (or possibly
Stalinist) dictatorship.
Steven Kitson
> >Doctor's original time stream would occur as it always did - therefore
> >encountring Faction Paradox in his Eighth incarnation, thus changing
> >his biodata, thus changing his history...
> Now you see how much trouble has been caused, they should never have been
> allowed to used in the first place.
'Trouble' in its alternate meaning of 'interesting situations', I assume?
And please, please don't quote an entire (long) article just to add two
lines at the bottom.
--
When Brian Boitano travelled through time to the year 3010
He fought the evil Robot King and saved the Human race again
Steven Kitson
> la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) said:
> > Joyce's role in the story will be made clear, that's the
> > important thing. His identity is not the most important
> > thing about him.
> I don't want to sound hostile, but isn't that up to the
> reader to decide?
Not at all - the writer has all the information, and he knows what's most
important. We just have to make educated guesses.
Besides which, if you want the Doctor's origins to remain a mystery, why
not extend the same courtesy to other characters?
Nick Setchfield
meddlings of the Faction Paradox. Erase Planet of the Spiders and you
erase hot buttered crumpets. You erase the sofa. You erase the much
thumbed edition of a Radio Times, circa 1974. You erase Saturday teatime.
You erase twenty five minutes of childhood. You leave us watching ITV, and
with none of us sufficiently enthralled by some cosy, silly, magical old
piece of television to come on here to debate this implausible paradox.
Now that's frightening. I hope you boys know what you're doing. Why
couldn't you have erased Jackanory Playhouse instead?
Nick
Lord of deXness
>
> John Pettigrew was wond'ring aloud:
>
> >I don't want to sound like a bum licker but personally, I'm
> >*engrossed* in the current story arc, *enthralled* in the paradox and
> >am far more interested in reading the next book in the series than I
> >was when I felt obliged to read things like Beltempest, The Face
> >Eater, The Logest Day, etc...
>
> Without wanting to sound like I'm just copying everything that John
> Pettigrew has just said, but personally, I'm *engross.... shit erm
> *fascinated* in the present set of books, *immersed* by the
> pardoxicality(sp?) and looking forward to reading the next book in the
> series. Especially as a felt I had to read things like Beltempest.
> Actually, I liked The Face Eater. So that makes me completely
> different to John. :)
>
I'd like to add that I'm in a similar boat except for that I loved
_Beltempest_.
deX!
thad a doria
Richard Jones <tige...@net.ntl.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Oct 1999 22:03:17 GMT,
>pfre...@reverse.the.polarity.of.the.neutron.flow.com (Paul Freeman)
>wrote:
>
>>You get the feeling that the 7th Doc would have eaten Faction Paradox
>>for breakfast,
>
>God, wouldn't it be fantastic to read a post-Interference PDA in which
>they *try* and mess with him? :-)
They wouldn't even try. They know better.
>Oooh! New thought, new thought... (To me at least)
>
>Maybe the reason SylvDoc is always so hung up on his arduous
>responsibilities and his role as Time's Champion is because he KNOWS
>that he's the last incarnation before the Paradox-matter he contracted
>on Dust kicks in and he looses his shadow.
Not a bad theory. The Eighth Doctor is far more vulnerable; The New Guy
hasn't a chance of detecting the Faction's plans.
--
"I can call it 'magic,' with all the nice feelings of wonderment that word in-
spires; or I can waste your time with half an hour of technobabble that you
could never possibly understand a word of anyway. Which would you prefer?"
--The Eighth Doctor