Official Lawrence Miles Statement
Dogsbody D
Lawrence Miles
(Supposing you found out that everything you thought was
completely right. Wouldn't that be scarier?)
Hi. This isn't an attempt to start a discussion of my own, because (a)
I'm not actually connected to the WorldWide Web, and (b) I don't know
anything about newsgroup protocol anyway. (For example, I've only
just figured out that there's no such thing as a sarcastic tone of
voice on the internet, and that people therefore can't tell when you're
taking the piss. Remind me of that the next time I say anything about
any other Doctor Who writers. Or their pets.) This is my version of a
press release, I suppose. Am I allowed to do that, or what?
Firstly: yes, *Interference* is my last Doctor Who book, and no, I have
no idea why anybody thinks I've got another one coming out in March. Until
a few days ago, I was seriously thinking about writing one more, simply
because Stephen Cole told me that it wouldn't be *too* hard getting hold
of the rights to use the Daleks. Frankly, a Dalek book sounded too good
to resist. Now, however...
Well, to be honest, I feel like I've lost my mandate. The thing about
*Interference* is that I took the writing of it very seriously indeed, which
I suppose is a bad habit for a Doctor Who writer, but what can you do? That
bloody book *changed* me; it made me face up to things I hadn't wanted to
think about, and as a result I feel like a completely different individual to
the one who started work on it. And because I was so lost in the guts of it,
because I believed (and still believe) that it's the best thing I've ever
written, I ended up convincing myself that it was a Great Work. "Great" with
a capital "G", of course, meaning "very big" rather than "very good". It
never occurred to me that anyone might see things differently. I mean, I knew
a lot of people wouldn't like it, obviously, but I think I assumed that even
those who hated it would see it as a work of High Bigness.
Stupid mistake, really. The truth is, *Interference* is *so* big - not
just in length, but in the amount of ground it covers - that everybody
can find something in it they object to. Which means that even people who
like the book only like it conditionally. I don't know exactly how to
explain this, but ... writing's a vocational thing for me, not just a
job. I think every book I've written has been better than the previous
one, because I feel as thought I've got a moral duty to make sure it
happens that way. And here's where the problem lies. If I wrote another
Doctor Who novel, I'd have to make it better than *Interference*. But
the reaction to *Interference* has been so "conditional" - just look
at those magazine reviews, for God's sake! - that writing my Great
Dalek Novel would be a horrible, heartbreaking experience. Bettering
*Interference* would be a gut-wrenching task in itself, but at the
same time I'd have to be aware that nobody really liked *Interference*
much to begin with. All in all, I'd probably go mad.
I think it was the review in DWM that finally settled things. I mean,
I'm used to bad reviews by now, and I've had a lot worse in the last
couple of years. But it wasn't what Ness Bishop said that hurt so
much, it was her reasons for saying it. All the things she had a
problem with in *Interference* are side-effects of the way I write...
in short, it's not the book that's the problem, it's me. I have to
face the fact that whatever I write from now on, I'm never going to get
a better response, because that's who I *am*. Which is as good a reason
for retiring as you'll ever hear.
There are two kinds of Doctor Who writers, of course. There are people
who do things the old-fashioned way - John Peel immediately springs to
mind, for some reason - and there are people like me, who only exist to
mess things up a bit. I wanted to write a Dalek book because none of the
messing-things-up writers have ever gone anywhere near the Daleks;
because I imagined that when the news reached the newsgroups, even people
who didn't like any of my other books would be surprised/confused/curious.
(And I know I'm not the only one to feel that way, seeing as one other
less-than-traditional writer also planned a Dalek book that fell through...)
However, after *Interference*, I have to face up to the truth. For an
awful lot of people, it wouldn't be a case of "Wow, Lawrence Miles is
writing a Dalek book". It'd be a case of "Christ, doesn't he *ever* give
it a rest?".
Which is what I mean when I say that I feel like I've lost my mandate.
It's not polite for any writer to keep churning out books and expecting
people to buy them, especially when he knows that most of the readers
aren't on his side to begin with. And if even the people who quite like
*Interference* are having problems with large chunks of it, then I've got
to acknowledge that the longer I go on, the less people I'm going to
have behind me. I don't have the ego to fight a single-handed war
against the continuity, basically. Which is why I'm not writing any more
books, which is why I'm not even going to be tempted by the prospect of
Daleks, and which is why - ultimately - this is going to be my last
posting around here for a while.
Goodnight and thankyou,
L.M.
P.S. Whatever Gary Gillat says about the DWM interview, I don't remember
giving my "frank opinions" about any of the other writers. Then again,
David Darlington kept buying me vodka throughout the afternoon, so my
memory of things isn't exactly perfect. I know I said something damning
about Christopher Bulis at one point, but *that's* hardly going to set
the world on fire.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Shaun Lyon
> Hi.
What truly amazes me is that, in the circles I travel (American
fandom), Lawrence Miles is without a doubt currently the most popular
novelist of the group. I may be oblivious, but I'm at a loss to
understand this; I haven't seen much of the negativity. (And certainly
I'm well plugged into American fandom...)
Cheers!
Shaun
http://www.gallifreyone.com
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).
JeffWorks
In THAT case, I think all of us who like his work (and I unfortunatley haven't
read any of it) should praise him before he decides to go hang out with the
B'omarr monks and give up writing altogether!
o--c
___
| _ _ _ | | _ _ _
| |_ |_ |_ | | | | | |_| |/|_ remove "hormel" to reply
|_| |_ | | |_|_| |_| | \ |\ _|
Building the foundations for a spookier tomorrow...
Richard Rhodes
have read "Alien Bodies" - one of the best and most challenging 8th Doctor
stories - and one which kept me reading the series when I'd come to the
point of giving up on it!
So sod the critics and keep up the good work. OK there'll always be those
people who dislike something about what's been written - one of those
things. But at least you've got the guts to do something fresh rather than
vapid recycling.
So - do the Dalek book - or else we'll send the boys round!!!
RICHARD
Dogsbody D <mark...@menace.ndo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7pc7fh$b1a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Andy
Hey come on, so you wrote a bad book. Stop crying about it, learn from your
mistakes and make the next one better.
Christmas on a Rational Planet, Alien Bodies and Dead Romance have all been
excellent. One bad book (and I mean one, Interference isn't really two
books) is no reason to give up.
I hated Interference, but go ahead and write your Dalek book.
I'll buy it.
--Andy
LennyTyke
Lawrence Miles could see it - simply because I feel I want to apologise for my
response to Interference, which his statement makes plain was very personal to
him.
I wrote that I hated the story, that it seemed to rip off one of my ideas and a
whole lot more vitriol besides.
However, the source of the majority of my reasons for disliking it came from
one reason, which in part Lawrence Miles identifies himself - that it tries to
do too much. For me, there is a perfectly good, solid, and potentially
brilliant story in there (which I recognise as being basically the same as the
proposal I sent off - but perhaps I'm not as good a writer as Mr. Miles yet!).
However, it is brought down by a whole heap of baggage that was unnecessary in
the end. Ideas, which maybe part of this 'story arc' we hear so much about,
but none the less broke with the spirit of Dr. Who as I recognised it.
I don't know how much of the story, as opposed to the style, was this 'it's not
the book; it's me' business. The story was a poor one, when expanded to two
volumes. A lot of the side-elements (such as the Doctor in the prison) felt
to me like betrayals of the fundamental core of Dr. Who; not its internal
history, but the very nature of the story itself. But these are surely just
individual concoctions; not a part of the 'self' of writing?
And yet, I know that the style of writing and the way of putting things
together actually is good. To a certain extent, it might be classed as genius
(on the strength of Alien Bodies alone, I placed Lawrence Miles as 3rd best
writer in the BBC ranges). To lose that, from one poor showing, would be
tragedy of the highest order.
I would say this: It is extremely obvious now, looking back at the two novels
in question, that Lawrence Miles put a great deal of himself into them. I
would say that with Doctor Who that is a mistake, to a certain extent (after
all, it is impossible to write without putting something of oneself into the
story!). 'Doctor Who' is a joint effort, a product built up over thirty-six
years by the teamwork of scores of authors, I don't know how many script
editors and producers, and at least eight actors.
I wrote that Interference was like a smiley scrawled on the face of a
masterpiece that had been built up out of many spots of paint by the artists
before. The image holds, I think, but I do not mean it as a completely
negative criticism - in some fiction, such personal expression is great. But
I would say that there is less room in an on-going saga like Doctor Who for
personal expression than in a stand-alone work.
I would very much like to read more Doctor Who written by Lawrence Miles. And
it wouldn't take much to improve on Interference. Interference suffers from
trying too hard to be a masterpiece in its own right. A novel with less
ambition but more passion for the entirety of Dr. Who (whether to confuse the
issue or otherwise!) would always outshine Interference. Interference was big
in scale and length. The latter was its main problem; the former was neither
here nor there.
If only one part of this message reaches Lawrence Miles, I want it to be this:
Lawrence Miles, you can easily better Interference, simply by not trying to
better it (that sounds like Alice in Wonderland or doublethink, but it does
work!). And even I, a great hater of Interference, would hate that one bad
spot should be reason enough that anyone should quit. Everyone has a project
that doesn't work out - the thing to recognise is that it nearly always comes
of trying too hard. Please please please don't give up on Dr. Who just
because of one reviewer's comments!
Oliver James Thornton
Sean Gaffney
> Hi. This isn't an attempt to start a discussion of my own, because (a)
> I'm not actually connected to the WorldWide Web, and (b) I don't know
> anything about newsgroup protocol anyway. (For example, I've only
> just figured out that there's no such thing as a sarcastic tone of
> voice on the internet, and that people therefore can't tell when you're
> taking the piss. Remind me of that the next time I say anything about
> any other Doctor Who writers. Or their pets.) This is my version of a
> press release, I suppose. Am I allowed to do that, or what?
Damn straight. You're far more polite than 9/10 of radw. Just be
prepared for a discussion. Even if you never read this (and you say
you won't read more radw), I'm going to respond anyway, simply because
your message stirred in me a need to respond.
> Stupid mistake, really. The truth is, *Interference* is *so* big - not
> just in length, but in the amount of ground it covers - that everybody
> can find something in it they object to. Which means that even people who
> like the book only like it conditionally.
Welcome to the wonderful world of epics. The bigger a story, the more
smashing plot threads, wonderful new characters, amazing deus ex machinas
from hell that are in there, the more likely someone will say that the
Doctor's never been that shade of pink before, you bastard. ^_^ I think
that your problem - and one of the things that makes you a fabulous writer,
btw - is how passionate you get about your work. You put so much of
yourself into your writing, so much of your pain and joy and soul, that
when people criticize it it's like they're hurting you. (Listen to me:
Dr. Katz, Author Therapist. :-P) Personally, I envy that. I'm an amateur
writer, and one of the problems I see with my work is a tendency to look
at it too dispassionately, to try to follow the function rather than the
form. What you do, though... your works SHOW how much you put into them.
Not just effort, but spirit.
> I think it was the review in DWM that finally settled things. I mean,
> I'm used to bad reviews by now, and I've had a lot worse in the last
> couple of years. But it wasn't what Ness Bishop said that hurt so
> much, it was her reasons for saying it. All the things she had a
> problem with in *Interference* are side-effects of the way I write...
> in short, it's not the book that's the problem, it's me. I have to
> face the fact that whatever I write from now on, I'm never going to get
> a better response, because that's who I *am*. Which is as good a reason
> for retiring as you'll ever hear.
I've never managed to take reviews that seriously, possibly as I've
written them for 5 years on here, on and off (mostly off now). But from
what I've read of Vanessa's reviews, they reflect her biases just as much
as any reviewer's. After reading a reviewer for a while, you start to
get a feel for what they're going to say. In addition, what with the
Internet making it easy to find out about books up to a year in advance,
there's no way to come into the book unbiased. Everyone saw '2 books,
writes out Sam, multi-doctor, etc.' and got these INCREDIBLE expectations.
Ask Lance about the reception for Infinity Doctors, which if I recall,
was very similar to the one for Interference.
> I have to face up to the truth. For an
> awful lot of people, it wouldn't be a case of "Wow, Lawrence Miles is
> writing a Dalek book". It'd be a case of "Christ, doesn't he *ever* give
> it a rest?".
This is true, but for a lot of others - more than you imagine - it would
be along the lines of 'Fuckin' A, YEAH! Lawrence writing a Dalek book!
This is gonna be AMAZING!'. There is, thank the Lord, not merely one type
of Who fan.
> Which is why I'm not writing any more
> books, which is why I'm not even going to be tempted by the prospect of
> Daleks, and which is why - ultimately - this is going to be my last
> posting around here for a while.
Well, that's up to you. I personally feel that if the act of writing
will cause you that much hurt, then you *shouldn't* do it anymore - when
it's lost its fun, it's time to stop. On the other hand, consider the
legacy you're leaving. Alien Bodies has become the yardstick on which
8DAs are judged, and Dead Romance is looking to become the same for the
Benny NAs. If you take away one thing from this, let it be how many
people were truly enthralled reading your writing, rather than those who
weren't.
Whatever you do, I wish you the best. And if you can find your muse
again, please come back. Some of us still love the ride.
--Sean Gaffney, Happy Guy
--who apologizes for this post sounding like pretentious crap...
John Hutton
> I'll Get My Coat: The Final and Definitive Statement of
> Lawrence Miles
<<SNIPPED post by Lawrence Miles>>
Errr.....
Hmmmm....
Mind you I *LIKED* Interference....
Errr....
About the only polite thing I can say after reading that post is: I can't
wait to see what David McIntee's reaction to this will be....
Hmmm... maybe I could sell tickets...
John Hutton
por...@calweb.com
Benjamin F. Elliott
forever, no matter what your opinions are of the author.
Strangely, I'm trying to read my first Miles book right
now. I'm 60-some pages into Down, and falling asleep every
few pages. (Rather like the early portions of Sky Pirates!,
the first Dave Stone book I read, so it may not be an
actual fault of the story.)
Based on reviews, I've been keeping an eye out for Alien
Bodies. I get the impression I'll either love or hate that
installment. And I was going to get Interference 1 + 2, but
the BBC has raised the price of the new books to $6.95, so
I'll be avoiding them like all the other $6.95 titles. (I
have many books yet to buy and read before I have to
consider compromising that position.)
Well, I guess all I can do is wish Mr. Miles well. You
wrote some books which garnered a lot of debate. I know at
least 2 fans whose Doctor Who experiences have been deeply
affected by reading your works. Those naps I've had in Down
were really needed, and I'm determined to finish the book
to see if my brain can somehow figure out what's going on,
whether it's a Sky Pirates! or a lowly Oblivion.
Best of luck, Mr. Miles, in all future Who and non-Who
ventures.
Benjamin F. Elliott
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Helen
Andy wrote in message <7pcm1o$e1r$1...@nclient15-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>
>Hey come on, so you wrote a bad book. Stop crying about it, learn from your
>mistakes and make the next one better.
But it's NOT a bad book...
It's different, its innovative, it pushes the limits. Mark - Jess just tell
him some of us love it to bits.. ok??
H
Matt Michael
Dogsbody D wrote in message <7pc7fh$b1a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I'll Get My Coat: The Final and Definitive Statement of
>Lawrence Miles
Unfortunately Lawrence can't read this but...
I thought that "Interference" was not only the best DW book I have ever
read, but also one of the best books I've ever read. It's about perception,
and perception of perception (at least that's what I perceive it to be about
:). It's one of the few DW books that has genuinely got me thinking -
thinking about big, scary things. But then, it's big and scary book and it
laughs at the pettiness of continuity and even retro- (and surely that
stands for retrogressive and not retroactive) continuity. It's a great
book, not only in length (the first true DW epic?) but in quality. It's got
more imagination on each and every page than certain authors have shown in
all their books added together. It's unprecedented. It's fantastic. It's
the best excuse for employing an author that I have ever seen. Another
Lawrence Miles novel is (other than the next Cornell) the only thing that
*really* excites me when it comes to the book range.
Sod the critics, Lawrence, publish and be damned.
matt
Susannah Tiller
And tell him this:
Even if all of fandom doesn't agree on Interference, the books range
will be much, much, much poorer without Lawrence Miles. The ideas raised
in all of his books have had a huge influence on just abut every book in
the range.
There will always be fans who don't like the newest book/video/whatever.
Every consistently popular book has its detractors - some of the biggest
flamewars we've had recently here have been to do with generally
well-acclaimed books like The Scarlet Empress and Unnatural History.
Unfortunately, sometimes this can be too intense and too personal;
RADW's managed to drive away a few authors by being overly critical. now
it seems we've managed to drive away someone who doesn't even have net
access.
Don't let them do it, Lawrence! Even if there are people out there who
don't like your books there's always people here who do!!
Regards,
Susannah
P.S. Lawrence, if you do ever get to read this, thank you for signing
those copies of Inty for me!
--
Susannah Tiller - susanna...@studentmail.newcastle.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/5460/index.html
"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right
to be taken seriously" - H. H. Humphrey
Ben Woodhams
Farewell then,
Lawrence Miles.
“Treat continuity as a dog treats a freshly mowed lawn”
That was your catchphrase.
Or maybe it wasn’t.
Either way,
I’d like to see Roy off the telly do a silly computer graphic of that one.
OK, apologies in advance for this. It’s late, I’m tired, and to cap it
all, my entire library decided to liberate itself from the wall on
Sunday morning. Two tons and twenty years of books come raining down,
trashing my record-player and speakers, ruining about £300-worth of
shelves and just generally hassling with my mellow. Luckily, no-one was
underneath it when this happened, or we’d be talking fatalities, no
joke. Anyway, enough of me - all of that’s just a feeble attempt to
justify the rambling, incoherent nature of the following attempt to
disappear up my own arse.
I was somewhat disturbed to read Lawrence Mile’s comments on why
‘Interference’ is to be his last ‘Doctor Who’ book. He’s clearly made
his mind up, and I don’t suppose for one moment that anything that gets
written here is going to change it. That doesn’t mean, though, that I
don’t feel like trying to explain what I feel is going on.
Obviously, this is more than a simple case of a writer taking it hard
when the reviews are somewhat less glowing that s/he might like. LM
feels he’s given as good as he’s likely to get with this one, really
blown his guts out over it, and if the best result he can get is a
lukewarm response, then fuck it, what’s the point? I think Lawrence has
had an agenda for Who, and is somewhat peeved that his approach hasn’t
been applauded/encouraged. I also think that this hasn’t happened
because those people who’ve ventured the opinions that LM has heard,
haven’t even noticed that there *is* an agenda - and I’m not necessarily
talking about (gasp!) redefining what is acceptable continuity, or
(swoon!) post-modernising old monsters like the Ogrons. Both these
things are part of it, but they are only symptoms of what I think he’s
been trying to do. In isolation, they’d really be so much
window-dressing slapped onto pulp fiction.
What LM’s been trying to do is write ‘Doctor Who’ *properly*.
I’ll get round to what I mean by that in a minute.
As Paul Cornell has pointed out, fandom judges the literature on which
it is based by different criteria than most ‘ordinary’ people would
employ. When new DW comes out, therefore, it’s judged within a
pre-exisiting framework, rather than in it’s own right. Not just
continuity, but the *totality* of all things ‘Who’, the supposed
culmination of which is new Who. We set a work into the DW paradigm and
see how it settles in, in terms of style, gun/frock, trad/rad,
characterisation, plot (and the way it compares to previous plots), and,
oh, everything, and above all else, how well it accords with our ideas
of what Doctor Who should be. Most of these things are relative ideas,
none of them is regarded on their own merits. If fandom does, as Kate &
Jon seem to think, consist largely of Unnaturalists, then this totality
is the display case we rack our literature up in, once we’ve determined
its provenance.
Lawrence has, in a rather subtle way, been trying to write books that
not only break out of this paradigm, in a ‘You have. No. Fucking.
*Idea*. What is going to happen next’ stylee (and, incidentally, you
have no *right* to know, or even to have have the slightest conception),
but can break out and do anything.
Like ‘proper’ books. Like (dare I say it?) literature. Like mainstream
fiction. You remember mainstream fiction, don’t you? Those books which
can have more than 400 pages? About which you may have no preconceptions
when you pick them up? Books, sometimes, with a sense of wonder; because
in a book, you can do anything, go anywhere. In time or space.
As a fan, would you judge, say, ‘The Crow Road’, or ‘The Electric
Kool-Aid Acid Test’, or ‘Wuthering Heights’ by the same criteria you use
to evaluate ‘War of the Daleks’, ‘Human Nature’ or ‘Sky Pirates!’ (time
to play ‘spot the odd one out’)? Or vice versa? If not, why not? Yes,
yes, yes, I know the Who books are part of an ongoing series, but that’s
no excuse for not looking at the bigger picture.
But fandom being fandom, Miles’ books are inevitably judged on fan
criteria, from a fan’s perspective. Bizarrely, this could mean that a
Who book might get a better review from a non-fan in a broadsheet (oh,
you *wish*) than it gets in DWM. How’s that for fucked up? I’m not
having a pop at Vanessa Bishop, either. We’re all guilty of this to some
extent, I suspect.
Seems to me that LM’s been trying to bring some ‘mainstream’
sensibilities into Who fiction (or maybe he just sees it, as he says, as
writing the best books he can), and to not only expand the envelope of
what is acceptable Who, but to break it. This is, unquestionably, a good
thing. What is not a good thing, is that some people, apparently, have
completely failed to take this on board. They see the logo on the cover,
and instantly go into a mindset which ensures that they’ll miss the
point. Isn’t that the sort of thing we’re supposed to laugh at in other,
‘normal’, people? Isn’t this literary prejudice, whether justified or
not? ‘The Infinity Doctors’ almost escaped this treatment, on account of
it not being set within any recognisable continuity. But continuity’s
not the issue here, kids.
Now, in my oh-so-humble opinion, there’s a place for ‘trad’ stuff in
Who. No problem with that at all, especially in the PDAs. But over a
twenty-six year television history, Who rarely remained static for too
long. Even over Tom’s seven years, we had (at least) three very distinct
sorts of show. Always moving, always changing, sometimes redefining the
envelope, sometimes changing it altogether. I think Who exists within an
envelope which is actually somewhat stifling right now, and anything
which works to break it is to be applauded.
I’m not saying that ‘Interference’ is the perfect DW modern novel - but
I *am* saying it’s the closest thing we’ve got. And I’m really disturbed
by the idea that, in Lawrence deciding to retire, the people inside the
paradigm have won, and can’t see outside to see what they’ve nipped in
the bud.
Phew.
There, that’s better.
ben w.
J2rider
INTERFERENCE yet but I will when it is available im my country. Your books are
solid reads and I hope you do continue and as I really like the Daleks, I hope
you do write that Dalek story. It would be killer. Thanks.
Andy
>But it's NOT a bad book...
>
>It's different, its innovative, it pushes the limits. Mark - Jess just tell
>him some of us love it to bits.. ok??
>
Sorry Helen, I was pretty fired up when I posted the response, so I probably
could have been a bit gentler. I didn't like Interference, it had some nice
ideas but for me, it didn't quite work. (My other half, on the other hand,
agrees with you and thinks its the best book this year!)
What I was trying to get across was the fact that just because a whole boat
load of people didn't like it, Lawrence shouldn't give up writing on the
basis of a single bad experience. I still rate Alien Bodies as the best 8th
Doctor book in the entire range. Faction Paradox is probably the best
addition to the Who mythos in years.
I just wanted to say that I didn't feel that Interference had compromised
his reputation as a quality author. I'd still buy a book with his name on it
irrespective of my feelings on Interference.
Charles Martin
"Shaun Lyon" <jsl...@gallifreyoneNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> Lawrence Miles wrote:
>
> > Hi.
>
> What truly amazes me is that, in the circles I travel (American
> fandom), Lawrence Miles is without a doubt currently the most popular
> novelist of the group. I may be oblivious, but I'm at a loss to
> understand this; I haven't seen much of the negativity. (And certainly
> I'm well plugged into American fandom...)
I'm with Shaun.
Alien Bodies remains my fave of the 8th Doctor novels, and when you talk
to any American fan who's following the books the name Lawrence Miles
conjures up a feeling of anticipation. He's a brain-bender, that one, and
no mistake.
Chas
Joxer
> Lawrence Miles
>
> (Supposing you found out that everything you thought was
> completely right. Wouldn't that be scarier?)
>
> Hi. This isn't an attempt to start a discussion of my own, because (a)
> I'm not actually connected to the WorldWide Web, and (b) I don't know
> anything about newsgroup protocol anyway. (For example, I've only
> just figured out that there's no such thing as a sarcastic tone of
> voice on the internet, and that people therefore can't tell when you're
> taking the piss. Remind me of that the next time I say anything about
> any other Doctor Who writers. Or their pets.) This is my version of a
> press release, I suppose. Am I allowed to do that, or what?
>
> Firstly: yes, *Interference* is my last Doctor Who book, and no, I have
> no idea why anybody thinks I've got another one coming out in March. Until
> a few days ago, I was seriously thinking about writing one more, simply
> because Stephen Cole told me that it wouldn't be *too* hard getting hold
> of the rights to use the Daleks. Frankly, a Dalek book sounded too good
> to resist. Now, however...
I don't bloody believe it! No sooner do I post a message saying that my
ideal EDA would be a Dalek novel written by Lance or Lawrence than Lance
informs us that he was going to do one, but now isn't, and the same day
Lawrence says exactly the same thing. If that's the way things are going to
work, then I'd better ask for there never to be a new series of TV Who and
for the nude teenage photoshoot of Sarah Sutton to remain lost forever :-)
--
A great big anti-soothsaying old Colin B.
http://x-stream.fortunecity.com/scullyst/25
Lance Parkin
>I've never managed to take reviews that seriously, possibly as I've
>written them for 5 years on here, on and off (mostly off now). But from
>what I've read of Vanessa's reviews, they reflect her biases just as much
>as any reviewer's. After reading a reviewer for a while, you start to
>get a feel for what they're going to say. In addition, what with the
>Internet making it easy to find out about books up to a year in advance,
>there's no way to come into the book unbiased. Everyone saw '2 books,
>writes out Sam, multi-doctor, etc.' and got these INCREDIBLE expectations.
>Ask Lance about the reception for Infinity Doctors, which if I recall,
>was very similar to the one for Interference.
The magazine reviews for TID were all pretty positive - even the TV
Zone 6 out of 10 praised me for trying something different. 9/10
in DWB, B+ from Stephen Baxter in SFX (with the same
issue callling it the best tie-in book ever), 'a tour de force' from
Dave Owen. The radw response was more mixed, and I admit I'm
a little disappointed by the placing in the Rankings and DWM poll -
but, it didn't do *badly*. Sean's right that both TID and Interference
had the burden of expectation on them - Alien Bodies did so
well, I think, because people weren't *expecting* a brilliant book.
With TID and Interference people expected a 10/10 all things
to all men - you can only be vaguely disappointed. I can also
empathise with Lawrence - I really think TID is the best writing
I've ever done, several levels above, say, The Dying Days. If
other people don't share that opinion, then that's the author's
problem, not the readers'.
>> I have to face up to the truth. For an
>> awful lot of people, it wouldn't be a case of "Wow, Lawrence Miles is
>> writing a Dalek book". It'd be a case of "Christ, doesn't he *ever* give
>> it a rest?".
>
>This is true, but for a lot of others - more than you imagine - it would
>be along the lines of 'Fuckin' A, YEAH! Lawrence writing a Dalek book!
>This is gonna be AMAZING!'. There is, thank the Lord, not merely one type
>of Who fan.
Well, this time last year I was gearing up to write a Dalek book, we'd
agreed terms with Hancock and I had a story lined up. I'm not
going to go into the reasons why 'Enemy of the Daleks' isn't
happening, but I was acutely aware that a lot of attention would
be focussed on the book, and that expectations would be high. To be
honest, I saw living up to those expectations as half the fun!
But, to me, this announcement of Lawrence is good news. I'm thinking
'fucking hell, the author of Dead Romance is going off to write books
of his own'. That's a good thing, even if it's a big loss to the EDA
range.
Lance
Brad Schmidt
Oh hold on, I am a wanky reviewer.
But I rather like most of Interference.
Anyway, Mr Miles said he doesn't have net access, so I'm not going to
sit and beg him to come back, because he probably won't even see it.
But, what a *shame*.
Nicholas Smale
> [...] this time last year I was gearing up to write a Dalek book, we'd
> agreed terms with Hancock
'Hancock'? That's interesting - there were discussions on r.a.dw last
year (see http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=406157332) suggesting that
the Nation family were no longer using Roger Hancock as their agent (and
therefore that authors might not have to give up such large proportions
of their fee when writing for them, making future Dalek books more
likely).
Was this not the case?
> and I had a story lined up. I'm not going to go into the reasons why
> 'Enemy of the Daleks' isn't happening [...]
Hmmm... When Lawrence wrote "one other less-than-traditional writer also
planned a Dalek book that fell through..." I'd assumed he was talking
about the rumoured Marc Platt title...
--
Nick Smale <http://www.smale.demon.co.uk>
Manchester, UK
Philip Craggs
Ben Woodhams wrote:
> I’m not saying that ‘Interference’ is the perfect DW modern novel - but
> I *am* saying it’s the closest thing we’ve got. And I’m really disturbed
> by the idea that, in Lawrence deciding to retire, the people inside the
> paradigm have won, and can’t see outside to see what they’ve nipped in
> the bud.
Note: Not all the following is aimed at Ben Woodhams, but also at the board in
general.
Have you ever considered, even for one moment, that the reason a person
doesn't like Interference is because *gasp* they don't like Interference? That
maybe it's got nothing to do with it being a Doctor Who novel? The flaw in
your argument (it seems to me) is that you assume we all read nothing but
Doctor Who and so don't know what mainstream literature is. Wrong. Just
recently i read a (sci-fi mainstream) novel that was over 600 pages (to be
fair, it's a collection of 4 collected novellas but really colsely linked),
and its much better than 'Interference' not because it isn't Docotr Who, but
because its better. (the book incidentally is 'Cities in Flight' by James
Blish). Now, there is some good in Interference. Book one is incredably dull,
but book two (ie, when the Doctor is leading it, not Sarah) improves and
towards the end i was fairly gripped. Whether this was because it was
well-written or because i wanted to find out what the 'twist' at the end was i
don't know (although i suspect the latter).
But what do i know? I didn't think 'Alien Bodies' was that special either.
(apart from Mr Shift (was that his name?)).
But can we please have less of this attitude that because someone doesn't
like a popular book it's their fault, because they're 'traditional' readers,
or because they judge it differently because its Who. Someone doesn't like a
novel. Full stop. If they want to elaborate it's up to them. But don't just
invalidate a person's opinion because it's different to yours.
--
Philip Craggs
'What is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason for dying.'
(Albert Camus).
Paradise Towers: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/3694/
'Kick over the wall/Cause Governments to fall/How can you refuse it?
Let fury have the hour/Anger can be power/You know that you can use it.' (The
Clash).
Dangermouse
Dogsbody D <mark...@menace.ndo.co.uk> wrote
> I ended up convincing myself that it was a Great Work. "Great" with
> a capital "G", of course, meaning "very big" rather than "very good". It
> never occurred to me that anyone might see things differently. I mean, I
knew
> a lot of people wouldn't like it, obviously, but I think I assumed that
even
> those who hated it would see it as a work of High Bigness.
Always a big mistake - people hate pretension. Sometimes it's possible to
try *too* hard... (I haven't read the finished Interference, so can't judge
it)
> Stupid mistake, really. The truth is, *Interference* is *so* big - not
> just in length, but in the amount of ground it covers - that everybody
> can find something in it they object to. Which means that even people who
> like the book only like it conditionally.
So?
>I don't know exactly how to
> explain this, but ... writing's a vocational thing for me, not just a
> job.
For most writers who live off the profession entirely...
> I think every book I've written has been better than the previous
> one, because I feel as thought I've got a moral duty to make sure it
> happens that way.
Ah... But the problem is you can't decide whether it's better - only the
readers can do that. And what one person considers an improvement, another
will consider a disappointment. I think there's a phrase about not pleasing
all of the people all of the time...
> I think it was the review in DWM that finally settled things. I mean,
> I'm used to bad reviews by now, and I've had a lot worse in the last
> couple of years. But it wasn't what Ness Bishop said that hurt so
> much, it was her reasons for saying it. All the things she had a
> problem with in *Interference* are side-effects of the way I write...
> in short, it's not the book that's the problem, it's me. I have to
> face the fact that whatever I write from now on, I'm never going to get
> a better response, because that's who I *am*. Which is as good a reason
> for retiring as you'll ever hear.
<Picard>
You coward!
</Picard>
No it bloody isn't. It's running away from them.
Jesus, look at the some of the stick (some more personal than others) that
I get, but I still want to come back after this Voyager stuff. Don't let
them get you down. (well, do, but don't let it make you disappoint the one
who do like your stuff). Take a year or two off to do other stuff, then
come back and do something different. (that's the important bit - you can't
keep doing the same type of thing all the time, or they get bored with you)
> Which is what I mean when I say that I feel like I've lost my mandate.
> It's not polite for any writer to keep churning out books and expecting
> people to buy them, especially when he knows that most of the readers
> aren't on his side to begin with.
Fuck 'em. If they're dumb enough to waste money on authors they don't
like...
And the critics are different from the buyers...
> And if even the people who quite like
> *Interference* are having problems with large chunks of it, then I've got
> to acknowledge that the longer I go on, the less people I'm going to
> have behind me.
Do something different, then.
> I don't have the ego to fight a single-handed war
> against the continuity, basically.
Then do one that follows continuity, just for a laugh
A lot of us will be disappointed if there's nevermore a Lawrence Miles
book...
--
"This path has been placed before you; the choice to take it is yours
alone"
Dangermouse
Nicholas Smale <ni...@smale.demon.co.uk> wrote
> Hmmm... When Lawrence wrote "one other less-than-traditional writer also
> planned a Dalek book that fell through..." I'd assumed he was talking
> about the rumoured Marc Platt title...
That was to be a Virgin NA before they lost the licence.
Nicholas Smale
> Nicholas Smale <ni...@smale.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > Hmmm... When Lawrence wrote "one other less-than-traditional writer also
> > planned a Dalek book that fell through..." I'd assumed he was talking
> > about the rumoured Marc Platt title...
>
> That was to be a Virgin NA before they lost the licence.
Yes? But that's not what Jon Blum suggested last year: "I can say with a
good deal of confidence that *the* reason we don't have a Dalek book on
the 1999 schedule is because Marc Platt didn't want to do a novel for a
fraction of his usual fee." (http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=406157332)
Gordon Rennie
>
> Dogsbody D <mark...@menace.ndo.co.uk> wrote:
> > I'll Get My Coat: The Final and Definitive Statement of
> > Lawrence Miles
>
>
>
> Errr.....
>
>
> Hmmmm....
>
> Mind you I *LIKED* Interference....
>
> Errr....
>
> About the only polite thing I can say after reading that post is: I can't
> wait to see what David McIntee's reaction to this will be....
Thank god. I was beginning to think that I was the only person who thought
that this was the worst piece of whining self-pitying creative
over-preciousness I've ever read.
Gary Gillatt
there are a couple of points I want to make:
1] In his DWM interview, conducted before any review of Interference was
printed, Lawrence states that Interference will be his last Doctor Who
book.
2] While giving the interview, Lawrence was very frank regarding his
opinion of fellow authors. Almost all of this has been cut before reaching
the page, as it made him look like an arrogant idiot something he
certainly isn't and would just appear so much shit-stirring on our part.
With the above in mind, I can't quite fathom the motive for his statement here..
Gary
--
Paul Ebbs
Gary Gillatt <doct...@marmags.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:doctorwho-180...@marmags.demon.co.uk...
> While I'm sorry that Lawrence feels hurt by the response to his book,
> there are a couple of points I want to make:
>
> 1] In his DWM interview, conducted before any review of Interference was
> printed, Lawrence states that Interference will be his last Doctor Who
> book.
>
> 2] While giving the interview, Lawrence was very frank regarding his
> opinion of fellow authors. Almost all of this has been cut before reaching
> the page, as it made him look like an arrogant idiot something he
> certainly isn't and would just appear so much shit-stirring on our part.
Go on , stir the shit, tell us what he said - we won't tell anyone honest
:-)
--
pauly
Season27
A brand new series of Doctor Who adventures on CD.
http://www.season27.freeserve.co.uk/
M.H. Stevens
I know I've never been a favorite around here and this is liable to make me a few
enemies but I feel that someone needs speak for the opposition.
Not having read Interference(namely due to London Bridge's usual level of
imcompetence), I can't yet pass judgement on those books, but if what I've seen
here is true then I won't be sorry to see Mr. Miles depart from the line. From
what I've heard it's very original(nothing wrong with that), but originality can
be dangerous without guidelines.
He himself admits that he tends to throw continuity out the window which is one
thing I've never liked because I've always felt that with a show about
time-travel there are some things which should be concrete and left well enough
alone. The one good thing about this situation is that he's getting out before
he had a chance of messing up the Daleks, John Peel spent the time and trouble to
sort out all of the problems with Dalek Continuity(which is tricky enough on it's
own) in his six books. He managed to tie up alot of loose ends and that last
thing we need is for somebody to come along and unravel it again. Hopefully Mr.
Miles's decision to "retire" will serve to show other "off the wall" writers that
maybe it's time to start coloring inside the lines again, that or go write
Bernice Summerfield books.
Mark H. Stevens
Paul Ebbs
the man who wrote Alien Bodies and Interference (*The* best Who book in the
history of the world) isn't really going to bare his soul to us here of all
places .
Is he..........?
This is either a hoax or joke.
Stuart Moore
doct...@marmags.demon.co.uk (Gary Gillatt) wrote:
> While I'm sorry that Lawrence feels hurt by the response to his book,
> there are a couple of points I want to make:
>
> 1] In his DWM interview, conducted before any review of Interference
was
> printed, Lawrence states that Interference will be his last Doctor Who
> book.
Oh? So what was his statement about? It was essentially about his style.
> 2] While giving the interview, Lawrence was very frank regarding his
> opinion of fellow authors. Almost all of this has been cut before
reaching
> the page, as it made him look like an arrogant idiot something he
> certainly isn't and would just appear so much shit-stirring on our
part.
So you're saying Lawrence has a low opinion of his fellow authors? This
is interesting. You cut it? Don't, let everybody know what he said.
Only cut it if it's libellous. Let Lawrence take the flak for his
hubris.
> With the above in mind, I can't quite fathom the motive for his
statement here..
Indeed.
Bye,
--
Stuart Moore.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Jonathan Blum
Gary Gillatt <doct...@marmags.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>While I'm sorry that Lawrence feels hurt by the response to his book,
>there are a couple of points I want to make:
[...]
>2] While giving the interview, Lawrence was very frank regarding his
>opinion of fellow authors. Almost all of this has been cut before reaching
>the page, as it made him look like an arrogant idiot something he
>certainly isn't and would just appear so much shit-stirring on our part.
>With the above in mind, I can't quite fathom the motive for his statement here..
Well, given that you *did* promote the interview here by bringing up those
"frank" comments, I can understand why he'd try to minimize them.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Dangermouse
Nicholas Smale <ni...@smale.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > That was to be a Virgin NA before they lost the licence.
>
> Yes? But that's not what Jon Blum suggested last year: "I can say with a
> good deal of confidence that *the* reason we don't have a Dalek book on
> the 1999 schedule is because Marc Platt didn't want to do a novel for a
> fraction of his usual fee." (http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=406157332)
Presumably he just resubmitted the same one to the Beeb.
Dangermouse
Gary Gillatt <doct...@marmags.demon.co.uk> wrote
> 2] While giving the interview, Lawrence was very frank regarding his
> opinion of fellow authors.
Hm. Anything worth challenging him to a duel over?
(It'd look good on my biography if ever there is one)
Paul 'Ozymandias' Harman
news:37B9F5EA...@pvcdiva.demon.co.uk...
> OK, apologies in advance for this. It's late, I'm tired, and to cap it
> all, my entire library decided to liberate itself from the wall on
> feeble attempt to justify the rambling, incoherent nature of the
> following attempt to disappear up my own arse.
<huge snip>
By God, if that isn't the most moving and on-the-button thing I've ever read
on RADW then I'm an Ogron.
Ozzy
Matt Michael
Ben Woodhams wrote in message <37B9F5EA...@pvcdiva.demon.co.uk>...
>So.
>Farewell then,
>Lawrence Miles.
>
>“Treat continuity as a dog treats a freshly mowed lawn”
>That was your catchphrase.
>Or maybe it wasn’t.
<Snipped the rest cos I agree totally>
It's a shame that Lawrence isn't going to write any more Who books because I
thought he was only just warming up ("Christmas" was great, "Alien Bodies"
exemplary, "Interference" - better). I don't think his loss will be truly
appreciated for some time. "Interference" was, if not perfect, then as near
to perfect as the range has ever got. If it doesn't bring about some
genuine change in a range that's come dangerously close to collapse more
than once then I for one will be extremely disappointed.
matt
Matt Michael
Philip Craggs wrote in message <37BA694E...@diamond.co.uk>...
>Blish). Now, there is some good in Interference. Book one is incredably
dull,
Really? I thought Book One was the stronger of the two. It's brimming full
with ideas, written and plotted to perfection and generally forced me to
read it within a day (one of the few times I've done this with a Who book).
matt
Jon Green
Having followed this thread with great interest, all I can think at the
moment is how badly Terrance Dicks and John Peel must be feeling at the
moment after the views on their EDA books...
I really enjoyed AB, and I've just started Interference. I can honestly
say that no other beginning of an EDA book has had me wanting to carry
on reading as much as the first 10 pages of Interference did. (that's
not to say that others haven't started well too!)
If it is true that this is Lawrence's last book, it will be a great
shame.
--
Jon
It'll be Liverpool this season...
D Lavelle
vivid imagination. Considering the way he is feeling right now I would
far rather he stopped writing for Doctor Who, than have future novels
tainted with a lack of enthusiasm and confidence. "Interference" is a
stunning story, with some great ideas, elegant prose and a fantastic
twist.
With all due respect to those who hated "Interference" I really think
they have lost sight of what it was that got them into their love
affair with Doctor Who in the first place. Clearly Lawrence hasn't - I
guess that is why is agonising so much over those bad reviews.
The main problem that Lawrence's critics seem to have with
"Interference" is that it dares to go beyond the scope of televised
Doctor Who, and presents a narrative structure quite unlike anything we
have seen so far.
That Lawrence is prepared to confound our expectations in this day and
age, when so many stories have been written, is a great credit to him,
and puts him in the same bracket of innovators as Robert Holmes,
Christopher Bidmead and Andrew Cartmel. And I have no problem at all in
saying that. Innovators are slated in their day and revered in their
wake, so I don't think that Lawrence has too much to worry about.
The utter lack of predictability in Lawrence's novels is what made
Doctor Who such a great pleasure to grow up with. Perhaps now is the
time for him to strike out on his own and take that unpredictability to
the next level.
Good luck to him, I say.
David
Ben Woodhams
>
> Ben Woodhams wrote:
>
> > I’m not saying that ‘Interference’ is the perfect DW modern novel - but
> > I *am* saying it’s the closest thing we’ve got. And I’m really disturbed
> > by the idea that, in Lawrence deciding to retire, the people inside the
> > paradigm have won, and can’t see outside to see what they’ve nipped in
> > the bud.
>
> Note: Not all the following is aimed at Ben Woodhams, but also at the board in
> general.
>
> Have you ever considered, even for one moment, that the reason a person
> doesn't like Interference is because *gasp* they don't like Interference?
Oh, sure. That's allowed :)
I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect what's ticked you
off here is the idea that, because I know that the people who read
'Interference' are likely to be Who fans I can therefore extrapolate
their entire psyches and derive some sort of insight into their thought
processes. By extension this includes you, and you're miffed that I
presume to have any idea about why you may, or may not, like a given
book without you having said anything on the subject. I don't know you
from Adam - how *dare* I be that presumptious? I myself get this sort of
attitude alot, what with being white, male and middle-class, for my
sins.
But while I concede that you personally may have a whole barrel-load of
perfectly valid reasons not to like the book, I maintain that
fan-culture *does* act, in general, in a peculiarly specialised way when
judging it's own work. That's not just 'trad' fans, either - as I said
in my first post, we all do it to some extent.
> That
> maybe it's got nothing to do with it being a Doctor Who novel?
So this I find really hard to believe. It strikes me as a simple truism
that when a fan picks up a Who book, they have certain preconceptions
about the kind of book it's going to be; preconceptions which inform and
determine their fandom. That is, after all, why they pick it up,
presumably.
> The flaw in
> your argument (it seems to me) is that you assume we all read nothing but
> Doctor Who and so don't know what mainstream literature is. Wrong.
You misunderstand me - I, and most other Who fans I know (not many,
granted), tend to be SF fans with an emphasis on Who. Fans tend to be
literate, intelligent and reasonably well read, in my experience.
Admittedly, some do a *sterling* job of concealing these things... But
when we pick up a Who book, we're using (God, I'm beginning to sound
like a stuck record now) a different mindset to evaluate it, compared to
other, 'mainstream' fiction (SF or not, preferably not, for the sake of
example). This is an almost subconcious thing, I think, something we're
barely aware of, a subtle changing of gears.
You may well be an exception to this, Phillip. If so, I'm very happy for
you. But I'll beat my head bloody against a wall declaring that it holds
true for most of fandom.
> Just
> recently i read a (sci-fi mainstream) novel that was over 600 pages (to be
> fair, it's a collection of 4 collected novellas but really colsely linked),
> and its much better than 'Interference' not because it isn't Docotr Who, but
> because its better. (the book incidentally is 'Cities in Flight' by James
> Blish).
Don't you think it's just possible, though, that you're comparing the
two as SF pieces, rather than just books in their own right? I'll take
your word on 'Cities of Flight' being a great book; hell, I'll even, for
the sake of argument, assume it's 'better' than 'Interference'. But the
issue isn't really "Which is better?", but "By what criteria are you
judging these books?" What I'm saying is (is...is...is...) that
'Interference' represents an attempt to shift the paradigm of Who
appreciation - and in as much as the feedback Lawrence has had fails to
notice this, I guess you'd have to say it failed. But these changes
don't happen overnight - it's something of a war of attrition.
> Now, there is some good in Interference. Book one is incredably dull,
> but book two (ie, when the Doctor is leading it, not Sarah) improves and
> towards the end i was fairly gripped. Whether this was because it was
> well-written or because i wanted to find out what the 'twist' at the end was i
> don't know (although i suspect the latter).
So you don't like Miles' writing. That is, I'll say it again, fair
enough.
> But what do i know? I didn't think 'Alien Bodies' was that special either.
> (apart from Mr Shift (was that his name?)).
>
> But can we please have less of this attitude that because someone doesn't
> like a popular book it's their fault, because they're 'traditional' readers,
It's not a issue of culpability.
> or because they judge it differently because its Who.
On the whole, they do. What's so suprising about that?
> Someone doesn't like a
> novel. Full stop. If they want to elaborate it's up to them.
That sounds suspiciously like you think it'd be OK for radw to consist
almost entirely of people posting stuff like:
"I love Interference, because it's sooo cooool!"
"I hate Interference, because it's shite!"
"McCoy sux!"
"Look, 'The Pit' is a work of fucking genius, OK? Just take it from me."
"Anyone who hates 'Human Nature' can just bend over while I grease up my
shaft."
"Bonnie Langford is a sex goddess, and anyone who says otherwise...",
etc, etc..
> But don't just
> invalidate a person's opinion because it's different to yours.
Well, likewise, matey. Your entitled to your opinion, of course you are.
Just as I am entitled to the opinion that your opinion is wrong.
ben w.
--
"I know only that I exist - everything else is just my opinion."
Mags
Dangermouse wrote in message <01bee962$583b4a20$LocalHost@default>...
>
>
>Gary Gillatt <doct...@marmags.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> 2] While giving the interview, Lawrence was very frank regarding his
>> opinion of fellow authors.
>
>Hm. Anything worth challenging him to a duel over?
>
>(It'd look good on my biography if ever there is one)
You are just so *longing* to fling a glove at someone and cry "Have at you!"
aren't you?
Or are we talking pistol-duelling?
Mags
--
"What I told you was true...from a certain point of view."
Moosifer Jones' Lair (own site) - new URL! - |
http://www.members.tripod.com/Moosifer_Jones
acfe...@compuserve.com
D Lavelle <d_la...@my-deja.com> wrote:
<snip>
> The main problem that Lawrence's critics seem to have with
> "Interference" is that it dares to go beyond the scope of televised
> Doctor Who, and presents a narrative structure quite unlike anything
we
> have seen so far.
Does it? How so? This is a genuine question from someone who gave up
Eng Lit after O-level, BTW. To my untutored eye it sems to have a very
conventional narrative structure, but maybe that phrase has some
special connotation I'm not aware of. Scarlet Empress and Mr Magr's
short stories seem more like examples of unconventional narrative
structure to me.
Conrad
D Lavelle
narrative are presented as tv scripts (with very challenging ideas
presented therein) and the story itself is divided into two books,
neither of which stand on their own. Vanessa Bishop slated the first
book for asking lots of questions but giving no answers. What was she
to expect in a two-part novel written by one author?!
There is only so much you can do, narratively speaking, with the
television conventions of story structure. Do we really want each book
to be divided into four epsiodes with a predictable ending? Takes all
the fun out of the medium. I keep thinking about how musicians would
react if they were told that all the music they produced pre-1979 was
allowed to be original and surprising, but that everything after *had*,
at all costs, to be cover versions of everything that went before, with
the diehard fans telling the musicians how they should be doing it. At
some point the recycling has to stop. A Dalek story by Lawrence Miles
might be terrific, but at the end of the day, the Doctor wins, the
Daleks lose. Predictable, huh? At least with new ideas and characters
there is a *possibility* that the Doctor might lose, as "The Hour of
the Geek" so brilliantly demonstrates.
I agree with you about Paul Magrs - he's very unconventional, and
brilliant too.
Cheers,
David
Andrew
Planet (although I'm only 1 away from that now), but I do think it's a
crying shame that he feels as he does.
Fan pressure has again deprived fandom of great things. Remember The
Beginning (alright, I complained about that at the start, but I'm reformed
now).
But Lawrence's main problem seems to be the mixed reviews Interference got.
So what?
The Deadly Assassin - a TV story which buggered around with the Time Lords
something chronic - was HATED on it's broadcast by the great and all-knowing
farts that were official fandom. It is now, generally, considered a classic
and was built on by all the future Gallifrey stories.
Paradise Towers, I thought, was hated. But a recent thread here showed that
an awful lot of people do actually like that - and quite a few of them, I
wouldn't be surprised, have enjoyed it through reviewing and retrospect.
Just because Interference was not unanimously acclaimed by all of fandom -
which to be honest is a fickle bunch of wankers anyway - is no reason to
think future books will not be 'Great' or that Interference won't become
revered in fan circles.
I have on numerous occasions hated an authors first book or two, and then
loved a future one - Ben Aaronovitch, Paul Leonard, David A. McIntee. I may
well hate Interference, who knows, but it wouldn't stop me from buying any
more books by Lawrence. I may hate Christmas, for that matter, but it's not
going to stop me reading Interference.
Somebody please make sure Lawrence gets a chance to read these responses.
Andrew
**********************
52 Festive Road
Ben Woodhams
> By God, if that isn't the most moving and on-the-button thing I've ever read
> on RADW then I'm an Ogron.
Er, you're an Ogron?
Seriously, thanks. And not to worry - I'll be back on the nob gags
before you can say "No complications". Although, what with you being an
Ogron an' all, that might take some time.
Dangermouse
Mags <moosife...@halliday47YADDA.freeserveYADDA.co.uk> wrote
> You are just so *longing* to fling a glove at someone and cry "Have at
you!"
> aren't you?
Yep.
> Or are we talking pistol-duelling?
Swords.
(or, the challenged can have the swords, while I have the pistols.)
Steven Kitson
> Mags <moosife...@halliday47YADDA.freeserveYADDA.co.uk> wrote
> > You are just so *longing* to fling a glove at someone and cry "Have at
> you!"
> > aren't you?
> Yep.
Nothing wrong with that.
> > Or are we talking pistol-duelling?
> Swords.
> (or, the challenged can have the swords, while I have the pistols.)
Actually, according to traditional rules, the challenger gets the first
shot anyway with pistols. Then they take turns.
How's your aim, Dangermouse?
--
For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand
Paul 'Ozymandias' Harman
news:37BAB7...@parliament.uk...
> Seriously, thanks. And not to worry - I'll be back on the nob gags
> before you can say "No complications". Although, what with you being an
> Ogron an' all, that might take some time.
Well actually us Ogrons talk beautifully in subsonics, but unfortunately
most of it is outside the hearing range of normal humans and all you hear is
"Ugh! Ugh" and stuff.
Check out some of our poetry sometime.
Ozzy
Henry Potts
>Seems to me that LM’s been trying to bring some ‘mainstream’
>sensibilities into Who fiction (or maybe he just sees it, as he says, as
>writing the best books he can), and to not only expand the envelope of
>what is acceptable Who, but to break it. This is, unquestionably, a good
>thing. What is not a good thing, is that some people, apparently, have
>completely failed to take this on board. They see the logo on the cover,
>and instantly go into a mindset which ensures that they’ll miss the
>point. Isn’t that the sort of thing we’re supposed to laugh at in other,
>‘normal’, people? Isn’t this literary prejudice, whether justified or
>not? ‘The Infinity Doctors’ almost escaped this treatment, on account of
>it not being set within any recognisable continuity. But continuity’s
>not the issue here, kids. [...]
There are indeed some readers who think like that -- and I'm sort of
putting the same argument as you just have in another thread, arguing
with WD Starr over "InfiniDocs". However, there is also a substantial
body of opinion that thinks that "Interference", heuristic breaking
though it may be, simply wasn't that well written.
I enjoyed "Interference" for the most part, but it's far from
perfection. It's poorly plotted, badly characterised and overly
reliant on lengthy expository tracts. These are things that matter in
the mainstream too.
Most of the criticism I've seen on r.a.dw. has been along those lines,
not because Lawrence is monkeying around with our preconceptions of
what Who should be like.
Actually, I don't even think "Interference" is that radical. Lawrence
has said that he wrote "Alien Bodies" specifically intending to press
fan's buttons -- "Interference" does the same. It's a book that plays
with the expectations of Who fiction and would fall flat on a
mainstream audience (unlike, say, "Down"). "Interference" is a book
that fails to escape its own literary prejudices, with the big
revelations being tied into a debate over canon that is simply
meangingless outside fandom(s). It's still Doctor Who playing at being
proper literature, not proper literature that happens to be Doctor
Who.
>And I’m really disturbed by the idea that, in Lawrence deciding to
>retire, the people inside the paradigm have won, and can’t see
>outside to see what they’ve nipped in the bud.
>
>Phew.
>
>There, that’s better.
Miles is far from the only author to see beyond the paradigm (Parkin,
Magrs, Blum etc.), nor is "Interference" the only book to do so
("InfiniDocs", "The Scarlet Empress", "Down", "Beyond the Sun" etc.).
I don't fear for the range's future.
I'm sure Miles will go on writing and I look forward to his work in
whatever future medium it comes. He said long before "Interference"
that it would be his last Who book, so his departure is not
unexpected. Perhaps he'll be tempted back one day as another former
paradigm-breaking author, Paul Cornell, has been.
--
Henry
PS: Sorry to hear about the bookcase.
acfe...@compuserve.com
D Lavelle <d_la...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Well, Interference is unconventional in as much as sections of the
> narrative are presented as tv scripts
but I can't actually think of anything off the top of my head.)
>(with very challenging ideas
> presented therein)
True, but not related to the structure surely?
> and the story itself is divided into two books,
> neither of which stand on their own.
That's quite commonplace in the genre. 'Hyperion' by Dan Simmons is the
best example I can think of for that.
> Vanessa Bishop slated the first
> book for asking lots of questions but giving no answers. What was she
> to expect in a two-part novel written by one author?!
Absolutely - this was, really, one book and I think should have been
released as one.
<snip stuff>
> At least with new ideas and characters
> there is a *possibility* that the Doctor might lose, as "The Hour of
> the Geek" so brilliantly demonstrates.
Great as a one-off (would have been better if I'd managed to avoid the
spoilers - d'oh) but how many times can they pull that one off? There's
only a fixed number of 'givens' in a Who story; the Doctor doesn't die,
companions don't (usually) die, the Doctor and his companions are on
the side of good, the Doctor wins. Pretty much all of those have been
done by now, and ISTR that the Pit wasn't that popular...
Plus, I'm not sure that it has anything to do with the structure
either, unless that term is being used in a way I'm not familiar with.
> I agree with you about Paul Magrs - he's very unconventional, and
> brilliant too.
Well, he's unconventional, IYKWIM, AITYD.
Cheers,
Conrad
Ben Woodhams
Granted, alot of it demonstrates a suprising degree of technical
sophistication, what with the strict rules of metre, alliteration,
assonance and syllable stress. Not to mention the absence of the letter
'q'. But can't you guys find something to talk about other than bloody
*rocks*?
Paul 'Ozymandias' Harman
> Granted, alot of it demonstrates a suprising degree of technical
> sophistication, what with the strict rules of metre, alliteration,
> assonance and syllable stress. Not to mention the absence of the letter
> 'q'. But can't you guys find something to talk about other than bloody
> *rocks*?
No no, you just /think/ it's about bloody rocks.
[And at this point my memory fails me - I;m blowed if I can remember what
the Ogron said it /was/ about - thus upsetting what was a nice little
threadette]
Ozzy
Ben Woodhams
> >But can't you guys find something to talk about other than bloody
> > *rocks*?
>
> No no, you just /think/ it's about bloody rocks.
>
> [And at this point my memory fails me - I;m blowed if I can remember what
> the Ogron said it /was/ about - thus upsetting what was a nice little
> threadette]
Rocks with blasters?
Dangermouse
D Lavelle <d_la...@my-deja.com> wrote
> some point the recycling has to stop. A Dalek story by Lawrence Miles
> might be terrific, but at the end of the day, the Doctor wins, the
> Daleks lose. Predictable, huh?
Someone hasn't seen Genesis...
Dangermouse
Steven Kitson <sj...@thor.cam.ac.uk> wrote
> Actually, according to traditional rules, the challenger gets the first
> shot anyway with pistols. Then they take turns.
>
> How's your aim, Dangermouse?
I only need one shot.
Mags
Dangermouse wrote in message <01bee98e$252d34a0$LocalHost@default>...
>
>
>Steven Kitson <sj...@thor.cam.ac.uk> wrote
>> Actually, according to traditional rules, the challenger gets the first
>> shot anyway with pistols. Then they take turns.
>>
>> How's your aim, Dangermouse?
>
>I only need one shot.
If they turn tail and flee, would you still shoot them?
Run Ed! Run Lawrence!
Mags
(who just realised the duel in Plunkett & Maclane was accurate...)
GarethThomas
Mags <moosife...@halliday47YADDA.freeserveYADDA.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7pe5mi$bvm$2...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> You are just so *longing* to fling a glove at someone and cry "Have at
you!"
> aren't you?
> Or are we talking pistol-duelling?
>
> Mags
That's just reminded me of this bizarre story my teacher told the class when
I was at primary school. This fella challenged someone to a duel and when
it came to choose weapons his opponent decided that they would eat sausages,
one of each was poisoned - wherupon the challenger backed out because
although he was a dab hand with the rapier he didn't fancy his chances with
a poisoned sausage.
At least I *think* I heard that at primary school, but it may date back to
my student days and specifically the evening this 1960s thowback called
Nathan cooked me one of his mushroom omelettes.
--
Gareth Thomas
GarethThomas
<snip>
I agree with all of that - and even sympathise with the shelf collapsing.
(Indeed I did once have a shelf collapse on my head but luckily it was only
a small kitchen shelf holding miniature jars of herbs and spices, and the
only ill-effect was that I shed oregano and dill dandruff for a day or two.
"How to garnish a Geordie" was my flatmate's observation at the time.)
I think the "stories too broad and deep for the small screen" blurb that the
Virgin NAs used to carry was spot on. Any author with integrity should take
advantage of the scope of the novel form, as well as a mature readership,
and write to their own strengths. I have no problems with 'traditionalist'
authors (for example I enjoyed Gary Russell's Legacy very much indeed) so
long as they don't patronise. Both The Eight Doctors and War of The Daleks
seem to be written for the teenage mindset; and quite frankly I read enough
juvenile fiction as part of my job. My favourite Who author's - Miles,
Orman/Blum, Cornell and yes P@*l M@g*s - aspire to write literature the
equal of 'respected' SF authors, Banks included, and in the case of Alien
Bodies and Human Nature certainly succeed. I haven't read Interference yet,
but I respect the author and - although I have heard from other people I
respect that it is a flawed book - I will nevertheless be very surprised if
it proves to be a disppointment.
--
Gareth Thomas
icon
>And I’m really disturbed
>by the idea that, in Lawrence deciding to retire, the people inside the
>paradigm have won, and can’t see outside to see what they’ve nipped in
>the bud.
Perhaps you're right, Mr. Woodhams.
Perhaps there is no place for innovators and iconoclasts in the hearts and
minds of mainstream 'Doctor Who' fans.
What ever happened to 'all things to all people'? Did it ever exist??
If Mr. Miles does not write a 'Doctor Who' book ever again because of this,
then not only will we be undescribably poorer off, but more importantly, the
task of removing the destructive fanboy mindset will be a long time off, if
at all.
A victory for the ignorant if ever there was one.
icon
---
Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?
Lance Parkin
Smale) wrote:
>Lance Parkin <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> [...] this time last year I was gearing up to write a Dalek book, we'd
>> agreed terms with Hancock
>
>'Hancock'? That's interesting - there were discussions on r.a.dw last
>year (see http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=406157332) suggesting that
>the Nation family were no longer using Roger Hancock as their agent (and
>therefore that authors might not have to give up such large proportions
>of their fee when writing for them, making future Dalek books more
>likely).
>
>Was this not the case?
No.
>> and I had a story lined up. I'm not going to go into the reasons why
>> 'Enemy of the Daleks' isn't happening [...]
>
>Hmmm... When Lawrence wrote "one other less-than-traditional writer also
>planned a Dalek book that fell through..." I'd assumed he was talking
>about the rumoured Marc Platt title...
Lawrence knew I wanted to write a Dalek book - he even asked if#he
could nick my title!
Lance
Lance Parkin
>D Lavelle <d_la...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> some point the recycling has to stop. A Dalek story by Lawrence Miles
>> might be terrific, but at the end of the day, the Doctor wins, the
>> Daleks lose. Predictable, huh?
I can't speak for Lawrence, but that's not what happened at the
end of mine!
Lance
lenny valentino
Lawrence Miles wanted to take, or his conclusions, but he
wasone of the best prose writers in the Who book range, and
one of the most inventive. His presence will be missed.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Dangermouse
Mags <moosife...@halliday47YADDA.freeserveYADDA.co.uk> wrote
> >I only need one shot.
>
>
> If they turn tail and flee, would you still shoot them?
Yes. That's within the rules, and if you're opponent is dumb enough to turn
his back, that's his tough luck
Funnily enough, my girlfriend, in 1989, challenged a Lieutenant in the KGB
Interior Troop to a duel, which became a drinking contest. She won.
(seriously)
Philip Craggs
D Lavelle wrote:
> With all due respect to those who hated "Interference" I really think
> they have lost sight of what it was that got them into their love
> affair with Doctor Who in the first place. Clearly Lawrence hasn't - I
> guess that is why is agonising so much over those bad reviews.
>
Wrong.
> The main problem that Lawrence's critics seem to have with
> "Interference" is that it dares to go beyond the scope of televised
> Doctor Who, and presents a narrative structure quite unlike anything we
> have seen so far.
>
Wrong.
> That Lawrence is prepared to confound our expectations in this day and
> age, when so many stories have been written, is a great credit to him,
> and puts him in the same bracket of innovators as Robert Holmes,
> Christopher Bidmead and Andrew Cartmel. And I have no problem at all in
> saying that. Innovators are slated in their day and revered in their
> wake, so I don't think that Lawrence has too much to worry about.
>
Wrong.I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but i do hate this type of
ignorance. Why can't fans of the novel just accept that some people don't
like it? Why does it have to be something to do with the reader? I'm fed up
of being labelled just because i wont kiss Lawrence Miles' arse. So, here
is the bottom line. It is possible to dislike Interference because you
actually find it dull, or just plain don't like it. If you like it, great,
you've got one more book to like than other people. But don't start trying
to pin the others down.
--
Philip Craggs
'What is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason for dying.'
(Albert Camus).
Paradise Towers: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/3694/
'Kick over the wall/Cause Governments to fall/How can you refuse it?
Let fury have the hour/Anger can be power/You know that you can use it.'
(The Clash).
Aidan Folkes
M.H. Stevens <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote in message
news:37BA8223...@postoffice.swbell.net...
>
> I know I've never been a favorite around here and this is liable to make
me a few
> enemies but I feel that someone needs speak for the opposition.
>
> Not having read Interference(namely due to London Bridge's usual level
of
> imcompetence), I can't yet pass judgement on those books, but if what I've
seen
> here is true then I won't be sorry to see Mr. Miles depart from the line.
From
> what I've heard it's very original(nothing wrong with that), but
originality can
> be dangerous without guidelines.
> He himself admits that he tends to throw continuity out the window which
is one
> thing I've never liked because I've always felt that with a show about
> time-travel there are some things which should be concrete and left well
enough
> alone. The one good thing about this situation is that he's getting out
before
> he had a chance of messing up the Daleks, John Peel spent the time and
trouble to
> sort out all of the problems with Dalek Continuity(which is tricky enough
on it's
> own) in his six books. He managed to tie up alot of loose ends and that
last
> thing we need is for somebody to come along and unravel it again.
Personally I think John Peel completely pissed on Dalek continuity, he
completely messed up the different Dalek factions' motives from Destiny of
the Daleks onwards.
Also, just because one author has got things all tidy the way they think
things should be, doesn't mean that everything is set in stone and that no
changes can be made.
Anyway, if somebody just puts their finger in the right place and pulls
hard, all of Peel's retcons fall apart easily.
--
Aidan Folkes
Look, either the BBC believes in Doctor Who or it doesn't;
but how am I supposed to make 17 monster costumes out of this.
Philip Craggs
Ben Woodhams wrote:
> Philip Craggs wrote:
> >
> > Ben Woodhams wrote:
> >
> > > I’m not saying that ‘Interference’ is the perfect DW modern novel - but
> > > I *am* saying it’s the closest thing we’ve got. And I’m really disturbed
> > > by the idea that, in Lawrence deciding to retire, the people inside the
> > > paradigm have won, and can’t see outside to see what they’ve nipped in
> > > the bud.
> >
> > Note: Not all the following is aimed at Ben Woodhams, but also at the board in
> > general.
> >
> > Have you ever considered, even for one moment, that the reason a person
> > doesn't like Interference is because *gasp* they don't like Interference?
>
> Oh, sure. That's allowed :)
>
> I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect what's ticked you
> off here is the idea that, because I know that the people who read
> 'Interference' are likely to be Who fans I can therefore extrapolate
> their entire psyches and derive some sort of insight into their thought
> processes. By extension this includes you, and you're miffed that I
> presume to have any idea about why you may, or may not, like a given
> book without you having said anything on the subject. I don't know you
> from Adam - how *dare* I be that presumptious? I myself get this sort of
> attitude alot, what with being white, male and middle-class, for my
> sins.
>
There is an element of that, yes. And having studied both psychology (although only
for a year) and Sociology (i get my A-level result tomorrow) i know how much total
and utter bollocks it is to assume you can map out my psyche like that.
Incidentally, i'm also a white middle-class male.
> But while I concede that you personally may have a whole barrel-load of
> perfectly valid reasons not to like the book, I maintain that
> fan-culture *does* act, in general, in a peculiarly specialised way when
> judging it's own work. That's not just 'trad' fans, either - as I said
> in my first post, we all do it to some extent.
>
> > That
> > maybe it's got nothing to do with it being a Doctor Who novel?
>
> So this I find really hard to believe. It strikes me as a simple truism
> that when a fan picks up a Who book, they have certain preconceptions
> about the kind of book it's going to be; preconceptions which inform and
> determine their fandom. That is, after all, why they pick it up,
> presumably.
>
Maybe they do. Personally, i have pre-conceptions like 'Oh, it's Steve Lyons, should
be good then.' Or, 'Oh, its Paul Magrs. Should be a load of rubbish then.' This also
applies to my fave Doctors.
> > The flaw in
> > your argument (it seems to me) is that you assume we all read nothing but
> > Doctor Who and so don't know what mainstream literature is. Wrong.
>
> You misunderstand me - I, and most other Who fans I know (not many,
> granted), tend to be SF fans with an emphasis on Who. Fans tend to be
> literate, intelligent and reasonably well read, in my experience.
> Admittedly, some do a *sterling* job of concealing these things... But
> when we pick up a Who book, we're using (God, I'm beginning to sound
> like a stuck record now) a different mindset to evaluate it, compared to
> other, 'mainstream' fiction (SF or not, preferably not, for the sake of
> example). This is an almost subconcious thing, I think, something we're
> barely aware of, a subtle changing of gears.
>
> You may well be an exception to this, Phillip.
It's one 'l', and i'm not arguing that i'm on my own here, that would be incredably
pretentious.
> If so, I'm very happy for
> you. But I'll beat my head bloody against a wall declaring that it holds
> true for most of fandom.
>
Bit of a sweeping generalisation. Where's you evidence?
> > Just
> > recently i read a (sci-fi mainstream) novel that was over 600 pages (to be
> > fair, it's a collection of 4 collected novellas but really colsely linked),
> > and its much better than 'Interference' not because it isn't Docotr Who, but
> > because its better. (the book incidentally is 'Cities in Flight' by James
> > Blish).
>
> Don't you think it's just possible, though, that you're comparing the
> two as SF pieces, rather than just books in their own right?
Hold on, i thought the argument was judgung it differently because it is a WHo
novel, nto because it's sci-fi. personally, i like some sci-fi novels, i don't like
others. I like some mainstream novels, i don't like others. My fave type of
;literature is sci-fi but both my fave mainsteam authors (Albert Camus and Italo
Calvino) are not sci-fi writers (Calvino has done a little sci-fi but i've never
read it).
> I'll take
> your word on 'Cities of Flight' being a great book; hell, I'll even, for
> the sake of argument, assume it's 'better' than 'Interference'. But the
> issue isn't really "Which is better?", but "By what criteria are you
> judging these books?"
Actually, i'd say the issue was 'is this book any good?' And that my friend is that.
For example, i hate The Scarlet Empress, and i've been told it's because i'm a
'traditional' reader (thus sweaping my opinions under the carpet). But i also love
Timewyrm: Revelation, and find 'Deceit' rather dull.
> What I'm saying is (is...is...is...) that
> 'Interference' represents an attempt to shift the paradigm of Who
> appreciation - and in as much as the feedback Lawrence has had fails to
> notice this, I guess you'd have to say it failed. But these changes
> don't happen overnight - it's something of a war of attrition.
Yeah, it started in Christmas on a Rational planet and was continued in Alien
Bodies. As much as the other authors around here seem to love Mr Miles' work, i
can't help but feel they've been pushed in to incorperating his ideas. Certainly
Stephen Cole had a lot of faith in him. After all, his first work the the BBC (after
writing only one Virgin novel) was way over the normal word limit that more
experienced writers like Kate Orman and Paul Leonard were forced to bow to. And his
next one is a major work continuety-wise. I just find it a bit odd.
> > Now, there is some good in Interference. Book one is incredably dull,
> > but book two (ie, when the Doctor is leading it, not Sarah) improves and
> > towards the end i was fairly gripped. Whether this was because it was
> > well-written or because i wanted to find out what the 'twist' at the end was i
> > don't know (although i suspect the latter).
>
> So you don't like Miles' writing. That is, I'll say it again, fair
> enough.
>
I said somewhere else, i generally don't mind his books, it's what he does IN them i
object to. Alien Bodies was competantly written, it just didn't grab me. And part of
a 600 word novel was dull. Of course it was! It was always going to be. But maybe he
shouldn't have attempted it. And too much of this particular novel was dull. IMHO of
course.
> > But what do i know? I didn't think 'Alien Bodies' was that special either.
> > (apart from Mr Shift (was that his name?)).
> >
> > But can we please have less of this attitude that because someone doesn't
> > like a popular book it's their fault, because they're 'traditional' readers,
>
> It's not a issue of culpability.
>
That has been the general tone every time someone (and this isn't just me) voices a
different opinion. It's getting like England after Diana died on this board. Anyone
who didn't think it was a disaster were shouted down.
> > or because they judge it differently because its Who.
>
> On the whole, they do. What's so suprising about that?
>
> > Someone doesn't like a
> > novel. Full stop. If they want to elaborate it's up to them.
>
> That sounds suspiciously like you think it'd be OK for radw to consist
> almost entirely of people posting stuff like:
>
> "I love Interference, because it's sooo cooool!"
> "I hate Interference, because it's shite!"
> "McCoy sux!"
> "Look, 'The Pit' is a work of fucking genius, OK? Just take it from me."
> "Anyone who hates 'Human Nature' can just bend over while I grease up my
> shaft."
> "Bonnie Langford is a sex goddess, and anyone who says otherwise...",
> etc, etc..
>
No, that isn't what i'm saying. What i mean is, you can say what you like, and you
shouldn't be labelled for it (unless it's needlessly offensive), and if you want to
say why, fine, but if you don't then rec.arts should act like a giant unnaturalist.
> > But don't just
> > invalidate a person's opinion because it's different to yours.
>
> Well, likewise, matey. Your entitled to your opinion, of course you are.
> Just as I am entitled to the opinion that your opinion is wrong.
>
And i'm entitled to the opinion that your opinion is offensive and derogatory of
anyone who disagrees, whilst allowing you the right to state your opinion without
labelling you because of that opinion.
GarethThomas
Philip Craggs <donald...@diamond.co.uk> wrote in message
news:37BB1EBF...@diamond.co.uk...
> That has been the general tone every time someone (and this isn't just me)
voices a
> different opinion. It's getting like England after Diana died on this
board. Anyone
> who didn't think it was a disaster were shouted down.
'Ere Phil, I wouldn't want to be accused of mapping your psyche nor
nothing, but if (and it's pure hypothesis this of course, I mean it would
be terribly hypocritical of me if it were otherwise when I don't know you
beyond radw and therefore haven't the remotest scrap of evidence) you went
around that Sunday issuing merry quips along the lines of "I'm glad she's
dead, the parasitical bitch" then there's the teensiest outside chance you
misjudged the mood of the populace.
--
Gareth Thomas
R.J. Smith
M.H. Stevens <cra...@swbell.net> wrote:
>I know I've never been a favorite around here and this is liable to make me a few
>enemies but I feel that someone needs speak for the opposition.
I thought the problem was the too many people had been speaking for the
opposition? It's typical fan reaction, IMO. As soon as someone dares to do
something different or original we decide it's our mission to take them
down.
> Not having read Interference(namely due to London Bridge's usual level of
>imcompetence), I can't yet pass judgement on those books, but if what I've seen
>here is true then I won't be sorry to see Mr. Miles depart from the line. From
>what I've heard it's very original(nothing wrong with that), but originality can
>be dangerous without guidelines.
I *weep* for fandom.
>He himself admits that he tends to throw continuity out the window which is one
>thing I've never liked because I've always felt that with a show about
>time-travel there are some things which should be concrete and left well
>enough alone.
I'm sorry, but did you actually read what you wrote? A show about
*time*travel* and you think this automatically means there are some things
that should be left alone?!? Does this make any sense whatsoever?
>The one good thing about this situation is that he's getting out before
>he had a chance of messing up the Daleks, John Peel spent the time and
>trouble to sort out all of the problems with Dalek Continuity(which is
>tricky enough on it's own) in his six books.
##### # # ## ## ## ## # # ## # # ##
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
##### # # # # # # # # # # ###### # # ###### # #
# # # ## # ###### ###### ###### ###### # # ###### # # ######
# # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
He managed to tie up alot of loose ends and that last
>thing we need is for somebody to come along and unravel it again.
No, the *first* thing we need is for someone to come along and start
unravelling continuity.
Hopefully Mr.
>Miles's decision to "retire" will serve to show other "off the wall"
writers that
>maybe it's time to start coloring inside the lines again, that or go write
>Bernice Summerfield books.
You know, sadly I suspect it will.
- Robert Smith?
Matt Michael
Dangermouse wrote in message <01bee98e$252d34a0$LocalHost@default>...
>
>
>Steven Kitson <sj...@thor.cam.ac.uk> wrote
>> Actually, according to traditional rules, the challenger gets the first
>> shot anyway with pistols. Then they take turns.
>>
>> How's your aim, Dangermouse?
>
"One golden shot and another poor victim has come to a glittering end"?
But do you have a powerful weapon, and do you *come* just before the kill
(Lulu's emphasis)?
We need to know.
matt
Ben Woodhams
Philip Craggs wrote:
>
> Ben Woodhams wrote:
>
> > Philip Craggs wrote:
> > >
> > > Ben Woodhams wrote:
OK, just a quickie, as this little threadette is getting a tad one-paced.
> > If so, I'm very happy for
> > you. But I'll beat my head bloody against a wall declaring that it holds
> > true for most of fandom.
> >
>
> Bit of a sweeping generalisation. Where's you evidence?
Splattered all over this ng; DWM and fanzines are replete with it;
drunken conversations with other fans; honest analysis of the way *I*
approach Who fiction; and, most notably, 'License Denied'.
[snip]
> Hold on, i thought the argument was judgung it differently because it is a WHo
> novel, nto because it's sci-fi.
Whatever. One's a subset of the other - the point is that the criteria
we use to evaulate these things is generally genre and sub-genre
specific (playing that record again...).
[snip]
>
> Actually, i'd say the issue was 'is this book any good?' And that my friend is that.
No, my friend, I don't think it is. The issue I raised is.... oh,
bollocks, do I really have to say it again? The issue is how we judge
whether it's good or not, and the mechanics of that process, and how
they change depending on what we're judging. That's what *I'm* talking
about, anyway.
[snip]
> That has been the general tone every time someone (and this isn't just me) voices a
> different opinion.
You know how it is when you've found a piece of music you *really* like,
and, full of enthusiasm and a desire to share this wonder with the
world, you play it to your best mate? And they're, like, "That's
shite!"? And nothing you can do or say is going to convince them
otherwise, and there's no way to communicate to them the sheer magic of
the way it makes you feel?
I think what you're picking up on might be frustration, more than
anything else. But far be it from me to psychoanalyse you :)
> It's getting like England after Diana died on this board. Anyone
> who didn't think it was a disaster were shouted down.
Oh, now that strikes a chord. Wasn't the Private Eye cover wonderful?
(Member of crowd outside Buck Pal: "The way the newspapers have handled
this has been shocking!" Person next to him: "Here, you can borrow mine.
It's got pictures of the car.")
[snip]
>
> No, that isn't what i'm saying. What i mean is, you can say what you like, and you
> shouldn't be labelled for it (unless it's needlessly offensive), and if you want to
> say why, fine, but if you don't then rec.arts should act like a giant unnaturalist.
Should, or shouldn't? What do you think I've labelled you as? In what
way is this label innaccurate, or derogatory? Please don't feel obliged
to answer these questions.
> > > But don't just
> > > invalidate a person's opinion because it's different to yours.
> >
> > Well, likewise, matey. Your entitled to your opinion, of course you are.
> > Just as I am entitled to the opinion that your opinion is wrong.
> >
>
> And i'm entitled to the opinion that your opinion is offensive and derogatory of
> anyone who disagrees, whilst allowing you the right to state your opinion without
> labelling you because of that opinion.
You know, I might just find being labelled 'offensive' somewhat, er,
offensive. If I've upset you, Philip, feel free to mail me.
I think this show's over, folks. We've both said our piece, one of us
multiple times, and I don't think we're going to agree.
Hope the exam results are OK!
ben w.
Joxer
M.H. Stevens <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote in message
news:37BA8223...@postoffice.swbell.net...
>Hopefully Mr.
> Miles's decision to "retire" will serve to show other "off the wall"
writers that
> maybe it's time to start coloring inside the lines again, that or go write
> Bernice Summerfield books.
Couldn't agree more: get all the decent writers on the Benny series, put
them back to a monthly schedule, and let the 8DA series stagnate under the
weight of the Peels Bulises and PerryTuckers. Everyones's happy...
--
Colin B.
baggy...and a bit loose at the seams.
http://x-stream.fortunecity.com/scullyst/25
Joxer
D Lavelle <d_la...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7pecik$st5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
...
>A Dalek story by Lawrence Miles
> might be terrific, but at the end of the day, the Doctor wins, the
> Daleks lose. Predictable, huh?
I wonder... sadly, it seems we shall never know (unless Lance can be put
under *extreme* pressure to reconsider {if it was his choice not to proceed
with *his* Dalek book})
Joxer
Lance Parkin <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:37bae307...@news.freeserve.net...
>
> >D Lavelle <d_la...@my-deja.com> wrote
> >> some point the recycling has to stop. A Dalek story by Lawrence Miles
> >> might be terrific, but at the end of the day, the Doctor wins, the
> >> Daleks lose. Predictable, huh?
>
> end of mine!
>
> Lance
You old torturer and dropper of trifles, you - you really have *got* to see
it through: if you don't you 'll be haunted for the rest of your life ;-)
Sean Twist
I thought Lawrence was one of the brightest stars in the new BBC line. I
absolutely loved his work; 'Alien Bodies' was, I thought, the perfect Who book
for the late Nineties. It was strange, odd, challenging, and filled with
wonderful moments.
It's been a piss poor day so far. This just caps it.
Sean
Si Jerram
>other "off the wall" writers that maybe it's time to start coloring
>inside the lines again, that or go write Bernice Summerfield books.
Jnaxre!
"I don't like it, so no-one else should like it or even have the
chance to like it."
Sad. So very sad.
Richard Molesworth
Bye
Richard
William December Starr
like apostrophes, and they all vanished without a trace when I
retrieved the article from Deja. So in the sections where I quote his
stuff, you're going to see some gaffes like "hes" for "he's." Don't
blame Ben for them; they're not his doing.]
Ben Woodhams <b...@pvcdiva.demon.co.uk> said:
> As a fan, would you judge, say, The Crow Road, or The Electric
> Kool-Aid Acid Test, or Wuthering Heights by the same criteria you
> use to evaluate War of the Daleks, Human Nature or Sky Pirates!
> (time to play spot the odd one out)? Or vice versa? If not, why
> not? Yes, yes, yes, I know the Who books are part of an ongoing
> series, but thats no excuse for not looking at the bigger picture.
And that bigger picture would be... what, exactly?
> But fandom being fandom, Miles books are inevitably judged on fan
> criteria, from a fans perspective. Bizarrely, this could mean that
> a Who book might get a better review from a non-fan in a broadsheet
> (oh, you *wish*) than it gets in DWM. Hows that for fucked up?
About a two on a scale of one to ten, I'd say.
[ *snip* ]
> Seems to me that LMs been trying to bring some mainstream
> sensibilities into Who fiction (or maybe he just sees it, as he
> says, as writing the best books he can), and to not only expand the
> envelope of what is acceptable Who, but to break it. This is,
> unquestionably, a good thing. What is not a good thing, is that
> some people, apparently, have completely failed to take this on
> board. They see the logo on the cover, and instantly go into a
> mindset which ensures that theyll miss the point.
Yup, that's _got_ to be it. They can't simply not like the book,
after all -- that wouldn't give you anything to whine about.
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
treyk...@hotmail.com
Dogsbody D <mark...@menace.ndo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> There are two kinds of Doctor Who writers, of course. There are people
> who do things the old-fashioned way - John Peel immediately springs to
> mind, for some reason - and there are people like me, who only exist
to
> mess things up a bit. I wanted to write a Dalek book because none of
the
> messing-things-up writers have ever gone anywhere near the Daleks;
> because I imagined that when the news reached the newsgroups, even
people
> who didn't like any of my other books would be
surprised/confused/curious.
> (And I know I'm not the only one to feel that way, seeing as one other
> less-than-traditional writer also planned a Dalek book that fell
through...)
> However, after *Interference*, I have to face up to the truth. For an
> awful lot of people, it wouldn't be a case of "Wow, Lawrence Miles is
> writing a Dalek book". It'd be a case of "Christ, doesn't he *ever*
give
> it a rest?".
Well this is just the problem. There's this thinking that there are
only *two* kinds of Doctor Who authors...the John Peels and the Lawrence
Miles who exist deliberately to mess things up. Where does that put
people like Steve Lyons, Paul Cornell, and Justin Richards to name a
few? They've all written fairly well respected books. Some of them
have challenged a few notions, some have raised questions, but at their
hearts were strong, good, Doctor Who stories.
I'm sorry you're upset that people didn't like Interference as much as
you thought they would...but if, as you put it, you write for Doctor Who
solely to shake things up and mess them up a bit, people are going to be
upset. You say you like to mess things up a bit, but then are upset
when people say "Hey you messed this up!"?
It's this whole absurd notion of rad vs. trad when I think the best
books (and TV stories) are a blend of the two. One one level Happiness
Patrol is very trad: Doctor lands on oppressed planet, fights the bad
guys, helps free the oppressed. But I don't think anyone would consider
it a trad TV adventure.
Lawrence, your books take risks...you took a risk with Interference.
Maybe it didn't pay off the way you wish it had, but that is no reason
to quit. I really didn't like some aspects of Interference. Yet I
really enjoyed reading it and was looking forward to reading more of
your output.
Don't be a quitter because of a few bad reviews. My god, where woudl
the range be now if all the authors who got bad reviews and criticisms
immediately stopped writing. I can't think of *one* recurring author
who has been universally loved or hated. They have their fans and they
have their critics, and if you enjoy writing the books, then you should
continue to do so.
Trey
>
> Which is what I mean when I say that I feel like I've lost my mandate.
> It's not polite for any writer to keep churning out books and
expecting
> people to buy them, especially when he knows that most of the readers
> aren't on his side to begin with. And if even the people who quite
like
> *Interference* are having problems with large chunks of it, then I've
got
> to acknowledge that the longer I go on, the less people I'm going to
> have behind me. I don't have the ego to fight a single-handed war
> against the continuity, basically. Which is why I'm not writing any
more
> books, which is why I'm not even going to be tempted by the prospect
of
> Daleks, and which is why - ultimately - this is going to be my last
> posting around here for a while.
>
> Goodnight and thankyou,
>
> L.M.
>
> P.S. Whatever Gary Gillat says about the DWM interview, I don't
remember
> giving my "frank opinions" about any of the other writers. Then again,
> David Darlington kept buying me vodka throughout the afternoon, so my
> memory of things isn't exactly perfect. I know I said something
damning
> about Christopher Bulis at one point, but *that's* hardly going to set
> the world on fire.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
--
"Express Yourself, Don't Repress Yourself"--Human Nature
treyk...@hotmail.com
"Next phase, next stage, next craze, next wave"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dr. Evil
> Hi. This isn't an attempt to start a discussion of my own, because (a)
> I'm not actually connected to the WorldWide Web, and (b) I don't know
> anything about newsgroup protocol anyway. (For example, I've only
> just figured out that there's no such thing as a sarcastic tone of
> voice on the internet, and that people therefore can't tell when you're
> taking the piss. Remind me of that the next time I say anything about
> any other Doctor Who writers. Or their pets.)
"This isn't an attempt to start a discussion."
It's not just internet sarcasm you don't understand
(actually, it's really easy to do sarcasm on the Net, you
just need practice). Less alert readers might easily take
Lawrence's 'statement' as a moaning, wallowing in pity,
I'm-taking-my-football-home-unless-I-hear-so-many-messages-of-support
whine from somebody who desperately wants to be loved. (And
seeing as this is coming from somebody who couldn't watch
The Phantom Menace without a Doctor Who fan - any Doctor fan
- I'll reserve judgement a little longer).
However, the one thing I can't understand is why on earth do
you authors *listen* to people. Surely a quick glance at the
various opinions held by fans (whether on-line or off-)
would give you some indication that everybody's got an
opinion and that they're all unique. Hell, some people even
like Bonnie Langford.
To make a short diversion, the major fault with Unnatural
History, as far as I can see, is that Jon and Kate listened
to the fans and *reacted*. If they'd just created a unique,
original Doctor Who story (which they're perfectly capable
of doing), then everything would have been fine. But
Unnatural History was positively soaked in fan opinion
(whether agreeing with theories or reacting to them) - to
its detriment. Interference, to an extent, also suffers
from this. But listening to people before your book is
published is one thing, listening to them *afterwards* is,
if anything, even worse.
The people who don't like Interference don't like it for
various reasons. Some of these reasons are sensible. Some of
them aren't. But I have yet to see anyone, within reason,
who dislikes it outright. "Yeah, he writes prose like a
dream, but..." or "I don't like what he did with <spoiler
deleted>, but as for the rest...". And the yays are far
outweighing the nays, as far as I can see.
And I agree with those who say Dead Romance is the best Who
book published, bar none.
But this doesn't seem to be good enough for our Lawrence. He
put everything into a novel and he wants everything back.
Nothing short of total worship, or at least someone to go
see the Phantom Menace with. Frankly, if you decide to "put
everything" into a *Doctor Who* novel, with its varied,
passionate and occasionally uncaring readership, then you're
onto a loser for a start. "I suffered for this book, now I
demand you write essays on why it's so good."
This is the man who, thanks to his Top Twenty Rumours thing,
wanted to have everybody talking about Interference before
it even came out. "This isn't an attempt to start a
discussion." Is there no wonder that people are professing
disappointment, just on general principles?
Personally, I don't think Lawrence will make good with his
threat, unless he does a Douglas Adams and crosses over to
the big money mainstream (and I see no reason why he can't).
Why would anyone with such a blatant desire to be respected
turn his back on a market of which a large percentage are
actively capable of delivering that respect by the
obsessional bucket load?
So it comes back down to listening to people who make
comments. Lawrence listens, obviously, and takes it to
heart, especially when the devotion isn't quite devotional
*enough*. I loved Interference, but if you think that I'm
going to get down on my knees and kiss your feet (or at
least beg you to stay writing DW fiction), you can fuck off.
And if you take that to heart, there really is no hope for
you in this modern world.
"This isn't an attempt to start a discussion." That isn't
your decision to make, and neither is what people choose to
say about something they shelled out 12 quid for.
Yours,
Someone who loved Interference - every single gorgeous word
of it - but doesn't like to be patronised and manipulated by
*anyone*.
--
dr-...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk
If you want a friend, feed any animal
treyk...@hotmail.com
"Andy" <old...@hotmail.com> wrote:
)
>
> What I was trying to get across was the fact that just because a whole
>
> I just wanted to say that I didn't feel that Interference had
compromised
> his reputation as a quality author. I'd still buy a book with his name
on it
> irrespective of my feelings on Interference.
Agreed. Each of the major recurring authors, with the possible of
exception of Justin Richards, has written at least one book that I reall
y disliked but more that I thought were very good.
And the thing is, is that Lawrence Miles has talent. A lot of
Interference's detractors didn't like many of the ideas or things he did
to the Doctor Who universe....however I think we can all agree that
whether or not we like what he did, he at least did it very well.
At the same time, this martyr-like response from Lawrence bothers me.
Authors and their work have been treated far worse than this and yet,
they keep cranking their books out.
Trey
Prince Reynart
hope he avails himself of the opportunity. There's a lot of positive energy
to him in the replies, and even the negative ones have provided positive
responses of their own, which certainly says something good (most likely).
Secondly, I could easily be offensive to some fans here, so if you *are*
easily offended, maybe you should move on. Right, now that no one's
reading, I'll begin.
When I finished 'Dead Romance' a few months ago, I posted a critique - the
first I had ever posted - because I wanted to air some feelings that I
(rather presumptuously & arrogantly) thought were worth saying. I thought
it was one of the best written books any of the lines had ever produced. It
was written by someone who had a real talent for writing, not just writing
DW, a class in which perhaps 2 other DW authors could be placed. I also
thought that that was what lead to me not enjoying as much as I should enjoy
it. Why?
Doctor Who is pulp. Brain Candy.
DW novels are great for reading on a bus, or waiting for a friend somewhere.
None of them should be held up as examples of how to write fiction. They're
in the same category as Mills & Boon and Old West novellas. If people want
to read examples of good, archetypal fiction, a good deal of it has been
written over the centuries. Check out the 'Literature' section of your
bookshop or library. Great stuff has been written over the past few
decades - its in 'Fiction A-Z' (or some variant thereof). Restrict yourself
further? 'Science Fiction & Fantasy'. Further? 'Science Fiction' only.
More? 'TV Tie-in's/Spin-off's'. Narrower? 'Doctor Who'. At this point, you
all know how to break that sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-genre even further.
What's my point. LM needs to be up that ladder a few rungs (at least
three), which is why I feel the need to impose a reply on him. Lawrence,
if you should ever get the chance to read this,
"YOU ARE TO GOOD FOR THIS GENRE!"
Sorry about the yelling. But he is. LM's post suggested (to me, at least)
that he was retiring from writing. This is very, very, *very* bad. There
aren't so many good sci-fi/fantasy authors that we can afford to lose some
because a bunch of obsessive, anally-retentive fans of a long-defunct,
low-budget kids show (and I most certainly put myself in this category)
didn't like you playing with what they consider their toy. Move on, I say!
If you feel like dropping the occasional Dalek novel in every now and then,
feel free. We'll still be here, saying the same old things, arguing over
the same old points, and it will be nice to hear from one of our own, but
one who grew up that little bit more.
Please, Lawrence, PLEASE! For the sake of whatever beliefs you hold most
valuable, DON'T GIVE UP WRITING.
If, on the other hand, you *are* just moving into writing your own, brand
new series, than, I'll just you wish you a hearty 'Good Luck', and let you
know that I'll be keeping an eye out for it, so you've got at least one
sale.
--
(Looking forward to a book on the bookshop shelf saying "A new, thought
provoking series from one of the hottest sci-fi authors around", or words to
that effect.)
'I didn't call you an idiot, I asked if you were an idiot, ya f@ck*n'
idiot!'
Benjamin
LennyTyke
who disliked Interference: namely that they have allowed their fannish views to
blind them to Lawrence's brilliance as a writer.
This is utter crap!
For a start, Interference is not a 'Mainstream novel'. It is written to put
forwards a very specific view of what Dr. Who is, and what it should be. That
is the first sin a Dr. Who writer can make, and it is one that ruined Unnatural
History, amongst other things. The difference there being, that the
philosophical ideas in UH were a lot better thought out than those in
Interference - as I said, it read as if someone had read a whole lot of pop
philosophy, pop sociology and Dr. Who then jumbled it together and spouted it
out without the index, a la the Remote. That's just bad writing, I don't care
if you are writing Dr. Who or any other sort of book.
There *is* good writing in Interference, particularly the last half of the
second volume, but it was too long, to full of itself and too preachy.
I think Lawrence is a good writer, but I think he let his pretensions get the
better of him with this one. Alien Bodies has all the strengths of
Interference, with none of the weaknesses, and is a far better book for being
just the one book, and keeping itself to the story rather than telling us how
to understand the story as well.
BTW, the best 'mainstream novelists' in terms of the Dr. Who output are Steve
Lyons, Jon Blum and Kate Orman, without a doubt for me. Their books stick to
the characters and plot (in general, UH is the exception to the rule) and don't
introduce any extraneous elements - Vampire Science, Salvation and Witch
Hunters all stand alone as brilliant books, even without the Dr. Who framework.
Seeing I is the perfect example of what Lawrence seems to try to do - ie take
Dr. Who to new places and push the boundaries.
OJT
Chris Schumacher
wrote:
>It's a shame that Lawrence isn't going to write any more Who books because I
>thought he was only just warming up ("Christmas" was great, "Alien Bodies"
>exemplary, "Interference" - better). I don't think his loss will be truly
>appreciated for some time. "Interference" was, if not perfect, then as near
>to perfect as the range has ever got. If it doesn't bring about some
>genuine change in a range that's come dangerously close to collapse more
>than once then I for one will be extremely disappointed.
What really got me about Interference was the same thing that got me about Alien
Bodies. It had me sit up (literally) and say "Can he &*@#ing DO that?".
And after AB, I didn't think that was possible. Little did I know.
He's going to be missed, certainly. But Lawrence Miles is one of the few who can
and WILL probably make it outside of Doctor Who. His books transcended the
medium but, unlike Cartmel, actually did it without making it a book that simply
WASN'T Doctor Who. A man who does that can do anything.
-==Kensu==-
And now Lawrence Miles will walk on water for our enjoyment.
Kate Orman
Dr. Evil <dr-...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>However, the one thing I can't understand is why on earth do
>you authors *listen* to people. [...]
>To make a short diversion, the major fault with Unnatural History, as far
>as I can see, is that Jon and Kate listened to the fans and *reacted*.
>[...] But listening to people before your book is published is one thing,
>listening to them *afterwards* is, if anything, even worse.
Er... so should Jon and I listen to your comments on UH, or not? :-)
--
Kate Blum Orman <kor...@zip.com.au> http://www.zip.com.au/~korman/
"I have no idea what that meant." - Dot Warner
Chris Schumacher
>Stupid mistake, really. The truth is, *Interference* is *so* big - not
>just in length, but in the amount of ground it covers - that everybody
>can find something in it they object to. Which means that even people who
>like the book only like it conditionally.
Spoilers for Interference:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I tend to agree with that. I LOVED the books, best since...well, the best EVER
really, but something that really got me (and would have knocked two points off
of my 32-point scale if I had attempted to review it) was the fact that Sam, the
most despised companion EVER, got one of the better send-offs, and Fitz had more
horrible things happen to him than ANY companion in the history of Doctor Who.
Just when you think that he's finally in the warm embrace of total oblivion, we
discover that he's the intelligence in Dead Romance, and that really irritated
me. It didn't make he hate the book, but there IS such a thing as overkill. It
reminded me of the part in TID when the aliens appear in Savar's ship and cut
out his eyes and leave without saying anything or taking anything of value.
I mean, for God's sake, not even MORTIMORE would have done something like that!
-==Kensu==-
treyk...@hotmail.com
b...@pvcdiva.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> I think this show's over, folks. We've both said our piece, one of us
> multiple times, and I don't think we're going to agree.
>
But I was following the discussion/argument with such interest!
Seriously, I understand where both of you are coming from. Ben, I think
you raise a valid question about how we judge Doctor Who books as
opposed to other books. One thing you said was that most of us are
sci-fi fans with an emphasis on Who. I know I'm an exception to that
rule. I hate most sci-fi, never read mainstream literary sci-fi, The
only other sci-fi thing that I'm really into is Star Wars and I don't
follow the books because they're shit and Star Wars doesn't really work
as an ongoing series IMO. And compared with lots of the books I read
(usually "classic" literature) and more recently contemporary postmodern
fiction, Doctor Who is different. It's more escapism.
I strongly sympathize with Phillip because maybe not here but in other
places, the minute you say you don't like a "rad" novel, you get people
saying "Oh, so you want all the books to be simple regurgitations of the
TV show then.", "You don't want your Doctor Who books to have multiple
layers and meanings", "How boring". This attitude has got to go. I
think what happens sometimes is people get so excited just because the
direction the book is taking is NEW that they don't stop to think
whether or not that direction is any GOOD. TO use a TV example, DOuglas
Adams took the show in a new direction. Some people thought that it was
a good direction, others didn't. That's not to say that those who
didn't like the direction it took felt that the series should never
change. It's as if there's a fork in the road: the boring middle path,
the potentially dangerous yet interesting high path, and the potentially
dangerous yet interesting low path. The book might take the low path,
the reader might not like the low path, but then gets accused of
thinking the book should have taken the boring middle path when really
the reader would have liked the book to have taken the high path.
I for one would like to see Doctor Who branch out more with the books.
I don't thinkt he way to make the book line more mature is to simply
put in Big and Shocking Revelations. There are whole realms of places
to go. I for one would love to see a dark, black, horribly viscious
comedy novel. Or novels that within the context of a telling a Doctor
Who story, explore more of the relationships between the Doctor adn the
companions. I'd love to see fresh attitude, humor, spunk,
intelligence, satire.
As much as we hate her, I think Ness Bishop hit on a point in her review
of Interference when she said "Doctor Who is as much about Gallifrey as
it is about hats". ANd I agree. The series isn't called "Gallifrey"
or "Faction Paradox/Storyarc". I think this is why so much
Interference backlash happened. For a Two Doctor two part novel, there
was barely enough Doctor there to fill a regular one-doctor,
one-volume novel. Really, as interesting as Miles' ideas were, I'm not
as much interested in the future of Gallifrey, the religion of Faction
Paradox, or the culture of the Remote (all interesting ideas) as I am
about the Doctor. Those other things should be supporting details IMO
but with Interference, I felt that the Doctor was a supporting detail.
Paul Cornell, Kate n Jon, and Paul Magrs (and even Lawrence MIles in
Alien Bodies) have shown how far the boundaries of Doctor Who can be
stretched. What unifies their work, as opposed to Interference, is that
the Doctor is the central figure and that's why as "rad" as they are,
they still feel "trad."
Sorry for rambling so long...actually I'm not...if it bothers you that
much, just don't read it!
Kate Orman
Chris Schumacher <ke...@madison.tdsnet.com> wrote:
>Spoilers for Interference:
>1
>2
>3
>4
>5
>6
>7
>8
>9
>10
>11
>12
>13
>It didn't make he hate the book, but there IS such a thing as overkill. It
>reminded me of the part in TID when the aliens appear in Savar's ship and cut
>out his eyes and leave without saying anything or taking anything of value.
>I mean, for God's sake, not even MORTIMORE would have done something like that!
Actually, they took something extremely valuable... read "Seeing I" to
find out more. :-)
treyk...@hotmail.com
D Lavelle <d_la...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> With all due respect to those who hated "Interference" I really think
> they have lost sight of what it was that got them into their love
> affair with Doctor Who in the first place. Clearly Lawrence hasn't - I
> guess that is why is agonising so much over those bad reviews.
>
Oh, yes, anyone who doesn't care for the book has lost touch with their
Inner "Doctor Who" CHild....
Sheesh....
I fell in love with a show about this fantastic guy who fought evil and
tried to make the world a better place, had fun, used his brains to get
out of situations rather than violence, the show I fell in love with had
interesting plots, settings, characters.
I did not fall in love with a TV show that was about Time Wars,
political essays, paradoxes, causality, hypocritical plots that set out
to deliberately unravel continuity yet with more continuity references
than I've ever seen, etc. I did not fall in love with a TV show where
the lead character was seen to be constantly under physical torture and
didn't have a main part in the main action.
> The main problem that Lawrence's critics seem to have with
> "Interference" is that it dares to go beyond the scope of televised
> Doctor Who, and presents a narrative structure quite unlike anything
we
> have seen so far.
>
It's not that it went beyond teh scope of televised Doctor Who...that is
always a good thing. IT's that it didn't do it according to our
tastes. SImple as that.
> That Lawrence is prepared to confound our expectations in this day and
> age, when so many stories have been written, is a great credit to him,
> and puts him in the same bracket of innovators as Robert Holmes,
> Christopher Bidmead and Andrew Cartmel. And I have no problem at all
in
> saying that. Innovators are slated in their day and revered in their
> wake, so I don't think that Lawrence has too much to worry about.
>
> The utter lack of predictability in Lawrence's novels is what made
> Doctor Who such a great pleasure to grow up with. Perhaps now is the
> time for him to strike out on his own and take that unpredictability
to
> the next level.
Well I could write a book where the SEcond Doctor and Jamie gang rape
Zoe. It would be pretty fucking unpredictable. And when people object,
I could just sit still and say "Oh, it's the unpredicatbility factor, oh
you don't like anything new and different blah blah blah."
This is so absolutely typical: if you didn't like Interference, or even
liked it but had major reservations about it (that would be me), you are
automatically lumped into this category of people that want Doctor Who
to be boring.
RJ Smith, Lawrence MIles, and others say that continuity is damaging the
line. Fans are too obsessed with continuity. Well if continuity is such
a bad thing, the best way to handle it is to simply shrug it off and
ignore it. Deliberately unravelling it and having that be a raisond
d'etre for writing a novel is just as suspect as writing a novel in
order to reconcile continuity errors. The created work is still
hampered by the presence of continuity!
Adam Richards
<mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
>
>
>Mags <moosife...@halliday47YADDA.freeserveYADDA.co.uk> wrote
>> You are just so *longing* to fling a glove at someone and cry "Have at
>> you!" aren't you?
>
>Yep.
>
>> Or are we talking pistol-duelling?
>
>Swords.
Am I right in remembering you from The Avengers newsgroup? They had a
lot of cool swordfights in that show (plus a few lame ones, but but
thankfully not many...)
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
Adam Richards
Yes, and has he three tits? Come on, DM, spill it.
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
Adam Richards
<snip of bloody good post>
Where have you been trey? We've missed you!
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
D Lavelle
I guess it depends on whether you consider being bricked up for a
thousand years a victory or not. You don't need a pile of corpses to
save the day.
Cheers,
David
D Lavelle
I despise continuity for its own sake as well, but I think that fandom
is living in cloud cookoo land if it really believes that *anyone*
outside the fanbase is reading these books. What you seem to want is
repetition of what was on the telly. That's fine, go and read a John
Peel book or watch a comfy video of something that was ground-breaking
in its day.
>>>political essays,
Genesis of the Daleks, The Aztecs, The Green Death, The Sunmakers...
>>>paradoxes,
Genesis of the Daleks, City of Death, Day of the Daleks...
>>>causality
Logopolis, Castrovalva...
>>>hypocritical plots that set out to deliberately unravel continuity
yet with more continuity references than I've ever seen, etc.
The Three Doctors, Genesis of the Daleks (again!), The Deadly Assassin,
Attack of the Cybermen, The Five Doctors, Mawdryn Undead, The Movie...
>>>I did not fall in love with a TV show where the lead character was
seen to be constantly under physical torture
The Caves of Androzani, Pyramids of Mars, The Seeds of Doom...
Benny was viciously tortured in Just War, to the point where she didn't
know if her own memories could be trusted.
>>>and didn't have a main part in the main action.
The Massacre, The Time Meddler...
I could go on. But the TV series has been all these things and more.
But as kids this stuff wasn't obvious to us. Now it is, and today's
writers have the opportunity to do what the TV series did as routine,
only better.
If you are making Doctor Who without the benefit of charismatic actors,
camp special effects and costume design, then you have to take
advantage of what you do have. And that is the opportunity to get
inside the heads of the characters and develop situations
imaginitively. The continuity present in "Interference" is relevant to
the plot. I don't see that relevance in trite crowd pleasers like
Legacy of the Daleks, Placebo Effect, The Eight Doctors, The Sirens of
Time or any other tedious and repetitious rehashes.
Go figure.
BTW: Your reference to a gang rape of Zoe is a bit sick. It seems that
these days any counter-argument must be extremist in its examples. My
reference to the unpredicability factor was to do with not knowing what
sort of environment and characters we would encounter next. NO producer
of Doctor Who would go down the road you suggest, less still consider
it. Doctor Who today is being made for readers in their twenties
upwards. To suggest that it shouldn't tackle difficult themes is to
deny a basic remit of the series. Whether you like it or not is up to
you. The simple answer is to not read them. At risk of being flamed,
perhaps you should change the sig at the end of your message. It rings
a bit hollow.
Ben Woodhams
treyk...@hotmail.com wrote:
> RJ Smith, Lawrence MIles, and others say that continuity is damaging the
> line. Fans are too obsessed with continuity. Well if continuity is such
> a bad thing, the best way to handle it is to simply shrug it off and
> ignore it. Deliberately unravelling it and having that be a raisond
> d'etre for writing a novel is just as suspect as writing a novel in
> order to reconcile continuity errors. The created work is still
> hampered by the presence of continuity!
*Applause*!
Although, personally, I feel the above applies far more to Unnatural
History than to Interference.
ben w.
Daniel Gooley
>Gary Gillatt <doct...@marmags.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> 2] While giving the interview, Lawrence was very frank regarding his
>> opinion of fellow authors.
>
>Hm. Anything worth challenging him to a duel over?
>
>(It'd look good on my biography if ever there is one)
Biography and/or obituary.
Danny
Ben Woodhams
[snip]
> Yup, that's _got_ to be it. They can't simply not like the book,
> after all -- that wouldn't give you anything to whine about.
'Ere! Did you spill my pint?
ben w.
--
"I know only that I exist - everything else is just my opinion."
Dangermouse
Prince Reynart <spar...@netscape.net> wrote
> "YOU ARE TO GOOD FOR THIS GENRE!"
His post did make him look like as big a prat as me, though.
--
"This path has been placed before you; the choice to take it is yours
alone"
Dangermouse
Dr. Evil <dr-...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
> Less alert readers might easily take
> Lawrence's 'statement' as a moaning, wallowing in pity,
> I'm-taking-my-football-home-unless-I-hear-so-many-messages-of-support
> whine from somebody who desperately wants to be loved.
Er... Because it *is*
> However, the one thing I can't understand is why on earth do
> you authors *listen* to people. Surely a quick glance at the
> various opinions held by fans (whether on-line or off-)
> would give you some indication that everybody's got an
> opinion and that they're all unique. Hell, some people even
> like Bonnie Langford.
Indeed. But it's nice to listen to those who pay our wages - the
shareholders, as it were.
But in moderation, of course.
Dangermouse
GarethThomas <gar...@shaggaz.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > different opinion. It's getting like England after Diana died on this
> board. Anyone
> > who didn't think it was a disaster were shouted down.
That's weird - I remember saying good riddance to the two-faced
gold-digging tart, and nobody shouted me down...
> 'Ere Phil, I wouldn't want to be accused of mapping your psyche nor
> nothing, but if (and it's pure hypothesis this of course, I mean it
would
> be terribly hypocritical of me if it were otherwise when I don't know you
> beyond radw and therefore haven't the remotest scrap of evidence) you
went
> around that Sunday issuing merry quips along the lines of "I'm glad she's
> dead, the parasitical bitch" then there's the teensiest outside chance
you
> misjudged the mood of the populace.
Hm. That Sunday I think I just said that any death by car crash is
something I wouldn't wish on anyone. But on Monday I said the above...
Dangermouse
Adam Richards <Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote
> On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 23:23:53 +0100, "Matt Michael"
> <matt.m...@virgin.net> wrote:
> >>I only need one shot.
> >
> >
> > "One golden shot and another poor victim has come to a glittering end"?
Absolutely.
Though for preference a SiG P226 would be handier...
> >But do you have a powerful weapon,
I'll refer that one to my girlfriend, who is better qualified to judge...
> and do you *come* just before the kill
> >(Lulu's emphasis)?
Actually it's *love* that comes just before the kill ("love is required,
whenever he's hired, it comes just before the kill...")
Yes I do know all the lyrics (and scripts!) off by heart!
> >We need to know.
>
> Yes, and has he three tits? Come on, DM, spill it.
Sadly not
Wish I had that luxury apartment inside a Chinese Junk, though - that was
cool.
Dangermouse
Adam Richards <Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote
> Am I right in remembering you from The Avengers newsgroup? They had a
> lot of cool swordfights in that show (plus a few lame ones, but but
> thankfully not many...)
There's an Avengers newsgroup?