Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

<SPOILERS/LONG POST> Lawrence Miles's review of "The Ancestor Cell"

228 views
Skip to first unread message

drbob

unread,
Jul 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/7/00
to
Re: Loz's review.

Heh. The phrase "spitting the dummy" springs to mind.

Still, I'm sure this'll make him feel better about all those
nasty "Interference" reviews.

Cheers,

Ol' Doc B.


-----------------------------------------------------------

Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com


Peter Anghelides

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to
Just popping in to r.a.dw briefly to share with you some news about
"The Ancestor Cell". Apparently, it's selling really well, and may be
one of the BBC DW Books (as with some others, previously) which
goes into reprint. (I'm told the online view about "The Ancestor Cell"
is currently split, and that while the r.a.dw consensus is that it's
"bollocks", the online review sites think its "the dog's bollocks".
Perhaps someone could e-mail me some of the more insightful or
inciteful reviews.)

If the book does go to reprint, perhaps I'll get the BBC to include
a couple of quotations from Lawrence Miles's review. In the
best tradition of the London West End, I would select
"THE ANCESTOR CELL goes to astonishing new
lengths" and "the perfect way of rounding off the
Eighth Doctor series". One the other hand, perhaps
you should read the whole thing (which someone kindly forwarded
to me recently).

> My Review of THE ANCESTOR CELL,
> by Lawrence Miles.
>
>
> F
> U
> C
> K
> I
> N
> G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> B
> I
> G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> S
> P
> O
> I
> L
> E
> R
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> S
> P
> A
> C
> E
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear God, where do I start?
>
> With a disclaimer, possibly. The trouble is, I've got an
> obvious vested interest here. THE ANCESTOR CELL's on my
> patch. It is, on the whole, a book designed to remove from
> the continuity everything I've ever invented. I
> mean, I'd hate anyone to think I'm *prejudiced*. So maybe
> I'd better explain that, for many years, my relationship
> with Stephen Cole has been one of constant play-fighting:
> this is a man who, when he was still my editor, I
> used to address with letters headed "Dear Chimp-Lips". I
> knew, right from the start, that he wouldn't take the
> slightest bit of notice of any of "my" ideas on how this
> part of the series' history should turn out.
>
> But the problem with THE ANCESTOR CELL isn't that it messes
> up anything *I* might have thought of. The problem with THE
> ANCESTOR CELL is that it's shit. It's dull, it's stupid,
> it's badly-written, and it's got a plot that
> makes virtually no sense at all, a bunch of loose ends
> roughly tied into the shape of a book with a couple of
> crowd-pleasing set-pieces so randomly thrown into the mix
> that, in retrospect, there's almost a kind of shame in
> having read it. Interesting, then, how *all* the positive
> feedback to the book has revolved around the apocalyptic
> ending: as with EARTHSHOCK, the big climax seems wilfully
> designed to draw the attention away from the fact
> that the story leading up to it is entirely meaningless.
>
> The real problem here, beyond all the laughable attempts at
> tying up every loose end in sight (whether they need tying
> up or not), is that the book's tragically, crashingly banal.
> It's a novel which seriously believes itself to be a
> world-shaking, cataclysmic epic, but which in its "middle
> act" largely consists of drab Time Lord supporting
> characters running up and down corridors being chased by
> spiders, combined with exposition scenes so
> massively over-inflated that they make Julia Sawalha's arse
> look small. What we've basically got is THE INFINITY DOCTORS
> with all the good bits missing, a desperate attempt to do
> something big and important which can't tell the
> difference between "epic" and "just happens to be set on
> Gallifrey".
>
> Gallifrey. That's as good a place to begin the dissection as
> any.
>
> Gallifrey's always been a touchy area. In THE WAR GAMES it's
> something huge and significant, a place of unimaginable
> power and influence, a perfect mythic "core" to a perfect
> mythic universe. In THE DEADLY ASSASSIN Robert Holmes spoils
> things slightly by setting it out as an "ordinary" society,
> but at least he's got the grace to do it with some degree of
> majesty. Later Terrance Dicks works do a pretty good job
> devaluing the Gallifrey myth, turning it into just another
> hi-tech planet full of people with funny one-syllable names,
> but THE ANCESTOR CELL goes to astonishing new lengths in
> ripping the guts out of the mythos and removing anything
> that might possibly have been interesting about the place.
> The Gallifreyan sequences open with a clique of bored rich
> kids dabbling in the black arts, and it's impossible
> to adequately describe the crushing *wrongness* of all
> this as a plot device. Even apart from the fact that the
> "bored rich kids" routine is one of the biggest clichés in
> modern fantasy fiction... even apart from the fact that,
> for a storyline that's supposed to bring the series to the
> point of apocalypse, it's hideously mundane and
> inappropriate... even apart from all that, at what point did
> Gallifrey acquire a capitalist economy, exactly? A
> race of hyper-scientists who can casually engineer stars,
> who can access any point in time and have nigh-infinite
> resources at their disposal, suddenly turn out to be
> bothered by money worries and keep running out of funds,
> just like every other shite bunch of humanoids in the
> universe. Even at its worst i.e. THE EIGHT DOCTORS), the
> crass Dicks version never went this far. The legend has
> been taken to pieces and pissed on by authors who don't
> even have the slightest imaginative thing to add to the
> mythology, and when the planet finally detonates the only
> possible reaction is to breathe a sigh of relief
> that nobody can do anything worse with it. Along with
> DIVIDED LOYALTIES - and at the end of the day, THE ANCESTOR
> CELL is to the EDAs what DIVIDED LOYALTIES is to the PDAs -
> this is as low as the mythos can sink.
>
> And then there's the Enemy. Oh, Christ, yes. Now, let me
> reiterate this, because I don't want anyone thinking I'm
> bringing my own agenda into things again. I knew, right from
> the start, that THE ANCESTOR CELL would thoroughly
> ignore any of my own ideas about who the Enemy are and what
> they're trying to do. Not a problem. But *this*... it's not
> that the answer's "wrong", it's that the answer's so fucking
> stupid, so breathtakingly pointless. The Enemy, we learn,
> are a bunch of proto-life urges from the dawn of time which
> have been hanging around unseen for aeons soaking up TARDIS
> energy, but which can only finally manifest themselves when
> the Time Lords drop a Klein-bottle-cum-bottled-universe into
> the space-time vortex, wherein the energies of the bottle
> leak throughout the continuum until the Doctor's
> re-forming TARDIS can assemble itself around a raw seam of
> the leakage and give the proto-life urges physical purchase
> on the universe, at which point they immediately begin to
> attack Gallifrey. Well, who'd have thought it?
> After all the hype, after all the build-up, it turns out
> that the Time Lords are being menaced by three pages of
> meaningless technobabble. If the authors had claimed that
> the Enemy were a bunch of intelligent monkeys, it would
> have made more sense than this. Never mind *my* agenda: if
> I were a reader, the crushing, devastating disappointment of
> this ludicrous, farcical, embarrassing cop-out would have
> made me give up on the series in a second. But the sheer
> banality of it all - that what's supposed to be an
> earth-shaking revelation turns out to be an awkward
> mish-mash of pseudo-science - pretty much sums up the whole
> messy, confused affair. (I could also point out that the
> universe-in-a-bottle clearly *isn't* a Klein bottle, and
> that the only thing it's got in common with a Klein bottle
> is the word "bottle", but why bother nitpicking when the
> entire thing's so obviously fucked?)
>
> It's incredible to think that the authors could possibly
> have topped this level of stupidity, except maybe by
> revealing the Doctor's real name and claiming that it's
> "Fred", or by having his father turn up and reveal
> himself to be Rassilon (both on the same wavelength of
> mindless banality), but somehow they manage it when
> Grandfather Paradox turns up and - hey, guess what? - it's
> a future version of the Doctor! Well, fuck me. Again,
> sod the fact that it's obviously not true, just concentrate
> on the mediocrity of it all. If *anyone* can give me a plot
> idea more crass and predictable than this, I'll literally
> give them money. And once you've accepted that he's
> just the Valeyard with a new haircut, the Grandfather -
> despite being a projection of a future (and thus more
> experienced) Doctor - turns out to be so dense that the
> Doctor proper can out-think him at almost about every
> turn. Cole's claim that neither the Enemy nor the
> Grandfather are "definite" answers (the book leaves a 1%
> chance of ambiguity in both cases) doesn't change the fact
> that THE ANCESTOR CELL is peddling fifth-rate ideas. Not
> a shred of creativity has gone into any of this mess. And
> when it comes down to it... seeing as it's a fan-fic staple,
> with a pedigree going back twenty years or more, is the
> destruction of Gallifrey really such a great twist? Or
> is it exactly what you'd *expect* a desperate writer to do
> if he had the task of coming up with something "big" to
> finish off the series? Because, let's face it, if THE
> ANCESTOR CELL were fan-fiction then nobody would ever
> be able to take it seriously.
>
> (I could continue in this vein, but if I were to point out
> the truly dire use of Faction Paradox - which loses every
> aspect of its culture that ever made it interesting, and
> turns into a collection of God-awful Scooby Doo villains
> who dress up in hooded robes and hang around laughing in
> deep boomy voices - I'd be accused of self-interest again.
> All I'd like to add on the Faction front is that in ALIEN
> BODIES and INTERFERENCE the Faction never once kills
> anybody, the closest it ever comes being the ritual suicide
> of one of its own members. Now all of a sudden it's a dull
> and witless military operation, which runs around the place
> slaughtering everything in sight and plotting to take over
> the universe just like every other piss-poor bunch
> of no-hopers in the continuity. When did these people turn
> evil, I wonder? "Evil" rather than "dissenting", that is.
> Maybe they experienced one moment of true happiness, or just
> got a good shag, or something.)
>
> There are good moments, it's true, but pitifully few of
> them, and even these suffer in the context of a hopelessly
> muddled and fundamentally trite storyline. The Doctor's
> final statement to Grandfather Paradox - that the
> Grandfather cut off his own arm because it was the hand
> "that did this" (cue the destruction of Gallifrey) - is in
> itself a moment of high drama, but falls to pieces as soon
> as you notice that (a) like the rest of the story it
> makes no sense at all, as by the book's own logic a timeline
> in which Gallifrey is destroyed can't possibly have produced
> the Grandfather, and (b) it only focuses attention on the
> fact that the destruction of Gallifrey is ultimately caused
> by the Doctor pulling a big lever. You know those shite
> computers in old SF serials that have "self-destruct"
> buttons stuck right at the front of the casing? It's like
> that, really.
>
> It doesn't make sense. *None* of it makes sense. From the
> laughable opening (with Fitz suddenly talking about a hatred
> of wasps for no good reason halfway through a life-or-death
> struggle with Romana's war-TARDISes) to the ridiculous
> ending (the amnesiac Doctor needs a hundred years alone
> with the recovering TARDIS, so his closest friends decide to
> abandon him on a hostile pre-alien-contact Earth with nobody
> watching over him before sodding off out of his life), it's
> singularly inept, and singularly *wrong*, in almost every
> detail. On a more personal note, for months now I've been
> telling myself that I'm not going to bother reading any more
> DOCTOR WHO books from hereon in (it's all getting a bit
> much, and THE ANCESTOR CELL seemed as good a place to stop
> as any), so in the final analysis I feel almost grateful
> that the authors have made it so easy for me to give up.
> After this, it all seems so worthless. So completely futile.
>
> It's predictable. It's moronic. It's pointless. And in
> these respects, it's the perfect way of rounding off the
> Eighth Doctor series.
>
> And Peter Anghelides gave me a free copy. And I sincerely
> hope he doesn't read this.

My favourite bit is the last line--on which basis I'd like to nominate
this
for the r.a.dw quote file.

Looking on the bright side, at least I now know that Lawrence received
the
book through the post safely. The good news for LM fans is that he told
me (earlier this year) that he's been writing "The Faction Paradox
Protocols
(Volume One)" for BBV.

Peter Anghelides
--
http://www.geocities.com/peter_anghelides/dwpage.htm


Gordon Dempster

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to
I would just like to state, that this is the best, funniest and most
entertaining review I have ever read. That is all.
--
Gordon Dempster

"Make a cup of tea, put a record on..."
www.bhfh.fsnet.co.uk

GALFIE1

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to
Heh heh heh. I think it's sooo ironic that L Miles is bitterly complaining
about other people buggering up *his* continuity when he pissed all over An
Unearthly Child and Planet of the Spiders (amongst others) from a great height.

I'm sure Barry Letts and Anthony Coburn would have given Interference a similar
review! G

Charles Martin

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to
Yes, but Lawrence, what do you REALLY think? :)
--
_Chas_
(non-spammers should use "chasm" at mac-dot-com instead of the email above!)

Check out VAN THE MAN, my Van Morrison & friends streaming MP3 radio station!
Visit http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/directory.cgi?autostart=chasdos or point
your streaming MP3 player of choice to http://216.32.166.83:11492 -- thanks!

Finn Clark

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to
GALFIE1 wrote:

> Heh heh heh. I think it's sooo ironic that L Miles is
> bitterly complaining about other people buggering
> up *his* continuity when he pissed all over An
> Unearthly Child and Planet of the Spiders (amongst
> others) from a great height.

He's not, and even goes to great lengths to make this clear! His main beef
with Ancestor Cell is basically that it's shit* (see review for very detailed
list of reasons why).

* (In his opinion).

Finn Clark.
http://members.aol.com/kafenken/

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to
"Gordon Dempster" <gor...@bhfh.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8k5s8v$isv$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...

> I would just like to state, that this is the best, funniest and most
> entertaining review I have ever read. That is all.
> --

I've not read TAC and, going by reviews and advice on radw, it doesn't look
likely that I ever will. SO what I'm about to say has little if any, direct
bearing on that esteemed tome. However - I agree. Brilliant review. Possibly
the best thing Lawrence has ever written, IMO.

But what, I wonder, will he do with Faction Paradox with BBV? Presumably
he'll ignore all this non-canon "Doctor Who" stuff and get on with depicting
the *real* FP...?


--
Cheers,
Cliff Bowman

http://www.geocities.com/who3d/
PS change "2" to "1" and remove "inter" to reply by e-mail

Jim & Rhonda Lancaster

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to

> I've not read TAC and, going by reviews and advice on radw, it doesn't
look
> likely that I ever will.

Well, I just finished it and I really enjoyed TAC. The only problem I could
really see is that maybe the authors tried to cram too much stuff into one
book, but overall I think it was very good. A lot of BIG events take place
and the characters are very well portrayed (something I think Mr. Anghelides
does very well).

Jim Lancaster

Adam Richards

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to
Spoiler space


Spoiler space


Spoiler space


Spoiler space


Spoiler space


Spoiler space

Spoiler space

Just wondering .... I haven't really been reading all the other
threads about AC, so maybe this question has already been answered,
but .... If Gallifrey gets blown up, how will the TARDIS continue to
function as a time/space vessel? I thought it was powered by the Eye
of Harmony - the compressed black hole underneath the Panopticon -
wasn't it? In the TVM we saw there was an EoH in the TARDIS itself,
but I thought this was never meant to be anything more than a relay; a
receptor point for the main EoH on Gallifrey. If Lawrence hates AC, I
suppose he can always retcon it with the FP in his next story (reading
his review, I'm sure he will write for the book series again, in fact
maybe AC is just a great big device to get LM writing Who books again?
I wouldn't put it past Justin!)

======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk

orinoco

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to

Adam Richards wrote in message
<7ihemsgsu54p0mqjh...@4ax.com>...

>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>Just wondering .... I haven't really been reading all the other
>threads about AC, so maybe this question has already been answered,
>but .... If Gallifrey gets blown up, how will the TARDIS continue to
>function as a time/space vessel? I thought it was powered by the Eye
>of Harmony - the compressed black hole underneath the Panopticon -
>wasn't it?

I asked an author about this at the Tav on thursday, and the response I got
was 'it no longer matters. the books are basically being rebooted to get the
mystery back -all that is important is that the Dr is a mysterious bloke who
travels in time and space'

Orinoco, wombling free

I was brave, I was bold, I was fearless
I was famous for the things that I did
I was quick on the draw as I tidied up the floor
So they called me the Orinoco Kid

Adam Richards

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to
On Sat, 8 Jul 2000 17:05:48 +0100, "orinoco"
<ho...@orinoco.netlineuk.net> wrote:

>
>Adam Richards wrote in message
><7ihemsgsu54p0mqjh...@4ax.com>...
>>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Just wondering .... I haven't really been reading all the other
>>threads about AC, so maybe this question has already been answered,
>>but .... If Gallifrey gets blown up, how will the TARDIS continue to
>>function as a time/space vessel? I thought it was powered by the Eye
>>of Harmony - the compressed black hole underneath the Panopticon -
>>wasn't it?
>
>I asked an author about this at the Tav on thursday, and the response I got
>was 'it no longer matters. the books are basically being rebooted to get the
>mystery back -all that is important is that the Dr is a mysterious bloke who
>travels in time and space'

Unfortunately, I suspect rather a lot of fans are going to say "The
books no longer matter"... ;-)

======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk

Meddling Mick

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to
On Sat, 8 Jul 2000 15:26:41 +0100, "Cliff Bowman"
<c.bo...@linetwo.internet> wrote:

>"Gordon Dempster" wrote:
>> I would just like to state, that this is the best, funniest and most
>> entertaining review I have ever read. That is all.
>

>I've not read TAC and, going by reviews and advice on radw, it doesn't look

>likely that I ever will. SO what I'm about to say has little if any, direct
>bearing on that esteemed tome. However - I agree. Brilliant review. Possibly
>the best thing Lawrence has ever written, IMO.

Yeah. Sad thing is, I found myself nodding in agreement with
everything Lawrence had to say about 'tAC'. He hits the nail squarely
on the head with that review.

The novel got quite a few positive comments when it was released, and
all that went through my head at the time was 'Eh? I can't possibly
understand how you can't *see* how badly all these things are
resolved?!' Nice to see Lawrence can sum up my own thoughts without
resorting to 'It's just bollocks'.

>But what, I wonder, will he do with Faction Paradox with BBV? Presumably
>he'll ignore all this non-canon "Doctor Who" stuff and get on with depicting
>the *real* FP...?

I hope so. The way FP were depicted in 'tAC' was a bit of an issue
with me - 'We're evil, *totally* evil. *Really* evil. We've got
rotten teeth, wear creaky black leather, and throttle people for no
good reason. Bwahahahahaaa!'. And they just ended up looking like
second-rate Darth Vader rip-offs. Bum. :(

Oh well, you can't like 'em all...
--
(Meddling) Mick Gair

'I've wandered in Eternity a bit in my time and I can
tell you that's just not how it is. Shit happens.'

Keith Brookes

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to

Peter Anghelides <peter-an...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:39666BC8...@cwcom.net...

> Just popping in to r.a.dw briefly to share with you some news about
> "The Ancestor Cell". Apparently, it's selling really well, and may be
> one of the BBC DW Books (as with some others, previously) which
> goes into reprint. (I'm told the online view about "The Ancestor Cell"
> is currently split, and that while the r.a.dw consensus is that it's
> "bollocks", the online review sites think its "the dog's bollocks".
> Perhaps someone could e-mail me some of the more insightful or
> inciteful reviews.)
>
> If the book does go to reprint, perhaps I'll get the BBC to include
> a couple of quotations from Lawrence Miles's review. In the
> best tradition of the London West End, I would select
> "THE ANCESTOR CELL goes to astonishing new
> lengths" and "the perfect way of rounding off the
> Eighth Doctor series". One the other hand, perhaps
> you should read the whole thing (which someone kindly forwarded
> to me recently).
>
After hearing about it being posted, Lawrence Miles materialses into
existence, calls Peter Anghelides a 'fuckwit', and dematerialises again...

Keith

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to
"orinoco" <ho...@orinoco.netlineuk.net> wrote in message
news:8k7jhr$5d9$2...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
> Adam Richards wrote in message
> <7ihemsgsu54p0mqjh...@4ax.com>...
> >Spoiler space
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Spoiler space
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Spoiler space
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Spoiler space
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Spoiler space
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Spoiler space
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Spoiler space
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Just wondering .... I haven't really been reading all the other
> >threads about AC, so maybe this question has already been answered,
> >but .... If Gallifrey gets blown up, how will the TARDIS continue to
> >function as a time/space vessel? I thought it was powered by the Eye
> >of Harmony - the compressed black hole underneath the Panopticon -
> >wasn't it?

Seemingly there are enough previous references to Artron Energy being
emitted by living beings, or TARDI being able to collect energy from their
surroundings and convert it into Artron Energy (the latter sounding less
like Star Wars's "Force") that ole Blue should theoretically be able to
power herself without the Eye back on Gallifrey. "Background Energy" being,
usually, a back-up power supply for any given TARDIS. To be honest, I think
this idea (which may have first been mooted in the TV series - I can't
recall) somewhat devalues Gallifrey and The Eye - or would do, if they still
existed.

My alternative would be to scoop energy from Gallifrey's destruction,
probably - but as I haven't "seen" the destruction itself, or how quickly it
all appears to be over, this could prove unfeasable. Perhaps a clever author
could work in a way to suggest that the TARDIS can "collect" energy via the
original link to the eye by tampering with the "far end's" temporal position
so that it's constantly around-about the point of Gallifrey's destruction
(there's got to me lots of heat and light and stuff given off there,
surely). Unless Gallifrey, in exploding that close to a black hole, is going
to leave either a black hole or a region of (effectively) high-energy
radioactive particle "floating in space" where the TARDIS fuel pump is
usually located?

But whatever they do, explaining some sort of power source doesn't look to
be too difficult, if they care to attempt it at all (rather than just "let
it be").

> I asked an author about this at the Tav on thursday, and the response I
got
> was 'it no longer matters. the books are basically being rebooted to get
the
> mystery back -all that is important is that the Dr is a mysterious bloke
who
> travels in time and space'
>

"basically being rebooted" and "get the mystery back". Phrased I've heard
before, rarely connected with ingenuity. Personally I think they're being
rather careless, repeatedly losing the mystery. I mean - can't BBC authors
afford decent tailors? (Mystery being lost. Trousers [USA:-Pants]. Holes in
pockets.)

Care to name your source?

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to
"Adam Richards" <Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ioremsoqgcibf6439...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 8 Jul 2000 17:05:48 +0100, "orinoco"
> <ho...@orinoco.netlineuk.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Adam Richards wrote in message
> ><7ihemsgsu54p0mqjh...@4ax.com>...
> >>Spoiler space
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Spoiler space
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Spoiler space
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Spoiler space
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Spoiler space
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Spoiler space
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Spoiler space
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Just wondering .... I haven't really been reading all the other
> >>threads about AC, so maybe this question has already been answered,
> >>but .... If Gallifrey gets blown up, how will the TARDIS continue to
> >>function as a time/space vessel? I thought it was powered by the Eye
> >>of Harmony - the compressed black hole underneath the Panopticon -
> >>wasn't it?
> >
> >I asked an author about this at the Tav on thursday, and the response I
got
> >was 'it no longer matters. the books are basically being rebooted to get
the
> >mystery back -all that is important is that the Dr is a mysterious bloke
who
> >travels in time and space'
>
> Unfortunately, I suspect rather a lot of fans are going to say "The
> books no longer matter"... ;-)
>

Oh, I dunno. We're a gullible lot, on the whole. The thing that gets me...
the thing that gets me... is the apparent paradoxes. No, none of that stuff
about the Third Doctor's re-regeneration, or history running backwards
despite time running forwards, or The War vs Gallifrey's non-existence. None
of that. The paradoxes, as I see them, are as follows:

Huge paraphrasing of no specific individual - more an overall impression
I've had from the EDA authors over time. They should be close to the right
order but not necessarily *exactly* right (I'm not sure about Fitz, for
example).

Yeah, we had T8D's but that was commissioned by the complete Who newbie
before Steven Cole came on the scene. She's out, he's in, we're writing good
books now.
Alien Bodies was really good. Big ideas. We're gonna be doing more big Ideas
stuff cos it's kewl.
Well yeah, the Sam books to date have been really crap - she doesn't work,
she's different in every one (and the Doctor changes frequently too). We're
gonna change all that - by getting rid of Sam and bringing in a better
companion, designed by *authors* instead of Terrance Dicks. It'll be really
good.
We're gonna bring you a novel/s like no Who you've ever seen before!
More specific stuff I don't care to go into.
Fitz has been handled a bit, erm, inconsistently. We're gonna fix all that -
we'll be introducing a new companion soon.
Books too small? Well how's this - we're gonna bring you a big ideas book
which is almost as large as a Stephen King novel. Of course, we'll do it as
a two parter so you pay twice as much. But it's a REALLY big book - and we
don't just mean the size. This is big, important stuff for the range.
(Interference by Lawrence Miles, obviously).

From here on in I largely stopped paying attention to the way the books were
going, but I've got mildly interested again when I saw comments about TAC on
the horizon. Another "Big Book" (but this time just with ideas being tied up
rather than physically big. Oh, and I suppose destroying Gallifrey could be
a "big" idea if it weren't a repeat).

Now where are we?

We've discarded all the "big important stuff" we've been setting up since
Alien Bodies (is it me or were ALL the big ideas of the EDA range to date,
bar TID, from Lawrence?).
We're gonna redefine The Doctor and get some consistency in the range
(Earthbound arc).
We're gonna bring you novel(s) like no DW you've ever seen before (did I
type that elsewhere at some stage? So I did!).
and the latest comment:

We've lost the mystery, so we're going to build that up again (implied
reboot/discarding the past - although whether it's just the BBC books past,
books past, or all DW past is unclear - and a reboot needn't be as
"destructive" as it sounds folks, honest - and that's from me. It's severity
is in the execution).

<pause>
Now is it me, or my interpretation either as the EDA's came out or looking
back now, or have the authors been constantly implying that the past books
were a bit cack, but "from hereon in" they're going to blast us away with
quality? The series seems to have been not evolving as such, but constantly
"being fixed" until now, where it's seemingly reached a point beyond repair
so they're dumping (seemingly) a couple of years worth of work (and don't
forget the COST to users) and effectively starting again.

Why did I ever follow this series? Or even THINK about returning?


--
Cheers,
Cliff Bowman

http://www.geocities.com/who3d/
PS change "2" to "1" and remove "inter" to reply by e-mail

PPS am I the only one to think that probably the best, and certainly the
biggest book of the range (up to Interference) was one commissioned by Who
no-nothing Nualla? (Alien Bodies). Which has now been circumvented, in a
way. Sigh.

L. Ross Raszewski

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to
On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 16:21:36 +0100, Adam Richards
<Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>Just wondering .... I haven't really been reading all the other
>threads about AC, so maybe this question has already been answered,
>but .... If Gallifrey gets blown up, how will the TARDIS continue to
>function as a time/space vessel? I thought it was powered by the Eye
>of Harmony - the compressed black hole underneath the Panopticon -
>wasn't it? In the TVM we saw there was an EoH in the TARDIS itself,
>but I thought this was never meant to be anything more than a relay; a
>receptor point for the main EoH on Gallifrey. If Lawrence hates AC, I
>suppose he can always retcon it with the FP in his next story (reading
>his review, I'm sure he will write for the book series again, in fact
>maybe AC is just a great big device to get LM writing Who books again?
>I wouldn't put it past Justin!)
>
>======================================================
>Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk

There's any number of easy ways to explain it. One I've used a lot is
the frighteningly simple "The Eye of Harmony is a naked singularity,
wherein the laws of physics do not apply" I never saw the tardis
eye-of-harmony as anything less; it _IS_ the eye of harmony, the _real_
_single_ eye of harmony, which is under the panopticon on
gallifrey. Being unbound by the laws of physics, it can very well
exist both on gallifrey, and simultaneously, in every tardis ever
built. Of course, given tAC, it doesn't exist on gallifrey any more.

--
"There are two of us talking in circles, and one of us who wants to leave." --
Sarah McLachlan

orinoco

unread,
Jul 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/9/00
to

Cliff Bowman wrote in message <8k84f8$2gj$2...@supernews.com>...

<humongous snip>

>Care to name your source?

If they want to reveal themselves, they know who they are.

But as a wind-up to Mark Stevens, the author is the author who made that
quote about hoping Mark didn't like his book *8-)

Mags

unread,
Jul 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/9/00
to

Finn Clark wrote in message
<20000708094833...@nso-cm.aol.com>...


Yep - he's not bothered about it "pissing all over his continuity", he's
bothered about the quality of the piss.

Mags
--
Perfect Timing 2 - http://sauna.net/perfecttiming
PT1 Limited Edition - coming soon (see above)
Moosifer Jones' Lair:
http://www.members.tripod.com/Moosifer_Jones
AWNN/XPRU/Arcadia:
http://www.archivewivnoname.free-online.co.uk

Daniel Frankham

unread,
Jul 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/9/00
to
On 8 Jul 2000 22:12:23 GMT, lras...@hal.suse.de (L. Ross Raszewski)
wrote:

>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 16:21:36 +0100, Adam Richards
><Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Spoiler space
>>

>There's any number of easy ways to explain it. One I've used a lot is


>the frighteningly simple "The Eye of Harmony is a naked singularity,
>wherein the laws of physics do not apply" I never saw the tardis
>eye-of-harmony as anything less; it _IS_ the eye of harmony, the _real_
>_single_ eye of harmony, which is under the panopticon on
>gallifrey. Being unbound by the laws of physics, it can very well
>exist both on gallifrey, and simultaneously, in every tardis ever
>built. Of course, given tAC, it doesn't exist on gallifrey any more.

Another explanation: the TARDIS is a time machine. It doesn't matter
if the Eye of harmony exists "now" -- whatever that means for a time
machine -- the TARDIS can draw its power from when the Eye does exist.

--
Daniel Frankham

Finn Clark

unread,
Jul 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/9/00
to
Cliff Bowman wrote:

> Now is it me, or my interpretation either as the EDA's
> came out or looking back now, or have the authors
> been constantly implying that the past books were a
> bit cack, but "from hereon in" they're going to blast
> us away with quality?

No, that's the impression I've had too. For three years, the authors have been
trying to sell us radwers on a series of books that were mostly crap.
Sometimes weird and radical, but still your basic untreated sewage. The
standard line went: "this time we'll get it right." And they didn't.

But there's been a change at the top, so we actually have some hope this time.
The PDAs have certainly undergone a violent change for the better.

> The series seems to have been not evolving as such,
> but constantly "being fixed" until now, where it's
> seemingly reached a point beyond repair so they're
> dumping (seemingly) a couple of years worth of work
> (and don't forget the COST to users) and effectively
> starting again.

Not quite so. What they're doing (as I see it) is completing the Cole-era 8DA
story so that Justin's got a relatively clean slate to do his own Funky Thang.
The Cole stories haven't been discarded, just allowed to run their course.

Personally I don't interpret "starting again" to mean "erasing what went
before". They're just going off in yet another new direction, as the show did
over and over again on TV.

> Why did I ever follow this series?

Because like the rest of us, you're a masochist who'll buy shit because it's
got a Doctor Who logo. :-)

> Or even THINK about returning?

Because like the rest of us, you hope our upcoming diet of Who will only
contain modest quantities of excrement.

Finn Clark.
http://members.aol.com/kafenken/

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jul 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/9/00
to
"Finn Clark" <kafe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000709133126...@nso-fo.aol.com...

> Cliff Bowman wrote:
>
> > Now is it me, or my interpretation either as the EDA's
> > came out or looking back now, or have the authors
> > been constantly implying that the past books were a
> > bit cack, but "from hereon in" they're going to blast
> > us away with quality?
>
> No, that's the impression I've had too. For three years, the authors have
been
> trying to sell us radwers on a series of books that were mostly crap.
> Sometimes weird and radical, but still your basic untreated sewage. The
> standard line went: "this time we'll get it right." And they didn't.
>
> But there's been a change at the top, so we actually have some hope this
time.
> The PDAs have certainly undergone a violent change for the better.
>

That's good (I really MUST read some of the PDA's - in dropping the EDA's I
seem to have been drifting from the books in general, so while I've been
buying PDA's I've been reading fewer and fewer of them. Not good).

> > The series seems to have been not evolving as such,
> > but constantly "being fixed" until now, where it's
> > seemingly reached a point beyond repair so they're
> > dumping (seemingly) a couple of years worth of work
> > (and don't forget the COST to users) and effectively
> > starting again.
>

> Not quite so. What they're doing (as I see it) is completing the Cole-era
8DA
> story so that Justin's got a relatively clean slate to do his own Funky
Thang.
> The Cole stories haven't been discarded, just allowed to run their course.
>
> Personally I don't interpret "starting again" to mean "erasing what went
> before". They're just going off in yet another new direction, as the show
did
> over and over again on TV.

I'm a bit worried about a quote from a bashful author, but this would be my
best interpretation :)

> > Why did I ever follow this series?
>

> Because like the rest of us, you're a masochist who'll buy shit because it
's
> got a Doctor Who logo. :-)
>

> > Or even THINK about returning?
>

> Because like the rest of us, you hope our upcoming diet of Who will only
> contain modest quantities of excrement.
>

Argh! You know me too well!

Jonathan Blum

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
In article <20000709133126...@nso-fo.aol.com>,

Finn Clark <kafe...@aol.com> wrote:
>No, that's the impression I've had too. For three years, the authors have been
>trying to sell us radwers on a series of books that were mostly crap.
>Sometimes weird and radical, but still your basic untreated sewage. The
>standard line went: "this time we'll get it right." And they didn't.

As probably the most consistently EDA-positive sewage merchant on the
group, can I put a word in here?

Comments like the above, which give the impression that the things I've
said about the book line were some sort of snake-oil PR job, really really
bug me. They also hurt. Each time I've said the line will be getting
better, I've been saying what I honestly believed.

And even with all the stumbles and problems and outright flops, I *do*
think the line has consistently gotten better. Steve's first batch of
commissions stopped the Nuala approach of buying anything with the Daleks
or eight Doctors in it; the second half of '98 fixed a lot of Sam's
problems (though the books still fumbled her far too often); early '99 saw
Fitz and an end to two-factions-on-a-planet cliches; and then the Faction
Paradox/"Interference" storylines showed a dramatic leap in the books'
ambition and imagination.

Now, I wouldn't say the EDA's have come anywhere close to the consistent
quality of the Rebecca Levene Golden Age. There have been some
jaw-droppingly bad books, and (perhaps more damaging) quite a few utterly
mediocre ones.

But do you honestly think I've fed you a line? If you look at the past
year's worth of books, judge them on actual writerly merit, do you really
think the series hasn't come a hell of a long way from 1997-98, when we
got Nuala's gifts of "Eight Doctors", "War", and "Legacy" within the space
of a year? (Two of which are still the lowest-rated books in the entire
EDA rankings, IIRC.)

[brief pause for the "yeah, but they're still not *good*" response]

The books still clearly aren't playing on the level you'd like them to be.
But to dismiss them as being the same old crap over and over again, I
think is unfair -- when they've been crap, they've been *different* crap.
And the comments about the authors selling you a line are really hurtful
to me in particular, and I really wish you didn't see it that way.

Regards,
Jon Blum

Jonathan Blum

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
In article <7ihemsgsu54p0mqjh...@4ax.com>,

Adam Richards <Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Spoiler space
>
>
>
>
>
>Just wondering .... I haven't really been reading all the other
>threads about AC, so maybe this question has already been answered,
>but .... If Gallifrey gets blown up, how will the TARDIS continue to
>function as a time/space vessel? I thought it was powered by the Eye
>of Harmony - the compressed black hole underneath the Panopticon -
>wasn't it?

I think there's a throwaway line somewhere about how the TARDIS can draw
power from the Doctor now -- that whole symbiotic link thing. Artron
energy strikes again.

But even if that line isn't there, there are plenty of easy explanations.
For a start, since Gallifrey was going to be destroyed *anyway* in the
early stages of the war, the Type 103 TARDISes seen in the future must
have been able to work independent of the Eye anyway -- I think this is
spelled out in one of the earlier books, IIRC. And since Compassion is
the prototype for this new breed of TARDIS, and is still functional at the
end of "Ancestor Cell", it seems pretty clear that she has this new
technology on board.

And since Compassion's partly responsible for giving the Doctor his
to-be-restored TARDIS at the end of tAC, I figure it makes sense that she
tweaked the TARDIS with a bit of that new technology. After all, she says
it'll be working again in a hundred years or so, and she's not stupid
about what TARDISes need.

In any case, I'd say this is the kind of thing that might as well be left
mysterious...

Regards,
Jon Blum

Adam Richards

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
On 10 Jul 2000 14:39:16 +1000, jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum)
wrote:

Seems good enough for me...

>In any case, I'd say this is the kind of thing that might as well be left
>mysterious...

Maybe, though it could become one of those things that fans like to
pick away at if not explained. (but since you've just explained it,
that's probably moot!).

======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk

Finn Clark

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
Jonathan Blum wrote:

> Comments like the above, which give the impression
> that the things I've said about the book line were some
> sort of snake-oil PR job, really really bug me. They
> also hurt. Each time I've said the line will be getting
> better, I've been saying what I honestly believed.

Yeah, I chose my words badly. You deserve an apology for that. Sorry, Jon -
and sorry, Lance, too.

I never thought either of you were being dishonest, or doing anything but
trying to get people genuinely excited and appreciative of the books. I guess
you had no way of knowing what was coming, any more than we did. I accuse no
one of bad faith.

> And even with all the stumbles and problems and
> outright flops, I *do* think the line has consistently
> gotten better. Steve's first batch of commissions
> stopped the Nuala approach of buying anything
> with the Daleks or eight Doctors in it;

Hmmm. Maybe. Personally I preferred those first six months of 8DAs to the six
months that followed them, though admittedly there's a slight optical illusion
in Alien Bodies being commissioned by Steve and Legacy of the Daleks being
Nuala's. [1] Mind you, I think it's pretty likely that Nuala would have
recognised Alien Bodies as being Actually Quite Good Really and probably just
about deserving a commission. :-)

[1] - Sort of. Nuala commissioned it, but I presume Steve edited it.

Of the Nuala 8DAs, we had the childish The Eight Doctors and War of the Daleks,
but also your own excellent Vampire Science, the rather interesting Genocide
and something completely different again in The Bodysnatchers. (Which I like.)
I saw variety there. The 8DAs were surprising me, which is a virtue in
itself. And I believe I've said before that I'd sooner see something that's at
least wholehearted in its badness (cue John and Terrance) than endless
stretches of books like Kursaal, Option Lock, Longest Day, Legacy of the
Daleks, Dreamstone Mzzz...

Whoops, sorry about that. :-)

> the second half of '98 fixed a lot of Sam's problems
> (though the books still fumbled her far too often);

I've posted before at length about how I think Seeing I, while being a
magnificent book, perhaps fumbled the ball in its reinvention of Sam. She got
older. That's about it. I can't think of anything Mature Sam would have done
that Young Sam wouldn't, or vice versa. In retrospect it doesn't surprise me
that it took the arrival of Fitz and the passage of almost a year for any
change to appear in Sam.

And the books themselves remained undistinguished, with the odd astonishing
standout like Seeing I and The Scarlet Empress. We had Placebo Effect,
Vanderdeken's Children, Beltempest (which achieved the impossible by making a
Jim Mortimore book forgettable), The Face-Eater, The Taint...

Whoops, nearly forgot The Janus Conjunction. Dearie me, how could that have
happened? I could write a whole essay on that book alone - no, wait, I did.
Better move on.

> early '99 saw Fitz and an end to
> two-factions-on-a-planet cliches;

To be fair, the half-dozen books around Interference is the 8DAs' golden age so
far. It's a hugely flawed golden age and often annoying, with every single
book managing to piss off lots of people, but personally I like a bravely
different book that's loved and hated. Demontage was quite fun, then we had
Dominion (a grind, but eventually magnificent IMO), Unnatural History (I remain
tactfully silent), Autumn Mist (a plot? a plot?), Interference (say no more),
The Blue Angel (MAGRS!) and Taking of Planet 5 (panned only by Robert Smith?
and huge swathes of the DWM readership, as far as I've seen).

That was a fun ride. I gotta admit it, that was interesting stuff.

> and then the Faction Paradox/"Interference"
> storylines showed a dramatic leap in the books'
> ambition and imagination.

Again, you have a point there.

Characterisation has been the best point of these later 8DAs, with two great
companions and things like Shadows of Avalon doing great stuff with the Doctor
and the Brigadier. The story arc stuff got people reading and talking about
the 8DAs again, which is great. Our path through the House That Lawrence Built
has been big, bold, brave and genuinely different. We'll leave aside details
like the DWM poll results. I liked it. :-)

But apart from the new companions, those developments were concentrated in
three novels - Interference, Shadows of Avalon and Ancestor Cell. None are
without major flaws, while the best I can say for the other books is that
they've been jogging on the spot. Frontier Worlds, Parallel 59, Fall of
Yquatine, Coldheart, The Space Age, The Banquo Legacy... Okay, Banquo Legacy
is quite interesting, but any of the others could be rejects from the 1998
schedule. Some are ultra-trad but quite good (Frontier Worlds, Coldheart).
Some aren't even that (Parallel 59, The Space Age).

Compassion single-handedly redeems the line. She's so good that Robert Smith
actually likes Fall of Yquatine. But what I've missed in the last year or so
is that odd stand-out book that keeps your hopes alive, the Alien Bodies or
Seeing I that suddenly shone from the pack and made you glad you'd hung in
there. I can see which ones are *meant* to be the stand-outs, but they just
haven't been very good.

> Now, I wouldn't say the EDA's have come anywhere
> close to the consistent quality of the Rebecca Levene
> Golden Age. There have been some jaw-droppingly
> bad books, and (perhaps more damaging) quite a
> few utterly mediocre ones.

That's fair.

> But do you honestly think I've fed you a line? If you
> look at the past year's worth of books, judge them on
> actual writerly merit, do you really think the series
> hasn't come a hell of a long way from 1997-98, when
> we got Nuala's gifts of "Eight Doctors", "War", and
> "Legacy" within the space of a year? (Two of which
> are still the lowest-rated books in the entire EDA
> rankings, IIRC.)

Honestly? Honestly honestly? Judged on actual writerly merit, I'd say that
this year's PDAs and the Benny NAs together showed the 8DAs what can be done
with a little editing.

Let me put it this way. If we reran that first year of 8DAs now, I don't think
they'd look so bad. The Peel and Dicks books would still stink, but we'd also
be able to compare them with the likes of Longest Day and Divided Loyalties.
Option Lock would *still* look above-average. I'd still be finding the good
points in Dreamstone Moon. And there wouldn't have been anything within a
country mile of Alien Bodies since its last appearance.

> [brief pause for the "yeah, but they're still not *good*" response]

Sam (bad) became Fitz (good) and Compassion (very good). But apart from that
and the story arc, I really haven't seen much change. Apart from an
interesting patch in the middle of last year, the individual books are much
what they always were. And the eighth Doctor is a problem that still hasn't
been solved despite three years of trying.

> The books still clearly aren't playing on the level you'd
> like them to be. But to dismiss them as being the same
> old crap over and over again, I think is unfair -- when
> they've been crap, they've been *different* crap. And
> the comments about the authors selling you a line are
> really hurtful to me in particular, and I really wish you
> didn't see it that way.

I'm sorry for anything I said that looked like a personal attack; I assure you
it wasn't meant that way. I want the books to be good too. I'd love to able
to jump up and down in excitement about what's coming. I write my reviews
because I think there should be more discussion of the books and I always try
to say what there is to enjoy in what's coming up.

And I hope this is a discussion that can soon be consigned to the past. The
8DAs are dead, long live the 8DAs. I've read The Ancestor Cell, I'm waiting
for The Burning and within a few months discussing this past era of the 8DAs
will be like discussing the Darvill-Evans era of the NAs - raking over history.
I remember hearing Terry Pratchett at Bristol University being asked what he
thought of Star Trek (then only on the Next Generation). He had good things to
say about its production and bad things to say about its level of ambition,
then threw in an aside about Doctor Who. He acknowledged its flaws, but said
that its one great virtue was its ability to completely reinvent itself over
and over again.

Yay Doctor Who!

Finn Clark.
http://members.aol.com/kafenken/

Jonny EIS

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
In article <8k9ccf$73b$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"orinoco" <ho...@orinoco.netlineuk.net> wrote:

>I asked an author about this at the Tav on thursday, and the response I got
>was 'it no longer matters. the books are basically being rebooted to get the
>mystery back -all that is important is that the Dr is a mysterious bloke who
>travels in time and space'

'Reboot' is a terribly loaded word and certainly not the word I would
choose to describe Justin's approach. It implies that all that has been
built up in the EDA's over the last few years is being thrown away, it
implies that you're going to be contradicting things that have already been
established. Both of which are obviously not going to be the case.

What I believe Justin is trying to do is to identify what are the basic
elements that give Doctor Who its unique appeal, and to then concentrate on
those. The appeal of the series boils down to just three things - the
Doctor, the TARDIS, and monsters.

The Doctor - the Doctor is a mysterious traveller in time and space. He is
never cruel nor cowardly, and yet he is unpredictable and alien.

The TARDIS - a Police Box, bigger on the inside than the outside. Like the
Doctor, the TARDIS is mysterious and magical.

Monsters - Preferably green. They should be evil, frightening, and they
should never win.

These are the essential things that Doctor Who is about. For me, Doctor Who
is about Daleks gliding across Westminster Bridge. It's about the Yeti
lurching through underground tunnels. It's about Sea Devils rising out of
the sea. It's about Count Scarlioni ripping off his face to reveal a
one-eyed squid. It's someone being pulled into the ground by the
Tractators. It's Sil, gurgling. It's Haemovores advancing through the mist.
It's an evil mist floating through the streets of London and it's a
painting of a monster coming to life.

Recently, I feel the series has become a bit bogged down in various parts
of the mythos - Gallifrey, the looms, the War - and has concentrated too
much on those aspects. I don't deny their importance, of course they
*matter* in the grand scheme of things, but, as Ness Bishop wrote in DWM,
Doctor Who is as much about Gallifrey is it about hats. Ask yourself - when
you think of Doctor Who, do you think of the whole backstory of the Other
and Rassilon and the Time Lords and Gallifrey, or do you think of the
Doctor holding two wires, agonizing over whether to wipe out the Daleks?

The problem is, by explaining the Doctor's background and past, each time
you do that you eat away a little bit more of the mystery of the character.
This isn't something unique to the books - this has been going on since The
War Games - but it is a bad thing. Because no matter how clever the
explanations you give about the Doctor are, they're never as much fun as
not knowing in the first place. It is important to get back to the
'mysterious' part of the 'mysterious traveller in time and space'.

I'm not overwhelmingly surprised that Lawrence was not impressed by The
Ancestor Cell, but I think it is undeniably a good thing that the various
hanging plot threads have been resolved. I wouldn't say they left a 'stain'
over the books, but undoubtedly it is annoying to have cliffhangers left
open - one or two unresolved plot threads is a good, but when you start
having dozens of the things flapping around it just looks careless. It
looks like you've got no idea how to finish what you've started. And
carrying the baggage of Compassion, and the Doctor's absent shadow, and
everything else, *has* weighed some books down and made them less enjoyable
than they otherwise should have been.

A lot of Lawrence's ideas are fantastic, and they have revitalised the
EDAs, but I think what Justin has recognised is that those ideas have now
been taken as far as they can possibly go, that they have reached the end
of their natural lifespan. For instance, the Faction Paradox are a
brilliant innovation, but if you start bringing them back book after book
they'll quickly become boring - they'll lose their mystique and thrill. I
think what's happened is that basically all of the stories that can
possibly be told about the Faction and Gallifrey and the War and Compassion
have been told, and now it's time to draw a line and move on. Quit while
you're ahead, as it were.

One problem with Doctor Who books, as I see it, is the division between
'rad' and 'trad'. The problem is that both those positions are definied in
terms of being backward-looking, of drawing inspiration from the past. The
trads are in thrall to the past, and the rads want to subvert it. But the
best books are those which fall into neither category. The best books are
the ones that try to to innovate. The best books are the ones that are
forward-looking and try to break new ground.

And so what Justin is doing is trying to get out of the situation where
books are either stuck in the backward-looing ruts of rad and trad, and
instead pursue this 'Third Way'. Neither rad nor trad, just entertaining,
original, forward-looking and utterly Doctor Who-ish stories.

Of course, the books shouldn't contradict anything that has already been
established, but neither should they go out of their way to refer to it.
Rather than getting bogged down in making lots of references to the past,
they should concentrate on making the monsters frightening and the stories
exciting. That is what is important at the end of the day.

So if you want to find an explanation for how the TARDIS can run without
the Eye Of Harmony - there are plenty that spring to mind, please choose
the one that suits. But, quite frankly, I don't want to see a future EDA
explaining *how* the TARDIS can run without the Eye Of Harmony. I mean,
we're all imaginative people, we can all make up our own explanations, so
we don't need to be spoonfed one in the books, do we? And what could a
future author hope to achieve by doing so, except leaving those readers not
interested in such matters bored and irritated?

Please bear in mind, though, this is just my own personal opinion, derived
mainly from Lance Parkin and Jon Blum's postings to rec.arts.drwho rather
than from being privy to any secret masterplans.

>But as a wind-up to Mark Stevens, the author is the author who made that
>quote about hoping Mark didn't like his book *8-)

Well, it can't have been me, then. I sincerely hope everyone (including
Mark) enjoys my book.

Cheers,

Jonny

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
"Finn Clark" <kafe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000710044030...@nso-fz.aol.com...

> Jonathan Blum wrote:
>
> > Comments like the above, which give the impression
> > that the things I've said about the book line were some
> > sort of snake-oil PR job, really really bug me. They
> > also hurt. Each time I've said the line will be getting
> > better, I've been saying what I honestly believed.
>
> Yeah, I chose my words badly. You deserve an apology for that. Sorry,
Jon -
> and sorry, Lance, too.

A blanket sorry to authors would probably be appropriate - it's tricky. I
know I self-censored my post to minimise any knock-on effects but I don't
*HAVE* anywhere else, out of authorial site, to have these discussions.

Most of the rest of the post I broadly agree with too, up to the extent of
my
experience (I can't comment too heavily on books like Interference of The
Ancestor Cell for, hopefully, fairly obvious reasons).

[snip]

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
"Jonny EIS" <Jo...@eisinfo.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B58F75A2...@eisinfo.demon.co.uk...
[snip]

> What I believe Justin is trying to do is to identify what are the basic
> elements that give Doctor Who its unique appeal, and to then concentrate
on
> those. The appeal of the series boils down to just three things - the
> Doctor, the TARDIS, and monsters.

Only in a non-visual medium (erm... but books are nothing but *visual*. Oh,
you know what I mean). In a TV/Film medium the show's also about heaving
breats, for the fathers of the audience <eg>.

> The Doctor - the Doctor is a mysterious traveller in time and space. He is
> never cruel nor cowardly, and yet he is unpredictable and alien.
>
> The TARDIS - a Police Box, bigger on the inside than the outside. Like the
> Doctor, the TARDIS is mysterious and magical.
>
> Monsters - Preferably green. They should be evil, frightening, and they
> should never win.

In the medium to long run, agreed. The Dalek cutaway showed one way of
having "the bad guys" apparently winning for a bit, although they were
eventually defeated a couple of stories later.

[snip]

> Recently, I feel the series has become a bit bogged down in various parts
> of the mythos - Gallifrey, the looms, the War - and has concentrated too
> much on those aspects. I don't deny their importance, of course they
> *matter* in the grand scheme of things, but, as Ness Bishop wrote in DWM,
> Doctor Who is as much about Gallifrey is it about hats.

I'd utterly and completely forgotten that quote - yet how remarkably
attractive it is. fits the bill perfectly IMO.

> Ask yourself - when
> you think of Doctor Who, do you think of the whole backstory of the Other
> and Rassilon and the Time Lords and Gallifrey, or do you think of the
> Doctor holding two wires, agonizing over whether to wipe out the Daleks?

Of the two, definately the wires.

[snip]


> One problem with Doctor Who books, as I see it, is the division between
> 'rad' and 'trad'. The problem is that both those positions are definied in
> terms of being backward-looking, of drawing inspiration from the past. The
> trads are in thrall to the past, and the rads want to subvert it. But the
> best books are those which fall into neither category. The best books are
> the ones that try to to innovate. The best books are the ones that are
> forward-looking and try to break new ground.

The more time I've spent thinking about the supposed rad/trad devide, the
more I disagree that this devide has any validity at all. Which camp do you
put Alien Bodies (one of, if not THE, best EDA's to date) in? Because it's
got so-called "trad" elements (Krotons deliberately dug up and given a
polish) and "rad" elements (pretty news tuff to Who and, erm, what makes a
book "rad" again?).

I strongly suspect that neither "rad" nor "trad" makes an EDA - it's only
the quality of the ideas and writing which'll do that. The Krynoids, brought
back well with a good "reason" for doing so and written very much in the
style of the TV show could work well - but bring them back because they're
part of Who, with no supporting structure, and even the best "writing" will
likely make the book feel like a "filler". I've hopefully chosen an old
adversary which isn't about to return (I'm not trying to make a point about
any author - my text is meant exactly as it's written. Spelling/grammer
excepted). On the toher hand, bring in a new adversary in a new scenario
with writing completely different to the TV series - and it'll *still* work,
if the core (Doctor, maybe TARDIS, etc.) is there. But again, all new
components and less than capable writing and you've got another filler.
Whteher it's supposedly "rad" or "trad" is, AFAICS, not only not the most
important factor - it's pretty much completely irrelevant.

William December Starr

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
In article <B58F75A2...@eisinfo.demon.co.uk>,
Jo...@eisinfo.demon.co.uk (Jonny EIS) said:

> Recently, I feel the series has become a bit bogged down in various
> parts of the mythos - Gallifrey, the looms, the War - and has
> concentrated too much on those aspects. I don't deny their importance,
> of course they *matter* in the grand scheme of things, but, as Ness
> Bishop wrote in DWM, Doctor Who is as much about Gallifrey is it about
> hats. Ask yourself - when you think of Doctor Who, do you think of the
> whole backstory of the Other and Rassilon and the Time Lords and
> Gallifrey, or do you think of the Doctor holding two wires, agonizing
> over whether to wipe out the Daleks?

More the former than the latter, actually. Sorry.

> The problem is, by explaining the Doctor's background and past, each
> time you do that you eat away a little bit more of the mystery of the
> character. This isn't something unique to the books - this has been
> going on since The War Games - but it is a bad thing. Because no
> matter how clever the explanations you give about the Doctor are,
> they're never as much fun as not knowing in the first place.

I disagree.

> It is important to get back to the 'mysterious' part of the
> 'mysterious traveller in time and space'.

Sorry, but I have to yawn now. Mystery is *cheap*. It's mysteries
_with_ _clever_ _solutions_ that take work. And that interest me.

> I'm not overwhelmingly surprised that Lawrence was not impressed by
> The Ancestor Cell, but I think it is undeniably a good thing that the
> various hanging plot threads have been resolved. I wouldn't say they
> left a 'stain' over the books, but undoubtedly it is annoying to have
> cliffhangers left open - one or two unresolved plot threads is a good,
> but when you start having dozens of the things flapping around it just
> looks careless. It looks like you've got no idea how to finish what
> you've started.

Indeed, it even looks cheap...

-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>


Duncan Harvey

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
Finn Clark said


"Let me put it this way. If we reran that first year of 8DAs
now, I don't think they'd look so bad. The Peel and Dicks books
would still stink, but we'd also be able to compare them with
the likes of Longest Day and Divided Loyalties. Option Lock
would *still* look above-average. I'd still be finding the good
points in Dreamstone Moon. And there wouldn't have been anything
within a country mile of Alien Bodies since its last appearance."

Funny you should say this because I was initially very reluctant
to get into the books and decided to take the plunge last yeat.
I bought all of them (EDA's and PDS'a) and during the last 10
months have been slowly working my way through them.

I've just finished "The Scarlet Empress" and have been trying to
read the EDA's in the right order (having missed out Placebo
effect due to a mistake in my book shelf).

Maybe I'm holding myself out to more ridicule that usual here
when I ask the question - whats so bad about Terrence Dicks and
John Peel?

Before die hard RADWers begin to mutter curses in my direction,
I would qualify my statement by saying that the books to me are
first and foremost entertainment - I read them on the tram to
and from work - they provide an extremely enjoyable (so far)
start and end to my working day. Whilst 8 Docs and the Peel
Dalek novels are "lightweight" they are also to me enjoyable
well told stories. I'm not looking for high art, I'm looking
for enjoyment.

But I would say that to me the best books so far have been Alien
Bodies, Seeing I, and The Scarlet Empress. I thought that
Seeing I was superb and really made me begin to like Sam for the
first time, as opposed to feeling indifferent. It also for me
had a unified "feel" in the sense that the whole setting and
technology and everything else "worked". Similarly the roller
coaster ride that is TSE made it an instant favourite.

So I dont think its fair to say that the earlier books "stink."
Its fair to say that they've reawakened the fan in me and
together with the PDA's I'm having a great time.

That said - easy to please as I may appear - even I thought that
Divided Loyalties was awful!!

Duncan


-----------------------------------------------------------

Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com


William December Starr

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
[ Peter Anghelides quoting Lawrence Miles' review of _The Ancestor Cell_ ]

[ *snip* ]

> ...even apart from all that, at what point did Gallifrey acquire a
> capitalist economy, exactly? A race of hyper-scientists who can
> casually engineer stars, who can access any point in time and have
> nigh-infinite resources at their disposal, suddenly turn out to be
> bothered by money worries and keep running out of funds, just like
> every other shite bunch of humanoids in the universe.

Well, _The Infinity Doctors_ -- which Miles seems to have liked, or at
least thought had good parts -- _did_ have something about Gallifreyans
outside the Citadel (or whatever) living a less-than-wonderful
underclass life... that certainly implies a disparity in resources,
which implies property, which implies, well, the whole mess that Miles'
complaining about, I think. Of course, you don't have to believe that
anything in TID has anything to do with the Gallifrey of Doctor Who,
but...

(Lance, if you see this, I'd be interested in hearing what you had in
mind with regard to those scenes.)

M.H. Stevens

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
orinoco wrote:
>
> Cliff Bowman wrote in message <8k84f8$2gj$2...@supernews.com>...
>
> <humongous snip>
>
> >Care to name your source?
>
> If they want to reveal themselves, they know who they are.
>
> But as a wind-up to Mark Stevens, the author is the author who made that
> quote about hoping Mark didn't like his book *8-)
>

Why does everyone around here like to bait me so much? Why does this
guy think if I automatically hate a book it becomes a hit? I didn't come
onto the scene as one the main Interference haters till it had been
published for a month, by then it's fate had been sealed. If necessary
I'll write glowing reviews of every book by a new author left in this
year whether the book is good or bad. I simply don't like used as a
contra-indicator as to what's good in the books!

Mark H. Stevens

M.H. Stevens

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
As I said before, I'm looking forward to it.

> Cheers,
>
> Jonny

R.J. Smith

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
In article <B58F75A2...@eisinfo.demon.co.uk>,
Jonny EIS <Jo...@eisinfo.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>What I believe Justin is trying to do is to identify what are the basic
>elements that give Doctor Who its unique appeal, and to then concentrate on
>those. The appeal of the series boils down to just three things - the
>Doctor, the TARDIS, and monsters.

I have to argue with you there. The TV series may have boiled down to
those things, but I think that Doctor Who nowadays includes one more: the
companions.

The companions have been the real success (or in Sam's case failure) of
the novels. From Benny and Ace to Fitz and Compassion, they've been the
characters who've carried the series more than any of the above elements
over the past ten years. That's not to say the Doctor or TARDIS aren't
essential, of course. I just think the balance has changed somewhat.

Arguably, though, it doesn't include the monsters any more. They're as
much backdrop in the novels as the companions were in the TV series,
IMO. Sometimes great, but mostly just there, because that's how the series
seems to function best, not because they're actually essential. The
significant lack of new book monsters and companion development [which, if
you want to go further back, could apply to a lack of significant eighties
monsters, but more companion development] shows a fundamental, but not
unwelcome, change in the series.

>The Doctor - the Doctor is a mysterious traveller in time and space. He is
>never cruel nor cowardly, and yet he is unpredictable and alien.

>The TARDIS - a Police Box, bigger on the inside than the outside. Like the
>Doctor, the TARDIS is mysterious and magical.

>Monsters - Preferably green. They should be evil, frightening, and they
>should never win.

I think this is fine for the more simplistic TV series (that's not an
insult to the show, BTW), but the novel reality is more complex. You can't
get away with monsters being evil just for the sake of it (and nor should
you, IMO). This adds a level of complexity to things that I like... but it
also takes away the mythic nature of them, that you identify.

>These are the essential things that Doctor Who is about. For me, Doctor Who
>is about Daleks gliding across Westminster Bridge. It's about the Yeti
>lurching through underground tunnels. It's about Sea Devils rising out of
>the sea. It's about Count Scarlioni ripping off his face to reveal a
>one-eyed squid. It's someone being pulled into the ground by the
>Tractators. It's Sil, gurgling. It's Haemovores advancing through the mist.
>It's an evil mist floating through the streets of London and it's a
>painting of a monster coming to life.

For me, the series is more and more about viewing the alien and disturbing
universe out there through the eyes of the companions. The companions are
still fulfilling their essential function (giving us a human's eye view,
being there to ask what's going on), but the nature of these things has
changed somewhat and that makes a human eye view more useful and complex
and when the goings-on are more complex and intricate, the companion
voices become more interesting and accessible to us.

I think it's interesting to note that nineties convention interest was far
more focussed on the companions, than the actors who played the Doctor (as
had been in the past). Partly this was because we'd seen and heard
everything that Pertwee, Davison, Colin Baker and McCoy had to say, partly
because there were a lot more companions than Doctors to fulfil our
growing need for pseudo-Who (with all those UNIT/PROBE BBV things and the
like) and partly because the companions often had very interesting things
to offer (suchas Janet Fielding's condemnation of the series, Caroline
John and Anneke Wills' return to the fold, Nick Courtney's
Cornell-inspired reinvention etc).

There's also been an erosion of the Doctor, partly because of the distant
seventh doctor and then the incompetent eighth, but mostly because the
books have (rightly, IMO) shied away from presenting us with the Doctor's
POV. That's not a bad decision for a book, since the attempts to do so
have been done rather poorly, and I don't think you can possibly write
anything on that topic that could beat the reader's imagination, but it
means the Doctor (and by some extension the TARDIS) have taken a lower
rung on the ladder of essential Whoishness.

I don't think any of this is bad, incidentally.

- Robert Smith?

Finn Clark

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
James asked:

> what floats your boat about Compassion?

I find her... not likeable, but interesting. She's a semi-redeemed villain
and for quite a few books one wasn't quite sure which way she'd swing.
Frontier Worlds and Taking of Planet 5 paint her basically as a villain who's
travelling in the TARDIS for now but possibly has her own agenda. Remember, at
that point we didn't know what was coming in Shadows of Avalon. The Compassion
arc could easily have gone in all kinds of different directions.

Then post-Shadows, she's going places as a character and having dilemmas that
we've never seen before in Doctor Who. In the middle of all these
cut-out-and-paste adventures, we got this ongoing and scarily fast-moving story
of a woman who's becoming... other. It mattered for her and it mattered for
the Doctor and Fitz, whose lives depended on her continued cooperation.

Admittedly none of this makes her a particularly good *companion* (though I'd
argue that she's that too). But I think you could make a fairly good case that
she wasn't ever a companion in its strictest sense. "Ally" might be a better
word. At first she was a refugee, travelling with the Doctor for some reason
we never learned. Then she became a <SPOILER> and became a unique kind of
victim, the object of power struggles between the Doctor and the Time Lords.
Admittedly most victims are rather more helpless, but her relationship with the
Doctor was never cordial and at times almost hostile. I'm not sure if they
were ever friends, especially post-Shadows. Circumstances had thrown them
together, they respected each other and they had no choice but to become allies
against a greater enemy. That's as far as it goes.

There was real bite in that relationship and in retrospect I think the authors
could have pushed it even further than they did. Admittedly I'd have been the
first to complain had the 8DAs started recycling Saward-era TARDIS bitch
scenes, but the Doctor-Compassion relationship could have gone *anywhere*.

Finn Clark.
http://members.aol.com/kafenken/

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
"M.H. Stevens" <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote in message
news:396A270F...@postoffice.swbell.net...

> orinoco wrote:
> >
> > Cliff Bowman wrote in message <8k84f8$2gj$2...@supernews.com>...
> >
> > <humongous snip>
> >
> > >Care to name your source?
> >
> > If they want to reveal themselves, they know who they are.
> >
> > But as a wind-up to Mark Stevens, the author is the author who made that
> > quote about hoping Mark didn't like his book *8-)
> >
>
> Why does everyone around here like to bait me so much? Why does this
> guy think if I automatically hate a book it becomes a hit? I didn't come
> onto the scene as one the main Interference haters till it had been
> published for a month, by then it's fate had been sealed. If necessary
> I'll write glowing reviews of every book by a new author left in this
> year whether the book is good or bad. I simply don't like used as a
> contra-indicator as to what's good in the books!
>

Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Radw will get a new toy sooner or
later.

Meanwhile your response suggests that, far from being a contra-indicator of
what book to like or dislike, the author in question (with regard to
orinoco's quote) may not be THE single most reliable source on up-and-coming
events in the EDA line. Possibly even someone who has a mild dislike for the
direction the series has taken of late, perhaps even seemingly incorporating
some of his/her own ideas with neither reference nor skill.

Hmmm... bears up to initial inspection IMO.

Finn Clark

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
R.J. Smith wrote:

> I have to argue with you there. The TV series may
> have boiled down to those things, but I think that
> Doctor Who nowadays includes one more: the
> companions.
>
> The companions have been the real success (or in
> Sam's case failure) of the novels. From Benny and
> Ace to Fitz and Compassion, they've been the
> characters who've carried the series more than any
> of the above elements over the past ten years. That's
> not to say the Doctor or TARDIS aren't essential, of
> course. I just think the balance has changed somewhat.
>
> Arguably, though, it doesn't include the monsters
> any more. They're as much backdrop in the novels
> as the companions were in the TV series, IMO.

I couldn't bear to snip any more. :-)

I agree with you both! Yes, a novel operates on a different level to a TV
story, which in practice means that the companions have had to take on a whole
new role in the nineties. On TV, it was enough to employ a good-looking actor
with a bit of cheeky charm. But in the books, the most popular companions have
often been a disappointment compared with the also-rans. Depth is now
required, though it doesn't matter where it comes from. One of the best book
companions is Mel - yes, Mel - because there was so much wrong with the
character on TV that it gives novelists plenty to get their teeth into. When
the books tried to do a "TV companion" in Sam Jones, the experiment failed.

Similarly, I agree that the monsters have been a huge disappointment in the
novels. Personally I never saw the point of the Chelonians. IIRC Mike Collier
created the Kusks of Longest Day with an eye to their becoming a recurring
monster, which I think says it all. The only baddies which captured fandom's
imagination have been the ones that worked as characters in their own right -
Faction Paradox, for instance.

But I also see where Johnny's coming from. Provided the authors and editors
are aware of the dangers pointed up by Robert, I think this could be an
extremely worthwhile experiment. Just because the books have largely failed to
attain that mythic quality that Johnny evoked so eloquently in his original
post, that doesn't mean that it might not be interesting to see them try to go
there. If they succeeded, I think they would have captured something very
special indeed - which sounds like the best possible reason for trying.

The Doctor, the TARDIS and big scary monsters. Just typing the words brings a
smile to my face. I have trouble imagining it managing to sustain a series of
TV tie-in books in the long term (especially given the variable author pool
available) but I'll be very interested to see how they go.

It's much like the argument I offered in defence of the Gillatt-era DWM comic
strips. Even if I have reservations about your chosen avenue, I'll defend to
the death your right to explore it. My only request is that you don't bottle
out halfway but push it to the limits!

Finn Clark.
http://members.aol.com/kafenken/

drbob

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
"Cliff Bowman" <c.bo...@linetwo.internet> wrote:
>"Jonny EIS" <Jo...@eisinfo.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:B58F75A2...@eisinfo.demon.co.uk...
>[snip]
>> Recently, I feel the series has become a bit bogged down in
various parts
>> of the mythos - Gallifrey, the looms, the War - and has
concentrated too
>> much on those aspects. I don't deny their importance, of
course they
>> *matter* in the grand scheme of things, but, as Ness Bishop
wrote in DWM,
>> Doctor Who is as much about Gallifrey is it about hats.
>
>I'd utterly and completely forgotten that quote - yet how
remarkably
>attractive it is. fits the bill perfectly IMO.
>
>
>
>

I loved that quote too!

[spoiler for tAC]
y
i
n
g
t
o
n
g
i
d
d
l
e
a
y
p
o

I was re-reading Ness's review of Interference (where she first
made that comment) the other day, and I notice that she followed
it up with the wish that the Inty story arc would end with the
whole damn planet blowing up.

Her wish is Steve 'n' Pete's command! :)

Cheers,

Ol' Doc B.

James

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to

Finn Clark <kafe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000710044030...@nso-fz.aol.com...

s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s

e
v
e
r
y
o
n
e

a
l
r
e
a
d
y

knows...

> Compassion single-handedly redeems the line. She's so good that Robert
Smith
> actually likes Fall of Yquatine. But what I've missed in the last year or
so
> is that odd stand-out book that keeps your hopes alive, the Alien Bodies
or
> Seeing I that suddenly shone from the pack and made you glad you'd hung in
> there. I can see which ones are *meant* to be the stand-outs, but they
just
> haven't been very good.

What is it that you like about that girl, Finn? From what I read about her,
she was just an nigh-on robotic cow of a lass without the slightest bit of
humanity to make her interesting. I had brief hopes that she would suddenly
become more emotional and 'human' after she became a TARDIS, since during
Shadows of Avalon she was showing her fear and confusion about what was
happening to her (even though she did spout such embarrassing stuff as "The
change wants to come! It wants to let us out of here! But I won't let it!
I can't! I'm... scared!" Or am I the only one who finds that a bit awkward
and obvious? >_>), but after that, it turned out she'd become even more
robotic, if Coldheart is anything to go by. I suppose the ideas behind her
are sometimes interesting (a personality and body smoothed out by the
memory-based cloning of the Remote, a companion who is possibly smarter than
the Doctor, but not in a friendly Romana-ish way, a 'human' TARDIS...) but
that's not enough to make her appeal to me, really.

It could be that the books I've read have especially bad portrayals of her
in them, I guess, but I've read most of them, so if she was so much better
in the 4 post-Inty books I've missed, then she's being handled even worse
than Sam. Anyway, as I was saying, what floats your boat about Compassion?
:P

(I've got mixed feelings on Sam's deal. Like you said, she didn't really
develop at all on Ha'olam, which is a bit silly, but then, one of the few
things I'll agree with Gary Russell about is that Sam could've gone without
having a few years chopped off her life to no avail [1])

*snip*

> And I hope this is a discussion that can soon be consigned to the past.
The
> 8DAs are dead, long live the 8DAs. I've read The Ancestor Cell, I'm
waiting
> for The Burning and within a few months discussing this past era of the
8DAs
> will be like discussing the Darvill-Evans era of the NAs - raking over
history.

I hope so. I haven't found the stretches of EDAs I've read to be all that
bad, but the thought of a great wave of solid new Doc8 story crashing down
upon us -is- rather comforting... :P

> I remember hearing Terry Pratchett at Bristol University being asked what
he
> thought of Star Trek (then only on the Next Generation). He had good
things to
> say about its production and bad things to say about its level of
ambition,
> then threw in an aside about Doctor Who. He acknowledged its flaws, but
said
> that its one great virtue was its ability to completely reinvent itself
over
> and over again.
>
> Yay Doctor Who!

PTerry said that, huh? Rockin' (and I agree entirely). I was kinda going
off the Discworld with his last couple of books, but I finished The Fifth
Elephant yesterday, and I liked it a lot.

--James.

[1] Mind you, Placebo Effect had her deadset in the young-Sam mould, so it's
partly his fault that Ha'olam hadn't changed her very much anyway! Tsk.
After that, I just imagined her to be around the 17-19 area for the whole of
her time in the TARDIS)

Klaus Pumpkin

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to
Jonny EIS wrote:

> What I believe Justin is trying to do is to identify what are the basic
> elements that give Doctor Who its unique appeal, and to then concentrate on
> those. The appeal of the series boils down to just three things - the
> Doctor, the TARDIS, and monsters.

Dear God, I hope more thought has been put into this than
that. You are just simplifying things, aren't you Jonny?

> These are the essential things that Doctor Who is about. For me, Doctor Who
> is about Daleks gliding across Westminster Bridge. It's about the Yeti
> lurching through underground tunnels. It's about Sea Devils rising out of
> the sea. It's about Count Scarlioni ripping off his face to reveal a
> one-eyed squid. It's someone being pulled into the ground by the
> Tractators. It's Sil, gurgling. It's Haemovores advancing through the mist.
> It's an evil mist floating through the streets of London and it's a
> painting of a monster coming to life.

I notice that all these are TV references. I'm going to get
very worried indeed about Justin's new direction if it's an
attempt to get back to "the glory days of the TV series" or
some such.

> Ask yourself - when
> you think of Doctor Who, do you think of the whole backstory of the Other
> and Rassilon and the Time Lords and Gallifrey, or do you think of the
> Doctor holding two wires, agonizing over whether to wipe out the Daleks?

Good point. But the reason that the two wires scene
(possibly the best use of wires in the whole of 'Who outside
of the ones that occasionally dragged K-9 across the ground)
is because it's on TV: it's very visual what with the wires
in the foreground, Tom's furrowed brow and voice (I think
you could describe Tom's voice as furrowed), and Liz 'n' Ian
peering over his shoulder. I can think of lots of scenes in
the books which are the equal in impact to this, but
wouldn't necessarily work on TV.

Spoiler space for The Ancestor Cell and Alien Bodies:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

> I'm not overwhelmingly surprised that Lawrence was not impressed by The
> Ancestor Cell, but I think it is undeniably a good thing that the various
> hanging plot threads have been resolved. I wouldn't say they left a 'stain'
> over the books, but undoubtedly it is annoying to have cliffhangers left
> open - one or two unresolved plot threads is a good, but when you start
> having dozens of the things flapping around it just looks careless. It
> looks like you've got no idea how to finish what you've started. And
> carrying the baggage of Compassion, and the Doctor's absent shadow, and
> everything else, *has* weighed some books down and made them less enjoyable
> than they otherwise should have been.

Yes, but how many plot threads were there hanging? The
Doctor as an agent of paradox with no shadow was certainly
something looking for a resolution but what else? A lot of
people wanted a resolution to the events on Dust, but is
that necessarily a dangling thread? Or, as Lawrence
describes it in the Menace interview, a way to spice up the
PDAs? I never thought the war or the body needed resolving,
nor did there ever seem any intention to, until recently.

So that's one, maybe two plot threads. Hardly dozens.

> A lot of Lawrence's ideas are fantastic, and they have revitalised the
> EDAs, but I think what Justin has recognised is that those ideas have now
> been taken as far as they can possibly go, that they have reached the end
> of their natural lifespan. For instance, the Faction Paradox are a
> brilliant innovation, but if you start bringing them back book after book
> they'll quickly become boring - they'll lose their mystique and thrill.

I certainly don't want them around for every book, but to
close them off and destroy them altogether just seems
madness. Destroying the Faction, identifying the enemy, and
resolving Grandfather Paradox were all unnecessary.
Balancing their usefulness against the possibility that they
may make a boring future story is one thing; destroying them
entirely seems like overkill at best, utter petulance at
worst.

Destroying Gallifrey is somewhat less that this, because it
and the Time Lords have produced boring stories in the past,
and, besides, there's still lots of renegades out there
(which is the thing that has *really* been overused). How
they power their TARDISes remains to be seen. :)

> I think what's happened is that basically all of the stories that can
> possibly be told about the Faction and Gallifrey and the War and Compassion
> have been told, and now it's time to draw a line and move on. Quit while
> you're ahead, as it were.

A fair intention. They still didn't need to be destroyed
altogether (well, Compassion hasn't been destroyed, despite
the fact that she should've about three times over if we're
bothering with pernickety things like logic). What was wrong
with, I dunno, just not having them in the books anymore?
Remember how the Daleks were shied away from in the NAs? I
don't remember many people complaining that they should be
in them more often, and Virgin didn't have a story which
completely wiped them out forever. Now why am I thinking of
Poochie from the Itchy and Scratchy show now?

> And so what Justin is doing is trying to get out of the situation where
> books are either stuck in the backward-looing ruts of rad and trad, and
> instead pursue this 'Third Way'. Neither rad nor trad, just entertaining,
> original, forward-looking and utterly Doctor Who-ish stories.

Ohmygod. Justin is Tony Blair! He promised much as well...
:)

> So if you want to find an explanation for how the TARDIS can run without
> the Eye Of Harmony - there are plenty that spring to mind, please choose
> the one that suits. But, quite frankly, I don't want to see a future EDA
> explaining *how* the TARDIS can run without the Eye Of Harmony. I mean,
> we're all imaginative people, we can all make up our own explanations, so
> we don't need to be spoonfed one in the books, do we? And what could a
> future author hope to achieve by doing so, except leaving those readers not
> interested in such matters bored and irritated?

I'm not altogether fond of this explanation for things,
which I've seen many times before. It could be argued (hey,
that's what I'm doing now) that providing explanations for
this sort of thing is fandom retroactively trying to do the
job the writer(s) and editor(s) should have done in the
first place. The bottom line is, a mistake has been made.

> Well, it can't have been me, then. I sincerely hope everyone (including
> Mark) enjoys my book.

Me too.

Terry

Lance Parkin

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to
On 10 Jul 2000 09:32:50 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
Starr) wrote:

I saw the Time Lords as way above all that sort of thing - but they
are the elite of the planet. As the Doctor says in Revelation, though,
if you live in paradise, you start to wonder who empties the bins.

There are clearly people on Gallifrey who *aren't* Time Lords. One
of the good things about TED, I thought, was the invention of Low
Town ... I liked the idea that the Time Lords lived in their ivory
towers, but that grubbing round the edges, scrimping a living
from the Time Lords' cast-offs, was a whole other society that the
TLs barely acknowledged. It's the same sense you get at the end
of Dead Romance - when, er, what happens happens, the human
race is left grubbing around. They are just *irrelevant*, not worth
bothering with. Pretty much the only thing that's consistently
depicted about the Time Lords is that they have *no idea*
about things that happen away from home.

I don't think the Time Lords use currency - if you look at TID, you'll
see there's a barter economy going on in Low Town that the
Time Lords and their guards just don't understand. Time Lord
life has always resembled monastic life, or the Vatican, or
an ancient university.

When I did A-Level Politics, my Politics teacher said that, as
a Marxist, he liked Doctor Who because so many of the
advanced races portrayed seemed to be post-capitalist. And
it's true - Daleks don't have money, you'd never see a
Cyberman with a gold card (tee hee) and so on.

'What alternatives are there to liberal social democracy' seems like
one of the pressing questions SF can ask, I think. Star Trek's just
this huge, huge fudge - no money, infinite resources ... but the
human race still seem driven by the same things as twentieth
century humans are ... and so are every other race, even the
Borg. Let's try and think outside that, imagine what that sort of
society would be like. 'Capitalism' is not inevitable, although
it is very difficult to imagine human society working without it.

Lance

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to
I can't say I agree with everything in Klaus's post, but I disagreed with so
little of it it hardly seems worth pointing out. Good one.

--
Cheers,
Cliff Bowman

http://www.geocities.com/who3d/
PS change "2" to "1" and remove "inter" to reply by e-mail

"Klaus Pumpkin" <kl...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:396A7893...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk...
[snip - lots of stuff, with spoiler space too :)]


~ Paul_Pippa ~

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to

Jonny EIS wrote

>
> What I believe Justin is trying to do is to identify what are
> the basic elements that give Doctor Who its unique appeal,
> and to then concentrate on those. The appeal of the series
> boils down to just three things - the Doctor, the TARDIS,
> and monsters.

Yes. I agree about the Doctor and the monsters/villains. (The
Shadows arc proved the TARDIS is optional)

The strange thing is, I was never really a big fan of the series
when it was still on. It was just another show that I watched.
It's only later that I started feeling nostalgic for all those
old shows, including Who of course.


> These are the essential things that Doctor Who is about. For
> me, Doctor Who is about Daleks gliding across Westminster
> Bridge. It's about the Yeti lurching through underground
> tunnels. It's about Sea Devils rising out of the sea. It's
> about Count Scarlioni ripping off his face to reveal a
> one-eyed squid. It's someone being pulled into the
> ground by the Tractators. It's Sil, gurgling. It's
> Haemovores advancing through the mist. It's an evil
> mist floating through the streets of London and it's
> a painting of a monster coming to life.

And the Doctor offering a jelly-baby to a confused bystander.
Or pulling out the sonic screwdriver to reverse a few
polarities. Or just giving a smile to his companion.

Yes, that's Doctor Who is about for me anyway. Nostalgia for
those childhood TV memories. What I need is a novel where the
Doctor meets Bagpuss in Trumpton and they go for a ride on Ivor
the Engine. Wouldn't that be perfect?


> Recently, I feel the series has become a bit bogged down in
> various parts of the mythos - Gallifrey, the looms, the War -
> and has concentrated too much on those aspects.

Yes. Interference is a good example. Instead of trying to
capture the atmosphere of AUC it just plucks out the name I. M.
Foreman from that story and uses it to create a new background
which the original scriptwriters probably wouldn't have wanted
anyway.

(Although it also gave me the cool lines in my sig, so I guess I
can't complain too much!)


> I mean, we're all imaginative people

I'm not. And I wouldn't want to be.
Imagination spoils the fun of nostalgia.

--
~ Paul_Pippa ~

"You've never been a woman, have you?"
"I'm not sure I've ever even been a man."
(Dr Who, Interference, book 1, Lawrence Miles)


PS. Does anyone know if Miles did consult the original
writer/director etc of AUC before using their Foreman character?

Jonny EIS

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to
In article <396A7893...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk>,
Klaus Pumpkin <kl...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>> What I believe Justin is trying to do is to identify what are the basic
>> elements that give Doctor Who its unique appeal, and to then concentrate on
>> those. The appeal of the series boils down to just three things - the
>> Doctor, the TARDIS, and monsters.
>
>Dear God, I hope more thought has been put into this than
>that. You are just simplifying things, aren't you Jonny?

Of course. I mean, there are lots of other aspects of Doctor Who that are
valuable, but I'd say that those are the three essentials, and have pretty
much been the only constants through the series and books. They're what
Doctor Who's *about*. Of course things like Gallifrey and UNIT are all nice
aspects of Doctor Who, but they're not vital parts of what makes a story a
Doctor Who story.

>> It's an evil mist floating through the streets of London and it's a
>> painting of a monster coming to life.
>
>I notice that all these are TV references. I'm going to get
>very worried indeed about Justin's new direction if it's an
>attempt to get back to "the glory days of the TV series" or
>some such.

The last two references were (quite deliberately) from 'The English Way Of
Death' and 'Demontage' - there's plenty more book examples I could've
included. Saying 'back to "the glory days of the TV series"' makes the
approach sound regressive and derivative. But it's not. It's a question of
recognising the series' strengths and trying to build on them.

I think Lance Parkin put this much better in his article in the Tom Baker
DWM. He puts across the idea that Doctor Who now should be like Season 14.
Not in the sense that it should bring back Tom Baker and Lis Sladen and
have re-matches with Eldrad and Xoanon or have stories set within gothic
architecture, but instead in the sense of being as innovative and
forward-looking as Season 14 was.

>Good point. But the reason that the two wires scene
>(possibly the best use of wires in the whole of 'Who outside
>of the ones that occasionally dragged K-9 across the ground)
>is because it's on TV: it's very visual what with the wires
>in the foreground, Tom's furrowed brow and voice (I think
>you could describe Tom's voice as furrowed), and Liz 'n' Ian
>peering over his shoulder. I can think of lots of scenes in
>the books which are the equal in impact to this, but
>wouldn't necessarily work on TV.

You're right - I can think of a scene in The Ancestor Cell which is equally
powerful. I would say, though, that the power of the 'wires' scene doesn't
come the visual aspect, it comes from the context within the story and the
way the scene makes a strong moral point (defying the audience's
expectations).

>Spoiler space for The Ancestor Cell and Alien Bodies:
>
>1
>2
>3
>4
>5
>6
>7
>8
>9
>10
>11
>12
>13
>14
>15
>16
>17
>18
>19
>20
>

>Yes, but how many plot threads were there hanging? The


>Doctor as an agent of paradox with no shadow was certainly
>something looking for a resolution but what else? A lot of
>people wanted a resolution to the events on Dust, but is
>that necessarily a dangling thread? Or, as Lawrence
>describes it in the Menace interview, a way to spice up the
>PDAs? I never thought the war or the body needed resolving,
>nor did there ever seem any intention to, until recently.
>
>So that's one, maybe two plot threads. Hardly dozens.

Dozens is an exaggeration. Here's my list of the dangling plot threads from
Interference:

The outcome of the War
The identity of the Enemy
Compassion's strange behaviour and transformation
The importance of bottle universes
The loss of the Doctor's shadow
The strange behaviour and then loss of the TARDIS
The third Doctor's premature death
The eighth Doctor's transformation into a Faction Paradox agent
The Faction Paradox's secret agenda
The identity of Grandfather Paradox
Fitz's fate (and coming to terms with his fake identity)

Of course, some of those you may consider to be the same thread, but even
so, that's more than two.

>I certainly don't want them around for every book, but to
>close them off and destroy them altogether just seems
>madness. Destroying the Faction, identifying the enemy, and
>resolving Grandfather Paradox were all unnecessary.
>Balancing their usefulness against the possibility that they
>may make a boring future story is one thing; destroying them
>entirely seems like overkill at best, utter petulance at
>worst.

I think it's important to turn over a new leaf every now and then - it
gives the writers freedom to be more creative. The last time there was a
'clean slate', that freedom meant that Lawrence could write 'Alien Bodies'
and take the series off into an entirely new and fresh direction. It also
works as a 'stepping on' point for new readers - but before you can move
on, you've first got to resolve the previous storyline.

You're right, perhaps The Ancestor Cell was a little drastic in answering
*every single* question and wiping out the Faction Paradox, but the point
is that people expect to be eventually rewarded with explanations and
pay-offs, and they get irritated if things are left open interminably - it
just looks careless. I mean, you yourself are irritated that The Ancestor
Cell doesn't give a complete explanation on how the TARDIS can run without
an Eye Of Harmony, you think it's a 'mistake' that needs addressing in a
future book.

So on the one hand, you're arguing that they should have some questions
open for readers to make up their own minds (i.e. the identity of the
enemy), and yet on other hand you condemn the book for being ambiguous and
not answering questions (about how the TARDIS can still work).

Jonny

Jonny EIS

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to
In article <8kdcom$e...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA>,
smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) wrote:

>I have to argue with you there. The TV series may have boiled down to
>those things, but I think that Doctor Who nowadays includes one more: the
>companions.

>...


>That's not to say the Doctor or TARDIS aren't
>essential, of course. I just think the balance has changed somewhat.

I think you're right; particularly during the latter New Adventures, the
stories were about the companions, and the focus has shifted more towards
them. However, if the series is about anyone, it's about Doctor Who, and so
perhaps it's time the spotlight moved back to him. I mean, the companions
are great - particularly on TV where you need a recurring character to be
explained to - but in a novel their function can be adopted by a supporting
character, which can be even more effective. So, whilst I agree their
important, I don't think they're as essential as the Doctor, TARDIS, or
monsters.

>Arguably, though, it doesn't include the monsters any more. They're as
>much backdrop in the novels as the companions were in the TV series,

>IMO. Sometimes great, but mostly just there, because that's how the series
>seems to function best, not because they're actually essential. The
>significant lack of new book monsters and companion development [which, if
>you want to go further back, could apply to a lack of significant eighties
>monsters, but more companion development] shows a fundamental, but not
>unwelcome, change in the series.

Again, you're completely right - the style of Doctor Who storytelling has
moved away from the Doctor vs the monsters approach which was taken in,
say, Season 5. However, I think the popularity of the Faction Paradox
demonstrates that people still want scary monsters in their Doctor Who.
Certainly, my favourite Doctor Who book of this year - Grave Matter -
concentrated on making its monsters frightening, and to great effect, I
felt.

But monsters *are* essential to Doctor Who - and this is one area where the
TVM was lacking, I think. Where would Doctor Who be without Daleks,
Cybermen, Ice Warriors, Yeti, Sil, Chelonians, Faction Paradox,
Vampires...? If you removed all of the stories with these monsters from the
Doctor Who universe, you'd havve lost a massive chunk of the very best of
Doctor Who. Okay, you'd still have The Crusade and The Witch Hunters and
some other great stories, but not the uniquely Doctor Who-ish ones.

>I think this is fine for the more simplistic TV series (that's not an
>insult to the show, BTW), but the novel reality is more complex. You can't
>get away with monsters being evil just for the sake of it (and nor should
>you, IMO). This adds a level of complexity to things that I like... but it
>also takes away the mythic nature of them, that you identify.

You're probably right. The monsters should have clear motivations, and
should not just be moustache-twirling evil-for-the-sake-of-its. The best
Doctor Who monsters do have clear motivations, whether it be the genocidal
impulses of the Daleks or the logical dogmatism of survival of the
Cybermen.

>For me, the series is more and more about viewing the alien and disturbing
>universe out there through the eyes of the companions. The companions are
>still fulfilling their essential function (giving us a human's eye view,
>being there to ask what's going on), but the nature of these things has
>changed somewhat and that makes a human eye view more useful and complex
>and when the goings-on are more complex and intricate, the companion
>voices become more interesting and accessible to us.

You're absolutely right - the companions do fulfil an important role,
because they provide a perspective that the reader can easily identify
with. The only sections of The Taking Of Planet 5 that I could visualise
were the bits from Fitz's point of view. But I think The Banquo Legacy
demonstrates to great effect that that human's eye view doesn't necessarily
have to come from one of the companions, and may even be more effective as
a resut.

>There's also been an erosion of the Doctor, partly because of the distant
>seventh doctor and then the incompetent eighth, but mostly because the
>books have (rightly, IMO) shied away from presenting us with the Doctor's
>POV. That's not a bad decision for a book, since the attempts to do so
>have been done rather poorly, and I don't think you can possibly write
>anything on that topic that could beat the reader's imagination, but it
>means the Doctor (and by some extension the TARDIS) have taken a lower
>rung on the ladder of essential Whoishness.

I agree, and that's why I think the balance needs to be addressed. By
moving the spotlight to the Doctor, and concentrating on putting him at the
centre of the stories again, you can make his character interesting again.
I don't think giving his point-of-view would help this - I think hearing
his conventional thoughts would erode his mystery further - but the
Doctor's role does need to be built up. That's not to say any of the other
elements should be neglected, but I feel by emphasizing the Doctor's role
in a Doctor Who story you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
Because that's who the books are about, after all. They're not about the
Faction Paradox, or Gallifrey, or Sam, or Fitz, or Benny. They're about
*the Doctor*.

Jonny

Cardinal Zorak

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to
"Jonny EIS" <Jo...@eisinfo.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B590CAE9...@eisinfo.demon.co.uk...

> You're probably right. The monsters should have clear motivations, and
> should not just be moustache-twirling evil-for-the-sake-of-its. The best
> Doctor Who monsters do have clear motivations, whether it be the genocidal
> impulses of the Daleks or the logical dogmatism of survival of the
> Cybermen.
>

The monsters are a great hook-in for the younger viewers (and readers, if my
suggestion of a Target-level franchise were ever to be taken up) and very
visual (vital for a TVM - imagine if we'd had Marshmen style- or Haemovore
risings off San Francisco.... or even a script as good as those stories).
As well as genocidal Daleks and survival-hungry Cybermen, I loved the
tragedy of the Sontarans having forgotten why their war ever started (having
bred for military cunning they seemed to have lost the desire for anything
else), the Silurians wanting "their" planet back in a way we would do
ourselves, the Ice Warriors wrestling with becoming peaceful and giving up
their warlike past, the War Lords' Aliens taking Darwinian theory to its
ultimate conclusion, basically all evil seems to have a primordial
philosophy of "kill or be killed", against which the Doctor's
pacifistic/civilised/parental stance makes a real job cut out for him. And
there lies the fascination in seeing how he copes.

Cardinal Z
"Werewolf?"
"There wolf, there castle!"
--

Gordon Dempster

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to

"drbob" <robert_bosw...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10c166db...@usw-ex0105-035.remarq.com...

<snip>

t
h
e
c
h
i
n
a
m
a
n
s
t
o
o
d
f
i
r
m
a
n
d
m
r
p
e
l
t
z
e
r
l
e
f
t
t
h
e
s
h
o
p
e
m
p
t
y
h
a
n
d
e
d

> I was re-reading Ness's review of Interference (where she first
> made that comment) the other day, and I notice that she followed
> it up with the wish that the Inty story arc would end with the
> whole damn planet blowing up.
>
> Her wish is Steve 'n' Pete's command! :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ol' Doc B.
>

Can she please, please, pretty please, PLEASE wish that the current
Doctor on Earth story arc ends with BBC Video releasing The Horns Of
Nimon in time for Christmas?

--
"Make a cup of tea, put a record on..."

Gordon Dempster

"You promised to show me puppies. I'm still waiting."
www.bhfh.fsnet.co.uk

Douglas B. Killings

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to
Lance Parkin wrote:

> When I did A-Level Politics, my Politics teacher said that, as
> a Marxist, he liked Doctor Who because so many of the
> advanced races portrayed seemed to be post-capitalist. And
> it's true - Daleks don't have money, you'd never see a
> Cyberman with a gold card (tee hee) and so on.

Hmmm.

Daleks and Cybermen as Marxists...

Well, lets see. In both societies, everything they do is for the good of the
State, all Daleks or Cybermen are equal (although some are more equal than
others), their entire society is centralized and planned from a core group for
the good and betterment of the whole, they have renounced religion and other
ideologies in favor of a one-powerful state that provides unity and direction
for the Dalek or Cyber masses, and all industries and resources are owned by
the state and are used for the purpose of supporting Dalek or Cyber society and
ideology. They even have that revolutionary fervor to export their ideology to
the unenlightened masses of the universe...

Err, I think I'd rather stick with capitalism.

--
Douglas B. Killings,
Video Czar, ChiCon 2000 (58th WorldCon)
DeTr...@EnterAct.Com

Fanfiction Website:
http://www.enteract.com/~detroyes/teotp/teotp.html

"Any fool can walk on water if the world is cold enough."

Dangermouse

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to

Finn Clark <kafe...@aol.com> wrote

> Dominion (a grind, but eventually magnificent IMO), Unnatural History (I
remain
> tactfully silent), Autumn Mist (a plot? a plot?),

Don't remember whether I replied to your review or not, Finn- the one
that's on the ratings page.

Basically, yes, AM hasn't exactly got a plot - the idea was that instead of
the usual twisty complex one, I'd just handle the bit of something ongoing
which the characters actually interacted with. (usually in Who, by the end
the regualrs know everything about the guest stars, and where there schemes
began and ended) in order to fiddle around with ideas on the Doctor's
personal mythology and characterising the folklore right. As with Mission
Impractical, I think it's worth experimenting (and in AM's case the prose
isn't so convoluted, IIRC)

Just so you know.

PS - laughed myself silly at one of the reviews (FOTE I think) which
criticsed my "short and terse style" prior to that book. Someone please
tell me that was irony.


deX!

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to
In article <20000710044030...@nso-fz.aol.com>,

kafe...@aol.com (Finn Clark) wrote:
>
> Taking of Planet 5 (panned only by Robert Smith? and huge swathes of
> the DWM readership, as far as I've seen).
>

Oi!

http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/dwrg1001/taki.htm#6

The last time I checked, "serviceably bland" and "perfectly adequate"
weren't exactly ringing endorsements. (I _KNEW_ nobody read my
reviews... *sniff*)

deX!


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

R.J. Smith

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to
In article <B590CAE9...@eisinfo.demon.co.uk>,

Jonny EIS <Jo...@eisinfo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <8kdcom$e...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA>,
>smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) wrote:

>>I have to argue with you there. The TV series may have boiled down to
>>those things, but I think that Doctor Who nowadays includes one more: the
>>companions.
>>...
>>That's not to say the Doctor or TARDIS aren't
>>essential, of course. I just think the balance has changed somewhat.

>I think you're right; particularly during the latter New Adventures, the
>stories were about the companions, and the focus has shifted more towards
>them. However, if the series is about anyone, it's about Doctor Who, and so
>perhaps it's time the spotlight moved back to him.

I agree, that would be nice. I still don't have much of a sense of the
eighth Doctor, all these books later. I'm not sure if that's because he's
too complex for most authors to grasp or because he's had almost no focus
whatsoever.

I mean, the companions
>are great - particularly on TV where you need a recurring character to be
>explained to - but in a novel their function can be adopted by a supporting
>character, which can be even more effective. So, whilst I agree their
>important, I don't think they're as essential as the Doctor, TARDIS, or
>monsters.

I still disagree, obviously. It's true that a supporting character, if
done particularly well, can fulfill that function, but you don't get the
depth of a recurring character, or the advantage of seeing the same
character reinterpreted by a variety of authors (which i think is one o
the great strengths of the novels).

I think their function these days is a lot more than just being the person
the Doctor gets to explain things to.

>>Arguably, though, it doesn't include the monsters any more. They're as
>>much backdrop in the novels as the companions were in the TV series,
>>IMO. Sometimes great, but mostly just there, because that's how the series
>>seems to function best, not because they're actually essential. The
>>significant lack of new book monsters and companion development [which, if
>>you want to go further back, could apply to a lack of significant eighties
>>monsters, but more companion development] shows a fundamental, but not
>>unwelcome, change in the series.

>Again, you're completely right - the style of Doctor Who storytelling has
>moved away from the Doctor vs the monsters approach which was taken in,
>say, Season 5. However, I think the popularity of the Faction Paradox
>demonstrates that people still want scary monsters in their Doctor Who.
>Certainly, my favourite Doctor Who book of this year - Grave Matter -
>concentrated on making its monsters frightening, and to great effect, I
>felt.

Faction Paradox are more an intellectual idea than an effective
monster. They're not really monsters at all, for one thing (in the
traditional sense) and most people don't seem to have bothered much with
the voodoo aspects and whatnot that we saw in Alien Bodies.

The *idea* that they go around creating paradoxes, living in the eleven
day empire, etc is wonderful and it's no surprise that this has gripped
fandom like no enemy since the Sontarans. And I agree that when done
well, a 'monster' can be very effective. However:

>But monsters *are* essential to Doctor Who - and this is one area where the
>TVM was lacking, I think. Where would Doctor Who be without Daleks,
>Cybermen, Ice Warriors, Yeti, Sil, Chelonians, Faction Paradox,
>Vampires...?

True, the good ones make it, but you've only got a handful of books or TV
shows with good monsters. So many stories feel the need to have cameo
monsters pop up for no real reason, or have monsters (eg Kusks, the
I) that are obviously designed to push our monster-buttons but don't
really have anything to appeal beyond one story.

If you removed all of the stories with these monsters from the
>Doctor Who universe, you'd havve lost a massive chunk of the very best of
>Doctor Who. Okay, you'd still have The Crusade and The Witch Hunters and
>some other great stories, but not the uniquely Doctor Who-ish ones.

Well, true, but how in many of these were the monsters themselves
essential? Furthermore, if you take DW as it is now, rather than the TV
show (where the visual aspect makes up for a lot), how important are the
monsters, really? I'd argue that they have a role to play, certainly, but
that role is more one of a group to appear in opposition to the Doctor,
so we can explore his character and motivations and that of the
companions, rather than having a fundamental "Doctor Who and big scary
monsters" idea carry the day. I mentioned before that they were 'backdrop'
now and I think that's quite important.

I'm not advocating losing the monsters, any more than I am advocating
losing the ability to travel in time. But neither are particularly
essential to what Doctor Who is. (The latter, of course, never was, it's
just interesting that there's been a change in status of the former)

>>I think this is fine for the more simplistic TV series (that's not an
>>insult to the show, BTW), but the novel reality is more complex. You can't
>>get away with monsters being evil just for the sake of it (and nor should
>>you, IMO). This adds a level of complexity to things that I like... but it
>>also takes away the mythic nature of them, that you identify.

>You're probably right. The monsters should have clear motivations, and
>should not just be moustache-twirling evil-for-the-sake-of-its. The best
>Doctor Who monsters do have clear motivations, whether it be the genocidal
>impulses of the Daleks or the logical dogmatism of survival of the
>Cybermen.

Yes, definitely. But the requirements of novels are more complex than the
requirements of TV and hence we need more complex motivations. The Daleks
owe a great deal to their design, of course. Without that element, you've
got to work harder at giving the readers something to grab hold of. It can
be done, yes: the Chelonians, for example. They have clear motivations,
they're entertaining, versatile and complex. They're still not *quite* up
there with the more classic monsters from the TV series, but they're
close, IMO. They're also the only new monsters to come out of the entire
NA era - and that's an era which not only survived, it thrived. I think
it's telling that NA Doctor Who didn't need the monsters in the same way
the TV series did, yet both have that essential Whoishness.

If I had to nail down the point at where this changed, I'd probably pick
Love and War, for all sorts of reasons.

>>For me, the series is more and more about viewing the alien and disturbing
>>universe out there through the eyes of the companions. The companions are
>>still fulfilling their essential function (giving us a human's eye view,
>>being there to ask what's going on), but the nature of these things has
>>changed somewhat and that makes a human eye view more useful and complex
>>and when the goings-on are more complex and intricate, the companion
>>voices become more interesting and accessible to us.

>You're absolutely right - the companions do fulfil an important role,
>because they provide a perspective that the reader can easily identify
>with. The only sections of The Taking Of Planet 5 that I could visualise
>were the bits from Fitz's point of view.

Yes, agreed 100%. That was a real problem with that book: huge and
abstract stuff going on with nothing to tie it back to us the reader. And
the companions are an ideal (though obviously not the only) way to do
that.

But I think The Banquo Legacy
>demonstrates to great effect that that human's eye view doesn't necessarily
>have to come from one of the companions, and may even be more effective as
>a resut.

Quite true. I'd only add that this takes quite a bit of skill to do
well. Less skilled writers can make surprisingly good use of companions.
The Fall of Yquatine, for example, is a minor masterpiece, in my opinion,
since it takes a bog-standard story, with bog-standard lizard monsters and
bog-standard planetary politics, etc... and it's the use of Fitz and
(especially) Compassion that raise it to the level of brilliance it
achieves.

>>There's also been an erosion of the Doctor, partly because of the distant
>>seventh doctor and then the incompetent eighth, but mostly because the
>>books have (rightly, IMO) shied away from presenting us with the Doctor's
>>POV. That's not a bad decision for a book, since the attempts to do so
>>have been done rather poorly, and I don't think you can possibly write
>>anything on that topic that could beat the reader's imagination, but it
>>means the Doctor (and by some extension the TARDIS) have taken a lower
>>rung on the ladder of essential Whoishness.

>I agree, and that's why I think the balance needs to be addressed. By
>moving the spotlight to the Doctor, and concentrating on putting him at the
>centre of the stories again, you can make his character interesting again.
>I don't think giving his point-of-view would help this - I think hearing
>his conventional thoughts would erode his mystery further - but the
>Doctor's role does need to be built up.

I cannot agree more with this. You're quite right that there are ways to
do this without seeing his POV - and, arguably, it's the fall and
redemption of the seventh Doctor that made the NAs so powerful, yet we
rarely saw anything through his eyes. I think you're right, actually: the
Doctor's more important than I've been making out, which is probably what
makes the EDAs so frustrating (even when they got good, around the time of
Interference, they neglected the Doctor more than ever before).

That's not to say any of the other
>elements should be neglected, but I feel by emphasizing the Doctor's role
>in a Doctor Who story you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
>Because that's who the books are about, after all. They're not about the
>Faction Paradox, or Gallifrey, or Sam, or Fitz, or Benny. They're about
>*the Doctor*.

Yes. Almost. I think they can be about the universe a bit more. Dead
Romance, for instance, is a book with so much to say on the subject of
"Doctor Who" that it should be a required reading for anyone wanting to
write for it. And yet, that's a book with less to say about the Doctor
(although obviously it still has things to say about him as well) than the
world he inhabits.

But, some exceptions like this aside, I agree.

- Robert Smith?

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to
"R.J. Smith" <smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA> wrote:

I'm just pooping in here because I think I have something positive, or
affirming to say - and I enjoy doing that.

[snip]


>
> Faction Paradox are more an intellectual idea than an effective
> monster. They're not really monsters at all, for one thing (in the
> traditional sense) and most people don't seem to have bothered much with
> the voodoo aspects and whatnot that we saw in Alien Bodies.
>

The lack of "traditionality" shouldn't be any kind of issue to detract from
them. Personally in AB I found them (along with a few other AB concepts,
like the Anarchitects) delightful and reasonably memorable (in as much as MY
memory allows).

[snip]

> Yes, definitely. But the requirements of novels are more complex than the
> requirements of TV and hence we need more complex motivations. The Daleks
> owe a great deal to their design, of course. Without that element, you've
> got to work harder at giving the readers something to grab hold of. It can
> be done, yes: the Chelonians, for example. They have clear motivations,
> they're entertaining, versatile and complex. They're still not *quite* up
> there with the more classic monsters from the TV series, but they're
> close, IMO.

Intersting - I'd have to agree with you (indeed, I had a "hey, hang on a
minute..." speech up my sleeve until I got to this point in your post, where
you said something like I would, only probably better.

> They're also the only new monsters to come out of the entire
> NA era - and that's an era which not only survived, it thrived. I think
> it's telling that NA Doctor Who didn't need the monsters in the same way
> the TV series did, yet both have that essential Whoishness.
>

[snip]

Weren't there some insecty type jobbies early on in the NA's? Oh, and Dave
Stones wibbly wobbly odd creatures from Sky Pirates? (see what I mean about
my memory?). But as a rule of thumb, the "monsters" do tend to have taken a
backstage at the virgin NA department :)

Luke Curtis

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to
On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 18:24:02 GMT,
Sutur...@SutureSelf.freeserve.co.uk (Meddling Mick) wrote:

>On Sat, 8 Jul 2000 15:26:41 +0100, "Cliff Bowman"
><c.bo...@linetwo.internet> wrote:
>
>>"Gordon Dempster" wrote:
>>> I would just like to state, that this is the best, funniest and most
>>> entertaining review I have ever read. That is all.
>>
>>I've not read TAC and, going by reviews and advice on radw, it doesn't look
>>likely that I ever will. SO what I'm about to say has little if any, direct
>>bearing on that esteemed tome. However - I agree. Brilliant review. Possibly
>>the best thing Lawrence has ever written, IMO.
>
>Yeah. Sad thing is, I found myself nodding in agreement with
>everything Lawrence had to say about 'tAC'. He hits the nail squarely
>on the head with that review.

same here.
>
>The novel got quite a few positive comments when it was released, and
>all that went through my head at the time was 'Eh? I can't possibly
>understand how you can't *see* how badly all these things are
>resolved?!' Nice to see Lawrence can sum up my own thoughts without
>resorting to 'It's just bollocks'.

I thought it was OK as i was reading it, but the more i think about
it, the more think that it was really a missed oppotunity, and the LM
*REALLY* had to close this arc.

>
>>But what, I wonder, will he do with Faction Paradox with BBV? Presumably
>>he'll ignore all this non-canon "Doctor Who" stuff and get on with depicting
>>the *real* FP...?
>
>I hope so. The way FP were depicted in 'tAC' was a bit of an issue
>with me - 'We're evil, *totally* evil. *Really* evil. We've got
>rotten teeth, wear creaky black leather, and throttle people for no
>good reason. Bwahahahahaaa!'. And they just ended up looking like
>second-rate Darth Vader rip-offs. Bum. :(

agreed
>
>Oh well, you can't like 'em all...

--
"Some days are like bouncers, they don`t let you in"
(U2)

Luke Curtis

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to
On Sat, 8 Jul 2000 17:05:48 +0100, "orinoco"
<ho...@orinoco.netlineuk.net> wrote:

>
>Adam Richards wrote in message
><7ihemsgsu54p0mqjh...@4ax.com>...
>>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Spoiler space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Just wondering .... I haven't really been reading all the other
>>threads about AC, so maybe this question has already been answered,
>>but .... If Gallifrey gets blown up, how will the TARDIS continue to
>>function as a time/space vessel? I thought it was powered by the Eye
>>of Harmony - the compressed black hole underneath the Panopticon -
>>wasn't it?
I got the impression the the TARDIS runs on Artron enegy which is
given huge amounts out by the Eye Of Harmony, but the Doctor gives out
a lot and humans give out a little, which can be collected and used by
the TARDIS.

>
>I asked an author about this at the Tav on thursday, and the response I got
>was 'it no longer matters. the books are basically being rebooted to get the
>mystery back -all that is important is that the Dr is a mysterious bloke who
>travels in time and space'

If that is the attitude towards the book series by the authors and the
editors then they can count me out of buying any new books.


>
>Orinoco, wombling free
>
>I was brave, I was bold, I was fearless
>I was famous for the things that I did
>I was quick on the draw as I tidied up the floor
>So they called me the Orinoco Kid
>

--

Sean Gaffney

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to
In article <8kfsrv$5...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA>,
smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) wrote:

> Quite true. I'd only add that this takes quite a bit of skill to do
> well. Less skilled writers can make surprisingly good use of
> companions. The Fall of Yquatine, for example, is a minor
> masterpiece, in my opinion, since it takes a bog-standard story, with
> bog-standard lizard monsters and bog-standard planetary politics,
> etc... and it's the use of Fitz and (especially) Compassion that raise
> it to the level of brilliance it achieves.

I found Fitz far more variable than you did, but agree that if I were
reviewing Yquatine in hindsight I'd give it a higher mark. It seems to
be the ONLY book to thoroughly explore what Compassion has become.
Coldheart tried to humanize her a bit, which might have worked if any of
the other books picked up on it, but they didn't. Space Age and Banquo
avoided her, and I'm on page 80 or so of Ancestor Cell and she's not
really making her presence felt here either. Yquatine, though,
presented both a Compassion who's sympathetic *and* utterly terrifying.
It's easily the highlight of the book.

--SG
--who will rescind his AC comment if she gets more to do later...

Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to
Cliff Bowman wrote:

> "R.J. Smith" wrote:
>
> I'm just pooping in here because I think I have something positive, or
> affirming to say - and I enjoy doing that.

Oh, you weren't _that_ bad....;-)

--
========================================================================
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!! We must stick apart!!!
Lola, called Snarky, the Chocolate Snark, Queen of the Snarks; Queen of
Rice; loud and flaming queer Demon of Mockery and Silliness, Demon Lord
of Confusion, Demon Prince of Absurdity; Pope Snarky Goodfella of the
undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK; the Very Long, Multi-Coloured
Scarf of Tom Baker; The Black Goat With A Thousand Young; the Goat In
Black; Cardinal of the Fannish Inquisition
The Principia Discordia: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tilt/principia/body.html
SPONGE: http://www.s-p-o-n-g-e.com/
The Coming Out Show: http://geocities.com/comingoutshow/
"Remember: Red meat isn't bad for you. Fuzzy blue-green meat is."
-- Zog the etc. (in alt.discordia)

Finn Clark

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to
deX! wrote:

> The last time I checked, "serviceably bland" and
> "perfectly adequate" weren't exactly ringing
> endorsements. (I _KNEW_ nobody read my
> reviews... *sniff*)

I do apologise! I must have missed it when it was posted here (unless it
wasn't, in which case all is explained).

Finn Clark.
http://members.aol.com/kafenken/

Luke Curtis

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 06:27:50 -0700, Duncan Harvey
<duncanrv...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

>Finn Clark said
>
>
>"Let me put it this way. If we reran that first year of 8DAs
>now, I don't think they'd look so bad. The Peel and Dicks books
>would still stink, but we'd also be able to compare them with
>the likes of Longest Day and Divided Loyalties. Option Lock
>would *still* look above-average. I'd still be finding the good
>points in Dreamstone Moon. And there wouldn't have been anything
>within a country mile of Alien Bodies since its last appearance."
>
>Funny you should say this because I was initially very reluctant
>to get into the books and decided to take the plunge last yeat.
>I bought all of them (EDA's and PDS'a) and during the last 10
>months have been slowly working my way through them.
>
>I've just finished "The Scarlet Empress" and have been trying to
>read the EDA's in the right order (having missed out Placebo
>effect due to a mistake in my book shelf).
>
>Maybe I'm holding myself out to more ridicule that usual here
>when I ask the question - whats so bad about Terrence Dicks and
>John Peel?


Nothing at all. I enjoyed all 3 of the books in question, A nice,
simple book with straightforward plot is not necessarily a *bad* book,
just a different style of book, so I have no trouble in enjoying both
War of the Daleks and Alien Bodies even though they are as different a
pair of DW books as you will ever get.
>
>Before die hard RADWers begin to mutter curses in my direction,
>I would qualify my statement by saying that the books to me are
>first and foremost entertainment - I read them on the tram to
>and from work - they provide an extremely enjoyable (so far)
>start and end to my working day. Whilst 8 Docs and the Peel
>Dalek novels are "lightweight" they are also to me enjoyable
>well told stories. I'm not looking for high art, I'm looking
>for enjoyment.
>
>But I would say that to me the best books so far have been Alien
>Bodies, Seeing I, and The Scarlet Empress. I thought that
>Seeing I was superb and really made me begin to like Sam for the
>first time, as opposed to feeling indifferent. It also for me
>had a unified "feel" in the sense that the whole setting and
>technology and everything else "worked". Similarly the roller
>coaster ride that is TSE made it an instant favourite.
>

The best I have read have been
Alien Bodies
Seeing I
Interference
Placebo Effect


>So I dont think its fair to say that the earlier books "stink."
>Its fair to say that they've reawakened the fan in me and
>together with the PDA's I'm having a great time.
>
>That said - easy to please as I may appear - even I thought that
>Divided Loyalties was awful!!
agreed.
>
>Duncan


>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
>Up to 100 minutes free!
>http://www.keen.com

--

anghe...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
In article <kQL95.29320$FQ.26...@news0.telusplanet.net>,
"Keith Brookes" <ebro...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> After hearing about it being posted, Lawrence Miles materialses into
> existence, calls Peter Anghelides a 'fuckwit', and dematerialises
again...

You're telling us that Lawrence Miles has turned into a TARDIS?
Well, that would explain all the wheezing and groaning at the
start of this thread.

Peter Anghelides
--
H.G.Wells, The Time Machine (1895): "Our ancestors had no great
tolerance for anachronisms" (the Medical Man, Chapter 1). "What
was this time traveling? A man couldn't cover himself in dust
by rolling in a paradox, could he?" (the Editor, Chapter 2).

Iain Truskett

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
* ~ Paul_Pippa ~ <paul_...@thedoctor.co.please-delete-this-bit.uk>:
> Jonny EIS wrote
[...]

> > Recently, I feel the series has become a bit bogged down in various
> > parts of the mythos - Gallifrey, the looms, the War - and has
> > concentrated too much on those aspects.
>
> Yes. Interference is a good example. Instead of trying to capture
> the atmosphere of AUC it just plucks out the name I. M. Foreman from
> that story and uses it to create a new background which the original
> scriptwriters probably wouldn't have wanted anyway.

What they wanted is probably irrelevant at this point. At that point,
the script writers and editors were concerned with producing a story to
launch a new series that would explore history and science, for
children. A series containing many daring escapades in Real History,
with brains being their saviour, not brawn.

> PS. Does anyone know if Miles did consult the original
> writer/director etc of AUC before using their Foreman character?

I would assume not since there was no Foreman character.

I like "Interference" though. It has its problems, sure, but its style
and chutzpah is just marvellous. After all, were it not for the events
on Dust, the Doctor would never have been on earth in AUC to begin with.
Oops. A paradox. Apposite. More interference in the Doctor's life.


cheers,
--
iain truskett, aka Koschei. <http://eh.org/~koschei/>
Join the VIM Tips mailing list: <http://eh.org/~koschei/code/vim/>

Ed Jefferson

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to

>You're telling us that Lawrence Miles has turned into a TARDIS?
>Well, that would explain all the wheezing and groaning at the
>start of this thread.
>
>Peter Anghelides
>--

At least *he* can wheeze and groan with *style*. :-P
--
Or something...
Ed Jefferson, posting through time from 2004
"My eyes! They fit perfectly."

http://members.xoom.com/radwdatabank Are *you* in the RADW databank?
http://.../upgbook/ The Alt. Book Programme Guide
not iluvjam BTW

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
"Luke Curtis" <luke....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:s18nms0cnvu9ra15u...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 8 Jul 2000 17:05:48 +0100, "orinoco"
> <ho...@orinoco.netlineuk.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Adam Richards wrote in message
> ><7ihemsgsu54p0mqjh...@4ax.com>...
> >>Spoiler space
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Spoiler space
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Spoiler space
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Spoiler space
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Spoiler space
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Spoiler space
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Spoiler space
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
[snip a bit, just for fun]

>
>
> >
> >I asked an author about this at the Tav on thursday, and the response I
got
> >was 'it no longer matters. the books are basically being rebooted to get
the
> >mystery back -all that is important is that the Dr is a mysterious bloke
who
> >travels in time and space'
> If that is the attitude towards the book series by the authors and the
> editors then they can count me out of buying any new books.
> >

There's been a carefully coded response on this issue which, whilst being no
clearer than the average arc concept or authorial explanation, hints that
the author in question might not be involved in any of the currently planned
books.

M.H. Stevens

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
Ed Jefferson wrote:
>
> >You're telling us that Lawrence Miles has turned into a TARDIS?
> >Well, that would explain all the wheezing and groaning at the
> >start of this thread.
> >
> >Peter Anghelides
> >--
>
> At least *he* can wheeze and groan with *style*. :-P
> --

That's debatable!

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to

ggil...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
This has ben a big thread, and I've not got the time to read it; but I'd
love to point out how hilarious it is for Lawrence Miles to say:

"The problem with ******** is that it's shit. It's dull, it's stupid,
it's badly-written, and it's got a plot that makes virtually no sense at
all, a bunch of loose ends roughly tied into the shape of a book with a
couple of crowd-pleasing set-pieces randomly thrown into the mix."

"The big climax seems wilfully designed to draw the attention away from
the fact that the story leading up to it is entirely meaningle

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
<ggil...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8khlqk$bti$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

Irony. A bit like washingly but warmer and drier.

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to

Meddling Mick

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:30:37 +0100, Luke Curtis
<luke....@virgin.net> wrote:

[re: Ancestor Cell, natch]


>I thought it was OK as i was reading it, but the more i think about
>it, the more think that it was really a missed oppotunity, and the LM
>*REALLY* had to close this arc.

To tell the truth, I don't think *anyone* could end the arc in a
totally satisfying way, not even Lawrence. Especially if, at the end,
we were going to find out the identity of the Enemy (among other
things). Because whoever they might have been revealed to be would
almost certainly disappoint. 'Gasp - it's the Daleks!', or 'Shock -
it's the Master!' is just as poor as 'Good heavens - it's a bunch of
blokes we've never heard of!' I'm not even sure if Lawrence's
Truthful And Worshipful Finale Of The War could ever finish what he'd
started.

A big part of the arc, of course, are mysteries like 'Who is the
Enemy?', 'Does the Grandfather really exist and who could he be?',
'How did the War start?', and a whole bunch of others, I'm sure.

It's probably similar to the arc started with 'Blood Heat'. A big
hook is 'Wow, who is the mystery time-active villain?', and I'm sure
we all had our own theories as to who it was. Maybe it's the Master?
Or the Monk? And when, in Scooby Doo fashion, the bad guy's mask is
yanked off to reveal the Monk, some people (including me) are bound to
be disappointed. 'I knew it would be him - what a let down. I
thought the author would be a bit cleverer than me, 'cos I'm just an
average reader-oik.' Then again, you probably get a whole bunch of
people thinking 'Excellent - I just knew it was him! I'm so clever,
nyer!' :)

Another thing: I'd guess Lawrence, if he'd been doing the Grand
Finale, would have jumped in with his Bottle Universe stuff, neatly
severing the NAs and EDAs into two seperate realities, so... I'm glad
we didn't get that hurled our way.
--
(Meddling) Mick Gair

'Why... that power would set me down among the dead men!'
(excerpt from 'The Davros Summerfield Adventures')

William December Starr

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
In article <20000710181433...@nso-fa.aol.com>,
kafe...@aol.com (Finn Clark) said:

>> what floats your boat about Compassion?
>
> I find her... not likeable, but interesting. She's a semi-redeemed
> villain and

When was she a villain? The Remote folks of _Interference_ didn't have
their heads screwed on tightly enough to be good or evil.

-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>


William December Starr

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
In article <B590CAE9...@eisinfo.demon.co.uk>,
Jo...@eisinfo.demon.co.uk (Jonny EIS) said:

> Again, you're completely right - the style of Doctor Who storytelling
> has moved away from the Doctor vs the monsters approach which was
> taken in, say, Season 5. However, I think the popularity of the
> Faction Paradox

They're popular?

> demonstrates that people still want scary monsters in their Doctor
> Who.

"Faction Paradox." "Scary monsters." Pick one.

Ed Jefferson

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
"M.H. Stevens" cra...@postoffice.swbell.net wrote:
>
>Ed Jefferson wrote:
>>
>> >You're telling us that Lawrence Miles has turned into a TARDIS?
>> >Well, that would explain all the wheezing and groaning at the
>> >start of this thread.
>> >
>> >Peter Anghelides
>> >--
>>
>> At least *he* can wheeze and groan with *style*. :-P
>> --
>
>That's debatable!

No, I honestly stuck it right out. Unless you're claiming I was winking at the
same time, in which case it'd be more of a ;-P, but I don't think I was...
--

Ed Jefferson

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
ggil...@my-deja.com wrote:
>This has ben a big thread, and I've not got the time to read it; but I'd
>love to point out how hilarious it is for Lawrence Miles to say:
>
>"The problem with ******** is that it's shit. It's dull, it's stupid,
>it's badly-written, and it's got a plot that makes virtually no sense at
>all, a bunch of loose ends roughly tied into the shape of a book with a
>couple of crowd-pleasing set-pieces randomly thrown into the mix."
>
>"The big climax seems wilfully designed to draw the attention away from
>the fact that the story leading up to it is entirely meaningle

Only as far as the other story that I assume you're talking is entirely
meaningless, which isn't very far, IMHO, at least in the sense that any
fictional story can have meaning.

Ed Jefferson

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
edjef...@aol.comiluvjam (Ed Jefferson) wrote:
>
>ggil...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>This has ben a big thread, and I've not got the time to read it; but I'd
>>love to point out how hilarious it is for Lawrence Miles to say:
>>
>>"The problem with ******** is that it's shit. It's dull, it's stupid,
>>it's badly-written, and it's got a plot that makes virtually no sense at
>>all, a bunch of loose ends roughly tied into the shape of a book with a
>>couple of crowd-pleasing set-pieces randomly thrown into the mix."
>>
>>"The big climax seems wilfully designed to draw the attention away from
>>the fact that the story leading up to it is entirely meaningle
>
>Only as far as the other story that I assume you're talking is entirely
>meaningless, which isn't very far, IMHO, at least in the sense that any
>fictional story can have meaning.

Oh, and the other stuff doesn't really apply either.

Klaus Pumpkin

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
Jonny EIS wrote:
>
> In article <396A7893...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk>,
> Klaus Pumpkin <kl...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> What I believe Justin is trying to do is to identify what are the basic
> >> elements that give Doctor Who its unique appeal, and to then concentrate on
> >> those. The appeal of the series boils down to just three things - the
> >> Doctor, the TARDIS, and monsters.
> >
> >Dear God, I hope more thought has been put into this than
> >that. You are just simplifying things, aren't you Jonny?
>
> Of course. I mean, there are lots of other aspects of Doctor Who that are
> valuable, but I'd say that those are the three essentials, and have pretty
> much been the only constants through the series and books. They're what
> Doctor Who's *about*. Of course things like Gallifrey and UNIT are all nice
> aspects of Doctor Who, but they're not vital parts of what makes a story a
> Doctor Who story.

I'm sure Robert Smith will say this far better than I, but
you don't even need the Doctor or the TARDIS really. Okay,
you probably can't do this too often, but it's still
perfectly possible to present a story that doesn't feature
them at all. Take Dead Romance: I'd love to see something
like that in the 'official' line. Banquo Legacy is close (I
hope that's not a spoiler) and Justin's intended desire (as
quoted in Lawrence Miles' Menace interview) seems to be to
do something like this more often. Okay, if every book was
like that then things would get amazingly boring, as some of
the Benny books did without the all encompassing stimulus of
the Doctor and the TARDIS, but a book as outré as Dead
Romance every now and then would definitely do wonders.

But this 'what Doctor Who needs' is all a distraction from
the one thing the books really do need: good writers doing
good writing. I've agreed with just about everything I've
heard about the new direction Justin's taking, but if he
doesn't have the writers he will fail. Good writers, as
Lawrence has proved, don't even need the Doctor or the
TARDIS.

> >> It's an evil mist floating through the streets of London and it's a
> >> painting of a monster coming to life.
> >
> >I notice that all these are TV references. I'm going to get
> >very worried indeed about Justin's new direction if it's an
> >attempt to get back to "the glory days of the TV series" or
> >some such.
>
> The last two references were (quite deliberately) from 'The English Way Of
> Death' and 'Demontage' - there's plenty more book examples I could've
> included.

Oops. I rather embarrassingly didn't spot that. Sorry.

> Saying 'back to "the glory days of the TV series"' makes the
> approach sound regressive and derivative. But it's not. It's a question of
> recognising the series' strengths and trying to build on them.

Good-o.

> You're right - I can think of a scene in The Ancestor Cell which is equally
> powerful. I would say, though, that the power of the 'wires' scene doesn't
> come the visual aspect, it comes from the context within the story and the
> way the scene makes a strong moral point (defying the audience's
> expectations).

Indeed. It would make a very powerful piece of text as well
- you don't have the Doctor suddenly changing his mind about
wiping out his mortal enemies without having something of an
impact. I was working from a false premise, so I apologise.

> >Spoiler space for The Ancestor Cell and Alien Bodies:
> >
> >1
> >2
> >3
> >4
> >5
> >6
> >7
> >8
> >9
> >10
> >11
> >12
> >13
> >14
> >15
> >16
> >17
> >18
> >19
> >20
> >
>
> >Yes, but how many plot threads were there hanging? The
> >Doctor as an agent of paradox with no shadow was certainly
> >something looking for a resolution but what else? A lot of
> >people wanted a resolution to the events on Dust, but is
> >that necessarily a dangling thread? Or, as Lawrence
> >describes it in the Menace interview, a way to spice up the
> >PDAs? I never thought the war or the body needed resolving,
> >nor did there ever seem any intention to, until recently.
> >
> >So that's one, maybe two plot threads. Hardly dozens.
>
> Dozens is an exaggeration. Here's my list of the dangling plot threads from
> Interference:

Just to argue the toss a bit here (this is not to get at you
but to put in perspective my general annoyance at the way
the Ancestor Cell went about things):

> The outcome of the War

I don't think the war, as seen in Alien Bodies, was ever
meant to be further represented beyond the occasional hints
seen in that book. That, to me, is what makes Alien Bodies
so powerful. I think it was only afterwards that authors and
writers (including Lawrence) started thinking 'well, how can
we work with this?'. Subsequent appearances in Interference
and Taking of Planet 5 only added to it; there was never any
feeling it would (or needed to be) resolved. It's a mystery,
and mystery is what Doctor Who thrives on.

I always got the impression that the War was never meant to
have a resolution: it was just a big temporal thing. I know
Lawrence wanted to tie up some of the story, but I'm pretty
sure that the ultimate effects of the war would be the mess
it made, not who won or lost. Just like real wars in fact.

> The identity of the Enemy

This is something that should never have been, or needed to
be, revealed. Like the outcome of the war, the enemy should
exist in a state of quantum uncertainty - open to
speculation but with the knowledge that whatever answer you
come up with would be a disappointment. I'm 99% sure that
Lawrence didn't know their identity when writing Alien
Bodies (he may have been inspired by an extrapolation of
events in The Also People, but that's about it). He may have
had some idea subsequently (judging by the War rejection)
but it never got beyond that. I think the reason he went
round saying he knows who they were is 'cause he likes
torturing people like that. :) After all, he still hasn't
told us who they should have been, and if The Ancestor Cell
can't do that, nothing can.

Anyway, both these two could have been filed in the folder
marked 'The Doctor's name and why he left Gallifrey to begin
with', along with a cat which may, or may not be, alive.

> Compassion's strange behaviour and transformation

Well, since the Ancestor Cell hasn't resolved this one, I'll
just scratch my head over this (is she coming back in Escape
Velocity? Probably not, so... er, I forgot what my point is
now).

> The importance of bottle universes

What importance? Do you been Foreman's bottle that
disappeared at the end of Interference? I suppose that is
something that needed resolving, though I haven't exactly
seen much urgency for it (I'd forgotten about it until the
Ancestor Cell brought it up - unlike the two Arabian
teenagers who must have been killed when the TARDIS went
foom in Shadows of Avalon).

> The loss of the Doctor's shadow

Indeed. This is something that definitely seemed to be
leading to something, but since it's connected with the
Doctor becoming an agent of Paradox I'm only going to count
this and the agent thing as one.

> The strange behaviour and then loss of the TARDIS

"Strange behaviour?" This is different from the times it
acts perfectly normally is it? The loss of the TARDIS was
something that probably needed resolving if only to appease
all the "you can't do that!" TV-obsessed fanboys on this
list (I've said on another list that if the events of The
Ancestor Cell were there just to appease those idiots then
I'm giving up on the books for good), but didn't the Doctor
have a TARDIS at the beginning of the Ancestor Cell?

> The third Doctor's premature death
> The eighth Doctor's transformation into a Faction Paradox agent

The same thing, essentially (as with the Doctor's shadow).
The Doctor regenerates on Dust and sets off a whole chain of
events. Now, I don't think the 'early' regeneration is a
problem - just to a few delusionists who were worried that
their video copies of Planet of the Spiders might disappear
in a puff of un-smoke. To the rest of us, it was a genuinely
interesting development: spicing up the potential of the
PDAs on the one hand and showing that, in a show about time
travel, nothing is sacred. Now, the Doctor becoming an agent
of paradox and losing his shadow as a result of this needed
some sort of resolution, as I said.

> The Faction Paradox's secret agenda

I didn't think they had a secret agenda. I thought the whole
point of them was that they just liked recruiting people and
causing trouble and getting the Doctor on their side would
do both.

> The identity of Grandfather Paradox

See my comments on The Enemy and The War.

The thing is, people seem to be assuming that Alien Bodies
asked all those questions with the idea that they'll
eventually be answered. But I genuinely believe that this
wasn't the case: Doctor Who is all about mystery and, after
so long, a lot of that mystery has gone. Alien Bodies
returned some of that mystery, using events in the future
rather than events in the past. The reason why I got so
excited about Alien Bodies was the way it tantalised me with
all this information about the Doctor's death, and the war,
and the enemy, and Grandfather Paradox (who we know to be
from Lungbarrow) etc. etc. But it lessens that enjoyment
considerably if we get a load of bog standard answers to
these questions. No wonder Lawrence compared it to finding
out the Doctor's real name is Fred.

> Fitz's fate (and coming to terms with his fake identity)

Again, this is another thread that hasn't been resolved yet.
If Justin's intentions are read correctly, this'll probably
never be mentioned again. Will we even see Fitz again? The
books prior to The Ancestor Cell barely mentioned the fact
that Fitz was not the 'real' version. After the Ancestor
Cell, he's still the same 'remembered' version, unless
Gallifrey exploding and the subsequently paradoxical gubbins
have somehow 'cured' him of this, something I thoroughly
expect to happen. The Ancestor Cell may be a mess, but it's
a thoroughly convenient mess.

> >I certainly don't want them around for every book, but to
> >close them off and destroy them altogether just seems
> >madness. Destroying the Faction, identifying the enemy, and
> >resolving Grandfather Paradox were all unnecessary.
> >Balancing their usefulness against the possibility that they
> >may make a boring future story is one thing; destroying them
> >entirely seems like overkill at best, utter petulance at
> >worst.
>
> I think it's important to turn over a new leaf every now and then - it
> gives the writers freedom to be more creative. The last time there was a
> 'clean slate', that freedom meant that Lawrence could write 'Alien Bodies'
> and take the series off into an entirely new and fresh direction. It also
> works as a 'stepping on' point for new readers - but before you can move
> on, you've first got to resolve the previous storyline.

I hope you're right on this one and that there's a writer
with equivalent imagination to Lawrence to introduce some
genuinely exciting mysteries and concepts - and I see no
reason why it can't be Justin with The Burning, although it
will have to be bloody good to live up to the promotion
Lance has been giving it. :)

But the need to resolve storylines in the way Ancestor Cell
went about it still puzzles me. Some things needed
resolving, certainly. But a lot of things could have been
left the way they were and just never mentioned again.

> You're right, perhaps The Ancestor Cell was a little drastic in answering
> *every single* question and wiping out the Faction Paradox, but the point
> is that people expect to be eventually rewarded with explanations and
> pay-offs, and they get irritated if things are left open interminably - it
> just looks careless.

Good point. Not all the books readers have access to the
internet and may not necessarily know that the Ancestor Cell
was clearing the decks for Justin's reign as editor. But the
book still went too far and eventually came across as an
over-enthusiastic crop sprayer constantly dousing a field of
perfectly healthy corn to wipe out a couple of greenfly.

> I mean, you yourself are irritated that The Ancestor
> Cell doesn't give a complete explanation on how the TARDIS can run without
> an Eye Of Harmony, you think it's a 'mistake' that needs addressing in a
> future book.

I most certainly do not. The Ancestor Cell has happened now,
and that's that. I'll give you pretty good odds that there
will be some mention of sorts how this and other TARDISes
can still operate without the Eye of Harmony in a future
book, but it'll look pretty poor, in the same way that Gary
Russell's books look poor when he does that sort of thing.
It's a mistake in some people's eyes, certainly. I'm not
fussed, as there seems to be a number of possible
possibilities for why TARDISes can continue to work (and
who's to say the Eye of Harmony has been destroyed?). I was
just making a joke at the expense of some of the more, shall
we say, 'detailed' arguments around here. :)

But to actually go round trying to solve it leads to the
sort of inspiration John Peel had when he was mulling over
War of the Daleks.

> So on the one hand, you're arguing that they should have some questions
> open for readers to make up their own minds (i.e. the identity of the
> enemy), and yet on other hand you condemn the book for being ambiguous and
> not answering questions (about how the TARDIS can still work).

Oh come on, Jonny: two different things entirely. The
identity of the Enemy was never meant to be revealed - at
least when Alien Bodies was written, otherwise Lawrence
would have done it there and not gone to such lengths to be
ambiguous. The TARDIS still being able to work can have lots
of answers, but there's a strong suggestion that none of
them occurred to the authors, otherwise they would have
either put in an explanation or made the ambiguity
deliberate.

Terry

R.J. Smith

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
In article <39729e7e...@news.freeserve.net>,
Meddling Mick <Sutur...@SutureSelf.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>A big part of the arc, of course, are mysteries like 'Who is the
>Enemy?', 'Does the Grandfather really exist and who could he be?',
>'How did the War start?', and a whole bunch of others, I'm sure.

>It's probably similar to the arc started with 'Blood Heat'. A big
>hook is 'Wow, who is the mystery time-active villain?', and I'm sure
>we all had our own theories as to who it was. Maybe it's the Master?
>Or the Monk? And when, in Scooby Doo fashion, the bad guy's mask is
>yanked off to reveal the Monk, some people (including me) are bound to
>be disappointed. 'I knew it would be him - what a let down. I
>thought the author would be a bit cleverer than me, 'cos I'm just an
>average reader-oik.' Then again, you probably get a whole bunch of
>people thinking 'Excellent - I just knew it was him! I'm so clever,
>nyer!' :)

I think a key difference between the two is that the Alt Universe arc only
lasted for five months, with a whammy of books in a row and then it was
done. So if you didn't like it (and all the TARDIS bitching was a bit
wearying) then at least it was over quickly. You also had some time to
wonder about the identity of the villain, but not *years* to come up with
more and more elaborate ideas, so that nothing could possibly satisfy you
(this is known formally as the Babylong 5 problem).

This arc has dragged on and on for ages, so, like the identity of the Gods
in the Benny arc, the revelation (if there is one - I don't know and I
don't want to until I read it) can only be a disappointment. *Especially*
when you've set up the identity of the Enemy as a Big Question to be
answered, the chances of their being a satisfactory Big Answer get smaller
and smaller the longer it takes.

Furthermore, those who don't like all the Faction/Doctor
agent/impotent Doctor/Spiders paradox/TARDIS gone stuff are going to have
to wait much longer for things to be resolved in an arc that you visit now
and again over the course of three years. With such a buildup (in part
by one of its authors) I'd be incredibly surprised if The Ancestor Cell is
anything *other* than a disappointment.

- Robert Smith?

Jonny EIS

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to
In article <396C7D7B...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk>,
Klaus Pumpkin <kl...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>I'm sure Robert Smith will say this far better than I, but
>you don't even need the Doctor or the TARDIS really. Okay,
>you probably can't do this too often, but it's still
>perfectly possible to present a story that doesn't feature
>them at all.

Oh, definitely, it's something that can be done occasionally - in Mission
To The Unknown, Face Of The Enemy, or Downtime, or in Dead Romance as you
mentioned - but I think it takes an extremely able author to pull it off,
and in each case the book has compensated for the absence of the Doctor by
placing the story very firmly within the series' background mythos. But I
would imagine most readers buy the books with the expectation that a
'Doctor Who' book should feature the Doctor, and his conspicuous absence
would leave them feeling short-changed if it started happening too often.

>But this 'what Doctor Who needs' is all a distraction from
>the one thing the books really do need: good writers doing
>good writing. I've agreed with just about everything I've
>heard about the new direction Justin's taking, but if he
>doesn't have the writers he will fail. Good writers, as
>Lawrence has proved, don't even need the Doctor or the
>TARDIS.

I completely agree. The quality of the writing is of fundamental
importance, and any other concerns should be secondary. As an editor,
Justin's main reponsibilities are commissioning good writers and making
sure they deliver good writing; however, there is also a broader concern,
in deciding what sort of direction the series should take, what sort of
ethos it should have. That's what I'm rambling on about - I think we can
(or at least should) take the 'good writing' aspect as a given.

>> >Spoiler space for The Ancestor Cell and Alien Bodies:
>> >
>> >1
>> >2
>> >3
>> >4
>> >5
>> >6
>> >7
>> >8
>> >9
>> >10
>> >11
>> >12
>> >13
>> >14
>> >15
>> >16
>> >17
>> >18
>> >19
>> >20
>> >
>>

>The thing is, people seem to be assuming that Alien Bodies
>asked all those questions with the idea that they'll
>eventually be answered. But I genuinely believe that this
>wasn't the case: Doctor Who is all about mystery and, after
>so long, a lot of that mystery has gone. Alien Bodies
>returned some of that mystery, using events in the future
>rather than events in the past. The reason why I got so
>excited about Alien Bodies was the way it tantalised me with
>all this information about the Doctor's death, and the war,
>and the enemy, and Grandfather Paradox (who we know to be
>from Lungbarrow) etc. etc. But it lessens that enjoyment
>considerably if we get a load of bog standard answers to
>these questions. No wonder Lawrence compared it to finding
>out the Doctor's real name is Fred.

I think you've pointed out a basic difference between Alien Bodies and
Interference. Alien Bodies, whilst bringing in lots of intriguing ideas and
introducing the War, the Enemy, the Celestis and the Faction, also had an
ending which tied up the various plots within the book and left the reader
with a sense of closure. The problem with Interference is that it
introduced all of these fascinating ideas, but then left a few of its
subplots unresolved. Which at the time seemed a good thing - an exciting
way of kicking of an arc which would carry on those ideas, develop them and
resolve them. It's only it retrospect, with the benefit of hindsight, you
can see that perhaps it wasn't such a good idea, because some of those
subplots (i.e. the 3rd Doctor's premature death) were not developed and
resolved over the successive books, but were instead left on a back burner
until The Ancestor Cell. I don't think it's necessarily a case of wanting
answers to questions posed in Interference - it's more a case of people
being left waiting for year to find out how that story ends. Alien Bodies
has unanswered questions, but ties up all its plot threads; Interference
has unanswered questions, and also has unresolved plot threads.

>But the need to resolve storylines in the way Ancestor Cell
>went about it still puzzles me. Some things needed
>resolving, certainly. But a lot of things could have been
>left the way they were and just never mentioned again.

I think I agree with you here. The Ancestor Cell could have tied up all the
plot threads without /also/ answering the unanswered questions. But on the
other hand, I can understand why Peter and Steve did what they did.

>It's a mistake in some people's eyes, certainly. I'm not
>fussed, as there seems to be a number of possible
>possibilities for why TARDISes can continue to work (and
>who's to say the Eye of Harmony has been destroyed?). I was
>just making a joke at the expense of some of the more, shall
>we say, 'detailed' arguments around here. :)
>
>But to actually go round trying to solve it leads to the
>sort of inspiration John Peel had when he was mulling over
>War of the Daleks.

I completely agree - this is why explaining it would be a bad thing. Not
because explanations are bad per se, but just because people writing Doctor
Who books should be concentrating on making their book as good as possible
and shouldn't have to worry about trying to solve continuity problems from
previous stories that don't really need to be solved in the first place. I
mean, it might be a nice idea, from a continuity buff's point of view, to
have a book which explains in detail how Atlantis managed to be destroyed
three times and reconciles all of the contradictory elements; but, let's
face it, such a book would almost certainly be complete crap as a result.

>Oh come on, Jonny: two different things entirely. The
>identity of the Enemy was never meant to be revealed - at
>least when Alien Bodies was written, otherwise Lawrence
>would have done it there and not gone to such lengths to be
>ambiguous.

I'm not entirely convinced that Lawrence never intended for the identity of
the Enemy to be revealed eventually, but that's by-the-by. The point I'm
making is what one person sees as an interesting ambiguity which has been
left to the reader's imagination can seem, to another person, to be a
careless mistake that should've be corrected and explained.

Jonny

Jonny EIS

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to
In article <8kfsrv$5...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA>,
smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) wrote:

>Faction Paradox are more an intellectual idea than an effective
>monster. They're not really monsters at all, for one thing (in the
>traditional sense) and most people don't seem to have bothered much with
>the voodoo aspects and whatnot that we saw in Alien Bodies.

Well, I agree they're not traditional monsters like Daleks and Cybermen.
But I think if Terrance Dicks was writing the 'Doctor Who Monster Book'
now, rather than back in the 1970's, he would certainly include the Faction
Paradox. In the 'Monsters Who Came Back For More' section, presumably.

>I'd argue that they have a role to play, certainly, but
>that role is more one of a group to appear in opposition to the Doctor,
>so we can explore his character and motivations and that of the
>companions, rather than having a fundamental "Doctor Who and big scary
>monsters" idea carry the day. I mentioned before that they were 'backdrop'
>now and I think that's quite important.

Individually, the monsters are part of the Doctor Who mythos, the
'backdrop'. But actually the inclusion of monsters as a whole is a
fundamental part of the series. I mean, ask anyone, Doctor Who fan or not,
what they think of when they think of Doctor Who? It's going to be the
monsters first, Daleks or Cybermen or maggots or whatever, and then the
Doctor and TARDIS, and then possibly K9 and other companions trailing in
fourth place. The books have changed that emphasis slightly - if you think
of the NA's you do tend to think of the companions first - and I think
that's probably a result of the more adult readership placing a greater
priority on characterisation where the TV series preferred to concentrate
just on thrilling the kids with a succession of scary monsters.

>If I had to nail down the point at where this changed, I'd probably pick
>Love and War, for all sorts of reasons.

That's interesting. When I think of Love And War, the only bit I can still
remember is someone's stomach bursting open and turning them into a
rampaging brown spore monster. I think, even as a reader, the things that
stick with me tend to just be the monsters and dramatic surprises, rather
than the character scenes. But it's a very personal thing - with the best
books you can take away what you want from them. With Love and War, if
you're after characterisation and thematic depth, then you are rewarded
with some very fine writing; but, on the other, if you're like me and just
want an engrossing plot and exciting monsters running around eating people,
it works on that level too. The best books are those that can cater for the
tastes of both readerships.

Jonny

R.J. Smith

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to
In article <B593A565...@eisinfo.demon.co.uk>,

Jonny EIS <Jo...@eisinfo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <8kfsrv$5...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA>,
>smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) wrote:

>>Faction Paradox

>Well, I agree they're not traditional monsters like Daleks and Cybermen.


>But I think if Terrance Dicks was writing the 'Doctor Who Monster Book'
>now, rather than back in the 1970's, he would certainly include the Faction
>Paradox. In the 'Monsters Who Came Back For More' section, presumably.

Surely David Howe would be the person to write that book, now :-)

>>I'd argue that they have a role to play, certainly, but
>>that role is more one of a group to appear in opposition to the Doctor,
>>so we can explore his character and motivations and that of the
>>companions, rather than having a fundamental "Doctor Who and big scary
>>monsters" idea carry the day. I mentioned before that they were 'backdrop'
>>now and I think that's quite important.

>Individually, the monsters are part of the Doctor Who mythos, the
>'backdrop'. But actually the inclusion of monsters as a whole is a
>fundamental part of the series. I mean, ask anyone, Doctor Who fan or not,
>what they think of when they think of Doctor Who? It's going to be the
>monsters first, Daleks or Cybermen or maggots or whatever, and then the
>Doctor and TARDIS, and then possibly K9 and other companions trailing in
>fourth place.

I'm not so sure that's universal. I suspect that's pretty true of viewers
of a certain age, probably in Britain, who grew up with the Hinchcliffe
years. I suspect the more general answer would be "some bloke with a scarf
and curly hair and a police box". Maybe with "fighting the Daleks" or
"robot dog" added on (and not the companion either, sure).

And I don't deny that that's how the series used to be, certainly.

The books have changed that emphasis slightly - if you think
>of the NA's you do tend to think of the companions first - and I think
>that's probably a result of the more adult readership placing a greater
>priority on characterisation where the TV series preferred to concentrate
>just on thrilling the kids with a succession of scary monsters.

Yes, that's right. Which was good if done well, but so many stories got
let down (eg Caves) by the need to have a "monster of the week" simply
because it was expected that that's what DW *was*. I always loved the
Sunmakers, but was surprised to find it was considered quite daring to
have a story without a monster (it might also be no coincidence that Enemy
of the World is my favourite story of Season 5).

It seemed like everyone was either searching for the next Daleks or
Cybermen, despite that sort of thing having been exhausted in creative
terms by 1969 (or 1973 at a pinch), or bring back the old favourites and
relying on those to carry the day (the eighties). Even the Hinchcliffe
years, which I mentioned above, don't have any defining monsters of their
own (maybe the Zygons, though) - most of their monsters are backdrop, like
the mummies or Voc robots or Krynoids or Wirrn, or "ugly humans", with
far more complex motivations, like Greel or the Master. Even the daleks
take a definite back seat to the "ugly human" in their appearance.

>>If I had to nail down the point at where this changed, I'd probably pick
>>Love and War, for all sorts of reasons.

>That's interesting. When I think of Love And War, the only bit I can still
>remember is someone's stomach bursting open and turning them into a
>rampaging brown spore monster.

I picked L&W because it does both. Surely, even if you don't remember the
beautiful way in which the Doctor realises why he needs companions, at the
very least you probably remember it as the introduction of Benny? (And
it's the number one referenced DW-NA in the Benny NAs, too, though not
surprisingly).

Maybe we just have different views on this subject, but I think of L&W as
being something of a metaphorical handover from monsters to companions in
the series. The Doctor defines himself as the man that monsters have
nightmares about, but the monsters themselves are Hinchcliffe-style
possessors (complete with a name taken from that era!) who aren't
fundamentally important to the book (really!).

The book is far more about a) the Doctor and how far he is willing to go
for the greater good b) the companions, both Ace and Benny, in how they
see both the Doctor and the world he has to live in and c) defining the
relationship between the two things (as is done at the end, complete with
the Doctor's regret over Dodo and the realisation that it was Jackie Piper
who made Puff important, not the pirates).

I think, even as a reader, the things that
>stick with me tend to just be the monsters and dramatic surprises, rather
>than the character scenes. But it's a very personal thing - with the best
>books you can take away what you want from them. With Love and War, if
>you're after characterisation and thematic depth, then you are rewarded
>with some very fine writing; but, on the other, if you're like me and just
>want an engrossing plot and exciting monsters running around eating people,
>it works on that level too. The best books are those that can cater for the
>tastes of both readerships.

Yes, I definitely agree. That's one of the things I like best about Doctor
Who - it appeals to such a diverse set of tastes. We need more of that,
for sure.

- Robert Smith?

Klaus Pumpkin

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to
Jonny EIS wrote:

<Lots of stuff I agree with completely snipped>

Spoiler space for The Ancestor Cell, Interference and Alien
Bodies:

> >> >
> >> >1
> >> >2
> >> >3
> >> >4
> >> >5
> >> >6
> >> >7
> >> >8
> >> >9
> >> >10
> >> >11
> >> >12
> >> >13
> >> >14
> >> >15
> >> >16
> >> >17
> >> >18
> >> >19
> >> >20
> >> >
> >>

> Alien Bodies
> has unanswered questions, but ties up all its plot threads; Interference
> has unanswered questions, and also has unresolved plot threads.

I completely agree. Interference is an odd book, to say the
least. To me it's an author and editor getting carried away
with their mythologies. I mean, we've got all these pages
and there isn't enough room to properly introduce Compassion
as a companion or present her reasons for joining the TARDIS
crew.

As a way to set up an arc, as you say, it's all a bit
hopeless. The Third Doctor's premature death is a good idea,
but completely overshadows the other events of the book. The
whole thing was announced as an arc but nobody had any idea
what it was actually about (reading Steve Cole's
introduction to Interference, I'm not sure he did either).
Subsequent books had very little to do with each other -
doing a very good job of hiding the Shadows of Avalon
revelation, but forgetting that an arc is supposed to
*build* to something.

And all this mess did, really, was to slowly erode the sheer
gobsmacking wonderfulness of Alien Bodies. It's as if people
were too awed by its sheer creativity (and I'm including
Lawrence in this as well), and allowed it to intimidate
their own ideas - 'working out' the concepts thrown out by
Alien Bodies until the, by then, inevitable arrival of the
Ancestor Cell to try to make sense out of the subsequent
mess.

<snip more stuff I agree with>

> >Oh come on, Jonny: two different things entirely. The
> >identity of the Enemy was never meant to be revealed - at
> >least when Alien Bodies was written, otherwise Lawrence
> >would have done it there and not gone to such lengths to be
> >ambiguous.
>
> I'm not entirely convinced that Lawrence never intended for the identity of
> the Enemy to be revealed eventually, but that's by-the-by. The point I'm
> making is what one person sees as an interesting ambiguity which has been
> left to the reader's imagination can seem, to another person, to be a
> careless mistake that should've be corrected and explained.

I'm not entirely sure myself, but I can make a good guess.
Right after Alien Bodies was published, a lot of people
thought the enemy were the People. It's easy to see why this
is: The Also People's threatened war had first raised the
possibility of a temporal war and people assumed that
Lawrence was building on this. The ambiguous nature of the
enemy could also be explained by necessity: with the People
being 'off-limits' in terms of licences and what not.

I really believe that this was Lawrence's original
intention. Various factors fit in with this: Miles saying
that all this best ideas come from Ben Aaronovich in the
Menace interview, Miles still being very much a part of the
Virgin line at the time (and having lots of nasty People in
Down). It's not hard to see that the original inspiration
for Alien Bodies was 'what if the Time Lords and the People
did go to war some time in the future and the effects of
that were felt now?' The presentation of the Enemy in Alien
Bodies is perfectly consistent with them being a future
version of the People.

However, Lawrence immediately mucked all that up denying
that the Enemy were the People. The Also People may have
been the inspiration, but because Alien Bodies doesn't
betray its origins, Lawrence was free to come up with his
own ideas for the Enemy. There seems to have been two
attempts at a sequel to Alien Bodies - Ends and The War -
but both were rejected before Interference got the green
light. So maybe there was a few ideas floating about for
whom Steve Cole was no doubt a party. But I think the fact
that Cole went with his own idea for them is significant. If
the enemy were something that Cole and Miles knew about
before Alien Bodies, then I'm sure Cole would have gone with
the original intention. But because there were a few ideas
floating around, Cole was free to come up with his own.

I'm sure Lawrence would deny all this, as I'm sure he likes
the idea of knowing who the Enemy should be all along, but
that's convenient for my purposes. :)

Pure speculation, but fun.

Terry


Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
"Klaus Pumpkin" <kl...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:396E2594...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk...

> Jonny EIS wrote:
>
> <Lots of stuff I agree with completely snipped>
>
> Spoiler space for The Ancestor Cell, Interference and Alien

> Bodies:
>
> > >> >
> > >> >1
> > >> >2
> > >> >3
> > >> >4
> > >> >5
> > >> >6
> > >> >7
> > >> >8
> > >> >9
> > >> >10
> > >> >11
> > >> >12
> > >> >13
> > >> >14
> > >> >15
> > >> >16
> > >> >17
> > >> >18
> > >> >19
> > >> >20
> > >> >
> > >>
> > Alien Bodies
> > has unanswered questions, but ties up all its plot threads; Interference
> > has unanswered questions, and also has unresolved plot threads.
>
> > >Oh come on, Jonny: two different things entirely. The
> > >identity of the Enemy was never meant to be revealed - at
> > >least when Alien Bodies was written, otherwise Lawrence
> > >would have done it there and not gone to such lengths to be
> > >ambiguous.
> >
> > I'm not entirely convinced that Lawrence never intended for the identity
of
> > the Enemy to be revealed eventually, but that's by-the-by. The point I'm
> > making is what one person sees as an interesting ambiguity which has
been
> > left to the reader's imagination can seem, to another person, to be a
> > careless mistake that should've be corrected and explained.
>
> I'm not entirely sure myself, but I can make a good guess.
> Right after Alien Bodies was published, a lot of people
> thought the enemy were the People. It's easy to see why this
> is: The Also People's threatened war had first raised the
> possibility of a temporal war and people assumed that
> Lawrence was building on this. The ambiguous nature of the
> enemy could also be explained by necessity: with the People
> being 'off-limits' in terms of licences and what not.
>
> I really believe that this was Lawrence's original
> intention. Various factors fit in with this: Miles saying
> that all this best ideas come from Ben Aaronovich in the
> Menace interview, Miles still being very much a part of the
> Virgin line at the time (and having lots of nasty People in
> Down). It's not hard to see that the original inspiration
> for Alien Bodies was 'what if the Time Lords and the People
> did go to war some time in the future and the effects of
> that were felt now?' The presentation of the Enemy in Alien
> Bodies is perfectly consistent with them being a future
> version of the People.
>
Perhaps even having The People as potentially "The Enemy" enhanced AB. You
didn't need any of the Lawrence interviews to come up with that idea BTW -
it's a connection I made easily enough having read just the first NA that
The People are present in. It was cool, and they were a plausible threat
like no other Dr Who species to date. IMO.

Perhaps you're right - perhaps AB impressed everyone, including the
production team, too much - so much that it became "obvious" that if Ben A
could come up with a race which could challenge the Time Lord, then so could
Lawrence or "The Team" in general. Which seems to have fallen... a little
flat :(

Orange Anubis

unread,
Jul 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/16/00
to
In article <8kia9v$iv5$1...@panix3.panix.com>,

Faction Paradox! Faction Paradox! Because, in storytelling terms, I'm
less engaged by the idea of a monster chasing someone down a corridor
with the intention of chewing their leg off than I am by the idea of
someone rewriting your history so that you're no longer sure of what
really happened to you or who you really are.

That being said, obviously there's a visceral excitement to a
traditional scary monster if the situations are handled dramatically
well. And monsters are great if what they *are* or what they *do*
reaches us on a level beyond the obvious. I have a soft spot for
rampaging zombies, for instance. Hey! - it's us, stripped of our
individuality and reduced to our base instincts!


Rob

--
Nothing to fear and nothing to doubt

Jonn Elledge

unread,
Jul 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/17/00
to
WDS and Orange Anubis:

>However, I think the popularity of the
>> > Faction Paradox
>>
>> They're popular?

Pretty.

>>
>> > demonstrates that people still want scary monsters in their Doctor
>> > Who.
>>
>> "Faction Paradox." "Scary monsters." Pick one.

Faction Paradox.

>
>Faction Paradox! Faction Paradox! Because, in storytelling terms, I'm
>less engaged by the idea of a monster chasing someone down a corridor
>with the intention of chewing their leg off than I am by the idea of
>someone rewriting your history so that you're no longer sure of what
>really happened to you or who you really are.

::nods vigorously::

Scary monsters are DULL in books.

Admittedly, FP haven't been used that well - but as a concept, they are so much
better than any enemy we've had since... erm...

----
Jonn Elledge, the thinking woman's bit of rough

If you're so good in bed, what d'you need me for?
-"Off the Top of Our Heads", a new play by Jonn Elledge and Michael Hall,
Greyfriars Kirkhouse (studio 2), Edinburgh
10:15pm, August 7th-19th


Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jul 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/17/00
to
"Jonn Elledge" <jonnyo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000716210438...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
[snip]

>
> Scary monsters are DULL in books.
>
> Admittedly, FP haven't been used that well - but as a concept, they are so
much
> better than any enemy we've had since... erm...
>

IMO "Dull" monsters aren't scary. I don't think that means that scary
monsters have been done, I think it means scary monsters may have been
attempted, but the attempts have failed.

deX!

unread,
Jul 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/17/00
to
In article <20000711194827...@nso-cm.aol.com>,
kafe...@aol.com (Finn Clark) wrote:
> deX! wrote:
>
> > The last time I checked, "serviceably bland" and
> > "perfectly adequate" weren't exactly ringing
> > endorsements. (I _KNEW_ nobody read my
> > reviews... *sniff*)
>
> I do apologise! I must have missed it when it was posted here
> (unless it wasn't, in which case all is explained).
>

It was posted... No love from the big guns... *sob*

Of course, I haven't posted a review since _Shadows Of Avalon_, a
situation I should probably rectify.

deX!

Finn Clark

unread,
Jul 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/17/00
to
deX! wrote:

> It was posted... No love from the big guns... *sob*

WE LOVE YEZ, deX!
<group hug>

Finn Clark.
http://members.aol.com/kafenken/

0 new messages