Jon's review: "Lungbarrow" *SPOILERS*
Jonathan Blum
And so it ends, and begins again.
*SPOILERS* for "Lungbarrow", as well as some for "Room With No Doors"...
Marc Platt is the mad genius of Doctor Who. This is a man who Ben
Aaronovitch describes as dancing to opera inside his own head. In
"Lungbarrow", he's woven a tapestry out of elements from the TV series and
the previous novels, and produced a work of fiction full of rich images
and more resonance than a low-budget TV show or a series of pulpy novels
should ever be expected to have.
It hit me, while reading this book, how astounding it is that a novel like
this could ever be published as part of a series. I can't think of *any*
other TV tie-in novel line which would *dare* to come up with its own
definitive answers to the show's questions like that, or tell a story with
such far-reaching consequences. To say nothing of how I can't picture any
other shared universe coming up with such a deeply personal, visionary,
poetic work.
The cleverness of Platt's plotting has already been commented on -- the
way he takes a few little throwaway details over the course of the series,
from the end of "Invasion of Time" to Susan's passing mention that she
made up the name of the TARDIS to the infamous Morbius faces, and weaves
something mythic out of them.
But what impresses me most of all is the skill of the execution. The
wordplay... throwaway phrases referring to cousins and kin of all
sorts pop up in the most unexpected places. The amazing pictures Platt
paints of the House and its furniture -- Disney's "Beauty And The Beast"
as designed by Neil Gaiman or Dave McKeown. And most fundamentally of
all, the roses, which keep cropping up again and again... a symbol of the
fractal complexity of life, they make this book into a companion volume to
"Timewyrm: Revelation", a true bookend for the NA's.
One moment which positively made me gush with joy is one which will never
be paid off: Ace's mention of a trip to go see the premiere of the "Rite
of Spring". The Doctor mentions that he thinks he might have gone there
-- he probably would have been off-stage counting out the beat to the
dancers over the ruckus... In fact, in the original first chapter to
"Vampire Science", the eighth Doctor takes Grace to that performance, and
even waves to (an unnamed) Ace. He's not trying to run the show; in fact,
despite all the distractions and chaos, he's sitting back and enjoying it.
I'd completely forgotten that we'd even mentioned our idea to Marc, and to
see it made flesh, even in this incomplete form, was a joy.
Of course, Platt can still be deliberately, maddeningly oblique in places
-- but "Lungbarrow" has a much greater sense of plot clarity than "Time's
Crucible" or even "Downtime". I was impressed by how much was flat-out
explained.
The one bit he doesn't say explicitly is that the Other is half-human on
his mother's side. But with all the talk about genetic anomalies being
passed down to the Doctor, it's made pretty clear. Since the Doctor now
has his memories about such matters, which he didn't know before, the
comments in the telemovie make perfect sense -- he's remembering _other_
memories than the ones we knew about.
And of course, Platt doesn't say one thing, not a single word, about what
the Other is on his *father's* side...
A few passing notes:
-- I love Platt's throwaway zings at favorite fan obsessions. Satthralope
dismissing the ornamental hermit the Lungbarrovians kept on the
mountainside, and the explanation of the Terrible Zodin both gave me a
grin. Gimme this Zodin over Jean-Marc's megalomaniac of the week any day.
:-)
-- The story of the first Doctor's departure from Gallifrey, told in a few
fragments, is lovely. Instead of the bog-standard Hero's Journey routine
trotted out in the Leekley script, cliches disguised as archtypes, here we
get slightly similar material in a new and different form. The young hero
is already an old man with some wisdom of his own, not a callow youth; the
Call to Adventure isn't a call to a quest, just an uprooting from routine
life into an unpredictable days-like-crazy-paving world with no fixed goal
except what you find on your own; and there isn't a the-making-of-a-hero
journey tacked on, because Platt recognizes that we've already seen the
Doctor become a hero in a cliche-avoiding way, over the course of the
first year of the TV show all those years ago. This isn't a story you can
say you've seen anywhere before. These senses of wisdom, and
unpredictability, and fresh imagination, are IMHO what makes Doctor Who
Doctor Who, and Platt nails every one of them.
-- Cousin Innocet. For some reason, I kept picturing her as Jennifer
Tifft. (Must be the hair. :-) A fascinatingly ambiguous character.
After seeing what being Housekeeper had done to old Satthralope, I
couldn't help but wonder why Innocet would even want the position, but I'd
love to find out...
-- Leela. An absolutely spot-on characterization. Every so often, she
comes out with a single gorgeous line which shows how she can connect with
the heart of the situation: her simple observation on how sad it is that
the Doctor has died so many times since she knew him comes to mind.
-- Ace. You're reminded, after all this time, that Marc is one of the men
who defined Ace as we know her, way back in Season 26. He continues the
process of weaving together all the different threads binding Old Ace and
New Ace, with the wonderful confrontation between the two. And her big
speech on page 157 is laser-sharp -- summing up all the inner conflicts
which have driven Ace since her beginning.
'That wasn't enough though, was it? She kept on at me. She was
me and I was nothing. And she _was_ me too. A right vicious little
bitch. All the worst bits slung together. She had all the facts, but she
didn't understand them. I could see right through her. She'd got all the
lurid details, but she didn't know how I felt or what I imagined and
that's what I hung on to. If she needed to know, then I must still be me.
And she went on and on, always coming back to the Doctor. Who was he?
And why and what was he? And that's what I hung on to. 'Cos I believe in
him and she didn't know why!'
The teacup cracked into a dozen pieces in her grip.
-----
If there's ever a DWM-style listing of the top ten moments which make the
NA's special, that scene is right up there for me. It perfectly sums up
the fire, the rage, the idealism, the confusion, and the love for the
Doctor which have made Ace at her best one of the strongest characters in
all of the New Adventures. It's magic.
-- And last but not least, the seventh Doctor. His speech at the end does
a wonderful job of summing up the two sides to his nature throughout the
NA's, and at the same time clearing the decks so that future books don't
have to deal with this book's revelations if they don't want to.
'And what will you teach us with your manifold wisdom?' said
Ferain. 'Whoever you are or were?'
The Doctor met the old man's eye. The wind stilled.
'What do you want, Ferain? What do you want me to be? Shall I
reveal my blazing power? Might that not fry you to a crisp? Shall I
sweep away evil and chaos? Reorder the stars in their courses? Banish
burnt toast forever?'
He paused.
'Well, I won't. I wouldn't if I could. Who do you think I am?'
He thumbed his chest. 'I'm me. The Doctor. What I have been, someone
might have imagined. What I will be, how can I tell? I'm not immortal.'
Beauty. Sheer beauty. This is what sets the Doctor apart from all those
he fights against, in just a few simple sentences: Care as he does
about what he believes in, fight as he does to do what he sees as right,
he is never a tyrant, never in love with his own power, never out of touch
with the small beauties and disappointments of life.
Even after the ending to this book, I really can't believe that it's all
over, that these characters will never be seen again... The book isn't a
funeral, isn't a careful putting-away of all the pieces which have filled
this gameboard for the past five years, it's a celebration of the
continuing life of the series. And that's how it should be.
I want Marc to write the next Gallifrey story for BBC Books. He'd have
the rights to use the Looms and the whole backstory he's created; even if
he doesn't get to deal with the Doctor's personal past, I'd love to have
him show us what a post-reunification Gallifrey would be like. What it
means for the future. And I want to see what that kid turns out to be
like. :-) Marc Platt has taken Gallifrey from being the ultimate pit of
fanwank, and created what feels like a living breathing world out of it.
I love the New Adventures. Fundamentally, I love Doctor Who, no matter
what form it takes. And "Lungbarrow" has reminded me just how good Doctor
Who can get. It's a labor of love, a work of imagination and inspiration,
and it leaves me with a wonderful sense of expectations fulfilled.
Regards,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
chess... when it was just me playing solitaire!"
D O C T O R W H O : T I M E R I F T
Andrija Popovic
In article <5huao0$4...@cappuccino.eng.umd.edu>, jb...@Glue.umd.edu
(Jonathan Blum) wrote:
> And so it ends, and begins again.
>
> *SPOILERS* for "Lungbarrow", as well as some for "Room With No Doors"...
<lovingly detailed review regretfully +snipped>
May I take this to mean that "Lungbarrow" has arrived in the Washington DC
Metropolitan area? ^_^
--
Andrija Popovic (vu...@concentric.net)
http://www.concentric.net/~vuk6/index.html
"Dreams do not vanish, so long as people do not abandon them."
--Phantom F. Harlock _Arcadia of My Youth_
gill...@citynet.net
[Review snipped]
An old-style Jon Blum post like we used to get.
Wow!
They've been sorely missed.
-Donald
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Jonathan Blum
In article <8600331...@dejanews.com>, <gill...@citynet.net> wrote:
>In article <5huao0$4...@cappuccino.eng.umd.edu>,
> jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>[Review snipped]
>An old-style Jon Blum post like we used to get.
>Wow!
>They've been sorely missed.
And it's about time! *big grin*
(This is what happens, incidentally, when Jon finally walks out of his
cruddy job and starts taking a few weeks off before embarking on a new,
and probably much better, one. :-) Of course, after I get the new job, I
probably won't have nearly as much time to post *anything*, so better
enjoy this while you can. :-)
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
Jonathan Blum <jb...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
: And so it ends, and begins again.
: *SPOILERS* for "Lungbarrow", as well as some for "Room With No Doors"...
[review snipped]
Surprisingly, I have very few disagreements with your review, Jon. Yes,
the book is all that you say. Well, mostly.
Personally, I found the style a little too precious, dare I say
pretentious, for my taste, but then I belong to the clan of readers who
always favored poor stylists like Asimov or Clarke over wordsmiths like
Ellison.
The basic disagreement we have is, to you, 'LUNGBARROW *is* Doctor Who.
To me, it's anything *but*.
I could drag examples of similar opinions from comics to the recent
Benford FOUNDATION book -- another well-intended, decently
executed but IMHO utterly misguided "betrayal" of the original.
To me, Jewels of Time was Doctor Who. With a stretch, I could just accept
Fathers & Brothers (I never said it was ideal, mind you). But Lungbarrow
is a grim travesty of Doctor Who. (I'll keep comic book analogies out
but they're flashing before my eyes right now.)
We cannot resolve this one, I fear.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk
In article <5hv2on$g...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote: [...]
> The basic disagreement we have is, to you, 'LUNGBARROW *is* Doctor Who.
>
> To me, Jewels of Time was Doctor Who. With a stretch, I could just accept
> Fathers & Brothers (I never said it was ideal, mind you). But Lungbarrow
> is a grim travesty of Doctor Who. (I'll keep comic book analogies out
> but they're flashing before my eyes right now.)
>
> We cannot resolve this one, I fear.
What about it do you find un-Who-ish? I think "Lungbarrow" works because
it retains a Doctor both impish and child-like, yet someone who has a
great effect on his surroundings. It's like "Deadly Assassin" all over
again, but this time it's family! "Deadly Assassin" and perhaps "Cat's
Cradle: Time's Crucible" *were* somewhat breaks from the past for Who,
but "Lungbarrow" isn't in comparison.
"Lungbarrow" resolves elements of the 7th Dr's persona that I know you
don't like, but they have been developing from back when he was on TV, so
if you reject "Lungbarrow" for that reason, you have to reject most of
the 7th Dr stories (TV or NA).
The revelation of mystery, while producing only more mystery, of
"Lungbarrow" I found much more preferable to the off-hand revelations of
the telefilm or some of the "The Nth Doctor" proposals. "Dr Who" was
unique in that its hero was not from the traditional mould; "Lungbarrow"
provides a history befitting such a character as compared to many of the
"The Nth Doctor" proposals' depictions that used every cliche in the
book. Too much of "The Nth Doctor" was Star Wars or Star Trek;
"Lungbarrow" could only be "Who".
Or that's how it was for me,
Henry Potts
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk
>
> *SPOILERS* for "Lungbarrow", as well as some for "Room With No Doors"...
I wholeheartedly agree with Jon, but I'd add...
>[...] The amazing pictures Platt paints of the House and its furniture
>-- Disney's "Beauty And The Beast" as designed by Neil Gaiman or Dave
>McKeown. [...]
I think you do "Lungbarrow" a disservice to look at only such recent
referents of ideas far older than Disney and Gaiman; no, "Lungbarrow" is
Mervyn Peake's "Gormenghast" brought to life.
Desperate Dan, the mad mail man
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk wrote:
>
> In article <5huao0$4...@cappuccino.eng.umd.edu>,
> jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
[snip]
> >[...] The amazing pictures Platt paints of the House and its furniture
> >-- Disney's "Beauty And The Beast" as designed by Neil Gaiman or Dave
> >McKeown. [...]
>
> I think you do "Lungbarrow" a disservice to look at only such recent
> referents of ideas far older than Disney and Gaiman; no, "Lungbarrow" is
> Mervyn Peake's "Gormenghast" brought to life.
>
. . . and owes a great debt to Cocteau's "La Belle et La Bete", IMOHO -
surely the inspiration for those Disney types?
> Henry Potts
Desperate Dan, the Marais-ed man.
--
Never forget:
The word "Doctor" derives not from the Latin "to heal", but "to teach".
Jonathan Blum
In article <8600673...@dejanews.com>,
<he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <5huao0$4...@cappuccino.eng.umd.edu>,
> jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>>-- Disney's "Beauty And The Beast" as designed by Neil Gaiman or Dave
>I think you do "Lungbarrow" a disservice to look at only such recent
>referents of ideas far older than Disney and Gaiman; no, "Lungbarrow" is
>Mervyn Peake's "Gormenghast" brought to life.
I'd agree that there's a huge influence there, just having read "Titus
Groan" -- but to me House Lungbarrow felt like it was a nod to pop culture
as well. Remember, this is Marc Platt, the man who quoted Charles Darwin
and Douglas Adams in the same episode...
sab...@utdallas.edu
<eloquent speech cut>
*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*
Any way we can work this speech into the Sgloomi Po awards ceremony?
- Sabrina
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk wrote:
: What about it do you find un-Who-ish? I think "Lungbarrow" works because
: it retains a Doctor both impish and child-like, yet someone who has a
: great effect on his surroundings. It's like "Deadly Assassin" all over
: again, but this time it's family! "Deadly Assassin" and perhaps "Cat's
: Cradle: Time's Crucible" *were* somewhat breaks from the past for Who,
: but "Lungbarrow" isn't in comparison.
: "Lungbarrow" resolves elements of the 7th Dr's persona that I know you
: don't like, but they have been developing from back when he was on TV, so
: if you reject "Lungbarrow" for that reason, you have to reject most of
: the 7th Dr stories (TV or NA).
I don't think so. I have no problem accepting all the 7th Doctor's
stories, except possibly that bit about him being something else or
whatever but it was so minor that you could kind of ignore it.
My personal vision of Gallifrey is (as Jon Blum aptly put it once) more
along the lines of Krypton than Gormenghast. I never "bought" the Loom,
Time Crucible etc. either.
: unique in that its hero was not from the traditional mould; "Lungbarrow"
: provides a history befitting such a character as compared to many of the
: "The Nth Doctor" proposals' depictions that used every cliche in the
: book. Too much of "The Nth Doctor" was Star Wars or Star Trek;
: "Lungbarrow" could only be "Who".
I don't really want to oppose Lungbarrow to some of The Nth Doctor
scripts, as I feel it's apples & oranges. Except for Jewels of Time
which, to me, felt "real" Who, none of the other scripts were that
traditional either.
Ultimately, it's not the *character* of the Dr in Lungbarrow I have a
problem with. I can certainly "hear" McCoy in the part. It's the
background / the world/universe in which it takes place / the underlying
concepts.
Will you allow me a few comic book analogies? Neil Gaiman is a good
friend of mine and SANDMAN is a wonderful comics, but I never liked (or
"bought") his treatment of the Kirby Red & Gold Sandman. Similarly, I
never bought Alan Moore's treatment of Adam Strange in SWAMP THING. Both
were challenging, very well written -- and IMHO utter betrayals of the
characters they were using.
LUNGBARROW isn't quite that extreme, but I can't say that I'm able to
recognize it as a "true" vision of the WHO-niverse.
But again, this is totally and utterly subjective. Plenty (the majority)
of folks liked, or at least didn't object to Neil's and Alan's recreations
either.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk
In article <5i1p7e$1...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>,> he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk wrote:
>
> : What about it do you find un-Who-ish? [...] It's like "Deadly Assassin"
> : all over again, but this time it's family! "Deadly Assassin" and
> : perhaps "Cat's Cradle: Time's Crucible" *were* somewhat breaks from
> : the past for Who, but "Lungbarrow" isn't in comparison.
>
> : "Lungbarrow" resolves elements of the 7th Dr's persona that I know you
> : don't like, but they have been developing from back when he was on TV, so
> : if you reject "Lungbarrow" for that reason, you have to reject most of
> : the 7th Dr stories (TV or NA).
>
> I don't think so. I have no problem accepting all the 7th Doctor's
> stories, except possibly that bit about him being something else or
> whatever but it was so minor that you could kind of ignore it.
The Dr has always been an atypical person/Time Lord. By the time of the
Cartmel Masterplan, he already had a personal history of such great
importance to the Universe at large that it was becoming more and more
ludicrous that he was "just" this bloke wandering around in a time-
space museum. "The Deadly Assassin" most notably expanded on the Dr's
role vis-a-vis Gallifrey and, for me, the later TV McCoy and the NAs
have just continued with that concept.
These ideas, while peripheral much of the time, become more central in a
number of NAs before "Lungbarrow", so I would quibble whether you can
"kind of ignore it" that much. Anyway...
> My personal vision of Gallifrey is (as Jon Blum aptly put it once) more
> along the lines of Krypton than Gormenghast.
Than all I can say is that you have a very strange vision of Who! ;)
Krypton is typical SF; the whole basis of Dr Who was that it got away
from such cliches. Depictions of Gallifrey before JNT had already
suggested a Gallifrey far removed from a Krypton archetype. The feel
of "The Deadly Assassin" or "Shada" seem to me to lean far more towards a
tradition in literature that includes Peake's "Gormenghast", although
Platt has gone even further than his predecessors.
> I never "bought" the Loom, Time Crucible etc. either.
... which expand on concepts/styles introduced in "The Brain of Morbius"
and "The Deadly Assassin". Platt's NA representations of Gallifrey are
more in keeping with the Gallifrey of the 4th Dr (and before) than its
rather boring depiction in the JNT era, I find. Further, Platt gives us
a truly *alien* culture; a sense of otherness (if you'll forgive the pun)
to Gallifrey that I find missing in, say, proposals in "The Nth Doctor".
> : unique in that its hero was not from the traditional mould; "Lungbarrow"
> : provides a history befitting such a character as compared to many of the
> : "The Nth Doctor" proposals' depictions that used every cliche in the
> : book. Too much of "The Nth Doctor" was Star Wars or Star Trek;
> : "Lungbarrow" could only be "Who".
>
> I don't really want to oppose Lungbarrow to some of The Nth Doctor
> scripts, as I feel it's apples & oranges. Except for Jewels of Time
> which, to me, felt "real" Who, none of the other scripts were that
> traditional either.
My comments apply to "Jewels of Time" as much as the other Nth
variants. If we're not comparing "Lungbarrow" to another official or
semi-official or nearly official depiction of Gallifrey, then to what
are we comparing it? If it is just too your personal imagination of
Gallifrey, then I suggest that fans of a long-running series should
be used to their own imaginings being refuted and learn to get with
the programme! ;)
> Ultimately, it's not the *character* of the Dr in Lungbarrow I have a
> problem with. I can certainly "hear" McCoy in the part. It's the
> background / the world/universe in which it takes place / the underlying
> concepts.
Can you expand more, as I'm still very unclear as to what you actually
disliked.
> Will you allow me a few comic book analogies? Neil Gaiman is a good
> friend of mine and SANDMAN is a wonderful comics, but I never liked (or
> "bought") his treatment of the Kirby Red & Gold Sandman. Similarly, I
> never bought Alan Moore's treatment of Adam Strange in SWAMP THING. Both
> were challenging, very well written -- and IMHO utter betrayals of the
> characters they were using.
I'll allow you all the comic book analogies you want, but don't expect me
to understand any of them! ;) More importantly, these analogies explain
your position -- that, for you, "Lungbarrow" doesn't *feel* right -- but
I think we've got that point now! In *what way* does it not feel right is
the question before us now.
> LUNGBARROW isn't quite that extreme, but I can't say that I'm able to
> recognize it as a "true" vision of the WHO-niverse.
>
> But again, this is totally and utterly subjective. Plenty (the majority)
> of folks liked, or at least didn't object to Neil's and Alan's recreations
> either.
When "The Deadly Assassin" was broadcast, most of fandom showed the
same reaction that you do now. With time, it has come, rightly IMHO, to be
regarded as a classic. My hopes are that "Lungbarrow" will do the same.
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk
In article <5i0dn3$2...@cappuccino.eng.umd.edu>,
jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
> In article <8600673...@dejanews.com>,
> <he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >In article <5huao0$4...@cappuccino.eng.umd.edu>,
> >jb...@Glue.umd.edu (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
> >>-- Disney's "Beauty And The Beast" as designed by Neil Gaiman or Dave
>
> >I think you do "Lungbarrow" a disservice to look at only such recent
> >referents of ideas far older than Disney and Gaiman; no, "Lungbarrow" is
> >Mervyn Peake's "Gormenghast" brought to life.
>
> I'd agree that there's a huge influence there, just having read "Titus
> Groan" -- but to me House Lungbarrow felt like it was a nod to pop culture
> as well. Remember, this is Marc Platt, the man who quoted Charles Darwin
> and Douglas Adams in the same episode...
... but Adams is pop culture but in a tradition of English literature that
includes Peake, while Disney is *just* pop culture. :)
William Thompson
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk wrote in article
<8601530...@dejanews.com>...
> In article <5i1p7e$1...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>,
> Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote:
> > he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk wrote:
> >
> > My personal vision of Gallifrey is (as Jon Blum aptly put it once) more
> > along the lines of Krypton than Gormenghast.
>
> Than all I can say is that you have a very strange vision of Who! ;)
> Krypton is typical SF; the whole basis of Dr Who was that it got away
> from such cliches. Depictions of Gallifrey before JNT had already
> suggested a Gallifrey far removed from a Krypton archetype. The feel
> of "The Deadly Assassin" or "Shada" seem to me to lean far more towards a
> tradition in literature that includes Peake's "Gormenghast", although
> Platt has gone even further than his predecessors.
>
> > I never "bought" the Loom, Time Crucible etc. either.
Well, to start off I haven't read Lungbarrow, but I am following these
threads
As a fan of all things Superman, I'm going to step in here. There are
several
versions of Krypton: The original comics version populated with
superbeings,
The silver age version with the ideal society, The movie version all
crystal
and white with Brando, and John Byrne's Modern treatment.
I'm going for the modern version here, Kryptonian's have complete control
over their environment, They are very solitary beings choosing to shut
themselves up in huge fortresses with only robots for company, and they
reproduce by combining the genetic materials of the prospective parents in
a "matrix chamber".
I can see *some* parallels here. First the Time Lords *are* solitary yet
do not take it to the extreme of the Kryptonians. Time Lords *do* have
control over their environment. Time Lord cities are huge fortresses. And
from these threads I gather that Lungbarrow has introduced the Loom as a
method for reproduction.
Mr. L'officier, if you see Gallifrey more along the lines of Krypton, then
just how far removed is the "Loom" idea from the Kryptonian "matrix
chamber"?
--
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/7628/index.html
____ * /) /) ___ /) Bill (William A) Thompson
( / ) // // () / // wat...@mail.gmi.net
/--< / (/ (/ ____/_(/_ _______ _ _____
_/___)_/\_/\_/\_) (___/ / /_(_) / ) )/_)_/)_(_) / )__)
"Goodbye! It's good isn't it. Hmm?" /) No unsolicited
Tom Baker - 30 Years in the TARDIS (/commercial email!
Michael Lee
William Thompson <wat...@gmi.net> wrote in article
<01bc4109$ac137a40$26e129ce@bill>...
> Mr. L'officier, if you see Gallifrey more along the lines of Krypton,
then
> just how far removed is the "Loom" idea from the Kryptonian "matrix
> chamber"?
I suspect Jean-Marc is referring to a pre-Crisis presentation of Krypton,
and not the post-Crisis version.
[Because, you're exactly right -- the Kryptonians of modern "Superman"
reproduced in a method extremely similar to Platt's Gallifreyans]
Jonathan Blum
In article <01bc4119$0b762050$272068c0@roar039>,
Michael Lee <mich...@execpc.com> wrote:
>I suspect Jean-Marc is referring to a pre-Crisis presentation of Krypton,
>and not the post-Crisis version.
>[Because, you're exactly right -- the Kryptonians of modern "Superman"
>reproduced in a method extremely similar to Platt's Gallifreyans]
For some reason I find this extremely amusing, though probably downright
depressing from Jean-Marc's point of view -- now not only is Gallifrey not
like Krypton, *Krypton* isn't even like Krypton. :-)
gill...@citynet.net
> <01bc4109$ac137a40$26e129ce@bill>...
>
> > Mr. L'officier, if you see Gallifrey more along the lines of Krypton,
> then
> > just how far removed is the "Loom" idea from the Kryptonian "matrix
> > chamber"?
>
> and not the post-Crisis version.
>
Now, you've given me the mental picture of everything on Gallifrey being
created by a member of the Doctor's family, and of the Doctor's father
being the genius who created the Gallifreyan equivalent of the
automobile, the Doc-El. :-)
-Donald
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk wrote:
: The Dr has always been an atypical person/Time Lord. By the time of the
: Cartmel Masterplan, he already had a personal history of such great
: importance to the Universe at large that it was becoming more and more
: ludicrous that he was "just" this bloke wandering around in a time-
: space museum. "The Deadly Assassin" most notably expanded on the Dr's
: role vis-a-vis Gallifrey and, for me, the later TV McCoy and the NAs
: have just continued with that concept.
??? I don't agree at all. That's your view of things, not mine.
: These ideas, while peripheral much of the time, become more central in a
: number of NAs before "Lungbarrow", so I would quibble whether you can
: "kind of ignore it" that much. Anyway...
I can and I do.
: > My personal vision of Gallifrey is (as Jon Blum aptly put it once) more
: > along the lines of Krypton than Gormenghast.
: Than all I can say is that you have a very strange vision of Who! ;)
: Krypton is typical SF; the whole basis of Dr Who was that it got away
: from such cliches. Depictions of Gallifrey before JNT had already
: suggested a Gallifrey far removed from a Krypton archetype. The feel
: of "The Deadly Assassin" or "Shada" seem to me to lean far more towards a
: tradition in literature that includes Peake's "Gormenghast", although
: Platt has gone even further than his predecessors.
I don't agree either. While the analogy with Krypton will ultimately fail
(I meant the "new" Krypton, BTW, not the old ones with folks with suns on
their chests.) the neo-Roman/Greek Gallifrey of up to & including ARC OF
INFINITY and FIVE DOCTORS is not, *IMHO*, in any way, shape or form that
suggested in TIME'S CRUCIBLE, LUNGBARROW, etc.
: > I never "bought" the Loom, Time Crucible etc. either.
: ... which expand on concepts/styles introduced in "The Brain of Morbius"
: and "The Deadly Assassin". Platt's NA representations of Gallifrey are
: more in keeping with the Gallifrey of the 4th Dr (and before) than its
: rather boring depiction in the JNT era, I find. Further, Platt gives us
: a truly *alien* culture; a sense of otherness (if you'll forgive the pun)
: to Gallifrey that I find missing in, say, proposals in "The Nth Doctor".
But you see, that is precisely why it strikes me as false. You may want &
like a more "alien" depiction, I don't.
: I'll allow you all the comic book analogies you want, but don't expect me
: to understand any of them! ;) More importantly, these analogies explain
: your position -- that, for you, "Lungbarrow" doesn't *feel* right -- but
: I think we've got that point now! In *what way* does it not feel right is
: the question before us now.
Honestly, I think I've answered that by now, don't you think so?
: When "The Deadly Assassin" was broadcast, most of fandom showed the
: same reaction that you do now. With time, it has come, rightly IMHO, to be
: regarded as a classic. My hopes are that "Lungbarrow" will do the same.
You may well be right, especially if DW never returns to the scren.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
@espresso.eng.umd.edu>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
Jonathan Blum <jb...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
: For some reason I find this extremely amusing, though probably downright
: depressing from Jean-Marc's point of view -- now not only is Gallifrey not
: like Krypton, *Krypton* isn't even like Krypton. :-)
Yes, and I'd hazard that the downward spiral of comic-book sales is not
entirely foreign to the attempt to take what were primary four-color
fantasies and turn them into grim and complex pseudo-adult stories, almost
against the very nature of the medium.
What Cartmel and Platt did/are doing to DW is not so different from what,
say, Alan Moore did to poor Adam Strange years ago in a SWAMP THING story,
turning him into this tortured man and turning Rann into this sterile
place which had calculatingly brought him there to serve as a srud for
Alanna. But I digress...
Alan has now "recanted" the "grim superhero" phase of his career and, in
SUPREME, which harks back to the days of the Mort Weisinger SUPERMAN, he
has returned to a "cleaner" type of story: more adolescent fun and yet
smart at the same time.
It is my belief that someday the same will happen to DW. If Phil Segal
and Matthew Jacobs had been able to turn the 8th Doctor into a series, it
would have been much lighter, more Tom Bakerish, in style and substance.
While I think they made a mistake by choosing an overly complex story
which did not give the Network Execs a proper idea of what DW could be, I
nevertheless *know* what their intentions were.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
Michael Lee <mich...@execpc.com> wrote:
: > Mr. L'officier, if you see Gallifrey more along the lines of Krypton,
: then
: > just how far removed is the "Loom" idea from the Kryptonian "matrix
: > chamber"?
: I suspect Jean-Marc is referring to a pre-Crisis presentation of Krypton,
: and not the post-Crisis version.
: [Because, you're exactly right -- the Kryptonians of modern "Superman"
: reproduced in a method extremely similar to Platt's Gallifreyans]
Yes exactly. (Come to think of it, I think I may have the opposite of
what I meant to say in an earlier msg on this topic. Ah well, more chaos
and confusion.)
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Jonathan Blum
In article <5i4c1d$q...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote:
[snip]
I find it kinda depressing that a thread reviewing the story has already
turned into a canonicity debate... There's so much more to talk about
with regards to the book.
But anyway:
>I don't agree either. While the analogy with Krypton will ultimately fail
>(I meant the "new" Krypton, BTW, not the old ones with folks with suns on
>their chests.) the neo-Roman/Greek Gallifrey of up to & including ARC OF
>INFINITY and FIVE DOCTORS is not, *IMHO*, in any way, shape or form that
>suggested in TIME'S CRUCIBLE, LUNGBARROW, etc.
I don't think so, really -- I really don't see much at all Neo-Roman or
Greek about the depiction of Gallifrey. Perhaps a *hint* of the Roman
Empire in the fact that there's court politics -- but I'd think the era of
the Medicis and Borgias would be closer to the mark there. Fundamentally
"Deadly Assassin" and "Arc" in particular have always struck me as
quintessentially British -- power politics and jockeying amongst the
ministers, the essential restraint and decorum of the upper classes even
as they plot their backstabbings. A Very British Assassination.
The ancient Gallifrey of "Time's Crucible", though, *is* Rome -- the
center of a burgeoning empire, a collision of cultures, with Rassilon as
the first emperor who overthrows the old order and brings it all together
under his rule.
And the present Gallifrey of "Lungbarrow" is upper-class British precisely
in the same way "Deadly Assassin" is -- the sense of dignity and
doublethink, the Things Which Are Not Ever Spoken About, the
behind-the-scenes political maneuvering conducted with impeccable good
taste.
It's just that half of "Lungbarrow" shows us a section of Gallifrey we've
never seen before... outside the Capitol, outside of the corridors of
power, where these same elements have been taken to an obsessive, insane
degree.
There's no fundamental incompatibility there.
Jonathan Blum
In article <5i4clj$q...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,
>entirely foreign to the attempt to take what were primary four-color
>fantasies and turn them into grim and complex pseudo-adult stories, almost
>against the very nature of the medium.
Oh blast, here he goes again. :-)
I think my disagreement with this starts with the word "pseudo" -- I think
it's important not to lump juvenile attempts at grown-up-ness (through
swearing, big guns, and angst applied with a trowel, a la "Deceit") in
with people doing *real* stories for grown-ups. Writers who get their
seriousness and intelligence into their stories by not being
self-conscious about their seriousness, and not being interminably grim.
I'd put Cartmel and company, and most of the NA's in fact, firmly in the
latter camp. "Remembrance of the Daleks" is in fact a prime example of
how to do it right... throughout the story it's presented as an
action-adventure romp, a nice little four-color monster stomp, and it's
only at the very end, when you think about it, that you're left to wonder
"wait a minute, was this really as clear-cut as we thought?" It's
possible to enjoy it just as a fun story -- arguably even more so than
"Genesis of the Daleks", which begins with a slow-motion machine-gun
massacre and ends with a bunch of the good guys getting blown away.
What I'd guess you're objecting to is not really things being done dark,
but things being done dark *badly*. It's possible to do any style in a
tacky and third-rate way, but that doesn't mean the style itself is
fundamentally flawed. Do dark stories badly and you get endless Marvel
mutant-angst (or "angst with a W" as one friend described it); do light
stories badly and you get the kind of mindless plotting and cardboard
cliches which even now are associated with the word "comic book". And I'd
say it's just as easy to produce crud in either style. But do dark
stories well and you get "Sandman", and I refuse to believe that the world
is a poorer place for embracing a style which can produce something like
that.
And what the NA's at their best, including "Lungbarrow", have done is
create a fusion of this "dark", self-examining style with the fundamental
optimism of Doctor Who. "Timewyrm: Revelation" is full of the poetry of
angst, but in the end it's a resoundingly joyful book, a celebration of
the ideals of heroism and of the happy ending. And "Lungbarrow", far from
remaking the Doctor into a "dark defender", ends with the Doctor saying
that whatever he is or was, in the end he's still just a little guy
wandering around doing whatever he feels like. It's the fact that the
stories can embrace both the huge cosmic-angst side and the small bits of
loveliness which make these stories work so well for me.
And your opinions notwithstanding, I don't think Segal and company turned
"Doctor Who" back into an old-style comic book -- I suspect the
DeLaurentis script would have done that, but we were spared that
eventuality. What we got was firmly in the tradition of the best NA's,
fusing the "dark" Batman/Blade Runner cinematic visuals and sense of
symbolic weight with the joyful optimism of the new Doctor.
And the new BBC books which I've seen are continuing very much in the vein
of this kind of storytelling... the overt angstiness is downplayed, as
it has been in most of the past two-plus-years-worth of NA's, but
they're still written for adult readers with adult sensibilities. And
there are certainly a few moments in "Vamp Sci" which (I hope) are very
dark when you think about them, but which aren't dwelt on excessively --
in much the same vein as "Remembrance". This new Doctor is certainly not
the type to be consistently grim and self-doubting, but perhaps the fact
that he *doesn't* show doubt at some of the things he's doing should give
the reader pause to think... But at the same time, if all you want out of
the story is a lightweight adventure romp, you might just be able to get
that.
You may still carry a torch for a simpler time, when the comics industry
was known for lightweight family fare like the EC horror comics, but I
prefer having a wide variety of tales to choose from. There's room in
the Doctor Who universe for both pulp fiction and "Pulp Fiction", for the
kind of lightweight entertainment you desire and the more
thoughtful-poetic-literary-and-yes-sometimes-even-dark stuff I prefer.
Having one doesn't preclude the other.
(And just to throw in yet another long-running discussion, I'd say much
more of the problem with the current comics industry stems from the
over-reliance on convoluted continuity and tortuously interwoven
storylines -- elements which the Cartmel team pushed to the sidelines in
Doctor Who.)
[snip]
Geoff Weasel
In article <5i4clj$q...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>, Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
<rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote:
> @espresso.eng.umd.edu>
> Organization: IDT Internet Services
> Distribution:
>
>
> Jonathan Blum <jb...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> : For some reason I find this extremely amusing, though probably downright
> : depressing from Jean-Marc's point of view -- now not only is Gallifrey not
> : like Krypton, *Krypton* isn't even like Krypton. :-)
>
> Yes, and I'd hazard that the downward spiral of comic-book sales is not
> entirely foreign to the attempt to take what were primary four-color
> fantasies and turn them into grim and complex pseudo-adult stories, almost
> against the very nature of the medium.
>
Total bollocks. Complete bollocks. BOLLOCKS.
First off, the "downward spiral of comic-book sales" (if, indeed, there _is_
one) probably has more to do with the crash following the Great
Speculation Phase in the earlier part of this decade. It's almost the
same thing with the Black And White Implosion of the 1980s, which had
naught to do with story
content of said books (OK, fine, I'll concede the "Ninja" idea getting
way way WAAAAAAAAY overdone).
Second, if nobody likes this sort of thing, as you seem to be implying, then
why is it that the "grim and complex pseudo-adult stories" are the ones that
get the attention? SWAMP THING, WATCHMEN, SANDMAN, PREACHER . . . these are
the ones that get the attention of the Mainstream Press, without the benefit
of gimmicky changes (i.e. the Death, and Changing, of Superman; the Clones
storyline in the SPIDER-MAN titles, and the negative reaction against it, was
the subject of an article in the WALL STREET JOURNAL during the relevant time)
or "Big Events!" No, these stories are praised for _content_.
Third, why are/did sales rise, or continue to rise, on SANDMAN and PREACHER
if there was a decline in sales? Obviously, _someone_ likes these books!
And I know 2 titles can't speak for an entire industry, but still, you cannot
claim it's a downward spiral as you say?
Honestly, I think if there were a downward spiral, it has more to do with
bullshit, both within the books (again, the Electric Superman), and without
(cf. Marvel's troubles under Perelman, and the recent ousting of Perelman)
> What Cartmel and Platt did/are doing to DW is not so different from what,
> say, Alan Moore did to poor Adam Strange years ago in a SWAMP THING story,
> turning him into this tortured man and turning Rann into this sterile
> place which had calculatingly brought him there to serve as a srud for
> Alanna. But I digress...
>
Yes, and while we're at it, let's also add Moore's taking of a second-rate
swamp monster character and turning it into a book that revolutionized
how comics were written and perceived. I suppose you also object to how
Peter David writes THE INCREDIBLE HULK because he got it away from
32-pages per issue of "Hulk smash puny humans!" and turned it into a book
one could _read_?
I really don't think that having a genre, or a series, I grew up with,
growing up as I do at the same time, is such a bad thing.
(And by the by, Cartmel was heavily influenced by Moore. Indeed, THE EIGHTIES
says something to the effect that "Halo Jones" was almost required reading
for those wishing to write for DOCTOR WHO under his script-editorship.
Take that as you will.)
> Alan has now "recanted" the "grim superhero" phase of his career and, in
> SUPREME, which harks back to the days of the Mort Weisinger SUPERMAN, he
> has returned to a "cleaner" type of story: more adolescent fun and yet
> smart at the same time.
And at the same time is in the thrall of Rob Liefeld. I'll pass.
And what's there to "recant?" The fact his books didn't sell following
his departure from MIRACLEMAN? (I refer to BIG NUMBERS and A SMALL KILLING)
Sorry, but the stories he's "recanted" are the stories I'll remember.
Doing pre-Crisis SUPERMAN with the serial numbers filed off is quite a letdown.
IMO, of course.
(By the way, isn't it you who's slagging off Moore for "Oliver Stone type
research and speculation" in FROM HELL, over in another newsgroup?)
>
> It is my belief that someday the same will happen to DW. If Phil Segal
> and Matthew Jacobs had been able to turn the 8th Doctor into a series, it
> would have been much lighter, more Tom Bakerish, in style and substance.
> While I think they made a mistake by choosing an overly complex story
> which did not give the Network Execs a proper idea of what DW could be, I
> nevertheless *know* what their intentions were.
Maybe so. But then, even Tom had his moments of darkness. As much as
McCoy had his moments of pure lightness and frolic. To say that it would
swing one way or the other is somewhat short-sighted. Isn't there room in
DOCTOR WHO, after 33 years, for _both_ types of stories?
--- Geoff We@sel
"Are we not proof that the universe is a drooling idiot
with no fashion sense?"
http://www.iquest.net/~geoffw/
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
Jonathan Blum <jb...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
: I find it kinda depressing that a thread reviewing the story has already
: turned into a canonicity debate... There's so much more to talk about
: with regards to the book.
Yes, but you and I pretty much agree about its, shall we say, literary
qualities, except that I said I thought it was a bit precious, but that, I
suppose, is a matter of taste. I think Neil Gaiman is a bit precious too.
: I don't think so, really -- I really don't see much at all Neo-Roman or
: Greek about the depiction of Gallifrey. Perhaps a *hint* of the Roman
: Empire in the fact that there's court politics -- but I'd think the era of
: the Medicis and Borgias would be closer to the mark there.
[snip]
I hear what you're saying, Jon, but I just do not agree. Not only don't I
share your view of Gallifrey as you describe it from, say, DEADLY
ASSASSIN, but I also don't share your view of Gallifrey as you describe it
from Time's Crucible or Lungbarrow. (E.g.: you label it "roman" and I see
nothing of the sort.)
In effect, I hold a more conservative view: I think the Doctor is pretty
much what we've assumed all along he was and Gallifrey is pretty much what
we've seen it is/was. I cannot accept or reconcile the datk and, yes,
monstrous Gallifrey of the NAs with the Gallifrey we've seen on TV.
Yes, I can see how one could be derived from the other, but ultimately, I
don't like it and I don't believe in it.
I don't believe in Alan Moore's Rann or Greg Benford's Trantor either.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
6...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <5i6osm$2...@cappuccino.eng.umd.edu>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
Jonathan Blum <jb...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
: Oh blast, here he goes again. :-)
Well, yes, because this underpins my way of looking at these things.
: I think my disagreement with this starts with the word "pseudo" -- I think
: it's important not to lump juvenile attempts at grown-up-ness (through
: swearing, big guns, and angst applied with a trowel, a la "Deceit") in
: with people doing *real* stories for grown-ups. Writers who get their
: seriousness and intelligence into their stories by not being
: self-conscious about their seriousness, and not being interminably grim.
Agreed.
: I'd put Cartmel and company, and most of the NA's in fact, firmly in the
: latter camp. "Remembrance of the Daleks" is in fact a prime example of
: how to do it right... throughout the story it's presented as an
: action-adventure romp, a nice little four-color monster stomp, and it's
: only at the very end, when you think about it, that you're left to wonder
: "wait a minute, was this really as clear-cut as we thought?" It's
: possible to enjoy it just as a fun story -- arguably even more so than
: "Genesis of the Daleks", which begins with a slow-motion machine-gun
: massacre and ends with a bunch of the good guys getting blown away.
Nope. I think it fits just right in the first category which you defined
rather well above.
: What I'd guess you're objecting to is not really things being done dark,
: but things being done dark *badly*. It's possible to do any style in a
: tacky and third-rate way, but that doesn't mean the style itself is
: fundamentally flawed. Do dark stories badly and you get endless Marvel
: mutant-angst (or "angst with a W" as one friend described it); do light
: stories badly and you get the kind of mindless plotting and cardboard
: cliches which even now are associated with the word "comic book". And I'd
: say it's just as easy to produce crud in either style. But do dark
: stories well and you get "Sandman", and I refuse to believe that the world
: is a poorer place for embracing a style which can produce something like
: that.
SANDMAN is fine when it does its own schtick. When it tried to apply that
style to the whmsical red & gold Kirby Sandman, I thought it was horrible.
First, I don't think the Cartmel-Who or their NA-inspired series are
nearly as good as SANDMAN, but we'll let that pass. However, when they do
try to apply that style to DOCTOR WHO, my stomach turns.
Yes, I am prejudiced because I do think of DW as a fluffy, smart, funny,
tomgue in cheek fantasy show, and not a dark, brooding, cosmic angst,
pretentious saga. Guilty as charged.
: And what the NA's at their best, including "Lungbarrow", have done is
: create a fusion of this "dark", self-examining style with the fundamental
: optimism of Doctor Who. "Timewyrm: Revelation" is full of the poetry of
: angst, but in the end it's a resoundingly joyful book, a celebration of
: the ideals of heroism and of the happy ending. And "Lungbarrow", far from
: remaking the Doctor into a "dark defender", ends with the Doctor saying
: that whatever he is or was, in the end he's still just a little guy
: wandering around doing whatever he feels like. It's the fact that the
: stories can embrace both the huge cosmic-angst side and the small bits of
: loveliness which make these stories work so well for me.
And IMHO Revelation whatever its literary merit is pretty awful WHO -- and
so on.
: And your opinions notwithstanding, I don't think Segal and company turned
: "Doctor Who" back into an old-style comic book -- I suspect the
: DeLaurentis script would have done that, but we were spared that
: eventuality. What we got was firmly in the tradition of the best NA's,
: fusing the "dark" Batman/Blade Runner cinematic visuals and sense of
: symbolic weight with the joyful optimism of the new Doctor.
Visually, you may have been right, but I do know that Segal did not like
the Cartmel approach at all and wanted to return the show to a Tom
Bakerish mode, done with 1990s style & technology, of course. A far cry
from what you are outlining.
: You may still carry a torch for a simpler time, when the comics industry
: was known for lightweight family fare like the EC horror comics, but I
: prefer having a wide variety of tales to choose from. There's room in
: the Doctor Who universe for both pulp fiction and "Pulp Fiction", for the
: kind of lightweight entertainment you desire
Yes, I am. In part because I like it better. Also because in all
honestly, I think it is more popular.
: and the more
: thoughtful-poetic-literary-and-yes-sometimes-even-dark stuff I prefer.
: Having one doesn't preclude the other.
Agreed. Remember, I'm not leading any kind of boycott here. I'm just
putting my words (and my money) where my opinions are.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk
In article <5i4c1d$q...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,> : The Dr has always been an atypical person/Time Lord. By the time of the
> : Cartmel Masterplan, he already had a personal history of such great
> : importance to the Universe at large that it was becoming more and more
> : ludicrous that he was "just" this bloke wandering around in a time-
> : space museum. "The Deadly Assassin" most notably expanded on the Dr's
> : role vis-a-vis Gallifrey and, for me, the later TV McCoy and the NAs
> : have just continued with that concept.
>
To spell out my thoughts:
"The Dr has always been an atypical person/Time Lord." - from the very
beginning, it is made clear that the Dr is a renegade from his people and
that theme runs throughout the TV series. It is another running theme
that he is alien; the initial contrast in those first few stories was
between the human Barbara and Ian and the alien Dr.
"By the time of the Cartmel Masterplan,"
- i.e. later TV McCoy
"he already had a personal history of such great importance to the
Universe at large" - he had been elected President of Gallifrey; he had
had profound effects on the Daleks' history (in "Evil...", "Genesis...",
"Destiny...", "Remembrance..." and so on) and that of many, many other
species. He has saved the Universe umpteen times and is the CIA's usual
operative.
"that it was becoming more and more ludicrous that he was "just" this
bloke wandering around in a time-space museum [piece]." - or, put
another way, we're talking about the TV series, not the Cushing films.
""The Deadly Assassin" most notably expanded on the Dr's role vis-a-vis
Gallifrey" - he becomes President, he saves the Time Lords from a
terrible fate and he discovers numerous Time Lord secrets.
> That's your view of things, not mine. [...]
Well, obviously! I normally post my views and leave you to post yours! :)
> : > My personal vision of Gallifrey is (as Jon Blum aptly put it once) more
> : > along the lines of Krypton than Gormenghast.
>
> : Than all I can say is that you have a very strange vision of Who! ;)
> : Krypton is typical SF; the whole basis of Dr Who was that it got away
> : from such cliches. Depictions of Gallifrey before JNT had already
> : suggested a Gallifrey far removed from a Krypton archetype. The feel
> : of "The Deadly Assassin" or "Shada" seem to me to lean far more towards a
> : tradition in literature that includes Peake's "Gormenghast", although
> : Platt has gone even further than his predecessors.
>
> I don't agree either. While the analogy with Krypton will ultimately fail
> (I meant the "new" Krypton, BTW, not the old ones with folks with suns on
> their chests.) the neo-Roman/Greek Gallifrey of up to & including ARC OF
> INFINITY and FIVE DOCTORS is not, *IMHO*, in any way, shape or form that
> suggested in TIME'S CRUCIBLE, LUNGBARROW, etc.
No, I remain baffled by how the Capitol scenes in "Lungbarrow" are much
different from "Arc...", "The Five Doctors", "Invasion of Time" etc.
"Time's Crucible" is concerned with a Gallifrey millenia before, so I
don't see why we should expect it to be alike.
> : > I never "bought" the Loom, Time Crucible etc. either.
>
> : ... which expand on concepts/styles introduced in "The Brain of Morbius"
> : and "The Deadly Assassin". Platt's NA representations of Gallifrey are
> : more in keeping with the Gallifrey of the 4th Dr (and before) than its
> : rather boring depiction in the JNT era, I find. Further, Platt gives us
> : a truly *alien* culture; a sense of otherness (if you'll forgive the pun)
> : to Gallifrey that I find missing in, say, proposals in "The Nth Doctor".
>
> But you see, that is precisely why it strikes me as false. You may want &
> like a more "alien" depiction, I don't.
"I am a Time Lord. I walk in eternity." -- the most famous quote from Dr
Who exemplifies that the Dr is *alien*, something the telefilm also
picked up on. To make the Dr and his history just human -- as some of
"The Nth Doctor" proposals do -- seems to me to miss the whole point.
> : I'll allow you all the comic book analogies you want, but don't expect me
> : to understand any of them! ;) More importantly, these analogies explain
> : your position -- that, for you, "Lungbarrow" doesn't *feel* right -- but
> : I think we've got that point now! In *what way* does it not feel right is
> : the question before us now.
>
> Honestly, I think I've answered that by now, don't you think so? [...]
This is r.a.dw. -- every opinion must be analysed in the minutest detail.
:)
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk
In article <5i70ev$b...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>,> Jonathan Blum <jb...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote: [...]
> : And what the NA's at their best, including "Lungbarrow", have done is
> : create a fusion of this "dark", self-examining style with the fundamental
> : optimism of Doctor Who. "Timewyrm: Revelation" is full of the poetry of
> : angst, but in the end it's a resoundingly joyful book, a celebration of
> : the ideals of heroism and of the happy ending. And "Lungbarrow", far from
> : remaking the Doctor into a "dark defender", ends with the Doctor saying
> : that whatever he is or was, in the end he's still just a little guy
> : wandering around doing whatever he feels like. It's the fact that the
> : stories can embrace both the huge cosmic-angst side and the small bits of
> : loveliness which make these stories work so well for me.
> : And your opinions notwithstanding, I don't think Segal and company turned
> : "Doctor Who" back into an old-style comic book -- I suspect the
> : DeLaurentis script would have done that, but we were spared that
> : eventuality. What we got was firmly in the tradition of the best NA's,
> : fusing the "dark" Batman/Blade Runner cinematic visuals and sense of
> : symbolic weight with the joyful optimism of the new Doctor.
>
> Visually, you may have been right, but I do know that Segal did not like
> the Cartmel approach at all and wanted to return the show to a Tom
> Bakerish mode, done with 1990s style & technology, of course. A far cry
Oh yes, all those wonderfully light & fluffy Tom Baker stories, totally
devoid of any darkness, like "The Brain of Morbius", "The Deadly
Assassin", "The Face of Evil", "The Horror of Fang Rock"... ;)
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk
In article <5i6ucl$b...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>,
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote: [...]
> In effect, I hold a more conservative view: I think the Doctor is pretty
> much what we've assumed all along he was
^^^^^^^ Therein lies the problem: we've all made our own (different)
assumptions, but it is overly optimistic to imagine any series will fit
your assumptions! Dr *Who* has always been a mystery, a challenge to
anyone having assumptions.
> and Gallifrey is pretty much what we've seen it is/was.
But that attitude would have led one to reject "The War Games", "The
Deadly Assassin", "The Three Doctors" and "The Brain of Morbius".
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
for
"Lungbarrow"
> I cannot accept or reconcile the datk and, yes,
> monstrous Gallifrey of the NAs with the Gallifrey we've seen on TV.
I think you are confusing the dark and monstrous House of Lungbarrow with
normal life on Gallifrey. Gallifrey outside the House is depicted in the
book in a way largely consistent with "The Deadly Assassin", "The Five
Doctors" or "Trial of a Time Lord". Events in the House are the result of
extreme events and the House's burial and are not indicative of Houses in
general.
> [...] I don't believe in Alan Moore's Rann or Greg Benford's Trantor either.
I think we've got the message about the comics, but enough already,
they're not at all relevant! :)
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk
In article <01bc4109$ac137a40$26e129ce@bill>,
"William Thompson" <wat...@gmi.net> wrote:
> he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk wrote in article
> <8601530...@dejanews.com>...
> > Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote:
> > > he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk wrote:
> > >
> > > My personal vision of Gallifrey is (as Jon Blum aptly put it once) more
> > > along the lines of Krypton than Gormenghast.
> >
> > Than all I can say is that you have a very strange vision of Who! ;)
> > Krypton is typical SF; the whole basis of Dr Who was that it got away
> > from such cliches. Depictions of Gallifrey before JNT had already
>
> Well, to start off I haven't read Lungbarrow, but I am following these
> threads As a fan of all things Superman, I'm going to step in here. There
>
> I'm going for the modern version here, Kryptonian's have complete control
> over their environment, They are very solitary beings choosing to shut
> themselves up in huge fortresses with only robots for company, and they
> reproduce by combining the genetic materials of the prospective parents in
> a "matrix chamber".
>
> I can see *some* parallels here. First the Time Lords *are* solitary yet
> do not take it to the extreme of the Kryptonians. Time Lords *do* have
> control over their environment. Time Lord cities are huge fortresses. And
> from these threads I gather that Lungbarrow has introduced the Loom as a
SPOLIERS for "Lungbarrow"
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
Scarily, the parallels go even further! The Houses that the novel
describes are full of "robot" companions as well!
Mr. Robert W. Millikin
I never noticed much difference between the Post Crisis and Pre Crisis
versions of Krypton.
Blum I am LMAO right now. "Krypton isn't even Krypton." <g>
Somebody made the mistake of saying that the Loom was Platt's
invention. It was Cartmel's I believe, as part of his masterplan to
make the Whoniverse make some sort of sense after all these years.
Lungbarrow is the upshot of which.
Robert Millikin
"..yes, well... nobody's perfect." <--The Doctor, Arc of Infinity
Jonathan Blum
In article <5i70ev$b...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>,
>: I think my disagreement with this starts with the word "pseudo" -- I think
>: it's important not to lump juvenile attempts at grown-up-ness (through
>: swearing, big guns, and angst applied with a trowel, a la "Deceit") in
>: with people doing *real* stories for grown-ups. Writers who get their
>: seriousness and intelligence into their stories by not being
>: self-conscious about their seriousness, and not being interminably grim.
>Agreed.
>: I'd put Cartmel and company, and most of the NA's in fact, firmly in the
>: latter camp. "Remembrance of the Daleks" is in fact a prime example of
>: how to do it right... throughout the story it's presented as an
>: action-adventure romp, a nice little four-color monster stomp, and it's
>: only at the very end, when you think about it, that you're left to wonder
>: "wait a minute, was this really as clear-cut as we thought?" It's
>: possible to enjoy it just as a fun story -- arguably even more so than
>: "Genesis of the Daleks", which begins with a slow-motion machine-gun
>: massacre and ends with a bunch of the good guys getting blown away.
>Nope. I think it fits just right in the first category which you defined
>rather well above.
And this is the kind of thing that really confuses me. The closest
"Remembrance" gets to angst is the cafe scene, which is wonderfully
understated, and the Big Gun -- the Special Weapons Dalek -- is there
mainly for a gag... Plus, the story has a sense of humor about itself,
ranging from "What's the matter, don't you recognize your mortal
enemy?" all the way up through "Unlimited rice pudding". I don't see the
gritty big-guns-and-loud-angst approach of a "Deceit" at all.
[snip]
>Yes, I am prejudiced because I do think of DW as a fluffy, smart, funny,
>tomgue in cheek fantasy show, and not a dark, brooding, cosmic angst,
>pretentious saga. Guilty as charged.
Not only would I say that that's a false dichotomy -- stories like
"Revelation" or "Human Nature" are fluffy, dark, smart, brooding, funny,
cosmic angsty, and tongue-in-cheek all at once -- I'd *really* disagree
with the use of "pretentious". Pretentiousness is when an author treats
his story as more significant or deeper or cleverer than it actually is...
their authorial reach exceeding their grasp. But in books like
"Lungbarrow", the cleverness is unmistakeable, and the author tells his
story and presents you with his images without trying to bludgeon the
reader with insistences that it all has a deeper meaning. (And in fact
defuses it with some self-mockery -- it's hard to buy the furniture as
entirely menacing when the Doctor goes surfing on the back of a table.
:-)
If anything, "pretentious" is the word for "Hey, let's send the Doctor on
a Quest and give him a Spirit Guide, and throw in all sorts of other
sub-Campbellian stuff to make it all seem mythically significant, isn't
that really clever?"
>: And your opinions notwithstanding, I don't think Segal and company turned
>: "Doctor Who" back into an old-style comic book -- I suspect the
>: DeLaurentis script would have done that, but we were spared that
>: eventuality. What we got was firmly in the tradition of the best NA's,
>: fusing the "dark" Batman/Blade Runner cinematic visuals and sense of
>: symbolic weight with the joyful optimism of the new Doctor.
>Visually, you may have been right, but I do know that Segal did not like
>the Cartmel approach at all and wanted to return the show to a Tom
>Bakerish mode, done with 1990s style & technology, of course. A far cry
>from what you are outlining.
Not really. After all, it was the early Tom Baker stories which included
the grittiness of "Genesis of the Daleks", obscure hints about the
Doctor's past in stories like "Brain of Morbius", "I'm a Time Lord -- I
walk in eternity", the Doctor manipulating Sarah in the ductwork in "Ark
In Space", and the Doctor generally being rude, brusque, commanding, and
quite alien. :-)
If anything, it's the lighter, campier elements of the Cartmel era which
Segal has said hurt the show. And when we talked at Visions, he did say
that he wanted the Doctor to be not just sweetness and light -- he's got a
temper, and he can be quite sneaky when the situation calls for it.
Again, this is the kind of model the NA's have been working from in recent
years: the Doctor not as universal masterplanner, but still devious and
unpredictable -- alien, but with very definite moments of humanity.
It's good to know there's room for all our visions in Segal's outlines.
:-)
roge...@msn.com
In article <5i70ev$b...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>,
> Organization: IDT Internet Services
> Distribution:
>
> Jonathan Blum <jb...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> : I'd put Cartmel and company, and most of the NA's in fact, firmly in the
> : latter camp. "Remembrance of the Daleks" is in fact a prime example of
> : how to do it right... throughout the story it's presented as an
> : action-adventure romp, a nice little four-color monster stomp, and it's
> : only at the very end, when you think about it, that you're left to wonder
> : "wait a minute, was this really as clear-cut as we thought?" It's
> : possible to enjoy it just as a fun story -- arguably even more so than
> : "Genesis of the Daleks", which begins with a slow-motion machine-gun
> : massacre and ends with a bunch of the good guys getting blown away.
>
> Nope. I think it fits just right in the first category which you defined
> rather well above.
>
> : What I'd guess you're objecting to is not really things being done dark,
> : but things being done dark *badly*. It's possible to do any style in a
> : tacky and third-rate way, but that doesn't mean the style itself is
> : fundamentally flawed. Do dark stories badly and you get endless Marvel
> : mutant-angst (or "angst with a W" as one friend described it); do light
> : stories badly and you get the kind of mindless plotting and cardboard
> : cliches which even now are associated with the word "comic book". And I'd
> : say it's just as easy to produce crud in either style. But do dark
> : stories well and you get "Sandman", and I refuse to believe that the world
> : is a poorer place for embracing a style which can produce something like
> : that.
>
> SANDMAN is fine when it does its own schtick. When it tried to apply that
> style to the whmsical red & gold Kirby Sandman, I thought it was horrible.
>
> First, I don't think the Cartmel-Who or their NA-inspired series are
> nearly as good as SANDMAN, but we'll let that pass. However, when they do
> try to apply that style to DOCTOR WHO, my stomach turns.
>
> Yes, I am prejudiced because I do think of DW as a fluffy, smart, funny,
> tomgue in cheek fantasy show, and not a dark, brooding, cosmic angst,
> pretentious saga. Guilty as charged.
>
> : And what the NA's at their best, including "Lungbarrow", have done is
> : create a fusion of this "dark", self-examining style with the fundamental
> : optimism of Doctor Who. "Timewyrm: Revelation" is full of the poetry of
> : angst, but in the end it's a resoundingly joyful book, a celebration of
> : the ideals of heroism and of the happy ending. And "Lungbarrow", far from
> : remaking the Doctor into a "dark defender", ends with the Doctor saying
> : that whatever he is or was, in the end he's still just a little guy
> : wandering around doing whatever he feels like. It's the fact that the
> : stories can embrace both the huge cosmic-angst side and the small bits of
> : loveliness which make these stories work so well for me.
>
> And IMHO Revelation whatever its literary merit is pretty awful WHO -- and
> so on.
But it was perfect for developing Ace, a character who even on the T.V
series tended towards angst :-).
> : And your opinions notwithstanding, I don't think Segal and company turned
> : "Doctor Who" back into an old-style comic book -- I suspect the
> : DeLaurentis script would have done that, but we were spared that
> : eventuality. What we got was firmly in the tradition of the best NA's,
> : fusing the "dark" Batman/Blade Runner cinematic visuals and sense of
> : symbolic weight with the joyful optimism of the new Doctor.
>
> Visually, you may have been right, but I do know that Segal did not like
> the Cartmel approach at all and wanted to return the show to a Tom
> Bakerish mode, done with 1990s style & technology, of course. A far cry
> from what you are outlining.
Yeah, I got that impression, too, from from some of the magazine
interviews with Segal. It seemed to me that he wanted to do a highbrow
"Hercules" type of thing and not an "X-files" style of show. I'm not
against his idea. I like both "dark" and "light" flavors in my readings.
For example, I go straight from a Sandman or Hellblazer to an Elfquest
comic and back:-). I really prefer my stories to have a nice mixture of
frothy humor and dark horror like in an unbowdlerized fairy-tale.
> : You may still carry a torch for a simpler time, when the comics industry
> : was known for lightweight family fare like the EC horror comics, but I
> : prefer having a wide variety of tales to choose from. There's room in
> : the Doctor Who universe for both pulp fiction and "Pulp Fiction", for the
> : kind of lightweight entertainment you desire
>
> Yes, I am. In part because I like it better. Also because in all
> honestly, I think it is more popular.
Once again, I'll point to the example of "X-files." A dark mood seems to
be in vogue right now in some telefantasies. Though there is also a dozen
of those syndicated tongue-in-cheek, action shows like Xena or Hercules.
However, X-files still seems more popular than these charming,
light-hearted entertainments.
> : and the more
> : thoughtful-poetic-literary-and-yes-sometimes-even-dark stuff I prefer.
> : Having one doesn't preclude the other.
>
> Agreed. Remember, I'm not leading any kind of boycott here. I'm just
> putting my words (and my money) where my opinions are.
Well put. Just pointing out some things here:-).
see u,
Lady Myr
Jonathan Blum
In article <5i9hef$7...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote:
[snip]
>Look: DOCTOR WHO is the TV-sci-fi equivalent of Edmond Hamilton or E. E.
>Smith.
What a very, very limited Doctor Who you believe in.
Jonathan Blum
In article <5i9inb$7...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,>With seven actors, countless writers & story editors, you can find
>evidence in the show to virtually justify any type of theory. The fact
>that the Time Lords' background is also something that was made up as they
>went along does not help either.
>While I will readily admit that you have plenty of grounds to believe in
>the more "alien" (shall we call it that knowing what we're talking about?)
>versions of the Doc and Gallifrey, this is not the version that I myself
>believe in.
>As long as things remain somewhat unclarified (as they are now, based on
>broadcast mterial only, including the TVM), we are, ultimately, free to
>entertain both our visions.
>Were things to be nailed down, Cartmel-wise, Leekley-wise or
>Whoeverelse-wise, then we're stuck with one path.
...until the *next* production team following that one nails something
completely *different* down.
One of the strengths I see in Doctor Who isn't just that it can support
so many different visions and interpretations -- it has actively
*embraced* so many different visions and interpretations over the years.
Different production teams have interpreted the show in radically
different ways... as you said, making it up as they go along.
Which I suppose is why I get frustrated with the viewpoint that Doctor Who
pre-Cartmel (or pre-JNT) was some kind of unified monolith, which the
modern-day heretics completely re-interpreted and came up with an utterly
new spirit for. The show was always being re-interpreted as it went
along. (It's like the way that the idea of the Doctor having lives before
Hartnell wasn't just a Cartmelian heresy -- Hinchcliffe and Holmes were
actively encouraging it when they did "Brain of Morbius", after all,
despite the fact that this went against what the show had previously
suggested.)
And often it's the collisions between the different interpretations which
have kept us talking about this show for so long: the McCoy episodes make
you interpret Troughton's manipulations in a different light, Colin
Baker's attitudes towards violence compare and contrast with Pertwee, and
the Time Lords shifted and evolved in new directions with every new
production team. These topics, where so many different views have
interplayed over the years, have been the source of some of the most
fascinating threads in r.a.dw.
When it comes down to it, your idea that Doctor Who is something simple
and entertaining, and mine that it's something deep and complex, are *both
true at once*, thanks to all the different directions the show has pulled
in over the years. And nothing any further production team can do will
ever be able to erase that.
Thank God.
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
6...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <geoffw-0504...@ind-0013-2.iquest.net>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
Geoff Weasel <geo...@iquest.net> wrote:
: First off, the "downward spiral of comic-book sales" (if, indeed, there _is_
: one) probably has more to do with the crash following the Great
: Speculation Phase in the earlier part of this decade. It's almost the
: same thing with the Black And White Implosion of the 1980s, which had
: naught to do with story
: content of said books (OK, fine, I'll concede the "Ninja" idea getting
: way way WAAAAAAAAY overdone).
Agreed, but comics have been on a downward trend ever since the 60s and
the collectors market, if it means more $$$, doesn't mean more buyers.
: Second, if nobody likes this sort of thing, as you seem to be implying, then
: why is it that the "grim and complex pseudo-adult stories" are the ones that
: get the attention? SWAMP THING, WATCHMEN, SANDMAN, PREACHER . . . these are
: the ones that get the attention of the Mainstream Press, without the benefit
: of gimmicky changes (i.e. the Death, and Changing, of Superman; the Clones
: storyline in the SPIDER-MAN titles, and the negative reaction against it, was
: the subject of an article in the WALL STREET JOURNAL during the relevant time)
: or "Big Events!" No, these stories are praised for _content_.
With the exception of SWAMP THING, none of the characters you mention are
established juvenile characters. I didn't say the *medium* couldn't be
adult (as Moebius' partner you could hardly expect me to believe that), I
said that adult juvenile characters are if not a contradiction in terms
but less appealing in term of demographics.
: Third, why are/did sales rise, or continue to rise, on SANDMAN and PREACHER
: if there was a decline in sales? Obviously, _someone_ likes these books!
: And I know 2 titles can't speak for an entire industry, but still, you cannot
: claim it's a downward spiral as you say?
See above.
: Yes, and while we're at it, let's also add Moore's taking of a second-rate
: swamp monster character and turning it into a book that revolutionized
: how comics were written and perceived. I suppose you also object to how
: Peter David writes THE INCREDIBLE HULK because he got it away from
: 32-pages per issue of "Hulk smash puny humans!" and turned it into a book
: one could _read_?
Moore now writes SUPREME and has pretty much stated in the
CEREBUS letters page that adult superheroes were a youthful
mistake. And actually, yes, I do not like Peter David's HULK.
: (And by the by, Cartmel was heavily influenced by Moore. Indeed, THE EIGHTIES
: says something to the effect that "Halo Jones" was almost required reading
: for those wishing to write for DOCTOR WHO under his script-editorship.
: Take that as you will.)
More water to my mill. I didn't know this but it does show, IMHO,
Cartmel's cluelessness. DOCTOR WHO is not & should not be HALO JONES.
: > Alan has now "recanted" the "grim superhero" phase of his career and, in
: > SUPREME, which harks back to the days of the Mort Weisinger SUPERMAN, he
: > has returned to a "cleaner" type of story: more adolescent fun and yet
: > smart at the same time.
: And at the same time is in the thrall of Rob Liefeld. I'll pass.
I share your general dislike of Liefeld but SUPREME is a damn fine piece
of work. If Cartmel had used *that* Alan Moore has an influence (instead
of playing Frankenstein with different literary genres), we wouldn't be
having this discussion.
: And what's there to "recant?" The fact his books didn't sell following
: his departure from MIRACLEMAN? (I refer to BIG NUMBERS and A SMALL KILLING)
: Sorry, but the stories he's "recanted" are the stories I'll remember.
: Doing pre-Crisis SUPERMAN with the serial numbers filed off is quite a letdown.
: IMO, of course.
Don't confuse the creaator and his work. Naturally, I prefer FROM HELL to
SUPEME. But SUPREME is a very very good template of how to do intelligent
popular sci-fi. FROM HELL or BIG NUMBERS are something else.
Look: DOCTOR WHO is the TV-sci-fi equivalent of Edmond Hamilton or E. E.
Smith. You don't hire Philip K. Dick to write the Lensmen, and a Lensmen
story written by Dick would have been, perhaps an interesting literary
hybrid, but a bad Lensman story.
Greg Benford recently wrote a FOUNDATION story, and what we have is a bad
Benford, Bad FOUNDATION novel (IMHO).
With Cartmel we had *IMHO* bad DOCTOR WHO / bad Alan Moore.
You may not agree, clearly, with my viewpoint, but I am consistent! :-)
-----
: (By the way, isn't it you who's slagging off Moore for "Oliver Stone type
: research and speculation" in FROM HELL, over in another newsgroup?)
A different argument altogether. Let's continue that one on
rec.arts.comics.misc if you wish.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk wrote:
[snip]
: This is r.a.dw. -- every opinion must be analysed in the minutest detail.
: :)
With seven actors, countless writers & story editors, you can find
evidence in the show to virtually justify any type of theory. The fact
that the Time Lords' background is also something that was made up as they
went along does not help either.
While I will readily admit that you have plenty of grounds to believe in
the more "alien" (shall we call it that knowing what we're talking about?)
versions of the Doc and Gallifrey, this is not the version that I myself
believe in.
As long as things remain somewhat unclarified (as they are now, based on
broadcast mterial only, including the TVM), we are, ultimately, free to
entertain both our visions.
Were things to be nailed down, Cartmel-wise, Leekley-wise or
Whoeverelse-wise, then we're stuck with one path.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
7...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8603309...@dejanews.com>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk wrote:
: > Visually, you may have been right, but I do know that Segal did not like
: > the Cartmel approach at all and wanted to return the show to a Tom
: > Bakerish mode, done with 1990s style & technology, of course. A far cry
: > from what you are outlining. [...]
: Oh yes, all those wonderfully light & fluffy Tom Baker stories, totally
: devoid of any darkness, like "The Brain of Morbius", "The Deadly
: Assassin", "The Face of Evil", "The Horror of Fang Rock"... ;)
Do you really not see the difference between any of these and, say, GHOST
LIGHT or LUNGBARROW? All the Baker stories above are basically juvenile
pulp stories, on the level of a good DOC SAVAGE story. 14-year-old stuff,
basically, well done, well crafted, with a good dose of humor. To call
them "dark" is really not accurate.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
1.farm.idt.net> <8603286...@dejanews.com>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk wrote:
: ^^^^^^^ Therein lies the problem: we've all made our own (different)
: assumptions, but it is overly optimistic to imagine any series will fit
: your assumptions! Dr *Who* has always been a mystery, a challenge to
: anyone having assumptions.
No. It's simply a different set of assumptions.
Re: Gallifrey.
: I think you are confusing the dark and monstrous House of Lungbarrow
[snip]
No, I'm not. It's the whole concept, Loom et al which I do not embrace.
Period.
: > [...] I don't believe in Alan Moore's Rann or Greg Benford's Trantor either.
: I think we've got the message about the comics, but enough already,
: they're not at all relevant! :)
They are, and Trantor is Asimov's universe, not comics.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
7...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <5i90hj$3...@espresso.eng.umd.edu>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
Jonathan Blum <jb...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
: And this is the kind of thing that really confuses me. The closest
: "Remembrance" gets to angst is the cafe scene, which is wonderfully
: understated, and the Big Gun -- the Special Weapons Dalek -- is there
: mainly for a gag... Plus, the story has a sense of humor about itself,
: ranging from "What's the matter, don't you recognize your mortal
: enemy?" all the way up through "Unlimited rice pudding". I don't see the
: gritty big-guns-and-loud-angst approach of a "Deceit" at all.
Well, it's pretentious, "comic bookish" is the way Siskel and Ebert put it
when they want to denigrate a script. It's still silly, but it takes
itself seriously.
: Not only would I say that that's a false dichotomy -- stories like
: "Revelation" or "Human Nature" are fluffy, dark, smart, brooding, funny,
: cosmic angsty, and tongue-in-cheek all at once -- I'd *really* disagree
: with the use of "pretentious". Pretentiousness is when an author treats
: his story as more significant or deeper or cleverer than it actually is...
And you don't think that the Cartmel (or Cartmel-Platt-derived) stuff
isn't that? (Rethorical: Obviously you don't. To me, it is. Heck,
someone else pointed out, it's just like the new Krypton: a serious,
pretentious comic-book.)
: If anything, "pretentious" is the word for "Hey, let's send the Doctor on
: a Quest and give him a Spirit Guide, and throw in all sorts of other
: sub-Campbellian stuff to make it all seem mythically significant, isn't
: that really clever?"
You do have a point there, I'll admit that one.
: If anything, it's the lighter, campier elements of the Cartmel era which
: Segal has said hurt the show. And when we talked at Visions, he did say
: that he wanted the Doctor to be not just sweetness and light -- he's got a
: temper, and he can be quite sneaky when the situation calls for it.
The Holmes Doctor is basically a good Doc Savage story, hardly
pretentious, good clean, clever fun for 14-year olds. I don't find the
Cartmel (-drrived) stuff like that at al. It's people trying to write
like Alan Moore, as someone else pointed out.
: It's good to know there's room for all our visions in Segal's outlines.
: :-)
Agreed on that.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Jonathan Blum
In article <5i9j79$7...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,
>LIGHT or LUNGBARROW? All the Baker stories above are basically juvenile
>pulp stories, on the level of a good DOC SAVAGE story. 14-year-old stuff,
>basically, well done, well crafted, with a good dose of humor. To call
>them "dark" is really not accurate.
It is in the eyes of Mary Whitehouse... This is very much one of those
subjective point-of-view thingies, wouldn't you say?
Geoff Weasel
In article <5i8eki$p...@newssvr01-int.news.prodigy.com>,
QAA...@prodigy.com (Mr. Robert W. Millikin) wrote:
> I never noticed much difference between the Post Crisis and Pre Crisis
> versions of Krypton.
The only real sizable difference is that instead of Superman and everyone
EXCEPT Jor-El and Lara surviving the explosion of Krypton, only Kal-El and
an ancient Kryptonian artifact survived :)
ljpa...@aol.com
In article <geoffw-0504...@ind-0013-2.iquest.net>, geo...@iquest.net (Geoff Weasel) writes:
Re: Supreme.
>And at the same time is in the thrall of Rob Liefeld. I'll pass.
Don't do it, Geoff, it's Moore's best work for a decade - 'Marvelman' written
by someone with fifteen years' more writing experience.
I can't stand the 'image School' of snarly-faced Wolverine clones, either,
and - beside the odd good joke - Moore's run on WildCATS was crummy,
but 'Supreme' is Superman How It Should Be Done - it's a 'Whatever
Happened to the Man of Tomorrow' every month. Seriously, Geoff this
is right up there with Book two of Halo Jones, the last few issues of
Miracleman, 1963 and American Gothic.
And if anyone has got a spare copy of nos 41 or 43, then if they wouldn't
mind emailing me...
Lance
ljpa...@aol.com
>Hinchcliffe and Holmes were
>actively encouraging it when they did "Brain of Morbius", after all,
>despite the fact that this went against what the show had previously
>suggested.)
/Pre-Hartnell Pedantry Mode/
The only line *before* 'Morbius' is in 'The Three Doctors' "show me the
earliest Doctor". Otherwise it's left undiscussed, and so open. When
'Morbius' was broadcast, it wasn't really contradicting anything.
Lance
William Thompson
Mr. Robert W. Millikin <QAA...@prodigy.com> wrote in article
<5i8eki$p...@newssvr01-int.news.prodigy.com>...
> I never noticed much difference between the Post Crisis and Pre Crisis
> versions of Krypton.
The Kyptonians of post crisis are soulless solitary beings incapable of
emotions such as love. Jor-El was the only one who even attempted to show
any love, for which he most surely would have been punished had the planet
survived. The pre-crisis Krypton was populated by smiling people in aircars
in a '50ish vision of the future. The planet boasted wondrous fantastic
sites (jewel mountains, fire falls, etc.) While the post crisis Krypton is
a featureless wasteland broken only by huge fortress homes of lone
Kryptonians living in solitude, refusing to meet face to face with other,
some never daring to leave. Sounds pretty different to me!
>
> Blum I am LMAO right now. "Krypton isn't even Krypton." <g>
Certainly not the golden or silver age versions for sure!
>
> Somebody made the mistake of saying that the Loom was Platt's
> invention. It was Cartmel's I believe, as part of his masterplan to
> make the Whoniverse make some sort of sense after all these years.
Wasn't me. I said that by following the threads I picked up on the fact
that the Loom idea is presented in Lungbarrow.
--
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/7628/index.html
____ * /) /) ___ /) Bill (William A) Thompson
( / ) // // () / // wat...@mail.gmi.net
/--< / (/ (/ ____/_(/_ _______ _ _____
_/___)_/\_/\_/\_) (___/ / /_(_) / ) )/_)_/)_(_) / )__)
"Goodbye! It's good isn't it. Hmm?" /) No unsolicited
Tom Baker - 30 Years in the TARDIS (/commercial email!
Jonathan Blum
In article <19970407122...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>/Pre-Hartnell Pedantry Mode/
Agreed -- that's why I said "suggested" rather than "stated"...
Luke Gutzwiller
On 6 Apr 1997 01:31:01 GMT, Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET>
wrote:
>In effect, I hold a more conservative view: I think the Doctor is pretty
>much what we've assumed all along he was and Gallifrey is pretty much what
>we've seen it is/was.
A hotbed of corruption and treachery (Goth, Hedin, Kellner, Borusa,
Valeyard), filled with boring old professors (everyone else) and
fiends (High Council) capable of destroying an entire solar system to
protect their precious secrets?
> I cannot accept or reconcile the datk and, yes,
>monstrous Gallifrey of the NAs with the Gallifrey we've seen on TV.
"Trial of a Time Lord", anybody? ;->
>Yes, I can see how one could be derived from the other, but ultimately, I
>don't like it and I don't believe in it.
>
>I don't believe in Alan Moore's Rann or Greg Benford's Trantor either.
How about the Easter Bunny?
_______________________________________________________
Luke Gutzwiller <luc...@probe.net>
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/3612
"All the crew just lay there and they didn't talk
to me anymore. Then, after a couple of years I
figured out they must be dead."
Keith Topping
Geoff Weasel <geo...@iquest.net> writes
>(By the way, isn't it you who's slagging off Moore for "Oliver Stone type
>research and speculation" in FROM HELL, over in another newsgroup?)
than William Gull as JTR?!
Jesus, I've heard *everything* now!!!!
That *is* without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt *THE* funniest thing I have
*EVER* heard in *all* my life. Bar none.
'Oliver Stone-like' ... ROTFL!!!!
--
Keith Topping
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
Geoff Weasel
In article <5i9hef$7...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>, Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
<rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote:
> 6...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <geoffw-0504...@ind-0013-2.iquest.net>
> Organization: IDT Internet Services
> Distribution:
>
>
> Geoff Weasel <geo...@iquest.net> wrote:
>
> : First off, the "downward spiral of comic-book sales" (if, indeed, there _is_
> : one) probably has more to do with the crash following the Great
> : Speculation Phase in the earlier part of this decade. It's almost the
> : same thing with the Black And White Implosion of the 1980s, which had
> : naught to do with story
> : content of said books (OK, fine, I'll concede the "Ninja" idea getting
> : way way WAAAAAAAAY overdone).
>
> Agreed, but comics have been on a downward trend ever since the 60s and
> the collectors market, if it means more $$$, doesn't mean more buyers.
>
If there has not been an increase in buyers, then why has there been an
increase in:
Comics specialty shops
Conventions
Creators
Publishers (especially self-publishers these days!)
Media attention
etc etc so on and so forth?
Again, _someone's_ out there buying them!
> : Second, if nobody likes this sort of thing, as you seem to be implying, then
> : why is it that the "grim and complex pseudo-adult stories" are the ones that
> : get the attention? SWAMP THING, WATCHMEN, SANDMAN, PREACHER . . . these are
> : the ones that get the attention of the Mainstream Press, without the benefit
> : of gimmicky changes (i.e. the Death, and Changing, of Superman; the Clones
> : storyline in the SPIDER-MAN titles, and the negative reaction against
it, was
> : the subject of an article in the WALL STREET JOURNAL during the
relevant time)
> : or "Big Events!" No, these stories are praised for _content_.
>
> With the exception of SWAMP THING, none of the characters you mention are
> established juvenile characters. I didn't say the *medium* couldn't be
> adult (as Moebius' partner you could hardly expect me to believe that), I
> said that adult juvenile characters are if not a contradiction in terms
> but less appealing in term of demographics.
>
So then why do an Elseworld Superman story with Ted McKeever (c'mon,
he did THE EXTREMIST, _hardly_ a juvenile book!) based on a not-very-
light-fluffy-or-juvenile film?
True, one can argue that Elseworlds do not make up a sizable portion
of DC's sales (excluding KINGDOM COME, perhaps :), but if you're trying
to argue from a point of either "A contradiction in terms" or being
"less appealing in term of demographics," then why do it?
> : Third, why are/did sales rise, or continue to rise, on SANDMAN and PREACHER
> : if there was a decline in sales? Obviously, _someone_ likes these books!
> : And I know 2 titles can't speak for an entire industry, but still, you
cannot
> : claim it's a downward spiral as you say?
>
> See above.
>
Speaking with PREACHER's editor, Axel Alonso, on the phone in reference
to a newsweekly story I was doing about the book back in late-February,
he said that one of PREACHER's strongpoints was that it was not "typical
comicbook schlock," and it's because of that, that a good portion of
the purchasers of the title are (get this) _not comicbook readers!_
I've also turned quite a number of non-comic-fans into SANDMAN
readers
I don't think that being able to draw in non-fans towards a non-typical
comic is such a bad thing. And to tie this all in, when I've tried to
get people into DOCTOR WHO, I usually use either "Deadly Assassin" or
one of the McCoy stories. And about 80% of them have become WHO fans.
Maybe it's the non-typical, or even non-juvenile nature, in some of these
comics, or DOCTOR WHO stories, that are ways to bring people in. And Hell,
I started my gf's 5-year-old son off with "Remembrance." So maybe there's
something to what I say....
>
> : Yes, and while we're at it, let's also add Moore's taking of a second-rate
> : swamp monster character and turning it into a book that revolutionized
> : how comics were written and perceived. I suppose you also object to how
> : Peter David writes THE INCREDIBLE HULK because he got it away from
> : 32-pages per issue of "Hulk smash puny humans!" and turned it into a book
> : one could _read_?
>
> Moore now writes SUPREME and has pretty much stated in the
> CEREBUS letters page that adult superheroes were a youthful
> mistake.
Ah. So turning a declining field around, opening up new possibilities,
and being possibly the single biggest influence on comics and fantasy
writers in general in the 1980s was a "youthful mistake"?
Yeah, fuck you too, Alan.
> And actually, yes, I do not like Peter David's HULK.
>
>
Might I ask why?
>
> : (And by the by, Cartmel was heavily influenced by Moore. Indeed, THE
EIGHTIES
> : says something to the effect that "Halo Jones" was almost required reading
> : for those wishing to write for DOCTOR WHO under his script-editorship.
> : Take that as you will.)
>
> More water to my mill. I didn't know this but it does show, IMHO,
> Cartmel's cluelessness. DOCTOR WHO is not & should not be HALO JONES.
>
So why "should" it be, as you say below, the TV-Sci-Fi equivalent of
EE Smith then? I could argue, alternatively, that it should not
have been teh Gothic-Horror-SF mix that Hinchcliffe instituted during
his time as producer.
William Hartnell thought _Jon Pertwee's era_ was too adult!
So what makes you or I the determinant of what DOCTOR WHO "is not
and should not be?"
> : > Alan has now "recanted" the "grim superhero" phase of his career and, in
> : > SUPREME, which harks back to the days of the Mort Weisinger SUPERMAN, he
> : > has returned to a "cleaner" type of story: more adolescent fun and yet
> : > smart at the same time.
>
> : And at the same time is in the thrall of Rob Liefeld. I'll pass.
>
> I share your general dislike of Liefeld but SUPREME is a damn fine piece
> of work. If Cartmel had used *that* Alan Moore has an influence (instead
> of playing Frankenstein with different literary genres), we wouldn't be
> having this discussion.
>
Yeah, Cartmel was supposed to intuitively know in 1987 what Moore would
be up to in 1997. How dare he. :)
>
> : And what's there to "recant?" The fact his books didn't sell following
> : his departure from MIRACLEMAN? (I refer to BIG NUMBERS and A SMALL KILLING)
> : Sorry, but the stories he's "recanted" are the stories I'll remember.
> : Doing pre-Crisis SUPERMAN with the serial numbers filed off is quite a
letdown.
> : IMO, of course.
>
> Don't confuse the creaator and his work. Naturally, I prefer FROM HELL to
> SUPEME. But SUPREME is a very very good template of how to do intelligent
> popular sci-fi. FROM HELL or BIG NUMBERS are something else.
>
A) When the creator shits upon the work that has meant the most in the
grand scheme of things in order to do what tantamounts to a hackjob
on somebody else's tales, using a character that was particularly uninspired
to begin with, I think the creator needs some serious rethinking. If he's
having the time of his life, more power to him, but I doubt when the book
is written on Alan Moore, SUPREME will be considered the pinacle of his
literary work.
B) Why does it have to be intelligent _popular_ sci-fi, anyway?
> Look: DOCTOR WHO is the TV-sci-fi equivalent of Edmond Hamilton or E. E.
> Smith. You don't hire Philip K. Dick to write the Lensmen, and a Lensmen
> story written by Dick would have been, perhaps an interesting literary
> hybrid, but a bad Lensman story.
>
No, DOCTOR WHO is the TV-sci-fi equivalent of Hamilton and Smith....and more.
So much more.
> Greg Benford recently wrote a FOUNDATION story, and what we have is a bad
> Benford, Bad FOUNDATION novel (IMHO).
>
The definitive FOUNDATION story was also written. There has never been The
One Single Definitive DOCTOR WHO story.
> With Cartmel we had *IMHO* bad DOCTOR WHO / bad Alan Moore.
>
Fine. And with Cartmel we had *IMHO* a creative renaissance, stories that
prompted thought, and were also fun at the same time. Thought-provoking
and Fun are not mutually exclusive terms, Jean-Marc.
I think, also, to paraphrase Neil Gaiman, to many Conservative Fans,
WHO is "never as good as it used to be, regardless of when they started
[watching] it or where they are now."
(Gaiman was referring to PUNCH magazine)
> You may not agree, clearly, with my viewpoint, but I am consistent! :-)
>
True on both counts. :)
> -----
>
> : (By the way, isn't it you who's slagging off Moore for "Oliver Stone type
> : research and speculation" in FROM HELL, over in another newsgroup?)
>
> A different argument altogether. Let's continue that one on
> rec.arts.comics.misc if you wish.
I don't care, really. Actually, more like I can't comment as I've
only read the first two issues of FROM HELL....
(Thank Chaos for trade paperbacks!)
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
u...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <5i9klh$5...@cappuccino.eng.umd.edu>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
Jonathan Blum <jb...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
: >Look: DOCTOR WHO is the TV-sci-fi equivalent of Edmond Hamilton or E. E.
: >Smith.
: What a very, very limited Doctor Who you believe in.
What a very limited view of Hamilton and Smith you have. Don't tie me
down to these two writers *specifically* -- you may throw in others, but
we're still dealing with popular pulp fiction.
The problem with your Doctor, Jon, is, number 1, I fear it would never
work on television. Lungbarrow or Time Crucible would never be bought,
shot or garner more than a handful of viewers.
Number 2, a serious literary Doctor is like a serious literary Superman: a
contradiction in terms. You may take it seriously, but mundane people do
not. (Note I didn't say normal.) Even Burton's BATMAN was still looked
at by most mainstream critics & audiences as a cute variation on what is
basically a teenage fantasy.
I have kept enough of a sense of wonder to still enjoy John Carter of Mars
and Doc Savage and Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Who and once in a while,
someone like Nicholas Meyer or Phil Farmer manages to do wonders (with
tongue planted in cheeks) with these characters, but generally speaking, I
personally find the other attempts either boring or pretentious.
When I'm looking for serious entertainment, I don't turn to Doctor Who.
(This will come as no surprise since I've espoused this view here for a
long time.)
Yes, the DW format is large enough to encompass everything from Androids
of Tara to Time Crucible but personnaly I prefer the lighter stuff, and I
also believe that's the stuff that is commercial.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
Jonathan Blum <jb...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
: In article <5i9j79$7...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,: >Do you really not see the difference between any of these and, say, GHOST
: >LIGHT or LUNGBARROW? All the Baker stories above are basically juvenile
: >pulp stories, on the level of a good DOC SAVAGE story. 14-year-old stuff,
: >basically, well done, well crafted, with a good dose of humor. To call
: >them "dark" is really not accurate.
: It is in the eyes of Mary Whitehouse... This is very much one of those
: subjective point-of-view thingies, wouldn't you say?
: Regards,
: Jon Blum
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------
: "All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
: chess... when it was just me playing solitaire!"
: D O C T O R W H O : T I M E R I F T
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk
In article <5ic8ua$p...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>,
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote: [...]
> The problem with your Doctor, Jon, is, number 1, I fear it would never
> work on television. Lungbarrow or Time Crucible would never be bought,
> shot or garner more than a handful of viewers.
Well, firstly, JNT obviously thought they would as both came close to
being TV scripts. Personally, I feel "Lungbarrow" is successful on
working on a number of levels and, thus, could have been a good TV story,
appealing to a variety of audiences.
Secondly, as they were published as books, does it matter whether they
would have worked on TV or not? Or are you saying that Who for you can
only exist in a televisual medium?
Anyway, we should differentiate discussion of a product's potential
commercial success from how it feels and how good it is for us. Thus, to
attempt to get away from the endless comic analogies, I see Wakeman's
recent departure from Yes as bad for the band commerically, but
potentially good for the band artistically (at least, for the kind of
music I like).
> Number 2, a serious literary Doctor is like a serious literary Superman: a
> contradiction in terms. You may take it seriously, but mundane people do
> not. (Note I didn't say normal.) Even Burton's BATMAN was still looked
> at by most mainstream critics & audiences as a cute variation on what is
> basically a teenage fantasy.
Can something with feels like "real Who" ever be serious, or is a certain
shallowness necessary? For me, while I agree that "Lungbarrow" and some
other NAs are somewhat deeper than the average TV Who (although there are
plenty of examples of deeper TV Who and shallower Virgin Who), I do not
see this as contradicting a fundamental Who-ness.
For me, in some ways and I don't want to make a big issue out of this,
Doctor Who as the NAs has grown up with me. I wanted the simpler and
lighter approach of TV Who then; I want the deeper approach of the Virgin
books or of a program like "Babylon 5" now. Yet, throughout, it still
feels like the same Who, the same Doctor, the same TARDIS, the same
planets.
Perhaps then, I wouldn't have been so interested in a new series which had
merely repeated the style of old TV Who (not that I feel the telefilm was
heading in that direction much).
> I have kept enough of a sense of wonder to still enjoy John Carter of Mars
> and Doc Savage and Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Who and once in a while,
> someone like Nicholas Meyer or Phil Farmer manages to do wonders (with
> tongue planted in cheeks) with these characters, but generally speaking, I
> personally find the other attempts either boring or pretentious.
Oh go on, come right out and say it... do you find "Lungbarrow" either
boring or pretentious?
> When I'm looking for serious entertainment, I don't turn to Doctor Who.
>
> (This will come as no surprise since I've espoused this view here for a
> long time.)
Isn't it good, then, that there's lighter and darker Who for us all to
enjoy. ;)
> Yes, the DW format is large enough to encompass everything from Androids
> of Tara to Time Crucible but personnaly I prefer the lighter stuff, and I
> also believe that's the stuff that is commercial.
I agree completely with your last paragraph (except I prefer the heavier
stuff some of the time), but you've also said that the DW format is not
large enough to encompass "Lungbarrow" as well. So, I take it your
problem with "Lungbarrow" more than this?
Henry Potts
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk
In article <5i9jib$7...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,
>
> : ^^^^^^^ Therein lies the problem: we've all made our own (different)
> : assumptions, but it is overly optimistic to imagine any series will fit
> : your assumptions! Dr *Who* has always been a mystery, a challenge to
> : anyone having assumptions.
>
> No. It's simply a different set of assumptions.
You're missing my point: Dr. Who has always been about having our
assumptions over turned. Part of the underlying mystery of Dr *Who* is
that we *can*never* make reliable assumptions. Who fans who make
assumptions should be prepared to have them swept away or they will
rapidly tire of the show! "Lungbarrow" fitted none of my assumptions, but
I've learnt that my assumptions won't prove true and I don't let that
interfere with my enjoyment of Who.
> Re: Gallifrey.
>
> : I think you are confusing the dark and monstrous House of Lungbarrow
> [snip]
>
> No, I'm not. It's the whole concept, Loom et al which I do not embrace.
> Period.
Unfortunately you've snipped the bit you wrote earlier to which I was
replying. You were complaining about the dark, monstrous and Mervyn
Peake-ish feel of Gallifrey. I don't see that those sections of
"Lungbarrow"'s Gallifrey that are not connected to the House of
Lungbarrow -- like the Loom -- are at all dark, monstrous or Mervyn
Peake-ish.
> : > [...] I don't believe in Alan Moore's Rann or Greg Benford's
> : > Trantor either.
>
> : I think we've got the message about the comics, but enough already,
> : they're not at all relevant! :)
>
> They are, and Trantor is Asimov's universe, not comics.
Their relevance is as examples that a later version of a series can fail
to satisfy one's conception of what is "real" for that series. I
understand that point and feel the same myself about some other series. I
can understand that one might feel that about "Lungbarrow". I am eager to
discuss *how* "Lungbarrow" is unbelievable for you; I fail to see the
relevance of Moore's Rann or Benford's Trantor to that question. Or am I
missing something?
Jonathan Blum
In article <geoffw-0704...@ind-0000-26.iquest.net>,
Geoff Weasel <geo...@iquest.net> wrote:
>In article <5i9hef$7...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>, Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
><rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>> Agreed, but comics have been on a downward trend ever since the 60s and
>> the collectors market, if it means more $$$, doesn't mean more buyers.
>If there has not been an increase in buyers, then why has there been an
>increase in:
>Comics specialty shops
>Conventions
>Creators
>Publishers (especially self-publishers these days!)
>Media attention
>etc etc so on and so forth?
>Again, _someone's_ out there buying them!
I think Jean-Marc's argument -- and his analogy to Who -- is that the
industry has been selling more and more copies to a harder core of
collectors, and losing the "soft" audience. The cult goes on strong, the
mainstream decreases.
But what confuses me, Jean-Marc, is that you now say this decline has been
going on since the *'60s*. Doesn't this predate the whole dark-n-gritty
hero thing which you claimed before was to blame for the decline of both
comic books and Who?
In Who terms, that's like blaming Cartmel for declining ratings when the
ratings had been sinking since the days of Graham Williams. (Or to make
the analogy *more* accurate, it would be like if the ratings had been
declining since the days of Derrick Sherwin!)
>> Moore now writes SUPREME and has pretty much stated in the
>> CEREBUS letters page that adult superheroes were a youthful
>> mistake.
>Ah. So turning a declining field around, opening up new possibilities,
>and being possibly the single biggest influence on comics and fantasy
>writers in general in the 1980s was a "youthful mistake"?
I'd be interested to track down Moore's actual letter -- that "pretty
much" allows for a bit of wiggle-room. :-)
What I think might be at work here is a variation on what I've seen in
several NA authors -- a violent reaction against "gun"-ness and grimness
for grimness' sake due to the excesses it brought, a fascination with
exploring the fields of pantomime and light entertainment, causing the
pendulum to swing to the other extreme for a while before settling back
down somewhere in the middle. For Paul Cornell it was "No Future", for
Kate it was "Return of the Living Dad"... and both have gone on to do
serious and adult work since then, though a bit more leavened with
lightness than before.
Don't worry, I suspect Alan Moore will hit his post-frock phase in a few
years too. :-)
ljpa...@aol.com
>The problem with your Doctor, Jon, is, number 1, I fear it would never
>work on television. Lungbarrow or Time Crucible would never be bought,
>shot or garner more than a handful of viewers.
>
>Number 2, a serious literary Doctor is like a serious literary Superman: a
>contradiction in terms. You may take it seriously, but mundane people do
>not. (Note I didn't say normal.) Even Burton's BATMAN was still looked
>at by most mainstream critics & audiences as a cute variation on what is
>basically a teenage fantasy.
Bully for them. What the New Adventures have *done*, not IMO, is
proved that Doctor Who stories can be told in novels. We're agreed that
some of the NAs wouldn't work on TV - well buhh!, they aren't meant
to. These aren't novelisations of pretend stories, these are the stories in
their own right. You use Batman as an example - fine: great Batman stories
have been told in comic strip, prose, film and TV. Great Batman stories
have been told for kids, for teens, for university grads. But to turn around
and say 'Bob Kane's canon, nothing else counts' is to ignore that.
The NAs have been *bought*, if you want to use that word. Something
like three million have been 'bought'. A book audience is smaller than
a TV audience - but the NAs are doing well for themselves in an equally
competitive market. Better than the TV series, currently. If we're going
to use the 'survival of the fittest' argument, then 'Lungbarrow' is
soaring, whereas 'Fathers and Brothers' couldn't even get out the nest.
You're trying to rebutt Jon's point that your version of what Doctor Who is
is impoverished and limited in some way, and then rule out anything that
isn't aimed at some mythical lowest common denominator ('mundane')
audience that only exists in the minds of TV executives! You work with
Moebius, you know that some of the most moving and wonderful stories
can appear in comic strips, you know that the 'mundane' audience still
see the genre as 'kids' stuff' Yet you seem to be lumping yourself
in with the 'mundanes'. Some section of some imagined audience
don't realise that a genre has potential - their loss. All your professional
life, Jean-Marc, you've been trying to push Moebius' work to a wider
audience. You know that there are a limited number of people who'll
*ever* buy a translated reprint of a French cowboy strip, but you work
to get the books to those who *will* appreciate it.
The NAs *aren't* aimed at a family audience sitting down in front of
the TV, and are a great deal stronger for it. 'Human Nature', 'The Also
People', 'Set Piece', 'Blood Heat' - none of these are 'untelevisable', but the *limits*
of the TV genre would diminish them, reduce the intense emotions, the
epic scale, the psychology and complexity of the plots. If, when you
read 'Revelation', you are imagining what the SFX would be like
and where they'd get a child actor to play Chad Boyle, then I can see
where you're going wrong. Just read a story that proves that Campbell
*can* be applied to Who without looking like a poor man's Empire Strikes
Back.
Now, there are limits to the Doctor Who genre - there are some stories that
can't be told, some things that can't be done. But the NAs have knocked
a load of the old taboos off the list - you can now tell a Doctor Who story
about homosexuality or religion, for example. The NAs have pushed back the frontiers
of the genre, proved that there *is* more to Doctor Who than 'it's a
kid's show with wobbly sets'. Some of the very best Who stories are now
novels (my opinion, but not just mine). Every genre has it's limits - not least
the stifling genre of 'serious literary fiction', it's what a writer does to strain
against those limits that makes the difference.
Lance
Michael Lee
ljpa...@aol.com in article <19970408172...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
writes in one of those excellent posts:
> Now, there are limits to the Doctor Who genre - there are some stories
that
> can't be told, some things that can't be done. But the NAs have knocked
> a load of the old taboos off the list - you can now tell a Doctor Who
story
> about homosexuality or religion, for example. The NAs have pushed back
the frontiers
> of the genre, proved that there *is* more to Doctor Who than 'it's a
> kid's show with wobbly sets'. Some of the very best Who stories are now
> novels (my opinion, but not just mine). Every genre has it's limits - not
least
> the stifling genre of 'serious literary fiction', it's what a writer does
to strain
> against those limits that makes the difference.
And, in fact, I'd say that the NAs have expanded what a Doctor Who story is
so it *can* return to a broad-based popular television program, in today's
market. "Human Nature", for example, demonstrates that it *is* possible to
tell a love story in the context of Doctor Who. (With some revisions, the
basic concepts *could* make a very interesting movie, actually) I know I
was more accepting of the kiss in the TV Movie *because* of "Human Nature",
even if that wasn't intended by anyone involved.
One of the reasons why I believe that the New Adventures were successful --
which, all things considering, commercialy I think it's safe to say they
were -- is that they not only embraced the entire program, they expanded
it, truly telling stories "too broad for the small screen".
When I first started reading the New Adventures a few years ago, I hadn't
really paid attention to Doctor Who since the show went off the air, I had
thought that I had left the show behind me. However, it was because of
"Love and War" and "Left Handed Hummingbird", "Romance of Crime" and others
that I realized that there were new stories to tell in Doctor Who, things
that didn't replace the television series, because nothing can do that, but
expand on it, speaking to who I am today. And I'm glad that books like
"Room With No Doors" can *still* do that.
If Doctor Who can't survive as a TV series (which it apparently can't), I'm
happy to see that it can survive as a book series, and that it can create
something in which the best stories are *new* Doctor Who stories, not just
sequels of "classics" and bringing back old baddies every month.
Michael
http://www.execpc.com/~michaell
http://www.execpc.com/~michaell/who
Geoff Weasel
In article <5idrd8$2...@cappuccino.eng.umd.edu>, jb...@Glue.umd.edu
(Jonathan Blum) wrote:
> I think Jean-Marc's argument -- and his analogy to Who -- is that the
> industry has been selling more and more copies to a harder core of
> collectors, and losing the "soft" audience. The cult goes on strong, the
> mainstream decreases.
But as Jean-Marc has argued elsewhere, the cult cannot sustain a show,
or an entire industry. Evidently, some of the mainstream is still out there,
buying comics as a mild pasttime instead of a full-blown hobby.
If the cult could have sustained the TVM in the US, then we'd be wondering
"When do new episodes start?" as opposed to "What next?", yes?
Comics has The Cult + some Mainstream, whereas the TVM, unfortunately,
did not.
>
> Don't worry, I suspect Alan Moore will hit his post-frock phase in a few
> years too. :-)
Christ I hope so. Maybe BIG NUMBERS'll finally get close to being
finished! :)
Christopher D. Heer
It was 7 Apr 1997 00:15:11 -0400. I was reading instead of working. And
Jonathan Blum (jb...@Glue.umd.edu) said:
: In article <5i9j79$7...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,
: Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote:
: >Do you really not see the difference between any of these and, say, GHOST
: >LIGHT or LUNGBARROW? All the Baker stories above are basically juvenile
: >pulp stories, on the level of a good DOC SAVAGE story. 14-year-old stuff,
: >basically, well done, well crafted, with a good dose of humor. To call
: >them "dark" is really not accurate.
: It is in the eyes of Mary Whitehouse... This is very much one of those
: subjective point-of-view thingies, wouldn't you say?
Violence != dark. Mary Whitehouse wasn't complaining about the tone, but
about the violence.
--
Christopher D. Heer / cheer at us dot oracle dot com
My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of Oracle Corp.
SPAMProtect: You'll need to fix my email address before replying.
Jonathan Blum
In article <MPG.db4df83f...@newshost.us.oracle.com>,
Christopher D. Heer <ch...@i.hate.spam> wrote:
>It was 7 Apr 1997 00:15:11 -0400. I was reading instead of working. And
>Jonathan Blum (jb...@Glue.umd.edu) said:
>: In article <5i9j79$7...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,
>: Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>: >Do you really not see the difference between any of these and, say, GHOST
>: >LIGHT or LUNGBARROW? All the Baker stories above are basically juvenile
>: >pulp stories, on the level of a good DOC SAVAGE story. 14-year-old stuff,
>: >basically, well done, well crafted, with a good dose of humor. To call
>: >them "dark" is really not accurate.
>: It is in the eyes of Mary Whitehouse... This is very much one of those
>: subjective point-of-view thingies, wouldn't you say?
>Violence != dark. Mary Whitehouse wasn't complaining about the tone, but
>about the violence.
She also complained about the "foetid intensity" of the show, IIRC -- not
just the fact that horrible things happened, but that even when they
weren't happening there was an atmosphere that horrible things *could*
happen. She was just as loud about Ernie Clements being chased by a mummy
(even though he got away, for a while at least) as about the mummies
actually strangling people.
(Reminds me of the fact that "Blue Velvet" was originally given an X
rating not because the movie showed or said anything which was considered
beyond the pale for an R film, but because the MPAA folks thought it was
too intense, it just *felt* like it should be an X...)
oh...@tiac.net
: True, one can argue that Elseworlds do not make up a sizable portion
: of DC's sales (excluding KINGDOM COME, perhaps :), but if you're trying
: to argue from a point of either "A contradiction in terms" or being
: "less appealing in term of demographics," then why do it?
Umm.. All the reasons you cited.. There is too much product in the market,
whereas the amount of customers has remained steady.. Consequencely,
Marvel nor Image can pull in a million sales(okay it wasn't usual but not
rare). They have saturated the market. Marvel is losing sales because
they try to sell their whole 40 comic line to the reader.. Independents
have a hard time trying to vie for a place in distribution.
It's a tough, big, crowded world out thar..
Geoff Weasel
In article <5ih4e7$b...@news-central.tiac.net>, oh...@tiac.net wrote:
> : True, one can argue that Elseworlds do not make up a sizable portion
> : of DC's sales (excluding KINGDOM COME, perhaps :), but if you're trying
> : to argue from a point of either "A contradiction in terms" or being
> : "less appealing in term of demographics," then why do it?
>
> Umm.. All the reasons you cited.. There is too much product in the market,
> whereas the amount of customers has remained steady..
You missed my point, I think.
Are you trying to say that the reason to concentrate on Elseworlds
is because they're "A contradiction in terms" and/or "Less appealing
in term of demographics?"
Confused,
Christopher D. Heer
This doesn't have a whole lot of Who content, but the parallels, IMHO,
are relevant. Onward!
It was Sat, 05 Apr 1997 00:52:39 -0600. I was reading instead of
working. And Geoff Weasel (geo...@iquest.net) said:
: In article <5i4clj$q...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>, Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
: <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote:
: > Jonathan Blum <jb...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
: > : For some reason I find this extremely amusing, though probably downright
: > : depressing from Jean-Marc's point of view -- now not only is Gallifrey not
: > : like Krypton, *Krypton* isn't even like Krypton. :-)
: > Yes, and I'd hazard that the downward spiral of comic-book sales is not
: > entirely foreign to the attempt to take what were primary four-color
: > fantasies and turn them into grim and complex pseudo-adult stories, almost
: > against the very nature of the medium.
: Total bollocks. Complete bollocks. BOLLOCKS.
Bollocks back to you. And considering that you follow this up with what
is, essentially, your own theorising and not a lot of factual data,
wasn't that coming on a bit strong, there?
: First off, the "downward spiral of comic-book sales" (if, indeed, there _is_
: one)
This isn't even debatable. Look at print runs of comics over the past,
say, 25 years.
It's not even *close*.
Next, look at the profitability of comics companies then and now.
: probably has more to do with the crash following the Great
: Speculation Phase in the earlier part of this decade.
This has been going on since well before this decade, my friend.
: It's almost the
: same thing with the Black And White Implosion of the 1980s, which had
: naught to do with story
: content of said books (OK, fine, I'll concede the "Ninja" idea getting
: way way WAAAAAAAAY overdone).
You have *got* to be kidding.
It happened *precisely* because of the content. Thanks to the popularity
of the Ninja Turtles and a couple of other small B&W books, suddenly
there were millions of the things, and, by and large, they were all crap.
Yes, there were a few gems buried in there. But are you going to tell me
with a straight face that most of the B&W knock offs in the mid-late 80s
were GOOD?
The implosion happened because suddenly B&W comics were a gimmick. That
and the less expensive production costs meant that every idiot and his
brother was cranking this nonsense out. I can tell you that, speaking as
someone that ran a comic book store when all that happened, it was chaos.
Comic stores felt they had to carry "everything," but suddenly that meant
getting stuck with one or two copies of fifty books nobody would buy.
: Second, if nobody likes this sort of thing, as you seem to be implying, then
: why is it that the "grim and complex pseudo-adult stories" are the ones that
: get the attention? SWAMP THING, WATCHMEN, SANDMAN, PREACHER . . . these are
: the ones that get the attention of the Mainstream Press, without the benefit
: of gimmicky changes (i.e. the Death, and Changing, of Superman; the Clones
: storyline in the SPIDER-MAN titles, and the negative reaction against it, was
: the subject of an article in the WALL STREET JOURNAL during the relevant time)
: or "Big Events!" No, these stories are praised for _content_.
You are so totally missing the point.
It's not a question of what gets critical acclaim. It's a question of
what sells books. Or television series. Or movies. Etc.
: Third, why are/did sales rise, or continue to rise, on SANDMAN and PREACHER
: if there was a decline in sales? Obviously, _someone_ likes these books!
The decline he was speaking of started a long time ago. Believe it or
not, there were comics before 1985.
: And I know 2 titles can't speak for an entire industry, but still, you cannot
: claim it's a downward spiral as you say?
Yes, he can. It is.
: Honestly, I think if there were a downward spiral, it has more to do with
: bullshit, both within the books (again, the Electric Superman), and without
: (cf. Marvel's troubles under Perelman, and the recent ousting of Perelman)
No. I think you misunderstood which trend he was referring to.
: > What Cartmel and Platt did/are doing to DW is not so different from what,
: > say, Alan Moore did to poor Adam Strange years ago in a SWAMP THING story,
: > turning him into this tortured man and turning Rann into this sterile
: > place which had calculatingly brought him there to serve as a srud for
: > Alanna. But I digress...
: Yes, and while we're at it, let's also add Moore's taking of a second-rate
: swamp monster character and turning it into a book that revolutionized
: how comics were written and perceived.
Mmmmm. Not entirely relevant, but OK.
: I suppose you also object to how
: Peter David writes THE INCREDIBLE HULK because he got it away from
: 32-pages per issue of "Hulk smash puny humans!" and turned it into a book
: one could _read_?
Straw man alert! If you want to make up JML's points for him, go right
ahead; he can get on with something else more interesting.
: I really don't think that having a genre, or a series, I grew up with,
: growing up as I do at the same time, is such a bad thing.
But. That's. Not. The. Point.
Comic books used to be profitable. They're not, right now. DC has
staying power, because Time/Warner can use them as a sort of "creative
farm," producing intellectual properties that can be leveraged by other
parts of their organisation (movies, TV, etc. etc.). Marvel has never
been able to cope with that, and now they're bankrupt.
I expect they're happy you like them, though.
: (And by the by, Cartmel was heavily influenced by Moore. Indeed, THE EIGHTIES
: says something to the effect that "Halo Jones" was almost required reading
: for those wishing to write for DOCTOR WHO under his script-editorship.
: Take that as you will.)
I think it helps make his point.
: > Alan has now "recanted" the "grim superhero" phase of his career and, in
: > SUPREME, which harks back to the days of the Mort Weisinger SUPERMAN, he
: > has returned to a "cleaner" type of story: more adolescent fun and yet
: > smart at the same time.
: And at the same time is in the thrall of Rob Liefeld. I'll pass.
What is this supposed to mean?
: > It is my belief that someday the same will happen to DW. If Phil Segal
: > and Matthew Jacobs had been able to turn the 8th Doctor into a series, it
: > would have been much lighter, more Tom Bakerish, in style and substance.
: > While I think they made a mistake by choosing an overly complex story
: > which did not give the Network Execs a proper idea of what DW could be, I
: > nevertheless *know* what their intentions were.
: Maybe so. But then, even Tom had his moments of darkness. As much as
: McCoy had his moments of pure lightness and frolic. To say that it would
: swing one way or the other is somewhat short-sighted. Isn't there room in
: DOCTOR WHO, after 33 years, for _both_ types of stories?
You're still missing his point.
Jean-Marc is arguing that Doctor Who became less "mainstream viewer"
oriented and more "fan" oriented. This is not necessarily an argument
about quality, especially as that's mostly subjective.
So he used a comic book analogy, as is his wont. (He does it in everyday
life too, which is distracting when he does it to explain to a waitress
why he doesn't like the pizza.) Comics became more fan-oriented with the
proliferation of comic book stores, etc., and writers like Alan Moore and
Frank Miller. Casual sales (drugstores, etc.) plummeted, even as Swamp
Thing and Dark Knight garnered awards and praise. Then all the
Moore/Bissette wannabies arrived, and we got slews of books from people
trying to do the same thing but with far less talent.
A good example of this is my all-time favourite title, Green Lantern.
For a long time, the book was basic space opera stuff. I can't honestly
state that any issue was utterly awesome, but most were pretty good, and
a lot of fun. Then came Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams, who decided to do
gritty stories tackling social issues. Some of the attempts were (IMHO)
very, very good. The Speedy drug stuff was fantastic. (Most were also
very preachy, moralising, and utterly superficial in the way they
examined the issues, but there you go.) It got awards, and attention.
And cancelled.
So, years later, when the book was revived, what was the decision? To go
back to the space opera stuff, which worked for a while, until Denny
left, after which the book descended through mediocrity and ended up in
the Cellar of Crap, where it's resided ever since. (IMHO)
The bottom line:
The job of an editor, or a producer, is to get the comic bought or the
show watched. That doesn't mean making it full of naked women or
whatever; that means keeping in mind what your audience really is and
targeting it accordingly. This was definitely a problem with comics; I'm
not even sure that's an arguable point. JML is arguing that it was a
problem with later Who.
Now, does the "adult" (and I use the quotes deliberately) produce better
stories? In some cases. I don't think I'd want a universe without, say,
Swamp Thing or The Watchmen, and I don't think I'd want a universe
without, say, Curse of Fenric. On the other hand, I could live without
many of the McCoy stories, and many of the comics produced in the last
ten years.
Ultimately which approach "works" from a quality standpoint is up to each
individual. What works from a success standpoint, however, is absolutely
not.
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk
In article <geoffw-0804...@ind-0007-1.iquest.net>,
geo...@iquest.net (Geoff Weasel) wrote:
> In article <5idrd8$2...@cappuccino.eng.umd.edu>, jb...@Glue.umd.edu
> (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
> > I think Jean-Marc's argument -- and his analogy to Who -- is that the
> > industry has been selling more and more copies to a harder core of
> > collectors, and losing the "soft" audience. The cult goes on strong, the
> > mainstream decreases.
>
> But as Jean-Marc has argued elsewhere, the cult cannot sustain a show,
> or an entire industry. Evidently, some of the mainstream is still out there,
> buying comics as a mild pasttime instead of a full-blown hobby.
>
> If the cult could have sustained the TVM in the US, then we'd be wondering
> "When do new episodes start?" as opposed to "What next?", yes?
>
> Comics has The Cult + some Mainstream, whereas the TVM, unfortunately,
Surely this debate is about the Virgin "cult" NAs, rather than the fairly
mainstream telefilm? The telefilm was largely appealing to a mainstream
audience, while the Virgin NAs more serious take results in (arguably) a
more cult audience.
Personally, I'd rather celebrate that good books can still get published
in a commercially successful venture, even if they are rather cultish,
than complain that they are insufficiently mainstream.
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk
In article <MPG.db5c86eb...@newshost.us.oracle.com>,
ch...@i.hate.spam (Christopher D. Heer) wrote: [...]
> Jean-Marc is arguing that Doctor Who became less "mainstream viewer"
> oriented and more "fan" oriented. This is not necessarily an argument
> about quality, especially as that's mostly subjective.
>
> more fan-oriented with the proliferation of comic book stores, etc.,
> and writers like Alan Moore and Frank Miller. Casual sales (drugstores,
> etc.) plummeted, even as Swamp Thing and Dark Knight garnered awards
> and praise. Then all the Moore/Bissette wannabies arrived, and we got
> slews of books from people trying to do the same thing but with far
>
> The bottom line:
>
> The job of an editor, or a producer, is to get the comic bought or the
> show watched. That doesn't mean making it full of naked women or
> whatever; that means keeping in mind what your audience really is and
> targeting it accordingly. This was definitely a problem with comics; I'm
> not even sure that's an arguable point. JML is arguing that it was a
> problem with later Who.
>
> Now, does the "adult" (and I use the quotes deliberately) produce better
> stories? In some cases. I don't think I'd want a universe without, say,
> Swamp Thing or The Watchmen, and I don't think I'd want a universe
> without, say, Curse of Fenric. On the other hand, I could live without
> many of the McCoy stories, and many of the comics produced in the last
> ten years.
>
> Ultimately which approach "works" from a quality standpoint is up to each
> individual. What works from a success standpoint, however, is absolutely
> not.
So, the argument is that the less "mainstream" Who, as epitomised by the
Virgin NAs, are less commercially successful? Well, firstly, that then is
why I will shout from the rooftops my love of the NAs, to boost their
commercial success. Instead of worrying that this might not be a
profitable direction for the series, I'll do my damnedest to make sure it
*is* sufficiently popular! :)
And secondly, it may not be a commercially successful direction for a TV
series, but we're discussing a book series here and the NAs *have* proved
themselves to be economically healthy.
Meanwhile, the telefilm has shown that, even with a more "mainstream"
style, a future Who TV series still isn't regarded as a valid commercial
proposition. If that's so, I'm not going to keep crying over spilt milk
and I'll rejoice in the new Who we do have! :)
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk
In article <5i9inb$7...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote: [...]
> As long as things remain somewhat unclarified (as they are now, based on
> broadcast m[a]terial only, including the TVM), we are, ultimately, free to
> entertain both our visions.
>
> Were things to be nailed down, Cartmel-wise, Leekley-wise or
> Whoeverelse-wise, then we're stuck with one path.
This argues against ever revealing anything about the Doctor's origins:
we should never have learnt that he is a Time Lord, from Gallifrey, with
12 regenerations etc. etc. While I would agree that there should be only
limited revelations (which is why I dislike some of the Nth Doctor
proposals), I don't believe there should *never* be any. One can only
hold off a climax so long, perhaps? ;) As an end to the Virgin NA series
-- in some ways, an end to the whole continuity of Dr Who from TV series
to Virgin book -- "Lungbarrowe" seems a good a time as any to make some
revelations, just as "The War Games" was. Eventually, one path has to be
taken and the makers of Who at that moment should obviously get to decide
which path. (In fact, Virgin didn't simply choose a path: they
resurrected one that had been lost with the cancellation of the TV
series.) If they manage to lead us in a new direction with a book as good
as "Lungbarrow", I am more than happy. :)
Further, I like the revelatory style of "Lungbarrow" and some earlier TV
Who ("Brain of Morbius", "War Games", ...) because it *doesn't* really
nail anything down. For a book of revelations, it is amazingly
unrevelatory in what it actually says and it generates far more questions
than it answers. A path has been chosen, but it has many forks in it...
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk
In article <5i9j79$7...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,> he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk wrote:
[JML wrote:]
> : > Visually, you may have been right, but I do know that Segal did not like
> : > the Cartmel approach at all and wanted to return the show to a Tom
> : > Bakerish mode, done with 1990s style & technology, of course. A far cry
> : > from what you are outlining. [...]
>
> : Oh yes, all those wonderfully light & fluffy Tom Baker stories, totally
> : devoid of any darkness, like "The Brain of Morbius", "The Deadly
> : Assassin", "The Face of Evil", "The Horror of Fang Rock"... ;)
>
> Do you really not see the difference between any of these and, say, GHOST
> LIGHT or LUNGBARROW? All the Baker stories above are basically juvenile
> pulp stories, on the level of a good DOC SAVAGE story. 14-year-old stuff,
> basically, well done, well crafted, with a good dose of humor. To call
> them "dark" is really not accurate.
For me, a story like "The Face of Evil", "The Deadly Assassin" or
"Castrovalva" has simpler, pulp-y elements *and* more complex and
sophisticated elements, just as "Lungbarrow" does. There's elements of
running around fighting the baddies and of a whodunnit in "Lungbarrow";
the actual storyline is fairly straightforward. Your criticism might
apply to "Cat's Cradle: Time's Crucible", which I don't consider a very
good NA.
More generally, the Virgin NAs have tended to be deeper, but I don't see
"Lungbarrow" as a good example of that: it is structurally accessible for
a 14-year-old (IIRC being 14), while also having deeper elements for the
committed, adult Who fan.
However, your current line of discourse here doesn't explain why you find
"Lungbarrow" even less acceptable as true Who for you than other NAs, or
am I missing something?
Jonathan Blum
In article <5ik1g9$3...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>ObWho: the analogy is challenging. Should we return to a more "basic"
>WHO? -- Do we have anyone who can do it?
Ideally, we shouldn't "return" to anything -- we should find a new balance
for Doctor Who which is most effective for its '90s audience.
As for the "basics"... It's my opinion that it's quite possible to do
both. Tell a story which is comprehensible and appealing to non-fans,
while also having plenty of depth hidden there for the people who prefer
to look for that sort of thing. When "Vampire Science" comes out, we'll
see whether we got anywhere close to that balance...
There should continue to be room for all kinds of Who. A given season of
a hypothetical TV revival would have plenty of space in it for
straightforward thrillers, tongue-in-cheek stories, and the occasional
Plattian oddball. The last thing the show should ever be is
straitjacketed to one style of story...
Jonathan Blum
In article <5ik29g$3...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,>You asked what I think Doctor Who should be like. I think we have a very
>strong, very adaptable, very basic concept, that was very well utilised
>throughout the life of the show, until JNT starting messing up with it,
>thinking like some mad Marvel editor that he needed to fix the concept
>when his problem was that he was putting out a lot of bad stories.
Totally aside from the question of the quality of the stories, what on
Earth did JNT change about the concept? You still have the Doctor and
companions in the TARDIS, going wherever they want and fighting evil.
>I
>think if you return to the basics, produce an interesting,
>character-driven, watchable sci-fi show, where an eccentric, charming hero
>triumphs over evil and saves the world every week, you need look no
>further.
Right up through the last couple of seasons, I did see an interesting,
character-driven, watchable sci-fi show, where an eccentric, charming hero
triumphed over evil and saved the world every three or four weeks. If
anything, it was *more* character-driven than before, since the
companion's role was finally being treated as more than a cipher.
If anything, you could say that JNT and Cartmel *clarified* the concept,
returning it to its roots, by sweeping aside all the Time Lord backstory
and heavy continuity played with in Seasons 22-23 and making the Doctor
just an unknown wanderer again.
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
6...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <geoffw-0504...@ind-0013-2.iquest.net> <19970407055...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
: Happened to the Man of Tomorrow' every month. Seriously, Geoff this
: is right up there with Book two of Halo Jones, the last few issues of
: Miracleman, 1963 and American Gothic.
Actually I prefer Book 3 of HALO JONES, but that was one of the best thing
Moore ever wrote.
ObWho: the analogy is challenging. Should we return to a more "basic"
WHO? -- Do we have anyone who can do it?
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
u...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <geoffw-0704...@ind-0000-26.iquest.net>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
Geoff Weasel <geo...@iquest.net> wrote:
: Again, _someone's_ out there buying them!
Wrong. They're spending more money, that's all.
In the mid-1970s, DR STRANGE was cancelled when it was selling (after
returns!) 250,000 copies. You don't know how low comics have fallen.
Almost no comics sells that today.
: So then why do an Elseworld Superman story with Ted McKeever (c'mon,
: he did THE EXTREMIST, _hardly_ a juvenile book!) based on a not-very-
: light-fluffy-or-juvenile film?
: True, one can argue that Elseworlds do not make up a sizable portion
: of DC's sales (excluding KINGDOM COME, perhaps :), but if you're trying
: to argue from a point of either "A contradiction in terms" or being
: "less appealing in term of demographics," then why do it?
C'mon, you know exactly what I'm arguing. *One* ELSEWORLD does not make
a SUPERMAN line. My book is "niche marketing" aimed at folks like you.
Put me in charge of theregular SUPES book tomorrow and I'll endeavor to
try to do what Alan does with SUPREME. But it may be too late for comics.
The field is now economically hostage to the fans.
But is it too late for DOCTOR WHO?
[snip discussion about specific comics works]
You asked what I think Doctor Who should be like. I think we have a very
strong, very adaptable, very basic concept, that was very well utilised
throughout the life of the show, until JNT starting messing up with it,
thinking like some mad Marvel editor that he needed to fix the concept
when his problem was that he was putting out a lot of bad stories. I
think if you return to the basics, produce an interesting,
character-driven, watchable sci-fi show, where an eccentric, charming hero
triumphs over evil and saves the world every week, you need look no
further.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
William Thompson <wat...@gmi.net> wrote:
: The Kyptonians of post crisis are soulless solitary beings incapable of
: emotions such as love. Jor-El was the only one who even attempted to show
: any love, for which he most surely would have been punished had the planet
: survived. The pre-crisis Krypton was populated by smiling people in aircars
: in a '50ish vision of the future. The planet boasted wondrous fantastic
: sites (jewel mountains, fire falls, etc.) While the post crisis Krypton is
: a featureless wasteland broken only by huge fortress homes of lone
: Kryptonians living in solitude, refusing to meet face to face with other,
: some never daring to leave. Sounds pretty different to me!
I wonder if Andrew Cartmel worked on SUPERMAN? ... :-)
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
6...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <geoffw-0504...@ind-0013-2.iquest.net> <$PMFNDAF...@tooon.demon.co.uk>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution: world
Keith Topping <ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: Jesus, I've heard *everything* now!!!!
: That *is* without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt *THE* funniest thing I have
: *EVER* heard in *all* my life. Bar none.
: 'Oliver Stone-like' ... ROTFL!!!!
It's be better (and more accurate) if you were to check out the full
thread in rec.arts.comics.misc.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
u...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <geoffw-0704...@ind-0000-26.iquest.net> <5idrd8$2...@cappuccino.eng.umd.edu>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
Jonathan Blum <jb...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
: going on since the *'60s*. Doesn't this predate the whole dark-n-gritty
: hero thing which you claimed before was to blame for the decline of both
: comic books and Who?
: In Who terms, that's like blaming Cartmel for declining ratings when the
: ratings had been sinking since the days of Graham Williams. (Or to make
: the analogy *more* accurate, it would be like if the ratings had been
: declining since the days of Derrick Sherwin!)
Like any analogy, I suppose I stretched it a bridge too far. :-) But you
know what I mean generally. You actually summed it up very well.
: >Ah. So turning a declining field around, opening up new possibilities,
: >and being possibly the single biggest influence on comics and fantasy
: >writers in general in the 1980s was a "youthful mistake"?
: I'd be interested to track down Moore's actual letter -- that "pretty
: much" allows for a bit of wiggle-room. :-)
Well, yes, but I remember clearly that he was thinking of the trend
spawned by Dark Knight/Watchmen as a mistake and blamed himself (partly)
for it.
Once in a while, I need to remind people that I actually enjoyed a number
of McCoy stories and NAs as well. I'm not as "anti-" as I may appear.
But I don't think of them as nearly popular, mainstream or even
well-crafted enough for the basis of a television show. I am concerned by
a DOCTOR WHO appealing increasingly to a narrow number of fans, instead of
reaching out to a newer audience.
I'm also NOT against dark & adult stuff -- as the author of TONGUE*LASH, a
comic book with lots of, er, exotic sex, that would be hypocritical.
(Said TONGUE*LASH which sold more copies than the average NAs which in
itself is a rather sad commentary on WHO.) But I don't think DOCTOR WHO
should go that way either.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
4...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <19970408172...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
ljpa...@aol.com wrote:
: Bully for them. What the New Adventures have *done*, not IMO, is
: proved that Doctor Who stories can be told in novels. We're agreed that
: some of the NAs wouldn't work on TV - well buhh!, they aren't meant
: to. These aren't novelisations of pretend stories, these are the stories in
: their own right. You use Batman as an example - fine: great Batman stories
: have been told in comic strip, prose, film and TV. Great Batman stories
: have been told for kids, for teens, for university grads. But to turn around
: and say 'Bob Kane's canon, nothing else counts' is to ignore that.
: The NAs have been *bought*, if you want to use that word. Something
: like three million have been 'bought'. A book audience is smaller than
: a TV audience - but the NAs are doing well for themselves in an equally
: competitive market. Better than the TV series, currently. If we're going
: to use the 'survival of the fittest' argument, then 'Lungbarrow' is
: soaring, whereas 'Fathers and Brothers' couldn't even get out the nest.
: You're trying to rebutt Jon's point that your version of what Doctor Who is
: is impoverished and limited in some way, and then rule out anything that
: isn't aimed at some mythical lowest common denominator ('mundane')
: audience that only exists in the minds of TV executives! You work with
: Moebius, you know that some of the most moving and wonderful stories
: can appear in comic strips, you know that the 'mundane' audience still
: see the genre as 'kids' stuff' Yet you seem to be lumping yourself
: in with the 'mundanes'. Some section of some imagined audience
: don't realise that a genre has potential - their loss. All your professional
: life, Jean-Marc, you've been trying to push Moebius' work to a wider
: audience. You know that there are a limited number of people who'll
: *ever* buy a translated reprint of a French cowboy strip, but you work
: to get the books to those who *will* appreciate it.
: The NAs *aren't* aimed at a family audience sitting down in front of
: the TV, and are a great deal stronger for it. 'Human Nature', 'The Also
: People', 'Set Piece', 'Blood Heat' - none of these are 'untelevisable', but the *limits*
: of the TV genre would diminish them, reduce the intense emotions, the
: epic scale, the psychology and complexity of the plots. If, when you
: read 'Revelation', you are imagining what the SFX would be like
: and where they'd get a child actor to play Chad Boyle, then I can see
: where you're going wrong. Just read a story that proves that Campbell
: *can* be applied to Who without looking like a poor man's Empire Strikes
: Back.
: Now, there are limits to the Doctor Who genre - there are some stories that
: can't be told, some things that can't be done. But the NAs have knocked
: a load of the old taboos off the list - you can now tell a Doctor Who story
: about homosexuality or religion, for example. The NAs have pushed back the frontiers
: of the genre, proved that there *is* more to Doctor Who than 'it's a
: kid's show with wobbly sets'. Some of the very best Who stories are now
: novels (my opinion, but not just mine). Every genre has it's limits - not least
: the stifling genre of 'serious literary fiction', it's what a writer does to strain
: against those limits that makes the difference.
That's very eloquent and very good, Lance.
Yes, I do define DOCTOR WHO by the standards of television, not by the
higher standards of literature.
No, I do not believe that DOCTOR WHO should push the envelope beyond doing
good mainstream sci-fi. A DW novel dealing seriously with homosexuality
is, to me, a very odd object. Were Moebius to do a DOCTOR WHO comic, I
would equally not expect him to do it like a Moebius comic (other than
graphically), e.g.: his SILVER SURFER.
Why do I believe in a more limited DOCTOR WHO than you do?
Basically, because there is a realm for serious stuff, and there's a realm
for lighter stuff. If I want to read serious stuff, I don't turn to
DOCTOR WHO (or JOHN CARTER OF MARS or DOC SAVAGE or SHERLOCK HOLMES). I
might even argue that it takes a sort of retarded adolescent to force
adult material, thoughts and concerns into the more narrow "box" of
juvenile fiction.
In otherwords, your plea is valid -- from your premises. I just don't
agree with your premises and, hopefully, I've explained why.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Kate Orman
In article <5ik4gb$3...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote:
[snip]
>Once in a while, I need to remind people that I actually enjoyed a number
>of McCoy stories and NAs as well. I'm not as "anti-" as I may appear.
>But I don't think of them as nearly popular, mainstream or even
>well-crafted enough for the basis of a television show. I am concerned by
>a DOCTOR WHO appealing increasingly to a narrow number of fans, instead of
>reaching out to a newer audience.
This is arguably so - the McCoy stories, fast, clever and complex,
improve with multiple viewings. That makes them ideal for the fan, less
so for the average viewer.
OTOH, they're not bogged down with endless continuity references, which
was a huge problem for the Colin Baker era and the "Trial" in particular.
But since the ratings were being jerked around by so many different
factors, it's hard to know what effect all of this had on the audience -
the figures suggest that the problem wasn't puzzled viewers switching
off, but viewers never switching on the in the first place.
[snip]
--
Kate Orman - "A broad too deep for the small screen"
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au | http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~korman
Keith Topping
>: Jesus, I've heard *everything* now!!!!
>: That *is* without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt *THE* funniest thing I have
>: *EVER* heard in *all* my life. Bar none.
>: 'Oliver Stone-like' ... ROTFL!!!!
>
>It's be better (and more accurate) if you were to check out the full
>thread in rec.arts.comics.misc.
--
Keith Topping
Kate Orman
In article <5ik52r$3...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>No, I do not believe that DOCTOR WHO should push the envelope beyond doing
>good mainstream sci-fi. A DW novel dealing seriously with homosexuality
>is, to me, a very odd object. [snip]
Curiously, this is the sort of serious subject that good mainstream SF
routinely deals with.
SF doesn't *have* to involve "serious" subjects, it can be a good
old-fashioned adventure romp or a comedy or whatever you like. The same is
true of other genres - detective fiction, Westerns, fantasy, even horror.
But it frequently *does* handle "serious issues", and can be imaginative
and confronting in ways that other genres can't - because of its ability
to explore the possibilities. (Fill in your own examples of such "serious"
SF from your own experience here, folks.)
>Why do I believe in a more limited DOCTOR WHO than you do?
(Switch the words "believe in" with the word "prefer", and the discussion
would stop suddenly. :-)
>Basically, because there is a realm for serious stuff, and there's a realm
>for lighter stuff. If I want to read serious stuff, I don't turn to
>DOCTOR WHO (or JOHN CARTER OF MARS or DOC SAVAGE or SHERLOCK HOLMES). I
>might even argue that it takes a sort of retarded adolescent to force
>adult material, thoughts and concerns into the more narrow "box" of
>juvenile fiction.
As one of those retarded adolescents, I'm lucky - for me, "Doctor Who" is
like a box of chocolates. :-)
>In otherwords, your plea is valid -- from your premises. I just don't
>agree with your premises and, hopefully, I've explained why.
The major problem with this very narrow definition of "real" Doctor Who
is that so little of the TV series fits into it. A grim and nasty
Hinchcliffe and "Nightmare of Eden" are both excluded - one's not "light"
enough, one's about drugs.
Now, if it was just a matter of personal preference, there'd be no
argument - what Jean-Marc *prefers* and what I prefer is entirely our own
business.
But insisting not only that "Doctor Who" fit a narrow definition which it
never has fitted anyway, and insulting those who don't agree - well,
that's another kettle of fish. :-)
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk
In article <5ik4gb$3...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote: [...]
> Once in a while, I need to remind people that I actually enjoyed a number
> of McCoy stories and NAs as well. I'm not as "anti-" as I may appear.
> But I don't think of them as nearly popular, mainstream or even
I don't see that mainstream is a necessity for a successful TV show, viz.
The Prisoner, Babylon 5, Blake's 7, etc., all of which were less
mainstream IMHO than McCoy Who. However, as McCoy TV Who was cancelled,
you are objectively right that it didn't have the necessary basis for a
television show. As any TV Who remains currently unlikely, we can only
speculate. Meanwhile, the Virgin NAs -- which carried on elements of TV
McCoy Who -- have been a commercial success, a new format having
different costs and being able to thrive on a reduced audience. As far as
literary Who goes, there is no commercial difficulty with this less
mainstream approach.
HealerG1
Jean-Marc Lofficier wrote to lance Parkin
>Why do I believe in a more limited DOCTOR WHO than you do?
>Basically, because there is a realm for serious stuff, and there's a
realm
>for lighter stuff. If I want to read serious stuff, I don't turn to
>DOCTOR WHO (or JOHN CARTER OF MARS or DOC SAVAGE or SHERLOCK HOLMES). I
>might even argue that it takes a sort of retarded adolescent to force
>adult material, thoughts and concerns into the more narrow "box" of
>juvenile fiction.
Didn't the Television version Doctor who have Both serious and light
aspects?
I believe it did. Stories that I think were had serious elements in them
were
'Armageddon factor', "The War games', 'colony in space', and 'black
orchid'.
Yes many Doctor who stories are light but some are also dark. Just like
the NA's.
Eric M Gorse
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
4...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <8605212...@dejanews.com>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk wrote:
: Well, firstly, JNT obviously thought they would as both came close to
: being TV scripts. Personally, I feel "Lungbarrow" is successful on
: working on a number of levels and, thus, could have been a good TV story,
: appealing to a variety of audiences.
I don't believe so myself.
: Secondly, as they were published as books, does it matter whether they
: would have worked on TV or not? Or are you saying that Who for you can
: only exist in a televisual medium?
Agreed to the first point. As to the second, I myself believe the TV
format provides the template, so the answer is yes.
: Anyway, we should differentiate discussion of a product's potential
: commercial success from how it feels and how good it is for us. Thus, to
: attempt to get away from the endless comic analogies, I see Wakeman's
: recent departure from Yes as bad for the band commerically, but
: potentially good for the band artistically (at least, for the kind of
: music I like).
A good analogy, but ultimately, you won't have Yes anymore.
: Can something with feels like "real Who" ever be serious, or is a certain
: shallowness necessary? For me, while I agree that "Lungbarrow" and some
: other NAs are somewhat deeper than the average TV Who (although there are
: plenty of examples of deeper TV Who and shallower Virgin Who), I do not
: see this as contradicting a fundamental Who-ness.
: For me, in some ways and I don't want to make a big issue out of this,
: Doctor Who as the NAs has grown up with me. I wanted the simpler and
: lighter approach of TV Who then; I want the deeper approach of the Virgin
: books or of a program like "Babylon 5" now. Yet, throughout, it still
: feels like the same Who, the same Doctor, the same TARDIS, the same
: planets.
You have summed up extremely well why I feel this has been an impediment
at attracting a new audience.
: Perhaps then, I wouldn't have been so interested in a new series which had
: merely repeated the style of old TV Who (not that I feel the telefilm was
: heading in that direction much).
That too is true.
: Oh go on, come right out and say it... do you find "Lungbarrow" either
: boring or pretentious?
I did say I thought it was a bit precious, or gothic, for my taste, but
the that subject matter justified it. Boring, no.
: Isn't it good, then, that there's lighter and darker Who for us all to
: enjoy. ;)
No doubt about it.
: I agree completely with your last paragraph (except I prefer the heavier
: stuff some of the time), but you've also said that the DW format is not
: large enough to encompass "Lungbarrow" as well. So, I take it your
: problem with "Lungbarrow" more than this?
I didn't mean the format couldn't encompass it; I just mean *I* didn't
want to take it in.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Christopher Norman
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote:
(concerning the suitability of "adult" writing in DW)
> I have basically two problems with this:
>
> 1) The basic unsuitability of the original format. Why not do it in
> WINNIE THE POOH while you're at it? Or MICKEY MOUSE?
My response would be that Doctor Who is nowhere near as "juvenile"
(used as a defining term, not as a pejorative) as either of those
two, but see below.
> 2) The motivation that compels you as a writer, a creator of life,
> feelings, emotions, thoughts, to express these thoughts in a sandbox that
> is not your own, thus debasing your message? Is it the technical
> challenge? (I was happy to write a fairly scary DUCK TALES because I
> grew up reading UNCLE SCROOGE, but is it satisfying as a longer-term
> creative outlet? Not to me.) The inability to break free from the cozy
> made-up preexisting environment? (Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote a very good
> essay about this "problem" her writers have in one of her shared world
> DARKOVER anthology.)
How about the challenge of adding a bit of yourself to something you
love, and making it *good*? If a writer thinks the best way he or she
can contribute to the DW universe is to write Lungbarrow or The
Left-Handed Hummingbird or Damaged Goods, would you have that writer
be unfaithful to his/herself, and write something that s/he considers
less than great?
> The people I know who wrote DW as a job, Terrance Dicks and the likes,
> look at it for what I think it is: a good, clever sci-fi franchise
> basically aimed at adolescents. It would never occur to them to look at
> it as this outlet for a "serious" book.
This is a valid POV, of course, but the perception on the part of
many fans and writers seems to be that DW has outgrown its
adolescent roots. Are they wrong?
> I'm glad you do find it satisfying for your soul, and I don't mean to be
> insulting, but I don't get it.
Seems pretty simple to me: it's a case of differing perceptions.
Some of us, apparently including Kate (although I don't presume
to speak for her or anyone else), don't perceive Doctor Who as
being on the same maturity level as Winnie-the-Pooh, Mickey Mouse,
or even Superman. I never have. Even when I was a kid it was
self-evident (to me) that Doctor Who was more of an adult show,
while Star Trek (for example) was for kids...i.e., I could easily
follow Star Trek, and it never taxed my imagination or my brain,
while Doctor Who always seemed more fantastic and *much* more complex.
In absolute terms, I agree that Doctor Who, as it was in the 70s,
was not quite as weighty as, say, The Prisoner, but nor was it
purely a kiddie pulp vehicle like, say, Lost In Space. The difference
is, I see it as veering closer to The Prisoner; you see it as
veering closer to (or, if I read you right, on exactly the same level
as) Lost In Space. It seems that some of the NA writers share this
perception, thus they see Doctor Who as an appropriate vehicle for
"real" novels (or, in the 80s, "real" scripts). I don't see why
this is an unreasonable perception for some of us to hold.
Christopher Norman
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
p2.farm.idt.net> <8605225...@dejanews.com>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
he...@public-health.ucl.ac.uk wrote:
: Their relevance is as examples that a later version of a series can fail
: to satisfy one's conception of what is "real" for that series. I
: understand that point and feel the same myself about some other series. I
: can understand that one might feel that about "Lungbarrow". I am eager to
: discuss *how* "Lungbarrow" is unbelievable for you; I fail to see the
: relevance of Moore's Rann or Benford's Trantor to that question. Or am I
: missing something?
The analogy is that the original Rann (from ADAM STRANGE) or Trantor (from
Isaac Asimov's FOUNDATION) were, like Gallifrey, basically patterned after
simple templates. The more subsequent authors tried to update them with
their own ideas, the less believable (IMHO) they became. The Time Lords
of Gallifrey started sort of like Marvel Comics' Watchers, and thanks to
Bob Holmes, became (from the inside) more like an Oxbridge College or the
Houses of Parliament. So far, so good. I personally find all the stuff
added later, the Loom and everything detailed in TIME'S CRUCIBLE and
LUNGBARROW rather unecessary, stupid and inappropriate. I don't dispute
your right to like it. I'm just telling you that I don't.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Jonathan Blum
In article <5ik52r$3...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,[snip]
>Why do I believe in a more limited DOCTOR WHO than you do?
>Basically, because there is a realm for serious stuff, and there's a realm
>for lighter stuff. If I want to read serious stuff, I don't turn to
>DOCTOR WHO (or JOHN CARTER OF MARS or DOC SAVAGE or SHERLOCK HOLMES).
And I find that this kind of pigeonholing, of "serious" stuff versus
"lighter" stuff, impoverishes both side of the divide because it reduces
the amount of cross-pollenation possible between the two camps. (Wow,
count the metaphors mixed in *that* sentence!)
It doesn't take much of a stretch to imagine kids who don't want to go see
"Hamlet" cause it's been labeled as Serious Stuff, when they'd rather see
something with sex, violence, and dirty jokes. The fact that the content
they want is in the play too never crosses their minds, because it's been
stigmatized in their eyes. Who knows, if they appreciated the play on one
level, they might eventually have their eyes opened and learn to
appreciate it on other levels...
And I'd say "Doctor Who", especially in its New Adventures form, is an
appropriate mirror image to this.
>I
>might even argue that it takes a sort of retarded adolescent to force
>adult material, thoughts and concerns into the more narrow "box" of
>juvenile fiction.
Well, you might, but that would be rude. Especially since the essential
argument which has been cited for a "grown-up" Doctor Who is that there's
no "box" around the basic concept at all.
A mysterious man in a time machine, with the freedom to go anywhere and
anywhen... That's not a million miles from a "serious" work of SF such as
Steven Baxter's "The Time Ships" -- and with good reason too.
Fundamentally, the rest is execution.
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
u...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <geoffw-0704...@ind-0000-26.iquest.net> <5idrd8$2...@cappuccino.eng.umd.edu> <geoffw-0804...@ind-0007-1.iquest.net>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
Geoff Weasel <geo...@iquest.net> wrote:
: But as Jean-Marc has argued elsewhere, the cult cannot sustain a show,
: or an entire industry. Evidently, some of the mainstream is still out there,
: buying comics as a mild pasttime instead of a full-blown hobby.
You know, I have my doubts about that... When I heard Fantastic Four was
down (pre Jim Lee) to 30,000...
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
6...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <5ik9e7$9...@espresso.eng.umd.edu>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
Jonathan Blum <jb...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
: Totally aside from the question of the quality of the stories, what on
: Earth did JNT change about the concept? You still have the Doctor and
: companions in the TARDIS, going wherever they want and fighting evil.
Yes, that's true, but I think it increasingly lost its eccentric,
appealing quality. From Colin Baker onward, the concept was being
tinkered with, from TOTL to the "Other" business.
: Right up through the last couple of seasons, I did see an interesting,
: character-driven, watchable sci-fi show, where an eccentric, charming hero
: triumphed over evil and saved the world every three or four weeks. If
: anything, it was *more* character-driven than before, since the
: companion's role was finally being treated as more than a cipher.
While superficially I can't find anything wrong with your statement, I
nevertheless feel, also based on direct or Segal-related efforts trying to
"sell" Doctor Who that you can show many (not all) Tom Baker episodes and,
if people are willing to look past the video & cheesy effects, they'll
"get" it, while you can't do that with any of the Colin Baker & McCoy
episodes.
You're arguing that it is not so, Jon, but it is so. I've seen it. The
Colin Bakers and McCoys don't sell the show, on the contrary. Now what
I'm trying to understand (as any producer would) is *why*.
Whatever the execution might have been, I do know that what sold Phil, and
Trevor Walton (Fox) was to do a Tom Bakerish-for-the-90s type of show. No
one thought that the last seasons were either "good" (admittedly a
subjective argument) or "good television" (far less subjective).
I appreciate that we do have differences in taste, Jon, and I respect
that. But I assure you that, beyond my own opinions (remember i liked
FENRIC and DRAGONFIRE etc.), I know for a fact that the Colin Baker and
Sylvester McCoy seasons were perceived as failures.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
6...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <5ikhbv$l...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
Kate Orman <kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> wrote:
: OTOH, they're not bogged down with endless continuity references, which
: was a huge problem for the Colin Baker era and the "Trial" in particular.
: But since the ratings were being jerked around by so many different
: factors, it's hard to know what effect all of this had on the audience -
: the figures suggest that the problem wasn't puzzled viewers switching
: off, but viewers never switching on the in the first place.
Agreed. In all fairness, there's no scientific way of resolving that one.
As I said in a post to Jon earlier, I do know for a fact, however, how
they were perceived (rightly or wrongly) by the television executives.
(Very badly.)
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
6...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <5ik8uj$9...@espresso.eng.umd.edu>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
Jonathan Blum <jb...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
: Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote:
: >ObWho: the analogy is challenging. Should we return to a more "basic"
: >WHO? -- Do we have anyone who can do it?
: Ideally, we shouldn't "return" to anything -- we should find a new balance
: for Doctor Who which is most effective for its '90s audience.
A semantic quibble.
: As for the "basics"... It's my opinion that it's quite possible to do
: both. Tell a story which is comprehensible and appealing to non-fans,
: while also having plenty of depth hidden there for the people who prefer
: to look for that sort of thing. When "Vampire Science" comes out, we'll
: see whether we got anywhere close to that balance...
: There should continue to be room for all kinds of Who. A given season of
: a hypothetical TV revival would have plenty of space in it for
: straightforward thrillers, tongue-in-cheek stories, and the occasional
: Plattian oddball. The last thing the show should ever be is
: straitjacketed to one style of story...
Yes, you know what? I completely agree with all of the above!
I know it is fashionable to put down non-WHO shows, but I think somewhere
at the interesection of X-FILES, DS9, BABYLON 5, THE PRETENDER and EARLY
EDITION, there's some good 8th Doctor stories.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
6...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <SltjvHAH...@tooon.demon.co.uk>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution: world
Keith Topping <ke...@tooon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: >It's be better (and more accurate) if you were to check out the full
: >thread in rec.arts.comics.misc.
: Why the hell is everybody so *touchy* today?
After some of the recent complaints here, I'm trying to avoid posting too
many non-WHO stuff, that's all.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
6...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <5ikj0u$q...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
Kate Orman <kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> wrote:
: >No, I do not believe that DOCTOR WHO should push the envelope beyond doing
: >good mainstream sci-fi. A DW novel dealing seriously with homosexuality
: >is, to me, a very odd object. [snip]
: Curiously, this is the sort of serious subject that good mainstream SF
: routinely deals with.
DOCTOR WHO is not what I'd call mainstream SF. It's more like super hero
fiction than literary SF, closer to say, ADAM STRANE or SUPERMAN than
Robert Silverberg or Philip K. Dick.
: The major problem with this very narrow definition of "real" Doctor Who
: is that so little of the TV series fits into it. A grim and nasty
: Hinchcliffe and "Nightmare of Eden" are both excluded - one's not "light"
: enough, one's about drugs.
Not at all. Both are fairly juvenile. Spider-Man dealt with drugs in
1972 better than DOCTOR WHO did in 1979.
: Now, if it was just a matter of personal preference, there'd be no
: argument - what Jean-Marc *prefers* and what I prefer is entirely our own
: business.
: But insisting not only that "Doctor Who" fit a narrow definition which it
: never has fitted anyway, and insulting those who don't agree - well,
: that's another kettle of fish. :-)
I'm over 40 and have written a lot of fiction, some serious, some not. I
don't see why asking why you would want to cram a serious, meaningful
story, one that carries a lot of personal, social or religious
significance, into something like DOCTOR WHO is an "insult."
I have basically two problems with this:
1) The basic unsuitability of the original format. Why not do it in
WINNIE THE POOH while you're at it? Or MICKEY MOUSE?
2) The motivation that compels you as a writer, a creator of life,
feelings, emotions, thoughts, to express these thoughts in a sandbox that
is not your own, thus debasing your message? Is it the technical
challenge? (I was happy to write a fairly scary DUCK TALES because I
grew up reading UNCLE SCROOGE, but is it satisfying as a longer-term
creative outlet? Not to me.) The inability to break free from the cozy
made-up preexisting environment? (Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote a very good
essay about this "problem" her writers have in one of her shared world
DARKOVER anthology.)
The people I know who wrote DW as a job, Terrance Dicks and the likes,
look at it for what I think it is: a good, clever sci-fi franchise
basically aimed at adolescents. It would never occur to them to look at
it as this outlet for a "serious" book.
I'm glad you do find it satisfying for your soul, and I don't mean to be
insulting, but I don't get it.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
Kate Orman
In article <5imor3$k...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net>,
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>Kate Orman <kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>: >No, I do not believe that DOCTOR WHO should push the envelope beyond doing
>: >good mainstream sci-fi. A DW novel dealing seriously with homosexuality
>: >is, to me, a very odd object. [snip]
>
>: Curiously, this is the sort of serious subject that good mainstream SF
>: routinely deals with.
>
>DOCTOR WHO is not what I'd call mainstream SF. It's more like super hero
>fiction than literary SF, closer to say, ADAM STRANE or SUPERMAN than
>Robert Silverberg or Philip K. Dick.
I'm confused. First you say, "I do not believe that DOCTOR WHO should
push the envelope beyond doing good mainstream sci-fi". Then you say,
"DOCTOR WHO is not what I'd call mainstream SF".
Are you trying to draw a distinction between literary and media SF?
Because "serious" issues and "serious" style feature in TV SF shows such
as ST: DS9 and Bab 5 on a regular basis. (And both series appeal to kids
as well as adults.)
Context restored:
>>Basically, because there is a realm for serious stuff, and there's a realm
>>for lighter stuff. If I want to read serious stuff, I don't turn to
>>DOCTOR WHO (or JOHN CARTER OF MARS or DOC SAVAGE or SHERLOCK HOLMES). I
>>might even argue that it takes a sort of retarded adolescent to force
>>adult material, thoughts and concerns into the more narrow "box" of
>>juvenile fiction.
>: The major problem with this very narrow definition of "real" Doctor Who
>: is that so little of the TV series fits into it. A grim and nasty
>: Hinchcliffe and "Nightmare of Eden" are both excluded - one's not "light"
>: enough, one's about drugs.
>Not at all. Both are fairly juvenile. Spider-Man dealt with drugs in
>1972 better than DOCTOR WHO did in 1979.
Obviously the result of "retarded adolescents" forcing "adult thoughts
and concerns" into "juvenile fiction". :-)
So both the grimmer Hinchcliffes and an "issue" story like "Nightmare"
are "real" Doctor Who. So the problem isn't "serious stuff" at all.
So what is the problem?
>: Now, if it was just a matter of personal preference, there'd be no
>: argument - what Jean-Marc *prefers* and what I prefer is entirely our own
>: business.
>
>: But insisting not only that "Doctor Who" fit a narrow definition which it
>: never has fitted anyway, and insulting those who don't agree - well,
>: that's another kettle of fish. :-)
>
>I'm over 40 and have written a lot of fiction, some serious, some not. I
>don't see why asking why you would want to cram a serious, meaningful
>story, one that carries a lot of personal, social or religious
>significance, into something like DOCTOR WHO is an "insult."
It isn't. This is:
>>I might even argue that it takes a sort of retarded adolescent to force
>>adult material, thoughts and concerns into the more narrow "box" of
>>juvenile fiction.
This "retarded adolescent" has gotten a very positive response from her
readers by doing just that, and plans to keep on doing so. :-)
There's nothing wrong with creating "Doctor Who" that's pure escapism or
comedy. Just as there's nothing wrong with creating "Doctor Who" that's
more serious. The format, as we saw in 26 years of TV, is extremely
flexible - and the novels are even *more* flexible, freed from the
constraints of TV production.
>I have basically two problems with this:
>
>1) The basic unsuitability of the original format. Why not do it in
>WINNIE THE POOH while you're at it? Or MICKEY MOUSE?
When I was reading "Mickey Mouse" as a kid, it was full of torture, crime,
guns, and murders. (I remember in particular one terrifying panel
involving a mock execution of Mickey by hanging.)
The "original format" of Doctor Who routinely involved "serious issues",
difficult concepts, and grim material. It was often escapist and fun; it
could also be far more serious. It's flexible.
>2) The motivation that compels you as a writer, a creator of life,
>feelings, emotions, thoughts, to express these thoughts in a sandbox that
>is not your own, thus debasing your message? Is it the technical
>challenge? (I was happy to write a fairly scary DUCK TALES because I
>grew up reading UNCLE SCROOGE, but is it satisfying as a longer-term
>creative outlet? Not to me.) The inability to break free from the cozy
>made-up preexisting environment? (Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote a very good
>essay about this "problem" her writers have in one of her shared world
>DARKOVER anthology.)
"Doctor Who" isn't a sandbox. It's not a small, closed-off area of
worthless stuff. :-)
I hope I don't include "messages" in my novels. I *do* tackle serious
issues, and my writing often borders on horror. Like the TV series did,
and like much of TV and literary SF does. No "message" or serious issue
would be "debased" by being part of "Doctor Who".
I adore the Bard, because he's the exception to every snobbish rule of
writing. He wasn't afraid to talk about destiny, sin, responsibility, and
madness in plays which were full of sword fights and dirty jokes, meant to
entertain the masses. Is Shakespeare's "message" in "Hamlet" "debased"
because of its context? How about the "messages" in pop songs, and other
popular art forms like the opera and the cinema?
>The people I know who wrote DW as a job, Terrance Dicks and the likes,
>look at it for what I think it is: a good, clever sci-fi franchise
>basically aimed at adolescents. It would never occur to them to look at
>it as this outlet for a "serious" book.
Compare and contrast Ben Aaronovitch, Marc Platt, Rona Munro, Chris
Bailey, and the other writers who didn't feel limited to writing pure
escapism.
Nothing wrong with a good Uncle Terrance romp. Nothing wrong with "Genesis
of the Daleks", either, with its adult concepts and presentation.
>I'm glad you do find it satisfying for your soul, and I don't mean to be
>insulting, but I don't get it.
This reminds me so much of my father, who used to protest my
submissions to Virgin. According to him, I ought to be writing
*real* literature. Or Mills and Boon. :-) I had to remind him of a few
things, like "Brave New World" and "1984". :-)
(Once I got commissioned, of course, Dad was terribly proud and
supportive.)
Once again, if it's just that you *prefer* light, escapist "Doctor Who",
I've got no quibble with that.
It's just that your definition of "real" "Doctor Who" is so narrow and
unrealistic - and snobbish, really, as though popular art forms aren't up
to the task of carrying "serious" ideas. They always have been; they
always will be; and "Doctor Who" is no exception.
(I'm just terribly glad that the folks producing "MASH" back in the
seventies didn't insist that it could *only* be a comedy - we would have
missed out on so much brilliant television.)
Keith Topping
>: >thread in rec.arts.comics.misc.
>: Why the hell is everybody so *touchy* today?
>
>After some of the recent complaints here, I'm trying to avoid posting too
>many non-WHO stuff, that's all.
Yeh, fair point. Sorry, this has just added to it...
--
Keith Topping
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier
6...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <19970411192...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
HealerG1 <heal...@aol.com> wrote:
: Didn't the Television version Doctor who have Both serious and light
: aspects?
: I believe it did. Stories that I think were had serious elements in them
: were
: 'Armageddon factor', "The War games', 'colony in space', and 'black
: orchid'.
: Yes many Doctor who stories are light but some are also dark. Just like
: the NA's.
What I meant was more a question of execution than tone. Comic books are
"dark" but they are not necessarily complex.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@idt.net
bart t lammey
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier (rjm...@IDT.NET) wrote:
: 6...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net> <5ik8uj$9...@espresso.eng.umd.edu>
: Organization: IDT Internet Services
: Distribution:
: Jonathan Blum <jb...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
: : Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote:
: : >ObWho: the analogy is challenging. Should we return to a more "basic"
: : >WHO? -- Do we have anyone who can do it?
:
: : Ideally, we shouldn't "return" to anything -- we should find a new balance
: : for Doctor Who which is most effective for its '90s audience.
:
: A semantic quibble.
:
: at the interesection of X-FILES, DS9, BABYLON 5, THE PRETENDER and EARLY
: EDITION, there's some good 8th Doctor stories.
"Bingo, baby, you've got my ear. Shoot it to me in 25 or less and you've
got yourself a series..."
Bart "The Player" Lammey
:
:
: --
: Jean-Marc Lofficier
: rjm...@idt.net
ljpa...@aol.com
>> 2) The motivation that compels you as a writer, a creator of life,
>> feelings, emotions, thoughts, to express these thoughts in a sandbox that
>> is not your own, thus debasing your message? Is it the technical
>> challenge? (I was happy to write a fairly scary DUCK TALES because I
>> grew up reading UNCLE SCROOGE, but is it satisfying as a longer-term
>> creative outlet? Not to me.) The inability to break free from the cozy
>> made-up preexisting environment? (Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote a very good
>> essay about this "problem" her writers have in one of her shared world
>> DARKOVER anthology.)
You're arguing two separate things here:
1) Doctor Who is a limited palette.
and
2) 'Shared worlds' aren't "your own creation".
I imagine that you're going to get some hysterical reactions to point (1).
'Doctor Who' has no limits, how dare you, what would you know. I agree
with you, Jean-Marc.
I agree that genres limit the type of story you can tell, and that some
forms are going to be more suitable to tell the stories you want to tell than
others. This is self-evident - no-one would write a Limerick about
the Hiroshima bomb, or a Disney film about Stalin. I had this problem with
'Just War' - there are whole aspects of the Second World War that just
don't fit into the Doctor Who universe: at the time I was writing the book
I was on radw, and some people wanted me to address the Holocaust. It
can't be done in a Doctor Who story. You can't have a little man playing the
spoons as the Nazis exterminate millions of Jews. The format of the show
would have to have the Doctor ending the Holocaust, or stopping it before
it's even started. Readers would be insulted, the subject matter wouldn't be
treated with the respect it deserves. There are limits.
That said, the problem is the *historical reality* of the Holocaust. Science Fiction
has produced some wonderful, moving *allegories* for the Holocaust - in
fact it's almost an ideal genre for it. Some of the best fictional examinations
of the Holocaust have happened in 'slipstream SF' - Vonnegut's stuff,
even 'Time's Arrow' offered a new perspective. In contrast 'serious' fiction
has often been cliched and turgid on the subject - the discourse they
use can only lead to affirming some pious sentiment rather than
grabbing you by the balls and shouting 'Look!', which some of the best
SF does.
*Every* genre has its limits, and that includes 'literary fiction', 'the serious
novel' or the 'epic poem'. It's what an artist does within those limits that
makes the difference. Alan Moore has shown that the comic strip can tell
more than just stories about muscley blokes punching each other, the
Beatles said profound things in two minute pop songs. Now, most people
within those 'pop' genres still produce rubbish, they only explore a tiny
fraction of the potential of the genre they work in, but that's their fault,
not the genre's.
The challenge for an artist is to pick a suitable form and to stretch the
boundaries of that form to fit the story he wants to tell. If you wanted to
write about the Nazis, you wouldn't do it in 'Duck Tales', if you wanted
to write about cartoon ducks you wouldn't feel a compulsion to include
Nazis. The New Adventures have, as I said before, fulfilled the promise
to go 'broader and deeper' than the TV series did. they've proved that
'Doctor Who' isn't quite as limited as we thought before. As a Doctor Who
fan, I don't really see how you can complain about that. Besides the NAs
and MAs are a varied feast - if you just want simple stories about naughty
robots and lizard people wanting to take over the world then there
are plenty of those, too.
Likewise, if I spent my entire creative life doing nothing but churn out
Who novels, then yes, I might well get bored and I might not get the
chance to 'say' everything I wanted to say. But hardly any of the
NA authors have *just* done Doctor Who books, and those that
have are planning to move on. I've got a 'pure SF' book planned,
I've got a 'serious novel' in me further down the line, but I hope that
I carry on writing Doctor Who stories, too - there's plenty that *can*
be said in the genre, and it's a rich and rewarding sandpit to play
in.
and
2) Shared worlds aren't as creative.
Ah, this is the crux of the matter. You say that writers in shared worlds
have the inability to 'break away from a cosy pre-existing world'. I agree -
for the most part. What the NAs have done, triumphantly, is to make the
'spin off franchise' novels *less* cosy, *more* challenging than the source
material. We've done that *because* we all love Doctor Who, and don't
just see it as a 'franchise'. The BBC gave us two limitations: don't
regenerate the Doctor, don't say 'fuck'. The format of the show is limited,
to a certain extent, but even there we managed to tell some very different
stories. Things don't have to be 'reset' at the end of the books - characters
stay dead, they remember what happened to them in the previous books.
If the NAs were a 'cosy franchise' then you'd have no problems accepting
the 'disturbing' Lungbarrow, or it wouldn't have been published in the
first place. We wrote our own rules, and they are better rules than the
ones there were before. The Doctor Who universe is a bigger and
better place for the 100 stories we told.
Compare the NAs to the American franchises - the Trek, Star Wars,
Quantum Leap ranges. They are content to paddle around without
disturbing a thing, all the toys are put neatly back in place by the end.
Almost without exception they are *dull*. Almost without exception no-one
on those newsgroups discusses the books because there's nothing to
say about them.
Besides, a 'shared world' is a useful tool for a writer - if the reader already
knows a couple of the characters, or something about the setting, then
a writer doesn't have to waste the first five chapters explaing what the hell
is going on. It also means that new writers have a chance to have their
books bought - no-one would have bought 'Just War' if it hadn't been
Doctor Who, but the people who bought it on the strength of the Doctor Who logo seemed to like it.
The absolute heart of the matter here is that the NAs, through authors
like Paul, Kate, Dave Stone, Marc Platt, Russell Davies, Matt Jones,
Cartmel and Aaronovitch have *proved* that there is a great deal more to
the genre than your limited view of it. That's not a criticism of you -
if you choose only to think of Doctor Who as a kiddy show, you're
welcome to that view. Some 'big name' fans can only see Who as
'camp' or 'gun', and won't accept the other stories. Some discount anything
made after 'The Tenth Planet' or before 'Spearhead'. Some 'count' the
DWM strip, some don't count the books. I can well see how 33% of DWM's
readers don't even pick up the NAs any more because they don't fit in
with their view of Doctor Who (I'm surprised it's as low as that - then
again, I doubt that two thirds of the NA readership read DWM). The whole
Loom business shows that the NAs can *add* to the myth.
The difference between yourself and, say, Kate is that you say 'it can't
be done' and Kate asks 'how can it be done'. It's more 'cosy' to draw a
line after 'Survival' and say 'Doctor Who has ended' than to sit down
and try to create a new, forward looking Doctor Who.
Lance
James Milton
On 12 Apr 1997 14:03:33 +1000, kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate
Orman) wrote:
[A hell of a lot snipped]
For myself, it's when Who mixed escapism and serious issues that I
loved it most. As a minor example (just one that comes to mind), The
Pirate Planet. It's a silly story in many respects (one of my
favorites, but undeniably silly). Lots of jokes. The Captain played
OTT for laughs. But it also contains the Doctor's "What's it for,"
rant: a tremendously powerful question in its context, and one which
could be addressed to a number of human activities. We also see the
Captain's behavior in a new light: it's the only way he can survive,
and as he dies you feel for his plight. Without these swirls of
darker colour, The Pirate Planet would be pure comic book,
unreservedly silly, and ultimately forgettable.
Mark Twain, in a short story called "The Mysterious Stranger", has
Satan tell a young man that laughter is the most powerful weapon in
the human arsenal, and how glad his is that humankind has never woken
up to this truth. Who am I do disagree with Mark Twain (or Satan)?
Serious issues slot into Doctor Who beautifully for precisely that
reason. When the Doctor laughs at megalomania, we are shown just how
empty a goal world domination is. When he makes fun of someone who is
holding him at gun/sword point, we're allowed to glimpse a broader
context in which weapons don't give an ineffectual person power, they
just lend it, and the sad truth is they'll lend it to anyone. Etc.
(Of course, this doesn't address all of the points raised in this
thread. It's just something vaguely relevant that I wanted to say.)
James Milton
milt...@bigpond.com
Jonathan Blum
In article <5ik4gb$3...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,
>: much" allows for a bit of wiggle-room. :-)
>Well, yes, but I remember clearly that he was thinking of the trend
>spawned by Dark Knight/Watchmen as a mistake and blamed himself (partly)
>for it.
Ah, so now it sounds more like he's regretting all the bad imitations of
his work, rather than devaluing his own work itself... That sounds better
to me.
>Once in a while, I need to remind people that I actually enjoyed a number
>of McCoy stories and NAs as well. I'm not as "anti-" as I may appear.
>But I don't think of them as nearly popular, mainstream or even
>well-crafted enough for the basis of a television show. I am concerned by
>a DOCTOR WHO appealing increasingly to a narrow number of fans, instead of
>reaching out to a newer audience.
I can see where this would be a problem. But at the same time, I look at
books like "Human Nature" or "Sky Pirates!" or "Just War" or "Sleepy" or
"The Room With No Doors" or "The Dying Days" -- the substantial portion of
the books which *don't* depend on continuity (with either the series or
the books) or the particular insights which only a fan would have. The
NA's have been doing the proverbial crackling good reads -- I think
they're books which any SF writer would be proud of. If they appeal only
to a narrow number of fans, I don't think it's necessarily a flaw in the
stories themselves... it's more likely because people outside the fan
audience don't pick the books up to begin with.
And for that, I can only blame the prejudices of lit-snobs who see the
Doctor Who label, figure it's kiddie trash, and never bother to see if
it would appeal.
>I'm also NOT against dark & adult stuff -- as the author of TONGUE*LASH, a
>comic book with lots of, er, exotic sex, that would be hypocritical.
>(Said TONGUE*LASH which sold more copies than the average NAs which in
>itself is a rather sad commentary on WHO.)
Oh, I dunno, I'd say a comic book featuring exotic sex can ride much more
of a pre-existing marketing wave -- it's a lot easier for someone to find
new exotic sex fantasies in our society than it is to find new TV episodes
of Doctor Who. :-)
Michael Lee
Jonathan Blum <jb...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote in article
<5ik8uj$9...@espresso.eng.umd.edu>...
> In article <5ik1g9$3...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,
> Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote:
> >ObWho: the analogy is challenging. Should we return to a more "basic"
> >WHO? -- Do we have anyone who can do it?
>
> Ideally, we shouldn't "return" to anything -- we should find a new
balance
> for Doctor Who which is most effective for its '90s audience.
I agree -- and I think there's an even more vital point about a "return" --
return to what? Should a number of the stories be historicals like "Marco
Polo" or "The Aztecs"? Or perhaps we should go for lots of new monsters;
or perhaps fight an invasion off every week. Perhaps the show should be a
regular self-parody of itself, with the Doctor winking to the audience when
the budget fails to deliver, or tell a bunch of classic stories with the
serial numbers filed off half the time. Should the show return to an era
of mystery about the central character?
I think it's a given that *any* new Doctor Who will have it's share of
detractors -- with the recent crucifiction of Phil Segal I've seen going
around, and of course both John Nathan-Turner and Graham Williams were well
loved during (and shortly after) their tenure, I can't imagine that any
sane individual (or sane organization) would want to even bother doing
Doctor Who, because you're going to get a bunch of sad wankers complaining
because this or that isn't "accurate" to the program, because it either
tries too do much -- or too little -- to be "commercially viable".
Hopefully, I can enjoy the majority of any new Doctor Who, in book or in
print -- it may not be the way *I* would have done it, but at least there's
something there. Hopefully they'll pull the best from the old -- and after
the literally hundreds of Doctor Who stories, we have tons of classics,
from episode one of "Unearthly Child" on to any number of the New and
Missing Adventures. Obviously, a TV series will be more uniform in tone
than the book series has been (which is a virtue of the book series).
I don't think we can adequately describe what the basics are -- what's
important is that you tell fun, exciting, different stories, appealing to
an audience that watches the X-Files, Babylon 5, Xena, and Star Trek. It
MUST appeal to an audience that doesn't know what the series is about, both
with an audience across most of the English-speaking world. Doctor Who may
be "A eccentric who travels in time in a Police Box", but what else? Are
there any other words? British? I'm not sure -- I think we could handle
an American Doctor, if well cast. Male? Likewise. Alien? Not if you are
Peter Cushing.
--
Michael Lee
http://www.execpc.com/~michaell
Jonathan Blum
In article <334F25...@bc.sympatico.ca>,
Christopher Norman <cano...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>Some of us, apparently including Kate (although I don't presume
>to speak for her or anyone else), don't perceive Doctor Who as
>being on the same maturity level as Winnie-the-Pooh, Mickey Mouse,
>or even Superman. I never have. Even when I was a kid it was
>self-evident (to me) that Doctor Who was more of an adult show,
>while Star Trek (for example) was for kids...i.e., I could easily
>follow Star Trek, and it never taxed my imagination or my brain,
>while Doctor Who always seemed more fantastic and *much* more complex.
This is all so wonderfully, utterly true. In fact, so was all the stuff I
snipped -- I think this post, as well as Lance's and Kate's, should end up
framed somewhere. :-) This thread really seems to be bringing out the
best in the defenders of intelligent Who...
I think one of the reasons Doctor Who has always seemed more "grown-up" is
simply because there's nothing you can compare it to -- at least not
accurately. Every few stories, it really does look like a completely
different show. It bursts out of pigeonholes, spills over the edges of
little boxes, and confounds the attempts of people to come up with simple
categorizations. Did you ever think how *astounding* it is that "The
Crusaders", "The Claws of Axos", and "Warriors' Gate" are all part of the
same series? I can't figure out how *anyone* could fit any two of those
stories into the same stylistic category.
Whereas Star Trek and the like are fundamentally the same week in week
out, year in year out. *That's* limited, that's kids' stuff.
>In absolute terms, I agree that Doctor Who, as it was in the 70s,
>was not quite as weighty as, say, The Prisoner,
While I'm at it, let me put the cat among the pigeons and suggest that in
a way, "The Prisoner" (with its straightforward Good Individual vs. Evil
Society generalizations) is more comic-book than some of the things Doctor
Who has come up with... :-)
Jonathan Blum
In article <5imor3$k...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net>,
Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> wrote:
[snip -- Kate and Lance have already responded to this, and better than I
ever could]
>I'm over 40 and have written a lot of fiction, some serious, some not. I
>don't see why asking why you would want to cram a serious, meaningful
>story, one that carries a lot of personal, social or religious
>significance, into something like DOCTOR WHO is an "insult."
No, but making cracks about "retarded adolescence" is. I'm really
surprised you didn't see that when you used the phrase.
>I have basically two problems with this:
>
>1) The basic unsuitability of the original format. Why not do it in
>WINNIE THE POOH while you're at it? Or MICKEY MOUSE?
Because Doctor Who is not, never was, and aside from some amazingly
off-the-wall fanfic crossovers probably never will be, Winnie the Pooh.
(Though if you want to see a similar bit of fascinating experimentation --
ever read "The Tao of Pooh"? :-)
>2) The motivation that compels you as a writer, a creator of life,
>feelings, emotions, thoughts, to express these thoughts in a sandbox that
>is not your own, thus debasing your message? Is it the technical
>challenge? (I was happy to write a fairly scary DUCK TALES because I
>grew up reading UNCLE SCROOGE, but is it satisfying as a longer-term
>creative outlet? Not to me.) The inability to break free from the cozy
>made-up preexisting environment? (Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote a very good
>essay about this "problem" her writers have in one of her shared world
>DARKOVER anthology.)
>The people I know who wrote DW as a job, Terrance Dicks and the likes,
>look at it for what I think it is: a good, clever sci-fi franchise
>basically aimed at adolescents. It would never occur to them to look at
>it as this outlet for a "serious" book.
And quite a few of the people you know who write Doctor Who as a job *now*
-- Paul Cornell, Kate, Lance, Ben Aaronovitch, even me -- look at it for
what *they* think it is. Yes, they're not bound by what Terrance Dicks'
Doctor Who was like, any more than Terrance's Doctor Who was bound by
Verity Lambert's (or indeed Sydney Newman's).
This is not your father's Doctor Who. :-)
The NA's aren't about playing within a pre-existing environment; they're
about taking a pre-existing environment and taking it in *new* directions.
That's what makes them unique out of pretty much any series fiction I've
seen. The framework of the show is really no more of a constraint on
creativity than, say, writing a "mainstream" piece of historical fiction
is. In that case, you're still bound by certain established realities,
but beyond that your imagination has free rein.
You're probably wondering, if we're that free with the concept, why hold
on to the concept at all? Why not just leave the Doctor out of this?
I can't speak for all the writers, but I can give you an idea what I think
at least... It's because the Doctor encapsulates so much of what I want
to say in my writing. The Doctor -- *my* Doctor -- is an incredible
image: a wise fool, experienced and innocent, part Hero part Mentor part
Trickster part Shadow... shifting with a complexity that almost
approaches real life. The childlike hero and the lonely old man rolled
into one -- I'm fascinated by this. I want to explore this kind of mythic
figure.
These stories are _meant_ for him.
It would take me a lot more than eighty thousand words to bring together
such a character on my own. I could sketch in the outlines, but the
details, the depth, the background of the previous stories, are bigger
than any one book can contain. And that's where being part of a
collaborative series is such a strength.
The NA's have explored a lot of these resonances, and they build off of
each other and enhance each others' insights. This is *our* shared
universe, not just us playing in someone else's -- I really think we're
building something unique here. Doctor Who isn't just a framework, isn't
a limitation -- it's a jumping-off point for all sorts of stories which
have never been told before.
If all you see is the old boundaries of the old TV show, and you feel like
it's fundamentally wrong and Not-Doctor-Who to go outside them, then I
really think you've got it the wrong way around. It's like looking at an
Impressionist painting and only seeing someone coloring outside the lines.
Shawn E. Channell
> : But insisting not only that "Doctor Who" fit a narrow definition which it
> : never has fitted anyway, and insulting those who don't agree - well,
> : that's another kettle of fish. :-)
>
> don't see why asking why you would want to cram a serious, meaningful
> story, one that carries a lot of personal, social or religious
> significance, into something like DOCTOR WHO is an "insult."
>
>
> 1) The basic unsuitability of the original format. Why not do it in
> WINNIE THE POOH while you're at it? Or MICKEY MOUSE?
>
> feelings, emotions, thoughts, to express these thoughts in a sandbox that
> is not your own, thus debasing your message? Is it the technical
> challenge? (I was happy to write a fairly scary DUCK TALES because I
> grew up reading UNCLE SCROOGE, but is it satisfying as a longer-term
> creative outlet? Not to me.) The inability to break free from the cozy
> made-up preexisting environment? (Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote a very good
> essay about this "problem" her writers have in one of her shared world
> DARKOVER anthology.)
>
> The people I know who wrote DW as a job, Terrance Dicks and the likes,
> look at it for what I think it is: a good, clever sci-fi franchise
> basically aimed at adolescents. It would never occur to them to look at
> it as this outlet for a "serious" book.
>
> insulting, but I don't get it.
>
> Jean-Marc Lofficier
> rjm...@idt.net
I do have to agree with what you are saying here. I'm quite a fan of
Doctor Who and have been for a very long time. I take great pleasure in
reading the MAs. As I've said before, however, I don't read very many
NAs. I also look forward to purchasing the books. However, I have,
ever since I've been reading them, felt a need to read two books at
once. One being what I consider "adult literature" and the other a sort
of guilty adolescent escape. For example, I'm currently reading THE
SHADOW OF WENG-CHIANG (or should I say trying to read, man it really
isn't very good; someone please tell me that THE DARK PATH is better)
and THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH. Other times I'll be reading
an MA and FAULKNER, or, God forbid, actually reading for my profession!
I guess I do this out of guilt, because I really don't view the Doctor
Who books as intellectually stimulating.
Personally, I find cramming a lot of gritty, realistic "adult" type
themes into a Doctor Who book insulting. I don't read them for that,
and when they start doing so I feel bogged down and bored with the
story. If you look in the "Sci-Fi Series" section in a bookstore you
will see things like "Quantum Leap", "Star Trek", "Star Wars", and even
worse things like "Doom", alongside "Doctor Who". I honestly can't
accept "personal, social, or religous significance" in a "Doom" novel,
and is "Doctor Who" so different? I am not insulting DW here, or even
"Doom" for that matter, or the individuals that write for either
series. I certainly don't see them as "literature", however, any more
than I would a Harlequin Romance. This doesn't mean the authors don't
have talent, they all do. But if their desire is to be taken seriously,
than series Sci-Fi will not accomplish it. I know, of course, that many
Star Trek fans and Doctor Who fans take some of these authors VERY
seriously, but your average adult reader does not.
In the end I read a Doctor Who book, or watch a Doctor Who episode, for
a good time and that is really about it.
-Shawn-
Shawn E. Channell
Keith Topping wrote:
>
> Randy Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@IDT.NET> writes
> >: >It's be better (and more accurate) if you were to check out the full
> >: >thread in rec.arts.comics.misc.
> >: Why the hell is everybody so *touchy* today?
Most of the people who post to RADW are touchy. I subscribe to several
newsgroups and I must admit I've never encountered such scathing
rudeness and sensitivity as I have here (of course when I worked at a
state Psychiatric facility I did, but those individuals really didn't
have very good social skills :)
-Shawn-