One Year
Jonathan Blum
happened in the realm of new Doctor Who.
In this one year, we've had more Who stories than *ever* -- a dozen
audios, nearly two dozen books, seven pages of comic a month. About five
times as many tales as we used to get during a TV season. More than we've
had on TV in total since "The Five Doctors". And those stories have
covered a lot of ground.
We've seen a new take on the eighth Doctor, putting his character at
center stage. We've seen a new take on the sixth Doctor, allowing Colin
to finally complete the evolution he'd planned from the beginning.
We've had a new companion, Evelyn; we've had a radically transformed
companion, Compassion; we've had completely companionless stories. We've
had TARDISless stories. We've had past-less stories.
We've had old faces not seen in years rejoin the fold. Sarah Sutton
hadn't done a story since 1983 -- this year she's turned up three times.
Bonnie Langford, last seen in the summer of '87, made a stunningly
screamless return. It's hard to believe, considering it's like he never
went away, but "Lanyon Moor" is the first time we've heard Nick Courtney
as the Brigadier since about 1994. Frobisher can't really have been in
hiding for a full decade, can he? And Dalek dramas turned out to be like
London buses -- wait twelve years for one, then three turn up all at once.
Benny, who seemed destined for a "Survival"-like hiatus after "Twilight of
the Gods", came strolling back towards the end of the year -- in a new,
lighter pulp format on page and audio, and in all her NA glory in "Shadow
of the Scourge".
Even Ace staged a dramatic comeback -- Sophie Aldred may have been
ubiquitous in recent years, but with two books and three audios this year
has given us more of Ace herself (the genuine BBC article) than we've
gotten since she was last a regular in 1994. And her roles have run the
gamut from teenager in "Prime Time" through early-NA days in "Independence
Day" to the post-angst warrior in "Shadow of the Scourge".
We've seen a change in the top at DWM, and at BBC Books -- both of which
show a promising injection of new approaches. We've seen fresh authors --
Steve Emmerson, Jonathan Morris, Natalie Dallaire, Rob Shearman --
including a couple of exceptional debuts. Steve Cole put his name on a
Who story for the first time... and then twice more. We've had return
appearances from Paul Cornell and Andy Lane, putting their stamp on the
eighth Doctor, and the men who started it all, Peter Darvill-Evans and
Andrew Cartmel.
DWM reinvented the Master, in the most interesting new take on him in
decades, and wrapped up another epic story-arc (a vast improvement on the
Threshold one, IMHO). Paul Cornell reinvented the Brigadier and Romana,
giving one a triumphant exit and the other an intriguing new direction.
The Time Lords drove much of the year's development -- the War plotline
was brought to a boil, giving the Doctor a new direction and the highly
Doctorish role of Compassion's protector, and then taken off the stove
entirely, along with Faction Paradox and Gallifrey itself. On top of
that, we had a good old-fashioned Daleks-invade-Gallifrey story, with
further development for Romana... a return to the "Invasion of Time"
approach to Gallifrey, while the rest of the year took the post-Miles
approach to its ultimate extreme.
We've had experimentation in unexpected places -- all three of the
fourth-Doctor books for the year ran circles round the narrative
conventions of traditional Who. "Tomb of Valdemar" gave us an unreliable
narrator, "Heart of TARDIS"'s toyed with series conventions, and "Festival
of Death" went spectacularly non-linear on us.
We've had Doctor Who as rush job -- "Land of the Dead" and "Banquo Legacy"
triumphing over impossible production schedules. We've had Doctor Who
carefully developed over the long term -- whether in DWM's epic "Glorious
Dead", or the ten EDA's this year which have so visibly departed from
Who's status quo. We've had plenty of old-fashioned stand-alone stories,
and storylines driving Who into new territory.
*All this in one year*.
Not bad for a series that's supposed to be dead, eh?
The overall trends for the year seemed highly divergent -- on the one hand
this year introduced us to Justin's leaner, continuity-light,
forward-driving Eighth Doctor approach, on the other Big Finish
established its niche with a string of nostalgic stories. The tone of the
year went from high-Gallifrey to Gallifrey-free.
But one thing unifies all these different approaches to Who... a sense of
*pastiche*.
It occurs to me that this really has been a year of conscious _style_ in
Doctor Who -- whether looking outside of Who and applying new styles to
it, or consciously trying to recapture the flavor of well-loved old Who.
"Verdigris" and "Last of the Gadarene" staked out the two poles early
on... two books, each clearly a love letter to the Pertwee era, one of
which plays it straight with the barest hint of tongue approaching cheek,
one of which sets Pertwee in a mad cartoonish '70s where post-modernism
collides with the Tomorrow People in a land of exploding sheep.
"Genocide Machine" brought back the Daleks with a shock appearance at the
end of episode one, with a character named Tarrant and duplicated humans
and plenty of rasping metallic gloating. At the other extreme, Justin
Richards' "The Burning" stripped away such specific reminders of past
stories, but instead set its new alien Doctor in a carefully sculpted
general Hinchcliffian _ethos_... the Victoriana, the lurking horror, the
villainous madman with a Gothic obsession, new angles on great Who moments
of confrontation and revelation.
Even previous moments of outrageous radicalism are now safe ground for
pastiche -- this year has seen the growth of what Lance Parkin has termed
"NAstalgia", with stories like "Fearmonger" and "Shadow of the Scourge"
and "Independence Day" lovingly recreating the edginess of the PDE era.
The stories can still be a bit radical, but ironically they're nostalgia
pieces at the same time...
And the highlight of the books for the year has to be Paul Leonard's "The
Turing Test" -- paying scant attention to previous Who plot points or
stylings, but pastiching a variety of literary styles _outside_ of Who.
Drawing in outside ideas to the series, all in service of fascinating
themes and a wonderfully unclear and thought-provoking storyline.
It's a reminder that Doctor Who can still marry its style to substance,
and of just how _good_ these books and audios can be.
And it gives me great hope as we head into _next_ year's flood of Who.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonn Elledge
Jonathan Blum <jb...@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
news:8ui59g$uoa$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au...
> As we get towards the close of the year, it's struck me just how much has
> happened in the realm of new Doctor Who.
>
> In this one year, we've had more Who stories than *ever* -- a dozen
> audios, nearly two dozen books, seven pages of comic a month. About five
> times as many tales as we used to get during a TV season. More than we've
> had on TV in total since "The Five Doctors". And those stories have
> covered a lot of ground.
Blah, blah, blah.
Once more we see an author avoiding the major issues of the day: Is It
Canon????
We need to know.
Jonn Elledge
LPPCQ Snarky
>Jonathan Blum wrote...
>> As we get towards the close of the year, it's struck me just how much has
>> happened in the realm of new Doctor Who.
>>
>> In this one year, we've had more Who stories than *ever* -- a dozen
>> audios, nearly two dozen books, seven pages of comic a month. About five
>> times as many tales as we used to get during a TV season. More than we've
>> had on TV in total since "The Five Doctors". And those stories have
>> covered a lot of ground.
>
>Blah, blah, blah.
>
>Once more we see an author avoiding the major issues of the day: Is It
>Canon????
>
>We need to know.
???? Sorry, don't really need a camera, thanks.........
--
========================================================================
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!! We must stick apart!!!
Lola, called Snarky, the Chocolate Snark, Queen of the Snarks
of Ærisia; Queen of Rice; TransWench; Dreamer-Minstrel of
Discord; Ravenclaw
Andrew Brook
Bollocks.
--
Andrew J. Brook
This space available for advertising
Andrew Brook
"Jonn Elledge" <jonne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8uimdu$bbe$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
Incidentally, could you stop posting quotefile material as well? I'm not
sure I can keep up without bribing Robert.....
--
Andrew J. Brook
This space available for advertising
No, that wasn't an offer, by-the-way
Merlin The Time Traveller
jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
> The Time Lords drove much of the year's development -- the War
plotline
> was brought to a boil, giving the Doctor a new direction and the
highly
> Doctorish role of Compassion's protector, and then taken off the stove
> entirely, along with Faction Paradox and Gallifrey itself. On top of
> that, we had a good old-fashioned Daleks-invade-Gallifrey story, with
> further development for Romana... a return to the "Invasion of Time"
> approach to Gallifrey, while the rest of the year took the post-Miles
> approach to its ultimate extreme.
(snip)
> *All this in one year*.
>
> Not bad for a series that's supposed to be dead, eh?
>
> The overall trends for the year seemed highly divergent -- on the one
hand
> this year introduced us to Justin's leaner, continuity-light,
> forward-driving Eighth Doctor approach, on the other Big Finish
> established its niche with a string of nostalgic stories. The tone
of the
> year went from high-Gallifrey to Gallifrey-free.
(snip)
> And it gives me great hope as we head into _next_ year's flood of Who.
>
> Regards,
> Jon Blum
Damn it. Doctor Who is at its most alive with the death of one of its
best bits.
--
Long Live Gallifrey!
Merlin The Time Traveller
AKA Bradley McGrath
Tradical Raditionalist
"Citizen of the Universe, and a gentleman to boot!"
Proud creator of Missing Pieces' "The Doctor And The Dragon"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Andrew
Well done Jon - what the hell are we all moaning about? It's all been so
good. (And the great thing is that, apart from the audios, I'm never going
to experience all these new things for a good couple of years, cos I'm so
far behind (Longest Day anyone?))
Andrew
*********************
52 Festive Road
"Jonathan Blum" <jb...@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
news:8ui59g$uoa$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au...
J2rider
We've seen a new take on the eighth Doctor, putting his character at
center stage>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well his body but not his actual character
Mark Stevens
wrote:
>*All this in one year*.
>Not bad for a series that's supposed to be dead, eh?
All of which leads us to ask -- what would happen if the show did
return as a BBC production? Would all the foundation work and
bridge-building the fans have been doing since 1989 (or the TV movie)?
What would happen to the audio productions and the novels?
I think we've now reached a point where many fans would seriously
consider forgoing any chance of televised Who in favour of a much
richer tapestry of audio and literary Who.
--
Mark Stevens
Klaus Pumpkin
<snip>
Speaking as a genetic moaner, even I have to admit that
things really are pretty good at the moment. Sometimes I get
so choked on bile that I forget that it might be one of the
best times ever to be a sad ol' Doctor Who fan, and it has
to take splendid messages like this to remind me.
Yours, seriously considering doing the previously
unthinkable and actually buying Shadow of the Scourge,
Terry
Adam Richards
<kl...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Yours, seriously considering doing the previously
>unthinkable and actually buying Shadow of the Scourge,
I'll borrow it. I can't promise I'll love it, but I will give it an
honest and unbiased listen. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
Jonn Elledge
news:9r5r0t83gpnaspbsh...@4ax.com...
> >Not bad for a series that's supposed to be dead, eh?
>
> return as a BBC production? Would all the foundation work and
> bridge-building the fans have been doing since 1989 (or the TV movie)?
> What would happen to the audio productions and the novels?
>
> I think we've now reached a point where many fans would seriously
> consider forgoing any chance of televised Who in favour of a much
> richer tapestry of audio and literary Who.
Well said, Mark. (And how often do you hear me say that? ;-) New TV Who
would be nice - but it isn't essential; it isn't even important to some of
us any more; I'm rather keep the situation we have now than sacrifice it for
a new series.
Jonn
Keith Brookes
Merlin The Time Traveller <merlintim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ujpeu$4am$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> (spoilers for Ancestor Cell)
>
<snip>
>
> Damn it. Doctor Who is at its most alive with the death of one of its
> best bits.
>
of us out there did. And telling us again and again how horrible that
boring little planet being gone is won't change our opinions
--
Keith B.
Keith Brookes, the Canadian homeboy, currently reading Doctor Who and the
Mutants by Terrance Dicks
"You're my wife now..."
-Papa Lazarou
WKRP in Androzani -- It's not just any catharsis of spurious morality!
http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Network/5028
Who, Me?-A site not interested in dirty words such as 'facts'
http://www.glance.to/who-me
William December Starr
jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum) said:
> As we get towards the close of the year, it's struck me just
> how much has happened in the realm of new Doctor Who.
Since we're doing a (slightly early) annual wrap-up, did the
l'affaire d' Campaign also occur during this year? (And when was
the last time DW, in any media, had that late-term a cancellation
of a scheduled story, anyway?)
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Dave Roy
Richards <Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 01:55:28 +0000, Klaus Pumpkin
> <kl...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Yours, seriously considering doing the previously unthinkable and
> >actually buying Shadow of the Scourge,
>
> I'll borrow it. I can't promise I'll love it, but I will give it
> an honest and unbiased listen. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.
I'm really interested in what Steve thought of it, though. He was so
anti-Vulcan before it came out. Didn't he agree to give it a listen,
similar to what you did? Did he ever come out and say what he
thought?
Dave Roy
Jack Beven
address!
On 11 Nov 2000 11:53:04 +1100, jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum)
wrote:
>As we get towards the close of the year, it's struck me just how much has
>happened in the realm of new Doctor Who.
>
>In this one year, we've had more Who stories than *ever* -- a dozen
>audios, nearly two dozen books, seven pages of comic a month. About five
>times as many tales as we used to get during a TV season. More than we've
>had on TV in total since "The Five Doctors". And those stories have
>covered a lot of ground.
The question I'd ask is are we stretching the DW fans' money a little
too far with these stories spread across three media? (Of course
with some of the distribution problems, maybe not. See below.)
>We've seen a new take on the eighth Doctor, putting his character at
>center stage. We've seen a new take on the sixth Doctor, allowing Colin
>to finally complete the evolution he'd planned from the beginning.
>
>We've had a new companion, Evelyn; we've had a radically transformed
>companion, Compassion; we've had completely companionless stories. We've
>had TARDISless stories. We've had past-less stories.
There is one aspect of this that troubles me. The EDAs have regained
some of the popularity they lost a few years back. However, this has
come about primarily due to re-invention of the series' past. This is
quite notable in the Meatgrinder Arc, where the most significant plot
twists are re-inventions of some sort rather than new creative
additions.
Why does this worry me? Because IMHO a series that is thriving
mostly on re-invention rather than new creative additions is one that
IMHO is dying creatively. And that IMHO describes the state of the
EDAs. They aren't dead as a creative force, but IMHO they badly
need a transfusion of new creative additions, especially one that DW
fans can rally to instead of rant against. And no, Faction Paradox does
not qualify as such in my view.
>We've had old faces not seen in years rejoin the fold. Sarah Sutton
>hadn't done a story since 1983 -- this year she's turned up three times.
>Bonnie Langford, last seen in the summer of '87, made a stunningly
>screamless return. It's hard to believe, considering it's like he never
>went away, but "Lanyon Moor" is the first time we've heard Nick Courtney
>as the Brigadier since about 1994. Frobisher can't really have been in
>hiding for a full decade, can he? And Dalek dramas turned out to be like
>London buses -- wait twelve years for one, then three turn up all at once.
>
>Benny, who seemed destined for a "Survival"-like hiatus after "Twilight of
>the Gods", came strolling back towards the end of the year -- in a new,
>lighter pulp format on page and audio, and in all her NA glory in "Shadow
>of the Scourge".
>
>Even Ace staged a dramatic comeback -- Sophie Aldred may have been
>ubiquitous in recent years, but with two books and three audios this year
>has given us more of Ace herself (the genuine BBC article) than we've
>gotten since she was last a regular in 1994. And her roles have run the
>gamut from teenager in "Prime Time" through early-NA days in "Independence
>Day" to the post-angst warrior in "Shadow of the Scourge".
All this is fine and to the good, but it does bring up an interesting
question. Many of the audio stories are bringing back old companions
and old villians, so they have a strong sense of nostalgia. On the
surface, the re-invention in the EDAs couldn't look more different.
The question, though, is are the re-inventions of the EDAs just a
twisted form of nostalgia, looking back instead of looking ahead?
As strange as it may sound coming from me, I don't want to see DW
overdosing on tradition and nostalgia any more than I want to see it
overdosing on re-invention. Neither IMHO is good for the health of the
series, so let's find some middle ground between the two extremes.
Creating new elements that neither overly wax nostalgic nor reinvent the
past would be a good way to start finding it.
>We've seen a change in the top at DWM, and at BBC Books -- both of which
>show a promising injection of new approaches. We've seen fresh authors --
>Steve Emmerson, Jonathan Morris, Natalie Dallaire, Rob Shearman --
>including a couple of exceptional debuts. Steve Cole put his name on a
>Who story for the first time... and then twice more. We've had return
>appearances from Paul Cornell and Andy Lane, putting their stamp on the
>eighth Doctor, and the men who started it all, Peter Darvill-Evans and
>Andrew Cartmel.
Given the opinions I expressed two years ago, the new authors are
certainly good for the series. I'm a bit more skeptical about the change
at the top at DWM, though. Has Alan Barnes signed a formal peace
treaty with the books yet? I would hope that any reconciling occurring
there would be at least as obvious and dramatic as the original break.
>DWM reinvented the Master, in the most interesting new take on him in
>decades, and wrapped up another epic story-arc (a vast improvement on the
>Threshold one, IMHO). Paul Cornell reinvented the Brigadier and Romana,
>giving one a triumphant exit and the other an intriguing new direction.
There's that word reinvented again! And I rather disagree with your
assessment with Romana's new direction. Unless the descriptions of
the change that have appeared here are drastically wrong, that change
sounds like the continuation of a tradition started in "The Deadly
Assassin". In short, been there, done that!
>The Time Lords drove much of the year's development -- the War plotline
>was brought to a boil, giving the Doctor a new direction and the highly
>Doctorish role of Compassion's protector, and then taken off the stove
>entirely, along with Faction Paradox and Gallifrey itself. On top of
>that, we had a good old-fashioned Daleks-invade-Gallifrey story, with
>further development for Romana... a return to the "Invasion of Time"
>approach to Gallifrey, while the rest of the year took the post-Miles
>approach to its ultimate extreme.
IMHO extreme is the operative word here. I'm not sure that approach
was a good idea. It may surprise people, but I actually try to take a
moderate position of most DW issues. The reason I'm now coming
across as a rabid traditionalist is that IMHO the EDAs (which are the
most important part of the series to me) have swung so extremely to
radical that my views are now closer to the traditionalist position than
they are to the EDAs.
I'm also not sure Miles' ideas were really that good a foundation for
the Meatgrinder Arc, but I'll argue that further once I've finished
reading all the necessary books.
>We've had experimentation in unexpected places -- all three of the
>fourth-Doctor books for the year ran circles round the narrative
>conventions of traditional Who. "Tomb of Valdemar" gave us an unreliable
>narrator, "Heart of TARDIS"'s toyed with series conventions, and "Festival
>of Death" went spectacularly non-linear on us.
I'll give "Festival of Death" and A+ on plot. As far as I can tell,
Morris didn't make any blunders in that convoluted time-stream and
that's a major accomplishment.
>We've had Doctor Who as rush job -- "Land of the Dead" and "Banquo Legacy"
>triumphing over impossible production schedules. We've had Doctor Who
>carefully developed over the long term -- whether in DWM's epic "Glorious
>Dead", or the ten EDA's this year which have so visibly departed from
>Who's status quo. We've had plenty of old-fashioned stand-alone stories,
>and storylines driving Who into new territory.
As I've said before, the storylines driving DW into new territory
were so radical that they rather overshadowed the more traditional
stories. Some of this is unfortunately inevitable, but it would be nice
to see more traditional plot developments that would have the far-
reaching impact of Faction Paradox and the Dangling Retcon.
>*All this in one year*.
>
>Not bad for a series that's supposed to be dead, eh?
>
>The overall trends for the year seemed highly divergent -- on the one hand
>this year introduced us to Justin's leaner, continuity-light,
>forward-driving Eighth Doctor approach, on the other Big Finish
>established its niche with a string of nostalgic stories. The tone of the
>year went from high-Gallifrey to Gallifrey-free.
Divergent or schizophrenic? :-)
>But one thing unifies all these different approaches to Who... a sense of
>*pastiche*.
>
>It occurs to me that this really has been a year of conscious _style_ in
>Doctor Who -- whether looking outside of Who and applying new styles to
>it, or consciously trying to recapture the flavor of well-loved old Who.
>"Verdigris" and "Last of the Gadarene" staked out the two poles early
>on... two books, each clearly a love letter to the Pertwee era, one of
>which plays it straight with the barest hint of tongue approaching cheek,
>one of which sets Pertwee in a mad cartoonish '70s where post-modernism
>collides with the Tomorrow People in a land of exploding sheep.
>
>"Genocide Machine" brought back the Daleks with a shock appearance at the
>end of episode one, with a character named Tarrant and duplicated humans
>and plenty of rasping metallic gloating. At the other extreme, Justin
>Richards' "The Burning" stripped away such specific reminders of past
>stories, but instead set its new alien Doctor in a carefully sculpted
>general Hinchcliffian _ethos_... the Victoriana, the lurking horror, the
>villainous madman with a Gothic obsession, new angles on great Who moments
>of confrontation and revelation.
>
>Even previous moments of outrageous radicalism are now safe ground for
>pastiche -- this year has seen the growth of what Lance Parkin has termed
>"NAstalgia", with stories like "Fearmonger" and "Shadow of the Scourge"
>and "Independence Day" lovingly recreating the edginess of the PDE era.
>The stories can still be a bit radical, but ironically they're nostalgia
>pieces at the same time...
What was once radical is now traditional? :-)
>And the highlight of the books for the year has to be Paul Leonard's "The
>Turing Test" -- paying scant attention to previous Who plot points or
>stylings, but pastiching a variety of literary styles _outside_ of Who.
>Drawing in outside ideas to the series, all in service of fascinating
>themes and a wonderfully unclear and thought-provoking storyline.
>
>It's a reminder that Doctor Who can still marry its style to substance,
>and of just how _good_ these books and audios can be.
>
>And it gives me great hope as we head into _next_ year's flood of Who.
I don't share that sense of optimism. It says on Outpost Gallifrey
that Justin is already planning "a shocking new series of twists and
turns" for the books of next year. My reaction to that is "Whoa! Slow
down a little! We haven't even fininshed the reconstruction of the
Eighth Doctor and we're already setting up for the next round of
Whoniverse-shaking revelations?". Can we please have 6 to 12 books
to get off the current roller coaster and to get use to the new
character of the Eighth Doctor before you start shaking things up again?
Maybe that approach doesn't appeal to the writer in you, Jon, but it
appeals to the common sense in me.
And then there's the biggest black cloud of all hanging over the
series - it's creator, the BBC. The past year has seen notable
screw-ups in the products and the distribution of those products
that the BBC has either been unable or unwilling to fix - most notably
the London Bridge fiasco. I don't want to knock the efforts of Justin,
Steve Roberts, and the like, but obviously those efforts are being let
down by other people in the BBC. And that IMHO suggests that the
parent organization is lacking something in its caring for the series
and that it is *not* in good hands.
Last, but certainly not least, depsite changes in the upper echelons
of the BBC, DW is no closer to returning to TV now than it was after
the telemovie in 1996.
I'll stick by my statement that DW is on the critical list. It's
condition is stable, but compared to what it once was the series
is very weak and feeble. As best as I can tell, the books and
audios are reaching a minority of the fans, and while the book
audience isn't shrinking it doesn't seem to be expanding either.
I don't know what DW needs to recapture the magic it showed
back in 1963 when from scratch it captured, held, and expanded
an audience. However, IMHO none of the (often divisive) approaches
tried in the past several years have come close to doing that. For
me to declare DW off the critical list, I need to see the audience
start to *grow*!
My apologies for the length of this. I will now don my polycarbide
armour and await the inevitable reprisals! :-)
Jack Beven (a. k. a. The Supreme Dalek)
Tropical Prediction Center
New URL: http://www.mindspring.com/~jbeven/index.html jbe...@mindspring.com
Disclaimer: These opinions don't necessarily represent those of my employers...
Jonathan Blum
Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> There is one aspect of this that troubles me. The EDAs have regained
>some of the popularity they lost a few years back. However, this has
>come about primarily due to re-invention of the series' past. This is
>quite notable in the Meatgrinder Arc, where the most significant plot
>twists are re-inventions of some sort rather than new creative
>additions.
> Why does this worry me? Because IMHO a series that is thriving
>mostly on re-invention rather than new creative additions is one that
>IMHO is dying creatively. And that IMHO describes the state of the
>EDAs.
How about you tell me how the series is starving for new creative
additions *after* you read anything written since Justin took over?
There's a lot more to "Turing Test", "Father Time", "The Year of
Intelligent Tigers", or even "The Burning" than simply a new spin on stuff
from the Pertwee era. The new take on the Doctor _is_ a creative
addition, and one that's energized the fanbase who've actually read it.
[...]
> Given the opinions I expressed two years ago, the new authors are
>certainly good for the series. I'm a bit more skeptical about the change
>at the top at DWM, though. Has Alan Barnes signed a formal peace
>treaty with the books yet?
If you pick up the magazine, you'll see a new page devoted to previewing
upcoming book releases, just like for the audios. What kind of "formal
peace treaty" do you have in mind?
[...]
> I don't share that sense of optimism.
Quelle surprise... :-)
>It says on Outpost Gallifrey
>that Justin is already planning "a shocking new series of twists and
>turns" for the books of next year. My reaction to that is "Whoa! Slow
>down a little! We haven't even fininshed the reconstruction of the
>Eighth Doctor and we're already setting up for the next round of
>Whoniverse-shaking revelations?". Can we please have 6 to 12 books
>to get off the current roller coaster and to get use to the new
>character of the Eighth Doctor before you start shaking things up again?
Why don't you wait, read the books, and see how many you get in a row
before your shock-horror-dangerous-reinvention detector goes off? It'll
be more than you think, I can promise you that.
More later,
Jon
Jonn Elledge
> There's a lot more to "Turing Test", "Father Time", "The Year of
> Intelligent Tigers", or even "The Burning" than simply a new spin on stuff
> from the Pertwee era. The new take on the Doctor _is_ a creative
> addition, and one that's energized the fanbase who've actually read it.
The Buring was distressingly unoriginal, I'm afraid. Ooooh I've had abit
much tonight. But my friends arel ovely and this girl called rachel said
shed have sex with me. can't wait toTell my girflriend
Paul Harman
> As we get towards the close of the year, it's struck me just how much has
> happened in the realm of new Doctor Who.
[snip]
> It's a reminder that Doctor Who can still marry its style to substance,
> and of just how _good_ these books and audios can be.
>
> And it gives me great hope as we head into _next_ year's flood of Who.
Similarly, just as I was about to give up on radw and decamp permanently to
Jade Pagoda, a post comes along that makes me reconsider and want to stay
after all.
(sniff)
Paul
Jonathan Blum
It just hit me...
> I don't share that sense of optimism. It says on Outpost Gallifrey
>that Justin is already planning "a shocking new series of twists and
>turns" for the books of next year. My reaction to that is "Whoa! Slow
>down a little! We haven't even fininshed the reconstruction of the
>Eighth Doctor and we're already setting up for the next round of
>Whoniverse-shaking revelations?". Can we please have 6 to 12 books
>to get off the current roller coaster and to get use to the new
>character of the Eighth Doctor before you start shaking things up again?
...Did you really just go into "ohh deeearr, it's continuity mangling
deconstruction time all over again, that's all they ever dooooo" mode,
based on a mention that at some point in the next year, the books will
have *plot twists*?
You couldn't rush to judgement more if you tried. And bluntly, you
couldn't be more off the beam.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jack Beven
wrote:
>In article <3a1226ad....@news.mindspring.com>,
Jon, between your Doctor Who Cares joke and this uncharacteristically
surly (second) response to this paragraph, I'm wondering about you a
little bit. Is anything wrong?
The only thing I was judging IMHO was an apparent rush in starting
another (or continuing the current) roller coaster ride. Justin has
already done this once IMHO, so I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if
he thought it was a good idea to try it again.
Out of curiousity, just what is it that I'm suppose to be rushing to
judge and that I'm so off the beam about?
I will admit that the term "shocking" does turn on an alarm signal
for me. IMHO there's a better chance that trad fans would find more
things shocking than rad fans would, so there's at least some
chance that I could find the upcoming set of plot twists to be really
irritating. But I will deal with that at the proper time and if
necessary.
Jonathan Blum
Luke Curtis <luke....@virgin.net> wrote:
>On 16 Nov 2000 09:23:01 +1100, jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum)
>wrote:
>>Why don't you wait, read the books, and see how many you get in a row
>>before your shock-horror-dangerous-reinvention detector goes off? It'll
>>be more than you think, I can promise you that.
>saying "a shocking new series of twists and turns" before we half way
>through the first set is a bit previous don`t you think?
And bitching about those books a year before they come out isn't?
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 17 Nov 2000 09:10:24 +1100, jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum)
>wrote:
>>In article <3a1226ad....@news.mindspring.com>,
>>Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>It just hit me...
>>> I don't share that sense of optimism. It says on Outpost Gallifrey
>>>that Justin is already planning "a shocking new series of twists and
>>>turns" for the books of next year. My reaction to that is "Whoa! Slow
>>>down a little! We haven't even fininshed the reconstruction of the
>>>Eighth Doctor and we're already setting up for the next round of
>>>Whoniverse-shaking revelations?". Can we please have 6 to 12 books
>>>to get off the current roller coaster and to get use to the new
>>>character of the Eighth Doctor before you start shaking things up again?
>>...Did you really just go into "ohh deeearr, it's continuity mangling
>>deconstruction time all over again, that's all they ever dooooo" mode,
>>based on a mention that at some point in the next year, the books will
>>have *plot twists*?
>>You couldn't rush to judgement more if you tried. And bluntly, you
>>couldn't be more off the beam.
> Jon, between your Doctor Who Cares joke and this uncharacteristically
>surly (second) response to this paragraph, I'm wondering about you a
>little bit. Is anything wrong?
As a matter of fact, it's been an awful week at work, and I'm sorry that
this has been spilling over into my postings. You don't deserve to be
snapped at.
But you still do deserve to have it pointed out that you've gotten on your
Acme-brand giant-size "Mr. Bouncy 2000" brand pogo stick and boinged to
far and distant conclusions.
> The only thing I was judging IMHO was an apparent rush in starting
>another (or continuing the current) roller coaster ride. Justin has
>already done this once IMHO, so I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if
>he thought it was a good idea to try it again.
> Out of curiousity, just what is it that I'm suppose to be rushing to
>judge and that I'm so off the beam about?
The first bounce came when you decided that a "shocking" plot twist in a
story arc would be something that radically changes the status-quo nature
of the Who universe and would offend traditional fans.
The second came when you started complaining that we weren't going to get
a break between the last round of reinvention and this new story arc.
In a nutshell, you don't know nearly enough to complain on either grounds.
There are all sorts of things that could make up "a shocking series of
twists and turns" which *don't* involve massive re-invention. They could
gradually introduce a new recurring villain or monster, which doesn't look
like what it first seems to be; the Doctor could piece together evidence
that someone was following him through his wanderings on Earth; Fitz could
discover that his guitar is possessed by an alien intelligence. The
October book could reveal that the Master had been freed from the Doctor's
TARDIS by the destruction of Gallifrey, and that he'd been manipulating
events in the August and September books from behind the scenes, and in
the November book we find out about his plan to become the new Rassilon
and re-order the universe according to his will.
That one sentence from Justin could mean *anything*, and you've raised the
alarm based on... what?
The fact that Justin has shown that he's willing to do that re-invention
thing? There you're falling into the same trap which you keep falling
into: thinking that the fact that an editor has done something makes it
*more* likely that he'll repeat it rather than *less*.
You expected that "Interference" would lead to a rash of further stories
based around rewriting the Doctor's history -- instead the Doctor's
history has been declared off-limits. You expected that closing the EDA's
to unpublished authors for a while would make the editors likely to bar
new authors from *all* Who books -- instead the year following "The
Burning" sees more new novelists in a year than any time since 1993. In a
nutshell, Doctor Who's evolution is a constant stream of zig-zags, not
endless movement in a straight line. Once something's been done, the
production team generally *don't* want to repeat themselves.
And the second big bounce you took -- that there's no real break between
the Earth arc and the next storylines being discussed -- requires leaping
over one of the few facts that you've actually been given: that on the
Outpost Gallifrey page you were quoting, Justin says the story-arc starts
some time in *the latter half of next year*.
If you've been following the news at all, you know the names of at least
four standalone books following the Earth arc. The new arc couldn't begin
before July at the earliest, and there's nothing to indicate how much
later than that it starts.
And even when the arc storyline does start, there's nothing at all to
indicate that the kickoff will immediately disrupt the status quo of Who
beyond all recognition. The first book in the Psi Powers arc is either
"Warchild" or "SLEEPY", but it doesn't explicitly dominate the plot of a
book until "Christmas on a Rational Planet" six months later, and nothing
threatens the status quo of the Who universe until "So Vile A Sin" at the
end of the arc. The Alternative Universe series in '93 followed a similar
structure -- it introduced a continuing threat in the first book, but the
status quo between the TARDIS crew wasn't disrupted until later. The
EDA's started messing with time and alternate dimensions in "Revolution
Man", this was a planned continuing storyline between there and
"Interference", but the arc linkage there is so subtle that you deny it's
actually an arc.
I betcha, if you just sit back and read the books and don't pay attention
to the online hype, you won't even be able to *tell* when this new story
arc begins.
Now, given just how little you know, aside from "they're doing standalone
books at least till July, possibly later", which sounds like the more
sensible attitude to take?
A) "Hmm, looks like they're following the reconstruction of the eighth
Doctor character with a batch of standalone books. I guess we'll have six
books or so where we're off the roller coaster to get used to the new
character of the eighth Doctor, before they start shaking things up
again."
B) "We haven't even fininshed the reconstruction of the Eighth Doctor
and we're already setting up for the next round of Whoniverse-shaking
revelations? Can we please have 6 to 12 books to get off the current
roller coaster and to get use to the new character of the Eighth Doctor
before you start shaking things up again?"
The difference between A) and B) isn't just a question of whether the
glass is half full or half empty. It's half full vs. "Oh God they never
give us any water anymore!"
Basically, you've reacted to an almost entirely content-free sentence of
pre-pre-publicity with a full-blown "Batten down the hatches, the storm's
not going to let up!" response. Considering AFAIK you still haven't read
any of Justin's EDA's at all, I definitely do think you've leaped to
conclusions by saying that this storyline you know nothing about will be
just as bad as the one you haven't read...
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
The books have to be planned out more than a year in advance, to allow the
writers time to write them. This means that future storylines -- along
with the gaps in between them -- are routinely planned out while current
storylines, or the storylines before them, are still running.
The Sam-is-missing arc and "Seeing I" were worked out before "The Eight
Doctors" had been published. The first ideas of the Earth arc were being
discussed the month that "Demontage" hit the streets.
The only time the books haven't had future storylines on the agenda was
during the hand-over from PDE to Bex. The result? The longest stretch of
standalone books in the line, about twelve months' worth -- and a
noticeable dip in the popularity of the line as this wore on, plus a
perception of the series as directionless.
So Justin's planning future storylines. He's also allowing a gap between
the previous storylines and the new ones, and giving careful consideration
to making sure the storylines don't dominate the series to the exclusion
of all else.
And why is he talking about the storylines now, rather than the gap of
standalones which will precede it? Because, in my guess at least,
"Startling plot twists coming up!" makes a better headline than "Nothing
really changes for several months!"
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
>condition is stable, but compared to what it once was the series
>is very weak and feeble.
I'll admit that most of my medical knowledge comes from hospital dramas,
but even so -- the whole point of "critical condition" is that it's *not*
stable. It means the patient is in immediate danger of dying. But Doctor
Who _is_ stable, it's been at more or less the same level for about ten
years now. It's selling well above the minimum level needed to ensure the
series' profitability.
What makes it any more likely that Doctor Who is in imminent danger of
curling up and dying now, than it was in (say) 1994? After Peter
Darvill-Evans had shamelessly divided fandom with all his shocking
New-Ace-cyberpunk-angst-ridden-radicalism? Sales are about the same now
as then.
>For
>me to declare DW off the critical list, I need to see the audience
>start to *grow*!
This particular dance is one of the bits of these discussions which really
frustrate me. You make up criteria by which you predict the Imminent Death
Of Who; I point out that these criteria aren't the ones which the bosses
would actually use when judging whether or not to continue the series; you
pay lip service to the idea that they line is stable but go right on
making the same claims.
Meanwhile on Earth-Prime, *no one* expects the Doctor Who books' sales to
grow significantly. The Beeb doesn't expect them to get the audience they
got back when they had a TV series with ten million viewers to promote
them. The Beeb doesn't even expect them to sell as much as DWM,
considering that DWM appeals to a section of the audience which wouldn't
be interested in books. (Plus a year's worth of books costs more than
three times as much as a year's run of DWM.) They don't need to see that
happen to consider them a success. They already *are* a success.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Steven Kitson
> Can we please have 6 to 12 books
> to get off the current roller coaster and to get use to the new
> character of the Eighth Doctor before you start shaking things up again?
I like roller coaters.
--
I'm made of steel, soul and metal
I'll be human 'til the day I die
Alryssa Kelly
Blum) had painted:
>
>The Beeb doesn't even expect them to sell as much as DWM,
>considering that DWM appeals to a section of the audience which wouldn't
>be interested in books. (Plus a year's worth of books costs more than
>three times as much as a year's run of DWM.)
Actually, in the US at least, it's not far off being as expensive to
buy DWM as it is to buy a novel (15 cents difference)... so we usually
go for the novel instead now.
Alryssa
---------------------------------------------------
'The Cat Who Walked Through Time' Charity Anthology
http://www.crosswinds.net/~alryssa/fundraising.html#fanzine
Featuring Stephen Cole, Lance Parkin, Arnold T Blumberg,
Diane Duane, Paul Cornell, Kate Orman, Peter Anghelides and
Simon Bucher-Jones...
Coming soon!
William December Starr
jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum) said:
>>> Why don't you wait, read the books, and see how many you get in a
>>> row before your shock-horror-dangerous-reinvention detector goes
>>> off? It'll be more than you think, I can promise you that.
>>
>> saying "a shocking new series of twists and turns" before we half way
>> through the first set is a bit previous don`t you think?
>> [Luke Curtis]
>
> And bitching about those books a year before they come out isn't?
The following vignette contains exaggeration for the purpose of making a
point:
JON BLUM: Here's a tantalizing hint of what's going to come in the
novels: [insert tantalizing hint here].
RANDOM FAN: Well, I don't know if I like the sound of tha--
JON BLUM: How *dare* you utter opinions about books that you haven't
even read yet?
Cameron Mason
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:8vabkv$9ns$1...@panix6.panix.com...
> The following vignette contains exaggeration for the purpose of making a
> point:
>
> JON BLUM: Here's a tantalizing hint of what's going to come in the
> novels: [insert tantalizing hint here].
>
> RANDOM FAN: Well, I don't know if I like the sound of tha--
>
> JON BLUM: How *dare* you utter opinions about books that you haven't
> even read yet?
That point being...
If an author drops hints it will usually please the majority and offend a
minority who see the book as damaging their "Doctor Who" because of the
point they are told, no matter how insignificant it may be.
I just wouldn't do it...
Cameron
--
:(|) "...Pleasure the PARIS..."
Come visit the Ultimate Guide
http://www.fortunecity.com/tatooine/forbidden/392/py/pindex.html
David Atkins
Jonathan Blum wrote:
> the Doctor could piece together evidence
> that someone was following him through his wanderings on Earth; Fitz could
> discover that his guitar is possessed by an alien intelligence.
Actually, I like the sound of these:-)
regards,
David.
David Brunt
>> point:
>>
>> JON BLUM: Here's a tantalizing hint of what's going to come in the
>> novels: [insert tantalizing hint here].
>>
>> RANDOM FAN: Well, I don't know if I like the sound of tha--
>>
>> JON BLUM: How *dare* you utter opinions about books that you haven't
>> even read yet?
>
>That point being...
Don't drop hints if you don't want people to comment on them...?
David
LPPCQ Snarky
>Cameron Mason wrote...
>>William December Starr wrote...
>>> The following vignette contains exaggeration for the purpose of making a
>>> point:
>>>
>>> JON BLUM: Here's a tantalizing hint of what's going to come in the
>>> novels: [insert tantalizing hint here].
>>>
>>> RANDOM FAN: Well, I don't know if I like the sound of tha--
>>>
>>> JON BLUM: How *dare* you utter opinions about books that you haven't
>>> even read yet?
>>
>>That point being...
>
_Comment_??? You mean rant endlessly for months and months _and months_
AND MONTHS about some new development "destroying Doctor Who" for you
forever, or casting a shadow over all the books following after until
the change is reversed (like that would actually *happen* -- this ain't
DC Comics, ya know...)? Or just make a few posts about it until you get
your point across?
--
========================================================================
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!! We must stick apart!!!
Lola, called Snarky, the Chocolate Snark, Queen of the Snarks
of Ærisia; Queen of Rice; TransWench; Dreamer-Minstrel of
Discord; Ravenclaw
C. A. Reed Jr.
what's going on.....
Craig
(Lonely and broke)
C. A. Reed Jr. - remove the military emplacement from my Email to reach me.
http://members.aol.com/trboturtle Update -10/23/00
Bubblegum Crucible, Battletech stories & other things that may or may not make
sense.....
Jack Beven
Starr) wrote:
Direct hit, sir!
Although to be fair to Jon, it wasn't he who dropped the hint in this
case. It was Justin. The principle still applies, though.
Jack Beven
wrote:
>In article <3a1226ad....@news.mindspring.com>,
>Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> There is one aspect of this that troubles me. The EDAs have regained
>>some of the popularity they lost a few years back. However, this has
>>come about primarily due to re-invention of the series' past. This is
>>quite notable in the Meatgrinder Arc, where the most significant plot
>>twists are re-inventions of some sort rather than new creative
>>additions.
>
>> Why does this worry me? Because IMHO a series that is thriving
>>mostly on re-invention rather than new creative additions is one that
>>IMHO is dying creatively. And that IMHO describes the state of the
>>EDAs.
>
>How about you tell me how the series is starving for new creative
>additions *after* you read anything written since Justin took over?
I'll be glad to read those books as soon as London Bridge gets
certain other books over here. After all, I'd like to read the
Meatgrinder Arc in something resembling the correct order.
I do already have a copy of "Casualties of War", but unless
the book distribution clears itself up it will be March at the
earliest before I read it - after I get to buy the Fatal Five books
at Gallifrey.
May I ask that the next time you want to vent some steam that
you please scald London Bridge in the process? :-)
>There's a lot more to "Turing Test", "Father Time", "The Year of
>Intelligent Tigers", or even "The Burning" than simply a new spin on stuff
>from the Pertwee era. The new take on the Doctor _is_ a creative
>addition, and one that's energized the fanbase who've actually read it.
The new take on the Doctor may be energizing the fanbase, but
it puzzles me. Could you please explain further how erasing part of
the Eighth Doctor's memories and personality and then *re*-creating
them is a "creative addition"? It sounds like a re-invention to me.
>> Given the opinions I expressed two years ago, the new authors are
>>certainly good for the series. I'm a bit more skeptical about the change
>>at the top at DWM, though. Has Alan Barnes signed a formal peace
>>treaty with the books yet?
>
>If you pick up the magazine, you'll see a new page devoted to previewing
>upcoming book releases, just like for the audios. What kind of "formal
>peace treaty" do you have in mind?
How about an apology by the editor for the anti-book attitudes on the
part of the editorial staff that led to "Ground Zero"?
Jon, my church teaches me that the *biggest* step in the process of
reconcilation is the the party that does wrong has to admit they made
a mistake. Now, the stance that DWM took under Gary Gillat is *not* a
religious sin by any reasonable definition. However, myself and at least
a few others (including you IIRC) think it was a mistake, and IMHO
they have to admit it as such before they can be reconciled with me.
I don't honestly expect to get such an apology. However, I don't
plan to buy or read any DWMs until it happens, and you and Alan
should reconcile yourselves to that.
Jack Beven
wrote:
Well, that makes two of us, and I hope I'm not sounding snappy in
return. There are some good reasons why I sometimes take a few
days to respond to a post. :-)
[snip]
>> Out of curiousity, just what is it that I'm suppose to be rushing to
>>judge and that I'm so off the beam about?
>
>The first bounce came when you decided that a "shocking" plot twist in a
>story arc would be something that radically changes the status-quo nature
>of the Who universe and would offend traditional fans.
>
>The second came when you started complaining that we weren't going to get
>a break between the last round of reinvention and this new story arc.
>
>In a nutshell, you don't know nearly enough to complain on either grounds.
>
>There are all sorts of things that could make up "a shocking series of
>twists and turns" which *don't* involve massive re-invention. They could
>gradually introduce a new recurring villain or monster, which doesn't look
>like what it first seems to be; the Doctor could piece together evidence
>that someone was following him through his wanderings on Earth; Fitz could
>discover that his guitar is possessed by an alien intelligence. The
>October book could reveal that the Master had been freed from the Doctor's
>TARDIS by the destruction of Gallifrey, and that he'd been manipulating
>events in the August and September books from behind the scenes, and in
>the November book we find out about his plan to become the new Rassilon
>and re-order the universe according to his will.
While I'm sure some of what you wrote here is facetious, none of it
comes across to me as shocking or even that radical. Bring the Master
back from the dead yet again? *That's* become a rather unfortunate
tradition IMHO. Hardly shocking.
[Note to all rad fans: Just because I argue against you a lot does
*not* mean I believe that all DW traditions are *good* traditions!]
I do have a serious question for you: With your anything goes outlook
on DW, what kind of plot twists could *truly* shock you?
>That one sentence from Justin could mean *anything*, and you've raised the
>alarm based on... what?
>
>The fact that Justin has shown that he's willing to do that re-invention
>thing? There you're falling into the same trap which you keep falling
>into: thinking that the fact that an editor has done something makes it
>*more* likely that he'll repeat it rather than *less*.
OK, let's look at my forecast busts in detail here:
>
>You expected that "Interference" would lead to a rash of further stories
>based around rewriting the Doctor's history -- instead the Doctor's
>history has been declared off-limits.
All right. First, that's the first I've heard that the Doctor's
history has been declared off-limits. I'm personally in favor
of that, although I imagine that it will get a mixed reaction
overall.
Second, this forecast was based on a) Steve Cole remaining
as editor, b) Lawrence Miles hanging around and convincing
Steve to let him do more Faction Paradox stories, and c) that
the Dangling Retcon Arc would be a success. Now, according
to you, c actually is the case, while a and b have turned out
differently than I expected. You probably knew before I did
that Steve was going to step down as editor, but weren't you
blindsided by Miles walking away from the series in a huff? I
sure as heck wasn't expecting it myself.
Point c is the one that has me concerned. The EDAs that
'succeeded' under Steve Cole were the radical ones of the
Meatgrinder Arc, while the ones that 'failed' were the traditional
books that preceeded it. Now, if I were the EDA editor I could
draw a *very* obvious conclusion from this and pitch my range of
books accordingly - maybe not with FP and continuity perversion
but with other traditional DW values I could turn inside out. You
know Justin much better than I do - how is he looking at this
particular aspect of Steve's reign?
>You expected that closing the EDA's
>to unpublished authors for a while would make the editors likely to bar
>new authors from *all* Who books -- instead the year following "The
>Burning" sees more new novelists in a year than any time since 1993.
First of all, how many of the new EDA authors did Steve comission?
I'm a bit fuzzy on exactly when the Steve-Justin transition occurred.
Second, while I'm please that Steve reversed himself, I'm also
puzzled. Given what was said at the time about closed shops being
the industry standard in other sci-fi book series, what was said about
Steve's lack of staffing to handle the slushpile, and that such
business decisions are rarely reversed except by a legal billyclub,
I had no reason to expect that it would ever be reversed and a
fair number of reasons to expect it to be extended to the other
ranges.
If it was Steve's plan all along to do that, then pehaps he should
have given a *definite* date for re-opening the EDAs to newbies
on the day he first closed it?
>In a nutshell, Doctor Who's evolution is a constant stream of
>zig-zags, not endless movement in a straight line. Once something's
>been done, the production team generally *don't* want to repeat themselves.
Jon, the problem is that this runs contrary to how the entertainment
industry seems to work. From what I've seen, if the powers-that-be
find something that works, they usually repeat it to the point of riding
it into the ground in their attempts to make money off of it. Now, maybe
the DW books are immune to this effect, but if so, could you please
explain the why's and how's?
>And the second big bounce you took -- that there's no real break between
>the Earth arc and the next storylines being discussed -- requires leaping
>over one of the few facts that you've actually been given: that on the
>Outpost Gallifrey page you were quoting, Justin says the story-arc starts
>some time in *the latter half of next year*.
>
>If you've been following the news at all, you know the names of at least
>four standalone books following the Earth arc. The new arc couldn't begin
>before July at the earliest, and there's nothing to indicate how much
>later than that it starts.
Mea culpa on this one. One of the drawbacks of not being able
to get several of the books is that I've not paid a lot of attention
to *when* the Meatgrinder Arc is supposed to end. I'm wrong on
this and I apologize.
>I betcha, if you just sit back and read the books and don't pay attention
>to the online hype, you won't even be able to *tell* when this new story
>arc begins.
Don't count on it! Remember my interpretation of the start of the
Meatgrinder Arc? :-)
>Now, given just how little you know, aside from "they're doing standalone
>books at least till July, possibly later", which sounds like the more
>sensible attitude to take?
>
>A) "Hmm, looks like they're following the reconstruction of the eighth
>Doctor character with a batch of standalone books. I guess we'll have six
>books or so where we're off the roller coaster to get used to the new
>character of the eighth Doctor, before they start shaking things up
>again."
>
>B) "We haven't even fininshed the reconstruction of the Eighth Doctor
>and we're already setting up for the next round of Whoniverse-shaking
>revelations? Can we please have 6 to 12 books to get off the current
>roller coaster and to get use to the new character of the Eighth Doctor
>before you start shaking things up again?"
The correct answer is C) It is time for a "next round of radical
re-invention" watch, because although Justin's next batch of
shake-em-up books may be 6 months or more away, there is
still a non-trivial chance that the storyline will be as bad as I
fear. I'll check back with you when the spoilers start coming
out to see if the watch needs to be upgraded to a warning.
Jon, it's not just my job to analyze incomplete data and make
forecasts from it, it's my nature. I'm not sure I could change that
nature even if I tried, and I don't really feel inclined to try. It's
also my nature to be pessimistic, but that's another story.
C. A. Reed Jr.
remember that there are more serious things to argue about then wether or not
the BBC has (or has not) gone stark raving Gaga over the direction of the EDAs?
I'm not asking for a stop to this debate -- even though I'm so far out of the
loop, that I no idea what's going on. All I'm asking for is for you two to
remember that in the large sceame of things, it will not matter if the Doctor
is half Vulcan on his third cousin's mother's side of the family.
So, please think before you post heat??
Craig
William December Starr
jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum) said:
> There are all sorts of things that could make up "a shocking series of
> twists and turns" which *don't* involve massive re-invention. They
> could gradually introduce a new recurring villain or monster, which
> doesn't look like what it first seems to be; the Doctor could piece
> together evidence that someone was following him through his
> wanderings on Earth; Fitz could discover that his guitar is possessed
> by an alien intelligence.
Hasn't his guitar always been more intelligent than him?
(Well, more interesting anyway.)
William December Starr
[ to Jack Beven ]
> The EDA's started messing with time and alternate dimensions in
> "Revolution Man", this was a planned continuing storyline between
> there and "Interference", but the arc linkage there is so subtle that
> you deny it's actually an arc.
I've gotta confess: my brain glazed over from boredom fairly early in
_Revolution Man_ and I ended up mostly skimming it. Where did it mess
with anything beyond incredibly powerful telekinesis? (Well, that and
one of the most perfunctory and short-lived off-camera brainwashes in
literary history.)
LPPCQ Snarky
>
>Reading this thread is like rading the last chapter of a EDA -- I have NO idea
>what's going on.....
David and William are of the impression that *making a comment*, and
*going on and on for months on end about the imminent collapse of DW in
the novels for all time, due to a particular story arc* are really the
same thing...Apparently, anyway.
Lorrill Buyens
Kitson) died and went to heaven, and on their tombstone was carved:
>Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Can we please have 6 to 12 books
>> to get off the current roller coaster and to get use to the new
>> character of the Eighth Doctor before you start shaking things up again?
>
>I like roller coaters.
Paintbrushes too drippy or something?
--
| Doctor Fraud |Always believe six|
|Mad Inventor & Purveyor of Pseudopsychology |impossible things |
| Weird Science at Bargain Rates |before breakfast. |
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm