Books I've Read: The Blue Angel
R.J. Smith
The Blue Angel
by Paul Magrs and Jeremy Hoad
ISBN: 0 563 55581 5
In brief: This is like a gourmet dish. Not to everyone's tastes,
certainly, but a sumptuous delight if you're in the right mood for it.
Spoilers follow
"No more episodes for me!
Oh no!
But even then there's a kind of implied adventure, isn't there? And it
would be about how I inveigle myself back into the functions of story.
How I break out of a crippling stasis. And I can see it all now.
But - horrors - the thought of this forever.
Me, merely gracing an endless title sequence.
As if archived, canonised. A dead Cultural Artefact in a museum of
flotsam, jetsam, trash. Unreinventable.
Stories all ravelled up and done with. As if novelty were the key! And
I were not free just to rewrite, remake, replay, repeat! Ha!
Gracing an endless title theme, though - end credits, title sequence -
never to impeach again.
impeach:
to accuse of a crime
to challenge or question
to entangle
Safe for ever! What if that's how I've ended up?" (pages 227-228)
Following up Interference is no easy task. That book was huge and the
ripples coming out from it are enough to change the EDAs forever. The two
previous 'important' books (Alien Bodies and Seeing I) were both followed
up by woefully inadequate tales that effectively hit the reset button,
ensuring that the line as a whole stayed in the range of
mediocre-at-best. The Blue Angel is a very, very different book to
Interference, but it actually keeps the momentum going and deals with a
number of repercussions. It can't, and shouldn't, deal with them all, but
it provides a very adequate follow-up.
The most important aspect is the Doctor's recuperation. He's suffered a
blow that he can't quite define, so he needs a similar method of
recovery. The stuff with the mermaid mother and his personal physician
and Sally's dream seems to be way out-there... except that it's written
in a haunting, creepy manner that feels far more real than the rest of
the novel. There are hints here that this might be the 'true' reality and
the exciting adventure series might be a dream (and of course, there's no
way to disprove that!) I love the sense we get that the events from
Interference have truly disturbed the Doctor... even more so because the
creepiness comes not so much from what happens, but just the language and
tone used. OTOH, we have a perfectly simple explanation for all of this
within the book itself. I like Magrs' style: he always leaves enough for
the reader who wants to take things literally to do so, but he makes it
clear that there's a lot more interesting stuff to be had than simple
linear plotting and storytelling.
The other sections, complete with their lame Star Trek parody, are
written in a playful, mocking style that keeps telling you not to take
the whole thing too seriously. The Glass Men seem like they might be
alternate universe Daleks, but they're nothing so mundane. Their
descriptions alter like fluid, depending on your perspective. The
reference to Planet of the Spiders is very welcome. I suspect that the
Star Trekky stuff was Jeremy's and the recuperation was Paul's, but I
wouldn't swear to it.
Fitz isn't given terribly much to do. There's a lot of mileage in his
post-Interference identity, but we don't scratch the surface. Compassion
also seems rather characterless, although this is a bit more devious.
It's a shame we don't learn much about her here, or have a sense of who
she is, but it's possible that her joining surprised the authors as much
as it did the readers.
Iris is quite fun. I like her Barbarella persona a lot more than her
previous one (although I'd come to enjoy that too, by the end of TSE).
She's only had a couple of previous appearances (one novel and one short
story), but already she's one of the great recurring characters of the
BBC books. Definitely a love-her-or-hate-her character, she's got a depth
that's just plain absent in most supporting characters. I think this has
to do with Magrs having used her elsewhere, so he's much more aware of
what makes her tick by now. This is my theory on why the Doctor and
companions work reasonably well in these books, where the original
characters never do: they've simply got a lot of history behind them, so
the authors have seen what's been done and had time to think about
consequences and where they could take these characters (as well as being
better equipped to know what they'd say etc). Iris is definitely more fun
in this persona - although paradoxically her motives are less focussed on
her infatuation with the Doctor now. Her status as 'defender of the
Obverse' helps a lot to make her heroic. It's a bit of a shame that she
replaces the Doctor in this role, but what do you expect from a story
with Paul Magrs' name on it?
The Doctor in the Star Trek plot seems like he's running along fine. It
builds towards an interesting climax... but then he's taken out of time
by Iris because his interfering would cause more harm than good. This is
a bit too Mindwarpy for me. It's a nice idea in many ways (although it's
the sort of thing you can only do once), but it comes too close to a)
Interference's similar theme of the Doctor being inadequately equipped to
deal with the real world and b) all the other EDAs and their habitual
sidelining of the useless eighth Doctor. However, the twenty questions go
a long way to redeeming it. Ultimately, it's just funny, which helps a
great deal. Well, I laughed, anyway.
The book has things to say about storytelling conventions, continuity and
post-modernism. The lack of ending has no real effect on the continuing
adventures of the Doctor (or at least, any way in which it does is dealt
with in The Shadows of Avalon) or even Iris, so it's 'only' the original
characters who are affected by this. And given that we plow through two
of these books a month, rarely to return, I think Magrs and Hoad are
asking us just how important (or not) some of the traditional
story-telling techniques are to us. Does it really matter to us what
happens to a bunch of faceless nobodies we'll never see again anyway?
Even if you accept that DW is really fiction, surely the Doctor and
companions (and maybe recurring characters and villains) are on a higher
'reality' level than the supporting cast. Does it make any difference
whatsoever to the continuing story of Doctor Who what the answers to
those twenty questions are?
The Star Trek parody, on the other hand, is just lame. Anyone could have
written this, IMO, and written it a lot better indeed. Now, I don't have
degrees in literature, so maybe I'm not getting it on as deep a level as
I'm meant to, so maybe the authors are having a go at fan-fiction (the
bit about the captain and his alien officer being lovers seems a bit of a
signal there), but it's neither good enough to be entertaining nor
over-the-top enough to be amusing parody. I'm sure I'm missing something
here and this was deliberately written in as lame a manner as possible,
but that still doesn't make for either entertaining or informative
reading. In truth, it seems a lot like the authors have just been lazy,
but have dressed everything up so that any criticisms can be dismissed
with 'Oh, it's High Literature. I wouldn't expect you potato-eaters to
understand.' (The much better Tomorrow People stuff in Verdigris lends
credence to this theory)
OTOH, it does avoid some of the more obvious Star Trek jokes (there's
nothing about red shirts, for example) and Belinda has some welcome
depth. Sadly, even if there's a great reason behind it, the parody is
still not much fun to read. I realise that entertaining the reader isn't
necessarily one of Magrs priorities, but it's not particularly clever or
original, as far as I can see.
The first part of the book -- rarely for a Doctor Who novel -- is
surprisingly entertaining and means that the book gets off to a great
start. The old ladies are great and the owl attack is surprisingly scary.
There's a vividness here that's extremely welcome. I flew through this
book, which made a really nice change from the worthy slog that was The
Scarlet Empress.
Daedalus is a bit too ranting to be interesting. There are some hints
that he might be a future Doctor, but by this point I'm well and truly
bored with that particular cliche, so I'm choosing to ignore the hints.
The angel himself doesn't really add much, but that doesn't seem to
matter.
The back cover blurb must be the shortest in history (Autumn Mist tried
hard, but this beats it). And yet, the layout makes it look like poetry.
Page 113 is perhaps the most striking and eloquent description of the
Doctor I've ever read. I think Paul Magrs is one of the few people to
realise just how much potential our little series actually has -- and he
never once underestimates our intelligence.
Ultimately, while The Blue Angel has a lot to say to us about the series,
continuity, our interpretation of fiction and the conventions of telling
a standalone story as part of a broader tale, it's actually lots of fun.
It's playful and gentle and doesn't scare us off (no, really!) The Star
Trek parody is the only major fault, but since most of us have survived
fanfic, we can survive this. It could be a touch more amusing in a few
places and give some of the characters more to do, but it's an
astonishing book in many ways. It's lyrical, poetic and gorgeously
written in places. I can understand why some people don't like it, but I
think it's truly something to be savoured. I like it a lot.
- Robert Smith?
William December Starr
smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) said:
> OTOH, it does avoid some of the more obvious Star Trek jokes (there's
> nothing about red shirts, for example) and Belinda has some welcome
> depth. Sadly, even if there's a great reason behind it, the parody is
> still not much fun to read. I realise that entertaining the reader
> isn't necessarily one of Magrs priorities, but it's not particularly
> clever or original, as far as I can see.
And there, in just nine words, we have to the reason why I say that
Paul Magrs should never have been allowed to write for Doctor Who:
"entertaining the reader isn't necessarily one of Magrs priorities."
In my opinion, that's unforgivable.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
goofy
> In article <8oclqa$b...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA>,
> smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) said:
>
>> OTOH, it does avoid some of the more obvious Star Trek jokes (there's
>> nothing about red shirts, for example) and Belinda has some welcome
>> depth. Sadly, even if there's a great reason behind it, the parody is
>> still not much fun to read. I realise that entertaining the reader
>> isn't necessarily one of Magrs priorities, but it's not particularly
>> clever or original, as far as I can see.
>
> And there, in just nine words, we have to the reason why I say that
> Paul Magrs should never have been allowed to write for Doctor Who:
> "entertaining the reader isn't necessarily one of Magrs priorities."
>
> In my opinion, that's unforgivable.
I disagree with Robert here; I think that entertaining the reader is one of
Magrs' priorities. But I liked the Star Trek parody, so what do I know.
R.J. Smith
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <8oclqa$b...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA>,
>smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) said:
>> OTOH, it does avoid some of the more obvious Star Trek jokes (there's
>> nothing about red shirts, for example) and Belinda has some welcome
>> depth. Sadly, even if there's a great reason behind it, the parody is
>> still not much fun to read. I realise that entertaining the reader
>> isn't necessarily one of Magrs priorities, but it's not particularly
>> clever or original, as far as I can see.
>And there, in just nine words, we have to the reason why I say that
>Paul Magrs should never have been allowed to write for Doctor Who:
>"entertaining the reader isn't necessarily one of Magrs priorities."
>In my opinion, that's unforgivable.
I knew someone would make this response.
And, in fact, I knew it would be you, William :-)
- Robert Smith?
R.J. Smith
goofy <go...@dreaming.org> wrote:
>William December Starr wrote:
>> In article <8oclqa$b...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA>,
>> smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) said:
>>> OTOH, it does avoid some of the more obvious Star Trek jokes (there's
>>> nothing about red shirts, for example) and Belinda has some welcome
>>> depth. Sadly, even if there's a great reason behind it, the parody is
>>> still not much fun to read. I realise that entertaining the reader
>>> isn't necessarily one of Magrs priorities, but it's not particularly
>>> clever or original, as far as I can see.
>> And there, in just nine words, we have to the reason why I say that
>> Paul Magrs should never have been allowed to write for Doctor Who:
>> "entertaining the reader isn't necessarily one of Magrs priorities."
>> In my opinion, that's unforgivable.
>I disagree with Robert here; I think that entertaining the reader is one of
>Magrs' priorities. But I liked the Star Trek parody, so what do I know.
I presume you understand that I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad
thing, right?
I find myself challenged by Magrs' stuff, often uncomfortably. That's not
to say that a lot of what he writes doesn't entertain me (it most
certainly does and the one word summary I'd apply to both Blue Angel and
Verdigrid is "fun"), but there's more to what he's doing than simple
entertainment, IMO.
Then again, I like being challenged, so maybe it is entertainment after
all.
- Robert Smith?
Steven Kitson
> Paul Magrs should never have been allowed to write for Doctor Who:
> "entertaining the reader isn't necessarily one of Magrs priorities."
>
> In my opinion, that's unforgivable.
Hm. Should the prime aim of all fiction be to entertain?
--
I'm made of steel, soul and metal
I'll be human 'til the day I die
Paul Andinach
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
> > And there, in just nine words, we have to the reason why I say
> > that Paul Magrs should never have been allowed to write for Doctor
> > Who: "entertaining the reader isn't necessarily one of Magrs
> > priorities."
> >
> > In my opinion, that's unforgivable.
>
> Hm. Should the prime aim of all fiction be to entertain?
William didn't say anything about the prime aim of all fiction, only
that entertaining the audience should be a priority for a writer of
Doctor Who.
Obvious question, then:
Should entertaining the audience be a priority for all Doctor Who?
In my opinion, yes.
Paul
--
The Pink Pedanther
goofy
>>I disagree with Robert here; I think that entertaining the reader is one of
>>Magrs' priorities. But I liked the Star Trek parody, so what do I know.
>
> I presume you understand that I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad
> thing, right?
Yes.
> I find myself challenged by Magrs' stuff, often uncomfortably. That's not
> to say that a lot of what he writes doesn't entertain me (it most
> certainly does and the one word summary I'd apply to both Blue Angel and
> Verdigrid is "fun"), but there's more to what he's doing than simple
> entertainment, IMO.
Oh, I agree. But I think that entertainment is one of his priorities, along
with the other things. I think he hopes that everyone will enjoy his books,
whatever their background and whatever their take on DW.
> Then again, I like being challenged, so maybe it is entertainment after
> all.
Yeah, I guess I would consider being challenged entertainment as well.
John
R.J. Smith
>In my opinion, yes.
In my opinion: ...almost always.
In almost every case, yes, it should be one of the priorities. But there
are works of fiction that can and do challenge us about the way we view
the series, fiction, life etc. And sometimes those have things to say that
are important and sometimes have to be said in a way that makes the reader
uncomfortable.
And it's not to say that the author should be going all out not to
entertain (eg The Pit), but that entertaining "the audience" and
especially 'the mass audience" might not always be the best way to say
something. To use some artificial examples, you might, for instance, want
to entertain the rad readers and annoy the trad ones. Yet evidence shows
that the trad readership is far higher than the rad ones. Does that count
as "entertaining the audience"?
Arguably, yes, since you're entertaining a section of the audience. (But
then again, The Pit entertains Dave Becker) But you're not entertaining a
majority, so does that count?
- Robert Smith?
(Of course, you have to be an author of incredible skill to make this
work, so don't go getting too many ideas anyone :-) )
Steven Kitson
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Steven Kitson wrote:
> > Hm. Should the prime aim of all fiction be to entertain?
>
> William didn't say anything about the prime aim of all fiction, only
> that entertaining the audience should be a priority for a writer of
> Doctor Who.
That's what I thought. So my next question was not going to be:
> Should entertaining the audience be a priority for all Doctor Who?
but instead:
What is it, then, that makes 'Doctor Who' a special case such that
entertaining its audience should be its prime aim?
orinoco
Steven Kitson wrote in message
<1eg52u9.rcb3q31yoyi86N%ski...@greenend.org.uk>...
>Paul Andinach <pand...@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Steven Kitson wrote:
>> > Hm. Should the prime aim of all fiction be to entertain?
>>
>> William didn't say anything about the prime aim of all fiction, only
>> that entertaining the audience should be a priority for a writer of
>> Doctor Who.
>
>That's what I thought. So my next question was not going to be:
>
>> Should entertaining the audience be a priority for all Doctor Who?
>
>but instead:
>
>What is it, then, that makes 'Doctor Who' a special case such that
>entertaining its audience should be its prime aim?
>
I personally thin kthat the prime aim of any television program should be to
entertain. After all, the TV exists as entertainment only. (I wish it could
be educational as well, but 90% of the population don't agree with me and
prefer mindless pap).
In fact, I would say that the whole purpose of any art is to entertain in
one form or another - whether it be entertaining the viewer/listener or the
artist themselves, if no one whatsoever has gained the slightest enjoyment
out of the activity, then what is the point?
Orinoco, wombling free
I was brave, I was bold, I was fearless
I was famous for the things that I did
I was quick on the draw as I tidied up the floor
So they called me the Orinoco Kid
Cardinal Zorak
"orinoco" <ho...@orinoco.netlineuk.net> wrote in message
news:8ojiq8$nr8$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> In fact, I would say that the whole purpose of any art is to entertain in
> one form or another - whether it be entertaining the viewer/listener or
the
> artist themselves, if no one whatsoever has gained the slightest enjoyment
> out of the activity, then what is the point?
>
> Orinoco, wombling free
Never heard of suffering for your art? While Van Gogh (say) lived, no-one
gave a toss for his paintings and he died in penury. Or was it Holland?
Anyway, what was the point? Now some Japanese fat-cat company buys his
paintings for 13 million dollars and sticks them in a vault so no-one can
ever see them again.
Art? Arse more like.
Cardinal Zorak
"If he wants to torture you, you won't Torquemada'f it!"
--
Steven Kitson
> >entertaining its audience should be its prime aim?
>
> I personally thin kthat the prime aim of any television program should be to
> entertain. After all, the TV exists as entertainment only. (I wish it could
> be educational as well, but 90% of the population don't agree with me and
> prefer mindless pap).
First, 'Doctor Who' isn't a television program.
Second, I'm not talking about education. Television can produce art.
'Edge of Darkness'. 'The Singing Detective'. roduced _not_ out of a
desire to entertain, but because the artist had something they wanted --
_needed_ to say. They entertain, yes, but that's secondary.
> In fact, I would say that the whole purpose of any art is to entertain in
> one form or another - whether it be entertaining the viewer/listener or the
> artist themselves, if no one whatsoever has gained the slightest enjoyment
> out of the activity, then what is the point?
Then I suggest you stick with your 'Doctor Who's and your 'Star Trek's
and your 'Chicago Hope's, and stay away from the many films (less TV
shows, but there are some) and plays that are harrowing, scarring and
which cause you to re-examine yourself and your attitudes. Because then
you'll be entertained, and that's what's important.
Lance Parkin
<ho...@orinoco.netlineuk.net> wrote:
>
>In fact, I would say that the whole purpose of any art is to entertain in
>one form or another - whether it be entertaining the viewer/listener or the
>artist themselves, if no one whatsoever has gained the slightest enjoyment
>out of the activity, then what is the point?
But 'entertain' is such a broad concept, isn't it? Schindler's List
isn't 'entertaining' in the conventional sense, but it's clearly a
fantastic film, it's acted and shot in a way that makes it more
powerful than pretty much any other Hollywood film. I liked
the film, I liked it a lot, but I don't think I could say I 'enjoyed'
it.
The purpose of every book is *not* 'to provide the same
popcorn thrills month after month'. The Blue Angel doesn't
do the same sort of things as. say, Frontier Worlds or
Corpse Marker ... well, you get those *too*. If you prefer
one style over the other, that's fine - there's plenty for
everyone. For me, The Blue Angel was probably the book
of last year, it was clever, literate, moving and character-driven,
and as such far more 'Whoish' than some book where some
old monster appears and does its turn before the Dr defeats it. I
wouldn't want every book to be like TBA ... but, hell, worse
things have happened.
Lance
orinoco
Steven Kitson wrote in message
>orinoco <ho...@orinoco.netlineuk.net> wrote:
>
>Then I suggest you stick with your 'Doctor Who's and your 'Star Trek's
>and your 'Chicago Hope's, and stay away from the many films (less TV
>shows, but there are some) and plays that are harrowing, scarring and
>which cause you to re-examine yourself and your attitudes. Because then
>you'll be entertained, and that's what's important.
>
So to you, entertainment is as simple as Dr Who? I find being challenged
entertaining. I find entertainment of some description in studying text
books. You can still watch a harrowing soul-searching film and be
entertained. God save us from everything being light and fluffy...
Orinoco, wombling pissed off
Steven Kitson
> So to you, entertainment is as simple as Dr Who? I find being challenged
> entertaining. I find entertainment of some description in studying text
> books. You can still watch a harrowing soul-searching film and be
> entertained. God save us from everything being light and fluffy...
I never said that being challenged wasn't entertaining. I was objecting
to the assertion that the _primary_ aim of any 'Doctor Who' book should
be to entertain.
There's nothing _wrong_ with being entertaining. But it shouldn't be
allowed to get in the way of actually saying something.
If a film, a play, or a book really has something to say, I _guarantee_
that it was not produced soley from a desire to entertain.
deX!
ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
>
> I never said that being challenged wasn't entertaining. I was
> objecting to the assertion that the _primary_ aim of any 'Doctor
> Who' book should be to entertain.
>
> There's nothing _wrong_ with being entertaining. But it shouldn't be
> allowed to get in the way of actually saying something.
>
Hmm. I agree, but I would also say that converse is true; actually
saying something shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of being
entertaining. I love it when the books have deeper messages and
concepts, but I don't read Doctor Who for eduction purposes; I read
Doctor Who for entertainment. I enjoy a mindless runaround (_The
Ultimate Treasure_) almost as much as a "deep" story (_The Blue
Angel_).
deX!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steven Kitson
> ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
> > There's nothing _wrong_ with being entertaining. But it shouldn't be
> > allowed to get in the way of actually saying something.
> >
>
> Hmm. I agree, but I would also say that converse is true; actually
> saying something shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of being
> entertaining. I love it when the books have deeper messages and
> concepts, but I don't read Doctor Who for eduction purposes; I read
> Doctor Who for entertainment. I enjoy a mindless runaround (_The
> Ultimate Treasure_) almost as much as a "deep" story (_The Blue
> Angel_).
That's your opinion, you're entitled to it. I disagree. I read 'Doctor
Who' for entertainment, yes, or else I wouldn' read it at all; but
wouldn't it be nice if 'Doctor Who' was something _more_ than
entertainment as well?
As people have pointed out, being good and being entertaining are not
mutually exclusive.
But I do wish people would stop saying 'education'! I'm not talking
about education! I _hate_ 'educational' television! I'm talking about
art.
deX!
ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
> deX! <djp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
> > > There's nothing _wrong_ with being entertaining. But it
> > > shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of actually saying
> > > something.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm. I agree, but I would also say that converse is true; actually
> > saying something shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of being
> > entertaining. I love it when the books have deeper messages and
> > concepts, but I don't read Doctor Who for eduction purposes; I read
> > Doctor Who for entertainment. I enjoy a mindless runaround (_The
> > Ultimate Treasure_) almost as much as a "deep" story (_The Blue
> > Angel_).
>
> That's your opinion, you're entitled to it. I disagree.
You disagree that Doctor Who books should be both entertaining and
meaningful?
Matt Michael
Steven Kitson wrote in message
>That's your opinion, you're entitled to it. I disagree. I read 'Doctor
>Who' for entertainment, yes, or else I wouldn' read it at all; but
>wouldn't it be nice if 'Doctor Who' was something _more_ than
>entertainment as well?
The BBC's Doctor Who was created to *entertain*, and it survived for
twenty-odd years on that basis. It's wonderful if a story is something more
than just entertaining - if there's some sort of meaningful subtext - but at
the end of the day, entertainment has to be the primary concern. That's why
I think criticising something like "The Creature from the Pit" as
'superficially enjoyable, but containing elements that work against any
lasting worth' (The Fourth Doctor Handbook) is absurd. If it's
superficially enjoyable television over four weeks then that's the main
concern. If it entertains fans who can find deep meanings twenty years
later, that's marvellous - but it's superficial entertainment that gets the
viewing figures.
So I kind of agree with you - it's nice if DW stories have massive depths to
explore at length, but only if you're a fan who's going to try. If you're
just watching or reading DW for fun then you're not going to be too happy if
it fails the entertainment test. That's why I enjoyed the light "Janus
Conjunction", found the deep and deeply depressing "Beltempest" not much
good, and adored the entertaining *and* meaningful "Shadows of Avalon"
matt
deX!
"Matt Michael" <matt.m...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>
> So I kind of agree with you - it's nice if DW stories have massive
> depths to explore at length, but only if you're a fan who's going to
> try. If you're just watching or reading DW for fun then you're not
> going to be too happy if it fails the entertainment test. That's why
> I enjoyed the light "Janus Conjunction", found the deep and deeply
> depressing "Beltempest" not much good, and adored the entertaining
> *and* meaningful "Shadows of Avalon"
>
I was with you right up until you said _Shadows Of Avalon_. :)
In fact, replace that with _Interference_ or _The Blue Angel_, and
you have my position on the matter. I'll also go out a little
further and say that the superlative books are those which are both
entertaining and meaningful. (For me, that would mean pretty much
everything Lawrence Miles, Ben Aaronovitch, and Daniel O'Mahony have
written, everything Dave Stone has written except _Oblivion_, _Just
War_, _Human Nature_, _Frontier Worlds_, _The Blue Angel_ and _SLEEPY_,
to name slightly-more-than-a-few.)
Steven Kitson
> > > Hmm. I agree, but I would also say that converse is true; actually
> > > saying something shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of being
> >
> > That's your opinion, you're entitled to it. I disagree.
>
> You disagree that Doctor Who books should be both entertaining and
> meaningful?
I disagree that saying something shouldn't be allowed to get in the way
of being entertaining. Preferably they should work together; but in a
conflict, I think you should go with something meaningful rather than
something pretty but empty.
Steven Kitson
> The BBC's Doctor Who was created to *entertain*, and it survived for
> twenty-odd years on that basis. It's wonderful if a story is something more
> than just entertaining - if there's some sort of meaningful subtext - but at
> the end of the day, entertainment has to be the primary concern. That's why
> I think criticising something like "The Creature from the Pit" as
> 'superficially enjoyable, but containing elements that work against any
> lasting worth' (The Fourth Doctor Handbook) is absurd. If it's
> superficially enjoyable television over four weeks then that's the main
> concern. If it entertains fans who can find deep meanings twenty years
> later, that's marvellous - but it's superficial entertainment that gets the
> viewing figures.
>
> So I kind of agree with you - it's nice if DW stories have massive depths to
> explore at length, but only if you're a fan who's going to try.
No, you don't agree with me at all. You're saying the exact opposite of
what I've been saying, which is that entertainment, while important,
should definately not_ be the primary concern, and that there are other
concerns which should far outweigh simply producing pretty nullity which
passes a couple of hours but is ultimately meaningless.
The current obsession with viewing figures over quality is, I hope, a
phase which will soon pass (although I fear it will not).
deX!
ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
> deX! <djp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
> > > deX! <djp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > Hmm. I agree, but I would also say that converse is true;
> > > > actually saying something shouldn't be allowed to get in the
> > > > way of being entertaining. [...]
> > >
> > > That's your opinion, you're entitled to it. I disagree.
> >
> > You disagree that Doctor Who books should be both entertaining and
> > meaningful?
>
> I disagree that saying something shouldn't be allowed to get in the
> way of being entertaining.
The entire purpose of these books is to entertain. If the book doesn't
entertain (ie, _Divided Loyalties_, _Legacy of the Daleks_, _The Space
Age_, _The Face Eater_, _The Pit_, _Return of the Living Dad_), the
publishers have no business releasing it.
You'd have a much more coherent point if you spent more time examining
the actual definition of "entertainment"...
> Preferably they should work together; but in a conflict, I think you
> should go with something meaningful rather than something pretty but
> empty.
>
That's what leads to books like _The Pit_ and (to a lesser degree)
_Beltempest_, both of which are overshadowed by lighter-weight stories
like _Frontier Worlds_ and _Demontage_.
deX!
ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
>
> No, you don't agree with me at all. You're saying the exact opposite
> of what I've been saying, which is that entertainment, while
> important, should definately not_ be the primary concern, and that
> there are other concerns which should far outweigh simply producing
> pretty nullity which passes a couple of hours but is ultimately
> meaningless.
>
> The current obsession with viewing figures over quality is, I hope, a
> phase which will soon pass (although I fear it will not).
>
Of course, the counter-point is that if every Doctor Who book turns
into a humorless slog through DEEP ISSUES AND MESSAGES, MAN without
spending any time trying to be engaging, well-written, internally
coherent or enjoyable, the series will get cancelled faster than
you could blink.
Do you honestly think that a poorly-written book with a message (_The
Pit_) is automatically better than a well-written book without a
message (_The English Way of Death_)?
Matt Michael
Steven Kitson wrote in message <1egalka.7iu1ad13nm1xcN%
>No, you don't agree with me at all. You're saying the exact opposite of
>what I've been saying, which is that entertainment, while important,
>should definately not_ be the primary concern, and that there are other
>concerns which should far outweigh simply producing pretty nullity which
>passes a couple of hours but is ultimately meaningless.
In that case I disagree entirely. Entertainment is DW's business. If it
doesn't entertain then it's a failure. That's not to say meaningful stories
can't entertain - generally they do, and that makes them extra enjoyable.
But if DW doesn't entertain then it shouldn't be produced.
matt
Steven Kitson
> Of course, the counter-point is that if every Doctor Who book turns
> into a humorless slog through DEEP ISSUES AND MESSAGES, MAN without
> spending any time trying to be engaging, well-written, internally
> coherent or enjoyable, the series will get cancelled faster than
> you could blink.
But meaning and entertainment are _not_ mutually exclusive! You can have
both!
I'm not saying writers shouldn't try to make their books enjoyable,
entertaining, or anything else beginning with 'e'. I'm just saying it
shouldn't be their goal _above all else_.
You seem to be making out that I think a book whether a book is
entertaining or not is unimportant. That's bollocks. Of _course_ it's
important that the books are entertaining. I'm just saying that isn't
not _the_ most important thing when writing a book (provided you want to
write a _good_ book, not just a forgettble piece of meaningless pretty
prose).
> Do you honestly think that a poorly-written book with a message (_The
> Pit_) is automatically better than a well-written book without a
> message (_The English Way of Death_)?
No.
But I think a well-written book with a meaning ('message' sounds far too
preachy) is better than a well-written book that is meaningless.
And I think that if you start out thinking 'I want to entertain', it's
highly unlikely you'll produce anything above the latter.
On the other hand, if you start out with something you want to ay, you
can make it entertaining, and you'll produce a well-written,
entertaining book with a meaning.
Steven Kitson
> ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
> > I disagree that saying something shouldn't be allowed to get in the
> > way of being entertaining.
>
> The entire purpose of these books is to entertain.
Says who? You? I say that if that's so, then they're going to produce
lightweight frothy rubbish that you can't remember half an hour after
you finish the last page. And I think they can do better, and they
should try to.
> If the book doesn't
> entertain (ie, _Divided Loyalties_, _Legacy of the Daleks_, _The Space
> Age_, _The Face Eater_, _The Pit_, _Return of the Living Dad_), the
> publishers have no business releasing it.
Again, says you. I have a different opinion.
> You'd have a much more coherent point if you spent more time examining
> the actual definition of "entertainment"...
Go on then, give me your definition. Mine is 'something is entertaining
if people enjoy reading it, watching it, or otherwise experiencing it'.
That;s the definition I've been using throughout this thread.
> > Preferably they should work together; but in a conflict, I think you
> > should go with something meaningful rather than something pretty but
> > empty.
>
> That's what leads to books like _The Pit_ and (to a lesser degree)
> _Beltempest_, both of which are overshadowed by lighter-weight stories
> like _Frontier Worlds_ and _Demontage_.
I've read 'The Pit'; I remember liking it, and finding a lot of the
ideas (especially the religious androids, and counterpointing them with
Blake's visionary faith) very interesting and worthwhile, although the
prose style was stodgy and almost unreadable. I've read 'Frontier
Worlds'; it had some nice moments, but ultimately it was meaningles and
empty.
Give me a book like 'The Pit' (but preferably by someone who can write
decent prose) any day.
Steven Kitson
Again, you're getting me wrong -- I don't think that entertainment is
not important, I just thing that it's not the be-all and end-all, not
_the_ most important thing.
But finally, we've come back to the question I asked originally, that
nobody answered: _why_ is 'Doctor Who' different from other literature,
in that 'Doctor Who's primary goal should be entertainment?
The nearest thing I got to an answer was:
I personally thin kthat the prime aim of any television program should
be to entertain. After all, the TV exists as entertainment only. (I
wish it could be educational as well, but 90% of the population don't
agree with me and prefer mindless pap).
Which just states 'I think that the prime aim of any television
programme should be to entertain' and doesn't say _why_ the writer
(orinoco) thinks that.
So: Why?
(Leaving aside the point that 'Doctor Who' isn't a television programme,
at least not any more)
deX!
ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
> deX! <djp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
> > >
> > > I disagree that saying something shouldn't be allowed to get in
> > > the way of being entertaining.
> >
> > The entire purpose of these books is to entertain.
>
> Says who? You?
Yes.
> I say that if that's so, then they're going to produce
> lightweight frothy rubbish that you can't remember half an hour after
> you finish the last page. And I think they can do better, and they
> should try to.
>
Why do you think that something that is entertaining is automatically
light-weight?
> > If the book doesn't entertain (ie, _Divided Loyalties_, _Legacy of
> > the Daleks_, _The Space Age_, _The Face Eater_, _The Pit_, _Return
> > of the Living Dad_), the publishers have no business releasing it.
>
> Again, says you. I have a different opinion.
>
So, explain to me what makes _Divided Loyalties_ worth reading, then,
if your opinion is different from mine. It was not well-written. It
was not deep. It was completely unengaging on every level I can think
of and has to be the worst story I've ever seen/read featuring my
favorite Doctor. What about it made it worth release? The return of
the Toymaker? The Deca? The unbearable prose? What?
> > You'd have a much more coherent point if you spent more time
> > examining the actual definition of "entertainment"...
>
> Go on then, give me your definition. Mine is 'something is
> entertaining if people enjoy reading it, watching it, or otherwise
> experiencing it'. That;s the definition I've been using throughout
> this thread.
>
Do you notice how "light-weight and meaningless" appears nowhere in
your definition? Why are you assuming that people who want their books
to be entertaining do not want their books to be deep? I myself have
stated several times over the course of the discussion that the books
I find to be the most entertaining tend to be the deeper books. I
find books that are well-written, well-paced, and tell stories that
I can immerse myself in with conepts that I find interesting to be
entertaining. I think the books should have deeper meaning to them,
but they shouldn't do so at the expense of the qualities that I find
entertaining in a book, otherwise it becomes a chore to read and I
don't care about the story. It's like contrasting _Falls The Shadow_
to _The Pit_; both have more going on in them than the Doctor and his
wacky friends running up and down corridors, but _FtS_ is much more
entertaining because the storytelling is light-years beyond that of
_The Pit_. However, I also enjoy simpler stories if they're well-told
and well-plotted, which is one reason why I like _City At World's End_
so much more than _Divided Loyalties_. It comes down to the quality
of the idea balanced with the quality of the storytelling. Both are
important. If you cater to one at the expense of the other, you do
so to the detriment of the quality of the book. The most successful
books understand this (and I'll list them again: _Interference_, _The
Blue Angel_, _Alien Bodies_, _Transit_, _The Also People_, _Human
Nature_, _Sky Pirates!_, _Burning Heart_, _Falls The Shadow_, _The
Man In The Velvet Mask_, _Christmas On A Rational Planet_, _Dead
Romance_, _Down_, _SLEEPY_, "Nothing At The End Of The Lane", _Death
And Diplomacy_, _The Mary-Sue Extrusion_, _Oh No It Isn't!_, _Eye
Of Heaven_).
> > > Preferably they should work together; but in a conflict, I think
> > > you should go with something meaningful rather than something
> > > pretty but empty.
> >
> > That's what leads to books like _The Pit_ and (to a lesser degree)
> > _Beltempest_, both of which are overshadowed by lighter-weight
> > stories like _Frontier Worlds_ and _Demontage_.
>
> I've read 'The Pit'; I remember liking it, and finding a lot of the
> ideas (especially the religious androids, and counterpointing them
> with Blake's visionary faith) very interesting and worthwhile,
> although the prose style was stodgy and almost unreadable.
How can you like a book that you describe as being "unreadable"?
> I've read 'Frontier Worlds'; it had some nice moments, but ultimately
> it was meaningles and empty.
>
Except, of course, for having the best depiction of how events were
effecting Compassion on top of the BEST interplay between Compassion
and Fitz and some truly frightening images with respect to some of the
creatures and inhabitants of the planet. Oh, and it's one of the
few books where Fitz has a soul. Obviously, I don't agree that it
was "meaningless and empty" (even though it was tackling issues
and themes that weren't as "deep" as those in _The Pit_).
> Give me a book like 'The Pit' (but preferably by someone who can write
> decent prose) any day.
>
But that wouldn't be _The Pit_. My point is that you cannot have a
book that is pure "heavy concept" and have it be well-liked, just as
you can't have a book that is pure "lightweight romp" and have it be
well-liked, particularly if the writing sucks. The quality of the
writing is more critical to making a book entertaining than its subject
matter.
Or do you think that _The Pit_ and _Divided Loyalties_ are both at the
bottom of the book rankings?
deX!
ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
> deX! <djp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Of course, the counter-point is that if every Doctor Who book turns
> > into a humorless slog through DEEP ISSUES AND MESSAGES, MAN without
> > spending any time trying to be engaging, well-written, internally
> > coherent or enjoyable, the series will get cancelled faster than
> > you could blink.
>
> But meaning and entertainment are _not_ mutually exclusive! You can
> have both!
>
Which is what I've been saying during this entire conversation. In
fact, my entire point has been that the best books have been both
entertaining and "deep".
> I'm not saying writers shouldn't try to make their books enjoyable,
> entertaining, or anything else beginning with 'e'. I'm just saying it
> shouldn't be their goal _above all else_.
>
Could you explain the point of setting out to write a Doctor Who book
that no one is going to like?
> You seem to be making out that I think a book whether a book is
> entertaining or not is unimportant. That's bollocks. Of _course_ it's
> important that the books are entertaining. I'm just saying that isn't
> not _the_ most important thing when writing a book (provided you want
> to write a _good_ book, not just a forgettble piece of meaningless
> pretty prose).
>
My point is that entertainment value and meaning are equally important
if you want to write a great book. You have been arguing that all you
need is meaning.
> > Do you honestly think that a poorly-written book with a message
> > (_The Pit_) is automatically better than a well-written book without
> > a message (_The English Way of Death_)?
>
> No.
>
> But I think a well-written book with a meaning ('message' sounds far
> too preachy) is better than a well-written book that is meaningless.
>
That depends entirely upon the books; the stories involved, the level
of engagement you have with the characters, and whether or not you
agree with the message. _The Infinity Doctors_ has very good prose
in it, but I, personally, felt that it's message was trite and obvious
and its structure inherently undermines its message. It is not as
good a book as _Demontage_, which is literally the Doctor, Sam and Fitz
running around corridors, but paints such a vivid picture of the
setting that you feel immersed in the story and you actually care about
what happens next.
I mean, for what it does, _War of the Daleks_ is a more successful
book than _The Infinity Doctors_, and I don't even like _WotD_.
> And I think that if you start out thinking 'I want to entertain', it's
> highly unlikely you'll produce anything above the latter.
>
Yes, if you automatically equate "entertaining" with "light-weight".
> On the other hand, if you start out with something you want to ay, you
> can make it entertaining, and you'll produce a well-written,
> entertaining book with a meaning.
>
I disagree that that automatically makes a book better. I disagree
because the reactions I've had to books that were written that way
(most recently _The Shadows of Avalon_, _Unnatural History_ and _The
Infinity Doctors_) has been much more negative than positive.
Nick Lancaster
>In article <1eg8v80.vyf3d8tp0lj4N%ski...@greenend.org.uk>,
> ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
>>
>> I never said that being challenged wasn't entertaining. I was
>> objecting to the assertion that the _primary_ aim of any 'Doctor
>> Who' book should be to entertain.
>>
>> There's nothing _wrong_ with being entertaining. But it shouldn't be
>> allowed to get in the way of actually saying something.
>>
>
>Hmm. I agree, but I would also say that converse is true; actually
>saying something shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of being
>entertaining.
Exactly. There's nothing worse than a Simpsons episode with a moral.
love,
Nick
-thinking of quoting a Raging Speedhorn lyric, but nobody can understand them anyway
http://go.to/lanky
Steven Kitson
> In article <1egb1u3.d0k2euhjdp89N%ski...@greenend.org.uk>,
> ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
> > I say that if that's so, then they're going to produce
> > lightweight frothy rubbish that you can't remember half an hour after
> > you finish the last page. And I think they can do better, and they
> > should try to.
>
> Why do you think that something that is entertaining is automatically
> light-weight?
Aaargh! You're misrepresenting me _again_. I _do not_ think that
entertaining is _bad_, I just think it's not the most important thing.
An entertaining book is not automatically light-weight, and a
non-entertaining one is not automatically good.
> > > If the book doesn't entertain (ie, _Divided Loyalties_, _Legacy of
> > > the Daleks_, _The Space Age_, _The Face Eater_, _The Pit_, _Return
> > > of the Living Dad_), the publishers have no business releasing it.
> >
> > Again, says you. I have a different opinion.
> >
> So, explain to me what makes _Divided Loyalties_ worth reading, then,
> if your opinion is different from mine. It was not well-written. It
> was not deep. It was completely unengaging on every level I can think
> of and has to be the worst story I've ever seen/read featuring my
> favorite Doctor. What about it made it worth release? The return of
> the Toymaker? The Deca? The unbearable prose? What?
I've never read 'Divided Loyalties', so in that case, I can't say. If
you want to know what made it worth release, ask the editor who
commissioned it. But there _are_ things that can make a book good other
than simple entertainment value.
> > Go on then, give me your definition. Mine is 'something is
> > entertaining if people enjoy reading it, watching it, or otherwise
> > experiencing it'. That;s the definition I've been using throughout
> > this thread.
>
> Do you notice how "light-weight and meaningless" appears nowhere in
> your definition? Why are you assuming that people who want their books
> to be entertaining do not want their books to be deep? I myself have
> stated several times over the course of the discussion that the books
> I find to be the most entertaining tend to be the deeper books. I
> find books that are well-written, well-paced, and tell stories that
> I can immerse myself in with conepts that I find interesting to be
> entertaining. I think the books should have deeper meaning to them,
> but they shouldn't do so at the expense of the qualities that I find
> entertaining in a book, otherwise it becomes a chore to read and I
> don't care about the story.
Right. Here's where we differ. You think that the books should be
entertaining first and foremost, and that they should be meaningful as
well, but what's _most_ important is that there' entertaining.
I think that the books will be better if they're meningful, and tht they
should be entertaining if possible, but tht being entertaining is _not_
the most important thing.
Understand this. I think being entertaining is a _good_ thing. I wish
all the books could be entertaining. But I _don't_ think it is the most
important thing.
> It's like contrasting _Falls The Shadow_
> to _The Pit_; both have more going on in them than the Doctor and his
> wacky friends running up and down corridors, but _FtS_ is much more
> entertaining because the storytelling is light-years beyond that of
> _The Pit_. However, I also enjoy simpler stories if they're well-told
> and well-plotted, which is one reason why I like _City At World's End_
> so much more than _Divided Loyalties_. It comes down to the quality
> of the idea balanced with the quality of the storytelling. Both are
> important. If you cater to one at the expense of the other, you do
> so to the detriment of the quality of the book.
Yes, precisely! All I'm saying is that you shouldn't try to be
entertaining _at the expense of everthing else_. That's where this
started.
Look. I think that being entertaining is important. I just don't think
it is _the most important quality_ that 'Doctor Who' writers should aim
for.
You're attacking a position that isn't mine. You're attacking someone
who says that the books shouldn't be entertaining, or someone who says
they don't care whether the books are entertaining or not. THAT IS NOT
MY POSITION. I think the books _should_ be entertaining, just not at the
expense of other, more important things.
> > I've read 'The Pit'; I remember liking it, and finding a lot of the
> > ideas (especially the religious androids, and counterpointing them
> > with Blake's visionary faith) very interesting and worthwhile,
> > although the prose style was stodgy and almost unreadable.
>
> How can you like a book that you describe as being "unreadable"?
Didn't you notice the word 'almost' in there?
I would also describe 'Ulysses' as 'almost unreadable', but I think it's
good, and am still trying to slog my way through it. I expect to finish
sometime this centruy.
> > I've read 'Frontier Worlds'; it had some nice moments, but ultimately
> > it was meaningles and empty.
>
> Except, of course, for having the best depiction of how events were
> effecting Compassion on top of the BEST interplay between Compassion
> and Fitz and some truly frightening images with respect to some of the
> creatures and inhabitants of the planet. Oh, and it's one of the
> few books where Fitz has a soul. Obviously, I don't agree that it
> was "meaningless and empty" (even though it was tackling issues
> and themes that weren't as "deep" as those in _The Pit_).
We differ in our opinions about a book. Wow.
> > Give me a book like 'The Pit' (but preferably by someone who can write
> > decent prose) any day.
>
> But that wouldn't be _The Pit_. My point is that you cannot have a
> book that is pure "heavy concept" and have it be well-liked, just as
> you can't have a book that is pure "lightweight romp" and have it be
> well-liked, particularly if the writing sucks. The quality of the
> writing is more critical to making a book entertaining than its subject
> matter.
Um... a book can be very well-written and still not be entertaining, you
know? You seem to think that quality writing == entertaining, when that
simply isn't true.
Steven Kitson
> In article <1egb24e.8ri512lqf9l6N%ski...@greenend.org.uk>,
> ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
> > But meaning and entertainment are _not_ mutually exclusive! You can
> > have both!
> >
>
> Which is what I've been saying during this entire conversation. In
> fact, my entire point has been that the best books have been both
> entertaining and "deep".
Yes. But you think being entertaining is the more important of those two
qualities. I disagree.
> > I'm not saying writers shouldn't try to make their books enjoyable,
> > entertaining, or anything else beginning with 'e'. I'm just saying it
> > shouldn't be their goal _above all else_.
>
> Could you explain the point of setting out to write a Doctor Who book
> that no one is going to like?
Setting out to write one that is _good_?
I'm not saying that people should try to write a book that isn't
entertaining. I have nothing against entertainment (although you seem to
think I have). I think entertainment is a _very good_ thing... _except_
when it conflicts with making a book the best it can possibly be!
> My point is that entertainment value and meaning are equally important
> if you want to write a great book. You have been arguing that all you
> need is meaning.
Nonononono. I have been arguing that entertainment is _less_ important,
I never said you didn't need it at all.
Find me where I said that books shouldn't be entertaining, please, as
opposed to where I said that there were more important things to be than
entertaining.
> > But I think a well-written book with a meaning ('message' sounds far
> > too preachy) is better than a well-written book that is meaningless.
>
> That depends entirely upon the books; the stories involved, the level
> of engagement you have with the characters, and whether or not you
> agree with the message. _The Infinity Doctors_ has very good prose
> in it, but I, personally, felt that it's message was trite and obvious
> and its structure inherently undermines its message. It is not as
> good a book as _Demontage_, which is literally the Doctor, Sam and Fitz
> running around corridors, but paints such a vivid picture of the
> setting that you feel immersed in the story and you actually care about
> what happens next.
I think this depends very much on your definition of 'good', as opposed
to 'enjoyable', and I think that you have to remember that the two are
ot synonymous.
And of course different people have diffrence deifintions anyway.
> > And I think that if you start out thinking 'I want to entertain', it's
> > highly unlikely you'll produce anything above the latter.
>
> Yes, if you automatically equate "entertaining" with "light-weight".
But I don't. Entertaining does not equal light-weight. However, if you
start out with nothing to say, you won't say anything, although you
might say it in an entertaining way. If, on the other hand, you have
something to say, you might say it in a boring way, or you might say it
in an entertaining way. But if you don't have something to say, no
matter how well you write, the book will be empty.
> > On the other hand, if you start out with something you want to ay, you
> > can make it entertaining, and you'll produce a well-written,
> > entertaining book with a meaning.
>
> I disagree that that automatically makes a book better. I disagree
> because the reactions I've had to books that were written that way
> (most recently _The Shadows of Avalon_, _Unnatural History_ and _The
> Infinity Doctors_) has been much more negative than positive.
Again, remember that 'what I like' does not equal 'what is good', and
that you and me probably have different definition of 'good' anyway.
Actually, this is something a lot of people have trouble with and a trap
that I still fall into sometimes -- they seem to think that if they like
a book, or a song, or a film, it is good, and if they don't it isn't.
This simply isn't true.
Steven Kitson
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:26:09 GMT, deX! <djp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Hmm. I agree, but I would also say that converse is true; actually
> >saying something shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of being
> >entertaining.
>
> Exactly. There's nothing worse than a Simpsons episode with a moral.
Saying something does not equal having a moral; in fact, far from it. A
moral is an answer to a question; the best works of art don't answer
questions, they ask them.
Snarky
>deX! wrote:
>> Steven Kitson wrote:
<snip>
>> > I've read 'The Pit'; I remember liking it, and finding a lot of the
>> > ideas (especially the religious androids, and counterpointing them
>> > with Blake's visionary faith) very interesting and worthwhile,
>> > although the prose style was stodgy and almost unreadable.
>>
>> How can you like a book that you describe as being "unreadable"?
>
>Didn't you notice the word 'almost' in there?
>
>I would also describe 'Ulysses' as 'almost unreadable',
Mmmm, yeah, I suppose...
>but I think it's good,
Ohhh, yes!
>and am still trying to slog my way through it. I expect to finish sometime
>this centruy.
Better hurry...Four months left -- actually, 121 days, and 120 now, for
you...;-)
--
====================================================
http://www.deja.com/my/pb.xp?member_name=the_chocolate_snark
The Principia Discordia: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tilt/principia/body.html
SPONGE: http://www.s-p-o-n-g-e.com/
Vancouver Co-operative Radio: http://vcn.bc.ca/cfro/welcome.html
The Anti-Idiot Campaign needs YOU! Yads must be stopped!!!
"The policeman isn't there to create disorder, the policeman is there to
preserve disorder" -- Mayor Richard Daley of Czechago, September 23,
1968
Jonn Elledge
>
>If a film, a play, or a book really has something to say, I _guarantee_
>that it was not produced soley from a desire to entertain.
Steve! Long time!
Anyway, my point:
Some things _are_ produced entirely to etnertain. When I write something that I
intend to be performed, I write in the hope of entertaining the audience.
_Saying something_ is secondary.
An example: the play I just did in Edinburgh was written to make people laugh.
Once we got the performance right (it took a while...), it did. And most of the
comments I got from people who saw it who I didn't know personally were that
they found it entertaining, and not (I quote verbatim) "the pretentious shite
you expect from a bunch of hippy Cambridge students." (Despite liking the play,
she still declined to sleep with me).
And yet, a couple of people commented on the "themes" of the play - themes that
came out during the writing process, and weren't in my original intentions.
My god, I am sounding like the kind of hippy Cambridge student who produces
pretentious shite.
Anyway, my point - some things are written to entertain. Any deeper meaning can
be a secondary concern.
So, and far more importantly, you still in Cambridge, Steve?
----
Jonn Elledge, the thinking woman's bit of rough
Winner of the Perier Award for Spectacularly Failing Publicity, Edinburgh
Fringe Festival 2000
Steven Kitson
> Steve K:
> >If a film, a play, or a book really has something to say, I _guarantee_
> >that it was not produced soley from a desire to entertain.
>
> Steve! Long time!
Yo, John!
> Anyway, my point:
>
> Some things _are_ produced entirely to etnertain. When I write something
> that I intend to be performed, I write in the hope of entertaining the
> audience. _Saying something_ is secondary.
True. But nobody has yet offered a satisfactory explanation as to why
'Doctor Who' should be one of those things!
I _do_ think that things which pose questions, which actually mean
something, are better and more memorable than things which just
entertain. But people seem to be saying that if 'Doctor Who' produces
things which are entertaining, that's good enough, and any meaning
should be viewed as a bonus. I think that 'Doctor Who' should aim as
high as it can, and it may fail some -- or even most -- of the times,
but at least it'll have tried!
> And yet, a couple of people commented on the "themes" of the play - themes
> that came out during the writing process, and weren't in my original
> intentions.
Hm. I suppose this is possible. I still think that if you stay off with
something to say it's a lot easier to make that entertaining
> My god, I am sounding like the kind of hippy Cambridge student who
> produces pretentious shite.
Ah, your true colours show through!
> Anyway, my point - some things are written to entertain. Any deeper
> meaning can be a secondary concern.
But (assuming you agree that entertaining + meaning is better than just
entertaining), why shuld 'Doctor Who' not aim higher than just producing
pretty meaningless things?
> So, and far more importantly, you still in Cambridge, Steve?
Gods, yes. For the foreseeable. I'm working for a media company down by
the Grafton Centre, and living out Chesterton/Arbury way.
Hm. I forget -- who else here is in Cambridge? Our 'offical'
housewarming is gonna be soon, and I want to invite everyone I know --
including (I'm going to regret this, I can tell) you guys.
Iain Coleman
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Steven Kitson wrote:
>
> Hm. I forget -- who else here is in Cambridge? Our 'offical'
> housewarming is gonna be soon, and I want to invite everyone I know --
> including (I'm going to regret this, I can tell) you guys.
>
I'm in Cambridge, despite the Scottish accent in my posts.
Iain
Jonn Elledge
>
>I _do_ think that things which pose questions, which actually mean
>something, are better and more memorable than things which just
>entertain. But people seem to be saying that if 'Doctor Who' produces
>things which are entertaining, that's good enough, and any meaning
>should be viewed as a bonus. I think that 'Doctor Who' should aim as
>high as it can, and it may fail some -- or even most -- of the times,
>but at least it'll have tried!
>
Oh, I don't agree that Who shouldn't _try_, I'm merely saying that it exists
primarily as a form of entertainment. Most of my favourite Who stories are
those which do consider wider issues in some way (Interference is my favourite
precisely because of this).
The message is important - but if the medium isn't entertaining, nobody will
care about the message and it all becomes irrelevant.
>Hm. I suppose this is possible. I still think that if you stay off with
>something to say it's a lot easier to make that entertaining
I suppose it depends what you're writing. My play was effectively a sitcom on
stage, so the entertainment lay in the jokes. With a more serious work like a
Who novel, the entertainment has a different source, so the _meaning_ becomes
more important.
>But (assuming you agree that entertaining + meaning is better than just
>entertaining), why shuld 'Doctor Who' not aim higher than just producing
>pretty meaningless things?
It should aim for both, yes - but the entertainment will always be the
priority. Meaning will add to the book, but isn't essential.
I guess what I'm saying is that Entertainment without Meaning can make a good
book; Meaning without Entertainment makes pain.
>Hm. I forget -- who else here is in Cambridge?
There are a few on JP, I can't think of anyone else on RADW off hand.
> Our 'offical'
>housewarming is gonna be soon, and I want to invite everyone I know --
>including (I'm going to regret this, I can tell) you guys.
>
Mwahahahaha!!!!
So, yeah, cool.
I go back to the fens on the 26th, btw.
Steven Kitson
> OK. You can have the wieght and depth that makes people think. That can be
> entertaining or it can be turgid. Which would you watch? The entertaining
> one of course. If you don't make TV entertaining, you end up not making
> anyone want to watch - IMHO no-one would watch just to be educated. In an
> ideal world, all TV would be both entertaining *and* meaningful, but a tthe
> end of the day, if I am tired and don't want to think, I would rather see
> something entertaining on TV than something meaningful which I just can't be
> bothered with (eg a comedy or something like that)
That doesn't explain why 'Doctor Who' should be like that, though. You
(you, in particular) want mindless entertainment from your television
screen. Fine. You can have mindless entertainment any time of the day or
night.
Why does 'Doctor Who' ahve to aim primarily to entertain you? What is it
about 'Doctor Who' that makes it special, because you said (I believe)
that you didn't think that the primary purpose of _all art_ should be to
entertain. So I asked why 'Doctor Who' was an exception.
Or is it that all TV is an exception, and should be made primariy to
entertain, and that as a TV programe 'Doctor Who' falls under that
category? If so, I won't argue (although I do disagree, but I _wish_
people would stop using the work 'educated'. Good art doesn't educate
you, it makes you _think_. There is a big difference. I am against
education, and for thinking).
However, 'Doctor Who' isn't a television series any more. It is now a
series of books. Should the books (which have the potential to be so
much deeper than the television series) be subject to the same exception
to the rule that 'art does not _have_ to have entertainment as its
primary concern' that you say appies to television programmes? If so,
why?
Paul Harman
news:1eg52u9.rcb3q31yoyi86N%ski...@greenend.org.uk...
> What is it, then, that makes 'Doctor Who' a special case such that
> entertaining its audience should be its prime aim?
For a large number of people, Doctor Who is escapist fun. If we wanted to be
challenged/educated *without* it being fun, then we could get better
examples outside Doctor Who.
Paul
William December Starr
deX! <djp...@my-deja.com> said:
[ to Steven Kitson ]
> Do you honestly think that a poorly-written book with a message
> (_The Pit_) is automatically better than a well-written book without
> a message (_The English Way of Death_)?
_The Pit_ had a message? What was it?
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
William December Starr
ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) said:
> However, 'Doctor Who' isn't a television series any more. It is now a
> series of books. Should the books (which have the potential to be so
> much deeper than the television series) be subject to the same
> exception to the rule that 'art does not _have_ to have entertainment
> as its primary concern' that you say appies to television programmes?
> If so, why?
Because I want to be entertained when I read.
deX!
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <8oork4$4rr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> deX! <djp...@my-deja.com> said:
>
> [ to Steven Kitson ]
>
> > Do you honestly think that a poorly-written book with a message
> > (_The Pit_) is automatically better than a well-written book without
> > a message (_The English Way of Death_)?
>
> _The Pit_ had a message? What was it?
>
Okay, "message" in quotes. The "message" of _The Pit_ as far as the
Doctor Who universe is concerned is twofold:
- The Doctor doesn't always win.
- There are forces out there that the Doctor cannot deal with.
We'd seen several stories where the Doctor defeated his enemies by
manipulating them into corners. _The Pit_ showed us the end result
of acheiving your means by that method; Kopyion. There was a very
strong implication that, unless he did something about it, the Doctor
would eventually become as much of a heartless bastard as Kopyion.
Indeed, as the books played themselves out, the Doctor seemed to
become more and more remote and alien (pretty much the entire alternate
universe cycle, _Human Nature_, _Just War_ _Return of the Living Dad_,
the psi-powers story arc) up until, umm, (memory is failing me here)
_The Room With No Doors_. The Doctor had to make peace with himself
before he could become a warmer character again, and _The Pit_ is
one of the foundation stories (in the novels, at least) for that
entire character arc.
Funny how, while some authors seem to have gone to pains to write the
events of _The Pit_ into an ignorable corner, they've picked up on
thematic threads collected and woven together by the book.
Steven Kitson
> ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) said:
> > However, 'Doctor Who' isn't a television series any more. It is now a
> > series of books. Should the books (which have the potential to be so
> > much deeper than the television series) be subject to the same
> > exception to the rule that 'art does not _have_ to have entertainment
> > as its primary concern' that you say appies to television programmes?
> > If so, why?
>
> Because I want to be entertained when I read.
And because _you_ want to be entertained when you read, you want 'Doctor
Who' to be entertainment first and foremost? Isn't that a bit selfish?
(And before you respond with the same to me, I don't think I'm being
selfish because I believe that striving to be as good art as it can be
is a worthy goal for 'Doctor Who' -- not just because I like it, but
because all art should try to be as good as it can, and not content
itself just trying to be entertaining above all else).
Count Becker
: The message is important - but if the medium isn't entertaining, nobody
will
: care about the message and it all becomes irrelevant.
Ahem. Excuse me. Just because a minority of people like a book, that does
not make the them 'nobody'. That is an arrogant attitude, typical of the
type of fanboys who go around quoting poll statistics to try to 'prove' that
their opinions of a book are the correct ones.
: >But (assuming you agree that entertaining + meaning is better than just
: >entertaining), why shuld 'Doctor Who' not aim higher than just producing
: >pretty meaningless things?
:
: It should aim for both, yes - but the entertainment will always be the
: priority. Meaning will add to the book, but isn't essential.
:
: I guess what I'm saying is that Entertainment without Meaning can make a
good
: book; Meaning without Entertainment makes pain.
This conversation is utterly pointless unless you (not just you, but also
everyone else in this thread) define what Entertainment and Meaning are. Two
different people could read the exact same book, one deeming it to be
entertaining but not meaningful, and the other it to be the exact opposite.
Someone could find a book to be both entertaining and meaningful, while
someone else thinks that it is neither.
Matt Michael
Steven Kitson wrote in message
>William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>> I want to be entertained when I read.
>
>And because _you_ want to be entertained when you read, you want 'Doctor
>Who' to be entertainment first and foremost? Isn't that a bit selfish?
What do you mean by "art" and "worthy"?
I think your argument is based on a false premise: DW has never been "art",
it has always been light entertainment, and I think to regard DW as "art" is
to fundamentally misinterpret the series. I'm not sure it's possible for a
TV series to be art, and I certainly don't think the novels are. Is it
really possible to demand that every piece of DW should be imbued with a
deeper meaning, so that reading it becomes an essentially cathartic
experience? Art is a highly subjective term in any case, as one person's
"art" is another's soiled bed. And I think that to argue DW should be
"worthy" is deeply flawed. Worthy DW stories tend to be regarded as perhaps
the least successful. The Monster of Peladon is immensely worthy, but it's
horrendously dull and fails to entertain. The Mutants likewise. It's far
better to sneak in a message, as in "Vengeance on Varos" or "Remembrance of
the Daleks", than to batter the audience over the head with it. Most people
don't want to be preached at by their entertainment, and I think it's rather
patronising to say that they do.
What makes you think that DW is "art" and not entertainment? Why do you
think that to strive to entertain is a less worthy goal than to push a
socio-political message? Do you envisage DW as being essentially a soap
opera, addressing the issues of the day via the central characters and
situations? Why do you see this as being more valuable than telling other
kinds of stories? What, in short, is your idealised vision of Who?
matt
Little Jonn
news:8pbqu6$nn4$1...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net...
> "Jonn Elledge" <jonnyo...@aol.comstopit> wrote:
>
> : The message is important - but if the medium isn't entertaining, nobody
> will
> : care about the message and it all becomes irrelevant.
>
> Ahem. Excuse me. Just because a minority of people like a book, that does
> not make the them 'nobody'. That is an arrogant attitude, typical of the
> type of fanboys who go around quoting poll statistics to try to 'prove'
that
> their opinions of a book are the correct ones.
My opinion still stands, and I don't think it's in the slightest bit
arrogant. I'm not claiming that a book that only a minority of people like
becomes irrelevant - as you say, they're not nobody. You've completely
misconstrued my point. What I'm saying is tha, wherever possible, the
message should be sent in an entertaining way if you want it to be heard.
"The Blue Angel" was meaningful, and was well-written and I very much
enjoyed it; "The Pit" was also meaningful, but I found it so difficult to
read, that I can't remember a bloody thing about its message.
Perhaps "nobody" was the wrong word to use, but the gist of my opinion still
stands.
Jonn
Kenneth Clark
> And because _you_ want to be
> entertained when you read, you want
> 'Doctor Who' to be entertainment first
> and foremost? Isn't that a bit selfish?
Uh, Steven? If something's not entertaining, then it's boring. Or
annoying. Or whatever.
I think you're twisting some words and lumping some people together who are
in fact of different opinions.
GROUP ONE - "Doctor Who should be simple entertainment and that's far more
important than profound thought and deep meaning. Doctor Who is frothy fun,
dagnabbit! We don't want no intellectuals here!"
I think you'll find a lot of people in Group Two, basically of the opinion
that cleverness and profundity are great things that enhance a reading
experience... but a boring book is a boring book.
Try doing a search-and-replace in your posts for "not entertaining" with
"dull", "tedious" or "irritating" and then return to the argument.
Finn Clark.
http://members.aol.com/kafenken/
Steven Kitson
Is that a good reason to ban examples within 'Doctor Who'? I'm not even
askig that all the books be written this way, although I won't deny that
I wouldn't mind that. Ths started when someone said that _all_ 'Doctor
Who' books should be written with entertainment as the primary goal, and
that if a writer didn't write that way he shouldn't be writing 'Doctor
Who'.
Just because 'Doctor Who' has always been escapist fun, that doesn't
mean that it can never try to be something more.
Steven Kitson
> Steven Kitson wrote:
> > And because _you_ want to be
> > entertained when you read, you want
> > 'Doctor Who' to be entertainment first
> > and foremost? Isn't that a bit selfish?
>
> Uh, Steven? If something's not entertaining, then it's boring. Or
> annoying. Or whatever.
I never said the books shouldn't be entertaining; I said entertainment
shouldn't be their primary goal.
> I think you're twisting some words and lumping some people together who are
> in fact of different opinions.
I think you're twisting my words, to make it appear that I want the
books to be boring. I don't. But I don't want them to settle for meing
meaningless froth either.
> GROUP ONE - "Doctor Who should be simple entertainment and that's far more
> important than profound thought and deep meaning. Doctor Who is frothy fun,
> dagnabbit! We don't want no intellectuals here!"
>
> I think you'll find a lot of people in Group Two, basically of the opinion
> that cleverness and profundity are great things that enhance a reading
> experience... but a boring book is a boring book.
Will you stop saying I want the books to be boring? I don't. I don't
even want every book to try to be something more than just entertaining,
although that would be nice. What started this off was someone who said
that _every_ 'Doctor Who' book should be written primarily to be
entertaining, and if any author didn't do this (in that case Paul Magrs)
they shouldn't be writing 'Doctor Who' books.
Something that is not written with entertainment as its primary goal
does not have to be boring. In fact, it doesn't even have to be not
entertaining. It could be very entertaiing. The fact that entertainment
is not the writer's number one priority doesn not stop them from writing
an entertaining book.
> Try doing a search-and-replace in your posts for "not entertaining" with
> "dull", "tedious" or "irritating" and then return to the argument.
No. Because if I hd meant 'dull' then I would have written 'dull'. I
didn't, because that's not that I'm saying.
Count Becker
:My opinion still stands, and I don't think it's in the slightest bit
:arrogant. I'm not claiming that a book that only a minority of people
:like becomes irrelevant - as you say, they're not nobody. You've
:completely misconstrued my point. What I'm saying is tha, wherever
:possible, the message should be sent in an entertaining way if you want
:it to be heard. "The Blue Angel" was meaningful, and was well-written
:and I very much enjoyed it; "The Pit" was also meaningful, but I found
:it so difficult to read, that I can't remember a bloody thing about its
:message.
:
:Perhaps "nobody" was the wrong word to use, but the gist of my opinion
:still stands.
Now, come on. Do you really believe that the author of The Pit *intended* to
write something that would not be entertaining to you? Griping about the way
that something 'should' be produced or edited after the fact is very
counter-productive. In fact, it is inconsistent with the appreciation of
Doctor Who in general.
I think that you and the other participants in this thread are
completely missing the point. When it comes to being meaningful /
entertaining, an author should *NEVER* place priority of one over the other.
As soon as you do that, in either case, you have failed in aiming for both.
I think that The Pit is intended to be both meaningful and
entertaining. I find it to be both meaningful and entertaining, since I have
read it a number of times. Obviously, the writing does have flaws, which
affect the reader in a similar way to how time constraints and poor editing
affect viewers' enjoyment of televised stories. Yet, seemingly intelligent
and open-minded people look past the superficial things to acknowledge a
good story when they see one...
Kenneth Clark
> I never said the books shouldn't be
> entertaining; I said entertainment
> shouldn't be their primary goal.
I don't understand this statement. IMO, all the novels on my bookshelves
(Doctor Who, Paul Magrs or otherwise) were written with the aim of
entertaining the reader; it's a bedrock so fundamental that I feel it hardly
needs stating. Even the novels with a Message or Big Ideas need to keep the
reader turning the pages. I think this apparent disagreement is merely one
of terminology, as from what you've said in this thread I suspect my taste
in novels is similar to yours.
Finn Clark.
http://members.aol.com/kafenken/
William December Starr
ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) said:
>> Because I want to be entertained when I read.
>
> And because _you_ want to be entertained when you read, you want
> 'Doctor Who' to be entertainment first and foremost? Isn't that a bit
> selfish?
>
> (And before you respond with the same to me, I don't think I'm being
> selfish because I believe that striving to be as good art as it can be
> is a worthy goal for 'Doctor Who' -- not just because I like it, but
> because all art should try to be as good as it can, and not content
> itself just trying to be entertaining above all else).
No, you're being selfish. You want things to occur that _you_ think are
worthy.
William December Starr
"Count Becker" <bec...@nospam.invalid> said:
> Now, come on. Do you really believe that the author of The Pit
> *intended* to write something that would not be entertaining to you?
Frankly, yes. I can't believe that something that unentertaining could
have been produced any other way.
William December Starr
ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) said:
> Ths started when someone said that _all_ 'Doctor Who' books should be
> written with entertainment as the primary goal, and that if a writer
> didn't write that way he shouldn't be writing 'Doctor Who'.
>
> Just because 'Doctor Who' has always been escapist fun, that doesn't
> mean that it can never try to be something more.
(1) Be entertaining and be something more.
(2) Be something more, at the cost of being entertaining.
It's #2 that people are opposed to.
William December Starr
"Count Becker" <bec...@nospam.invalid> said:
> Now, come on. Do you really believe that the author of The Pit
> *intended* to write something that would not be entertaining to you?
Frankly, yes. I can't believe that something that unentertaining could
have been produced any other way.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
William December Starr
> Ths started when someone said that _all_ 'Doctor Who' books should be
> written with entertainment as the primary goal, and that if a writer
> didn't write that way he shouldn't be writing 'Doctor Who'.
>
> Just because 'Doctor Who' has always been escapist fun, that doesn't
> mean that it can never try to be something more.
(1) Be entertaining and be something more.
(2) Be something more, at the cost of being entertaining.
It's #2 that people are opposed to. Well, I am, anyway.
Little Jonn
Possibly. It's an interesting argument, but I think it needs to be
developed... Quite like to be convinced of that one, though.
> I think that The Pit is intended to be both meaningful and
> entertaining. I find it to be both meaningful and entertaining, since I
have
> read it a number of times. Obviously, the writing does have flaws, which
> affect the reader in a similar way to how time constraints and poor
editing
> affect viewers' enjoyment of televised stories. Yet, seemingly intelligent
> and open-minded people look past the superficial things to acknowledge a
> good story when they see one...
>
>
At no point have I meant to imply that The Pit was NOT intended to be
entertaining. What I've been saying is that, to me, and if the rankings are
to be believed to a lot of people, is that it FAILED in it's ambtion to be
entertaining. Thus, its message has been lost to me.
I'm saying that the entertainment has to be a priority - if it isn't, and
the book consequently fails to entertain, then the message of the book is
easily forgotten, and lost. I think The Pit was intended to be entertaining,
but missed the mark.
You've been missing my point; I've clearly not been expressing myself well
enough, if you really can't see that I want entertainment and meaning.
Jonn, with migraine
LPPCQ Snarky
came along, grabbed me by the throat, and screamed in my face:
>Steven Kitson said:
>
>> Ths started when someone said that _all_ 'Doctor Who' books should be
>> written with entertainment as the primary goal, and that if a writer
>> didn't write that way he shouldn't be writing 'Doctor Who'.
>>
>> Just because 'Doctor Who' has always been escapist fun, that doesn't
>> mean that it can never try to be something more.
>
>(1) Be entertaining and be something more.
>
>(2) Be something more, at the cost of being entertaining.
>
>It's #2 that people are opposed to. Well, I am, anyway.
What about (3) Be entertaining at the cost of anything more?
--
========================================================================
Alan McWhan
"LPPCQ Snarky"
<Noone_expects_the_...@Lord.Prince.Pope.Cardinal.Queen.Snark
y> wrote in message news:39bb035e.374678073@news...
> In rec.arts.drwho, I was minding my own business when William December
Starr
> came along, grabbed me by the throat, and screamed in my face:
> >Steven Kitson said:
> >
> >> Ths started when someone said that _all_ 'Doctor Who' books should be
> >> written with entertainment as the primary goal, and that if a writer
> >> didn't write that way he shouldn't be writing 'Doctor Who'.
> >>
> >> Just because 'Doctor Who' has always been escapist fun, that doesn't
> >> mean that it can never try to be something more.
> >
> >(1) Be entertaining and be something more.
> >
> >(2) Be something more, at the cost of being entertaining.
> >
> >It's #2 that people are opposed to. Well, I am, anyway.
>
> What about (3) Be entertaining at the cost of anything more?
>
Well, I don't know about anyone else but when *I* read a Dr Who 'novel' it's
usually my bi-monthly fix of something a bit insubstantial and, hopefully,
mindlessly entertaining to cleanse the mental palette as it were before I go
on to read another couple of *real* books.
I don't particualrly want Conrad or Dickens writing Dr Who; I want a bit of
escapist fun. Does anyone remember fun? I know it must be round here
somewhere...
Steven Kitson
Hm. I really don't see how some novels can have been written with the
aim of entertaining. 'Ulysses' and, say, 'To The lighthouse' (along with
most of Woolf's other stuff) were deliberate experiments, and'The Bel
Jar' was more a product of Plath having things she _needed_ to say than
any desire to entertain people.
Note that a novel doesn't really have to have Big Ideas to be more than
entertainment, it just needs to have something to say.
Anyway, there's some counterexamples to the claim that all books are
written to entertain :).
Steven Kitson
> > Just because 'Doctor Who' has always been escapist fun, that doesn't
> > mean that it can never try to be something more.
>
> (1) Be entertaining and be something more.
>
> (2) Be something more, at the cost of being entertaining.
>
> It's #2 that people are opposed to. Well, I am, anyway.
That's not the options Im thinking about. It's:
(1) Be entertaining at the cost of anything more, and
(2) Be something more, and entertaining as well.
Some people here seem to think that being entertaining is so important
that in every book it should be the number one priority, if necessary
driving out other elements so that entertainment is achieved.
Steven Kitson
> > selfish because I believe that striving to be as good art as it can be
> > is a worthy goal for 'Doctor Who' -- not just because I like it, but
> > because all art should try to be as good as it can, and not content
> > itself just trying to be entertaining above all else).
>
> No, you're being selfish. You want things to occur that _you_ think are
> worthy.
I want _some_ things that I think are worthy. I want the occasioal book
that makes me thnk, where entertaining me is not the priority. You said
that there shouold _never_ be any books like that; that if a writer
didn't have entertainment as his primary goal, he shouldn't be allowed
to write for 'Doctor Who'.
Did you, or did you not, express that sentiment about Paul Magrs?
I want some books my way (I'd like them all, but I'll settle for some).
I only object when people like you say _all_ the books should be your
way.
Which of us does that make more selfish?
Kenneth Clark
> Hm. I really don't see how some novels
> can have been written with the aim of
> entertaining. 'Ulysses' and, say, 'To The
> lighthouse' (along with most of Woolf's
> other stuff) were deliberate experiments,
> and'The Bel Jar' was more a product of
> Plath having things she _needed_ to say
> than any desire to entertain people.
Haven't read 'em, so can't comment.
I suppose you could have a novel where the author consciously avoided
entertaining the reader, e.g. a rabid ***-wing political manifesto dressed
up as a story. It is of course wrong to condemn a work of fiction sight
unseen, but I feel fairly confident in saying that the result of my
hypothetical example would probably be next to worthless.
Finn Clark.
http://members.aol.com/kafenken/
Steven Kitson
> I suppose you could have a novel where the author consciously avoided
> entertaining the reader, e.g. a rabid ***-wing political manifesto dressed
> up as a story. It is of course wrong to condemn a work of fiction sight
> unseen, but I feel fairly confident in saying that the result of my
> hypothetical example would probably be next to worthless.
Maybe, but that has next to nothing to do with the discussion, which is
tht good books come from not putting entertainment as the primary goal.
Actually, on your example, have you ever heard of 'The Iron Dream' by
Norman Spinrad? It proports to be 'the SF novel Adolf Hitler would have
written if he had gone to America in 1919 and become a hack sci-fi
writer'. I have a copy sitting in my to-read pile; it looks like a very
amusingly overblown space opera which shows that most books of that
genre are thinly-veiled faschist wish-filfillment -- but then we knew
that...
William December Starr
"Kenneth Clark" <kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk> said:
> I suppose you could have a novel where the author consciously avoided
> entertaining the reader, e.g. a rabid ***-wing political manifesto
> dressed up as a story.
"Atlas Shrugged"?
Nick Lancaster
If I want insubstantial, escapist fun, I watch TV. If I'm going to
read a book, I want to come out of it with something new.
love,
Nick
-let's get this party started
http://go.to/lanky
Ed Jefferson
>In article <8oork4$4rr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>deX! <djp...@my-deja.com> said:
>
>[ to Steven Kitson ]
>
>> Do you honestly think that a poorly-written book with a message
>> (_The Pit_) is automatically better than a well-written book without
>> a message (_The English Way of Death_)?
>
>_The Pit_ had a message? What was it?
>
Drugs are *baaaad*...
--
Or something...
Ed Jefferson, posting through time from 2004
"My eyes! They fit perfectly."
http://www.geocities.com/randomstuffage/
not iluvjam BTW
William December Starr
ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) said:
> I want _some_ things that I think are worthy. I want the occasioal
> book that makes me thnk, where entertaining me is not the priority.
> You said that there shouold _never_ be any books like that; that if a
> writer didn't have entertainment as his primary goal, he shouldn't be
> allowed to write for 'Doctor Who'.
>
> Did you, or did you not, express that sentiment about Paul Magrs?
>
> I want some books my way (I'd like them all, but I'll settle for
> some). I only object when people like you say _all_ the books should
> be your way.
>
> Which of us does that make more selfish?
Both of us. You want all the books to fit into the category of "things
that Steve likes (which includes both books written with entertainment
as the primary goal and books written for (some) other reasons)," and I
want all the books to fit into the category of "things that William
likes (which is (generally speaking) limited to books written with
entertainment as the primary goal)."
deX!
> ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) said:
>
> > book that makes me thnk, where entertaining me is not the priority.
> > You said that there shouold _never_ be any books like that; that if
> > a writer didn't have entertainment as his primary goal, he shouldn't
> > be allowed to write for 'Doctor Who'.
> >
> > Did you, or did you not, express that sentiment about Paul Magrs?
> >
> > I want some books my way (I'd like them all, but I'll settle for
> > some). I only object when people like you say _all_ the books
> > should be your way.
> >
> > Which of us does that make more selfish?
>
> "things that Steve likes (which includes both books written with
> entertainment as the primary goal and books written for (some) other
> reasons)," and I want all the books to fit into the category of
> "things that William likes (which is (generally speaking) limited to
> books written with entertainment as the primary goal)."
>
Yes, exactly. The fact that there is overlap between the types of
books that you both like doesn't make one of you more selfish than
the other.
deX!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Count Becker
: wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
: >In article <8oork4$4rr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
: >deX! <djp...@my-deja.com> said:
: >
: >[ to Steven Kitson ]
: >
: >> Do you honestly think that a poorly-written book with a message
: >> (_The Pit_) is automatically better than a well-written book without
: >> a message (_The English Way of Death_)?
: >
: >_The Pit_ had a message? What was it?
: >
:
: Drugs are *baaaad*...
Then stop taking them.
Count Becker
are entertained by substance and/or style, and people who are entertained
*only* by bright, shiny objects. Some people are saying that anything that
is not a bright, shiny object is worthless and should be discarded as
irrelevant, regardless of whether it has any substance.
Count Becker
: In article <8pr9k7$gcr$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
: William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
: >In article <1egoz5i.a3ffpo14ruawsN%ski...@greenend.org.uk>,
: >ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) said:
: >> I want some books my way (I'd like them all, but I'll settle for
: >> some). I only object when people like you say _all_ the books should
: >> be your way.
:
: >> Which of us does that make more selfish?
: >Both of us. You want all the books to fit into the category of "things
: >that Steve likes (which includes both books written with entertainment
: >as the primary goal and books written for (some) other reasons)," and I
: >want all the books to fit into the category of "things that William
: >likes (which is (generally speaking) limited to books written with
: >entertainment as the primary goal)."
: Except of course that "what Steve likes" *allows* "what William likes",
: and not the other way around.
I agree.
William December Starr
"Count Becker" <bec...@nospam.invalid> said:
Still bitter because nobody else loves the book you love, eh?
William December Starr
jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum) said:
>>> Which of us does that make more selfish? [Steven Kitson]
>>
>> Both of us. You want all the books to fit into the category of
>> "things that Steve likes (which includes both books written with
>> entertainment as the primary goal and books written for (some) other
>> reasons)," and I want all the books to fit into the category of
>> "things that William likes (which is (generally speaking) limited to
>> books written with entertainment as the primary goal)." [wdstarr]
>
> Except of course that "what Steve likes" *allows* "what William
> likes", and not the other way around.
So? It's still equal selfishness.
Count Becker
You are mistaken if you think that that has ever been the issue. I could not
care less whether you like the same books that I do. What I find
annoying/repulsive is when people act/react the way you do, as if the
knee-jerk reaction is the correct one and must be defended at all costs.
Count Becker
: In article <8pre7e$nd9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, deX! <djp...@my-deja.com>
: >> In article <1egoz5i.a3ffpo14ruawsN%ski...@greenend.org.uk>,
: >> ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) said:
: >> > some). I only object when people like you say _all_ the books
: >> > should be your way.
:
: >> > Which of us does that make more selfish?
: >> Both of us. You want all the books to fit into the category of
: >> "things that Steve likes (which includes both books written with
: >> entertainment as the primary goal and books written for (some) other
: >> reasons)," and I want all the books to fit into the category of
: >> "things that William likes (which is (generally speaking) limited to
: >> books written with entertainment as the primary goal)."
: >Yes, exactly. The fact that there is overlap between the types of
: >books that you both like doesn't make one of you more selfish than
: >the other.
: Excuse me? When two or three books come along which Steve isn't fond of,
: does he grouse about how Shit Like That Just Shouldn't Be Published?
:
: (Cf. _Magrs. vs Starr_, r.a.dw, _passim_.)
:
<snicker>
This is oddly amusing. Especially considering that this type of irony used
to annoy me.
Jonathan Blum
>ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) said:
>> some). I only object when people like you say _all_ the books should
>> be your way.
>> Which of us does that make more selfish?
>Both of us. You want all the books to fit into the category of "things
>that Steve likes (which includes both books written with entertainment
>as the primary goal and books written for (some) other reasons)," and I
>want all the books to fit into the category of "things that William
>likes (which is (generally speaking) limited to books written with
>entertainment as the primary goal)."
Except of course that "what Steve likes" *allows* "what William likes",
and not the other way around.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Little Jonn
> "Ed Jefferson" <edjef...@aol.comiluvjam> wrote:
> : wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> : >deX! <djp...@my-deja.com> said:
> : >
> : >[ to Steven Kitson ]
> : >
> : >> Do you honestly think that a poorly-written book with a message
> : >> (_The Pit_) is automatically better than a well-written book without
> : >> a message (_The English Way of Death_)?
> : >
> : >_The Pit_ had a message? What was it?
> : >
> :
> : Drugs are *baaaad*...
>
> Then stop taking them.
>
Oh yeah. Take away my only sunshine why don't ya.
Jonn Elledge, Queen of the Wild Frontier
Jonathan Blum
>In article <8pr9k7$gcr$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
>> ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) said:
>> > some). I only object when people like you say _all_ the books
>> > should be your way.
>> > Which of us does that make more selfish?
>> Both of us. You want all the books to fit into the category of
>> "things that Steve likes (which includes both books written with
>> entertainment as the primary goal and books written for (some) other
>> reasons)," and I want all the books to fit into the category of
>> "things that William likes (which is (generally speaking) limited to
>> books written with entertainment as the primary goal)."
>Yes, exactly. The fact that there is overlap between the types of
>books that you both like doesn't make one of you more selfish than
>the other.
Excuse me? When two or three books come along which Steve isn't fond of,
does he grouse about how Shit Like That Just Shouldn't Be Published?
(Cf. _Magrs. vs Starr_, r.a.dw, _passim_.)
Regards,
Jon Blum
Little Jonn
news:8prt6r$dor$1...@panix3.panix.com...> >>> Which of us does that make more selfish? [Steven Kitson]
> >>
> >> Both of us. You want all the books to fit into the category of
> >> "things that Steve likes (which includes both books written with
> >> entertainment as the primary goal and books written for (some) other
> >> reasons)," and I want all the books to fit into the category of
> >> "things that William likes (which is (generally speaking) limited to
> >
> > Except of course that "what Steve likes" *allows* "what William
> > likes", and not the other way around.
>
How do you get to that conclusion? Steve's idea allows you to enjoy Who.
Yours doesn't allow Steve to enjoy Who.
By any reasonable definition, while neither viewpoint may be popular,
Steve's is the less selfish, because it doesn't get in the way of yours.
Jonn Elledge
LPPCQ Snarky
magically appeared on various pieces of slate. On one, this despairing scrawl from "Count Becker":
>
>I think what this really comes down to is the difference between people who
>are entertained by substance and/or style, and people who are entertained
>*only* by bright, shiny objects. Some people are saying that anything that
>is not a bright, shiny object is worthless and should be discarded as
>irrelevant, regardless of whether it has any substance.
So, Dave...Like tBA? o_0
Ed Jefferson
>"Ed Jefferson" <edjef...@aol.comiluvjam> wrote:
>: wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>: >In article <8oork4$4rr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>: >deX! <djp...@my-deja.com> said:
>: >
>: >[ to Steven Kitson ]
>: >
>: >> Do you honestly think that a poorly-written book with a message
>: >> (_The Pit_) is automatically better than a well-written book without
>: >> a message (_The English Way of Death_)?
>: >
>: >_The Pit_ had a message? What was it?
>: >
>:
>: Drugs are *baaaad*...
>
>Then stop taking them.
>
No no no, you've mistaken me for Neil Penswick mate... ;-P
Steven Kitson
> that Steve likes (which includes both books written with entertainment
> as the primary goal and books written for (some) other reasons),"
Um... where did I say that? I assume that I'm going to hate some of the
'Doctor Who' books. I may complain that they're badly written, and I may
complain that I don't like them, but I'd never say that they shouldn't
be published _unless the stuff I do like isn't being published_.
I don't want all the books to fit into the category of 'things that
steven likes'. I want _at least some_ books to fit into the category of
'things Steven likes'. What I object to is people saying that certain
types of books 'shouldn't be published' because they happen not to like
them.
Example: I didn't think much of 'Parallel 59'. Aside from some nice bits
with Fitz, it was a wholly forgettable romp. But I wouldn't say that
books like that shouldn't be published. I would say quite strongly
though that not _only_ books like that should be published. Books
designed to make you think, where entertainment is not the primary goal
(like 'The Blue Angel'; and, I think, 'Shadows of Avalon') should be
published _as well_.
Hm. A question to those here who have had their work published: do you
count entertainment as your primary goal? I mean, obviously it'll be
different for each book, but do you find it difficult to sit down and
write something when you have nothing to say? I know I do. I'll get
halfway through a story and think 'why the Hell am I writing this?
What's it about? Who cares? It doesn't say anything that people don't
already know'.
And I'll save the file and never go back to it.
The only thing I've had performed was a musical last year for a friend
because the script she was given to direct just wasn't up to scratch. I
rewrote it, but found it really hard going until I realised that the
story I was trying to tell was about someone who makes a wrong decision
and has to learn to face up to the consequences instead of running away.
Once I knew that, it all fell into place, I knew what I was about. But
up to that point it was just a run-around with a few songs, and I
couldn't get a handle on it at all.
Why am I bearing my soul to rec.arts.drwho?
Steven Kitson
> How do you get to that conclusion? Steve's idea allows you to enjoy Who.
> Yours doesn't allow Steve to enjoy Who.
>
> By any reasonable definition, while neither viewpoint may be popular,
> Steve's is the less selfish, because it doesn't get in the way of yours.
Can I point out he misrepresented my view, which is not that I only want
stuff that fits my idea of what is good to be published, but that I want
stuff that fits my idea of good to be published but don't care if other
stuff is published as well.
_That's_ why I said I wasn't being selfish; William seems to object to
stuff he doesn't like being published. I'd object if stuff that I did
like _wasn't_ published (actually, I wouldn't object, I'd just drift out
on fandom again with barely a whimper, same as I did before.
deX!
jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
> In article <8pre7e$nd9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, deX! <djp...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>
> >books that you both like doesn't make one of you more selfish than
> >the other.
>
> Excuse me? When two or three books come along which Steve isn't fond
> of, does he grouse about how Shit Like That Just Shouldn't Be
> Published?
>
> (Cf. _Magrs. vs Starr_, r.a.dw, _passim_.)
>
Have you read this conversation from the beginning? Both William and
Steve have been going back and forth about what books are worthy of
being Doctor Who. (See practically any post in this thread where
Steve equates "entertaining" with "mindless, frothy runaround"
despite several people flat-out telling him that that isn't what they
think of when they think of an "entertaining" book.)
deX!
jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
> In article <8pr9k7$gcr$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
>
> >Both of us. You want all the books to fit into the category
> >of "things that Steve likes (which includes both books written with
> >entertainment as the primary goal and books written for (some) other
> >reasons)," and I want all the books to fit into the category
> >of "things that William likes (which is (generally speaking) limited
> >to books written with entertainment as the primary goal)."
>
> Except of course that "what Steve likes" *allows* "what William
> likes", and not the other way around.
>
That's completely irrelevant.
They're both being selfish because they both want the types of books
they want to read published. The fact that Steve's tastes overlap
William's tastes is incidental. William will be happier than Steve
if Steve gets his way than Steve would be if William got his way
(assuming, of course, that the Who authors are incapable of writing
entertaining books with deeper meaning, an assumption that I don't
think is correct), but they're both playing the "I want what I like"
game.
It's akin to saying that a person who wants a particular radio station
to just play pop music is more selfish than a person who wants the same
station to play pop music and death metal.
deX!
ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
>
> Books designed to make you think, where entertainment is not the
> primary goal (like 'The Blue Angel'; and, I think, 'Shadows of
> Avalon') should be published _as well_.
>
If anyone beside Paul Cornell had written _The Shadows Of Avalon_,
it would be derided as fluffy, inconsequential nonsense that manages
to impact continuity despite itself. The best part of the novel was
the Brigadier's journey of self-discovery, which was extremely well
thought-out and well-written, but about as deep and surprising as
seeing the sun rise. The actual villians were unforgivable, Romana's
presence was completely unnecessary, namechecking Benny was pointless,
the entire setting was contrived... About the only good thing in the
book was Compassion's transformation, which was then promptly ruined
by some of the random nonsense that was put into her head.
_No Future_ was a deeper novel than _Shadows of Avalon_.
R.J. Smith
>"Count Becker" <bec...@nospam.invalid> said:
>> I think what this really comes down to is the difference between
>> people who are entertained by substance and/or style, and people who
>> are entertained *only* by bright, shiny objects. Some people are
>> saying that anything that is not a bright, shiny object is worthless
>> and should be discarded as irrelevant, regardless of whether it has
>> any substance.
>Still bitter because nobody else loves the book you love, eh?
I'm starting to sympathise a lot with him.
- Robert Smith?
some Blue Angel worshipper
deX!
smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) wrote:
> In article <8prt47$dle$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>
[William's response to Dave Becker:]
> >Still bitter because nobody else loves the book you love, eh?
>
> I'm starting to sympathise a lot with him.
>
> - Robert Smith?
> some Blue Angel worshipper
>
I knew this would happen, eventually. We've been sucked through a CVE
into the bizarro-RADW where people conceed that Dave has a valid point
and Dave doesn't go off when someone takes a pot-shot at him.
All we need are some choice flames from Karen Nyctolops and the circle
will be complete.
Little Jonn
news:1eh0loy.7k0swfsy8vxaN%ski...@greenend.org.uk...
> Little Jonn <jonne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > How do you get to that conclusion? Steve's idea allows you to enjoy Who.
> > Yours doesn't allow Steve to enjoy Who.
> >
> > By any reasonable definition, while neither viewpoint may be popular,
> > Steve's is the less selfish, because it doesn't get in the way of yours.
>
> stuff that fits my idea of what is good to be published, but that I want
> stuff that fits my idea of good to be published but don't care if other
> stuff is published as well.
>
> _That's_ why I said I wasn't being selfish; William seems to object to
> stuff he doesn't like being published. I'd object if stuff that I did
> like _wasn't_ published (actually, I wouldn't object, I'd just drift out
> on fandom again with barely a whimper, same as I did before.
Oh, I did that too. 1997, perchance? I lost all interest in Who for two
years, and only came back because Interference looked like something
different.
The move to the BBC, with Nuala Buffini's brief "An old enemy in every
book!" policy, Sam Jones, and the "DW books are obviously read by kids"
idea, I just got sick of things, and went off to do something more
interesting. Usually involving pubs.
When / why did you drop out Steve?
Anyone else taken sabbaticals like that?
JonnElledge
Little Jonn
news:8pu0pd$lem$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Well, personally, I think that we need Gary Russell writing a new series of
Who, and that there aren't enough traditional run arounds in the book lines.
Now I'm off home to see my boyfriend.
Jonn Elledge
LPPCQ Snarky
>R.J. Smith wrote:
>> William December Starr wrote:
>
>[William's response to Dave Becker:]
>
>> >Still bitter because nobody else loves the book you love, eh?
>>
>> I'm starting to sympathise a lot with him.
>>
>> - Robert Smith?
>> some Blue Angel worshipper
>
>I knew this would happen, eventually. We've been sucked through a CVE
>into the bizarro-RADW where people conceed that Dave has a valid point
>and Dave doesn't go off when someone takes a pot-shot at him.
>
>All we need are some choice flames from Karen Nyctolops and the circle
>will be complete.
Did you miss her (VERY nicely worded) flame of Yads last month? A joy, truly....
Jonathan Blum
R.J. Smith <smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA> wrote:
>In article <8prt47$dle$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
>William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>I'm starting to sympathise a lot with him.
> - Robert Smith?
>some Blue Angel worshipper
If you want to be even more weirded out, Robert -- if you're worshipping
"The Blue Angel", you're sympathizing with *me* again. I thought you'd
sworn that off!
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
>In article <8pro3c$fnc$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au>,
> jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>> In article <8pr9k7$gcr$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
>> >of "things that Steve likes (which includes both books written with
>> >entertainment as the primary goal and books written for (some) other
>> >reasons)," and I want all the books to fit into the category
>> >of "things that William likes (which is (generally speaking) limited
>> >to books written with entertainment as the primary goal)."
>> Except of course that "what Steve likes" *allows* "what William
>> likes", and not the other way around.
>That's completely irrelevant.
No, I think it's the point.
>They're both being selfish because they both want the types of books
>they want to read published. The fact that Steve's tastes overlap
>William's tastes is incidental.
What William wants is for the books to match his tastes. What Steve wants
is for the books to put out a *variety* of books to match a variety of
tastes -- not just ones that match Steve's tastes. Capiche?
Regards,
Jon Blum
Cameron Mason
Jonathan Blum <jb...@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
news:8puqrl$qfn$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au...
<snip>
> >They're both being selfish because they both want the types of books
> >they want to read published. The fact that Steve's tastes overlap
> >William's tastes is incidental.
>
> What William wants is for the books to match his tastes. What Steve wants
> is for the books to put out a *variety* of books to match a variety of
> tastes -- not just ones that match Steve's tastes. Capiche?
I don't think any book is going to be able to match completely any person's
tastes.
Just to and my two cents worth.
That said, I liked TBA, I liked the concepts, and the questions at the end,
even though I couldn't answer them.
Cameron
--
:(|) "...Pleasure the PARIS..."
Come visit the Ultimate Guide
http://www.fortunecity.com/tatooine/forbidden/392/pindex.html
Daniel Frankham
<jonne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Oh, I did that too. 1997, perchance? I lost all interest in Who for two
>years, and only came back because Interference looked like something
>different.
>
>The move to the BBC, with Nuala Buffini's brief "An old enemy in every
>book!" policy, Sam Jones, and the "DW books are obviously read by kids"
>idea, I just got sick of things, and went off to do something more
>interesting. Usually involving pubs.
>
>When / why did you drop out Steve?
>
>Anyone else taken sabbaticals like that?
This happens often enough in sf fandom that they have a word for it:
"gafia". (Getting Away From It All.)
I dropped out for a few years in the late 80s. And my fandom has been
pretty lite in the last few years, largely consisting of reading
ever-smaller portions of this ng and the occasional novel, and buying
maybe two videos a year. A local channel screening the show from the
start has rekindled me a bit.
--
Daniel Frankham
We love television because television brings us a world in which
television does not exist. In fact, deep in their hearts, this is what
the spuds crave most: a rich, new, participatory life.
(Barbara Ehrenreich)
Steven Kitson
> ski...@greenend.org.uk (Steven Kitson) wrote:
> > Books designed to make you think, where entertainment is not the
> > primary goal (like 'The Blue Angel'; and, I think, 'Shadows of
> > Avalon') should be published _as well_.
>
> If anyone beside Paul Cornell had written _The Shadows Of Avalon_,
> it would be derided as fluffy, inconsequential nonsense that manages
> to impact continuity despite itself. The best part of the novel was
> the Brigadier's journey of self-discovery, which was extremely well
> thought-out and well-written, but about as deep and surprising as
> seeing the sun rise.
Things don't have to be surprising to mean something (and I don't know
what you mean here by 'deep'). But there's also the way the Brigadier's
coming to terms with the loss of Doris is echoed in the Doctor's coming
to terms with the loss of the TARDIS, and the shattering of his
worldview now he has encountered Paradox; and that they both reach a
point where they can see that they have to move on, and indeed that it
is worth doing so.
> The actual villians were unforgivable, Romana's
> presence was completely unnecessary, namechecking Benny was pointless,
> the entire setting was contrived... About the only good thing in the
> book was Compassion's transformation, which was then promptly ruined
> by some of the random nonsense that was put into her head.
Wht was wrong with the villains (I hope you don't mean the faeries; the
_actual villains were surely the Time Lord agents)? Romana's presence
was very important, as it was a link for the Doctor back to when he was
young and carefree, and showed him what could have happened to him if
he'd let himself become embroiled in Gallifrey's affairs. Part of his
revulsion at what Romana had become was obviously because by the end of
their time together he had come to regard her as a kindred spirit, and
to see her become a monster _simply out of good intentions_ made him
realise that he could have done the same.
Namechecking Benny may have been pointles, but it was one word in eighty
thousand. Is it really that important?
Of course the setting was contrived; all fiction is contrived! Maybe you
mean it didn't feel natural. Fair point, but I think you'd be hard
pushed to find a setting in 'Doctor Who' that doesn't feel contrived,
it's the nature of the beast. In the case of 'Shadows of Avalon' the
setting was clearly designed to mirror and emphasise the psyhcological
changes the main characters were going through, and succeeded admirably.
> _No Future_ was a deeper novel than _Shadows of Avalon_.
'No Future' had some very meaningful bit in it, about Ace's relationship
with the Doctor, yes.