Old Companions
Jonathan Blum
show. How many are even mentioned more than a story or so later?
Ian, Barbara, and Susan get namechecked in "The Massacre".
...um...
Then I don't think any other companions get mentions more than one story
after their departure until Jo in "Planet of the Spiders". Any takers?
Harry gets a guest shot in "Android Invasion". The other UNIT folks are a
bit fuzzy, being recurring guest characters throughout seasons 9-13, but
once UNIT is dropped after "Seeds of Doom" they vanish.
Victoria gets a line in "Pyramids of Mars".
The Doctor mutters about Janis thorns in "Pirate Planet".
Then in "Full Circle", we get namechecks for Leela and K9 Mark 1, followed
by Romana being mentioned repeatedly in "Logopolis" (all as part of the
"back to Gallifrey" arc). We also get actual flashbacks to old companions
for the first time, and Sarah Jane gets a spin-off around this time.
So far, though, there seem to be huge slabs of ex-castmembers who the
Doctor doesn't seem to give a second thought about.
In Season 20 we get namechecks for Romana, Leela, Adric (via Tegan), Harry
Sullivan, and Sergeant Benton, plus the Brigadier turning up... then
"Five Doctors" opens the floodgates. After this, and the companion
flashbacks in "Resurrection" and "Androzani", the sixth Doctor really
opens the nostalgia floodgates -- namechecking Tegan, Zoe, Jamie, telling
Peri about Jo Grant...
The seventh reverses this trend -- Peri and Mel vanish into the ether
after their departures. The Brigadier is greeted warmly, but *he's* the
one who comes to the *Doctor*.
I just wonder what this says about the Doctor, and his attitude towards
his old friends...
Regards,
Jon Blum
--
jblum at access.digex.net
"Eep," said an I.
DavidABear
>after their departure until Jo in "Planet of the Spiders". Any takers?<BR>
><BR>
I seem to remember in "Planet of the Daleks" the Doctor saying to the Thals on
Spirridon that his companions during his first visit to the Dalek City were
Ian, Barbara, and Susan.
Also, the Seventh Doctor has a UNIT pass for Liz Shaw in "Battlefield."
DavidABear
Smarter Than the Average Bear
"There are only two things that are infinite in the Universe. The first is the
Universe itself and the second is human stupidity. One can never be too sure
about the former."
Ben Woodhams
>the sixth Doctor really
>opens the nostalgia floodgates -- namechecking Tegan, Zoe, Jamie, telling
>Peri about Jo Grant...
ISTR him doing a (pretty terrible) impersonation of the 4th Doctor as he
recovers from unconciousness in TOATL - he says something like "Ooh, my
head feels abombinabubble, Sarah-Jane..."
ben w.
--
"I know only that I exist - everything else is just my opinion."
Simon Jerram
> Jon Blum wrote:
> >the sixth Doctor really
> >opens the nostalgia floodgates -- namechecking Tegan, Zoe, Jamie, telling
> >Peri about Jo Grant...
>
> ISTR him doing a (pretty terrible) impersonation of the 4th Doctor as he
> recovers from unconciousness in TOATL - he says something like "Ooh, my
> head feels abombinabubble, Sarah-Jane..."
It could sound better if you think of it as the third Doctor
(well I thought he was trying to be Pertwee)
--
Simon Jerram
"It's just my permanent disguise. Yeah yeah but I'm..."
The Sinister Sponge
>Just a passing thought about references to companions after they leave the
>show. How many are even mentioned more than a story or so later?
>
>Ian, Barbara, and Susan get namechecked in "The Massacre".
>
>
>Then I don't think any other companions get mentions more than one story
Doesn't Troughton mumble something about Victoria as he regains consciouseness
in one of the epsisodes of 'Seeds of Death'?
Cheers,
S. Sponge
Ben Woodhams
that I wrote:
>> ISTR him doing a (pretty terrible) impersonation of the 4th Doctor as he
>> recovers from unconciousness in TOATL - he says something like "Ooh, my
>> head feels abombinabubble, Sarah-Jane..."
>It could sound better if you think of it as the third Doctor
I don't think so: He definitely says 'feels' rather than 'feelth'.
>Simon Jerram
>"It's just my permanent disguise. Yeah yeah but I'm..."
DDG? What a coincidence! So am I :)
Roger Crawfoot
<73iem4$g...@access5.digex.net>...
> Just a passing thought about references to companions after they leave
the
> show. How many are even mentioned more than a story or so later?
>
> Ian, Barbara, and Susan get namechecked in "The Massacre".
>
> ...um...
>
> Then I don't think any other companions get mentions more than one story
> after their departure until Jo in "Planet of the Spiders". Any takers?
>
Ian, Barbara and Susan get another mention in "Planet of the Daleks" when
the Doctor is talking to the Thals. Unusual for continuity references at
that time to refer so far back.
Dylan Crawfoot
Desperate Dan, the mad mail man
>
> Jonathan Blum <jb...@access5.digex.net> wrote in article
> <73iem4$g...@access5.digex.net>...
> > Just a passing thought about references to companions after they leave
> the
> > show. How many are even mentioned more than a story or so later?
> >
> > Ian, Barbara, and Susan get namechecked in "The Massacre".
> >
>
> Ian, Barbara and Susan get another mention in "Planet of the Daleks" when
> the Doctor is talking to the Thals. Unusual for continuity references at
> that time to refer so far back.
>
> Dylan Crawfoot
The fact that both stories were written by the same writer may go some
way to explain this ;-)
Desperate Dan, the reference man.
Helen Fayle
Jonathan Blum <jb...@access5.digex.net> wrote in article
<73iem4$g...@access5.digex.net>...
> Just a passing thought about references to companions after they leave
the
> show. How many are even mentioned more than a story or so later?
> and Sarah Jane gets a spin-off around this time.
And if only... she mutters...
>
> So far, though, there seem to be huge slabs of ex-castmembers who the
> Doctor doesn't seem to give a second thought about.
>
> In Season 20 we get namechecks for Romana, Leela, Adric (via Tegan),
Harry
> Sullivan, and Sergeant Benton, plus the Brigadier turning up... then
> "Five Doctors" opens the floodgates. After this, and the companion
> flashbacks in "Resurrection" and "Androzani", the sixth Doctor really
> opens the nostalgia floodgates -- namechecking Tegan, Zoe, Jamie, telling
> Peri about Jo Grant...
And another Sarah name check... <g>
>
> The seventh reverses this trend -- Peri and Mel vanish into the ether
> after their departures. The Brigadier is greeted warmly, but *he's* the
> one who comes to the *Doctor*.
>
> I just wonder what this says about the Doctor, and his attitude towards
> his old friends...
,
Then the books, which don't tend to pick up on this either. Sarah gets a
name check in The Scarlet Empress - Thank you Mr Magrs!! (well *I* WOULD
notice that, wouldn't I - and no comments please Mr Quences, we all have
our favourites...)
Jo in Genocide... The NA's give horrible "what happened next" stories for
Liz, Mel and Peri. Susan gets so brief a moment with the Doctor in LotD it
might as well not have happened (and plug time - my last but one story on
adwc..."To the Bitter Dregs" <g>)
Grant is never mentioned again... Ian and Barbara are on stage in Face of
the Enemy. Ace hasn't been mentioned except in Vamp Sci, I believe.
Victoria is put through hell in "Downtime". (1)
It's a trend I've always hated. There's often no sense that he cares, yet
for crying out loud, is this a rational assumption to make?? I don't think
so. I just put it down to writer omissions and fill it in meself, as it
were... <G>
Of course, if he is an insensitive, uncaring bastard who just drops 'em and
forgets 'em, that kind of contradicts some of our basic assumptions about
the guy...
(1) Hopefully to be given a happier time in a forthcoming fanfic from Me &
Mark - check out Nathan's gorgeous illo on his website for "A Greater
Law"... <happy grin>
Quences
>> his old friends...
>,
>
>Then the books, which don't tend to pick up on this either. Sarah gets a
>name check in The Scarlet Empress - Thank you Mr Magrs!! (well *I* WOULD
>notice that, wouldn't I - and no comments please Mr Quences, we all have
>our favourites...)
Moi?
As I've said before, I'm rather keen on Sarah myself. One of my favourite
companions.
As I mentioned to Helen in an e-mail recently, I think the only companions who
don't get as much as a mention in Perfect Timing are Dodo, Harry Sullivan,
Leela and Frobisher. I *think* all of the others at least get a reference of
some sort. Not bad that, I think.
Mark Phippen
Perfect Timing - 35 stories, drabbles and poems celebrating 35 years of Doctor
Who and in aid of the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths. For more
information visit: http://drwho.shada.com/perfect-timing/
Dangermouse
Helen Fayle <hfa...@innotts.co.uk> wrote
> Of course, if he is an insensitive, uncaring bastard who just drops 'em
and
> forgets 'em, that kind of contradicts some of our basic assumptions about
> the guy...
Well, you've read the original opening chapter for Wages, so don't forget
Liz...
--
"Try some terrorism for hire; we'll blow shit up... It's more fun!"
goofy
Helen Fayle wrote in message
<01be1941$8ebef340$4ca6...@pbbdbz7.nottingham.ac.uk>...
>The NA's give horrible "what happened next" stories for
>Liz, Mel and Peri.
I thought that Peri's appearance in <spoiler deleted> was very well done,
aside from the fact that I'm sure the Doctor would have visited her to make
sure she was all right after the Trial.
>Of course, if he is an insensitive, uncaring bastard who just drops 'em and
>forgets 'em, that kind of contradicts some of our basic assumptions about
>the guy...
I haven't read it, but I hear that in Birthright we learn that the Doctor
has provided for all his ex-companions financially. I think that is the
least he could do for them.
goofy
Ben Woodhams
>I haven't read it, but I hear that in Birthright we learn that the Doctor
>has provided for all his ex-companions financially. I think that is the
>least he could do for them.
While I was reading this, I was glancing through the 'Jobs' section of
the Guardian, and came across this little item:
"WANTED.
PA to Respected Scientist.
Suit 1st jobber/ recent graduate (so long as it's not in Media Studies).
You will have one or all of the following:-
A good screaming voice;
A huge pair of paps;
Ankles like balsa wood;
Your own leathers/kilt/badge for mathematical excellence;
High pain threshold.
This once-in-a-lifetime opportunity comes with a wide range of benefits,
tailored to suit *your* needs, including:-
Full board and surprisingly spacious accommodation;
A large wardrobe;
Excellent opportunities for travel and adventure;
A superb pension/retirement package in lieu of Dangermou... er, I mean,
danger money.
Experience with technology so advanced as to be indistinguishable from
magic would be an advantage (Microsoft employees need not apply).
Please apply in person to:
Totters Yard
72 Totters Lane
London
or by email to
theta...@prydon.ac.ga
We look forward to recieving your response before you've even sent it."
Vladimir
>Just a passing thought about references to companions after they leave the
>show. How many are even mentioned more than a story or so later?
>
>
>The seventh reverses this trend -- Peri and Mel vanish into the ether
>after their departures. The Brigadier is greeted warmly, but *he's* the
>one who comes to the *Doctor*.
>
>his old friends...
You're forgetting one reference (though a subtle one), which says just how
important to Doc 7 his companions are.
Curse Of Fenric - the Doctor is trapped in the church, with haemovores
closing in. He closes his eyes, and they are all repelled by the strength of
his faith.
The Doctor's lips read, "Susan. Ian. Barbara. Vicki. Steven...."
jamie....@kcl.ac.uk
A lot about the Doctor's failure to name check former companions.
>
> I just wonder what this says about the Doctor, and his attitude towards
> his old friends...
>
> Regards,
> Jon Blum
> --
> jblum at access.digex.net
> "Eep," said an I.
>
I was going to post a reply to this couched in terms of the Doctor's feelings
of abandonment. But then I showed Jon's post to a friends of mine, Paul
Beardsley, and he responded with a timely reminder that, maybe, just maybe,
sometimes we take this stuff just a *bit* too seriously:
Paul Beardsley (paul.be...@snellwilcox.com) wrote:
Not a lot. The writers of the TV series were concerned with telling exciting
stories. If the Doctor was spending his spare moments musing over past times,
they had the good sense to keep this offstage. A little bit of nostalgia is a
good thing; a lot is not.
Of course, once the Virgin books started, you couldn't move without bumping
into past companions. Whether it was Katarina summoned back from the dead
just to say "temple", or whether it was a penknife with Ian Chesterton's
initials on it, they were everywhere -- and this was before they'd even
started the missing adventures! The ultimate moment had to be in Timewyrm:
Revelation when the three who died in action came back to stare accusingly at
the poor old Doc. Unintentional hilarity has never been more po-faced.
Paul
Desperate Dan, the reminders man.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Brian Glen Palicia
>In article <73iem4$g...@access5.digex.net>,
> jb...@access5.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>
>A lot about the Doctor's failure to name check former companions.
>>
>> I just wonder what this says about the Doctor, and his attitude towards
>> his old friends...
>>
>
>of abandonment. But then I showed Jon's post to a friends of mine, Paul
>Beardsley, and he responded with a timely reminder that, maybe, just maybe,
>sometimes we take this stuff just a *bit* too seriously:
>
>Paul Beardsley (paul.be...@snellwilcox.com) wrote:
>
>Not a lot. The writers of the TV series were concerned with telling exciting
>stories. If the Doctor was spending his spare moments musing over past times,
>they had the good sense to keep this offstage. A little bit of nostalgia is a
>good thing; a lot is not.
>
>Of course, once the Virgin books started, you couldn't move without bumping
>into past companions. Whether it was Katarina summoned back from the dead
>just to say "temple", or whether it was a penknife with Ian Chesterton's
>initials on it, they were everywhere -- and this was before they'd even
>started the missing adventures! The ultimate moment had to be in Timewyrm:
>Revelation when the three who died in action came back to stare accusingly at
>the poor old Doc. Unintentional hilarity has never been more po-faced.
I was going to post something similar, and I'm glad to see
others who feel as I do. There are many reasons to just
move on that I can think of.
1. Too much nostalgia is a bad thing, and since its difficult
no impossible to set guidelines like "you can have a little
bit of nostalgia but not too much", its better to just say NO.
2. If they aren't your characters, do it out of respect for
someone else's work. If you are a good enough writer, you
should be able to create your own characters that make people
forget about what came before. Hopefully, people will be
pining for *your* characters once they are gone. :)
Jon Blum is probably looking for a fictional answer, so I'm
sure he's slightly disappointed with this thread. :)
Bri
Peter Wilton
>Just a passing thought about references to companions after they leave the
>show. How many are even mentioned more than a story or so later?
>
They are mentioned again as late as Planet of the Daleks.
--
Peter Wilton
The Gregorian Association Web Page:
http://www.beaufort.demon.co.uk/
Peter Wilton
>It's a trend I've always hated. There's often no sense that he cares, yet
>for crying out loud, is this a rational assumption to make?? I don't think
>so. I just put it down to writer omissions and fill it in meself, as it
>were...
Yes, I've often felt that. Meeting his granddaughter in the Tardis after all
that time, having said he would one day "come back". You'd think he'd
be so overjoyed he'd hug her, considering his behaviour when he left her.
He was so stunned when Ian and Barbara left, and unable to visit them,
that I would have expected him to look them up as soon as possible when
stranded on earth, and unable to leave them, so to speak.
Desperate Dan, the mad mail man
>
> In article <73iem4$g...@access5.digex.net>,
> jb...@access5.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>
> A lot about the Doctor's failure to name check former companions.
> >
> > I just wonder what this says about the Doctor, and his attitude towards
> > his old friends...
> >
> of abandonment. But then I showed Jon's post to a friends of mine, Paul
> Beardsley, and he responded with a timely reminder that, maybe, just maybe,
> sometimes we take this stuff just a *bit* too seriously:
>
Further to this point about taking ourselves too seriously: has anyone
picked uop a copy of the first issue of John Byrne's new Superman/Batman
mini series, GENERATIONS? It ends with an essay on the 'c' word, that
has obvious relevance to us here today. Well, it's obvious to me at any
rate. I've reproduced some of it (without permission) below:
"Over the six or seven decades of their existence, American comics -
especially superhero comics - have seen one particular element of their
form come to take more and more prominence, and importance, in the mind
of the readers, the fans. This element, for lack of a better word, has
come to be known as 'continuity' and there are those among the huddled
masses of fandom who are every bit as avid and rabid in their tracking
of these bits and pieces of character trivia as are the most dedicated
sports fans memorizing all the stats of their teams and players.
"Continuity is the close association of each episode of a hero's
life
with all that has gone before. Once this meant, simply, that if we were
told in Superman's first appearance that he is from Krypton, then he'd
be a Kryptonian in every issue after that. If we learned that the
murder of Batman's parents when he was a child was the reason he adopted
his Dark Knight identity, we had no good reason to ever be told
otherwise. Fair enough!
"But, as the years went by, and the threads being spun out by
the
storytellers - many storytellers, under the direction of many other
editors - grew longer and longer, it was inevitable that some details of
a character's continuity blur, bend, or even break, especially in the
first half of this Century of the Super-Hero, when telling a story was
considered vastly more important that chaining oneself to the minutiae
of all that had gone before."
Byrne goes on to describe some of the continuity conflicts that arose in
the early years of the Superman and Batman comics, finishing with an
early example of retconning:
". . . Gold Kryptonite, a fearsome substance that did not actually
appear, historically, until the 1960's, but which was retrofitted -
retconned (for "retroactive continuity") to use the term currently in
vogue - to Superboy's history, therby predating 1939 . . .!"
He finishes by describing the point of GENERATIONS as:
" . . . to tell a somewhat sprawling saga covering many decades of the
characters' lives, while, at the same time, reflecting the publishing
history and the jumbled continuity, while making no attempt whatsoever
to reconcile the two! Have fun with it. Go with the flow, as we did
reading those characters' adventures over the years."
If only . . .
Desperate Dan, the un-reconciled man.
OJ THORNTON
: In article <73iem4$g...@access5.digex.net>,
: jb...@access5.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
: A lot about the Doctor's failure to name check former companions.
: >
: > I just wonder what this says about the Doctor, and his attitude towards
: > his old friends...
: >
: > Regards,
: > Jon Blum
: > --
: > jblum at access.digex.net
: > "Eep," said an I.
: >
: I was going to post a reply to this couched in terms of the Doctor's feelings
: of abandonment. But then I showed Jon's post to a friends of mine, Paul
: Beardsley, and he responded with a timely reminder that, maybe, just maybe,
: sometimes we take this stuff just a *bit* too seriously:
: Paul Beardsley (paul.be...@snellwilcox.com) wrote:
: Not a lot. The writers of the TV series were concerned with telling exciting
: stories. If the Doctor was spending his spare moments musing over past times,
: they had the good sense to keep this offstage. A little bit of nostalgia is a
: good thing; a lot is not.
Quite. The Doctor cares deeply, that much is shown particularly in some
of the more moving departure scenes (the earlier ones also show that he's
not yet used to the idea of saying goodbye - a brilliant touch IMHO).
However, when they have left, he
gets on with the rest of his life. In quiet moments, he may well
remember them, or given a particular trigger (like Sarah in Victoria's
dress), but in everyday life, the memories play no great part. The
Doctor seems to cling to his companions a bit, but accepts it when
they've made up their mind to leave him, and he moves on, gets over it
eventually, and finds someone else. The most obvious example of this is
Mel's departure, where the Doctor doesn't let her say a proper goodbye,
perhaps wanting her to stay more than he admits. When she makes up her
mind to leave, and teams up with Glitz, the Doctor latches on to Ace as a
replacement. Perhaps he saw the help he could be to her, through the
painful therapy of visiting Gabriel Chase. Perhaps he saw the help she
could be to him. Perhaps he needed companionship, and she was the only
person there to fill the role.
Oliver Thornton
Dangermouse
Peter Wilton <pj...@beaufort.demon.co.uk> wrote
> He was so stunned when Ian and Barbara left, and unable to visit them,
> that I would have expected him to look them up as soon as possible when
> stranded on earth, and unable to leave them, so to speak.
According to Devil Gobs, he was at their wedding, though it doesn't say
whether this was before or during his exile (preferably before - it's more
a PAtDoc sort of thing and would be contradicted by FOTE otherwise.)
Desperate Dan, the mad mail man
>
> <jamie....@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >In article <73iem4$g...@access5.digex.net>,
> > jb...@access5.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
A lot about the Doctor's failure to name check former companions.
> >>
> >> I just wonder what this says about the Doctor, and his attitude towards
> >> his old friends...
> >>
[snip the bit I wrote]
> >
> >Paul Beardsley (paul.be...@snellwilcox.com) wrote:
> >
> >Not a lot. The writers of the TV series were concerned with telling exciting
> >stories. If the Doctor was spending his spare moments musing over past times,
> >they had the good sense to keep this offstage. A little bit of nostalgia is a
> >good thing; a lot is not.
> >
[snip the rest of Paul's stuff]
>
> I was going to post something similar, and I'm glad to see
> others who feel as I do. There are many reasons to just
> move on that I can think of.
>
[snip]
>
> Jon Blum is probably looking for a fictional answer, so I'm
> sure he's slightly disappointed with this thread. :)
>
> Bri
Oh, I don't know. Surely there are no right or no wrong answers here
;-)
Desperate Dan, the neutral man.
Brian Glen Palicia
>jamie....@kcl.ac.uk wrote:
>: jb...@access5.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>
>: A lot about the Doctor's failure to name check former companions.
>: >
>: > I just wonder what this says about the Doctor, and his attitude towards
>: > his old friends...
>: > Regards,
>: > Jon Blum
>: > --
>: > jblum at access.digex.net
>: > "Eep," said an I.
>: >
>
>: I was going to post a reply to this couched in terms of the Doctor's feelings
>: of abandonment. But then I showed Jon's post to a friends of mine, Paul
>: Beardsley, and he responded with a timely reminder that, maybe, just maybe,
>: sometimes we take this stuff just a *bit* too seriously:
>
>
>: Not a lot. The writers of the TV series were concerned with telling exciting
>: stories. If the Doctor was spending his spare moments musing over past times,
>: they had the good sense to keep this offstage. A little bit of nostalgia is a
>: good thing; a lot is not.
>
>of the more moving departure scenes (the earlier ones also show that he's
>not yet used to the idea of saying goodbye - a brilliant touch IMHO).
>However, when they have left, he gets on with the rest of his life.
My fictional answer is that it actually makes sense for him
to have this trait. Anyone who spends his whole life travelling
space and time in the way he does would have to be a strong
individualist, and while he enojoys having companions, ultimately
his nature is go it alone. So while he is sad to see a friend
leave him, that is in part the whole point of his being.
Bri
Charles Daniels
> Yes, I've often felt that. Meeting his granddaughter in the Tardis after all
> that time, having said he would one day "come back". You'd think he'd
> be so overjoyed he'd hug her, considering his behaviour when he left her.
> that I would have expected him to look them up as soon as possible when
> stranded on earth, and unable to leave them, so to speak.
Wouldn't that be a tad confusing?
"Oh eh! Remember that old chap you used to travel with 10, 20, ohh 30,
years aqo..you know I've travelled the universe you know but UNIT dating
still confuses me...mmm...oh yes!! Well that was me, when I was younger!"
Helen Fayle
Peter Wilton wrote in message ...
>Helen Fayle <hfa...@innotts.co.uk> writes
>>It's a trend I've always hated. There's often no sense that he cares, yet
>>for crying out loud, is this a rational assumption to make?? I don't think
>>so. I just put it down to writer omissions and fill it in meself, as it
>>were...
>
all
>that time, having said he would one day "come back". You'd think he'd
>be so overjoyed he'd hug her, considering his behaviour when he left her.
Ah, if it's THe Five Doctors you're talknig about here, in the Special
Edition, one can see Peter grinning at Carole like a maniac during the
scenes in the TARDIS, acting as if he's overjoyed to see her, but not quite
sure how to react...
At least, that's how it looks.
But DO NOT get me started on the "Oh nice to meet you, whoever you are"
scene at the end. Ptooey. Thrippt. <snort> As if...
Nick Cooper
Blum) wrote:
>Just a passing thought about references to companions after they leave the
>show. How many are even mentioned more than a story or so later?
>
>Harry gets a guest shot in "Android Invasion". The other UNIT folks are a
>bit fuzzy, being recurring guest characters throughout seasons 9-13, but
>once UNIT is dropped after "Seeds of Doom" they vanish.
Both UNIT and the Brigadier are mentioned in 'Timeflight'.
Nick Cooper
["But it was here, it was all right here. There was a techno dance club...."
["Stan, you need to lay off the cough syrup, alright? Seriously, I'm worried
[about you, man!"
Keith Hood 4652
>Just a passing thought about references to companions after they leave the
>show. How many are even mentioned more than a story or so later?
>
>
Janis Thorns?
When did she become a companion?
Keith
---
--
Currently waiting for National Lottery funds to develop a new sig
If Ericsson's opinions ever coincided with mine I'd probably die of shock
Please do not read the rest of this rubbish. It's only there as padding because
my newsreader now refuses to post anything with less new content than original.
In most cases this would be enough but extreme circumstances may require even
more rubbish being inserted below. Please disregard that also.
Desperate Dan, the mad mail man
>
> In article g...@access5.digex.net, jb...@access5.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) writes:
> >Just a passing thought about references to companions after they leave the
> >show. How many are even mentioned more than a story or so later?
> >
> >Ian, Barbara, and Susan get namechecked in "The Massacre".
> >
> >The Doctor mutters about Janis thorns in "Pirate Planet".
>
> Janis Thorns?
>
> When did she become a companion?
>
> Keith
>
That answer isn't given in the show. But the Doctor's reference to her
in "Pirate Planet" clearly establishes that she is an old companion and
thus within the remit of this thread.
DDtmmm.
Quences
>>
>> When did she become a companion?
>>
>> Keith
>>
>
>That answer isn't given in the show. But the Doctor's reference to her
>in "Pirate Planet" clearly establishes that she is an old companion and
>thus within the remit of this thread.
>
>DDtmmm.
She is rarely a mentioned companion who travelled with the Doctor between 'The
Deadly Assassin' and 'The Face of Evil'. The Doctor was never very fond of her,
and this led to his disapproval of Leela's coincidentaly named weapon of
choice.
infan...@hotmail.com
Charles Daniels <cdan...@calweb.com> wrote:
> Wouldn't that be a tad confusing?
> "Oh eh! Remember that old chap you used to travel with 10, 20, ohh 30,
> years aqo..you know I've travelled the universe you know but UNIT dating
> still confuses me..."
Me too! I don't wanna sound stupid (if I did, I could always post to a
Babylon 5 newsgroup), but will someone PLEASE tell me what the hell UNIT
dating is? And Charles, do not say it's the Brigadier's "don't ask/don't
tell" policy or I'll Finn Fang Foom SMASH yr butt. I mean that in the nicest,
unhealthiest way, too. `:) (fluttering eyelash)
Love,
Nurse Who
--
"Your silliness has been noted."--K-9
"Well, Y is for Yanni as far as I'm concerned."--Tom Servo
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
> Me too! I don't wanna sound stupid (if I did, I could always post to a
> Babylon 5 newsgroup), but will someone PLEASE tell me what the hell UNIT
> dating is?
"UNIT dating" refers to the paradox surrounding which years the adventures
involving UNIT (basically, much of Seasons 6 through 13) actually took
place. There is strong -- and totally contradictory -- evidence that they
took place in either the same year the story was broadcast or about five
years in advance of that year. Unfortunately, there is no simple way of
resolving this problem without contradicting *something*.
Shannon
--
/--- Shannon Patrick Sullivan ------------- sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca ---\
| |
| "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." |
| -- Oscar Wilde |
| |
\------ DOCTOR WHO NEWS PAGE: www.physics.mun.ca/~sps/whonews.html ------/
Chris Rednour
> In article g...@access5.digex.net, jb...@access5.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) writes:
> >Just a passing thought about references to companions after they leave the
> >show. How many are even mentioned more than a story or so later?
> >
> >Ian, Barbara, and Susan get namechecked in "The Massacre".
> >
> >The Doctor mutters about Janis thorns in "Pirate Planet".
>
> Janis Thorns?
>
> When did she become a companion?
Wasn't she the companion who was hidden "Beyond the Sun"?
-Chris Rednour
_________________________________________________________________
gs0...@panther.gsu.edu http://www.gsu.edu/~gs06cjr/index.html
cred...@gpc.peachnet.edu
GLC
> Jonathan Blum wrote in message <73iem4$g...@access5.digex.net>...
> >Just a passing thought about references to companions after they
> leave the
> >show. How many are even mentioned more than a story or so later?
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >The seventh reverses this trend -- Peri and Mel vanish into the ether
>
> >after their departures. The Brigadier is greeted warmly, but *he's*
> the
> >one who comes to the *Doctor*.
> >
> >I just wonder what this says about the Doctor, and his attitude
> towards
> >his old friends...
>
> You're forgetting one reference (though a subtle one), which says just
> how
> important to Doc 7 his companions are.
> Curse Of Fenric - the Doctor is trapped in the church, with haemovores
>
> closing in. He closes his eyes, and they are all repelled by the
> strength of
> his faith.
> The Doctor's lips read, "Susan. Ian. Barbara. Vicki. Steven...."
I just saw CoF again over the holiday and I wish I had read
your post first. Hope you're not making that up because it's
a beautiful moment, but it was too subtle for me to catch...
Consensual validation anyone?
--
Back on the air with flair to spare!
www.io.com/~glc
GunzlingR
Shannon Patrick Sullivan wrote:
> Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on Tue, 01 Dec 1998 19:36:19 GMT, I overheard infan...@hotmail.com say:
> > Me too! I don't wanna sound stupid (if I did, I could always post to a
> > Babylon 5 newsgroup), but will someone PLEASE tell me what the hell UNIT
> > dating is?
>
You see, UNIT dating is when a member of the taskforce asks a member of the opposite sex (or same sex if that
is your thing) out for coffee, movie, dinner,etc. Sometimes these dates turn into long-term relationships or
even UNIT marriages and UNIT children. I hope I have been of assistance.
--
For Doctor Who trades click on
http://www.sullybuttes.net/users/drwho/
SV7
>
Unfortunately, there is no simple way of
> resolving this problem without contradicting *something*.
>
Funnily enough, when I first saw the Pertwee episodes around 1990, I
never saw anything particularly advanced about them. I knew they were
sort of intended that way when they were made, but I don't know why
the production team bothered. They fit well enough in the present day
(the 70s that is). It never struck me as being out of place that the
UK had Mars landings. I mean it could have been covered up. Real life
and WHO seem to mix well together. The only real dissonant piece of
info to me is Sarah's mention of being from 1980 in PoM. Since this is
the only established date as such, I would say that it should be
ignored to allow the rest to fall into place. I mean, perhaps she
meant 1980 as a general reference, knowing that the Doc knew where she
was from. This is tenuous, but it's better to regard this as so than
to fiddle with reality like "The Devil Goblins of Neptune" with its
idiotic 5 Beatles, and so on. Why do these authors do things like
that?
SV7
Carrot Juice! Carrot Juice!! Carrot Juice!!!
SV7
>
> I just saw CoF again over the holiday and I wish I had read
> your post first. Hope you're not making that up because it's
> a beautiful moment, but it was too subtle for me to catch...
> Consensual validation anyone?
I'm not a lip reader, but in the novelization, at least, this is what
he is supposed to be saying.
Charles Daniels
>> Wouldn't that be a tad confusing?
>> "Oh eh! Remember that old chap you used to travel with 10, 20, ohh 30,
>> years ago..you know I've travelled the universe you know but UNIT dating
>> still confuses me..."
> Me too! I don't wanna sound stupid (if I did, I could always post to a
> Babylon 5 newsgroup), but will someone PLEASE tell me what the hell UNIT
> dating is? And Charles, do not say it's the Brigadier's "don't ask/don't
> tell" policy or I'll Finn Fang Foom SMASH yr butt. I mean that in the nicest,
> unhealthiest way, too. `:) (fluttering eyelash)
Yuckola! :)
Well UNIT Dating is that confusing headache of trying to figure
out WHEN the UNIT stories take place.
> Love,
> Nurse Who
Luvvy Duvvy Wubbly,
Charlie
Dangermouse
Shannon Patrick Sullivan <sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca> wrote
> "UNIT dating" refers to the paradox surrounding which years the
adventures
> involving UNIT (basically, much of Seasons 6 through 13) actually took
> place. There is strong -- and totally contradictory -- evidence that they
> took place in either the same year the story was broadcast or about five
> years in advance of that year. Unfortunately, there is no simple way of
> resolving this problem without contradicting *something*.
Obviously the Faction must have taken an interest in UNIT at some point...
Dr. Evil
> This is tenuous, but it's better to regard this as so than
> to fiddle with reality like "The Devil Goblins of Neptune" with its
> idiotic 5 Beatles, and so on. Why do these authors do things like
> that?
Pardon me for saying this SV7 old chap/robot/whatever, but you really are
a tedious old windbag. Authors do things like that, not only because they
can, but also because it's fun - 'what if' being the starting point of
many a great idea, especially regarding science fiction. To have a
miserable little twerp like you come along and state (and, as is becoming
more apparent, continually restate) that you don't like it is the height
of idiocy and I really wish you'd give your typing protocols a bit of a
rest until you find something else to talk about.
So, what if the Beatles continued as a five piece? What if companions
shagged till their ears bled? What if Dodo left the TARDIS is a highly
emotional state and was blown away by a great big shotgun? One thing the
NAs specialise in is thoughful little suppositions like these, and you
saying you don't like them isn't going to change that one little bit. So,
please, for the sake of my boredom threshold, shut up.
( o )
--
"Put him in the cur-ry!"
M_Eli...@my-dejanews.com
"Dangermouse" <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
>
[regarding the contradictory UNIT dates]:
>
> Obviously the Faction must have taken an interest in UNIT at some point...
Ooo! Good retcon! I wouldn't mind seeing more of the Faction...
see u,
M. Elizabeth
Melmoth
> Vladimir wrote:
>
> > Jonathan Blum wrote in message <73iem4$g...@access5.digex.net>...
> >SNIP<
> > You're forgetting one reference (though a subtle one), which says just
> > how
> > important to Doc 7 his companions are.
> > Curse Of Fenric - the Doctor is trapped in the church, with haemovores
> >
> > closing in. He closes his eyes, and they are all repelled by the
> > strength of
> > his faith.
> > The Doctor's lips read, "Susan. Ian. Barbara. Vicki. Steven...."
>
> I just saw CoF again over the holiday and I wish I had read
> your post first. Hope you're not making that up because it's
> a beautiful moment, but it was too subtle for me to catch...
> Consensual validation anyone?
It was as he said. I have the original rehearsal scripts and it is indeed in
there, and if you watch the episode and know what he is saying beforehand it
is clear that he's reciting the names of his companions. Otherwise it is
hard to make out.
Scott Andrews
Peace, Love and a crisp white surplis
Dangermouse
M_Eli...@my-dejanews.com wrote
> [regarding the contradictory UNIT dates]:
> >
> > Obviously the Faction must have taken an interest in UNIT at some
point...
>
> Ooo! Good retcon! I wouldn't mind seeing more of the Faction...
See- the perfect answer to any continuity clash...
Daniel Frankham
>Mr. Sullivan,
>>
>Unfortunately, there is no simple way of
>> resolving this problem without contradicting *something*.
>>
>
>never saw anything particularly advanced about them. I knew they were
>sort of intended that way when they were made, but I don't know why
>the production team bothered. They fit well enough in the present day
>(the 70s that is). It never struck me as being out of place that the
>UK had Mars landings. I mean it could have been covered up.
They'd have had to cover up those TV broadcasts of the Rescue mission,
which featured fairly prominently in the story. A pretty big job,
that. Almost as big as making people forget that London had been
evacuated for at least a few months in c1967 and c1975 :)
===========================================================================
The television critic, whatever his pretensions, does not labour in the
same vineyard as those he criticizes; his grapes are all sour.
--Frederic Raphael
OJ THORNTON
Distribution:
Dr. Evil (dr-...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk) wrote:
: SV7 wrote:
: > This is tenuous, but it's better to regard this as so than
: > to fiddle with reality like "The Devil Goblins of Neptune" with its
: > idiotic 5 Beatles, and so on. Why do these authors do things like
: > that?
: Pardon me for saying this SV7 old chap/robot/whatever, but you really are
: a tedious old windbag. Authors do things like that, not only because they
: can, but also because it's fun - 'what if' being the starting point of
: many a great idea, especially regarding science fiction. To have a
: miserable little twerp like you come along and state (and, as is becoming
: more apparent, continually restate) that you don't like it is the height
: of idiocy and I really wish you'd give your typing protocols a bit of a
: rest until you find something else to talk about.
Saying "what if..." is all very well, as long as you actually do
something intelligent with it. I really expected there to be some kind
of "parallel universe" sub-plot because of that Beatles thing, but the
comment was made and then just left, with no development whatsoever.
That's the first reason I don't like it.
The second is, it pisses on the memory of one of the greatest groups in
music history. The idea that they continued touring is absurd, the idea
that they carried on without Paul is absurd. If the authors had thought
about this, they'd have realised that the Beatles had reached the end of
their natural lifespan as a group (all the documentation - biographies,
the Anthology series etc. - suggest that they *all* wanted out), and not
made such stupid, pointless suggestions in the first place.
: So, what if the Beatles continued as a five piece? What if companions
: shagged till their ears bled? What if Dodo left the TARDIS is a highly
: emotional state and was blown away by a great big shotgun? One thing the
: NAs specialise in is thoughful little suppositions like these, and you
: saying you don't like them isn't going to change that one little bit. So,
: please, for the sake of my boredom threshold, shut up.
At least the NAs had the decency to do them well. "Devil Goblins..."
just made the suggestion, and left it there. If you ask, "what if..."
in a story, you have the obligation as an author to answer the question
in some way - even if the answer leaves more questions than it does
answers. There wasn't even that in "Devil Goblins..."
Is it fun to posit that the Beatles stayed together and hired two Germans
to replace Paul? Well, it may be for the author, but for the reader
it's only fun if there's some clever reason for it, which as I have
already pointed out, is sadly lacking in "Devil Goblins from Neptune".
For a Beatles fan reading the book, it is really most unpleasant, unless
there is a good reason for doing it, AND THERE WASN'T!
Saying, "What if..." gratuitously is wasteful, stupid, and irritating.
If you are going to make the "what if..." statement, for pity's sake,
*think* about what you are doing! If you can't be bothered (as seems to
be the case for "Devil Goblins...") then don't do it at all.
Oliver Thornton
David Ball
OJ THORNTON <
>
> Saying, "What if..." gratuitously is wasteful, stupid, and irritating.
> If you are going to make the "what if..." statement, for pity's sake,
> *think* about what you are doing! If you can't be bothered (as seems to
> be the case for "Devil Goblins...") then don't do it at all.
I think the point is to say that the Whoniverse is not the same as our
world. Therefore attempts to date things by reference to what happened in
our world are a bit misguided.
I love the Beatles and I just thought that it was fun.
David
David Ball
Daniel Frankham <dan...@wantree.com.au> wrote in article
<36654c8f...@news.wantree.com.au>...
> On Tue, 01 Dec 1998 22:57:04 -0500, SV7 wrote:
> >Mr. Sullivan,
> >>
> >Unfortunately, there is no simple way of
> >> resolving this problem without contradicting *something*.
> >>
> >
> >Funnily enough, when I first saw the Pertwee episodes around 1990, I
> >never saw anything particularly advanced about them. I knew they were
> >sort of intended that way when they were made, but I don't know why
> >the production team bothered. They fit well enough in the present day
> >(the 70s that is). It never struck me as being out of place that the
> >UK had Mars landings. I mean it could have been covered up.
>
> They'd have had to cover up those TV broadcasts of the Rescue mission,
> which featured fairly prominently in the story. A pretty big job,
> that. Almost as big as making people forget that London had been
> evacuated for at least a few months in c1967 and c1975 :)
>
They do not need to be covered up. It's not our world. History is different
in the Whoniverse (IMHO). Whilst London may have been evacuated they could
have said it was a chemical spill, etc.
In the Dying Days the Mars landings are referred too, and are common
knowledge.
David
Chris Rednour
> SV7 wrote:
>
> > This is tenuous, but it's better to regard this as so than
> > to fiddle with reality like "The Devil Goblins of Neptune" with its
> > idiotic 5 Beatles, and so on. Why do these authors do things like
> > that?
>
> Pardon me for saying this SV7 old chap/robot/whatever, but you really are
> a tedious old windbag. Authors do things like that, not only because they
> can, but also because it's fun - 'what if' being the starting point of
> many a great idea, especially regarding science fiction. To have a
> miserable little twerp like you come along and state (and, as is becoming
> more apparent, continually restate) that you don't like it is the height
> of idiocy and I really wish you'd give your typing protocols a bit of a
> rest until you find something else to talk about.
>
> So, what if the Beatles continued as a five piece? What if companions
> shagged till their ears bled? What if Dodo left the TARDIS is a highly
> emotional state and was blown away by a great big shotgun? One thing the
> NAs specialise in is thoughful little suppositions like these, and you
> saying you don't like them isn't going to change that one little bit. So,
> please, for the sake of my boredom threshold, shut up.
It may be that he posts the same old same old all the time, but he has
yet, to my knowledge, ever suggested that anyone shouldn't/can't discuss
what they want to in regards to Doctor Who in this newsgroup.
If it bores you, read another thread, no one forces you to read this one.
Dr. Evil
OJ THORNTON wrote:
> 664D62B....@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk>:
> Distribution:
>
> Dr. Evil (dr-...@belisarius.freeserve.co.uk) wrote:
> : SV7 wrote:
>
> : > This is tenuous, but it's better to regard this as so than
> : > to fiddle with reality like "The Devil Goblins of Neptune" with its
> : > idiotic 5 Beatles, and so on. Why do these authors do things like
> : > that?
>
> : Pardon me for saying this SV7 old chap/robot/whatever, but you really are
> : a tedious old windbag. Authors do things like that, not only because they
> : can, but also because it's fun - 'what if' being the starting point of
> : many a great idea, especially regarding science fiction. To have a
> : miserable little twerp like you come along and state (and, as is becoming
> : more apparent, continually restate) that you don't like it is the height
> : of idiocy and I really wish you'd give your typing protocols a bit of a
> : rest until you find something else to talk about.
>
> Saying "what if..." is all very well, as long as you actually do
> something intelligent with it. I really expected there to be some kind
> of "parallel universe" sub-plot because of that Beatles thing, but the
> comment was made and then just left, with no development whatsoever.
>
> That's the first reason I don't like it.
>
> The second is, it pisses on the memory of one of the greatest groups in
> music history. The idea that they continued touring is absurd, the idea
> that they carried on without Paul is absurd. If the authors had thought
> about this, they'd have realised that the Beatles had reached the end of
> their natural lifespan as a group (all the documentation - biographies,
> the Anthology series etc. - suggest that they *all* wanted out), and not
> made such stupid, pointless suggestions in the first place.
Lumme! You take this all very seriously don't you? When I read that bit, rather
than dismissing the idea out of hand and burning effigies of Day and Topping
(this latter would take some time I understand), I took a moment of quality
time to ponder if this could have happened. Your assertion that it would never
have happened is complete testicles - nobody knew what was in their minds at
the time and what they've said since is a severe case of 20/20 hindsight.
George says he hated live concerts - then he goes and does the Bangladesh
concert. This is besides the fact that John, George and Ringo were indeed
recording together not long after the split. The 'natural lifespan' was a Paul
idea ("And in the end..."), one which Lennon particularly despised. And one of
the Gemans would have no doubt been Klaus Voorman, who shared a long history
with the fabs and, indeed, played bass in the Plastic Ono Band
See? it's fun to speculate
> : So, what if the Beatles continued as a five piece? What if companions
> : shagged till their ears bled? What if Dodo left the TARDIS is a highly
> : emotional state and was blown away by a great big shotgun? One thing the
> : NAs specialise in is thoughful little suppositions like these, and you
> : saying you don't like them isn't going to change that one little bit. So,
> : please, for the sake of my boredom threshold, shut up.
>
> At least the NAs had the decency to do them well. "Devil Goblins..."
> just made the suggestion, and left it there. If you ask, "what if..."
> in a story, you have the obligation as an author to answer the question
> in some way - even if the answer leaves more questions than it does
> answers. There wasn't even that in "Devil Goblins..."
>
> Is it fun to posit that the Beatles stayed together and hired two Germans
> to replace Paul? Well, it may be for the author, but for the reader
> it's only fun if there's some clever reason for it, which as I have
> already pointed out, is sadly lacking in "Devil Goblins from Neptune".
> For a Beatles fan reading the book, it is really most unpleasant, unless
> there is a good reason for doing it, AND THERE WASN'T!
>
> Saying, "What if..." gratuitously is wasteful, stupid, and irritating.
> If you are going to make the "what if..." statement, for pity's sake,
> *think* about what you are doing! If you can't be bothered (as seems to
> be the case for "Devil Goblins...") then don't do it at all.
Unpleasant?!? There was no good reason for doing it. It was a tiny fun aside in
a Doctor Who book. I enjoyed it; others enjoyed it. You didn't because you take
yourself too seriously.
David Ball
Fox Becker <zen_...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in article
<zen_orac-021...@138.49.21.156>...
> In article <01be1e00$56845920$1c7d...@finance01.newham-vic.ac.uk>,
"David
> Ball" <db...@newham-vic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> : I think the point is to say that the Whoniverse is not the same as our
> : world. Therefore attempts to date things by reference to what happened
in
> : our world are a bit misguided.
>
> If that is true, then the whole concept of having Who stories set on
Earth
> is misguided. If they are not set on 'our' world, then there is no reason
> for us to care about what happens to that Earth, or the characters on it.
> We know that is not real, but it takes away the suspension of disbelief
> and what makes Doctor Who magical by reminding us of that. The writers
who
> agree with you are the ones who are 'misguided', and are ruining Doctor
> Who for a lot of people.
Talk about missing the point.
Do you remember a Skarasen in the Thames? Or London evacuations?
It's a fictional Earth, like in all fictional stories. Obviously things
like alien invasions have not happened here. However on a world where they
have happened things may be different from our own due to that. The writers
who acknowledge this are trying to make the fictional world more realistic
and interesting.
Just because it's a fictional world does not mean you can't care about the
characters.
As for ruining Who "for a lot of people" who are all those people you speak
for? Why can't they speak for themselves?
David
OJ THORNTON
: > Saying "what if..." is all very well, as long as you actually do
: > something intelligent with it. I really expected there to be some kind
: > of "parallel universe" sub-plot because of that Beatles thing, but the
: > comment was made and then just left, with no development whatsoever.
: >
: > That's the first reason I don't like it.
: >
: > The second is, it pisses on the memory of one of the greatest groups in
: > music history. The idea that they continued touring is absurd, the idea
: > that they carried on without Paul is absurd. If the authors had thought
: > about this, they'd have realised that the Beatles had reached the end of
: > their natural lifespan as a group (all the documentation - biographies,
: > the Anthology series etc. - suggest that they *all* wanted out), and not
: > made such stupid, pointless suggestions in the first place.
: Lumme! You take this all very seriously don't you? When I read that
Well, not really. The first reason is the main reason. The second
reason is because I like the Beatles a lot, and the effect of that
suggestion on me was shock, and displeasure that someone would muck about
that much with their history. That's a personal response, and the
distaste I felt doesn't change with a second reading, since it is also
flavoured by the first reason - there is no good reason to try to like
it, as far as I can see.
: than dismissing the idea out of hand and burning effigies of Day and Topping
: (this latter would take some time I understand), I took a moment of quality
: time to ponder if this could have happened. Your assertion that it would never
: have happened is complete testicles - nobody knew what was in their minds at
: the time and what they've said since is a severe case of 20/20 hindsight.
Maybe so, but if George Martin says he had to persuade them to stay
together to record a final album, "Abbey Road", so they wouldn't be left
with a bad taste in their mouth (the Anthology programmes) it seems
rather suggestive that the band was not long for this world. Of course,
we can't be sure, but it would surely be very low probability indeed that
the remaining three would want to stay in it together.
: George says he hated live concerts - then he goes and does the Bangladesh
: concert. This is besides the fact that John, George and Ringo were indeed
: recording together not long after the split. The 'natural lifespan' was a Paul
And how often since that? I understand that Ringo managed to get all
four of the Beatles onto the same LP at least once.
: idea ("And in the end..."), one which Lennon particularly despised. And one of
John Lennon may well have despised it. That doesn't make it untrue.
: the Gemans would have no doubt been Klaus Voorman, who shared a long history
: with the fabs and, indeed, played bass in the Plastic Ono Band
I reached the conclusion that it was a "natural lifespan" entirely
independently from anyone else's comments to that effect, simply from
reading non-first-person accounts and listening to the music. The
Anthology programme seems to me to support this view, but I may just be
interpreting it in that way.
: See? it's fun to speculate
Well, if we have to speculate that the Beatles would call in two Germans
to replace Paul, then we might as well speculate as to their identities,
which could well be "fun". But the initial supposition feels
fundamentally wrong to me - with all the information I have at my
disposal,. I would not expect there to be much chance of it happening.
: > : So, what if the Beatles continued as a five piece? What if companions
: > : shagged till their ears bled? What if Dodo left the TARDIS is a highly
: > : emotional state and was blown away by a great big shotgun? One thing the
: > : NAs specialise in is thoughful little suppositions like these, and you
: > : saying you don't like them isn't going to change that one little bit. So,
: > : please, for the sake of my boredom threshold, shut up.
: >
: > At least the NAs had the decency to do them well. "Devil Goblins..."
: > just made the suggestion, and left it there. If you ask, "what if..."
: > in a story, you have the obligation as an author to answer the question
: > in some way - even if the answer leaves more questions than it does
: > answers. There wasn't even that in "Devil Goblins..."
: >
: > Is it fun to posit that the Beatles stayed together and hired two Germans
: > to replace Paul? Well, it may be for the author, but for the reader
: > it's only fun if there's some clever reason for it, which as I have
: > already pointed out, is sadly lacking in "Devil Goblins from Neptune".
: > For a Beatles fan reading the book, it is really most unpleasant, unless
: > there is a good reason for doing it, AND THERE WASN'T!
: >
: > Saying, "What if..." gratuitously is wasteful, stupid, and irritating.
: > If you are going to make the "what if..." statement, for pity's sake,
: > *think* about what you are doing! If you can't be bothered (as seems to
: > be the case for "Devil Goblins...") then don't do it at all.
: Unpleasant?!? There was no good reason for doing it. It was a tiny fun aside in
Fun for some. That's the problem, the author isn't thinking about the
reader, just, "Oh, wouldn't it be fun to mess around with historical
icons" without thinking how that's going to affect readers. Your "tiny
funny aside" has effects on the way people view the entire story in a
fundamental way. Even a "tiny funny aside" (and there was precious
little humour that I could find in it - not even "She Loves You Ja, Ja,
Ja", but that may be my sense of humour not being the same as the
author's) must be considered in terms of its broader effects. This is
something I like about Douglas Adams's work - he does actually stop to
think about the funny asides he makes, and see where they take him.
With this Beatles thing, there is no attempt at all to see what happens
with it.
Like, when John Lennon was assassinated (it's in a Dr. Who book -
"The Left-Handed Hummingbird", I think - so we'll assume that event
atleast still takes place in the Who universe) was he still a member of
the Beatles? Did "Imagine" ever get written, if the Beatles stayed
together? What happened to Glam Rock? What about Punk? Did George
Harrison ever coin the term, "Wonderwall"? When did the Beatles finally
split up? Why did they split up? How well did Paul McCartney do in
his solo career? What sort of sound did the Beatles develop in the
Seventies?
Making a statement on that scale, just for the sake of some not-very-funny
linguistical joke (that seems to be all they use it for), is as I said,
wasteful, stupid and irritating (as the joke was to me).
: a Doctor Who book. I enjoyed it; others enjoyed it. You didn't because
: you take yourself too seriously.
Two things. One, you don't know me. You've never met me. You can't
possibly know me from my postings on this ng because those have changed
pov and tone depending on my state of mind each day as I sit in front of
the computer. Therefore, don't even begin to think you can ascribe
reasons for my actions or attitudes towards certain things. You
can't. You only reveal your own prejudices in attempting to do so.
Second, there are comedians whom I find stupid and offensive who use the
same defence. My retort to them is, "no, you don't take yourself (or
your comedy) seriously enough." There is a balance to be found. I'm
not saying I've found that. Most people I know tell me that I in fact
don't take myself seriously enough. The rest tell me that I take myself
too seriously. I suppose that either a) they view me in respect to
their own position, or b) I actually change depending on my company.
With the "funny" line about the Beatles, I would say that Mr. Day and/or
Mr. Topping have not taken their humour seriously enough (to be good at
comedy, it is my view is that you have to take it seriously).
Oliver Thornton
OJ THORNTON
<01be1e00$56845920$1c7d...@finance01.newham-vic.ac.uk> <zen_orac-021...@138.49.21.156> <01be1e9b$423227e0$1c7d...@finance01.newham-vic.ac.uk> <3666BA73...@my-dejanews.com>:
Distribution:
Fox Becker (zen_...@my-dejanews.com) wrote:
: : Do you remember a Skarasen in the Thames? Or London evacuations?
: Yes. I remember those episodes. It does not mean that I think that they
: were good examples of Who, at those particular points in the story.
My own view is that either a) we were all hypnotised by use of subliminal
suggestion or b) the BBC changed the details so that UNIT et al wouldn't
seriously kick their butts for breaking the Official Secrets Act.
Incidentally, that would also explain the messed up dating, since how
better to confuse the public about real events than to make the dates you
ascribe them impossibly contradictory?
: it does not exist. If it takes place in recent history and contradicts
: it, then you *know* that it does not take place in our universe.
"History as we know it is a lie..." - intro to "Dark Skies". Why
shouldn't the same apply with Dr. Who and the "real" world?
Oliver Thornton
Azaxyr
>: > : I think the point is to say that the Whoniverse is not the same as
>: > : our world. Therefore attempts to date things by reference to what
>: > : happened in our world are a bit misguided.
>: >
>: > If that is true, then the whole concept of having Who stories set on
>: > Earth is misguided. If they are not set on 'our' world, then there
>: > is no reason for us to care about what happens to that Earth, or the
>: > characters on it. We know that is not real, but it takes away the
>: > suspension of disbelief and what makes Doctor Who magical by
>: > reminding us of that. The writers who agree with you are the ones
>: > who are 'misguided', and are ruining Doctor Who for a lot of people.
The way I see it, the writers should strive to
make the Earth stories seems as realistic as
possible. Therfore, having an Earth invasion
and then saying it was covered up is realistic -
it's the whole premise of the X-Files, after all -
a "could easily happen given current conditions"
scenario.
However, writers that think "Hmm, obviously
the Cybermen didn't show up in 1986, and
thus the whole thing is fantasy, I might as well
go all out and make it totally unbelievable" are
the type of writers that ruined the series.
As with the McCoy era - when they decided
to scrap the underlying sci-fi themes and went
all out fantasy rubbish.
"All these worlds....
...Will make excellent sites for our garbage dumps."
who...@my-dejanews.com
ojth...@bradford.ac.uk (OJ THORNTON) wrote:
>
> Well, if we have to speculate that the Beatles would call in two Germans
> to replace Paul, then we might as well speculate as to their identities,
> which could well be "fun". But the initial supposition feels
> fundamentally wrong to me - with all the information I have at my
> disposal,. I would not expect there to be much chance of it happening.
IIRC (my Beatles books are in storage, so I can't cite sources), after the
breakup, Lennon suggested to Harrison and Starr that they stay together and
get Klaus Voorman to play bass in a new group (with Billy Preston on
keyboards). Lennon suggested "The Ladders" as a working name, and the idea
was that they'd do unannounced concerts in small venues to work out the bugs
(no pun intended). The idea was considered seriously, but didn't happen
because of Harrison's aversion to live performances, and Lennon's insistence
that Yoko be involved. Whether McCartney stole the concert idea when he was
getting Wings started, or whether he came up with it independently, is a
matter of some debate.
--
Allen Robinson
Who's Doctor Who?
www.dwebs.net/~allenrob/whoshome.html
Peter Anghelides
<in the "UNIT dating" thread>
> Obviously the Faction must have taken an interest in UNIT at some point...
I'd like to nominate the Faction Paradox as the ultimate DW deus ex
machina with built in Retcon Device (tm). Faster than the Karkus!
Deadlier than the Hand of Omega!! More incomprehensible than
Pigbin Josh!!!
New FACTION. It's the only writing conditioner that washes holes
right out of your fiction. Found one of your characters has retired
several years too early? Reach for your FACTION! Accidentally
erased Atlantis again? Here's FACTION! Got the name of the
Indigenous Earth People, er, Silurians, er, Earth Reptiles, er,
Eocenes, er... oh bugger, is that middle eye supposed to be
flashing while he's talking? Just pick up that handy-dandy pack
of FACTION!
Available at all good bookshops last week - before I even thought
of it, in fact... No, in FACTION!.
Peter Anghelides
--
The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail
Dangermouse
Faction Man? I can feel a filk coming on...
Dangermouse
Peter Anghelides <peter-an...@cwcom.net> wrote
> > Obviously the Faction must have taken an interest in UNIT at some
point...
>
> I'd like to nominate the Faction Paradox as the ultimate DW deus ex
> machina with built in Retcon Device (tm). Faster than the Karkus!
> Deadlier than the Hand of Omega!! More incomprehensible than
> Pigbin Josh!!!
Exactly my point.
Dr. Evil
Chris Rednour wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Dr. Evil wrote:
>
> > SV7 wrote:
> >
> > > This is tenuous, but it's better to regard this as so than
> > > to fiddle with reality like "The Devil Goblins of Neptune" with its
> > > idiotic 5 Beatles, and so on. Why do these authors do things like
> > > that?
> >
> > Pardon me for saying this SV7 old chap/robot/whatever, but you really are
> > a tedious old windbag. Authors do things like that, not only because they
> > can, but also because it's fun - 'what if' being the starting point of
> > many a great idea, especially regarding science fiction. To have a
> > miserable little twerp like you come along and state (and, as is becoming
> > more apparent, continually restate) that you don't like it is the height
> > of idiocy and I really wish you'd give your typing protocols a bit of a
> > rest until you find something else to talk about.
> >
> > So, what if the Beatles continued as a five piece? What if companions
> > shagged till their ears bled? What if Dodo left the TARDIS is a highly
> > emotional state and was blown away by a great big shotgun? One thing the
> > NAs specialise in is thoughful little suppositions like these, and you
> > saying you don't like them isn't going to change that one little bit. So,
> > please, for the sake of my boredom threshold, shut up.
>
> It may be that he posts the same old same old all the time, but he has
> yet, to my knowledge, ever suggested that anyone shouldn't/can't discuss
> what they want to in regards to Doctor Who in this newsgroup.
>
> If it bores you, read another thread, no one forces you to read this one.
Well, thank you for getting all high and mighty on me. I really appreciate
that.
Jeez. You can't even politely insult people round here anymore without pompous
twits pulling that 'you don't have to read it you know' argument out of the
snotty hat. He said some idiotic things, I stated why he was wrong and *then*
called him an idiot. And you wonder why the likes of Azaxyr just go for the
jugular...
R.J. Smith
David Ball <db...@newham-vic.ac.uk> wrote:
>OJ THORNTON <
>> Saying, "What if..." gratuitously is wasteful, stupid, and irritating.
>> If you are going to make the "what if..." statement, for pity's sake,
>> *think* about what you are doing! If you can't be bothered (as seems to
>> be the case for "Devil Goblins...") then don't do it at all.
>I think the point is to say that the Whoniverse is not the same as our
>world. Therefore attempts to date things by reference to what happened in
>our world are a bit misguided.
I'd like to agree with you - and I do in principle, but my major sticking
point was that the way they demonstrated this was such utter crap.
The bits of the Whoniverse that have diverged from ours have - with a few
notable exceptions - been small, tiny things. Little, but crucial details
that can't be rectified, not great 'slam you over the head with the idea
to you get it' things like 5 Beatles. As OJ says, there was nothing done
with it, so the only conclusion is that it must have been to show that the
Whoniverse was different... yet it didn't even do that well.
All is forgiven, however, because I'm halfway through The Hollow Men and
it's fabulous!
- Robert Smith?
(Then again, the first half of Devil Gobs was great as well and look how
bad the rest was. I'm really hoping that this has since been sorted out,
because I don't think I could handle the disappointment!)
R.J. Smith
David Ball <db...@newham-vic.ac.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>Talk about missing the point.
>Do you remember a Skarasen in the Thames? Or London evacuations?
I have to say that I think you're missing a key point. Even within the
fictional universe of the show, these things were covered up (as the
Doctor points out to Ace).
So saying that because we don't remember them they can't have happened
in our universe, when in the universe where we know they *did* happen,
people still don't remember them is a rather loopy argument.
(Not nearly as loopy as trying to diagram that sentence, however)
- Robert Smith?
William December Starr
ojth...@bradford.ac.uk (OJ THORNTON) said:
>> fun aside [Dr. Evil]
>
> Fun for some. That's the problem, the author isn't thinking about
> the reader, just, "Oh, wouldn't it be fun to mess around with
> historical icons" without thinking how that's going to affect
> readers. Your "tiny funny aside" has effects on the way people view
> the entire story in a fundamental way. Even a "tiny funny aside"
> (and there was precious little humour that I could find in it - not
> even "She Loves You Ja, Ja, Ja", but that may be my sense of humour
> not being the same as the author's) must be considered in terms of
> its broader effects.
Which, with all due respect Oliver, are virtually none. One, count
him, one reader -- you -- for some reason has a bug up his ass about
this. (Dave Becker will probably now jump in and join you in proclaiming
that Yes It Is Too A Big Deal, but never mind him.) I'm sorry, but you
sound like a whining crank about this. It was just a throwaway bit, no
more significant than a mention of a bad remake of the classic Ronald
Reagan/Ann Sheridan "Casablanca" or something (and if that threw a
Bogart buff into a tizzy, well, _he'd_ be a whining crank too).
Get over it.
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
William December Starr
[Crap. I just posted an incompletely-edited version of this, and now
I can't cancel it. Well, here's how it was supposed to look. -- wds]
William December Starr
zen_...@my-dejanews.com (Fox Becker) said:
>> I think the point is to say that the Whoniverse is not the same as
>> our world. Therefore attempts to date things by reference to what
>> happened in our world are a bit misguided. [David Ball]
>
> If that is true, then the whole concept of having Who stories set on
> Earth is misguided. If they are not set on 'our' world, then there
> is no reason for us to care about what happens to that Earth, or the
> characters on it.
Yup, that's right. None at all. It's not my goddamn planet,
understand, monkey boy? Blow the fucker up, see if I care.
> We know that is not real, but it takes away the suspension of
> disbelief and what makes Doctor Who magical by reminding us of
> that. The writers who agree with you are the ones who are
> 'misguided', and are ruining Doctor Who for a lot of people.
Only for people with very flat imaginations, I think.
Dr. Evil
> On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Dr. Evil wrote:
>
> > SV7 wrote:
> >
> > > This is tenuous, but it's better to regard this as so than
> > > to fiddle with reality like "The Devil Goblins of Neptune" with its
> > > idiotic 5 Beatles, and so on. Why do these authors do things like
> > > that?
> >
> > Pardon me for saying this SV7 old chap/robot/whatever, but you really are
> > a tedious old windbag. Authors do things like that, not only because they
> > can, but also because it's fun - 'what if' being the starting point of
> > many a great idea, especially regarding science fiction. To have a
> > miserable little twerp like you come along and state (and, as is becoming
> > more apparent, continually restate) that you don't like it is the height
> > of idiocy and I really wish you'd give your typing protocols a bit of a
> > rest until you find something else to talk about.
> >
> > So, what if the Beatles continued as a five piece? What if companions
> > shagged till their ears bled? What if Dodo left the TARDIS is a highly
> > emotional state and was blown away by a great big shotgun? One thing the
> > NAs specialise in is thoughful little suppositions like these, and you
> > saying you don't like them isn't going to change that one little bit. So,
> > please, for the sake of my boredom threshold, shut up.
>
> It may be that he posts the same old same old all the time, but he has
> yet, to my knowledge, ever suggested that anyone shouldn't/can't discuss
> what they want to in regards to Doctor Who in this newsgroup.
>
> If it bores you, read another thread, no one forces you to read this one.
Well, thank you for getting all high and mighty on me. I really
appreciate that.
--
Dr. Evil
OJ THORNTON wrote:(Oo, I'm going to have fun with this. I love arguing with people
who think they know their facts)
And I apologise in advance for the extreme length and hugely off-topic nature of this
post. It will be my last, promise.
> Maybe so, but if George Martin says he had to persuade them to stay
> together to record a final album, "Abbey Road", so they wouldn't be left
> with a bad taste in their mouth (the Anthology programmes) it seems
> rather suggestive that the band was not long for this world. Of course,
> we can't be sure, but it would surely be very low probability indeed that
> the remaining three would want to stay in it together.
Sorry to say this, but George Martin is resolutely a Paul man. This is why he failed
to produce Free As A Bird and Real Love. Never mind that hard of hearing excuse - if
his hearing is so bad how come he managed to do the remastering and reconstructing
for the entire Anthology series. The only reason George and John agreed to do Abbey
Road was because they didn't want to leave the calamity of Get Back/Let It Be as
their final legacy. Didn't stop everyone arguing like it had gone out of fashion...
> : George says he hated live concerts - then he goes and does the Bangladesh
> : concert. This is besides the fact that John, George and Ringo were indeed
> : recording together not long after the split. The 'natural lifespan' was a Paul
>
> And how often since that? I understand that Ringo managed to get all
> four of the Beatles onto the same LP at least once.
...but not in the same room. Ringo was amenable and could work with anybody. At the
time, John and George would rather have worked with Hitler than Paul.
> : idea ("And in the end..."), one which Lennon particularly despised. And one of
>
> John Lennon may well have despised it. That doesn't make it untrue.
Huh? Lennon didn't want the Beatles to end. He was savvy enough to realise that they
were the best thing that would ever happen to him. He just hated Paul with a passion.
When he famously said 'I want a divorce', it was to Paul, not George and Ringo.
> : the Gemans would have no doubt been Klaus Voorman, who shared a long history
> : with the fabs and, indeed, played bass in the Plastic Ono Band
>
> I reached the conclusion that it was a "natural lifespan" entirely
> independently from anyone else's comments to that effect, simply from
> reading non-first-person accounts and listening to the music. The
> Anthology programme seems to me to support this view, but I may just be
> interpreting it in that way.
Damn right you are. I remember reading a later interview of Lennon's where he
seriously talked about carrying on without Paul. No mention of replacements was made,
but I'm sure Klaus Voorman would have been number one choice to replace him. Let's
remember, shall we, that if the Beatles was anyone's band, it was John's.
> : See? it's fun to speculate
>
> Well, if we have to speculate that the Beatles would call in two Germans
> to replace Paul, then we might as well speculate as to their identities,
> which could well be "fun". But the initial supposition feels
> fundamentally wrong to me - with all the information I have at my
> disposal,. I would not expect there to be much chance of it happening.
'Feels' huh? 'Not expect' huh? Good job you've got such a solid foundation there.
That's the thing. The authors allow the reader to have a good think about the
implications. They probably weren't expecting a reader who went 'That's not on' and
dismissed the whole thing out of hand, to the extent where the reader still feels
aggrieved about the whole thing to post his feelings on a newsgroup. As for Douglas
Adams, how did you think about the attributes attested to Dire Straits in So Long and
Thanks for All The Fish (hah! Acronyms are for pussies).
> Like, when John Lennon was assassinated (it's in a Dr. Who book -
> "The Left-Handed Hummingbird", I think - so we'll assume that event
> atleast still takes place in the Who universe) was he still a member of
> the Beatles?
Probably not. They must realise at some point that it was Paul who wrote most of
their later hits.
> Did "Imagine" ever get written, if the Beatles stayed
> together?
Yep. I could see it as a Beatles song.
> What happened to Glam Rock?
David Bowie killed it off when he retired Ziggy.
> What about Punk?
Still going, according to some Americans.
> Did George
> Harrison ever coin the term, "Wonderwall"?
Seeing as he didn't coin it - the person who made the film for which he did the
soundtrack did - it wouldn't matter anyway. He did it while he was still in the 'real
world' Beatles.
> When did the Beatles finally
> split up?
You'll have to ask Keith and Martin.
> Why did they split up?
Ditto, although the 'Paul writes the hits' reason would no doubt apply.
> How well did Paul McCartney do in
> his solo career?
Exactly the same as we all know and love. A complete hit-orientated bland out, using
chart position as a way to get back at his old mates.
> What sort of sound did the Beatles develop in the
> Seventies?
Imagine Lennon and Harrison's 70's output combined...
> Making a statement on that scale, just for the sake of some not-very-funny
> linguistical joke (that seems to be all they use it for), is as I said,
> wasteful, stupid and irritating (as the joke was to me).
You have not only got no sense of humour, you fail to realise that it wasn't a joke.
> : a Doctor Who book. I enjoyed it; others enjoyed it. You didn't because
> : you take yourself too seriously.
>
> Two things. One, you don't know me. You've never met me. You can't
> possibly know me from my postings on this ng because those have changed
> pov and tone depending on my state of mind each day as I sit in front of
> the computer. Therefore, don't even begin to think you can ascribe
> reasons for my actions or attitudes towards certain things. You
> can't. You only reveal your own prejudices in attempting to do so.
I've great at judging from first impressions.
> Second, there are comedians whom I find stupid and offensive who use the
> same defence. My retort to them is, "no, you don't take yourself (or
> your comedy) seriously enough." There is a balance to be found.
Absolute bollocks.
> I'm not saying I've found that.
Spot on.
> Most people I know tell me that I in fact
> don't take myself seriously enough.
Give me their names and addresses.
> The rest tell me that I take myself
> too seriously. I suppose that either a) they view me in respect to
> their own position, or b) I actually change depending on my company.
I would hope your equivocating personality will be man enough to see the sense in at
least some of what I'm saying.
> With the "funny" line about the Beatles, I would say that Mr. Day and/or
> Mr. Topping have not taken their humour seriously enough (to be good at
> comedy, it is my view is that you have to take it seriously).
It wasn't a joke. A joke makes you go 'ha ha'. This makes you go 'hmm that's
interesting. I wonder if that was within the realms of possibility...?'
Mike Sivier
>infan...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Charles Daniels <cdan...@calweb.com> wrote:
>>> Wouldn't that be a tad confusing?
>>> "Oh eh! Remember that old chap you used to travel with 10, 20, ohh 30,
>>> years ago..you know I've travelled the universe you know but UNIT dating
>>> still confuses me..."
>> Me too! I don't wanna sound stupid (if I did, I could always post to a
>> Babylon 5 newsgroup), but will someone PLEASE tell me what the hell UNIT
>> dating is? And Charles, do not say it's the Brigadier's "don't ask/don't
>> tell" policy or I'll Finn Fang Foom SMASH yr butt. I mean that in the nicest,
>> unhealthiest way, too. `:) (fluttering eyelash)
>Yuckola! :)
>Well UNIT Dating is that confusing headache of trying to figure
>out WHEN the UNIT stories take place.
All controversy on this subject is based on a point which has not,
hitherto, been raised in DW stories.
On DW Earth, due to calendar problems, the 1970s take place twice.
(Of course, this would mean the Queen takes the throne in 1962 rather
than 1952 but that's a minor detail when compared with dating the UNIT
stories).
--
Mike :)
Michael S. Tumilty
R.J. Smith wrote in message <747cev$q...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA>...
>In article <01be1e00$56845920$1c7d...@finance01.newham-vic.ac.uk>,
>All is forgiven, however, because I'm halfway through The Hollow Men and
>it's fabulous!
>
> - Robert Smith?
>(Then again, the first half of Devil Gobs was great as well and look how
>bad the rest was. I'm really hoping that this has since been sorted out,
>because I don't think I could handle the disappointment!)
Just wait'll you get to the epilogue! Best damn PDA yet,
IMNSHO.
-Erin (St.) ~Right Honourable RADW Babe of the Year~
President of Save Our Doctor: Television's Hero In Space
Proudly telling the Beeb to SOD THIS since 1997
"I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm
going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any
Narnia." Puddleglum, _The Silver Chair_
SV7
>
> Jeez. You can't even politely insult people round here anymore without pompous
> twits pulling that 'you don't have to read it you know' argument out of the
> snotty hat. He said some idiotic things, I stated why he was wrong and *then*
> called him an idiot. And you wonder why the likes of Azaxyr just go for the
> jugular...
Why do you waste your time insulting me? I think that having 5 Beatles
in the seventies is ridiculous, and it typifies the pointless
prerogatives of the authors. I could care less what YOU think,
because, in my opinion, YOU are wrong. Why that makes me an idiot is
beyond me.
SV7
Carrot Juice! Carrot Juice!! Carrot Juice!!!
David Ball
Fox Becker
>
> Yes. I remember those episodes. It does not mean that I think that they
> were good examples of Who, at those particular points in the story.
>
What I meant was do you remember them happening in real life, as I hope you
realised.
>
> : It's a fictional Earth, like in all fictional stories. Obviously
> : things like alien invasions have not happened here. However on a world
> : where they have happened things may be different from our own due to
> : that. The writers who acknowledge this are trying to make the
> : fictional world more realistic and interesting.
>
> How does constantly reminding us that these stories could not even
> *possibly* happen or have happened in our universe make them more
> 'realistic'?
Because it obviously is not our world. As soon as the Yeti invaded the
underground or the War Machines appeared it wasn't.
As it is not totally like our world I like writers who pull the differences
into a more coherent world view.
> You have to be able to pretend that that fictional world is real, in
> your mind, before you can care about it. If it takes place on some alien
> planet, or in the far future, or far past, you have no way to prove that
> it does not exist. If it takes place in recent history and contradicts
> it, then you *know* that it does not take place in our universe. I do
> not give a flying fig about what takes place in some 'alternate'
> universe, and I would be honestly surprised if there are not a lot of
> readers who feel the same way.
I don't agree. It's more fun playing with other bits of history. You can
still care & empathise even if it is not our Earth. Try a bit more
suspension of disbelief. If you can believe alien planets, time machines
and whatever else surely this is not too hard.
>
> : As for ruining Who "for a lot of people" who are all those people you
> : speak for? Why can't they speak for themselves?
>
> Partly because most of them have better things to do than waste their
> time on rec.arts.drwho, but also because I suspect that a lot of them
> have given up trying to get their points across, since a number of the
> authors seem to have the attitude that 'you are missing my point that I
> do not care about your point or whether anyone other than me enjoys my
> books'. Particularly when it comes to UNIT.
Stop trying to make out you are speaking for a silent majority. In this
life truly all we can do is speak for ourselves.
I understand what you are saying whilst totally disagreeing with it. There
may be people who agree with me (Topping & Day maybe) but I will not claim
to speak for them.
David
--
"Justice," said Chris.
"Fairness," said Roz.
They traded a high-five.
>
David Ball
R.J. Smith <smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA> wrote in article
<747cma$r...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA>...
> In article <01be1e9b$423227e0$1c7d...@finance01.newham-vic.ac.uk>,
> David Ball <db...@newham-vic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Talk about missing the point.
>
> >Do you remember a Skarasen in the Thames? Or London evacuations?
>
> I have to say that I think you're missing a key point. Even within the
> fictional universe of the show, these things were covered up (as the
> Doctor points out to Ace).
Dinos). Didn't happen in the UK I was living in.
>
> So saying that because we don't remember them they can't have happened
> in our universe, when in the universe where we know they *did* happen,
> people still don't remember them is a rather loopy argument.
Don't agree. They were covered up in the Who universe so that people did
not know what really happened, but it was still different to what happened
in reality.
Each to their own on this. I think the alternate history bits, like the 5
piece Beatles, are fun. I think Shirley Williams as PM in 1976 is fun.
Others don't. I've always like alternate Earths (comes from reading too
many DC comics in the 70s).
OJ THORNTON
: OJ THORNTON wrote:(Oo, I'm going to have fun with this. I love arguing
: with people who think they know their facts)
: And I apologise in advance for the extreme length and hugely off-topic
: nature of this post. It will be my last, promise.
: > : idea ("And in the end..."), one which Lennon particularly despised. And one of
: >
: > John Lennon may well have despised it. That doesn't make it untrue.
: Huh? Lennon didn't want the Beatles to end. He was savvy enough to realise that they
: were the best thing that would ever happen to him. He just hated Paul with a passion.
: When he famously said 'I want a divorce', it was to Paul, not George and Ringo.
I'm not saying John wanted the Beatles to end. I'm saying that the
Beatles came to a natural end, beyond which it was unreasonable to go.
That can be true whether or not John accepted it or not, and whether or
not John wanted it to continue.
: > which could well be "fun". But the initial supposition feels
: > fundamentally wrong to me - with all the information I have at my
: > disposal,. I would not expect there to be much chance of it happening.
: 'Feels' huh? 'Not expect' huh? Good job you've got such a solid foundation there.
Don't attack me when I admit to a lack of reasoned arguments. I don't
claim either of those statements as a rock-solid basis. That is an
example of cheap points-scoring and is useless.
: > Fun for some. That's the problem, the author isn't thinking about the
: > reader, just, "Oh, wouldn't it be fun to mess around with historical
: > icons" without thinking how that's going to affect readers. Your "tiny
: > funny aside" has effects on the way people view the entire story in a
: > fundamental way. Even a "tiny funny aside" (and there was precious
: > little humour that I could find in it - not even "She Loves You Ja, Ja,
: > Ja", but that may be my sense of humour not being the same as the
: > author's) must be considered in terms of its broader effects. This is
: > something I like about Douglas Adams's work - he does actually stop to
: > think about the funny asides he makes, and see where they take him.
: > With this Beatles thing, there is no attempt at all to see what happens
: > with it.
: That's the thing. The authors allow the reader to have a good think about the
: implications. They probably weren't expecting a reader who went 'That's not on' and
: dismissed the whole thing out of hand, to the extent where the reader still feels
: aggrieved about the whole thing to post his feelings on a newsgroup. As for Douglas
: Adams, how did you think about the attributes attested to Dire Straits in So Long and
: Thanks for All The Fish (hah! Acronyms are for pussies).
I don't care at all for Dire Straits, I know nothing about them, I don't
even remember the remarks to which you refer.
As for "allowing the reader to have a good think" - all they've done is
make a stupid comment out of the blue, and left it. There's no
indication that any thought went into reader response at all. If you
want people to think about the implications, then you *have* to think
about them yourself, but that doesn't happen either, accept for the
facile "Ja, ja, ja" comment. I didn't "dismiss the idea out of hand" as
you so disparagingly put it, but looked at it, considered it, and said to
myself, "That's a load of bollocks. Why would anyone want to make that
kind of nonsensical comment?" It has no value to the story, it does
nothing to develop the world of Who except to try to make it perfectly
clear that it isn't the same as our world - something that I think is at
best misguided. My view is a result of my own research. I don't give
a toss about "Paul's idea" or "he was a Paul Man" or any other
argument. As I say, I arrived at my conclusion independently, by
listening to the music and reading around the subject.
: > Like, when John Lennon was assassinated (it's in a Dr. Who book -
: > "The Left-Handed Hummingbird", I think - so we'll assume that event
: > atleast still takes place in the Who universe) was he still a member of
: > the Beatles?
: Probably not. They must realise at some point that it was Paul who wrote most of
: their later hits.
: > Did "Imagine" ever get written, if the Beatles stayed
: > together?
: Yep. I could see it as a Beatles song.
: > What happened to Glam Rock?
: David Bowie killed it off when he retired Ziggy.
What I'm asking is, did it ever start, if the Beatles stayed together?
: > What about Punk?
: Still going, according to some Americans.
Don't be stupid. You obviously don't think you are. If the Beatles
stayed together, did punk ever happen?
: > What sort of sound did the Beatles develop in the
: > Seventies?
: Imagine Lennon and Harrison's 70's output combined...
<runs screaming to the hills>
That sounds hideous. It answers the question about glam (or at least,
prog.) rock, though. The Beatles started it, it seems.
: > Making a statement on that scale, just for the sake of some not-very-funny
: > linguistical joke (that seems to be all they use it for), is as I said,
: > wasteful, stupid and irritating (as the joke was to me).
: You have not only got no sense of humour, you fail to realise that it
: wasn't a joke.
So that "ja, ja, ja" comment was for real!?
And as I have already said, you don't know me well enough to make any
judgements about whether or not I have a sense of humour, simply because
I find one line irritating and annoying (and if it's not meant to be a
joke, how on Earth are you supposed to judge from it anyway?)
: > : a Doctor Who book. I enjoyed it; others enjoyed it. You didn't because
: > : you take yourself too seriously.
: >
: > Two things. One, you don't know me. You've never met me. You can't
: > possibly know me from my postings on this ng because those have changed
: > pov and tone depending on my state of mind each day as I sit in front of
: > the computer. Therefore, don't even begin to think you can ascribe
: > reasons for my actions or attitudes towards certain things. You
: > can't. You only reveal your own prejudices in attempting to do so.
: I've great at judging from first impressions.
You have no first impressions to judge from. My views expressed in
writing on a single topic are hardly enough to form any impression at all.
And saying that you are "great at judging from first impressions" simply
says that most people you know conform to stereotypes you hold.
I don't know what belief system you adhere to, but mine has a quotation,
"Judge not lest you be judged in the same way yourself." I suggest you
bear that in mind.
: > Second, there are comedians whom I find stupid and offensive who use the
: > same defence. My retort to them is, "no, you don't take yourself (or
: > your comedy) seriously enough." There is a balance to be found.
: Absolute bollocks.
Given that I've heard professional comedians whom I admire for their
comedy make similar comments, I rather think dismissing it out of hand is
rash and lacks intelligence. Given that it clearly works for friends of
mine who are very good at comedy, if not successful at it, as well, then
perhaps you need to reassess your position.
: > Most people I know tell me that I in fact
: > don't take myself seriously enough.
: Give me their names and addresses.
Why should I let you know the names and addresses of my family, friends
and acquaintances just like that? Indeed, how could I let you know the
names and addresses of people I've met only once or twice?
: > The rest tell me that I take myself
: > too seriously. I suppose that either a) they view me in respect to
: > their own position, or b) I actually change depending on my company.
: I would hope your equivocating personality will be man enough to see
: the sense in at least some of what I'm saying.
Who said I was equivocating? I prefer to think that I tend towards the
extremities rather than sitting in the middle.
To sense where there is none is pointless. You make potentially valid
points about the possibilities of a post-1970 Beatles, but you fail to
express yourself in sensible ways.
: > With the "funny" line about the Beatles, I would say that Mr. Day and/or
: > Mr. Topping have not taken their humour seriously enough (to be good at
: > comedy, it is my view is that you have to take it seriously).
: It wasn't a joke. A joke makes you go 'ha ha'. This makes you go 'hmm that's
: interesting. I wonder if that was within the realms of possibility...?'
A line like, "Well, I was a bit worried about hearing
'She loves you, ja, ja, ja'" is a joke. It is meant to make you
laugh. this is the only discernible use to which the idea of a
five-man, two-part-German Beatles is put in "Devil Goblins from Neptune".
As it happens, I did consider whether it was in the realms of
possibility. I concluded that it was, but that it seemed improbable to
me. A stance which is perfectly valid, but you go out of your way to
destroy it, because you don't like the fact that I don't like the initial
idea.
Oliver Thornton
OJ THORNTON
: > Fun for some. That's the problem, the author isn't thinking about
: > the reader, just, "Oh, wouldn't it be fun to mess around with
: > historical icons" without thinking how that's going to affect
: > readers. Your "tiny funny aside" has effects on the way people view
: > the entire story in a fundamental way. Even a "tiny funny aside"
: > (and there was precious little humour that I could find in it - not
: > even "She Loves You Ja, Ja, Ja", but that may be my sense of humour
: > not being the same as the author's) must be considered in terms of
: > its broader effects.
: Which, with all due respect Oliver, are virtually none. One, count
: him, one reader -- you -- for some reason has a bug up his ass about
: this. (Dave Becker will probably now jump in and join you in proclaiming
: that Yes It Is Too A Big Deal, but never mind him.) I'm sorry, but you
: sound like a whining crank about this. It was just a throwaway bit, no
: more significant than a mention of a bad remake of the classic Ronald
: Reagan/Ann Sheridan "Casablanca" or something (and if that threw a
: Bogart buff into a tizzy, well, _he'd_ be a whining crank too).
: Get over it.
I like the differences, if there are any, between the Dr. Who Universe
and ours to be implicit, and not gratuitous. It upsets the flow of a
story if there is something that I know to be untrue stuck right in the
middle, and that I find irritating. It doesn't help that the Doctor
does a Vulcan Mind-Meld later in the book (well, that's what it sounded
like to me).
I am not "getting in a tizzy" as such, I'm just upset that the authors
found it necessary to muck about so fundamentally with the fabric of the
history of music to make their views known (I'd call it a point, but it
was so bluntly done that the oxymoron would be horrendous).
As I've said, if there were some clever reason for it, I'd be happy to
accept it. There isn't, so I'm not.
The same goes for any other gratuitous changes of which I'm aware.
Changes that are necessary for the story, or to protect the true peoples'
identities (believable if it's set in the "real" world) are perfectly
acceptable, but if you make a change, make sure that it's necessary, please?
Oliver Thornton
OJ THORNTON
Distribution:
David Ball (db...@newham-vic.ac.uk) wrote:
: > I have to say that I think you're missing a key point. Even within the
: > fictional universe of the show, these things were covered up (as the
: > Doctor points out to Ace).
: Sure they were covered up. But people knew London had been evacuated (Web &
: Dinos). Didn't happen in the UK I was living in.
At the time, they did. But afterwards, the hypnotism was used to make
us all forget...
Or, as I prefer to believe (well, not *believe* exactly - but I take the
view that), the events really took place somewhere else
and the BBC dramatised it by moving it to London, so as to scare more
people. (a dinosaur invasion of some village in Kent wouldn't quite have
the same televisual impact, now, would it?)
That leaves the question of the Underground.
: >
: > So saying that because we don't remember them they can't have happened
: > in our universe, when in the universe where we know they *did* happen,
: > people still don't remember them is a rather loopy argument.
: Don't agree. They were covered up in the Who universe so that people did
: not know what really happened, but it was still different to what happened
: in reality.
How do you know, if it was covered up?
: Each to their own on this. I think the alternate history bits, like the 5
: piece Beatles, are fun. I think Shirley Williams as PM in 1976 is fun.
: Others don't. I've always like alternate Earths (comes from reading too
: many DC comics in the 70s).
I've already made it clear I'm an "others don't" person. They are all
very well in their place, but unless you've got a good reason for it, Dr.
Who isn't (in my view) that place.
Oliver Thornton
David Ball
did
> : not know what really happened, but it was still different to what
happened
> : in reality.
>
> How do you know, if it was covered up?
AARGH! They might be able to say London has been evacuated due to a
chemical spill rather than a horde of rampaging dinos but people would
still know about the evacuation.
Claiming mass hypnosis etc. strains my credibility far more than an
alternate world scenario.
>
> : Each to their own on this. I think the alternate history bits, like the
5
> : piece Beatles, are fun. I think Shirley Williams as PM in 1976 is fun.
> : Others don't. I've always like alternate Earths (comes from reading too
> : many DC comics in the 70s).
>
> I've already made it clear I'm an "others don't" person. They are all
> very well in their place, but unless you've got a good reason for it, Dr.
> Who isn't (in my view) that place.
Oh well, I think it is. I agree with you about the Vulcan mind meld though,
how about that as a compromise?
Steve Roberts
<peter-an...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>I'd like to nominate the Faction Paradox as the ultimate DW deus ex
>machina with built in Retcon Device (tm). Faster than the Karkus!
>Deadlier than the Hand of Omega!! More incomprehensible than
>Pigbin Josh!!!
Eeh, you make me laugh.
Have you ever considered becoming a professional write?
Steve : )
*** Views expressed are my own and do not represent BBC policy
*** Visit the Doctor Who Restoration Team Website
*** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/steveroberts/restorat.htm
Chris Rednour
> Chris Rednour wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Dr. Evil wrote:
> >
> > > SV7 wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is tenuous, but it's better to regard this as so than
> > > > to fiddle with reality like "The Devil Goblins of Neptune" with its
> > > > idiotic 5 Beatles, and so on. Why do these authors do things like
> > > > that?
> > >
> > > Pardon me for saying this SV7 old chap/robot/whatever, but you really are
> > > a tedious old windbag. Authors do things like that, not only because they
> > > can, but also because it's fun - 'what if' being the starting point of
> > > many a great idea, especially regarding science fiction. To have a
> > > miserable little twerp like you come along and state (and, as is becoming
> > > more apparent, continually restate) that you don't like it is the height
> > > of idiocy and I really wish you'd give your typing protocols a bit of a
> > > rest until you find something else to talk about.
> > >
> > > So, what if the Beatles continued as a five piece? What if companions
> > > shagged till their ears bled? What if Dodo left the TARDIS is a highly
> > > emotional state and was blown away by a great big shotgun? One thing the
> > > NAs specialise in is thoughful little suppositions like these, and you
> > > saying you don't like them isn't going to change that one little bit. So,
> > > please, for the sake of my boredom threshold, shut up.
> >
> > It may be that he posts the same old same old all the time, but he has
> > yet, to my knowledge, ever suggested that anyone shouldn't/can't discuss
> > what they want to in regards to Doctor Who in this newsgroup.
> >
> > If it bores you, read another thread, no one forces you to read this one.
>
> Well, thank you for getting all high and mighty on me. I really appreciate
> that.
Think of it as a public service. SV7 is getting enough flak for his
ideas, it seems a tad bit rude to take him to task for defending those
same opinions. All IMO, of course.
> Jeez. You can't even politely insult people round here anymore without pompous
> twits pulling that 'you don't have to read it you know' argument out of the
> snotty hat.
> He said some idiotic things, I stated why he was wrong and *then*
> called him an idiot.
My hat wouldn't be snotty if no one sneezed in it. I don't disagree with
any of your points, which I thought were spot on [and probably should have
snipped]. My entire objection was based on not on any of the wonderful
points you made, but on your insistance that someone whom you feel has a
"idiotic" opinion should "shut up" based entirely on the fact that it
seems, in context, that you are just simply tired of hearing his opinion.
By all means, try to show SV7 your opinion, if you want, but I think its
wrong to tell him to shut up!
>And you wonder why the likes of Azaxyr just go for the
> jugular...
Actually, I don't wonder about that. And are you insinuating you want to
use him as your role model now?
-Chris Rednour
_________________________________________________________________
gs0...@panther.gsu.edu http://www.gsu.edu/~gs06cjr/index.html
cred...@gpc.peachnet.edu
Chris Rednour
> Dr. Evil,
> >
> > Jeez. You can't even politely insult people round here anymore without pompous
> > twits pulling that 'you don't have to read it you know' argument out of the
> > snotty hat. He said some idiotic things, I stated why he was wrong and *then*
> > called him an idiot. And you wonder why the likes of Azaxyr just go for the
> > jugular...
>
>
> Why do you waste your time insulting me? I think that having 5 Beatles
> in the seventies is ridiculous, and it typifies the pointless
> prerogatives of the authors. I could care less what YOU think,
> because, in my opinion, YOU are wrong. Why that makes me an idiot is
> beyond me.
"Well, he turned me into a newt.."
...
"I got better!"
Actually, he called me a pompus twit, but still...
SV7
>
> Which, with all due respect Oliver, are virtually none. One, count
> him, one reader -- you -- for some reason has a bug up his ass about
> this.
Actually, I think I started this whole anti-5 Beatles thing, because
it angers me as well. I'm a Beatles fan, too, but it angers me from a
fictional standpoint, mostly. It comes down to the same thing I keep
hashing away at. Interference. Why do the authors add in these
throwaway lines when (1) they add NOTHING to the story (and probably
will detract from it), and (2) it goes against what we know as real.
And WHO, while being a fantasy, still takes place in our world. I'm
not sure where I read this, but I think the authors wrote this
INTENDING for it to clash with what we know. Why? What's the point?
Little things like this ruined that whole book for me. In many ways,
the details of the books, rather than the broader aspects, mean more
to the reader. That's how it is with me, at least.
Dangermouse
> : I think Shirley Williams as PM in 1976 is fun.
Um, you do realise that was Paul Cornell's invention (IIRC)? The production
team of the day *did* in fact mean it to be Thatcher, who had just become
the Leader of the Opposition a few weeks before Zygons was recorded...
Dr. Evil
Chris Rednour wrote:
> > Jeez. You can't even politely insult people round here anymore without pompous
> > twits pulling that 'you don't have to read it you know' argument out of the
> > snotty hat.
> > He said some idiotic things, I stated why he was wrong and *then*
> > called him an idiot.
>
> My hat wouldn't be snotty if no one sneezed in it. I don't disagree with
> any of your points, which I thought were spot on [and probably should have
> snipped]. My entire objection was based on not on any of the wonderful
> points you made, but on your insistance that someone whom you feel has a
> "idiotic" opinion should "shut up" based entirely on the fact that it
> seems, in context, that you are just simply tired of hearing his opinion.
>
> By all means, try to show SV7 your opinion, if you want, but I think its
> wrong to tell him to shut up!
You know Chris, you seem like a sensible sort of chap. You agree with my opinions -
not always a sign of good mental health, but certainly evidence of an open mind. SV7
is the sort of guy who is so full of himself and the natural arrogance inbred into
all Americans since birth (leaders of the free world and all of that), that he not
only offers his unshakeable beliefs *many times over* but doesn't listen to people
when they give him evidence that refutes them. I'm not asking him to shut up
altogether - it would be nice to hear him talking about something else - but when he
says for the millionth time 'the NAs have too much sex and it must stop (exclamation
mark)', it's hard not to resist the temptation to fill his cakehole full of horse
manure.
> >And you wonder why the likes of Azaxyr just go for the
> > jugular...
>
> Actually, I don't wonder about that. And are you insinuating you want to
> use him as your role model now?
Gawd no. But it can enter the realms of understandability when you have to deal with
self-imposed moral guardians like yourself. Relax a bit, hey?
Dr. Evil
OJ THORNTON wrote (amongst other things, some of the most unintentionally funny things I've
ever read):<snip>
> As for "allowing the reader to have a good think" - all they've done is
> make a stupid comment out of the blue, and left it. There's no
> indication that any thought went into reader response at all. If you
> want people to think about the implications, then you *have* to think
> about them yourself, but that doesn't happen either, accept for the
> facile "Ja, ja, ja" comment. I didn't "dismiss the idea out of hand" as
> you so disparagingly put it, but looked at it, considered it, and said to
> myself, "That's a load of bollocks. Why would anyone want to make that
> kind of nonsensical comment?" It has no value to the story, it does
> nothing to develop the world of Who except to try to make it perfectly
> clear that it isn't the same as our world - something that I think is at
> best misguided. My view is a result of my own research. I don't give
> a toss about "Paul's idea" or "he was a Paul Man" or any other
> argument. As I say, I arrived at my conclusion independently, by
> listening to the music and reading around the subject.
So, you're ignoring all the factual evidence and just going for a gut instinct, huh? Good
for you!<more snippage>
> : > What happened to Glam Rock?
>
> : David Bowie killed it off when he retired Ziggy.
>
> What I'm asking is, did it ever start, if the Beatles stayed together?
And what I was saying was, it's irrelevant. The Beatles didn't start Glam rock or, indeed,
affect it in any way.
> : > What about Punk?
>
> : Still going, according to some Americans.
>
> Don't be stupid. You obviously don't think you are. If the Beatles
> stayed together, did punk ever happen?
<wearingly> Yes. See above. Believe it or not, there is a lot of music which has absolutely
nothing to do with the Beatles.
> : > What sort of sound did the Beatles develop in the
> : > Seventies?
>
> : Imagine Lennon and Harrison's 70's output combined...
>
> <runs screaming to the hills>
>
> That sounds hideous. It answers the question about glam (or at least,
> prog.) rock, though. The Beatles started it, it seems.
What question? Make sense man! Glam and prog were completely different things and how could
the Beatles start either if they'd continued?<snip>
> As it happens, I did consider whether it was in the realms of
> possibility. I concluded that it was, but that it seemed improbable to
> me. A stance which is perfectly valid, but you go out of your way to
> destroy it, because you don't like the fact that I don't like the initial
> idea.
Well, if that was what you originally thought, why didn't you say so? I can understand you
accepting the *possibility* now that I (and others) have given you the facts, but it was
bit naughty of you to play devil's advocate like that.
Jonathan Blum
>Actually, I think I started this whole anti-5 Beatles thing, because
>it angers me as well. I'm a Beatles fan, too, but it angers me from a
>fictional standpoint, mostly. It comes down to the same thing I keep
>hashing away at. Interference. Why do the authors add in these
>throwaway lines when (1) they add NOTHING to the story (and probably
>will detract from it), and (2) it goes against what we know as real.
Because in their eyes, and the eyes of some readers, bits like these *do*
add something to the story, in some cases *by* going against what we know
as real.
It all comes down to different ways of looking at Who. Some people like
to believe that Who is as close to reality as possible. Others look at it
either as something more fantastic, or -- and I think this underpins both
"Devil Goblins" and "Face of the Enemy" -- as a cultural artefact, part of
the larger fabric of pop culture in the era they came from.
Neither of these books take place in "our" universe per se; they're not
the '70s as they actually *were*, but as we *remember* them. DM's book is
part of that same general mediasphere of early '70s television, a world in
which UNIT is in the same neighborhood as Department S or the New Avengers
or the Professionals (or the Goodies). Not in terms of specific
references or crossovers so much as general ethos. And "Devil Goblins"
takes place in a '70s that's more '70s than the '70s -- the way we
*wished* they were, rather than what we had to actually live through. If
we can believe in Mars landings and world peace conferences that actually
had an effect when we look at Who, why not believe in a world where the
Beatles didn't break up?
It's the same kind of idealized approach as, to use one of your favorite
examples, the Avengers. The show almost never took place in the _real_
Sixties; it was a peculiarly Avengersland '60s, in which social unrest was
something which happened to other people, Viet Nam was a footnote and
black people almost nonexistent. The recent film catches this; it's a
look back on a '60s that never was, which is what makes it timeless rather
than dated.
I can see how this approach can work in some of the MA's. It's not my own
personal favorite approach to Who, but it doesn't bother me that some
authors look at these things differently. If all else fails, you can just
squint and overlook these details, and enjoy the book as "real" in the
same way "Ambassadors of Death" is still real despite the lack of a
British manned space program.
Regards,
Jon Blum
--
jblum at access.digex.net
"Eep," said an I.
OJ THORNTON
: In article <366823...@ssu.edu>, SV7 <EAC4719.S...@ssu.edu> wrote:
: >Actually, I think I started this whole anti-5 Beatles thing, because
: >it angers me as well. I'm a Beatles fan, too, but it angers me from a
: >fictional standpoint, mostly. It comes down to the same thing I keep
: >hashing away at. Interference. Why do the authors add in these
: >throwaway lines when (1) they add NOTHING to the story (and probably
: >will detract from it), and (2) it goes against what we know as real.
: Because in their eyes, and the eyes of some readers, bits like these *do*
: add something to the story, in some cases *by* going against what we know
: as real.
: It all comes down to different ways of looking at Who. Some people like
: to believe that Who is as close to reality as possible. Others look at it
: either as something more fantastic, or -- and I think this underpins both
: "Devil Goblins" and "Face of the Enemy" -- as a cultural artefact, part of
: the larger fabric of pop culture in the era they came from.
The question is, how can you satisfy both views? You certainly won't by
introducing spurious, gratuitous differences that have no purpose but to
make it different. To satisfy both, you must make any differences you
wish to introduce as essential to the storyline as possible, which didn't
happen with "Devil Goblins..." Beatles, but did happen with "Face of the
Enemy"s magnetic cleansing device or whatever it was.
: Neither of these books take place in "our" universe per se; they're not
: the '70s as they actually *were*, but as we *remember* them. DM's book is
: part of that same general mediasphere of early '70s television, a world in
: which UNIT is in the same neighborhood as Department S or the New Avengers
: or the Professionals (or the Goodies). Not in terms of specific
: references or crossovers so much as general ethos. And "Devil Goblins"
: takes place in a '70s that's more '70s than the '70s -- the way we
: *wished* they were, rather than what we had to actually live through. If
: we can believe in Mars landings and world peace conferences that actually
: had an effect when we look at Who, why not believe in a world where the
: Beatles didn't break up?
Well, would the story featuring Mars landings have worked without them? No.
Would the stories with Peace Conferences have worked without them? No.
Would "Devil Goblins..." have worked without changing the Beatles'
history? Yes.
That answers the question, as far as those of us who don't like the
Beatles thing for literary reasons are concerned (which is my main
problem with the issue).
: It's the same kind of idealized approach as, to use one of your favorite
: examples, the Avengers. The show almost never took place in the _real_
: Sixties; it was a peculiarly Avengersland '60s, in which social unrest was
: something which happened to other people, Viet Nam was a footnote and
: black people almost nonexistent. The recent film catches this; it's a
: look back on a '60s that never was, which is what makes it timeless rather
: than dated.
Well, I'll ask my parents about this again, but in their lives, I understand
that that's a fairly good description of their actual experience of the
Sixties. I was shocked to discover that my Mum had never been to a rock
festival, danced nude in the mud, had free love or even smoked pot (she
wasn't even a Beatlemaniac!), but those I know who were around then tell
me that these were not the real experience for many people growing up or
living in the Sixties. So, rather than an idealised approach, it's an
approach from a particular position that was real back then - our social
memories are different to many people's real experiences.
I don't know what America was like to live in in the Sixties, I don't
have any anecdotal evidence of any sort. But I do have evidence for
Britain from family stories, and my family origins span a broad social
spectrum.
: I can see how this approach can work in some of the MA's. It's not my own
: personal favorite approach to Who, but it doesn't bother me that some
: authors look at these things differently. If all else fails, you can just
: squint and overlook these details, and enjoy the book as "real" in the
: same way "Ambassadors of Death" is still real despite the lack of a
: British manned space program.
So say you. There were secret launches from remote islands in Scotland
from the mid-Sixties, I say ;-)
Oliver Thornton
SV7
>
> Something that a lot of people in the group do not seem to understand is
> that people have limits to their tolerance.
Wish I'd said that! Because of my -- shall we call them standards? --
standards, I've been branded intolerant and obtuse. Because we have
limits, we are thus intolerant, to everybody, all the time. Great
logic. Shame it isn't true.
Dr. Evil
Fox Becker wrote:
> In article <01be1f54$62874a20$1c7d...@finance01.newham-vic.ac.uk>, "David
> Ball" <db...@newham-vic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> :
> : > You have to be able to pretend that that fictional world is real, in
> : > your mind, before you can care about it. If it takes place on some alien
> : > planet, or in the far future, or far past, you have no way to prove that
> : > it does not exist. If it takes place in recent history and contradicts
> : > it, then you *know* that it does not take place in our universe. I do
> : > not give a flying fig about what takes place in some 'alternate'
> : > universe, and I would be honestly surprised if there are not a lot of
> : > readers who feel the same way.
> :
> : I don't agree. It's more fun playing with other bits of history.
>
> You know, I might write a book someday about people who think that it is
> 'fun' to play around with bits of history, and do not care about the
> consequences of it.
Oo! Please do! Can't wait!
SV7
>
> I can see how this approach can work in some of the MA's. It's not my own
> personal favorite approach to Who, but it doesn't bother me that some
> authors look at these things differently. If all else fails, you can just
> squint and overlook these details, and enjoy the book as "real" in the
> same way "Ambassadors of Death" is still real despite the lack of a
> British manned space program.
Impressionism is great when done well, but I don't see how you can get
5 Beatles when your are doing an impression of the seventies. To begin
with, they had disbanded, AND there were still only four. I don't see
watch the advantage is in fiddling with this. In any case, the book
was published and we have to deal with it. I prefer to ignore that bit
for the rest of the, fairly okay, story. But it still bothers me.
I think the main reason why this bothers me is due to the fact that
these are famous people whose lives we all know. It is much easier to
assume the British had a Space Program that sent men to Mars than it
is to believe there were 5 Beatles, because you aren't fiddling with
familiar people. How can you situate a book in the past if you change
the dates, places, or people violently? This is my greatest problem
with The Gunfighters (which is still one of my favorite episodes,
though!) which totally changes the events of the gunfight at the OK
Corral. If the correct people don't die, then it isn't the same story.
And if you are writing about the OK Corral, then why not make the
correct people die? Same applies to DGfN. We all know that the Beatles
broke up. That's it. The final word. If the authors wanted to play
with this concept, they should have invented their own band to do it
to. Of course, then it wouldn't have been a "funny" aside to the
knowing audience. Which therefore implies that the authors INTENDED to
make this reference a laugh-getter, rather than actually having
anything to do with the story.
In other words, it is irrelevant to the story, AND the setting, and
should not have been included. As for FOTE, I didn't really have any
problems with it, except for the violence which I understand is
present in real life. I just wasn't prepared for it when I read it.
Great read, though. I'm still debating whether it was wise to go to
the parallel Earth of Inferno, though.
Dangermouse
SV7 <EAC4719.S...@ssu.edu> wrote
> In other words, it is irrelevant to the story, AND the setting, and
> should not have been included. As for FOTE, I didn't really have any
> problems with it, except for the violence which I understand is
> present in real life. I just wasn't prepared for it when I read it.
Onto violence now eh? God help us if you get a copy of Shadow Of Weng
Chiang - makes FOTE look like Murder She Wrote...
Dr. Evil
SV7 wrote:
> As for FOTE, I didn't really have any
> problems with it, except for the violence which I understand is
> present in real life.
Just highlighting this bit. No reason really.
SV7
>
> Onto violence now eh? God help us if you get a copy of Shadow Of Weng
> Chiang - makes FOTE look like Murder She Wrote...
Just call me Mary Whitehouse! Check out one of my other posts (can't
remember the name) on the subject of FOTE. I REALLY did like it! And I
loved Shadow. Curiously enough, the first time I saw the Key to Time
season, thr station didn't show the Stones of Blood. So it went
directly from the Pirate Planet to Tara. I wondered for the longest
time what the third segment story was like. I also always thought this
would be a great space to fill with an MA. I think Shadow works
perfectly. And the story was perfect. It and Lords of the Storm are in
my top grouping of MAs.
Dangermouse
OJ THORNTON
: Onto violence now eh? God help us if you get a copy of Shadow Of Weng
: Chiang - makes FOTE look like Murder She Wrote...
^^^^
I'm having trouble with this abbreviation. I keep thinking people are
talking about the Green activist group Friends of the Earth, who also use
the same acronym on some of their printed stuff!
Oliver Thornton
SV7
>
> Oh.
>
> But Shadow is definitely more violent...
Maybe so. I didn't notice, because I loved the story so much. FOTE was
just hard to reconcile with the Pertwee era. But one must reconcile
it, because your book really put the Pertwee era in a real context,
which is a good thing.
Dangermouse
OJ THORNTON <ojth...@bradford.ac.uk> wrote in article
<74e3mm$3op$2...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>...
They're usually referred to as FOE or FoE
Paul Griggs
about it... and I figure the Brigadier was having an affair with Corporal
Bell...
Oh.. sorry... Have I misunderstood the subject heading :-)
D. Paul Griggs
-----------------------------------------
MICROSOFT.... Doesn't that mean small and limp?
SV7
>
> Actually, he called me a pompus twit, but still...
Yeah, but he called ME an idiot.
So there! :)
Azaxyr
>
>Well... Benton and Yates both fancied Jo Grant, but never seemed to do much
>about it...
How do you know? Jo and Yates were
apparently dating for a while, after all...
>and I figure the Brigadier was having an affair with Corporal
>Bell...
Probably.
"All these worlds....
...Will make excellent sites for our garbage dumps."
David Ball
Dangermouse <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote in article
<01be1fb6$73c5bbc0$LocalHost@lgwujvnl>...
>
>
> > : I think Shirley Williams as PM in 1976 is fun.
>
> Um, you do realise that was Paul Cornell's invention (IIRC)? The
production
> team of the day *did* in fact mean it to be Thatcher, who had just become
> the Leader of the Opposition a few weeks before Zygons was recorded...
Authorial intent (of the original production team) means nothing.
David Ball
Fox Becker <zen_...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in article
<zen_orac-041...@138.49.21.150>...
> In article <01be1f54$62874a20$1c7d...@finance01.newham-vic.ac.uk>,
"David
> Ball" <db...@newham-vic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> :
>
>
>
> Something that a lot of people in the group do not seem to understand is
> disbelief. I do care about something that I know could not possibly exist
> in this universe. An alternative universe by definition does not.
But it could still exist, what's the distinction?
> : Stop trying to make out you are speaking for a silent majority. In this
> : life truly all we can do is speak for ourselves.
>
> We would get along a lot better if you would refrain from putting words
> into my mouth. I said that I believe that 'a lot' of people feel the same
> way that I do, which is not the same thing as saying 'a majority'. Even
> though it very well could be, on this issue.
Sorry, majority was the wrong word. Still I maintain that you speak for
yourself, not for an amorphous collection of people that you claim to
represent.
>
>
> : I understand what you are saying whilst totally disagreeing with it.
There
> : may be people who agree with me (Topping & Day maybe) but I will not
claim
> : to speak for them.
>
> But you are speaking for their *viewpoint*, if they agree with you. That
> is all that I am doing for the people who agree with me.
No I'm not. I'm speaking for me only, and my viewpoint. Let the people who
agree with you post for themselves.
Mike Sivier
>Dangermouse <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote in article
><01be1fb6$73c5bbc0$LocalHost@lgwujvnl>...
>>
>>
>> > : I think Shirley Williams as PM in 1976 is fun.
>>
>> Um, you do realise that was Paul Cornell's invention (IIRC)? The
>production
>> team of the day *did* in fact mean it to be Thatcher, who had just become
>> the Leader of the Opposition a few weeks before Zygons was recorded...
>Authorial intent (of the original production team) means nothing.
Why's that, then?
I never liked Maggie but I prefer the implication that that's who
Lethbridge-Stewart is speaking to in Zygons.
The Shirley Williams thing looks like what it is - something bolted on
in order to try to clear up this dating thing.
If it's from No Future, I've read that book and still can't recall it,
which shows how much *that* one stuck in my mind!
--
Mike
David Ball
Mike Sivier <mi...@wurzzz.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<913020140.20439.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> "David Ball" <db...@newham-vic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >Dangermouse <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote in article
> ><01be1fb6$73c5bbc0$LocalHost@lgwujvnl>...
> >>
> >>
> >> > : I think Shirley Williams as PM in 1976 is fun.
> >>
> >> Um, you do realise that was Paul Cornell's invention (IIRC)? The
> >production
> >> team of the day *did* in fact mean it to be Thatcher, who had just
become
> >> the Leader of the Opposition a few weeks before Zygons was recorded...
>
> >Authorial intent (of the original production team) means nothing.
>
> Why's that, then?
Sorry, I forgot this wasn't Allen Road. If it's not explicit on the screen
it doesn't matter what the intention was behind it. In this case saying it
was Shirl does not contradict anything on screen so there's no problem. If
authorial intent counts then all those faces in Morbius are the Doctor's...
>
> I never liked Maggie but I prefer the implication that that's who
> Lethbridge-Stewart is speaking to in Zygons.
>
> The Shirley Williams thing looks like what it is - something bolted on
> in order to try to clear up this dating thing.
>
> If it's from No Future, I've read that book and still can't recall it,
> which shows how much *that* one stuck in my mind!
It's one of my favourite NAs (even though its author does not seen to like
it that much).
Spoilers for No Future
How bout this for UNIT dating: originally they all take place 10 years
after the date they were transmitted. Artemis and Mortimus mess around with
things and it is all moved back to around transmission time.
I used to prefer the 10 years on theory but I now incline more to the
transmission date theory. I can't go with Dangermouse's alternate universe
theory in the FOTE preface; alternate universes seem to be hard to get to
in Who.
All just opinion innit?
Mike Sivier
>Mike Sivier <mi...@wurzzz.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
><913020140.20439.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>> "David Ball" <db...@newham-vic.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >Authorial intent (of the original production team) means nothing.
>>
>> Why's that, then?
>Sorry, I forgot this wasn't Allen Road. If it's not explicit on the screen
>it doesn't matter what the intention was behind it. In this case saying it
>was Shirl does not contradict anything on screen so there's no problem.
It's an attempt to re-arrange the UNIT stories' place in history, so
the Mawdryn clanger doesn't happen, I would've thought; the "Yes,
Ma'am" comment being just one of several attempts to place UNIT in the
near future (including BBC3 from The Daemons, off the top of my head).
>If authorial intent counts then all those faces in Morbius are the Doctor's...
I love these grey areas. A recent post by Jon Blum suggests a way in
which all those faces can indeed belong to the entity that we know as
the Doctor. I'm not sure if that's completing a circle or starting the
next part of a spiral...
<spoilered bits snipped>
>All just opinion innit?
Good thing, too. :)
--
Mike