Lawrence Miles is BAAAACCCCKKKK!!!!
sr.wilson
"Luke Curtis" <luke....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:vqt16tkjkg9oav4ep...@4ax.com...
>
> from the News page....
>
> "Controversial author Lawrence Miles ("Interference") returns to the
> BBC Books fold (after a fairly publicized earlier departure) with an
> Eighth Doctor novel taking the November 2001 slot."
>
> This got slipped in fairly quietly didn`t it (or have I missed the
> huge flamewar about how he should/shouln`t be able to ever write for
> DW again???)
And there was Short Trips And Side Steps claiming to have printed his last
ever Dr Who fiction...
Andrew F
"sr.wilson" <sr.w...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> "Luke Curtis" <luke....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:vqt16tkjkg9oav4ep...@4ax.com...
> >
> > from the News page....
> >
> > "Controversial author Lawrence Miles ("Interference") returns to the
> > BBC Books fold (after a fairly publicized earlier departure) with an
> > Eighth Doctor novel taking the November 2001 slot."
> >
> > This got slipped in fairly quietly didn`t it (or have I missed the
> > huge flamewar about how he should/shouln`t be able to ever write for
> > DW again???) <<
Well, I'll just say this...
I read 'Alien Bodies'. I didn't like it at all. Read the Lawrence Miles
interview in DWM a while back, and was put off reading anything else by
him. But if he can write a good novel that isn't obsessed with
continuity, and concentrates on just telling an exciting and
interesting self-contained story, then I might even read it...
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Michael Livsey
'Interference' as one big book. What was their justification for this?
making fans fork out even more? Sorry if this is going over old ground.
~ Paul_Pippa ~
|
| Well, I'll just say this...
|
| I read 'Alien Bodies'. I didn't like it at all.
So I'm not the only one who didn't like it then...!?!
Yay!! I've found another! (*does a happy dance*)
--
~ Paul_Pippa ~
Here is a list of people who've put me in their killfiles:
dburn...@aol.com (DBurns6554)
___
SHADoWS http://www.shadws.freeserve.co.uk
* Sherlock Holmes And Doctor Who Site *
Steven Kitson
Probably 'if we put it out as a big book it'll cost more -- maybe £7.99.
People won't pay that for a 'Doctor Who' book. But we know they'll pay
£5.99. So we'll put it out as two books at £5.99, and people won't
realise it's actually more'.
Corporate logic, eh?
Oh, and throw in a 'The saddos buy them all anyway, so they won't be
spending any more, they'll just be buying their normal two books a
month'.
--
I'm made of steel, soul and metal
I'll be human 'til the day I die
Cameron Mason
Luke Curtis <luke....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:vqt16tkjkg9oav4ep...@4ax.com...
>
> from the News page....
>
> "Controversial author Lawrence Miles ("Interference") returns to the
> BBC Books fold (after a fairly publicized earlier departure) with an
> Eighth Doctor novel taking the November 2001 slot."
Great News, IMHO, Mad Larry is great writer.
Has anyone noticed who's filling the PDA slot for November, Gary Russell.
Isn't that interesting...
Cameron
--
:(|) "...Pleasure the PARIS..."
Come visit the Ultimate Guide
http://www.fortunecity.com/tatooine/forbidden/392/py/pindex.html
Cameron Mason
Michael Livsey <ma...@2magpies.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:93sice$pq1$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> As a side issue, can anyone explain why the BBC couldn't have printed
> 'Interference' as one big book. What was their justification for this?
> making fans fork out even more? Sorry if this is going over old ground.
IIRC, Lawrence originally submitted the book as a 400 page novel with: no
Fitz, none of the Dust sequences, Compassion and Kode join the TARDIS crew.
It was during re-writes he added the Dust sequences, greatly expanding the
novel into towo books.
Alryssa Kelly
p...@shadws.freeserve.co.please-delete-this.uk (~ Paul_Pippa ~) had
painted:
>| I read 'Alien Bodies'. I didn't like it at all.
>
>
>So I'm not the only one who didn't like it then...!?!
>Yay!! I've found another! (*does a happy dance*)
I thought it was ok... for a 7th Doctor novel. I forgave that, and
read Interference, and as a result am personally of the opinion that
he has absolutely no clue of the character of the Eighth Doctor
whatsoever and is at a loss as to what to do with him.
I'm also a little wary of authors who go storming off saying they'll
never write any more DW fiction *ever again*, and then come back less
than a year later with, 'well, you know what...' To me it just says,
"I don't say what I mean or mean what I say."
YMMV.
Alryssa
---------------------------------------------------
'The Cat Who Walked Through Time' Charity Anthology
Ordering Now Online!
http://www.crosswinds.net/~alryssa/fundraising.html#fanzine
Featuring Stephen Cole, Lance Parkin, Arnold T Blumberg,
Diane Duane, Paul Cornell, Kate Orman, Peter Anghelides and
Simon Bucher-Jones...
Buy the T-shirt/mug/mousepad:http://www.cafepress.com/cwwtt
Jack Beven
wrote:
>from the News page....
>
>"Controversial author Lawrence Miles ("Interference") returns to the
>BBC Books fold (after a fairly publicized earlier departure) with an
>Eighth Doctor novel taking the November 2001 slot."
/sound melscream.wav
Jack Beven (a. k. a. The Supreme Dalek)
Tropical Prediction Center
New URL: http://www.mindspring.com/~jbeven/index.html jbe...@mindspring.com
Disclaimer: These opinions don't necessarily represent those of my employers...
Helen Fayle
Alryssa Kelly <rys...@the-eighth-doctor.communal> wrote in message
news:3a6260bd...@news.earthlink.net...
> whatsoever and is at a loss as to what to do with him.
>
> I'm also a little wary of authors who go storming off saying they'll
> never write any more DW fiction *ever again*, and then come back less
> than a year later with, 'well, you know what...' To me it just says,
> "I don't say what I mean or mean what I say."
> YMMV.
Or rather, it's easy money... <shrug> There's one or two who've admitted to
THAT, IIRC!
Helen Fayle
Cameron Mason <maso...@mpx.com.au> wrote in message
news:3a624cab$0$15484$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
> Luke Curtis <luke....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:vqt16tkjkg9oav4ep...@4ax.com...
> >
> > from the News page....
> >
> > "Controversial author Lawrence Miles ("Interference") returns to the
> > BBC Books fold (after a fairly publicized earlier departure) with an
> > Eighth Doctor novel taking the November 2001 slot."
>
>
> Great News, IMHO, Mad Larry is great writer.
>
> Has anyone noticed who's filling the PDA slot for November, Gary Russell.
>
> Isn't that interesting...
the words "hysterically funny" came to mind, actually... Wonder if anyone's
told Lawrence yet?? <eg>
~ Paul_Pippa ~
rec.arts.drwho gathered round their trusty steam-powered
wireless telegraphs to hear Alryssa Kelly saying...
| On an ancient Egyptian temple wall,
| p...@shadws.freeserve.co.please-delete-this.uk (~ Paul_Pippa ~) had
| painted:
| >| I read 'Alien Bodies'. I didn't like it at all.
|
| I thought it was ok... for a 7th Doctor novel.
I know what you mean. It's got that whole "Bunch of Strange People
Wandering Aimlessly around a Strange Place Trying to Find a Coherent
Storyline but without Success" setup from so many 7th Doctor stories,
both on TV and in the Virgin NAs. (eg Greatest Show, Lungbarrow, etc.)
If you like that format, you'd also like "AB". I don't, so I didn't.
| I forgave that, and
| read Interference, and as a result am personally of the opinion that
| he has absolutely no clue of the character of the Eighth Doctor
| whatsoever and is at a loss as to what to do with him.
Yes. Although the Third Doctor part was pretty good. Well, better than
the Eighth Doctor story anyway. I was so caught up in the events on
Dust, I didn't even notice that the ending contradicted PotS. It just
felt so *right* for the story itself.
| I'm also a little wary of authors who go storming off saying they'll
| never write any more DW fiction *ever again*, and then come back less
| than a year later with, 'well, you know what...' To me it just says,
| "I don't say what I mean or mean what I say."
| YMMV.
I just hope they're giving him a Third Doctor PDA, not an EDA, this
time. All IMHO of course.
Benjamin F. Elliott
>from the News page....
>
>"Controversial author Lawrence Miles ("Interference") returns to the
>BBC Books fold (after a fairly publicized earlier departure) with an
>Eighth Doctor novel taking the November 2001 slot."
>
>huge flamewar about how he should/shouln`t be able to ever write for
>DW again???)
>
>
All those in favor of someone talented at filks turning this into the basis
for an epic James Bond-style theme song that will have both Lawrence lovers
and Lawrence haters shouting "quotefile", say "AYE"!
Benjamin F. Elliott
Dangermouse
Helen Fayle <hfa...@innotts.co.uk> wrote in article
<93uere$3ch$1...@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>...
>
>
> Alryssa Kelly <rys...@the-eighth-doctor.communal> wrote
>
> Or rather, it's easy money... <shrug> There's one or two who've admitted
to
> THAT, IIRC!
That's *fairly* true, but not really a good thing. Once you realise it's
easy money, then you know you've got into a rut, are probably coasting
along, and aren't challenged or intrigued any more.
If that happens, you really want to think about taking a break (doing
other things) to recharge the batteries... It's better for all concerned.
Easier doesn't mena better.
Ash-23
"Helen Fayle" <hfa...@innotts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:93uere$3ch$1...@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk...
> Or rather, it's easy money...
Anyone know how much money people make for writing an EDA or PDA?
Are you going to tell, Lance? Or any of you...
deX!
alry...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On an ancient Egyptian temple wall,
> p...@shadws.freeserve.co.please-delete-this.uk (~ Paul_Pippa ~) had
> painted:
> >| I read 'Alien Bodies'. I didn't like it at all.
> >
> >
> >So I'm not the only one who didn't like it then...!?!
> >Yay!! I've found another! (*does a happy dance*)
>
> I thought it was ok... for a 7th Doctor novel. I forgave that, and
> read Interference, and as a result am personally of the opinion that
> he has absolutely no clue of the character of the Eighth Doctor
> whatsoever and is at a loss as to what to do with him.
>
Hm. Lawrence Miles is the ONLY Who author to have written multiple
books that I have unilaterally loved. I think he's written the best
prose of the BBC line.
Those worried about his continuity obsessions should try reading _Down_
and _Christmas On A Rational Planet_, both of which are largely
unrelated to his Gallifrey/Other war idea and fookin' great.
Given that he can't do anything more with the Faction or the War, I
look forward to his next idea with bated breath.
deX!
Alryssa Kelly
<hfa...@innotts.co.uk> had painted:
>> I'm also a little wary of authors who go storming off saying they'll
>> never write any more DW fiction *ever again*, and then come back less
>> than a year later with, 'well, you know what...' To me it just says,
>> "I don't say what I mean or mean what I say."
>> YMMV.
>
>Or rather, it's easy money... <shrug> There's one or two who've admitted to
>THAT, IIRC!
Doctor Who may be 'easy money' for some, but it really isn't much
money compared to other publishing houses. It's a pittance in most
cases, and one or two authors here have said that too, IIRC.
Alryssa Kelly
p...@shadws.freeserve.co.please-delete-this.uk (~ Paul_Pippa ~) had
painted:
>| >| I read 'Alien Bodies'. I didn't like it at all.
>|
>| I thought it was ok... for a 7th Doctor novel.
>
>I know what you mean. It's got that whole "Bunch of Strange People
>Wandering Aimlessly around a Strange Place Trying to Find a Coherent
>Storyline but without Success" setup from so many 7th Doctor stories,
>both on TV and in the Virgin NAs. (eg Greatest Show, Lungbarrow, etc.)
It's one of the reasons I gave up on reading them... they got very
same-old-same-old for me.
>| I forgave that, and
>| read Interference, and as a result am personally of the opinion that
>| he has absolutely no clue of the character of the Eighth Doctor
>| whatsoever and is at a loss as to what to do with him.
>
>Yes. Although the Third Doctor part was pretty good. Well, better than
>the Eighth Doctor story anyway. I was so caught up in the events on
>Dust, I didn't even notice that the ending contradicted PotS. It just
>felt so *right* for the story itself.
I think that was the inherent problem with the novels to begin with...
one Doctor got a story, the other got a mish-mash of events vaguely
strung together with the sole purpose of introducing Compassion. IMHO
:)
Cameron Mason
Benjamin F. Elliott <bfel...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0zE86.22319$ag.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> All those in favor of someone talented at filks turning this into the
basis
> for an epic James Bond-style theme song that will have both Lawrence
lovers
> and Lawrence haters shouting "quotefile", say "AYE"!
AYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cameron Mason
> > Has anyone noticed who's filling the PDA slot for November, Gary
Russell.
> >
> > Isn't that interesting...
>
> the words "hysterically funny" came to mind, actually... Wonder if
anyone's
> told Lawrence yet?? <eg>
Someone should.
And post his reaction here.
LPPCQ Snarky
Elliott":
>Luke Curtis wrote...
Aye!;-{)}
--
=================================================================================
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!! We must stick apart!!!
Lola, called Snarky, the Chocolate Snark, Queen of the Snarks of Ærisia;
Queen of Rice; TransWench; Dreamer-Minstrel of Discord; Ravenclaw; the
Discordian People's Most Powerful and Revered Being Without Portfolio;
God of Odd Statements; Scourge of the Zarbi Empire; WACO
For Action! Adventure! Excitement! with the Callahanian Army o'
Light, go to: http://silver-gateway.com/caol/
Setting Orange, Day 15 of the Season of Chaos, 3167 YOLD
Misha Lauenstein
deX! <djp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <3a6260bd...@news.earthlink.net>,
> Hm. Lawrence Miles is the ONLY Who author to have written multiple
> books that I have unilaterally loved. I think he's written the best
> prose of the BBC line.
Hm. I agree. I also liked all of the Paul Leonard books I've read too.
Turing. Genocide. Lullaby.
> Given that he can't do anything more with the Faction or the War, I
> look forward to his next idea with bated breath.
The Faction are getting their own series!
Misha
Bert The Turtle
>
>AYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since when was Ali G a poster on this group?
Tim.
--
"Her lips said 'no', but her eyes said 'read my lips'."
/
"Of all the newsgroups in all the servers in all the Usenet... she posts in mine."
Brett O'Callaghan
><hfa...@innotts.co.uk> had painted:
>>Or rather, it's easy money... <shrug> There's one or two who've admitted to
>>THAT, IIRC!
>Doctor Who may be 'easy money' for some, but it really isn't much
>money compared to other publishing houses. It's a pittance in most
>cases, and one or two authors here have said that too, IIRC.
Of course, that assumes that they're good enough, and are producing
saleable product to get published by the other publishing houses. I'm
sure a pittance from the bbc is more than nothing from the others.
Byeeeee.
--
http://members.nbci.com/whoinfo/
ICQ: 46825865
M.H. Stevens
>
> from the News page....
>
> "Controversial author Lawrence Miles ("Interference") returns to the
> BBC Books fold (after a fairly publicized earlier departure) with an
> Eighth Doctor novel taking the November 2001 slot."
>
> This got slipped in fairly quietly didn`t it (or have I missed the
> huge flamewar about how he should/shouln`t be able to ever write for
> DW again???)
>
> (woo-hooo by the way)
Boo Hoo would be more accurate, or perhaps, here we go again!!!!!
>
> --
> Looking for that DWB video review?
> Looking for an in depth Dr Who guide?
> Can`t remember which issue that article is in?
> Try http://www.sharaz-jek.freeserve.co.uk/ !!!
> ----------------------------------------------
Cameron Mason
M.H. Stevens <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3A640D0F...@postoffice.swbell.net...
> Boo Hoo would be more accurate, or perhaps, here we go again!!!!!
Well he won't be able to write for War (over) or Faction Paradox (Paradoxed
out of existance), so you may be pleasantly surprised by his next novel
Stevens...
Lance Parkin
I'm not going to tell you the number. No-one gets rich from a
Doctor Who book, though, it's about a third as much as you
get for writing Star Trek or Mandy Dingle books.
Lance
Helen Fayle
~ Paul_Pippa ~ <p...@shadws.freeserve.co.please-delete-this.uk> wrote in
message news:3a62f1a1.1532596@localhost...
<snip>
> Yes. Although the Third Doctor part was pretty good. Well, better than
> the Eighth Doctor story anyway. I was so caught up in the events on
> Dust, I didn't even notice that the ending contradicted PotS. It just
> felt so *right* for the story itself.
It's not a contradiction, it's a paradox... BOTH events have happened, as I
think is pointed out rather nicely by Sarah no longer being clear on the
actual events leading up to the regeneration. Up until the events of Inty,
PoTS is the only regeneration in the 8th Doctor's past. After Inty, his
personal timeline is presumably bifurcated at that point, with BOTH events
being true (he's personally experienced the one, and one assumes that the
change in his timeline will catch up with him as he would then *have* to be
the product of a history that includes the regeneration on Dust), and
although the Eighth Doctor will likely still remember regeneating as a
result of events Metebelis 3, the 4rd Doctor goes forward having regenerated
on Dust... <shrug> Paradox.
Don't try to get your head around it, just read a couple of Heinlein's short
stories - "All you Zombies" and "By His Bootstraps" should do it... and
thank your lucky stars no-one's tried to get THAT convoluted with the
Doctor's timeline...
...yet!!
;-)
<whistles "I am my own granpa">
Helen Fayle
Dangermouse <Mas...@allisurvey.freeserve.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote in
message news:01c07f0d$7be9dbc0$bfdc893e@default...
>
>
> Helen Fayle <hfa...@innotts.co.uk> wrote in article
> <93uere$3ch$1...@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>...
> >
> >
> > Alryssa Kelly <rys...@the-eighth-doctor.communal> wrote
> >
> > Or rather, it's easy money... <shrug> There's one or two who've admitted
> to
> > THAT, IIRC!
>
> If that happens, you really want to think about taking a break (doing
> other things) to recharge the batteries... It's better for all concerned.
So having recharged, I hope "Bullet Time" will be a corker, dear! I have
high hopes of you on this one, since you're featuring my all-time fave
companion!!
<wonders if there's any chance of sneak previews... mutters something about
being very appreciative...> <g>
Helen Fayle
Alryssa Kelly <rys...@the-eighth-doctor.communal> wrote in message
news:3a638666...@news.earthlink.net...
> On an ancient Egyptian temple wall, "Helen Fayle"
> <hfa...@innotts.co.uk> had painted:
> >> I'm also a little wary of authors who go storming off saying they'll
> >> never write any more DW fiction *ever again*, and then come back less
> >> than a year later with, 'well, you know what...' To me it just says,
> >> "I don't say what I mean or mean what I say."
> >> YMMV.
> >
> >Or rather, it's easy money... <shrug> There's one or two who've admitted
to
> >THAT, IIRC!
>
> Doctor Who may be 'easy money' for some, but it really isn't much
> money compared to other publishing houses.
Not really true for the majority of writers, see below...
>It's a pittance in most
> cases, and one or two authors here have said that too, IIRC.
That's as may be, but as far as I know, the BBC rates are about par for the
course for mid-list authors at major houses, or for the lesser ones. (By
"mid" list, I mean those who aren't your Watsons, de Lints, Jordan's,
Asimovs etc) and print runs in the UK can be as low as 2-3 thousand copies
in paperback for SF books. Plus, $10,000 dollars is an exceptional amount of
advance according to several writers I know, and I think that's way more
than most BBC authors will see up front, but BBC print runs are quite high
relative to standard SF imprints.
And from what I hear from more than one BBC writer, the time taken to write
a DW novel is quite short compared to the year-18 months most writers
outside the franchise take as a rule! On a daily rate they probably do
rather well compared to their Genre peers...
Dangermouse
Helen Fayle <hfa...@innotts.co.uk> wrote
> > If that happens, you really want to think about taking a break (doing
> > other things) to recharge the batteries... It's better for all
concerned.
>
> So having recharged, I hope "Bullet Time" will be a corker, dear!
I think it will. Oh, I'm sure Totally Vacuous Zone et al will just do the
standard character assassination, and probably Dreamwatch after the bust-up
with Gary, but I think the reader on the street will notice a difference.
For one thing it's got less description and better characterisation, but
still with good action.
Partly it's taking a break, partly it's doing stuff elsewhere, partly it's
the online interview with Lawrence, and partly its even what happened in
October 99 (in a sort of "what doesn't kill us makes us stronger" way) that
have - I think - made this one better.
Most importantly I've been able to concentrate on it better, as it's a new
thing, rather than just segueing into it from the last one. Doing them
back-to-back really blinds you to getting into a rut.
> I have
> high hopes of you on this one, since you're featuring my all-time fave
> companion!!
And not really in a companion role - she's pretty much the main character.
> <wonders if there's any chance of sneak previews... mutters something
about
> being very appreciative...> <g>
Um... A lot of what happens would sort of constitute spoilers. Not from a
plot viewpoint but from a tone and subtext viewpoint. There's a *lot* more
subtext than usual, if you care for that sort of thing. (Despite the title
and action, it's about relationships, about loyalty, about truth and
perception of it, about how fans and pros view the Doctor, about the
evolution of the book series...) There are quite a few places that invite
the reader to second-guess the author, knowing that I have a reputation for
certain things, which I might want to twist, undermine, or pervert...
On the surface it's got the usual McIntee love of gunfire and explosions,
but they're window dressing to the themes and characterisation, rather than
the point of it.
It's been a lot harder than usual to keep a grip on it through the
different twists and the different layers, but I think that's a good sign,
because it's been worked on more thoroughly.
Basically, expect the unexpected.
David Darlington
> Oh, I'm sure Totally Vacuous Zone et al will just do the
> standard character assassination
Hi David. Just wondered if you remembered the complete and
full retraction you made about that very subject a year or
two back?
Cheers,
David
Dangermouse
David Darlington <david.da...@kcl.ac.uk> wrote in article
<3A6466AD...@kcl.ac.uk>...
About you and that subject, absolutely.
However I also recall Lee Binding's "review" of Delta Quadrant last year,
after I had - some months previously - called him a cunt in private emails
about spoiling Autumn Mist both in the magazine and here.
Basically I call him a cunt and tell him not to bother replying to me as
I'm adding his email addy to the killfile. A few months later, despite this
obvious ... conflict of interests, he reviews my next book himself, and
fairly obviously uses that as his reply. (there were some posts on the the
Voyager newsgroup at the time from people who knew nothing of any of this,
asking what was up with such a bizarre and insulting review.) Regardless of
the review that's about as professional as me reviewing, say, Shadows Of
Avalon. ISTR Kate Orman mentioning that reviewers review work, not people,
but that wasn't the case there.
(And somehow he managed not to mention much of the book, and actually to
mention things that aren't in it anyway)
In other words this is a different vendetta (as it were) that post-dates my
previous conversations with you...
The Doctor
--
God Queen and Country Member - Liberal International
Never Satan President and Republic This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
Society MUST be saved! Republics must dissolve.
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England U.K.
F. Jason Rhoden
Helen Fayle <hfa...@innotts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:941hn0$3t9$1...@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk...
>
>
> ~ Paul_Pippa ~ <p...@shadws.freeserve.co.please-delete-this.uk> wrote in
> message news:3a62f1a1.1532596@localhost...
> <snip>
> > Yes. Although the Third Doctor part was pretty good. Well, better than
> > the Eighth Doctor story anyway. I was so caught up in the events on
> > Dust, I didn't even notice that the ending contradicted PotS. It just
> > felt so *right* for the story itself.
>
> It's not a contradiction, it's a paradox... BOTH events have happened, as
I
> think is pointed out rather nicely by Sarah no longer being clear on the
> actual events leading up to the regeneration. Up until the events of Inty,
> PoTS is the only regeneration in the 8th Doctor's past. After Inty, his
> personal timeline is presumably bifurcated at that point, with BOTH events
> being true (he's personally experienced the one, and one assumes that the
> change in his timeline will catch up with him as he would then *have* to
be
> the product of a history that includes the regeneration on Dust), and
> although the Eighth Doctor will likely still remember regeneating as a
> result of events Metebelis 3, the 4rd Doctor goes forward having
regenerated
> on Dust... <shrug> Paradox.
Help me, Helen, for I have been led astray... :)
I thought he had simply wiped the events of Dust from occuring, by what he
does in Ancestor Cell. Having not actually read tAC, does the entire late
era history of the 3rd Doc now stand irrevocably altered? I thought that the
divergent timeline had been sort of looped back to the moment it started, so
the Doctor would be vaguely aware that he had apocryphally died on Dust, but
for all else concerned, it happens like we see on the telly. Has somebody
told me a pile of poop?
Jason Rhoden
~ Paul_Pippa ~
of rec.arts.drwho gathered round their trusty steam-powered wireless
|
|
| ~ Paul_Pippa ~ <p...@shadws.freeserve.co.please-delete-this.uk> wrote...
| <snip>
| > Although the Third Doctor part was pretty good. Well, better than
| > the Eighth Doctor story anyway. I was so caught up in the events on
| > Dust, I didn't even notice that the ending contradicted PotS. It just
| > felt so *right* for the story itself.
|
| It's not a contradiction, it's a paradox... BOTH events have happened, as I
| think is pointed out rather nicely by Sarah no longer being clear on the
| actual events leading up to the regeneration.
I know. I was just just using the word "contradicted" in a loose sense,
i.e. it "chose not to adhere strictly to a 'one-true-way' interpretation
of" PotS.
I couldn't find a simple verb that summed up what I really wanted to
say. I guess "disregarded" or "re-interpreted" would have been better,
but they both sound so strange. So I went for "contradicted" instead.
Sorry for any confusion.
But this is all academic, since when I read Inty, I was so caught up in
the story, I didn't notice *any* discrepancy (or paradox, or
contradiction, or whatever we're calling it this week) between Inty and
PotS. The ending just felt so right in itself, that I didn't even think
about how it fitted into wider continuity. So when the scene suddenly
switched to Faction Paradox discussing changes to the Doctor's timeline,
I was *VERY* confused.
(*SNIP DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PARADOXES*)
|
| Don't try to get your head around it
I've got no problem getting my head round it, once I'd noticed it. Like
I said, I just didn't notice it, 'cos I was too busy enjoying the story
to think of continuity. It's just a shame the rest of Inty wasn't
nearly as good...
helen.fayle
F. Jason Rhoden <jas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:942ef7$3u1$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
>
<snip>
>
> Help me, Helen, for I have been led astray... :)
>
> I thought he had simply wiped the events of Dust from occuring, by what he
> does in Ancestor Cell. Having not actually read tAC, does the entire late
> era history of the 3rd Doc now stand irrevocably altered? I thought that
the
> divergent timeline had been sort of looped back to the moment it started,
so
> the Doctor would be vaguely aware that he had apocryphally died on Dust,
but
> for all else concerned, it happens like we see on the telly. Has somebody
> told me a pile of poop?
No, just tAC is a pile of poop. ;-) <shudder>
Someone was asking what *Lawrence* had done, what some other author comes
up with to try (rather badly IMHO) to get rid of it was not the point of my
post. <shrug> I stopped buying after tAC, and won't pick up any more unless
they're by writers whose work I like. So, Lawrence, Craig, David Mc, Simon,
Jonny Morris, Jon Miller and Dave Stone can be assured of my patronage. The
rest I'll be ignoring! ;-) Unless, of couse, one of my mates gets in - a
couple are getting close to it.
Cameron Mason
Dangermouse <Mas...@allisurvey.freeserve.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote in
message news:01c07fc3$fe6bc5c0$590f883e@default...
<Re: Bullet Time>
> Basically, expect the unexpected.
Cool...
Now I have to wait until October for it...
helen.fayle
Cameron Mason <maso...@mpx.com.au> wrote in message
news:3a64d0ea$0$15474$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
> Dangermouse <Mas...@allisurvey.freeserve.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote in
> message news:01c07fc3$fe6bc5c0$590f883e@default...
> <Re: Bullet Time>
> > Basically, expect the unexpected.
>
> Cool...
>
> Now I have to wait until October for it...
Slight problem, that... ;-)
<sigh> MORE expense... as if the Buffy DVD's weren't enough...
Cameron Mason
Lance Parkin <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a63ec9...@news.freeserve.net...
> I'm not going to tell you the number. No-one gets rich from a
> Doctor Who book, though, it's about a third as much as you
> get for writing Star Trek or Mandy Dingle books.
Hmm...
Lance, can you tell me a bit about Mandy Dingle?:-)
Cameron Mason
helen.fayle <helen...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1m496.2116$UC4....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...> > <Re: Bullet Time>
> >
> > Now I have to wait until October for it...
>
> Slight problem, that... ;-)
Yeah, esp. since the Oz book distributor Random House have lived up to their
name in the past - last year the September and October books missed all
four book shops in my area, but they had the November books in November...
FT and tQA are supposed to be released in March, so I calculated the BT
release date from that.
> <sigh> MORE expense... as if the Buffy DVD's weren't enough...
Time someone invented the money tree...
Dangermouse
Cameron Mason <maso...@mpx.com.au> wrote in article
<3a64d0ea$0$15474$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>...
>
> Dangermouse <Mas...@allisurvey.freeserve.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote in
> message news:01c07fc3$fe6bc5c0$590f883e@default...
> <Re: Bullet Time>
> > Basically, expect the unexpected.
>
> Cool...
>
> Now I have to wait until October for it...
August, unless somebody's not telling me something...
Kenneth Clark
> <sigh> MORE expense... as if the Buffy DVD's weren't enough...
You introduced me to Buffy! First episode I ever saw was the
introduction of Spike, round at your place in Nottingham. Early
season two, I think. So you're the one I have to blame for
reintroducing me to Sad Telly Addiction! :-)
But when it comes to the Buffy DVDs, my only complaint is that they're
not coming out fast enough. One boxed set every six months? We
probably won't see any Angel DVDs until the middle of next year...
Finn Clark.
Kenneth Clark
BTW, I followed up our chat by buying the Labyrinth DVD. Wow. It's
even better than I remembered it - and yup, I kept thinking as I
watched the widescreen: "God, they'd be butchering this in
pan-and-scan!" Great to see you back, Helen!
Finn Clark.
Dangermouse
Kenneth Clark <kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
> > <sigh> MORE expense... as if the Buffy DVD's weren't enough...
>
> You introduced me to Buffy! First episode I ever saw was the
> introduction of Spike, round at your place in Nottingham. Early
> season two, I think.
Lesley and I just saw that one at the weekend - it was great!
(It's all Keith Topping and Jon Crew's fault...)
Cameron Mason
Dangermouse <Mas...@allisurvey.freeserve.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote in
message news:01c08012$f1b4d2a0$8001883e@default...
> > <Re: Bullet Time>
> > Now I have to wait until October for it...
>
> August, unless somebody's not telling me something...
Joy of Oz book distribution, nothing sinister on the Beeb's part (I
think...), generally, Australian/NZ release of the books is about 6-8 weeks
after the UK release date, although it has taken some books (Millenium
Shock, Legacy of the Daleks, Final Sanction) up to a year to be in the
shops. Strangely enough, they had the November books (King of Terror,
Endgame) out the same week as the UK release...
LPPCQ Snarky
>Cameron Mason wrote...
>> Dangermouse wrote...
>> <Re: Bullet Time>
>> > Basically, expect the unexpected.
>>
>> Cool...
>>
>> Now I have to wait until October for it...
>
>August, unless somebody's not telling me something...
Cam's in Oz, so either you weren't thinking of that, or you're an
optimist....;-{)}
--
===============================================================
Snarky, loud and flaming queer Demon of Mockery and Silliness,
Demon Lord of Confusion, Demon Prince of Absurdity, God of
Odd Statements, and Scourge of the Zarbi Empire; OLIVER NORTH;
one of the independent originators of the "So what?" Theory of
Everything; Rocker
For Action! Adventure! Excitement! with the Callahanian Army o'
Light, go to: http://silver-gateway.com/caol/
Now you'll have to excuse me, I have souls to harvest
Murphy's Law:
If several things that could have gone wrong have not gone
wrong, it would have been ultimately beneficial for them to
have gone wrong.
M.H. Stevens
>
> M.H. Stevens <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3A640D0F...@postoffice.swbell.net...
> > Boo Hoo would be more accurate, or perhaps, here we go again!!!!!
>
> Well he won't be able to write for War (over) or Faction Paradox (Paradoxed
> out of existance), so you may be pleasantly surprised by his next novel
> Stevens...
>
reports are true that book comes along at the end of yet another arc,
which has me worried.
Cameron Mason
> Granted, but what's to stop him from coming up with something worse, if
> reports are true that book comes along at the end of yet another arc,
> which has me worried.
But he won't be creating the arc...
Helen Fayle
Kenneth Clark <kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:942lvs$76f$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Something I forgot to put in my other post to Helen Fayle:
>
> BTW, I followed up our chat by buying the Labyrinth DVD. Wow. It's
> even better than I remembered it - and yup, I kept thinking as I
> watched the widescreen: "God, they'd be butchering this in
> pan-and-scan!"
Having watched my old p&s version about 50 times in three months whilst
writing "Dark Labyrinth", I can tell you "butchery" doesn't begin to cover
what this fim has suffered in transfer to TV ratio.It's a different film in
tv ratio! (And don't even get me *started* on the travesty that is the
version the Disney channel shows...) The moment I watched it in w/s for the
first time I was glued to the set going "wow!" every five minutes... I will
never, ever buy p&s films now!! Seeing the level of detail in the background
changes the entire thrust of the film, and lifts it from an enjoyable kitsch
romp to a minor (and MUCH ) under-rated masterpiece that messes with your
head completely - is it real - is it a dream? You're left watching the TV
version without even *realising* that this is even a question!! (Oh, and
back to the Disney print - they show a *totally* different p&s cut - the
frames have been cut in different places in several scenes - makes watching
it v. wierd!!!)(Like I said... I know this film virtually frame by
frame!!)<g>
> Great to see you back, Helen!
Strangely, rather good to *be* back... A change is as good as a kick in the
bollocks, they say... ;-) Thank you!
David Darlington
> In other words this is a different vendetta (as it were) that post-dates my
> previous conversations with you...
Ah I see, and one I shan't get involved in in that case,
other than to tell you firstly that it wouldn't be him
reviewing this book anyway even if he hadn't left VI
which he has.
What a mouthful of a sentence.
Cheers!
David
Dangermouse
David Darlington <david.da...@kcl.ac.uk> wrote
> > In other words this is a different vendetta (as it were) that
post-dates my
> > previous conversations with you...
>
> Ah I see, and one I shan't get involved in in that case,
> other than to tell you firstly that it wouldn't be him
> reviewing this book anyway
I'm aware of that, and have no quarrel with you. As you pointed out, you
convinced me a year and a half or so back that I was mistaken in my
suspicions of LG politics, and thus there was no vendetta.
Hence, the only complaints I've had about reviews since are a) giving away
spoilers (which you haven't) and b) factual errors.
However I would still have been suspicious of any review while he was
editor on the grounds that publishers/editors *do* interfere sometimes.
(Which is why I expect a trashing from Dreamwatch- Gary definitely does
that, and I know because the Discon Guide review he printed bore little
relation to what I wrote, on account of him falling out with Cornell not
long before it came out...)
> even if he hadn't left VI
> which he has.
Didn't know that.
> What a mouthful of a sentence.
Everyone'll be delighted to know there are no sentences that long in Bullet
Time...
While I'm here, I do appreciate the incidental compliment that came out of
the King Of Terror review (convincing portrayal of hardened machismo, I
think was the phrase you ascribed to both Keith and I)
His Majesty Sir James Brooke
"Bert The Turtle" <even...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a63a00a...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>
> >
> >AYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Since when was Ali G a poster on this group?
Since he left da Happiness Patrol.
--
Andrew J. Brook
"In E-Space, no-one can hear you scream....."
BBC Production notes for "Adric"
His Majesty Sir James Brooke
"Lance Parkin" <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a63ec9...@news.freeserve.net...
>
> >
> >"Helen Fayle" <hfa...@innotts.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> >> Or rather, it's easy money...
> >
> >
> >Are you going to tell, Lance? Or any of you...
>
> I'm not going to tell you the number. No-one gets rich from a
> Doctor Who book, though, it's about a third as much as you
> get for writing Star Trek or Mandy Dingle books.
>
>
God's teeth, people buy Mandy Dingle books in sufficent quantity that you
get more money? Or is it the fact that it was a different format?
There's no accounting for taste. Although I suppose if it really was as bad
as all that you wouldn't write them etc.
Steven Kitson
> I thought that the
> divergent timeline had been sort of looped back to the moment it started, so
> the Doctor would be vaguely aware that he had apocryphally died on Dust,
The Doctors wouldn't remember dying on Dust; the Doctor doesn't remember
_anything_ before waking up in a train carrige in the late nineteenth
century.
--
I'm made of steel, soul and metal
I'll be human 'til the day I die
Steven Kitson
> yes, but yet another f*!&£^% arc!!! Arcs are IMHO a good idea, but
> they should be used sparingly and should be far shorter, 3 books
> rather than the 5-6 they seem to drag on for. We`ve had the Missing
> Sam arc, pre-Interference Arc, the WTF arc, The Compassion Arc,
> The Stuck on Earth Arc and now this new Arc, all in the last 3 years
> odd.
I agree that we shouldn't have so many little Arcs. I think we should
have one massive twenty-four book Arc for the next two years.
I like long stories.
M.H. Stevens
>
> M.H. Stevens <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3A6538F1...@postoffice.swbell.net...
> > Granted, but what's to stop him from coming up with something worse, if
> > reports are true that book comes along at the end of yet another arc,
> > which has me worried.
>
> But he won't be creating the arc...
>
But he's finishing it? Possibly starting off something even worse than
previous attempts.
helen.fayle
Luke Curtis <luke....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:falb6t464c92376n5...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:13:02 +1100, "Cameron Mason"
<snip>
or
> without spoiling earlier books in the Arc that I havent read....
> An example is the fact the one of favorite authors Dangermouse
> wrote Autum Mist right in the middle of the pre-Interference arc, but
> 18 months on I still havent read it, because I haven`t got Unnatural
> History yet, and I don`t want that spoiled....
I can't think of anything in Autumn Mist that spoils Unnatural History...
...it manages THAT all by itself...
<potential spoilery hint as to a *type* of scene about to be mentioned, with
no specifics, but just for those pedants who whinge about even the slightest
possibility of a spoiler...>
...anyway, you're not missing much beyond an hysterically bad Barbara
Cartland Memorial Award winner for three pages part way through the book (As
awarded by the Editor of "Gratuitous Torso Moments" Tavzine")
Cameron Mason
> > But he won't be creating the arc...
> >
>
> But he's finishing it? Possibly starting off something even worse than
> previous attempts.
Now he isn't finishing it.
IIRC, he's writing the penultimate book of the arc.
Just wait and see, stop getting yourself all worked up over it.
F. Jason Rhoden
Steven Kitson <ski...@greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1ene5vg.1pai5lf11ilrfzN%ski...@greenend.org.uk...
> F. Jason Rhoden <jas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > I thought that the
> > divergent timeline had been sort of looped back to the moment it
started, so
> > the Doctor would be vaguely aware that he had apocryphally died on Dust,
>
> The Doctors wouldn't remember dying on Dust; the Doctor doesn't remember
> _anything_ before waking up in a train carrige in the late nineteenth
> century.
I mean when (okay, in theory if, but let's face it - when) his memory
returns, of course... :)
After all, he does remember that the Tardis should be bigger on the inside.
He remembers he used to have a train set. He's starting to remember a lot of
little things. Though remembering Lionel Toys (or maybe it was a Dapol
train! :) ) is a far cry from remembering that you were responsible for the
complete [spoiler] of your [spoiler].
Still, if Who isn't on the telly or the screen by 2002, I expect the whole
of his memory will have returned by then...
Jason Rhoden
Kenneth Clark
> Seeing the level of detail in the background changes
> the entire thrust of the film, and lifts it from an enjoyable
> kitsch romp to a minor (and MUCH ) under-rated
> masterpiece that messes with your head completely -
> is it real - is it a dream? You're left watching the TV
> version without even *realising* that this is even a
> question!!
I was just blown away. I mean, I remembered it as being good, but...
it's got all these Terry Jones Pythonesque moments. It's got funky
goblins! It's got genuine fantasy (as opposed to the usual
"sword+dragon=fantasy epic" Hollywood thinking). It's got a *massive*
emotional journey for Sarah, especially if you bear in mind what a
brat she is at the beginning! I'm inclined towards the "it's not a
dream" position, simply because of how much Sarah learns about herself
and what's genuinely important. Personally I found it really moving.
And *then*, on top of all that, you've got the headfucks. For me, the
biggest is the Goblin King's speech at the end: "I'm exhausted by
living up to your expectations." If you start taking that seriously
and wondering exactly what he thought was going on between the two of
them... man, you could go crazy trying to think through that one.
And what if he's *right*? Aaargh!
I think what Labyrinth manages to do most of all is surprise you.
Most films have no surprises at all; they're just churned out by the
movie-making sausage machine. Every so often you find a gem that
makes you sit up every so often. Labyrinth surprises you ALL THE
TIME. It contains nothing BUT surprises. There is no way you can
out-think Jones+Henson. It's a trip.
Finn Clark.
Lance Parkin
Well, the final tally isn't in, but something between two and three
times as many people have bought it so far compared with The Dying
Days, my previous best seller.
Lance
David Darlington
> While I'm here, I do appreciate the incidental compliment that came out of
> the King Of Terror review (convincing portrayal of hardened machismo, I
> think was the phrase you ascribed to both Keith and I)
Something along those lines, yeah. In Keef's case I did however also
say that I liked the way it gave way to a more sensitive tone. Is that
going to apply here as well?
Cheers,
Deej
Dangermouse
David Darlington <david.da...@kcl.ac.uk> wrote in article
<3A66D3F8...@kcl.ac.uk>...
Um, that'd be a spoiler!
But yeah, there's more depth of characterisation and some expectations will
get turned on their heads. It will pretty much depend on the viewpoint of
the scene...
Ian Mond
"Dangermouse" <Mas...@allisurvey.freeserve.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMMERS> wrote in
message news:01c08148$89a69cc0$71c4893e@default...
Don't tell me, Sarah's gonna star in a porn movie. That would turn my
expectations on their heads. Hehehehehe. I'm silly.
Seriously, I'm looking forward to Bullet Time.
One question Dangermouse - a serious one. IIRC you're not a great fan of
Sylvester's Doctor. If that's true, why pick the Seventh Doc for your
"breakout" novel?
Seeya,
Ian
David Darlington
> > Um, that'd be a spoiler!
> >
> > But yeah, there's more depth of characterisation and some expectations
> will
> > get turned on their heads. It will pretty much depend on the viewpoint of
> > the scene...
>
> Don't tell me, Sarah's gonna star in a porn movie. That would turn my
> expectations on their heads. Hehehehehe. I'm silly.
>
> Seriously, I'm looking forward to Bullet Time.
>
> One question Dangermouse - a serious one. IIRC you're not a great fan of
> Sylvester's Doctor. If that's true, why pick the Seventh Doc for your
> "breakout" novel?
Hoi! That's my question, I'm saving that one up!
Deej
Dangermouse
David Darlington <david.da...@kcl.ac.uk> wrote
> Ian Mond wrote:
> > Don't tell me, Sarah's gonna star in a porn movie. That would turn my
> > expectations on their heads. Hehehehehe. I'm silly.
There *is* mention of porn movies...
> > Seriously, I'm looking forward to Bullet Time.
> >
> > One question Dangermouse - a serious one. IIRC you're not a great fan
of
> > Sylvester's Doctor. If that's true, why pick the Seventh Doc for your
> > "breakout" novel?
>
> Hoi! That's my question, I'm saving that one up!
Not sure what you mean by "breakout novel" - surely that'd be Knight Sky?
As for why it's a 7th Doc story when I don't much like the 7th Doc... Quite
simple actually: he's the only one it'd really work with.
A lot of Who stories, including most of mine, could work with most of the
Doctors, but this could only work the way it's set up if it's a 7th Doc
story. And I can't really say more.
Helen Fayle
M.H. Stevens <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3A661ADF...@postoffice.swbell.net...
> Cameron Mason wrote:
> >
> > M.H. Stevens <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A6538F1...@postoffice.swbell.net...
> > > Granted, but what's to stop him from coming up with something worse,
if
> > > reports are true that book comes along at the end of yet another arc,
> > > which has me worried.
> >
> > But he won't be creating the arc...
> >
>
> But he's finishing it? Possibly starting off something even worse than
> previous attempts.
The problems with the books following Lawrence's seem to generally be a lack
of ability and/or willingness to pick up what he throws 'em and work with
it. For example, see Unnatural History for a *perfect* example of writers
missing the whole ethos of the Faction Paradox *completely* and consequently
making a pigs ear of the whole concept...
The range sometimes has the overall feel of one of those Internet Round
Robin exercises on adwc... where one person plays a blinder and writes a
superb chapter, only to have it totally ballsed up by the next three people
in line...
deX!
"Helen Fayle" <hfa...@innotts.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The problems with the books following Lawrence's seem to generally be
> a lack of ability and/or willingness to pick up what he throws 'em
> and work with it. For example, see Unnatural History for a *perfect*
> example of writers missing the whole ethos of the Faction Paradox
> *completely* and consequently making a pigs ear of the whole
> concept...
>
It was really unfortunate, too, as the prose of _Unnatural History_
is excellent. That book would have been infinitely more interesting
had FP been attempting to recruit Sam rather than making sure she
was created. (It would have made Sam more interesting, too.)
> The range sometimes has the overall feel of one of those Internet
> Round Robin exercises on adwc... where one person plays a blinder and
> writes a superb chapter, only to have it totally ballsed up by the
> next three people in line...
>
Hmm. I see your point, but I don't think it's quite that severe. The
recent Caught On Earth books that have made it to the US have all been
great, with (of all people) Paul Leonard turning in the least enjoyable
effort and (of all people) Terrance Dicks turning in the most enjoyable.
It's rather refreshing to read adventures where the Doctor is the
focus of the action.
deX!
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
His Majesty Sir James Brooke
Good grief. Mind you, do we expect people to be going mad trying to get
their hands on a copy of the Mandy Dingle diary? Will the internet auction
copies at inflated prices? Does it have the cache of being the last such
publication?
johnanderson
> Well he won't be able to write for War (over) or Faction Paradox (Paradoxed
> out of existance), so you may be pleasantly surprised by his next novel
> Stevens...
Do you know for sure he won't be writing about the war or about Faction
Paradox? Are you absolutely certain? I'm not.
John
Steven Kitson
> Steven Kitson <ski...@greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:1ene5vg.1pai5lf11ilrfzN%ski...@greenend.org.uk...
> > F. Jason Rhoden <jas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > I thought that the
> > > divergent timeline had been sort of looped back to the moment it
> started, so
> > > the Doctor would be vaguely aware that he had apocryphally died on Dust,
> >
> > The Doctors wouldn't remember dying on Dust; the Doctor doesn't remember
> > _anything_ before waking up in a train carrige in the late nineteenth
> > century.
>
> I mean when (okay, in theory if, but let's face it - when) his memory
> returns, of course... :)
>
> After all, he does remember that the Tardis should be bigger on the inside.
> He remembers he used to have a train set. He's starting to remember a lot of
> little things. Though remembering Lionel Toys (or maybe it was a Dapol
> train! :) ) is a far cry from remembering that you were responsible for the
> complete [spoiler] of your [spoiler].
'So, "Doctor", where are you from?'
'Oh, around.'
'But you must have come from somewhere.'
'I don't want to talk about it.'
'You must have a home--'
'I _really_ don't want to talk about it!'
> Still, if Who isn't on the telly or the screen by 2002, I expect the whole
> of his memory will have returned by then...
I hope not.
You know something? I think the books might be doing exactly what I
wanted them to. You know, the vast two- or three-year arc with the tiny
hints building to a universe-shattering conclusion?
What makes me think this? 'The Infinity Doctors', 'Seeing I', 'Unnatural
History', and 'Father Time' among others.
Cameron Mason
johnanderson <go...@dreaming.org> wrote in message
news:B68CBE57.226D%go...@dreaming.org...
> Do you know for sure he won't be writing about the war or about Faction
> Paradox? Are you absolutely certain?
Yes.
The War has been dealt with (The Ancestor Cell)
Faction Paradox now have their own BBV audio series.
> I'm not.
Are you now?
R.J. Smith
>Hm. Lawrence Miles is the ONLY Who author to have written multiple
>books that I have unilaterally loved. I think he's written the best
>prose of the BBC line.
I'd agree.
>Those worried about his continuity obsessions should try reading _Down_
>and _Christmas On A Rational Planet_, both of which are largely
>unrelated to his Gallifrey/Other war idea and fookin' great.
Well, yes and no. Christmas references every single Hartnell TV story
(among other things), so I don't think you can claim it's the book for
those who want a lack of contuinuty obsession (it's still a great book,
however). Down is less continuity-laden, although it's tied in to the
Gallifrey/war via leading into Dead Romance.
Lawrence uses continuity more than most authors. The difference is that he
does clever things with it.
- Robert Smith?
Bert The Turtle
<ajb...@sotonSPAMMUSTBEREMOVED.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>"Bert The Turtle" <even...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3a63a00a...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>>
>> >
>> >AYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Since when was Ali G a poster on this group?
>
>Since he left da Happiness Patrol.
So that 'e could be teachin' 'ow to use da street-lingo to 'is bitch
Ace? All me know is that da bitch sound well messed up.
--
"Her lips said 'no', but her eyes said 'read my lips'."
Ian Mond
> of ability and/or willingness to pick up what he throws 'em and work with
> it. For example, see Unnatural History for a *perfect* example of writers
> missing the whole ethos of the Faction Paradox *completely* and
consequently
> making a pigs ear of the whole concept...
>
I'm not sure if that's fair. I love Unnatural History and I don't see
anything in the book that goes against the "ethos" of the Faction Paradox.
Unlike Ancestor Cell.
So what exactaly do you mean? How does it miss the whole FP ethos?
Seeya,
Ian
Alryssa Kelly
<hfa...@innotts.co.uk> had painted:
>The problems with the books following Lawrence's seem to generally be a lack
>of ability and/or willingness to pick up what he throws 'em and work with
>it. For example, see Unnatural History for a *perfect* example of writers
>missing the whole ethos of the Faction Paradox *completely* and consequently
>making a pigs ear of the whole concept...
Well, you know, if you don't *talk* to said authors following you, and
give them some sort of idea as to where it 'should' lead and play nice
with others, what do you expect? It's a shared universe, and when you
introduce a concept as complex as Faction Paradox, you have to let the
other people into the secret somewhat.
>The range sometimes has the overall feel of one of those Internet Round
>Robin exercises on adwc... where one person plays a blinder and writes a
>superb chapter, only to have it totally ballsed up by the next three people
>in line...
Oh grow *up*, for the love of the gods. That's such a petty dig, even
for you. Unlike some people, I'll actually read the book to see if it
was any good and judge it on its writing rather than my personal
feelings for the author, whatever they may be.
Alryssa
---------------------------------------------------
'The Cat Who Walked Through Time' Charity Anthology
Ordering Now Online!
http://www.crosswinds.net/~alryssa/fundraising.html#fanzine
Featuring Stephen Cole, Lance Parkin, Arnold T Blumberg,
Diane Duane, Paul Cornell, Kate Orman, Peter Anghelides and
Simon Bucher-Jones...
Buy the T-shirt/mug/mousepad:http://www.cafepress.com/cwwtt
Helen Fayle
johnanderson <go...@dreaming.org> wrote in message
news:B68CBE57.226D%go...@dreaming.org...
It can't be done, not by anyone. And the FP are now part of the BBV
empire...
Helen Fayle
Alryssa Kelly <rys...@the-eighth-doctor.communal> wrote in message <snip>
>
> Oh grow *up*, for the love of the gods. That's such a petty dig, even
> for you. Unlike some people, I'll actually read the book to see if it
> was any good and judge it on its writing rather than my personal
> feelings for the author, whatever they may be.
Nice to see a moderator being *so* non-partisan, and reasonable...
I mean, was I replying to her?? No. Yet in she jumps, insulting me.
I rest my case...
<saunters off whistling>
johnanderson
> johnanderson <go...@dreaming.org> wrote in message
> news:B68CBE57.226D%go...@dreaming.org...
>> Do you know for sure he won't be writing about the war or about Faction
>> Paradox? Are you absolutely certain?
>
> Yes.
>
> The War has been dealt with (The Ancestor Cell)
>
> Faction Paradox now have their own BBV audio series.
>
>> I'm not.
>
> Are you now?
I don't think there is any reason why Miles can't write about the war if he
wants - except for the editor saying "no stories about the war." If he
hasn't made that stipulation, then there's no reason why an author can't
write about it if they want. It is not clear to me that this stuff was
wrapped up or concluded in Ancestor Cell.
There have already been hints in The Turing Test and Endgame about something
the Doctor doesn't want to remember because it was so terrible. It will be
addressed again, and in doing so the war will also be addressed.
John
I. Inayat
The Quantum Archangel also deals with (a) War. Make of that what you will...
...but I think it's more likely that, while _Loz_ can focus on the War, the
other authors feel they've been there, done that, and now it's time to move
on. Yeah, he can do a story about it... but what's the point? By November,
we're 15 books away from the last War book, and the series has moved on
(into the story arc that climaxes in January 2002).
I _think_ what Cameron meant is that, while the Doctor does remember
something terrible, and while there _may_ be surviving Gallifreyans, the War
as we knew it (between the Time Lords and the Enemy) is over, concluded and
dealt with. A hundred years have passed while the Doctor's been on Earth -
things have changed, different forces have moved into the power vacuum,
there's no future War to affect the Doctor's life. _That_ War was wrapped
up - no Enemy, no Celestis, no Time Lords, the Faction shattered...
Its _aftermath_ - the hints the Doctor remembers something, the Earth arc,
Father Time's backstory - isn't over. The difference is small, but
important.
Imran
His Majesty Sir James Brooke
Stuff I haven't bothered snipping acting as spoiler space!
"I. Inayat" <miste...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5e%96.112793$B11.1...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
In any case, the Time Lords already knew that some war or other *might*
happen, back in Greyjan's reign. Mind you, today I finally read tID, which
seems to be set in a timeline where conversely he never became President and
so the TLs did bugger-all about the Enemy.
deX!
"Ian Mond" <IS_...@msn.com.au> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if that's fair. I love Unnatural History and I don't see
> anything in the book that goes against the "ethos" of the Faction
> Paradox. Unlike Ancestor Cell.
>
> So what exactaly do you mean? How does it miss the whole FP ethos?
>
Do I still need to include spoiler space for _Unnatural History_?
Well, just to be safe:
Faction Paradox was reduced from a fairly scary, amoral voodoo cult
whose aim seemed to be the celebration of paradox and contradiction
into red-herring bad guys who apparently have nothing better to do
than to follow Sam Jones around San Francisco. This, however, is a
minor complaint compared to the Doctor's handling of the FP agent,
where he, in essence, shows very little concern that his interference
appears to have wiped the "real" version of Sam out of existence and
replaced her with an anamoly, states that it's a good thing because
Sam has her life back, and, in a complete abdication of sense, carries
on as if he's won some kind of victory against FP.
The Faction's main goals aren't evil. They just like paradoxes. For
them, having Sam Jones disappear from the universe because she isn't
supposed to be there or having her become a more sensible version
than the one presented to us would have been the failure, not the
Doctor helping do their work for them in creating her. Even if you
look at it from the standpoint of, "One human life is more important
than creating a paradox," the Doctor still helped (even if
inadvertantly) create the situation which led to Sam turning herself
into a paradox, which makes his posturing to the FP rep at the end
hollow and foolish. The Doctor should have been mourning the
disappearance of RealSam, not celebrating the reappearance of FakeSam.
I don't know if these are Helen's issue with the book, but that's what
I see in the book that's wrong.
Brett O'Callaghan
><hfa...@innotts.co.uk> had painted:
>>The problems with the books following Lawrence's seem to generally be a lack
>>of ability and/or willingness to pick up what he throws 'em and work with
>>it. For example, see Unnatural History for a *perfect* example of writers
>>missing the whole ethos of the Faction Paradox *completely* and consequently
>>making a pigs ear of the whole concept...
>Well, you know, if you don't *talk* to said authors following you, and
>give them some sort of idea as to where it 'should' lead and play nice
>with others, what do you expect?
I would expect that they would leave my stuff alone and go and create
their own stuff, if I was in Lawrence Miles position.
Is that so unreasonable?
Byeeeee.
--
http://members.nbci.com/whoinfo/
ICQ: 46825865
norv...@sirius.com
Mmm. Just to drop in here -- moderation is a good thing. The choice of
moderators, however, could possibly be... gee, I dunno... biased?
Now, I've always felt that Jay Denebeim was an... interesting... choice of
moderator for rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated. However, he got the job
done (and people pissed off at him, yes).
However, I see even more "interesting times" ahead for any moderated DW
group, due to the biases of anyone who'd want to be a moderator. I think
I'll give it a miss, thanks.
Yeah, Alryssa, PMEBers should stick together, so sorry for my opinion, but
sheesh, the comments above are about what I'd expect from this effort.
--
norv...@sirius.com
"...To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
<*> "Ulysses" by Tennyson <*>
Jonathan Blum
<norv...@sirius.com> wrote:
>Mmm. Just to drop in here -- moderation is a good thing. The choice of
>moderators, however, could possibly be... gee, I dunno... biased?
Once again -- the moderators were elected, from a pool of volunteers who
put their names up for consideration. They have a rather wide variety of
views and tastes in Who; I don't think it's accurate at all to paint them
all as fans of Doctor X or Writer Y. Though I think it's safe to say that
none of them outright loathe any particular Doctor, writer, production
team member, or whatever...
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
>In article <d4T96.5599$65.3...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>,
> "Ian Mond" <IS_...@msn.com.au> wrote:
>Do I still need to include spoiler space for _Unnatural History_?
>Well, just to be safe:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Faction Paradox was reduced from a fairly scary, amoral voodoo cult
>whose aim seemed to be the celebration of paradox and contradiction
>into red-herring bad guys who apparently have nothing better to do
>than to follow Sam Jones around San Francisco.
A number of people seem to have had this problem with the portrayal of the
Faction in UH. While I can see where it's coming from, I think it's worth
pointing out that we don't actually see Faction Paradox itself in action
in the book. We see one junior member executing a minor assignment
(successfully), while dropping hints that the Faction have much bigger
plans ticking over in the background. (We even inserted extra lines, at
Lawrence's request, to reinforce that the little boy and his methods were
not the be-all and end-all of the Faction.)
From the moment they were introduced in "Alien Bodies", the Faction were
presented with multiple faces -- we're introduced to Cousin Justine, an
elegant goth wet dream who takes the religious side of Paradox quite
seriously, and Little Brother Manjuele, a violent thug who's more
interested in getting into Justine's pants than in the Spirits of Paradox.
For the little boy in UH, we drew much more on the latter image than the
former, because the more nihilistic side was a better contrast to the very
straight-laced Victorian unnaturalist. But we reinforced that this boy
was a junior member of the cult, and put in several references to the
more senior members having different attitudes.
When Lawrence and I talked on the phone about the Faction shortly after UH
was announced -- we exchanged a couple of letters and phone calls during
the writing process, to coordinate with him even though he wasn't part of
the online writers' list -- he also advanced the idea that the Faction's
ultimate aim might well be political power, with their religion merely as
a means to an end. Again in that case, there would be true believers
within the ranks, even if the senior members were more interested in their
own gain than in their faith. Basically, it seemed to me at the time that
Lawrence was more than happy to accept and even emphasize the idea that
different members of the Faction could have different attitudes, aims, and
methods.
So it's not an accident that we portrayed the Faction a bit differently
from him; but his portrayal includes ours, and ours explicitly avoids
ruling his out. There's nothing in the book, or in the boy's mission,
which tramples on Lawrence's perception of the Faction's ultimate aims.
Another reason why FP are clearly the secondary villains in UH,
incidentally, was down to Steve Cole -- he felt that featuring them
heavily in two EDA's so close together could lead them to being
overexposed. So a chunk of their role was cut at the outline stage. In
any case, we weren't trying to do a story spotlighting the Faction in the
same sense that "Interference" was; there would be no point in trying to
do exactly the same thing Lawrence was about to do two months later. But
we felt that a Faction presence would serve the story we _were_ trying to
tell, while helping to lead up to Lawrence's magnum opus. (In a sense,
you could say that UH is only marginally more a "Faction story" than Alien
Bodies is a "Kroton story".)
So I can't really agree that we "reduced" Faction Paradox through our
portrayal. We only portrayed a part of them, but established that the
rest of them was still there (through things like the Book of Lies
material and offstage references). I don't think we so much missed the
point of the Faction, as used them to make a somewhat different point,
much the way David Whitaker (and indeed Lawrence) used the Daleks in ways
which Terry Nation didn't necessarily approve.
I just don't want people to think that this happened by *mistake*... In a
nutshell, when we portrayed the baby Brother as a vicious little child
more interested in smashing things than believing in them, that wasn't
because we'd missed the subtleties of Lawrence's work; it's because we saw
that element in them.
>This, however, is a
>minor complaint compared to the Doctor's handling of the FP agent,
>where he, in essence, shows very little concern that his interference
>appears to have wiped the "real" version of Sam out of existence and
>replaced her with an anamoly, states that it's a good thing because
>Sam has her life back, and, in a complete abdication of sense, carries
>on as if he's won some kind of victory against FP.
Does he? It's true that he doesn't express angst over the fact that
dark-haired Sam in effect sacrificed herself -- he ducks the question of
whether he misses her, though he's rather more glad to have his old friend
(the blonde-haired version) back. (And given his constant downplaying of
the importance of a person's past, him not being too fussed which version
of Sam is around at the end seems fairly consistent.) But at no point
does he claim victory over Faction Paradox. They've clearly got what they
wanted.
>The Faction's main goals aren't evil. They just like paradoxes. For
>them, having Sam Jones disappear from the universe because she isn't
>supposed to be there or having her become a more sensible version
>than the one presented to us would have been the failure, not the
>Doctor helping do their work for them in creating her.
This is rather the point of the scene between the Doctor and the boy,
which starts on page 272. This is the point where the Doctor realizes
that this was the event which created blonde-haired Sam, which is what the
Faction really wanted all along. So from their point of view, Faction
Paradox *wins* in "Unnatural History".
>Even if you
>look at it from the standpoint of, "One human life is more important
>than creating a paradox," the Doctor still helped (even if
>inadvertantly) create the situation which led to Sam turning herself
>into a paradox, which makes his posturing to the FP rep at the end
>hollow and foolish.
To be fair, I'm not sure what "posturing" you're referring to... Are you
referring to the one exchange at the end of that scene? ("Face it, we
win." "No. Sam wins.")
Because the Doctor isn't wrong when he says that, as far as I'm concerned.
Whether dark-haired or blonde-haired, regardless of her timestream,
regardless of who's responsible for it, either Sam's life is clearly
better for having met the Doctor. At least that's how I tend to see it --
and Dark-haired Sam underlines this point in her final note to her
counterpart.
>The Doctor should have been mourning the
>disappearance of RealSam, not celebrating the reappearance of FakeSam.
Looking at it in a completely detached way... why should he mourn? He
still has *a* Sam, and it's even the version he's known as a friend for a
long time. If he believes in an essential Sam common to all the
variations, as he appears to earlier in the book, he hasn't lost anything.
Certainly the Doctor keeps his reaction to himself on the subject of how
much he misses dark-haired Sam... (After all, we were being deliberately
ambiguous, and raising the possibility that maybe the Doctor led Sam into
the change!)
It also seems odd to refer to blonde-haired Sam as "fake", considering
that by this point her life is woven into events across a dozen worlds.
Blonde-haired Sam is inextricably woven into the timeline; she's real in
just the same way the dark-haired one was, in just the same way the
post-Interference Fitz Kreiner is as real a person as the pre-Interference
one, despite having been created/altered through artificial means.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
Brett O'Callaghan <brettoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>rys...@the-eighth-doctor.communal (Alryssa Kelly) wrote:
>>Well, you know, if you don't *talk* to said authors following you, and
>>give them some sort of idea as to where it 'should' lead and play nice
>>with others, what do you expect?
>I would expect that they would leave my stuff alone and go and create
>their own stuff, if I was in Lawrence Miles position.
>Is that so unreasonable?
I can't seem to find the first letter Lawrence wrote to us when UH was
first getting off the ground (in early '98, shortly after Alien Bodies),
but IIRC he actually sounded a bit chuffed that other people were
interested in using his creations. Something about the validation making
them seem more real, in a way. He'd read the original outline, and
certainly didn't express any significant problems with the idea of someone
else taking on Faction Paradox.
We stayed in touch on and off (to be honest, mostly off) during the
writing of the book, but Lawrence didn't express any objections till he'd
gotten to read the submission draft. Then he wrote another letter, and I
phoned him back; we worked out a number of glitches between UH and Inty,
mainly to do with Sam's parents. His comments on the handling of Faction
Paradox were comparative footnotes, but we still did some substantial
rewriting (including most of the _Book of Lies_ material) to address his
requests.
It still seems odd to me that he was so restrained in his comments on the
subject to us, when we could still fix the problems, yet so loud in his
condemnation later when it came to fan interviews.
Regards,
Jon Blum
LPPCQ Snarky
O'Callaghan:
>Alryssa Kelly wrote:
>><hfa...@innotts.co.uk> had painted:
>
>>>The problems with the books following Lawrence's seem to generally be a lack
>>>of ability and/or willingness to pick up what he throws 'em and work with
>>>it. For example, see Unnatural History for a *perfect* example of writers
>>>missing the whole ethos of the Faction Paradox *completely* and consequently
>>>making a pigs ear of the whole concept...
>
>>Well, you know, if you don't *talk* to said authors following you, and
>>give them some sort of idea as to where it 'should' lead and play nice
>>with others, what do you expect?
>
>I would expect that they would leave my stuff alone and go and create
>their own stuff, if I was in Lawrence Miles position.
>
>Is that so unreasonable?
Brett O'Callaghan: "*Shared universe*? Pah!"
--
===============================================================
Snarky, loud and flaming queer Demon of Mockery and Silliness,
Demon Lord of Confusion, Demon Prince of Absurdity, God of
Odd Statements, and Scourge of the Zarbi Empire; Ship's Chaos
Demon, Bad Ship BetNoirian; MALCOLM X
For Action! Adventure! Excitement! with the Callahanian Army o'
Light, go to: http://silver-gateway.com/caol/
Now you'll have to excuse me, I have souls to harvest
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
into you." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
The RADW Muttonhead List (OK, now it is a k/f list):
Dave "Count Zero" Becker, Knight of the Spurious Analogy;
Yads, the Idiot; Jerkrider, Arpit, Chris Parrott, Jill Deel;
Brett O'Callaghan, the Flat-Earther; Marcus Durham;
Steve Day, the Oppressed Anti-Mod;
Cameron Mason
I. Inayat <miste...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5e%96.112793$B11.1...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
> something terrible, and while there _may_ be surviving Gallifreyans, the
War
> as we knew it (between the Time Lords and the Enemy) is over, concluded
and
> dealt with.
Thanks Imran, that's what I mean.
helen.fayle
deX! <djp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:94782s$eh5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <94716v$dke$1...@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>,
> "Helen Fayle" <hfa...@innotts.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > The problems with the books following Lawrence's seem to generally be
> > a lack of ability and/or willingness to pick up what he throws 'em
> > and work with it. For example, see Unnatural History for a *perfect*
> > example of writers missing the whole ethos of the Faction Paradox
> > *completely* and consequently making a pigs ear of the whole
> > concept...
> >
>
> It was really unfortunate, too, as the prose of _Unnatural History_
> is excellent.
It is, actually... it's just the philosophy, the themes and characters
that - *irritate*... shall we say...?
It's like sitting down at one of those seminars I keep being sent on at work
about "teamwork" "making the best of yourself" and such shit... (sore
point - you won't *believe* the crap my boss insists I sit through!!). Can't
deny that the speakers are good, but gods do they talk a load of bollocks...
<g>
That book would have been infinitely more interesting
> had FP been attempting to recruit Sam rather than making sure she
> was created. (It would have made Sam more interesting, too.)
Sam----- interesting??
Nope, can't see it!! <g>
It was that whole "Dark Sam" thing that started it going downhill for me...
I mean - what was the point? I never see it as a major point in AB, and to
be honest, I can't see it being meant as one either. From there on in, it's
a downhill slide into unneccessary explanations and a story that basically
left me throwing the book into a mental corner and saying "so what?".
Other people's mileage obviously vary... I mean, my boss believes all that
crap about "personal effectiveness"...
>
>
> > The range sometimes has the overall feel of one of those Internet
> > Round Robin exercises on adwc... where one person plays a blinder and
> > writes a superb chapter, only to have it totally ballsed up by the
> > next three people in line...
> >
>
> Hmm. I see your point, but I don't think it's quite that severe.
Well I did say "sometimes"... Simon B-J and Mark Clapham for eg do a bang up
job in ToP5, IMHO... Paul Magrs disappears off doing his own thing in "Blue
Angel" but does it with so much chutzpah you just have to laugh and let him
have the points for that one...
The
> recent Caught On Earth books that have made it to the US have all been
> great, with (of all people) Paul Leonard turning in the least enjoyable
> effort and (of all people) Terrance Dicks turning in the most enjoyable.
>
Sadly, I now have a Hockey Season ticket, playoff semis and finals tickets,
and a burgeoning DVD habit to support... I quit reading 'em, after tAC
unless they're by someone I'm friends with (in which case I happily show
solidarity and buy one, unless I've earned a freebie ) or it's someone I
know will turn out a corker...
Meg Lahey
wrote:
Well you didn't miss THE, point but you miss A point, and a fairly
large one at that. You also didn't make *your* point, either.
IMO, Lawrence Miles view of Religion and Faith is that it is a tool to
be used to subjugate the masses. This is the point of the Faction
Paradox. They are a political movment that uses mumbo-jumo religion to
enslave people. They (the FP) don't really believe in religion, or
anything else spiritual for that matter, but they claim they do. It's
very much like how Miles uses the Catholic Church and Masonery
in "Christmas on a Rational Planet" as well, IMO (Lawrence's has a
polticial agenda/set of personal political/religous hang ups and these
seem to be some of them).
So my take on where you went wrong with "UH" and the Faction Paradox,
when it came to Lawrence's views, was probably two fold with Miles.
First, Baby Brother **believes** in something - that smashing is the
way to the goals of the Faction Paradox. However a member of the
Faction Paradox doesn't *believe* in anything but his own personal
gain, in Lawrence Miles view of the FP. This non-belief is at the
core of their polticial agenda, thus Baby Brother was a odds with the
groups core ideas. Second, "Unnatural History" has a core element that
Faith can overcome anything - including Science and Reason. My opinion
is that if Lawrence read "UH" in advance, he may have decided it was a
lost cause to try and continue helping you out. You and he were simply
not close on world views and/or what the Faction Paradox is/was.
Jon, I don't know if Kate and you realize this, but "Unnatural
History" comes off as a book about Faith overcoming Science.
That's the direct opposite of what Lawrence Miles is saying in
"Interference." He is saying, IMO (because I don't know the guy and
have to go by what he writes), is that Science and Rationality are
superior to Faith and Religion. Now, if that wasn't what you meant for
the book to be about, that's fine, but that *is* what I took away as
being one of the books main core issues.
"Unnatural History" is a book that puts across the idea that Faith is
more important than Fact; Religion is more important that Science.
Actually "UH" comes off as a big time condemnation of Science, IMO, in
its usage of Griffen. The reason that Griffen is evil is that he is a
Scientist who isn't obeying the natural (magic/spirtual/wicca/new
age (i.e. faith)) laws.
The main ideas I took away from reading "UH" was that Griffen is evil:
Griffen is evil because he is a Scientist and follows Scientific
Method; Griffen is defeated by the Doctor and his friends through the
usage of Magic (Lei Lines), Faith, and Religion (Wicca/New Age
beliefs, in this case). Faith wins over Science. The fact Griffen is
most likely an extremist for his people is very buried within the
book. I do remember that you had his brother in the book someplace,
trying to point out Griffen's mistakes to him, but I simply can't find
those passages when flipping through the book [and I can still find
similar plot points, such as this, by just picking up "Interference"
and flipping through it. Personally I didn't like "Interference" as
much as "UH," and if I were an author I think that might be telling me
something about the book I just wrote (like it might not be as clear
as it could have been???) I'm digressing here, however] :-/.
IMO, "Unnatural History" is one of the most anti-science SF books I've
ever read :-(. Did Kate and you intend that? It's one of the things
that turned me off the book when I was reading it. "Doctor Who," the
TV Show at least, fell more on the side that Science was superior to
Faith, or at least could co-exist with Religion and Faith most of the
time. Of course "Doctor Who" was all over the place when it came to
some of these issues, and everyones mileage varies, but I do think
"Unnatural History" drove off the side of the road and into a ditch on
the side of Magic/Faith over Science/Fact.
BTW, I think my view here would personally differ from Lawrence Miles.
My personal views of Faith and Science calls for co-existance and
tolarance and "Doctor Who" generally tends to fit that view point,
better than some SF shows. However, from what I take away from
reading Miles books, I think Larwence sees "Doctor Who" as a show
about Science overcoming Faith. Part of the Hartnell, Troughton, early
Pertwee and Tom Baker era's, support this idea. However, these eras,
along with later Doctor's eras, also support Faith being useful
(co-existance) and/or it sometimes being the correct way - if it
wasn't Christianity, of course ::sarcasm city:::-P
While I'm making a dig at the late Pertwee era Buddist stuff with my
Christianity comments above, this does bring us to another point.
Faith and Religion aren't just Christianity. Buddism, Judaism, New
Age, and Wicca (to name just a few) are also forms of Faith and are
just as at odds with Science at times, as is Christianity.
The question I'd like to ask here is had the character of Kyra been a
Christian and not a New Age follower, would people have been as
tolarant of the Lei Line stuff as they seem to have been (keeping in
mind that Lei Lines would most likely have been switched for angels
and prayers)? My guess would be no. As it was, readers either A)
accepted her beliefs because they were close to their own personal
beliefs or they simply believed she had a right to believe anything
she liked or B) wrote off that part of the story as either "Clarkes
Law" or silly, but not Christianity thus not worth worrying about.
However, I think that Lawrence Miles, as a person who does not seem
believe in belief (Faith) itself, fell into C) and did notice and took
offence. This might have lead to part of his underlying anamosity
toward "Unnatural History," after the fact as well.
Which brings us back to "UH," The Faction Paradox, and Miles dislike
of it's use in "Unnatural History." IMO, the reason Lawrence didn't
pursue this issue with you while you were writing the book is because
he thought that if you didn't get the concept that Science overcomes
Faith from get go, he wasn't going to be able to explain it to you.
Was he right or wrong? I don't know if my theory is even close to what
really happened, but I do know that you, Jon, are one of the
most dense people that I've ever met >:-).
I can't blame Miles for throwing up his hands and not trying to keep
trying, if that is what really happened.* On the other hand, I don't
think his method of backstabbing both Kate and you in a review, after
the fact, was the way to go on the subject either. If it truly
mattered that much, he should have kept at it. However, I don't think
much of Lawrence Miles manners to begin with, so ca sera, sera (or
however that's spelled) >;). [*That said, I don't know why, if he
though you weren't getting some concept, that he didn't try to go to
Kate and explain his views to her instead. The impression you leave
above is that he didn't talk to Kate, just to you :-1.]
Anyway, I am glad to finally read what your take on the Faction
Paradox was, when you were writing them. I'm not sure that either
Lawrence Miles version of the FP or the "UH" version were really any
better or worse from each other. They are simply different from each
other in major ways and this seems to be where the antimosity between
Miles and you began.
In the end what it all boils down to is getting your ideas across to
others, be they other writers or the readership. My advice would be
for Lawrence and you to try and work on communicating your ideas
better to others.
Both of your problems boil down to having a style that may not always
work to your best advantage. IMO, if you want to write a Doctor Who
book with a poltical agenda, that's OK - just don't loose the main
characters for your personal agenda along the way. This is what I felt
Lawrence Miles ultimately did wrong in "Interference" (and he did it
big time, to boot). On the other hand, if you are going to write a
book and try to make a point in a new and different way, remember to
make the point in the end, as well as remembering to make the point
clearly enough that most the readers understand it. That is what Kate
and you did wrong in "Unnatural History," IMO. Because if the point
of "UH" *isn't* Faith is better than Science, I don't know what
point, if any, you were trying to make in the book :-(.
(snip)
Meg L.
(no sig - this thing is too long to begin with >;-)
William December Starr
"Helen Fayle" <hfa...@innotts.co.uk> said:
>> Do you know for sure he won't be writing about the war or about
>> Faction Paradox? Are you absolutely certain? I'm not.
>> [johnanderson]
>
> It can't be done, not by anyone. And the FP are now part of the BBV
> empire...
When you say "It can't be done, not by anyone," are you talking in terms
of contractual rights, or what?
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Cameron Mason
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:94cqvt$rdp$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> When you say "It can't be done, not by anyone," are you talking in terms
> of contractual rights, or what?
The War itself has been dealt with and Justin doesn't want to revisit it,
although we will see the affects the universe...
Steven Kitson
> Both of your problems boil down to having a style that may not always
> work to your best advantage. IMO, if you want to write a Doctor Who
> book with a poltical agenda, that's OK - just don't loose the main
> characters for your personal agenda along the way. This is what I felt
> Lawrence Miles ultimately did wrong in "Interference" (and he did it
> big time, to boot). On the other hand, if you are going to write a
> book and try to make a point in a new and different way, remember to
> make the point in the end, as well as remembering to make the point
> clearly enough that most the readers understand it.
This is something I felt I had to comment on. I think it's rubbish. The
last thing I want is for a book to tell me what to think. Art isn't
there to provide answers, it's there to make you ask questions. Like, is
science a justification for murder? Does your past define you, or is the
moment all that matters (a much stronger theme in 'Unnatural History'
than anything abut science, I thought)?
I certainly wouldn't enjoy a book with an adgenda, or a moral at the end
-- I think that's one of my problems with 'Interference', that it
sometimes slip into propaganda. 'Unnatural History', on the other hand,
avoids giving easy answers.
Jack Beven
wrote:
>In article <94a3vo$ujo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, deX! <djp...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I just don't want people to think that this happened by *mistake*... In a
>nutshell, when we portrayed the baby Brother as a vicious little child
>more interested in smashing things than believing in them, that wasn't
>because we'd missed the subtleties of Lawrence's work; it's because we saw
>that element in them.
A couple of comments on this:
First, your portrayal of FP's resident brat was such that I really
wanted to see him have an unfortunate encounter with the
Special Weapons Dalek...while caught in a chronic hysteresis!
But my main ire in UH had to do with Griffin. The "straight-laced
Victorian unnaturalist" really ticked me off. Why? Because I thought
I saw too much of myself in the character.
I don't know who or what was the foundation for Griffin, but the
character itself was an overly analytical scientist - someone who
couldn't analyze something without breaking it into its component parts.
Now, I try to be an analytical scientist - I try to look at the parts of
a phenomena to see if I can figure out why it works. I don't think
I tear the thing apart when I study, but given some of the things
I've said here I can see how some people may think I do that
to DW.
And that brings up the other aspect of the character: Griffin
IMHO can also stand for the overly analytical DW fan - someone
who studies a story to see where it fits in the bigger picture of DW
and dumps upon it if it doesn't. I don't know if you and Kate were
trying to harpoon such fans, but I can certainly interpret the
character that way.
If you thought my reaction to the brat was violent, my reaction
to Griffin was even worse. I was thinking about the Douglas Adams
line of "They're a pretty nasty bunch in the higher dimenisons and
we would have wiped the whole lot of them out long ago if we could
figure out how to fire missiles at right angles to reality."
(And if Griffin's people ever appear in another DW story, I hope
it's in some kind of footnote to another story saying that someone
figured out how to do and did exactly that!)
Look at what I've written, I'm not sure it come out quite the
way I intended. The bottom line is that IMHO Griffin was *too*
much of a dig at those who love DW with their heads as well
as their hearts. I gave UH a 6/10 in Shannon's rankings, and
two of the points deducted were strictly because of Griffin.
And no, IMHO I'm not Griffin. I see a fair number of things
professionally that don't fit an easy classification system,
and I try (with varying degrees of success) to teach my
peers about such things.
Jack Beven (a. k. a. The Supreme Dalek)
Tropical Prediction Center
New URL: http://www.mindspring.com/~jbeven/index.html jbe...@mindspring.com
Disclaimer: These opinions don't necessarily represent those of my employers...
Meg Lahey
Kitson) wrote:
>Meg Lahey <la...@pld.com> wrote:
>> Both of your problems boil down to having a style that may not always
>> work to your best advantage. IMO, if you want to write a Doctor Who
>> book with a poltical agenda, that's OK - just don't loose the main
>> characters for your personal agenda along the way. This is what I felt
>> Lawrence Miles ultimately did wrong in "Interference" (and he did it
>> big time, to boot). On the other hand, if you are going to write a
>> book and try to make a point in a new and different way, remember to
>> make the point in the end, as well as remembering to make the point
>> clearly enough that most the readers understand it.
>
>This is something I felt I had to comment on. I think it's rubbish. The
>last thing I want is for a book to tell me what to think. Art isn't
>there to provide answers, it's there to make you ask questions. Like, is
>science a justification for murder? Does your past define you, or is the
>moment all that matters (a much stronger theme in 'Unnatural History'
>than anything abut science, I thought)?
I didn't say I wanted the books to tell me what to think. I said I
wanted the main points to be clearer. This would allow me to make
up my own mind better. As it is, I'm not too sure what the main points
where in "Unnatural History." While you feel that the main points
of "UH" are "does science justify murder" and "does your past define
you," I didn't see those as the main points of the book. With the
latter point, its was reset - a null and void point due to the nature
of the bookline it was written in. "Doctor Who" isn't Art, Steve -
it's a genre tie-in book. The nature of genre tie-in books pulled the
rug out from under the point "of does your past define you" and
relegated it to a minor part of the book, IMO. As for the plot point
of "is science a justification of murder?," I simply didn't see that
as a plot point. Instead I saw that as a plot device to forward a
bigger point that Science is evil, Nature is good.
Did I take away the wrong ideas from "Unnatural History?" Possibly -
but you are the person who just stated that you think people should be
able to make up their own minds and not be told what to think by the
authors. Having to ask the authors, or even other fans, what the main
plot points are in a book is close to being two steps away from being
told what to think. All I was asking for was for Jon and Kate to
write a book where they don't have to explain it all after the fact. A
well written book should have everything you need in the finished book
to help you come to your own conclusions. It doesn't need to be
spelled out, mind you, but the ideas should be there, someplace, for
the reader to find and decern - without having to ask for help.
>I certainly wouldn't enjoy a book with an adgenda, or a moral at the end
>-- I think that's one of my problems with 'Interference', that it
>sometimes slip into propaganda. 'Unnatural History', on the other hand,
>avoids giving easy answers.
No, "Unnatural History" doesn't give easy answers. However, to claim
it doesn't have an agenda is absurd. Even Terrence Dicks books have
agendas (might not be big or great ones, but they usually do have at
least one agenda). "Does Science Justify Murder?" is an agenda and
I'm sure if that is the theme that Kate and Jon were wanting to put
across, then they should be mift that you didn't understand it was
just that. However, I didn't take that as the agenda of "UH," and
thus feel Kate and Jon didn't do a good job of getting there ideas out
clear enough for me to make up my own mind and even come close to that
conclusion.
Anyway, the more I think about "Unnatural History," the more I come to
believe that it is a Candy Floss book for Doctor Who fans who want
books with expanded ideas and styles (and possibly this is the true
agenda for the book, when you start to think about it?). "UH" is a
book full of agendas, points, and cool new ways to do things. However,
none of these things is done all that well or explored all that
deeply. They are simply there to look pretty and to impress the
readers and other authors by showing that Kate and Jon can write
artisticially and do it in new ways. The story it's all wrapped
around was fairly weak, expecially for a Orman/Blum book.
Like Candy Floss, I liked "Unnatural History" when I read it because
it was a sweet read. But like Candy Floss, it didn't fill me up or
even leave a long term impression on me.
Meg L.
testing a new sig.
<-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->-->--->
>--<--<--<--<rec.arts.drwho>--<--<--<---<
<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--->
Kate Orman
someone can pass it on to him.) That interpretation would never have
occured to me. Thanks for posting it!
I'm leaving it to Jon to respond in detail - but I did want to remark that
your latest personal jab at him was out of place in such an interesting
analysis. :-(
--
Kate Orman <kor...@zip.com.au> http://www.zip.com.au/~korman/
"I have no idea what that meant." - Dot Warner
Jonathan Blum
>On 20 Jan 2001 18:47:41 +1100, jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum)
>wrote:
SPOILERS for "Unnatural History" remain below...
>Well you didn't miss THE, point but you miss A point, and a fairly
>large one at that. You also didn't make *your* point, either.
>IMO, Lawrence Miles view of Religion and Faith is that it is a tool to
>be used to subjugate the masses. This is the point of the Faction
>Paradox. They are a political movment that uses mumbo-jumo religion to
>enslave people. They (the FP) don't really believe in religion, or
>anything else spiritual for that matter, but they claim they do. It's
>very much like how Miles uses the Catholic Church and Masonery
>in "Christmas on a Rational Planet" as well, IMO (Lawrence's has a
>polticial agenda/set of personal political/religous hang ups and these
>seem to be some of them).
>So my take on where you went wrong with "UH" and the Faction Paradox,
>when it came to Lawrence's views, was probably two fold with Miles.
>First, Baby Brother **believes** in something - that smashing is the
>way to the goals of the Faction Paradox. However a member of the
>Faction Paradox doesn't *believe* in anything but his own personal
>gain, in Lawrence Miles view of the FP. This non-belief is at the
>core of their polticial agenda, thus Baby Brother was a odds with the
>groups core ideas.
I don't think it's actually the case that we missed that. After all, the
Doctor points out the little boy's lack of real concern about Paradox:
"You don't believe in the Spirits. You're only in it for the lies." His
smashing of things isn't described as a way to the goals of Faction
Paradox, but as a gleeful pursuit in itself: "You just like knocking
things over, don't you? And history's as good a thing as any."
>Jon, I don't know if Kate and you realize this, but "Unnatural
>History" comes off as a book about Faith overcoming Science.
>That's the direct opposite of what Lawrence Miles is saying in
>"Interference." He is saying, IMO (because I don't know the guy and
>have to go by what he writes), is that Science and Rationality are
>superior to Faith and Religion. Now, if that wasn't what you meant for
>the book to be about, that's fine, but that *is* what I took away as
>being one of the books main core issues.
Hmm... that's an interesting interpretation. I can see where you got
that. But I think there's also material in the book which argues against
it... the difference between the Doctor and Griffin isn't put in terms of
"science vs. faith", so much as a holistic approach versus bone-slicing
reductionism. Analyzing the amazing creatures in their environment versus
making them conform to expectations. The San Diego Zoo, with animals
roaming largely free, versus the old-fashioned cage approach.
If anything, the two villains of the book (the cultist and the analyst)
are placed at opposite extremes in terms of professing science and faith,
while the Doctor and company defy both their extremes. The Doctor resists
both the distorted reasoning of the unnaturalist, and the reasonless scare
tactics of the boy.
>"Unnatural History" is a book that puts across the idea that Faith is
>more important than Fact; Religion is more important that Science.
>Actually "UH" comes off as a big time condemnation of Science, IMO, in
>its usage of Griffen. The reason that Griffen is evil is that he is a
>Scientist who isn't obeying the natural (magic/spirtual/wicca/new
>age (i.e. faith)) laws.
Um... No, I'd tend to think the reason he's evil isn't because of a
matter of magical laws, but because he kidnaps people and carves them
up. :-)
>The main ideas I took away from reading "UH" was that Griffen is evil:
>Griffen is evil because he is a Scientist and follows Scientific
>Method;
Thing is, the Doctor also identifies himself as a scientist: "Well yes.
But one with more interesting questions to ask. Why not look at what all
those creatures _are_, what they're doing, not just how they fit into your
little case?" His behavior in Golden Gate Park (around page 123) is that
of a genuine naturalist, interested in learning everything about the
creatures in this habitat, rather than isolating them and making them
conform to existing theories. The fact that Griffin is "altering the
facts to fit his views" tends to argue against the idea that he's intended
as a representative of genuine scientific method.
There's also the sympathetic scientist figure of Professor Joyce, who
provides the technology which the Doctor uses to stabilize the scar.
>Griffen is defeated by the Doctor and his friends through the
>usage of Magic (Lei Lines), Faith, and Religion (Wicca/New Age
>beliefs, in this case).
I can't really agree that the Doctor's defeat of Griffin comes about
through the use of magic -- considering that that's not how either the
Doctor or Griffin see the forces they're working with. To Kyra, the lines
of force from the scar are something mystical; to the Doctor and Griffin,
they're an understandable scientific phenomenon, which can be catalogued
and controlled. It's pretty much the same as "The Daemons" or "Image of
the Fendahl", where the local witches see in religious terms what the
Doctor describes as science. I think it's fair to say that in general our
books recognize that there are spiritual aspects as well as mechanistic
ones to the universe, but that doesn't actually dismiss one side or the
other.
(Of course, it helps to bear in mind that in the Whoniverse, things which
are dismissed in our world as paranormal mumbo-jumbo actually *work* --
the third Doctor can analyze psi powers in the UNIT lab, and Olive
Hawthorne's powers as a medium work even if the Doctor tries to dismiss
her belief. After all, if in your universe you can scientifically analyze
psychokinesis, what keeps it from actually being "scientific"?)
And of course, in the end, the Doctor's solution comes about through the
use of nothing more magical than the Doctor's stabilizing device and
Griffin's mechanical cabinet.
As for the question you raised later of whether people would have been as
"tolerant" of Kyra if she'd been a Christian expressing Christian faith --
I suspect if we'd taken the same approach, we would have gotten some
serious flak from Christians for attempting to scientifically "explain
away" some tenet of Christian faith! (Imagine if we'd had angels sighted
in San Francisco, and then the Doctor reveals them to really be aliens...
people would see that not as us saying angels were *real*, but rather that
they *weren't*.)
It's really interesting to look at the book from this perspective, BTW...
thanks for bringing it up, even if I don't agree that the text supports
this reading as well as you do. There definitely _is_ some religious
imagery in the book -- and it isn't even my religion! -- especially
surrounding the Wild Hunt, with its mythological links (via Susan Cooper).
And in the end, I'm glad that people have such different perspectives on
what the "points" of the book are -- if it has a point, it's that things
are too complex to sum up simply. :-)
Regards,
Jon Blum
Kate Orman
>"Doctor Who" isn't Art, Steve - it's a genre tie-in book.
Gentle lady, permit us our aspirations. :-)