If you could tell Justin Richards one thing...
TheoryDust
direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be? I
mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
William December Starr
"TheoryDust" <t...@yahoo.youcantbeserious.com> said:
"The next time you're thinking about publishing anything by Paul Magrs,
shoot yourself until the feeling passes."
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Exorse
>direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be?
How about quitting and letting someone who knows what he's doing take over?
~~~-~~~-~~~-~~~-~~~-~~~
Scene 2: Rocky terrain (any quarry will do)
Doctor: Shh! Quiet, Exorse - it's the Daleks!
Exorse: (shouting) You're damn right it's the Daleks!
(The Doctor and Exorse are exterminated by some Daleks)
Da Cat Badge
TheoryDust <t...@yahoo.youcantbeserious.com> wrote in message
news:8d8k7r$1c9$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> ...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
> direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be?
Jonathan Blum
TheoryDust <t...@yahoo.youcantbeserious.com> wrote:
>...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
>direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be? I
>mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
If you subscribe to the Beeb's "Monthly Telepress" mailing list at
eGroups, and ask it as part of "Ask Justin", he'll even answer. :-)
Regards,
Jon Blum
Ed Jefferson
>
>>...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
>>direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be?
>
>
IIRC, you said you hadn't read any books after Interference anyway, and IIRC
his first commissions won't be released until later this year...
--
Or something....
Ed Jefferson, posting through time from 2004
"The BBC, it's not just shit, it's your shit."
http://members.xoom.com/radwdatabank- Are *you* in the RADW databank?
Remove the iluvjam to send me jam
Snarky!
>
> >...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
> >direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be?
>
> How about quitting and letting someone who knows what he's doing take over?
Well, he's just started....
--
========================================================================
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!! We must stick apart!!!
Lola, called Snarky, The Chocolate Snark, Queen of the Snarks of Ærisia;
Queen of Rice; loud and flaming queer Demon of Mockery and Silliness,
Demon Lord of Confusion; Pope Snarky Goodfella of the undulating cable,
JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK; the Very Long, Multi-Coloured Scarf of Tom Baker
The Principia Discordia: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tilt/principia/body.html
ADRIC Awards 2000 open! Vote now! Lurkers, posters, come one, come all!
http://www.dwebs.net/~allenrob/adrics.txt
"Remember: Red meat isn't bad for you. Fuzzy blue-green meat is."
-- Zog the etc.
Finn Clark
> How about quitting and letting someone
> who knows what he's doing take over?
Actually, I'm really hopeful for the upcoming Reign of Justin. I don't know
when the handover took place on the PDAs, but their planned releases for the
first half of this year were:
Last of the Gadarene (Mark Gatiss)
Tomb of Valdemar (Simon Messingham)
Campaign (Jim Mortimore)
Verdigris (Paul Magrs)
Grave Matter (Justin Richards)
Heart of TARDIS (Dave Stone)
I reckon that's an incredible line-up. Admittedly some of those authors are
controversial [1], but I think that's great! These are six months completely
free of the same old tired thing churned out because it's Doctor Who and for no
other reason. It's certainly not The Editor's Top Ten Hacks.
[1] - in one instance, controversial even within BBC Books themselves...
Any of those books would normally stand out from the pack (even if in your
opinion it's in a bad way). *That's* what I've missed from the Virgin era.
*That's* what's got me excited for the future.
Finn Clark.
http://members.aol.com/kafenken/
Matthew Fitch
-Matt
"Whatever I've done for you in the past I've more than made up for!"-Tom Baker
Benjamin F. Elliott
Death". Could you please let Johnny Morris switch the title back
before the book hits the publishers?
Whatever the title is, I'm betting on that being the most
entertaining Doctor Who novel of 2000, but it never helps to try
to get mistakes fixed.
Benjamin F. Elliott
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
John L Beven II
>...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
>mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
How about "Could we please have no more messing around with either
continuity or DW icons?"
Jack Beven (a. k. a. The Supreme Dalek)
Tropical Prediction Center
http://people.delphi.com/jbeven/ jbe...@mindspring.com
Disclaimer: These opinions don't necessarily represent those of my
employers...
Exorse
>>
>
>his first commissions won't be released until later this year...
I've read his books. If he can't write, he certainly has no place editing and
deciding what's to be commissioned.
M.H. Stevens
Jonathan Blum wrote:
> In article <8d8k7r$1c9$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
> TheoryDust <t...@yahoo.youcantbeserious.com> wrote:
> >...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
> >direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be? I
> >mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
>
>
Well my question is when is the TARDIS coming back? That's the only thing I
want to know from him.
M.H. Stevens
John L Beven II wrote:
> TheoryDust wrote in message <8d8k7r$1c9$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
> >direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be? I
> >mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
>
> How about "Could we please have no more messing around with either
> continuity or DW icons?"
>
SECONDED!!!!!!!!!!
Snarky!
> Jonathan Blum wrote:
> > TheoryDust wrote:
> > >
> > >...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
> > >direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be? I
> > >mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
>
> want to know from him.
_A_ TARDIS will arrive next February..._the_ TARDIS...maybe '02 or '03,
at a guess...anyroad, the T50 will most likely be in the shape of a
Police Box, so I wouldn't worry too much...Of course, I'm probably off
my rocker for even _trying_ to give you that advice, but WTH....
MAPPY
>
> ...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
> direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be?
I'd ask him "WHAT ABOUT THE POINTED STICK???". To which he'd reply
"What? Fresh fruit not good enough for you, eh? Gettin' all high and
mighty, eh? Well, the next time some homicidal maniac attacks you with
a bunch of loganberries, don't come runnin' to me!"
Well, he would, wouldn't he? ^_^;;
--
MAPPY the Mouse - Pro Colin Baker Troll Extraordinaire ^_^
High on Life, Cheese and Caffeine >^.^< Squeak!
--
Chiaroscuro - http://pirotess.zerion.com/
MAPPY
>
> >...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
> >direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be?
>
The first book as commissioned by the new series editor, Exorse -
"You're Damn Right It's The Daleks", coming soon. ^_^
Daniel O'Mahony
> I've read his books. If he can't write, he certainly has no place
editing and
> deciding what's to be commissioned.
Justin has written more Doctor Who and associational novels than anyone
else (with the exception of Terrance), so evidently he can write.
The question is: if you were editor of the Doctor Who novels range what
would you do?
Exorse
>would you do?
>
Find someone who can actually write.
Exorse
>> >would you do?
>> >
>> Find someone who can actually write.
>
>
Yes, the BBC would never go for that, would they?
Steve Day
<t...@yahoo.youcantbeserious.com> wrote:
>...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
>direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be? I
>mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
>
No swearing. No sexual content. Just make it the same, bar a little
more in depth and detailed, than the TV show survived as for 26 years.
---
How many Doctor Who fans does it take to change a lightbulb?
None, they just sit around and wait for it to come back on.
--
Steve Day
Starr) wrote:
>In article <8d8k7r$1c9$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
>"TheoryDust" <t...@yahoo.youcantbeserious.com> said:
>
>> ...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
>> direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it
>> be? I mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
>
>"The next time you're thinking about publishing anything by Paul Magrs,
>shoot yourself until the feeling passes."
>
>-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
William, I tried reading a 'book' by Paul Magrs in the bookshop the
other day. I gave up after the first paragraph.
R Dan Henry
<mappyt...@start.com.au> transmitted thus:
>Exorse wrote:
>>
>> >...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
>> >direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be?
>>
>> How about quitting and letting someone who knows what he's doing take over?
>
>The first book as commissioned by the new series editor, Exorse -
>"You're Damn Right It's The Daleks", coming soon. ^_^
Actually, that would be a far better title than most of the novels
have had. And it would be the best title ever to include the word
'Daleks'.
--
R. Dan Henry
danh...@inreach.com
Trained Philosopher: Will Think For Food
Steve Day
wrote:
>Steve Day wrote:
>>
>> On 14 Apr 2000 19:48:27 -0700, wds...@crl.com (William December
>> Starr) wrote:
>
>> >"The next time you're thinking about publishing anything by Paul Magrs,
>> >shoot yourself until the feeling passes."
>
>> William, I tried reading a 'book' by Paul Magrs in the bookshop the
>> other day. I gave up after the first paragraph.
>
>Considering the pair of you don't like each other very much in a
>(altogether) too-public fashion, I have to say that this, being the one
>topic you both agree on, is not something you should really be
>attempting to argue over.... ^_^;;
>
I wasnt arguing, just agreeing with him.
Chris Cwej
Steve Day <st...@redimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c70kfsorfdcgrd7vr...@4ax.com...
> On 14 Apr 2000 19:48:27 -0700, wds...@crl.com (William December
> Starr) wrote:
>
> >In article <8d8k7r$1c9$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
> >"TheoryDust" <t...@yahoo.youcantbeserious.com> said:
> >
> >> ...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
> >> direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it
> >> be? I mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
> >
> >"The next time you're thinking about publishing anything by Paul Magrs,
> >shoot yourself until the feeling passes."
> >
> >-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
>
> William, I tried reading a 'book' by Paul Magrs in the bookshop the
> other day. I gave up after the first paragraph.
Which, given the length of his paragraphs in Verdigris should only have
taken you a few seconds
Cwej
Snarky!
> William December Starr wrote:
> >"TheoryDust" said:
> >
> >> ...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
> >> direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it
> >> be? I mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
> >
> >"The next time you're thinking about publishing anything by Paul Magrs,
> >shoot yourself until the feeling passes."
>
> other day. I gave up after the first paragraph.
I guess this is proof, if anyone needs it, that the Day-Starr Wars are
_truly_ over....
William December Starr
mappyt...@start.com.au said:
>>> "The next time you're thinking about publishing anything by Paul
>>> Magrs, shoot yourself until the feeling passes." [wdstarr]
>>
>> William, I tried reading a 'book' by Paul Magrs in the bookshop the
>> other day. I gave up after the first paragraph. [Steve Day]
>
> Considering the pair of you don't like each other very much in a
> (altogether) too-public fashion, I have to say that this, being the
> one topic you both agree on, is not something you should really be
> attempting to argue over.... ^_^;;
You think Steve and I are bad when we're arguing, wait until you see us
in violent agreement. :-)
MAPPY
>
> >The question is: if you were editor of the Doctor Who novels range what
> >would you do?
> >
> Find someone who can actually write.
Yes, but that'd mean selling out the BBC range to talent.... ;)
--
MAPPY
>
> >> >The question is: if you were editor of the Doctor Who novels range what
> >> >would you do?
> >> >
> >> Find someone who can actually write.
> >
> >Yes, but that'd mean selling out the BBC range to talent.... ;)
> >
Indeed. It has been many years since they've had a writer with
talent... Anybody with talent, for that matter. ;)
MAPPY
> >"The next time you're thinking about publishing anything by Paul Magrs,
> >shoot yourself until the feeling passes."
> William, I tried reading a 'book' by Paul Magrs in the bookshop the
> other day. I gave up after the first paragraph.
Considering the pair of you don't like each other very much in a
(altogether) too-public fashion, I have to say that this, being the one
topic you both agree on, is not something you should really be
attempting to argue over.... ^_^;;
--
MAPPY
> >> How about quitting and letting someone who knows what he's doing take over?
> >
> >The first book as commissioned by the new series editor, Exorse -
> >"You're Damn Right It's The Daleks", coming soon. ^_^
>
> Actually, that would be a far better title than most of the novels
> have had. And it would be the best title ever to include the word
> 'Daleks'.
He'd follow it up with "You're Damn Right It's The Cybermen" and "You're
Damn Right It's The Sontarans". His Magnum Opus shall be "You're Damn
Right That's Not A Gun In My Pocket And I Am VERY Glad To See You,
Fitz!". Of course, he won't consider it canon, but then does he ever
consider the novels as canon. ;)
MAPPY
> I wasnt arguing, just agreeing with him.
I hope somebody recorded that. It might be a long time before we hear
it again. ;)
MAPPY
> You think Steve and I are bad when we're arguing, wait until you see us
> in violent agreement. :-)
I'm quivering in my boots already.....
M.H. Stevens
To put it bluntly, "What the heck do you think you're doing?"
Snarky!
>
> To put it bluntly, "What the heck do you think you're doing?"
He hasn't _done_ anything yet! As editor, that is. Oh, Kallisti, give
'im a _break_! You're panicking needlessly, again....
orinoco
>>direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what
would it be?
>
As a traditionalist/radical/concerned/delighted/etc etc reader
of the Dr Who books, why should I bother reading the EDA and PDA
ranges under your editorship?
(this isn't to knock the guy, but to inquire what is in it for
whatever type of reader (from Mark Stevens to Edward Funnell). I
bet there is an answer to satisfy everyone)
Orinoco, wombling free
I was brave, I was bold, I was fearless
I was famous for the things that I did
I was quick on the draw as I tidied up the floor
So they called me the Orinoco Kid
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Snarky!
>
> >>...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
> >>direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what
> would it be?
>
> As a traditionalist/radical/concerned/delighted/etc etc reader
> of the Dr Who books, why should I bother reading the EDA and PDA
> ranges under your editorship?
>
> (this isn't to knock the guy, but to inquire what is in it for
> whatever type of reader (from Mark Stevens to Edward Funnell). I
> bet there is an answer to satisfy everyone)
Nice question, but that wasn't what he wanted to know -- I would say
only: Make them interesting -- captivate us! Render us unable to stop
reading, whatever events may take place in the books! Cause complaints
regarding continuity and canonicity to die in the throats of those who
would make them, whether the vbooks are edited to please the rads or the
trads (they should _never_ be *written* to please anyone besides the
author, natch)....
Nick Lancaster
>...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
>direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be? I
>mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
Try and go for a whole month without writing a novel/audio.
Nick
stranger than a gang of drunken mimes
http://members.tripod.co.uk/fruithat/lc.html
Daniel O'Mahony
> ...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
> direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be?
I
> mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
How about: "The BBC books have pandered for too long to the traditionalist
lobby, with their slight and spurious notions of what 'Doctor Who' is
really about. There should be less conservatism in the novels, more
innovation and risk-taking. Let's forget the traditionalist's fetishist
shibboleth that 'Doctor Who' should be just like it was when they were 5
(and it was on TV) and do something interesting with it instead."
Or, alternatively: "Gissa job."
djp...@my-deja.com
"TheoryDust" <t...@yahoo.youcantbeserious.com> wrote:
> ...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
> direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would
> it be? I mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
>
See Daniel O'Mahony's post for what I would say.
(I knew there was a reason I liked his books...)
deX!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
R Dan Henry
for a couple of decades, but I'll be able to discuss the cover blurbs.
M.H. Stevens
Daniel O'Mahony wrote:
> TheoryDust wrote:
>
> > ...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
> > direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be?
> I
> > mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
>
> How about: "The BBC books have pandered for too long to the traditionalist
> lobby, with their slight and spurious notions of what 'Doctor Who' is
> really about. There should be less conservatism in the novels, more
> innovation and risk-taking. Let's forget the traditionalist's fetishist
> shibboleth that 'Doctor Who' should be just like it was when they were 5
> (and it was on TV) and do something interesting with it instead."
>
> Or, alternatively: "Gissa job."
Pandered? PANDERED!!!!!!
I get sick and tired of everyone knockin traditionalists simply for arguing
against recent changes. Too Long? From the looks of the recent schedule about
the only book written with us in mind in the last year is Last of the
Gaderene! Pander, we've been snubbed!!!!
djp...@my-deja.com
>
> Pandered? PANDERED!!!!!!
>
A-ha! You are Colin Baker in disguise!
This does bring up an interesting point; it seems the ultra-trad fans
feel that the books have been too radical while the ultra-rad fans
(and writers, hee) feel the books have been too traditional. Are the
books really as middle-of-the-road as that implies? Is it possible
to do a rad book that doesn't use a series convention as its launching
pad?
edward funnell
John L Beven II wrote:
> TheoryDust wrote in message <8d8k7r$1c9$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
> >direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be? I
> >mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
>
> How about "Could we please have no more messing around with either
> continuity or DW icons?"
>
> Jack Beven (a. k. a. The Supreme Dalek)
> Tropical Prediction Center
> http://people.delphi.com/jbeven/ jbe...@mindspring.com
> Disclaimer: These opinions don't necessarily represent those of my
> employers...
Daniel O'Mahony
> Pandered? PANDERED!!!!!!
"Of course, no-one said that the traditionalists would be grateful for
this."
edward funnell
Steve Day wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 22:33:23 -0400, "TheoryDust"
> <t...@yahoo.youcantbeserious.com> wrote:
>
> >...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
> >direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be? I
> >mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
> >
> No swearing. No sexual content. Just make it the same, bar a little
> more in depth and detailed, than the TV show survived as for 26 years.
>
edward funnell
Steve Day wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2000 19:48:27 -0700, wds...@crl.com (William December
> Starr) wrote:
>
> >In article <8d8k7r$1c9$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
> >"TheoryDust" <t...@yahoo.youcantbeserious.com> said:
> >
> >> ...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
> >> direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it
> >> be? I mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
> >
> >"The next time you're thinking about publishing anything by Paul Magrs,
> >shoot yourself until the feeling passes."
> >
> >-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
>
> William, I tried reading a 'book' by Paul Magrs in the bookshop the
> other day. I gave up after the first paragraph.
>
Nick Lancaster
<cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>To put it bluntly, "What the heck do you think you're doing?"
>
I thought he was tying up the loose ends you didn't like, and
developing a story arc which just might return things to the way you
want them.
djp...@my-deja.com
The more uncharitable parts of my personality mark it down to an
irrational fear of non-traditional storytelling techniques, but that
wouldn't be a fair thing to say, particularly since I'm not a fan of
_The Scarlet Empress_ in the slightest.
_The Blue Angel_ struck me in such a profound manner that I can't
fathom disliking it. Reading that book has rekindled my interest
in reading stuff besides trashy SF/fantasy. It also rekindled my
interest in poetry and song lyrics. It's as if I've rediscovered
the beauty of the English language.
I know that that's a painfully melodramatic thing to say, but that is
how strong of an impact that book made upon me.
Ed Jefferson
<cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> writes:
>Daniel O'Mahony wrote:
>
>> TheoryDust wrote:
>>
>> > ...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
>> > direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be?
>> I
>> > mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
>>
>> How about: "The BBC books have pandered for too long to the traditionalist
>> lobby, with their slight and spurious notions of what 'Doctor Who' is
>> really about. There should be less conservatism in the novels, more
>> innovation and risk-taking. Let's forget the traditionalist's fetishist
>> shibboleth that 'Doctor Who' should be just like it was when they were 5
>> (and it was on TV) and do something interesting with it instead."
>>
>> Or, alternatively: "Gissa job."
>
>Pandered? PANDERED!!!!!!
>
>I get sick and tired of everyone knockin traditionalists simply for arguing
>against recent changes. Too Long? From the looks of the recent schedule
>about
>the only book written with us in mind in the last year is Last of the
>Gaderene! Pander, we've been snubbed!!!!
>
>
Frontier Worlds?
Parallel 59?
Fall of Yquatine?
Coldheart?
These are just from the EDAs, I'm sure there have to be more PDAs that LotG...
--
Or something...
Ed Jefferson, posting through time from 2004
"The BBC, it's not just shit, it's your shit."
http://members.xoom.com/radwdatabank Are *you* in the RADW databank?
http://members.xoom.com/upgbook/ The Evil One
not iluvjam BTW
Chris Cwej
<djp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8dib0h$7jd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Blue Angel certainly made an impact............. there's still a mark on the
wall where it impacted as I threw it across the room
Cwej
William December Starr
edward funnell <funnell...@jpmorgan.com> said:
>>> "The next time you're thinking about publishing anything by Paul
>>> Magrs, shoot yourself until the feeling passes." [wdstarr]
>>
>> William, I tried reading a 'book' by Paul Magrs in the bookshop the
>> other day. I gave up after the first paragraph. [Steve Day]
>
> What was it? Imagination overload?
And _that_ about does it for Mr. Funnell and his assholier-than-thou
attitude, I think. Plonk.
Lorrill Buyens
Guinness Book of World Records, Steve Day
<st...@redimp.freeserve.co.uk> ate seventeen helpings of lutefisk,
then belched:
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 22:33:23 -0400, "TheoryDust"
><t...@yahoo.youcantbeserious.com> wrote:
>
>>...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
>>direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be? I
>>mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
>>
>No swearing. No sexual content. Just make it the same, bar a little
>more in depth and detailed, than the TV show survived as for 26 years.
For Pete's sake! We're *adults* now (ostensibly), and so are most of
the main characters. What would you *like* someone to say when the
excrement strikes the bladed cooling device - "Oh dearie me, those
*nah*-sty pepperpot thingies have blown a hole in my abdomen!"?
--
| Doctor Fraud |Always believe six|
|Mad Inventor & Purveyor of Pseudopsychology |impossible things |
| Weird Science at Bargain Rates |before breakfast. |
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm
Lance Parkin
>against recent changes. Too Long? From the looks of the recent schedule about
>the only book written with us in mind in the last year is Last of the
>Gaderene! Pander, we've been snubbed!!!!
No. *Every* EDA since The Taking of Planet Five has been a trad one,
you've even had Paul Cornell going out of his way to write a trad
book.
Lance
MAPPY
> No. *Every* EDA since The Taking of Planet Five has been a trad one,
> you've even had Paul Cornell going out of his way to write a trad
> book.
In which the TARDIS gets destroyed and stays that way, one of the
Doctor's companions turns into a TARDIS and Romana acts like a prat.
Very traditional. Well, maybe from a Cornellian point of view, anyway.
^_^;;
p.s. I've liked every book from ToP5, too. ^_^;;
M.H. Stevens
Nick Lancaster wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 03:56:11 -0500, "M.H. Stevens"
> <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >To put it bluntly, "What the heck do you think you're doing?"
> >
>
> I thought he was tying up the loose ends you didn't like, and
> developing a story arc which just might return things to the way you
> want them.
>
Well that's what I'm hoping for but so far I don't see it happening. If
anything the situation is getting worse. When is the reversal coming?
M.H. Stevens
Snarky! wrote:
> "M.H. Stevens" wrote:
> >
> > To put it bluntly, "What the heck do you think you're doing?"
>
> He hasn't _done_ anything yet! As editor, that is. Oh, Kallisti, give
> 'im a _break_! You're panicking needlessly, again....
>
Maybe so, but could somebody answer one question? Where is the dividing
line? Where does Cole's handiwork end and Richards's begin? Everybody says
we've haven't hit Justin's stuff yet but when will we? If it's within the
current advance notices then my question is justified. If not and he puts
things back where they belong and gets Faction Paradox off the map I'll
gladly join the bandwagon of his supporters. Until then forgive me for being
skeptical, the PDA's with the exception of Tomb of Valdemar have been mostly
good recently but the EDA's just keep disappointing me again and again and
Cornell's latest travesty is probably the only one that could rival
Interference for being at the bottom of the barrel.
Mark H. Stevens
M.H. Stevens
Lance Parkin wrote:
> >I get sick and tired of everyone knockin traditionalists simply for arguing
> >against recent changes. Too Long? From the looks of the recent schedule about
> >the only book written with us in mind in the last year is Last of the
> >Gaderene! Pander, we've been snubbed!!!!
>
> No. *Every* EDA since The Taking of Planet Five has been a trad one,
> you've even had Paul Cornell going out of his way to write a trad
> book.
>
> Lance
Alright I agree Frontier Worlds is somewhat traditional, as is Parallel 59, I
strongly disagree with the idea of Shadows of Avalon being considered traditional.
Is it traditional to destroy the TARDIS? NO! Is it tradtional to rewrite a long
cherished character to the point where they barely resemble the one people
remember? NO! Or take another one who is known for being a very strong personality
to the point of suicide? NO!
Three strikes it's out!
To top it off it's all set within a sword and sorcery world, the sort of thing that
Doctor Who managed to thankfully avoid until recently. Get the TARDIS back and get
the Doctor back in time and space where he belongs!
Mark H.
Stevens
M.H. Stevens
Daniel O'Mahony wrote:
Grateful for history being thrown off track? Grateful for three
companions who have been turned into potential enemies one way or the
other? Grateful for the destruction of the TARDIS? Grateful for a race of
villains who treat the laws of cause and effect with as much care as keep
off the grass?
This is what we should be grateful for having?
Mark H. Stevens
Michael Grade Blows Chunks!
> Nick Lancaster wrote:
> > "M.H. Stevens" wrote:
> > >
> > >To put it bluntly, "What the heck do you think you're doing?"
> >
> > developing a story arc which just might return things to the way you
> > want them.
>
> Well that's what I'm hoping for but so far I don't see it happening. If
> anything the situation is getting worse. When is the reversal coming?
I'd say by the time _Escape Velocity_ comes out, you should definitely
see a major turn-around for the Doctor....;-)
M.H. Stevens
Ed Jefferson wrote:
> In article <38FC229C...@postoffice.swbell.net>, "M.H. Stevens"
> <cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> writes:
>
> >Daniel O'Mahony wrote:
> >
> >> TheoryDust wrote:
> >>
> >> > ...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
> >> > direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be?
> >> I
> >> > mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
> >>
> >> How about: "The BBC books have pandered for too long to the traditionalist
> >> lobby, with their slight and spurious notions of what 'Doctor Who' is
> >> really about. There should be less conservatism in the novels, more
> >> innovation and risk-taking. Let's forget the traditionalist's fetishist
> >> shibboleth that 'Doctor Who' should be just like it was when they were 5
> >> (and it was on TV) and do something interesting with it instead."
> >>
> >> Or, alternatively: "Gissa job."
> >
> >Pandered? PANDERED!!!!!!
> >
> >I get sick and tired of everyone knockin traditionalists simply for arguing
> >against recent changes. Too Long? From the looks of the recent schedule
> >about
> >the only book written with us in mind in the last year is Last of the
> >Gaderene! Pander, we've been snubbed!!!!
> >
> >
>
> Frontier Worlds?
> Parallel 59?
> Fall of Yquatine?
> Coldheart?
>
Not this one again.................
> These are just from the EDAs, I'm sure there have to be more PDAs that LotG...
>
Alright I overstated it a bit but I wanted it brought out in the open just how
much we are being "pandered" to. And it seems I have to go on the offensive
anymore just for someone else to being the facts to light.
M.H. Stevens
djp...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <38FC229C...@postoffice.swbell.net>,
> cra...@swbell.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > How about: "The BBC books have pandered for too long to the
> > > traditionalist lobby, [...]
> >
> > Pandered? PANDERED!!!!!!
> >
>
> A-ha! You are Colin Baker in disguise!
>
HA! I wish, his opinion would probably get more respect(and thus carry
more weight) than mine.
> This does bring up an interesting point; it seems the ultra-trad fans
> feel that the books have been too radical while the ultra-rad fans
> (and writers, hee) feel the books have been too traditional. Are the
> books really as middle-of-the-road as that implies? Is it possible
> to do a rad book that doesn't use a series convention as its launching
> pad?
>
Is is possible to do a so called Traditional book that doesn't damage
previous traditions?
Michael Grade Blows Chunks!
An interesting and lively series, yes, precisely........;-)
Michael Grade Blows Chunks!
> Lance Parkin wrote:
>
> > >I get sick and tired of everyone knockin traditionalists simply for arguing
> > >against recent changes. Too Long? From the looks of the recent schedule about
> > >the only book written with us in mind in the last year is Last of the
> > >Gaderene! Pander, we've been snubbed!!!!
> >
> > you've even had Paul Cornell going out of his way to write a trad
> > book.
>
> strongly disagree with the idea of Shadows of Avalon being considered traditional.
> Is it traditional to destroy the TARDIS? NO! Is it tradtional to rewrite a long
> cherished character to the point where they barely resemble the one people
> remember? NO! Or take another one who is known for being a very strong personality
> to the point of suicide? NO!
>
> Three strikes it's out!
>
> To top it off it's all set within a sword and sorcery world, the sort of thing that
> Doctor Who managed to thankfully avoid until recently. Get the TARDIS back and get
> the Doctor back in time and space where he belongs!
Ahhh, but that's just it -- he's never *belonged* anywhere, and as for
the TARDIS...give it a couple years, maybe three, and it will more than
likely return........
MAPPY
> > This is what we should be grateful for having?
>
> An interesting and lively series, yes, precisely........;-)
Sorry.... I was ditracted by a wanker on newsgroup aus.tv.... What
were we talking about, again? ;)
Michael Grade Blows Chunks!
> djp...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > "M.H. Stevens" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How about: "The BBC books have pandered for too long to the
> > > > traditionalist lobby, [...]
> > >
> > > Pandered? PANDERED!!!!!!
> >
> > A-ha! You are Colin Baker in disguise!
>
> HA! I wish, his opinion would probably get more respect(and thus carry
> more weight) than mine.
>
> > This does bring up an interesting point; it seems the ultra-trad fans
> > feel that the books have been too radical while the ultra-rad fans
> > (and writers, hee) feel the books have been too traditional. Are the
> > books really as middle-of-the-road as that implies? Is it possible
> > to do a rad book that doesn't use a series convention as its launching
> > pad?
>
> Is is possible to do a so called Traditional book that doesn't damage
> previous traditions?
You mean one that doesn't just re-write something from twenty years ago,
either? Ohhh, doubt it........
MAPPY
> > Is is possible to do a so called Traditional book that doesn't damage
> > previous traditions?
>
> You mean one that doesn't just re-write something from twenty years ago,
> either? Ohhh, doubt it........
There HAVE been books that are regarded as "radical" that have used
things from more than twenty years ago.... Wait a minute.... Am I
trying to make a point here? I fergot....
Daniel O'Mahony
M.H. Stevens wrote:
> Is it traditional to rewrite a long
> cherished character to the point where they barely resemble the one
people
> remember?
Yes. See, for example, 'The Power of the Daleks', 'Spearhead from Space',
'Robot', 'Castrovalva', 'The Twin Dilemma' and 'Time and the Rani'.
djp...@my-deja.com
cra...@swbell.net wrote:
>
>
> djp...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > A-ha! You are Colin Baker in disguise!
> >
>
> HA! I wish, his opinion would probably get more respect(and thus carry
> more weight) than mine.
>
Resisting the obvious joke (for a change)...
> > This does bring up an interesting point; it seems the ultra-trad
> > fans feel that the books have been too radical while the ultra-rad
> > fans (and writers, hee) feel the books have been too traditional.
> > Are the books really as middle-of-the-road as that implies? Is it
> > possible to do a rad book that doesn't use a series convention as
> > its launching pad?
> >
>
> Is is possible to do a so called Traditional book that doesn't damage
> previous traditions?
>
What series traditions were damaged by _Frontier Worlds_, _Parallel 59_,
_Last of the Gaderene_, or even _The Blue Angel_?
One of the best-written books of the BBC's first year was Jim
Mortimore's _Eye of Heaven_, which was an EXTREMELY traditional
adventure told in a very innovative (for Doctor Who) manner. My main
question is: why we don't see more books like that, as
opposed to books that latch themselves onto more radical ones in an
attempt to look far more innovative than they actually are (*cough*
*cough* _ToP5_ *cough*)?
djp...@my-deja.com
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:
>
> No. *Every* EDA since The Taking of Planet Five has been a trad one,
> you've even had Paul Cornell going out of his way to write a trad
> book.
>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
It may very well have been Paul's _intention_ to write a trad book,
but I really think that the fates of the TARDIS and Compassion pretty
much knock this one out of the "trad" end of the novel pool.
Perhaps a more accurate description would be, "as trad as possible"?
djp...@my-deja.com
cra...@swbell.net wrote:
>
>
> Is it tradtional to rewrite a long cherished character to the point
> where they barely resemble the one people remember?
Someone has apparently forgotten two key things from the show's
history:
- Regeneration can radically alter a Time Lord's personality. (see:
"The Power Of The Daleks", "Spearhead From Space", "Robot",
"Destiny of the Daleks", "Logopolis", "Castrovalva", "The Twin
Dilemma", "Time and the Rani", the TV movie, _First Frontier_ and
_Goth Opera_ for examples)
- Being the President of Gallifrey will invariably corrupt you. (see:
every frickin' story that involved the President of Gallifrey. Can
we get a NEW plot device, please???)
djp...@my-deja.com
> > point where they barely resemble the one people remember?
>
> Rani'.
>
Yikes. If I'd seen this post, I wouldn't have made mine...
Benjamin F. Elliott
point
>> where they barely resemble the one people remember?
>
>history:
>
>- Being the President of Gallifrey will invariably corrupt you.
(see:
>every frickin' story that involved the President of Gallifrey.
Can
>we get a NEW plot device, please???)
>
SCENE: Presidential Coronation on Gallifrey
Coronator: "Ladies, Gentlemen, and Shobogans, we are gathered
here today for the coronation of President Slartibartburrowunder
VII. Slartibartburrowundar has served Gallifrey with distinction
over his 1200 years on the Low and High Councils. A model of
courage, honesty, integrity, and wisdom. He is the brightest
light to come from the younger generations for some time. And now
he has been selected for the most important position in the known
universes. Step forward, President-Elect Slartibartburrowundar
VII!"
President-Elect Slartibartburrowundar VII: "Thank you for that
kind introduction. I look forward to serving Gallifrey with the
same dedication and committment in my new office as I have in all
my previous offices in our government. With the help of the
people, this can be the start of a new Golden Age of Gallifrey!"
(Loud applause from the audience)
Coronator: "And now, President-Elect Slartibartburrowundar VII,
please take upon yourself the Robes of Rassilon, the Sash of
Rassilon, the Corruption of Rassilon, and the Dental Services
Agreement of Rassilon."
President-Elect Slartibartburrowundar VII: "The Corruption of
Rassilon?!?!? What are you talking about?"
Coronator: "I forgot. You were ill at the meeting where this came
up. Every new President takes upon himself the "Corruption of
Rassilon". It's a mental force. It saps the evil out of Rassilon
to preserve the harmony of our society. The evil then builds up
inside the President, slowing turning him or her from an
intelligent, kindly person to either an idiotic lout or a vicious
despot. It's why Presidents stand down after a period of time, so
that they don't get more evil than they can stand."
President-Elect Slartibartburrowundar VII: "So Borusa the
Bellicose, Rabid Romana, "Doctor" Deadly Death, Spandrell the
Spineless ..."
Coronator: "... were all unfortunates whose brains were not able
to sufficiently cope with the evil from Rassilon's mind, leading
to death, insanity, or worse. But enough of that now. Let's get
on with the Coronation."
President-Elect Slartibartburrowundar VII: "Are you crazy?
There's no way I'm letting sheer evil leak its way into my head
without my consent! I resign!!" (runs out of the gallery)
Coronator: (under his breath) "Please tell me that wasn't being
broadcast. Ugh."
Benjamin F. Elliott
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Lance Parkin
>Maybe so, but could somebody answer one question? Where is the dividing
>line? Where does Cole's handiwork end and Richards's begin? Everybody says
>we've haven't hit Justin's stuff yet but when will we? If it's within the
>current advance notices then my question is justified. If not and he puts
>things back where they belong and gets Faction Paradox off the map I'll
>gladly join the bandwagon of his supporters. Until then forgive me for being
>skeptical, the PDA's with the exception of Tomb of Valdemar have been mostly
>good recently but the EDA's just keep disappointing me again and again and
>Cornell's latest travesty is probably the only one that could rival
>Interference for being at the bottom of the barrel.
Or top of the polls, take your pick.
The PDAs you are enjoying so much are Justin's - he took those over
six months or so before he got the EDAs.
The 'Justin era' of EDAs starts with The Burning. The first book he
commissioned and edited is next month's The Banquo Legacy,
The Ancestor Cell represents the end of the Cole era, although
Justin edited it. If you genuinely do want to start reading them
again, then The Burning is the place to start.
Lance
Lance Parkin
<cra...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote:
> Alright I agree Frontier Worlds is somewhat traditional, as is Parallel 59, I
>strongly disagree with the idea of Shadows of Avalon being considered traditional.
Spoilers ...
>Is it traditional to destroy the TARDIS? NO!
It depends what you mean by 'traditional', but 'done several times in
the TV show' is as good as any.
In terms of subsequent stories, what implications for the 'format' of
the show has the new TARDIS had? Does it change the type of
stories? The tone? Or could it be that the TARDIS was primarily
just a device for getting from one story to the next? No-one, I
hope, thinks that switching from the Enterprise to the Enterprise
A 'radically' changed Star Trek.
> Is it tradtional to rewrite a long
>cherished character to the point where they barely resemble the one people
>remember?
The third Romana? She's the same character - more 'consistent' than
the Second and Third Doctors were.
> NO! Or take another one who is known for being a very strong personality
>to the point of suicide? NO!
There were developments in the Brigadier's life that led him down that
path, and the book is an *affirmation* of the Brigadier you know
and love. It explicitly rejects a radical rewriting of him. The moral
of the story is, essentially, 'the tradtional Brigadier is best', and
The Shadows of Avalon is a book about UNIT fighting monsters,
renegade Time Lords and the Doctor proving that weapons are
useless in the end. Hence traditional.
>Three strikes it's out!
>
>To top it off it's all set within a sword and sorcery world, the sort of thing that
>Doctor Who managed to thankfully avoid until recently. Get the TARDIS back and get
>the Doctor back in time and space where he belongs!
What do you mean by 'traditional'? Which TV stories are 'traditional'?
Are you saying that you don't like a book unless *nothing* changes or
develops? That it has to avoid places it's not been to? That whatever
happens to the characters they can't be changed or learn from it?
Because that's what all this sounds like.
One of the things that *characterises* Doctor Who is that it changed.
Do you really want to abandon that for some half-baked, illogical
nonsense about how it should be just like it was (er ... when?) and
that nothing should ever change or have consequence? What would
be the point of reading those books?
Lance
Steve Day
buyensl@prime*SPAMMERS.GO.HOME*net.com (Lorrill Buyens) wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:05:22 +0100, in an attempt to get into the
>Guinness Book of World Records, Steve Day
><st...@redimp.freeserve.co.uk> ate seventeen helpings of lutefisk,
>then belched:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 22:33:23 -0400, "TheoryDust"
>><t...@yahoo.youcantbeserious.com> wrote:
>>
>>>...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
>>>direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be? I
>>>mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
>>>
>>No swearing. No sexual content. Just make it the same, bar a little
>>more in depth and detailed, than the TV show survived as for 26 years.
Fine.... read the 'adult' New Adventures and dont bother watching the
TV series, after all, we are adults now....
You really dont understand what Doctor Who *is* do you?
---
How many Doctor Who fans does it take to change a lightbulb?
None, they just sit around and wait for it to come back on.
--
djp...@my-deja.com
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:
>
> >Cornell's latest travesty is probably the only one that could rival
> >Interference for being at the bottom of the barrel.
>
> Or top of the polls, take your pick.
>
Would people please stop using this incredibly annoying and incorrect
argument?
The fact that _many_ people like a book doesn't mean that _everyone_
likes it. Mark has overstated his arguments in the past, but I
really wish that people would stop trying to correct his opinions.
Lance Parkin
>In article <38fca635...@news.freeserve.net>,
> la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:
>>
>> No. *Every* EDA since The Taking of Planet Five has been a trad one,
>> you've even had Paul Cornell going out of his way to write a trad
>> book.
>>
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>It may very well have been Paul's _intention_ to write a trad book,
>but I really think that the fates of the TARDIS and Compassion pretty
>much knock this one out of the "trad" end of the novel pool.
>
>Perhaps a more accurate description would be, "as trad as possible"?
No. Utterly traditional. President of Gallifrey in 'power corrupts'
shocker. Brigadier 'worried he's a shadow of his former self' stunner.
UNIT in 'these bullets aren't going to be enough' horror.
Shadows of Avalon is a traditional Doctor Who story, told in
a straightforward manner by someone with a great deal of
respect for those traditions. 'Traditional' doesn't mean 'nothing
must ever change'. That would be either 'pastiche' or 'reactionary'.
Some on this list want 'reactionary' books, they want any hint of
anything new or different to be stamped on. I only wish they had
*less* novels catering for them, it could only improve the range.
The 'fate of the TARDIS and Compassion'. It's an *event*, a major
event. As big as a regeneration? No. Up there with a companion
leaving ... perhaps. As 'radical' as the revamp of the console room -
yeah, about that level. The net effect on the sort of Who stories
that can be told is that at the beginning or end, if there's a console
room scene, the decor is different.
Lance
orinoco
Daniel O'Mahony wrote in message <01bfa9f3$36e83d40$262e8cd4@LineOne>...
>M.H. Stevens wrote:
>M.H. Stevens wrote:
>
>> cherished character to the point where they barely resemble the one
>people
>> remember?
>
>'Robot', 'Castrovalva', 'The Twin Dilemma' and 'Time and the Rani'.
>
But outside of regeneration did they rewrite the character?
(and to be devil's advocate, I can think of Invasion of Time as an example)
Orinoco, wombling free
I was brave, I was bold, I was fearless
I was famous for the things that I did
I was quick on the draw as I tidied up the floor
So they called me the Orinoco Kid
Mark Clapham
says...
> How about: "The BBC books have pandered for too long to the traditionalist
> lobby, with their slight and spurious notions of what 'Doctor Who' is
> really about. There should be less conservatism in the novels, more
> innovation and risk-taking. Let's forget the traditionalist's fetishist
> shibboleth that 'Doctor Who' should be just like it was when they were 5
> (and it was on TV) and do something interesting with it instead."
Go Dan! Go Dan!
Doctor Who needs you back, young man.
Mark
--
This adventure takes place between the TV stories
'Back to the Fifties' and 'Boyfriends and Birthdays'.
Ed Jefferson
<st...@redimp.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 04:21:21 GMT,
>buyensl@prime*SPAMMERS.GO.HOME*net.com (Lorrill Buyens) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:05:22 +0100, in an attempt to get into the
>>Guinness Book of World Records, Steve Day
>><st...@redimp.freeserve.co.uk> ate seventeen helpings of lutefisk,
>>then belched:
>>
>>>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 22:33:23 -0400, "TheoryDust"
>>><t...@yahoo.youcantbeserious.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
>>>>direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be?
>I
>>>>mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
>>>>
>>>No swearing. No sexual content. Just make it the same, bar a little
>>>more in depth and detailed, than the TV show survived as for 26 years.
>
>Fine.... read the 'adult' New Adventures and dont bother watching the
>TV series, after all, we are adults now....
>
>You really dont understand what Doctor Who *is* do you?
Nope, I think she understands what Doctor Who *is*. You seem to understand what
it *was*, sadly little more than that...
Ed Jefferson
writes:
>Lance Parkin wrote:
>
>> No. *Every* EDA since The Taking of Planet Five has been a trad one,
>> you've even had Paul Cornell going out of his way to write a trad
>> book.
>
>In which the TARDIS gets destroyed and stays that way, one of the
>Doctor's companions turns into a TARDIS and Romana acts like a prat.
>Very traditional. Well, maybe from a Cornellian point of view, anyway.
>^_^;;
>
>p.s. I've liked every book from ToP5, too. ^_^;;
>
He's talking about *style*. You can do lots of stuff within a trad book without
making it rad.
Adam Richards
>In article <38fdb680...@news.freeserve.net>,
> la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:
>>
>> >Cornell's latest travesty is probably the only one that could rival
>> >Interference for being at the bottom of the barrel.
>>
>> Or top of the polls, take your pick.
>>
>
>Would people please stop using this incredibly annoying and incorrect
>argument?
>
>The fact that _many_ people like a book doesn't mean that _everyone_
>likes it. Mark has overstated his arguments in the past, but I
>really wish that people would stop trying to correct his opinions.
Absolutely - diversity is the key - this is radw, NOT the online
counterpart of The Discontinuity Guide!
BTW: I *love* that book, but have often noticed that its opinions on
certain individual stories are taken as nothing if not *the gospel*
'round these parts. And it's annoying.
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
Lance Parkin
>>>No swearing. No sexual content. Just make it the same, bar a little
>>>more in depth and detailed, than the TV show survived as for 26 years.
>
>Fine.... read the 'adult' New Adventures and dont bother watching the
>TV series, after all, we are adults now....
Er ... there is no TV series and we *are* all adults.
Lance
Adam Richards
wrote:
>In article <camrfs0nb9pm7n43a...@4ax.com>, Steve Day
><st...@redimp.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>>On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 04:21:21 GMT,
>>buyensl@prime*SPAMMERS.GO.HOME*net.com (Lorrill Buyens) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:05:22 +0100, in an attempt to get into the
>>>Guinness Book of World Records, Steve Day
>>><st...@redimp.freeserve.co.uk> ate seventeen helpings of lutefisk,
>>>then belched:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 22:33:23 -0400, "TheoryDust"
>>>><t...@yahoo.youcantbeserious.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
>>>>>direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be?
>>I
>>>>>mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
>>>>>
>>>>No swearing. No sexual content. Just make it the same, bar a little
>>>>more in depth and detailed, than the TV show survived as for 26 years.
>>
>>Fine.... read the 'adult' New Adventures and dont bother watching the
>>TV series, after all, we are adults now....
>>
>>You really dont understand what Doctor Who *is* do you?
>
>Nope, I think she understands what Doctor Who *is*. You seem to understand what
>it *was*, sadly little more than that...
This is like the Wings fan telling the Beatles fan, "Oh shut up, Macca
is twice as good now as he used to be!" LOL!!
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
Lance Parkin
>In article <38fdb680...@news.freeserve.net>,
> la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:
>>
>> >Cornell's latest travesty is probably the only one that could rival
>> >Interference for being at the bottom of the barrel.
>>
>> Or top of the polls, take your pick.
>>
>
>Would people please stop using this incredibly annoying and incorrect
>argument?
>
>The fact that _many_ people like a book doesn't mean that _everyone_
>likes it. Mark has overstated his arguments in the past, but I
>really wish that people would stop trying to correct his opinions.
I didn't say 'a book that everyone likes', I'm just pointing out that,
while Mark is entitled to his opinion, it's not an opinion that most
people share.
Lance
Lance Parkin
>>Yes. See, for example, 'The Power of the Daleks', 'Spearhead from Space',
>>'Robot', 'Castrovalva', 'The Twin Dilemma' and 'Time and the Rani'.
>>
>
>But outside of regeneration did they rewrite the character?
Yes.
Obviously.
Lance
Lance Parkin
>This is like the Wings fan telling the Beatles fan, "Oh shut up, Macca
>is twice as good now as he used to be!" LOL!!
Whereas wishing the Beatles would reform with Julian doing John's
stuff is better?
Lance
djp...@my-deja.com
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:05:01 GMT, djp...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >In article <38fca635...@news.freeserve.net>,
> > la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:
> >>
> >> No. *Every* EDA since The Taking of Planet Five has been a trad
> >> one, you've even had Paul Cornell going out of his way to write a
> >> trad book.
> >>
> >
> >
> >It may very well have been Paul's _intention_ to write a trad book,
> >but I really think that the fates of the TARDIS and Compassion pretty
> >much knock this one out of the "trad" end of the novel pool.
> >
> >Perhaps a more accurate description would be, "as trad as possible"?
>
> No. Utterly traditional.
Some amount of spoiler space added:
> President of Gallifrey in 'power corrupts' shocker.
Can I just say that this was one of the weaker aspects of the novel
for me?
> Brigadier 'worried he's a shadow of his former self' stunner.
>
Didn't he only do that in "Mawdryn Undead", though? Am I forgetting
a story?
> Shadows of Avalon is a traditional Doctor Who story, told in
> a straightforward manner by someone with a great deal of
> respect for those traditions. 'Traditional' doesn't mean 'nothing
> must ever change'. That would be either 'pastiche' or 'reactionary'.
I disagree, obviously. Throughout the history of the show, the only
thing that's stayed constant is the TARDIS. It's probably the one
image (apart from a Dalek or tacky clothes adorned with question
marks) that's most easily identified as being integral to Doctor Who.
That one constant image, the one link that's been an indelible part of
the mythos since its inception, is gone. How can that _possibly_
be considered "traditional"?
I will grant that some traditional themes were trotted out in this
book, particularly the motif of the Doctor on the run in a stolen
TARDIS, but the method of execution was slightly less traditional
than having the Doctor bugger the bad guys into submission.
> Some on this list want 'reactionary' books, they want any hint of
> anything new or different to be stamped on. I only wish they had
> *less* novels catering for them, it could only improve the range.
>
I agree with you here. I'm all for flipping the entire series inside
out, provided that the process gives me a stream of entertaining
stories.
> The 'fate of the TARDIS and Compassion'. It's an *event*, a major
> event. As big as a regeneration? No. Up there with a companion
> leaving ... perhaps. As 'radical' as the revamp of the console room -
> yeah, about that level.
You've GOT to be kidding. The TARDIS is DEAD. It's gone. The only
part of the show that's been there since the first episode has
shuffled off. That's a HUGE change. It's much bigger than any
regeneration of the Doctor's, except of course the first one. It's
infinitely more significant than a companion leaving, as none of them
have been with the Doctor for as long as the TARDIS has.
Let's not overlook the fact that the Doctor's conveyance now has an
_overt_ personality and a personal agenda. She used to be a human
being. When the Doctor and Fitz get out of her, she can walk around
with them, something that puts some kink into the "Quick, back to the
TARDIS!" motif of most stories.
> The net effect on the sort of Who stories that can be told is that
> at the beginning or end, if there's a console room scene, the decor
> is different.
>
Yes, because the TARDIS used to walk around with the Doctor and talk
to people in all of those old stories...
Or are you suggesting that Compassion will simply stand wherever she
lands when they get to a new planet?
If you honestly don't see the impact a walking, talking, self-aware
mode of transportation can have on the types of stories told, I'm
disturbed by your lack of imagination.
djp...@my-deja.com
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:
>
> I didn't say 'a book that everyone likes', I'm just pointing out that,
> while Mark is entitled to his opinion, it's not an opinion that most
> people share.
>
And that matters because...?
The only implication I can draw from bringing it up is that, since
Mark holds a minority opinion, he might as well be a good little
boy and be quiet.
I don't agree with Mark, but I _really_ don't think that he needs
to be quiet because I don't agree with him.
Steve Day
(Lance Parkin) wrote:
>
>>>>No swearing. No sexual content. Just make it the same, bar a little
>>>>more in depth and detailed, than the TV show survived as for 26 years.
>>
>>Fine.... read the 'adult' New Adventures and dont bother watching the
>>TV series, after all, we are adults now....
>
>Er ... there is no TV series and we *are* all adults.
So you saying that a TV programme envisiged as escapist fun *for the
family* should be full of swearing, sex and other 'adult' themes?
Rightttttttt........
Why dont you just bugger off and find some cyber punk?
Steve Day
>Nope, I think she understands what Doctor Who *is*. You seem to understand what
>it *was*, sadly little more than that...
And the problem is.....?
The *only* new adventures I've read that have come close to what 'Who
was/is about are Exodus, Goth Opera and Revelation (and that has the
turnround in the end). No BBC ones.... surprising that.
Steve Day
Clapham) wrote:
>In article <01bfa8af$75ad5460$d700063e@LineOne>, dani...@lineone.net
>says...
>
>> How about: "The BBC books have pandered for too long to the traditionalist
>> lobby, with their slight and spurious notions of what 'Doctor Who' is
>> really about. There should be less conservatism in the novels, more
>> innovation and risk-taking. Let's forget the traditionalist's fetishist
>> shibboleth that 'Doctor Who' should be just like it was when they were 5
>> (and it was on TV) and do something interesting with it instead."
>
>Go Dan! Go Dan!
>
>Doctor Who needs you back, young man.
>
>Mark
Fucking clueless more like.
Steve Day
wrote:
>TheoryDust wrote:
>
>> ...concerning how you feel, suggestions, or whatever about the
>> direction/feel/tone of the EDAs and all things Dr Who, what would it be?
>I
>> mean, he's basically the "keeper of the kingdom", isn't he?
>
>How about: "The BBC books have pandered for too long to the traditionalist
>lobby, with their slight and spurious notions of what 'Doctor Who' is
>really about. There should be less conservatism in the novels, more
>innovation and risk-taking. Let's forget the traditionalist's fetishist
>shibboleth that 'Doctor Who' should be just like it was when they were 5
>(and it was on TV) and do something interesting with it instead."
>
I know.
Lets get rid of the TARDIS (done already).
Lets get rid of the Doctor - hes boring.
Lets bring in a 20 to 30 year old bloke who has loads of sex through
time and likes nothing more to do then destroy aliens with a ray gun
in his pocket. I mean, thats what all adults want, isn't it? And
have with him some Barbarella clone so that the sad fan boys can have
a wank whilst this new character has loads of getting down to do with
his new companion.
Doctor For Fucks Sake, more like !
Steve Day
(Lance Parkin) wrote:
>>I get sick and tired of everyone knockin traditionalists simply for arguing
>>against recent changes. Too Long? From the looks of the recent schedule about
>>the only book written with us in mind in the last year is Last of the
>>Gaderene! Pander, we've been snubbed!!!!
>
>No. *Every* EDA since The Taking of Planet Five has been a trad one,
>you've even had Paul Cornell going out of his way to write a trad
>book.
>
>Lance
Hmm, its all down to these lefty arty farty ex students who know what
Who is about and want to change it beyond recognition to another third
rate sci-fi flick book with about as much in common with the text in
question (Dr Who) then a biro has with a tin of baked beans.
And it makes me so maddddddddddd......................
djp...@my-deja.com
Steve Day <st...@redimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The *only* new adventures I've read that have come close to what 'Who
> was/is about are Exodus, Goth Opera and Revelation (and that has the
> turnround in the end). No BBC ones.... surprising that.
>
Really? What about _Kursaal_?
I think you'd like _Frontier Worlds_ and _Parallel 59_, as well.
djp...@my-deja.com
Steve Day <st...@redimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I know.
>
> Lets get rid of the TARDIS (done already).
> Lets get rid of the Doctor - hes boring.
> Lets bring in a 20 to 30 year old bloke who has loads of sex through
> time and likes nothing more to do then destroy aliens with a ray gun
> in his pocket. I mean, thats what all adults want, isn't it? And
> have with him some Barbarella clone so that the sad fan boys can have
> a wank whilst this new character has loads of getting down to do with
> his new companion.
>
> Doctor For Fucks Sake, more like !
>
Steve, the things you're describing resemble the BBC books about
as closely as a duck resembles the Empire State Building. Please
stop talking out of your ass.
I mean, there ought to be enough things _actually happening_ in the
books that you disagree with that you shouldn't need to invent
stuff to rail against...
Adam Richards
Who's 'John' in the Dr Who side of that analogy? It don't work, mate!
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
djp...@my-deja.com
deX!
In article <02dbf4f3...@usw-ex0105-034.remarq.com>,
Benjamin F. Elliott <bfelliot...@gallifreyone.com.invalid>
wrote:
> djp...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >- Being the President of Gallifrey will invariably corrupt you.
> > (see: every frickin' story that involved the President of Gallifrey.
> > Can we get a NEW plot device, please???)
> >
> SCENE: Presidential Coronation on Gallifrey
>
> Coronator: "Ladies, Gentlemen, and Shobogans, we are gathered
> here today for the coronation of President Slartibartburrowunder
> VII. Slartibartburrowundar has served Gallifrey with distinction
> over his 1200 years on the Low and High Councils. A model of
> courage, honesty, integrity, and wisdom. He is the brightest
> light to come from the younger generations for some time. And now
> he has been selected for the most important position in the known
> universes. Step forward, President-Elect Slartibartburrowundar
> VII!"
>
> President-Elect Slartibartburrowundar VII: "Thank you for that
> kind introduction. I look forward to serving Gallifrey with the
> same dedication and committment in my new office as I have in all
> my previous offices in our government. With the help of the
> people, this can be the start of a new Golden Age of Gallifrey!"
>
> (Loud applause from the audience)
>
> Coronator: "And now, President-Elect Slartibartburrowundar VII,
> please take upon yourself the Robes of Rassilon, the Sash of
> Rassilon, the Corruption of Rassilon, and the Dental Services
> Agreement of Rassilon."
>
> President-Elect Slartibartburrowundar VII: "The Corruption of
> Rassilon?!?!? What are you talking about?"
>
> Coronator: "I forgot. You were ill at the meeting where this came
> up. Every new President takes upon himself the "Corruption of
> Rassilon". It's a mental force. It saps the evil out of Rassilon
> to preserve the harmony of our society. The evil then builds up
> inside the President, slowing turning him or her from an
> intelligent, kindly person to either an idiotic lout or a vicious
> despot. It's why Presidents stand down after a period of time, so
> that they don't get more evil than they can stand."
>
> President-Elect Slartibartburrowundar VII: "So Borusa the
> Bellicose, Rabid Romana, "Doctor" Deadly Death, Spandrell the
> Spineless ..."
>
> Coronator: "... were all unfortunates whose brains were not able
> to sufficiently cope with the evil from Rassilon's mind, leading
> to death, insanity, or worse. But enough of that now. Let's get
> on with the Coronation."
>
> President-Elect Slartibartburrowundar VII: "Are you crazy?
> There's no way I'm letting sheer evil leak its way into my head
> without my consent! I resign!!" (runs out of the gallery)
>
> Coronator: (under his breath) "Please tell me that wasn't being
> broadcast. Ugh."
>
> Benjamin F. Elliott
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
Ed Jefferson
>>Nope, I think she understands what Doctor Who *is*. You seem to understand
>what
>>it *was*, sadly little more than that...
>
>And the problem is.....?
>
>was/is about are Exodus, Goth Opera and Revelation (and that has the
>turnround in the end). No BBC ones.... surprising that.
Sorry, I don't quite understand, what's this 'what Who is' business. I
understand why you might be unhappy that Who isn't what it used to be, but
unhappy that Who isn't what it is??