Apparent theme of the 8DAs
Finn Clark
8DAs, for the first time in simply *ages*, have been standalone stories
rather than Arc Book #6012. And very nice they've been too, with the new
team with Fitz and Anji settling down to become something really rather
good.
However I think I've spotted a common thread running through a few of the
recent books - that there are "more things in heaven and earth than are
dreamt of in your philosophy". Or in other words, the Whoniverse is more
complex than just a set of SF building blocks. Books that might seem to
take this line include:
Vanishing Point (Steve Cole) - hey, it's God!
The Slow Empire (Dave Stone) - a region of space in which the laws of
physics are completely unlike anything we've seen before! Nothing can
travel faster than light!!!
City of the Dead (Lloyd Rose) - luscious magic in New Orleans.
Grimm Reality (Simon Bucher-Jones and Kelly Hale) - make three wishes, watch
out for the wicked stepmothers and don't go down to the woods...
...and the next two 8DAs are by Lawrence Miles and Paul Magrs. (Hmm. I've
said that before.) Both have a track record of headfucks and literary
hijinks.
Of course, this might all be coincidence. The BBC Books have played this
kind of game before, largely in the works of Magrs and Messingham.
Nevertheless we're seeing a new multiverse without Time Lords, which a newly
inexperienced Doctor is still exploring and rediscovering. It seems not
inappropriate to me that the boundaries of the Whoiverse are being stretched
and bent at a time when recent events (see the Ancestor Cell) mean that
right now it's being quietly redefined...
Finn Clark.
Steven Kitson
> I'd been musing recently, having too much time on my hands. The recent
> 8DAs, for the first time in simply *ages*, have been standalone stories
> rather than Arc Book #6012.
Yeah. Pity, in't it?
> However I think I've spotted a common thread running through a few of the
> recent books - that there are "more things in heaven and earth than are
> dreamt of in your philosophy". Or in other words, the Whoniverse is more
> complex than just a set of SF building blocks.
I haven't seen that in the recent books, actually -- at least no more
than previously. To my mind, it was the early New Adventures that opened
up 'doctor Who' to real mysticism, sybmolism, and mythology --
'Timewyrm: Revelation', for example, or 'Time's Crucible: Cat's Cradle'
(introducing the magic vs. science theme that would run and run) and
'The Pit' (for all its faults, it does looks at religion and mythology
-- and it has William Blake in it!).
> Books that might seem to
> take this line include:
>
> Vanishing Point (Steve Cole) - hey, it's God!
And 'god' turns out to be just another alien race. Yawn. No, sorry, that
doesn't seem to me the expand the 'Doctor Who' universe at all...
(I was disappointed in this, actually -- I was looking for a book which
actually grappled with some metaphysical issues rather than wussing out
with the 'genetic engineering' card.)
> The Slow Empire (Dave Stone) - a region of space in which the laws of
> physics are completely unlike anything we've seen before! Nothing can
> travel faster than light!!!
Which is practically normal compared to the system in 'Sky Pirates!'.
> City of the Dead (Lloyd Rose) - luscious magic in New Orleans.
I'll agree with you on this one. Though to me it's just finally taking
the step of confirming what we all knew already by not bothering to
dress the magic up in pseudoscience. the importance of that step
shouldn't be diminished, though.
> Grimm Reality (Simon Bucher-Jones and Kelly Hale) - make three wishes, watch
> out for the wicked stepmothers and don't go down to the woods...
Due to the distribution difficulties, I'm only just about to start this.
I do hope it isn't just a 'the Sorceror's Apprentice'-like 'Look, magic
-- ah, fooled you, its really science!'.
> ...and the next two 8DAs are by Lawrence Miles and Paul Magrs. (Hmm. I've
> said that before.) Both have a track record of headfucks and literary
> hijinks.
Indeed, and Miles has already picked up the 'more things' theme with the
most explicit treatment of the MAs 'magic vs science' in 'Christmas on a
Rational Planet', while Magrs has played with magic in 'The Scarlet
Empress' and whole other universes with v. different takes on the Doctor
in 'The Blue Angel'.
> Nevertheless we're seeing a new multiverse without Time Lords, which a newly
> inexperienced Doctor is still exploring and rediscovering.
This I would agree is a recurrent theme.
> It seems not
> inappropriate to me that the boundaries of the Whoiverse are being stretched
> and bent at a time when recent events (see the Ancestor Cell) mean that
> right now it's being quietly redefined...
I don't see any stretching or bending that isn't insignificant compared
to what's gone before.
--
I'm made of steel, soul and metal
I'll be human 'til the day I die
Finn Clark
>> The recent 8DAs, for the first time in simply *ages*,
>> have been standalone stories rather than Arc Book #6012.
>
> Yeah. Pity, in't it?
No.
1 - we'd had a *lot* of arcs. We needed a breather.
2 - I would suggest, based on observation of the books all the way back to
Timewyrm: Genesis, that the quality of a book that's part of an arc tends to
be lower than that of a stand-alone. Doing an arc *properly* is a hell of a
lot of work. It's much easier (and more common) to have big complicated
things happen that you haven't necessarily thought through properly, usually
happening around some books that are barely linked to the arc at all and
would have been better for its absence.
A well-done arc can be a wonderful thing, but I would point out that the
NAs' halcyon days (and this is in the opinion of Rebecca Levene according to
the latest DWM, not just me) were arc-free. They started with four arcs and
ended with the Psi-Powers arc, but those stories IMO were less successful
than what came in between.
> I haven't seen that in the recent books, actually -- at least
> no more than previously. To my mind, it was the early New
> Adventures that opened up 'doctor Who' to real mysticism,
> sybmolism, and mythology -- 'Timewyrm: Revelation', for
> example, or 'Time's Crucible: Cat's Cradle' (introducing the
> magic vs. science theme that would run and run) and 'The Pit'
> (for all its faults, it does looks at religion and mythology
> -- and it has William Blake in it!).
I'm not talking about mysticism, symbolism and mythology. I'm talking about
something a little more literal, stretching the Whoniverse to tell stories
that you couldn't get in Star Trek or Star Wars. There's always a tendency
to regard Doctor Who as hard science-fiction when you start taking it (too)
seriously. Ask Christopher Bidmead. Ask Virgin - it's noteworthy that the
companions Virgin introduced were all futuristic SF characters (including
New Ace).
These books I'm talking about are being a bit more playful with concepts and
notions that aren't normally associated with hard SF. If a technobabble
handwave is included at the end, I see that as less important than the fact
that broader subject matter is being addressed than Doctor Who's usual
rebels 'n' robots stock elements.
I also have a slight quibble with the apparent viewpoint of
Virgin-did-it-all-first [1]. I'd suggest that there's an important strand
of literary Who that wasn't present under Virgin, but had to wait until the
BBC took over. The Virgin NAs were plot-driven adventures that could have
worked in any medium - yes, they had symbolism, dream sequences, etc. but
even something as off-the-wall as Sky Pirates! was simply a very wacky
adventure rather than an abandonment of the traditional cliffhanger serial
format in favour of other literary forms.
The BBC, on the other hand, have (occasionally) given us stuff like The
Scarlet Empress, The Blue Angel, Tomb of Valdemar and Grimm Reality. Paul
Magrs showed us a new paradigm back in September 1998 and I think it's been
*the* single most important development in the Doctor Who novels. It hasn't
superceded the traditional adventure format, but it's shown us something
genuinely new and exciting that we hadn't had under Virgin.
[1] - I realise you didn't say this, but it felt as if you did and so I
started responding to these voices in my head. :-)
Finn Clark.
Brett O'Callaghan
>The Slow Empire (Dave Stone) - a region of space in which the laws of
>physics are completely unlike anything we've seen before! Nothing can
>travel faster than light!!!
Oh, they're rip.... being inspired by Vernor Vinge now?
Byeeeee.
--
http://www.geocities.com/brettocallaghan
Home of QDNStats V2 - Newsgroup Stats for Agent
Cardinal Zorak
"Finn Clark" <kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9qsa6o$6u4$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> The BBC, on the other hand, have (occasionally) given us stuff like The
> Scarlet Empress, The Blue Angel, Tomb of Valdemar and Grimm Reality. Paul
> Magrs showed us a new paradigm back in September 1998 and I think it's
been
> *the* single most important development in the Doctor Who novels. It
hasn't
> superceded the traditional adventure format, but it's shown us something
> genuinely new and exciting that we hadn't had under Virgin.
I know it's purely anecdotal, but I used to read stories to my ex-partner
(who was not English, but loved Dr Who) and I cannot describe the
disappointment she felt with the writing of the first Iris story in Short
Trips. The words she used for Paul Magrs were unprintable! And yet, she
lvoes "experimental" stories adn changes from the Norm. What does this
indicate to you?
After Magrs, we stuck to better-written fantasy, there's a lot of it out
there...
Zorak
Finn Clark
> I know it's purely anecdotal, but I used to read stories to my
> ex-partner (who was not English, but loved Dr Who) and I
> cannot describe the disappointment she felt with the writing
> of the first Iris story in Short Trips. The words she used for
> Paul Magrs were unprintable! And yet, she lvoes "experimental"
> stories adn changes from the Norm. What does this indicate to you?
It indicates that Paul Magrs's short stories have generally been bull poop!
I don't think I enjoyed a Who-related piece of short fiction from him
until... oooh, Short Trips and Side Steps? They don't bear comparison to
his novels at all (though to be fair, even his novels don't bear comparison
to each other; they're all very different).
Finn Clark.
Cardinal Zorak
"Brett O'Callaghan" <bm...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
news:g6q3ttc9m8vcb28mu...@4ax.com...
> "Finn Clark" <kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >The Slow Empire (Dave Stone) - a region of space in which the laws of
> >physics are completely unlike anything we've seen before! Nothing can
> >travel faster than light!!!
>
> Oh, they're rip.... being inspired by Vernor Vinge now?
>
>
No; Albert Einstein. ;-)
CZ
Brett O'Callaghan
>"Brett O'Callaghan" <bm...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
>> "Finn Clark" <kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> >The Slow Empire (Dave Stone) - a region of space in which the laws of
>> >physics are completely unlike anything we've seen before! Nothing can
>> >travel faster than light!!!
>> Oh, they're rip.... being inspired by Vernor Vinge now?
>No; Albert Einstein. ;-)
Sounds an awful lot like the Slow Zone to me.
William December Starr
"Finn Clark" <kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk> said:
> The BBC, on the other hand, have (occasionally) given us stuff like
> The Scarlet Empress, The Blue Angel, Tomb of Valdemar and Grimm
> Reality. Paul Magrs showed us a new paradigm back in September 1998
> and I think it's been *the* single most important development in the
> Doctor Who novels. It hasn't superceded the traditional adventure
> format, but it's shown us something genuinely new and exciting that
> we hadn't had under Virgin.
How would you definbe that paradigm?
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Finn Clark
>> The BBC, on the other hand, have (occasionally)
>> given us stuff like The Scarlet Empress, The Blue
>> Angel, Tomb of Valdemar and Grimm Reality.
>> Paul Magrs showed us a new paradigm back in
>> September 1998 and I think it's been *the* single
>> most important development in the Doctor Who
>> novels. It hasn't superceded the traditional adventure
>> format, but it's shown us something genuinely new
>> and exciting that we hadn't had under Virgin.
>
> How would you definbe that paradigm?
Now then, William. You know perfectly well that thousands upon thousands of
words have been expended, many of them by me, in debates on The Scarlet
Empress and such books. I've made strenuous and honest attempts to explain
where I was coming from on this issue, you always reacted as if I was saying
stuff falls upwards and I thought we'd agreed not to keep going around in
the same circles yet again.
In all seriousness, I've attempted to satisfy you on that question so
often - and always failed - that I'd be bashing my head against a wall to do
so again now. (However if anyone else was interested in the answer to
William December Starr's question, I'd suggest visiting Google and looking
up discussions with the keywords "Magrs", "magic realism" and stuff like
that. The Scarlet Empress was published in September 1998, if that's any
help in narrowing down your search by date.)
Finn Clark.
CMento6653
Vanishing Point (Steve Cole) - hey, it's God!
BUT NOT GOOD.
The Slow Empire (Dave Stone) - a region of
HEY IT'S SLOW AND DULL AND BADLY WRITTEN.
City of the Dead (Lloyd Rose) - luscious magic in New Orleans.
THE BEST WHO NOVEL IN AGES.
Grimm Reality (Simon Bucher-Jones and Kelly Hale) - make three wishes, watch
out for the wicked stepmothers and don't go down to the woods...
HAVE NOT READ YET.
Cardinal Zorak
> "Cardinal Zorak" <Fab31...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"Brett O'Callaghan" <bm...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
> >> "Finn Clark" <kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >The Slow Empire (Dave Stone) - a region of space in which the laws of
> >> >physics are completely unlike anything we've seen before! Nothing can
> >> >travel faster than light!!!
> >> Oh, they're rip.... being inspired by Vernor Vinge now?
> >No; Albert Einstein. ;-)
>
> Sounds an awful lot like the Slow Zone to me.
>
Was that written before Special Relativity was released in (what was it)
1902?
Zorak
The Count
:"Brett O'Callaghan" <bm...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
:> "Cardinal Zorak" <Fab31...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:> >"Brett O'Callaghan" <bm...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
:> >> "Finn Clark" <kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
:> >> >The Slow Empire (Dave Stone) - a region of space in which the laws of
:> >> >physics are completely unlike anything we've seen before! Nothing
can
:> >> >travel faster than light!!!
:> >> Oh, they're rip.... being inspired by Vernor Vinge now?
:> >No; Albert Einstein. ;-)
:>
:> Sounds an awful lot like the Slow Zone to me.
:>
:
:Was that written before Special Relativity was released in (what was it)
:1902?
Special Relativity is the most ridiculous piece of science fiction written
ever.
William December Starr
"Finn Clark" <kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk> said:
>>> Paul Magrs showed us a new paradigm back in September 1998 and I
>>> think it's been *the* single most important development in the
>>> Doctor Who novels. It hasn't superceded the traditional adventure
>>> format, but it's shown us something genuinely new and exciting
>>> that we hadn't had under Virgin.
>>
>> How would you definbe that paradigm?
>
> Now then, William. You know perfectly well that thousands upon
> thousands of words have been expended, many of them by me, in
> debates on The Scarlet Empress and such books. I've made strenuous
> and honest attempts to explain where I was coming from on this
> issue, you always reacted as if I was saying stuff falls upwards and
> I thought we'd agreed not to keep going around in the same circles
> yet again.
This is, I believe, the first time you've chosen to expand your
opinion of Magrs works to the point of saying that they were
paradigm-redefining for the who bloody series of books, though.
So, what was the old paradigm, what is the new one, and what post-
September of 1988 DW books outside of the works of Mr. Magrs himself
exemplify this new paradigm?
Finn Clark
>>>> Paul Magrs showed us a new paradigm back in September 1998 and I
>>>> think it's been *the* single most important development in the
>>>> Doctor Who novels. It hasn't superceded the traditional adventure
>>>> format, but it's shown us something genuinely new and exciting
>>>> that we hadn't had under Virgin.
>
> This is, I believe, the first time you've chosen to expand your
> opinion of Magrs works to the point of saying that they were
> paradigm-redefining for the who bloody series of books, though.
No, and no.
1. I never said they're paradigm-redefining for *all* the Doctor Who books.
They're obviously not. The number of books that have followed in these
particular footsteps is very small and the rest of the novels have
cheerfully carried on in their various good old ways. I reckon "haven't
superceded the traditional adventure format" in my original post (see above)
covers that fairly well.
2. I think I expressed myself fairly fulsomely in my original review of The
Scarlet Empress, posted to this newsgroup back in September 1998 and
available either through Google or at the Ratings Guide:
http://pagefillers.com/dwrg/frames.htm
I even made the prediction that other books would follow and carry on the
good work. In other words, not changing the basic Who paradigm but
inventing another that can live happily alongside it. I'm not saying
anything I haven't said before.
> So, what was the old paradigm, what is the new one,
> and what post-September of 1988 DW books outside
> of the works of Mr. Magrs himself exemplify this new
> paradigm?
I'm not going to go over this again with you, William. Perhaps Mr Kitson
might ("play nice, boys!"), but I've been there and done that. Though the
third of your questions can be answered IMO with The Blue Angel, Tomb of
Valdemar and Grimm Reality.
There's a case for saying that Unnatural History also tried (it borrowed
much of Scarlet Empress as well as Alien Bodies), but I don't think it got
there. Verdigris doesn't really count either.
Finn Clark.
Cameron Mason
CMento6653 <cment...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011021120808...@mb-mi.aol.com...
<snip>
> > City of the Dead (Lloyd Rose) - luscious magic in New Orleans.
>
> THE BEST WHO NOVEL IN AGES.
I agree with J2 on something!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
*Runs off to poke eyes out with a stick*
Cameron
--
"I'm half-human on the Other's side."
http://members.fortunecity.com/masomika/
CMento6653
*Runs off to poke eyes out with a stick*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That makes it all worth it though.
On second thought, I can say I like anything and Cameron will agree cause he
likes anything and won't dare criticize any new WHO novel.
Cameron Mason
>
> *Runs off to poke eyes out with a stick*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> That makes it all worth it though.
It might for you, but not for me...
> On second thought, I can say I like anything and Cameron will agree cause
he
> likes anything and won't dare criticize any new WHO novel.
Keep talking utter bollocks J2.
If I like something I will praise it, and if I hate it... remember Divided
Loyalties....
Snarky, Demon of Mockery
toves did gyre and gimble in the rec.arts.drwho wabe, when Eris
Kallisti Discordia spoke to me through Cardinal Zorak's flonking, and
the mome raths outgrabe:
> "Brett O'Callaghan" wrote...
> > "Cardinal Zorak" wrote:
> > >"Brett O'Callaghan" wrote...
> > >> "Finn Clark" wrote:
> > >> >The Slow Empire (Dave Stone) - a region of space in which the laws of
> > >> >physics are completely unlike anything we've seen before! Nothing can
> > >> >travel faster than light!!!
> > >> Oh, they're rip.... being inspired by Vernor Vinge now?
> > >No; Albert Einstein. ;-)
> >
> > Sounds an awful lot like the Slow Zone to me.
>
> Was that written before Special Relativity was released in (what was it)
> 1902?
Nah, Vinge is recent...Past twenty or thirty years or so, IIRC -- I
think I've only read a short story or two by him, 'cause I know I
haven't gotten round to his novels...
--
_____________________________________________________
No-one expects the Fannish Inquisition!
Cardinal Snarky; GGGHD; HCNB
There are no passengers on Spaceship Earth. We're all
crew.
ICQ: 135930147
Snarky, Demon of Mockery
did gyre and gimble in the rec.arts.drwho wabe, when Eris Kallisti
outgrabe:
> Cardinal Zorak wrote:
> :"Brett O'Callaghan" wrote...
> :> >"Brett O'Callaghan" wrote...
> :> >> >The Slow Empire (Dave Stone) - a region of space in which the laws of
> :> >> >physics are completely unlike anything we've seen before! Nothing
> can
> :> >> >travel faster than light!!!
> :> >> Oh, they're rip.... being inspired by Vernor Vinge now?
> :> >No; Albert Einstein. ;-)
> :>
> :> Sounds an awful lot like the Slow Zone to me.
> :
> :Was that written before Special Relativity was released in (what was it)
> :1902?
>
> Special Relativity is the most ridiculous piece of science fiction written
> ever.
No, that was A.E.'s line "God does not play dice with the
universe"...Pure drivel. Sure S/He does -- but S/He cheats...
--
_____________________________________________________
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!! Kallisti!!!
mhm 29x21; Tom Baker's #1 Fan; feetofclayatshawdotca
S.N.A.R.K.Y.: Synthetic Networked Android Responsible
for Killing and Yardwork; the Discordian People's
Most Powerful and Revered Being (without portfolio);
GGGHD; HCNB; Cross-posters for Goddess Cabal
"If 'we are such stuff as dreams are made of...' then
why are they usually or officially regarded as
meaningless or....er....psychotic in nature??"
-- Ayla, in alt.discordia
Economic Left/Right: -5.71
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.23
ICQ: 135930147
Steven Kitson
>William December Starr wrote:
>> So, what was the old paradigm, what is the new one,
>> and what post-September of 1988 DW books outside
>> of the works of Mr. Magrs himself exemplify this new
>> paradigm?
>I'm not going to go over this again with you, William. Perhaps Mr Kitson
>might ("play nice, boys!"), but I've been there and done that.
You know, I think just might have got it out of my system. Maybe.
>Though the
>third of your questions can be answered IMO with The Blue Angel, Tomb of
>Valdemar and Grimm Reality.
'The City of the Dead'?
Actually, I'm only a hundred pages into 'Grimm Reality' but I'm already
disappointed that it looks like there's going to be a pseudoscience
explanation for all the weirdness (one that's hinted at practically at the
start of the book, so I'm not spoiling anything). I do hope it doesn't
turn out that way.
y
--
I'm older than I once was, and younger than I'll be
Daniel Gooley
> Paul
> Magrs showed us a new paradigm back in September 1998
Without wanting to revisit the Scarlet Empress debates, this seems a strange
claim. Paul Magrs showed us a fairly standard fantasy novel in September
1998. I know that Doctor Who's exploration of this area has been a bit
retarded by the fact that a lot of fanboys clutch their heads and scream
"No! No! No!" at the faintest whiff of anything vaguely fantastic, but I
somehow doubt that your experiences have been so narrow, Finn.
The Blue Angel stretched the format a bit more IMO, but certainly not to the
extent that someone like Miles was doing about the same time.
Danny
(afraid I'm not really up-to-date enough to comment on your other
ponderings)
Jack Beven
<kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>The BBC, on the other hand, have (occasionally) given us stuff like The
>Scarlet Empress, The Blue Angel, Tomb of Valdemar and Grimm Reality. Paul
>Magrs showed us a new paradigm back in September 1998 and I think it's been
>*the* single most important development in the Doctor Who novels. It hasn't
>superceded the traditional adventure format, but it's shown us something
>genuinely new and exciting that we hadn't had under Virgin.
IMHO there were two paradigms that The Scarlet Empress introduced
and both of them have alienated me further and further from the books as
time has gone along.
The first seems to be that "ambiguity=good storytelling". That
attitude has worked its way into a lot of the later EDAs (most notably
The Blue Angel and The Turing Test) with little in the way of good
results IMHO.
(An aside about The Blue Angel: There was a very good Doctor Who
story lurking in that confused mess waiting to be told. Unfortunately,
IMHO the authors were too busy showing off their knowledge of how
to circumvent literary conventions to just tell it.)
The second paradigm? Well, Magrs came across to me as championing
the position that the DW elements in the story don't matter as long as
the story is good. That paradigm has IMHO sent the EDAs into the
abyss.
Looking at it, that is probably the largest single difference between
the Virgin NAs and the BBC EDAs. The NAs, whether through chance
or design, had many stories that were both good stories and good
Doctor Who stories. I like to think it was by design - that the editors
realized that good stories by themselves don't automatically make
good Doctor Who stories. The EDAs, especially since "Interference",
have tried to be just good stories and haven't really paid more than
lip service to being good DW stories IMHO.
(And as I've said before, piling on continuity references does not
automatically make a good DW story. DW elements have to be used
correctly, just like any of the other larger literary elements.)
The Turing Test is probably the best example of this dichotomy.
One one side, it is a rather well-written story. Not a perfect story,
mind you, because it kind of drowned itself in ambiguity and
loose ends. But one that was notably more good than bad. On
the other hand, the story features about the worst portrayal/
characterization of the Doctor that I've ever had the misfortune
to encounter. It was like something out of a bad fanfic written
with the attitude "I *can* write the Doctor this way so I *will*!".
I didn't hear the Doctor scream at the end of the story - I heard
a 200 decibel thud as the EDAs hit rock bottom.
Another way to look at this is to contrast The Left -Handed
Hummingbird with The Year of Intelligent Tigers. They
both feature strong concepts - a feature seen in almost all of
Kate's DW stories. However, IMHO Hummer has better
characterizations of the Doctor and companions than
Tigers and is much better plotted. Tigers was rather dull
in places and IMHO the story could have easily have been
15-25 pages shorter. Thus, I'd rate Hummer a better overall
story than Tigers. (I could also say the same thing about
Set Piece vs. Tigers.)
Then there are the DW elements. Hummer has a lot of them,
including the TARDIS, the mention of the Exxilons (sic?), the
time-travel-dependent plot, and the use of the character
tensions and developments of the previous NAs. IMHO
there's quite a high level of Whoishness.
Tigers, on the other hand, seems to have a totally different
attitude about its Whoishness. There is only one obscure reference
to anything earlier than The Burning, and the TARDIS and all the
functions normally associated with it are essentially absent. Then,
there's the character of the Doctor. First of all, he's the Amnesiac
Doctor who I deem to be a pale imitation of what a fully functioning
Doctor could be. Second, at one point the Doctor yells something
about not wanting to ever remember his past. Now, YMMV, but IMHO
this smacks of cowardice - the Doctor running away from himself.
Thus, I'd say that Tigers doesn't even have the foundation of a
"never cruel or cowardly" Doctor going for it.
To summarize, Tigers is not a bad *story*, although it ranks a bit
below Kate's best work in overall quality and being a gripping tale.
However, as a *Doctor Who* story, it is far and away the worst thing
that I've ever seen Kate and/or Jon write. I gave it a 5/10 in Shannon's
rankings. Kate, I hope you don't take offense, but Hummer comes across
to me as a story written by someone who loved DW, while Tigers comes
across to me as a story written by someone who doesn't or is just
writing it as a job.
(As an aside, I'm not picking specifically on Kate and Jon here. I
could make the same comparison of the works of Paul Cornell, Lance
Parkin, or any other writer who's written both NAs and EDAs. IMHO
the same changes for the worse are present in those writings too.)
I'll close by saying that Tigers is the last EDA I'll be reading for
a long time, most likely. I don't like this portrayal of the Doctor.
(I want to read the adventures of the Doctor who is the Time Lord
with eight lives and a thousand years of experience - and he's AWOL.)
I don't like the paradigms/attitudes/mentalities that the EDAs are
currently being written with, especially those that relate to how the
current stories deal with the series' past. Both the Doctor and the
paradigms are going to have to change for (IMHO) the better before I
buy another EDA. (And if they never change, well, so be it. I won't
miss those stories all that much.) Finally, I don't like the fact that
between Tigers and the 23 stories the preceeded it that I can't find:
a) any story that I thought was a great Doctor Who story, and
b) any story that I'm in any hurry to read again. If I can't find
much I like in those stories, chances are I won't find much in the
similar stories that are yet to come.
My apologies for the length of this post. I've tried to summarize
all the things that I've thought about DW since I read Tigers back
in July, and between trying to stay calm enough to be objective and
external events there's never been a good time to talk about it until
now.
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...
Steven Kitson
>Finn Clark
>> Paul
>> Magrs showed us a new paradigm back in September 1998
>Without wanting to revisit the Scarlet Empress debates, this seems a strange
>claim. Paul Magrs showed us a fairly standard fantasy novel in September
>1998.
I don't think it's really 'fairly standard fantasy', in the same way as
'Lord of the Rings' and the like, but on the other hand the tradition of
'Magic Realism' has been around since at least the sixties.
So it's not new, but it's not quite that old, either.
--
You put the cyanide pills next to the valium? That's asking for trouble!
Lance Parkin
<ski...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>I don't think it's really 'fairly standard fantasy', in the same way as
>'Lord of the Rings' and the like, but on the other hand the tradition of
>'Magic Realism' has been around since at least the sixties.
>
>So it's not new, but it's not quite that old, either.
Magic Realism was a term coined in 1925. Which is
thirty years before Lord of the Rings.
So, no, Paul isn't exactly doing something newfangled.
But then again, what do you expect when he's writing
for a series who's first episode starts with an intertextual
Dixon of Dock Green reference, deconstructs the
premise of the show as 'ridiculous' and features a time
machine sitting in a London junkyard. Doctor Who *is*
postmodern, self-referential and magic realism. That's
sort of the whole point.
Lance
Steven Kitson
>On 22 Oct 2001 10:53:16 +0100 (BST), Steven Kitson
><ski...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>I don't think it's really 'fairly standard fantasy', in the same way as
>>'Lord of the Rings' and the like, but on the other hand the tradition of
>>'Magic Realism' has been around since at least the sixties.
>>So it's not new, but it's not quite that old, either.
>Magic Realism was a term coined in 1925.
Was it? Lordy. Who was it describing?
Lance Parkin
<ski...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Lance Parkin <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 22 Oct 2001 10:53:16 +0100 (BST), Steven Kitson
>><ski...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>I don't think it's really 'fairly standard fantasy', in the same way as
>>>'Lord of the Rings' and the like, but on the other hand the tradition of
>>>'Magic Realism' has been around since at least the sixties.
>>>So it's not new, but it's not quite that old, either.
>>Magic Realism was a term coined in 1925.
>
>Was it? Lordy. Who was it describing?
Artists of the New Objectivity movement in 20s German. By
Franz Roh. The expression was first widely used in English
after a 1943 exhibition at the MoMA called 'American
Realists and Magic Realists'.
Can you tell what I did my Masters degree in yet? I had
my university interview in 1989 and was told off during it
for using 'such an old hat expression' as Magic Realism.
Lance
Steven Kitson
>On 22 Oct 2001 12:19:01 +0100 (BST), Steven Kitson
><ski...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>Lance Parkin <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Magic Realism was a term coined in 1925.
>>Was it? Lordy. Who was it describing?
>Artists of the New Objectivity movement in 20s German. By
>Franz Roh. The expression was first widely used in English
>after a 1943 exhibition at the MoMA called 'American
>Realists and Magic Realists'.
Ooh. One of those terms that started in Art. When did it make the jump to
literature?
Andrew McCaffrey
[Paradigms introduced in The Scarlet Empress]
> The second paradigm? Well, Magrs came across to me as championing
> the position that the DW elements in the story don't matter as long as
> the story is good. That paradigm has IMHO sent the EDAs into the
> abyss.
I didn't get that impression at all from The Scarlet Empress (or from The
Blue Angel, for that matter). The whole character of Iris is a reaction
to the Doctor; it's hard to imagine her "Seven Irises" story making sense
without having "The Five Doctors" to fall back on. There's even a running
theme concerning the storytelling in DW itself.
Fundamentally though, I think the main problem is the lack of a proper
definition of what a "Doctor Who element" really is. I mean, I know what
a Doctor Who story *isn't*, but I can't really come up with an explanation
of what one is outside of "I know it when I see it".
> (And as I've said before, piling on continuity references does not
> automatically make a good DW story. DW elements have to be used
> correctly, just like any of the other larger literary elements.)
[snip]
[Hummer vs. Tigers]
> Then there are the DW elements. Hummer has a lot of them,
> including the TARDIS, the mention of the Exxilons (sic?), the
> time-travel-dependent plot, and the use of the character
> tensions and developments of the previous NAs. IMHO
> there's quite a high level of Whoishness.
Those DW elements sound like continuity references to me. If DW elements
aren't just references, then what are they?
> Thus, I'd say that Tigers doesn't even have the foundation of a
> "never cruel or cowardly" Doctor going for it.
Perhaps, but to be fair, neither does "An Unearthly Child", "The
Daleks" or "The Chase". ;>
--
+------------------------Andrew McCaffrey+[amc...@gl.umbc.edu]---------+
|"Star Wars is adolescent nonsense, Close|"My thumbs have gone weird!" |
|Encounters is obscurantist drivel [and] | -- _Withnail & I_ |
|Star Trek can turn your brains into |"I can't do chords. No sir." |
|puree of bat guano." -- Harlan Ellison| -- B.B. King |
+------------------ http://userpages.umbc.edu/~amccaf1 -----------------+
Finn Clark
of Valdemar and Grimm Reality:
> 'The City of the Dead'?
No, that's perfectly straightforward storytelling. Very good indeed and
deals with magic in a new manner for the Whoniverse, but there's nothing
outre in the telling itself.
> Actually, I'm only a hundred pages into 'Grimm Reality' but
> I'm already disappointed that it looks like there's going to be
> a pseudoscience explanation for all the weirdness (one that's
> hinted at practically at the start of the book, so I'm not
> spoiling anything). I do hope it doesn't turn out that way.
Yeeeeeeesss, but the nature of Doctor Who is that people are going to *look*
for the explanations. Personally I think Scarlet Empress pulled off the
no-explanations trick about as well as one possibly could, but others still
felt it was a significant omission. (See Robert Smith?'s review.) We're
talking about a show which has explicitly established (The Daemons) a
magic-science dichotomy, viz. that one exists and the other doesn't. Simply
having magic at all is a step too far for many people. I think the approach
of City of the Dead and Grimm Reality is a sound and sensible one - put the
explanations (or a hint of one) relatively up-front, so the worriers can
relax and won't be treating the entire book as the scientific equivalent of
a murder mystery.
Which is what Sorceror's Apprentice was, now I come to think about it. You
might disagree, but I think an author needs a justification for introducing
overtly fantastic elements into Doctor Who. I'm just talking on the level
of what works. The Scarlet Empress was all about a fantastical kind of
storytelling so that was a special kind of justification, but by and large
you're gonna need some technobabble along the way. That's what I reckon is
the case, nine times out of ten.
Finn Clark.
Finn Clark
> IMHO there were two paradigms that The Scarlet Empress
> introduced and both of them have alienated me further and
> further from the books as time has gone along.
>
> The first seems to be that "ambiguity=good storytelling". That
> attitude has worked its way into a lot of the later EDAs (most
> notably The Blue Angel and The Turing Test) with little in the
> way of good results IMHO.
To be honest, I'm not sure how The Scarlet Empress could particularly be
regarded as the originator of ambiguity. It doesn't offer explanations,
agreed, but its events are reasonably clear and unambiguous. They're just
weird. When it comes to ambiguity I'd have thought Virgin got there first
with the likes of Time's Crucible or Head Games.
> The second paradigm? Well, Magrs came across to me as
> championing the position that the DW elements in the story
> don't matter as long as the story is good. That paradigm has
> IMHO sent the EDAs into the abyss.
Ahhhhhhhhh, that one. Again, I'd say that debate has been going on for as
long as there's been Doctor Who fiction. Hell, the fanboys were wrestling
with it when Attack of the Cybermen came out - or even the Hinchcliffe era!
Genesis of the Daleks! Brain of Morbius! Deadly Assassin! One man's
fanwank is another's heartwarming nod to the past.
I'd suggest that The Scarlet Empress probably contains more explicit Doctor
Who references (there's a fair bit of discussion of the Seventh Doctor) than
something like Kursaal. It just feels less traditional, that's all.
> Finally, I don't like the fact that between Tigers and the
> 23 stories the preceeded it that I can't find: a) any story
> that I thought was a great Doctor Who story, and b) any
> story that I'm in any hurry to read again. If I can't find
> much I like in those stories, chances are I won't find
> much in the similar stories that are yet to come.
Actually I'd agree with you that there's been some godawful rubbish
published over the past five years, but ironically I also feel Year of
Intelligent Tigers was a bit of a turning point. I've really enjoyed just
about every 8DA since then, in its own way. You might give City of the Dead
a try - I haven't heard anyone here (even J2Rider) say a bad word about it.
Finn Clark.
Jim Vowles
>
> In article <9qtrie$l4n$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Finn Clark" <kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk> said:
>
> >>> Paul Magrs showed us a new paradigm back in September 1998 and I
> >>> think it's been *the* single most important development in the
> >>> Doctor Who novels. It hasn't superceded the traditional adventure
> >>> format, but it's shown us something genuinely new and exciting
> >>> that we hadn't had under Virgin.
> >>
> >> How would you definbe that paradigm?
> >
> > Now then, William. You know perfectly well that thousands upon
> > thousands of words have been expended, many of them by me, in
> > debates on The Scarlet Empress and such books. I've made strenuous
> > and honest attempts to explain where I was coming from on this
> > issue, you always reacted as if I was saying stuff falls upwards and
> > I thought we'd agreed not to keep going around in the same circles
> > yet again.
>
> This is, I believe, the first time you've chosen to expand your
> opinion of Magrs works to the point of saying that they were
> paradigm-redefining for the who bloody series of books, though.
I think he pretty clearly states where he's coming from, though--having
read several recent books which seem to pick up on the "more things than
are dream'd of in your philosophies" angle and do something interesting
with it. Sometimes you don't know how important a precedent has been set
until a fair amount of time passes.
> So, what was the old paradigm, what is the new one, and what post-
> September of 1988 DW books outside of the works of Mr. Magrs himself
> exemplify this new paradigm?
I'd say that the other books he mentioned--Valdemar, Grimm Reality, and
perhaps to a lesser extent Ancestor Cell and a few more--fit the bill.
Jim Vowles
>
> Daniel Gooley <daniel...@detya.gov.au> wrote:
> >Finn Clark
> >> Paul
> >> Magrs showed us a new paradigm back in September 1998
> >Without wanting to revisit the Scarlet Empress debates, this seems a strange
> >claim. Paul Magrs showed us a fairly standard fantasy novel in September
> >1998.
>
> I don't think it's really 'fairly standard fantasy', in the same way as
> 'Lord of the Rings' and the like, but on the other hand the tradition of
> 'Magic Realism' has been around since at least the sixties.
>
> So it's not new, but it's not quite that old, either.
Fair enough--but what it did was to successfully (for many readers, at
least) show how to successfully apply the genre to Doctor Who. It
loosened the anal-retentively tight constraints of continuity, too--what
a sin to so many fan eyes!--and exposed a hitherto totally unknown
element in the Doctor's backstory, and added a wildcard or two to the
deck that can be (and has been) used to generally good effect ever
since. IMHO, of course. :)
Jim Vowles
commentator, and while I think I most often disagree with his take on
things, I think it's generally a valuable view well expressed.
Jack Beven wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:57:10 +0100, "Finn Clark"
> <kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >The BBC, on the other hand, have (occasionally) given us stuff like The
> >Scarlet Empress, The Blue Angel, Tomb of Valdemar and Grimm Reality. Paul
> >Magrs showed us a new paradigm back in September 1998 and I think it's been
> >*the* single most important development in the Doctor Who novels. It hasn't
> >superceded the traditional adventure format, but it's shown us something
> >genuinely new and exciting that we hadn't had under Virgin.
>
> IMHO there were two paradigms that The Scarlet Empress introduced
> and both of them have alienated me further and further from the books as
> time has gone along.
Whereas for me, they've helped keep things new and fresh and
occasionally unexpected.
> The first seems to be that "ambiguity=good storytelling". That
> attitude has worked its way into a lot of the later EDAs (most notably
> The Blue Angel and The Turing Test) with little in the way of good
> results IMHO.
IMHO, ambiguity is bad when it is accidental--when the reader is unsure
what happened but that was not the intent. *Deliberate* ambiguity about
certain things, however, I often like, if I have some trust that the
author has a particular place he's taking me and doesn't want to spoil
everything.
For example, it's never explicitly spelled out that Brax is the Doctor's
brother. It's ambiguous in that he describes his brother in ways that
make us think of the Doctor. But I think that makes *me* say "Hmmm, it
sounds like the Doctor and Brax are brothers, but maybe not", and it
makes Jack say "Are they brothers or aren't they?" I see additional
potential in those grey, hazy spaces, but Jack wants to *know*.
> (An aside about The Blue Angel: There was a very good Doctor Who
> story lurking in that confused mess waiting to be told. Unfortunately,
> IMHO the authors were too busy showing off their knowledge of how
> to circumvent literary conventions to just tell it.)
We'll agree to disagree, then.
> The second paradigm? Well, Magrs came across to me as championing
> the position that the DW elements in the story don't matter as long as
> the story is good. That paradigm has IMHO sent the EDAs into the
> abyss.
I thoroughly and completely *disagree*. He said "wow, these parameters
can be stretched awfully far, and we can look at bog-standard Who thinks
from a totally different perspective". Or "hey, there's *nothing* you
can specifically nail down here, but it's still clearly Doctor Who".
THough of course you'll probably disagree, I think the successfulness of
the latter paradigm is a matter of taste.
> Looking at it, that is probably the largest single difference between
> the Virgin NAs and the BBC EDAs. The NAs, whether through chance
> or design, had many stories that were both good stories and good
> Doctor Who stories. I like to think it was by design - that the editors
> realized that good stories by themselves don't automatically make
> good Doctor Who stories. The EDAs, especially since "Interference",
> have tried to be just good stories and haven't really paid more than
> lip service to being good DW stories IMHO.
We have a *wide* variation of opinions on what makes for a good DW
stories. With so many people complaining that late 80s Who had crawled
too far up its own fannish hole, I think the only real solution with
potential legs is to stretch *Who* to encompass other stuff (a proven
option) rather than to stretch other stuff to fit in Who. I'd rather
push the existing envelope--which is pretty damned flexible--than snip
things to fit.
> (And as I've said before, piling on continuity references does not
> automatically make a good DW story. DW elements have to be used
> correctly, just like any of the other larger literary elements.)
But your examples tend to be references to earlier adventures that we
saw on TV, or specifically making use of the TARDIS or time travel or
Time Lords---and the series has done without any or all of those even
when it was just a TV show.
> The Turing Test is probably the best example of this dichotomy.
> One one side, it is a rather well-written story. Not a perfect story,
> mind you, because it kind of drowned itself in ambiguity and
> loose ends. But one that was notably more good than bad. On
> the other hand, the story features about the worst portrayal/
> characterization of the Doctor that I've ever had the misfortune
> to encounter. It was like something out of a bad fanfic written
> with the attitude "I *can* write the Doctor this way so I *will*!".
> I didn't hear the Doctor scream at the end of the story - I heard
> a 200 decibel thud as the EDAs hit rock bottom.
Another thorough disagreement here. What you got was a characterization
of the Doctor that was very much at odds with what you were used to ---
but then, as I and others pointed out in other debates, you're not
getting an absolutely honest narrator; you're getting three separate
narrators, each bringing their own biases and agendas and emotions.
We're used to viewing the Doctor more or less directly, or through the
eyes of a loyal companion. Turing gave us three perspectives on a Doctor
who was already somewhat different from expectations, and those
viewp[oints themselves contradict each other.
> Another way to look at this is to contrast The Left -Handed
> Hummingbird with The Year of Intelligent Tigers. They
> both feature strong concepts - a feature seen in almost all of
> Kate's DW stories. However, IMHO Hummer has better
> characterizations of the Doctor and companions than
> Tigers and is much better plotted. Tigers was rather dull
> in places and IMHO the story could have easily have been
> 15-25 pages shorter. Thus, I'd rate Hummer a better overall
> story than Tigers. (I could also say the same thing about
> Set Piece vs. Tigers.)
I'm sorry, it's been hundreds of books since either of those early Kate
books and frankly I don't remember them well enough to contrast them
with Tigers. But I found Tigers to be one of the more engaging tales,
with an interesting new culture to explore, a Doctor at odds with his
companions, in fact a tale overall more about people than about events.
That's Kate's strength and she does well to play to it--but moreso, it
helps cement and redefine the emerging Post-Gallifrey Eighth Doctor.
> Then there are the DW elements. Hummer has a lot of them,
> including the TARDIS, the mention of the Exxilons (sic?), the
> time-travel-dependent plot, and the use of the character
> tensions and developments of the previous NAs. IMHO
> there's quite a high level of Whoishness.
I don't agree that those things make up "whoishness". Time travel is
actually *rarely* used as a storytelling device throughout DW's history.
And the TARDIS is also largely optional--most often time and space
travel is simply a vehicle to put the lead characters in a particular
location where the story can happen. Namechecking an alien culture
doesn't make something Whoish. Using the character tensions and
developments is something the NAs did pretty well, but it was not always
a component of the show and is clearly not something *peculiar* to DW.
> Tigers, on the other hand, seems to have a totally different
> attitude about its Whoishness. There is only one obscure reference
> to anything earlier than The Burning, and the TARDIS and all the
> functions normally associated with it are essentially absent.
Again, you claim that namechecking earlier stories isn't what makes
things Whoish, but that's your example.
The Doctor Who line (and the character himself) underwent a pretty
drastic pruning because the weight of the existing foliage was in danger
of damaging the whole--the line was, IMO, collapsing under the
collective weight of its own continuity.
> Then,
> there's the character of the Doctor. First of all, he's the Amnesiac
> Doctor who I deem to be a pale imitation of what a fully functioning
> Doctor could be. Second, at one point the Doctor yells something
> about not wanting to ever remember his past. Now, YMMV, but IMHO
> this smacks of cowardice - the Doctor running away from himself.
> Thus, I'd say that Tigers doesn't even have the foundation of a
> "never cruel or cowardly" Doctor going for it.
See my notes about "pruning" above. Once you accept the need to do this
(and I realize you don't) the reality is that some branches are going to
be lost. Others will regrow in slightly different ways. So the Doctor is
in a period of regrowing a lost limb, and things are still raw--so of
course he's not going to be the juggernaut that he once was.
The Doctor is, perhaps, running away from himself by not wanting to
remember his past...but isn't he also running away from his heritage at
the very outset of the program? I think you're interpreting the "never
cruel or cowardly" bit too broadly, to be honest. The Doctor fears his
own past for quite a long time, and this was such a traumatic experience
that his mind just shut down. And yet, he's never cruel, and he's never
cowardly--by which I mean he's unafraid to risk everything about himself
to save the day. He's just unwilling to acknowlege something about
himself, which IMO is not *quite* the same thing, though I'll grant that
it probably knows where cowardice lives.
> To summarize, Tigers is not a bad *story*, although it ranks a bit
> below Kate's best work in overall quality and being a gripping tale.
> However, as a *Doctor Who* story, it is far and away the worst thing
> that I've ever seen Kate and/or Jon write. I gave it a 5/10 in Shannon's
> rankings. Kate, I hope you don't take offense, but Hummer comes across
> to me as a story written by someone who loved DW, while Tigers comes
> across to me as a story written by someone who doesn't or is just
> writing it as a job.
Wow. That's awfully harsh. I'd say, perhaps more accurately, that Hummer
has the advantage of being a new writer's first book about a beloved
subject....but it's been something like 8 years (and about that many
books) since then, and just as Kate isn't quite the person she was in
the early 90s, neither is the Doctor.
{snip]
Your chief complaint seems to be what it's been for as long as I can
remember -- things changed a bit more than you wanted them to.
Personally, I think the way forward is for DW to be *less* of a
celebration of the past and *more* of an inventive, dynamic series that
takes chances, that risks losing audience to keep things fresh and new
---like it's always been.
Steven Kitson
> Steven Kitson wrote, re. my "new kinds o' storytelling" niche of Magrs, Tomb
> of Valdemar and Grimm Reality:
> > 'The City of the Dead'?
> No, that's perfectly straightforward storytelling. Very good indeed and
> deals with magic in a new manner for the Whoniverse, but there's nothing
> outre in the telling itself.
Ah. I see what you mean: there's two elements to 'The Scarlet Empress'
that often get conflated because the same people dislike both: the
content (with its explicit magic) and the style. You were talking about
the style; I thought you meant the content.
> > Actually, I'm only a hundred pages into 'Grimm Reality' but
> > I'm already disappointed that it looks like there's going to be
> > a pseudoscience explanation for all the weirdness (one that's
> > hinted at practically at the start of the book, so I'm not
> > spoiling anything). I do hope it doesn't turn out that way.
> Yeeeeeeesss, but the nature of Doctor Who is that people are going to *look*
> for the explanations. Personally I think Scarlet Empress pulled off the
> no-explanations trick about as well as one possibly could, but others still
> felt it was a significant omission. (See Robert Smith?'s review.)
Relally? I don't read on-line reviews. Where can I find that one --
should I search google groups?
> We're
> talking about a show which has explicitly established (The Daemons) a
> magic-science dichotomy, viz. that one exists and the other doesn't.
'Established' in the sense of 'the Doctor insists it in spite of all
available evidence, to whit an alien with powers he can't explain (he
never suggest how Azal changes size, for example, or how on Earth a
stone gargoyle is animated) who is destroyed not by 'science' but by
symbolic sacrifice, the domain of magic, that it doesn't exist'.
Watch 'The Daemons'. Really watch it. The _only_ thing in the whole
story that even _suggests_ that there's no such thing as magic is the
Doctor's bluster. Everything else, from black masses that summon aliens
to animated stone scared off by iron and an incantation (what the
incantation is being less important than the symbolism -- another
hallmark of magic!) cries out that he is wrong -- and even he admits it
in the end, 'See, Jo, there is magic in the world after all!'
So I don't understand these people who say 'The Daemons' proves that
magic doesn't exist in the 'Doctor Who' universe. If anything, it proves
the opposite! The Doctor keeps saying 'there's an explanation', but he
never comes up with one beyond 'psychic science', a meaningless bit of
technobabble if ever I heard one.
> Simply
> having magic at all is a step too far for many people. I think the approach
> of City of the Dead and Grimm Reality is a sound and sensible one - put the
> explanations (or a hint of one) relatively up-front, so the worriers can
> relax and won't be treating the entire book as the scientific equivalent of
> a murder mystery.
Or don't worry about it at all. Can you tell me the bits in 'The City of
the Dead' which suggest there's a scientific explanation for everything,
because I think I missed them?
> Which is what Sorceror's Apprentice was, now I come to think about it. You
> might disagree, but I think an author needs a justification for introducing
> overtly fantastic elements into Doctor Who. I'm just talking on the level
> of what works. The Scarlet Empress was all about a fantastical kind of
> storytelling so that was a special kind of justification, but by and large
> you're gonna need some technobabble along the way.
I give you 'The City of the Dead' as a counter-example.
--
I'm made of steel, soul and metal
I'll be human 'til the day I die
William December Starr
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) said:
> So, no, Paul isn't exactly doing something newfangled. But then
> again, what do you expect when he's writing for a series who's first
> episode starts with an intertextual Dixon of Dock Green reference,
> deconstructs the premise of the show as 'ridiculous' and features a
> time machine sitting in a London junkyard. Doctor Who *is*
> postmodern, self-referential and magic realism. That's sort of the
> whole point.
Or not. It's a _character_, not "the series" that says that a certain
idea is ridiculous, and if there's something inherently more postmodern,
self-referential or magically realistic about a disguised time machine
in a junkyard than in a laboratory, I don't know what it is.
Andrew McCaffrey
>> (See Robert Smith?'s review.)
> Relally? I don't read on-line reviews. Where can I find that one --
> should I search google groups?
Try: http:/www.pagefillers.com/dwrg
> Watch 'The Daemons'. Really watch it. The _only_ thing in the whole
> story that even _suggests_ that there's no such thing as magic is the
> Doctor's bluster. Everything else, from black masses that summon aliens
> to animated stone scared off by iron and an incantation (what the
> incantation is being less important than the symbolism -- another
> hallmark of magic!) cries out that he is wrong -- and even he admits it
> in the end, 'See, Jo, there is magic in the world after all!'
Absolutely. For all the Doctor's talking, the magic used by the
white witch (I forget her name) and the Master work exactly the way
they're supposed to.
Sure, there a few things that resolve to scientific explainations (such as
the car and the "devil"), but there are just as many things that aren't
explained (such as the wind storm, the summoning ritual and the force
barrier).
Jonathan Blum
> To summarize, Tigers is not a bad *story*, although it ranks a bit
> below Kate's best work in overall quality and being a gripping tale.
Cheers. As they say, all the rest is commentary. :-)
It's a shame that you felt that "Tigers" didn't have enough of what
you saw as "Doctor Who". On the other hand, a rather more common
criticism in reviews has been that it had too *much* in the way of
familiar Who elements -- being basically a story where the Doctor gets
caught between two colliding factions, each with a reasonable claim to
the planet, and has to keep the situation from spiralling out of
control. In other words, the story and the Doctor's role are highly
reminiscent of a bunch of previous stories, most notably "The
Silurians"... another Who story that didn't mention the TARDIS, any
old continuity references at all, or indeed any Who elements aside
from the recently-established regular cast. :-)
The idea was, of course, to balance between the old and the new, the
familiar situations with the unexpected approaches to them. It seems
more people feel we erred on the side of too much old than too much
new.
Ah well, at least a lot of people seem to like it anyway. And if
you're really going to give up on the EDA's, might I recommend that
you at least read Lloyd Rose's "City of the Dead" first? Not only is
it a lovely book, a really well-written novel, it's also got some
stuff to do with the Doctor's past which might be a bit more up your
alley. :-)
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
[lots of great stuff snipped -- ta]
> > Then there are the DW elements. Hummer has a lot of them,
> > including the TARDIS, the mention of the Exxilons (sic?), the
> > time-travel-dependent plot, and the use of the character
> > tensions and developments of the previous NAs. IMHO
> > there's quite a high level of Whoishness.
[...]
> > Kate, I hope you don't take offense, but Hummer comes across
> > to me as a story written by someone who loved DW, while Tigers comes
> > across to me as a story written by someone who doesn't or is just
> > writing it as a job.
> Wow. That's awfully harsh. I'd say, perhaps more accurately, that Hummer
> has the advantage of being a new writer's first book about a beloved
> subject....but it's been something like 8 years (and about that many
> books) since then, and just as Kate isn't quite the person she was in
> the early 90s, neither is the Doctor.
I think a fairer assessment is that "Tigers" was written by someone
who loves Doctor Who, specifically the Doctor, but who no longer gives
a flying one about the Exxilons. And it seems odd to praise "Hummer"
for drawing on the character tensions and developments of previous
books, while slating "Tigers" for drawing on the Doctor's character
tensions and developments established since "The Burning". (Though
the elements Kate foregrounded extend back well before "The Burning"
-- surely Jack noticed all the Life's Champion stuff in this one? :-)
Regards,
Jon Blum
Zebee Johnstone
Jonathan Blum <jb...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>It's a shame that you felt that "Tigers" didn't have enough of what
>you saw as "Doctor Who". On the other hand, a rather more common
>criticism in reviews has been that it had too *much* in the way of
>familiar Who elements -- being basically a story where the Doctor gets
>caught between two colliding factions, each with a reasonable claim to
>the planet, and has to keep the situation from spiralling out of
Guess so.
I found it lacking. It just didnt do anything for me, and the generic
nature of it might be some of the reason.
I think a lot of it is 8Doc, I just can't get interested in him. Does
nothing for me at all.
Some of it was definitely "ho hum. Nothing gripping here. Best I can
say is that it's a standard tale."
I have all the Who books Kate has written, and I think there's a bit of a
downward spiral I fear. HUmmer and Set Piece really grabbed me, Sleepy
was Ok with a couple of nice bits, Room with No Doors perked up again,
Return had some fun bits but I dunno, less said about Vile the better.
I mostly liked the 8DA collaborations, but I was very disappointed in
Tigers. I read it till the end, but not with much enthusiasm.
If getting together with you provided an outlet for whatever it was
that was dirving those first two, maybe you need to go on a 6 month
world cruise without her or something!
Zebee
Finn Clark
> Ah. I see what you mean: there's two elements to 'The
> Scarlet Empress' that often get conflated because the
> same people dislike both: the content (with its explicit
> magic) and the style. You were talking about the style;
> I thought you meant the content.
...euuuuuuungh, well, no. The Scarlet Empress, as its afterword says, is
about a new kind of storytelling. Lance said a few posts above this that
magical realism is what Doctor Who's been all along... well, that's Paul
Magrs's opinion too, but he was the first person to actually do it in an
original Who novel.
Similarly, Tomb of Valdemar is a tale-within-a-tale told around the
campfire, complete with self-aware narrator. Grimm Reality borrows the
style and the form of European folk tales (though puts them alongside more
traditional-for-Who hard SF elements). What I see as the common element in
all these is an attempt to write Doctor Who as something other than Flash
Gordon adventures with death-defying cliffhangers. There's nothing wrong
with the Flash Gordon story pattern, being as it is Doctor Who's bread and
butter, but I get excited when a writer comes along and demonstrates that
Doctor Who can also be something else I'd never before imagined it as.
I think this isn't style or content, but form. (Scurries off to look for
dictionary to see if he's talking out of his arse...)
>> (See Robert Smith?'s review.)
>
> Relally? I don't read on-line reviews. Where can
> I find that one -- should I search google groups?
You could, or visit http://pagefillers.com/dwrg/frames.htm.
> Watch 'The Daemons'. Really watch it. The _only_ thing
> in the whole story that even _suggests_ that there's no such
> thing as magic is the Doctor's bluster.
You make a very persuasive case that makes a lot of sense. Objectively
viewed, one can very easily defend the conclusion you reach: that The
Daemons is far more mystical and anti-scientific than it thinks it is. (It
also continues the demonising of science that we see so often in the Pertwee
era. The atom bomb and other scientific achievements are used as sticks for
beating the human race, rather than as positive things that have helped to
make the world a safer and cleaner place. If GM food had been around in the
seventies, you just *know* which side Letts and Dicks would have supported
in that debate.)
However all the ambiguity mentioned above *strengthens* rather than weakens
the power of the magic-science conflict in The Daemons. You're right - it's
not a one-way traffic. The story's trying to have it both ways. Basically
it's a Dennis Wheatley black magic yarn, but the BBC Grey Suits insisted
that they had to say Magic Ain't Real. That message is emphasised
frequently and often (even if it's undermined by other aspects of the
story), and for literal-minded fans that message sank home firmly enough for
Battlefield to rankle seventeen years later.
> Or don't worry about it at all. Can you tell me the bits in
> 'The City of the Dead' which suggest there's a scientific
> explanation for everything, because I think I missed them?
See pages 16-19. It's very clever - it doesn't explain anything *away*, but
it gives questioning readers enough justification for us to accept that
magic might work for the rest of the book without forever looking for the
man behind the curtain. I love that scene; by giving technobabble
suggestions via the Doctor alongside the magical theory, it gives the
hardline there-is-no-magic-it's-all-science fanboy a place to hang his hat
without killing what the story's *really* talking about.
There are certain narrative conventions within a Doctor Who story that one
ignores at one's peril. You can subvert them, but it's dangerous to ignore
them. If you set up a mystery and then never resolve it, you'll piss off
readers - even if it's a mystery only in their subjective opinions.
Finn Clark.
Jack Beven
wrote:
>First, let me say that I frequently find Jack to be a thoughtful
>commentator, and while I think I most often disagree with his take on
>things, I think it's generally a valuable view well expressed.
Thanks!
>
>Jack Beven wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:57:10 +0100, "Finn Clark"
>> <kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>> The first seems to be that "ambiguity=good storytelling". That
>> attitude has worked its way into a lot of the later EDAs (most notably
>> The Blue Angel and The Turing Test) with little in the way of good
>> results IMHO.
>
>IMHO, ambiguity is bad when it is accidental--when the reader is unsure
>what happened but that was not the intent. *Deliberate* ambiguity about
>certain things, however, I often like, if I have some trust that the
>author has a particular place he's taking me and doesn't want to spoil
>everything.
>
>For example, it's never explicitly spelled out that Brax is the Doctor's
>brother. It's ambiguous in that he describes his brother in ways that
>make us think of the Doctor. But I think that makes *me* say "Hmmm, it
>sounds like the Doctor and Brax are brothers, but maybe not", and it
>makes Jack say "Are they brothers or aren't they?" I see additional
>potential in those grey, hazy spaces, but Jack wants to *know*.
That's because in a situation like that the biggest potential I
see is for the authors to play the "is he or isn't he" game
indefinitely - either because they would want to tease the audience
or because they wouldn't want to anger one side or the other by making
a final decision. My main reason for wanting this issue pinned down
would be to bring that game to an end once and for all.
(For the record, I would be more in favor of Brax *not* being the
Doctor's brother. Keeping the Doctor a character with as few as
possible living relations would be one decent way to help preserve
the mystery of the character.)
Granted there are some things that are left ambiguous so the authors
can bring surprises on us at a later time. I can live with those. I'd
really like to get rid of the ones where the authors are playing
games with us or are being used as excuses for bad storytelling.
[snip]
>> The second paradigm? Well, Magrs came across to me as championing
>> the position that the DW elements in the story don't matter as long as
>> the story is good. That paradigm has IMHO sent the EDAs into the
>> abyss.
>
>I thoroughly and completely *disagree*. He said "wow, these parameters
>can be stretched awfully far, and we can look at bog-standard Who thinks
>from a totally different perspective". Or "hey, there's *nothing* you
>can specifically nail down here, but it's still clearly Doctor Who".
>THough of course you'll probably disagree, I think the successfulness of
>the latter paradigm is a matter of taste.
Looking through The Scarlett Empress, I can't find all the passages
I'm looking for. However, the discussion on pages 233-235 rather reeks
of a disregard for continuity, the past, and the idea that the Doctor is
the sum of his memories or even more so. In other words, I think it's
going against several things that I think make for good DW.
>> Looking at it, that is probably the largest single difference between
>> the Virgin NAs and the BBC EDAs. The NAs, whether through chance
>> or design, had many stories that were both good stories and good
>> Doctor Who stories. I like to think it was by design - that the editors
>> realized that good stories by themselves don't automatically make
>> good Doctor Who stories. The EDAs, especially since "Interference",
>> have tried to be just good stories and haven't really paid more than
>> lip service to being good DW stories IMHO.
>
>We have a *wide* variation of opinions on what makes for a good DW
>stories. With so many people complaining that late 80s Who had crawled
>too far up its own fannish hole, I think the only real solution with
>potential legs is to stretch *Who* to encompass other stuff (a proven
>option) rather than to stretch other stuff to fit in Who. I'd rather
>push the existing envelope--which is pretty damned flexible--than snip
>things to fit.
I will disagree with this. IMHO the solution is to do what DW has
done for a long time - take the best that literature/entertainment
industry/whatever has to offer and incorporate it into the series.
That to me is the best of both worlds solution - it lets DW use what
is good to better itself without losing or throwing out what came
before.
>> (And as I've said before, piling on continuity references does not
>> automatically make a good DW story. DW elements have to be used
>> correctly, just like any of the other larger literary elements.)
>
>But your examples tend to be references to earlier adventures that we
>saw on TV, or specifically making use of the TARDIS or time travel or
>Time Lords---and the series has done without any or all of those even
>when it was just a TV show.
I was going to answer this in another post, but I'll do it here
instead. In my mind, DW elements are those that set the series
off from other series (or stories) and make it unique. They are the
things that give it an idenitity. People's mileage will vary as to what
they are. My list would include the character of the Doctor, the
characters of the companions (not the principle of having
companions), the interaction between the Doctor and the companions,
the TARDIS, the monsters, the settings, and the continuity (in all
of its many forms). It's these things that make DW different from
say "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure", "The Time Tunnel", or
any other story about time travel.
Let's look at this another way: In their fundamental forms, Star
Trek: Deep Space Nine and Babylon 5 are both sci-fi space
operas centered around the intrigue on a space station. Does
that mean they were two identical series and that making both
of them was a waste of time and money? Heck, no! Each series
had its own elements that set it apart from the other and made
each series unique.
The principle of proper use of series elements in writing a
good story for that series applies to more than just DW, you know.
IMHO it is an underlying fundamental principle of writing for
*any* series.
>> The Turing Test is probably the best example of this dichotomy.
>> One one side, it is a rather well-written story. Not a perfect story,
>> mind you, because it kind of drowned itself in ambiguity and
>> loose ends. But one that was notably more good than bad. On
>> the other hand, the story features about the worst portrayal/
>> characterization of the Doctor that I've ever had the misfortune
>> to encounter. It was like something out of a bad fanfic written
>> with the attitude "I *can* write the Doctor this way so I *will*!".
>> I didn't hear the Doctor scream at the end of the story - I heard
>> a 200 decibel thud as the EDAs hit rock bottom.
>
>Another thorough disagreement here. What you got was a characterization
>of the Doctor that was very much at odds with what you were used to ---
>but then, as I and others pointed out in other debates, you're not
>getting an absolutely honest narrator; you're getting three separate
>narrators, each bringing their own biases and agendas and emotions.
>We're used to viewing the Doctor more or less directly, or through the
>eyes of a loyal companion. Turing gave us three perspectives on a Doctor
>who was already somewhat different from expectations, and those
>viewp[oints themselves contradict each other.
Different does not automatically equal good. And regardless of the
number of narrators and their viewpoints, the Doctor's characterization
still looks like utter crap to me.
>> Another way to look at this is to contrast The Left -Handed
>> Hummingbird with The Year of Intelligent Tigers. They
>> both feature strong concepts - a feature seen in almost all of
>> Kate's DW stories. However, IMHO Hummer has better
>> characterizations of the Doctor and companions than
>> Tigers and is much better plotted. Tigers was rather dull
>> in places and IMHO the story could have easily have been
>> 15-25 pages shorter. Thus, I'd rate Hummer a better overall
>> story than Tigers. (I could also say the same thing about
>> Set Piece vs. Tigers.)
>
>I'm sorry, it's been hundreds of books since either of those early Kate
>books and frankly I don't remember them well enough to contrast them
>with Tigers. But I found Tigers to be one of the more engaging tales,
>with an interesting new culture to explore, a Doctor at odds with his
>companions, in fact a tale overall more about people than about events.
>That's Kate's strength and she does well to play to it--but moreso, it
>helps cement and redefine the emerging Post-Gallifrey Eighth Doctor.
Well, I agree on the culture. However, the Doctor at odds with his
companions things was done *much* better in the Alternative
History arc that included Hummer. Also, the people tale was IMHO
done much better by Ben Aaronovitch in The Also People.
And if this is the Doctor we're going to see until BBC TV finally
gets around to regenerating him, then it just gives me less
incentive to read the future EDAs.
[snip]
>The Doctor Who line (and the character himself) underwent a pretty
>drastic pruning because the weight of the existing foliage was in danger
>of damaging the whole--the line was, IMO, collapsing under the
>collective weight of its own continuity.
[snip]
>See my notes about "pruning" above. Once you accept the need to do this
>(and I realize you don't) the reality is that some branches are going to
>be lost. Others will regrow in slightly different ways. So the Doctor is
>in a period of regrowing a lost limb, and things are still raw--so of
>course he's not going to be the juggernaut that he once was.
I don't accept the need for pruning *at all*. If an author wants to
write a continuity-light or free story, all he or she has to do is
create a new setting for the Doctor to visit and new monsters/villians/
races that the Doctor has never encountered, and place it far
enough away from any of the Doctor's other adventures spatially
or temporally that there's no chance of any overlap. That takes care
of 90% of potential continuity problems, as well as giving the authors
an tremendous chance to show off their originality. The only things
that the authors would have to be careful of at that point is to get
the continuity of the characterization of the Doctor and companions
right - and that should not be that big of a burden on the authors.
The post-Ancestor Cell EDAs are not charting such a course.
Seven out of the ten of them that I have read were set on Earth,
and the other three involved Earth-origin humans. IMHO using
such settings over and over again is just sowing more mines
in the continuity minefield.
To me, there is no such thing as a continuity problem. Instead,
it is a people problem - authors who want to write stories that
directly contradict others, authors who want to use settings that
have already been oversused, and authors who can't seem to
make that extra effort to get continuity right. Trying to dismiss
continuity as excess baggage is IMHO the easy-way-out
solution, and taking the easy way out does not strike me as
an approach that leads to good storytelling.
And that lost limb will not be regrown IMHO until the pre- and
post-Ancestor Cell Eight Doctor's are unified back into one
whole.
[snip]
>> To summarize, Tigers is not a bad *story*, although it ranks a bit
>> below Kate's best work in overall quality and being a gripping tale.
>> However, as a *Doctor Who* story, it is far and away the worst thing
>> that I've ever seen Kate and/or Jon write. I gave it a 5/10 in Shannon's
>> rankings. Kate, I hope you don't take offense, but Hummer comes across
>> to me as a story written by someone who loved DW, while Tigers comes
>> across to me as a story written by someone who doesn't or is just
>> writing it as a job.
>
>Wow. That's awfully harsh. I'd say, perhaps more accurately, that Hummer
>has the advantage of being a new writer's first book about a beloved
>subject....but it's been something like 8 years (and about that many
>books) since then, and just as Kate isn't quite the person she was in
>the early 90s, neither is the Doctor.
I'm not the same person I was when I started reading the books back
in 1991. I've become much more cynical about the authors and their
agendas and a lot more analytical and critical of the books.
As for Kate, you be the judge. Please check out her own words on
Tigers at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lemniskate/message/14
>{snip]
>
>Your chief complaint seems to be what it's been for as long as I can
>remember -- things changed a bit more than you wanted them to.
>
>Personally, I think the way forward is for DW to be *less* of a
>celebration of the past and *more* of an inventive, dynamic series that
>takes chances, that risks losing audience to keep things fresh and new
>---like it's always been.
It's not that the EDAs have changed more than I want them to, it is
that in their changes they've gone directions I don't think they should
go.
My all-time favorite DW book is Paul Cornell's Love and War. Why?
Because it is an excellent *constructive* blend of the series past and
its (at the time) future. It was built on a foundation of solid DW, yet
introduced new ideas and concepts that took the series off in
interesting new directions. Few, if any, of the NAs/EDAs since
that time have even approached that level on constructive harmony
between past and future - Alien Bodies being about the only one
I can think of off the top of my head.
Lately, the interaction between series past and series future has
IMHO been *destructive* - Interference tried to retcon Planet of the
Spiders, Shadows of Avalon destroyed the TARDIS, The Ancestor
Cell destroyed Gallifrey and retconned the Taking of Planet 5 out
of existence in the process, and the Amnesiac Doctor destroyed
large chunks of the character. No matter what comes out of these
developments (particularly the Amnesiac Doctor), I'm always going to
look askance at them because they had to destroy so much in order
to create. IMHO there was (and is) nothing that is so wrong about
DW that it requires such a literary urban renewal project.
The bottom line is that the EDAs have chosen destruction over
construction, and that IMHO is the wrong way to go. Kate writes
at the end of Tigers that the Doctor choses life, and that is exactly
what I think I'm chosing for the series - inexorable, relentless,
dogged life for *all* parts of the series rather than a life for one
part based on the death of other parts.
Jack Beven
<kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Jack Beven wrote:
[snip]
>> Finally, I don't like the fact that between Tigers and the
>> 23 stories the preceeded it that I can't find: a) any story
>> that I thought was a great Doctor Who story, and b) any
>> story that I'm in any hurry to read again. If I can't find
>> much I like in those stories, chances are I won't find
>> much in the similar stories that are yet to come.
>
>Actually I'd agree with you that there's been some godawful rubbish
>published over the past five years, but ironically I also feel Year of
>Intelligent Tigers was a bit of a turning point. I've really enjoyed just
>about every 8DA since then, in its own way. You might give City of the Dead
>a try - I haven't heard anyone here (even J2Rider) say a bad word about it.
Does CotD re-unify Doctor present with Doctor past and EDA
present with the rest of Doctor Who? If not, I'd say the chances that
I will like it have taken a hit.
Cameron Mason
Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3bd4e5f3...@news.mindspring.com...
<snip>
> Lately, the interaction between series past and series future has
> IMHO been *destructive* - Interference tried to retcon Planet of the
> Spiders
No - Lawrence was using Faction Paradox to make a point - the Doctor's past
is just as malliable as Earth's history, infact you could say he was working
with a theme from as far back as The Aztecs....
Cameron
--
"I'm half-human on the Other's side."
http://members.fortunecity.com/masomika/
Cameron Mason
<snip>
> Does CotD re-unify Doctor present with Doctor past and EDA
> present with the rest of Doctor Who?
Well....
SPOILERS FOR THE CITY OF THE DEAD!!!!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The EIghth Doctor has this dream where he finds The Seventh Doctor in a
tomb, who then gets up and yells at him, before trying to strangle him....
Cameron
--
Dimensions in Crime
http://members.fortunecity.com/masomika/
Jack Beven
>jbe...@mindspring.com (Jack Beven) wrote in message news:<3bd3d097....@news.mindspring.com>...
>> To summarize, Tigers is not a bad *story*, although it ranks a bit
>> below Kate's best work in overall quality and being a gripping tale.
>
>Cheers. As they say, all the rest is commentary. :-)
>
>It's a shame that you felt that "Tigers" didn't have enough of what
>you saw as "Doctor Who". On the other hand, a rather more common
>criticism in reviews has been that it had too *much* in the way of
>familiar Who elements -- being basically a story where the Doctor gets
>caught between two colliding factions, each with a reasonable claim to
>the planet, and has to keep the situation from spiralling out of
>control. In other words, the story and the Doctor's role are highly
>reminiscent of a bunch of previous stories, most notably "The
>Silurians"... another Who story that didn't mention the TARDIS, any
>old continuity references at all, or indeed any Who elements aside
>from the recently-established regular cast. :-)
Well, I honestly don't see these plot elements, or plot in general,
as DW elements. To me, they are elements that are more related to larger
literary issues than elements unique to Doctor Who. I'm sure if you and
I looked we could find stories outside DW that use the same plot ideas
that you mentione here.
To give another example, the base-under-seige storyline has been a
staple of DW almost since the beginning. However, DW hardly has
a monopoly on base-under-seige stories, so I don't count that sort
of plot as a unique DW element.
As I said in the long post I just finished, people's ideas of DW
elements will vary. I try to limit mine to those that set DW apart
from other series and not what it has in common with other
series. Does that clarify things?
>The idea was, of course, to balance between the old and the new, the
>familiar situations with the unexpected approaches to them. It seems
>more people feel we erred on the side of too much old than too much
>new.
My feeling is that the presence of the Amnesiac Doctor tilted things
toward the new regardless of how the rest of the story went.
I did go through a little mental exercise of trying to plug a fully-
functioning Doctor into the story to see what might be the result.
IMHO that wouldn't change the plot to any notable extent, but
it would increase the Whoishness and trim back some of those
things got my nose bent out of joint when I read the book.
I went through a similar exercise with The Burning, except there
I took the Doctor out and replaced him with the likes of Sherlock
Holmes, Richard Seaton, or Ace. Some of the dialogue would have to
change, and one scene would have to be dropped, but for the most part
I didn't see where the story as a whole would have to change. What does
that say about the Whoishness of The Burning?
>Ah well, at least a lot of people seem to like it anyway. And if
>you're really going to give up on the EDA's, might I recommend that
>you at least read Lloyd Rose's "City of the Dead" first? Not only is
>it a lovely book, a really well-written novel, it's also got some
>stuff to do with the Doctor's past which might be a bit more up your
>alley. :-)
I'll see. The problem is that I'm disenchanted with the directions
the EDAs have gone over the past three years, and no matter how
good City of the Dead may be I've not heard anything to indicate
that it marks a change for the better in those directions. I should
make one thing very clear here - Tigers is *not* the primary reason
I'm giving up on the EDAs. It was, however, the straw that broke
the camel's back.
I can see why people would like Tigers and the direction that
the EDAs have gone. However, I seemingly have different
standards of what makes for good DW than most of the current
EDA audience.
I've heard through other sources that you were interested in
getting my feedback on the weather portions of Tigers. I'll
say here that part of the story came under the concepts that
I thought were the strength of the story. I'll be glad to talk to
you and Kate about it in more detail outside the group.
Jack Beven
>Jim Vowles <alab...@capu.net> wrote in message news:<3BD48080...@capu.net>...
>
>[lots of great stuff snipped -- ta]
[snip]
>I think a fairer assessment is that "Tigers" was written by someone
>who loves Doctor Who, specifically the Doctor, but who no longer gives
>a flying one about the Exxilons. And it seems odd to praise "Hummer"
>for drawing on the character tensions and developments of previous
>books, while slating "Tigers" for drawing on the Doctor's character
>tensions and developments established since "The Burning". (Though
>the elements Kate foregrounded extend back well before "The Burning"
>-- surely Jack noticed all the Life's Champion stuff in this one? :-)
For me, the Exxilons in Hummer served the same general purpose
as the presence of the Daleks and the Draconians in Love and War -
not exactly vital to the plot but providing the foundation of the past
that those stories and whatever future events they led to were built
on. Having that foundation present didn't stop either story from being
an exciting tale with new additions to the series. IMHO that kind of
foundation has been sorely missed in the post-Ancestor Cell books.
A question for you, Jon: Could Love and War be published *as
written* under the current direction of the EDAs?
And no, I didn't catch the Life's Champion bit. I did see the line at
the end about life, but Life's Champion didn't exactly leap off the
pages at me. :-)
Finn Clark
> (For the record, I would be more in favor of Brax *not* being
> the Doctor's brother. Keeping the Doctor a character with as
> few as possible living relations would be one decent way to help
> preserve the mystery of the character.)
Completely agreed. I think I spat blood when one of the later Benny books
basically said Brax was the Doctor's brother. I just don't see the *point*.
Text - "Braxiatel is the Doctor's brother!!!!!"
Finn - "Yes, and?"
> And that lost limb will not be regrown IMHO until the
> pre- and post-Ancestor Cell Eight Doctor's are unified
> back into one whole.
A few points, just to throw my hat in the ring.
Firstly, I think the Eighth Doctor's amnesia has really improved the
character. Before this development, I found him impossibly dull and a
nearly insurmountable challenge for even the best authors. You might feel
he works less well as a link with the past, but (in the more recent 8DAs at
any rate) I think he's working much better as the hero of his novels. Even
if the amnesia is eventually undone, good will have come of evil. :-)
Secondly (to take one example), City of the Dead is a very good book and
bashing it for the sins of its predecessors would seem a tad unfair to me.
T'ain't Lloyd Rose's fault. (If you eventually read it, then you'll find
that it discusses the Doctor's amnesia without screaming in horror and
jumping on a chair. IMO if you're going to have a continuing series rather
than a pissing-in-the-pool contest between the authors then this is
necessary and desirable. If you've got a big scary story going on, then the
way to resolve it is to push it to its dramatic conclusion rather than to
cut it dead.)
Thirdly, the Doctor has had amnesia before. One could argue that it's an
appropriate use of Doctor Who elements... see the Third Doctor's memory
blocks during his exile (and arguably they weren't all removed; see the
discussion of Season 6B and Troughton's Stattenheim remote control in The
Two Doctors), or Timewyrm: Genesis.
Fourthly, I think one's got to assume that the amnesia is *going* somewhere.
Quite apart from anything else, in time the Doctor will have acquired so
much new experience that it won't make much practical difference whether he
regains his memory or not. The 8DAs are an ongoing story and to bash
individual books for not resolving the situation immediately is perhaps akin
to bashing a book's individual chapters for building its plot developments
towards the final climax instead of wrapping up everything on the spot.
But having said that, I do have one problem with the amnesia... that it
makes the Doctor seem like a wuss. Okay, yes, he went a bit spastic in
Dominion 'cos he broke a nail [1]. But to wipe your brain clean and still
be going into hysterical fits A HUNDRED BLOODY YEARS LATER seems a bit over
the top to me. Get over it, will ya? So the man's got a highly developed
sense of guilt. Get a life. Take a pill. He's done scary things out of
expediency before without turning into a prize fucking petunia.
I suppose you could construct an argument that the Eighth Doctor is reacting
to his Virgin and other exploits when he was still being played by Sylvester
McCoy, just as so many of his other incarnations have seemed to react
against their predecessors. And yes, blowing up Gallifrey was about as bad
a bad thing as you could possibly get... er, with the possible exception of
the Seven Planets, or the destruction of an entire parallel universe in
Blood Heat...
[1] - joke. Actually the TARDIS went awol.
> Lately, the interaction between series past and series future
> has IMHO been *destructive* - Interference tried to retcon
> Planet of the Spiders, Shadows of Avalon destroyed the
> TARDIS, The Ancestor Cell destroyed Gallifrey and
> retconned the Taking of Planet 5 out of existence in the
> process, and the Amnesiac Doctor destroyed large chunks
> of the character.
I think this is a very accurate and perceptive comment. However all that
destruction was either the Cole-era "What The Fuck" arc or part of its
wrapping-up. Since then the books have had a different spirit.
Finn Clark.
Steven Kitson
> A question for you, Jon: Could Love and War be published *as
>written* under the current direction of the EDAs?
I doubt it. I mean, it doesn't explain why the Doctor suddenly becomes
this short man with a hat, and where Fitz and Anji went, and why the
Doctor's gone all manipulative, which he wasn't as much in (for
example) 'The Year of Intelligent Tigers' or 'Grimmm Reality' and and...
(having an identity crisis day)
Steven Kitson
>Steven Kitson wrote:
>> Ah. I see what you mean: there's two elements to 'The
>> Scarlet Empress' that often get conflated because the
>> same people dislike both: the content (with its explicit
>> magic) and the style. You were talking about the style;
>> I thought you meant the content.
>I think this isn't style or content, but form. (Scurries off to look for
>dictionary to see if he's talking out of his arse...)
I think this is just a semantic mismatch; I think I know what you're
talking about, even if we do use different words for it.
>>> (See Robert Smith?'s review.)
>> Relally? I don't read on-line reviews. Where can
>> I find that one -- should I search google groups?
>You could, or visit http://pagefillers.com/dwrg/frames.htm.
Oh, that's quite touching -- 'I must have missed'. Benefit of the doubt,
'it was in there, I'm sure, but I missed it.' Not something I'm used to
seeing in connection with 'Doctor Who' books.
>> Watch 'The Daemons'. Really watch it. The _only_ thing
>> in the whole story that even _suggests_ that there's no such
>> thing as magic is the Doctor's bluster.
>
>You make a very persuasive case that makes a lot of sense. Objectively
>viewed, one can very easily defend the conclusion you reach: that The
>Daemons is far more mystical and anti-scientific than it thinks it is.
'That it thinks it is'? Than the Doctor thinks it is, I think you
mean. I'm not sure, but given...
>(It
>also continues the demonising of science that we see so often in the Pertwee
>era. The atom bomb and other scientific achievements are used as sticks for
>beating the human race, rather than as positive things that have helped to
>make the world a safer and cleaner place. If GM food had been around in the
>seventies, you just *know* which side Letts and Dicks would have supported
>in that debate.)
... and the last line, I suspect that Letts and Dicks may have known
_exactly_ what they were doing. For all we talk about Dicks being stuck in
the past, he's definately not stupid when it comes to storytelling!
>However all the ambiguity mentioned above *strengthens* rather than weakens
>the power of the magic-science conflict in The Daemons. You're right - it's
>not a one-way traffic. The story's trying to have it both ways. Basically
>it's a Dennis Wheatley black magic yarn, but the BBC Grey Suits insisted
>that they had to say Magic Ain't Real.
Or Letts and Dicks knew that Storytelling is Conflict, so they set up this
magic vs. science conflict?
> That message is emphasised
>frequently and often (even if it's undermined by other aspects of the
>story),
By one character. The message that it's good to be happy is emphasised
frequently and often by Helen A in 'The Happiness Patrol', but that don't
make it so. The Doctor is fallible -- we've seen enough evidence of that!
>> Or don't worry about it at all. Can you tell me the bits in
>> 'The City of the Dead' which suggest there's a scientific
>> explanation for everything, because I think I missed them?
>
>See pages 16-19. It's very clever - it doesn't explain anything *away*, but
>it gives questioning readers enough justification for us to accept that
>magic might work for the rest of the book without forever looking for the
>man behind the curtain. I love that scene; by giving technobabble
>suggestions via the Doctor alongside the magical theory, it gives the
>hardline there-is-no-magic-it's-all-science fanboy a place to hang his hat
>without killing what the story's *really* talking about.
I'll have a look when I get home. Is that the scene where he corrects
someone's use of the word 'dimension'?
>There are certain narrative conventions within a Doctor Who story that one
>ignores at one's peril.
Indeed, but I'm not sure that 'magic isn't real' is one of them. I think
it's something that people _think_ was a convention, but if you look back,
it's not really there. From 'The Daemons' to 'Kinda' to 'Enlightenment' to
'Battlefield', there's magic there all the way. The books have continued
that, and the Virgin New Adventures even picked up on the whole magic vs
science theme from 'The Daemons' and made it not a difference of opinion
between the Doctor and an English villager, but a fundamental defining
part of the cosmos.
(Is it just me hates Paul Cornell's suggestion that the Eternals became
the Gods of Gallifrey? It's just so unnecessary, and it removes some of
the mystery surrounding both).
Lance Parkin
wrote:
> A question for you, Jon: Could Love and War be published *as
>written* under the current direction of the EDAs?
I think so. At the same time, it was a very long time ago,
now - I love the book, but it's as old now as K9 and
Company was then. Tastes and trends change, things
come along that means things develop. Could K9
and Company be an NA *as written*? No, of course
not.
A lot of the things that were big and clever in 1992
when L&W first came out - the monster based on
obscure continuity reference, the pop culture
cameos from Vic Reeves and the like, the companion
having sex, the casual referencing to two or three TV
serials, the idea that a books companion can be
infinitely more entertaining than a TV one ... well, put
it this way - if Love and War appeared *as written*
now it would be doing those things for the hundredth
time, not the first, and that's all the difference in the
world.
Love and War is great, Love and War is nine years old
this month, and our job isn't to lovingly recreate 1992,
it's to try to tell stories that are just as compelling and
entertaining now as Love and War was then.
Lance
Andrew McCaffrey
> Looking through The Scarlett Empress, I can't find all the passages
> I'm looking for. However, the discussion on pages 233-235 rather reeks
> of a disregard for continuity, the past, and the idea that the Doctor is
> the sum of his memories or even more so. In other words, I think it's
> going against several things that I think make for good DW.
(For those of us without quick and easy access to our books please type
out a quick summary of pages 233-235? I can't really remember what's said
on those exact page numbers. ;> )
>>We have a *wide* variation of opinions on what makes for a good DW
>>stories. With so many people complaining that late 80s Who had crawled
>>too far up its own fannish hole, I think the only real solution with
>>potential legs is to stretch *Who* to encompass other stuff (a proven
>>option) rather than to stretch other stuff to fit in Who. I'd rather
>>push the existing envelope--which is pretty damned flexible--than snip
>>things to fit.
> I will disagree with this. IMHO the solution is to do what DW has
> done for a long time - take the best that literature/entertainment
> industry/whatever has to offer and incorporate it into the series.
> That to me is the best of both worlds solution - it lets DW use what
> is good to better itself without losing or throwing out what came
> before.
I don't think there's as much disagreement here as it would appear. When
DW stretches its envelope out into different genres and formats it *is*
incorporating new things into the series. I don't think anyone is saying
that in order for DW to do a 19th Century mystery novel (for example) it
must give up doing all isolated-base-under-alien-attack stories.
It's a trade off, really. You push the DW envelope out in the
direction of the new idea while at the same time pulling at the new
idea to drag it into the DW format. Doctor Who is fortunately enough to
have such a flexible format that it can incorporate many many different
tones and genres under its main umbrella without doing much damage to
either the existing material or the new stuff.
>>See my notes about "pruning" above. Once you accept the need to do this
>>(and I realize you don't) the reality is that some branches are going to
>>be lost. Others will regrow in slightly different ways. So the Doctor is
>>in a period of regrowing a lost limb, and things are still raw--so of
>>course he's not going to be the juggernaut that he once was.
> I don't accept the need for pruning *at all*. If an author wants to
> write a continuity-light or free story, all he or she has to do is
> create a new setting for the Doctor to visit and new monsters/villians/
> races that the Doctor has never encountered, and place it far
> enough away from any of the Doctor's other adventures spatially
> or temporally that there's no chance of any overlap. That takes care
> of 90% of potential continuity problems, as well as giving the authors
> an tremendous chance to show off their originality. The only things
> that the authors would have to be careful of at that point is to get
> the continuity of the characterization of the Doctor and companions
> right - and that should not be that big of a burden on the authors.
I have no problem with this; there are a lot of stories out there to tell
that don't need to be sequels to previously told stories or plots based on
revisiting the past. And characterization of the regulars should *always*
be a huge consideration for any author writing in a continuing series.
On the other hand, if you have a continuity-free story then aren't you
going to be looking for the links to the Exxilons, Draconians, etc? It's
a very fine line being painted here...
> The post-Ancestor Cell EDAs are not charting such a course.
> Seven out of the ten of them that I have read were set on Earth,
> and the other three involved Earth-origin humans. IMHO using
> such settings over and over again is just sowing more mines
> in the continuity minefield.
While I would like to see more alien environments (paging Nick Walters), I
don't really see a problem with the Doctor being involved with humans.
The Doctor travels with humans, dressed like a human, enjoys human
company, eats human food, etc. Humans are a huge part of the Whoniverse
and are 100% of his audience. ;>
> To me, there is no such thing as a continuity problem. Instead,
> it is a people problem - authors who want to write stories that
> directly contradict others, authors who want to use settings that
> have already been oversused, and authors who can't seem to
> make that extra effort to get continuity right. Trying to dismiss
> continuity as excess baggage is IMHO the easy-way-out
> solution, and taking the easy way out does not strike me as
> an approach that leads to good storytelling.
I don't really see how the two concepts link up here. Dismissing
continuity may not lead to good storytelling, but neither does it
necessarily lead to bad storytelling. I don't think that continuity
really matters outside of existing for its own sake. A story can get
every detail right, but still end up being a dull, runaround. A story can
mess up in every way possible, but turn out to be a riproaring pageturning
masterpiece. I don't see how continuity has an effect. Getting
continuity wrong may weaken the series itself (though I'd disagree with
that thought), but I don't see how it would relate to the storytelling,
plot, characters and tone present in an individual book.
Matthew Wilson
wrote:
>Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Looking through The Scarlett Empress, I can't find all the passages
>> I'm looking for. However, the discussion on pages 233-235 rather reeks
>> of a disregard for continuity, the past, and the idea that the Doctor is
>> the sum of his memories or even more so. In other words, I think it's
>> going against several things that I think make for good DW.
>
>(For those of us without quick and easy access to our books please type
>out a quick summary of pages 233-235? I can't really remember what's said
>on those exact page numbers. ;> )
Is this the bit that says: "Time's Champion my arse!" ?
Matthew
Finn Clark
> The Doctor travels with humans, dressed like a human,
> enjoys human company, eats human food, etc. Humans
> are a huge part of the Whoniverse and are 100% of his
> audience. ;>
You haven't been to a convention recently, I presume? :-)
Finn Clark.
Steven Kitson
> Finn Clark <kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >Steven Kitson wrote:
> >> Or don't worry about it at all. Can you tell me the bits in
> >> 'The City of the Dead' which suggest there's a scientific
> >> explanation for everything, because I think I missed them?
> >See pages 16-19. It's very clever - it doesn't explain anything *away*, but
> >it gives questioning readers enough justification for us to accept that
> >magic might work for the rest of the book without forever looking for the
> >man behind the curtain. I love that scene; by giving technobabble
> >suggestions via the Doctor alongside the magical theory, it gives the
> >hardline there-is-no-magic-it's-all-science fanboy a place to hang his hat
> >without killing what the story's *really* talking about.
>
> I'll have a look when I get home. Is that the scene where he corrects
> someone's use of the word 'dimension'?
And had a look I have. Had. Have had? Anyway.
Yeeeeees. I still don't think it 'explains' anythng. It says 'magic is
altering probability' -- well, yes, that's all very well, but there's no
explanation as to how the magician does it. I might as well nod
knowledgably and say 'Magic, my dear Finn? Why, it's just a matter of
pulling a rabbit out of a hat. That's all the magician does, really --
he reaches into a previously-empty hat and pulls out a rabbit. So
beautifully simple!'
Then there's the stuff about it being 'physics'. Well, firstly, he's not
talking about physics -- manipulating the laws of probability would be a
sort of meta-physics. Or metaphysics. Look, we're back where we started.
Secondly, it relies on 'courage', as an abstract, being transmutable
into energy -- and we're back to the non-explanation.
It's just mysticbabble, not technobabble. Although I suppose if all the
reader demands is babble, the two are sufficiently hard to tell apart
that either sort will do, in a pinch.
Meddling Mick
>A few points, just to throw my hat in the ring.
>
>Firstly, I think the Eighth Doctor's amnesia has really improved the
>character. Before this development, I found him impossibly dull and a
>nearly insurmountable challenge for even the best authors. You might feel
>he works less well as a link with the past, but (in the more recent 8DAs at
>any rate) I think he's working much better as the hero of his novels. Even
>if the amnesia is eventually undone, good will have come of evil. :-)
>[snippety]
The problem I had with the Doctor's amnesia is that, well, we've never
really seen him suffering *from* amnesia (Okay, so we've got him
saying stuff like 'I don't know who I am or where I'm from', fine).
But apart from that, he appears to be just as knowledgeable about
things as he always was prior to 'tAC'. He knows about hi-tech
equipment that's never been developed by the twenty-first century. He
knows about androids. He knows how to pilot the TARDIS. He knows
*too* *much* without any plausible reason for why he should know some
of these things, IMO.
c1888 - Doctor comes to on Earth, suffering from amnesia. All he
knows is he has to find someone called the Doctor.
Next time we see him, a few years down the line, he's *calling*
himself the Doctor. I mean... how the hell does he leap to that
conclusion?!?! No explanation.
The Earthy/amnesia stuff had so much potential but the opportunity was
squandered, IMO. Put yourself in the Doctor's shoes for a moment (I'm
sure they'll fit perfectly):
You wake up not knowing who you are, but you have to find someone
called 'the Doctor'. There's no possible reason why you should
suddenly think 'Stuff this for a game of amnesiacs - I'll just start
calling *myself* the Doctor and there, that's it - I've found him!
The quest is at an end, hooray!'.
How would it *feel* to not have a past? What would you do to try and
find out who you were? How would you react if you realised you
weren't growing older while all those around you withered and died?
What would you think if you discovered you never got ill, or that you
had two hearts? Would you automatically think you were an alien? Or
something else?
Sadly, we never got answers to anything of the sort during the 'Eight
Man Bound' arc. Nope, we just got a bunch of, well, typical 'Who'
stories that didn't really try to deal with anything the Doctor must
have been going through emotionally for decades. What a bloody waste.
--
(Meddling) Mick Gair
Now, new and improved, with added 'wife'!
Meddling Mick
>Jim Vowles wrote:
>
>>First, let me say that I frequently find Jack to be a thoughtful
>>commentator, and while I think I most often disagree with his take on
>>things, I think it's generally a valuable view well expressed.
I agree.
> Lately, the interaction between series past and series future has
>IMHO been *destructive* - Interference tried to retcon Planet of the
>Spiders, Shadows of Avalon destroyed the TARDIS, The Ancestor
>Cell destroyed Gallifrey and retconned the Taking of Planet 5 out
>of existence in the process
Wow, you got off rather lightly, then - my copy of 'The Ancestor Cell'
retconned a helluva lot more than just one BBC book. The
repercussions of 'tAC' also started biting huge chunks out of the
latter Bernice-led NAs, too, IIRC.
Meddling Mick
[snip]
> My feeling is that the presence of the Amnesiac Doctor tilted things
>toward the new regardless of how the rest of the story went.
>
> I did go through a little mental exercise of trying to plug a fully-
>functioning Doctor into the story to see what might be the result.
>IMHO that wouldn't change the plot to any notable extent, but
>it would increase the Whoishness and trim back some of those
>things got my nose bent out of joint when I read the book.
>
> I went through a similar exercise with The Burning, except there
>I took the Doctor out and replaced him with the likes of Sherlock
>Holmes, Richard Seaton, or Ace. Some of the dialogue would have to
>change, and one scene would have to be dropped, but for the most part
>I didn't see where the story as a whole would have to change. What does
>that say about the Whoishness of The Burning?
Um, that's it's just as 'Who'-ish as 'Talons of Weng-Chiang'...? ;)
Jim Vowles
[Jack says]
> >> The first seems to be that "ambiguity=good storytelling". That
> >> attitude has worked its way into a lot of the later EDAs (most notably
> >> The Blue Angel and The Turing Test) with little in the way of good
> >> results IMHO.
[I say]
> >IMHO, ambiguity is bad when it is accidental--when the reader is unsure
> >what happened but that was not the intent. *Deliberate* ambiguity about
> >certain things, however, I often like, if I have some trust that the
> >author has a particular place he's taking me and doesn't want to spoil
> >everything.
> >
> >For example, it's never explicitly spelled out that Brax is the Doctor's
> >brother. It's ambiguous in that he describes his brother in ways that
> >make us think of the Doctor. But I think that makes *me* say "Hmmm, it
> >sounds like the Doctor and Brax are brothers, but maybe not", and it
> >makes Jack say "Are they brothers or aren't they?" I see additional
> >potential in those grey, hazy spaces, but Jack wants to *know*.
>
> That's because in a situation like that the biggest potential I
> see is for the authors to play the "is he or isn't he" game
> indefinitely - either because they would want to tease the audience
> or because they wouldn't want to anger one side or the other by making
> a final decision. My main reason for wanting this issue pinned down
> would be to bring that game to an end once and for all.
Could it not also be because by opening up possibilities that offer
conflict, they make it possible to do exactly the sort of referential
storytelling you claim to like? By setting up someone who may or may not
be the Doctor's brother, we now have the possibility of someone who
knows the Doctor rather better than we do, who can introduce hitherto
unknown things about him, etc. Without setting up the ambiguity, we're
left only with all those clearly defined, black -and-white lines of What
Is and What Is Not....and stories don't happen in the white or the
black, but in the swirly patterns and the greys between known and
unknown. By mixing up the Known and the Unknown, we open up the Maybe.
> (For the record, I would be more in favor of Brax *not* being the
> Doctor's brother. Keeping the Doctor a character with as few as
> possible living relations would be one decent way to help preserve
> the mystery of the character.)
Agreed. So the solution is to introduce an insider who clearly is more
than what he claims to be, who *might* be the Doctor's brother, but who
clearly has some sort of intimate connection with our favorite Time
Lord. Then we get the functionality of that insight and that sort of
relationship, and by not nailing it down, we also get the opportunity to
inspire someone to write a proper "The Doctor's Relative" story. Lance
has introduced us to the Doctor's Wife and the Doctor's Daughter since
then, after all.
> Granted there are some things that are left ambiguous so the authors
> can bring surprises on us at a later time. I can live with those. I'd
> really like to get rid of the ones where the authors are playing
> games with us or are being used as excuses for bad storytelling.
But how do you set up those possibilities without those risks? It's
always possible that a change of direction wont' work out, or that a
seed planted won't grow.
> [snip]
>
> >> The second paradigm? Well, Magrs came across to me as championing
> >> the position that the DW elements in the story don't matter as long as
> >> the story is good. That paradigm has IMHO sent the EDAs into the
> >> abyss.
> >
> >I thoroughly and completely *disagree*. He said "wow, these parameters
> >can be stretched awfully far, and we can look at bog-standard Who thinks
> >from a totally different perspective". Or "hey, there's *nothing* you
> >can specifically nail down here, but it's still clearly Doctor Who".
> >THough of course you'll probably disagree, I think the successfulness of
> >the latter paradigm is a matter of taste.
>
> Looking through The Scarlett Empress, I can't find all the passages
> I'm looking for. However, the discussion on pages 233-235 rather reeks
> of a disregard for continuity, the past, and the idea that the Doctor is
> the sum of his memories or even more so. In other words, I think it's
> going against several things that I think make for good DW.
Well, my copy of SE is nowhere nearby, so I can't really respond
properly to this.
I do NOT however believe that the "disregard for continuity" is the
intent. One can respect the past without being bound by it, and I think
that's part of Iris' function--to make us question the assumptions we
make about the past and our desparate attempts to codify the Known
versus the Not Known.
As for the Doctor being the sum of his memories---well, that's pretty
language I suppose, but it's not the whole story. The Doctor contains
the sum of his memories, but he is not *limited* to the sum of his
memories. And we know that the memory is not perfect; it edits
(Bernice), lies (Iris), and cheats.
The dichotomy is between the fierce and unyielding adherence to the
past, and the notion that the past might not only be altered, but it
could be fluid, or simply not quite what we remembered. In a sense, the
Doctor continues to fight the "You can't change history, not one word"
fight, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
> >> Looking at it, that is probably the largest single difference between
> >> the Virgin NAs and the BBC EDAs. The NAs, whether through chance
> >> or design, had many stories that were both good stories and good
> >> Doctor Who stories. I like to think it was by design - that the editors
> >> realized that good stories by themselves don't automatically make
> >> good Doctor Who stories. The EDAs, especially since "Interference",
> >> have tried to be just good stories and haven't really paid more than
> >> lip service to being good DW stories IMHO.
> >
> >We have a *wide* variation of opinions on what makes for a good DW
> >stories. With so many people complaining that late 80s Who had crawled
> >too far up its own fannish hole, I think the only real solution with
> >potential legs is to stretch *Who* to encompass other stuff (a proven
> >option) rather than to stretch other stuff to fit in Who. I'd rather
> >push the existing envelope--which is pretty damned flexible--than snip
> >things to fit.
>
> I will disagree with this. IMHO the solution is to do what DW has
> done for a long time - take the best that literature/entertainment
> industry/whatever has to offer and incorporate it into the series.
> That to me is the best of both worlds solution - it lets DW use what
> is good to better itself without losing or throwing out what came
> before.
Yes, DW has done that forever. It's tried and true. But I think the
answer to impending stagnation is not to continue to force new concepts
into an unchanging format, but to stretch the format to to encompass the
new stuff. Or at very least, something in between. I believe the core
concepts of the show are strong and elastic enough to withstand it; for
you, they seem to be much more fixed, and therefore brittle.
> >> (And as I've said before, piling on continuity references does not
> >> automatically make a good DW story. DW elements have to be used
> >> correctly, just like any of the other larger literary elements.)
> >
> >But your examples tend to be references to earlier adventures that we
> >saw on TV, or specifically making use of the TARDIS or time travel or
> >Time Lords---and the series has done without any or all of those even
> >when it was just a TV show.
>
> I was going to answer this in another post, but I'll do it here
> instead. In my mind, DW elements are those that set the series
> off from other series (or stories) and make it unique. They are the
> things that give it an idenitity. People's mileage will vary as to what
> they are. My list would include the character of the Doctor, the
> characters of the companions (not the principle of having
> companions), the interaction between the Doctor and the companions,
> the TARDIS, the monsters, the settings, and the continuity (in all
> of its many forms). It's these things that make DW different from
> say "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure", "The Time Tunnel", or
> any other story about time travel.
But most Who stories aren't about time travel. Most lack common settings
and share only 2 or three characters in common with other stories; most
lack common monsters as well. So what, then, is continuity? The sense
that one story follows another? Fine. From "Burning" onward that is very
much present, because the focus is narrowed on re-establishing the
Doctor's character, and it's limited to a pretty confined (at least for
DW) area of time and space. For crying out loud, the references to
earlier stories are there, too--they're just not as explicit as they
used to be, which means that you dont' need encyclopedic knowledge to
catch them.
> Let's look at this another way: In their fundamental forms, Star
> Trek: Deep Space Nine and Babylon 5 are both sci-fi space
> operas centered around the intrigue on a space station. Does
> that mean they were two identical series and that making both
> of them was a waste of time and money? Heck, no! Each series
> had its own elements that set it apart from the other and made
> each series unique.
But when you try to name all those elements about Doctor Who, it boils
down to just the Doctor himself; everything else is optional (but
certainly familiar and usually present). We can do without the TARDIS
for a while, we can do without companions for a while, we can do without
time/space travel, we can do without just about everything---and in the
Hartnell era, we even managed sometimes without the Doctor!
> The principle of proper use of series elements in writing a
> good story for that series applies to more than just DW, you know.
> IMHO it is an underlying fundamental principle of writing for
> *any* series.
But it cannot be the ONLY principle on which the series functions, or
you're left with the soulless crap that is so often churned out by other
SF lines.
> >> The Turing Test is probably the best example of this dichotomy.
> >> One one side, it is a rather well-written story. Not a perfect story,
> >> mind you, because it kind of drowned itself in ambiguity and
> >> loose ends. But one that was notably more good than bad. On
> >> the other hand, the story features about the worst portrayal/
> >> characterization of the Doctor that I've ever had the misfortune
> >> to encounter. It was like something out of a bad fanfic written
> >> with the attitude "I *can* write the Doctor this way so I *will*!".
> >> I didn't hear the Doctor scream at the end of the story - I heard
> >> a 200 decibel thud as the EDAs hit rock bottom.
> >
> >Another thorough disagreement here. What you got was a characterization
> >of the Doctor that was very much at odds with what you were used to ---
> >but then, as I and others pointed out in other debates, you're not
> >getting an absolutely honest narrator; you're getting three separate
> >narrators, each bringing their own biases and agendas and emotions.
> >We're used to viewing the Doctor more or less directly, or through the
> >eyes of a loyal companion. Turing gave us three perspectives on a Doctor
> >who was already somewhat different from expectations, and those
> >viewp[oints themselves contradict each other.
>
> Different does not automatically equal good.
Who said it did?
> And regardless of the number of narrators and their viewpoints,
> the Doctor's characterization still looks like utter crap to me.
Seemed a pretty logical extension of what he'd been through recently, to
me.
> >> Another way to look at this is to contrast The Left -Handed
> >> Hummingbird with The Year of Intelligent Tigers. They
> >> both feature strong concepts - a feature seen in almost all of
> >> Kate's DW stories. However, IMHO Hummer has better
> >> characterizations of the Doctor and companions than
> >> Tigers and is much better plotted. Tigers was rather dull
> >> in places and IMHO the story could have easily have been
> >> 15-25 pages shorter. Thus, I'd rate Hummer a better overall
> >> story than Tigers. (I could also say the same thing about
> >> Set Piece vs. Tigers.)
> >
> >I'm sorry, it's been hundreds of books since either of those early Kate
> >books and frankly I don't remember them well enough to contrast them
> >with Tigers. But I found Tigers to be one of the more engaging tales,
> >with an interesting new culture to explore, a Doctor at odds with his
> >companions, in fact a tale overall more about people than about events.
> >That's Kate's strength and she does well to play to it--but moreso, it
> >helps cement and redefine the emerging Post-Gallifrey Eighth Doctor.
>
> Well, I agree on the culture. However, the Doctor at odds with his
> companions things was done *much* better in the Alternative
> History arc that included Hummer. Also, the people tale was IMHO
> done much better by Ben Aaronovitch in The Also People.
I'd argue that was a totally different tale, about a totally different
People. Ditto for the "Doctor at odds with companion" routine--that's
been done many times, many ways, but I think it's a good angle to play
sometimes regardless.
> And if this is the Doctor we're going to see until BBC TV finally
> gets around to regenerating him, then it just gives me less
> incentive to read the future EDAs.
I think you've made that abundantly clear, and of course it's your
opinion based on your own tastes. But I think it's very much NOT a case
of it "not being the Doctor", and more a case of it "not being the
Doctor you want to read about". That's an important distinction.
You may have understandable reasons for feeling that this is no longer
the Doctor you know and love, but for many of us, that's simply not the
case. I see this period as akin to his post-War Games period, where he
had to relearn many things, and remember others anew. I don't think this
is any more drastic on a personal, Doctor level than that was.
> [snip]
>
> >The Doctor Who line (and the character himself) underwent a pretty
> >drastic pruning because the weight of the existing foliage was in danger
> >of damaging the whole--the line was, IMO, collapsing under the
> >collective weight of its own continuity.
>
> [snip]
>
> >See my notes about "pruning" above. Once you accept the need to do this
> >(and I realize you don't) the reality is that some branches are going to
> >be lost. Others will regrow in slightly different ways. So the Doctor is
> >in a period of regrowing a lost limb, and things are still raw--so of
> >course he's not going to be the juggernaut that he once was.
>
> I don't accept the need for pruning *at all*.
And thereby comes the disagreement. And as it's been hashed over
repeatedly, I'm not going to go into it here. It still boils down to you
disagreeing with the decision on how to deal with the often overwhelming
burden of nearly 40 years of conflicting continuity references, and
therefore disliking everything about what followed. It's exactly the
same sort of reaction seen at every major change, every
regeneration--but arguably most notably at the regeneration into Jon
Pertwee.
Please understand that I'm *not* saying you're stupid or misguided or
wrong for feeling this way, but I do wish you'd see it for what it is--a
reaction on your part against change and a disagreement with the chosen
approach. Everyone has their own line in the sand for that point at
which the series changes that little bit more than they like. (For me,
it very nearly crossed the line at several points in its TV days, and at
several more points among the book ranges. But each time it nearly did
so, it forced me to re-examine what I thought was really important about
Doctor Who.)
> If an author wants to
> write a continuity-light or free story, all he or she has to do is
> create a new setting for the Doctor to visit and new monsters/villians/
> races that the Doctor has never encountered, and place it far
> enough away from any of the Doctor's other adventures spatially
> or temporally that there's no chance of any overlap. That takes care
> of 90% of potential continuity problems, as well as giving the authors
> an tremendous chance to show off their originality. The only things
> that the authors would have to be careful of at that point is to get
> the continuity of the characterization of the Doctor and companions
> right - and that should not be that big of a burden on the authors.
But as has been pointed out, that approach eliminates great swaths of
history and "future history" from the playing field. And it puts an
unrealistic burden on authors and editors--one unique to this show and
its nearly 40-year history over every available media format.
Clearly "continuity" is very important to you and to many other fans.
It's important to me, too, but not the overriding concern. When the
linkages among stories become more important than the stories
themselves, you've entered the realm of hte collector rather than that
of the appreciative audience. Smart writers write to an audience;
they're less concerned with marking items on a checklist than with
reading a decent tale.
> The post-Ancestor Cell EDAs are not charting such a course.
> Seven out of the ten of them that I have read were set on Earth,
> and the other three involved Earth-origin humans. IMHO using
> such settings over and over again is just sowing more mines
> in the continuity minefield.
You can say *exactly* the same thing about the post-War Games TV
adventures.
> To me, there is no such thing as a continuity problem. Instead,
> it is a people problem - authors who want to write stories that
> directly contradict others, authors who want to use settings that
> have already been oversused, and authors who can't seem to
> make that extra effort to get continuity right. Trying to dismiss
> continuity as excess baggage is IMHO the easy-way-out
> solution, and taking the easy way out does not strike me as
> an approach that leads to good storytelling.
And IMHO, the alternative--because fandom in general seems to brook no
middle ground--is to face a legion of chapter-and-verse-quoting fanboys
complaining about the errors and ignoring the story at hand, and a
Doctor who has faced all the familiar alien menaces so many times that
he might as well just press an internal "thwart Daleks" button and be
done with it.
Yes, we need to have more adventures that aren't so earthbound, but we
also need to have the freedom to tell a Dalek story without having to
remember everything ever written about them, and god help you if you
attempt to figure out just *when* the story should happen, given that
the Daleks can time-travel too!
[snip me saying we've all changed since those halcyon days of Hummer and
the like]
>
> I'm not the same person I was when I started reading the books back
> in 1991. I've become much more cynical about the authors and their
> agendas and a lot more analytical and critical of the books.
>
> As for Kate, you be the judge. Please check out her own words on
> Tigers at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lemniskate/message/14
Yes, part of that rant is a reaction against the intransigence of fandom
in general---because there will always be that portion of fandom that
reacts hotly to change, and because part of the appeal of fandom is the
allure of the familiar and nostalgia for the period in which the object
of one's fannish affections resonated best.
[snip the rest]
Jim Vowles
>
> Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3bd4e5f3...@news.mindspring.com...
> <snip>
> > Lately, the interaction between series past and series future has
> > IMHO been *destructive* - Interference tried to retcon Planet of the
> > Spiders
>
> No - Lawrence was using Faction Paradox to make a point - the Doctor's past
> is just as malliable as Earth's history, infact you could say he was working
> with a theme from as far back as The Aztecs....
>
Oh, VERY nicely put! You very effectively boiled down what I took many,
many more words to say.
(Note to self: be this concise next time!)
Finn Clark
> It's just mysticbabble, not technobabble. Although I suppose
> if all the reader demands is babble, the two are sufficiently
> hard to tell apart that either sort will do, in a pinch.
Hey, I never said Doctor Who's Explanation Scenes had to make scientific
sense, be even semi-coherent or stand up to the scrutiny of a retarded
five-year-old on bad acid. This is Doctor Who we're talking about here! At
heart we all know it's fantasy; the writer just needs to throw us a few
scraps of gibberish to show he was thinking of us... :-)
Finn Clark.
Cameron Mason
Meddling Mick <sutur...@sutureself.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3bd7bf34...@news.freeserve.net...
> >IMHO been *destructive* - Interference tried to retcon Planet of the
> >Spiders, Shadows of Avalon destroyed the TARDIS, The Ancestor
> >Cell destroyed Gallifrey and retconned the Taking of Planet 5 out
> >of existence in the process
>
> Wow, you got off rather lightly, then - my copy of 'The Ancestor Cell'
> retconned a helluva lot more than just one BBC book. The
> repercussions of 'tAC' also started biting huge chunks out of the
> latter Bernice-led NAs, too, IIRC.
I worked out that ALL the books between Intereference and The Ancestor Cell
were wiped out, along with Alien Bodies and Christmas on a Rational Planet,
and we should be back to just after Autumn Mist.
Also Dead Romance is affected - with the Horror's 'voice' removed from the
story/.
tAC takes the 'Star trek' approach to re-setting timelines...
Cameron
--
I explored the ashes of Gallifrey and found a lump of TARDIS.
http://members.fortunecity.com/masomika/
Cameron Mason
Jim Vowles <alab...@capu.net> wrote in message
news:3BD5CC9E...@capu.net...
Thanks.
It's just what I've been thinking since I first read Inty - it's just
carrying on with themes from as far back as Season 1...
Jonathan Blum
> jbe...@mindspring.com (Jack Beven) wrote:
> > I went through a similar exercise with The Burning, except there
> >I took the Doctor out and replaced him with the likes of Sherlock
> >Holmes, Richard Seaton, or Ace. Some of the dialogue would have to
> >change, and one scene would have to be dropped, but for the most part
> >I didn't see where the story as a whole would have to change. What does
> >that say about the Whoishness of The Burning?
> Um, that's it's just as 'Who'-ish as 'Talons of Weng-Chiang'...? ;)
Exactly. It's actually a lot easier to stick John Steed and Emma Peel
into "Seeds of Doom" or "Terror of the Zygons", or Jason King into
"Ambassadors of Death", than it is to stick William Hartnell into any
of those. I think that's a testament to the Doctor's flexibility --
over the years, he can take on pretty much any sort of heroic role, as
an individual story demands.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
> On 22 Oct 2001 21:41:18 -0700, jb...@zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
> >I think a fairer assessment is that "Tigers" was written by someone
> >who loves Doctor Who, specifically the Doctor, but who no longer gives
> >a flying one about the Exxilons.
> For me, the Exxilons in Hummer served the same general purpose
> as the presence of the Daleks and the Draconians in Love and War -
> not exactly vital to the plot but providing the foundation of the past
> that those stories and whatever future events they led to were built
> on.
To you, they're the foundation; to me, they're window dressing. The
Whoish foundation of the book is the drama inherent in the characters
of the Doctor and Ace -- just as the foundation of newer books like
"Tigers" is the drama inherent in this latest Doctor, and his
relationships with his companions. And other elements -- the original
supporting characters, the technopagan mythology, the sheer poetry of
Paul's writing -- are far more essential to what makes the book stand
than the cameos by Draconians or the monster coming from a throwaway
line in "Brain of Morbius".
> A question for you, Jon: Could Love and War be published *as
> written* under the current direction of the EDAs?
Multiple-choice comeback:
(1) Only if Paul McGann suddenly turned into a short Scottish bloke.
(2) No more than "Inferno" could have been published as written in
1992.
(3) It would be rejected for being too much of a repeat of a whole
bunch of Virgin books, including (but not limited to) one which came
out in 1992, called "Love And War".
Love and War is still one of my favorite Who books. That doesn't mean
I want to see a rerun. I'd rather see a story that puts the eighth
Doctor / Fitz relationship through an equally intense crucible as the
early NA's put the seventh Doctor / Ace one through.
But then, we've said this all before, many times...
Regards,
Jon Blum
The Count
:Jim Vowles <alab...@capu.net> wrote:
:> Cameron Mason wrote:
:> >
:> > Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
:> > news:3bd4e5f3...@news.mindspring.com...
:> > <snip>
:> > > Lately, the interaction between series past and series future has
:> > > IMHO been *destructive* - Interference tried to retcon Planet of the
:> > > Spiders
:> >
:> > No - Lawrence was using Faction Paradox to make a point - the Doctor's
:> > past is just as malliable as Earth's history, infact you could say he
:> > was working with a theme from as far back as The Aztecs....
You mean the point was that the Doctor's timeline is not malleable?
:> Oh, VERY nicely put! You very effectively boiled down what I took many,
:> many more words to say.
:
:Thanks.
:
:It's just what I've been thinking since I first read Inty - it's just
:carrying on with themes from as far back as Season 1...
Huh?
The Count
:
:tAC takes the 'Star trek' approach to re-setting timelines...
Yeah, it is just like The Eight Doctors.
Zygon Curry
Doesn't look like it. Most convention attendee's are weird!
Regards,
Zygon Curry
Steven Kitson
So is it okay if the gibberish is the sort of gibberish you'd find in
'Wicca for Fashionable Teenagers', or does it have to sound vaguely
scientific?
Meddling Mick
>Meddling Mick wrote:
>>(Jack Beven) wrote:
><snip>
>> >The Ancestor Cell destroyed Gallifrey and retconned the Taking of
>> >Planet 5 out of existence in the process
>>
>> Wow, you got off rather lightly, then - my copy of 'The Ancestor Cell'
>> retconned a helluva lot more than just one BBC book. The
>> repercussions of 'tAC' also started biting huge chunks out of the
>> latter Bernice-led NAs, too, IIRC.
>
>I worked out that ALL the books between Intereference and The Ancestor Cell
>were wiped out, along with Alien Bodies and Christmas on a Rational Planet,
>and we should be back to just after Autumn Mist.
... and because 'tToP5' doesn't include future Time Lords, etc., then
the Celestis are probably still alive instead of ker-splat, IMO.
The retconning could be worse, if the Faction got erased in 'tAC'
rather than simply blown up in the 'here-and-now':
No Faction would mean no 'UH'. No 'UH' probably means the Doctor
doesn't have a VW Beetle. No Beetle means the Doctor's probably
driving a different car in 'VS'. Maybe he doesn't even have a car
'now'.
Oh, and if that Beetle was never paradoxically made because the
Faction no longer exist, then that'll probably retcon 'Instruments of
Darkness' before it's even released - IIRC, the Telepress extract of
the novel shows the Sixth Doctor is the incarnation who acquires the
Beetle in the first place?
I'm still trying to figure out which Fitz we've got currently - is it
Kode-Fitz from 'Inty', or is it now original-Fitz because Kode-Fitz
should never have existed?
>Also Dead Romance is affected - with the Horror's 'voice' removed from the
>story/.
Er... 'DR' isn't just 'affected', it's erased completely? No Cwej
working for future Time Lords (because there are now no future Time
Lords fighting a future War), hence no 'adventure' within the Kings of
Space bottle universe and no Christine Summerfield...
... and because Cwej is no longer worked for the future Time Lords,
his appearances in the Bernice-NAs are possibly retconned, so the list
might expand to include 'Deadfall', 'Mean Streets', 'Oblivion'...
Also, any NAs that mention, or feature, the Time Lords' preparations
for the War, including - IIRC - 'Down', 'Ghost Devices', 'AG, AP' (or
whatever book it is that features the first appearance of 'John'),
'Where Angels Fear', 'Tears of the Oracle', 'Twilght of the Gods'...
... and because 'Twilight' no longer happens now (or doesn't play out
quite the way it originally did (or whatever, gibber)), Cwej probably
didn't get turned into a kid. And Jason Kane didn't get trapped in
'Hell'...
... which starts a domino effect into current books like 'The Infernal
Nexus'...
Cameron Mason
<snip - The Ancestor Cell reset switch>
> The retconning could be worse, if the Faction got erased in 'tAC'
> rather than simply blown up in the 'here-and-now':
>
> No Faction would mean no 'UH'. No 'UH' probably means the Doctor
> doesn't have a VW Beetle. No Beetle means the Doctor's probably
> driving a different car in 'VS'. Maybe he doesn't even have a car
> 'now'.
Scary...
> Oh, and if that Beetle was never paradoxically made because the
> Faction no longer exist, then that'll probably retcon 'Instruments of
> Darkness' before it's even released - IIRC, the Telepress extract of
> the novel shows the Sixth Doctor is the incarnation who acquires the
> Beetle in the first place?
That's not good.
> I'm still trying to figure out which Fitz we've got currently - is it
> Kode-Fitz from 'Inty', or is it now original-Fitz because Kode-Fitz
> should never have existed?
Original Fitz, I think...
> >Also Dead Romance is affected - with the Horror's 'voice' removed from
the
> >story/.
>
> Er... 'DR' isn't just 'affected', it's erased completely? No Cwej
> working for future Time Lords (because there are now no future Time
> Lords fighting a future War), hence no 'adventure' within the Kings of
> Space bottle universe and no Christine Summerfield...
Thanks for deleting one of my favourite books guys...
> ... and because Cwej is no longer worked for the future Time Lords,
> his appearances in the Bernice-NAs are possibly retconned, so the list
> might expand to include 'Deadfall', 'Mean Streets', 'Oblivion'...
That's four books gone...
> Also, any NAs that mention, or feature, the Time Lords' preparations
> for the War, including - IIRC - 'Down', 'Ghost Devices', 'AG, AP' (or
> whatever book it is that features the first appearance of 'John'),
> 'Where Angels Fear', 'Tears of the Oracle', 'Twilght of the Gods'...
That makes nine books retconned...
> ... and because 'Twilight' no longer happens now (or doesn't play out
> quite the way it originally did (or whatever, gibber)), Cwej probably
> didn't get turned into a kid. And Jason Kane didn't get trapped in
> 'Hell'...
Bugger.
> ... which starts a domino effect into current books like 'The Infernal
> Nexus'...
In other words, at least half the Benny books (Virgin and BF combined) are
retconned...
That's just F**KED!!!!!!!!
Jonathan Blum
[snip]
Guys, all the things you're saying didn't happened still happened, in
precisely the way the future from "Day of the Daleks" happened. You
can't go back to see those events anywhere, but Jo's past didn't
change, and Styles' house didn't magically reappear when the future
which created the bomb that blew it up got changed.
If you really really want to tie yourself in knots about this, feel
free, but don't blame us...
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jim Vowles
To me, it would depend on whether "Wicca for Fashionable Teenagers"
espoused sound magical theory or not. :)
Meddling Mick
>Meddling Mick wrote
><snip - The Ancestor Cell reset switch>
>> Oh, and if that Beetle was never paradoxically made because the
>> Faction no longer exist, then that'll probably retcon 'Instruments of
>> Darkness' before it's even released - IIRC, the Telepress extract of
>> the novel shows the Sixth Doctor is the incarnation who acquires the
>> Beetle in the first place?
>
>That's not good.
No, it's *cool* - Don't you see? We can walk into shops, pick up
copies of 'Instruments of Darkness' and walk out without paying for
them! If we're stopped by store security, we can say with all
seriousness "I'm sorry, I cannot purchase this book because this book
no longer exists." Yeah, that'll stump 'em.
>> I'm still trying to figure out which Fitz we've got currently - is it
>> Kode-Fitz from 'Inty', or is it now original-Fitz because Kode-Fitz
>> should never have existed?
>
>Original Fitz, I think...
Ah, right. In one of the post-Earth books (probably 'VP'), Fitz is a
bit pissed at the Doctor when he remembers all the Kode-Fitz stuff (I
think?), but in 'tYoIT' he remembers being with Sam Jones 'months'
ago, implying the 'current' Fitz hasn't 'remembered' hundreds of years
of being Kode-Fitzes and is, in fact, the original-Fitz.
(Looking back at that paragraph, I *really* feel sorry for anyone who
hasn't read those books and can't understand a bloody thing I've
written <g>).
Hmm, but if he's now original-Fitz because Kode-Fitz has been
retconned, then... shouldn't Compassion also have been retconned
because she was also part of the whole Faction/Remote deal?
Um.
>> Er... 'DR' isn't just 'affected', it's erased completely? No Cwej
>> working for future Time Lords (because there are now no future Time
>> Lords fighting a future War), hence no 'adventure' within the Kings of
>> Space bottle universe and no Christine Summerfield...
>
>Thanks for deleting one of my favourite books guys...
>
>> ... and because Cwej is no longer worked for the future Time Lords,
>> his appearances in the Bernice-NAs are possibly retconned, so the list
>> might expand to include 'Deadfall', 'Mean Streets', 'Oblivion'...
>
>That's four books gone...
I guess it all depends whereabout in Chris's personal timeline the
above books happen? For example, if he'd been working for the
'present-day' Time Lords on some mission prior to 'Deadfall' then woke
up suffering from amnesia in that book, then did his own thing for
'MS' and 'Oblivion' before being captured and brainwashed into
thinking the Doctor is an Evil Renegade by the *future*-Timeys, none
of those books would be retconned? It'd only be 'Dead Romance' and
'Twilight' that should be retconned, Cwej-wise.
>> ... and because 'Twilight' no longer happens now (or doesn't play out
>> quite the way it originally did (or whatever, gibber)), Cwej probably
>> didn't get turned into a kid. And Jason Kane didn't get trapped in
>> 'Hell'...
>
>Bugger.
Mmm, yeah. I'm not sure 'Twilight' would happen at all now? The only
reason Bernice and co went back to Dellah to confront the All-High
Gods was because the future-Timeys were threatening to wipe the planet
with some superweapon, IIRC? Without the future-Timeys around to
force them into that situation, I'm not sure if Bernice and co would
return there? At the very least, Cwej wouldn't be there, as he'd have
been retconned out of existence along with all the other
future-Timeys.
But, like I said, that's only if the Time Lords were retconned out of
existence in 'tAC' rather than just blown up in their 'present'.
>> ... which starts a domino effect into current books like 'The Infernal
>> Nexus'...
>
>In other words, at least half the Benny books (Virgin and BF combined) are
>retconned...
>
>That's just F**KED!!!!!!!!
LOL.
The way I try to look at the whole situation is this:
If all of those books ('AB', 'Inty', 'DR', 'tAC', etc.) had been
published as one huge buggering 20,000 page Tom-Clancy-sized novel,
then you probably wouldn't be as annoyed, because everything happens
in *one* story, *one* book. You wouldn't think 'Bastards, there's
another *page* retconned, another *chapter* retconned, would you?
It's simply because the story's told in a number of volumes that your
brain thinks 'That book no longer 'exists', now! That's not fair!
Bastards!'
Imagine if 'Day of the Daleks' hadn't been just one four-part story.
Imagine that, instead of sorting out the alternative timeline in just
four episodes, the Third Doctor kept bumping into this future-Dalek
timeline in a number of different stories spread out over a few years
only to have the whole future-timeline retconned at the conclusion.
Would you be pissed at that or not? I wouldn't, because I *know* that
the alternative Dalek Earth isn't supposed to happen. The Doctor
*has* to prevent it from happening. It's, well, one of those
proverbial abomination things that must be stopped, isn't it?
The reason why I personally found the retconning of all the War stuff
bloody annoying was that we weren't really told (bar some throwaway
line in 'AB'?) 'This whole War thing is an alternative timeline and it
must be prevented, it's a perversion of the Web of Time and the
universe will collapse if it is allowed to continue!' (or something
similar).
If it had been properly signposted, then perhaps more people would
have thought 'Yeah, cool! The Doctor's the hero - he'll save the day
and retcon that nasty alternative War timeline out of existence. Go,
girl!', rather than 'Eh? WTF?!? Peter Anghelides and Stephen Cole
must die! At some point. Eventually. Obviously.'
R.J. Smith
Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Does CotD re-unify Doctor present with Doctor past and EDA
>present with the rest of Doctor Who? If not, I'd say the chances that
>I will like it have taken a hit.
I think you might want to realise that, short of drastic changes that
we'll here about lnog before they make their way into the books, the EDAs
are never going to do this to your satisfaction.
I know that's disappointing, but sometimes you have to accept it and move
on. City (which I haven't read yet either) won't be any better or worse a
book for ignoring what you see as a fundamental problem in the books that
*every* book is likely to ignore.
- Robert Smith?
Finn Clark
> I'm still trying to figure out which Fitz we've got currently -
> is it Kode-Fitz from 'Inty', or is it now original-Fitz because
> Kode-Fitz should never have existed?
Well, it's definitely Kode-Fitz. Earthworld makes that a central plot
point. This could be because:
(a) Jon Blum's Day of the Daleks model of timeline-changing (viz. that your
personal timeline remains unchanged 'cos time travel's, like, weird), or:
(b) it still hasn't been demonstrated conclusively that Gallifrey unhappened
rather than got blowed up real good.
However, one random thought. I remember it was a big deal for Robert Smith?
that we never learned what Fitz looked like until Frontier Worlds. However
Kode obviously didn't look like Fitz, or else a certain plot twist would
have become rather obvious the moment the Doctor or Sam clapped eyes on him.
Now I can accept the TARDIS "remembering" Fitz's mind into Kode (though it
seems a fucking creepy thing to do, given that Kode's a sentient individual
in his own right), but why should it have reconfigured his appearance? I
don't see why bone structure, etc. should have been affected. Or am I wrong
and does the text contradict me?
If not, we'll never know what the original Fitz looked like. Well, apart
from being big, ugly and one-armed.
Finn Clark.
I. Inayat
Finn Clark <kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9r704o$31r$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Meddling Mick wrote:
>
> > I'm still trying to figure out which Fitz we've got currently -
> > is it Kode-Fitz from 'Inty', or is it now original-Fitz because
> > Kode-Fitz should never have existed?
>
> Well, it's definitely Kode-Fitz. Earthworld makes that a central plot
> point. This could be because:
>
> (a) Jon Blum's Day of the Daleks model of timeline-changing (viz. that your
> personal timeline remains unchanged 'cos time travel's, like, weird), or:
> (b) it still hasn't been demonstrated conclusively that Gallifrey unhappened
> rather than got blowed up real good.
The Panopticon had one circular wall before Gallifrey unhappened. Gallifreyan
history was almost certainly altered before it exploded... problem is, we don't
know how - or if - that altered the universe at large.
> However, one random thought. I remember it was a big deal for Robert Smith?
> that we never learned what Fitz looked like until Frontier Worlds. However
> Kode obviously didn't look like Fitz, or else a certain plot twist would
> have become rather obvious the moment the Doctor or Sam clapped eyes on him.
> Now I can accept the TARDIS "remembering" Fitz's mind into Kode (though it
> seems a fucking creepy thing to do, given that Kode's a sentient individual
> in his own right), but why should it have reconfigured his appearance? I
> don't see why bone structure, etc. should have been affected. Or am I wrong
> and does the text contradict me?
It's not just how the memories are remembered, it's how the body's remembered by
those around them. Compassion looks like a 'cartoonised' version of Laura Tobin,
her original - none of the little quirks or minor facial details Laura had. The
TARDIS remembers how Fitz used to look - and reconfigures his biomass that way.
Because the Remote are configured out of biomass - biomass which can be shaped
by others' memories - by putting one of them in a remembrance tank, you can
re-remember them as a specific person. However, it takes a lot of people to do
this... or a TARDIS.
Which does make it very, /very/ nasty.
(all Interference. Compassion explains how the Remote reproduce to Sam.)
It's also a key point up to Shadows of Avalon - the TARDIS downloaded signals
through Compassion's receiver which were altering Compassion's biodata, setting
her up for her transformation into a TARDIS.
I think the transformation needed someone whose biomass wass malleable - in this
case, Compassion.
> If not, we'll never know what the original Fitz looked like. Well, apart
> from being big, ugly and one-armed.
Actually, we /do/. He's just short of six foot (Unnatural History), thin, with
grey-blue eyes (The Taint), has dark brown hair (long + squiggly) (UH again),
with a slightly too long nose (The Taint, again).
Sorry, I keep track of stuff like this...
Imran
I. Inayat
Finn Clark <kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9r704o$31r$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > I'm still trying to figure out which Fitz we've got currently -
> > is it Kode-Fitz from 'Inty', or is it now original-Fitz because
> > Kode-Fitz should never have existed?
>
> Well, it's definitely Kode-Fitz. Earthworld makes that a central plot
> point. This could be because:
>
> (a) Jon Blum's Day of the Daleks model of timeline-changing (viz. that your
> personal timeline remains unchanged 'cos time travel's, like, weird), or:
> (b) it still hasn't been demonstrated conclusively that Gallifrey unhappened
> rather than got blowed up real good.
The Panopticon had one circular wall before Gallifrey exploded. Gallifreyan
history was almost certainly altered before it was destroyed... problem is, we
don't
know how - or if - that altered the universe at large.
> However, one random thought. I remember it was a big deal for Robert Smith?
> that we never learned what Fitz looked like until Frontier Worlds. However
> Kode obviously didn't look like Fitz, or else a certain plot twist would
> have become rather obvious the moment the Doctor or Sam clapped eyes on him.
> Now I can accept the TARDIS "remembering" Fitz's mind into Kode (though it
> seems a fucking creepy thing to do, given that Kode's a sentient individual
> in his own right), but why should it have reconfigured his appearance? I
> don't see why bone structure, etc. should have been affected. Or am I wrong
> and does the text contradict me?
It's not just how the memories are remembered, it's how the body's remembered by
those around them. Compassion looks like a 'cartoonised' version of Laura Tobin,
her original - none of the little quirks or minor facial details Laura had. The
TARDIS remembers how Fitz used to look - and reconfigures his biomass that way.
Because the Remote are configured out of biomass - biomass which can be shaped
by others' memories - by putting one of them in a remembrance tank, you can
re-remember them as a specific person. However, it takes a lot of people to do
this... or a TARDIS.
Which does make it very, /very/ nasty.
(all Interference. Compassion explains how the Remote reproduce to Sam.)
It's also a key point up to Shadows of Avalon - the TARDIS downloaded signals
through Compassion's receiver which were altering Compassion's biodata, setting
her up for her transformation into a TARDIS.
I think the transformation needed someone whose biomass wass malleable - in this
case, Compassion.
Imran
Peter Anghelides
situations occur. "Alie Bodies", for example, cheerfully handwaves the
disappearance of one character early on as an example of "perfect
paradox", and it's not a problem for the book or for the reader. But
if you examine it too closely, then you can make a case for it
preventing the events of the rest of the book from taking place--which
would be a shame, because it's a splendid book.
The reason paradox is so mind-bending is that the "state" of reality
depends at the point in a sequence of events that you are describing;
even if those events happen in such swift succession as to be
indistinguishable from simultaneity, you can't easily describe them
simultaneously. The original example, the grandfather paradox which
was discussed as long ago as "Science Wonder Stories" in 1929,
exemplifies this.
1. Travel back in time, kill your grandfather
2. Your father is never born
3. You are not born, and you cannot travel back in time
4. Your grandfather is not killed
5. Your father is born
6. You are born
7. Back to step 1.
In a strictly linear discussion, the "status" (of you and your
grandfather and your father) in your mind and the mind of the person
you're describing it to depends on the step that you're describing. So
if you're describing step 2, then the "status" is that you're alive
and your grandfather is dead and your dad is in the process of ceasing
to exist. Which is a paradoxical state.
There are who-knows how many explanations for breaking this loop,
including parallel universes, forced-new-links that mean you're born
exactly the same to a different father and don't notice, etc. etc. But
in the strictly linear discussion that characterises this thread's
discussion of the DW books, there's no easy escape. That's why it's a
paradox. Applying linear logic to it, necessarily, is not going to
work.
So when you're reading "The Taking of Planet Five", then Time Lords
still exist. Or when you think about the book, they still exist in
that context. The BBC didn't withdraw the book. It remains on the
shelf at Dillons.
To take one example: the original Fitz, who we met in "The Taint",
dies in "The Ancestor Cell". At the moment, the Fitz you see in the
books continues to be the Fitz who used to be Kode in "Interference",
even though Faction Paradox aren't around any more. This is a paradox.
For the purposes of the current books, that doesn't matter: current
Fitz has a line of continuity that stretches back to "The Taint",
because the reset button was pressed on Kode in "Interference Book
II". The implications of that have been covered explictly in book like
"Frontier Worlds", "The Ancestor Cell", and "Earthworld". But it
doesn't affect the current books' characterisation of Fitz.
Peter Anghelides
Finn Clark
> The Panopticon had one circular wall before Gallifrey
> unhappened. Gallifreyan history was almost certainly
> altered before it exploded... problem is, we don't
> know how - or if - that altered the universe at large.
You're right. Personally I think that regarding Gallifrey unhappening
and/or merely exploding - which is a fairly big 'n' hairy Schrodinger's cat
to be enduring quantum uncertainty - I think it makes a big difference
whether it was the Doctor or the Enemy who actually did the deed. If the
Enemy had already reduced Gallifrey to non-Gallifrey then the Doctor's
amnesiac breast-beating is even more pointless than it already is. Pulling
the lever would have made no difference to anything. Whoops.
I wouldn't like that, though it makes sense. However I don't know if it
works. The Gallifreys reduce to one, yes, and shortly afterwards there's
the melodramatic line "now there isn't even one"... but the line's obvious
bollocks. As I remember it, the speaker of that line is on Gallifrey at the
time.
OPTION ONE - the Enemy dunnit. In which case they presumably took advantage
of the Doctor's physical destruction of Gallifrey to inflict a
near-simultaneous temporal strike which annihilated the Time Lords
throughout all history. I could buy that, but I've got no idea whether it's
supported in the text or not.
OPTION TWO - the Doctor dunnit. Thus his Big Red Lever at the end of
Ancestor Cell was a magic lever that unhappened Gallifrey and all its
workings through all of time and space. Wow, that's a hell of a lever.
Convenient and all, too.
OPTION THREE - Gallifrey merely blew up. I've already said my reasons why I
prefer this explanation: (a) the Virgin books were building to it, (b) it
makes the preceding Gallifrey stories epic rather than "just joking,
suckers", (c) it's supported better by the actual text of Ancestor Cell and
the following books IMO.
Finn Clark.
Jim Vowles
Finn, I think you're right on with this analysis. (The fact that the
Foomster's chronicler and I seem to be in synch on a *lot* of issues and
share similar tastes in others worries me no end....)
However, try this:
At very minimum, the one Gallifrey we've always assumed we knew and
loved blew up when the Doctor blew it up in TAC.
However, because of the paradoxical crap already going on thanks to the
Faction, the destruction of Gallifrey (in "the present" or rather the
Doctor's relatively recent personal past) may have other effects to be
determined later, beyond the undoing of Faction Paradox itself (which
has yet to be proven). At very least, not *all* Time Lords or Renegades
were destroyed, because Iris shows up later, and we hear that either the
Rani or the Master's alleged remains turned out to be a fake, so one of
them must have made it, too. It's likely that others survived, and that
many more died, but none of it's nailed down in stone.
So all we know for sure is that if you go to Kasterberous, coordinates
0.0.0.0, you'll see....nothing, or perhaps some floating debris.
My own feeling's that the Faction's manipulations created such a huge
knot in the tapestry of time that the wrinkles will take some time to be
smoothed out, and the pattern will change somewhat--but that the
history, overall, of the Doctor has not changed (i.e., he experienced
all the things we saw him experience, the way that we saw, at least from
his own perspective).
Cameron Mason
> "Cameron Mason" <maso...@mpx.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Meddling Mick wrote
> ><snip - The Ancestor Cell reset switch>
> >> Oh, and if that Beetle was never paradoxically made because the
> >> Faction no longer exist, then that'll probably retcon 'Instruments of
> >> Darkness' before it's even released - IIRC, the Telepress extract of
> >> the novel shows the Sixth Doctor is the incarnation who acquires the
> >> Beetle in the first place?
> >
> >That's not good.
>
> No, it's *cool* - Don't you see? We can walk into shops, pick up
> copies of 'Instruments of Darkness' and walk out without paying for
> them! If we're stopped by store security, we can say with all
> seriousness "I'm sorry, I cannot purchase this book because this book
> no longer exists." Yeah, that'll stump 'em.
Yes!
But what about the other books that don't exist???
I spent a couple of hundred dollars on those.
Do I get my money back because the books no longer exist????
> >> I'm still trying to figure out which Fitz we've got currently - is it
> >> Kode-Fitz from 'Inty', or is it now original-Fitz because Kode-Fitz
> >> should never have existed?
> >
> >Original Fitz, I think...
>
> Ah, right. In one of the post-Earth books (probably 'VP'), Fitz is a
> bit pissed at the Doctor when he remembers all the Kode-Fitz stuff (I
> think?), but in 'tYoIT' he remembers being with Sam Jones 'months'
> ago, implying the 'current' Fitz hasn't 'remembered' hundreds of years
> of being Kode-Fitzes and is, in fact, the original-Fitz.
Let's just say he's Fitz and be done with it...
> (Looking back at that paragraph, I *really* feel sorry for anyone who
> hasn't read those books and can't understand a bloody thing I've
> written <g>).
>
> Hmm, but if he's now original-Fitz because Kode-Fitz has been
> retconned, then... shouldn't Compassion also have been retconned
> because she was also part of the whole Faction/Remote deal?
>
> Um.
She's a temporal anomaly...
> >> Er... 'DR' isn't just 'affected', it's erased completely? No Cwej
> >> working for future Time Lords (because there are now no future Time
> >> Lords fighting a future War), hence no 'adventure' within the Kings of
> >> Space bottle universe and no Christine Summerfield...
> >
> >Thanks for deleting one of my favourite books guys...
> >
> >> ... and because Cwej is no longer worked for the future Time Lords,
> >> his appearances in the Bernice-NAs are possibly retconned, so the list
> >> might expand to include 'Deadfall', 'Mean Streets', 'Oblivion'...
> >
> >That's four books gone...
>
> I guess it all depends whereabout in Chris's personal timeline the
> above books happen? For example, if he'd been working for the
> 'present-day' Time Lords on some mission prior to 'Deadfall' then woke
> up suffering from amnesia in that book, then did his own thing for
> 'MS' and 'Oblivion' before being captured and brainwashed into
> thinking the Doctor is an Evil Renegade by the *future*-Timeys, none
> of those books would be retconned? It'd only be 'Dead Romance' and
> 'Twilight' that should be retconned, Cwej-wise.
OK.
Make that 2 bokks then.
> >> ... and because 'Twilight' no longer happens now (or doesn't play out
> >> quite the way it originally did (or whatever, gibber)), Cwej probably
> >> didn't get turned into a kid. And Jason Kane didn't get trapped in
> >> 'Hell'...
> >
> >Bugger.
>
> Mmm, yeah. I'm not sure 'Twilight' would happen at all now? The only
> reason Bernice and co went back to Dellah to confront the All-High
> Gods was because the future-Timeys were threatening to wipe the planet
> with some superweapon, IIRC? Without the future-Timeys around to
> force them into that situation, I'm not sure if Bernice and co would
> return there? At the very least, Cwej wouldn't be there, as he'd have
> been retconned out of existence along with all the other
> future-Timeys.
>
> But, like I said, that's only if the Time Lords were retconned out of
> existence in 'tAC' rather than just blown up in their 'present'.
I think they were blown up, but with Gallifrey's history being altered just
before it went "BOOM!!!!!!!!!" I'm not sure.
May be the Faction Paradox playing around with Gallifrey's history lead to
Twilight etc happening...
> >> ... which starts a domino effect into current books like 'The Infernal
> >> Nexus'...
> >
> >In other words, at least half the Benny books (Virgin and BF combined)
are
> >retconned...
> >
> >That's just F**KED!!!!!!!!
>
> LOL.
I try to compress my frustrations...
> The way I try to look at the whole situation is this:
>
> If all of those books ('AB', 'Inty', 'DR', 'tAC', etc.) had been
> published as one huge buggering 20,000 page Tom-Clancy-sized novel,
> then you probably wouldn't be as annoyed, because everything happens
> in *one* story, *one* book. You wouldn't think 'Bastards, there's
> another *page* retconned, another *chapter* retconned, would you?
> It's simply because the story's told in a number of volumes that your
> brain thinks 'That book no longer 'exists', now! That's not fair!
> Bastards!'
Yup.
I'm an open book...
> Imagine if 'Day of the Daleks' hadn't been just one four-part story.
> Imagine that, instead of sorting out the alternative timeline in just
> four episodes, the Third Doctor kept bumping into this future-Dalek
> timeline in a number of different stories spread out over a few years
> only to have the whole future-timeline retconned at the conclusion.
>
> Would you be pissed at that or not? I wouldn't, because I *know* that
> the alternative Dalek Earth isn't supposed to happen. The Doctor
> *has* to prevent it from happening. It's, well, one of those
> proverbial abomination things that must be stopped, isn't it?
Yes - the Doctor must correct the timeline...
> The reason why I personally found the retconning of all the War stuff
> bloody annoying was that we weren't really told (bar some throwaway
> line in 'AB'?) 'This whole War thing is an alternative timeline and it
> must be prevented, it's a perversion of the Web of Time and the
> universe will collapse if it is allowed to continue!' (or something
> similar).
No - all we knew was that it was to take place in the far future...
> If it had been properly signposted, then perhaps more people would
> have thought 'Yeah, cool! The Doctor's the hero - he'll save the day
> and retcon that nasty alternative War timeline out of existence. Go,
> girl!', rather than 'Eh? WTF?!? Peter Anghelides and Stephen Cole
> must die! At some point. Eventually. Obviously.'
Yup - sums what I think up (apart from the death of Peter and Steve - I
think that they should have to write their next ten submissions out in green
crayon as punishment...)
Cameron
--
The lunatics have taken over the asylum, and it's collapsing all around
them.
http://members.fortunecity.com/masomika/
Cameron Mason
Jonathan Blum <jb...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:75d9a022.01102...@posting.google.com...
> sutur...@sutureself.freeserve.co.uk (Meddling Mick) wrote in message
news:<3bd7992b...@news.freeserve.net>...
<snip>
> free, but don't blame us...
Ok - but if I get stuck, come and help me out...
Cameron
--
"I'm half-human on the Other's side."
http://members.fortunecity.com/masomika/
Cameron Mason
> Cameron Mason <maso...@mpx.com.au> wrote:
> :Jim Vowles <alab...@capu.net> wrote:
> :> Cameron Mason wrote:
> :> >
> :> > Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> :> > news:3bd4e5f3...@news.mindspring.com...
> :> > <snip>
> :> > > Lately, the interaction between series past and series future has
> :> > > IMHO been *destructive* - Interference tried to retcon Planet of the
> :> > > Spiders
> :> >
> :> > No - Lawrence was using Faction Paradox to make a point - the Doctor's
> :> > past is just as malliable as Earth's history, infact you could say he
> :> > was working with a theme from as far back as The Aztecs....
>
> You mean the point was that the Doctor's timeline is not malleable?
Well Faction Paradox proved it was!
> :It's just what I've been thinking since I first read Inty - it's just
> :carrying on with themes from as far back as Season 1...
>
> Huh?
It's from The Aztecs - "You can't re-write history - not one line!"
Cameron
Jack Beven
Smith) wrote:
Well if that's the way it's going to be, so be it. If the EDAs are
not going to tell the stories I want to read, then I'm not going to buy
them. That's a literary convention that's so simple and straightforward
that IMHO even Paul Magrs can't subvert it! :-)
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...
Jack Beven
Out of curiousity, Jon, why shouldn't we blame you and the other
authors? Didn't you all create this untangleable knot of casuality/
monument of (IMHO) bad storytelling? If you did, why shouldn't
you get the blame? Just because it's your opinion that this
problem shouldn't hamper our enjoyment of the stories?
Jack Beven
<maso...@mpx.com.au> wrote:
>
>Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3bd503f1...@news.mindspring.com...
><snip>
>> Does CotD re-unify Doctor present with Doctor past and EDA
>> present with the rest of Doctor Who?
>
>Well....
>SPOILERS FOR THE CITY OF THE DEAD!!!!!!
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>
>
>The EIghth Doctor has this dream where he finds The Seventh Doctor in a
>tomb, who then gets up and yells at him, before trying to strangle him....
That sounds potentially interesting, but I'm afraid it's too little
too late...
Jack Beven
>jbe...@mindspring.com (Jack Beven) wrote in message news:<3bd50d9c...@news.mindspring.com>...
>> A question for you, Jon: Could Love and War be published *as
>> written* under the current direction of the EDAs?
>
>Multiple-choice comeback:
>
>(1) Only if Paul McGann suddenly turned into a short Scottish bloke.
>
>(2) No more than "Inferno" could have been published as written in
>1992.
>
>(3) It would be rejected for being too much of a repeat of a whole
>bunch of Virgin books, including (but not limited to) one which came
>out in 1992, called "Love And War".
All right, it looks like I left some excess ambiguity in my question.
Let's see if I can pin this down better.
The potential story to be published is in the mold of Love and War,
and it includes the pre-Burning past and a Eighth Doctor with a full
grasp of his memories. Let's assume that a) the story is *very* good,
and b) is not entirely a Love and War clone (thus negating any
problem of been there, done that). To turn your multiple choice
answer around, does it:
a) Get utterly rejected because the Doctor's memories and the
pre-Burning past are now totally anathema to the EDAs?
b) Get sent back for a re-write to see if it can be made to better
fit the current run of EDAs?
c) Get sent back for a re-write to turn it into a PDA?
d) Get comissioned at some future time when the EDAs become
more past-friendly?
e) Get immediately commissioned and used to drastically change
the direction of the EDAs?
f) None of the above - kindly provide your response here!
Given what I can determine is going on, I lean towards answer
a. And that IMHO is a problem with the current EDA direction. The
new direction may have opened the door for some good stories,
but IMHO it has slammed the door shut on a lot of other good
stories - the ones like Love and War or Alien Bodeis that could be built
on good use of the pre-Burning past. Your opinion, of course, will
likely be light-years apart from mine.
Cameron Mason
Are you gonna drop the books altogether, or just stick to PDAs?
Cameron Mason
<snip>
> Well if that's the way it's going to be, so be it. If the EDAs are
> not going to tell the stories I want to read, then I'm not going to buy
> them. That's a literary convention that's so simple and straightforward
> that IMHO even Paul Magrs can't subvert it! :-)
I wouldn't tell him that - he might see it as a challenge...;)
Jack Beven
<kafe...@blewbury99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
I'm going to re-arrange the order of Finn's paragraphs
just a bit...
>Jack Beven wrote:
>> And that lost limb will not be regrown IMHO until the
>> pre- and post-Ancestor Cell Eight Doctor's are unified
>> back into one whole.
>
>A few points, just to throw my hat in the ring.
>
>Firstly, I think the Eighth Doctor's amnesia has really improved the
>character. Before this development, I found him impossibly dull and a
>nearly insurmountable challenge for even the best authors. You might feel
>he works less well as a link with the past, but (in the more recent 8DAs at
>any rate) I think he's working much better as the hero of his novels. Even
>if the amnesia is eventually undone, good will have come of evil. :-)
[move]
>But having said that, I do have one problem with the amnesia... that it
>makes the Doctor seem like a wuss. Okay, yes, he went a bit spastic in
>Dominion 'cos he broke a nail [1]. But to wipe your brain clean and still
>be going into hysterical fits A HUNDRED BLOODY YEARS LATER seems a bit over
>the top to me. Get over it, will ya? So the man's got a highly developed
>sense of guilt. Get a life. Take a pill. He's done scary things out of
>expediency before without turning into a prize fucking petunia.
I'm not sure that the Eighth Doctor's amnesia has really changed the
character for the better. He still comes across to me as somewhat
ineffectual, although that now results from different reasons than it
did before Unnatural History.
There's a scene in Eater of Wasps that really highlights this - the
one where the Doctor and Kayla discuss the creation of paradox
and its consequences. Now, the Doctor knew that this was bad,
but he couldn't put his finger on exactly why. This IMHO made him
look really vague and ineffectual.
Now, imagine that scene with an Eighth Doctor with full memories.
Can you see him going off on an emotional rant and ramming the horror
that is Faction Paradox down Kayla's throat until she got the message?
I can, and I think that on *every* level it's a more effective scene
than what we actually got in the book.
>Secondly (to take one example), City of the Dead is a very good book and
>bashing it for the sins of its predecessors would seem a tad unfair to me.
>T'ain't Lloyd Rose's fault. (If you eventually read it, then you'll find
>that it discusses the Doctor's amnesia without screaming in horror and
>jumping on a chair. IMO if you're going to have a continuing series rather
>than a pissing-in-the-pool contest between the authors then this is
>necessary and desirable. If you've got a big scary story going on, then the
>way to resolve it is to push it to its dramatic conclusion rather than to
>cut it dead.)
[move]
>Fourthly, I think one's got to assume that the amnesia is *going* somewhere.
>Quite apart from anything else, in time the Doctor will have acquired so
>much new experience that it won't make much practical difference whether he
>regains his memory or not. The 8DAs are an ongoing story and to bash
>individual books for not resolving the situation immediately is perhaps akin
>to bashing a book's individual chapters for building its plot developments
>towards the final climax instead of wrapping up everything on the spot.
Here's a problem I have - I'm not convinced that the amnesia is
really going anywhere, nor am I convinced that the EDAs will ever
reconnect with the resr of the series. I've gotten the impression there
is a faction of readers that favor keeping the EDAs off in their own
little bubble universe, never referring to anything before The Burning
again and never giving the Doctor his memories back. Heck, Tigers itself
has the Doctor saying "I hope I never remember! That will show them
all!" I almost threw the book away when I read that line, and it took me
three months to cool off afterwards.
Now if the editor and authors want to follow such a course of action,
I can't stop them. But there is no way I'm going to follow them on that
course.
>Thirdly, the Doctor has had amnesia before. One could argue that it's an
>appropriate use of Doctor Who elements... see the Third Doctor's memory
>blocks during his exile (and arguably they weren't all removed; see the
>discussion of Season 6B and Troughton's Stattenheim remote control in The
>Two Doctors), or Timewyrm: Genesis.
I think the difference in degree between that and what we have now is
several orders of magnitude!
[snip]
>> Lately, the interaction between series past and series future
>> has IMHO been *destructive* - Interference tried to retcon
>> Planet of the Spiders, Shadows of Avalon destroyed the
>> TARDIS, The Ancestor Cell destroyed Gallifrey and
>> retconned the Taking of Planet 5 out of existence in the
>> process, and the Amnesiac Doctor destroyed large chunks
>> of the character.
>
>I think this is a very accurate and perceptive comment. However all that
>destruction was either the Cole-era "What The Fuck" arc or part of its
>wrapping-up. Since then the books have had a different spirit.
The spirit may be different, but I'm not sure it's an improvement.
IMHO the Dangling Retcon Arc was close to open hot war against the past,
while what have now is more along the lines of cold war or cold shoulder
against it. I want to see the EDA present/future in a warm friendly
embrace with the series past - not irrevocably set against it.
Jack Beven
wrote:
>Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Looking through The Scarlett Empress, I can't find all the passages
>> I'm looking for. However, the discussion on pages 233-235 rather reeks
>> of a disregard for continuity, the past, and the idea that the Doctor is
>> the sum of his memories or even more so. In other words, I think it's
>> going against several things that I think make for good DW.
>
>(For those of us without quick and easy access to our books please type
>out a quick summary of pages 233-235? I can't really remember what's said
>on those exact page numbers. ;> )
Not tonight. Maybe some other time! :-)
>> I will disagree with this. IMHO the solution is to do what DW has
>> done for a long time - take the best that literature/entertainment
>> industry/whatever has to offer and incorporate it into the series.
>> That to me is the best of both worlds solution - it lets DW use what
>> is good to better itself without losing or throwing out what came
>> before.
>
>I don't think there's as much disagreement here as it would appear. When
>DW stretches its envelope out into different genres and formats it *is*
>incorporating new things into the series. I don't think anyone is saying
>that in order for DW to do a 19th Century mystery novel (for example) it
>must give up doing all isolated-base-under-alien-attack stories.
>
>It's a trade off, really. You push the DW envelope out in the
>direction of the new idea while at the same time pulling at the new
>idea to drag it into the DW format. Doctor Who is fortunately enough to
>have such a flexible format that it can incorporate many many different
>tones and genres under its main umbrella without doing much damage to
>either the existing material or the new stuff.
If that was actually what was being done, I wouldn't be complaining
so much. However, the attitude I keep seeing is that pushing the DW
envelope and bringing in new material requires things like "Flush
Continuity", "Blast The Past", "Bury The Memory" and other such -
sacrificing the existing material for the sake of the new stuff. YMMV,
but that's not the kind of envelope pushing I'm looking for.
>> I don't accept the need for pruning *at all*. If an author wants to
>> write a continuity-light or free story, all he or she has to do is
>> create a new setting for the Doctor to visit and new monsters/villians/
>> races that the Doctor has never encountered, and place it far
>> enough away from any of the Doctor's other adventures spatially
>> or temporally that there's no chance of any overlap. That takes care
>> of 90% of potential continuity problems, as well as giving the authors
>> an tremendous chance to show off their originality. The only things
>> that the authors would have to be careful of at that point is to get
>> the continuity of the characterization of the Doctor and companions
>> right - and that should not be that big of a burden on the authors.
>
>I have no problem with this; there are a lot of stories out there to tell
>that don't need to be sequels to previously told stories or plots based on
>revisiting the past. And characterization of the regulars should *always*
>be a huge consideration for any author writing in a continuing series.
>
>On the other hand, if you have a continuity-free story then aren't you
>going to be looking for the links to the Exxilons, Draconians, etc? It's
>a very fine line being painted here...
This is probably a good time to re-iterate some of my ideals
about use of continuity and storytelling:
1. Not every DW story needs significant continuity references.
2. If one writes continuity into a story, get it right!
3. Improper use of continuity (such as excess or perversion) is
akin to writing a bad plot, bad prose, bad characterization, and
the other pitfalls of writing - it's an error that can lead to a bad
story.
4. While there are many ways to write good Doctor Who
stories, the ones I deem to be the best are the ones that
properly mix the past and present/future - including using
appropriate continuity.
Is that clear enough?
[snip]
>> To me, there is no such thing as a continuity problem. Instead,
>> it is a people problem - authors who want to write stories that
>> directly contradict others, authors who want to use settings that
>> have already been oversused, and authors who can't seem to
>> make that extra effort to get continuity right. Trying to dismiss
>> continuity as excess baggage is IMHO the easy-way-out
>> solution, and taking the easy way out does not strike me as
>> an approach that leads to good storytelling.
>
>I don't really see how the two concepts link up here. Dismissing
>continuity may not lead to good storytelling, but neither does it
>necessarily lead to bad storytelling. I don't think that continuity
>really matters outside of existing for its own sake. A story can get
>every detail right, but still end up being a dull, runaround. A story can
>mess up in every way possible, but turn out to be a riproaring pageturning
>masterpiece. I don't see how continuity has an effect. Getting
>continuity wrong may weaken the series itself (though I'd disagree with
>that thought), but I don't see how it would relate to the storytelling,
>plot, characters and tone present in an individual book.
Continuity can take many forms. For example, is checking one's
own individual story to make sure there are no internal contradictions
a form of continuity? IMHO it is. Is making sure that the Doctor,
companions, villains, monsters, etc behave consistently enough to be
recognizeable from story-to-story a form of continuity? IMHO it is.
Is making sure that a setting has consistency of appearence from story-
to-story (unless the plot is deliberately written to change the setting)
a form of continuity? IMHO it is. Is the history of the Doctor, the
companions, the villains, the monsters, etc a form of continuity?
IMHO it is.
The bottom line: Don't be in such a hurry to dismiss continuity!
Jack Beven
wrote:
>Jack Beven wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:24:32 -0400, Jim Vowles <alab...@capu.net>
>> wrote:
[snip]
>> (For the record, I would be more in favor of Brax *not* being the
>> Doctor's brother. Keeping the Doctor a character with as few as
>> possible living relations would be one decent way to help preserve
>> the mystery of the character.)
>
>Agreed. So the solution is to introduce an insider who clearly is more
>than what he claims to be, who *might* be the Doctor's brother, but who
>clearly has some sort of intimate connection with our favorite Time
>Lord. Then we get the functionality of that insight and that sort of
>relationship, and by not nailing it down, we also get the opportunity to
>inspire someone to write a proper "The Doctor's Relative" story. Lance
>has introduced us to the Doctor's Wife and the Doctor's Daughter since
>then, after all.
My response to this is that the possibility that Brax is the Doctor's
brother should be left out. Make Brax someone who clearly knows
more about the Doctor than we do and he can serve as the conduit
for revelations about the Doctor regardless of whether he is the
Doctor's brother or not.
>> Granted there are some things that are left ambiguous so the authors
>> can bring surprises on us at a later time. I can live with those. I'd
>> really like to get rid of the ones where the authors are playing
>> games with us or are being used as excuses for bad storytelling.
>
>But how do you set up those possibilities without those risks? It's
>always possible that a change of direction wont' work out, or that a
>seed planted won't grow.
Change of direction won't work out? Like the current EDAs ? :-)
As for the risks, IMHO it's the editor's job to make sure that the
author's little games don't go overboard, regardless of what
games those might be.
[snip]
>> Looking through The Scarlett Empress, I can't find all the passages
>> I'm looking for. However, the discussion on pages 233-235 rather reeks
>> of a disregard for continuity, the past, and the idea that the Doctor is
>> the sum of his memories or even more so. In other words, I think it's
>> going against several things that I think make for good DW.
>
>Well, my copy of SE is nowhere nearby, so I can't really respond
>properly to this.
>
>I do NOT however believe that the "disregard for continuity" is the
>intent. One can respect the past without being bound by it, and I think
>that's part of Iris' function--to make us question the assumptions we
>make about the past and our desparate attempts to codify the Known
>versus the Not Known.
And one can also write for the future while embracing the past.
One can also write for the future without destroying, perverting,
trampling on, or ignoring the past. That's two ideas that the
post-Dominion EDAs are IMHO lacking a grasp of.
[snip]
>> I will disagree with this. IMHO the solution is to do what DW has
>> done for a long time - take the best that literature/entertainment
>> industry/whatever has to offer and incorporate it into the series.
>> That to me is the best of both worlds solution - it lets DW use what
>> is good to better itself without losing or throwing out what came
>> before.
>
>Yes, DW has done that forever. It's tried and true. But I think the
>answer to impending stagnation is not to continue to force new concepts
>into an unchanging format, but to stretch the format to to encompass the
>new stuff. Or at very least, something in between. I believe the core
>concepts of the show are strong and elastic enough to withstand it; for
>you, they seem to be much more fixed, and therefore brittle.
No, I look at things in a different way. Some people see the
boundaries of DW as being infinite. I see them as being vast but
finite. DW cannot include all possible stories - somewhere there is
a boundary between what is a DW story and what isn't.
And if you can get more than two people in fandom to come to
a consensus on what the core values of DW are, you are a better
man than I. I've been trying to do that for five years.
[snip]
>> Let's look at this another way: In their fundamental forms, Star
>> Trek: Deep Space Nine and Babylon 5 are both sci-fi space
>> operas centered around the intrigue on a space station. Does
>> that mean they were two identical series and that making both
>> of them was a waste of time and money? Heck, no! Each series
>> had its own elements that set it apart from the other and made
>> each series unique.
>
>But when you try to name all those elements about Doctor Who, it boils
>down to just the Doctor himself; everything else is optional (but
>certainly familiar and usually present). We can do without the TARDIS
>for a while, we can do without companions for a while, we can do without
>time/space travel, we can do without just about everything---and in the
>Hartnell era, we even managed sometimes without the Doctor!
I think the operational phrase in your paragraph is "for a while".
Yes, experimental DW can dispense with some of the things I
consider core essentials for a short time. However, I would guess
that if someone tried writing 6 EDAs that had nothing but the
Doctor - no TARDIS, no companions, no villains, no monsters,
etc. - it would get boring in a hurry. The Caught on Earth books,
for example, didn't have formal companions. But most of them
had surrogate companions, didn't they?
And, that particular "for a while" is now over. The EDAs are
back to full time companions instead of companions du jour.
[big snip]
>> And if this is the Doctor we're going to see until BBC TV finally
>> gets around to regenerating him, then it just gives me less
>> incentive to read the future EDAs.
>
>I think you've made that abundantly clear, and of course it's your
>opinion based on your own tastes. But I think it's very much NOT a case
>of it "not being the Doctor", and more a case of it "not being the
>Doctor you want to read about". That's an important distinction.
Yes, there is a distinction there, and your latter quote is certainly
true. But IMHO one of the reasons the latter quote is true is that there
is also some truth in the former quote. YMWV.
[snip]
>> I don't accept the need for pruning *at all*.
>
>And thereby comes the disagreement. And as it's been hashed over
>repeatedly, I'm not going to go into it here. It still boils down to you
>disagreeing with the decision on how to deal with the often overwhelming
>burden of nearly 40 years of conflicting continuity references, and
>therefore disliking everything about what followed. It's exactly the
>same sort of reaction seen at every major change, every
>regeneration--but arguably most notably at the regeneration into Jon
>Pertwee.
Why is continuinty an overwhelming burden?
>Please understand that I'm *not* saying you're stupid or misguided or
>wrong for feeling this way, but I do wish you'd see it for what it is--a
>reaction on your part against change and a disagreement with the chosen
>approach. Everyone has their own line in the sand for that point at
>which the series changes that little bit more than they like. (For me,
>it very nearly crossed the line at several points in its TV days, and at
>several more points among the book ranges. But each time it nearly did
>so, it forced me to re-examine what I thought was really important about
>Doctor Who.)
I can accept change - indeed, change is an element in my view of
what DW is. Change is better built into DW than into any other series
I've ever run across. I just don't blindly accept any change that comes
along as being automatically good. I analyze it, I evaluate it, and I
make my own decisions based on my knowledge and beliefs. And
while I am certainly several notches below Paul Magrs in literary
education, I didn't spend all my years working up to a PhD strictly
reading techno-geek material. I got a good dose of literature,
including classes in fantasy and science ficition wiriting. Therefore,
I have confidence that I'm drawing good conclusions.
The view of the changes of the EDAs since Dominion can be
summed up quite simply - almost all of them suck. The only two
changes I can think of that don't suck were the departure of
Sam and the arrival of Anji.
>> If an author wants to
>> write a continuity-light or free story, all he or she has to do is
>> create a new setting for the Doctor to visit and new monsters/villians/
>> races that the Doctor has never encountered, and place it far
>> enough away from any of the Doctor's other adventures spatially
>> or temporally that there's no chance of any overlap. That takes care
>> of 90% of potential continuity problems, as well as giving the authors
>> an tremendous chance to show off their originality. The only things
>> that the authors would have to be careful of at that point is to get
>> the continuity of the characterization of the Doctor and companions
>> right - and that should not be that big of a burden on the authors.
>
>But as has been pointed out, that approach eliminates great swaths of
>history and "future history" from the playing field. And it puts an
>unrealistic burden on authors and editors--one unique to this show and
>its nearly 40-year history over every available media format.
>
>Clearly "continuity" is very important to you and to many other fans.
>It's important to me, too, but not the overriding concern. When the
>linkages among stories become more important than the stories
>themselves, you've entered the realm of hte collector rather than that
>of the appreciative audience. Smart writers write to an audience;
>they're less concerned with marking items on a checklist than with
>reading a decent tale.
There could be a author's checklist for writing a good Doctor Who
story that would read something like this:
Good plot? Check!
Good prose? Check!
Good setting? Check!
Good characterization? Check!
Continuity use? Check!
If continuity is used, is it used properly? Check!
Jim, whether you choose to believe it or not, there is a
middle ground between "Flush Continuity" and "Bind Every
Story In Continuity". I think I'm standing in it, and I have a lot
of trouble trying to understand why there aren't more people
here with me.
>> The post-Ancestor Cell EDAs are not charting such a course.
>> Seven out of the ten of them that I have read were set on Earth,
>> and the other three involved Earth-origin humans. IMHO using
>> such settings over and over again is just sowing more mines
>> in the continuity minefield.
>
>You can say *exactly* the same thing about the post-War Games TV
>adventures.
Not really. There are a *lot* more mines in that minefield now than
there were in 1970.
>> To me, there is no such thing as a continuity problem. Instead,
>> it is a people problem - authors who want to write stories that
>> directly contradict others, authors who want to use settings that
>> have already been oversused, and authors who can't seem to
>> make that extra effort to get continuity right. Trying to dismiss
>> continuity as excess baggage is IMHO the easy-way-out
>> solution, and taking the easy way out does not strike me as
>> an approach that leads to good storytelling.
>
>And IMHO, the alternative--because fandom in general seems to brook no
>middle ground--is to face a legion of chapter-and-verse-quoting fanboys
>complaining about the errors and ignoring the story at hand, and a
>Doctor who has faced all the familiar alien menaces so many times that
>he might as well just press an internal "thwart Daleks" button and be
>done with it.
As I said above, I think I represent the middle ground. From where
I am I see ultra-traditionalists and ultra-radicals. I see good
traditional stories and I see good experimental or radical stories.
I see stories with excessive fanwank and I see stories with excessive
radicalness and ambiguity. I see stories that are so hide-bound that
they can't raise themselves above the metaphorical DW foundation,
and I see stories that are so desperate to do something different or new
that they destroy portions of that foundation. I'm looking for balance -
that's a reason why my favorite DW books are a *balance* between the
past and present/future. The post-Dominion EDAs have been quite out of
balance IMHO, and that's another of the several reasons I don't like
them.
If I come across as a flaming ultra-traditionalist, it's most likely
because at this time the EDA authors and the newsgroup are dominated
by those I think are radicals. If the pendulum swung too far the other
direction, I'd be able to argue against the ultra-traditionalists in
almost the same fashion I do now, because I try to look at all sides
of the issues when I'm making my decisions on what's good and
bad in DW.
Come join me on the middle ground if you can, Jim. You may find that
doing so will call for more adjustment in your DW thinking than all the
changes in the series have ever made you do.
Daniel Gooley
> However, one random thought. I remember it was a big deal for Robert
Smith?
> that we never learned what Fitz looked like until Frontier Worlds.
However
> Kode obviously didn't look like Fitz, or else a certain plot twist would
> have become rather obvious the moment the Doctor or Sam clapped eyes on
him.
Ug! I feel sure this thought crossed my mind at the time, but I had
completely forgotten it. It was probably just one of the several points
which a assumed (mostly incorrectly) that subsequent novels would clarify.
Puts these other continuity objections in perspective through, doesn't it?
> Now I can accept the TARDIS "remembering" Fitz's mind into Kode (though it
> seems a fucking creepy thing to do, given that Kode's a sentient
individual
> in his own right), but why should it have reconfigured his appearance? I
> don't see why bone structure, etc. should have been affected. Or am I
wrong
> and does the text contradict me?
Since Kode was already a "remembered" Fitz, he presumably looked something
like Fitz already - albeit in a sufficiently fuzzy way that he wasn't
recognized by the crew. My guess is that he must have been remembered by
the TARDIS physically as well as mentally. Rereading coming up, methinks.
Danny
Steven Kitson
> Continuity use? Check!
> If continuity is used, is it used properly? Check!
So if I want to write a story set in the twenty-first century, which of
the mutually contradictory twenty-first centuires from the TV show should
I use? The one from 'The Moonbase'? The one from 'The Wheel In Space'? The
one from 'Power of the Daleks' (where Earth already has colonies outside
the solar system!)? The one from 'The Seeds of Death' (T-Mat, no rockets
for two generations, just about political unity, but no Salamander)? The
one from 'The Enemy of the World' (Political unity under Salamander)? The
one from 'Warriors of the Deep' (A cold war going on -- cold wars of that
kind don't develop overnight)? There isn't time for all of these to happen
in one short century, as the all involved totally different worlds. So
which do I pick?
Then add in all the books, both those I have read and those I haven't,
with more no-doubt contradictory views (One-third of the Earth destroyed
in 2003 on 'Eternity Weeps').
Or do you mean 'ban all near-future stories'? If you say that, then you
have no right to criticise others for rejecting good stories because they
'don't fit with the current direction' -- because you're rejecting good
stories becsause they don't fit with the (confused, totally incoherent and
self-contradictory) past.
--
You put the cyanide pills next to the valium? That's asking for trouble!
Jonathan Blum
Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 24 Oct 2001 06:56:15 -0700, jb...@zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>>Guys, all the things you're saying didn't happened still happened, in
>>precisely the way the future from "Day of the Daleks" happened. You
>>can't go back to see those events anywhere, but Jo's past didn't
>>change, and Styles' house didn't magically reappear when the future
>>which created the bomb that blew it up got changed.
>>If you really really want to tie yourself in knots about this, feel
>>free, but don't blame us...
> Out of curiousity, Jon, why shouldn't we blame you and the other
>authors? Didn't you all create this untangleable knot of casuality/
>monument of (IMHO) bad storytelling?
No, we didn't, because from where we're standing, the knot unties quite
neatly. It's _your_ assumptions which are getting in the way, and we
don't subscribe to them. When John Peel complained that "Remembrance" was
bad because it didn't mesh with his assumptions about Dalek continuity,
you were happy to tell him to consider the possibility that his
assumptions were wrong; why not now?
(And me, myself, I had less to do with "The Ancestor Cell" than Ben
Aaronovitch did with "War of the Daleks"...)
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:47:50 -0400, Jim Vowles <alab...@capu.net>
>wrote:
>>always possible that a change of direction wont' work out, or that a
>>seed planted won't grow.
> Change of direction won't work out? Like the current EDAs ? :-)
As Justin said, he did have a strategy in mind to restore Gallifrey if a
new TV series demanded it. If the effect of the Earth Arc on the book
lines had been catastrophic, with readers abandoning the line en masse,
then who knows, he might have pressed that button. But the change of
direction *did* work out, the Earth Arc books did well in the polls here
and in DWM, the sales are fine. It's a risk that's paid off.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
Jack Beven <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I've gotten the impression there
>is a faction of readers that favor keeping the EDAs off in their own
>little bubble universe, never referring to anything before The Burning
>again and never giving the Doctor his memories back. Heck, Tigers itself
>has the Doctor saying "I hope I never remember! That will show them
>all!" I almost threw the book away when I read that line, and it took me
>three months to cool off afterwards.
Jack, you may have read Kate's "death of the reader" essay, but I don't
think you really took it in. As Kate said, "Tigers" was written to be a
*novel*, not a dialogue with the readership, not a statement of a fannish
agenda.
The Doctor delivers that line in the midst of an epic outburst, a dramatic
flourish befitting the demon-violinist persona he's taken on -- in short,
a tantrum. Not to send you, or any readers like you, any kind of message.
It reflects how frustrated *he* is with his memory loss and the
expectations of him, not how frustrated you or we are.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Meddling Mick
>loved blew up when the Doctor blew it up in TAC.
>
>However, because of the paradoxical crap already going on thanks to the
>Faction, the destruction of Gallifrey (in "the present" or rather the
>Doctor's relatively recent personal past) may have other effects to be
>determined later, beyond the undoing of Faction Paradox itself (which
>has yet to be proven).
That's one point that's always bothered me. *If* the Faction were
completely retconned (rather than just being scuppered in the
'here-and-now'), then why wasn't everything linked to them retconned,
too? In other words - what happened to the Remote, Compassion and
Kode/Fitz?
If it's possible to 'erase' a group of time-travellers like the
Faction or the Celestis (or even the Time Lords themselves), then
surely there's no reason why Compassion or Fitz shouldn't share a
similar fate?
>At very least, not *all* Time Lords or Renegades
>were destroyed, because Iris shows up later,
But is this 'before' or 'after' the events of 'tAC' from Iris's
perspective? In other words, does 'tAC' actually happen in her own
future, much like 'AB' was taking place in the Doctor's future?
>and we hear that either the Rani or the Master's alleged remains turned
>out to be a fake, so one of them must have made it, too.
But that's just in the alternative-War timeline, isn't it? They're
both killed by Father Kreiner, IIRC, so if he got retconned along with
the rest of the Faction he wouldn't be able to kill a fake Master or
Rani (FWIW, my money's on it being a fake Master rather than a Rani
doppellganger - probably made while he's President of Gallifrey to act
as a decoy for any potential Enemy strike).
[snip]
>My own feeling's that the Faction's manipulations created such a huge
>knot in the tapestry of time that the wrinkles will take some time to be
>smoothed out, and the pattern will change somewhat
'Father Time' says that the Time Lords started a sequence of events
that led to whole sections of the timeline being erased. I'm
uncertain as to whether this is eluding to the War or its possible
undoing, or to some other event?
>--but that the history, overall, of the Doctor has not changed (i.e.,
>he experienced all the things we saw him experience, the way that
>we saw, at least from his own perspective).
Hmm, so why does Fitz immediately start to forget what's been
happening near the end of 'tAC', as if the events are somehow 'fading'
from existence?
Meddling Mick
>Meddling Mick wrote:
>
>> I'm still trying to figure out which Fitz we've got currently -
>> is it Kode-Fitz from 'Inty', or is it now original-Fitz because
>> Kode-Fitz should never have existed?
>
>Well, it's definitely Kode-Fitz. Earthworld makes that a central plot
>point.
Yeah, I remember that. I'm just confused by a line in 'Tigers', where
Fitz says he was talking with Sam Jones 'months' ago about global
warming. Surely if he's Kode-Fitz, any such remembered conversation
with Sam would be (from his pov) hundreds of years ago? Kode-Fitz is
actually a 'remembered' version of Fitz who went back through time to
1799 with the Remote, isn't he?
If the conversation with Sam was 'months' ago, then the Fitz we've got
now might be original-Fitz, as the TARDIS's landing in 1996 in 'Inty'
would only be months ago from original-Fitz's perspective? That'd
mean he never got trapped in the Cold and became Father Kreiner -
which might lend weight to the idea that the Faction and everything
connected to them got erased at the end of 'tAC' because they'd
tangled their own timeline up too much with the alternative-future-War
timeline that got cancelled by the Doctor?
Or is Fitz simply remembering the conversation as being months-old
simply because the memories of original-Fitz and
centuries-old-Kode-Fitz have now been somehow blurred and merged by
the TARDIS's 'remembering' of both versions of Fitz into one person?
>This could be because:
>
>(a) Jon Blum's Day of the Daleks model of timeline-changing (viz. that your
>personal timeline remains unchanged 'cos time travel's, like, weird), or:
>(b) it still hasn't been demonstrated conclusively that Gallifrey unhappened
>rather than got blowed up real good.
>
>However, one random thought. I remember it was a big deal for Robert Smith?
>that we never learned what Fitz looked like until Frontier Worlds. However
>Kode obviously didn't look like Fitz, or else a certain plot twist would
>have become rather obvious the moment the Doctor or Sam clapped eyes on him.
>Now I can accept the TARDIS "remembering" Fitz's mind into Kode (though it
>seems a fucking creepy thing to do, given that Kode's a sentient individual
>in his own right), but why should it have reconfigured his appearance? I
>don't see why bone structure, etc. should have been affected. Or am I wrong
>and does the text contradict me?
Dunno, but the Remote aren't constructed of flesh and blood per se,
they're made of, um, raw biomass. I'd assumed the TARDIS had
'remembered' Kode to look like the way she remembered Fitz looking
before he got trapped in the Cold?