About Time Volume 8 Review

(18 comments)

At long last, there’s a new volume of About Time. For those who are unaware, About Time is the gold standard of comprehensive studies of Doctor Who - a towering project whose Alan Moore it has been my pleasure and privilege to serve as Grant Morrison to. This latest volume covers from The Runaway Bride through Voyage of the Damned, with stops off for “Time Crash” and The Infinite Quest. The short form is that it's another great entry in a great series that's absolutely worth buying if you're the sort of person who buys massive and sprawling reference boks on Doctor Who. You can get it on Amazon right here, or on Amazon UK here. I recommend it highly. 

Now for the meaty bits. I want to start with the kind of obvious red flag the book throws up, which is the fact that the entire book is covering just one year of Doctor Who.  For one thing, this incremental progress is frustrating given that the book’s been a long time coming - Volume 7 was four years ago. For another, at 350 pages this means that About Time is spending more time on the Martha Jones era than it did on Hartnell, Troughton, Davison, or indeed Tom Baker, though I think we can all agree that Volume 4 was overly scant. These concerns are not entirely off base, but on the whole the situation is better than it might appear. Given the announcement in the back of the book that Volume 9, rounding out the Davies era, will be out in 2018, it looks like the manuscript just got unruly in size and was split.

The larger issue is simply that unruliness. While it’s apparent that their working relationship was untenable, there’s no real way around the fact that About Time was better when Tat Wood still had Lawrence Miles as a coauthor. The tension between the two seems to have tempered everyone’s worst instincts, resulting in extraordinarily good books. Solo, on the other hand (or rather, with new cowriter Dorothy Ail, promoted from her “additional material” credit on Volume 7), Wood’s approach tends to bloat. The Continuity and Things That Don’t Make Sense sections are particularly out of control by this point, with the latter even seeming to know it, helpfully marking off its more excessive sections with section breaks and italics warning readers of, for instance, the one-page discussion of the bus timetables in The Runaway Bride or the page and a half on the dodgy geography of Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks. Equally, when you have to set multiple sections of your book off with disclaimers that practically beg the reader to skip them, it’s maybe time to cut those sections. Certainly it leaves one with the distinct fear that Kill the Moon is going to require its own volume in order to get through that section.

But out of this over-comprehensiveness comes many of the book’s best features. The first side-essay, for instance - “Why Weren’t We Bovvered” - is an eight and a half page overview of the intersections between Doctor Who and comedy that opens by talking about writers David Whitaker tried and failed to hire. Its ridiculous, of course, and doesn’t need anything like that scope to make the relatively narrow point it’s actually arguing for, but that criticism is almost wholly beside the point. There’s a pleasure in the comprehensiveness - in seeing the argument laid out in its entirety.

The bigger pleasure with a book like About Time, however, is disagreeing with it. (And I very much include my own books in that. A persistent mystery to me is why people feel the need to disclaim that they don’t agree with me on everything. Of course not! What would be the point?) Volume 7 was in this regard notable for its relative hostility to the new series - a position hinted at in the classic series volumes, but finally allowed to be unpacked in full. It was not an unadulterated screed about how Davies ruined Doctor Who - Wood’s far too smart for that. But it made a sensible and compelling case for what was lost in the translation of the show into the present day, even if its sense of what was gained was underdeveloped.

For the most part, Volume 8 is a firm improvement on this. The knife is stuck in at the moments you’d expect. The resolution of Last of the Time Lords comes in for the hardest kicking, but the Evolution of the Daleks through 42 stretch gets appropriate side-eye as well. But for the most part, the approach here is sympathetic to what the show is trying to do. Some of that is that Series Three gives good material for Wood’s aesthetic of Doctor Who (and Ail’s, which remains inscrutable - her favorite story in the volume is apparently The Infinite Quest) - Gridlock, Human Nature/The Family of Blood, Utopia, and indeed much of The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords are as close as the Davies era comes to what he likes. But there’s also just a more even keel to the book - as though, with the hurdle of “now we’re on the new series” cleared, the book is able to relax and be itself again.

Which brings us to the two big points of disagreement - one friendly, one a point of genuine concern. The first is Blink. Wood’s distaste for Moffat was clear enough in Volume 7. This threatens to be a problem for future volumes (although again, he’s pretty good at evaluating things on their own terms even as he grumbles about what those terms are), but it makes the Critique section, in which he simultaneously trashes its legacy and the fact that it hasn’t actually aged very well. It’s a triumph of sacred cow killing that requires Lars Pearson to offer a mildly bewildered two page defense that amounts to “OK, but tons of people really like this for a wealth of really obvious reasons.” And frankly, as critiques of Moffat go, it’s actually on target, picking at the right sore spots. I envy whoever gets to write the defense sections in Volumes 10 and up, because it’s a delightful gauntlet.

The bigger point of disagreement is the essay attached to The Shakespeare Code, “Why Does Britain’s History Look So Different These Days?” It’s not even that it’s basic premise is off. Wood and Ail persuasively and cogently lay out the very different histories of race in the US and UK, and point out the ways in which the classic series was racially progressive (focusing particularly on Robots of Death). The point where it goes off the rails is subtler, coming somewhere between the absence of any grappling with the reality of Gareth Roberts’s politics, a point you probably need to deal with to talk about race and The Shakespeare Code at all sensibly, and the extended apologia for The Talons of Weng-Chiang. It’s not a bad apologia - Wood’s point that “if Bert Kwouk, David Yup, or whoever had played the part, people would still have problems with the use of the ‘Yellow Peril’ motif of Victorian penny-dreadfuls, but the debate would be on how far Robert Holmes was subverting those cliches” is basically correct. It’s just that, bluntly, this is shockingly the wrong essay and wrong take for a book being published in 2017 - an intervention in something that’s fundamentally not the debate about Doctor Who and race that needs to happen right now. To say nothing of the fact that the essay doesn’t even namecheck Bill, despite numerous other points in the volume that are updated through The Doctor Falls.

But the worst essay in it is merely misguided. Meanwhile, there’s a host of things both brilliantly insightful and hilarious. Not all of these are flashy - there’s a strong case to be made that the book’s best contribution to the literature is its ten page overview of the online extras from back in the day when the BBC had money to fritter away making Dalek games and extra commentary tracks. It’s nothing earth-shattering or revelatory - just good old-fashioned documentation of the margins. But the exegesis of where Martha went wrong is also phenomenal - a decisive and comprehensive intervention into a debate it was hard to imagine needed more words. And there’s also a bit pondering why the Tenth Doctor did not warn the Fifth about the Time War, in which it’s suggested that he was probably put off by the events of Warmonger, which may actually be the single greatest continuity patch in Doctor Who history.

All told, this is a book that takes the nearly impossible expectations generated by the history of the series and the amount of time that’s passed since the last volume and lives up them handily. This remains the gold standard for Doctor Who criticism, and we’re lucky to have it.

Comments

Sean Dillon 3 weeks ago

As with the genuine articles, I tend to have a preference towards Morrison over Moore, though still respecting Moore and acknowledging that my preference is partially due to when I was introduced to their works (though for completely different reasons). Odds are likely Vol. 10's defender is going to be Lance Parkin or one of the mainstays of the 8th Doctor/Faction Paradox lines, though I'm curious if Pearson is aware of this blog or not (though Miles' interest is far more intriguing).

Link | Reply

Rob 3 weeks ago

Great to hear the latest volume is out, I will have to get it. One point you made which I found interesting, where you mentioned the Davis/Moffat bashing element that occurs in these volumes. I find that I can cope with it despite being a massive fan of Moffat because , well, everyone should have their own view on things. But I did listen to a podcast with fans assessing a New Who season and the Moffat ( and Gareth Roberts bashing) was so poisonous and involved attacking their personalities (not just their work) that I had to turn off the podcast. It just felt toxic and I think that element of fandom between being critical and being bitchy can be a twin line for some. But not in the case of About Time or your great blog for that matter. Just saying the obvious thing, that fandom can bitchy! No surprises there! One last thing, how is your War in Albion writing going? I loved all the stuff so far and can't wait to see the next volume.

Link | Reply

Comment deleted 3 weeks ago

Comment deleted 3 weeks ago

Andrew B 3 weeks ago

It's about time.

Link | Reply

Jane 3 weeks ago

This time it's about about time.

Link | Reply

Larry W 3 weeks ago

Did I miss something? "...between the absence of any grappling with the reality of Gareth Roberts’s politics..." I thought G.R. was gay? Not that they can't be fascists but it's surprising that's all.

Link | Reply

mx_mond 3 weeks ago

He’s an islamophobe and transphobe, as evidenced by his Twitter account.

Link | Reply

fourthingsandalizard 3 weeks ago

In what way are gay men less likely to be racist? One doesn't even have to be overtly right-wing to be bigoted, and particularly if one is an Islamophobic white man in Britain. Gareth has hardly made a secret of his position.

Link | Reply

Ozyman.Jones 2 weeks, 6 days ago

I may not agree with Gareth Roberts, and I am not here to defend him, but it is not hard to see or understand his reasoning, when even the most moderate versions if Islam are openly hostile to homosexuality, and the more radicalised throw them off buildings. And from my experiences on line, and in real life, the most hostile group to Trans women are often the gay men, of any colour.

Link | Reply

Andrew Hickey 2 weeks, 2 days ago

"even the most moderate versions if Islam are openly hostile to homosexuality"

Citation needed.

More to the point, Roberts' political views, as expressed on his Twitter, don't have any reasoning behind them other than to take the opposite view from whatever he perceives the liberal consensus to be. Muslims are evil, sexual harassment is just "flirting" and women speaking about it are "moral panics", Brexit is good, and so forth. His Twitter feed is the Daily Mail but with more screencaps of 1970s TV.

Link | Reply

Philip Sandifer 2 weeks, 1 day ago

To be fair, that would measurably improve the Daily Mail.

Link | Reply

Frankymole 1 week, 3 days ago

Citations... there are lots around with just minimal searching. Try the four citations on Wikipedia for one sentence in their "LGBT in Islam" page: "Most Muslim-majority countries and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have opposed moves to advance LGBT rights at the United Nations, in the General Assembly or the UNHRC. In May 2016, a group of 51 Muslim states blocked 11 gay and transgender organizations from attending 2016 High Level Meeting on Ending AIDS." Republic of Uzbekistan". Legislationline.org. Retrieved 22 March 2016.
Nichols, Michelle; Von Ahn, Lisa (17 May 2016). "Muslim states block gay groups from U.N. AIDS meeting; U.S. protests". Reuters. Retrieved 18 May 2016.
Evans, Robert (8 March 2012). "Islamic states, Africans walk out on UN gay panel". Reuters. Retrieved 18 July 2012.
Solash, Richard (7 March 2012). "Historic UN Session On Gay Rights Marked By Arab Walkout". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Agence France-Presse. Retrieved 18 July 2012.
: a b "South Africa leads United Nations on gay rights". MG.co.za. Retrieved 5 April 2017. Plenty more where that came from.

Link | Reply

Comment deleted 2 weeks, 4 days ago

Rob 2 weeks ago

Oh wow. I just saw the err... response to what I wrote. First up, I had no idea about Robert's horrible views. The podcast I listened to did not clarify that he had such disgusting views. I don't support or endorse Gareth Robert's views. And secondly, I still think that the podcast I listened to was pretty bad. Curious to know what the deleted comments were though!

Link | Reply

Andrew Hickey 2 weeks ago

Some of the deleted comments were actual spam, nothing to worry about.
And yeah, it's hard to tell from his writing that Roberts is an arsehole -- he's one of the better writers to have worked on the novels and Big Finish, and very little in his work suggests the sheer rancid nastiness of his political views. But he's a hard-right reactionary transphobe, islamophobe, and misogynist. It's a shame.

Link | Reply

Philip Sandifer 2 weeks ago

Looks like I accidentally whacked a legit comment while taking out about 250 spam comments that had accrued over the last week or two. Will restore it in a sec. Sorry all.

Link | Reply

Comment deleted 1 week, 5 days ago

New Comment

required

required (not published)

optional

Recent Posts

Archive

Tags

Authors

Feeds

RSS / Atom