Doxing gods

Skip to content

Elizabeth Sandifer

Elizabeth Sandifer created Eruditorum Press. She’s not really sure why she did that, and she apologizes for the inconvenience. She currently writes Last War in Albion, a history of the magical war between Alan Moore and Grant Morrison. She used to write TARDIS Eruditorum, a history of Britain told through the lens of a ropey sci-fi series. She also wrote Neoreaction a Basilisk, writes comics these days, and has ADHD so will probably just randomly write some other shit sooner or later. Support Elizabeth on Patreon.

57 Comments

  1. Daibhid C
    December 31, 2012 @ 12:50 am

    The other thing about The Eight Doctors is that the plot completely fails to make any sense, with scenes like the Fourth Doctor blithely explaining that the person who just gave him a blood transfusion was never really there. "Full of improbable, illogical events", as it were…

    So the idea that he's in Robert Holmes troll mode fits: he's writing a story for a Doctor who only appeared in a nonsensical farrago with pointless and confusing continuity references, so he'll write him a nonsensical farrago with pointless and confusing continuity references. But, as you say, if that is what he's doing, it doesn't improve it as a book.

    And "1990s Ian and Barbara" doesn't even work on this level, so I've no idea what he was thinking there.

    Reply

  2. Tommy
    December 31, 2012 @ 1:12 am

    "But the obvious disdain for the Fifth and Seventh Doctors is far more unfortunate. The Fifth is overtly portrayed as weak and useless,"

    It's hardly Terrance's fault that he succeeded in getting the character spot on.

    "Only the Third Doctor – i.e. The period Dicks script edited – gets all of his adventures to date explicitly listed, a tedious bit of ego-stroking. Indeed, it’s conspicuous that for every Doctor Dicks has written for the Eighth Doctor meets him during the story Dicks wrote. On top of that, the Seventh Doctor goes to Metebelis 3, and the Sixth Doctor section harkens back heavily to The Five Doctors. It’s frankly a wonder the Eighth Doctor didn’t meet the First in a rose garden right before a black trapezoid tumbled from the sky."

    But pragmatically speaking, what's really wrong with a writer writing from what he knows intimately? Surely if you're planning an arc type story, it helps if you yourself once authored the stories you're using, and have full artistic licence to do so.

    Was it similarly 'ego-stroking' when Holmes concluded the Trial by completely ignoring Pip and Jane Baker's 'genocide' charge and going back to the Ravalox business, and sidelining Mel in order to make his own creation Sabalom Glitz the story companion, and brought back his own creation, the Master to explain things?

    Or the fact that Wedding of River Song uses mostly only events and tropes seen in previous Moffat-penned Series 6 stories, and ignores The Girl Who Waited, The Doctor's Wife, Curse of the Black Spot, Night Terrors, etc?

    For that matter, if Terrance didn't constrain himself to that list of his own stories, wouldn't you be complaining that the story was too laden and indulgent, like Attack of the Cybermen?

    "Similarly bewildering is the decision to try to patch up the continuity errors of Trial of a Time Lord. That these exist is, of course, not in any dispute. But is there anyone who would even attempt to argue with a straight face that the kickoff to the Eighth Doctor Adventures is the place to try to resolve a decade-old continuity snarl. Except, apparently, for Terrance Dicks."

    Is it possible that this novel, like War of the Daleks soon after it, is a validation of everything the show had been doing wrong post-Logopolis and that had that era not existed, then this novel might have not had a reason to degenerate into the continuity mess it did in trying to make sense of a messy TV era?

    Reply

  3. Daibhid C
    December 31, 2012 @ 1:35 am

    I think Owens changed his mind about this book later, since in his review of War of the Daleks, he describes a new game: one player has T8D and the other has WotD, and they either read a passage aloud, or make up the most overblown, ludicrous, continuity-heavy scene they can think of. The other player then has to guess if the scene is real or not.

    The problem with the game, according to Owens, is that it's completely impossible to guess.

    Reply

  4. Blueshift
    December 31, 2012 @ 1:52 am

    It's an excellent article, but I feel you're in danger of missing a lot of the contex of the period by concentrating on T8D as the whole future of Doctor Who. Yes, it was a new start and it was awful, but it was only one of two books released that month. The other, the ludicrously titled 'Devil Goblins from Neptune' was far more like what Virgin was publishing (and I seem to remember being shocked at how violent it was, which I wasn't expecting, though this could be the memory cheating).

    Yes, one of the two books published was a duffer, but the other showed a clear way forwards and was hardly the show's darkest hour. I imagine it depends if you prioritise the future of the show as the 'adventures of the current Doctor' rather than 'any new material being produced.

    Also, as an aside, which was the lowest rated EDA? You should probably take time to review that one just as an opportunity to look at the times when everything really does go horribly wrong.

    Reply

  5. sorrywehurtyourfield
    December 31, 2012 @ 2:14 am

    I think, as with the TV Movie, the ultimate influence of The Eight Doctors was negative – a realisation amongst anyone with any sense that this must never happen again. And once this and War of the Daleks were out of the way, BBC Books never did fall down this particular pitfall again, and by their second year were generally OK if rarely stellar. Indeed I think it's too the credit of the fandom of the time that they weren't prepared to lap this kind of thing up anymore, showing that they weren't all the "cult TV"-obsessive stereotypes that it's easy to assume in hindsight.

    You make a very good job of exploring Dicks' motivations, which are tough to explain. But in terms the overall range, I'd be inclined to call this more of a Time and the Rani than a Twin Dilemma – something that is better explained through "shit happens" production circumstance; the absence of a vision rather than the presence of a bad vision. And, as with Cartmel, once the editorial vision shows up the range never turns this bad again (at least not in this particular way), even if it doesn't necessarily achieve the regular quality of later McCoy or the NAs.

    Reply

  6. Jack Graham
    December 31, 2012 @ 2:53 am

    I've never read it… but it sounds like I should, since I'm much concerned with Shabogans. They're definitely not happy with their lot.

    Reply

  7. Darren K.
    December 31, 2012 @ 6:49 am

    But on the plus side, the cover was pretty nice.

    Reply

  8. Nick Smale
    December 31, 2012 @ 6:56 am

    This is an odd period for covers, where the design brief for all the books seems to have been "have a circular thing on it"…

    Reply

  9. Dave Simmons
    December 31, 2012 @ 7:53 am

    And not a mention of Sam Jones. Which is probably for the best; at this point in the EDAs, it's hard to quantify a zero. At best, Sam comes across as a Public Service Announcement (Drugs are bad, mmkay?).

    Mind, I actually like this book far more than Peel's Dalek novels. If this is the panning the Eight Doctors got (deservedly, admittedly), I can't wait to see Friday's post.

    Reply

  10. Steven Clubb
    December 31, 2012 @ 7:59 am

    Even though I'm deeply critical of the New Adventures years (lots of great idea, often poor execution pretty much sums it up), one thing I was absolutely amazed at was how well all the fanboys played with each other despite their having very different ideas about what Doctor Who was. And that probably had everything to do with there being a pretty clear idea of what Doctor Who (at least as it pertained to the Seventh Doctor) at the editorial level. If someone didn't like the Loom nonsense, then they didn't mention the Loom nonsense.

    This is very clearly not the case with the EDA I've read so far. When Doctor Who Magazine killed off Ace just because they could, it became the opening shots of what is clearly a pretty massive fanboy Civil War, opening the flood-gates for authors to do massive (and illogical) ret-cons on stories they didn't like, toss other versions into a bottle universe, overtly contradict other people's stories, and so on. I've caught the fringes of the fight in my previous readings/listenings of DWM and Big Finish, but nothing prepared me for the open warfare I'm seeing in the first dozen Eighth Doctor novels where they can't be bothered to come up with a particularly consistent version of who the Eighth Doctor is, unlike the comics and audios.

    Reply

  11. storiteller
    December 31, 2012 @ 8:10 am

    Or the fact that Wedding of River Song uses mostly only events and tropes seen in previous Moffat-penned Series 6 stories, and ignores The Girl Who Waited, The Doctor's Wife, Curse of the Black Spot, Night Terrors, etc?

    I thought it was. Similarly, a lot of people were frustrated that he completely left Jack Hartness out of A Good Man Goes to War. Plot-wise, he really belonged there.

    Reply

  12. Ununnilium
    December 31, 2012 @ 8:13 am

    "It's hardly Terrance's fault that he succeeded in getting the character spot on."

    Do you have to make a comment like this whenever Five's character comes up? >->;

    "For that matter, if Terrance didn't constrain himself to that list of his own stories, wouldn't you be complaining that the story was too laden and indulgent, like Attack of the Cybermen?"

    Well, the thing is, a story called "The Eight Doctors" is naturally going to be continuity-laden and indulgent. It's not that there can't be good stuff that relies heavily on past continuity – see Remembrance of the Daleks. But this book is… well, it's… It's something, anyway.

    Reply

  13. Ununnilium
    December 31, 2012 @ 8:26 am

    Also, I note the link to the Whoniverse Guide is the DWRG one again.

    Reply

  14. Tommy
    December 31, 2012 @ 9:39 am

    "Do you have to make a comment like this whenever Five's character comes up? >->;"

    Well it does seem a bit unfair that Paul Cornell got a pass to throw the Sixth Doctor under the bus in Timewryn Revelations, but Terrance gets condemned for doing the same to Fivey.

    I mean who actually decides which Doctors can be criticized or vilified and which can't?

    "Well, the thing is, a story called "The Eight Doctors" is naturally going to be continuity-laden and indulgent. It's not that there can't be good stuff that relies heavily on past continuity – see Remembrance of the Daleks. But this book is… well, it's… It's something, anyway."

    Maybe, but surely if someone like Dave Owen prefers it as a book to Human Nature, it's no basis on which to impugn their sanity for not following some myopic elitist notion of what a fan should like and should not like.

    Reply

  15. Russell Gillenwater
    December 31, 2012 @ 10:05 am

    I remember thinking, at the time, the same thing about what you described as "fanboy Civil War" I always described it myself as fiefdoms. EDAs were one, DWM another and BF will have its own in a few years. Each had its followers & some seemed to think you couldn't be a fan outside your "chosen side."

    The NAs were the last time when it seemed everyone pulled on the same rope. A good example of the attitude of this time can be seen in some of Lawrence Miles issues with other DW writers.

    Reply

  16. Matthew Blanchette
    December 31, 2012 @ 10:35 am

    So… as everyone is on this page now, and will be until Wednesday, perhaps I should ask… what did you all think of "The Snowmen"?

    Something tells me Phil was none too impressed by the ending revelation (and, no, I don't mean the Clara bit)… 😛

    Reply

  17. Matthew Blanchette
    December 31, 2012 @ 10:38 am

    Well, Owens did end up changing his mind about the book, it seems, so… I don't know what exactly that means, but it's a point to bring up, I suppose.

    Reply

  18. Elizabeth Sandifer
    December 31, 2012 @ 10:42 am

    I liked it. The decision to use the Great Intelligence was cute without being distracting, and falls squarely into the "continuity as playground" approach that I enjoy.

    Reply

  19. Dr. Happypants
    December 31, 2012 @ 10:44 am

    @Tommy:

    "Was it similarly 'ego-stroking' when Holmes concluded the Trial by completely ignoring Pip and Jane Baker's 'genocide' charge and going back to the Ravalox business, and sidelining Mel in order to make his own creation Sabalom Glitz the story companion, and brought back his own creation, the Master to explain things?"

    Given the…tumultuous circumstances of Trial's production, I hardly think that's a fair comparison. And given that Trial turned out to be so bad it killed Robert Holmes, "Trial did that too" may not be terribly effective as a defense.

    "Is it possible that this novel, like War of the Daleks soon after it, is a validation of everything the show had been doing wrong post-Logopolis and that had that era not existed, then this novel might have not had a reason to degenerate into the continuity mess it did in trying to make sense of a messy TV era?"

    No.

    Actually I'm not sure how to respond to this. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at; could you explain? Are you saying that the unbearable crapness of T8D and WotD is a reaction to the crapness of the JNT era on television? Why would "reacting to the JNT era" even be a thing the Eighth Doctor Adventures should be doing so early in their run? Or at all? What audience is that meant to appeal to?

    "Maybe, but surely if someone like Dave Owen prefers it as a book to Human Nature, it's no basis on which to impugn their sanity for not following some myopic elitist notion of what a fan should like and should not like."

    I think it's fair to say, without elitism, that if someone in fandom likes T8D more than Human Nature, then they and I are looking for such radically different things from Who novels that it's not clear there's any real benefit to bridging that gulf of understanding between us even were it possible.

    Reply

  20. Matthew Blanchette
    December 31, 2012 @ 10:56 am

    Oh! Oh, my… I'm pleasantly surprised, Phil. 🙂

    What did you think of the rest of the story?

    Reply

  21. Matthew Celestis
    December 31, 2012 @ 11:00 am

    I hated it.

    Just when I thought New Series companions couldn't get any worse, I'm introduced to Clara.

    Reply

  22. BerserkRL
    December 31, 2012 @ 11:26 am

    a lot of people were frustrated that he completely left Jack Hartness out of A Good Man Goes to War

    Not Moffat's fault; he's said he specifically wanted Harkness for "A Good Man Goes to War" but couldn't get him because Barrowman was filming Miracle Day.

    Reply

  23. BerserkRL
    December 31, 2012 @ 11:30 am

    I wonder whether Matthew Celestis is demonically possessed.

    Reply

  24. Ross
    December 31, 2012 @ 11:46 am

    Just when I thought New Series companions couldn't get any worse, I'm introduced to Clara.

    Hm… A cute girl from the contemporary UK who thinks she's clever, has "attitude" and some kind of strange relationship with time.

    I'm not sure if you put all of them in a line I'd be able to pick Clara out.

    Reply

  25. janie-aire
    December 31, 2012 @ 12:06 pm

    I loved it, of course. Very alchemical, tons of mirrors, and The One Word Test was absolutely brilliant. But I'll rarely complain about an Ascension story.

    Reply

  26. Tommy
    December 31, 2012 @ 12:09 pm

    "Given the…tumultuous circumstances of Trial's production, I hardly think that's a fair comparison. And given that Trial turned out to be so bad it killed Robert Holmes, "Trial did that too" may not be terribly effective as a defense."

    Personally I don't think Trial was that bad, it just didn't pull together in the end and tried too hard to lighten up to the point where it overdoses on a re-injection of whimsy. A one-trick viewing and little more, but I think the worst of its fan reception was down to how many hopes rested on it being a brilliant comeback that would leave Grade with egg on his face, and it just wasn't.

    But to me the point still stands that if an author looks to their own bibliography for their intertextual narrative, it's not necessarily a sign of ego or hubris, so much as working with what they know.

    "No.

    Actually I'm not sure how to respond to this. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at; could you explain? Are you saying that the unbearable crapness of T8D and WotD is a reaction to the crapness of the JNT era on television? Why would "reacting to the JNT era" even be a thing the Eighth Doctor Adventures should be doing so early in their run? Or at all? What audience is that meant to appeal to?"

    Well because the novels are always going to be in some way subservient to the TV series, as the master narrative. The books can't have the authority to officially regenerate the Doctor, only the TV show can. And there was probably no better candidate for the new Gallifreyan President than Romana herself. A character we knew intimately from the TV series.

    There are of course authors who did daring new stuff and created new mythologies in the books, but by and large the TV series is the source and the fallback to defer to.

    In this case this was moreso true because this was a blank new slate and all the Ace and Seventh Doctor mythology had been jettisoned.

    But of course if the TV show as a master narrative has a dark patch, or a long running malaise, or a spiraling descent of continuity, then somewhere along the line it's going to be an elephant in the room to the author and they're possibly going to be unable to resist trying to reckon with or exorcise it (bearing in mind writing is often essentially about working through personal frustrations), before they can build what they feel are stable foundations out of the rest of the master narrative. Even though this tends to amount to the kind of excessive canon vandalism that only make things worse.

    I guess what I'm saying is that the show can't always escape its shameful past, especially when it comes to the secondary texts. And that maybe a curtailed master narrative, circa 1981 would have been a better one to work from.

    Reply

  27. Matthew Blanchette
    December 31, 2012 @ 12:11 pm

    So, ironically, it's RTD's fault — and it's therefore also RTD's fault that, instead of Jack being in an awesome, kick-ass Who episode, he was in an entire series of bizarre suckitude.

    Whaddaguy.

    Reply

  28. Russell Gillenwater
    December 31, 2012 @ 12:22 pm

    Then I might be demoniacal possessed myself, because I thought it was below average (gave it a 4/10 on GB). We will get to it in time, but it featured most of what I don't like about Moffat DW. Oh, I will add that Ross is spot on about Clara.

    Reply

  29. Matthew Blanchette
    December 31, 2012 @ 12:42 pm

    raises a glass

    Incidentally, a Happy New Year to all of you at home! 😀

    Reply

  30. Dr. Happypants
    December 31, 2012 @ 2:31 pm

    @Tommy:

    Would you say that the Eighth Doctor Adventures, highlighting T8D and WotD, were making more of an effort to engage faithfully with the TV series as a master narrative than the Virgin NAs generally did?

    Reply

  31. Steven Clubb
    December 31, 2012 @ 2:47 pm

    What's sad is that all those divergent views are fairly easily reconciled with each other, because Doctor Who isn't terribly concerned with Continuity in the first place. These guys had to go out of their way to step on each other toes. Ace hadn't appeared in the comic strips for a couple of years prior to the story that kills her, and the author flat out stated they did it to divorce themselves from the novel line.

    Why are mommy and daddy fighting? 🙂

    Reply

  32. elvwood
    December 31, 2012 @ 2:51 pm

    I thought it was a lot of fun, very appropriate for a Christmas special – and it was definitely a bonus that they brought back what was quite possibly the first villain I ever encountered, back in '67. And if we have to have a "timey-wimey" companion, Clara was at least different in the way she functioned, though I agree it's getting repetitive.

    It wasn't perfect – the link between the crying and the thaw wasn't clear until I thought about it afterwards – but like A Christmas Carol, it captured the mood of the day. Which is what it's all about, really.

    Happy new year, everyone!

    Reply

  33. Steven Clubb
    December 31, 2012 @ 3:53 pm

    I happened to read the Telos novella "Time & Relative" a couple of days after watching the Christmas special.

    Talk about deja vu. London in the past, intelligent snow, killer snowmen, young woman telling outrageous tales to children, courageous young woman having to talk a relunctant Doctor into saving the Earth.

    Only with the First Doctor and Susan. The two stories are actually quite different but it's shocking how many bits they have in common.

    Reply

  34. John Seavey
    December 31, 2012 @ 4:12 pm

    I simply must share an old story about 'The Eight Doctors'. I was on a mailing list with quite a few Who fans and not a few writers, and Jon Blum (who had just moved to Australia to marry Kate Orman a few months prior, and was working on 'Unnatural History', IIRC) posted, "Could someone look up (continuity detail I don't remember) in 'The Eight Doctors'? I'd check myself, but my copy is currently on a steamer trunk floating somewhere in the vicinity of the Panama Canal."

    To which another poster responded, "How involved. I simply burnt mine."

    Reply

  35. Tommy
    December 31, 2012 @ 10:30 pm

    I think those two particular books marked a very reactionary start, an aggressive return to the old guard view of Doctor Who as a continuity exercise, coming from what were very old guard authors. The NA's before them had been at best radical and new age, and at worst adolescent.

    They were perhaps more faithful to an idea of old school Doctor Who, and that there was a block universe canon to the show's continuity with a mapped out dating system. Whereas as Philip highlighted, the NA's often seemed almost ashamed of being Doctor Who or any nerdish stigma. War of the Daleks obviously wasn't, but clearly it was a case of being stringent to the canon, or rather entrenched in it, whilst actively vandalizing and vilifying even the old stuff on TV that they felt was a betrayal, and rewriting the canon, but from a perspective that held the existence of a canon to be sacrosanct.

    So like Ian Levine, the view to the TV show was both evangelical and combatitive and smiting. War of the Daleks wasn't so much faithful to the post-Genesis Dalek stories, as a dragging of them through the mud.

    Reply

  36. Tommy
    December 31, 2012 @ 11:10 pm

    Or to put it less generously, Peel and Dicks were writing from a position outside of Cornell's own elitist clique of 'right on' NA writers. And so they were part of a different philosophy and school on the show, and on what was 'cool'.

    Reply

  37. Pete Galey
    January 1, 2013 @ 4:29 am

    I don't know there's a great mystery as to why TED turned out like it did – Terrance's brief was probably to do a potted history of Doctor Who, a kind of dramatised version of the highlights of the programme guide, and so he decided to take a tour of places that either were significant in the history of the character, or that he knew well. Sam's absence for the main body of the book was probably because they didn't know whether they'd get the rights to use Grace or not – ISTR Vamp Sci had her in the first draft. Bookending the novel with a section that focusses on the new girl was probably a reasonable save, as was linking her to Coal Hill School, thus giving this rudderless Doctor an anchor in the dead centre of the show that he can throw down (I kinda like making Totter's Lane a personal motif for the Eight Doctor, with the thematic emphasis on a fresh start and a return to an earlier, less complex figure – neither of which I thought were necessary or desirable, but if they're going to be done… this probably leads to Interference being my favourite EDA). Fake Ian and Fake Barbara are terrible, but I quite like Sam. She's a different character in every book, though.

    Ultimately, the problem, despite people like Paul Cornell lauding Dicks' classical virtues and solid storytelling instincts, is that the guy doesn't know how to write prose (THERE, I SAID IT). Every other line is "tell not show", which is understandable in some of the visits to the past, but is also there when it has no reason to be (e.g. Sam's athleticism). It reads more like a synopsis than a novel. Give the same basic brief to someone like Cornell, or Gareth Roberts, or Lance Parkin, and you'll get something that works nicely at least, and possibly something that finds things totemic and magical on the journey.

    Reply

  38. Steven Clubb
    January 1, 2013 @ 6:40 am

    At least in the first ten, Sam strikes me as what Rose would have been had she existed in the Classic Series. Young woman, athletic, not particularly bright or ambitious (i.e. a normal girl), kind of fancies the Doctor… okay, make sure the writers mention at least one of those things in every story and we have a companion.

    Even the stuff with Dark Sam and her guilt over killing an alien feel completely divorced from the character on the page. They just give her a bit of angst for a few pages, completely unrelated to anything going on in the story, and that's it. Even in Alien Bodies, it never felt like Lawrence Miles really cared at all about the character and her dark origin was just some bit of grist to toss in there in hopes that it turned into a pearl somewhere down the line.

    Reply

  39. Pete Galey
    January 1, 2013 @ 7:17 am

    It seems to me that deliberately conceiving Sam as a walking Grange Hill stereotype could have been a masterstroke, since every decent British writer ought to be able to hit that on the nose with minimal effort, thus avoiding the problem that even the best novel companions often take a few books to settle down to some consistency. Problem is, the ex-Virgin writers were an uppity bunch, and weren't about to write a stereotype without a fight, so they end up each giving us a version of what they think the character should have been, so she ends up as inconsistent as any of them, at just the point when it was most dangerous. Thinking about it, Miles comes out best here, since of the first half dozen or so, he seems to be the only one writing Sam how he thinks Terrance would have wanted her written. In that sense, Dark Sam seems less like an attempt to graft more characterisation onto her and more just a way for Miles to sufficiently subdue the part of his own brain that hates stereotypes.

    Reply

  40. Adam Riggio
    January 1, 2013 @ 7:33 am

    It's quite funny how different elements of the Hartnell era's approaches are filtering into Moffat's writing, especially at the Xmas specials. I remember how much The Doctor The Widow and the Wardrobe struck me as very much like Phil's description in Eruditorum book one of the archetypical Hartnell story. And now we have a Moffat-Smith story that harkens back to a Hartnell ear Telos novella.

    I must say, though, I find some of the critical discussions of Moffat very interesting in tone. I get the feeling that some folks just get generally peeved with Moffat, so they express simply being tired of his tropes. Yes, Clara is another timey-wimey companion, as Amy, Rory, and River were, though she'll have a different mechanism to her mystery. But if Moffat were to introduce another plucky young companion with no mystery at all, the same critical voices would be grumbling about how we're supposed to be interested in someone with no mystery. Quite a few of us at least think through what we're grumbling about, but I sometimes get that contrarian for the sake of contrary vibe from some of the commenters here.

    Oddly enough, the winking reveal of the Great Intelligence in The Snowmen (and check the sly reference to The Abominable Snowmen in the title) is the perfect way to bring back a returning villain like that. Looking back at those two Troughton stories, they were thought of as Yeti stories, and in the JNT/Levine image factory the Yeti were the primary villains because they were the scary monsters who got the most screen time. But really, the Yeti were just foot soldiers, and those were Great Intelligence stories. Moffat brought it back properly because he knew who the real villain was. He saw past the catalogue of facts to what was really happening.

    One can take it as a wonderful antidote to The Eight Doctors. The book failed because it was an empty catalogue of past continuity with a Doctor whose character was still an empty shell. And after filling himself with a catalogue of facts about his past, he's still an empty shell. Because a character isn't just a list of past events, but an active movement, memory serving present action and development.

    I've been reading some Bergson lately, and this is the idea of his that makes the most sense to me. Who knew it would become so useful to Doctor Who criticism?

    Reply

  41. David Anderson
    January 1, 2013 @ 7:34 am

    The old guard view of Doctor Who is surely that you should never let continuity get in the way of a good story.
    (Is there any evidence that any creative team prior to the JNT era gave continuity more than a passing thought?)

    Reply

  42. Adam Riggio
    January 1, 2013 @ 7:49 am

    And another thing!

    I take exception to the idea that the entire classic series after Logopolis was a waste. Increasingly flawed through 1982-6, yes, but a period of unrealized potential. Davison had the acting chops to do a great performance, and his best stories (Kinda, Snakedance, Mawdryn Undead, Enlightenment, Awakening, Frontios, Planet of Fire, Androzani) show his talent. The better scripts of the Big Finish audios let Davison do Doctor Who stories that put his talent to its full use.

    The concept behind his two companion teams of introducing drama and conflict to the dynamics of the TARDIS crew was brilliant. But in the actual writing, that drama never got above the level of sniping because the writers continued to focus on the adventure/monster plots as the main points of the stories, instead of exploring the character drama. But the potential for greatness was there, just as Phil described openly in the Terminus essay.

    Some of the Davies era approaches played into that dynamic, using a focus on the domestic and family lives of the companions to introduce character conflict into the TARDIS crew. But only with the more languid pace of the novels could the Virgin line explore actual, detailed, slow-burning character conflict among the regulars. That, I think, was a serious loss when we move to the approach of the EDA line that streamlines the storytelling to focus on simpler monster/action narratives, at least until Lawrence Miles gets involved. And I still don't understand what goes on when Paul Magrs shows up.

    I really think Tom and I are going to become regular sparring partners as we get closer to the Davies era (not ear, as in my previous typo).

    Reply

  43. elvwood
    January 1, 2013 @ 8:18 am

    Not owning or having otherwise read The Eight Doctors, I haven't had much to say; but it occurs to me that this is a valid place at which to make a general complaint about the change from the Virgin to the BBC books.

    They changed the font size.

    Specifically, they changed it from one which is comfortable for my old eyes to read, to one which is an effort. What's more, they haven't fitted in any more lines per page because they've added more whitespace, so they've lost half the benefit of doing so! They could have gone for something in between if they wanted to save on paper. Hmph.

    Reply

  44. Steven Clubb
    January 1, 2013 @ 8:24 am

    I generally like Moffat's run so far, although he's not well suited to longer arcs, as his best stories are the ones that he re-wrote several times to line everything up just so.

    With his on-going arcs, it's just kind of hard not to notice him tossing more and more stuff in with the hope that it'll all work out at the end. And predictably enough, there's big gaping holes in the logic at the other end, as happens every time someone uses that approach (Lost, Battlestar Galactica, etc.)

    The biggest problem with the Moffat Era is that he doesn't have someone who fills the same niche he filled during the RTD Era, where his stories were often the high-light of the year. Instead, Moffat is off writing character introductions and the arc stories so we don't get this magical little story in the middle every year. All the regular writers are a bit inconsistent.

    Reply

  45. Matthew Blanchette
    January 1, 2013 @ 9:18 am

    To be fair, though, Neil Gaiman and (surprisingly) Tom MacRae have been shaping up to be the Moffat Era's Moffats… I'm eager to see what they've got to offer this next half-season. 🙂

    "I really think Tom and I are going to become regular sparring partners as we get closer to the Davies era"

    Oh, I do hope so… 😀

    Reply

  46. Steven Clubb
    January 1, 2013 @ 10:17 am

    Both of those gentlemen have delivered one excellent episode. It's not that there aren't high-lights, several people have delivered Moffat Level Gold… but no one that just did it every year like clock-work. Moffat was something genuinely special during the RTD years.

    I think the closest Moffat has to a Go-To Guy is Gareth Roberts who can always be counted on to deliver a funny, reasonably good episode every year. But he's not in the same league.

    Reply

  47. Arkadin
    January 1, 2013 @ 10:19 am

    Agreed. I don't know how I read as many of those things as I did as a teenager without going blind. Of course, these days, I can take refuge in illegally downloaded PDFs, which is how I read The Eight Doctors. The PDF I have is rather poorly proofread, full of OCR errors that added an additional layer of surrealism to the proceedings. The Time Lords were constantly talking into "corn-links" (I'm sure Lawrence Miles could come up with a perfectly good magickal explanation for Time Lords speaking into ears of corn), and the Doctor at one point metamorphoses into a "Tune Lord." These typos add to the sort of off-brand, bootleg charm this book has at its best. It is, as far as I'm concerned, the ideal way to experience this particular story.

    Reply

  48. Arkadin
    January 1, 2013 @ 10:20 am

    Ah, that explains why you were Tuckerized in Vampire Science. I was wondering about that.

    Reply

  49. Tommy
    January 1, 2013 @ 2:25 pm

    By old guard, I was referring more to old guard fandom. It does seem to me that it was the older fans, often children of the 60's who were the most staunch about continuity keeping, or at least the most fascinated in that aspect. Ian Levine, Gary Russell, Jim Mortimer, Jan Vincent Rudzki and of course John Peel.

    The fact that fans of that generation believed continuity to be so sacrosanct suggests to me that the show was getting the continuity right enough of the time even before the JNT era made it a focus. It wasn't a JNT decision to bring back the Thals in Planet of the Daleks and Genesis of the Daleks, and cast them all as blondes to maintain the look of the last time we'd seen them, after they'd only appeared once before in a story ten years prior.

    The irony is that the high profile fans who aren't so fixated about continuity tend to be ones who became fans in the 80's, so perhaps ironically the show itself during that time gave them their fill of continuity and left them with the realisation that it wasn't that interesting or fulfilling, or maybe stories like The Two Doctors, and the revisionism of the later McCoy era, made them realize the idea of a solid canon just didn't hold up.

    As for Terrance Dicks, whilst he always held the belief that every new Doctor Who story could potentially be someone's first, and that it's a mistake to make it too much for the fans at the expense of alienating newcomers (sadly he could have told the JNT production team their way was a mistake long before we had to learn the hard way), he's still a very parochial writer, and canon keeping is a very parochial thing. And at the end of the day, much of the show's mythology and continuity is in his blood.

    Reply

  50. Ununnilium
    January 1, 2013 @ 7:44 pm

    See, I disagree on Dicks's prose. Usually, terrible books are slogs; this one, I zipped through at high speed. It moved fast and felt light even in the most WTF bits.

    Reply

  51. Tommy
    January 1, 2013 @ 9:09 pm

    "I take exception to the idea that the entire classic series after Logopolis was a waste…. Davison had the acting chops to do a great performance, and his best stories (Kinda, Snakedance, Mawdryn Undead, Enlightenment, Awakening, Frontios, Planet of Fire, Androzani) show his talent."

    I found Bailey's work contrived, sterile and clunky. Grimwade's was rather meandering as though running out the clock until characters conveniently walk into the fray i.e. the two Brigs meeting.

    Enlightenment is a masterpiece let down by the larger arc rendering it episodic and spoiling its standalone power. Caves is brilliant, but a part of me feels that unlike Genesis of the Daleks or City of Death, the show would be no less complete without it. The Davison era would feel incomplete without it, but only because the era was such a regression. Maybe the show already was 'complete' by City of Death.

    Yes there's good 80's stories where the show briefly seemed never better, before proving to be a freak anomaly as normal service resumes. But it's cancelled out by the overwhelmingly awful, ugly anti-quality. Stories corrosive to the show, its hero and mission statement.

    A casual viewer who turns their nose up at Death to the Daleks was probably never going to be a fan anyway. Someone put off by Warriors of the Deep might have potentially become a fan with the inclination to appreciate its admirable hero, but were put off by a betrayal of all that.

    Even Caves, where the noble Doctor faces twisted, snidey humans who continually dishonourably stab him in the back, could be subverted by adding 'before he could do them all dirty first, like he did 5 stories ago'.

    Davison's acting strengths, and Colin's, made this worse by making such reprehensible characterisation of the Doctor as a liability all the more sincere and defining. The era's moral malaise actively turns even the show's virtues against it.

    "The concept behind his two companion teams of introducing drama and conflict to the dynamics of the TARDIS crew was brilliant. But in the actual writing, that drama never got above the level of sniping"

    The sniping was so ugly and unpleasant. Frontier in Space and Genesis of the Daleks had valued kindness, respect and open-mindedness. Now we got appalling, disrespectful behavior and dysfunctional socialising of how boys and girls must be antagonistic to each other.

    And amidst Kinda and Four To Doomsday's weird, far-out plots and visuals, it's Adric and Tegan verbally attacking each other out the blue that beg what's going on and why are we watching this?

    Doctor Who's prior idealism, about learning, growth, betterment and human endeavour, was now akin to watching reckless misbehaving kids ignoring everyone who tells them to stop, or to be sensible and just carrying on until someone gets hurt, and sometimes ending with their obstinate senseless recklessness getting everyone killed.

    JNT got rid of Romana for this, and somehow thought this represented progress. I doubt there was an intent at anything worthy here. It just smacks of JNT burdening the era with extra characters, believing more cast additions will generate audience interest.

    Keeper of Traken could have been a template for a new UNIT family set-up. If JNT wanted to reuse Sarah Sutton and Anthony Ainley, surely it would make sense to make Traken a guest star planet with the Doctor making occasional return visits to Tremas and Nyssa, rather than dumping Nyssa on the Doctor as another companion.

    And coupled with the neutered Doctor, and old monsters being brought back in overwhelming force, it led to the show feeling suddenly out of balance, with the Doctor feeling marginalised and swamped. The very balance that made him the hero he was is lost. It's only come Revelation of the Daleks and the Trial season that it begins to feel back in balance again.

    Basically I feel this all hints how the show and its fan loyalty in the 80's was being kept going almost out of spite alone.

    Reply

  52. encyclops
    January 2, 2013 @ 5:07 pm

    I generally enjoyed "The Snowmen" and found it among the most agreeable of the Christmas specials, which is an extremely low bar. Clara being yet another clever, "feisty," beautiful twentysomething apparently-contemporary white woman is a drag, but what are you going to do? If she's going to be a mash-up of Amy and River Song, at least she's good at the job. The Sherlock Holmes references were awkward and pointless (I liked the Mary Poppins bits, though) and the plot was vacuous nonsense even by Christmas special standards, but there were so many good moments along the way that I forgave it.

    More here, if anyone cares: http://encyclops.com/the-snowmen/

    Reply

  53. Unknown
    January 3, 2013 @ 2:56 am

    Actually I'd say at best Sam comes across as Dark Sam, when the tedious campaigning side of her character was away and the more interesting side of her came out. It was recognizably the same character, just much more interesting.

    Reply

  54. Prole Hole
    January 3, 2013 @ 3:05 am

    Pete, that's pretty much what happened with Fitz (my favourite of all the novel companions BTW – yes, even over Benny), he was drawn in initially broad stokes and every writer was able to hit that, as you say, on the nose.

    It still amazes me how bad Sam was and how she hobbled the early run of the EDAs (and entirely played in to the hands of the "they-shouldn't-have-taken-it-from-Virgin" crowd). And even though this book is horrible, by four books later (Genocide) they've already got one that pretty much knocks it out of the park (sadly, Vampire Science and The Bodysnatchers are the only two EDAs I've not read so I can't comment on them). And by book 6 (Alien Bodies) they've got as strong a novel as there is in any Who line.

    Reply

  55. Sean Daugherty
    January 4, 2013 @ 10:30 am

    I remember it being mentioned somewhere at the time (either an issue of DWM or perhaps even rec.arts.drwho) that BBC Books made it a point that each book was the same physical dimensions on the shelf. Which, considering that the length guidelines were clearly never that strict, meant that they would just adjust the font size from book to book in order to fit everything on the same number of pages. So one month you could have a book that was practically large-type (Steve Lyons's "The Witch Hunters" springs to mind) while the next you'd need a magnifying glass to read (Lawrence Miles's "The Adventuress of Henrietta Street").

    Reply

  56. Dave Owen
    May 26, 2013 @ 2:59 pm

    I do have some mental health issues, but seem fairly even-keeled, and recall being so in 1996. I wonder what on Earth possessed me to award "Human Nature" 3/10. Was this the "Game of the Year" where I'd been asked to assess whether each book was better or worse than it's predecessor? That's such a broad metric as to be meaningless, and becomes positively misleading when successive increments and decrements are carried forward. I did enjoy almost all of "The EIght Doctors", but recall taking the piss out of it a bit a few months later when it was joined by "War of The Daleks". This may be the first time I have posted here. Your wit and rigour make me wilt with shame at the shallow pieces I used to get away with. D.

    Reply

  57. Daibhid C
    July 19, 2013 @ 7:58 am

    Just noted that I've called Dave Owen "Owens" twice. Less embarassing than that argument I got into with him on radw many years ago, where under the influence of heavy flu medication I wrote a long, ranty peice that probably didn't make much sense even allowing for the fact it was based on having confused him with Dave Stone…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Eruditorum Press

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading