Eruditorum Press

Crash log of the Singularity

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.

52 Comments

  1. Stuart Ian Burns
    April 3, 2013 @ 12:54 am

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    Reply

  2. elvwood
    April 3, 2013 @ 2:08 am

    Darn. This is an audio I've only heard once, and the sci-fi rape of Charley is one of the things that put me off it – but then I forgot all about it. I remembered the derivative aliens and plot, the amateurish audio technique of having people explain out loud what they are doing, the fact that it was boring – but I forgot the most extreme thing.

    I sometimes disagree with your use of terms – in Neverland, for instance, what happened to Charley seemed like torture but not rape specifically – but here you are right on the money.

    Reply

  3. Adam Riggio
    April 3, 2013 @ 2:25 am

    It's taken nearly a year, but finally we've hit what looks like an essential diagnosis of what went wrong with Doctor Who: disconnection and self-absorption. And it was operating at so many levels: the individual mentalities of Eric Saward and especially Ian Levine, a culture of fandom that was predominantly male (not only demographically, but receiving no substantial input from women in the formation of their own personalities and priorities) and detail-oriented to the detriment of the overall structure of the piece. That kind of perspective disconnects from the wider culture. Doctor Who is, if not at its highest quality or entirely unproblematic, at least ambitious and creative when it's engaging with ideas throughout the culture of its time, outside what was typically identified (via the signs of the anorak) as science-fiction.

    Really, the Wilderness Years started in 1984, when the weirdly accidental yet enlightening (see what I did there?) gay culture subtext of the Davison years ended and the total self-obsession of the series with itself began. There was a brief interruption in the McCoy era, but the Wilderness Years proper saw all the creativity of the franchise focussed on sorting and rearranging its own signifiers. Even the first great work of the Virgin line, Timewyrm Revelation, was impossible to understand without a thorough grounding in all the tropes and images of Doctor Who. Those images can only be evocative if you already knew what they were meant to evoke.

    Doctor Who is most powerful when it incorporates ideas from wider human culture to become Doctor Who. The question people who make Doctor Who should as isn't "How can we take what we know to be Doctor Who and make it better?" but instead "What can we find in the world to make Doctor Who new again?"

    And of course, Whedon's influence on Davies helped the show recover its essential feminism. The central role of the female protagonist in Doctor Who isn't the peril monkey, as Susan eventually became, and to what it was reduced to in season five, the Saward era, the generic characterization of Sam Jones in pretty much all her appearances not written by Kate Orman, and all the rapes and tortures that happen to Charley.

    With Whedon's help, Davies recaptured the soul of Barbara Wright.

    Reply

  4. Froborr
    April 3, 2013 @ 11:12 am

    "Actually, I suspect it would be less upsetting as extreme fetish pornography, as at least then one imagines everyone would be willing to admit to the fact that this is a story about rape."

    You imagine incorrectly, I'm afraid. I have had the unfortunate experience of arguing with adherents of a particular subgenre of fetish pornography on this very question; their basic attitude was that consent forced by magic/magical technology is still consent. They did not take kindly to my suggestion that "forced consent" is an oxymoron, whether it involves alien brainslugs and love potions or not.

    Reply

  5. jane
    April 3, 2013 @ 11:19 am

    It's the whole "forced breeder" thing that drives home the rape imagery here. And this, I feel, is very different from what Charley goes through in Neverland. There, she's opened up to all of time and space, allowing travel to another world — the first time I found it a bit awe-inspiring, not rapey as such, though it's pushed very close the second time around, when Charley's actively resisting.

    But this, this is just settling in to some torture porn, it doesn't advance anyone's characterization — even the fact that C'Rizz is chameleonic doesn't justify this kind of juxtaposition.

    Reply

  6. Froborr
    April 3, 2013 @ 11:22 am

    "With Whedon's help, Davies recaptured the soul of Barbara Wright."

    And then Moffat promptly lost it again.

    Reply

  7. Matthew Blanchette
    April 3, 2013 @ 2:21 pm

    And you two are blowing smoke out your arses. "Recaptured the soul of Barbara Wright"? Hardly.

    If anything, Davies recaptured the soul of Peri; hardly a grand achievement.

    And don't knock Moffat down, just because he can do Vicki better than Davies…

    Reply

  8. encyclops
    April 3, 2013 @ 2:22 pm

    Adam, I really like and appreciate what you're saying about the RTD era (and totally agree with Froborr about the Moffat era, unfortunately).

    Can you help me understand, though, how "Remembrance of the Daleks,""Silver Nemesis," "Battlefield," and perhaps most especially "Greatest Show" — as good as two of those are — don't demonstrate that same self-obsession from a different angle?

    Reply

  9. Matthew Blanchette
    April 3, 2013 @ 4:10 pm

    …okay, maybe I shouldn't have said "arses".

    Reply

  10. Ununnilium
    April 3, 2013 @ 7:37 pm

    "Sweeping, thoughtful, uplifting statement!"

    "Petty shot that collapses all the good and bad of a whole era into a single 'it sucks'."

    Reply

  11. Matthew Blanchette
    April 3, 2013 @ 7:59 pm

    I didn't say it sucked. I'm implying it's overly glorified, and a bit put out that Froborr and encyclops are shitting on the Moffat era when it's featured the most consistently great run of stories (Series 5, if you must know) since Season 26.

    Davies' era, delightful as it may profess to be, has its own problems, and far more numerous ones than the Moffat era — indeed, extending all the way down to its characterization of the Doctor and his relationship with his companions… or, rather, one companion in particular.

    Reply

  12. Ununnilium
    April 3, 2013 @ 8:17 pm

    I was responding more to Froborr's comment there, really. Though, "recaptured the soul of Peri"? That's harsh even if you're talking about Nicola Bryant!

    Reply

  13. encyclops
    April 3, 2013 @ 8:31 pm

    Matthew, I respect your opinion. I disagree with it, though probably not as much as you're thinking.

    I don't think I was "shitting" on the Moffat era. There's a lot I like about it, and I'd consider a handful of its episodes to be among the best New Who has to offer. I thought both series 5 and season 26 were pretty good. I was specifically agreeing with Froborr's observation about the female characters in the Moffat era, though honestly I'm not 100% sure RTD's were THAT much better. I wonder if we're leaning too much on what Donna, against all odds, became.

    I'm not sure I agree that there's an equivalent to Peri in the RTD era, but I'm intrigued by your contention that there's a Vicki in the Moffat era. I assume you mean Amy? Or someone else?

    I have problems with both eras' characterization of the Doctor and the obligatory romance. Perhaps boringly I'm still most in favor of the Fourth Doctor "bohemian underachieving alien with morals of steel and a knack for winning" concept, as opposed to "the lonely god" which we've gotten in various flavors from McCoy onward. And while I have no inherent objection to the Doctor wanting to snog his companions, I do think it's possibly the most boring relationship this show could offer and I'm really tired of it by now. For heaven's sake at least give them a point of view. A hobby. ANYTHING.

    Davies and Moffat have each had their strengths and weaknesses so far. As sterile as I often find Moffat's work, I think he has with a few exceptions (the third episode of each of his seasons has been atrocious so far) done an excellent job of choosing guest writers and/or guiding them to impressive heights. I'm really worried about who's going to take over after Moffat, though; I don't see a successor I'm excited about. Gatiss? Whithouse? Lord help us, Chibnall? The mind boggles.

    Reply

  14. Scott
    April 3, 2013 @ 9:03 pm

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    Reply

  15. Scott
    April 3, 2013 @ 9:05 pm

    "I was specifically agreeing with Froborr's observation about the female characters in the Moffat era, though honestly I'm not 100% sure RTD's were THAT much better."

    Personally, I think the problem isn't so much that Moffat's female characters are inherently worse than Davies' as much as (a) Moffat tends to sacrifice characters in general, male or female, to the demands of plot where Davies was more the other way around, and (b) from where I'm sitting people seem a lot more willing to cut Davies slack when it comes to his female characters where they're simultaneously quicker to lay into Moffat for what are, from what I can see, fairly minor differences in approaches between the two. Okay, there's problems with Moffat's approach at times, but he's hardly the misogynistic monster people seem to view him as, and equally while there's plenty to laud about RTD's characters they're not exactly the icons of feminism people seem to praise them as either.

    Reply

  16. Adam Riggio
    April 4, 2013 @ 2:06 am

    I spend a day travelling on a plane and away from the internet, then look what happens. When we hit May 1, the comment sections will explode.

    Since this is probably the only point before May that I'll be able to get a word in edgewise, I'll stake my claim on the intense and mad debates to come. I sincerely believe that Russell T Davies and Steven Moffat are feminist writers. There are some slips (Martha's motivations, River's character arc over season 6), but overall they're positive contributors to the storehouse of strong female characters on tv. The Doctor can't be the only star of his own show for Doctor Who to function well. He needs a foil not just for the show's plots, but for his own personality, someone with whom he's compatible, but with whom there are differences that drive drama (Barbara, Ace, Nyssa in the Davison audios), comedy (Jo, the Romanas), or both (Sarah Jane with Tom, every post-2005 companion except Martha).

    I can understand where people who see Moffat as heteronormative compared to Davies come from, though I strongly disagree. But remember one of the many horrible things Phil isolated through analyzing Doctor in Distress: the only mention of the companions in the song was the line "Each screaming girl just hoped that a Yeti wouldn't shoot her." The anorak (self-absorbed and hostile male) personality that predominated the show in the Colin Baker period thought of female characters only as peril monkeys, that their only, and proper, role was to scream so the Doctor could get them out of trouble. Say what you will about the various interpretations of Davies and Moffat's characters, but they never reduce to that. Everybody screams sometimes (even the Doctor), but all the characters are more than that now.

    This all having been said, when this debate comes up after May 1 (and it will, I think in every entry), I'll just refer people back to this thread instead of writing this argument out again. It's quicker that way, and lets me get on with my work and my life. I'm in academics. Footnotes are so useful.

    Reply

  17. Nick Smale
    April 4, 2013 @ 3:18 am

    I don't see a successor I'm excited about. Gatiss? Whithouse? Lord help us, Chibnall? The mind boggles.

    Whithouse has done excellent work on "Being Human", and "the God Complex" was one of my favourite stories of season 6 – I'm sure he'd make an excellent show runner.

    To those three possibilities, I guess we have to add Matthew "Life on Mars" Graham and (with his two episodes this year) Neil "Luther" Cross. I'm personally more than a little intrigued to see what the latter makes of Doctor Who…

    Reply

  18. Matthew Blanchette
    April 4, 2013 @ 3:25 am

    Ununnilium, my apologies. By mentioning Peri, I meant the fact that, of course, Nine saves his companion's life and regenerates into Ten, who immediately begins an unhealthy relationship with Rose… except, of course, unlike Peri, she's egging him on.

    Also, with Moffat Who, generally, the Doctor specifically does NOT want to snog his companions. True, we got this with Donna, but that was very obviously a conscious reaction by Davies to his own earlier stuff; Moffat's Doctor hss him actively and consistently (at least up to "The Snowmen") turning down a companion's advances, and — and this is the part that makes it work — being completely horrified and baffled by the concept of a romantic relationship with the companion.

    Davies's Doctor never was. That makes all the difference.

    As for Vicki… yes, I guess I sort of mean Amy, but Clara could count, as well; the young, hopeful representative of the current generation who wants to travel and NOT have a romantic relationship with the Doctor while doing so. Not exactly Shop-Girl, you could say. 😉

    (Heck, Peter Purves even has a resemblance to Arthur Darvill!)

    Reply

  19. Steven Clubb
    April 4, 2013 @ 5:29 am

    "Personally, I think the problem isn't so much that Moffat's female characters are inherently worse than Davies' as much as (a) Moffat tends to sacrifice characters in general, male or female, to the demands of plot where Davies was more the other way around"

    That's close to my way of looking at it. I'd say Davies tended to see the Doctor through the eyes of the Companions, where Moffat tends to view the Companions through the eyes of the Doctor. During the Davies years, the Companion got her own supporting cast, so there was always emphasis on how her travels with the Doctor impacted her life and those closest to her.

    Moffat isn't going to spend much time with a character unless they're traveling with the Doctor, with someone like Rory's Dad not becoming significant until he accidentally tags along on an adventure, while Amy's parents are seen just long enough to say they exist. Even the Companions are an adventure, as River, Amy, and Clara all promised character-specific adventures in their future with a mystery for the Doctor to explore.

    Moffat is a bit more of a traditionalist than Davies, so now it's only adventures outside the TARDIS doors. Everyday human drama is something which happens when he's not around.

    Reply

  20. encyclops
    April 4, 2013 @ 5:30 am

    Adam: I sometimes wonder, not having lived in the UK — well, ever, really, but definitely not during the Colin Baker years — whether these anoraks are apocryphal. I don't think I've ever met a Doctor Who fan who thought the way fans supposedly did during those years or during the portion of the Wilderness Years we're covering now, but if you've met them (as opposed to just inferring them from the assumption that those who made the program in those times were successfully giving anyone what they wanted) I have to take your word for it. I wonder if Doctor Who is the only show where its fans all think that other people are the real fans, and that it's all those fans who are social misfits with the emotional development of 12-year-olds? But I see your general point and I do hope that every New Who post doesn't involve a bunch of men arguing over whether Rose or Amy or River is feminist enough for them.

    Nick: I think most of Whithouse's episodes have been pretty good, too, though "A Town Called Mercy" was one of my least favorite episodes of the whole of New Who so far. Hopefully it's just the third episode hiccup. I'm pretty excited for Neil Cross's stuff too.

    Matthew: That's pretty good about Rose/Peri. I'd quibble with the word "unhealthy," which makes all the difference; it's not without its problems, but at least he never tried to strangle her and doesn't belittle and berate her every chance he gets. I think your perception of Moffat's Doctor is in trouble, though, because in "The Bells of St. John" he is as obviously in love with Clara as anyone could be without actually saying so. And he didn't really seem that uncomfortable being married to River; it's only Amy that we've seen that "no no, this isn't right" reaction with. I'd say it's a difference of degree, not kind.

    Reply

  21. Theonlyspiral
    April 4, 2013 @ 6:48 am

    Chibnall's episodes this season have been excellent. Dinosaurs was a fun romp and Power of Three was a fun adventure. I didn't mind his Silurian 2 parter as much as most. And his work on Law and Order UK stuff was good as well. The only Whithouse piece I haven't loved has been 'Greeks Bearing Gifts'. IMHO either would do a fine job of being successor.

    In terms of the Doctor, I don't see him as in love with Clara. He is excited and eager, but there doesn't seem to be any more there than friendship. He wants to solve this mystery, and he authentically wants to show her the stars. He's so devoted to saving her because he's lost her twice, once right on the heels of loosing his best friends. Yes he's going to be a little obsessive over saving her. That's just how the Doctor gets sometimes.

    In terms of giving the Companions more to them than snogging…Amy and Rory have a lot going on for them, especially in series seven. We know more about their home lives than anyone since Rose and Micky.

    Reply

  22. Theonlyspiral
    April 4, 2013 @ 6:53 am

    I'll be honest and say that the Doctor/Charley pairing was never as good as the Doctor/Lucie one. Charley (lets be honest) is mistreated fairly badly by her writers. Her arc is all over the place, and she just never popped for me. I stopped listening to main range stuff at Zagreus and after reading this I'm fairly glad.

    Reply

  23. Ununnilium
    April 4, 2013 @ 7:05 am

    Yay! Substantial discourse!

    I wonder if Doctor Who is the only show where its fans all think that other people are the real fans, and that it's all those fans who are social misfits with the emotional development of 12-year-olds?

    Definitely not. Indeed, that's a pretty common thing nowadays…

    Reply

  24. Lewis Christian
    April 4, 2013 @ 7:35 am

    OT comment: Just saw the news about the abandoned animated Who (complete with classic Doctors!)… obviously you can't cover it, but I think it would've been so much fun and I can only imagine the types of extra posts we'd get on here about it. I now always check this blog out when I've watched a Who story 🙂

    http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/04/03/the-doctor-who-animated-series-that-never-was/

    Reply

  25. jane
    April 4, 2013 @ 7:45 am

    @Steven: "I'd say Davies tended to see the Doctor through the eyes of the Companions, where Moffat tends to view the Companions through the eyes of the Doctor."

    @Scott: "Moffat tends to sacrifice characters in general, male or female, to the demands of plot where Davies was more the other way around"

    More than anything, Moffat's characters are in service to the metaphors and allegories he's layered into the show. The Ponds, for example, stand for fandom — the girl who waited since 1996 (the aborted reboot) and who's been heavily influenced by the show, wanting to "run away" through escapist fantasy rather than dealing with real life, becoming the boy who waited outside a box (the tv set) until the universe was reset. Dressing up, writing stories, drawing pictures. Giving the Doctor a wife. So they're not just being seen through the Doctor's eyes — we are being seen through the eyes of the show, as if it were holding up a mirror to us.

    Likewise, Clara stands for the show. The Woman Twice Dead — born on November 23rd, died age 26 — the Classic show. The quick death because she's a monster — again, 1996.

    River, in particular, stands for those of us who fall in love with the show and become "archeologists" — theorists who delve into the show's past, unearthing all the layers the show has to offer, offering ourselves up for the show itself (through our writing) — we are most beloved of all. But awkwardly. 🙂

    Reply

  26. jane
    April 4, 2013 @ 7:48 am

    Lucie is brilliant and wonderful. Shame about what happened to her.

    Reply

  27. Theonlyspiral
    April 4, 2013 @ 8:00 am

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    Reply

  28. Theonlyspiral
    April 4, 2013 @ 8:08 am

    I think she got a good ending. It hit me a lot less than someone like Donna or River. Which is not to say I wasn't broken up. I have not problem admitting I shed more than one tear. But Donna's ending and River's…they deserved so much more. So much better than either of them got. Lucie gets a good end and becomes a legend. How many companions becomes such heroes in their own right?

    Reply

  29. Theonlyspiral
    April 4, 2013 @ 8:08 am

    I never saw it this way before…and now I'll never be able to see them any other way.

    Reply

  30. Steven Clubb
    April 4, 2013 @ 8:38 am

    It hadn't even occurred to me that Amy was set up as a Fangirl… one that was even pissed off at the Doctor when he did finally return.

    I also think Moffat's companions and their mysteries are a metaphor for falling in love. River, Amy, and Clara are all about the Doctor falling into the mystery that is a woman… as everyone is a mystery waiting to be explored, these women just have big sci-fi mysteries because it's Doctor Who.

    Reply

  31. Steven Clubb
    April 4, 2013 @ 9:36 am

    I know Davies and Moffat feel a certain responsibility to the kids in the audience and killing off popular characters ends up taking the show into a place that's a bit too dark. Adrec cast a long shadow over the program after his death, whereas a standard exit just leaves the Doctor a bit mopey until the next Companion signs up.

    River got killed off before we got to know her properly, so her eventual fate informs how we bond to her. She's always Dead Woman Walking. Donna's exit is heart-breaking, but there's still the chance she'll rise above her station again.

    Killing off companions is really something you can only get away with in the Extended Universe where most of your audience are adults… and then you have to be real careful not to go to that well too many times.

    Reply

  32. David Anderson
    April 4, 2013 @ 9:50 am

    More to say about Lucie when we get to Lucie Miller. (Not to forget Tamsin.) Short version: New Adventures Season Four is the best constructed arc in Doctor Who that I can think of.

    Reply

  33. Theonlyspiral
    April 4, 2013 @ 10:00 am

    Sitting down and watching Silence again…it's more than a little heartbreaking. At the time it was sad…but even more so now we know she had this amazing life with the Doctor and now gets to spend the rest of time with the same 8 people in a computer taking care of fictional children. I wouldn't call that a good end.

    I think it's interesting that the endings that seem happy to children but get a little horrific with some maturity fit Doctor Who so well. Many companions leave with a great amount of psychological damage, terminal illnesses, or other worse fates…

    In comparison a simple death like Adric's is much better for the character than (as an example) Martha who becomes a gun toting mercenary, with a PTSD plagued family.

    Reply

  34. encyclops
    April 4, 2013 @ 10:21 am

    Jane: you are a GENIUS. I adore this. I don't know if I want it more than I want a companion who's more of a three-dimensional character than a sort of personification of an idea, but it's so clever that I have no trouble hanging with it until next time. I'd picked up on the numbers with Clara but thought I might be reading the wrong things into it. You're giving me hope that I'm not.

    Theonlyspiral: I don't hate Chibnall, and I did enjoy "Dinosaurs" and "Three" — I even liked "42" before I learned I wasn't supposed to — but I'm not sure I'd want to be in the car with him at the wheel. It would take quite a lot for me to stop watching at this point, though.

    Reply

  35. encyclops
    April 4, 2013 @ 11:02 am

    It's a shame to hear that Charley is so mistreated. In the handful of Charley's Big Finishes I've heard, the actress who portrays her is frequently the best part of it ("The Stones of Venice" being a good example there in my book, though I think I might be alone in having disliked that one).

    I'm really uncomfortable with the fact that so few companions now voluntarily leave the Doctor. If this really is "the companion's story," that story should allow them to grow and learn to the point where there's a reason why they leave. This "till death/parallel universes/returning as a guest star/memory wipe/being sent back in time do us part" stuff seems kind of childish and uninteresting, as does the idea that you can't end a story with a prominent villain without killing them off (see both New Who Master stories, and hell, also almost every villain in the recent Batman movies).

    Reply

  36. Ross
    April 4, 2013 @ 11:09 am

    The new series has a much harder job than the classic one at getting rid of companions. You need to have some reason for the departure to be permanent, because back in the 60s — even in the 90s — you could get away with "And then Dodo went home and we never spoke of her or thought about her again," (Heck, any show that dropped a cast member could do that back then. Let us meditate on the mystery of Chuck Cunningham, who walked up the stairs at the end of the first season of Happy Days, and was never seen again), but if you do it now, no one in your audience is going to keep liking The Doctor.

    Not long ago, I was conversing with someone who had tried to get into Doctor Who. They'd thought it would be a good idea to start with something early on, and watched 'The Dalek Invasion of Earth'. At the end, their response was "Wait. He's just going to ditch his own granddaughter on post-apocalyptic earth, making the decision for how she is going to spend the REST OF HER LIFE for her without even ASKING her, and then they just never mention her again? Fuck that noise, this Doctor fellow is a sociopath and I have no interest in watching any more."

    Reply

  37. Steven Clubb
    April 4, 2013 @ 11:27 am

    "It's a shame to hear that Charley is so mistreated. In the handful of Charley's Big Finishes I've heard,"

    You should check her out when she teams up with Colin Baker. It's a shame she hadn't been teamed with him originally as they had to eventually end her story. Those two worked together brilliantly, but Colin Baker tends to work well with everyone.

    Only problem I have with it is the Doctor is too willing to put aside the mystery she presents him with, as he spots the large gaping holes in her story instantly and uncharacteristically lets it drop.

    Reply

  38. Theonlyspiral
    April 4, 2013 @ 12:16 pm

    42 gets a lot more flack than it deserves IMHO. It's just unremarkable. Very forgettable. I don't know what the show would look like with Chibnall in charge but eventually we're going to see someone at the wheel who isn't Moffat. I feel like he's as good a candidate as any.

    Reply

  39. Steven Clubb
    April 4, 2013 @ 12:33 pm

    "I don't know what the show would look like with Chibnall in charge"

    Same was true of Moffat. His debut as show-runner surprised a lot of people. So much of what reaches the air is colored by the show-runner, either directly through re-writes or indirectly by their cast.

    The next show-runner can alter the show to play to their strengths. Part of me pulls for Gatiss, but only if he doesn't write nearly as many episodes as Davies and Moffat have. He's got a great love of period pieces and loves horror aesthetics and I think he could provide a background for other writers to thrive.

    Reply

  40. Theonlyspiral
    April 4, 2013 @ 1:07 pm

    I am deeply conflicted on the idea of Gatiss as showrunner. I love Night Terrors. Absolutely love it. I find Unquiet Dead and Victory of the Daleks to be ok. They're not the finest moments of the show by any stretch but I'm not unhappy to see them. I loath Idiot's Lantern with a passion. The only piece of NuWho I find worse is Fear Her.

    If Gatiss took over…well if he was writing less I wouldn't mind. I agree he might pull the show in an interesting direction for other writers…but I wouldn't want to bet money on the quality of his episodes.

    Reply

  41. elvwood
    April 4, 2013 @ 1:56 pm

    Since going totally OT is preferable to actually talking about Creed (or my mind's inexplicable ability to brainwipe itself of the audio's worst faults), I'd like to defend Chris Chibnall a bit too. 42 was the story that perked me up in a season I wasn't enjoying, and made me keen to watch it again; and Dinosaurs was my joint-favourite story of 7a. I'm not so keen on his Torchwood stories, but the whole family is currently enjoying Broadchurch. I'd certainly be happy to see his take.

    Reply

  42. Pen Name Pending
    April 4, 2013 @ 3:41 pm

    On the topic of showrunners, in the Radio Times preview for this week's episode (it's online), Moffat said about Neil Cross, "You'll be hearing more about him soon. Any minute now…" I wondered if this was a hint?

    Jane: Those metaphors are great!

    I like all the Vicki references (a really underrated companion, in my opinion). I wouldn't say the Doctor is "in love" with Clara; he seems rather fatherly toward her (the bedroom window scene).

    The Silence arc really has a lot to do with UFO and abduction legends, and in the vein I took a lot of what happened to Amy, Rory, and River to be about the frustration of fixed time (which, in the block universe, where time travel is most possible, all time is fixed) and being controlled by outside forces without your consent. It's kind of like those times when you feel like you don't have control over your life.

    Reply

  43. encyclops
    April 4, 2013 @ 9:09 pm

    Well, jeez, the Susan thing has ALWAYS been fucked up. But when it's Romana saying "I want to stay in E-space and get it on with Tharils" or Nyssa saying "I'm going to help lepers" or Turlough saying "I'm going home" or Jo saying "I'm getting married," why would that make people dislike the Doctor? I don't get it. Everybody knows what it's like for two friends to grow apart or move to different cities/planets/universes.

    Isn't it worse when the Doctor fucks up and accidentally lets someone get locked into another direction, or has to force someone to forget all about him? Or completely arbitrarily decides he can't go to Poughkeepsie and send a telegram into Manhattan because of circumstances? I certainly think so.

    I LOVED the Amy and Rory farewell at the end of "The God Complex." That's the kind of thing we need more of. Audiences today must be just pathologically clingy.

    Reply

  44. encyclops
    April 4, 2013 @ 9:20 pm

    Really, Moffat surprised people? But his episodes were, rightly or wrongly, hugely feted as the cream of the crop. It seemed like a logical choice to me when I heard about it. Chibnall and Gatiss have gotten much more mixed reviews. But while I unfortunately haven't liked any of Gatiss's New Who work, I think the only Chibnall script I've actively disliked was the Silurian two-parter, and even that could've been worse.

    My money's on love. I see what you're saying about the bedroom window thing, but it's ambiguous, and his reaction when she accuses him of having a "snogbox" and so on tilts it for me. The clincher for me is the "monks are not cool!" sequence.

    I do agree with you that Vicki's underrated. I especially adore her in "The Space Museum."

    Reply

  45. Scott
    April 4, 2013 @ 9:47 pm

    "Audiences today must be just pathologically clingy."

    Insert glib and slightly snide jab about all the fans of Rose who, years later, still can't get over the fact that the Doctor has dared to have other companions since she left.

    Although I think you're on to something; audiences these days do seem have trouble letting go these days.

    Reply

  46. Scott
    April 4, 2013 @ 9:49 pm

    … I have never been more angry at the BBC than I am right at this point.

    Frankly, the only thing that would have been more fun than this would have been all the pedantic arguments about how everything fitted in. Especially since it seems that, from the looks of things, the First Doctor at least would have had new companions…

    Reply

  47. Eric Gimlin
    April 4, 2013 @ 10:00 pm

    Another OT comment, on a totally different subject: I want to go on the record as having bought the e-book version of the Pertwee volume before Phil officially announced it was out. Although he did give us a heads-up it was on the way last week.

    Reply

  48. Ununnilium
    April 5, 2013 @ 10:33 am

    Or maybe we're just assuming this is what they want and we shouldn't be generalizing. I mean, isn't it more accurate to say that Davies and Moffat would be the clingy ones?

    Reply

  49. Matthew Blanchette
    April 7, 2013 @ 6:48 pm

    …and judging by Saturday's episode, yes, Clara is Vicki. 😀

    Reply

  50. matthew
    April 9, 2013 @ 8:42 am

    I vaguely remember thinking I'd found a Spike cameo in an EDA – although Other Places on the Internet suggest it was Camera Obscure rather than City of the Dead – but in fact it turned out to be one of those actual real-life poets called William (Yeats, I think).

    Reply

  51. Daru
    April 11, 2013 @ 2:47 am

    Jane – "More than anything, Moffat's characters are in service to the metaphors and allegories he's layered into the show."

    Yup, totally agree. Was just forming this thesis myself during repeated viewings of the current Series 7 episodes and previous stories with the Ponds.

    Spot on.

    Reply

  52. Daru
    April 11, 2013 @ 3:00 am

    Personally, I found this story very difficult to listen to because of what was done to Charley's character. Really it made me at the the time feel physically uncomfortable on a very visceral level.

    I actually felt disgusted, not by my thoughts of the writer, etc (though – how could they?) – but really by what it was that was happening being so abusive. And what made it feel worse for me was the way sound was utilised to enhance the horror of her experience. I have a very strong imagination and the sections of her rape/transformation feels like they were almost leered at (as with glossy porn) through the medium of sound – such an intense experience it was, I could almost smell it.

    Genuinely I was caught by surprise when listening to this – a friend had just introduced me to the 8th Doctor audios two years ago and had mentioned this arc as being a 'bit of a romp' in an alternate universe. Sounded fun. Imagine my feelings at this tale! I really wanted him to turn it off and when I re-listen to these audios I certainly will skip this one.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to UnunniliumCancel 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.