Pounded in the butt by dialectical materialism.

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.


  1. Alex Antonijevic
    May 5, 2014 @ 12:27 am

    I am looking forward to Sarah Jane and Torchwood posts.


  2. ScarvesandCelery
    May 5, 2014 @ 12:58 am

    First time I've ever commented on one of these blogs, have enjoyed reading for a while – I agree with most of this – the only thing that can be really said in this episode's favour is that it can be bearable to sit through on a full series rewatch. Otherwise, as Phil says, it's the episode of Sherlock that sadly manages to employ racist tropes while being disappointingly mediocre.

    That said, I am interested in the role of Steven Thompson as a writer – both for Sherlock and Doctor Who. He works well on Sherlock, basically because of the reasons given in the essay. That said, I don't get why they keep bringing him back to Doctor Who – he basically got promoted to writing two episodes for Season Eight after 'Curse of the Black Spot' and 'Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS'. I know some people liked 'JTTCOTT', but for me it was no better than 'Curse'. I don't hate Thompson, and I'm sure there are sensible production related reasons he's on the writing team. But it still frustrates me that he has two episodes next Season that could be written by a writer i find more interesting, like Whithouse, Gaiman or Neil Cross. Hell, they could even give one of those episodes to a woman. Debbie Moon, Head writer of the excellent CBBC series 'Wolfblood' would be a good choice, IMO – she's expressed an interest in writing for Doctor Who before, and while she's arguably less experienced than some would see as ideal, I'd rather take a chance on her than Thompson.


  3. Carey
    May 5, 2014 @ 1:11 am

    There is one redemptive reading of The Blind Banker that you miss: it could be read as an exorcism of the worst of the Doyle themes from his Holmes canon. It touches on one of the main themes that runs through Doyle's Holmes work, that of those travelling abroad bringing back something "evil" with them. To be fair, this in itself could be read as a criticism of the British Empire of the times, as the evil brought back is usually governed by greed and revenge extracted by other British characters (most famously, Jonathan Small who is betrayed by his fellow countrymen in Sign of Four). And this in itself could be a reference to one of Doyle's influences, Wilkie Collins The Moonstone, which is very much the template for Holmes' imperial adventures.

    This, alongside that other Doyle favourite,the seemingly impenetrable code, seem to indicate that part of the problem with the Blind Banker is that it doesn't really know what sort of tv show it is yet. Thompson seems to think that it is a pastiche of the Doyle works, without having the cleverness of either of his co-writers. Of course, by the series end it's obvious that the point of Sherlock is to deconstruct all Holmes fiction, whether by Doyle or since. Had the series and its creators known this, then I feel that it would have been possible to rewrite The Blind Banker so to remove the Talons problem. But as it stands, it really deserves to be known as the Sherlock story that simply doesn't work…

    Not that that meant it wasn't well received by tv reviewers on first transmission. Which says something in itself.

    ( and this is exacerbated by Euros Lynn's direction: not actually bad, but once again at odds with the directorial vision either side of him. One wonders whether The Blind Banker, as well as being written when Sherlock was being planned as 6×60 minute stories, was directed using Coky Giedroyc's original version of A Study In Pink as its visual template)


  4. mengu
    May 5, 2014 @ 1:29 am

    Well that was straightforward.


  5. Jarl
    May 5, 2014 @ 1:54 am

    I found myself puzzled that Sherlock Holmes, of all people on the planet, wouldn't recognize the code at first glance. Or, for that matter, that he wasn't alone in the apartment. It seemed like a real misstep in characterization. You know, to go along with all the other missteps in the episode.

    Just about the only bit I really enjoy just on its own merits is the build-up to the gag where they think that Watson's Sherlock. Especially the clip of him outside the above-mentioned apartment.


  6. Daru
    May 5, 2014 @ 2:28 am

    That's that one out of the way then.


  7. Daibhid C
    May 5, 2014 @ 2:56 am

    The thing that most baffled me about the episode – beyond the horrible Yellow Peril stuff – was that I couldn't work out what story it was. "The Dancing Men", presumably, but there were also bits of "Sign of Four" and possibly "The Valley of Fear". And none of them seemed to fit together properly.


  8. Daibhid C
    May 5, 2014 @ 3:01 am

    Yep, compare with "The Valley of Fear" where Holmes identifies that it's a book-based cypher as soon as he sees it, then spends a handful of paragraphs narrowing down books, then moves on to the next bit.

    It's astonishing that a Moffat-run programme finds itself slowing down a plot point from a Victorian novel.


  9. David Anderson
    May 5, 2014 @ 3:37 am

    Moffat actually likes the rat. In his interview on the Tom Baker era on the BBC website, he says he thinks it's intentionally comic.


  10. Theonlyspiral
    May 5, 2014 @ 6:25 am

    Thompson is likely seen as a safe pair of hands who can turn in a competently written piece of television. Moffat knows how much rewriting will be needed, and can plan around that. Considering Moffat is balancing the incredible workload that comes from showrunning the BBC's flagship program, along with Sherlock, I can him not wanting to take any chances.

    That being said, I would rather see someone altogether more interesting take over at least one of his scripts. The Black Spot is just so forgettable I don't have an overwhelming amount of faith that both of his season 8 scripts will be any good. I'd rather some Rob Shearman (Or Gareth Roberts, Neil Gaiman, Mark Gatiss) rather than more Thompson.


  11. Josh04
    May 5, 2014 @ 6:42 am

    a dark secret… from the colonies?!


  12. Seeing_I
    May 5, 2014 @ 7:58 am

    If that's true then he's mellowed in middle age,or he's changing his tune to toe the party line – in the 1990s he infamously gave an interview where he rubbishes Holmes as a hack and says that any decent writer would have known they couldn't achieve a believable rat on that budget.


  13. Alan
    May 5, 2014 @ 8:43 am

    The big problem with the rat was that they tried to make it look realistic and only made it look adorable. They should have said that the not only made animals grow but also deformed them and then made the thing look like a cancer laden monstrosity… which they could have achieved with careful application of bubble-wrap.


  14. Theonlyspiral
    May 5, 2014 @ 9:15 am

    Point of order: It wasn't an interview, it was a discussion before which all involved had been drinking.


  15. jonathan inge
    May 5, 2014 @ 9:22 am

    Debbie Moon should be writing DW.


  16. encyclops
    May 5, 2014 @ 10:07 am

    Did I read recently that when asked their favorite non-Moffat writer on Doctor Who, Karen Gillan cited Thompson? I was trying to think what might have led her to feel that way — maybe she liked getting to dress up as a pirate? Or maybe Thompson is just the nicest man in the world and an endless pleasure to grab a drink with.

    Smith said Gareth Roberts, which makes perfect sense to me.


  17. encyclops
    May 5, 2014 @ 10:31 am

    This is why I'm glad I saw so many classic Who stories after having read the novelisations. The book scared the crap out of me as a kid — I was looking for Mr. Sin in every cupboard and behind every door for a while. And the rat in my imagination looked pretty frightening, though honestly it was far from the most memorable aspect of the story for me, so even in the televised version I find it incredibly easy to overlook.

    Let's be honest: the rat still looks fantastic compared to the Shrivenzale. Or, I'm sorry, the Wirrrn larva. The party line on "The Ark in Space" is that Kenton Moore sells the bubble wrap, but…well, he does his best. In theory, a rat in the sewers you can barely see in the gloom could have worked fine. The voracious Muppet of Ribos and the packing material inchworm are the real crazytown ideas and they're both brightly lit. We just pretend they're better than the Myrka because they're part of such otherwise distinguished scripts.

    I'm trying to think of a Holmes script that includes a full-on monster (something that doesn't talk but basically exists to go rarrrr and chase people around) where the monster doesn't look a joke. To my surprise I think Kroll might actually be the best of them, followed I guess by the Drashigs. I do agree that any reasonable viewer of the classic series should be able to look past such things, and ought at least to try, but they do make it challenging at times.

    To be relevant: "The Blind Banker" is sort of the Shrivenzale of Sherlock. It looks terrible, and we would have been much better off without it, but on the other hand, at least everything around it looks like it was made for grownups.


  18. Theonlyspiral
    May 5, 2014 @ 10:46 am

    I was at that panel. She said that it had just been a great deal of fun.


  19. encyclops
    May 5, 2014 @ 11:13 am

    I'll drink to that.


  20. ScarvesandCelery
    May 5, 2014 @ 11:54 am

    @jonathon inge @Theonlyspiral In all honesty, I think I'm underselling Debbie Moon – Wolfblood's genre TV pitched at the same age range as The Sarah Jane Adventures, and I'd say it's just as good. I'd be more hopeful about the potential quality of a script from her than Thompson (I've given my thoughts on his previous work above).

    That said, I do see Theonlyspiral's point about the practicals of getting Thompson to write. He is, after all, a known quantity. And it is worth acknowledging that, in Jamie Mathieson and Peter Harness Moffat has hired two new writers who have great credentials and could be genuinely interesting.

    The trouble, I don't see him as a safe, if unspectacular writer – that's how I think of Mark Gatiss (at least with his Doctor Who work). I see Thompson as someone I can rely on to write a poor – to mediocre script that takes the place of a script that could have come from a better, more interesting writer.


  21. Author
    May 5, 2014 @ 12:01 pm

    Okay, all of the Series Six talk got me excited again and now I'm wondering if you're going to do 'Let's Kill Hitler' instead of The Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon, because while I was surprised that you ran with A Good Man Goes to War instead of Angels Take Manhattan, I think I'm starting to get a sense of the pattern here, sort of. Unless I'm wrong and it's the Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone two-parter. Oh, boy…(but definitely not Wedding of River Song yet, right? Right?)


  22. Callum Leemkuil
    May 5, 2014 @ 12:37 pm

    I think you guys are being perhaps a little hard on Thompson. I'll go over what I've seen of his work:
    – Curse of the Black Spot – a catastrophe and the worst New Who episode.
    – the Blind Banker – boring and racist.
    – Journey to the Center of the TARDIS – quite enjoyable and well paced.
    – the Reichenbach Fall – very good.
    – whatever part of the Sign of Three he wrote – solid, because I didn't dislike any parts of that episode to my memory.

    So what we have, at least it looks like to me, is someone who fails to write a good first script for a given show but delivers afterwards.


  23. Matt Walker
    May 5, 2014 @ 2:05 pm

    Awesome, awesome, awesome! Managed to sneak in to be one of the ten to get the discounted new tier reward! I have to say, I haven't been particularly interested in the Last War in Albion posts (although, to be fair I haven't given them a fair go…the last one was interesting)…but the secret Who project has me excited!

    To stay on topic…maybe it's me, but I find it amazing how clearly desensitised I've become to depictions of racism (or any other "isms" for that matter) – I didn't even pick up on how racist this episode of Sherlock was on first watch. But I did, thankfully, spot it on watching 'Talons' many moons ago.

    Just out of interest, were the racist elements removed from the 'Talons' Big Finish Audio pre/sequel released last year?


  24. Matt Walker
    May 5, 2014 @ 2:06 pm

    This comment has been removed by the author.


  25. Alex
    May 5, 2014 @ 2:10 pm

    Oddly, the Doomwatch episode "Tomorrow, the Rat" is quite effective, despite the less-than-convincing rats involved. It also benefits from possibly the best episode title ever, except perhaps for "Sex and Violence",


  26. ScarvesandCelery
    May 5, 2014 @ 2:47 pm

    I did acknowledge that quite a few people see 'Journey' as a good story – I don't think it will end up on many 'Bottom Ten' lists, I just have a strong personal dislike for the episode myself – it's probably my least favourite story of Season Seven.

    @Callum – You make a good case for Thompson as a writer who improves with practice (heck, most writers should), and it's very valid to view him as such. The problem for me is that I don't 'Journey' as much of an improvement on 'Curse', so I don't think he's getting better at writing Who. As for Sherlock, I think his role on that show – the writer who gets rewritten – has become more defined (and more openly acknowledged) as the series has gone on. 'The Sign of Three' and 'The Reichenbach Fall' are two of my favourite Sherlock episodes, but one is an openly co – authored story and the other is so good most people (Phil included, it seems) don't seem to believe it was a purely Thompson script.

    That said, I am being too harsh on Thompson – I'll never even be a "Second tier" writer, and drunk Sherlock (which Moffat and Gatiss have said was one of Thompson's scenes) left me in hysterics. I'm still holding out hope that his next doctor Who episodes will be good – I definitely don't want to assume I won't like them and work off confirmation bias when I start nitpicking flaws – that would be no fun at all.


  27. encyclops
    May 5, 2014 @ 2:48 pm

    Philip seems to be implying above that "The Reichenbach Fall" was extensively rewritten by Moffat. I quite like "The Sign of Three" as well, but if you forced me to choose whether to rewatch "Curse of the Black Spot" and "Journey to the Center of the TARDIS" I'd have a hard time of it. They're both awful as far as I'm concerned, and that doesn't leave Thompson a very promising record. But to be fair, his resume is quite a bit shorter than that of Moffat and, I believe, Gatiss. I don't really like his work, but I'd be happy to tack a "yet" onto the end of it.

    And to be even fairer, he's written a whole lot more television than I have, so who am I to say? I just know what I like, and that's about it.


  28. encyclops
    May 5, 2014 @ 2:50 pm

    ScarvesandCelery, jinx! You owe me a Coke.


  29. sleepyscholar
    May 5, 2014 @ 2:58 pm

    I assumed that the Yellow Peril elements of the Blind Banker were essentially reflecting the modern Yellow Peril hysteria. In a sense it parallels the way Watson was able to have returned from another disastrous war in Afghanistan. The difference being that the latter operates as a critique of foreign policy, while the former can just be taken as old-fashioned racism on the part of the writer.


  30. NBooth
    May 5, 2014 @ 3:07 pm

    I had a similar response, but didn't take it all the way to a redemptive reading: It seems to me that one thing Sherlock is very good at is taking Doylean stuff and transplanting it into something like what it must have been when it first came out–Gatiss talks about fetishising 21st C London like Doyle fetishised Victorian London, and that's about right. The problem with TBB isn't that they try to recreate a Doyle effect and do it badly–it's that they try and succeed to produce something exactly like a Sherlock Holmes story, without stopping to consider whether it's a good idea or not.


  31. NBooth
    May 5, 2014 @ 3:10 pm

    …in other words, precisely what you say in the second paragraph: "Thompson seems to think that it is a pastiche of the Doyle works, without having the cleverness of either of his co-writers." Exactly so.


  32. Aylwin
    May 6, 2014 @ 7:00 am

    Pedantically, from the British imperial point of view the Second Afghan War was a clear and enduring success, after some hiccups along the way (only the First actually comes anywhere near matching the standard folk-history narrative, and even that in a somewhat more nuanced way than generally recognised).

    More to the point, I don't think the fact of having Watson back from Afghanistan again can really be considered any kind of commentary on anything – I mean, who on earth would not make use of that circumstance when updating this story at that time? Something so compulsory cannot signify anything much through its mere presence. And given that war's psychological impact on him (the only way it really impinges before The Sign of Three) is not distress, brutalisation or bitterness but a yearning to experience its thrills again, the specific way it's played doesn't amount to much of a critique either.

    Not that it had any need to, given the general consensus perception of that mess, at the time of broadcast and subsequently.


  33. Aylwin
    May 6, 2014 @ 7:34 am

    Actually, it arguably reads more easily as a critique of critiques of war – the (female) psychiatrist (insert trendy lefty mumbo-jumbo hippy liberal basket-weaving etc epithets from your preferred edition of the Sun here) automatically jumps to the conclusion that he's traumatised by the experience (hah! She would, right?), but really he's just itching for more adventure. Boys will be boys, right?

    Now, I don't think it was intended that way, and I don't think it actually comes across that way, especially given the suggestions that this tendency is somewhat unhealthy (though ultimately presented more as an eccentricity than a major flaw, and certainly one that is convenient for those enjoying the tales of adventure). But it's closer to that than to the reverse.


  34. BerserkRL
    May 6, 2014 @ 9:06 am

    I've never understood the hate for "Curse of the Black Spot." It's not one of my favourites, but it's solid, and the Siren is appropriately haunting.


  35. BerserkRL
    May 6, 2014 @ 9:13 am

    There's also the exchange: "That's the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever done." / "You invaded Afghanistan!"


  36. Matthew Blanchette
    May 6, 2014 @ 11:28 am

    And Phil is mixing up his showrunners; it's actually Davies who unapologetically loves "The Talons of Weng-Chiang".


  37. Jesse
    May 6, 2014 @ 11:41 am

    Yes, Black Spot is a serviceable episode and the hatred for it is bizarre. (I certainly prefer it to Journey to the Center of the TARDIS, speaking of racism.)


  38. Triturus
    May 6, 2014 @ 1:33 pm

    You are implying, presumably, that JTTCOTT is racist? Why? just because it of the three black characters in it, two of them aren't 'good guys'?


  39. John
    May 7, 2014 @ 1:37 pm

    Having recently rewatched "Black Spot," I have a very hard time with the idea that it's a "catastrophe." It's not by any means a good episode, but it's totally bland and inoffensive.


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.