Eruditorum Press

Keep getting stranger

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.

78 Comments

  1. elvwood
    January 11, 2013 @ 1:18 am

    I love Alien Bodies! It's a candidate for my favourite ever Doctor Who novel, vying with The Time Travellers for the coveted top slot (though I have only read about 60, so there's bound to be other great ones out there). Apart from the aspects of the book that you mentioned, there were a couple more that intrigued me:

    1. The idea of Sam as someone engineered to be the perfect companion. The only other book I've finished featuring her is Vampire Science (though I've bought Unnatural History and hope to get to that before your entry), and I've often wondered where this idea went or came from.

    2. The scary krotons! Aren't they just awesome?

    As for Lawrence Miles himself, I try to separate the author's private life and character from his or her work (otherwise I wouldn't be so fond of Ted Hughes). Sometimes, though, this does have an affect, positive or negative; and with both Miles and Jim Mortimore I think we've got less than we would have if they'd been less abrasive.

    Reply

  2. Ross
    January 11, 2013 @ 2:37 am

    I can appreciate Miles's skill as a writer, but I always disliked his Big Ideas. This is, like many of the things I don't like, probably some bleed-over from the distaste I got for fandom in the late 90s, but the whole thing with the War and Faction Paradox and the Doctor's Death felt like it was derived from the popular and schizophrenic fan view of the time that, roughly, "The Time Lords have become a sort of storytelling cancer so big and unavoidable that it is flat out impossible to tell a Doctor Who story now without them getting in the way of the storytelling. Therefore we must do more stories that obsess over Gallifrey and the Time Lords. Also, we need to eventually destroy them once and forever." (It's right up there with "There is too much continuity for anyone new to understand the show. Therefore we should obsess over continuity more")

    Also, the idea of Miles being interested in "a complete worldview" separate from the Doctor reminds me a great deal of some of the worst aspects of old-school sci fi fandom, where there was a notion that eg., characters should all be nothing but broad archetypes because the audience is here to find out about your clever science fictiony world, not get all invested in characters or even a specific plot — you're supposed to be here to see how Invention X would Make the World Different, and to do otherwise is to engage in "soap" and "pander to stupid working-class people and icky cootie-infested girls".

    Reply

  3. jane
    January 11, 2013 @ 2:44 am

    The perfect companion who's been engineered — sounds like Clara to me. And I'm kind of surprised Phil didn't point out the obvious parallels to The Impossible Astronaut. Leaving it to the peanut gallery, eh?

    As for Miles himself, I don't care about his private life, but any interface with the production the series is up for grabs, whether it's his critical commentary and how that applies to his own work and what it implies for the series, but especially how he plays with others.

    It's a matter of professionalism. Tom Baker, for instance, gets called out for his impact on the production team, and rightly so, because it affects the stories themselves, from the work we get out of Jameson and how she's written, to the dynamics that show up with Ward, to the choices JNT made when taking the reigns.

    How much of a stretch is it to say that Miles's critical view (cares about big ideas, not about characterization) kind of encapsulates his working relationship with the series and the people who make it?

    Reply

  4. Prole Hole
    January 11, 2013 @ 3:06 am

    Yea it's one of my favourites too. Reading the books as I did I was completely disconnected from the politics, in-fighting, squabbling and everything else that went on behind the scenes so I just began at the beginning and dove on through them and this was an easy early highlight and definitely one of the best books published in the line. Enough editorial control (I guess?) to keep things from going too far – while I do think Interference is pretty outstanding I do also think there's a virtue to a bit of discipline and for me Alien Bodies gets that balance exactly right while Interference tips a little bit too far towards the self-indulgent (more when we get there I guess).

    The Krotons are indeed excellent in this, and who'd ever thought, prior to the publication of this book, that that was a sentence that would ever get written?

    As for Unnatural History, I don't recall Faction Paradox being badly used (though I concede it's been quite a long time since I read it) and my memories of the book are that it was above average but not spectacular and that the best material in it was Dark Sam and Fitz. I'll try and re-read it before we get there.

    And as a side-note I'd just like to say that I'm new to commenting here but I've read the bulk of the blog entries and both greatly appreciate the writing involved and the (usually!) courteous and intelligent comments that get posted.

    Reply

  5. Prole Hole
    January 11, 2013 @ 3:08 am

    And now I've realized that I've posted in the wrong place and this was supposed to be a reply to elvwood. Bugger!

    Reply

  6. jane
    January 11, 2013 @ 3:19 am

    Works fine standing on its own!

    Reply

  7. Arkadin
    January 11, 2013 @ 5:05 am

    Miles's reimaingination of the Krotons as genuinely scary and interesting was one of the most effective parts of Alien Bodies. It's also one of the many things that's heavily influenced by Alan Moore. (Miles doesn't make any effort to conceal this; one of the later chapters is called "A-LES-SON-IN-AN-A-TO-MY") For all Miles disdains the new series, their approach has one important thing in common: they both borrow quite a bit from comics.

    Reply

  8. Arkadin
    January 11, 2013 @ 5:10 am

    Interference was the first of Miles's books I read. I loved it, I was shocked and astounded by it, I devoured it eagerly–but I don't think I ever read the whole thing. I read the first half of it or so and then skipped to the end. That probably says something.

    Unnatural History was one of the books I couldn't finish the first time around, and it put me off Orman and Blum for a while. As a teenager, I thought it was too self-indulgent and twee. Maybe I'd think differently of it now.

    Reply

  9. Contumacy Singh
    January 11, 2013 @ 5:12 am

    Thank you. I've been looking forward to this analysis for a long time.

    I personally love Miles' penchant for "big ideas" and find him to be a bit of a tragic figure. He's openly talked in his blog and various interviews about his psychotic breaks, confinement in a mental hospital, physical illnesses and alcohol and substance abuse. He very much comes off as the stereotypical "troubled genius."

    I just wish he would write more fiction. I contacted him via Twitter recently and he replied that he would write when someone paid him to do so.

    Not terribly encouraging.

    Reply

  10. Arkadin
    January 11, 2013 @ 5:21 am

    Agreed. For something he only wrote for money, Adventuress of Henrietta Street was rather brilliant. Someone needs to go dangle money in front of him right now. Of course, he's certainly burned most of his bridges in Doctor Who fandom, and very few people outside of it have heard of him. Faction Paradox remains as a sort of sub-cult phenomenon but Miles himself hasn't had anything to do with it for quite a while. It's a bit depressing in general how a lot of the writers from this era who could easily have written excellent original novels–or might have been better off doing so, like Paul Leonard–seem to have completely disappeared. At least Cornell has a healthy career. (He's writing Wolverine now, of all things.)

    Reply

  11. spoilersbelow
    January 11, 2013 @ 6:02 am

    As I'm sure has been noted by others, Miles' accusations of plagiarism against Gaiman don't actually bear much weight if you've actually read "Toy Story." TARDISes talking to one another? The TARDIS thinking of herself as the primary adventurer and the Doctor as her companion? Great idea for a short story, no doubt, but its not really the plot of "The Doctor's Wife." By those standards Miles' own work a rip off of "The Christmas Toy" or "The Brave Little Toaster."

    The real rip off it of John Tomlinson and Cam Smith's "Nineveh", a terribly obscure little comic from "The Incredible Hulk Presents…" back in the late 80s about the 7th Doctor getting trapped in a "Null Space" by horrible monsters who lure in and eat Time Lords. Much closer in terms of plot, even if the execution and ending are very different.

    And honestly, if "Guy finds out that his companion thinks of herself at the primary protagonist, not him" and "Thing that attacks adventurers specifically like the protagonist attacks the protagonist and he manages to escape" are so unique as to invite accusations of plagiarism, there's an entire genre of "Man comes to town to meet someone" and "Man who is not strong or smart manages to win through being clever" that need to start their lawsuits up… Hell, if "Time travel story where events are presented out of order in a clever manner" is, than both Miles and Moffat owe a great debt not just to Kurt Vonnegut, but also to "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" and "Back to the Future."

    That said, I really do love Miles' work. The Faction Paradox line is one of the few where all the gushing praise and adoration poured all over it actually measured up when I read it. Not that all of this is Miles' fault, of course, as "The Book of the War" was a collaborative effort, and Philip Purser-Hallard's and Lance Parkin's work would read just fine without the tenuous connection to Faction Paradox (or even Doctor Who). But darned if TBotW, "Dead Romance," and "This Town Will Never Let Us Go" aren't awesome. He reads the way I imagine that Grant Morrison would if Morrison had a good editor who forced him to do a bit more with his ideas, and refused to allow half-baked Kerouac imitations instead of good prose.

    Forget the man, love the work.

    Reply

  12. Tommy
    January 11, 2013 @ 6:04 am

    "There are several observations to make here. First, for most writers any one of these ideas is sufficient. The idea of a massive war that wipes out the Time Lords is itself worth several novels."

    I don't credit Miles with that idea though. Gallifrey being destroyed forever by the Daleks was an idea that was introduced in the late 80's Audio Visuals stories Gary Russell and Nick Briggs were doing as a warm-up to Big Finish.

    "This issue gets at at least part of Miles’s vocal dislike of the Moffat era. This is, to be fair, a somewhat larger feud, at least on Miles’s part. (There’s precious little evidence Moffat gives a damn.) Moffat, for his part, apparently told Miles that the cliffhanger to chapter five of Alien Bodies – that would be the one where the Doctor discovers that he’s involved in an auction for his own body – is the best cliffhanger of anything he’d ever read."

    I ceased having patience with Miles at this point, and one of the things I hate about him is how he bills himself as the angry outsider to the elite of fan writers, whilst actually being the most vicious and snobbish elitist of them all.

    But normally in his blog writings, no matter how poison lettered it gets, he can at least make the (admittedly cumbersome) effort to try and bring the reader round to his logic and open their eyes to his point.

    In that blog post he seriously seemed to expect the reader to follow his spiteful reasoning that his gripe with Moffat here is down to that Moffat once had the audacity to praise and congratulate his work and now he must spit on Moffat's hand.

    The only reasoning I see behind Miles' vendetta against Moffat has little to nothing to do with the content of the Moffat era itself, and is simply stalker logic. That a socially awkward, volatile mess of a man like Miles, sees Moffat as the cool, witty figure that people and women imparticular like, and who is everything Miles isn't (not that I'm a Moffat sycophant or anything). Miles issues with him are probably the same that leads stalkers to gradually treat their idolised objects of affection as fixation points of obsessive resentment and a mirror of their own inadequacies and self-hatred. In short I think Miles has to denigrate Moffat's era just to reaffirm his own self worth.

    Reply

  13. Prole Hole
    January 11, 2013 @ 6:39 am

    I don't know that I completely agree with the final paragraph, I think it might slightly overstate things, but I think what it comes down to is essentially, "At one point Miles looked like he had the keys to the kingdom – now Moffat (and before RTD) actually does." I think there's a disconnect between how Miles views Who and where it should go and how it actually has to function in the real world. Call it ugly if you like, but the fact of the matter is that the BBC require Doctor Who to be a success and that means that the current series has to fit in to certain boxes, presumably boxes that Miles doesn't think it should. Back when all this was kicking off, Doctor Who was a purely fan-owned operation and as such could pretty much do what it wanted as long as it was within editorial guidelines and us fans kept on buying the books. As an ongoing series, it's no longer fan-owned, even if it's still run by people who are actual fans, and that is something that simply has to be taken into consideration.

    Reply

  14. Tommy
    January 11, 2013 @ 7:02 am

    I suspected it was more than that though, because, well, Miles actually did give RTD's approach to the new era his full blessing and endorsement, with no hints of personal jealousy toward the man. Any alarmist or vitriolic posts he made were always directed at guest writers.

    Though it might be that during RTD's time, Miles was praising it just because he was touting for a writing job, or he was just so pleased to have the show back on air that any compromises of his vision seemed worth it to secure its place on TV once again. And that maybe he was hoping whoever took over from Russell once the show was secure for a few years would push the envelope more, and in his opinion Moffat was far too cynical and populist to do it.

    If Phil's assessment of Miles' tastes is right, then I think Miles' vision of a show that was just like the Bidmead and Davison era, in terms of reducing and sabotaging the Doctor's presence and effectualness, would have been a disaster (regardless of what I think of New Who as it exists). The appeal of the Doctor as a character is surely the fantasy aspect, the man who lives in his own little world amidst a harsh, threatening universe, and because of his confidence and intellectual higher plane, and because of his he prevails.

    Which is perhaps why it appeals to imaginative children, outsiders and people in the rather white noise spectrum of autism. That there's hope that even the ordinary and naive can make a difference by doing 'the right kind of a little'. The problem with Miles' vision, and the era he vaunts is that it disarms the Doctor of even that, and as such takes away from the hope the character represents. If there's no hope, there's no sympathy on the audience's part. The Season 18 approach I'd say is an endpoint for the show, not any way forward.

    Reply

  15. Andrew Hickey
    January 11, 2013 @ 7:29 am

    Jane… Miles has not had any professional connection with official Doctor Who since Henrietta Street came out in, I think, 2002. Tom Baker's behaviour when he was the leading man in the series can reasonably be called unprofessional, but Miles has never had any professional connection with anyone involved in making the show now.

    Reply

  16. Elizabeth Sandifer
    January 11, 2013 @ 7:30 am

    I took Jane's comment to use "the series" to refer to "The Eighth Doctor Adventures."

    Reply

  17. Andrew Hickey
    January 11, 2013 @ 7:41 am

    There is certainly an element of the latter in Miles' view — but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.

    When the attitude you talk about is coupled with the sexism and classism you talk about, then yes, it's utterly pernicious (and Miles does, on occasion, cross that line).

    But in general — and this is something I've been meaning to write a proper essay about recently — why shouldn't there be fiction about ideas rather than characters? Someone like Greg Egan, for example, gets criticised because in some of his stories the characters are considered not particularly well-drawn. Egan disagrees with that criticism, and so would I, but assuming it were true — Egan tells stories that nobody else does, because he's thought deeply about other aspects of the world than people's characters.

    Just as it's wrong to say that any writing that focuses on character at the expense of coherence (like, arguably, much of Russel Davies' work) is automatically bad because it's the kind of writing women (stereotypically) like, it's equally bad to assume that all writing about how an idea could change the world is automatically bad because it's the kind of writing that male nerds (stereotypically) like.

    I suspect I'll continue this on my own blog later, though, as it's a diversion from the main point here, something I've been meaning to write anyway, and I'm not making much sense now as I have a headache. But I don't think that in itself there's anything actually wrong with fiction about ideas rather than people.

    Reply

  18. Ununnilium
    January 11, 2013 @ 7:47 am

    Uuuuuuuuuugh. I was a big hard SF reader in my youth, and that was one of the things that eventually pushed me toward other types of science fiction. That said – do you know of anyone who explicitly thought you should stick to archetypes, rather than just not being very good at moving beyond them, or not realizing that you could?

    Reply

  19. Andrew Hickey
    January 11, 2013 @ 7:49 am

    I don't think Miles did accuse Gaiman of ripping Toy Story off — the closest I've seen to that accusation is a few people (myself included, actually, but definitely not Miles) pointing to similarities in an "oh, isn't that interesting?" kind of way. I don't think anyone in their right mind would imagine Gaiman's even read Toy Story.

    Reply

  20. Elizabeth Sandifer
    January 11, 2013 @ 7:52 am

    I saw someone argue it with apparent sincerity on Gallifrey Base. As I said, I included that mainly to demonstrate that Miles had a substantial enough fandom to include "complete nutters." The point was not that such nutters were representative – merely that his fandom had reached the critical mass necessary to have proper lunatic fanatics in it, which is a certain phenomenon of fandoms of a certain size.

    Reply

  21. Andrew Hickey
    January 11, 2013 @ 7:57 am

    Oh, I'm not saying no-one said that, just that Miles himself never did.

    Reply

  22. Ununnilium
    January 11, 2013 @ 8:47 am

    One thing I thought was interesting was how direct of a response the Dark Sam plotline was to The Eight Doctors. It's like Miles saw the Generic '90s Teenage Hero and created the concept of biodata just to get away from it.

    Reply

  23. Steven Clubb
    January 11, 2013 @ 8:53 am

    One can easily take Miles to task for grabbing a large chunk of Alien Bodies from "Season of Mists". A number of powerful entities assemble to buy an object of immense power. It even features a lot of the same basic dynamics between parties. And he very obviously read Sandman so it's not a coincidence.

    But give the same basic story idea to two creative people and you'll get two different stories.

    Reply

  24. J Mairs
    January 11, 2013 @ 9:59 am

    The Lawrence Miles Trilogy – Alien Bodies/Shock Tactic/Hour of the Greek are very rich stories. It amazes me how close Moffat and Miles work meshes despite Miles' obviously dislike for Moffat: Moffat could practically be writing the sequel arcs to Interference.

    It's also bizarre how Miles actively detests any fetishisation of the Doctor, despite the fact I think this trilogy, read together, do more to make the Doctor an fetish object than any other story.

    I mean, you have the entire idea of Dust being "where the Earth Empire comes to die", Fitz/Kode, or the role of the Time Lords in the Universe and the philosophy of the Remote – there's constantly threads throughout the story that harken back to the Bidmead era in theme, with Entropy being almost, like the Cold, an active force in the Universe responsible for the degradation of… well… everything over time.
    And what's the one thing that shown to the exception to this rule? Who has actually been getting stronger over time and can reverse the effects of Entropy? Oh yeah.
    RTD and Moffat get a lot of flack for Messianic imagery employed across their eras but nothing really compares to a Doctor who is explicitly responsible for the Harrowing of Hell!

    Frankly and ironically, the Lawrence Miles stories pretty much set up the Moffat era by making the extradigetic story of the Doctor one of the Doctor's defining universe characteristics and simultaneously defining the Doctor as someone whose reputation and centrality to the universe has grown over time — and will continue to grow into the future with serious negative repercussions.

    Reply

  25. J Mairs
    January 11, 2013 @ 10:04 am

    I remember that topic back on Gallibase: I pretty much had the same "Oh isn't that interesting" as you Andrew…

    …although I seem to remember receiving a response that was pretty blunt and quite rude from someone with a blog post-modernly dissecting DW who shall remain nameless. :o)

    Reply

  26. Ross
    January 11, 2013 @ 10:18 am

    And honestly, if "Guy finds out that his companion thinks of herself at the primary protagonist, not him"…

    From "Shakespeare in Love":

    WOMAN (to RALPH): And what is this play about?

    RALPH: Well, there’s this nurse. …

    Reply

  27. Archeology of the Future
    January 11, 2013 @ 10:20 am

    I absolutely loved 'Alien Bodies' when I read it a couple of weeks ago.

    It felt very, very much as if it had been pitched initially as a seventh Doctor story (which I believe was the case). There's lots of lovely bits that are basically the eighth Doctor going 'Ay-up, I'm all giddy and I'm certainly not acting like my predecessor here.', a bit like putting lots of the NAs in a blender and seeing what happens. Even the casket is a joke based on the hand of Omega method of travel.

    It does have the feeling of being very post-Vertigo in that it has the a series of mini-quests that are basically protagionist goes explores somewhere find outlandish looking someone in incongrous setting. The Shade is Danny the Street, Faction Paradox drip with The Invisibles conceptual/ aesthetic ickiness.

    I really empathise with Miles in that he feels like an angry young man who watched all of his cohort of shooting stars in a particular firmament become elevated above and beyond him into a world different from where they started while he remained somehow earthbound, held back by some fundamental difference. Think Jimmy Porter but in Doctor Who fandom. Imagine how it must feel to have edged into position of prominence in the world of something like Doctor Who but then to find that prominence and power weren't the same things and that it turned out that all it took was for the old rulers to come back to the kingdom and suddenly you were a pleb again.

    If you have struggled to gain power, the first thing you do when you're in it is to try to alter structures in such a way as to favour the continuence of your power. Miles gives me the feeling of someone given the keys to a magic kingdom to which he never expected access who then, after a period of dionysian feasting and carefree enjoyment wonders 'what am I to do now I have this kingdom?'

    It feels to me that Moffat and Miles end up as antagonists (on Miles side) because both had the same childhood dream, but only one got it. They different though, I think, in that Moffat is an inveterate fixer of Doctor Who; for all his twisty turny plotting I think Moffat is on a mission to 'fix' everything that erked him about Who and the ability to tell stories within it. Miles, I think, in Alien Bodies had more of an impulse to break Who and reshape it. The reason why no one picked up the War or used Faction Paradox well is that you can't. You can;t really make a story with them in that isn;t Alien Bodies that will work as a story. Faction Paradox, The War and The Doctor's body can only really work in any satisfying way in 'Alien Bodies'. In combination they make something a bit magic. In isolation they just make rubbish stories. Faction Paradox and The War would make Doctor Who Sliders. The Doctor's body would just be a Macguffin or a quest object.

    'Alien Bodies' is a brilliant, brilliant 'Doctor Who' novel, but it's not one that could ever properly sit as part of an ongoing series of Doctor Who novels. It's basically a brilliant novel written using the idea language of Doctor Who, a closed 'bottle universe' of its very own.

    Or so it seems to me 🙂

    Reply

  28. Contumacy Singh
    January 11, 2013 @ 10:21 am

    Miles' blog entries discussing the Davies era never gave me the impression he respected Davies. Unfortunately, Miles routinely deletes many of his entries after a brief period, but his tone regarding Davies' work was pretty harsh.

    Reply

  29. Ross
    January 11, 2013 @ 10:28 am

    @Andrew Hickey: There's nothing wrong with there being fiction designed like that, but I am dubious that narrative is the best form for it. One of the things I've always liked are non-narrative "technical manual" style books. That sort of format gives writers the freedom to do all the exposition they want without trying to clunkily bolt it into a narrative, to the narrative's detriment. (Plus, they can act as a supplement or inspiration to a separate narrative that actually does have things like plot and characters.

    @Ununnillium: I think the people I've heard it from explicitly have all been "People on the internet", though I think I did see it come up at least once in some hard-sf writer's critique of nontraditional sf work. (I suspect it was someone complaining about 'The Handmaiden's Tale', but I can't recall who it was. Though for that matter, isn't it kind of Margaret Attwood's own argument for why her story set in a dystopian future isn't "really" science fiction?)

    Reply

  30. Elizabeth Sandifer
    January 11, 2013 @ 10:31 am

    I mostly recall a thread in which I described Miles by his own term for the spin-off books, a writer of "professional fanfiction," and got jumped on by his defenders.

    That was amusing.

    Reply

  31. John Nor
    January 11, 2013 @ 10:40 am

    I've never read any of the NAs or EDAs, but intend to for this year of Doctor Who nostalgia, (2013).

    This book will be one of the books I will read.

    Reply

  32. Tiffany Korta
    January 11, 2013 @ 11:50 am

    As I recall, and I've only skimmed his blog now and again, he was fairly critical of some of RTD era show. Whilst I don't agree with well any of his Moffat criticism, I can see his point about RTD loosing it bit near the end, becoming a little media obsessed. But more of that later…

    Reply

  33. Tiffany Korta
    January 11, 2013 @ 11:55 am

    I love this book, it clever funny and just an enjoyable read.

    That said it does all this by shunting the Doctor to the side lines whilst all the other player play there parts. Miles seems to like to play around with the world and myths of the Doctors than the Doctor himself.

    And despite what the EDA say I still like to think that the enemy is the Darlek's and this is all part of the same Time Was.

    Reply

  34. Tommy
    January 11, 2013 @ 11:56 am

    There's a blogspot called Milewatch which has all his old entries recorded for posterity (I think it has a few gaps closer to the Moffat era though).

    I'm no fan of RTD, but Miles's posts were actually surprisingly gushing about RTD's early work, particularly Series One which he argued was a return to the golden age of socially important TV, with heavy praise for Rose and Love & Monsters. Infact he devoted his 42 review to invoking pretty sneering stereotypes of the kind of sci-fi fans who'd hate Love & Monsters.

    His opinion of RTD's work seemed to turn after Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords, which he regarded as RTD's jump the shark moment, and heavily denigrated Voyage of the Damned and the decision to make Catherine Tate a companion, which he pointed to as a return to the JNT celebrity casting days. And he seemed to hate the specials, but he did highlight Turn Left as a brief return to the Series One days when the show was important and topical. And likewise for Children of Earth.

    I think even at this point though he was framing the problem as less RTD, and more the kind of famous people and BBC party line that RTD was rubbing up with, and how he was starting to make the show too much for them and not for the general public anymore like he used to (even highlighting how Voyage of the Damned has an environment and even golden robot villains inspired by awards ceremonies). So he was distancing his criticisms from anything that could be called personal bitterness toward the man, who he seemed to still respect for his early work.

    Reply

  35. Tiffany Korta
    January 11, 2013 @ 11:57 am

    Maybe with all the ex Doctor Who writers going off and doing Urban Fantasy I'll try a the genre himself…

    Reply

  36. Andrew Hickey
    January 11, 2013 @ 12:00 pm

    His criticism of the RTD series was interesting because it was completely opposite to most other people's criticism — he thought Love And Monsters was the best thing during that five-year run, while Blink was the worst.

    I tend to agree with about 70% of Miles' criticisms, though I think Blink is one of the better things Moffat has done. But then, Season 18 and early Hartnell are some of my favourite Who…

    Reply

  37. Andrew Hickey
    January 11, 2013 @ 12:27 pm

    Tommy — thanks for the Mileswatch pointer. I'd not come across that before, and I'm glad to finally be able to read the entries from 2005-2007 that I didn't read at the time (though I think there's possibly something a little unethical about making blog posts that have been taken down by their author available).

    Reply

  38. Arkadin
    January 11, 2013 @ 12:57 pm

    @Ross: And, of course, Lawrence Miles went on to write exactly such a thing (in collaboration with a number of other writers) in The Book of the War. Personally, I'd rather discuss that when we get to the end of Eight's era than This Town Will Never Let Us Go; an encyclopedia of the Time War seems like an appropriate subject for the last pre-New Series post, even though it's a completely different version of the Time War.

    Reply

  39. Arkadin
    January 11, 2013 @ 12:58 pm

    And of course, he also wrote a pseudo-nonfictional narrative for Adventuress of Henrietta Street.

    Reply

  40. Ununnilium
    January 11, 2013 @ 1:07 pm

    "Though for that matter, isn't it kind of Margaret Attwood's own argument for why her story set in a dystopian future isn't "really" science fiction?"

    True, but that's more a judgment on her than on SF.

    Reply

  41. Ununnilium
    January 11, 2013 @ 1:15 pm

    I think Faction Paradox – as presented in Alien Bodies, at least – could work as an ongoing antagonist-ish force.

    Reply

  42. Arkadin
    January 11, 2013 @ 2:08 pm

    From "The Bank and Shoal of Time: A Brief Anti-History of the Time War" (partially excerpted from Doctor Who?: His Lives and Time by Dr. Anastasia Calderón, originally published in volume 57 of the Transgalactic Journal of Anarchaeology:

    There has always been a Time War. Or rather, there always would have been a Time War. Dealing with tenses can be a difficult task with regard to the Time Lords. But a catastrophic war which spans time and space and leads to the destruction of Gallifrey has always been part of its history from the very beginning. The Enemy was always changing–the Order of the Black Sun, the Daleks (at least twice), the Dire Wraiths, Varnax, the Divergents, the Hounds of Carcosa… But for every enemy the Time Lord managed to stop, or ensure never existed in the first place, a new one came into being, usually one created by the Time Lords themselves in the process of trying to stop the previous one. Because that's how empires work. If you have a cause, you need to have an enemy to give it meaning. And the 'Decline and Fall,' as the Old Earth historian Gibbon put it, is part of the story of every empire since history was first written. The concept of empire contains its own undoing.

    The Time Lords tried to get around this by constantly rewriting their own history. They built their culture around the "Laws of Time," but like all such sacred laws, they quietly broke them when no one was looking. The so-called "Celestial Intervention Agency" began as a smokescreen for the Time Lords' interference in their own past to avert its inevitable destruction… The "Moment" was not the first time Gallifrey was destroyed, nor, most likely, the first it was destroyed by the Doctor.

    And the Doctor himself must have been, on some level, aware of this. He is said to have participated in a ritual known as "Eighth Man Bound," in which he foresaw his future incarnations up until the eighth. This means that he must have known that his own people were, in some sense, destined to die, and by his own hand. This was in all likelihood not the beginning of the Doctor's radicalism or alienation from his people; according to the Matrix shards we have currently recovered, the astronomical conjunction necessary for performing the ritual would have to have come after the time of the Otherstide student riots (though it is not clear that all the shards come from the same version of history). The concept of destiny, of course, is highly problematic when dealing with a race that can and did rewrite time, and a member of that race who made a point of disrupting patterns of history. And this was not the Doctor's only possible end; one account tells of his encounter with the corpse of his future self, who died during the great war to come. But all the possible patterns of history in which some good could remain in the universe converged upon one point: the Doctor's destruction of Gallifrey.

    Reply

  43. Arkadin
    January 11, 2013 @ 2:08 pm

    [continued]

    The Doctor does not seem to have been consistently aware of this fact throughout his life. Through most of it, after he left Gallifrey, it seems to have retreated into his subconscious. He may have regained an awareness of his "fate" in his seventh life, which motivated him to take on the role of "Time's Champion." He systematically destroyed or neutralized several threats that could potentially become the Enemy, including the Daleks themselves, and did his utmost to bring about reform in Gallifrey. (In one version of history, he guided Ace to become a Time Lord, in another, he masterminded Romana's ascension to the presidency.) He moved heaven and earth to change the patterns of history, nearly losing his soul in the process.

    And he failed. That failure must have haunted him greatly toward the end of his life. Perhaps this was the reason why he reconfigured the TARDIS as a Gothic ruin full of ticking clocks–counting down to the inevitable end–and spent the last moments of his life reading the Time Machine, a book about a man confronting the inevitable decay and death of his species, as the once-great chessmaster prepared for a pointless death at the hands of a gang of thugs.

    And yet, at the same time, that failure seems to have given him a sense of freedom. At some point the Doctor realized his attempts to repair the engines of history, if carried too far, would ultimately damage both him and them. And so he chose instead to live life on the human level, embracing the moment and seeing people as people rather than as pawns, freeing him from the chains of godhood. The Doctor's eighth incarnation was a paradoxical and confusing one, about which it is difficult to determine anything definite. (Thiis life seems to echo the ancient Gallifreyan nursery rhyme: "Eighth Man Bound, make no sound/The shroud covers all.") But we can see that this double-edged hope and despair was what shaped the Doctor's eighth life. We can see this in the clothing he wore, shaped by a romantic poet. It reflected his sponteneity and passion, but also the Promethean revolutionary fire that burned in his heart. What's more, the Victorian clothing suggested an age of imperial idealism whose hopes would be dashed by a devastating war, and indeed, some accounts suggest he wore clothing taken from World War I in the latter part of his life.

    This, then, was the Eighth Doctor, a man defined throughout his life (or lives) by paradox. A good and kind man who would be responsible for unspeakable crimes. A man who letting himself be bound by the chains of fate, freed the universe from history. The Champion of Life and the Bringer of Death. The victim and murderer of history. The Eighth Man Bound.

    Reply

  44. encyclops
    January 11, 2013 @ 2:28 pm

    I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of Miles's ideal Doctor Who. As you point out, there's quite a lot of the show that doesn't conform to the stereotype you've laid out, and with those singular Critiques in the earlier books (as opposed to the Prosecution/Defence ones during the Williams and Bidmead eras), it's hard to tell which praises come from Miles and which from Wood. It's possible that he finds most eras of the show unsatisfying (and probable that he finds some reason to criticize them — don't we all?), but it seems unlikely to me.

    I personally suspect that some of the divide can be explained by age, but this hypothesis is on very shaky ground, because while I know that Miles was 8 years old in 1980, and according to my entirely unscientific theories about taste formation exactly the right age to be enthralled by seasons 18-20, I have no idea how old Tat Wood is and I can't be at all certain that he was 8 years old somewhere in early-to-mid-Hinchcliffe, and still young enough to be scared by the Ogri, just as I was when I first saw them and fell in love with The Stones of Blood.

    As far as the putative philosophical debate: I think Doctor Who is a waste of time (and space) if its main value is as an exploration of the Doctor or his companions as characters. Even after 50 years the Doctor himself remains relatively mysterious (and we've talked about Cartmel's attempts to keep him that way, and about Lungbarrow's attempts to do the opposite, which was for me the same sort of canon-disintegrator as War of the Daleks was for others (I've never read it)), his character changes randomly every few years in what we hope are ways extreme enough to be interesting, and his companions are distressingly generic with only occasional exceptions. It's perfectly situated to be an anthology show, and while anthology shows do often develop their anchor characters along the way (see The X-Files, I guess?), they're going to be subtle developments and they're going to be attenuated. In short: there's no point in being able to go anywhere in the TARDIS if the places we go can't hold our interest except as sketchy mirrors to our protagonists.

    I think this is where the Buffy/New Who analogy breaks down, and why New Who so often feels unsatisfying to me. Imagine if Buffy had been built around the title character traveling from town to town fighting monsters, but if someone had decided that each town and monster threat could be entirely generic as long as you got enough jokes in and Buffy looked cool in the fight scenes.

    I'm wandering, maybe. Back to Miles: I don't agree that he's unconcerned with the Doctor as a character or with characters as people (and here I might possibly be disagreeing with Miles himself, I don't know). To be honest, I find his characters (including the Doctor) more vivid and relatable and memorable than those of a lot of other NA/EDA authors, including a few that have been praised here. My only real complaint about Alien Bodies is that the main setting (the ziggurat) feels like a sort of claustrophobic limbo after a while, like the ultimate corridor-based set. I also had trouble (with his other novels) keeping distinct in my mind the various glossy black amorphous entities/substances/concepts (e.g. the Cold) I found myself picturing throughout.

    Reply

  45. encyclops
    January 11, 2013 @ 2:33 pm

    Bravo!

    Reply

  46. encyclops
    January 11, 2013 @ 2:48 pm

    I disagree with Miles most vehemently about Matt Smith, who I think is endlessly watchable and the only thing I like about some of the recent stories. Miles usually makes fun of Smith's appearance as though Smith himself is the problem, but maybe his issue is more with the Eleventh Doctor. Or maybe it's just kneejerk against Moffat, though I don't buy his claims that he doesn't watch the show anymore. Much of his heckling is far too close to the mark to be based on reading plot summaries.

    Reply

  47. Ross
    January 11, 2013 @ 2:48 pm

    I think they could mesh well as an ongoing antagonist force in a Doctor Who-like setting, but not in Doctor Who itself. They seem to be set up as a kind of dark mirror of the time lords, which has some great potential for them as antagonists of the time lords but the Doctor himself is already sort of out in the left field among time lords, so they are sort of off their mark when framed against him (Insofar as their MO is kind of "They operate in the domain of the time lords, but do not share their cold rationality," that's kinda already the Doctor's gig.). As recurring characters in Doctor Who, they'd probably fit best as either antiheroes or antivillains — either as "What happens if the Doctor goes too far," or an indictment of the Doctor as not being willing to go far enough.

    Reply

  48. Ross
    January 11, 2013 @ 2:50 pm

    You have reminded me that it has been too long since I listened to David Banks's Cybermen.

    Reply

  49. Galadriel
    January 11, 2013 @ 2:52 pm

    I was fascinated by Alien Bodies–I don't think I'd read any Sam at that time, but the whole concept of humanoid TARDISes was fascinating. And the one …Marie, when she is killed and her insides splattered everywhere–whole new level of creepy, right there

    Reply

  50. Ununnilium
    January 11, 2013 @ 4:48 pm

    That's a good point, and I guess what I meant when I said "antagonist-ish". They seem like they could fit a lot of roles, if used well.

    Reply

  51. Gnaeus
    January 11, 2013 @ 4:56 pm

    "To be honest, I find his characters (including the Doctor) more vivid and relatable and memorable than those of a lot of other NA/EDA authors, including a few that have been praised here."

    Well, I'm glad to see I'm not in a minority of one on this point. I really don't see how the accusation of his not being interested in characters can stack up once you've read, say, Down, Interference, Dead Romance and This Town, all of which involve exploring individual characters, and to my mind were a lot more subtle and interesting about it than some of his fellow authors who tend to beat you over the head with archetypes (oh, look, here's another very poorly writen 'modern woman of the 1990s'…).

    Reply

  52. Ununnilium
    January 11, 2013 @ 5:07 pm

    "I think Doctor Who is a waste of time (and space) if its main value is as an exploration of the Doctor or his companions as characters. Even after 50 years the Doctor himself remains relatively mysterious (and we've talked about Cartmel's attempts to keep him that way, and about Lungbarrow's attempts to do the opposite, which was for me the same sort of canon-disintegrator as War of the Daleks was for others (I've never read it)), his character changes randomly every few years in what we hope are ways extreme enough to be interesting, and his companions are distressingly generic with only occasional exceptions."

    The Doctor's past is what's kept mysterious – never (well, rarely) what kind of person he is. What kind of person is changes so that we can re-explore it all over again, and… well, if you think that most of the companions are "generic" (not sure what that means over a fifty-year span) and not worth exploring, well, frankly, you have to start by throwing out all the episodes with Ian and Barbara in them, where the main point often was exploring the characters – generally by tossing them into a strange situation and seeing how they reacted.

    Reply

  53. Gnaeus
    January 11, 2013 @ 5:07 pm

    I suppose I came to the EDAs a bit late. I dipped into them a bit while they were coming out, but I only really started reading them about two years ago.

    They're awful. Most of these books are terribly, terribly written. I don't even mean in plot terms, I just mean stylistically, they have absolutely nothing going for them. Their authors/narrators have no voice, and nothing to say with them. (I count the Blum/Orman metaconstruct as particularly guilty in this regard: it/their combo novels are utterly unreadable, I find.)

    By contrast, Miles, as a prose stylist, really isn't that bad. He's good enough to swap styles when he needs to, at the least, which is head-and-shoulders above some of his contemporaries in the line. Or, given that Alien Bodies is book no. 6, at this point, he is head-and-shoulders above all of his fellow-authors in the line.

    Reply

  54. elvwood
    January 11, 2013 @ 6:44 pm

    Oh, jolly well done!

    Reply

  55. encyclops
    January 11, 2013 @ 10:23 pm

    Ununnilium: I said "occasional exceptions," you say "most," so fine, let's list Ian and Barbara as exceptions. Let's include a few of my favorite companions: Liz Shaw, Zoe, Leela, and Romana. I'll give you Ace, Benny, Donna, and Captain Jack if you give me Adric — for better or for worse, no other companion before or since has made the kinds of choices he did. As for most of the rest…"generic" isn't a fair word, but if we're honest, I think there are a lot of stories where swapping out Jo, Sarah Jane, Tegan, Peri, Mel, Sam, Rose, Martha, Amy, or (I'm predicting) Clara wouldn't make as much difference as it would with those others. I don't know as much about Vicki, Dodo, Steven, Ben, Polly, or Victoria, but my impression has been that they're not the kinds of characters that "develop" or get explored as much as we might like.

    Don't misunderstand me: I love a lot of these companions, and I don't blame the actors or the characters as conceived for their treatment in individual episodes. I'm frustrated by how little I know about Sarah Jane's interests outside of journalism, or whether Martha missed the medical profession while traveling with the Doctor, or what Nyssa felt every time she saw the Master wearing her father's face. I'm thrilled Tegan got at least four episodes where we learned something about her psyche, and three of those are among my favorites of all time.

    I just think the idea that this show is "the companion's story" is a joke. By its very nature, and particularly if we accept the conclusion that canon is a bankrupt idea in Doctor Who, any attempt to develop the characters — show sustained and meaningful change from episode to episode — is hamstrung. Amy and Rory can experience mind-blowing revelations and experiences in "A Good Man Goes To War" and "Let's Kill Hitler" and not acknowledge an instant of them in "Night Terrors," not just because that was Gatiss rather than Moffat, not just because it's designed to be an independent story, but because it was moved from the first half of the season to the second. They can get an unexpected divorce in "Asylum of the Daleks," but they'd better be married again and blissful by "Dinosaurs on a Spaceship" because this isn't drama (where characters change over time) but comedy (where they reset to their baseline at the end of each story). You can find subtle developments in their arcs, you can fill in the blanks, but you'll be doing most of the work yourself. It's not the primary focus, nor should it be…IMO, obviously.

    As for the Doctor himself: fair enough, though this, too, is rarely clear-cut enough to be interesting in the manner you might expect if character were the point. In the classic series, consider "Genesis of the Daleks" vs. "Terror of the Vervoids" vs. "Remembrance." In the new, consider "Dinosaurs" vs. "A Town Called Mercy." There isn't zero interest in character…there aren't zero dots to connect…but I think the show is less about the Doctor than, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is about Buffy.

    What I'm driving at is that the show really has to balance all of these things — the Doctor, one or more companions, AND a compelling setting grounded in the melange of science fiction, fantasy, horror, and history we all know and love.

    Reply

  56. Phil
    January 11, 2013 @ 10:32 pm

    To be fair to Atwood, she's since stepped back from that, and seems to have embraced being a science fiction writer (or at least with the things she's interested in writing at the moment being science fiction. Because they are, obviously).

    Reply

  57. encyclops
    January 11, 2013 @ 10:33 pm

    I wonder how they — or someone like them — would fit into the new series, given that we no longer have Gallifrey and that the last time we saw Time Lords apart from the Doctor they were so daft I was glad to see them go. I thought maybe that's where Moffat was going with the "dark TARDIS" thing, and the Silence have so far been a bit of a letdown in terms of being (inevitably, maybe, given the name) mostly inarticulate about their philosophies and plans.

    Incidentally, I watched episode 1 of Shada tonight for the first time in years and years, and was struck by the idea that even if Gallifrey had to go, it wouldn't have killed RTD to leave some expat Time Lords alive elsewhere in the universe. You could easily run into someone like Chronotis for a story and then let him recede into obscurity again indefinitely, in a way that you couldn't do with a whole hegemonic planet of them continuing to run the show.

    Reply

  58. John Seavey
    January 12, 2013 @ 6:41 am

    And the truly clever thing about the way he made the Krotons scary and menacing in a way they never were before is that they're still figures of mockery. Because even as he expands the scope of what they're capable of, the circle they're moving in is much more terrifying. They become creatures that can plausibly conquer whole galaxies…while hanging out with entities that can rewrite entire timelines. They get this huge upgrade, but they're still outclassed.

    Reply

  59. J. L. Webb
    January 12, 2013 @ 7:11 am

    my word…
    you seem to have resolved the logical and technical inconsistencies of the Seven>Eight>Nine transition in a little over 900 words.

    i'm saving this.

    Reply

  60. John Seavey
    January 12, 2013 @ 7:43 am

    Actually, I'd jump on you too (lightly, with friendship, of course.) Because pretty much by definition, fanfiction is unauthorized by the copyright holder and done without monetary compensation. Once the writer gets paid for it and the BBC slaps a big "official Doctor Who merchandise" logo on it, it ceases to be fanfiction. To call it that, in my mind, is a purely pejorative term.

    And yes, I'm aware that you were just quoting Miles. I've jumped on him for that too. 🙂

    Reply

  61. jane
    January 12, 2013 @ 9:45 am

    Phil's clarification is correct — thanks Phil!

    Reply

  62. Arkadin
    January 12, 2013 @ 12:30 pm

    RTD probably wanted to keep the other TIme Lords off the stage so he could emphasize Ten's sense of isolation and his obsessive love/hate for the Master. I'm certain that Romana and the Rani are still out there, quietly working towards their own purposes and staying out of the Doctor's way, at least for now.

    Reply

  63. Arkadin
    January 12, 2013 @ 12:38 pm

    "His criticism of the RTD series was interesting because it was completely opposite to most other people's criticism — he thought Love And Monsters was the best thing during that five-year run, while Blink was the worst."

    It's interesting, and very telling, to note that his favorite episode is one that's not about the Doctor himself, but about the effect he has on others and his world. Love and Monsters, being a story about fandom, is very much about the idea of the Doctor as "fetish object."

    Reply

  64. Tiffany Korta
    January 12, 2013 @ 12:45 pm

    I think he was going for that whole "Last Son of Krypton" (or Gallifrey as it was) vibe.

    After all the Doctor isn't as special if there's a whole planet of people just like him back home.

    Reply

  65. Arkadin
    January 12, 2013 @ 1:10 pm

    I'm glad people liked this, considering I was drunk when I wrote it. But really, it should have said the pre-memory of the Moment "slept in his mind."

    Reply

  66. Arkadin
    January 12, 2013 @ 1:11 pm

    Ah, Gallifrey Base, I missed you.

    I wish I had better aim.

    Reply

  67. Ununnilium
    January 12, 2013 @ 1:56 pm

    John, that is an excellent point. It's especially interesting because, more than likely, most people who read the book would be hazy about whether or not any of this expanded detail was actually in the episode.

    Reply

  68. Ununnilium
    January 12, 2013 @ 2:07 pm

    Arkadin: Agreed. I mean, "Dalek" basically blows the idea that no other Time Lords survived out of the water, even before Mister Saxon shows up.

    Tiffany: Ack, no! I hate the "a character isn't special if there's anyone else vaguely like them around" idea. Frankly, I think having Supergirl and Krypto around makes Superman better and more interesting. (Maybe not Beppo the Super-Monkey.)

    Reply

  69. minkubus
    January 12, 2013 @ 2:08 pm

    I find this 'Miles cricicism is driven by jealousy of the incredibly sexy Stephen Moffat' idea a bit unlikely. Unless he somehow learned how to speak in public or went to the gym or something after that City of Death interview?

    Reply

  70. Arkadin
    January 12, 2013 @ 2:29 pm

    And indeed the Doctor did get a Supergirl in the form of Jenny, the Doctor's daughter. It's a shame she's vanished into oblivion. (I've always felt like Jenny should have a robotic cat.)

    Reply

  71. Matthew Blanchette
    January 12, 2013 @ 3:41 pm

    Hey, Prole Hole! Welcome, mate! (I go by Mr. Greene on The A.V. Club.) 🙂

    Reply

  72. Ununnilium
    January 12, 2013 @ 6:05 pm

    I agree that that balance is definitely the most important thing about the show.

    Reply

  73. Arkadin
    January 12, 2013 @ 7:01 pm

    I found myself rereading the entry on the Three Doctors in tandem with The Infinity Doctors, and it's remarkable how many of the concepts it discusses are coming to the fore in this period of the novels. "The I, by dint of seeing, creates being out of becoming, literally altering the world into vision"–this is literally the basis for Omega's power in TID. I'm curious to what extent you remembered that novel when you wrote it.

    And going back to the present, Faction Paradox is the antithesis of the concept "that the fundamental bound on changing history has little to do with the stability of the universe and everything to do with the stability of the self. One cannot alter the components of one's self – the stories and memories that create the unity of "I."" Well, now we have name for those stories and memories–"biodata"–and we know that, terrifyingly, it can be altered. We have entered a phase of history where nothing is stable anymore, not even the Doctor. Of course, that can be a source of joy too, as seen in The Scarlet Empress, where Iris Wildthyme is the farce to Faction Paradox's tragedy.

    Reply

  74. Arkadin
    January 13, 2013 @ 4:30 pm

    And incidentally, while Moffat laid out his basic approach to the Doctor in "Continuity Errors" which means his relationship with Miles was generally a case of convergent evolution rather than plagiarism, I find them both somewhat derivative of Melody Malone.

    Reply

  75. Prole Hole
    January 14, 2013 @ 2:21 am

    Greetings Matthew, and very happy to be here – nice to see a fellow clubber!

    Reply

  76. BerserkRL
    January 15, 2013 @ 2:42 pm

    And see William Butcher's amazing remark about Jules Verne:

    In Verne's case, if a genre classification really is necessary, he falls into that of travel and adventure. But in no case can he be considered a science fiction writer. One good reason is that only about a third of the Extraordinary Journeys really involve any science; and another, that despite his futuristic reputation the events recounted nearly always happen just before the present. What is more, the science is not generally innovative or designed to change society. A significant number of the works do depend on a novel form of transport, whether underground, under water, or in the air or beyond. But Verne prefers 'intermediate technology'. … The real thrust of Verne's works, their raison d'être, is to explore the globe.

    Reply

  77. Gareth Rees
    December 11, 2013 @ 8:50 am

    Andrew Hickey writes, why shouldn't there be fiction about ideas rather than characters? Someone like Greg Egan, for example, gets criticised because in some of his stories the characters are considered not particularly well-drawn. Egan disagrees with that criticism, and so would I, but assuming it were true — Egan tells stories that nobody else does, because he's thought deeply about other aspects of the world than people's characters.

    I had much the same thought and wrote about it here. I go a bit further than you do, in that I agree with Egan's critics ("his prose is dry and impersonal; his characters carry out their function in the story but no more; his plots are often episodic and lack dramatic conflict or resolution; he has a tin ear when it comes to satire") but still find him a hugely important writer because of the unique qualities he brings to his work. How dull would it be if everyone was trying to write War and Peace? "If Egan had written “better” works, according to the standards of the literary novel, then that would have impoverished our culture and not enriched it."

    Reply

  78. neroden@gmail
    December 14, 2013 @ 6:06 pm

    "reversing that and having the Eleventh Doctor meet the Eighteenth is a problem simply because it’s impossible to accurately predict what the Eighteenth will be like, and everyone watching now knows it and won’t fall for it."

    The comics, however, tried it more than once. As fakeouts.

    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.