SCARVES AND CELERY – Crossing the Threshold: Looking Back at “Rose”

He already had, and would go on to, write better episodes of television, but “Rose” is RTD’s greatest ever achievement as a writer. Against all the odds, he successfully relaunched an old cult sci-fi show that hadn’t been regularly on air for 16 years, and according to all industry experts and media commentators, was out of place in the 21st century. To pull the show’s triumphant return off in that context is hugely impressive, and to write an episode that still sparkles in its own way, and carries the promise of further brilliance is no mean feat.

Continue reading

GUEST POST – Whoniverse, Bring Out Your Dead: Death, resurrection, and the obligations of Doctor Who – Part 4: On the obligations of Who as a family show

by A.L. Belmont

 

With the last two companion departures, a great deal of discussion has sprung up about whether Steven Moffat is justified in apparently killing off companions and resurrecting them within a short time frame. There are a lot of assumptions implicit in the argument against resurrection, so in this article series, I’ll analyze what I think are the five key assumptions.

Parts 1 and 2 of this series treat the death-resurrection combination in the abstract. Part 3 examines the specific cases of Clara and Bill, and part 4 looks at death and resurrection in the context of the show’s ethos. This fourth part evaluates the death-resurrection sequence in the context of Doctor Who as a family show that seeks to impart edifying lessons.

Continue reading

GUEST POST – Whoniverse, Bring Out Your Dead: Death, Resurrection, and the Obligations of Doctor Who – Part 3: On Clara and Bill’s resurrections

by  A. L. Belmont

 

With the last two companion departures, a great deal of discussion has sprung up about whether Steven Moffat is justified in apparently killing off companions and resurrecting them within a short time frame. There are a lot of assumptions implicit in the argument against resurrection, so in this article series, I’ll analyze what I think are the five key assumptions.

It turns out that a big part of the “should dead characters stay dead” controversy stems from Moffat’s “disquieting tendency” to revive dead characters (because apparently, though I learned in statistics class that two points make a line and three make a trend, in the Who fandom, two points make not only a trend but an extremely distressing one on par with rising global temperatures and political polarization). So this third part examines the roles of death and resurrection in Clara and Bill’s arcs and asks whether either was necessary.

  Continue reading

SCARVES AND CELERY – The Series Nine Finale Trilogy: Part Three, “Hell Bent”

Writer’s Note: I’m Afraid I don’t have any new posts ready this week – I’ve been working on some other projects, and getting things sorted in my personal life. However, I do have the last of my old blog posts on the series nine finale trilogy to share: an essay on the excellent, though contentious, episode “Hell Bent”. I think now’s an especially appropriate time to share this post, as it goes rather nicely alongside A.L. Belmont’s excellent continuing series of guest posts on death and resurrection in Moffat’s Doctor Who. 

 

I actually find “Hell Bent” more interesting (not necessarily better, but more interesting) than “Heaven Sent”, which I also loved, and was masterfully put together, but worked as you’d expect a Moffat puzzle box to work (the first time I saw the burnt hand in the pre credits, I thought “That’ll probably turn out to be the Doctor“). By contrast, I found it much trickier to figure out what this episode was doing, but once it became clear, I was delighted. Rejecting the epic for the personal is a Moffat era theme I rather love, and I think it’s one that’s done particularly well here, unfolding slowly but methodically over the course of three acts.

Continue reading

GUEST POST – Whoniverse, Bring Out Your Dead: Death, resurrection, and the obligations of Doctor Who – Part 2: Death and emotional impact in fiction

by A. L. Belmont

 

With the last two companion departures, a lot of discussion has sprung up about whether Steven Moffat is justified in apparently killing off companions and resurrecting them within a short time frame. There are a lot of assumptions implicit in the argument against resurrection, so in this article series, I’ll analyze what I think are the five key assumptions.

Parts 1 and 2 of this series treat the death-resurrection combination in the abstract. Part 3 examines the specific cases of Clara and Bill, and part 4 looks at death and resurrection in the context of the show’s ethos. This second part dissects the common argument that resurrection ruins the emotional impact and investment death creates by examining where emotional impact comes from and how resurrection affects it.

Continue reading

GUEST POST – Whoniverse, Bring Out Your Dead: Death, Resurrection, and the Obligations of Doctor Who – Part One: On the nature and responsibilities of fiction

by A.L. Belmont

 

With the last two companion departures, a great deal of discussion has sprung up about whether Steven Moffat is justified in apparently killing off companions and resurrecting them within a short time frame. I’ve been following the controversy and find it interesting that the general anti-resurrection argument has shifted from “Moffat should not kill companions” to “If Moffat is going to kill a companion, they need to stay dead.” As one Redditor put it:

“People don’t care that he doesn’t want to kill his characters. People care that he keeps repeatedly killing them, and then bringing them back. Either kill them, or don’t, because what he’s doing right now is cheapening death entirely. It’s difficult to take any kind of death seriously when it’s so easily undone all the time.”

The Redditor also said that Moffat apparently doesn’t really understand these criticisms, and I’m quite sad about that because that means nobody has really mounted an effective counterargument to these (excellent and very valid) points. Not that that’s a problem, necessarily. Maybe this is all just gut feelings in the end, and I have a gut feeling that dead characters do not have to stay dead, but you have a gut feeling that dead characters have to stay dead, and we should all just take a deep breath and get off the Internet. Nonetheless, I’m going to be that person who insists there’s some deep reason behind everything. So let’s get to it.

I’ve noticed a lot of assumptions implicit in the anti-resurrection argument as represented here and elsewhere, so I’d like to dissect what I think are the five main ones. Parts 1 and 2 of this series treat the death-resurrection combination in the abstract. Part 3 examines the specific cases of Clara and Bill, and part 4 looks at death and resurrection in the context of the show’s ethos. This first part asks whether death in fiction has to work like death in real life, and whether resurrection is technologically possible in the Whoniverse.

Continue reading

SCARVES AND CELERY – Missed Opportunities: “The Rebel Flesh/ The Almost People”

I don’t tend to write ultra-critical articles on this site, as while negative reviews can be fun to write, and entertaining to read, they’re not often useful for this site’s M.O. of trying to understand what a Doctor Who story is doing, and discussing the wider ideas and concepts raised by the things said story does. Redemptive readings, or positive reviews, are, in my experience, much more useful for saying something of substance about a piece of media. But there is clearly a place, and a value, in negative criticism. We can’t pretend that all media is good, and trying to understand why bad media fails, outside of sensationalism and clickbaity headlines, is often a necessary, if genuinely tricky, process. And I think “The Almost People/ The Rebel Flesh” is an example of a story where the failures are worth trying to understand. It’s a story that, given my preferred type of Doctor Who, I could easily dismiss as being uninteresting and worthless because it’s a traditionalist base under siege. But traditionalist Doctor Who still has a worldview that’s worth exploring and understanding, and can be entertaining and good television when done right (see Tibere’s excellent article on “Into the Dalek”). And for what it’s worth, I think the themes of “The Almost People/ The Rebel Flesh” are genuinely worth unpacking, particularly because the way the story fails to communicate those themes lead to interesting things to say about the worldview it conveys. So this article is not going to be an “Oh my god, this story SUCKS, the characters are one dimensional and the dialogue’s LAME” type of piece, although there will be some of that. Instead, it’s intended to be my fumbling attempt to explain why the last two-part story Doctor Who that aired for three years failed to communicate the ideas I believe the production team were aiming to communicate, and instead ended up expressing some more, and here I’m going to use a word that can stir up some angry feelings in certain people, problematic sentiments in its failure.

Continue reading

SCARVES AND CELERY / TIBERIAN THOUGHTS – Extra post: DoWntime Responds – A few thoughts on Doctor Who “Role Models”

SCARVES: We’re back for another “DoWntime Responds”, but this time, we’re taking a different approach. Today, myself and Tibere are co-writing a response to “A Few Thoughts on Doctor Who “Role Models””, a guest article written for Doctor Who TV by Casey Riggins. Riggins makes a case against casting a female Doctor on the grounds of the importance of the Doctor being a positive male role model, in the context of Peter Davison making similar comments at a panel recently, and leaving twitter in the ensuing social media storm that followed. Unsurprisingly, none of the writers at DoWntime share the uncertainty Riggins has towards Jodie Whittaker’s casting, but more importantly, we had problems with the way Riggins makes his argument, and as such, felt a direct response was worth writing, especially as, at the time of writing this article, Doctor Who TV has yet to publish a direct response to Riggins, although the site has since hosted an article that is more positive about the casting of a female Doctor. As such, we’re going to be critical of Riggins’s specific arguments, and DWTV’s use of his platform, but we’re going to keep our criticisms to the arguments made only: we don’t want to resort to personal attacks, and don’t want our audience to do so either.

Continue reading

SCARVES AND CELERY – “Worse than Everybody’s Aunt!”: Authority Figures, Childhood, and Trauma in “The Eleventh Hour”

I’m going to start this essay with a content warning. Towards the end of this article, I will be discussing themes of child sex abuse and PTSD, and the way they relate to “The Eleventh Hour”. A fair chunk of this essay won’t be discussing those themes, so I’ve made it clear in the body of the essay when we do start approaching them. But if people would rather not read at all for the sake of self care, then I fully understand. I hope I’ve handled the discussion of those themes respectfully.


As the Moffat era draws to a close, let’s go back to where it all began. The Eleventh Doctor clinging on to a crashing TARDIS, and a little girl with a crack in her wall praying to Santa.

Continue reading

SCARVES AND CELERY – DoWntime responds: Whovian Femisim’s review of “The Doctor Falls”

Today, I’m going to engage in something of a departure for this blog, by writing a response to the brilliant Whovian Feminism’s review of “The Doctor Falls”. Because I disagreed with quite a bit of her interpretation of the episode, and I wanted to write about why I disagreed with it, as I think doing so will help me say some useful things about the story and its themes. And also because she’s one of the people who is frequently critical towards Moffat who I have respect for, because I think there’s honesty and consistency to her approach that I find lacking in other critics – she won’t criticise the Moffat era for one thing and then let the Davies Era or classic Who off when they do exactly the same thing. And she recognises the genuine good done in the Moffat Era – heck, her review of “The Doctor Falls” ends on a positive sentiment about the episode itself, and she acknowledges the aspects of the episode that other people love – she just takes time to explain the problems she had with it, in an eloquent and thoughtful fashion. So I have a sense that a well written response could be a rare chance for a productive dialogue in fandom.

But I’m also nervous about doing this – partly about the possibility that I could fall flat on my face in a “debate” type of article, and just end up looking very stupid. But also (and I think this is much more important) I don’t want this to end up being the story of a straight white guy disagreeing with a queer woman and ending up stirring up a shitstorm, where she ends up getting harassed by trolls who take what is intended as a polite disagreement as a chance to be trolls to a woman on the internet. Heck, I don’t think that would happen – as far as I can tell she has a much bigger audience than we do here at DoWntime. But I do think it’s necessary to lay out a basic ground rule: everyone who’s reading this article, don’t be a jerk. And to Whovian Feminism: I really do think you’re great. Your tireless campaign for more female creators in Doctor Who and your support for a female Doctor is genuinely inspiring, and your reviews are always thought provoking, and challenge me to think about the problems with my favourite show in a valuable and constructive way.

Continue reading