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

ASSESSING STRESS – THE BOOK CLUB: “Now We Are Six Hundred” – a guest review of a Who poetry book

by Will Shaw

 

It’s a fair question why this book exists. With Doctor Who off the air until Christmas and Jodie Whittaker on the horizon, the decision to release a poetry collection, of all things, is  inscrutable. Its author, James Goss, has been writing Doctor Who spinoff material for more than a decade, and its illustrator is Russell T Davies, who famously revived the series in 2005. The result is a book that feels stuck in the past, and its overall tone is wildly confused. It’s hard not to be disappointed, as a fan of both Doctor Who and poetry in general. Now We Are Six Hundred is a wasted opportunity, a funny little footnote on the way to better things.

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

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

GUEST POST: Smile, There’s a Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow

by A. Enigma

 

EPCOT. Everyone knows Epcot; Disney World’s second gate, a self proclaimed ‘Permanent World’s Fair’ that bores children with its slow educational dark rides while their parents get drunk in World Showcase and is for some reason getting a Guardians of Galaxy ride. But few people know what it was originally intended to be by the man himself, Walt Disney.

The Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow: perhaps Disney’s most frustrating acronym and Walt’s original reason for buying up a patch of Florida swamp twice the size of Manhattan. His idea for the area was to build a Utopian city of the future where people would live and captains of industry would be encouraged to set up shop and use it place as a testing ground for their new inventions and ideas. It would serve as a shining example to other American cities of how technology could be used to better the lives of all.

Walt would work on his plans for his dream city to the day he dies and the company would shelve the project, still early in its development, no longer having Walt’s ambition to to make it work.

But, while the idea would never come to fruition in reality, Disney did tap upon it in film form with their 2015 film Tomorrowland. Only having it be in another dimension instead of on Earth. And naming it after the section of Disneyland and Magic Kingdom parks instead of Epcot (because frankly, Tomorrowland sounds cooler). And not having it be Walt’s dream child and giving only the vaguest implication that he had anything to do with the city at all. ….none of which is the least bit important here. Whatever.

Anyway, the important thing is the movie’s iconic scene, or at least the scene the film’s promotional stuff heavily relied on, that of a young girl standing in a field of wheat looking off in the distant at a gleaming white citadel that contains all the hopes and the dreams of the past and the present. It’s really quite wonderful.

Now I know what you’re think: what in God’s name does this have to with Doctor Who?

Continue reading

GUEST POST: An Age of Radicalisation – Doctor Who and Male Fandom

by Janine Rivers

I’ve been making a lot of noise recently.  Normally, elusive and enigmatic as I am, I stick to the shadows in an “Asylum of the Daleks-esque way, my footsteps echoing inside giant statues where my enemies seek to menace me.  Well, maybe not that last bit.  But over the last two weeks, I think I’ve gained more followers on Tumblr than I’ve had in my life.  A month ago I wasn’t even using the internet, but now it’s consumed me.

This isn’t autobiographical.  Well, it isn’t very autobiographical, but I’m terrible at writing in a neutral voice.  If this were an autobiographical post, it would go in my “diary”, or blog as it’s also referred to.  But today I’m doing something I never thought I would, and guest-writing a whole post on DoWntime.  There are reasons for that, beyond DoWntime just being brilliant – I feel like this is the right place for this particular post to go, because it brings a lot of what my lovely, far more intelligent colleagues have written into perspective.  Today, I’m here to talk about Doctor Who’s male fanbase.

Continue reading

GUEST POST: The Sainted Physician – Jesus, Russell T. Davies and the Tenth Doctor

by Z. P. Moo

When you try to figure out who are among the most important figures in human history you tend to get a lot of the same names regardless of how many people you ask. Common choices tend to include your great leaders like Julius Caesar and Henry VIII, scientists like Einstein and Newton who revolutionised how we understood the universe and our place therein, maybe some more unusual but nevertheless valid answers like Hitler might show up, and so on.

Continue reading