3 December 2018 at 12:18 #66125Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip
I was a little disappointed at the lack of historical accuracy in this episode. In reality, there were as many men were persecuted for witchcraft as women,
Probably best not to start your critique of historical accuracy with a stonking great goof. We know how many people of either sex were persecuted for witchcraft, because they were mostly persecuted through courts or through officially appointed investigators – who kept records. As @miapatrick says, they were overwhelmingly women. The records in England show about 80% women, with most of the men persecuted being related to the women.
In fact, the differences in court procedures almost certainly explain the difference in the number of witches killed in England and Scotland. As @mudlark has pointed out at some length, it simply wasn’t possible for one crazed landowner to kill thirty five villagers in early Seventeenth Century England – because those villagers were entitled to a trial in the County Court for any case involving a possible death penalty. A jury trial.
Unless you think local magistrates and County Courts in the late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth century were proto-feminists who cooked the books to promote a particular agenda of persecution while simultaneously persecuting women, I’m afraid your argument simply doesn’t stand up. There have been books and documentaries where the number of witches persecuted appears to have been hugely exaggerated, but most of the books I know are from a particular period (the 1990’s) – and rather than being by contemporary feminists as a group, they were by feminist neo-pagans. They didn’t make up the ‘nine million’ figure, either – they simply quoted an Eighteenth Century pamphleteer. HE was the one who made up the figure, and the discourse he was promoting was the then-contemporary Enlightenment.
For example, the gangs of youth, roaming the countryside looking for some poor person to dunk
You seem to be confusing the early Seventeenth Century reign of James VI and I (which is when the episode is set – James turning up in person is a bit of a clue) with the later English Civil War. The English Civil War was during the reign of his idiot son, Charles I. It was the breakdown of order during the Civil War that made such activities possible, because ‘swimming’ witches was illegal in England. It did happen, but if a magistrate or constable found out in time, they could and did stop it in favour of a proper trial.
Or were you using hyperbole?4 December 2018 at 13:22 #66162janetteB @janetteb
I really enjoyed the episode rather more than the discussion here. Please don’t let the nastiness of the internets seep into our lovely forum. Not everybody is going to like Chibnell or his style just as many people did not like RTD’s style or Moffat’s style. (For instance there are several episodes in the second series of AG Who that I have still not watched and quite a few I will never rewatch. I dislike the Doctor’s Wife, and cannot watch “Kill the Moon.” There are no episodes in this series that I have disliked, several I have really enjoyed but none I have really loved.)
Just because some criticism is fueled by prejudice does not mean all criticism is. There is so much bile out there that reasoned discussion is getting more difficult, comments are misconstrued as we all become increasingly anxious and sensitive about what other people are saying and why and at times this leads to misinterpretation.
Now to serious matters. This was one of my favourite episodes of this series. It had humour and a nasty villain and humans acting badly, all the elements that make for a good story. The Doctor had some good lines which were well delivered and it was nice to see an acknowledgement of the gender change. Loved James I/IV and the Demonology.
When I was doing hons Drama our tutor, a former Oxford or Cambridge academic told us to go to the library and look at it. We all looked at each other, eyes rolling. He had clearly forgotten that he was in an Australian University with a thirty year old library. I used this as an example in a presentation I did recently on the benefits of the internet for historical research.
I found some the historical inaccuracies jarring, in particular the king of England just walking in without his thousand plus retinue. HOwever I imaging the script writer including that detail. The production team would have been carried out on stretchers after seeing that. “1,000 costumed extras. This isn’t Game of Thrones.” I was happy to overlook that though because James was so delightful. (I am far more forgiving of Dr Who than I am of other historical films and Tv series. I understand @mudlark‘s objections. My knowledge of this period of British history is sketchy but when one is really familiar with the history and passionate about it then the inaccuracies are jarring. There have been films and TV series I have not watched for instance because of historical inaccuracies.
Re the Costumes. There is a general tendency these days to dress main characters in glaringly inaccurate costumes because produces think that makes them “more relatable”. (The recent BBC production of War and Peace for example.) I think however it is more about establishing the characters and this being their first season it is considered more important to keep the look. In the past the Doctor has almost never dressed to the period and it would look rather odd for the companions to dress up and not the Doctor. David Tennent in Day of the Doctor for instance is wooing Elizabeth in his standard 21C suit, which did not look especially odd to us but would certainly have done so to her, considering the flamboyant style of male fashion at that time.
I thought that the story had a folklorish feel to it. The arrival of the king and the chopping down of the tree contributed to that feel especially as the later was depicted almost as a shadow puppet scene. That really added to my enjoyment of the episode.
Janette5 December 2018 at 00:20 #66186syzygy @thane16
I’m not sure.
But I actually think three “f” over 19 words isn’t sufficient for alliteration?
Paragraphing is your friend, Paul, especially during persuasive writing: which it was.
Nice to read your opinion.
T165 January 2019 at 23:28 #67091imnotastoxicasmyoldusernamewouldsuggest @rosasucksandsodoess11
The blatancy of the anti-sexism in this episode is irritating and could be done more subtly in a way that doesn’t annoy people and the overuse of the idea that Christianity is stupid in this episode is ridiculous because you wouldn’t get this crap in demons of the Punjab because only then would it be considered racist by mainstream media.6 January 2019 at 00:49 #67098Anonymous @
@rosasucksandsodoess11 – I get where you’re coming from, but if you could avoid emotional language like “crap” and “ridiculous” it would be easier to keep the discussion rational. This might help:6 January 2019 at 01:50 #67100IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan @pedant
FFS. Don’t engage. Just report. A clue in the damned handle.6 January 2019 at 04:25 #67106
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.