[idiotsavon @replies]

@lisa I think we’ve misunderstood each other. I invented Fictional California precisely in order to point out that it is, to borrow your term, a false equivalency. I did this because I thought you were the one equating California with the UK. So my apologies for that.

Anyway, no matter. We can both agree that it’s truly great what you’re doing in California, but the situation in the UK is not comparable.

I do have responses to your comments about future trade deals, quality standards, membership contributions, etc. But really I like to go point-by point, and the point that you made that’s really pivotal for me was about UK sovereignty. If I truly believed EU membership was threatening UK sovereignty – and thus undermining our democracy, I think I would absolutely support Brexit. But I just don’t recognise that picture.

Like I’ve said before, I don’t pretend to be an expert. I really don’t understand why you say the UK is behaving like a subject state rather than a sovereign country. This was a prominent argument put forward by Leave campaigners, but I never felt they offered any evidence or examples that stood up to scrutiny – so it just felt like empty rhetoric, really. What precisely are you thinking of when you say the UK is not behaving like a sovereign country?

Finally, it’s trivial, but I just want to pick up on that phrase “in spite of what you might think of them.” Initially I took that a bit personally, but on reflection I can understand why you might assume I have a low opinion of Brexiters as a blanket group. So I just want to clarify that “They” include my sister, my uncle, my close family friends and personal friends. They are highly intelligent, compassionate individuals whose intellect and values I respect and admire. I just happen not to agree with them.

And thinking about it, largely my disagreements with them boil down to this notion of sovereignty, so maybe that’s why I’m particularly interested to know your reasons for thinking the UK is not acting like a sovereign state.

[idiotsavon @replies]

@janetteb The local council in my home town was (and I suspect still is) extremely corrupt, too. A big part of the problem was/is that there is a generations-old tradition of voting for the colour of the rosette, not the calibre of the candidate.

And gold filings?? My jaw dropped when I read that!

[idiotsavon @replies]

@lisa I really admire the fact that you’re actively campaigning for what you believe in, and Trump genuinely scares me, so hats off to you.

I agree with @janetteb that there are corrupt individuals at all levels of government, as well as some truly noble people who reach the upper echelons. However, I also agree with you in principle that the centralisation of power carries risks – not least of them the scope for corruption.

That said, I have to take issue with your characterisation of the EU as “supersized government” lumped in with the Feds, Russia and China. I think you’re comparing apples with oranges.

Similarly, I don’t think California’s resistance to federal interference is comparable with the UK’s exit from the EU.

A more apt comparison might be as follows:

Imagine for a moment a parallel universe in which California has its own sovereign currency, its own independent central bank, monarchy, army, navy, air force, welfare system, healthcare system, education system, transport system, police and other emergency services, etc. etc. all largely free from federal interference and paid for by a taxation system designed and administered exclusively by the State of California. Imagine California is recognised in international law as a sovereign state…

Imagine California is a member of “the USA,” subject to certain rules of membership, including a so-called “membership fee” but also profiting from advantageous trade arrangements, collaboration on diverse global issues, and a number of federal schemes (funding programmes for academic research, cultural exchange and business start-ups, for example, and regeneration schemes in run-down areas of California.)

Not everybody likes being a member of the USA. Certain newspapers regularly print stories about all the horrible things Washington is “making us do.” These generally turn out to be massively overblown if not simply untrue.
The same newspapers have a big downer on Texans. They print headlines about how Texans are “swarming” to California, and blame society’s ills on “uncontrolled immigration” from other states, especially Texas. These claims don’t stand up under scrutiny, but they do a good job of creating ill feeling toward the Whitehouse (and Texans.)

In this parallel world, Washington has its share of corruption, but then California’s own parliament is particularly rotten. And the things that Washington is “making us do” include rights for workers, protections for the environment, food standards, safety standards, caps on bankers’ bonuses, a crackdown on money laundering… It’s not clear that the current Californian government is especially keen on any of this.

And then one day, the Prime Minister of California (let’s call him Dave) decides to have a referendum asking whether you want to “Leave the USA” without any clear idea of what “leaving the USA” would even mean in practice.

Under those circumstances, how might you vote?

Yes, big government carries the risk of big corruption. I have massive issues with the EU, believe me. But smaller government does not automatically mean better government. Perhaps you underestimate the level of self-interest in Westminster. Have you taken a look at some of the people who are actually driving the Brexit train?
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2018/10/liam-fox-s-american-friends

[idiotsavon @replies]

@lisa

OK. Back for Part Two!

You make the point that UK influence will be diminished due to Brexit. I agree, and I believe that’s a very good reason not to leave.

I agree with you that the world is “under the influence of capitol markets, trade and corporations.” I’m not sure I agree that this influence “was the only thing that kept the world together” partly because I’m not sure, in concrete terms, what you mean by that. Similarly I can’t say whether I agree that it’s coming apart.
Was any of the above in response to anything that I said, or are you making new, separate points here?

You say you don’t believe that good government can ever be based on trading blocs. I think I can sympathise with your view. However, I’m not sure whether I’ve correctly understood you. Let me give you my take and you can tell me whether I’m hot or cold…
There is an argument that, because of the EU Stability and Growth Pact (which, not unreasonably, places limitations/conditions on government borrowing for member states) New Labour under Tony Blair were prevented from borrowing in the straightforward sense to fund their infrastructure programme. Instead they relied heavily on joint ventures with the private sector, and these were far more costly, and offered far fewer (if any) long-term returns to the Treasury, than traditional borrowing would have done.
Is this a good example of what you mean by trading blocs being incompatible with good government? Do you maybe have better examples to illustrate what you mean? I have counterpoints, but unless I’ve understood you correctly there’s no point going into those as I’d just be arguing with myself! 🙂

And as for “bearish times” etc. I’m ashamed to say I’m really, really not qualified to comment. Never even heard of an Elliott wave : -/

x

[idiotsavon @replies]

@lisa Apologies, I’m a linear, point-by-point kind of person. The point I was addressing was the one about the Commission. I don’t know whether you have any response to anything I said on that particular point?

– How much influence did the UK have with its vote in the EU?
I’m not sure how I can answer that question. There has never been one single UK vote, nor one unanimous UK voice in the European Union. Different MEPs vote different ways, while our representatives on the Councils might well disagree with the majority of UK MEPs. It’s also not just about voting. I believe items go through various stages, committees, negotiations, etc. before voting – and these are all areas where representatives from different nations, including the UK, can have influence. So I’m not sure what to make of your question as it is phrased.

By the way, we have a relatively large number of UKIP MEPs, who do not engage. Their seats may as well be empty. Then the very same party (UKIP) talks disparagingly about “lack of influence”, and complains loudly and often that “Europe isn’t listening.” Well, send your MEPs to meetings then!!

I know you said a lot of things and I’ve only responded to one of them. I’ll come back later if I can.

x

“…kind of skipped the Brexit chatter there…”

Behold the wisdom of @swordwhale 🙂

[idiotsavon @replies]

@toinfinityandbepond

Good point 🙂

[idiotsavon @replies]

@lisa @pedant @miapatrick and everyone else

I hope you don’t mind me chucking in my tuppence. I don’t pretend to be massively well-informed compared with others on this forum, and am happy to be schooled (preferably kindly.)

Regarding the question of the Commission vs Parliament and democratic accountability.

This article is from a few years back. I found it really interesting. I think “follow the money” is a good rule of thumb.
https://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-real-estate-lobbying-parliament/

Pre-2015, lobbyists were clearly focussing their resources and efforts on the Commission rather than Parliament. So regardless of how the institutions are supposed to work in theory, there’s a strong sense that the Commission, until fairly recently, was where the most power and influence lay. This lends some weight (historically at least) to the “bunch of unelected bureaucrats” argument. I certainly don’t think all those PR professionals were ill-informed or ignorant.

However, the article also makes it clear that successive treaty changes have addressed this imbalance, shifting the “centre of gravity” to Parliament – to such an extent that corporate lobbyists have moved their offices and their schmooze money. This would indicate that nowadays the power lies largely with democratically elected representatives. And given that this shift predates the referendum, I don’t think the pro-Brexit argument about unelected Commissioners running the show was/is a very good one.

By the way, I think all those unelected PR people, with their seemingly unfettered access to power, pose a far bigger threat to democracy in Europe than any Commissioner. But that’s another matter – and lobbying happens everywhere; it’s hardly a Brexit issue.

 

[idiotsavon @replies]

Busy time of the night but just logged in very quickly to say @cathannabel you most certainly are not alone.

[idiotsavon @replies]

@misterf55

I know right. How could any parent possibly predict that this episode would have racism in it? And then to face questions from one’s own child about racial segregation and the civil rights movement?! As a parent myself, I can tell you that is absolutely not my job. I’ve written a very strongly-worded email to the BBC, don’t you worry. And I capitalised the words that make me feel most angry.

 

[idiotsavon @replies]

Wow.

Well, that was emotional.
Watched it. Cried. Watched it again. Cried again.

It was a bit of a mixed bag for me until about half-way in. Besides agreeing with points already made about the in-your-face preachy bits and exposition, I also thought the intel-gathering was maybe a bit overegged. (“Ryan, you fetch some bus timetables. Yas, you look up Parks in the phonebook, and I’ll see you back here after a slightly naff 20-second montage.”)

At the same time, the pervasive, brutal oppression in Montgomery was depicted soo powerfully – and, for a family show, unflinchingly too. Completely eclipsed my niggles.

Ryan and Yas’s scenes with Rosa were what got me really invested. What a fine actress Vinette Robinson is!

And of course, the climax on the bus was just incredible. Beautifully done. That ever-so-subtle exchange of looks between Ryan and Rosa just broke me.

This one’s in my top ten I reckon.

X

[idiotsavon @replies]

@thane16 /puro.

Ha ha. I still regret wearing a dry-clean-only top for the snotfest 🙂

It’s such a massive change – writer, composer, companions, Doctor, gender … All new.

It would be weird not to feel weird about one/some/all of the new things.

I’m looking forward to seeing how it all evolves, and quite confident I’ll settle in and end up loving it and snotting on my clothes again when the time comes for JW to regenerate.

X

[idiotsavon @replies]

@shinymcshine Just my tuppence-worth…

I’ve been against changes in Doctor Who so many times before, I think I can identify with you a bit 🙂

I remember when the DW reboot was being advertised on BBC. The adverts were all CGI graphics and big music. It was a million miles away from the Doctor Who of my childhood. And Billie Piper (as far as I was concerned at the time) was “just a pop star” recruited to seduce the “yoof” and guarantee viewing figures.

I watched a bit of the first episode and decided Doctor Who had lost its soul and was no longer for me.

I only got back into it part-way through David Tennant’s run… And blimey, I really got into it… I realised Billie Piper was a great actress, and the show may have moved on from bubble wrap and papier maché, but that never meant it lost its heart.

I went back and watched all the reboot from Rose on, and realised I’d been missing out.

But then along came Matt Smith and this new writer Moffatt, and two new companions I didn’t immediately like, and it wasn’t Doctor Who any more. (Again.)
But the more I watched, the more I enjoyed. And when the Clara intrigue came along, I was really gripped. (I discovered this fab forum during a massive Clara-based Google session.)

When Matt Smith left, I really missed him, and wasn’t comfortable with Capaldi. Fast forward to the final Capaldi ep and I was crying and snotting all over the shop.

I think by this point, I’ve decided that every time a new writer and/or new Doctor comes along, it really pays to sit tight and give it a chance. That’s been my experience anyway.

I do like some of your creative suggestions, but at the same time I think maybe don’t write off Chibnall’s run so soon.

x

[idiotsavon @replies]

Hi everyone.

Great to see so many faces old and new. *Tries to think of a more cyber-appropriate word than “faces”* … *Shrugs and waves.*

Really enjoying reading your comments 🙂 Little Savon is growing fast and becoming quite a handful – leaving limited time to read and reflect. But I finally got round to episode 1 at least…

The problem with arriving late is that everyone has pretty much said what I would have said, only they said it better…

I’ll add to the general consensus and say I really enjoyed Jodie Whittaker’s performance. I’ve seen her in serious drama before, but never realised how funny she is. A new Doctor is a bit like a new pair of shoes though: no matter how much I like the new one, I feel sooo much more comfortable with the old one!

@jimthefish

kudos to Chibnall for making even Karl, who could have been generic victim, a real believable character.

Seconded with bells on.

I thought Karl was a great character. A risk-averse crane operator, presumably railroaded by his father into a job he not only hates, but that scares the **** out of him on a daily basis!
His positive self-talk, while comical in its way, points to the underlying tragedy of a son who can never fit the niche his father has carved for him, and is left feeling inadequate, anxious and unworthy as a result.
Hence, I think, the surprisingly bold impulse to push Tim Shaw off the crane. (I AM important!)
I thought that was a fantastic bit of characterisation.
Either a) @craig and @miapatrick are onto something and we’ll be meeting Karl and the SkyHigh co again, or b) this is the kind of treatment even the one-off characters get.
I’d be happy with either option.

I know the music has been much-discussed already. Speaking with no expertise whatsoever, I’ll keep my thoughts brief… I’ve been finding the new sound subtle and eerie – which I like – but the light-touch approach changes the whole tone of the show for me, and I’m not sure how I feel about it.
Part of me did kind of like the fact that Graham’s eulogy didn’t have emotive (or indeed any) music. A bit of Ave Maria or the like might have pulled on the old heartstrings more, but without it there was a starkness that I appreciated.
Bradley Walsh carried the scene on his own anyway – no Ave Maria required. (And to think I’d only ever seen him on The Chase!)

At any rate I’m finding the change in music (and general change in tone) harder to get used to than the change of Doctor!

I’m already invested in the companions and the dynamic between them (I agree Yaz hasn’t had her “go” yet, but one thing at a time I suppose) and am excited to see how that evolves.

Re: the whole discussion about “fridging” and Grace being a “woman in a fridge…”

Firstly, I had to google “fridging.” Secondly, it’s fascinating.

I really appreciated that whole discussion. I hope to come back for a re-read if there’s time tonight. Thanks to those concerned.

Oh, and right at the end when they all disappeared and the microwave went ping? Spot-on timing. I loved that!

Looking forward to the rest of the season. Thanks so much @craig and mods for keeping this forum going. I’ve missed this!

X

 

[idiotsavon @replies]

Re: the first Doctor’s sexism being overegged.

Yes, as a viewer I felt Doc-1’s sexism was being rubbed in my face.

However, I also felt there was a comparison being made.

There was Doc 1, confronted with his future. He will “walk in blood through all of time and space.” He will become “The destroyer of the world” “The beast of Trenzalore” “the butcher of skull moon.” “The Doctor of War.”
He will make some impossible decisions that will put him in some dark places.

And there was Capaldi Doc, confronted with his past. He was once a bit of a frightful chauvinist.

Who has the most to be ashamed of? To be afraid of?

I felt like that was kind of the point, anyway.

X

[idiotsavon @replies]

I promised to save the Christmas special until I could watch together with my pal. It took some willpower, but we watched tonight.

I loved it.

I confess, much as I admire Peter Capaldi as an actor, I really didn’t expect to warm to his Doctor.

Seeing Matt Smith regenerate into Peter Capaldi felt a little like having an adorable puppy and waking up one day to find it had been replaced by a cantankerous doberman with a bite history.

I enjoyed the episodes, appreciated the clever writing and Capaldi’s talent, but no longer felt attached to the Doctor.

I’m not entirely sure when that changed, but goodness me, this Christmas special really tugged at the old heartstrings.

“Wounded man here” = first tear or two. Easily hidden with a wipe of the sleeve.
“Everyone just put down their weapons and started to sing” = More tears. More sleeve.
“So that’s what it means to be a Doctor of war” = Sleeve getting wet. Snot on the way.

But then… Clara appears… And then… “Thank you both for everything that you were to me” = Snot and tears (snears?) raining onto sleeve. Thanks a lot, Capaldi. Up yours Moffatt. This jumper is dry clean only.

Looking forward to reading all your comments.

I’ve nothing smart to say. I just loved it, and I’ve got snot on my sleeve. What a great way for a fine writer and a fine actor to bow out together.

Merry Christmas everyone

[idiotsavon @replies]

@scaryb Watching Pyramid in the middle of the election campaign, I did feel the Monks’ brainwashing programme was at points eerily familiar! That opening sequence: the gentle lull of the propaganda juxtaposed againt the brutality of real life. And one of Nardole’s observations struck a chord – about how people are prepared to accept a crappy situation if you can make them think that’s just the way it has to be – the way it’s always been.

I do love the internet for that. There have been some hilarious hashtags and memes during this election. I think #lastminutecorbynsmears has to be my favourite.

 

[idiotsavon @replies]

@thane15

• Re: Romeo and Juliet. Sent a message rather than posted here.

 

[idiotsavon @replies]

June 9th is my birthday. I woke up to news that the Conservatives had lost their majority and I genuinely felt like the universe had bought me a present. “Happy Birthday. We didn’t know what to get you so we just kicked the Tories a bit. Hope you like it.” (Yes, I very much do like it.)

Then of course the Westboro Baptist Church aka DUP showed up and things didn’t look quite so rosy after that.

I normally vote Lib Dem or Green myself, but this time I voted Labour for the first time in my life, in the hope of ousting our incumbent Conservative MP. (It didn’t work, he’s still here.)

On the bright side, I think this election may very well change the way political campaigning is done, for the better. For a long time, PR consultants, media advisors and campaign “gurus” have reigned supreme. They’ve put words into politicians’ mouths and coached them in saying nothing in as many words as possible. They’ve taught them that honesty is dangerous: you have to be “on message.” You have to say, ad nauseam, whichever meaningless alliterative slogan went down best with the focus groups. You have to learn your lines and not deviate from them. The idea that any of this is actually helpful is, I think, a myth created by the PR industry itself, off the back of which it’s made its fortune. Meanwhile we, watching our tv, don’t believe a word of it. We’re hard-wired to know when people mean what they say and when they’re putting on an act, just like we know the difference between a real smile and a fake one. Even if you can’t put your finger on why – you just know they’re faking. And you know you can’t trust what they say.

Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand, seems to have no truck with that kind of thing. I don’t think the man is a saint, or a particularly competent manager – but blimey he speaks with his own words and he knows what he believes in, and he doesn’t much care what you think of his suit. He’s a good, old-fashioned conviction politician I suppose. And I think he’s shown that to win hearts and minds you don’t need to be sleek or polished – you just need to tell the truth, and you need to care.

The contrast between him and Mrs May couldn’t have been starker this past month, with her reciting her lines and avoiding human contact, and him speaking from the heart and eating a Pringle like it’s the most normal thing in the world.

Yes, Brexit was obviously a huge factor, as were policy differences – for a change. However I do think that JC’s authenticity and passion made a considerable difference to both the turnout and to Labour’s vote share. In just 5 weeks of fair broadcast media coverage, he’s reversed damage sustained over 2 years. So fair play to him, and I hope this spells the beginning of a new era of conviction politics – and the end of Crosby and his ilk. That in itself would be quite a result, I think.

Apologies to any conservative voters by the way. I do think mature, mutually respectful debate is the way forward, but I also feel quite angry. This is directed at the current government and not necessarily at you and everything you hold dear.

@scaryb Ha ha that’s brilliant.

[idiotsavon @replies]

@thane15 Ah, that’s what I get for reading four pages of brilliant stuff in a rush I suppose. I should have known your mum would have seen the Prometheus parallel right away. Right now, Mr Savon has taken the tiny Emperor out so I can shampoo our carpets, so I suppose I ought to get on with the task in hand, but very much looking forward to having a proper read.

[idiotsavon @replies]

Cor, this is a really great thread!

Just caught up yesterday with Oxygen and Extremis back to back. Still feeling befuddled – in a very good way.

@steffstaff Welcome. Great posts. “…during the real invasion, everything the Doctor attempts they’ll have already predicted and have an immediate counter for”

I suppose we’ve seen with the shadow test that the one thing they can’t account for is the randomness that is possible on the real earth. If hundreds of strategic decisions around the world were made on the throw of a die or by picking a number, there’s no way the Monks could predict the outcome. Then again, strategic decisions made at random will likely be bad ones, and I do like your idea of fooling the Monks by letting them win.

I don’t think anyone has mentioned the Veritas story from Aesop’s Fables. Forgive me if I’ve missed it. The story goes (roughly) that Prometheus was fashioning Truth (Veritas) in clay, and was suddenly called away. The Trickster, in Prometheus’ absence, began to sculpt a copy. Prometheus returned before the Trickster could finish the feet, and so the second sculpture was left incomplete. Prometheus, finding two sculptures on his return, decided to put them both into his kiln. Thus life was given to both truth and falsehood – alike in every way, except that Truth was able to venture out into the world, while falsehood was static (no feet, see?)

The Monks, like the Trickster, have created a copy of the truth that is perfect except for one thing: nothing on their simulated Earth can be truly random. I do hope this flaw will help the Doctor defeat them.

I really like that the only thing that apparently distinguishes true, living breathing us from simulated us is our capacity for randomness. Our simulated selves pass all the tests: they are self-aware; they feel; they think; they hurt. So what is so special about us? I like the idea that it’s haphazardness and disorder that make us “real.”

I wonder whether there will be a callback to the rigged coin from Thin Ice. It could be a thematic link. (The Doctor knew the man was a cheat because this is the real world, where coins, dice and people are unpredictable.) Or a more bonkers possibility is that Thin Ice was a simulation. Remember how incensed the guy was about being called a cheat? Maybe he wasn’t cheating. And the Doctor did seem very keen to examine his coin – did he smell a rat, I wonder?

It would be interesting to re-watch previous episodes and look for things that happen at random. In Oxygen, the Doctor invites Bill to pick a destination, which she does – apparently at random. He then overrides her decision and answers the distress call instead. Could this be significant?

I’ve been trying to think of how the white room with all the doors fits into the simulation. My theory is this: Mostly, the simulation can be left to play out without interference. However, there are some things on the real earth that are a bit more tricky, and their simulations need to be closely supervised. The doors open onto these tricky bits. We’ve got the behaviour of subatomic particles in CERN. We’ve got the Pentagon – which presumably has secret dealings with, and files on, extra-terrestrial beings and “supernatural” events. Then we’ve got the Vatican – the spiritual realm. Where might the other doors lead, I wonder? NASA? UNIT?

Another sticking point, if you wanted to create a simulated Earth, would be a Timelord who is forever jumping into his/her Tardis and travelling outside the parameters of the simulation. Perhaps a good way around this problem would be to lock one Timelord up in a vault and make the other one guard it? *Strokes chin*

Reading the episode summary prior to broadcast, and noting that it was set in the Vatican, I was reminded of “The Vatican Cellars” by Andre Gide. The story hinges around a scam whereby the Pope is said to have been kidnapped, and a fake pope put in his place. Among other things, the story invites us to consider what distinguishes a fake Pope from the real Pope, and by extension, what distinguishes illusion from reality, truth from fiction. It was pleasing to see similar themes emerge in this episode. There’s more to say, but I realise I have rambled.

One last thing though: Given the ecclesiatical bent of this episode, is it worth mentioning 1 John 1:8? The Latin quotation I’m thinking of ends: “et nulla est in nobis veritas.” In English: “If we say we are without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” Then 1:9 says that if we confess our sins we will be forgiven. It seems pertinent given the Doctor’s invitation to confess in this episode. Interestingly, one of the arguments against confession is, in a nutshell, pretty much what the Doctor said: There wouldn’t be enough time.

 

[idiotsavon @replies]

@winston At the end of Last of the Time Lords, the tenth Doctor resolves to keep the Master in the Tardis, saying “It’s time to change. Maybe I’ve been wandering too long. Now I’ve got someone to care for.” The Master is then shot by his wife so it doesn’t happen, but keeping the Master is, we have seen, something the Doctor would do.

@thane15 Good point about hunger as a theme. And with humans the preferred foodstuff, I’m becoming worried about the precise nature of that Mexican the Doctor brought.

@pufferfish I think there’s been quite an emphasis so far this series on the fact that one can go off adventuring in the Tardis and be back “before the kettle boils.” The Doctor has already gone off in secret to take photos of Bill’s mum, so it’s perfectly possible he took a detour on the way down from the office. Good point!

[idiotsavon @replies]

@Thane15 I was thinking more along the lines of Episode-6-Capaldi needs Dr-Mysterio-Capaldi to hatch an egg or whatever.

But New Doctor Revealed is much more interesting…

[idiotsavon @replies]

@thane15 When I read your spelling of “penance” I saw the one “n” and immediately hung my head in shame! But yes, it’s an interesting possibility. The question is, what did he do that was so wrong?

Peter Capaldi Mark 2 in the vault – I would love that.

The Valeyard is also a strong possibility for me, if only because Moffat maybe needs to get him out of the way, if Chibnall is to get a clean start.

What if the Valeyard is the “confusing regeneration issue?” The Doctor regenerates, but his best and worst sides regenerate in separate bodies. Alter egos, in a way (foreshadowed by the comic- book-stylee “Return of Doctor Mysterio” perhaps.)

Maybe the Valeyard’s original incarnation is Evil Capaldi, before he moves on. That would give us Capaldi in the vault, plus Valeyard.

And regarding the Mexican – it doesn’t have to be food. When @mersey suggested that the Tardis might be the prisoner, I realised the “Mexican” was in plastic bags. It could, for all we know, be a whole load of digital information about Mexican culture and history in a range of different universes and timelines. (Filmed first-hand.)

Could it be that the Doctor doesn’t want to tell Bill how many people he killed because he’s ashamed?

[idiotsavon @replies]

It might be interfering with his own timeline, so probably not a thing. But…

Could the Doctor encounter someone in a future episode (say an injured redeemable villain who will take decades to heal) and send them back in time to be imprisoned/brought up/nursed by his past self? The Future Doctor makes his past self promise to give up his off-earth adventuring in order to look after the prisoner and guard the vault. (Remembering, of course, that this is what already happened to him.) The Future Doctor can’t meet his past self face-to-face, so Bill goes as his messenger. This would explain why the Doctor in The Pilot “chooses” Bill out of all the non-students at his lectures: He’s already met Future Bill.

 

[idiotsavon @replies]

I’m enjoying the bonkers turn that this thread has taken. @kharis If I’ve read the thread right, I think you were the catalyst. Nice work! @mersey Big box inside a little box inside a size-yet-to-be-determined box. I like it. (I liked your explanation about the combined genres – comic book and drama – in the last thread too. Ages ago I know!)

I’ve had exactly two-and-a-half thoughts about the Doctor’s oath:

Firstly, the Doctor says to Bill that he has to stay on earth guarding a vault because “a thing happened.” In The Husbands of River Song, River asks how it is that the Doctor has a new face (i.e. a new regeneration cycle.) He answers with the same three words: “A thing happened.” Flimsy I know, but since he uses the exact same words, I wonder whether he is referring to the same event. In that case, the whole vault thing would somehow link with the Doctor’s new regeneration cycle.

 

Secondly, the Doctor “grounded” Strax, who served pennance as a nurse. This wasn’t an entirely original idea on the Doctor’s part: Novice Hame had previously (in the future) served pennance as the Face of Boe’s nurse. So I wonder whether the Doctor is himself serving pennance, and “nursing” whoerver is in the vault. Now, anybody with authority to “ground” the Doctor would I guess have the power to confiscate his TARDIS. So I can only think that the “pennance” would be self-imposed. Perhaps with Nardole as witness, to stop the Doctor rebelling against himself.

And half a thought: Elise is a diminutive form of Elizabeth, which means oath to God. The God bit complicates things in the Whoniverse, but if a writer were looking for a name (and/or piece of music) which had a tenuous link to oaths, they could do worse than Elise/fur Elise.

 

[idiotsavon @replies]

@geoffers I mean, what do you keep locked away, anyway? a treasure, a weapon, a prisoner… a madman/madwoman? (or all of the above?)

I’ve been wondering about that. In the Doomsday vault in Svalbard they keep seeds from around the world, ready for armageddon. Could the Doctor be protecting/preserving a person/people for similar reasons? Someone who’s going to be instrumental in saving the universe when the time comes, perhaps.

The word vault has multiple meanings, too. Could it be a burial chamber (that happens to have a living piano player in it??) If you think ‘vault’ in the sense of ‘spring/jump’ it could perhaps turn out to be a rocket of sorts.

I definitely think the “prisoner” is complicit.

<span style=”line-height: 1.5;”>Doesn’t really add anything to the conversation, but… p</span>

p

[idiotsavon @replies]

@thane15 (Puro) <span style=”line-height: 1.5;”>Ah thanks. It’s good to be around a bit more.</span>

I suppose thinking about it, the writer needed a first victim who could disappear without causing any ripples among the people at the frost fair. A drunk vagrant would tick that box. My first thought was that he’d been selected as the sort of person the viewers would least care about.

Good point about Lady Me. Didn’t the Doctor regret saving her in some ways – as immortality was such a burden to her? I need to rewatch that whole series again properly at some point.

I would say it’s deliberately unclear what the Doctor’s intentions are towards the thug/guard. However I’ve watched that bit again and think I’m inclined to agree with @mersey. By the time the guard comes in, the Doctor has already figured out that the sonic is attracting the fish – yet when the guard goes to take the sonic the Doctor says nothing and puts up no fight – indeed, he opens his hand wide. He also takes his time before mentioning the off switch. It does look a bit calculated to me.

Then again, given that both Spider and the thug are subsidiary characters whose central purpose is to advance the plot, I must confess I was rather less troubled by their demise than I would have been by the loss of the Doctor’s screwdriver.

Plus, the sonic is instrumental in saving both Tiny and the population of London – so if the Doctor already had an inkling what he was going to do with it, he could be forgiven for wanting it back.

 

On a not entirely unrelated note, I’m wondering whether you’ve noticed any musical callback to Pompeii or the Donna Noble era this series? I thought Bill’s appeal to the Doctor to “do something, and save him” was very reminiscent of Donna in the Fires of Pompeii, and given that Pompeii was the episode that gave the Doctor his current face (the face that reminds him to save people) I thought this might be significant. That got me thinking more generally about the focus on the Doctor’s face recently – he scrutinised it himself in the engine oil in Pilot, then had it scrutinised by the Vardy robots in Smile. So I’m wondering whether it’s just me or whether there really is a deliberate emphasis on the Doctor’s face at the moment. If this were the case, I’d expect there to be a nod and a wink to Pompeii and Caecilius in the score somewhere. Just a thought.

x

[idiotsavon @replies]

Hello, strangers  🙂

@mersey I’ve been thinking along the same lines.

As viewers, of course we’re rooting for our heroes and central or sympathetically portrayed characters. We can’t get too hung up about the deaths of baddies and peripheral individuals, or the show couldn’t work. And writers tend to make it easy for us to “move on” from the deaths we’re not supposed to care about.

Still, when that dirty, inebriated, certainly poor and likely homeless first victim died at the beginning, I felt it was a lazy choice that played to societal prejudices. (Who can we kill off without tugging at heartstrings?)

Then it turned out the whole episode dealt rather well with societal prejudices and the value we (should) place on every life. So I’m not sure what to make of it now.

Similarly, the Doctor’s speech does seem to jar with his subsequent indifference at the thug’s death.

I wonder whether we’re being played with a little here?

 

 

[idiotsavon @replies]

The Tarot discussions on this week’s thread and last week’s are fascinating. @kharis, in this week’s episode, when the Doctor snubs Clara’s attempt at a high five, she says “Don’t leave me hanging.” That particular choice of wording is hard to ignore now that I’ve read your comments identifying Clara as the Hanged (Wo)man. I wonder whether there will be more hanging references down the line?
@bluesqueakpip Great spot re: Voyage of The Dawn Treader. I don’t think I even noticed the (massive wall-sized) painting first time around.
I’m excited about the possibility of a Narnia connection – used to love those stories. (The Magician’s Apprentice / The Magician’s Nephew : could the similarity in titles be deliberate?)
There is a fourth person in the picture – in the serpent’s mouth. He/she has a strange posture for someone who’s about to be eaten. I’m not sure quite what’s going on there – or how it relates to the book?

[idiotsavon @replies]

I’m not sure whether this is a spot, or just me – but I think there are musical callbacks to A Town Called Mercy.

At the beginning, there is a prairie “feel” to both the scenery and the music that plays as Clara hangs and Missy whittles her pointy stick.

But far more striking is the music that kicks in at the end. The Doctor says “So long as there’s Mercy” at which point a bell chimes and rhythmic strumming begins. It’s a similar rhtyhm and chord sequence to the guitar we hear in A Town Called Mercy – it’s around 3 minutes in on this BBC clip:

Obviously the tracks aren’t exactly the same, but to my ear the resemblance is too strong not to be deliberate. Certainly there are thematic similarities between the two episodes. A musical bridge between them would perhaps make sense?

[idiotsavon @replies]

@mudlark – Nail on the head. Good call!

after she has made her offer to the Daleks, she says  ‘Or would you rather just kill me?’ and poses, much in the same manner as she did in ‘Death in Heaven’ just before the cyber-Brig shot her, and even though she hasn’t bothered to explain how she escaped on that occasion, we can assume that she probably used a vortex manipulator to depart the scene at the last minute.

 

[idiotsavon @replies]

A delayed response to say the least, but…

 

@ichabod

Yes, it’s challenging to keep up, now that we have the new series.  Nice Goethe shoehorn, by the way; do keep ’em coming!

Thanks for the encouragement. I haven’t done a great job of keeping up with recent episodes, let alone staying up to date with comments and forcing foreign literature into the mix. I often wish I had a time machine of my own.

@blenkinsopthebrave

All this talk of the colours attendant upon the Dalek death rays–can it be explained by reference to Goethe’s theory of colour, perhaps?

Yes! I like your thinking! I don’t know anything about Goethe’s theory of colour, but I’m certain it would make for some excellent bonkers theorising, and given that he took more pride in that than in his poetry, I should probably take a look. (I found an online translation, in case it’s of interest : http://www.painting-course.com/wp-content/pdf/Goethe_theory_of_colours.pdf )

 

 

[idiotsavon @replies]

@brewski   Here’s Missy being zapped.

 

 

And here she’s very nearly disappeared. There’s still a light where her ankle was.

[idiotsavon @replies]

Hi @lisa 🙂 Thanks for that. I remember the dalek antibodies vaporising people – but don’t remember the daleks managing it. (Mind you, I don’t remember what I had for breakfast most days.)

@brewski    I took a couple of screenshots, but don’t think I’m registered with a photo-sharing website, so can’t show you. If I can register somewhere without giving out my phone number and shoe size, I’ll upload them. If I’m looking at the same thing as you are though, I think it’s a floor light. The more transparent Missy becomes, the more we see the floor light – it looks very muck like some shiny contraption on her ankle – except it’s still there after she disappears.

@blenkinsopthebrave  Ha ha, I’ll do my best…

[idiotsavon @replies]

Hi everyone.
Blimey, I’ll try not to be so late next time – there’s such a lot to read! And it’s all so good – I can’t take it all in!
Here’s a question I don’t think has cropped up yet: Does exterminating people make them disappear? Don’t they just light up a bit and then fall down? We got a close-up of the dalek that “exterminated” Missy, and he was just using a basic whisk to shoot her with – I didn’t think they could vaporise people?
That’s my main reason for thinking the pair of them escaped using their fancy watches. Not sure if it would be possible for Missy to transport into the Tardis – but it would be a neat solution if she could. I definitely think she was hatching some sort of escape plan, and that her “You can burn it all” speech was a diversion.

 

 

And on another point –I can’t resist pointing out a link to our old friend Goethe. He wrote a poem called Der Zauberlehrling, which is normally translated as “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” but one could just as easily substitute Sorcerer for Magician.
The tale itself is better known as a children’s story, and is the basis for one of the animated stories in Disney’s Fantasia.
Goethe’s “Apprentice” tries to use magic, in the sorcerer’s absence, to get some cleaning done. However things get out of hand pretty quickly. (Specifically, he enchants a broom and puts it to work carrying water – then finds that he cannot control or stop it.) After a while, the sorcerer returns – problem solved. (Not much of an ending I know – but it is a poem!)
I think there is a parallel between Goethe’s apprentice and Davros, since both dabble with “magic” of some description (powers/forces/technology) and subsequently lose control. The daleks, like the enchanted broom, do not answer to their “creator.”
As for the Sorcerer – the Doctor is called “Magician” in this episode (by Bors.) However, in the original poem, the Sorcerer is referred to as “the Master” (by the Apprentice.)
(I’m determined to shoehorn Goethe into every episode, by the way; this isn’t a one-off…)

[idiotsavon @replies]

Just a quick hello and I hope all is well!

I’ve been out of the loop (away from home with next to no internet) so have 3 episodes to watch, and 3 episodes’ worth of comments to read.

I feel a bit like a child on Christmas Eve 🙂

See you all on the other side…

x

[idiotsavon @replies]

@purofilion

Agreed. I hadn’t thought of it, but now you mention it it rings very true: We really know this Doctor.

If there is, perhaps, more distance than there was with Matt Smith or David Tennant, it’s because there’s a lot more thinking and a lot less running 🙂

It’s also perhaps partly because this Capaldi incarnation is pretty unsentimental – and so we don’t automatically want to give him a cuddle…

…Which is a good thing, because he wouldn’t thank us if we did 🙂

x

[idiotsavon @replies]

@bluesqueakpip I thought the most interesting comment about the lying was when Clara asked (and she was sonicking the earpiece at the time, so was perhaps just speaking to herself) “Does it even still count as lying if you’re doing it for someone’s own good?” I got the impression from this that she is not trying to hide her “addiction”, but genuinely feels like she is protecting Danny by lying to him. Of course she could be lying to herself when she says this?

She then adds “well – technically for their own good”. I’m not sure what she means by this.

I liked the Doctor’s view of lying as a great survival skill. Although even that is only a half-truth, because lying is often the way he saves people’s lives. And of course earlier in the episode we saw this in action: “Act normal, but get everyone out” for example. And most obviously Clara’s action plan: “Lie to them. Give them hope. Tell them they’re all going to be fine”.

[idiotsavon @replies]

@phaseshift That’s incredible about Battlestar Galactica at the UN. Thanks for the link!

So I think I’ve got to admit I’m wrong (again) 🙂

@lisa – thanks for the references. It’s really fascinating. So many aspects of the “monomyth” that ring true for recent (and past) episodes.

x

[idiotsavon @replies]

I loved this episode. Lots of really good dialogue. The tiny Tardis was fab, and Clara as the Doctor’s representative on earth was brilliant. A really good way to explore the Doctor’s perspective. His manipulation of people, his lies, and his (recently rather jarring) lack of sentimentality about the recently dead: All exhibited by Clara this episode, and all for a good (well I say “good”???) reason.

I think kudos has to go to @janetteb for pointing out the miniaturisation theme over several episodes. You can’t really miss it tonight! 🙂

What’s with the multiples of 11 recently, by the way? (The 2D aliens communicate with multiples of 11, and in last week’s episode the Mummy kills after 66 seconds, which is “the number of Evil twice over” – i.e. 33.) Were there any multiples of eleven referenced prior to last week?

@TimeCahoot: Missy says “Clara. My Clara. I have chosen well.” And having mentioned Missy, I have to say I love Michelle Gomez, and I can’t wait to see ore of her (hope it will be this series! 🙂

Congratulations @bluesqueakpip! 🙂

x

[idiotsavon @replies]

On a completely different topic, I came to the Rose & Crown in the hope of Scampi Fries – but they’re all out.

I wouldn’t mind, but it’s an entirely fictional pub. In theory I could have pork scratchings made out of moonbeams -yet I haven’t even managed to get a single bog standard Scampi Fry.

Believe you me, I shall be writing a very snotty letter to my imagination.

x

[idiotsavon @replies]

@janetteb

I somehow missed that line when I read your post.

hee hee – it wasn’t complete nonsense then 🙂

I agree with you – honestly I do! 🙂 But I don’t think it’s just down to viewing numbers. I think it’s about distance. I think distance is in the very nature of sci-fi and fantasy. That’s both the good and the bad thing about it. It makes you think: But you have to think!

🙂 x

[idiotsavon @replies]

@ Lisa

I am starting to think that the “belief” you’re onto is a belief in heroes.

I was taken with the Faust idea, as you know (Good man/Bad man; Saved/Not-saved) and I thought (and am still not entirely dissuaded) that the Doctor’s new regeneration cycle carries a Faustian price (“Everything has a price tag, I think you’ll find” – as Miss Delphox put it.) And I’ve since watched/read Marlowe’s Dr Faustus, and there are a few little things that could be an allusion to either Faust. For example, the Doctor flicking Clara’s nose while invisible is a bit like Marlowe’s Faust being invisible and boxing the Pope’s ears. And @purofilion’s Gretchenfrage is straight from Goethe 🙂

But ultimately, I think you’re probably on the money, and all of those little echoes of bits of things can be meaningfully interpreted as references to belief (and maybe even belief in a certain type of hero) in one way or another. (Traditionally, the Faust character went to Hell because of his lack of Christian belief. Goethe’s Faust went to heaven – because he believed in (and what’s more strived for) something. *)

And then there’s the Carlisle/Carlyle reference. The first time Carlisle was mentioned was in Hide (Ignorance is Carlisle.) In that same episode, you find the rather strange statement “The music room is the heart of the house” and in Carlyle’s writing you find that “If you look deep enough you will see music; the heart of nature being everywhere music.”

Then in Into The Dalek and Mummy on the Orient Express, you get a Miss Carlisle and a Mr Carlyle, and over the series we get a huge tease about some sort of heaven/salvation, and a lot of stuff about heroes.

Carlyle:

Belief:

The fearful unbelief is unbelief in yourself;

No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men;

No iron chain, or outward force of any kind, could ever compel the soul of a man to believe or to disbelieve.

It’s a belief in heroes that I think we should perhaps look backwards at, and forward to: Where does the Doctor fit into all of this?

Kind Regards

x

[idiotsavon @replies]

@lisa

Personally I think I probably agree with you. Although perhaps not entirely? I’m not sure.

From childhood, I’ve probably always liked people I found “real” – but I only really cared for them when they were put into impossible situations. From Charlie Bucket in the chocolate factory to the dressing-gowned Arthur Dent.

Willy Wonka was a morally ambiguous character, to say the least. But that didn’t matter. Charlie bucket was the real hero in my book.

And as long as the companion is a hero, I’m ok with a darker Doctor.

But someone has to be the hero, surely? Otherwise it’s just flawed people having a fight. (Which is what I assume people mean by “soap opera”)

And I can see that any time outside my local Homebase 🙂

x

[idiotsavon @replies]

@lisa

Back on-topic, I think the “belief” theme you pointed out several episodes ago seems to be playing itself out in lots of very interesting ways.

This episode, the mummy was a legend that the Doctor did not initially believe in. However he was later persuaded (persuaded himself?) that it was real.

When the first victim (Mrs Pitt) and the second victim (Stumpy the kitchen worker?) were attacked, they weren’t believed, either. It seems that it was only later that the passengers believed that the killer was really an invisible mummy that the about-to-die could really see.

Was it the evidence that persuaded them? Or was it the Doctor?

x

[idiotsavon @replies]

@janetteb @lisa Possibly I was getting a bit off topic – definitely wasn’t talking about Mummy on the Orient Express! 🙂

I’m just mulling really. I’m definitely not saying that “unrealistic” (sci-fi, fantasy) things don’t have anything to say about real life. Quite the opposite.

I read Terry Pratchett’s Discworld books as a biting satire about the world in which I move and breathe.

It’s just that satire and allegory don’t seem to get people talking in the same way that Eastenders sometimes does. Satire and allegory don’t spark big media campaigns. They don’t get neighbours talking over fences, I don’t think. Having something to say about the world is not the same as making something happen in the world.

That said, perhaps just making thoughts happen in people’s heads is the main thing.

x

[idiotsavon @replies]

@janetteb @lisa (pub? yes no? I think they have Scampi Fries there 🙂 )

[idiotsavon @replies]

@lisa

Ha ha yes, you’re right 🙂

I got a bit carried away wondering whether/why/why not “soap opera” was a good thing, a bad thing or even a thing.

I’ll take my questions to the pub/sofa 🙂

x

[idiotsavon @replies]

@lisa

I sort of disagree with my own comment – but can’t explain why! 🙂

What is it about Star Trek that had such an effect on society, do you think?

For example, how did watching it affect or change you? Or more generally, what is it about such sci-fi shows that gives them such a wide impact, in your view? And why do the “bad” ones fail?

Do you think I’m being unfair if I say that anything fantastical is automatically distant from real life and therefore less powerful in a political sense?

x

[idiotsavon @replies]

@phaseshift

Absolutely love your post about soap opera. A bit like you, my mum has always followed the soaps.
I grew up with telly as a background noise (when we got unexpected visitors, my folks would turn the volume down – but the the telly stayed on 🙂 )

At their very best, I think that soaps open up debates – within families and between neighbours; in the pub and even in the newspapers. They make us examine ourselves, our relationships, and our own prejudices. They change the social landscape for the better.
I avoid watching soaps – largely for fear of getting addicted 🙂

Here comes the “but”

But

I already said a couple of threads ago that the phrase “There was a bit too much drama for me” is probably a bad use of the word “drama” – but can be understood, I think as “Not enough fun, larks and adventures. Too much confrontation and crying.”

I interpret comments such as “It was too much like a soap opera” in exactly the same way. Too much confrontation. Too many tears. Not enough larks.

And I do think that’s a fair enough comment for a Doctor Who fan to make.

Interested to know whether I now need to re-think my ideas about “soap opera” too! 🙂

But then again…
It’s interesting that soap operas have so often contributed to debates that have changed society.

Have any sci-fi shows had the same sort of direct impact?

It’s not a rhetorical question – I should like to know what others think.

In my (most probably wrong) view, anything fantastical removes itself, by definition, from the landscape of everyday life, and therefore limits its own direct political influence.

Soap operas are a much better vehicle for driving any political debate, and therefore creating change.

So, Doctor Who, if it is to have any social impact, should push the “soap opera” aspect – because without any real-life stuff, it’s pure escapism.

I haven’t thought very hard about this. But I’m willing to defend my ill-thought-out views, just for fun really.

x

[Author]

Posts