Doctor Who isn't sci fi according to Terry Pratchett

[Starseeker]

http://www.sfx.co.uk/2010/05/03/guest-blog-terry-pratchett-on-doctor-who/

I love his attack on “makeitupasyougalongeum” and deux-ex-machina moments when, frankly, his books rarely have logical endings, depending more on a "just so" feeling of rightness.

I've always thought of Doctor Who more as fantasy anyway -- even Trek seems to be fantasy more often than sci fi, though with each show it became more heavily died into its own version of science (which I think worked against it.)

So, is Pratchett right?

 

[Bones2]

He's not wrong. But it's a generalisation to say every episode has been as downright stupid as the RTD finales. I'm hoping there'll be far less in the way of deus ex machinas and nonsense now that he's waddled off. Moffat's too clever and has too much self-respect to doing anything as blatantly awful as the Parting of the Ways conclusion. I'd argue the resolution of Flesh and Stone was a bit of a deus, but even then it wasn't as downright stupid as a nonsense vacuum cleaner hoovering up the Daleks and Cybusmen.

 

[Starkers]

No, Doctor Who isn't sci-fi.

It's sci-fi, and fantasy, and horror, and comedy, and tragedy, and romance all rolled into one. It can tell any story in any time and any place.

The world would be a better place if we stopped trying to pigeonhole things!

 

[Deckerd]

I was going to say does it matter? But someone beat me to it.

 

[Servo]

I couldn't give a monkey's about how people need to define the show. As has been pointed out, the show spans several genres, and has a style all of its own. I'm not concerned with labelling it as one thing or another. Anyone who is has too much time on their hands.

 

[Lonemagpie]

He's right that DW isn't SF - neither are Star Trek or Star Wars - but he's guilty of a lot of the same flaws himself Luckily, as he says about Who, it's all great entertainment.

I love Pterry, but I note he also gets the Chekhov's Gun law the wrong way round. It's not "if it's going to be used in act 3 it has to be shown in act 1" it's "if it's shown in act 1 it better be used by act 3" - a subtle difference. If we went with his version and desire for it, every story would pan out like Warriors Of The Deep - "Hexachromite gas is deadly to marine and reptilian life. Hey, that'll be fucking handy if we happen to run into an alliance of Silurians and Sea Devils..."

There's a difference between setting up a la Chekhov's Gun, and telegraphing the ending. Of course RTD-style deus ex machina endings do tend to get it wrong on both counts...

 

[Starkers]

I love Pterry, but I note he also gets the Chekhov's Gun law the wrong way round. It's not "if it's going to be used in act 3 it has to be shown in act 1" it's "if it's shown in act 1 it better be used by act 3" - a subtle difference. If we went with his version and desire for it, every story would pan out like Warriors Of The Deep - "Hexachromite gas is deadly to marine and reptilian life. Hey, that'll be fucking handy if we happen to run into an alliance of Silurians and Sea Devils..."

 

[23skidoo]

I think I'll remove him from my list of people I'd like to see write Doctor Who.

And talk about tea calling the kettle black -- none of his books are exactly SF either.

The fact is the only true SF is the deadly dull stuff that reads like science textbooks with plot. The stuff people give a damn about, that remain popular cultural phenomena for going on a HALF-CENTURY, and that frankly are able to tell the so-called "reflect the human condition" stories, is stuff that mixes SF with other genres. If all you want are stories about robots doing stuff with no consequences, then read "pure" SF.

Of course there are exceptions and there are examples of "pure" SF out there in both film and literature that I'm sure people can cite to dispute what I just said. But even so I bet we can make a case that, say, 2001: A Space Odyssey isn't pure SF because it contains elements of fantasy. Likewise even that Mars landing TV movie the Discovery Channel made a couple years ago includes elements of fantasy, and political intrigue, and romance.

The bottom line is, who cares if DW isn't SF? It's the highest rated British TV show currently on the air that isn't a soap opera or a reality show. Its stars are treated like gods. It's the only series in the SF/F realm currently on the air whose future is secure. It wins.

Alex

 

[Deckerd]

I don't think TP ever claimed his books were SF.

 

[Arrqh]

And talk about tea calling the kettle black -- none of his books are exactly SF either.

When did he say they were? In any case, he's not attacking Who, he's classifying it. He also says he's going to continue watching it because its good fun and he enjoys it and even pointed out some recent highlights that we can probably all mostly agree on. So why the outrage again?

The fact is the only true SF is the deadly dull stuff that reads like science textbooks with plot. The stuff people give a damn about, that remain popular cultural phenomena for going on a HALF-CENTURY, and that frankly are able to tell the so-called "reflect the human condition" stories, is stuff that mixes SF with other genres. If all you want are stories about robots doing stuff with no consequences, then read "pure" SF.

Wow, no.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Of course it's not science fiction. It's a faerie tale.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

"Science-fiction", like "literature" or "art" is not a quality label. There is bad science-fiction, stupid science-fiction, unimaginative science-fiction. Doctor Who is a show about a time traveler - time travel being a theme generally associated with science-fiction - and it favors scientific explanations rather than supernatural causes. That's sci-fi enough for me.

Not that it matters anyway.

 

[The]

I like time travel.

 

[Slugboy]

From Terry Pratchett's guest blog:

A decent detective story provides you with enough tantalising information to allow you to make a stab at a solution before the famous detective struts his stuff in the library. Doctor Who replaces this with speed, fast talking, and what appears to be that wonderful element “makeitupasyougalongeum”.

I must admit I agree with Mr. Pratchett on this part (in fact, I made a similar point, albeit far less eloquently, in the thread about The Beast Below). Although I still enjoy watching the RTD-era episodes, I found they suffered somewhat from "solution by technobabble", a problem which is refreshingly reduced so far this season. Part of the reason I loved The Beast Below so much is because it was a "decent detective story" in the style Pratchett describes---an observant viewer could guess the solution before Amy figures it out (and in fact, I guessed correctly).

 

[Rowan Sjet]

^ Exactly! And from what Pratchett wrote toward the end, I don't think he had caught up on the new series by point of writing so it would be good to hear what he thinks of it.

 

[Starkers]

The trouble is that the RTD solution that was most telegraphed was the one I hated the most, namely the use of the Archangel network to power up Jesus Doctor!

I always say, RTD writes great set ups, but too often can't think how to end them!

 

[matthunter]

He's not wrong. But it's a generalisation to say every episode has been as downright stupid as the RTD finales. I'm hoping there'll be far less in the way of deus ex machinas

A genuine Deus ex machinae appears out of nowhere, it can't have been set up earlier in the events. As such, the ONLY example of a Deus ex in RTD's work is the Heart of the TARDIS in Boomtown.

Goddess Rose in TPOTW? Not a Deus ex (TARDIS power set up two episodes prior)

Glowy Doctor in TLOTTL? Not a Deus ex (Archangel network previously established as a psychic field beinidng humanity)

Might be more of a case for the DoctorDonna, although her getting part of the Doctor's mind is somewhat set up by 10.5 getting part of hers (adopting her speech patterns)

So... nyer!

 

[Starkers]

weeeellll....

Those things were mentioned before, but what the TARDIS did to MArgaret bears little relation to what rose was able to do, and the Master's use of the Archangel network didn't involve granting god like powers either...

Now they may not be pure deus ex machinas, but nor are they fully fleshed out and understandable resolutions. It's more a case of;

"Hey, remember that technology I mentioned last week that can do X, well it can also do THIS!"

 

[scnj]

He's not wrong. But it's a generalisation to say every episode has been as downright stupid as the RTD finales. I'm hoping there'll be far less in the way of deus ex machinas and nonsense now that he's waddled off. Moffat's too clever and has too much self-respect to doing anything as blatantly awful as the Parting of the Ways conclusion. I'd argue the resolution of Flesh and Stone was a bit of a deus, but even then it wasn't as downright stupid as a nonsense vacuum cleaner hoovering up the Daleks and Cybusmen.

Yes, it was. But it's more forgiveable for actually being important to the overall plot of the season as opposed to being a throwaway quick ending.

 

[Bones2]

<snip>

Yes, I'm sorry, you're right. Russell T Davies is a magnificent writer, and the conclusions to his seasons finales have been nothing less than brilliant, logical, and satisfying.

Yes, it was. But it's more forgiveable for actually being important to the overall plot of the season as opposed to being a throwaway quick ending.

Yeah, that's pretty much my feeling. It was a well-crafted episode with lots of great moments, and the ending may have been a bit of a cop-out, but it does give us some interesting setup for the end. I'm sure the final two-parter will be better concluded than what we've become used to; Moffat's got more respect for himself as a writer than to just have a time-orgasm, space-vacuum, console-that-blows-up-the-Daleks.