it's his MUM!
SUSAN'S HIS GRAD-DAUGHTER!!!
author intent!
Yes, we know what the authorial intent was. We just disagree with it.

it's his MUM!
SUSAN'S HIS GRAD-DAUGHTER!!!
author intent!
Prancing tit Master for a prancing tit Doctor.Panto dialogue or not, we still went from veteran actor oozing gravitas and screen presence to Daffy bloody Duck. Simm was shithouse imo.
I loved John Simm in Life on Mars but as the Master... He just drives me up a bloody wall.
Seconded. A completely unorthodox portrayal, but arguably the only way to make the character work; the anti-Tennant as distinct from a more scheming panto-Moriarty type.John Simm was great as The Master.
it's his MUM!
SUSAN'S HIS GRAD-DAUGHTER!!!
author intent!
Yes, we know what the authorial intent was. We just disagree with it.![]()
it's his MUM!
SUSAN'S HIS GRAD-DAUGHTER!!!
author intent!
Yes, we know what the authorial intent was. We just disagree with it.![]()
I can't understand this mindset. If the authorial intent is clearly spelled out (not left vague or open to interpretation) then it seems pretty arrogant to say "Oh actually the person who created this work is wrong, it's actually ___."
I tend to agree ... but is there a precedent, in the universe's entire history, for describing Doctor Who as "art"?Yes, we know what the authorial intent was. We just disagree with it.![]()
I can't understand this mindset. If the authorial intent is clearly spelled out (not left vague or open to interpretation) then it seems pretty arrogant to say "Oh actually the person who created this work is wrong, it's actually ___."
Because works of art don't inherently carry any particular meaning, which means that meanings brought to it by an audience are just as valid as the meanings originally intended by the creator. Welcome to post-modernism.
And also because even RTD has said that he intentionally left the identity of the Woman unspecified so that audiences could interpret her ID as they wanted. He has his ideas, but he specifically designed the work to accommodate alternate interpretations.
Bottom line: This is art, not science. There's no objectively "true" meaning to it, so we're all free to interpret it as we wish.
I tend to agree ... but is there a precedent, in the universe's entire history, for describing Doctor Who as "art"?I can't understand this mindset. If the authorial intent is clearly spelled out (not left vague or open to interpretation) then it seems pretty arrogant to say "Oh actually the person who created this work is wrong, it's actually ___."
Because works of art don't inherently carry any particular meaning, which means that meanings brought to it by an audience are just as valid as the meanings originally intended by the creator. Welcome to post-modernism.
And also because even RTD has said that he intentionally left the identity of the Woman unspecified so that audiences could interpret her ID as they wanted. He has his ideas, but he specifically designed the work to accommodate alternate interpretations.
Bottom line: This is art, not science. There's no objectively "true" meaning to it, so we're all free to interpret it as we wish.![]()
Okay, now there's a precedent.Of course Doctor Who is art!
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.