First Doctor's Granddaughter???
- Thread starter bionicbob
- Start date
Prancing tit Master for a prancing tit Doctor.
I loved John Simm in Life on Mars but as the Master... He just drives me up a bloody wall. TEoT was a bit better than S3 by a bit though.
Same here. I liked him in Life on Mars as well.
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.
Re. Time Lords as an elite group of a humanoid population or a species in their own right - Why can't it be both, with a select few of the overall populace being deemed fit for reconfiguration as Time Lords? Hence the Doctor can have a normal life, and descendants, prior to his full inauguration; after which the normal rules of biology and familial affiliation don't really apply.
Last edited:
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 ___."
well, Susan's his granddaughter then, it was clearly stated repeatedly
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"?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"?
Of course Doctor Who is art! It's a story being told to an audience; that inherently makes it a work of art. It's up to us to decide if it's "good" art, or "highbrow" art, or "lowbrow" art, or "bad" art, or whatever art. But it is, indisputably, art.
Similar threads
