Lawrence Miles skewers the new Doctor Who yet again with this blog post.
I actually think – some people will gasp in horror at this – that the main cast for Doctor Who now (the Doctor and his companion, basically) is the best it's been since Doctor Who was revived this century. That is, I think Matt Smith is a better Doctor than whatsisname – David Tennant – who was a bit too hair gel for me. And the Scottish girl – forgotten her name again – is better than Billie Piper, etcetera.
I pretty much agree with everything else that's written in that blog post, even incidental skewerings like this:
About a week and a half ago, Stephen Fry (defined by a sometimes-wise critic as "a stupid person's idea of what a clever person is like") attracted venom by critising Doctor Who in the era of Steven Moffat (defined by me as "oh, what a complete arse"). Yet in this epic cage-fighting battle between drivelling self-involved pretend-intellectuals, the most important point seemed to be missed. Fry talked about programmes "like" Merlin and Doctor Who.
One of the reasons I've gone off Stephen Fry is he's another in the great British line of condescending realists. The only science fiction he likes is Douglas Adams, and that's probably only because Adams is a little bit like P.G. Wodehouse and has the right kind of Oxbridge, genetically-modified buttered crumpet, atheist-intellectual credentials to satisfy the Fry. But yeah, he is certainly a stupid person's idea of a clever person. Which is probably why he thinks he's so clever himself.
However, to get away from the incidental and onto the essential, this is the crux of the matter:
Moffat stated that he didn't want to be remembered as "the man who killed Doctor Who", and yet he already did kill it. He killed it in "The Girl in the Fireplace", a rather good episode if you concentrate on what the author genuinely likes – robots and temporal screwing-around – but an abysmal and emotionally-extorting one when you understand that he's trying to redefine the Doctor as a Sexy Immortal and himself as the Sexy Immortal's Agent. I wasn't kidding when I said the the series in 2010 is competing with Twilight, y'know. Doctor Who at its best has been awkward, experimental, and unpredictable. Moffat's version, as laid out in "Silence in the Library", is slick, conservative, and entirely founded on things that have been proven to work. In short… it's like Merlin. Only even stupider.
It was largely the "let's make Doctor Who sexy" attitude that put me off the new Doctor Who, and that crept in even with Christopher Ecclestone's Doctor, though a little coyly, with mention that the Doctor knows how to "dance". I feel as though many concepts are disappearing from the emotional vocabulary of the human race. Now, for instance, it is not only impossible for the majority of people to grasp that it might not always be good to be sexy, it's practically obligatory to be sexy. I see a similar diminishment of emotional vocabulary in something like this, an article on utilitarianism and the elimination of human suffering.
I think, because a large part of me is in sympathy with negative utilitarianism, I completely distrust it as a movement. That is, I do feel deeply that life is not worth living if it's not perfect. But feeling that deeply, I also have to return to the possibility that there might be more to it [existence] than mere perfection. However, it seems as if you're either a negative utilitarian or a positive utilitarian [By which I mean, that seems to be the utilitarian viewpoint and the point that the human race generaly is drawing towards through the elimination of other emotional vocabulary]. That is, you either want a world stripped of suffering in the spirit of "I'm going to kill you for your own good" euthanasia, or you want a world pumped with endless pleasure as with steroids.
(Yes, I know that technically the negative utilitarians are not calling for the extinction of all life, but that's only because of practicalities – the fact that any practical measures for this mass euthanasia would cause too much suffering in the meantime and therefore be counter to their pain-killing purpose.)
In essence, the human race seems to be coming to a point where it's saying, "Give me endless, pain-free perfection, or give me death."
Well, it's not like I can't understand that.
However…
Recently I watched an episode of The X-Files called 'Humbug', and I was struck by the following scene:
"Nature abhors normality. It can't go very long without creating a mutant. And do you know why?"
"No. Why?"
"I don't either, it's a mystery. Maybe some mysteries are never meant to be solved."
There is, of course, one part of this that is not necessarily mysterious. If you have a society of genetic convergence, full of "sexy immortals", they will not have different tolerances to difference infections. The right virus will wipe them all out in a stroke, like knocking down skittles. They'll be ripe for it, and they'll deserve it.
“But yeah, he is certainly a stupid person’s idea of a clever person.”yeah, he thinks he’s oscar wilde.then there’s the inside-out utilitarian who believes that suffering, in some oddly indescribable fashion is a means for some kind of supposedly desirable growth.the ‘mystery’ to me is how we can have a world that is both accidental and mathematically engineered simultaneously. also, both created in time and inevitably headed back into the void. which of course, makes me ask, “why?”
TC writes:Maybe where trapped in some loop doomed to keeping going around and around forever and never will we be fully aware of it.
Originally posted by I_ArtMan:”But yeah, he is certainly a stupid person’s idea of a clever person.”yeah, he thinks he’s oscar wilde.I’m so out of it that I didn’t realise that, by chance, I seem to have put my finger on the pulse – or a pulse – of the nation for once:http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6823233.eceHmmm. Now that criticising Stephen Fry is not a lost cause, I shall have to abandon it.More later…
loved the article. especially the bit about “tall poppies” we could use a little poppy trimming in the states. đ
Chris Barker writes:The reason why I’ve gone off Stephen Fry is because he shoves his public life in your face via Twitter, Apple endorsements and high profile bi-polar breakdowns. He’s lost whatever dignity & credibility he once had. And he’s not so much in the closet as bursting out of everybody else’s, with a smug lopsided grin, demanding adulation, empathy and pampering. David Mitchell does intellectual wit in a far sharper, self-effacing and down-to-earth manner. I’ll always love Fry’s Blackadder performances but I think it’s becoming increasingly clearer that Hugh Laurie carried him in A Little Bit Of Fry & Laurie and Jeeves & Wooster. Fry seems to think he’s Oscar Wilde. Wilde produced a series of hugely popular plays and a brilliantly subversive novel; Fry trots around the world pointing at alligators, fronting a quiz show that he often ruins with tiresome lectures, that’s when he isn’t [badly] directing Evelyn Waugh novels.
Chris Again writes:And I should be in bed, asleep. Damn this pesky insomnia! Wittering on about Stephen bloody Fry at 2am….good grief, somebody shoot me![A queue quickly forms outside CB’s front door.]
Originally posted by I_ArtMan:the ‘mystery’ to me is how we can have a world that is both accidental and mathematically engineered simultaneously. Douglas Adams, mentioned in this blog post, makes the analogy of a sentient puddle:http://talkingincircles.net/2008/07/19/douglas-adams-on-religion-and-puddles/imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, âThis is an interesting world I find myself inâan interesting hole I find myself inâfits me rather neatly, doesnât it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!â This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, itâs still frantically hanging on to the notion that everythingâs going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.While I don’t think the universe was created for the benefit of humans (not that I know), I don’t think that you need to believe it was in order to be suspicious of the idea of ‘accident’. Adams’ analogy doesn’t actually do anything except describe his own worldview, just as the “glass half-empty” judgement apparently describes the worldview of some people.Here’s a comment from the link above:I think this is a very powerful quote. Yet I lament the fact that probably the only people who are reading this quote are the ones who already agree.@Scott: âMay he RIPâ is a redundancy, because RIP is Latin for ârequiescat in paceâ or, âmay he rest in peace. Thus you said âmay he may he rest in peace.â Nevertheless I believe the sentiment is contrary to his philosophy.This is clearly wrong. I don’t “already agree” with the quote, but I’ve read it. Also, if resting in peace is against his philosophy (because he doesn’t exist after death), then surely giving a damn about whether people say “rest in peace” or not after his death should also be “contrary to his philosophy”.Another comment:âIf Douglas is rightâŚheâs simply not anything now. He was, but now isnât. âNo, if Douglas was right, he never really âwasâ anyone at all other than a very complex chemical reaction, for there is physically no difference between him as a walking living body or as a dead bodyâŚIf Douglas was right, he never truly made any decisions because they were automatically made for him by the chemistry in his brain.âŚof course this puts his story into perspective, too. Why should what he says be true if what he says would mean that nothing anyone (including himself) says has any âmeaningâ (true or false) but is rather a noise being made by a complex chemical reaction (our brains and bodies), making anything we say be on the level of a burp?One thing should be noted here: Douglas Adams had a daughter. I wonder if he taught her that she was nothing but a rapidly shrinking sentient puddle. It’s quite possible he did. I read a lecture he gave in which he described his baby daughter in terms of a computer. Originally posted by anonymous:Maybe where trapped in some loop doomed to keeping going around and around forever and never will we be fully aware of it. It seems quite possible. Sometimes it even seems hard to believe otherwise.Originally posted by I_ArtMan:loved the article. especially the bit about “tall poppies” we could use a little poppy trimming in the states.There’s something to be said for poppy-trimming, for sure. The negative side of it is summed up in the Wilde quote, “Our friends will sympathise with anything but our success.”Originally posted by anonymous:Fry seems to think he’s Oscar Wilde. Wilde produced a series of hugely popular plays and a brilliantly subversive novel; Fry trots around the world pointing at alligators, fronting a quiz show that he often ruins with tiresome lectures, that’s when he isn’t [badly] directing Evelyn Waugh novels. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7246331086I think that the criticism, framed in negative terms, that he is not a genius, is clearly absolutely fair and needed. The whole idea of genius has been degraded, largely because most people who are famous now are disposable clothes-hangers. Therefore, when a vaguely literate person like Fry comes along, everyone seems to think he is, in fact, a genius. It’s a bit like in the film Idiocracy where the hero travels to a (near?) future world, where the overbreeding of pampered idiots (which we are now witnessing) has led to a world where even the Everyman hero is hailed (dimly) as an intellectual behemoth.Apparently some people really do think Fry is a genius, as they testify here:http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2378158030&topic=4165“Stephen Fry is a genius in my eyes.”See, I’m not making it up.This kind of thing really worries me:”His books are some of the most intelligent, imaginative, well-written books I have read. Many writers would not have a hope of achieving so much. And I have read a LOT of books. (And no, I’m not talking the Dan Brown back-catalogue, or any other such paraliterature.)”A LOT of books? Were they all by Stephen Fry? If they were I think I’d undersand that they were some of the most intelligent, imaginative etc. she’d read.
This is sort of a side-comment, not part of the current discussion:”Humbug” is one of the best X-files episodes, it’s nice to see Jim Rose, Gibsonton Florida, and the Enigma brought to the public. However, the saddest part is that classic carnies, 10-in-1 shows, ‘Freaks’, tattooed ladies, pickled punks and all the rest are gone to history. The art of ballyhoo is almost entirely lost.It’s now the stuff of legends.Also, on another side note: glad to hear that Matt Smith is decent. I was a fan of David Tennant’s Dr. Who and I haven’t seen any of the new series yet.
Originally posted by serenard:Humbug” is one of the best X-files episodes, it’s nice to see Jim Rose, Gibsonton Florida, and the Enigma brought to the public. When I read this I was about to say something like “Right on! Another lover of the unusual!” and then I realized it was posted by my wife. Genius minds think alike apparently, exactly alike! đ Originally posted by anonymous:Maybe where trapped in some loop doomed to keeping going around and around forever and never will we be fully aware of it.I have a great idea about this, but I can’t let it out into the open. I need to keep my ideas for my stories. Plus, in the wrong hands, it would spell the end of us all…:monkey:
Originally posted by serenard:This is sort of a side-comment, not part of the current discussion:”Humbug” is one of the best X-files episodes, it’s nice to see Jim Rose, Gibsonton Florida, and the Enigma brought to the public. However, the saddest part is that classic carnies, 10-in-1 shows, ‘Freaks’, tattooed ladies, pickled punks and all the rest are gone to history. The art of ballyhoo is almost entirely lost.It’s now the stuff of legends.Between apocalypse scenarios and technological utopia scenarios, it’s hard to know what the future is really going to be like, but if it’s more like the latter then future humans will look back on us all as badasses because we still have know disease, pain, chaos, etc. They would probably be as terrified to meet us as we might be to find ourselves in the midst of a Viking raid.Originally posted by serenard:Also, on another side note: glad to hear that Matt Smith is decent. I was a fan of David Tennant’s Dr. Who and I haven’t seen any of the new series yet. I have to stress that that’s just my opinion. I do understand, at least, the opinion that he’s too young. We used to have white-haired Doctors, for Heaven’s sake. Presumably, the audience would shrink in horror from such a thing now. Also, I can enjoy the new Doctor Who as long as I disassociate it in my mind from the old show entirely. I’m rather afraid, though, that somehow it will end up undoing all that was good about the old show, that is, supplanting that image, usurping it in the small but valuable corner of the human heart that it occupied. The old show had something vital and uncalculated about it. When reading about Chinese art many years ago, I came across some ancient artist’s note, a kind of lament, that none now understand “gu qi”, the old spirit. I feel a little like that in the world these days. The new Doctor Who is knockabout and fun, slick and occasioncally clever, but it lacks yuugen. The old Doctor Who was ramshackle and full of strange serendipities. It had yuugen. The new show, in the end, I don’t care about; it’s a MySpace friend. The old show was like a lifelong friend. There are not many of those about.Originally posted by JohnRenard:I have a great idea about this, but I can’t let it out into the open. I need to keep my ideas for my stories. Plus, in the wrong hands, it would spell the end of us all…Already you have been careless. Even now a band of my most trusted gibbons is on its way to you, charged with a mission of extracting that deadly information at all costs. With such power in my hands, nothing will be able to stop me!!!!
if a puddle could reason that way it deserves to be replenished ad infinatum.