tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post5028408112552474850..comments2024-03-17T11:05:22.464+00:00Comments on The Life And Opinions of Andrew Rilstone: Christmas Doesn't Come Early This YearUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-36328787385175009942006-11-24T19:16:00.000+00:002006-11-24T19:16:00.000+00:00Moved to a new thread.Moved to a new thread.Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05786623930392936889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-10574968914925781192006-11-23T17:46:00.000+00:002006-11-23T17:46:00.000+00:00The Dick Sprang Batman of the early Sixties was co...<i>The Dick Sprang Batman of the early Sixties was contemporary with William Hartnell, but seems to have less in common with Frank Miller’s Dark Knight than Hartnell does with Peter Davidson.</i><br /><br />There's an argument that one thing that made <i>The Dark Knight Returns</i> interesting was that Miller adopted features from several different incarnations of Batman. But whatever.<br /><br /><i>DC even changed not only the character but the actual identity of many heroes, eg some other guy became the Flash.</i><br /><br />Fannish nitpick; yes, DC relaunched the title with a completely new character - but this was fairly soon explained in terms of parallel universes with different histories at the local level, later revised to a simpler multi-generational thing, and recently revised to something complicated again. In other words, the character didn't change; there were two completely distinct characters with the same name, but no pretensions of their being the same person.<br /><br />In theory, the same thing applied to Batman, among others - but the two different Batmen were both Bruce Wayne... That character has indeed evolved considerably over time, without the Doctor's plot excuse of regeneration. But what perhaps makes him such a strong, almost archetypical figure is that the core myth has never changed much. The same goes for Superman, but not so much for other (less durable) DC superheroes. "Saw his parents killed in front of him as a child; swore revenge on all criminals; perfected himself to achieve this". "Last son of a doomed, super-advanced planet; sent to Earth by his parents; raised by good, rural folks, then travelled to the big city". If either character ever lost those cores, they'd be doomed.<br /><br /><i>Fans have a tendency to notice and catalogue everything except the point. The Whoniverse they want to see is essentially a variant of the suburbs they tend to live in – tidy, ordered, bereft of surprises.</i><br /><br />The fanfic writers I encounter seem quite capable of living in city centres, actually. And don't underestimate the suburbs. To quote a mistier but no less archetypical figure, "It is my belief ... founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in<br />London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside."Phil Mastershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533451060065715833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-9445697717335102452006-11-23T13:26:00.000+00:002006-11-23T13:26:00.000+00:00Correct me if I'm wrong here. Are you arguing tha...Correct me if I'm wrong here. Are you arguing that ancient societies always used justice deontologically and we always use it consequentially? Because I'm pretty sure that's false on at least the latter count. It's true that few ancient thinkers espoused a consequentialist ethics (except perhaps Epicurus), not because it never occurred to them, but because they didn't agree with it. My concept of justice is a deontological one; I absolutely do not equate it with "serving the greater good" and I don't think most people mean that. All the famous objections to utilitarianism strike most observers as unjust. (I.e. slicing up an unwilling healthy patient to harvest his organs for an ailing doctor who will go on to save hundreds of lives.) Fundamentally, justice is a fairness concept and it's universal. (See arguments between 2 year-olds.) Of course, the modern reworking of the term to mean "social justice" (a la Rawls) does indeed change the meaning of the word, but I am nearly 100% that this new definition has gained almost no traction except among its admirers.<br /><br />I also disagree that the word democracy has changed that much. If one reads Plato's critique of democracy, it is crystal clear that the argument works (such as it does, I'm not saying I agree with it) against our modern conception equally as well as against the ancient Greek conception, so how much can the concept have changed? Of course they didn't mean universal suffrage, but neither do we. Children under 18 can't vote in this country. We do allow women and most alien residents to vote, unlike the Greeks, and, of course, we aren't a slaveholding society. Rejection of slavery is indeed a <i>relatively</i> modern idea, not really showing up until the 1st century A.D. (correct me if I'm wrong). I regard the rejection of slavery as the crowning glory of the Judeo-Christian tradition just as I regard the Enlightenment as the crowning glory of the Greco-Roman tradition. Now, I must confess that my Greek is not particularly good. I took one year of it in college and I can't read the simplest of Plato's Dialogues in Greek without a good dictionary by my side. I am therefore dependent on Greek translators who know the culture and language a lot better than I do. My Latin, however, is quite a bit better, though I don't claim fluency. There are genuine differences in thought between modern man and, say, Cicero, but not nearly as many as people seem to believe. Admittedly, I chose Cicero as an example because he's closer to a modern man than most other ancient Romans. But that's telling, I think. Cicero strikes us as modern because, by and large, he agrees with us in a way his countrymen did not. Cicero did not oppose slavery, for example, but he did argue that we should behave justly toward even the lowest of men and treated his own slaves more like employees. Needless to say, Cicero inspired great loyalty from his slaves and ex-slaves when he manumitted them. But Cicero's acceptance of many modern principles shows his countrymen were aware of the modern arguments and rejected them. <br /><br />My point being that it is a mistake to assume that because an ancient society had some majority opinion that this therefore proves that they <i>weren't aware</i> of the opinion we moderns agree with. Perhaps in 5000 years, slavery will have been reinstituted with Aristotle's "natural" argument or St. Augustine's "conventional, but just" argument. Perhaps they will say that we ignorant savages were simply unaware of this perfectly good argument for slavery. (I assume, of course, that in my hypothetical future most of our writings, like most ancient writings, have been lost.)<br /><br />I agree, of course, that the '60s Batman is very different from the Dark Knight conception so I agree that the character has changed more radically than the Doctor ever has. I argued that the edges of the Doctor's character have been fiddled with more than any other fictional character in history and I still maintain that, though I grant you may find an exception. Batman changed more radically; the Doctor has changed more <i>often</i>. I reject the Flash, though. When you change the person in the costume, you've created a brand new character, not changed the old one. Because comics don't have regeneration, that's usually how they justify radically changing the character (Batman aside).<br /><br />On Doctor Who, I have little to disagree with either Mr. Masters or Mr. Burrows. I do plead that my own annoyance with the new show, such as it is (and actually I quite like the majority of it), is more understandable than British fans. Living in America, I do not gain the benefits of finally living in a society where one of my fondest affections suddenly has mass appeal. Most Americans have still never heard of the show. So when I get annoyed if RTD changes the show too radically (in my opinion), I cannot comfort myself by thinking about how my 10 year-old nephew now loves the show, because he doesn't. However, I view the matter philosophically. If the show departs too radically for my tastes, it doesn't diminish by one iota my love of old Hartnell, Pertwee, and Tom Baker episodes. Worse comes to worst, I'll just stop watching it. When I do have problems with the new show, I certainly don't go onto fan forums and complain about them. Quite frankly, I don't care that much, any more than I care about the Sherlock Holmes books not written by Arthur Conan Doyle that I have never read.<br /><br />My own opinion? Almost all of RTD's changes have made the show less unique, more like every other show, and thus more likely to have mass appeal. This is great if what you want is commercial success. However I loved Doctor Who <i>because</i> it was unique. Bringing it back in its old form (and I would have brought it back full circle with an older Doctor and two young companions) would have been much bolder. I do not object at all to RTD's conception of the show. I do object to calling him "iconoclastic" or "innovative" as so many do. The original show was iconoclastic and innovative; RTD's version is much less so. Having said all that, I quite enjoy RTD's version. I wasn't nearly so big a fan of Girl in the Fireplace, but I was a huge fan of School Reunion and Father's Day.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-76199756493509916772006-11-23T09:52:00.000+00:002006-11-23T09:52:00.000+00:00Andrew Stevens said...
I disagree that justice is...<i>Andrew Stevens said... <br />I disagree that justice is any sort of modern concept, by the way… Whenever I get into philosophical debates, people are forever thinking that X is some new idea which we've only discovered in the last century or two. A cursory look at Aristotle will usually find him arguing for or against X. </i><br /><br />I suspect a large part of this is that we tend to borrow old words for new concepts. ‘Democracy’ is based on a Greek word, but we don’t mean much the same thing by it. I don’t know about ‘justice’, and I’m too lazy to look it up!<br /><br />I was thinking of something like Jason and the Golden Fleece, which is an epic journey/ pilgrimage without any particular notion of Jason serving a ‘greater good’. A lot of folk tales have an Obey The Rules motto (“don’t take the left-hand path” etc), because they come out of custom-based societies. That’s not the same thing as Justice.<br /><br /><i>And you're right that I don't really read comics. But can you find a character who has changed his appearance and personality so radically and so many times? I'm not willing to allow a comics exception until a genuinely more malleable character is presented to me. None of those I can think of (Batman, Superman, Spiderman, et al.) qualify, though I grant Batman's character has been amazingly malleable. </i><br /><br />Pretty much all the ones you mention seem more changeable than the Doctor, to be honest. The Dick Sprang Batman of the early Sixties was contemporary with William Hartnell, but seems to have less in common with Frank Miller’s Dark Knight than Hartnell does with Peter Davidson. DC even changed not only the character but the actual identity of many heroes, eg some other guy became the Flash. The Flash to DC was some guy who ran fast to stop crime. Lawsuits were even based on this sort of notion!<br /><br />Phil Masters, what can I say but I hear you! I personally like the fact that Dr. Who goes out at Saturday teatime, and my mates talk about it down the pub that night rather than just a few sad obsessives exchanging vitriolic ‘worst episode ever’ e-mails.<br /><br />Perhaps I should emphasise that I was talking about <i>thematic</i> continuity rather than <i>content</i> continuity. If the Whoniverse isn’t some perfectly ordered sort of place where the Cybermen of this year are exactly the same Cybermen as of The Tenth Planet, with each and any alteration annotated and explained… well, catch me caring, frankly. I’d compare it to playing a game. If you don’t stick to the game-rules, you’re not playing the game. But if you just play a game that’s been played before, that’s not really playing <i>any</i> sort of a game.<br /><br />Or, to push my metaphor to its limit, imagine a game which is just about its own game-rules rather than using those rules as a springboard or framework in order to play a game. Well, actually you don’t have to. Just read most fan-oriented fiction. Fans have a tendency to notice and catalogue everything except the point. The Whoniverse they want to see is essentially a variant of the suburbs they tend to live in – tidy, ordered, bereft of surprises.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-85099547676895739032006-11-23T08:05:00.000+00:002006-11-23T08:05:00.000+00:00Thought in passing... The problem isn't in itself ...Thought in passing... The problem isn't in itself people looking for consistency in <i>Dr Who[?]</i> (or anything similar. Well, it shouldn't be. To pinch a Terry Pratchett joke, that sort of activity is probably a good thing, because if the sort of people who do it weren't diverted into something harmless like arguing about the Ice Warrior homeworld, they might do <i>anything</i>.<br /><br />One may get irked by it, but the answer then is to walk away. Fan forums are really quite easy to avoid. The fact that some people stick around places where they get irked could be ascribed to masochism, but I think it's more that they identify themselves as fans of X, wish to pursue that as a hobby, and therefore find the irking behaviour incredibly annoying. Mastering the art of walking away is very important.<br /><br />The other problem is that those who seek consistency in an inconsistent title sometimes more or less capture that title, enforcing increasingly introspective and self-reflexive habits on the writers and producers, until it gets into severe danger of disappearing up itself. This lasts until either the title dies a miserable death, or some new broom (whose initials may sometimes be RTD) comes along, says some rude and intemperate things about the old fans, and <i>reboots the franchise</i>. If the new broom is clever and lucky, the reboot works in a commercial sense, the title regains a mass audience, and a few old fans die of blood pressure problems.Phil Mastershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533451060065715833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-56122956399594941692006-11-22T14:10:00.000+00:002006-11-22T14:10:00.000+00:00Gavin,
Well, I am inclined to agree with you now....Gavin,<br /><br />Well, I am inclined to agree with you now. I was giving Mr. S.K. the benefit of the doubt because I'm occasionally inclined to say things like "I'm right and you're wrong" in intemperate moments and I at least do not mean by that "I'm a very smart man and you're a worthless fool." <br /><br />I disagree that justice is any sort of modern concept, by the way. The four cardinal virtues are usually translated into English as prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice, all four of which appear in Plato's Republic. When the Romans used the word iustitia, iustitiae, the evidence to me indicates that they meant justice in exactly the same way that we do. (Indeed, the Roman court system, flawed as it was, makes no sense without the concept.) There are many fewer modern concepts than people seem to believe. Whenever I get into philosophical debates, people are forever thinking that X is some new idea which we've only discovered in the last century or two. A cursory look at Aristotle will usually find him arguing for or against X. Almost all the debates we have in modern society are very old debates. In fact, I cannot think of an actual exception at the moment. Cultural relativism, which most people think of as a modern concept, goes back to Herodotus at the very least. <br /><br />And you're right that I don't really read comics. But can you find a character who has changed his appearance and personality so radically and so many times? I'm not willing to allow a comics exception until a genuinely more malleable character is presented to me. None of those I can think of (Batman, Superman, Spiderman, et al.) qualify, though I grant Batman's character has been amazingly malleable.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-66821086171326524672006-11-22T11:02:00.000+00:002006-11-22T11:02:00.000+00:00Hi Andrew!
My general position on such things if ...Hi Andrew!<br /><br />My general position on such things if someone doesn’t even know how to talk to people, I just lose all interest in what they’re saying. For example, nurture does not become more powerful than human nature by me calling you a “stupid ****ing Yank” or not, so in general I’d rather avoid calling you anything similar and restrict my argument to the arguments.<br /><br />I have to admit I needed to look Love and Monsters up! It seems small surprise the Dr. Who fans would get irked by that episode, after all it was telling them to give up their nerdy hobby and start talking to girls! (Then again, it was a bit of a silly episode…)<br /><br />In fact my reaction to Love and Monsters is probably a good indication of the way an audience works in such cases. I didn’t take to it much so I forgot about it. There’s only so much room in the average head, so I automatically stored more memories of Girl in the Fireplace. Of course this is an entirely subjective process, involving my brain building up a picture by dismissing all sorts of information as irrelevant just because it doesn’t want it in the frame. No-one ever said it wasn’t. An audience is something different to a video recorder.<br /><br />Ironically in the circumstances, I probably do think “standing for justice” is too general a concept to claim a character has an essential core! Most modern heroes stand for justice in some way or other. (‘Justice’ being a modern concept. Most heroes in myth and legend just stand for the self, so only have to develop as a character.) But I’ve probably said enough about my perception of the ‘essential core’ already…<br /><i>Producers have fiddled around with the edges of the character (and this has been done to the Doctor, I believe, more than literally any other character in the history of fiction)</i><br /><br />I take it you don’t read many comics then!<br /><br /><i>Now I seem to be arguing for the flexibility of humans and you seem to be arguing against it.</i><br /><br />Now I feel somewhat guilty as I was just making a flip comment! Blame the English sense of humour. (Or, if you prefer, the lack of one.)Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-44342141804976026712006-11-22T09:32:00.000+00:002006-11-22T09:32:00.000+00:00Is it worth bothering?
Okay, once more.
This ha...Is it worth bothering?<br /><br />Okay, once more. <br /><br />This has nothing to do with <i>Love and Monsters</i>. I don't generally rate the Tennant stories, obviously apart from <i>The Girl in the Fireplace</i>, obviously, and that includes <i>Love and Monsters</i>. But it's pointless to argue whether they're 'real <i>Doctor Who</i>.' Of course they are. They went out at prime-time with the <i>Doctor Who</i> titles on them and seven million people watched them. <br /><br />What I am fed up of -- and I think I got fed up of it in about 2001 -- is people claiming that there is <i>any</i> coherence in <i>Doctor Who</i>. Including in such matters as how many times the Doctor has regenerated. When the UNIT stories take place. How many hearts the Doctor has. The future. The past. Any particular trait of the character, beyond 'he's the guy whose name is on the titles' (which is why he doesn't generally do unjust things, not because he 'stands for justice' but because the production team know how far they can push before they lose audience sympathy*). Or anything else. <br /><br />I've seen pointless arguments about what is the 'core' of <i>Doctor Who</i> rehashed again and again for nearly ten years, and they were well-established long before that. And THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER. <br /><br />So stop with the pointlessness.<br /><br />* Or, in the unfortunate case of Mr C. Baker, don't.SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102522819364312684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-5791674298354760752006-11-22T05:54:00.000+00:002006-11-22T05:54:00.000+00:00I think S.K. expressed himself badly, Gavin. I th...I think S.K. expressed himself badly, Gavin. I think people of S.K.'s opinion have become exasperated with the "not Doctor Who" complaints, particularly common after Love and Monsters, and this has caused them to become intemperate in all such debates. I sympathize with them. I didn't care for Love and Monsters because I didn't think it was all that good; I reject the argument that it "wasn't Doctor Who." I also believe this has caused them to exaggerate the flexibility of the show, which they correctly identify as a key point.<br /><br />Doctor Who is plainly not <i>infinitely</i> flexible though. You correctly pointed out that the Doctor has an essential self or core to his character, which I think S.K. would probably admit if he reflected more carefully. Producers have fiddled around with the edges of the character (and this has been done to the Doctor, I believe, more than literally any other character in the history of fiction), but the Doctor has always stood for justice. He has been shown to be deficient in his understanding of justice on occasion, but not once has he actually shown a failure of will to see justice be done. On certain rare occasions (Dalek, some sixth Doctor stories, perhaps Remembrance of the Daleks and Silver Nemesis), the Doctor's desire for justice has been <i>too</i> strong, i.e. insufficiently tempered with his usual virtues of mercy and compassion, but justice is very much at the heart of the character. If this were to be abandoned, I believe the show would have moved in an unprecedented direction. And I don't think I have to give up a single televised story (not sure about the novels or audios) to maintain this position. The only exceptions I am willing to make are the first three or four stories in history when the Doctor (already very concerned with justice, but not quite in the same way) is slowly convinced by Ian and Barbara that their ideas of justice are superior to the ones he had previously accepted. Due to the great variety of writers, producers, actors, directors, etc., it is perfectly true, as S.K. points out, that there hasn't been 100% consistency in this conception. Different writers had different concepts of justice. Nevertheless, I maintain that it is always there.<br /><br />Gavin Burrows said: <br /><i>It’s never worked for me.</i><br /><br />We seem to have switched roles somewhere. Now I seem to be arguing for the flexibility of humans and you seem to be arguing against it. This seems to supports my original theory that we probably don't disagree very much. To give a different example of what I mean, I was born with a horrible temper. When I was a small child, I was known for my excessively violent temper tantrums which could be brought on by the slightest provocation. When I was in my early teens, I realized that I did not respect this about myself and the people around me didn't respect it either. I did not then, and do not now, particularly care if people like me (except for my wife, of course), but I have always cared if (good and wise) people respected me. Now, I rarely get angry at all and haven't lost my temper in at least fifteen years. Offending me is very hard work; one has to actively try in order to do so. I forgive people instantly and easily for small offenses (even if they do not ask for my forgiveness) and much more quickly than normal for large ones. I wasn't born this way; it wasn't my environment that made me this way; I built it through a process of teaching myself self-discipline. I am not praising myself here since Aristotle might remark that perhaps I overshot the golden mean and went too far in the opposite direction; sometimes I am inclined to this view. What I am saying is it's a mistake to think we're just stuck with the genetic hand we were dealt. I had a friend in elementary school who was a genius, one of the smartest people I have ever met, perhaps the smartest. Thirty years later, I have no real interest in his conversation because he had no desire to develop this gift and do the study and thinking necessary to become a top-notch thinker. I do not judge him for this; it's his talent and he has the right to do with it what he wills, but I think it's clear he's been intellectually surpassed by a great many people who were born with far less than his share of gifts. I'm sure there are ways in which he is still smarter than these people. He probably still learns more quickly and comprehends more easily, but in practical terms he isn't smarter in any significant way. For example, his life is a bit of a shambles because he never used his intellectual gifts to acquire or build any wisdom. <br /><br />I'll give my athletic example, though I assume most non-Americans aren't familiar with Pete Rose. Rose, before he became known for gambling, was the least talented superstar baseball has ever seen. He wasn't fast, he couldn't throw, he was a mediocre fielder, he had no power, and he wasn't a good natural hitter. And he was a great player. For more than a decade, he was routinely one of the ten best players in the game. They called him "Charlie Hustle" because the man gave every ounce of his skill and strength to playing the game of baseball. He ran to first on routine ground balls like he was being chased by a leopard. He hustled on every single play and acted like his career was on the line on even the most routine of them. He was the human training film, the one man who played baseball the way it was meant to be played, and he was lionized for it before his fall from grace. Were natural athletes still more athletic than Pete Rose in some ways? Sure. But Rose was a greater player than an enormous number of people who had more natural ability.<br /><br />Beauty is more difficult, of course, but we've all seen shows which do "makeovers" for people and we can all see what a difference they make. If you really care about being more attractive, you can become so. I grant there are limits to this, of course, but it's amazing what diet, exercise, and lots and lots of makeup can accomplish (not to mention plastic surgery, though that certainly falls under "enabling means" and I think its results are quite mixed - see Michael Jackson for a stunning example).Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-13334481225779163252006-11-21T14:23:00.000+00:002006-11-21T14:23:00.000+00:00The difference is that I am right
And to think s...<i>The difference is that I am right </i><br /><br />And to think some people think of Dr Who fans as cranky, opinionated types lacking in social skills. <br /><br />Post other comments of a similar nature if you prefer. I certainly shan't bother responding.<br /><br />Have a nice life.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-89941389398405925752006-11-21T09:35:00.000+00:002006-11-21T09:35:00.000+00:00The problem isn't telling people that they've got ...The problem isn't telling people that they've got the wrong idea. I am telling you that you both have the wrong idea about <i>Doctor Who</i> in thinking that something made up of so many viewpoints, stories and eras so essentially disparate and incoherent can be possibly distilled into any kind of overriding consistent principle.<br /><br />The difference is that I am right (or if you prefer, have a basis for telling you than) and you both are wrong (or if you prefer, have no basis for your claims). <br /><br />What you think is just what you think, and it's wrong. What I think is not just what I think: it also happens to be right, and I can back it up without having to ignore the bits that inconveniently disagree with me by calling them 'duds'.SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102522819364312684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-75819754420318767552006-11-20T12:47:00.000+00:002006-11-20T12:47:00.000+00:00Andrew Stevens said...
This does not mean that on...<i>Andrew Stevens said... <br />This does not mean that one can't become smarter, more beautiful, or more athletic with the proper will and enabling means. .</i><br /><br />It’s never worked for me.<br /><br /><i>SK said... <br />Which is, you know, fine, but hardly a basis for telling someone else they've got the wrong idea aabut Doctor Who.</i><br /><br />Wouldn’t having any idea about anything at all implicitly suggest you’re “telling someone else they’ve got the wrong idea”? Or, put another way, you’re saying “the whole point about what you think is that it’s just what you think”.<br /><br />Which is… you know… <i>true.</i> Just not very illuminating.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-9594309848057739922006-11-20T09:55:00.000+00:002006-11-20T09:55:00.000+00:00But [...] I contend unlike a real person the Docto...<i>But [...] I contend unlike a real person the Doctor does have an irreducible core. The Doctor played by Van Deisel, Robin Williams or Richard Gere would be a travesty. Of course over the history of the series it frequently became a travesty. But my solution to that is to do what I can to try and forget all about the dud episodes.</i><br /><br />So you're not actually talking about <i>Doctor Who</i>, you're talking about 'the carefully-selected set of bits of <i>Doctor Who</i> that support my pre-existing theories of what it should be about, ignoring the bits that inconveniently disagree with me (which I shall label 'travesties' or 'duds' in order to avoid having to consider them)'.<br /><br />Which is, you know, fine, but hardly a basis for telling someone else they've got the wrong idea aabut <i>Doctor Who</i>.SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102522819364312684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-58490441969366481502006-11-17T12:58:00.000+00:002006-11-17T12:58:00.000+00:00Thinking about it, the public does believe that ge...Thinking about it, the public does believe that genetics is more "persistent" than environment is. I.e. they tend to believe that an unlucky early environment can be overcome in a way that unlucky genetics cannot be, though there's no good evidence for this belief. If that's part of what you meant by the public being skewed to the nature side of the debate, then I agree. This might be because some genetic attributes really are fixed (species, for example), which misleads people into believing that all genetic traits are equally fixed. I see no evidence to support this assertion however. It is certainly true that some people are born smarter, more beautiful, or more athletic than other people. This does not mean that one can't become smarter, more beautiful, or more athletic with the proper will and enabling means.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-91438294352695035272006-11-17T12:45:00.000+00:002006-11-17T12:45:00.000+00:00Gavin, no arguments with you on Doctor Who. As fo...Gavin, no arguments with you on Doctor Who. As for calling it alternative media, SK, I call it that only because Doctor Who began as a television show. So, the Lord of the Rings movies are the alternative media since they started as books.<br /><br />However, perhaps we do differ on human nature. I have the contrary opinion: it seems to me that popular opinion is heavily skewed toward the nurture side of the debate. Of course, missing in the debate usually is exercise of free will. Both nature and nurture can be overcome or enhanced given enough effort (and the presence of enabling means). I also think you're rather overstating the case when it comes to the existence or non-existence of an essential self. Most people, after about the age of 25 or so, rarely change at all. I'll grant there are occasional traumatic exceptions, such as, as you say, SLA brainwashing. It seems odd to focus on those, however, rather than what we usually observe.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-54940889261035887362006-11-17T11:08:00.000+00:002006-11-17T11:08:00.000+00:00Mr. Andrew Stevens-
You surmise correctly, sir. Of...Mr. Andrew Stevens-<br />You surmise correctly, sir. Of course I’m not making a ‘pure nurture’ case and would agree there’s a balance in play. My argument was really two-fold:<br />i) The popular perception is wrenched much too far over towards the ‘nature’ end of things. This may be partly because it’s comforting to believe you have an ‘irreducible core’, and would still be yourself even if washed up on a desert island or kidnapped and brainwashed by the SLA.<br />ii) Your belief that most people are fundamentally good seems to me contingent on an ‘essential self’, which for me means I can’t really go along with it. (Before we even start asking why there were death camps or John Nathan Turner.)<br /><br /><i>The average villain in Doctor Who is a ranting megalomaniac and there's rarely any real moral complexity (Genesis of the Daleks aside). </i><br /><br />Well there’s a repeated emphasis on the problematic nature of using violence to achieve good, as I think we’ve debated on this blog before. And, while of course all monsters represent a darker side of the self (a Dalek is the ranting megalomaniac inside of me and you etc), there’s sometimes a sense in which the monster is a darker side of the Doctor. (The Queen Spider in Planet of the Spiders representing the Doctor’s egoism which he must conquer etc.) That’s something above the standard polar opposition between hero and villain.<br /><br />But I’ll readily concede for my argument to really work you’d have to compare Doctor Who to its like – to an average popular Saturday teatime family viewing TV show, rather than the works of Dostoyevsky or something. As also previously discussed on this blog, as soon as the spin-off show Torchwood claimed adult status for itself all of that started looking paper-thin. It’s like looking through the same telescope, only the wrong way up.<br /><br /><i>I withdraw my objection if you're coming at it as an alternate media fan. I've never read any of the books or listened to the audios. </i><br /><br />Me neither, pretty much for reasons given above. <br /><br /><i>Sk said:<br />There is no 'essence of "Doctor Who"' -- or if there is, it is the very changability of it. </i><br /><br />The go-anywhere do-anything changeability of Doctor Who is of course a huge part of its appeal. (You’ve even got a built-in rationale that allows you to swap the lead actor round, Blake’s Seven would have killed for that one!) But (neatly linking the two subjects) I contend unlike a real person the Doctor does have an irreducible core. The Doctor played by Van Deisel, Robin Williams or Richard Gere would be a travesty. Of course over the history of the series it frequently became a travesty. But my solution to that is to do what I can to try and forget all about the dud episodes.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-46312843926848946322006-11-17T09:58:00.000+00:002006-11-17T09:58:00.000+00:00Might I respectfully suggest that even without con...Might I respectfully suggest that even without considering 'alternative media' (and what p[recisely is so alternative abut 'books', possibly the least 'alternative' media in existance), over a TV history of twenty-six plus two years, shaped by many many different viewpoints, there is more than adequate evidence to support just about any interpretation of the Doctor that one might wish?<br /><br />Or, in other words, you're both right and the entire discussion is rather pointless. <br /><br />There is no 'essence of "Doctor Who"' -- or if there is, it is the very changability of it.SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102522819364312684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-43127411722388036512006-11-16T15:34:00.000+00:002006-11-16T15:34:00.000+00:00Gavin,
As I said, we probably don't disagree on h...Gavin,<br /><br />As I said, we probably don't disagree on human nature much. As long as you're not making a pure nurture case (i.e. that biology plays no role), we can agree that environment certainly does. I actually have no idea what effect dumping my brother on a deserted island would have (very quick death, I suspect). I'm not entirely sure where the thought experiment is going, other than making a general "environment makes a difference" argument, which almost nobody denies.<br /><br />As for the Doctor, I think you might be laying too much onto the character. I can agree with the points about never expecting a reward and having difficulty doing the right thing (risking his life, for one thing). But the "not obvious" point seems to be stretching it. The average villain in Doctor Who is a ranting megalomaniac and there's rarely any real moral complexity (Genesis of the Daleks aside). I withdraw my objection if you're coming at it as an alternate media fan. I've never read any of the books or listened to the audios. It may very well be true in those and I don't actually want to engage in any kind of debate about whether the show <i>ought</i> to have had more moral complexity or not, since such arguments tend to be shadow-boxing over more fundamental philosophical disagreements.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-53390287954671240362006-11-16T13:46:00.000+00:002006-11-16T13:46:00.000+00:00Andrew Stevens said...
We probably don't disagree...<i>Andrew Stevens said... <br />We probably don't disagree on human nature too much, Gavin though I'm not sure I'd deny an "essential self." Almost everybody I meet has a great deal of consistency to their personality… It is impossible to imagine my older brother (one of the most gentle men I've ever known) suddenly deciding to beat his wife, for example. </i><br /><br />I think of the ‘essential self’ as the notion of an irreducible core that isn’t dependent on your social context. The Robinson Crusoe syndrome, would your brother be the same if he was separated not only from his wife and this week’s episode of Torchwood but from everything he knows and dumped on a desert island somewhere?<br /><br /><i>The Doctor is a terrific fictional hero because he has the courage to say "what you are doing is wrong." </i><br /><br />I think of the Doctor as a good character for a slightly different reason, because he’s willing to admit doing what’s right isn’t always obvious or easy and doesn’t always bring rewards.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-4249407569114765322006-11-16T11:56:00.000+00:002006-11-16T11:56:00.000+00:00Just out of curiosity, I take it that the police (...<B>Just out of curiosity, I take it that the police (sorry, boys in blue) aren't classed as agents of the evil State in the same way, except when enforcing speed limits? (Ditto the armed forces, for that matter.) I was assuming that the intelligence services would logically benefit from the Laura Norder clause of Express-think, but I guess they don't have the same traditional status as the police.</B><br /><br />Bobby-on-the-beat is the preferred term. B.O.Bs used to be a good thing because they arrested yobs, and were allowed to work on the basis of their own common sense rather than some undemocratic law that we never had a referendum on in the first place. However, nowadays, B.O.Bs spend nearly all their time in the police station filling out paper work; and the time the do spend on the streets is mainly taken up arresting golly-wog owners and enforcing other politically correct laws. Furthermore, white people are no longer allowed to join the police, unless they are ho mo sexual. So while individual B.O.Bs are still a good thing, the police force as a whole is controlled by the P.C.B and is a Bad Thing. <br /><br /><br />Have you noticed how Tony has adopted the Daily Express cosmology in which The Streets = Bad and The Home = Good.Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05786623930392936889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-51923848045454865742006-11-15T13:39:00.000+00:002006-11-15T13:39:00.000+00:00"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best o..."The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true." -James Branch Cabell<br /><br />We probably don't disagree on human nature too much, Gavin though I'm not sure I'd deny an "essential self." Almost everybody I meet has a great deal of consistency to their personality, barring perhaps traumatic shifts such as insanity, profound grief (or other trauma), or revelatory redemption (not necessarily religious). It is impossible to imagine my older brother (one of the most gentle men I've ever known) suddenly deciding to beat his wife, for example. If he did, I would regard that as sufficient evidence that he had gone insane.<br /><br />But, sure, anybody's capable of doing good things or evil things. Experiments show that most people will consent to doing things they know are wrong if they are ordered to do so by a trusted authority. While everybody likes to think they'd be one, heroes are very rare. In keeping with (some parts of) this blog, that's why I'm such a big fan of Doctor Who. The Doctor is a terrific fictional hero because he has the courage to say "what you are doing is wrong." Maybe I'm naive, but I genuinely believe there are some people like that though I wish there were more of them.Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-4420585787614517242006-11-15T13:03:00.000+00:002006-11-15T13:03:00.000+00:00Andrew Stevens said...
Gavin's "cynical" assumpti...<i>Andrew Stevens said... <br />Gavin's "cynical" assumption is unquestionably right.</i><br /><br />Blimey! I suppose it had to happen one day…<br /><br />Well, I hate to bring this up on a British blog, but the Bill of Rights (the first Four Amendments, anyway) was really all about forbidding the federal government to do things that the British did to them just prior to the Revolution.<br /><br />Nothing about not eating soggy chips or painting different halves of the drainpipe different colours? Seriously, bring it up, it was interesting to read.<br /><br />.<i>I am not a cynic, generally, and I know that makes me unhip, but I think the majority of people are decent and just, even politicians. .</i><br /><br />I’m not sure I’m universally regarded as ‘hip’ (boney maybe), but I am a cynic. One of my drunken Saturday night rants is how, in the original Greek sense, cynicism meant we settled for a poor existence where we could have a marvelous one. (Whereas idealism, in the Greek sense, meant in this world at least we had to settle for a poor one, but I digress.)<br /><br />I don’t agree with the “decent and just” notion, not because I believe the opposite, but because I don’t think people have an ‘essential self’. I think people have a complicated and varied nature that can change with circumstances.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-62842293499685817992006-11-15T12:25:00.000+00:002006-11-15T12:25:00.000+00:00Well, I hate to bring this up on a British blog, b...Well, I hate to bring this up on a British blog, but the Bill of Rights (the first Four Amendments, anyway) was really all about forbidding the federal government to do things that the British did to them just prior to the Revolution. Thus, the First Amendment because the British went after pamphleteers, the Second Amendment because (right before the Revolution) the British attempted to seize munitions, the Third Amendment to prevent involuntary quartering of troops, and the Fourth Amendment immunity to warrantless searches and seizures. (The rest of the Bill of Rights were actually copying Magna Carta style rights though.)<br /><br />Thus, it's probably true, as SK said, that political speech was what they were really trying to protect and it's certainly true, as Gavin Burrows says, that a lot of the Constitution was written to guarantee the state governments that the federal government wouldn't strip them of all their power. Moreover, the states wanted some assurances that if the federal government got too big for its britches, they'd be able to revolt and overthrow it. (Yes, that really is what the Second Amendment is all about, foreign as that might seem to us in the 21st century.)<br /><br />Gavin's "cynical" assumption is unquestionably right. The Constitution had to be sold to the state legislatures, not to the people as a whole. (The U.S. government was established via ratification by the state legislatures, not by referendum.) However, it was just as true then as it is now that while there were some corrupt legislators, there were also plenty of honest legislators who genuinely cared about the rights of the people. So ultimately, I'm not sure the difference means as much as many cynics would suppose. (I am not a cynic, generally, and I know that makes me unhip, but I think the majority of people are decent and just, even politicians.)Andrew Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13453328821252013152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-83389005289063885482006-11-15T11:53:00.000+00:002006-11-15T11:53:00.000+00:00I know this is off-topic, but can I just say: Gosh...I know this is off-topic, but can I just say: Gosh, what a thoughtful, literate bunch you all are on here. I think that this blog, and its comments, persuade me to change my mind on complex issues more often than any other venue I know. Please, give yourselves all a pat on the back. Seriously.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-82320975445029676592006-11-15T11:39:00.000+00:002006-11-15T11:39:00.000+00:00Andrew Stevens said...
… it was never the intent ...<i>Andrew Stevens said... <br />… it was never the intent of the people who wrote that Amendment to apply that principle to the state governments.</i><br /><br />My first, perhaps cynical, assumption was that the Amendment was therefore being sold to the state governments rather than “the people”. You’ll be under a federal gov but don’t worry, because we promise to be nice.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.com