Category Archives: Pop Culture

A Conversational Journey through New Who – S04E01 – Partners in Crime

David is coming to New Who for the first time, having loved Classic Who as a kid. Tehani is a recent convert, and ploughed through Seasons 1 to 6 (so far) in just a few weeks after becoming addicted thanks to Matt Smith – she’s rewatching to keep up with David! Tansy is the expert in the team, with a history in Doctor Who fandom that goes WAY back, and a passion for Doctor Who that inspires us all.

We’re also joined today by guest viewer Lynne M. Thomas, co-editor of the Hugo-winning book Chicks Dig Time Lords and co-creator of the new Doctor Who podcast Verity! Lynne gives Tansy a run for her money when it comes to Doctor Who expertise and we welcome her to our review!

We are working our way through New Who, using season openers and closers, and Hugo shortlisted episodes, and sometimes a couple of extra episodes we love as our blogging points. Just for fun!

“Partners in Crime” – S04E01
The Doctor – David Tennant
Donna Noble – Catherine Tate

DAVID:
So, obviously the big news with this episode is the return of Donna, and I for one was thrilled. I really enjoyed her character in this episode, more so than in “The Runaway Bride”, to be honest. She seemed to have a bit more depth to her this time around, and I quite liked the idea of her as the enterprising journalist, sneaking around and gathering information.

TEHANI:
I love Donna so much! She’s brash and ditzy but really smart and deeply passionate and grounded, under the ditz and show! I’ve rewatched this episode a bunch of times though, and still keep seeing Donna’s desperate search for aliens as just that – a bit desperate, as if she’s realised what she let go when she chose not to go with the Doctor, and will do anything to get it back. Not from a romantic or lost (potential) love point of view or anything, but it’s just, well, desperate! It’s one of the sour notes of this episode for me, but there’s so much else I loved 🙂 Particularly – DONNA’S BACK!

LYNNE:
I love this episode like pie. The dynamic between the Doctor and Donna, particularly in the scenes where they are miming across the room at each other, reminds me of the best screwball comedies from the 30s and 40s.

Both Tennant and Tate’s performances are pitch perfect, down to Tennant’s obvious discomfort with the young lady at Adipose Industries giving him her phone number, and Tate’s acting the first time she claps eyes on an adipose for herself, which is a splendid mix of disbelief, triumph, and moderated fear because the things are so darned cute. All of which she is likely doing as she reacts to a tennis ball on a stick off camera.

4-01-Partners-In-Crime-the-doctor-and-donna-doctordonna-23023464-1600-900

DAVID:
To me, Donna comes across as very single minded and determined when she has set a goal, and this is comes across really well in this episode. The only thing that I struggled with was that in between seeing her in “The Runaway Bride” and in this episode I have been watching her in The Office – a very different role!

But, yes, Tate has an incredible talent for physical comedy (all comedy, really), and the scene’s with her and Tennant are hilarious. Sometimes RTD’s scripts try for comedy and fall a little short, but in the two T’s he has the perfect tools for the job.

TANSY:
Ooh I have been meaning to watch that season of The Office, purely for her. Does it matter I haven’t watched the previous seasons?
Continue reading

Classic Who Conversation – Genesis of the Daleks

After a bit of a hiatus, here’s another podcast! Tansy, Tehani and I had lots of fun talking about perhaps my favourite Classic Doctor Episode of all time, Genesis of the Daleks.

I must apologise for the sound quality, I hate listening to myself in most circumstances but I sound like I am doing a second rate Davros impersonation here! It’s partly Skype, but mostly that I need to get a decent microphone. Suggestions are welcome. 🙂

We cover a lot of ground in a hour, and I hope that you enjoy.

Genesis_of_the_Daleks

‘A cup o’ tea and a slice of cake!’

I am a big fan of the Kasterborous Doctor Who site, it’s my first stop for news on our favourite Time Lord. I was excited to see that Christian had launched a sister site, Cult Britannia, that caters to many of the other British TV shows that shaped my childhood and still hold a special place in my heart.

One of those shows was Worzel Gummidge, and you can read all about Jon Pertwee’s other role in my article here. Enjoy! 🙂

There is an air of childlike simplicity to most of the scarecrows, and in none is this more apparent than Worzel and Aunt Sally. But, it is not simply the sweet innocence that some people think is all there is to children, there is a degree of petulance and desire to have their own way. Worzel will quite often throw a tantrum or sulk when thwarted, behaviour that will be familiar to anyone who has to deal with toddlers. Despite this, there is no real malice to Worzel and it is hard not to feel sorry for him as he tries to make sense of concepts like mathematics or fashion. Aunt Sally, however, is actually quite a terrible person, shallow and vain and incredibly greedy. She is obsessed with class, decrying those around her as common while behaving in the most uncouth manner imaginable. She is constantly using Worzel’s devotion to her to manipulate him, but every so often we will see that he does actually matter to her, just often enough to make us have hope for them both.

Worzel-Gummidge-460_802674c

Geek Tribalism and Sexism

In one of those terribly entertaining cases of foot-in-mouth that makes the internet both amusing and depressing, Tony Harris recently made some comments about female cosplayers and fake geeks that, quite rightly, caused the wrath of the web to descend upon him.

You can find two great articles here and here that either address the specific comments, or the wider issues that they spring from, and they sum it up far better than I ever could. But, there were a couple of thoughts that sprang to mind after reading the various conversations that have been sparked by this furore. I think there are actually two factors at play here.

Geek Tribalism

One of the problems is that many geeks take a perverse pride in being part of a minority, whether perceived or real. I’d suggest that there are a lot of people whose interests weren’t exactly considered cool at high school and peer group pressure and bullying created a sort of bunker mentality that endures long after school is done with. If you are getting victimised as a teenager and feel on the outer, it is only natural to form a group of your own where you can feel like you belong, and look down on those who aren’t part of group as meatheads or jocks or less intelligent so you can feel superior to the “cool crowd”. While it is natural, that doesn’t mean it is healthy, especially when you are still feeling the same way when you are in your forties.

It is hard for many geeks to accept that in many ways we have won the culture wars. Superhero movies or science fiction and fantasy based tv shows are no longer the domain of one social demographic, they are becoming increasingly acceptable in “mainstream” society, which means an influx of new fans. For some people this is threatening, when your identity is defined by being the most devoted or knowledgeable fan of a particular franchise there can be resentment of people you see as newbies coming along and suddenly claiming to be fans of “your” interest.

It’s no different than when people loved a band for years while they were below the radar getting frustrated when the band hits the charts and all of a sudden they have to share them with people they see as simply jumping on the bandwagon. I know people who will stop listening to a particular artist when they go “mainstream”, or see the new fans as “poseurs” and treat them with scorn – so it is certainly not limited to spec fic fandom! But, I think that feeling of being on the outer makes it worse, and create a more poisonous type of resentment.

I can think of two areas of my fandom where there has been a huge change in the makeup of the fanbase. The first is the fantasy series A Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin. Since I got involved in the fan group of these books over a decade ago, their popularity has steadily grown and the recent HBO adaptation has meant that the books are suddenly part of mainstream conversation and extremely well known.

The second is Doctor Who. Since the relaunch, and especially over the past few years, Doctor Who is perceived very differently. When I was growing up it was a bit of a laughing stock, definitely not something you were quick to share with others. Now it seems too have become rather cool, I see lots of t shirts out and about and it is even going to feature at the Proms!

As a long term fan you can look at these things and get upset about people “trespassing” on to your sphere of interest, whether it speaking contemptuously of “floobs” (people who have only seen HBO’s series and not read ASOAIF) or disparaging those who hopped on the New Who bandwagon and how they don’t get the heritage of Doctor Who, or you can be excited that something you love is getting the recognition it deserves,

As I said to Neil Gaiman when we were chatting at a party (sorry, couldn’t resist haha), I was really excited by how well attended all the Doctor Who panels I was on at Chicon were, and how there were so many tween and teens there saying that they were happy to wear their Doctor Who tshirt to school and that it didn’t make them a target of mockery. As I pointed, when I was at school that would have gotten me beaten up – and I am not exaggerating, though I am sure that is an extreme case.

I am thrilled that when people at work ask me what I did on a Sydney trip and I say that I hung out with friends from a George R.R. Martin fan group they know who George R.R. Martin is! I love seeing people on planes reading his books and being able to have a conversation about it – if they want one, of course lol

Where is the logic in being upset about being marginalised and mocked for so long, but then not welcoming the fact that all of a sudden there are suddenly lots more people who share your interests and loves, and having common ground to make more friends? As a fan I want as many people as possible to know about the things I am interested in, there is not a finite amount of enjoyment to go around that is diminished by every new person that comes along. Instead, it truly is the more the merrier, the more fans there are the more vibrant a community we can build.

Geek Sexism

While that tribalism is a bit sad and I don’t agree with it, it is understandable to a degree. But, as has been pointed out, there is an even darker side to this whole issue, and that is the double standards applied to males and females when it comes to true fans. I don’t really feel qualified to talk too much about this, and Foz and Tansy have both done a far better job than I could of addressing it, all I can talk is from my own experience. There is a great line in Tansy’s post where she says:

(Frankly in the case of many female superheroes, the concept behind the character can actually be a whole lot more empowering than the reality of the stories featuring that character.)

I am sure this is true, and I am not arguing against or even using it to prove my next point. But, it made me think of the fact that for me that it applies to the majority of comic book characters. I am a huge Superman fan, but I have read maybe three or four comic of the thousands of character arcs that have been created for him. I much prefer the prose books I have read, or Smallville, or the DCAU series. Could I tell you what happened in Action Comics #234, what the hell happened with Red and Blue? And, I think I am a hardcore Whovian but I am only about half way through New Who and I’ve never listened to any Big Finish productions.

Given all that, if you had to guess, how many times do you think I have had my credentials as a fan questioned, or my right to be on as many panels on the subjects as I have challenged? If you said zero, you would be spot on. It is hard not to think that my gender has a huge amount to do with that. And that is just not right – why should female fans have a bigger burden of proof placed on their shoulders?

I do think that a lot of this comes from the fact there is a percentage of male geeks see the opposite sex as the enemy. After a life time of slights and rejections, real or imagined, sometimes people veil hurt and vulnerability under a layer of contempt and misogyny. The way they treat women is a projection of the insecurity and self loathing they feel, after all, it is much easier to blame someone else than take ownership yourself. Rather than run risk of being rejected, they would rather be on the offensive, the only way they can feel safe is by trying to put themselves in a position of power by denigrating others.

Saying that, while you might see why they would act that way, it doesn’t make it acceptable. Like people who were bullied becoming bullies, I have never seen why you would not treat people the way you would wish to be treated yourself, if you’ve been marginalised why would you not want to be inclusive? And, treating the object of your desire in such a fashion seems rather counter-productive, it’s unlikely to make them want to spend time in your company! It’s amazing how effective treating someone like a human being, equally deserving of their own interests and opinions, is in building friendships. Funny that.

As for the treatment of female cosplayers, I think that Foz hits the nail on the head when she says:

Can we just take a moment to appreciate the fact that a straight white male comics artist – that is, a professional member of a fraternity whose members frequently get froth-mouthed with rage at the VERY SUGGESTION that maybe, just MAYBE, consistently drawing female heroes in skintight, skimpy clothes, viscerally sexualised poses and impossible bodily contortions MIGHT JUST BE a little bit sexist and demeaning – is now saying women who dress as those selfsame characters are slutty? Like, do we not see the contradiction, here? How is it fine to rabidly defend the hypersexualised portrayal of comic book heroines as being no big deal, aesthetically justified, representative of their characters, traditional and all that jazz, but then start body- and slut-shaming actual, real live women who choose to cosplay those outfits? If the costumes themselves had no overt sexual component, or if such a component was present, but ultimately benign – as most comics apologists tend to argue – then the idea that actual women could dress that way specifically to prey on the sexual sensibilities of men who like those characters should be fundamentally ludicrous, regardless of the depth and breadth of their personal comics knowledge.

Seriously, angry comic guys: you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that female comic heroines aren’t hypersexualised, and then claim that, merely by donning their costumes, real live women are sexualising themselves, and that their primary motive for doing so must therefore be to mess with you. No. THEY’RE DRESSING THE WAY YOU INSIST ON WOMEN DRESSING, AND THEN YOU’RE SHAMING THEM FOR IT.

As a male there are lots of characters I could choose to dress up as whose bodies are not accentuated by their costumes. But, if I chose to dress up as Superman, in skin tight lycra and my underwear wantonly exposed on the outside, am I trying to entrap the innocent women around me? If you think so, you obviously haven’t seen me in lycra! What I am doing is emulating a character I admire by faithfully reproducing their outfit. The difference is, I can do it without being called a slut.

That aside, so what if women do dress up in deliberately sexy costumes? What right does anyone have to tell them that makes them less than genuine fans? Personally, there are things about cosplay that do make me uncomfortable at times, some of it does seem over sexualised and there sometimes seems to be  an unhealthy exhibitionist/voyeur dynamic going on (in a minority of cases). But that’s not their problem, that’s probably mine. Just like other things that I personally can’t get into, like the SCA or filking or LARPing, I take a live and let live approach. If dressing up in costumes makes people happy and enables them to build a community and to enjoy whatever their fandom is, who am I to stand in their way? Life is unhappy enough without curtailing people’s happiness unnecessarily and forcing your tastes on them. If it doesn’t hurt anyone else, people should be able to express their fandom the way they want without having to prove its worth to people who have elected themselves the arbiters of geekdom.

The reason why I love fandom is because my experiences of it have been of inclusivity and enthusiasm and tolerance. I want everyone to have that same experience regardless of gender or orientation or race or whatever. People like Tony Harris don’t speak for me, but I think it important that those disagree with those attitudes speak up or nothing will change.

Wednesday Writers – David Peterson

As is the case for many of us, I’m sure, my first fantasy love was the Lord of the Rings trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien. Not only did I read the story itself over and over, I was also fascinated with the appendices attached. I could not help but marvel at the work Tolkien put into the background of his world and his obsession with detail, and nowhere was this more apparent than in his love of language and the tongues he created for the inhabitants of Middle Earth.

From this starting point I have always been interested to see how other writers go about creating new languages, and over the years I have seen examples of how to do it right and of how to do it very wrong indeed. As a writer I want to make sure that I fall in the former category, despite my natural inclination to laziness! I’m always keen to find new resources to help with my world building and make sure I keep learning, and I deeply admire those with a talent in this area.

So, it was a real pleasure to meet David Peterson (the creator of, amongst others, the Dothraki language for the HBO adaptation of A Game of Thrones) at WorldCon. An incredibly nice and humble guy, you would never know that he is one of the best in the business by him telling you, so I wanted to feature him on my blog to give others a chance see just how talented and knowledgeable he is.

It’s not often that a conlanger is asked to contribute to a writing blog. For a variety of reasons, serious language creation has always remained (and continues to remain) on the periphery of the artistic realm. Even today a high school student who writes “poetry” is more likely to be considered an artist than someone who’s been creating languages for fifty years (and there are several excellent conlangers both living and dead who fit that description).

But while some of the old prejudices remain, language creation has never been hotter. Starting with the Lord of the Rings film trilogy using authentic (or as authentic as possible) Quenya and Sindarin, enormously popular franchises like Avatar and Game of Thrones have profited from extensive use of one or more invented language. Their viability in popular media (and the visibility of these flagship franchises) has led many to consider making use of invented languages in their own works.

In this post, I’d like to give writers some practical advice on incorporating invented languages into their writing. Creating a full language may be out of the question for most writers, but hopefully understanding some of the issues behind language creation will be useful to all writers.

General Advice

Before going into specifics, I’d like to emphasize that in the case of language systems, less is more. It takes a lot of work to create an authentic language, and a great deal of expertise that comes only with study and practice. It’s easy to create a single conlang sentence, which, if translated directly into English without any other details, looks authentic. For example:

Brat danar glin kalag.
“Stay away from the swamp.”

There are potentially thousands of ways that the created sentence can mean what it means in English. For example, perhaps kalag means “stay away from”, brat danar is a compound that means “swamp”, and glin is an emphatic marker used to form commands. Who knows? There are any number of plausible interpretations. As more sentences are added, though, the possibilities decline rapidly:

Vor danar!
“Go away!”

All of a sudden we see danar appearing again in a sentence where it’s likely translated as “away”, which means the other word, vor, probably has to mean “go”, and the thousands of conlinguistic possibilities drop to the hundreds.

Add another sentence:

Mas bratuk danar glin kalag.
“We stayed away from the swamp.”

And now it’s becoming more and more likely that the “conlang” is just, in fact, a fancy way of speaking English, with some minimal changes (e.g. omission of the word “the”).

If one is prepared to invest the time to create a fully fleshed-out language, then, by all means, go for it! For those who just need the illusion of a language—something that could, perhaps, be expanded upon later if there were interest—it’s best not to get painted into a corner.

Sound Systems: The Place to Start

If there’s one aspect of language creation one should focus on if one needs a stand-in language for a novel, it’s sound systems (or phonology). The thing that most immediately distinguishes a language is the way in which all its words hang together. The best way to ensure one does this with a created language is to create a phonology to ensure all words share similar sounds and similar shapes.

Using English as an example, the following are all plausible English words:

  • blork
  • clund
  • gettle
  • sprile

The thing that makes them plausible English words is they all use English sounds and the sounds they use are arranged in patterns common to English. The following words, though, do not:

  • ngsee
  • dleh
  • uzs
  • jlemga

Each of the words above is composed of sounds that occur in English (e.g. the first word is just the “ng” from the word “song” placed right in front of the word “see”), but they’re arranged in ways that are completely impossible (or at least improbable) for English. If one were trying to create a fake English-like language, words from the first list would be far preferable to those in the second.

In creating a new language palette for a work of fiction, then, one ought to come up with a set of sounds (and they can differ from English. For example, let’s say there’s a language with no voiced stops [no “b”, “d” or “g”]) and then stick to them any time a word needs to be created. In addition, come up with a set of patterns in which the letters can occur. Here’s a sample language that has no voiced stops, no “r”, consonant clusters that allow only liquids after stops and fricatives, and syllables that end only in “n” or “l”:

  • tlamen
  • ilkun
  • pyesu
  • tikwil

Further levels of detail can be added (e.g. average word length, differences between word-internal and word-final codas, etc.), but the result is to produce word shapes that look like they come from the same language—and obviously so, since there likely won’t be a whole bunch of material for a reader to see.

Inflection

There are only a handful of ways that languages show inflectional morphology (e.g. pluralization, noun case, verb tense, etc.). The most common are:

  • Affixation (including prefixes, suffixes, circumfixes and infixes).
  • Word-internal change (e.g. “goose” > “geese” or “súbject” vs. “subjéct”).
  • Prolix expression (e.g. “antiquated” > “more antiquated”)
  • Suppletion (e.g. “is” vs. “were” vs. “am”).

Without creating actual grammar, one can give the illusion of grammar simply by employing one of these strategies on a key lexeme, e.g.:

Undiama tish hakhlor.                              Zvala dek sabindore lundiama.
“This peach is rotten.”                           “They devoured the peaches.”

The sentences above don’t reveal a lot about the grammar, but we see the presence of an l- prefix on what we would probably assume is the word for “peach”, and we see similarity in the suffixes for what may be the verbs of each sentence. Importantly, the translations still provide some latitude (for example, is the l- prefix a simple plural marker, or does it mark the accusative plural? Or is it perhaps simply a definite article, like “the”?), so we need say nothing definite, but the recurrence of recognizable morphology will give an otherwise fake conlang (i.e. a language that hasn’t actually been created, but is meant to appear as if it has been) a touch of realism.

The Myth of the Monolingual Planet

On Earth today we’ve got about 7,000 languages. While that number may be declining rapidly, it seems almost inconceivable (to me, at least) that there will come a point in time where every person on Earth speaks one language, with all the others having vanished. This, however, is precisely what we see in a wide variety of scifi and fantasy works: one people, one culture, one language.

Consider the case of English. English is spoken as a primary language in Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and parts of India. Imagine if one supposed that each of these countries was pretty much the same on account of the common language. And then move within one of those countries. Australians all speak Australian English (with no dialectal variation), so there, at least, is a region where pretty much everyone is the same, right?

Before one goes off to create 7,000 different languages for one’s fictional universe, though, it’s not that difficult to create the illusion of multilingualism. It’s rare to find a place where one and only one language is spoken. While there’s likely a dominant language, what are the minority languages spoken there? They can be referred to by name (even if they haven’t been developed), and can actually be reflected in proper and place names. Dropping these details in sparingly gives the illusion of depth, and results in a more authentic feel for one’s fictional world.

What’s In a Name?

Consider the following list of male names one might find in modern America:

  • Thadeus
  • Sam
  • Jean-Paul
  • Muhammad
  • D’Brickashaw
  • Daniel

What do they have in common? Almost nothing. As a result, one might, then, expect an equivalent list of male names in a fantasy novel to look like this:

  • Sevander
  • Vort
  • Dhannïs-Shaer
  • Zullebi
  • Drîqz’z
  • Forient

And they may look like that. But consider what the list of English names tells us. If we had to rank those names by most likely to be “American” (to the extent that’s a valid category), we’d probably start with “Sam” then go to “Daniel” then maybe “Thadeus” then probably “D’Brickashaw” (easily one of the coolest names ever invented). Why? Because the names themselves tell us something about their history. For example, we know that “Muhammad” (the world’s most common name) comes from the Arabic language, and is closely associated with Islam. We know that “Jean-Paul” is of French origin, and that a name like “D’Brickashaw” is uniquely American, but also not likely to have occurred before the year 1900.

Now let’s look back at the list of fantasy names. How realistic are they? That depends. Are these random names assigned to characters that have pretty much the same socio-cultural background? Their structure suggests not. If these are residents of the same region who share a common culture, it suggest that this is an area that’s seen a lot of immigration in its history. Does the detail given in the story back up or belie this interpretation?

As a final note, one often sees names such as the two listed below existing in the same system:

  • Ambaliessa
  • Dragonwind

That is, in this invented universe unconnected to our own, we have one name that comes from a non-English linguistic system, and another name that does. This doesn’t make a lot of sense. Certainly names are sometimes translated (consider “Sitting Bull”), but usually they all are, or they all aren’t. Consistency in this area is desirable. To those who pay attention to such things (more than one would guess), transgressions of this nature are roughly equivalent to the following:

Ambaliessa was a fair maid of the town of Parnilliat—a bit bookish, but uncommonly pretty. She would spend her days riding through the fields on her mare Semia, helping her father at the mill, and watching Gossip Girl.

You may protest, thinking Dragonwind isn’t that bad—and this may be true for some readers. For many, though, it’s a chink in the armor—a break from the alternate reality set up by the novel. For readers who like to get lost in the world of a novel, linguistic anomalies like this can be distracting.

The Phêÿqxh Language

There is a perception amongst linguistically aware readers that sci-fi and fantasy novels make liberal use of…”unique” romanization systems when rendering character and place names, often with the express intent of making the names look foreign. This practice often backfires when symbols are used in contradictory or counterintuitive ways. Consider the (admittedly cool-looking) name Xaro Xhoan Daxos. If pronounced in the most obvious way to an English speaker, the three x’s are pronounced three different ways in three different contexts (as [z] before a vowel in the first name; as [z] before a consonant in the second name; and as [ks] before a vowel in the third name).

While “it looks cool” is an adequate (albeit subjective) justification for most, one will run into problems if the fledgling system that gave birth to the name is ever expanded. One will often be forced to concede either that (a) certain characters are pronounced in contradictory fashions, (b) the romanization system is inconsistent, or (c) the character’s name isn’t actually pronounced in the way that’s most obvious to an English speaker.

Presuming that one’s readers are, for the most part, English speakers (if one is writing in English), I would propose that all names be spelled in such a way that their pronunciations should be obvious to the average speaker of English. As a result, certain practices should be avoided—namely:

  • The use of any and all diacritics, save in situations where one really intends, for example, to include an umlauted vowel as used in German (e.g. “ö” or “ü”). Diacritics like the acute accent (“á”), the grave accent (“à”), and the circumflex (“â”) aren’t used in English, save in a few borrowings, and their functions are nebulous. Including them is bound to produce inconsistent results in the minds of different English-speaking readers.
  • Inconsistent spelling systems. Unless the characters in the fictional universe of one’s story use the roman alphabet as their actual writing system (an unlikely coincidence if one’s world is unconnected to our own), there’s no reason to fabricate the inconsistencies found in natural language spelling systems that employ the roman alphabet (e.g. English, French, Vietnamese, etc.). To the extent possible, a policy of one letter = one sound should be employed.
  • Non-English digraphs. A digraph is the use of two characters to convey a single sound. Thus, “th” in “thus” is a digraph, but “th” in “hothouse” is not. Certain combinations (e.g. “vh”, “xh”, “rh”, etc.) may evoke a certain aesthetic (and, indeed, may even prove useful in romanizing certain phonologies), but are likely to be misinterpreted or disregarded by many English speakers. (Incidentally, for the “g” sound in “genre”, I recommend “zh”, as it fits the following analogy rather nicely: s : z :: sh : zh.)
  • Apostrophes. Apostrophes are used for contractions (e.g. cannot > can’t), glottal stops (like the ‘okina in Hawai‘ian), glottalized consonants (like the ejectives of Hausa) and occasionally pharyngeal consonants (like the first sound in the romanized spelling of the Arabic word for the Arabic language ‘arabiiya). Elsewise they are to be avoided at all costs.

Remember that in the fictional universe one sets up, it’s more than likely that the speakers of an imagined language will have their own unique writing system. The inconsistencies, irregularities and eccentricities one would find in a natural writing system should appear in that system, not the romanization used to convey the sounds of words and names in the language in one’s text.

Other Options

Of course, even this much may be more than a writer is willing to undertake, since the story comes first. Luckily there are literally thousands of conlangers all over the world who’ve been perfecting their craft for years—in some cases, decades. Many conlangers would love the opportunity to create a language for some sort of fictional work, whether it’s a big budget movie like Avatar, or a budding novelist’s very first book. If keeping a language or language sketch straight becomes too much of a hassle, I’d strongly encourage all writers to think about contracting out.

At present the best way to get a hold of a potential language creator is to go to the Language Creation Society’s Jobs Board. There one can post the details of a job and field responses from those who may be interested. Without exception, the best results come from those who have already put in their 10,000 hours.

***

It’s important to emphasize that the above is really just scratching the surface. Language is vast, and the possibilities are endless. If you’re interested in learning more about language creation, you can go to the Language Creation Society’s website, but one of the best ways to learn more about language, I’ve found, is simply to explore the grammar of a language you’ve never looked at. For this, Wikipedia is actually a great resource. Pick a language and type “[language name] grammar” into the search window, and see what comes up! Every language has something unique to teach us, and it’s never too late to start learning.

David Peterson is the creator of the Dothraki language for HBO’s Game of Thrones, and the alien language and culture consultant for SyFy’s upcoming drama series Defiance. He’s been creating language recreationally and professionally for twelve years, and currently serves as the president of the Language Creation Society.

Wednesday Writers: Deborah Biancotti

Today’s Wednesday Writer is posted a little later than I would like, as I have been home sick (insert sympathetic noises here). Fortunately, it is well worth the wait! Deborah Biancotti is one of the most exciting voices in Aussie Spec Fic, and whose writing is gaining more and more recognition both here and abroad. As most of my readers (and anyone who has been forced to listen to me talk at length about the subject) would know, I am a huge fan of anything superhero, and my ears perked up at the rave reviews of Deb’s super hero book Bad Power (MAKE SURE YOU CHECK IT OUT!). After that, how could I not invite her to Wedensday Writers? In this fabulous post, she talks about the influences from her childhood that still speak in her writing, something I can certainly identify with.

How Everything I Understand about Humanity came from watching M*A*S*H

I recently realised that George Orwell was right.

Not about the way the world ends, necessarily, but another thing he said. In his 1946 essay, “Why I write”, Orwell comments that for a writer:

“His subject matter will be determined by the age he lives in – at least this is true in tumultuous, revolutionary ages like our own – but before he ever begins to write he will have acquired an emotional attitude from which he will never completely escape*.”

* Oh, and (sic) on the whole ‘he’ and ‘his’ thing.

I’ve discovered that the rhythms of my life can be attributed to the nascent ideas I had as a child riding my bike, spinning in circles, and watching “M*A*S*H”, “Doctor Who” and “Starsky and Hutch”. (My parents also, foolishly, perhaps, allowed me to watch “I, Claudius”, thereby shaping my early taste for horror.)

But that most of all, I realised – while watching M*A*S*H from the beginning this year with a willing friend – that I have no new themes.

Rather, what I have is an exploration of themes with a proven longevity.

What was important to me at age nine is still important, and what I keep finding in the world or putting out into the world are simply the variations on what was established for me then.

Everything important to me now is in part important because it has been important for so long. If you see what I mean.

And so, herewithin, please find a list of some of the most cogent themes of M*A*S*H as they appear in my head.

1. Crazy In the Army aka Authority is Nuts:

My hippy parents might have instilled my anti-authoritarian streak, but M*A*S*H cemented it. M*A*S*H celebrated the outsider, adored the slouching smart-arse and revered the practical joker. M*A*S*H made ‘power’ look like another word for ‘corrupt’. M*A*S*H implied that any human organisation was bound for failure. Largely because it relied on humans.

“You think you’re real smart. But you’re not smart; you’re dumb. Very dumb. But you’ve met your match in me.” – Colonel Samuel Flagg, Army Intelligence or CIA/CIC/CID, depending; occasionally code named ‘Queen Victoria’.

“You’re what Freud would call Spooky.” – Major Sidney Freeman, Psychiatrist

2. Hell is other people:

An extension on the above, the lesson here was ‘you can’t rely on other people’. Well, you can rely on some people, but those people better be your friends. Because the REST of them, well…

M*A*S*H taught me a lot about friendship and loyalty. It also taught me about clannishness and individuality. It taught me to foster those things, as a matter of fact, because there’ll be times when that’s all you have.

“If I didn’t hate violence, I’d kick you.” – Major Margaret ‘Hotlips’ Houlihan

“We couldn’t help but notice that you came for the poker game and stayed two weeks.” – Captain B.J. Hunnicut

3. Life is absurd, and absurd is funny:

The army changes its rules often enough that you will be caught if you try to rely on those rules. The army rules are absurd, anyhow, & you’d be a fool to rely on them. But if you try, you can hold onto your sense of humour in the face of the madness. And you can survive. Maybe not win, but winning is not the purpose.

Survival is the purpose.

Of course, when it comes to life, nobody gets out alive, and the bitter-sweetness of this kind of lesson was something else M*A*S*H excelled at.

“How could I be in Korea? More importantly, why is this chicken outfit crossing the road?” – Captain Benjamin Franklin ‘Hawkeye’ Pierce

“Not so easy to play the clown when you have to run the circus, is it?” – Major Margaret ‘Hotlips’ Houlihan

4. To be sane in an insane world, is stupid:

M*A*S*H ran for 11 seasons not counting the original movie of the same name (which is uncannily horrific to watch if you were a fan of the show first). It lasted eight years longer than the Korean War itself, which it attempted to document.

This is a harsher lesson than the one on absurdism, above. M*A*S*H taught that it’s crazy to try to be sane, but that there’s something sublime in the attempt. To lose is inevitable, but not to try is to … quit.

M*A*S*H, of course, borrowed this theme from Joseph Heller’s CATCH-22 (which was nearly called CATCH-18 at the time, did you know that?), along with Hawkeye’s red dressing gown, which was a staple in Heller’s book.

Failure, then, is more respectable than quitting.

Probably because it’s funnier.

“War isn’t Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse.” – Captain Benjamin Franklin ‘Hawkeye’ Pierce

“In my short stay here, I’ve seen textbook examples of neuroses, psychoses, voyeurism, fetishism, and a few ‘isms’ I’ve never even heard of. The people here are mad, quite mad, all of them. They are impossible people in an impossible place doing impossible work.” – An observer at the M*A*S*H 4077th unit.

5. In a war between discipline and tom-foolery, discipline will never win:

Some of the lessons I learned from M*A*S*H were detrimental to my ability to fit in with groups of people. Like, people with no sense of humour. I have always distrusted those people. Unfortunately, several of those people run institutions I’ve been involved in, willingly or otherwise.

For example, banks.

“Without discipline the Army would just be a bunch of guys wearing the same colour clothing.”  – Major Frank ‘Ferret Face’ Burns

“Freud said that there is a link between anger and wit. Anger turned inward is depression.  Anger turned sideways is Hawkeye.”  – Major Sidney Freedman, Psychiatrist

6. It is noble to be good at your job:

Let me just say, of all the lessons I learned in the lap of M*A*S*H, this was the most misleading. That said, the expertise of such characters as Hawkeye, Trapper and B.J. must have been truly mighty. Because those guys would’ve been jerks to work with.

Funny jerks, of course.

“I just don’t know why they’re shooting at us.  All we want to do is bring them democracy and white bread.  Transplant the American dream.  Freedom.  Achievement.  Hyperacidity.  Affluence.  Flatulence. Technology.  Tension.  The inalienable right to an early coronary sitting at your desk while plotting to stab your boss in the back.”  – Captain Benjamin Franklin ‘Hawkeye’ Pierce

“Boy seeing the way you guys work with the wounded, the way you deal with burned up legs, ripped up bellies. Makes me proud every time I throw up.” 
- Corporal Maxwell Q. Klinger

7. Together, we are stronger, sort of:

My favourite M*A*S*H moments are the moments between the under-utilised Major Margaret ‘Hotlips’ Houlihan and Captain Benjamin Franklin Pierce. The Lady & the Tramp, I call these two. When they’re called to the front or when they’re forced to operate on a soldier in an evacuated camp, they rally together in spite of vast moral differences.

This is a favourite teaching of M*A*S*H, that despite the bickering and belligerence, the accusations and recriminations, we can all come together when we need each other.

M*A*S*H is a lot like family that way.

“Klinger, get back here as fast as you can. We want a few minutes before the party to beat the daylights out of you.” – Captain Benjamin Franklin ‘Hawkeye’ Pierce

“Who left the dead minnows in my pocket?” – Major Margaret ‘Hotlips’ Houlihan

8. Your friends will give you the toughest lessons:

Note that moral righteousness is largely the preserve of women in the pretend-fifties. Still, it doesn’t mean women are bad at it. Just means nobody else wanted the job.

“How *dare* you stand there and act like your brand of suffering is worse than anybody else’s. That’s the only way you can justify treating us like dirt. Let me tell you something, sad sack, if the worst thing that’s happened to you is your pretty little wife has to help pay the bills for awhile, don’t come to me for sympathy. Maybe you *do* have the most to lose but that’s only because you *got* the most.” – Major Margaret ‘Hotlips’ Houlihan

“You blow another kiss, Pierce, and those lips will never walk again.” – Colonel Sherman T. Potter

9. There’s us and there’s them, and some of them are us:

Note that in S01E01, the friend who had volunteered to watch all 11 years of M*A*S*H with me, commented, “It’s a bad sign when the only black actor in the show is called Spearchucker.” He was wrong, of course. There was another black actor. Her name was Ginger & she had barely any lines.

Also: Spearchucker disappeared not many episodes later.

Also: my friend was ignoring the entry of a white female character called Nurse Dish, whose role in the show was to be available to be auctioned off in order to raise funds for the education of the Korean ‘house boy’ … oh, let’s stop there.

Okay, so in fact M*A*S*H won’t win any modern awards for addressing issues of racism, although it sure did try. It tried the way us white people try. Which is to say, we assume we know the issues & then we feel kinda good about trying to address those issues in ways that are, well, frankly, occasionally patronising & exclusionary.

Actors of colour are rarely seen unless they’re there to Make a Point (like when ‘Larry Fishburne’, so credited, arrives to deliver somewhat less than 5 lines of dialogue about his commander, who has a habit of sending the black soldiers into the most dangerous situations).

And Issues of gender in ‘this man’s army’ are given even less air time than issues of racism. (Note: I have made this assertion entirely qualitatively. Which is to say, without actually counting.)

The most positive spin we can give this theme – given that my supple young mind didn’t register the racism & sexism at the time, & took away only the positive ideas of what the show was *trying* to achieve, in its flawed way – is that there’s evil & it’s worth uniting against evil, regardless of race, colour or creed. When we feel like it.

“Nobody can get the truth out of me because even I don’t know what it is. I keep myself in a constant state of utter confusion.” – Colonel Samuel Flagg, Army Intelligence or CIA/CIC/CID, depending; occasionally code named ‘Queen Victoria’

“They said, ‘join the army and see the world’, so here I am in Korea, removing Chinese metal from an American soldier in a Turkish bath. How are you doing, giggles?” – Captain Benjamin Franklin ‘Hawkeye’ Pierce

10. But you can never crush my spirit:

Someone once told me M*A*S*H glorified war. If I may be permitted to quote Colonel Potter: horse hockey!

The theme of M*A*S*H is not war, it is what people do in the face of war, in the face of chaos and injustice. Because that’s what the fictional Korean war of M*A*S*H really is. It’s not being fought in any kind of recognisable, real Korea. It’s Babel.

The army might bomb you, starve you, hobble you, and appal you. But if you can ridicule them, you still win.

MASH taught that the last thing you should ever surrender is yourself.

“But know this. You can cut me off from the civilised world. You can incarcerate me with two moronic cellmates. You can torture me with your thrice daily swill, but you cannot break the spirit of a Winchester. My voice shall be heard from this wilderness and I shall be delivered from this fetid and festering sewer.” – Major Charles Emerson Wincheshter III

“I don’t think this place is turning out to be that great an experience for me. I mean I work under terrible pressure and everything and there’s a lot of death and destruction and stuff but outside of that I don’t think I’m really getting much out of it.” – Corporal Walter Eugene ‘Radar’ O’Reilly

11. At the heart of comedy is sadness sublimated:

I love sublimation, it is my favourite Freudian invention*. M*A*S*H was working the idea that the toughest messages can be delivered through comedy from its early days, although it grew into more of a political vehicle later on. M*A*S*H, through its ‘theatre of war’, was examining the very issues of humanity: what does it mean, to be human? What is a human? And, why?

These questions form the basis of so much fiction writing. And, I would assert, they comprise the single most crucial underpinning in speculative fiction.

(* Yes, I am kind of accusing Freud of making stuff up.)

“There are so many things I was sure I’d have in my life by now. Every birthday reminds me of what’s still not there. This just turned out to be another day in the middle of nowhere.” 
- Major Margaret ‘Hotlips’ Houlihan

“Sometimes I hate myself for being here. But sometimes in the midst of all this insanity, the smallest thing can make my being here seems worthwhile. Maybe the best answer I have for you is that you look for good wherever you can find it.” – Captain Benjamin Franklin ‘Hawkeye’ Pierce

And in conclusion, let me just say:

M*A*S*H exists in my memory as one of my earliest passions. And to remember it, I had clearly put aside all the racism & sexism of the early seventies and held onto only one message: that humanity, in the face of untold evil, is awesome.

I learned respect for the thwarted expressions of a captive humanity and contempt for worthless authority. I learned the power of loyalty. I learned about injustice and the aching need of life to live, unauthorised and undaunted.

This is why I think I can write about the themes of M*A*S*H with such conviction. They’re my themes. I’ve been living them for thirty years.

Sometimes, to my detriment.

—–

George Orwell, Why I Write (1946), http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/why-i-write.htm

M*A*S*H quotes sourced variously from such lists as:

http://www.quotegarden.com/mash.html

http://mash.wikia.com/wiki/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068098/quotes

http://epguides.com/mash/guide.shtml

and my imperfect memory.

—–

Deborah Biancotti is a Sydney-based author with an anti-authoritarian streak. Her books, BAD POWER and A BOOK OF ENDINGS, are available from Twelfth Planet Press.

http://deborahbiancotti.net

A Conversational Journey through New Who – Season Three Report Card

See David’s S2 Report Card, Tansy’s S2 Report Card and Tehani’s S2 Report Card through the clickies! (See our Season One Report Cards here)

SEASON THREE REPORT CARD – David

The Doctor: David Tennant

While there were a few not so great episodes in this season, there were also some exceptional ones that gave Tennant a chance to really shine. With someone as charismatic as Tennant there is always the temptation to just play himself, amplified, but instead we had plenty of chances to see the full range of his acting ability.

This is the season where I think he is really at home in the role as the Doctor and while the first season was about him finding his feet, this one is about him making his mark. Yes, there are some clunkers of episodes, there are also some of the best writing and acting we have seen so far.

The Companions:

Martha Jones: Freema Agyeman

I love Martha as a companion, but too often she gets shortchanged. Instead of focussing on her intellect and the way she, as much as any human can, interacts with with Doctor as somewhat of an equal, we had far too many scenes where they play up the romantic angle. It’s not just my own aversion to this speaking here, I really do think it was to the detriment of her character.

I hated the idea of her being set up as somehow competing with Rose, to me Martha deserves to be judged on her own merits. The episodes where she is left simply to be Martha are excellent and wanted to see more. I thought Freema was stellar in Human Nature and the way Martha brings a modern perspective to different times was handled perfectly. I wish they had made more of her travels in the season finale, that was perhaps my favourite bit about it, the way that she achieved so much and kept the flame burning while the Doctor was house elfing around.

Recurring Characters:

Captain Jack Harkness: John Barrowman

I much preferred this Jack to the one we had seen earlier. I thought there was more depth to his character, as if he had matured a bit (can I use matured and Jack in the same breath?) after all the things he had seen and the way he had changed. The idea of a man who couldn’t die was very clever, as was the way it was used as a plot device, but I wasn’t convinced by the Face of Boe payoff.

As I have probably said way too many times, I love the Doctor/male companion/female companion dynamic and I thought that Martha and Jack were a much better pairing than Jack and Rose.

The Master: John Simm

I think I will be in the minority here, but John Simm’s Master didn’t grab me at all. He seemed to be trying to compete with Tennant, and it didn’t come off as much as I am sure he would have hoped. There were some nicely chilling moments, but I would have been more than happy to see Derek Jacobi as the Master for the whole of the character’s appearance.

Saying that, I loved the reappearance of the Master, another example of how this incarnation of the show is very much a continuation of Classic Who and that its heritage hasn’t simply been thrown out. I hope he makes another appearance!

Martha’s family: Adjoa Andoh (mother Francine), Trevor Laird (father Clive (divorced from Francine)), Gugu Mbatha-Raw (sister Tish), and Reggie Yates (brother Leo).

I liked seeing the way Martha’s family influenced her life and impacted on her actions, and I thought it was generally pretty believable. I thought, though, that they made Francine very hard to sympathise with. While Jackie sometimes did things that I couldn’t agree with, she was a very likeable and sympathetic character, and you could always see that she was acting out a genuine desire to protect Rose. Francine, however, came across as a bit nasty.

What is your favourite episode of this season?

Hands down – Human Nature/Family of Blood. I really enjoyed Blink, but if it had been up to me Human Nature/Family of Blood would have gotten the Hugo. This was Doctor Who, and television, at its best. It touched on a number of complex issues without taking the easy option, it was deeply emotional without being heavy handed and it featured some amazing guest performances. I was really moved by this episode, and full of admiration for the complexity of what they managed to pack into two episodes.

It gave us a whole new look at the Doctor as a character and elevated Tennant in my eyes as an actor, and he was brilliantly supported by Freema and the guests. The villains were as creepy as it gets, plus it was set in an era that fascinates me. It lived up to the billing in that it looked at love and war and human nature – what more can you ask for?

Least favourite episode?

I didn’t think it was as bad as everyone else seemed to, but The Lazarus Experiment was definitely the weakest of the episodes.

Favourite guest performance?

It’s hard to split Jessica Hynes as Joan Redfern and Carey Mulligan as Sally Sparrow, while Derek Jacobi was perfect. I am going to, under protest, pick Jessica Hynes because she was a big part of why my favourite episode to date was so amazing.

Describe this season in one word!

Rollercoaster

Grade: B+

A Conversational Journey through New Who – Voyage of the Damned (S03 Christmas Special)

David is coming to New Who for the first time, having loved Classic Who as a kid. Tehani is a recent convert, and ploughed through Seasons 1 to 6 (so far) in just a few weeks after becoming addicted thanks to Matt Smith – she’s rewatching to keep up with David! Tansy is the expert in the team, with a history in Doctor Who fandom that goes WAY back, and a passion for Doctor Who that inspires us all. We’re also joined today by guest viewer Joanne Anderton, who is also discovering New Who for the first time! We’re working our way through New Who, using season openers and closers, and Hugo shortlisted episodes, as our blogging points. Just for fun!

Last time we looked at the Season 3 finale and now we move on to:

“VOYAGE OF THE DAMNED”
Christmas Special 2007.
The Doctor – David Tennant
Astrid Peth – Kylie Minogue

TANSY:
Before we get started, can I just ask – have you both watched “Time Crash,” the Children in Need special which takes place between the farewell of Martha and the collision of the TARDIS with the Titanic?

TEHANI:
I have! But I went and watched it again to remember. So cute seeing Tennant fanboy over Peter Davison (er Moffett – that’s not confusing at ALL).

DAVID:

I hadn’t, but I have now! I wish I had watched it first, because it makes the start of “Voyage of the Damned” a little more understandable. I know it is one of those things that if you aren’t a fan would make very little sense at all and would seem very self indulgent, but I LOVED it. My strongest memories of Doctor Who are Baker and then Davison and it brought back a lot of memories.

I really enjoyed the little jokes about aging and the obviously heartfelt bit at the end, and Tennant was clearly thrilled and a little awed to be working with Davison. It’s great to know that he is a fan at heart too, and so are the writers. I’ve really appreciated that New Who hasn’t just thrown out or tried to disown Classic Who and this is a great example of how most of the people in the new show wanted to be involved because they loved the old show.


On to Voyage! For me, this is probably the strongest of the Christmas specials so far. I have to admit, for a moment I was thinking that is was actually set on the real Titanic, and then I started to notice all the odd little features of the setting and twigged. In my defense, I was distracted when I caught of a glimpse of someone and thought, “OMG, is that Kylie?!”

TANSY:
I’ve had mixed feelings about “Voyage of the Damned” in the past but on this rewatch was interested to see how technically good it is – so tightly plotted, and cleverly put together. Things that are vital later are telegraphed early on, such as the forklift, or the undercurrent about cyborgs being seen as an underclass (though they can get married now!) I think it’s held up very well, and I would agree it’s the best of the Christmas specials though I still *like* “Runaway Bride” more, purely because of Donna.

TEHANI:
I even think there’s some telegraphing of things to come in season four, which was impressive. But agree, it’s well put together!

TANSY:
And yes, Kylie! It was such a big deal when this came out, and casting Kylie Minogue was almost a parody of extravagant casting – a sign that the show was big, bigger than we had ever imagined it would be. She even posed with a Dalek, though unlike Katy Manning, she kept her hot-pants on. But despite the evident stunt-casting, I think her performance works really well – she brings a wistful sweetness to Astrid, and I like the depth she gives to the character, which as written could have been played by someone half Kylie’s age.

David … did you REALLY not know Kylie was in this? How had you possibly remained unspoiled about that?

DAVID:
I’ve tried very hard to avoid spoilers, which has been rather difficult! Obviously there are a few things that I can’t help but know about, like that there is someone called River Song in the future and that Neil Gaiman wrote an episode, but I have managed not to pick up too many details. Imagine how tough it was sitting on two Doctor panels at Worldcon!

So, I probably heard that Kylie was in an episode at some point, but I would have just let it go in one ear and out the other, and definitely wouldn’t have remembered which episode it was exactly.

TEHANI:
I just did about my fourth rewatch of this episode, and think that this is probably the strongest acting I’ve ever seen from Kylie. Still a little cringey at times, but I think that was more about the instant Doctor-adoration than the Aussie-ness of her performance! Solid!

TANSY:
I love that in the last year you’ve gone from someone who’d never watched the show to someone who has watched some episodes FOUR times!

TEHANI:
Instant fangirl, just add Doctor! 🙂


DAVID:
The cast in general is very strong, quite a few actors who, even if you can’t put a name on them straight away, you know that you have seen them before. Clive Swift will always have a special place in my heart and Geoffrey Palmer is excellent as the doomed Captain. And, it’s good to see that they’ve kept up up the Christmas Special tradition of a villain who relished the chance to chew up the scenery (and a few other traditions I am sure we will come to later!). George Costigan appears to channelling Doctor Evil at some point!

TANSY:
Yes there are some great parts and casting choices considering that it is basically a disaster movie with a limited time for each of the roles to shine. I love that they got in someone with Geoffrey Palmer’s track record to play what amounted to a couple of scenes, but didn’t he sell those scenes gorgeously?

TEHANI:
I adore Geoffrey Palmer! He’s a fantastic actor and it was really cool to see him in this.

Tansy, you’ll have known this of course, but I have just been surprised by the Doctor Who connections of many of the cast, listed in the Wikipedia entry for the episode:

Clive Swift and Geoffrey Palmer have had previous roles in the classic series. Swift portrayed Jobel in Revelation of the Daleks, while Palmer played Undersecretary Masters in Doctor Who and the Silurians, and an administrator in The Mutants. Jessica Martin had played Mags in The Greatest Show in the Galaxy. In addition, Bernard Cribbins played Tom Campbell in Daleks’ Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D., the second Doctor Who feature-film adaptation starring Peter Cushing as well as Arnold Korns in the audio play Horror of Glam Rock.

And of course, we’ll see more of Bernard Cribbins later (no spoilers David!).

TANSY:
I knew about Bernard Cribbins and Geoffrey Palmer (if you want to see a young Cribbins, the two Peter Cushing Dalek movies make great family viewing fare for Saturday afternoons, and the DVD release for them was super cheap)! I remember Jessica Martin as Mags too but had forgotten she was in this in the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it role of the Queen’s voice. I had no idea about Clive Swift, probably because I haven’t watched “Revelation of the Daleks” for 15 years or more – it was one of the few stories they didn’t include in the big ABC rescreening of classic stories in the three years before New Who began.

The casting choice that leaps out at me is young Russell Tovey, who is even more famous now than he was starting to be back then, thanks to Being Human and other prominent roles. This was the first thing I ever saw him in and the first time I’d even heard of him, but he is adorable as the baby-faced and steadfast midshipman Alonso Frame.

DAVID:
I thought Kylie was wonderful in this, but it seems the Doctor only has to look at someone before they want to jump on the TARDIS! Not that the Doctor can talk, his loneliness is very apparent in how eager he is to replace Martha. One can’t help but wonder how much fun it might have been had Mr Copper become the new companion, but that was never on the cards. Shame.

TANSY:
Ha yes, the Doctor totally gave Mr Copper the brush off, didn’t he? Funny how he tends to only encourage the young, hot ladies for the most part… I do like the Astrid-Doctor relationship, and the fact that she obviously has saucy designs on him (love the crack where he says she should see him in the morning and she is TOTALLY up for that), even though it is the third companion who has fancied the pants off him (thank goodness for Donna!)

But I also like how much of a story we get to Astrid, through only a few telling details. Her longing to travel and her wonder at walking the “alien” streets of London is very touching, and you get the sense that she would have been a very good companion in the classic sense. While she has nothing else in common with Ace, I was reminded of her with the set up of the waitress who ends up waiting tables no matter how exotic the location she travels to…

Oooh and another tidbit – there were huge rumours ahead of time about what Astrid’s role would be, because her name is an anagram of TARDIS. But that was a total red herring.

TEHANI:
This is what I love best about these reviews with you two – all the little tidbits (even when they were red herrings)! 🙂

DAVID:
The rest of the characters are all very well realised (if quite stereotypical), from the oily rich man to the midshipman whose sense of duty shines through. I particularly loved the Van Hoffs and was devastated when they died. There is a very high body count in this episode actually! The whole secondary characters dying in noble self sacrifice is very Classic Who, seemed to happen almost every episode.

TANSY:
From what I have heard, disaster movies are actually a big TV tradition in the UK, and so this was constructed with that in mind. It’s the first time (except maybe for 1996) that Doctor Who has really felt like an action movie rather than a TV show. And of course the high body count goes along with that – bumping everyone off one by one.

I really liked the Van Hoffs too – I wince at the ‘comedy of fat’ elements that I think go too far, but it’s pretty clear that everyone who mocks them is an ass. They’re a great example of a sweet, loving couple. It’s a sign of how great their relationship is that Morvin laughs his head off when Foon confesses her terrible secret. And oh – you really feel for her when he falls, and later when she sacrifices herself in such a heroic fashion, and you know that it’s because she doesn’t want to be without him.

TEHANI:
After multiple watchings, I thought the “comedy of fat” elements were actually quite well done – like you said, anyone who mocks is obviously an ass, and the way the Van Hoffs handle the mockage is great. Just my thoughts though 🙂

TANSY:
Ha yes I agree with you after this viewing but I think in the past I was wincing too much to notice – and Russell T Davies does have something of a habit of writing fat characters that are figures of fun.

Bannakaffalata was a lovely alien addition to the crew of survivors – I like how many of these characters had a comic dimension to them, balanced out with the horror and drama of what’s happening to them.

TEHANI:
Back to David’s point about the high body count: for some reason, I had it in my head that midshipman Alonso also bit the dust at the end of the episode, until I rewatched again today. There’s so many people who die, it just must have stuck that he did too!

As an aside, the Doctor’s glee at being able to say, “Allons y Alonso!” was just delightful.

TANSY:
He totally seems marked to die, doesn’t he? I had a similar experience with the movie American Graffiti, where I misremembered the ending for years and was deeply upset at the death of a character in a car crash … and then later watched it and discovered that he came out of it just fine!

The Allons y Alonso line actually really confused me the first time I heard it, I think because “Allons y” had not registered with me as a true Doctor catchphrase – he’d only used it a few times before this special, maybe only once – and I’d forgotten about it. Now of course, it makes sense! I think I was annoyed at it originally as a blatantly tacked-on catchphrase, but as with many things Whoish, familiarity and nostalgia has swept away the irritation.

I have to say one of my favourite bits of this whole episode is the Bernard Cribbins cameo, and the whole reference back to the previous two Christmases and why everyone in London has evacuated. It’s just brilliant! I enjoy these details that show how the stories we have watched have changed the perception of the world around them in these high media days. I also like the Doctor trying to defend Christmas from Mr Copper’s slanders, only to break and admit, “What am I saying, my Christmases are always like this.”

DAVID:
The idea that all these alien invasions have consequences has been touched upon quite a bit in New Who, from the Christmas invasions to the alien museum, and it is an idea that I like. Once things go public, it makes sense that these things would change the perceptions and worldviews of the average person. It doesn’t seem credible that they would just exist in isolation, or be so easily covered up. I’ve also liked the little nods to the idea that there would be groups that might notice the Doctor cropping up throughout history and build conspiracy theories around it, as well.

TANSY:
The Christmas (disaster) special was something that we got entirely from New Who rather than Classic, and to me really sums up the RTD era as a whole – I love how quickly and easily it formed a tradition, and one which we take completely for granted. Not sure that we really needed the running joke about pretendy snow, though – yes they always make it snow in Christmas movies, and yes it never snows in London at Christmas but I seem to recall around about the time this special was released that they DID have a massive cold snap, and London had snow at Christmas. Time to retire the joke, Russell T…

Previous Episodes
“Rose”, S01E01
“Dalek”, S01E06
“Father’s Day”, S01E08
“The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances”, S01E09/10
“Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways”, S01E12/13
Season One Report Card – DavidTansyTehani
“The Christmas Invasion”, 2005 Christmas Special
“New Earth”, S02E01
“School Reunion”, S02E03
“The Girl in the Fireplace”, S02E04
“Rise of the Cybermen/Age of Steel”, S02E05/06
“Army of Ghosts/Doomsday”, S02E12/13
Season Two Report Card – David, Tansy, Tehani
“Smith and Jones”, S03E01
“The Shakespeare Code/Gridlock”, S03E02/03″
“Human Nature/Family of Blood”. S03E08/09″
“Blink”. S03E10″
“Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of the Timelords”, S03E12/13/14

Avengers vs Dark Knight Rises: Superhero Smackdown!

Warning: This is really just me rambling and processing my thoughts after being wowed by the two movies, rather than a review. And there could be some SPOILERS in there so proceed with caution.

As an unabashed DC fanboy, I have to admit a certain degree of envy as I’ve watched Marvel’s movie strategy unfold. Despite a few hurdles, it has had something DC have generally lacked – a sense that they actually know what they are doing! The shining exception has been the Batman movies helmed by Christopher Nolan. So, it was a great deal of anticipation that I waited to see whether the final Batman movie could possibly compete with Avengers, which completely blew me away. The short answer is that it couldn’t. Not that it wasn’t incredible, it’s just that they are completely different sorts of movies and it would be like comparing apples and oranges.

Now, this might seem a little odd, considering that they are both ostensibly super hero movies, but they represent two distinct types, and the pinnacle of those at that. I am going to cheat a little though, and discuss the Batman trilogy as a whole because I think that is the only way to approach it. Even though Avengers benefits hugely from watching the movies leading up to it, and one has to admire the coherence of Marvel’s vision, at a pinch you could watch it cold and still thoroughly enjoy it.

The Avengers is very much a spectacle movie. It’s built around its stunning special effects and the sheer scale of the mayhem. Fortunately, the CGI doesn’t over power the movie as has been the case in too many other super hero films. That’s not to say that the acting is not of an extremely high quality, it’s an excellent cast with lots of strong performances and the chemistry is delightful, and we do get a look at what makes the character’s tick. But, it is very much about seeing how many things they can break and that’s what makes it so fun.

The movie is immediately identifiable as a Joss Whedon work, with his trademark snappy banter, and ability to mix humour and actions without being ham fisted about it. The Hulk was the surprise package to me, there were quite a few moments when the whole cinema was laughing with genuine humour. George Lucas should take note, that is how you do comedic relief! I bet that the studio didn’t pick that the Hulk would be so popular, especially given his previous track record.

Continue reading