Episode 59 - Let's Kill Causality

MrSimonWood

This really wasn't the best episode for me to listen to walking back from work. I got a lot of odd glances as I couldn't help my random exclamations of "that's not what happened!" and "that's not what I concluded" and so forth... :-)

Ultimately it seemed to me (and my interpretation may not, of course, be what was intended) that in this podcast - and in the title - what Eugene and Ben were objecting too, when you strip everything else away, was the use of the bootstrap paradox. I think Moffat first used it in, and it is certainly most prominent and unadorned in Blink, which Eugene and Ben must hate? Surely not.

Also - Eugene and Ben - you almost persuaded me, back in Fusion Patrol 15, that I preferred The Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang to the awesome Bad Wolf/Parting of the Ways but now you're ripping it apart? Do you still like the story overall, despite your issues with the non-linear causality?

Oh, and a couple more things. I didn't ignore the plot of Let's Kill Hitler and yet I still enjoyed it. RTD is on record as saying he wanted Doctor Who to compete with reality TV but I don't think that's where Moffat has gone - I think the growing complexity of his storytelling is evidence of that. Reality TV, anyway, has very simple linear causality. You have a vote, someone gets booted out...

Finally, Eugene - you had a pop at 1930s cartoons in this episode, but a while back discussing UFO you told me not to judge 60s TV by 21 century standards (something I meant to disagree with - but haven't got round to yet!) Isn't there an inconsistency there? ;-)

Another lively bit of podcasting - enjoyed it a lot.

Eugene

Hmmmm. That's a fair analysis and I can see how it could come out seeming that way. While we don't actively court debate on Fusion Patrol, there's no doubt that dissenting opinions cause one to defend them more rigorously, rather than just agreeing with each other and reinforcing. I suspect that's largely the case on this episode where Ben and I are largely in agreement.

Let me try to clarify a little bit. The bootstrap paradox is indeed a major component of my increasing dislike of the River Song/Silence storyline, but that's part of it.

It may have been edited out, but I tried to convey that this is a growing problem. I believe we used the Bill & Ted keys analogy. It was cute in a comedy film and it comically got them out of the type "jam" that the Doctor would use the sonic screwdriver for in the old days - opening a door. It's quick, nonsensical, funny and we move on and never think of it again.

In much the same way the Doctor played with the mop and the fez in The Big Bang.

But the storyline we're being lead along isn't just using this silliness for a little light relief anymore, it's getting increasingly critical to the story. As such, it's justifiably (IMHO) subject for increasingly more critical thought - and then it fails to hold water. By constantly shoving it back into the limelight, the flaws show ever so much more each time.

Some people have postulated that Moffat's Who is designed to be watched on DVD later on. Perhaps that's true, but I'm finding that the later episodes piling increasingly more weight on this plot contrivance are actually damaging my enjoyment of earlier episodes when it hadn't yet reached this level of irritation.

In much the same way a terrible ending to a good book would damage the re-readability of it for me.

Does that mean I go back and dislike Pandorica Opens/Big Bang. No completely, but I do like them less.

What about Blink? I'm not largely bothered by it. Probably because it was neatly contained within it's own four walls and because it wasn't obvious all along that it was a closed loop. The Doctor's Timey-wimey explanation works long enough to finish the story and the story really infuses the mystery of the time loop into the mystery of the overall story. That this story works makes it the exception that proves the rule.

MrSimonWood

Reply to @Eugene: I agree and disagree with you here at the same time. I love Blink and part of that is because it is so self-contained. A neat bootstrap story with a paradox centre stage (no subterfuge). The mop and the fez bother me a lot more because they are without larger consequence; incidental and careless, and risky because they offer a cheap throwaway solution that threaten the power to eliminate all jeopardy in the narrative.

However, in the River story the causal loop is again at the heart of what is being told. Consequences (forwards, backwards and in circles through time) are explored, and I like that.

Ben

Eugene has stated much of my thoughts more eloquently than I could at this time, but let me just re-address the one element that has me bothered.

I hate the bootstrap paradox. I can suspend my disbelief just enough to allow for the concept of time travel and how it violates the laws of physics as we currently understand them. The bootstrap paradox goes too far for me.

With past Dr. Who stories, from the beginning of the series even up last season, the element of time travel was merely a means for the Doctor to experience a myriad of adventures and to open up an almost limitless supply of stories for the writers. This is all well and good. However, with this season the time travel isn't a means to the story... It IS the story, which then forces one to view it under a magnifying glass and really scrutinize it, and once that's done it starts to fall apart.

Our cast of characters (including River) are integrated with this time travel that we have been seeing. Their very characters are being molded by the events unfolding as a result of the time travel. However, when the time travel element fails this scrutiny, the essence of the character developments that we have seen also fails. The logical development of a character cannot stand against the illogical turn of events by way of the time travel (or vice versa).

Let me reiterate that I do like The Pandorica Opens and the Big Bang, although there are questions which are raised, one of which is SO huge that it forces me to rethink the validity of the story. What does save it are some of the character developments in the story that are not overly compromised by the time-wimey nature of it. And again, the bit with the mop, the fez, even the note to Amelia and her soda, while there is a lot of jumping back and forth through time regarding them, when the story ends all of those threads are neatly tied up and they become self-contained in a very neat, well told package. The very same (from my point of view) applies to Blink. However, I cannot say the same about the direction the series has gone this year, although I do look forward to this Wednesday's podcast so that Eugene and I can discuss the ending of this latest episode.

MrSimonWood

Reply to @Ben: I agree time travel is new to Doctor Who. Despite being entirely predicated on the concept, Doctor Who has never been about time travel until now (aside from occasionally glimpses, as in Pyramids of Mars). Moffat obviously has a fascination with it, and this is dangerous because it's a series that has always been wildly inconsistent with its approach to the science behind it. I always thought it was probably best not to scrutinise it too closely; concepts like "the web of time" and "nexus points" nicely blurred the inconsistencies by offering a multidimensional view that accounted for them by rejecting a simplistic (fatalist or linear) conceptualisation. But you can only go so far with that until you are forced to give some explanation, and so expose inconsistent and weak underpinnings.

I think Moffat is too excited by possibilities of time travel to heed such caution. That's good, from my point of view, because so far I'm really enjoying it. To my mind, the causal structure is at least internally consistent (with the possible exception of A Christmas Carol). But I recognise the Marmite reaction (do you have Marmite in the US?) that it is provoking in fans.

Eugene

Reply to @MrSimonWood:

Marmite and its antipodean cousin, Vegemite are mostly absent from the US. Mostly available in specialty shops catering to ex-pats.

Fresh & Easy (Tesco) actually carries Marmite (along with Heinz Beans & PG Tips) although I think the Marmite is just to remind us why we fought the war of independence.

:)

Eugene

I'll address the "standards of the day" argument separately.

I'll use Sherlock Holmes as an example. I recently read several contemporary Sherlock Holmes books. They, of course, followed the convention of being the first person chronicles of Dr. John H. Watson. A writing form which is almost always avoided these days, but was all the rage back in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Yet, despite that, anyone - even someone unfamiliar with Sherlock Holmes - could tell you which were the originals and which were the contemporary ones.

The new books explain things that aren't commonplace in modern life, like gaslights, whereas the originals take them from granted, as we might mention flipping on a light switch in a modern novel. In short, they were written for late 20th/early 21st century audiences. I don't fault them for that in any way, but it does show a clear delineation between an "historical novel" and a "novel which has become history."

A some point, an audience becomes far enough removed from the framework of the story that they may lack the context to judge the story by the original standards; however, this is an inadequacy of the audience, not the story!

My point is that the audience needs to raise their game. They should not be a strictly passive audience and grow into the greater context - when possible. (Alright, it's late, that thought isn't my most eloquent but I think you get the idea.)

Chaucer and Shakespeare aren't going to change with time and if the audience cannot adapt and come to terms with them, then they become inaccessible. The ultimate loser is the audience.

Yes, there are modern adaptations of Shakespeare that try to make the story more accessible for modern audiences - and these have met with varying degrees of success - but the original is arguable the best.

I'm not even arguing that this is bad and is, in some case, absolutely necessary, such as with foreign works. I don't expect an audience to learn Castilian to appreciate Don Quixote, but knowledge of the history and the culture would help.

Now, to those damnable cartoons. Recall if you will that people would, when movies were new, pay just to see a horse gallop. They were not paying for a story, but for the novelty of movies. It was a carnival sideshow in a box. I think there's a clear delineation between storytelling and exhibitioning.

Those early black and white cartoons represent that freakshow phase of animation.

MrSimonWood

Reply to @Eugene: Okay, you've convinced me that you can make a distinction between the "freakshow" phase and more general forms of cultural relativism. But I was having a discussion today about the precise point you make about Sherlock Holmes. We were discussing Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, which I am apprehensive about seeing because I love the TV series so much. And one major difference will be that the TV series was contemporary and the film is a period drama. And, despite that, the TV series absolutely stands up. If it's good, it doesn't rely on its context; and often in period works (which I do enjoy too) the adornments can become a distraction. I think that's why Moffat and Gatiss discarded them, and updated to the present day. That's not to say they can't be made a virtue of: in Life on Mars it felt like the 1970s had been distilled, concentrated and presented as the star of the show. Similarly with the 1960s in Mad Men.

Also, and this argument probably belongs in a different thread, but it originated from a discussion about UFO. Now I think UFO is different again, because the framework of the day isn't the backdrop. Because it's set in the "future" it's more like a historical novel in the sense that it tries to explain things that aren't common place in contemporary life. It has dated, despite not even being set in its time.

So I don't accept your deficiency of the audience argument. Some contemporary stuff dates and some stuff doesn't. When I first saw The Avengers as a child I judged it with my 1980s standards, and still found it outstanding. And to use your example, the original Sherlock Holmes stories remain an excellent read, without any need for updating.

MrSimonWood

Forgot something I meant to say with regard to the conversation in this podcast on The Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang...

Who would want to destroy the entire Universe? The Master - no, I don't think so. He's interested in power, he needs the Universe to enjoy it. Davros? No, he's interested in dominion and supremacy. He's not averse to destruction, but he needs a domain to be supreme over. Rassilon? Maybe, but I think/hope we're done with him.

So who?

Omega.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Tagged