And if Pratchett says it, it must be true. He brought us Vimes, the only detective better than Batman
Pratchett Attacks Doctor Who
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
I detect sarcasm. Admittedly the Guardian are not too bad, but they are not above sensationalism. I mean, The Escapist doesn't make money from each article individually and even the title here uses the word "attacks", despite Pratchett saying he is an avid fan.ben---neb said:
To all who say "Bla bla Terry is senile and wrong", you are missing the point.
He's not saying Doctor Who is not allowed to do this and that.
He's saying that the creators shouldn't call it "Science fiction" if "science" means one sentence of explanation. For instance, there is a huge different between "The Jedi can hurl people with their minds and choke them with invisible hands" and "The Jedi use the Force, which is an outer-worldly power that appears in some members of various races. It allows them to surpass the limits of their bodies..." and the whole story about what the Force is, how they use it, how long they train to get their powers...
What Doctor Who does is saying "They throw people and choke them because they have magic".
And that, lad...s, is why it's no longer Science fiction. It's just fantasy.
I say - go Pratchett!!
...Now where's your new book?
He's not saying Doctor Who is not allowed to do this and that.
He's saying that the creators shouldn't call it "Science fiction" if "science" means one sentence of explanation. For instance, there is a huge different between "The Jedi can hurl people with their minds and choke them with invisible hands" and "The Jedi use the Force, which is an outer-worldly power that appears in some members of various races. It allows them to surpass the limits of their bodies..." and the whole story about what the Force is, how they use it, how long they train to get their powers...
What Doctor Who does is saying "They throw people and choke them because they have magic".
And that, lad...s, is why it's no longer Science fiction. It's just fantasy.
Yes, and Stephen King, criticizing the Twilight author, should write a pseudo-fantastic pseudo-romance for 14-year olds. Or heck, just a romantic comedy novel.Sylocat said:
I say - go Pratchett!!
...Now where's your new book?
Science FICTION.
For crying out loud, the whole idea of doctor Who is that it's supposed to be fun and outrageous. When has Doctor Who ever been serious?
For crying out loud, the whole idea of doctor Who is that it's supposed to be fun and outrageous. When has Doctor Who ever been serious?
I've stopped liking Doctor Who, I just don't like the way the series tries to make each episode grandiose and powerful, trying to tug at your heartstrings and creep you out using the same techniques over and over again.
Though Terry's comment seems a bit silly, since alot of his novels rely on what is basically nonsense, although I find them absolutely superb.
Though Terry's comment seems a bit silly, since alot of his novels rely on what is basically nonsense, although I find them absolutely superb.
I don't like it when two things I like so much fight. Especially when, no matter how much Pratchett says otherwise, both are very similar.
There are two points to address here. First, there is the sliding scale of science fiction. Doctor Who isn't fantasy, but it's very, very soft science fiction. Nothing wrong with that; all science fiction makes some concessions. I mean, how many shows have faster than life travel. And time travel makes the plausibility of faster than life travel look like a new Playstation in this decade. So a soft science fiction is inevitable for a series about a time traveler who lives in a pocket dimension.
The other problem is the deux ex machina as a narrative device. This is especially a problem with the Davies era, doubly especially in the season finale. But that's just an element of fiction overall, that the idea of a person matters. The Doctor's nebulous nature and powers is used to justify these climaxes. Sure, they're deus ex machinas, but the series is basically about a god living among mortals. And the Discworlds are often as guilty of these endings. Characters like Granny Weatherwax and Susan often demonstrate unseen abilities in the climax of the novels. We accept them because, hey, she's Granny Weatherwax and the grand daughter of Death itself (so...more or less a god.) It's the meaning of the character that matters.
There are two points to address here. First, there is the sliding scale of science fiction. Doctor Who isn't fantasy, but it's very, very soft science fiction. Nothing wrong with that; all science fiction makes some concessions. I mean, how many shows have faster than life travel. And time travel makes the plausibility of faster than life travel look like a new Playstation in this decade. So a soft science fiction is inevitable for a series about a time traveler who lives in a pocket dimension.
The other problem is the deux ex machina as a narrative device. This is especially a problem with the Davies era, doubly especially in the season finale. But that's just an element of fiction overall, that the idea of a person matters. The Doctor's nebulous nature and powers is used to justify these climaxes. Sure, they're deus ex machinas, but the series is basically about a god living among mortals. And the Discworlds are often as guilty of these endings. Characters like Granny Weatherwax and Susan often demonstrate unseen abilities in the climax of the novels. We accept them because, hey, she's Granny Weatherwax and the grand daughter of Death itself (so...more or less a god.) It's the meaning of the character that matters.
I disagree with most of this but I have to say 1 of the worst endings was the one where this robot who thinks hes human/bomb dosent explode cause hes told he isnt a bomb its just silly I wont say what episode it is but its silly but I still like it.
Mr Pratchet is entitled to his opinion. A very valid opinion stemming from vast experience in the matter at hand.
But it's just fiction, just like his books. Fiction can bend the rules and do as it pleases. So what if it strains belief? As long as it's amusing and good enough for a laugh, it should not matter. Keep enjoying the show Mr Pratchet and don't let it trouble you to much.
But it's just fiction, just like his books. Fiction can bend the rules and do as it pleases. So what if it strains belief? As long as it's amusing and good enough for a laugh, it should not matter. Keep enjoying the show Mr Pratchet and don't let it trouble you to much.
What the...? Dr. Who is and always has been (for decades now), a silly show. It's goofy and preposterous and its villians are downright laughable. So what? That doesn't make it good or bad. We all get to decide if we like it or not and watch it or not. Liking it doesn't mean you don't understand or appreciate 'hard' science fiction, or fantasy or Victorian love stories or modern murder mysteries. Personally, my taste goes to hard science fiction, not fantasy, but I still enjoy Dr. Who.
I've been a Who fan for a long time, watching even the extremely old episodes. I honestly think I've seen them all, and laughed at them all. I've never once watched it for the story, never cared about the outcome of any arc (Key of Time anyone?). I watch for the interaction between the characters, the goofy adventures, and yes, for the insane villains. If someone does watch it for the stories, I wish them luck with that. (But yeah, Blink was something else, almost un-Who-like).
I've been a Who fan for a long time, watching even the extremely old episodes. I honestly think I've seen them all, and laughed at them all. I've never once watched it for the story, never cared about the outcome of any arc (Key of Time anyone?). I watch for the interaction between the characters, the goofy adventures, and yes, for the insane villains. If someone does watch it for the stories, I wish them luck with that. (But yeah, Blink was something else, almost un-Who-like).