Pratchett Attacks Doctor Who
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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).
I would be very surprised if Pratchett falls back on a "wizard did it" kind of plot device though. Perhaps a wizzard or the faculty as a whole, but if any author works hard to subvert tropes and clichés I'd say it's Pterry.GloatingSwine said:
I'll hazard saying that if and when Pratchett uses deus ex machina it's for a purpose, and not because he has painted himself in a corner.
And about the shoe size of wizards, they are sometimes too small, when you step into your predecessors shoes.
EDIT: I also think a lot of people are getting this all wrong. Pterry are not contesting that it's fiction. He writes fiction himself. He is musing of wand waving as a boring and often nonsensical literary tool. There is a huge difference.
Interesting too see how people defend Dr. Who here...
I gotta be honest, sometimes, when watching Dr. Who, some stuff doesn't seem particularly thought through. For example:
Concerning the Weeping Angels, in the 'Blink' Episode, the Angels are made to freeze whenever the camera is on them, yet no characters are looking at them. Also, in that episode, it was never a problem to look an Angel in the eye. Also, when someone was 'killed' by them, anyone who knew them still had memory of them [Sparrow still remembered who that Officer fellow was].
In the latest ones, there were a few loopholes. Take, for instance, the moment where the Doctor is grabbed by his coat. Now, the camera turns to the Angels, who are frozen to stone, yet the Doctor isn't looking at them.
Now, if there are reasons for all this, then I'm happy to be stood corrected, but in there are examples of the whole makeitupasyougoalong storytelling, which makes the storytelling less credible to me as a fewer, and I don't think I'm alone in this one. Despite this, though, I still watch and enjoy Dr. Who, as it is fun to watch. But just these little details that put a question mark over the story...
I gotta be honest, sometimes, when watching Dr. Who, some stuff doesn't seem particularly thought through. For example:
Concerning the Weeping Angels, in the 'Blink' Episode, the Angels are made to freeze whenever the camera is on them, yet no characters are looking at them. Also, in that episode, it was never a problem to look an Angel in the eye. Also, when someone was 'killed' by them, anyone who knew them still had memory of them [Sparrow still remembered who that Officer fellow was].
In the latest ones, there were a few loopholes. Take, for instance, the moment where the Doctor is grabbed by his coat. Now, the camera turns to the Angels, who are frozen to stone, yet the Doctor isn't looking at them.
Now, if there are reasons for all this, then I'm happy to be stood corrected, but in there are examples of the whole makeitupasyougoalong storytelling, which makes the storytelling less credible to me as a fewer, and I don't think I'm alone in this one. Despite this, though, I still watch and enjoy Dr. Who, as it is fun to watch. But just these little details that put a question mark over the story...
Firstly, as has been repeated and seemingly ignored, he's saying he enjoys Dr Who and thinks it is a good show, but that it's slipping into the format of going:
1. Bad thing happens.
2. Dr Who does something without any explanation.
3. Everyone celebrates.
whereas it used to be a case of
2. Dr Who analyzes the problem and finds a solution that, while in the realms of fantasy, sounds like it would be vaguely feasible, and is based in the flow of the plot.
As for Pratchett not following his own rules, the Discworld is a magical world, and while it may not follow 'our' rules, it follows rules of logic, and to an extent, stereotypical narrative and the power of tropes. Such as that magic is generally more dangerous to use than NOT use, and that a million to one chance should work nine times out of ten.
As is shown by a scene where, while trying to fire an arrow into a dragon's weak spot, they feel it's not a million to one chance, so he's bound to miss at the vital moment, so he closes one eye and stands on one leg, along with other things, to make it hard enough to be a million to one shot, because "whoever heard of a eight hundred thousand to one shot working?"
It makes no sense here, but under Discworld rules, it explains why a single arrow could maybe take down a dragon.
Pratchett's saying that in the Dr Who world, unlike before, it seems like a dragon could appear over London, be invulnerable to all attacks from the army, and then at the critical moment of the episode, find a dragon slaying setting on his sonic screwdriver which dispatches the dragon and everyone is saved, as opposed to formulating a cunning plan like his previous incarnations would have.
while the Discworld has strange and magical things happening, I don't think it often takes the easy route in terms of plot devices.
1. Bad thing happens.
2. Dr Who does something without any explanation.
3. Everyone celebrates.
whereas it used to be a case of
2. Dr Who analyzes the problem and finds a solution that, while in the realms of fantasy, sounds like it would be vaguely feasible, and is based in the flow of the plot.
As for Pratchett not following his own rules, the Discworld is a magical world, and while it may not follow 'our' rules, it follows rules of logic, and to an extent, stereotypical narrative and the power of tropes. Such as that magic is generally more dangerous to use than NOT use, and that a million to one chance should work nine times out of ten.
As is shown by a scene where, while trying to fire an arrow into a dragon's weak spot, they feel it's not a million to one chance, so he's bound to miss at the vital moment, so he closes one eye and stands on one leg, along with other things, to make it hard enough to be a million to one shot, because "whoever heard of a eight hundred thousand to one shot working?"
It makes no sense here, but under Discworld rules, it explains why a single arrow could maybe take down a dragon.
Pratchett's saying that in the Dr Who world, unlike before, it seems like a dragon could appear over London, be invulnerable to all attacks from the army, and then at the critical moment of the episode, find a dragon slaying setting on his sonic screwdriver which dispatches the dragon and everyone is saved, as opposed to formulating a cunning plan like his previous incarnations would have.
while the Discworld has strange and magical things happening, I don't think it often takes the easy route in terms of plot devices.
