NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/arts/drwho/9042

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 5.9 KB | 122 lines

Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!usage!hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU!markc
From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: Re: ST:TNG (critiques) vs Dr. Who
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: hydra.maths.unsw.edu.au
Organization: school of Mathematics UNSW
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:21:57 GMT
Lines: 109

Drewcifer replies to my article:

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:


>One small point I would like to make. Please stop refering to stories as
>"episodes". "The Happiness Patrol" was a 3 part serial, not an episode. I
>realise you may have seen it that way, but that is your problem.

>>(sigh) I knew *someone* would get around to this tired complaint again.  OK.

Crappy justification of the practice deleted.

>>So you see, this distinction may be technically correct, but is hardly
>>necessary for clarification.  We all knew what he was talking about, and so
>>did you.  So knock off the pedantic "small points", will you?

No I will not knock off the pedantic small points. Episodes are episodes
and stories are stories.

>I thought "Rememberance" was an inspired Dalek story. It seemed to explore
>the nature and history of the Daleks more than most stories. "Fenric"
>was perfectly comprehensible to me. The fact that you couldn't follow it
>is your problem, as I sure you are well aware.

>>"You must be several light-years out of your skull, baby."--Z. Beeblebrox

Perhaps the fact that I wasn't fifteen years old when I first saw Fenric
enabled me to have no difficulty with the plot. I have also had no
difficulty following the plot of many more complex stories than the curse
of Fenric. It simply requires a little bit of thought. The point I make
is that if you do not understand the plot of something, and others do,
then the fault lies with you. The story may be crap, but the task of
following it is up to the viewer. If you can't manage this where others
can, well that as I said before, is your problem.


>>So "Remembrance" explored Dalek history more than most stories, eh?  More
>>than "Genesis of the Daleks"?  More than "Destiny" (nature)?  More than "The
>>Daleks", even?  No, no, no, no, no.  This was actually not a bad story (I
>>was truly surprised) but not for that reason.

Oh good grief. Are you numerate Drew? What does "most" mean?

>>You're certainly fond of making things other peoples' problems.  "Fenric"
>>was perfectly comprehensible all right...a perfectly comprehensible YAWNER.

No I am not fond of making things other people's problem. I simply point
out that there is a discrepancy between what many netters asert to be the
case and what actually is the case, when it comes to the later stories.
If you do not like a story, well fine. Quite frankly I couldn't give a rat's
turd if you dislike Curse of Fenric. You on the other hand seem to enjoy the
spoiler game. That is, it is not simply good enough to tell everyone that
you disliked story X, you have to hammer the point home, trying to establish
your opinion on a story as "fact". To this end stories are described as
"incomprehensible", or impossible to follow. Whereas the truth is simply
that you couldn't follow the story. Fine, you can't understand what is
going on in some McCoy stories. How do you feel about James Joyce?




>Getting back to the original subject, one thing I believe has always
>worked in Dr Who's favour is that it has never had Star Trek's Q syndrome.
>I like John Delancie, but I think the idea of Q sucks rocks. Roddenberry
>had a weakness for these ridiculous omnipotent aliens who crop up every
>other episode. For me they take Star Trek away from Science fiction into
>Fantasy, like "Lord of the Rings". Just how many omnipotent aliens are
>there out there? The Organians, Trelaine's people, the thing from "The
>Survivors", the Q, Melkotians, Jedi........Well okay not Jedi, but
>how many are there? To the people at Paramount I say, stop with these
> omnipotent aliens. They are stupid. How did they get to be omnipotent?
>On Dr Who they have powerful aliens like Sutekh, but Sutekh was not
>omnipotent. I find an adversary like Sutekh far more interesting and credible,
>than one like Q. Or is that just me? again the most powerful race in Dr Who
>are the Time Lords, but they are not perfect beings of pure energy like the
>Organians. They are flawed beings who can be killed. To me that makes them
>more interesting. Perfect societies do not make good stories.

>>Au contraire!  Q is one of the best things about ST:TNG.  Perhaps the *only*
>>good thing, apart from Jean-Luc Picard (finally!  an Enterprise captain who
>>can ACT!).  I think Q's limitations--and he does have some--are absolutely
>>fascinating.  And tell me, how many omnipotent aliens have you seen on TNG?
>>Certainly not enough to warrant the phrase "every other episode".  I don't
>>even believe Q is omnipotent, which is what makes him interesting.

I do not think Q is one of the best things about ST:TNG, but that is
only my opinion. I happen to enjoy John Delancie, but I dislike aliens
with godlike powers as an *idea*. No they are not in every other episode,
that is called exageration to make a point. I also do not think Q is
omnipotent. That is actually logically impossible. But how does he do
what he does, snap his fingers and send a ship 7000 light years?
Hop does the alien from the survivors will the entire race into extinction?
I do not believe the universe works like that. To me that is fantasy,
not science fiction.

>>Perfect societies make *excellent* stories...because they are almost never
>>perfect, and it is the flaw which makes them interesting.  BTW, that
>>sentence was *totally* unrelated to the topic of omnipotent beings.

Your logic leaves me breathless!


>Mark C.


>>Drewcifer