|
Post by nucleusofswarm on May 1, 2021 0:55:43 GMT
Philip Martin's two Six tales are about as gnarly and violent as the turbulent era got, unafraid to make you squirm, whether it dealt with brain surgery or reality TV gone dangerously wrong. But which is the juicier marsh minnow?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2021 1:57:00 GMT
Hmm... I think both have got their merits, but I think Vengance on Varos comes out on top for me.
Mindwarp is fundamentally a story about revisionism. Not just the process of being a part of history, but how we view that history, as well. That's probably why it's one of the most effective segments in The Trial of a Time Lord. Everything we see happened in one way or another, but how it happened is quite different. As the Doctor says, "The emphasis is all wrong." It's the first time in that season we get a genuine sense of the Valeyard, his modus operandi and just how much of a threat he really is. It's one big, long character assassination (which brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "self-loathing" when you consider the prosecutor and defendant).
Brian Blessed charms as the bear-like Yrcarnos, Christopher Ryan makes a worthy Mentor ("Then where will you be, eh? Dead! No, worse than that, poor." and Nabil Shaban's Sil, as always, steals every scene he's in. It's a very brave story to do while the show's under fire and probably the darkest Sawardian era Who gets. We actually lose the Doctor for the majority of the story. The impetus lies on Peri, Yrcarnos and Dorf, who are fighting their own Orwellian battle in the tunnels. Why it doesn't edge out in front is because a lot of the material -- the ambiguity with the interrogation and whether or not the Doctor and Peri had a scheme going -- wasn't addressed in the rushed end. A shame, really. A lot of build-up with no pay-off.1
Vengeance on Varos, conversely, leans more heavily into themes of systemic abuse. Things are the way they are on Varos because the power of those meant to protect others, exploit them instead. Something that has been perpetrated for so long that the Varosians are dulled by apathy (from the ground and in the higher echelons). As one of the few stories without returning elements for the season, it holds up extremely well in its own right. It's a script that had input from Philip Martin, additions by Eric Saward and even a few pieces from the actors themselves.
The reason why I like it is because it's fundamentally a story about this new, unpredictable Sixth Doctor trying unambiguously to help people. He's charismatic, heroic and shrewd (as the Doctor should be). It has a great sense of momentum, you get a good sense of being involved in the world and events keep you on your toes as soon as the TARDIS materialises for the execution. There are only two big changes I'd really make. One, I would probably make for it would be to revise the TARDIS scenes, so we deal with the power losses, electrical fires and the near-collision with a storm of asteroids on the way to Varos. Two, I'd give Peri the Governor's "Your system is wrong" speech during that final vote. First to the camera, then to the guard, Maldak.
(1 - I had another look at Trial a while ago and I thought, in terms of structure (using what's already there)... Have Bob Holmes start with his story. We're on Ravalox, it's just another adventure with the Doctor and Peri until, at the end of the episode, we pull back to someone reviewing the footage on a screen. They switch it off. Head to the courtroom. The TARDIS arrives to the station with an unflappable, but much more dishevelled Doctor. The first cliffhanger is the beginning of the trial. Over the course of the story, we slowly build up into the situation of the room. More and more scenes with this, as it turns out, contemporary Doctor. Mindwarp proceeds more or less as is.
After the break, we get Terror of the Vervoids and the Doctor, already knowing that things are wrong, cuts to the quick on the evidence being tampered. We get the revelation about the Valeyard halfway into Vervoids. We enter the Matrix. It's not just about tracking down the Valeyard, it's also about proving the past. Each battlefield is Ravalox, Thoros Beta and on the Hyperion III. Except, at the end, knowing the truth -- we discover that it really is the starliner. They've left the Matrix, the future Doctor is already there with Mel. The fight is to stop the Valeyard from reaching the future Sixth Doctor's TARDIS and robbing him of travel in time-and-space. The story ends with the Doctor trying to conduct his own trial, but can't bring himself to play judge, jury and executioner, so he hands himself off to his People. For trial. One he'll stick around for as a key witness, not a prosecutor. After that? Well... As he's seen, the future will attend to itself...)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2021 9:24:49 GMT
Vengeance on Varos.
The look of Varos, and possibly the way its political life was conducted, reminded me a little of how Peladon might have turned out. I never forget that VoV was transmitted before the revolutionary televisual concept of Big Brother and the dreaded 'reality TV' came about - and for that reason alone, this is my favourite of the two stories: it was truly ahead of its time, genuinely forward-looking. Repressed, exhausted individuals are kept at bay by being fed images of their politicians risking losing their lives if they don't perform the impossible and solve all the planet's problems in a few days; their torture is provided as entertainment - and of course, the Great Varosian Public are willingly diverted. It's one heck of a concept. Sadly, after a possible sign that this new Doctor is beginning to doubt his bombastic new persona at the end of the previous story, VoV opens with him behaving like an idiot once again - loud, bullying and charmless. With a more thoughtful bit of scripting and a more subtle performance, this would have been a much stronger story, because it would have had the Doctor as a blatant force of good in a truly unpleasant environment. Although having this more mixed-up incarnation presented as the Varosians only hope of peace is more interesting, challenging viewing perhaps (although the final nail in Sil's political ambitions has nothing to do with The Doctor).
Mindwarp.
Mindwarp is more of a runaround, a thinner story with more padding. As for the changed Doctor - this time, he's not behaving like an idiot, but is clearly damaged by Sil's manipulating machine and, were it not for some over-acting, could have been genuinely frightening. As Wolfie says, this is a brave story for a show still under the watchful eye of the actually-not-so-watchful Mr. Grade - especially considering Peri's perceived fate. Possibly one of the most shocking images in Doctor Who's history.
I've noted my issues with these stories, but the truth is, I love them both. One of the main reasons is, of course, Nabil Shaban, who taps in enthusiastically to Sil's every unpleasant perversion. A brilliant, brilliant character, and one that I wish would make more returns to Big Finish (possibly Nabil's political leanings have scuppered that possibility).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2021 10:05:47 GMT
Not a deep thinker on these two tales, so interesting to read the detailed analysis from @wolfie53 above.
Vengeance on Varos was one of the better tales from Season 22 and did after all hold sufficient status to be one of the first DVD releases. Indeed it was also Colin Bakers first VHS release too. As good as it is, however, I find that re-watching it latterly it can suffer from being rather static and colourless. Too much time standing in a black featureless set watching and reacting to what is going on via the screen. It makes it feel more stage and studio bound than it could be as it amplifies the small sets and cast.
Viewer Reaction: "Did anyone see that 1984 with John Hurt? Bloody depressing wasn't it?"
Mindwarp stood out at the time as perhaps the best full story from Season 23 and was more eventful to watch, with a brilliant ending. Some clumsiness in the script editing however left the Doctors behaviour ambiguous and unclear to casual viewers. It is more visually interesting to watch and therefore more memorable for different scenes and events, though the story is less interesting or significant.
Varos was a clever satire well done, whilst Mindwarp was simply a reasonably decent story & production in a decidedly below par season. 27 years ago, I could have prepared an essay or presentation about Varos (as I once did of The Prisoner), but I seem to have drifted back to my teenage desire for simple escapism. Such is life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2021 10:27:50 GMT
For me Vengeance on Varos is the better of the two... I can't really remember too much about Mindwarp off the top of my head but I always thought Vengeance on Varos was a strong Sixth Doctor story and it is one of my favourite stories from Colin's era.
|
|
|
Post by grinch on May 1, 2021 10:42:03 GMT
Vengeance on Varos is my favourite out of the two. I only really think Mindwarp is notable in that it features the living Viking that is BRIAN BLESSED and for establishing the constant retcons regarding Peri’s fate.
Either way, Sil is a great creation and simply fantastic in both stories.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on May 1, 2021 10:47:29 GMT
Vengeance all day long.
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by number13 on May 1, 2021 13:44:21 GMT
I also vote for Vengeance on Varos. (It's not looking good for 'Mindwarp's chances when we all push those buttons is it? )
'Mindwarp' is good, but VoV is an amazingly prophetic story, both about the fairly horrible interactive ""reality"" TV shows that have spawned since then, and the way some people today try to destroy politicans remotely with online onslaughts. (And other people too of course, but VoV is looking at politics.)
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on May 1, 2021 14:26:04 GMT
'Mindwarp' is good, but VoV is an amazingly prophetic story, both about the fairly horrible interactive ""reality"" TV shows that have spawned since then, and the way some people today try to destroy politicans remotely with online onslaughts. (And other people too of course, but VoV is looking at politics.)
Wait, no no. Some beardo on Youtube is yelling at you, saying Who wasn't political until Chinballs cast a girl. (Remember to like, subscribe and donate to patreon!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2021 14:46:47 GMT
'Mindwarp' is good, but VoV is an amazingly prophetic story, both about the fairly horrible interactive ""reality"" TV shows that have spawned since then, and the way some people today try to destroy politicans remotely with online onslaughts. (And other people too of course, but VoV is looking at politics.)
Wait, no no. Some beardo on Youtube is yelling at you, saying Who wasn't political until Chinballs cast a girl. (Remember to like, subscribe and donate to patreon!) Sorry to butt in, but I would say myself, that the satirical commentary was an in interesting subtext but should be kept at just that. Like The Green Death (ad infinitum) and Sheila Hancock doing a Margaret Thatcher take (so we keep being reminded), they get subsumed by lazy commentaries, guaranteed inclusion on clip show retrospectives and as a reference point for anyone trying to justify how the series was 'quite relevant actually' back in the day. It becomes 'what those stories were all about' and guarantees that they always get an inordinate amount of coverage in any history of the programme. I agree that he show is littered with political and social satire, particularly where Malcolm Hulke and Robert Holmes were involved, but they were always an interesting element that did not dominate nor dictate the overall story structure. Often they were an inspiration and starting point. Nothing wrong with the current series continuing that seam of layered writing. But I do note that some even on this forum who have been on-side with the views of the writers have yet felt that it can be a bit 'in your face' or heavy handed. I would accept that as a valid critique, rather than a dismissal of the political sentiments expressed. But yeah - I have a good guess at a few candidates for the XXL armchair bores you refer to.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on May 1, 2021 14:49:48 GMT
Wait, no no. Some beardo on Youtube is yelling at you, saying Who wasn't political until Chinballs cast a girl. (Remember to like, subscribe and donate to patreon!) Sorry to butt in, but I would say myself, that the satirical commentary was an in interesting subtext but should be kept at just that. Like The Green Death (ad infinitum) and Sheila Hancock doing a Margaret Thatcher take (so we keep being reminded), they get subsumed by lazy commentaries, guaranteed inclusion on clip show retrospectives and as a reference point for anyone trying to justify how the series was 'quite relevant actually' back in the day. It becomes 'what those stories were all about' and guarantees that they always get an inordinate amount of coverage in any history of the programme. I agree that he show is littered with political and social satire, particularly where Malcolm Hulke and Robert Holmes were involved, but they were always an interesting element that did not dominate nor dictate the overall story structure. Often they were an inspiration and starting point. Nothing wrong with the current series continuing that seam of layered writing. But I do note that some even on this forum who have been on-side with the views of the writers have yet felt that it can be a bit 'in your face' or heavy handed. I would accept that as a valid critique, rather than a dismissal of the political sentiments expressed. But yeah - I have a good guess at a few candidates for the XXL armchair bores you refer to. Curious - are you familiar with the Iowa Writers Workshop and a man called Paul Engle (who relates to this topic)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2021 15:02:57 GMT
Sorry to butt in, but I would say myself, that the satirical commentary was an in interesting subtext but should be kept at just that. Like The Green Death (ad infinitum) and Sheila Hancock doing a Margaret Thatcher take (so we keep being reminded), they get subsumed by lazy commentaries, guaranteed inclusion on clip show retrospectives and as a reference point for anyone trying to justify how the series was 'quite relevant actually' back in the day. It becomes 'what those stories were all about' and guarantees that they always get an inordinate amount of coverage in any history of the programme. I agree that he show is littered with political and social satire, particularly where Malcolm Hulke and Robert Holmes were involved, but they were always an interesting element that did not dominate nor dictate the overall story structure. Often they were an inspiration and starting point. Nothing wrong with the current series continuing that seam of layered writing. But I do note that some even on this forum who have been on-side with the views of the writers have yet felt that it can be a bit 'in your face' or heavy handed. I would accept that as a valid critique, rather than a dismissal of the political sentiments expressed. But yeah - I have a good guess at a few candidates for the XXL armchair bores you refer to. Curious - are you familiar with the Iowa Writers Workshop and a man called Paul Engle (who relates to this topic)? No - the name is new to me. Just looked him up, but what is his connection? I am interested to learn a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on May 1, 2021 15:19:00 GMT
Curious - are you familiar with the Iowa Writers Workshop and a man called Paul Engle (who relates to this topic)? No - the name is new to me. Just looked him up, but what is his connection? I am interested to learn a bit more. To cut a long and convoluted history short, and as documented in books like ''Workshops of Empire'', ''Finks'' and ''Who Paid the Piper: The CIA and the Cultural War'', Engle was a novelist, playwright and writing teacher who helped co-create and pioneer the Iowa Writer's Workshop, a still-highly influential creative writing program that has been the defacto model of writing teaching globally since about the 40s/50s. While he wasn't the creator, Engle, aided by the CIA's counter-propaganda initiative (yes really, this was all part of a push to counter Soviet influence by selling the hell out of American culture, art and media) giving him money, was arguably one of the men most responsible for pushing the school of thought that artists creating expressly political, or works with politics as their text, was a betrayal of artistic integrity and that good writing must put any such message or theme into the subtext. Works that were social or calls to action were not real literature, according to this. He, along with others at the Workshop, built on humanist principles such as self-knowledge (or as you may know it: write what you know) and self-discipline (and this one's the big doozy; show, don’t tell). Arguably the most famous bit of writing advice in the world, and it's only about 70 years old, courtesy of a culture war where it was artificially made dominant over other types of writing theory, just to spite Stalin.
Now of course, being a tool of political warfare (yes, the layers of crushing irony don't escape me) doesn't invalidate it as a useful principle in writing, but it is fascinating to look into as many of said armchair bores probably couldn't tell you why it's good advice, or where it came from. If you want to look at something more, aside from the books above, there's this article in the LA Review (https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/philosophy-creative-writing/) which does a broad sweep of it. There is also this video about it by critic Bob Chipman: www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8BgeuDiwrE
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2021 15:52:41 GMT
No - the name is new to me. Just looked him up, but what is his connection? I am interested to learn a bit more. To cut a long and convoluted history short, and as documented in books like Workshops of Empire, Finks and Who Paid the Piper: The CIA and the Cultural War, Engle was a novelist, playwright and writing teacher who helped co-create and pioneer the Iowa Writer's Workshop, a still-highly influential creative writing program that has been the defacto model of writing teaching globally since about the 40s/50s. While he wasn't the creator, Engle, aided by the CIA's counter-propaganda initiative (yes really, this was all part of a push to counter Soviet influence by selling the hell out of American culture, art and media) giving him money, was arguably one of the men most responsible for pushing the school of thought that artists creating expressly political, or works with politics as their text, was a betrayal of artistic integrity and that good writing must put any such message or theme into the subtext. Works that were social or calls to action were not real literature, according to this. He, along with others at the Workshop, built on humanist principles such as self-knowledge (or as you may know it: write what you know) and self-discipline (and this one's the big doozy; show, don’t tell). Arguably the most famous bit of writing advice in the world, and it's only about 70 years old, courtesy of a culture war where it was artificially made dominant over other types of writing theory, just to spite Stalin.
Now of course, being a tool of political warfare (yes, the layers of crushing irony don't escape me) doesn't invalidate it as a useful principle in writing, but it is fascinating to look into as many of said armchair bores probably couldn't tell you why it's good advice, or where it came from. If you want to look at something more, aside from the books above, there's this article in the LA Review (https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/philosophy-creative-writing/) which does a broad sweep of it.
Thank you for that. It was genuinely informative and beyond what I was able to glean from the wiki entry into the workshop (nothing rigorous). I kind of guessed from their emphasis on disciplined writing, the general direction of their dictum. That is to incorporate ones political message or influence but not to let it dominate. That is to say it is the fine line between what can be dismissed as Propaganda (if one disagrees) or accepted as the political leanings and formative inspiration of the Author, who can at least be respected for his or her storytelling craft, irrespective of ones own demarcation lines. From a perspective of Doctor Who, one is not automatically inclined to readily identify any of Malcolm Hulke or Robert Holmes political leanings as an audience without closer inspection, but prior (and post retrospective) knowledge of these informs those who are aware, with a respectful perspective of their point of view. That is to say that to disagree does to despoil the story itself. It does not dictate, as you say, but demonstrates by incidence, by told or performed events. As with wider literature, one can learn and broaden ones views by digesting the works of writers with life experiences that have shaped their views. Carefully nuanced works (with themes that can change ones perspective, but are not obvious to the layman reviewing) have famously evaded the censors in Totalitarian regimes, such as the USSR and of course we can witness in the present context, that political views too clearly foregrounded can serve only to erect a barrier between the work and the audience, without being persuasively communicated through narrated incidence and plausible scenarios. Edit: been reading lareviewofbooks.org/article/philosophy-creative-writing/ - about midway through but will finish another time. A very interesting essay, but worthy of more attention another time.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on May 2, 2021 11:34:48 GMT
No - the name is new to me. Just looked him up, but what is his connection? I am interested to learn a bit more. To cut a long and convoluted history short, and as documented in books like ''Workshops of Empire'', ''Finks'' and ''Who Paid the Piper: The CIA and the Cultural War'', Engle was a novelist, playwright and writing teacher who helped co-create and pioneer the Iowa Writer's Workshop, a still-highly influential creative writing program that has been the defacto model of writing teaching globally since about the 40s/50s. While he wasn't the creator, Engle, aided by the CIA's counter-propaganda initiative (yes really, this was all part of a push to counter Soviet influence by selling the hell out of American culture, art and media) giving him money, was arguably one of the men most responsible for pushing the school of thought that artists creating expressly political, or works with politics as their text, was a betrayal of artistic integrity and that good writing must put any such message or theme into the subtext. Works that were social or calls to action were not real literature, according to this. He, along with others at the Workshop, built on humanist principles such as self-knowledge (or as you may know it: write what you know) and self-discipline (and this one's the big doozy; show, don’t tell). Arguably the most famous bit of writing advice in the world, and it's only about 70 years old, courtesy of a culture war where it was artificially made dominant over other types of writing theory, just to spite Stalin.
Now of course, being a tool of political warfare (yes, the layers of crushing irony don't escape me) doesn't invalidate it as a useful principle in writing, but it is fascinating to look into as many of said armchair bores probably couldn't tell you why it's good advice, or where it came from. If you want to look at something more, aside from the books above, there's this article in the LA Review (https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/philosophy-creative-writing/) which does a broad sweep of it. There is also this video about it by critic Bob Chipman: www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8BgeuDiwrESometimes a thread takes off and flies, landing in a most interesting new place. Thanks for that, I hadn't a clue (theories of writing aren't exactly my field ) but I think 'show, don't tell' is an excellent principle for two reasons.
1) Nothing turns me off a work of fiction more quickly than being preached at. Even if I agree with the author! I'm halfway through a Who audiobook right now and it's a great story, but there's a lot of environmentalism being very obviously preached in there and while (so far) it's exactly reflecting my own views, I'm still finding it a bit annoying because it tends to take me out of the story.
2) Anything done to spite Stalin was by definition most likely to be A Good Thing!
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on May 3, 2021 0:55:42 GMT
To cut a long and convoluted history short, and as documented in books like ''Workshops of Empire'', ''Finks'' and ''Who Paid the Piper: The CIA and the Cultural War'', Engle was a novelist, playwright and writing teacher who helped co-create and pioneer the Iowa Writer's Workshop, a still-highly influential creative writing program that has been the defacto model of writing teaching globally since about the 40s/50s. While he wasn't the creator, Engle, aided by the CIA's counter-propaganda initiative (yes really, this was all part of a push to counter Soviet influence by selling the hell out of American culture, art and media) giving him money, was arguably one of the men most responsible for pushing the school of thought that artists creating expressly political, or works with politics as their text, was a betrayal of artistic integrity and that good writing must put any such message or theme into the subtext. Works that were social or calls to action were not real literature, according to this. He, along with others at the Workshop, built on humanist principles such as self-knowledge (or as you may know it: write what you know) and self-discipline (and this one's the big doozy; show, don’t tell). Arguably the most famous bit of writing advice in the world, and it's only about 70 years old, courtesy of a culture war where it was artificially made dominant over other types of writing theory, just to spite Stalin.
Now of course, being a tool of political warfare (yes, the layers of crushing irony don't escape me) doesn't invalidate it as a useful principle in writing, but it is fascinating to look into as many of said armchair bores probably couldn't tell you why it's good advice, or where it came from. If you want to look at something more, aside from the books above, there's this article in the LA Review (https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/philosophy-creative-writing/) which does a broad sweep of it. There is also this video about it by critic Bob Chipman: www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8BgeuDiwrESometimes a thread takes off and flies, landing in a most interesting new place. Thanks for that, I hadn't a clue (theories of writing aren't exactly my field ) but I think 'show, don't tell' is an excellent principle for two reasons.
1) Nothing turns me off a work of fiction more quickly than being preached at. Even if I agree with the author! I'm halfway through a Who audiobook right now and it's a great story, but there's a lot of environmentalism being very obviously preached in there and while (so far) it's exactly reflecting my own views, I'm still finding it a bit annoying because it tends to take me out of the story.
2) Anything done to spite Stalin was by definition most likely to be A Good Thing! I think it's good advice, albeit the internet has warped its intent further away than Engle had likely intended (from 'politics are subtext' to 'no politics'). As discussed, it's a relatively recent principle (there have been versions of it historically. I think Aristole mentioned something about 'dramatize', if my foggy memory of Poetics is right) and wasn't considered the dominant method for writing. Indeed, many famous and influential stories challenge or ignore it: Dickens and Orwell's work spring to mind, and if we go outside strictly prose, Shakespeare's most famous work is long stretches of characters telling the audience what they think and feel - what is the soliloquy if not telling as showing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 1:29:45 GMT
Sometimes a thread takes off and flies, landing in a most interesting new place. Thanks for that, I hadn't a clue (theories of writing aren't exactly my field ) but I think 'show, don't tell' is an excellent principle for two reasons.
1) Nothing turns me off a work of fiction more quickly than being preached at. Even if I agree with the author! I'm halfway through a Who audiobook right now and it's a great story, but there's a lot of environmentalism being very obviously preached in there and while (so far) it's exactly reflecting my own views, I'm still finding it a bit annoying because it tends to take me out of the story.
2) Anything done to spite Stalin was by definition most likely to be A Good Thing! I think it's good advice, albeit the internet has warped its intent further away than Engle had likely intended (from 'politics are subtext' to 'no politics'). As discussed, it's a relatively recent principle (there have been versions of it historically. I think Aristole mentioned something about 'dramatize', if my foggy memory of Poetics is right) and wasn't considered the dominant method for writing. Indeed, many famous and influential stories challenge or ignore it: Dickens and Orwell's work spring to mind, and if we go outside strictly prose, Shakespeare's most famous work is long stretches of characters telling the audience what they think and feel - what is the soliloquy if not telling as showing? Yeah, it's more ambiguous than it looks. A common lesson that has to be unlearned is that it's not a strict dichotomy, but a greater emphasis placed on one of two storytelling methods. Using either of those two methods, a large part of whether or not a story feels like its soapboxing is down to how it treats its audience. All media, to one extent or another, relies upon interaction. Not necessarily in the sense of a video or roleplaying game, but more in the notion that when someone opens a book, loads an episode or sits in for a film, they are contributing to the other half of a silent conversation. The story is action, the audience is reaction. A good way to lose that audience is to tell them -- not the characters, but they directly -- how to react because it robs them of their agency in the exchange. They're made redundant. Arak and Etta, the two Varosians watching at home, work because... Well, they can be a representation of the viewers at home (hallo!), but their purpose in the story is much more to do with giving those voters recognisable faces. Humanising the population beyond a string of numbers on a screen. For the benefit of us outside of the narrative. That way, you get to actually see a whole civilisation reacting in microcosm to the rebels' actions. It's another layer of interaction for us, as the audience outside the narrative.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on May 16, 2021 20:04:18 GMT
I think it's good advice, albeit the internet has warped its intent further away than Engle had likely intended (from 'politics are subtext' to 'no politics'). As discussed, it's a relatively recent principle (there have been versions of it historically. I think Aristole mentioned something about 'dramatize', if my foggy memory of Poetics is right) and wasn't considered the dominant method for writing. Indeed, many famous and influential stories challenge or ignore it: Dickens and Orwell's work spring to mind, and if we go outside strictly prose, Shakespeare's most famous work is long stretches of characters telling the audience what they think and feel - what is the soliloquy if not telling as showing? Yeah, it's more ambiguous than it looks. A common lesson that has to be unlearned is that it's not a strict dichotomy, but a greater emphasis placed on one of two storytelling methods. Using either of those two methods, a large part of whether or not a story feels like its soapboxing is down to how it treats its audience. All media, to one extent or another, relies upon interaction. Not necessarily in the sense of a video or roleplaying game, but more in the notion that when someone opens a book, loads an episode or sits in for a film, they are contributing to the other half of a silent conversation. The story is action, the audience is reaction. A good way to lose that audience is to tell them -- not the characters, but they directly -- how to react because it robs them of their agency in the exchange. They're made redundant. This one slipped me, but I did post a sort of 'what-if' in the 'mad origin of show, don't tell' thread that you may appreciate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2021 23:10:40 GMT
Yeah, it's more ambiguous than it looks. A common lesson that has to be unlearned is that it's not a strict dichotomy, but a greater emphasis placed on one of two storytelling methods. Using either of those two methods, a large part of whether or not a story feels like its soapboxing is down to how it treats its audience. All media, to one extent or another, relies upon interaction. Not necessarily in the sense of a video or roleplaying game, but more in the notion that when someone opens a book, loads an episode or sits in for a film, they are contributing to the other half of a silent conversation. The story is action, the audience is reaction. A good way to lose that audience is to tell them -- not the characters, but they directly -- how to react because it robs them of their agency in the exchange. They're made redundant. This one slipped me, but I did post a sort of 'what-if' in the 'mad origin of show, don't tell' thread that you may appreciate. Oh, no worries -- found it! I'm going to requote it here, it's that alright, because it leads quite nicely from the proceeding conversation: I also think it's interesting that around the time Engle and the IWW hit big and became a literary powerhouse, George Orwell died (1950). I doubt the two had much awareness of each other but I do think they represent diametrically opposed views of writing: Engle argued it was for the pursuit of higher or deeper emotional truths, while Orwell believed it to be a needed mirror for society, a warning system. For one, politics are of secondary important - for the other, it is the reason to do so. I'm not here to say one method is better than the other, but rather this is a reminder that there are multiple paths to creating engaging art. Of course, these weren't intended to be such, but one could argue that some of Orwell's essays on art and literature could act as rebuttals to Engle's humanist philosophy, such as How I Write (1946) or Critical Essays (1946). For instance (and apologies to Wolfie if this mimics his literary-extrapolation posts) imagine that Engle and Orwell were to have a conversation (maybe a debate on the radio, or on a lecture tour) - could it play something like this: Engle: Good literature contains sensations, not doctrines; experiences, not dogmas; memories, not philosophies. Orwell: The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude. And an example of this particular discussion can be found in... The Trial of a Time Lord. The underlying argument with the Doctor's trial is that his travels in spacetime are an inherently political act against the Time Lords. He's the Engle to their Orwell. From the perspective of his People, his claim of an apolitical stance is irrelevant. It's still political to them. The Doctor, on the other hand, considers his journey to be far more about deeper or higher emotional truths. Beyond the framework of the High Council and their agenda. It's about an inherent moral desire to see people saved and explore the wonders of the cosmos. Sticking it to his People would perhaps be a bonus, but it's not an active consideration when stepping outside those TARDIS doors. Mindwarp employs elements of both. Memory is made inherently treacherous through a political lens (i.e. the unreliability of the Matrix), but the conclusion of the story reflects a warning that strikes at the emotional core of the Doctor -- an Engleic impulse he pursues until the end.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on May 17, 2021 11:25:38 GMT
nucleusofswarm said:Engle: Good literature contains sensations, not doctrines; experiences, not dogmas; memories, not philosophies. Orwell: The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude. And an example of this particular discussion can be found in... The Trial of a Time Lord. The underlying argument with the Doctor's trial is that his travels in spacetime are an inherently political act against the Time Lords. He's the Engle to their Orwell. From the perspective of his People, his claim of an apolitical stance is irrelevant. It's still political to them. The Doctor, on the other hand, considers his journey to be far more about deeper or higher emotional truths. Beyond the framework of the High Council and their agenda. It's about an inherent moral desire to see people saved and explore the wonders of the cosmos. Sticking it to his People would perhaps be a bonus, but it's not an active consideration when stepping outside those TARDIS doors. Mindwarp employs elements of both. Memory is made inherently treacherous through a political lens (i.e. the unreliability of the Matrix), but the conclusion of the story reflects a warning that strikes at the emotional core of the Doctor -- an Engleic impulse he pursues until the end. I think that's an interesting read. I would offer an alternative on Trial, albeit more of an extrapolation of these two men's very different life experiences: Orwell was a well-travelled writer, political activist and heavily embroiled in major conflicts, whereas Engle was not (one of his famous quotes is do with cornfields in Iowa, if that says anything). In this scenario, I'd say the Doctor is Orwell and the Time Lords are Engle: the Doctor's worldliness informs his decision to take moral stances and intervene (take political action) in conflicts, not unlike Orwell's call for art to have a political/social purpose, whereas the Time Lords see this as a betrayal of their purpose, not unlike Engle's argument that such an action is the improper way to tell stories. That they too are are of a 'higher' purpose and should not concern themselves with something so base.
(Wow, we really used Who stories with a giant green worm to discuss the plasticity of art and literary theory!)
|
|