Post by Kestrel on Aug 2, 2021 14:24:21 GMT
I can kina see why there's not already a thread for this one... The Doomwood Curse is, erm... not my thing. I had high hopes for the 6/Charlie arc, but this one just did not work for me at all. Maybe it's because I'm not really familiar with the story of Dick Turpin? Or maybe it's just that the humor didn't really land. Did y'all find this one funny? I enjoyed the chaotic crossover in the conclusion, but otherwise it just felt... I dunno, a little much. The main thing that kept me listening was just how much fun it seemed like Baker and Fisher were having recording it... Fisher-as-Grel was especially nice.
I think it might've worked better as a short story (maybe not quarter-length, but half-length?). This is a premise that has been done before, and they didn't really have much of a fresh take on it, so it just seemed to drag on. Maybe I'm being unfair. It's very similar to the first Benny audio, Oh No It Isn't!, which I found much more entertaining.
Anyway, I don't have much else to say on this one, but if y'all feel like humoring me, there are a few tangential topics related to this story I'd like to briefly hit on.
First: the use of racial slurs in fiction. On the one hand, context matters, and this is a story where contextually the use of slurs is appropriate, for both the setting (mid-1700s, I think?) and characters (Charlie). And so I'm tempted to just kind of ignore them--which isn't an uncommon impulse, right? But at the same time, the writers of this story are residents of our context, and they made the deliberate choice to include said slur, so should we really let it pass without comment? And at the same time, the writers of Big Finish clearly know which slurs they can use with little fear of push-back, and which are absolutely verboten. In Assassin in the Limelight, for example, a character says would in-context would only ever be the N-Word, but the script uses the euphemism cotton-picker instead.
I don't say this necessarily to criticize Big Finish, but rather because it's a conversation that's worth having. What makes some slurs acceptable and others not? How does the historical context of the setting or cultural context of the characters speaking inform those choices? Does the Doctor Who franchise in particular have any social responsibility here one way or the other?
I can't say I've got any hard-and-fast answers to these questions, but I can say that while listening it just felt... I dunno, wrong that the Doctor didn't really push-back at all against the slurs, or worse, the (awful) stereotype of Romani stealing children. Granted, the conceit of "18th century fiction-as-reality" muddies the waters somewhat, but still.
Second: I kinda gotta take issue with the premise. Did this bug anyone else? The script explicitly calls out the mid-18th century as the origin of the novel, and that said invention triggered a new "age of fiction." But, like, both of those points are false. Novels were certainly popularized in this era--among the aristocracy and wealthy classes who had both the necessary leisure time and education to read them--but fiction has always been a major component of human culture. Like... there has never been a point in history when this was not the case. And reading fiction wasn't really popular entertainment media until the early 19th century when printing became so much cheaper. And let's not discount the fact that the first novels (famously) came out much, much earlier--in Europe, Don Quixote was first published in 1605! Meanwhile, the first Chinese novel, The Romance of the Three Kingdoms was first published sometime in the early 14th century! And what is generally believed to be the first recorded novel in the world, The Tale of Genji, originated in Japan in the 11th century! These things are old, is what I'm sayin'. They've been around a good while.
Incidentally, I highly and emphatically recommend y'all try Edith Grossman's recent(ish) translation of Don Quixote! It's really, really good! Likewise, if you're interested in the others, I can definitely recommend The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, though I can't say it has a definitive translation, and it can be dry reading... alternatively, if your interested, maybe try out the 2010 television adaptation titled, simply, Three Kingdoms -- a 95-episode epic that trims a lot of fat off the original tale and crafts a deeply compelling narrative of politics and war. Or if you're pressed for time, maybe check out John Woo's (uncut) movie, Red Cliff, which dramatizes a single battle from the story.
But, uh... maybe avoid The Tale of Genji. It's got some really weird shit.
I think it might've worked better as a short story (maybe not quarter-length, but half-length?). This is a premise that has been done before, and they didn't really have much of a fresh take on it, so it just seemed to drag on. Maybe I'm being unfair. It's very similar to the first Benny audio, Oh No It Isn't!, which I found much more entertaining.
Anyway, I don't have much else to say on this one, but if y'all feel like humoring me, there are a few tangential topics related to this story I'd like to briefly hit on.
First: the use of racial slurs in fiction. On the one hand, context matters, and this is a story where contextually the use of slurs is appropriate, for both the setting (mid-1700s, I think?) and characters (Charlie). And so I'm tempted to just kind of ignore them--which isn't an uncommon impulse, right? But at the same time, the writers of this story are residents of our context, and they made the deliberate choice to include said slur, so should we really let it pass without comment? And at the same time, the writers of Big Finish clearly know which slurs they can use with little fear of push-back, and which are absolutely verboten. In Assassin in the Limelight, for example, a character says would in-context would only ever be the N-Word, but the script uses the euphemism cotton-picker instead.
I don't say this necessarily to criticize Big Finish, but rather because it's a conversation that's worth having. What makes some slurs acceptable and others not? How does the historical context of the setting or cultural context of the characters speaking inform those choices? Does the Doctor Who franchise in particular have any social responsibility here one way or the other?
I can't say I've got any hard-and-fast answers to these questions, but I can say that while listening it just felt... I dunno, wrong that the Doctor didn't really push-back at all against the slurs, or worse, the (awful) stereotype of Romani stealing children. Granted, the conceit of "18th century fiction-as-reality" muddies the waters somewhat, but still.
Second: I kinda gotta take issue with the premise. Did this bug anyone else? The script explicitly calls out the mid-18th century as the origin of the novel, and that said invention triggered a new "age of fiction." But, like, both of those points are false. Novels were certainly popularized in this era--among the aristocracy and wealthy classes who had both the necessary leisure time and education to read them--but fiction has always been a major component of human culture. Like... there has never been a point in history when this was not the case. And reading fiction wasn't really popular entertainment media until the early 19th century when printing became so much cheaper. And let's not discount the fact that the first novels (famously) came out much, much earlier--in Europe, Don Quixote was first published in 1605! Meanwhile, the first Chinese novel, The Romance of the Three Kingdoms was first published sometime in the early 14th century! And what is generally believed to be the first recorded novel in the world, The Tale of Genji, originated in Japan in the 11th century! These things are old, is what I'm sayin'. They've been around a good while.
Incidentally, I highly and emphatically recommend y'all try Edith Grossman's recent(ish) translation of Don Quixote! It's really, really good! Likewise, if you're interested in the others, I can definitely recommend The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, though I can't say it has a definitive translation, and it can be dry reading... alternatively, if your interested, maybe try out the 2010 television adaptation titled, simply, Three Kingdoms -- a 95-episode epic that trims a lot of fat off the original tale and crafts a deeply compelling narrative of politics and war. Or if you're pressed for time, maybe check out John Woo's (uncut) movie, Red Cliff, which dramatizes a single battle from the story.
But, uh... maybe avoid The Tale of Genji. It's got some really weird shit.
