... but I've watched this so many times now its kinda got stuck in my head!
Apart from a somewhat abrupt jump at the start from dialogue to song, the editing in terms of matching lyrics to the scenes just hits me in the gut.
Of course thinking about it, I'm a sucker for ballads and this has strings that come in and underpin the song. That's pretty much a fix for me.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Wikipedia and information
Norm provides a fine and succinct summary of what is wrong with arguments about wikipedia et al.
I attended a very interesting session at the recent BAAS conference about Wikipedia, Google Scholar and research, with representatives from the British Library, Wikipedia and Google Scholar and a VERY full room of academics etc (it was one of the busiest sessions of the conference). Mostly we bitched about getting students to do any reading at all, let alone sufficient reading, let alone being critical of ALL the resources at their disposal (and not just the online ones). But there was certainly skepticism about the reliability of certain online resources.
The difficulty with wiki type knowledge is that is increasingly accepted by students as a reasonable substitute for broader research and increasingly not tolerated by academic staff as a legitimate source of information (in some instances even down to discouraging looking at it for inspiration, checking other sources recommended by it, let alone not citing it in a bibliography). This divergence is reaching something of a critical point, and one not helped by the sort of scare-mongering reporting cited in Norm's post.
I suspect at heart there is a psychological issue at stake here about the perceived over-democratisation of Web 2.0 in allowing anyone and everyone access to 'producing' knowledge. By making the process of updating and correcting knowledge not only more visible but also much much quicker, the old orders of power in producing knowledge have decayed somewhat.
Of course, undoubtedly there is a bit/lot of me that retains a sense of elitism about my love of books at which point I'm reminded of an exchange from Buffy - quel surprise! - where Jenny (techno-pagan and IT tutor) is talking to Giles (lovable fusty librarian)
JENNY: Well, it was your book that started all the trouble, not a computer. Honestly, what is it about them that bothers you so much?
GILES: The smell.
JENNY: Computer's don't smell, Rupert.
GILES: I know! Smell is the most powerful trigger to the memory there is. A certain flower or a, a whiff of smoke can bring up experiences... long forgotten. Books smell. Musty and, and, and, and rich. The knowledge gained from a computer, is, uh, it... it has no, no texture, no, no context. It's, it's there and then it's gone. If it's to last, then, then the getting of knowledge should be, uh, tangible, it should be, um... smelly.
I guess there will always be a strong part of me in love with books, with pages, but I'm fooling myself if I believe that they are inherently more reliable than judicious use of other forms of knowledge.
I attended a very interesting session at the recent BAAS conference about Wikipedia, Google Scholar and research, with representatives from the British Library, Wikipedia and Google Scholar and a VERY full room of academics etc (it was one of the busiest sessions of the conference). Mostly we bitched about getting students to do any reading at all, let alone sufficient reading, let alone being critical of ALL the resources at their disposal (and not just the online ones). But there was certainly skepticism about the reliability of certain online resources.
The difficulty with wiki type knowledge is that is increasingly accepted by students as a reasonable substitute for broader research and increasingly not tolerated by academic staff as a legitimate source of information (in some instances even down to discouraging looking at it for inspiration, checking other sources recommended by it, let alone not citing it in a bibliography). This divergence is reaching something of a critical point, and one not helped by the sort of scare-mongering reporting cited in Norm's post.
I suspect at heart there is a psychological issue at stake here about the perceived over-democratisation of Web 2.0 in allowing anyone and everyone access to 'producing' knowledge. By making the process of updating and correcting knowledge not only more visible but also much much quicker, the old orders of power in producing knowledge have decayed somewhat.
Of course, undoubtedly there is a bit/lot of me that retains a sense of elitism about my love of books at which point I'm reminded of an exchange from Buffy - quel surprise! - where Jenny (techno-pagan and IT tutor) is talking to Giles (lovable fusty librarian)
JENNY: Well, it was your book that started all the trouble, not a computer. Honestly, what is it about them that bothers you so much?
GILES: The smell.
JENNY: Computer's don't smell, Rupert.
GILES: I know! Smell is the most powerful trigger to the memory there is. A certain flower or a, a whiff of smoke can bring up experiences... long forgotten. Books smell. Musty and, and, and, and rich. The knowledge gained from a computer, is, uh, it... it has no, no texture, no, no context. It's, it's there and then it's gone. If it's to last, then, then the getting of knowledge should be, uh, tangible, it should be, um... smelly.
I guess there will always be a strong part of me in love with books, with pages, but I'm fooling myself if I believe that they are inherently more reliable than judicious use of other forms of knowledge.
Do I want to take up being a Pastafarian?
I can't believe I've spent so little time being properly aware of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It's almost enough to encourage me to take up the 'faith'!
Via lovely Mr Wongablog, who's had real highs and lows lately.
It's almost enough to encourage me to take up the 'faith'!
Via lovely Mr Wongablog, who's had real highs and lows lately.
Reproductive Rights
From Pandagon a well articulated analysis of what's really going on in the anti-choice/pro-life brigade.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
The Carusometer - now with added Randomiser!
Lovely witty and usually accurate MediumRob brings us a new feature of the world of the Carusometer. Since I am still wiping the tears of giggles from my eyes after reading his post I'll let you go to the post itself!
Debating the psychology of blogging and stalking
Fascinating piece - and an equally fascinating subsequent discussion - about FJL and a possible explanation as to how and why the stalking of Rachel has taken place.
Of course we're all a little narcissistic in spilling our thoughts to the world online, and the difficulties of any single theory defining the actions of an individual human are clear. BUT, those elements aside where does factual description tip over into libellious assault? We're obviously gone well beyond the point of simple name-calling or "descriptors you dislike" (even if that's how the commentor Gerard feels content to define them).
Thought provoking anyway: the sidebar button will hopefully come down soon. It's taken a lot to get it to this point and with a limited amount of coverage from Rachel herself (if with an inspiringly supportive response from other bloggers). The internet is a powerful place though and this highlights the impact it can have.
Of course we're all a little narcissistic in spilling our thoughts to the world online, and the difficulties of any single theory defining the actions of an individual human are clear. BUT, those elements aside where does factual description tip over into libellious assault? We're obviously gone well beyond the point of simple name-calling or "descriptors you dislike" (even if that's how the commentor Gerard feels content to define them).
Thought provoking anyway: the sidebar button will hopefully come down soon. It's taken a lot to get it to this point and with a limited amount of coverage from Rachel herself (if with an inspiringly supportive response from other bloggers). The internet is a powerful place though and this highlights the impact it can have.
Atheism
I'm Scientific it seems - rather like Sonia and lovely EineKleineRob. A little worrying though given my lack of science knowledge as compared to them!
| You scored as Scientific Atheist, These guys rule. I'm not one of them myself, although I play one online. They know the rules of debate, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and can explain evolution in fifty words or less. More concerned with how things ARE than how they should be, these are the people who will bring us into the future.
What kind of atheist are you? created with QuizFarm.com |
Monday, June 04, 2007
Shuggy really wanted to go home
You get the feeling that Shuggy was desparate on Friday:
More from the Department of the Bleeding Obvious
Searching pupils
The archives of the Department of the Bleeding Obvious
Hard to know which contained my favourite line, although I was especially sympathetic with "And I like the idea of breaking up larger schools, although I hope this is being taken literally. The last one I was in, for example, should be taken out with a bunker-busting bomb. One with depleted uranium, naturally."
More from the Department of the Bleeding Obvious
Searching pupils
The archives of the Department of the Bleeding Obvious
Hard to know which contained my favourite line, although I was especially sympathetic with "And I like the idea of breaking up larger schools, although I hope this is being taken literally. The last one I was in, for example, should be taken out with a bunker-busting bomb. One with depleted uranium, naturally."
Sunday, June 03, 2007
TV review: Human Nature/The Family of Blood (plus some thoughts on Martha/Freema)
There's bumper loads of happy happy boys over at Behind the Sofa. That alone should assure doubters that this managed to combine the best of Classic and NewWho.
TV Scoop was happy twice over as well, with both Human Nature and The Family of Blood getting a thumbs up.
Anna was also happy twice over.
And Freema-loving TV Today relished what the two episodes achieved.
So what about me?
Well, befuddling and grin-inducing mentions of Nottingham aside, this pair of episodes brought out the best of everyone.
The writing (re-writing) by Cornell was spot-on, transforming a well-loved (if not exactly million-selling) story into a beautifully realised television script. Keeping in mind the regenerations of the Doctor since the story was first published and the (very) different companion figure, the story was retained but adjusted, taking plenty of its nuances and characterisations whilst simultaneously updating them to match the current characters/actors.
The presentation of the narrative, leaving the viewer off-balance as to what was going on (even to some extent for those who already knew Cornell's novel) was well-handled. So some younger viewers may have been confused for a while, but getting your head around confusing ideas is what good TV should enable the viewer to do. Our own lack of clarity helps identification with the figures at the centre of the story, not least with Joan's growing realisation that Smith isn't the 'man' she thought he was.
And the note-book? What artistry and work went into that. Others have said it, but I will too: that HAS to be a PDF on the forthcoming S3 DVD box set. A shout-out to fans to be salivated over.
The direction from Charles Palmer was charming, subtle, dramatic and well-paced. Camera angles were grand, without grand-standing. There were some fine set-pieces and just the right number of close-ups to draw the level of intimacy to the surface.
The music, for possibly the first time in ages, is more spot-on than we might have dared hoped for, and whilst the invocation of hymns in Gridlock felt a little too pious, here the familiarity of "To be a Pilgrim" acting as premonition of the violence to come beyond this story's end, was given fine form with such an appropriate vocal version chosen.
Effects were kept limited, which meant when they did come to the fore they had real purpose rather than being there 'because we can so we should' (a bugbear of those who believed Classic Who had managed to be more creepy, scary and monstrous with suggestion and frequently dodgy SFX).
Which brings me to the people. And this is what has set this two-parter way up in the appreciation stakes. If we accept that NewWho especially (but not exclusively when set against the Classic years) is about people, about characters, then this brought the best of both together in giving everyone concerned real chances to demonstrate their acting chops.
Praise has been heaped on David and Jessica (sorry, she will always but always be Jessica "Daisy" Stevenson) and rightly so, even if it has been as the 'not'-Doctor that Tennant has best shined this season. Don't care says I, since Smith is within the Doctor as the Doctor was within Smith. And as noted elsewhere, come on, we all cheered at re-emergence of the glasses, the suit (BROWN!!!) and the Chuck All-Stars. A glorious moment. As was the sight of the firmly pissed off, getting-the-job-done Doctor giving each member of the Family their what-for.
Jessica was sublime here as Joan, whether terse (and racist) with Martha, charmed and adoring with Smith, maternal to the boys, and ultimately heart-broken by the Doctor. A hiding place on a "whim": ouch. Saxon isn't entirely wrong when Martha's mother Francine gets the messages that the Doctor brings destruction in his wake, whether intended or not. Like the press in Spiderman et al that both lauds the hero and points out that without him the bad guys wouldn't be there in the first place putting the innocent in danger, the attitude is wrong-headed but comprehensible. Funnily, having been re-reading a lot of Buffy and Angel books and essays lately, one of the lines that first came to mind after watching last night's episode was Giles' remark to Xander about his friend Jesse who has been vamped: "You're not looking at your friend; you're looking at the thing that killed him". No wonder Joan cannot look at the Doctor.
There's equally good work from the supporting cast: big kudos especially to Baines (Harry Lloyd, step ye forward for your totally-creeped-me-out award of the year) but all the cast deserve a cheer for their well-inhabited period turns. And that includes Thomas "I-need-to-see-a-birth-certificate-before-I-believe-that-boy-is-now-17" Sangster.
To conclude, I have to make a special note about Freema who finally gets to do some more good work (at last!), showing that much of the problem with her character/acting is to do with what she is given. Is she finally able to want to be with the Doctor, even or despite her knowledge that he doesn't and will not love her? It would be helpful if she could move on, since when she's allowed to be more sparky - as here - she's more than a match for anything Rose could or would have done. As I have said elsewhere [in the comments], Marth/Freema has had "rather erratic service from writers and directors (and probably in terms of overseeing her, the producers)". She's done some of her best work in this two-parter, probably helped by the overall raising of the bar and then some that it's drawn out. But I'm still left with a nagging sense that she's not fully hit, or been allowed to hit, her stride (I'd be interested to know what the filming blocks were this season to see whether that's down to directors or time: she's certainly been at her best here and in the opening episode or so). With some qualifications to those aforementioned previous remarks, I don't think she's "done justice to the spectacular opportunity she has has been given (or perhaps more truthfully had chance to develop sufficiently to do justice)."
Don't get me wrong, I grew to love the Rose/Ten relationship as passionately and fondly as a non-full-on-shipper could do (I appreciate the shippiness but my old skool Who chops can't help but think that proves to be a narrative cul-de-sac). I can't ignore the gut feeling that sympathised with those who came to loath the smug intensity of Rose/Ten 'in love'. In that respect, the possibilities for Martha as a character have been immense, not least because she is smarter, more worldly-wise. But I don't think these opportunities have been as well-explored as they could have been. The whole unrequited love thang that has over-shadowed much of Martha's behaviour and actions seems to come "not only from the Who team but also from Freema's own effusive delight in having the chance to work so closely with David Tennant as the Doctor. It's a bit of a fan's dream come true for sure, but it sometimes overwhelms her performance."
That's probably why in this episode it was so refreshing to see her doing more and also - the "... and it wasn't me" line aside - dealing and seeming to move on from being 'in love' with the Doctor. Martha and Freema deserve more of these opportunities. Whether they'll be coming is another matter.
So, the overall verdict: Brilliant episodes, with everyone on-song. Moffat to come (hurrah!) and the finale. Despite some nay-sayers, and the less-than-fully-successful Dalek story aside, I'd actually say this season has felt more consistent and enjoyable than the last. Maybe it's the different momentum this time around, a groove both settled (three years in) and unsettled (after the departure of Rose, who after all was deliberately intended to be our eyes into the world of the Doctor). Either way, I've been enjoying it far more than I dared hope. And this two parter has simply been the best cake, let alone icing, that any of us could have hoped for.
TV Scoop was happy twice over as well, with both Human Nature and The Family of Blood getting a thumbs up.
Anna was also happy twice over.
And Freema-loving TV Today relished what the two episodes achieved.
So what about me?
Well, befuddling and grin-inducing mentions of Nottingham aside, this pair of episodes brought out the best of everyone.
The writing (re-writing) by Cornell was spot-on, transforming a well-loved (if not exactly million-selling) story into a beautifully realised television script. Keeping in mind the regenerations of the Doctor since the story was first published and the (very) different companion figure, the story was retained but adjusted, taking plenty of its nuances and characterisations whilst simultaneously updating them to match the current characters/actors.
The presentation of the narrative, leaving the viewer off-balance as to what was going on (even to some extent for those who already knew Cornell's novel) was well-handled. So some younger viewers may have been confused for a while, but getting your head around confusing ideas is what good TV should enable the viewer to do. Our own lack of clarity helps identification with the figures at the centre of the story, not least with Joan's growing realisation that Smith isn't the 'man' she thought he was.
And the note-book? What artistry and work went into that. Others have said it, but I will too: that HAS to be a PDF on the forthcoming S3 DVD box set. A shout-out to fans to be salivated over.
The direction from Charles Palmer was charming, subtle, dramatic and well-paced. Camera angles were grand, without grand-standing. There were some fine set-pieces and just the right number of close-ups to draw the level of intimacy to the surface.
The music, for possibly the first time in ages, is more spot-on than we might have dared hoped for, and whilst the invocation of hymns in Gridlock felt a little too pious, here the familiarity of "To be a Pilgrim" acting as premonition of the violence to come beyond this story's end, was given fine form with such an appropriate vocal version chosen.
Effects were kept limited, which meant when they did come to the fore they had real purpose rather than being there 'because we can so we should' (a bugbear of those who believed Classic Who had managed to be more creepy, scary and monstrous with suggestion and frequently dodgy SFX).
Which brings me to the people. And this is what has set this two-parter way up in the appreciation stakes. If we accept that NewWho especially (but not exclusively when set against the Classic years) is about people, about characters, then this brought the best of both together in giving everyone concerned real chances to demonstrate their acting chops.
Praise has been heaped on David and Jessica (sorry, she will always but always be Jessica "Daisy" Stevenson) and rightly so, even if it has been as the 'not'-Doctor that Tennant has best shined this season. Don't care says I, since Smith is within the Doctor as the Doctor was within Smith. And as noted elsewhere, come on, we all cheered at re-emergence of the glasses, the suit (BROWN!!!) and the Chuck All-Stars. A glorious moment. As was the sight of the firmly pissed off, getting-the-job-done Doctor giving each member of the Family their what-for.
Jessica was sublime here as Joan, whether terse (and racist) with Martha, charmed and adoring with Smith, maternal to the boys, and ultimately heart-broken by the Doctor. A hiding place on a "whim": ouch. Saxon isn't entirely wrong when Martha's mother Francine gets the messages that the Doctor brings destruction in his wake, whether intended or not. Like the press in Spiderman et al that both lauds the hero and points out that without him the bad guys wouldn't be there in the first place putting the innocent in danger, the attitude is wrong-headed but comprehensible. Funnily, having been re-reading a lot of Buffy and Angel books and essays lately, one of the lines that first came to mind after watching last night's episode was Giles' remark to Xander about his friend Jesse who has been vamped: "You're not looking at your friend; you're looking at the thing that killed him". No wonder Joan cannot look at the Doctor.
There's equally good work from the supporting cast: big kudos especially to Baines (Harry Lloyd, step ye forward for your totally-creeped-me-out award of the year) but all the cast deserve a cheer for their well-inhabited period turns. And that includes Thomas "I-need-to-see-a-birth-certificate-before-I-believe-that-boy-is-now-17" Sangster.
To conclude, I have to make a special note about Freema who finally gets to do some more good work (at last!), showing that much of the problem with her character/acting is to do with what she is given. Is she finally able to want to be with the Doctor, even or despite her knowledge that he doesn't and will not love her? It would be helpful if she could move on, since when she's allowed to be more sparky - as here - she's more than a match for anything Rose could or would have done. As I have said elsewhere [in the comments], Marth/Freema has had "rather erratic service from writers and directors (and probably in terms of overseeing her, the producers)". She's done some of her best work in this two-parter, probably helped by the overall raising of the bar and then some that it's drawn out. But I'm still left with a nagging sense that she's not fully hit, or been allowed to hit, her stride (I'd be interested to know what the filming blocks were this season to see whether that's down to directors or time: she's certainly been at her best here and in the opening episode or so). With some qualifications to those aforementioned previous remarks, I don't think she's "done justice to the spectacular opportunity she has has been given (or perhaps more truthfully had chance to develop sufficiently to do justice)."
Don't get me wrong, I grew to love the Rose/Ten relationship as passionately and fondly as a non-full-on-shipper could do (I appreciate the shippiness but my old skool Who chops can't help but think that proves to be a narrative cul-de-sac). I can't ignore the gut feeling that sympathised with those who came to loath the smug intensity of Rose/Ten 'in love'. In that respect, the possibilities for Martha as a character have been immense, not least because she is smarter, more worldly-wise. But I don't think these opportunities have been as well-explored as they could have been. The whole unrequited love thang that has over-shadowed much of Martha's behaviour and actions seems to come "not only from the Who team but also from Freema's own effusive delight in having the chance to work so closely with David Tennant as the Doctor. It's a bit of a fan's dream come true for sure, but it sometimes overwhelms her performance."
That's probably why in this episode it was so refreshing to see her doing more and also - the "... and it wasn't me" line aside - dealing and seeming to move on from being 'in love' with the Doctor. Martha and Freema deserve more of these opportunities. Whether they'll be coming is another matter.
So, the overall verdict: Brilliant episodes, with everyone on-song. Moffat to come (hurrah!) and the finale. Despite some nay-sayers, and the less-than-fully-successful Dalek story aside, I'd actually say this season has felt more consistent and enjoyable than the last. Maybe it's the different momentum this time around, a groove both settled (three years in) and unsettled (after the departure of Rose, who after all was deliberately intended to be our eyes into the world of the Doctor). Either way, I've been enjoying it far more than I dared hope. And this two parter has simply been the best cake, let alone icing, that any of us could have hoped for.
Yes, Aberdeen, Of course.
Doh. You know, somehow in my head I did know that, but I really wanted the Nottingham thing to NOT be recent.
So. I was 'wrong', 'right' and 'very wrong'.
Shut up girls.
So. I was 'wrong', 'right' and 'very wrong'.
Shut up girls.
Gig Review: Rodrigo Y Gabriela
Woah! I mean, seriously, WOAH! Rodrigo Y Gabriela rawk.
That was one fucking heck of a gig (the swearing is a deliberate invocation of the luscious Gabriela's casual swearing: nothing less than adorable).
It was pretty much a spur of the moment gig attendance, having been suggested by our friend Pete when we attended the excellent John Shuttleworth gig at Lakeside on Bank Holiday Monday (I'll review that separately too!).
Anyway, lovely Pete organised the tickets and the evening was off to a fab start when we ran into another ex-Marconi pal of both Pete and Cloud. Fortuitous or what? I already knew that lovely Sarah was coming to the gig, as would be Mike, so it was looking to be a real get-together. As it turned out, I also got chance to meet the elusive Swiss Toni, whose brilliant review of the gig is a much better read than this one can hope to be (and has some fab YouTube links).
(Mike, a seasoned attendee of R&G gigs and fond interviewer of Rodrigo, was not unreasonably distraught at having to share them with far too many oikey dorks who seem to think that a gig is the place to pay money to come to in order to talk during the quieter performance sections. I thinking of enforcing gags for these gig-ruining prats as Mike's distress was heart-rending).
Anyway. Like Swiss Toni, this was our first visit to a R&G gig and boy did it have an impact! For two non-singing acoustic guitarists to wow a standing audience in such a way scarcely seemed plausible as an abstract thought. It drew one of the more diverse gig audiences I have seen in some time in terms of age. That R&G could invoke such breadth of musical styles and never stray from displaying their metal rock hearts on their sleeves was a beautiful thing to behold. (I can't recall the last time I saw so many RAWK hand gestures: it was a thrilling reminder of past musical indulgences). Even if Cloud was one of the few people there to NOT recognise the inimitable Floyd track "Wish You Were Here" - one of the few Floyd songs I like - despite pretty much the entire venue providing impromptu vocals for the track, he still recognised this was an unusual and glorious moment.
And Gabriela: sheesh! They're damn hot pair anyway, but that gal takes guitar work to another level. With cameras and screens displaying their handiwork up close, you could truly appreciate the sheer speed and enthrallinfg fingers across the strings.
A soul-pumping experience, despite the chatty twerps. An album to treasure, but definitely a live show to be swooned over.
That was one fucking heck of a gig (the swearing is a deliberate invocation of the luscious Gabriela's casual swearing: nothing less than adorable).
It was pretty much a spur of the moment gig attendance, having been suggested by our friend Pete when we attended the excellent John Shuttleworth gig at Lakeside on Bank Holiday Monday (I'll review that separately too!).
Anyway, lovely Pete organised the tickets and the evening was off to a fab start when we ran into another ex-Marconi pal of both Pete and Cloud. Fortuitous or what? I already knew that lovely Sarah was coming to the gig, as would be Mike, so it was looking to be a real get-together. As it turned out, I also got chance to meet the elusive Swiss Toni, whose brilliant review of the gig is a much better read than this one can hope to be (and has some fab YouTube links).
(Mike, a seasoned attendee of R&G gigs and fond interviewer of Rodrigo, was not unreasonably distraught at having to share them with far too many oikey dorks who seem to think that a gig is the place to pay money to come to in order to talk during the quieter performance sections. I thinking of enforcing gags for these gig-ruining prats as Mike's distress was heart-rending).
Anyway. Like Swiss Toni, this was our first visit to a R&G gig and boy did it have an impact! For two non-singing acoustic guitarists to wow a standing audience in such a way scarcely seemed plausible as an abstract thought. It drew one of the more diverse gig audiences I have seen in some time in terms of age. That R&G could invoke such breadth of musical styles and never stray from displaying their metal rock hearts on their sleeves was a beautiful thing to behold. (I can't recall the last time I saw so many RAWK hand gestures: it was a thrilling reminder of past musical indulgences). Even if Cloud was one of the few people there to NOT recognise the inimitable Floyd track "Wish You Were Here" - one of the few Floyd songs I like - despite pretty much the entire venue providing impromptu vocals for the track, he still recognised this was an unusual and glorious moment.
And Gabriela: sheesh! They're damn hot pair anyway, but that gal takes guitar work to another level. With cameras and screens displaying their handiwork up close, you could truly appreciate the sheer speed and enthrallinfg fingers across the strings.
A soul-pumping experience, despite the chatty twerps. An album to treasure, but definitely a live show to be swooned over.
Save me from degrees of paranoia: a question of Who and where...
It's becoming an oft-used phrase on this blog, but here's the thing.
Even before it came up as being the basis for NewWho episodes, I had a good awareness of Paul Cornell's book "Human Nature", even if I hadn't actually read it in book form. [I'll write separately about the bloody fantasticness of this two parter].
It probably won't shock anyone that in watching Human Nature/The Family of Blood, it was hard for me to resist a big fat grin at John Smith's back story of coming from Nottingham (especially with such encyclopaedic knowledge of the back streets of the city).
But here's the thing:
I've been covering my back with my two witchiest friends, Lisette and Chrissie, that this birth location of Nottingham for John Smith pre-dates New Who because hey, that's what I thought I knew and dammit I'm not gonna open myself to paranoia and torment by letting them think for even a moment it's anything else.
So can some kind soul of supreme Who knowledge confirm I'm right to 'know' that Smith used Nottingham as his 'birthplace' pre-this script.
Pretty please?
'Cos the alternative is gonna be hellish to defend, even if Cornell's most recent pre-Who gig was on the recent Robin Hood series. I'm not helped either by the fact that one of Cornell's upcoming jobs is to work on the second series of Primeval.
Those sniggers? I can hear you already.
Even before it came up as being the basis for NewWho episodes, I had a good awareness of Paul Cornell's book "Human Nature", even if I hadn't actually read it in book form. [I'll write separately about the bloody fantasticness of this two parter].
It probably won't shock anyone that in watching Human Nature/The Family of Blood, it was hard for me to resist a big fat grin at John Smith's back story of coming from Nottingham (especially with such encyclopaedic knowledge of the back streets of the city).
But here's the thing:
I've been covering my back with my two witchiest friends, Lisette and Chrissie, that this birth location of Nottingham for John Smith pre-dates New Who because hey, that's what I thought I knew and dammit I'm not gonna open myself to paranoia and torment by letting them think for even a moment it's anything else.
So can some kind soul of supreme Who knowledge confirm I'm right to 'know' that Smith used Nottingham as his 'birthplace' pre-this script.
Pretty please?
'Cos the alternative is gonna be hellish to defend, even if Cornell's most recent pre-Who gig was on the recent Robin Hood series. I'm not helped either by the fact that one of Cornell's upcoming jobs is to work on the second series of Primeval.
Those sniggers? I can hear you already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)