09-15-2007, 11:05 PM
> You'd never catch Tom Baker explaining stuff! Except maybe, I dunno, every frakking episode?
I'm not saying that nobody else has ever stooped to such things in the history of Doctor Who, but they didn't do it habitually, nor so egregiously in the old series.
Also, one must differentiate between explaining a technical activity or the action of a complex plot device vs. exposition being used in lieu of characterization.
In the Baker era, characters would often explain what they were doing, but not WHY and HOW they were MOTIVATED to do it. Nor can I recall any incarnation of the Doctor where repetitive exposition on the background and motive of every character was in vogue.
Pertwee notoriously stuck a couple of forks in a cork, balanced it with a teacup and said that he was building a time flow barrier. He didn't then go on and explain that he knew how to make such things because he was abused as a child and ran away to join the Official Time Barrier League of Outer Gallifrey #9 and wanted to make psychic barriers because so many people had been hurt by badly maintained psyches, such as his great grandfather... etc, etc. Instead, he stuck forks in a cork as a reaction to a plot element and the invention followed as something authentic to the character by virtue of earlier character development. And yes, forks in a cork was a hard sell, but it fit with the story and he was a good enough actor that he carried it.
In this case, we've got a character saying (essentially), "I'm doing this because I'm insane as evidenced by this sound that's been in my head ever since I was a little kid where I was exposed to this terrible thing that has made me determined to act in this way..."
That prattle makes forks in a cork look like high art.
> if you think explanations are a sign of terrible writing, maybe a whimsical
> science-fiction series which thrives on techno-gobbledygook might not be your cup of
> tea?
I think that you're talking about a sub-genre of "fantasy," not "science fiction."
Science fiction does not rely on "techno-gobbledygook" to resolve a dramatic crisis.
I'm not saying that nobody else has ever stooped to such things in the history of Doctor Who, but they didn't do it habitually, nor so egregiously in the old series.
Also, one must differentiate between explaining a technical activity or the action of a complex plot device vs. exposition being used in lieu of characterization.
In the Baker era, characters would often explain what they were doing, but not WHY and HOW they were MOTIVATED to do it. Nor can I recall any incarnation of the Doctor where repetitive exposition on the background and motive of every character was in vogue.
Pertwee notoriously stuck a couple of forks in a cork, balanced it with a teacup and said that he was building a time flow barrier. He didn't then go on and explain that he knew how to make such things because he was abused as a child and ran away to join the Official Time Barrier League of Outer Gallifrey #9 and wanted to make psychic barriers because so many people had been hurt by badly maintained psyches, such as his great grandfather... etc, etc. Instead, he stuck forks in a cork as a reaction to a plot element and the invention followed as something authentic to the character by virtue of earlier character development. And yes, forks in a cork was a hard sell, but it fit with the story and he was a good enough actor that he carried it.
In this case, we've got a character saying (essentially), "I'm doing this because I'm insane as evidenced by this sound that's been in my head ever since I was a little kid where I was exposed to this terrible thing that has made me determined to act in this way..."
That prattle makes forks in a cork look like high art.
> if you think explanations are a sign of terrible writing, maybe a whimsical
> science-fiction series which thrives on techno-gobbledygook might not be your cup of
> tea?
I think that you're talking about a sub-genre of "fantasy," not "science fiction."
Science fiction does not rely on "techno-gobbledygook" to resolve a dramatic crisis.