Aug 25
Brief round-up: Hermeneutics to Dr Who
A short list on what’s caught my eye this week, and that I haven’t already picked up on.
- There’s a good introductory post on hermeneutics from Ben Witherington, though I would want fairly strongly to nuance his bare assertion “What it [the text] meant [then] is what it means [now]“
- Chris Tilling has continued blogging his way through Gordon Fee’s Pauline Christology. This is a noble and heroic effort. I put the book on my shelf long before finishing it as a really useful reference work and commentary on many specific passages, but one that was far too repetitious (and tedious) to read as an actual book.
- Nick Meyer as a follow-up to his post from last week on reasons (or rather explanations of reasons) why Paul persecuted the church. Together they make a useful summary of some of the ways in which Paul is interpreted. I would be most suspicious myself of the psychological ones.
- Kudos and all gratitude to Ben Smith for his freely available synopsis.
- Various people have blogged about Mother Teresa’s almost permanent dark night of the soul based on this Time story. I will be fascinated to read the book of these collected letters when they come out next month. I recall meeting her as one of the most genuinely humbling experiences of my life.
- Loren Rosson started the week with a long annotated guide to seasons 1,2 & 3 of the new Doctor Who. For those who are still wondering whether to catch up it’s a good starting place. Although I broadly agree with him, I rate Fear Her, The Runaway Bride, and Smith and Jones more highly Then again, I think Freema Agyeman does much better at the impossible job of following Billie Piper than he does. And perhaps you have to have seen The Catherine Tate Show to get the most out of the Runaway Bride. But Loren is dead wrong when he says: “I think all of the season finales could have been 5- instead of 4-stars if they hadn’t been written by Russell Davies.” Russell Davies is a brilliant writer, without whom none of these series would have been made.
- Finally for Classic Who, go to Mark Goodacre’s post.
Sunday update: Mark has a much longer post explaining exactly where Loren’s view of Doctor Who goes wrong.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
But Loren is dead wrong when he says: “I think all of the season finales could have been 5- instead of 4-stars if they hadn’t been written by Russell Davies.” Russell Davies is a brilliant writer, without whom none of these series would have been made.
Doug, you seem to be assuming that one (being a supposedly brilliant writer) has anything to do with the other (getting the new series off the ground). I find myself in the curious position of defending Russell Davies to his detractors and criticizing him to his followers. Thank Rassilon for Russell Davies, because, as you say, without him we wouldn’t have the new series; he got it off the ground. And he certainly has good ideas, with a great nack for story arcs (i.e. foreshadowing things to come, tying different stories together in unexpected ways). However, equally importantly, he is no Paul Cornell or Steven Moffat (or Bob Shearman, or Gareth Roberts) — not by a long shot.
The reason is this: Russell Davies’ primary concern is with characterization — which is good in and of itself. As I said, I love the emotion in the new series and the emphasis (in seasons one and two) on the relationship between the Doctor and Rose. The problem is that Davies becomes obssessed with character development beyond that which complements the story plots. Take season one. The stories written by Mark Gatiss (The Unquiet Dead), Robert Shearman (Dalek), Paul Cornell (Father’s Day), Steven Moffat (The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances), involve memorable supporting characters — Charles Dickens, the Dalek, Rose’s father, the young mother who lost her son to the nanogenes — who complement their story plots perfectly. In large measure they actually are the story. Davies pushes characterisation to an extent that his plots become secondary and are seriously diminished. Look at Cathica and Adam in The Long Game (we don’t learn anything substantive about them, despite their tedious development, and the story suffers accordingly). On top of this, Davies gives us kitchen sink soap-opera where the others offer literary tragedy. Rose’s family being center-stage in Father’s Day worked wonders in the hands of Paul Cornell because the family is the story — in my view, one of the best tragedies ever penned. In season two the tension between Mickey and Rose finally paid off in the hands of Tom MacRae (Rise of the Cybermen/Age of Steel), who allowed Mickey to come into his own and make us actually regret his departure despite having been so fed up with him up to this point. At least Davies gave Rose a good swan song.
So no, Russell Davies is not the greatest writer in the world.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
I agree that his responsibility for the series is not in itself a justification for him being a great writer, Loren. But I think he is a great writer, and his dialogue genuinely snappy, funny and true to life, and unlike you I admire his plotting more. (Dare I mention Queer as Folk or Bob and Rose?)We must agree to disagree. I would be interested to know how much collaboration there is among the writing team despite the credit going mainly to a single writer. I suspect Russell Davies also has a hand in a supervising role.