From: markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU ()
Subject: Re: ST:TNG (critiques) vs Dr. Who
Organization: school of Mathematics UNSW
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 04:36:27 GMT






Drewcifer leaps out of the darkness again to reply to :

>>>I didn't agree with most of your assessments of the McCoy episodes, but like
>>>you said - they're your opinions...

>Yep, they are my opinions. Glad you realise that. Some people here get very
>upset if someone dares to raise an opnion which differs from their own.

>>>Gee, who might that be?  :)

Just about everybody.

>I know exactly what people mean when they use the word "Masterpiece". My point
>is that like so many other words in the language its value is reduced by 
>excessive, and innapropriate use. Dr Who is great television, so is Star
>Trek. If you wish to label individual stories as masterpieces, then 
>feel free. I was merely pointing out that , in my opinion, we should be more
>realistic of our assesment of a series' worth. I, Claudius was a masterpiece.
>The Third Man is a masterpiece. The Singing Detective was a masterpiece.
>What this means is that they were exceptional works of cinema and television
>made by masters of their arts. Genesis of the Daleks was wonderful, but 
>as a personal thing, I would not use the word masterpiece to describe it.
>(I hope you can understand this without feeling that you have to personally
>justify your opinion on the matter).

>>Hmmm..."exceptional works of cinema and television made by masters of their
>>arts" is at once gratingly elitist and surprisingly open to interpretation. 
>>That description makes Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" a
>>masterpiece...it's definitely exceptional, and Coppola may not be THE master
>>of cinema but if there are any he should be considered among them.  I
>>*don't*, however, consider that film a masterpiece (even though I loved it). 
>>The reinterpretation was just so stunningly inappropriate it rendered the
>>theme and tone of the original book null and void.  I think that a word's
>>value is also reduced by inappropriate DEFINITION.

Elitist my foot. Of course it is open to interpretation. That is the whole
point of art and literature. I originally said that *I* did not classify
much Dr Who as being in the category of *masterpiece*. Other people may
that is up to them. Now perhaps Coppola's Dracula is a masterpiece in the
eyes of some and not you. Certainly Apocalypse Now is considered by 
many to be a masterpiece. I have no wish to get into an argument on the
defintion of the word masterpiece. I only gave a working definition, which 
I would stand by for most cases. I'm not writing a dictionary here.
 
>>So let's consult the master of language definition, our old friend Webster. 
>>Hmmmm....


Why? I much prefer the Oxford, or the Australian National Dictionary. None
of this American crap.


>>"2: a work done with extraordinary skill; esp: a supreme intellectual or
>>artistic achievement."

>>That sounds like what you want, and rules out Dracula as well.  But I'm not
>>so sure it rules out Dr. Who...it all depends on perspective.  Do you have
>>perspective, sir?

Are you completely stupid or do you just do this for fun? I said *I* 
do not consider much Dr Who to be of the class of *masterpiece*. The fact
that you think Dr Who may be a supreme intellectual or artistic achievement
leads me to think you have a rather narrow perspective.
 
>As far as Macbeth is concerned, I have never met anybody who thought that
>one of the greatest works of the human imagination was "stupid". Know 
>ye of such a person? 

>>Big non-sequitur there.  I don't consider Macbeth one of the greatest works
>>of the human imagination.  I do consider it one hell of a play, though...

No there is no non-sequiter here. Do you actually know what non-sequiter
means by the way?

The fact that you do not consider Macbeth one of the greatest works of the
human imagination is of little interest to me. If you do not follow something
as simple as "Curse of Fenric", then Macbeth must surely be beyond you.
Yes Macbeth is one hell of a play, but consider also how much Shakespeare's
work has permeated the English language, and been examined by everybody
from Dostoevsky to Freud to Verdi, over a period of 400 years. 

>>And yes, I know many people who find it stupid.  There are some aspects
>>which don't quite gel.  I don't find it stupid, but who are you and I to
>>say?

Macbeth has been disected by literary critics (and high school students) 
for centuries. It has had its critics of course. But few people in 
this time have labeled it "stupid". Flawed perhaps. Unsatisfying maybe.
But "stupid"? 


>Dr Who has gotten great respective for what it has done. So has TNG. I

>>"Respective?"

Respect obviously. Now who is being pedantic?


>I like John Delancie as Q. I like the character as he portrays it, but I
>dislike the idea. Q clearly is not allpowerful as he would not have to
>answer to the continuum if he were. He also does not keep his word.
>He promised to never visit the Enterprise again, and he did. But this
>is secondary. I don't like the idea of an alien like Q. Just how did Q
>get to be so powerful? Where does this power come from? And just how many
>superpowerful races of pure energy are there? I find the idea ridiculous
>and rather cheap. Can't think of a plot? stick a new race of super powerful
>aliens in! These are my opnions.

>>They are ludicrous.  Q is all-powerful for a significant thematic reason:
>>give the best ship in the galaxy an enemy it must OUTWIT.  The origins of
>>his powers were not explained because they didn't NEED to be.  What's
>>important to the theme is that he does possess those powers.  Oh, do try and
>>look beyond the literal, won't you?

Oh Drewcifer. Thank you for pointing this out to me. What would I do without
your insight into such things? Of course Q is there so the Eneerprise can
outwit him! But you can give the Enterprise a powerful adversary it must
outwit, without resorting to Star Trek meets Bewitched. My original pointwas that Dr Who has had powerful enemies like Sutekh, who nevertheless did not have
the ability to create worlds with the snap of a tentacle. In my view, that
is a reason why Dr Who has generally been superior to TNG. Not the only
reason, but a reason. I can believe in an adversary like Sutekh. Q is 
simply silly. He can be very entertaining yes, but I find him mostly 
tiresome. (Although I really do like John Delancie).


>Now this is silly. We know the Time Lords are the most powerful race in the
>Whoniverse because we have so often been told they are by the Doctor and
>others. The Tharils needed a TimeLord, and Romana did the job for them.

>>Oh, come ON!  Why would the Doctor always be right, and why *wouldn't* he
>>think *his* people were the most advanced?  We don't know anything of the
>>kind.

The Doctor generally is right about most things. Of course he is not 
always right. If he were the show would have been cancelled in 1964.
He has no illusions about Time Lord civilisation, but if a civilisation
trancended simple mechanical devices when the universe was less than 
half its present size, then he may well be justified in his view. Besides
he has travelled all over the universe and never encountered  a race 
more advanced than his own, so maybe he is drawing a conclusion from this.

>Why would the Tharils need a Time Lord? Whether the Time Lords could defeat 
>Sutekh is debatable. The Doctor said that they couldn't but he may have been
>exagerating the threat to impress Sarah. But the Osirians are extinct in 

>>And before he was always right about things, and always truthful.  Be
>>consistent!

Do you know what it means to set up a straw man Drewcifer? I never said
the Doctor was always right about things, and I never said he was always truthful. You attributed this to me, then you accuse me of being inconsistent
for not sticking to something you have claimed is my opinion. 

I don't care one way or the other about Sutekh. We do not know exactly what 
the Doctor meant by his remark. Given the famous lethargy of his people
he may have meant what I posted the other day. The Time Lords would
get wiped out by Sutekh before they got off their arses and decided to
do something about him. It doesn't matter. Sutekh and his race are 
no more. (Or at least they have moved on). "The time of the Osirians is
long past".
Stuff deleted

>>Mark, honestly, if you're going to extol Macbeth and make these silly
>>statements in the same post, include a smiley so we can laugh *with* you and
>>not *at* you.

>>Drewcifer

Dear Drewcifer, you seem to have an endless supply of straw men at your
place. Do you make them yourself?

Allow me to recap exactly what happened so you can be sure what you are
laughing at. I will try to make it straightforward so you can follow the
thread. 

Someone posted a an article comparing ST TNG to Dr Who. Various people
responded. Michael Rawdon wrote an article in which he expressed his
opinion of various who stories. I replied and expressed my own view 
of certain stories. I noted that some people considered various 
adventures to be masterpieces. I said that *I* do not use the term 
masterpiece for many Who stories. It was simply a personal thing. I 
remarked that to my mind, masterpiece meant something of the calibre of
"Macbeth" or Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are Dead even. Or I, Claudius
with some of the best acting ever seen on TV from Derek Jacobi and a
younger Patrick Stewart. Or perhaps The Singing Detective with another
towering performance from Michael Gambon and a stunning script. Now
many people will agree with my categorising these as masterpieces. Many
people will disagree. That is fine, and indeed to be encouraged. I made
no statement that other people had to agree with me. All I said was 
I didn't think that Dr Who had produced many masterpieces, in the 
sense that it does not attain the same all round brilliance that 
I require of a work in order to give it the accolade of masterpiece.
I still love the show, and indeed have been watching it for longer than 
you have been alive Drew. 

I then went on to say that one reason I thought Dr Who better than St TNG
was the fact that TNG has this omnipotent alien syndrome as typified by
Q. I said I thought that the concept of a superpowerful alien did not
work for me in the form of Q, but did with Sutekh. Ifurther noted that
the Time Lords as the most powerful race in DR Who were interesting 
because of their falibilty. A race with truly awesome powers, which is
neverthless as corrupt as the Nixon administration, but still holds 
itself in check somehow, is more credible to me than a perfect society
like the Organians.

Then Mystic replied. He added the superfluous comment that he disagreed
with most of my opnions on McCoy, as is his right, and further noted that
he thought that I was being rather severe with my use of the term masterpiece.
He then said he didn't believe that the Time Lords were the most powerful
race in Who. I said that the evidence is pretty strong. Round about then 
you leapt in, for no very obvious reason. 

Did you get all that? Now, laugh away. But just remember this. When I 
express an opinion, I am happy if people respond with differing views.
It does not bother me that you do not like the same stories I like.
It does not bother me that you find some plots incomprehensible. I am
deeply unconcerned by your dislike or otherwise of anything whovian,
Shakespearean or Keynsian. So enjoy your laugh, and have a merry Christmas
or Hanukah.

Mark C.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho