Shada | A Review

I'd just like to say how confident I am about the following review. I honestly think it's going to be one of the best I've ever written. I'm writing it in my home town, and it's a wonderfully ambitious review, that naturally I'm writing last minute to an invisible deadline.

And I promise I won't be sarcastic about Shada at all. What do you mean what was that above? I don't know what you're talking about.

I guess, for all fans, Shada is the one you have to watch. It's the one you can't go through fandom avoiding. That and the Daleks' Master Plan, probably. And maybe The War Games. And Genesis of the Daleks... I'll stop there. But Shada is a necessary for all of us, and so sitting down to watch it today, the 10th March 2013, I felt that I was about to watch a piece of history. Well, a piece of history with linking narration from Tom Baker. Perhaps they should do that in history lessons. THIS IS THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS *cuts to Tom Baker* AND THEN HAROLD GOT SHOT IN THE EYE *cuts back to battle where Harold lies on the floor/grass*.

They could do that kinda thing. But anyway yeah, history. Shada. It has gained 'legendary' status because it was cancelled because of a strike, and it's something the fans have kinda always wanted to see completed. Apparently. I think that's probably more just to satisfy our fan curiosity, to see what it would have looked like all done. I'm not sure there's any great wish to see the story finished because we want to see the epic that probably wouldn't have been that epic Doctor/Skagra mind battle at the end. I might be wrong, though.

So anyway, the story itself. Part One is almost faultless. It was like watching City of Death, but in Cambridge. The lines were witty, Tom and Lalla are amazing, the Keeper of Traken (sorry, Professor Chronotis) was really quite good, and Chris wasn't too bad. But the episode was an absolute joy to watch. The other thing that was beneficial was that not too much was missing, and Tom Baker's narration was limited to a couple of lab scenes that were described well. So yeah. You should watch Shada purely for Part One people, it is wonderful.

Part Two is also wonderful. The Doctor gets some great lines (the No Cycling one is particularly surreal and brilliant), and Tom Baker is acting like he's back in his first season. Eccentric, marvellous, mad, brilliant, the best. Lalla Ward also gives a strong and confident performance. The chase around Cambridge with the Doctor on a bike and the ball mind stealing thing chasing him is great. The choir singing to it is great. Part Two is just wonderful.

And Part Three is where the missing scenes really start making a difference. The action in the Professor's college room becomes gradually less exciting through the remainder of the episode, and with only those scenes actually available to watch, apart from a few brief cut aways to Cambridge, which become more limited, the episode gets... almost boring. There isn't enough in the college room clips to keep your interest. And although the scenes Tom Baker narrates sound wonderful, you need to actually see them to really appreciate the episode. There are a couple of clever twists along the way, and the whole concepts of Shada and the ancient book really are quite good - but the college room seems don't work on their own. Even in the episode, though they would be accompanied by some scenes with good humour and action, I'm not sure there's enough in them. It's hard to tell how the episode would be balanced, because it feels too college heavy without the other clips ever being filmed.

To some extent, I guess the college room/TARDIS stuff feels a bit like you're a kid, playing Doctor Who and pretending your sofa is the control panel of your TARDIS. We've all done it - and it is in a way quite brilliant to see them actually doing it for real. But it is a little too limited for television.

So yeah. I imagine along with the other scenes, this would be a complete, funny, exciting episode of Doctor Who. The early parts certainly indicate this. But without all the clips it is really difficult to judge. And the college room clips aren't strong enough to carry the episode along with Mr Baker's narration. I found myself getting confused at which room was which and who was on what spaceship at certain points - could there not have been a CGI recreation of certain moments? Could there not have been a certain animation included, just to bring it to life a little?

Shada needs life. Currently it exists as an ailing Professor Chronotis, stumbling on, coming up with some good lines and good moments, but not quite all there. Imagine a young Chronotis, full of life. A hero. The best, to some. So imagine a complete Shada. Maybe not the best - but certainly very good.

I would comment on the documentary, but the doors appear to have been locked to Blogger, and there's talk of some kind of strike?

Is Survival the Best Doctor Who Episode Ever?

Survival. The last ever 'classic' Doctor Who episode, the last ever episode of continuous 26 year Doctor Who, the last ever episode featuring Sophie Aldred, featuring Sylvester McCoy (apart from a brief stint in 1996) and featuring Anthony Ainley as an actually relatively sane Master. And the last classic episode to feature cats. I rewatched Survival for the first time in a while the other week, and it struck me how good it actually was. It has the 'contemporary' feel to it, which I've always picked up, and almost seamlessly links into Rose from 2005. But that link isn't why I see it as one of the best episodes ever, there's a great deal of other reasons.

A CONTEMPORARY DRAMA
I think my main mantra for Doctor Who is "it's drama with aliens in it". I wouldn't consider the very early adventures part of a Science Fiction show at all. An Unearthly Child is definitely a drama with cavemen and a time machine. The whole thing is done with total realism. The other thing about An Unearthly Child is that it captures 1963 as 1963 should be captured. It's not trying to mirror it as Remembrance of the Daleks does, it's actually from that era. And so that's one of the reasons why Survival is so good. It captures 1989 because it's made in 1989. It's a drama, that's realistic. I wasn't even on this planet in 1989, yet I can see it captures the era, I can see how much of a drama Survival really is. It takes street kids, effectively a gang, and sticks them on a rather believable alien world. There's no cheap sci-fi gags like giving the Planet of the Cheetah People a name - it is just the Planet of the Cheetah People. Perfect. It doesn't try and be a science fiction show, it tries to be real, and I think it succeeds. Survival is a drama with another planet in. It still has those Doctor Who elements, but without being an over the top sci-fi drama.

SCIENCE FICTION ELEMENTS
I think some stories have the problem of trying to be too sci-fi, and for me that's where Doctor Who kinda trips up. I prefer a realistic, authentic drama about the Doctor and some aliens, rather than a full blown sci-fi adventure. That's what Star Trek is for. Survival manages to keep these sci-fi elements present, like trips to another planet, but minimal. I love sci-fi concepts being used and made real, and it's good that it's only used occasionally in the show. Things like time paradoxes and parallel worlds are good on occasion and are thankfully kept to a minimum. But Survival uses another, a symbiotic link between animals and planet - and this is a great idea. It's (to my knowledge) not used in Doctor Who before, or at least not a lot, and so it's a great sci-fi idea to use and make real.

SUBTEXT
I like Doctor Who when you can read a bit of subtext. Yes it's good when Doctor Who episodes are a lot of fun, etc (depends on your definition of fun though I guess), but it's nice just to have an extra layer there. Survival has that. Though not as... picked up on or even explicit as the subtext in The Curse of Fenric about everyone wanting to come into the water (*coughs*), it is still there. There are feminine symbols (moon, cat) to notice and I think there's talk of Karra and Ace having some kind of lesbian relationship floating about on the internet as well. But that subtext is there, however much is intentional.

EDUCATIONAL
One of the original purposes of Doctor Who was to be educational. It's kinda lost that. Thankfully I think, in most cases. Pure historical adventures/episodes are another interesting idea best used sparingly. But Survival, though not a historical or particularly educational, does have those elements in it. It's more that it just uses clever themes I think. One such theme is the whole 'survival of the fittest' thing. It's just a theme that's picked up, but it's good that it's threaded throughout the script. It shows consistency, and it's good when Doctor Who can reference other ideas, concepts, theories or themes.

THE END OF AN ERA
This probably isn't one of the things I like about Survival, but certainly it gives certain things more emphasis and importance. It being the last episode, it's good to see the Doctor and Master FINALLY having a fist fight, in one of the more dramatic fights Doctor Who's done. It's also good to see the Doctor having properly good speeches, with the 'animals' shout at the end of his fight, and his departing speech about the tea getting cold. It is properly good, properly well written drama, and things were certainly being resolved. But not too resolved. That's how Doctor Who works.

CRITICISMS & CONCLUSION
I suppose on the logic of Survival being a contemporary drama, you could argue something like Rose would be the best episode ever. Or you could argue Talons of Weng-Chiang because it captures the Victorian era so well and authentically. Or The Deadly Assassin because it gives a believable portrayal of an alien world. For me, The Deadly Assassin is only as good as it is because of the scenes in the Matrix. And yes other stories do capture time periods really well, but Survival has something strange in it's favour. It's short. The story is perfectly fitted to the number of parts in the episode, and it goes along at a good pace, something Talons possibly slips up on a couple of times. You could also argue that Spearhead From Space captures a contemporary time well and.. actually yeah it does.

But it my eyes, Survival is one of the best Doctor Who episodes. It's not the most conventional Doctor Who story, and when stood up against classics like 'Tomb of the Cybermen' some may say they can't compare. After all, Survival only came (an actually quite respectable) 80th place in the top 200 episodes survey DWM did. Tomb came 25th. But some will probably think that this post, about subtext and eduction and clever themes and deep meanings, is a reason why not to like Survival. They may feel stuff like that isn't needed in Doctor Who. And it isn't needed - but in my eyes it's nice if it's there. It does ultimately come down to personal preference, and so to ask whether or not Survival is the best episode ever is a bit of a strange question perhaps. But for me, it contains the things I enjoy in a Doctor Who episode, it has good characterisation, and it's a good story. It has other layers for people to notice, and it keeps the spirit of the programme at heart. So it may not be a classic or a conventional favourite, but it is a favourite of a different kind.

And on the note of personal preference, it's worth saying my favourite episode will always be Spearhead From Space. That's realistic, well written, with good characterisation and the story is sustained for the right amount of time. But when looking for an unconventional Doctor Who to pick as a favourite, something a bit different - then Survival could just be the one.

So it is the best Doctor Who episode that tries to do something different, that tries to expand, while still keeping the heart of the programme alive.

Now come on Ace, we've got work to do.

A Few Thoughts on Plot Holes

Plot holes and Doctor Who. It's the things Doctor Who fans argue about endlessly. You get people who accept the story as "romantic" and make the plot holes part of the story (like the DWM review of 'The Angels Take Manhattan'), you get some who moan endlessly about the plot holes but can try and understand them, and then you get those who just look for plot holes without even thinking something may not actually be a plot hole. Doctor Who has got more plot holes in it now, yes, but they're not always there.

I mean to take a look at a few existing ones. Or "unresolved issues" as we'll call them. Rory getting zapped at the end of The Impossible Astronaut is one. He just seems to have recovered in the flashback in Day of the Moon (to be fair, I love these episodes and that's my only problem as far as I can remember). Then there's The Angels Take Manhattan. There are so many plot holes in it, and I can't remember them all - but the main one is summed up in the words - The Statue of Liberty. Cos it's hollow, metal, there are thousands of images of it etc... And then there's Amy and Rory being trapped. Why can't the Doctor hop on a plane to New York? Use River's Vortex Manipulator? She can see them after all. What happened to Rory's dad? (The 'PS' Epilogue doesn't really count as a solution if it's off screen... Be a bit like assuming Ace died and became a Dalek hunter all at once.) Then there's what happened to Amy's parents? And how can Amelia still smile in the garden when she hears the TARDIS if the Doctor moved her indoors in The Big Bang? Lots of plot holes or "unresolved issues", but we, as fans, accept them as part of the programme once we've had a good moan. After all, you can't get too picky... otherwise everyone would be moaning about the whole Pull To Open thing on the TARDIS, then moaning more when they do pull the doors to open!

And so this leads me onto those who don't accept plot holes and see ones that aren't there. I think my mum is probably one of those people, and often I'm explaining that such and such isn't a plot hole cos of things that happened in the last two series or something. I'm not innocent though. I didn't shut up about the Angels Take Manhattan plot holes for days after the episode had aired. But I accept them now, and use them when I need a good moan about my favourite TV show (we all do sometimes). But I can see the potential of the episode, and the brilliance of Matt Smith and the intelligence of Steven Moffat (intelligence when there aren't plot holes anyway). And often these, and my ultimate love for the TV show, beat the plot holes.

But of course that can't happen for everyone. With the announcement of the 1st March of The Bells of St John (are people gonna argue about St/Saint one day?)/new promo picture/look of Ice Warriors/Spoonheads/Richard E Grant return/teasers for the rest of the series, Moffat said that the Doctor's greatest secret would be revealed.

I'll be honest I'm angry at this, and hoping that "Doctor Who" is never answered. Because that's clearly his secret... Cos some are seeing this is a plot hole, and that's what I don't get. Even if people don't enjoy the series, then surely they can't miss the whole Doctor Who, oh it's a big secret, thing they've been plugging for ages. So Doctor Who must clearly be the secret... And so that isn't a plot hole. And this comes back to my point - revealing who the Doctor is is a bad idea, but it isn't a plot hole. There are plenty of others ways of noticing faults in the programme without just assuming things are plot holes because you expect them to be there.

And even if it isn't Doctor Who that's the secret - it isn't a plot hole because it's just a teaser. Teasers are just that, they tease us, and so if the Doctor has a great secret, that will be explained further. It isn't a plot hole.

And so my message. Yes there are plot holes. Yes they're good to moan about. Yes it would be boring to explain them on screen, so yes they are always going to be there. But - they're not everywhere...

Are You My Mummy? Dragonfire!

Yes it returns!

I was planning on watching Caves of Androzani with Mum. I asked Twitter for suggestions and Alun Harris, co-author of rather awesome book 'Justyce Served', suggested 'Nightmare of Eden', 'Earthshock' and 'Kinda'. Turned out it'd be too awkward finding Nightmare online (I don't have the DVD yet), and mum turned down Kinda. I let mum pick some DVDs (which included Dragonfire, The Leisure Hive and Mawdryn Undead, all of which she hasn't seen) and I also suggested some. Once we'd narrowed it down, we dismissed 'Earthshock' and some others I'd suggested, and ended up with Dragonfire and Vengeance on Varos (because I said it was 'controversial' and worth a watch). In the end, I gave in, and let her watch Dragonfire.

PART ONE

Mum: Is Ian Briggs good?

Me: He is when he writes Curse of Fenric.

Mum: Is this an ice planet? I guessed by the smoke.

Me: Yeah.

Mum: Aren't they a bit German in that uniform?

I laugh.

Mum: He's um, I know him. He was in London's Burning I think.

Me: I've only ever seen this twice all the way through.

Mum: Cool. Pretty colours. (gasps) He's just dropped his gun in the Liquid Nitrogen. You cant get it out of there. Ooh but he can.

Kane kills someone.

Mum: Oh!

I've informed mum Mel leaves and Ace joins here.

Mum: Does Mel go back home? Or does she fall in the liquid nitrogen?

Mum: Ok the children are wearing weird clothes. Very weird child.

They arrive in the cafe.

Mum: That's Ace. No it isn't. Yes it is. But she's from the 80s. Shes quite a typical teenager. Does she come from here then? Well clearly she does.

Mum debates with herself for a while about where Ace comes from. She's very confused.

Me: Wait and see.

She recognises Glitz as well. I describe him as a 'Del Boy' in space.

Mum: Definitely Del Boy.

Then a sensible question.

Mum: Is it quite unusual for an existing companion to meet the new one?

I explain how it used to be more common, so it isn't that strange.

Mum: Ace, that's why she gets her name. Hang on she knows the Doctor already?

Me: No..

We rewind it. Ace sits down again.

Mum: Why does she call him Professor?

Me: Wait and see if you guess it by the end of the episode.

I'll explain the whole Wizard of Oz thing later.

Mum: Is there a reason why they're talking very posh?

Me: *mock accent* I don't know.

Mum: Very badly.

Kane: As long as you wear my mark, I own you.

Mum: (quietly) Not very nice.

Mel and Ace are kicked out.

Me: Probably the first time Mel's been kicked out of anywhere.

They go to Mel's room after mum comments "Ooh, he [Kane's] built a statue".

Mel: You're from Earth?

Ace: Used to be.

I turn to Mum. She gets it now.

Mum: She didn't think it was odd she was swept up by a time storm and ended up on a different planet? She's ok with that is she, is that normal?

Me: Apparently so.

Glitz's ship is not to be destroyed. Mum oohs.

Mum tells me she likes Ace, Mel and McCoy. Shame we didn't watch Varos. That would've been interesting.

Mum: I guess that's the Singing Gardens.

Me: Or Van Hages at Christmas.

Mum: The sets are..

Me: I was waiting for this.

Mum: Shocking. That snow is rubbish. And that's just plastic hanging down pretending to be ice.
Kane offers his golden sovereign.

Mum: Don't do it Ace!

Mel: Don't do it Ace!

Mum: No, they're gonna freeze her!

Mum: I bet they freeze Mel and she loses her memory. Cos he said they lose their memory when they freeze them.

If only she knew...

The cliffhanger arrives. My hands go over my mouth.

Mum laughs.

Mum: That's quite rubbish.

The dragon appears. Mum laughs.

Mum: And we get a Mel scream. Lovely. Been waiting for that one.

The Doctor descends.

Mum: *sigh* Why?

She's just laughing now.

Mum: Am I supposed to be laughing? That's pretty bad acting and dreadful CGI.

The credits.

Me: The greatest mystery in all of Doctor Who. Why the hell does he climb down?!

Mum: I thought why is he climbing down when he could've just gone under. Is he trying to get down to another level? Then they show underneath. I was just putting it down to bad Doctor Who classicness, with bits missing.

Me: Yeah they meant to show him going to another level.

Mum: Doctor Who was a bit  naff, that's why people liked it.

Well.... Not sure I agree there. After talking about wobbly sets, I ask for a rating.

Mum: A generous six.

And to think she liked Time and the Rani more.

Mum: Mostly because the sets let it down. And because Mel screamed.

PART TWO

Mum: Doesn't even look like a dragon.

They repeat the umbrella-scene.

Mum: Oh they're repeating that. There is a lower level.

Glitz saves the Doctor.

Mum: It's a bit slapstick isn't it?

Me: Welcome to Season 24.

Mum: It's a bit like, comedic.

Mum: It wasn't written for children really.

Me: That's an interesting debate.

Mum: The modern ones are very grown up but do appeal to children. The conversations in this one aren't really childlike.

Me: They make it like it's a childrens show but it isn't.

Mum: But that's kinda like today, only better. Yeah it is written for children, but not...

Ace has a rope ladder.

Mum: (laughs) Of course she's got a ladder.

The Doctor discusses philosophy. Me and mum both laugh at this.

They later try and push a cardboard door open.

Mum: Really heavy.

The dragon appears. She laughs. The door closes easily. She laughs louder.

Ace explains leaving school... and Earth.

Mum: Is she really an alien then?

I sigh.

Mum: Where did he get Mel from?

Me: It's a long story.

Ace reveals her real name. Mum still doesn't get the Oz/time storm thing.

The dragon appears again.

Mum: Is there someone inside the suit?

Me: No it just looks like that.

Mum: Friendly dragon.

Mel: It's friendly.

This is getting spooky now.

Mum: I bet it was the dragon's world before they took it over or something.

The statue melts.

Mum: Looks like a soggy plastic bag now.

Kracauer is killed.

Mum: Well what did he stand there for?

The credits.

Mum: Ooh - I'd give that four.

PART THREE

Mum's noticing lots of links to School Reunion. I don't know.

The new Belazs and Kracauer take their artillery.

Mum: Plastic guns. Brilliant.

Mum: I love the way the Doctor tries to look like he's walking on a slippery surface.

The two ANT-hunters carry on.

Mum: That's awful.

The two ANT-hunters dramatically turn a corner to check for ANTs. That's Agressive Non-Terrestrials by the way. Mum laughs.

I appreciate the model work's really good. Mum doesn't. Oh well.

Mum: Why did he put all the people in there? He's not in there is he?

Me: Nope.

Mum: So why did he send them all off?

Then he blows it up.

Mum: Oh. That wasn't very nice. So what was the point in that? He's got an empty planet.

The dragon finally gets shot.

Mum: Aww, she shot the friendly ANT.

The little girl's still wandering. "Is she not bothered about where her mum is?"

Mum: That little girl's gonna do something.

Nope.

Kane falls apart.

Mum: Ugh. Bit graphic. Was that pre-watershed, they showed that man melting? Bit graphic.

Mel leaves. Mum stays silent.

Mum: Why does she randomly decide to go with del boy? She hasn't packed a suitcase.

The ending comes.

Mum: What was the point of having a little girl in it?

The credits.

Mum: That was the feeblest exit for a companion I've ever seen. Why? I don't get it.

Mum: Overall I give it... *sigh* 5/10. Ish. I think if you'd sat through three weeks of that in the 1980s you'd have been disappointed.

And she preferred Time and the Rani to this. Dragonfire was a "non-story".

Me: So why does she call him Professor?

Mum: I have no idea.

I explain. Mum's unconvinced.

Mum: That has no link to the story.

Me: It's her character.

Mum: Are we meant to get that layer? That's feeble.

Definitely watching Varos next time.

Next Time - I've actually no idea what we'll end up watching, but it shouldn't be McCoy. The next blog update will be the revelation of the 1st Unbound Doctor, and I've got a couple of articles planned for after that.

Thanks for reading!

The Unbound Universe - Teaser

One of a few features I hope to do for Doctor Who's Golden Year, I've compiled a list of my 'Unbound' Doctors. The list contains thirteen alternative (though in the case of the last two - who knows if they might come true one day?) Doctors, and each of the alternate Doctors has played the Doctor at some time - be it in the actual TV Series, a version of the TV Series, an audio or a spoof. I've tried to go for the most canon Doctors I can, so some choices have been left out in favour of Doctors that have been closer to the TV Series. I'll be adding to the list on a separate page - but for now; here are some hints....

1: The closest 'canon' 1st Doctor you can have without it being William Hartnell.
2: Depends on your perception for this one I suppose, but on frequency he sits here.
3: Because of his companion, this Doctor has been chosen.
4: Initials 'TM'
5: This choice has absolutely nothing to do with the 5th Doctor, except maybe dates....
6: The second closest 'canon' Doctor I've chosen.
7: Has to go here because he so needed to be included, but couldn't go later on.
8: Has taken this place because of look, but lives seven years in the future...
9: The third closest 'canon' Doctor I've chosen.
10: Ooh. Now this could be another close 'canon' Doctor - but it's not quite that straight forward...
11: I was honestly going to choose Miranda Hart. But I haven't.
12: Anything goes here really - but this man has been chosen because he is the reason I created this list.
13: Please don't hurt me.

And on those hints, I shall leave you thinking! The revelations will be made every now and then via my Twitter @trilbyauton.

The Man Who Was Thursday | A Nightmare?

The Man Who Was Thursday is The Prisoner. You know, the 60s cult TV show, where Patrick McGoohan is imprisoned in a Welsh town that looks a bit like Italy, chased by big white balloons and shouts a lot? The Man Who Was Thursday is a 1908 novel by GK Chesteron, all-round clever man, philosopher, poet, writer, and debater. The Man Who Was Thursday takes contemporary views on anarchy and writes a book about it. The subtitle of the book is "A Nightmare". Well, this review is here to question whether it is a nightmare to read (though this was never intended) or a Nightmare in terms of the events, and just how close to The Prisoner it is.

I'll start with a brief overview. It's difficult to say if there'll be spoilers, because the book is so complex that on occasion even the blurbs start off accurately and by the end of the book you're left questioning them. There's no ending, as such, at least not a conventional one, for the book - so it's difficult to spoil it. But there will be plot revelations (though really big ones I've left the names out of). And so I would highly advise you to read it first (it's only 170ish pages) and then you'll appreciate this review all the more.

The book has one of the most incredible concepts I've ever come across. The title is awesome, first of all. I don't know a writer (except a friend of mine who claims he 'writes' books) who wouldn't love to write a book with that title. The concept of an anarchist council, with seven members named after days of the week, is fantastic. The room with guns lined up against the walls, and a vast white bomb-shaped room in which the council meetings are held are brilliantly visual. The moment when the dining table plunges to an underground base is awesome. The introduction to the characters of Syme (which is a great name) and Gregory, with his fiery red hair (appropriate), is also brilliant, and Gregory is fantastically over the top. It's the introduction that kept me reading. It's the kind of literature I enjoy, with dramatic speeches that would now be considered as 'over the top' - but it's "wordy" and developed and complex, and I love that. Gregory is like Henry/Harry from Dorian Gray - he's over the top with extreme views, but he puts them across like a gentleman. Syme is a calm character, and he disputes everything Gregory says, making you automatically like Syme, and dislike Gregory. There's the assumption that these two characters also dislike each other - but that's muddied later on and confused. The other great concept is that Syme, who is really a Police Officer, cannot tell the world that Gregory is really an anarchist, and so has forced Gregory, whom he tells the truth to, to keep his mouth shut about the fact the anarchists have just voted an Officer to join. Syme infiltrates the anarchists brilliantly, leaving fiery-haired Gregory in a state, with no one listening to his protests. It's a really clever start to the book.

And though a good book, it feels less clever and more like a comedy as it progresses. From the moment that Syme goes to meet Sunday - the book sadly goes, not downhill, but into a realm of basically - the nightmare. Things become strange, surreal, incomprehensible to some degree, and events are confused and complex. I love confusing, complex, surreal and strange stories. But this book takes it a little bit too far. The premise is simple enough, with Sunday plotting some kind of anarchy in France, but the whole thing just starts to get a little less exciting. The concept doesn't seem to be carried through as the book progresses. And then the comedy starts (after a brief spell of cleverness I'll get to in a minute), with mad sword fights and chases in hansom cabs, and a whole town chasing the supposed 'anarchists', and then the elephant. Yeah. An elephant.

The brief spell of cleverness I mentioned is the revelation that in fact - some of the men, it later turns out all the bloody men, are Police Officers! All appointed by a mysterious figure in the dark (and the revelation of who he was I predicted from the moment it was mentioned). The initial revelations that there are other Police Officers is clever, but it soon gets repetitive. And though we are treated to some wonderful revelations and really good characterisation of the anarchists/Officers, the revelations lose their effect.

Then comes the town chases in France, and the mad stuff, and the cabs, and the sword fight (which is actually written really well, and the stuff with the train arriving is actually full of tension). And then they all discover they're officers and confront Sunday - who goes onto steal a cab then an elephant then a hot air ballooon. Yeah. An elephant. The lead up to the end of the book is great. With the men invited to some fancy dress ball, the mystery and surreality are reinstated, and it really is fascinating. The references to the days of the week and the Bible are also quite clever. But then comes the actual ending.

What. The. Hell? Weird stuff happens, someone comes back and repeats a dramatic revelation we had earlier on in the book, and then Thursday/Syme passes out after weird stuff happens. Sunday, according to Wikipedia, is questioning the worth of his disciples. Right - now the real spoilers are going to start.

I understand that this book is mainly allegorical, or teaching us a lesson. Whether it be to tell us that anarchy is bad, or explaining how anarchy is the embodiment of a battle between God and free will (that's the theology side of me talking), or just there 'cos Chesterton got bored (unlikely), the book is confusing. The ending is not conventional, nor does it make any sense in terms of the real world. But then really, the book doesn't. It is the Nightmare that it promises, though definitely not to read it. Mad stuff happens, the world descends into chaos - and the only thing we can truly understand is Chesteron's message. Which is... I don't know. Its anti-anarchy anyway. There are loads of interpretations and I'm not sure what mine is yet.

The ending, for a conventional reader, begs many questions. Who is Sunday? Why appoint the men to be police officers? Was, then, the Thursday election planned so a real anarchist could be found? What good would that be? Do the anarchists really count as investigators of policemen? Why are Syme and Gregory such good friends afterwards? What's the significance of the woman? Was this all a dream? Why steal a bloody elephant? Yes. An elephant.

The point is, if you want my interpretation (stick yours on a postcard please), then it was a dream. It was a dream, or a nightmare, and a version of events of what would happen if anarchy is allowed to take hold. Chesterton probably meant something along those lines, and how God and his disciples, those he appoints, are there to tackle anarchy and provide peace. Sunday therefore probably is God in this allegory. The novel runs somewhat like a dream or nightmare. Events that don't make sense put together, using people that Syme (presumably the dreamer) knew in real life, like Gregory (or did he meet him in the dream too?). It would have been wonderful if the events were real - but I believe they're there to show an example. Everyone has nightmares, with random and unconnected places. This novel runs just like that.

Therefore - GK Chesterton is a genius. He has written, not only an allegorical novel delivering a message, not only a "boy's adventure" novel as one critic described it, not only something that gets you thinking - but he's made sense of a nonsensical nightmare, only to make it nonsensical again for the reader. He has written a nightmare. Which is awesome. Read this book for enjoyment, or study would probably be a better way of getting your teeth into it. But it is a book every person who likes literature should read. Just to appreciate the skill, the range, the mix of genres that's used. You don't have to make sense of it.

And if you want my advice, don't try to.

And so one more thing. The Prisoner. There are undeniable similarities, though I've never seen anyone mention it. There's a fancy dress ball in the novel (like Dance of the Dead in The Prisoner), an old man who drinks milk (like Number 2 in A, B and C), there's a bomb-shaped room (which reminded me of Fall Out), a surreal man know one understands (Number 1). Sunday is similar to Leo McKern's Number 2 - and the court of anarchists themselves have gotta be compared to the court in Fall Out. There are, for me, clear similarities, in both tone and features. You should definitely watch The Prisoner if you've read this book. (But then you can compare anything to pretty much anything. You could, for example, also compare the novel to the Florence + The Machine songs 'Cosmic Love' and 'Blinding'. Very tenuous links, but they're there.)

And you should definitely read the book. Though of course if you've read this review, there'll be no surprises, and those are genuine joy within the novel.

It's difficult to rate a book that isn't conventional, so I won't. But I really did enjoy it. Enough to read it again one day to try and get my head around it.

Are You My Mummy? Power of the Daleks Re-Imagined

This is the same feature as "Did you just say something about mummy?" but with a slightly better title. Ish. Essentially - this is the second installment of my very occasional 'watching Doctor Who with mum' blogs. Before, we watched Time and the Rani (as we're watching all kinds of Who and out of order), and now it's the turn of a fan film! We've picked one of the more 'professional' ones, and so this is the record of what happened when me and mum watched Power of the Daleks Re-Imagined.

I explain to Mum that the company who made Power of the Daleks had put on stage plays, and that Power is, first and foremost, a highly regarded story that was the first one of the Troughton era. I remind her the Doctor is not a re-imagined Second Doctor. Otherwise I think she'd be in for a shock.

Mum: So are all their stage plays with this re-imagined Doctor?

Me: Yeah I think so. We could play a game of spot the Doctor. It takes a while.

Mum: Right...

PART ONE

Mum: Is this based on the original?

Me: Yeah but modernised.

Mum: So they didn't use the original script?

Me: Nope.

Mum: It's all done very professionally. No wobbly sets.

The titles start.

Me: So do you know which of those is the Doctor?

Mum: No idea.

Mum: Quite good theme tune. I presume (seeing the picture) it's him.

Me: Yep.

The Doctor spouts some science stuff. Mum mouths her opinions. She's not impressed.

Mum pulls a face at the man saying "Yo".

Me: What do you think of the Doctor?

Mum: It's getting better... He reminds me of Sylvester McCoy.

Me: Really?

UNIT is discussed.

Mum: Why are they scared of UNIT?

The pod opens.

Mum: Is a Dalek gonna come out now?

Me: Wait and see.

Mum: What are they even doing there on the island? What are they digging for?

Me: I'm not actually sure.

Mum: They're just gonna open a door?

Me: Yep.

The Dalek is revealed.

Mum: Did they build their own Daleks? It's quite professional.

In Downing Street.

Me: Do you know who they are?

Mum: He's from Doctor Who.... He's a Dalek Operator.

Me: Well done.

Mum: How did they get him in it?

Me: I don't know. (I pause) And she's Lisa Bowerman, plays Bernice Summerfield.

Mum: Right..

She's not a Big Finish fan.

Mum: Script's a bit long-winded in places.

She notes the CGI holograms.

Mum: It's quite clever how they do that though. It's quite professional.

She even laughs a few times in the conversations following.

Mum: I'd like to see the original. You could make a better comparison then.

The Dalek "cliffhanger" arrives. I ask Mum's opinions.

Mum: Um... A bit dry. There's too many characters. It's not bad. The Doctor's ok, he's really like Sylvester McCoy.

We agree that his costume doesn't work.

Mum: But at least he's got a flowery shirt.

She's not following the story either, believing there needs to be more information at the beginning.

Mum: It feels like a very well done fan film. The effects are very clever - but you can tell it's a fan film. But that's good, that's the point. It's not meant to be totally professional. It's the kind of thing you'd watch and then want to skip to the end.

I've told her we're watching the whole thing.

Her rating for Part One is 8/10 for effects. 6/10 for everything else.

PART TWO

We discuss fan films and "am-dram" over the reprise. Agreeing that the effects are all well and good - but not helpful if the script doesn't work.

Mum: They're very good Daleks if they made those themselves.

Me: I think they're real ones they repainted.

Mum; I'm surprised they got away with using them .

I notice the Doctor looks into the camera.

Me: That didn't look great.

Mum hadn't noticed. She's pre-occupied with the spinning about of the Dalek.

Mum: Are the people not wondering where the Daleks came from or why they're there? Have they not noticed the Doctor yet?

The Dalek procrastinates.

Mum: But why has the Dalek not noticed the Doctor?

She pauses.

Mum: There are gaps in the story. And it's really annoying the Dalek hasn't noticed the Doctor.

Mum: What are they drilling for?

The guy in the hard hat and the flowery shirt has trouble working the drills. The Dalek turns up.

Mum: Ooh.

Me: I really like the Dalek eyestalks in this.

Dalek: We wish only to assist you.

Mum: Hmm. Don't trust that Dalek.

Mum nods as the Dalek explains what he's doing there, and how they want power...

Bragen (he's the guy in all black, a roll neck jumper and a beard, by the way) searches the Doctor and the Daleks on what looks like Outlook.

Mum: He's gonna find out what the Doctor and the Daleks are now.

Bragen and Hensell talk.

Mum: See I don't understand why they're worried about UNIT, if they're just a drilling company and I don't know what they're drilling for. There's lots of plot strands everywhere.

The Doctor deals some cards while he waits.

Mum: See the Doctor shouldn't do that. He is very Sylvester McCoy-ish though, did he base it on him?

The Daleks offer their help again. Mum doesn't trust them.

Mum: Who's he again?

Me: He's the security bloke (Bragen).

Mum: See you forget who everyone is in it.

In the cavey-thing.

Mum: Has he got a sonic screwdriver? Is it specially made, has he got his own version?

She squints her eyes to look. We're still non the wiser.

Mum: Where's his TARDIS? Do you get to see it?

Me: You'll see inside it at some point.

She raises her hands again in confusion.

Mum: There's lots of mysterious readings of things and half conversations. It's too mysterious, there's not enough answers.

Hensell (the guy in the shirt with a beard) questions Janley (the woman). Mum shakes her head in confusion.

The Daleks are Hensell's. Janley is an eco-warrior.

Me: Does that make any more sense?

Mum: Not really.

Mum: Who did they get to do the voices?

Me: Guess.

Mum: Is it Briggs?

Me: Yep.

Mum: They're real Daleks with real voices. The 'real' bits are really good.

We discover the "man in the red" is from UNIT.

Mum: Oh he's in UNIT.

Bragen talks again.

Bragen: Can you meet me in Access 3?

Mum: Why?

He draws a gun.

Mum: *gasps* Don't like guns in Doctor Who. Or swearing, there was no need for that earlier.

Me: Guns are in it quite a lot.

Mum: Yeah... but..

Access 3.

Mum: So why's he going to shoot him?

Bragen: I've received new instructions.

Mum: From?

Mum shakes her head in confusion.

Mum: I'm completely lost on the story.

Me: I think they all want the Daleks.

Mum: I'm confuddled. I wanna see the original. There's too many holes in it. But then you should be able to understand a story on it's own so...

So. At the end of Part Two, we're confused, lost, but appreciate the Daleks and the 'famous' people in it.

PART THREE

Mum's got the bit about the power for the Daleks.

Dalek: Daleks do not wage war, we achieve victory.

Mum: That's a good line.

The Daleks hear of the Doctor.

Mum: You see now, the Dalek recognises the name. But he didn't see him earlier. Do they recognise him when he changes, regardless?

Me: Most of the time.

The Daleks talk to Lesterson.

Mum: He's gonna get it.

The Doctor arrives.

Mum: Why don't they know he's the Doctor?!

The conversation continues.

Mum: He's growing on me.

Doctor: You know who I am.

Me: They do know who he is.

Mum shrugs her shoulders.

Dalek: You are to be Exterminated.

Mum: Ooh, first time they've said the word.

We debate over the Doctor being finite. She wins.

She still doesn't know who Bragen is.

The Daleks arrive through the portal.

Mum: Ooh that's a good effect.

Bragen announces he's been betrayed (Mum shrugs her shoulders as if to say it serves him right) and then shoots the Dalek.

Mum: You need to aim for the eyestalk.

She sees the TARDIS and points excitedly.

Mum: The Daleks are a bit slow though.

She picks up the "school playground and Spiridon" reference.

The Daleks arrive.

Mum: Oh dear, too late. That's a lot of Daleks.

We see the Battleship.

Mum: Very good sets.

And the helicopter.

Mum: How did they get a helicopter? Did they just film one?

Me: No they use it.

Bragen says he'll stay behind.

Mum: So he's not a bad guy?

Me: No cos the Daleks betrayed him.

Mum: Do they have to get in the helicopter before..?

Me: He triggers the Ray Phase Shift, yep.

Mum: Zappy, yeah.

The TARDIS makes an appearance.

Mum: Oh, the TARDIS - oh that's a bit... What a tiny little console.

Doctor: Things didn't quite go according to plan.

She laughs.

Mum: That was quite good at the end.

She rates it overall as.... 7/10. It's well done overall, the Doctor got better, the effects were good - but it probably only worked because of real Daleks.

But Mum does wish to say that she applauds the hard work and effort that's gone into the episodes.

Next time we should be watching The Caves of Androzani (I figured that might be a bit grim for Christmas), and the next fan film we'll watch is the 2009 American production "Fire and Ice". Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year :)