#and I really hope that the writers are aware of this quality in Eliza. I hope it's something that she'll come to recognize eventually | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

suki-schiffer · 7 years

Text

Why does season 10 suck?

Within my small group of whovians we all agreed that this season of Doctor Who has definitely seen a decline in quality to the point some of us felt like we were going to stop watching it. Of course none of us did, just hoping that there was another reason we were mourning the show, maybe we were mourning Clara (my friend L hated her though so...), maybe we didn’t like Bill and Nardole (but actually I’ve been better able to relate to Bill than any other companion, I like her, she points out and question the same things I do, like how the acronym TARDIS wouldn’t work in other languages and while I first thought Nardole was annoying he does serve as a nice comic relief), maybe the so called mistakes and plot holes I have issue with will all be corrected in future episodes, maybe all my questions will be answered. And so I waited and waited and continued to watch and one or two questions were answered and then I realized that in two days season 10 is over. The writers literally have only one episode left to save this season for my friends and I. What bugs me the most though is that I haven’t heard anyone complaining about this, in fact people are singing praises and I’m sitting here wondering if people are blind and/or why people are putting up with this. Just in case you are unaware of the show’s horrible story line this season, or if you are aware and want to compare notes I have made a short list of some of the mistakes and plot holes thus far. (Spoilers)

Episode 1 Pilot: so the Doctor is earth bound, has been guarding the vault at St. Luke’s for about 70 years and yet he doesn’t notice a space ship land on campus and leak fuel. He’s living in the TARDIS and apparently avoiding some unknown enemies, he should have some sort of scanners warning him of unusual occurrences and aliens approaching etc. And he’s probably bored so it’s not like he’s going to let these aliens land and take off without investigating, even if they are friendly, because he’s bored and curious. Also we never found out why Heather had a star in her eye, surly that couldn’t be natural.

Episode 2 Smile: I found this episode very nonsensical. The robots are smart enough to program themselves to kill off the humans to prevent dissatisfaction but they can’t/aren’t smart enough to kill someone who walks outside the city even though they can go and have been shown outside the city. Also they are dumb enough to need a badge to tell them if humans are happy or not (originally if oxygen, water, food was optimal) this is supposed to be hundreds of years in the future, robots today can assess mood through posture and facial expression. For some reason everyone tries to trick the badges into thinking they are happy by smiling so that the Vardy don’t kill them yet no one thinks of taking the badges off. When the Vardy kill they manage to destroy everything but the bones and the locket, including those suits that seemed to have metal components and I refuse to believe that only one person was wearing jewelry, therefore where is all the jewelry/metal? This isn’t the only planet humans have colonized, wouldn’t other colonies be using similar technology, shouldn’t they be warned. And the fix for the episode seemed ridiculous, turn them off and on, no one else thought to try resetting them? It took the Doctor 45 minutes to figure this out?

Episode 3 Thin Ice: my favourite episode so far, pretty well written but for the fact the Doctor says he’s been to the Frost Fair before and Lord Sutcliffe says the monster (and we never do find out what it is, why it’s on earth and where it goes) has been chained in the Thames and the secret passed down in his family “forever”. This means the Doctor obviously should have known something was amiss and already solved the problem.

Episode 4 Knock Knock: another ridiculous episode. What were the bugs? Why did they save the mother but kill/eat/destroy everyone else? Why did they need six people every 20 years? The landlord was old, it was unlikely he would like another 20 years, what did he plan to do then? Didn’t anyone notice these people going missing? How was it the Doctor could save all of Bill’s friends/roommates but not the other people? Why did Bill suddenly need to move out of her foster mother’s house? It wasn’t like getting to the university was difficult if she was working there everyday. When Eliza was ill wouldn’t her son have been sent away? After her “death” wouldn’t his father, a relative, or even an orphanage take him by request of the doctors who presumably announced Eliza dead, or the servants a house that big probably had? Like who was paying taxes if the landlord was a child at the time and his mother had turned to wood? I’m going to stop ranting about this one here.

Episode 5 Oxygen: this episode was okay. I liked the portrayal of the dangers of capitalism and the racism reversal (Bill being called racist). So I get that the people had to buy oxygen but they were all talking about running out, wasn’t there a way to buy more? They were obviously going to be working there for awhile so there had to have been a way. Killing the workers off seems really harsh, wouldn’t it just be better to fire them and take them back to earth/wherever they came from? The fact that the Doctor didn’t figure out that Bill’s suit wouldn’t kill her due to low battery until after he was blind really bugged me. He made a major sacrifice for her when he didn’t have to, and maybe he was trying to save her from pain but in the end her suit got stuck again and so the “inevitable” still happened. Also the lying, I sort of get why he lied to Bill/the crew to make them feel better, but why have Nardole “fix” his vision only to tell him a few minutes later that he really is blind? Again he mentions that his enemies can’t know he’s blind/weak but he shares this with Missy.

Episode 6 Extremis: ah yes, the horrible monk trilogy that no one asked for. First of all this breaks standard Doctor Who format, when have we ever had a three part episode in the middle of the season? The horrid sonic sunglasses are back and somehow the Doctor’s managed to hook them to his occipital lobe so that he can see outlines, read emails, and view statistics about the living thing(s) in front of him, but he can’t see patterns, colours, textures, etc. For some reason in this alternate universe the TARDIS translation matrix doesn’t work as it doesn’t translate the pope for Bill. And that’s a strange device that’s never been used, seen, or eluded to before, very convenient the Doctor decides to make a potentially fatal trade to read the paper version of the text before figuring out it’s already on the computer right in front of him and he can listen to it instead. Oh and the fact that his sight takes awhile to load is very useful too. So Missy being in a vault and how Nardole joined the Doctor is explained in part. Why did these people want Missy dead and how did they capture her? How did they convince the Doctor to come to their planet to be the executioner? When did he have time to fiddle with the device? What exactly was so scary in the records that caused the others to run away and how/why did they not check the records and know this before they brought the Doctor in? How did Nardole get from Darillium to this planet?

Episode 7 The Pyramid at the End of the World: Out of all the disasters throughout history why did the monks choose this one? They seem generally surprised that the Doctor manages to stop them/turn back the clock, but claimed to have studied him in the simulation world and won against him many times. Where on earth is UNIT? Why do the monks need consent that comes from love? Why could they not just create a link with anyone who agreed to meet their demands if they saved the world? And why did it have to be a person with power? Later on it seemed like any human would have made a successful link. Why a pyramid? Since when can’t the sonic screwdriver not open doors/locks? It’s never just told him the code/showed him what the key looks like, it opens things, so long as they aren’t made of wood and that door definitely wasn’t wood. Why couldn’t the Doctor tell Bill that he would regenerate to prevent her from making the deal? How did these monks fix his vision?

Episode 8 The Lie of the Land: how was the Doctor “captured”? Why were some people able to overcome the brainwashing? What exactly was the monks’ plans? The had earth and the citizens of it enslaved for over six months yet didn’t seem to be doing anything, not taking resources, not using the humans as slaves for labour power, not preparing for battle of any kind. In the last episode they said that they had taken on the forms they had to essentially relax the people even though they looked like corpses (all humans looked like corpses to them) we never do see their true forms. Why are there so few of them? How did the Doctor manage to convert an entire prison ship to his side without alerting the monks who clearly could get on board and were checking on him? Bill didn’t know the Doctor could regenerate, why did he pretend, how did he manage to pretend? Why hadn’t he acted sooner? Why did he need Bill and need to test her to the extent that he did? Seriously? The answer was love? Love for a woman Bill never knew? And of course everyone forgot everything afterwards, why wouldn’t they?

Episode 9 Empress of Mars: Why didn’t Friday wake his queen up earlier? Why wait months for the humans to discover the “tomb” and do it? Why couldn’t Friday have convinced her to make peace with the humans before she killed so many of them? There’s a fair number of military personnel on Mars, this is 1881, I’m pretty sure someone will notice they’ve gone missing. Isn’t this a bit of a paradox? The Doctor essentially sends himself to Mars because he sees the message “God save the Queen” at NASA then goes to save the humans and the Ice Warriors so that they can create that same message. If he wasn’t there there would be no message, but without the message he wouldn’t be there. Finally the thing that bugged me most about this episode: Since when does the TARDIS lock her doors and leave on her own and then refuse to return for her Time Lord?

Episode 10 The Eaters of Light: actually liked this one probably because of the scenery and mysticism involved. Major critique though is how a small group was able to hold off the creatures for centuries. While it might appear as if they broke the portal because too many went through at once the fact that you can still hear the music is an indication that it’s still functional to some degree.

Episode 11 World Enough and Time: I was really mad at myself for forgetting about how time and gravity interact however I found the episode very predictable. I mean the way the Razor first scurried from Bill? Totally something John Simm’s Master would do. If the bottom of the space ship is experiencing time much faster than the top and the city is dying doesn’t that mean all the parts are wearing out and will eventually stop powering the top of the ship? Are you telling me all those people originally came from just 20 humans? No wonder they are dying with that little genetic variability. How did the cybermen know to come for Bill (yes they have cameras but Missy, the Doctor and even Nardole look human, how were they able to figure out it was her)? Why was someone sending them up to take the rest of the humans (not just Bill but the other 20+ crew members)? Can they only convert humans, is that why they didn’t try to take anyone else? Why doesn’t Bill’s heart work outside the hospital but the other incomplete cybermen were able to leave to fetch her? Why did the cybermen freak out when she opened the window? Why didn’t more people attempt to go upstairs? I have more questions about this episode but since it is a two parter it is likely some, if not most, will be answered on Saturday.

So there is obviously a writing problem this season and yet very few people seem to be complaining. Personally I think Moffat is trying to take the show down with him, that perhaps he wanted a raise or more creative freedom BBC said no, so now he’s trying to set it up to fail so that he can look back and say “see, you should have just given me what I wanted, I told you guys you wouldn’t be able to survive without me”. My friend C gives Moffat the benefit of the doubt, compares him to a minimum wage worker who’s handed in his two-week notice, he’s run out of ideas and there’s no need to work hard to make the show amazing because so long as he does the work he’s getting paid and this will be his last season whether or not he does well. My other friend, V, is actually blaming the new head writer, Chris Chibnall. She says he might be asking they set the story up for him in some way and the current writers are struggling to do so. Or on a more minor level since Bill is the only character who seems to be staying she could be Chibnall’s character and the current writers are having trouble setting her up to be the character Chibnall wants while fitting her in their stories and having her interact with their characters.

Okay this has taken much too long to write but it is done. I don’t have much hope for season ten as I find it impossible for the writers to address all these questions and plot holes in a single episode but maybe I’ll be surprised. If it does go down in flames hopefully season eleven will be better. I wrote this solely because I couldn’t find anything on the net expressing similar opinions about this season that I had and I sort of wanted confirmation that my small friend group and I weren’t the only ones disappointed so hopefully someone else who felt the same way has discovered this post.

Anyway goodnight/day/whatever (it’s now 4am here, oops) and thank you for reading.

#doctor who #season 10 #steven moffat #plot holes

3 notes · View notes

ymepbrevos1984-blog · 4 years

Text

‘Quichotte’ Is Salman Rushdie’s Latest. But the Act Is Getting Old.

How do writers privately define success? Is it a matter of sales, prizes, worshipful reviews? Yes, but only that? Are there more idiosyncratic metrics — a conviction in the value of the work or in the risks taken or, perhaps, the knowledge of the cost of its creation?

“What you hope to do is leave behind a shelf of books,” Salman Rushdie once said, quoting Martin Amis. “You want to be able to walk into a bookstore and say, ‘From here to here, it’s me.’”

A shelf of books. Same Day Loans One wishes Amis had been more specific. Rushdie fills a shelf, even two, nicely. He is the author of nearly 20 books — six published in the last 11 years alone, but of diminishing quality. Capital One Credit Cards, Bank, and Loans - Personal and Business The novels are imaginative as ever, but they are also increasingly wobbly, bloated and mannered. He is a writer in free fall. What happened?

Salman Rushdie, whose latest novel, “Quichotte,” is an homage to “Don Quixote.”Credit...Rachel Eliza Griffiths

That famous style has congealed in recent years; the flamboyance that once felt so free now seems strenuous and grating. “If he had a fault, it was that of ostentation, of seeking to be not only himself but a performance of himself,” Rushdie writes of a character in his novel “The Enchantress of Florence,” which could read like stinging self-critique. The later books — “Shalimar the Clown,” “Two Years Eight Months and Twenty-Eight Nights,” “The Golden House” — are all tics, technique and hammy narration that try to toupee over patchy stories, exhausted themes, types passing as characters. For a writer so frequently praised for ingenuity, Rushdie actually follows a formula of sorts. You could make yourself a bingo card: Classic Novel or Myth used as Scaffolding, Femme Fatale, Story within the Story (recounted by a Garrulous Narrator), Topical Concerns, Defense of Hybridity.

Let’s play. The new novel, “Quichotte” is a retelling of Don Quixote (there’s our Scaffold), with debts to “Back to the Future,” the Odyssey, “Lolita,” Pinocchio, the Eugène Ionesco play “Rhinoceros,” and — why not — the 12th century epic, “The Conference of the Birds.” Our hero, a traveling salesman of Indian origin, becomes addled by his obsession with American television (in the original, the Don is addicted to heraldic romances). He begins to believe himself an inhabitant of “that other, brighter world” and resolves to win the heart of a beautiful television host (meet our Femme Fatale), Salma R. He sets off in pursuit of his beloved, and channels for himself a companion, a son he calls, naturally, Sancho. In their quest they encounter an America of Trump voters and vicious racism (allowing for that Defense of Hybridity) and become tangled in a subplot involving the opioid crisis (Topical Concerns — check!). This story is revealed to us as a work in progress, however, the creation of a second-rate crime writer, another uneasy Indian in America who writes under the name Sam duChamp (a.k.a. our Garrulous Narrator), who has some unfinished business back home.

I didn’t even mention the mastodon invasion. Or the rip in the cosmos. Or the character inspired by Elon Musk. Or the unhappy appearance, toward the end of the book, of a Jiminy Cricket-type character. “This isn’t really happening,” Sancho says. This isn’t really happening, I thought.

Of all genres, fantasy, E.M. Forster has argued, requires perhaps the greatest adjustment on the part of the reader, a special suspension of disbelief. It is not necessarily a great adjustment but it must be accounted for, and it must be made, otherwise the reader will be left on shore, watching the author’s proud, meaningless exertions with increasing detachment and coldness. When Rushdie’s previous books have succeeded it is because he has been guided by this awareness and found ways to entice us on board, to poke fun at his own excesses. In “Midnight’s Children,” blunt Padma performs the function of in-house literary critic: “Here is Padma at my elbow, bullying me back into the world of linear narrative, the universe of what-happened-next,” our garrulous narrator tells us.

0 notes

char27martin · 7 years

Text

What Fiction Writers Can Learn From Hamilton’s Character Flaws

NEW YORK, NY – FEBRUARY 15: Actor Leslie Odom, Jr. (L) and actor, composer Lin-Manuel Miranda (R) perform on stage during “Hamilton” GRAMMY performance for The 58th GRAMMY Awards at Richard Rodgers Theater on February 15, 2016 in New York City. (Photo by Theo Wargo/Getty Images)

When you’re on the team at Writer’s Digest and you’ve listened to Lin-Manuel Miranda’s brilliant Hamilton soundtrack as many times as I have, it’s natural to start analyzing the work as a story, not just a source of entertainment.

And who can blame me? If current ticket prices and audience demand are indicators of quality, Hamilton is most certainly a piece of art worthy of our attention as writers. Having never seen the show (I’ll refer you again to those ticket prices), I’m left to suss out the story and its characters from the soundtrack—but what rich material it is to study and explore.

Take, for instance, the titular character. Alexander Hamilton—at least the Hamilton that exists within Miranda’s mostly true, slightly embellished narrative—is a fascinating, deeply flawed person to whom we nevertheless feel a connection. In fact, I’d argue that it’s Hamilton’s flaws, more than his strengths, that make him truly relatable—a character worth rooting for, and worth connecting with on an emotional level.

Without flaws, our characters will be lopsided, uneven. They feel sanguine and Pollyanna-ish; they might even read as smug. Without flaws, our characters have no hope of emulating humanity.

Here are four ways that Hamilton’s flaws make him a distinctive, memorable character:

[Note: This post contains Hamilton spoilers. If you’d rather not know details of the story, don’t continue!]

1. His character flaws are extensions of his strengths.

Miranda’s smartest decision was to connect Hamilton’s flaws in some way to his strengths. For instance, Hamilton doesn’t lack in ambition. It’s a strength that allows him to rise through the ranks and become George Washington’s right-hand man, to become a figurehead within America’s fledgling government, and to successfully implement a financial system that pulled the country out of debt and into prosperity. But Hamilton’s ambition also makes him obsessed about his legacy, a trait that ultimately leads to his downfall and a very public disgrace.

Likewise, Hamilton is principled and passionate, but he’s also overly outspoken about his beliefs, and he doesn’t know when to keep his cards close to his chest (or, really, when to keep his mouth shut). He’s hardworking and driven, but he doesn’t put aside time for his family and wife, and he works himself to the point of exhaustion. (In one scene, his wife, Eliza, pleads with him: “Look around, isn’t this enough? What would be enough to be satisfied?”)

By presenting these flaws as extensions of strengths, we’re shown how any person’s characteristics exist on a continuum, and can fall on either side of the edge of a knife. One need only slip over that edge to take a strength too far.

In what ways can your characters’ strengths also be their flaws? In what ways can they take their strengths too far?

[5 Things Breaking Bad Can Teach Us About Writing]

2. His flaws lead to consequences.

NEW YORK, NY – JUNE 12: Lin-Manuel Miranda of ‘Hamilton’ performs onstage during the 70th Annual Tony Awards at The Beacon Theatre on June 12, 2016 in New York City. (Photo by Theo Wargo/Getty Images for Tony Awards Productions)

Hamilton runs into trouble again and again due to his personal flaws. His stubbornness and sense of pride cause him to disobey Washington’s orders and serve as second in a duel with General Charles Lee; Washington sends him home as a result. His outspokenness earns him several powerful enemies (Thomas Jefferson among them) and leads him to being fired from his cabinet position when Jefferson becomes Vice President.

Perhaps most noteworthy, though, is how Hamilton’s tendency to put work above all else, and to work himself into exhaustion, makes him vulnerable to the prospect of an extramarital affair. Despite the pleas of his wife and sister-in-law, he declines to take a break. Thus, he finds himself in a sorry state: “I hadn’t slept in a week / I was weak, I was awake / You never seen a bastard orphan / More in need of a break.” It’s at this point that he is approached and seduced by Maria Reynolds. When her husband later blackmails Hamilton over the affair, this sets up a series of events that leads to Hamilton’s public disgrace: In order to avoid accusations of embezzlement and speculation, he confesses that he had an affair, which ruins his prospects of ever becoming President, as well as his marriage to Eliza.

How can you illustrate your characters’ flaws through scenes and events, rather than just telling the reader outright? How can their flaws lead to consequences large and small?

3. He knows—and acknowledges—his faults.

There’s a moment at the end of Act I in which Hamilton approaches his longtime friend and rival, Aaron Burr, to assist him in defending the constitution in a series of essays. Both are practicing law at this point, and Hamilton starts his plea by acknowledging the ways in which he falls short: “I know I talk too much, I’m abrasive / You’re incredible in court. You’re succinct, persuasive …” He realizes he’s a loudmouth and a pain in the ass, and that he needs his friend’s help to meet his goals. This level of self-awareness is refreshing.

Can you give your characters at least partial awareness of their own flaws?

[The 7 Rules of Dialogue All Writers Should Know]

4. He is given a moment of redemption.

The Reynolds affair is arguably the biggest black mark against Hamilton’s character; it’s difficult for any character to redeem himself after infidelity. However, immediately following the affair and Hamilton’s public confession, Hamilton’s son, Philip, is shot and killed in a duel. The Hamiltons move uptown and quietly mourn their terrible loss. In one of the musicals’ most poignant songs, we learn that Hamilton is a changed man: No longer does he desire to insert himself within the narrative of his new country. His chief concern is for his wife and remaining children. He pleads with Eliza:

Look at where we are Look at where we started I know I don’t deserve you, Eliza But hear me out. That would be enough

If I could spare his life If I could trade his life for mine He’d be standing here right now And you would smile, and that would be enough I don’t pretend to know The challenges we’re facing I know there’s no replacing what we’ve lost And you need time But I’m not afraid I know who I married Just let me stay here by your side That would be enough

Hamilton’s response to this tragedy is one of the most important moments in his character development. We sense that he’s grown enormously as a result of his pain and loss; he seems wiser and more selfless than ever before.

What moment can you give your characters to help them overcome their flaws? Have you given them the chance to redeem themselves?

Order Now: Creating Characters

Creating Characters collects the best instruction on how to write a novel with compelling and significant characters. You’ll appreciate this book if:

—You want to know how to write a novel with artfully crafted character —You need help choosing point of view, developing dialogue and bringing characters to life —You’re interested in weaving in antagonists and second characters into your story —And more!

Click here to get your copy now.

Rachel Randall is the content strategist for the Writer’s Digest community.

The post What Fiction Writers Can Learn From Hamilton’s Character Flaws appeared first on WritersDigest.com.

from Writing Editor Blogs – WritersDigest.com http://www.writersdigest.com/editor-blogs/there-are-no-rules/fiction-writers-can-learn-hamiltons-character-flaws

0 notes