![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oooooh, Political!
Apr. 6th, 2013 09:50 amWhen someone treats me to their political views without it occurring to them that I might find them controversial or even obnoxious I take it as a sign that they haven't actually thought them through.
Apr. 6th, 2013
Rules Would Be Good
Apr. 6th, 2013 11:21 amDr Who this evening. Oh goody!
So how will he get out of this evening's tight spot? Will he discover in the Tardis's store rooms a piece of technology as awesome as the anti-gravity motor-bike he used to scale the sky-scraper in last week's episode?
Odd that he'd never used it before! Useful piece of kit an anti-gravity motor-bike.
I won't say the show has jumped the shark because it's done that many, many times before. Remember the time David Tennant's Doctor stopped the Daleks from destroying the Universe (yes, the entire Universe! Do you have any idea how big that is?) by moving a lever? Or the other time when he fell through a glass dome from a height of several hundred feet- and survived with nothing but a few cuts and grazes?
The first Doctor- William Hartnell's Doctor- was an old man living on his wits. Somewhere down the line he turned into a superhero. Superheroes- I humbly suggest- are less interesting than old men living on their wits.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the show. It's inventive and colourful and funny. But also exasperating. SF demands an initial suspension of disbelief- but if it's to engage us there's got to be some measure of internal consistency, some sense of the game being played to a rule-book. There should be things that are allowable and things that aren't- and they shouldn't be subject to the exigencies of plot. There need to be pricks to kick against. With Dr Who there has long ceased to be a rule-book. The Doctor is forbidden to cross his own time-line- except on the occasions when he can, he is subject to the laws of physics, except when he isn't, he can go anywhere in time and space except when he can't. His powers ebb and flow as the story demands. What's the explanation for all this? Well, sorry, but it's beyond your puny human understanding- or to use the technical jargon- all a bit timey-wimey. Timey-wimey- an amusing concept, but really you might just as well have gods descending on machines.
Oh, what I'd give for a modicum of rigour!
So how will he get out of this evening's tight spot? Will he discover in the Tardis's store rooms a piece of technology as awesome as the anti-gravity motor-bike he used to scale the sky-scraper in last week's episode?
Odd that he'd never used it before! Useful piece of kit an anti-gravity motor-bike.
I won't say the show has jumped the shark because it's done that many, many times before. Remember the time David Tennant's Doctor stopped the Daleks from destroying the Universe (yes, the entire Universe! Do you have any idea how big that is?) by moving a lever? Or the other time when he fell through a glass dome from a height of several hundred feet- and survived with nothing but a few cuts and grazes?
The first Doctor- William Hartnell's Doctor- was an old man living on his wits. Somewhere down the line he turned into a superhero. Superheroes- I humbly suggest- are less interesting than old men living on their wits.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the show. It's inventive and colourful and funny. But also exasperating. SF demands an initial suspension of disbelief- but if it's to engage us there's got to be some measure of internal consistency, some sense of the game being played to a rule-book. There should be things that are allowable and things that aren't- and they shouldn't be subject to the exigencies of plot. There need to be pricks to kick against. With Dr Who there has long ceased to be a rule-book. The Doctor is forbidden to cross his own time-line- except on the occasions when he can, he is subject to the laws of physics, except when he isn't, he can go anywhere in time and space except when he can't. His powers ebb and flow as the story demands. What's the explanation for all this? Well, sorry, but it's beyond your puny human understanding- or to use the technical jargon- all a bit timey-wimey. Timey-wimey- an amusing concept, but really you might just as well have gods descending on machines.
Oh, what I'd give for a modicum of rigour!
Parking in a disabled space when your'e not disabled is a naff thing to do. The Chancellor's excuse is he didn't realize he was doing it. Disabled spaces aren't actually that hard to spot. You know- big white or yellow symbol painted on the tarmac ahead of you- you'd have to be pretty abstracted not to see it. It makes me wonder how many other things he remains unaware of as he sails grandly through life.
I don't have anything against inherited wealth. It frees people up. And sometimes they use it to do worthwhile, interesting and public spirited things. It also nurtures eccentricity .I don't regret the lives of people like William Beckford- builder of weird buildings and writer of weird novels- or Alexander Keillor, the marmalade king, who excavated and restored the Avebury stone circles. The world owes a great debt to men and women of private means. Money that's easy come by is often generously spent- and the rest of us benefit in all sorts of unexpected ways.
But there's this to be said against it. Having lots of money as a matter of birthright puts a gulf between you and the rest of the world. This may translate into philosophical detachment or simple insensibility. Either may it makes you unworldly. Look at George Osborne and the way he keeps racking up fines for infringement of rules he hardly thinks apply to him. He's happy to pay them because it's only money- and money has always been there for him. Which- when you think about it- makes him the very worst sort of person to be Chancellor. If you can wave daddy's cash at every obstacle in your path it's unlikely you'll really have any sense of what money means to the folk who've had to sweat for theirs or how debilitating and nerve-jangling it is to be poor. A government of toffs is a government of innocents. They don't know what they're dealing with much of the time- which makes them soft when they're dealing with the genuinely hard (bankers for instance) and thoughtlessly cruel when they're dealing with the weak.
But there's this to be said against it. Having lots of money as a matter of birthright puts a gulf between you and the rest of the world. This may translate into philosophical detachment or simple insensibility. Either may it makes you unworldly. Look at George Osborne and the way he keeps racking up fines for infringement of rules he hardly thinks apply to him. He's happy to pay them because it's only money- and money has always been there for him. Which- when you think about it- makes him the very worst sort of person to be Chancellor. If you can wave daddy's cash at every obstacle in your path it's unlikely you'll really have any sense of what money means to the folk who've had to sweat for theirs or how debilitating and nerve-jangling it is to be poor. A government of toffs is a government of innocents. They don't know what they're dealing with much of the time- which makes them soft when they're dealing with the genuinely hard (bankers for instance) and thoughtlessly cruel when they're dealing with the weak.