Procrastination man - Part 2

Aller au contenu | Aller au menu | Aller à la recherche

Saturday 31 May 2008

Recurring themes in post-fall Genesis

Instead of the usual detailed analysis of a chapter of the Bible, this week, I have decided to point out a few (insistingly) recurring themes in Genesis 3-50, and more specifically from Genesis 12 (though some themes appear from Genesis 3). Many translations of the Bible are available online here.
The most striking element is fear - from the Fall onwards, man is afraid. It starts off with fear from God in Genesis 3:9

And he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself"

Afraid, not ashamed. And the same reaction follows, as a recurring pattern, until the end of Genesis: kings of different nations are afraid of Abram/Abraham's, Isaac's, Jacob's and Joseph's God. And with reason, if we look at what he did to Sodom and the surrounding cities in Genesis 19.
Another prominent theme is lie . The same story happens twice with Abimelech, with Abraham in Genesis 20, and then Genesis 26. Surprisingly enough, the lie is justified, not the reaction of Abimelech. More on this (hopefully) with the study of those two chapters. The lie (well, deceit) is also at the centre of Jacob's blessing by his father in Genesis 27. Again, even if the outcome of the lie might be regrettable, it does not appear as a sin in Genesis.
Lie, however, is never petty and always has a purpose, associated with fear. When Abraham and Isaac lie to Abimelech, it is for fear lest they should be killed, because ...

there is no fear of God at all in this place (Gen 20:11)

When Jacob lies, it is for fear lest he should not receive a blessing; and he is truly afraid of that. Similarly, when Laban lies to Jacob, it is for fear lest he should leave. If omission is a lie, however, Joseph's lies are the first in Genesis that are not driven by fear, when he omits to tell his brothers who he really is.
Thus, we have moved from fear of God to fear of other nations, to fear of one's family. Simultaneously, lies become less and less "justified". And the level of fear has dwindled. This may simply prefigure the new Pharaoh who will appear in Exodus.


Two other recurring motives are worth the mention. The first one is the importance of the generations - entire chapters are devoted to explaining genealogy. What is to be inferred from this, however, I do not know.
The other one, already mentioned in previous posts, is the importance of Naming. Every direct descendant of who can be called the "main protagonists" has an explanation for his name, as do several locations. Furthermore, following certain events, we have ocurrences of God renaming people. Thus, Abram becomes Abraham and Sarai Sarah in Genesis 17, and Jacob becomes Israel in Genesis 32. We can therefore expect the names to have a certain importance (as we will see in Exodus 3:13-15). Having a name is becoming fixed in a way, and has repercussions on one's life (see Jacob's blessing in Genesis 49).
Note I am aware these general comments do not cover the passages concerning Noah and Babel. They have their own, separate place, in the continuity of Genesis, on a theme that dries out sooner (that of wishing to become God).


Finally, I think it cannot be stressed enough how any translation is biased. There is not one original text - and whether the text comes from Greek, Hebrew, or the Dead Sea Scrolls, has an influence in the same way Chinese whispers work. Politics can be at work, subconsciously or not, and some euphemisms are found. The most famous one (and possibly most important to be aware of) is the meaning of to know in the Bible. As will transpire from the study of Genesis 4-5, it most probably implies sexual intercourse, which will have a certain importance to understand the historical and cultural implications of Genesis 19:5 (it is impressive what one single verse can do historically).
To finish on a lighter note this remark on translation euphemisms, I will quote Genesis 43:34 - translated as "And they drank and were merry with him", with a footnote explaining Hebrew has "And they drank and became intoxicated"!

Friday 30 May 2008

Small Web thingy (see blog title)

89
Also, ...
OnePlusYou Quizzes and Widgets
Both widgets/stuffs come from OnePlusYou

Monday 26 May 2008

In the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die

After last week's post on Genesis 1, let us pursue our study with Genesis 2 and 3. I have chosen to analyse both in one go, because they are one single theme, setting and story (Eden and the Fall), and that comparing both chapters, and, to some extent, Genesis 1, will be (hopefully) fruitful.
The most striking aspect of Genesis 2-3 is how both chapters interact with Genesis 1. It starts going on with the same "storyline", expanding the six-day week with a seventh day of rest; but that seventh day is different from all others (insofar as nothing is created). Then, oddly enough, it goes back to the creation of man and woman in a way that (seemingly) contradicts Creation as explained in Genesis 1. Here, Man is created before the animals, and, possibly more importantly, before his female counterpart, contradicting Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Another difference is that the process of creation is here explained in detail - it is no longer the Word that leads to the formation of Man - Man (just like the animals) is created from the dust of the earth.
If I were a syncretist (and maybe I am), I could say this echoes quite nicely the Greek mythology of the original human being one, male and female united (in the Golden Age, a fall introducing their separation into different bodies). And in more ways than one, this appears in the first few chapters of Genesis. For instance, Eve is taken from Adam. Thus, in the sixth day, "Man" (complete with Eve) was created.
Another interpretation, already mentioned in my previous post, is that in the first six days, God conceived Creation and planted the seeds towards, well, the world as we know it. This reconciles the chronology; however, the creation of Eve from Adam seems to appear as an "afterthought" and an a posteriori correction by God. As a consequence, whilst this idea allows for Adam being there before the animals, one has to conclude that male and female were created together, and are the two separated sides of one single entity, of "one flesh" (Gen 2:24). At least metaphorically! (Further thoughts on physical, factual history versus metaphorical history should be found in my upcoming study of Genesis 5 to 12)



The shift from Genesis 1 that also occurs in Genesis 2 is a shift of focus from God the Creator to the man, which is especially apparent in the process of Naming. "God created man in his image" is repeated in Gen 1:27, and that theme rings throughout Genesis 2, especially on verse 19: whilst in Genesis 1, as was pointed out, naming a part of Creation was the actual creative process (and thus an important part of creation), now, Man is in charge of naming things. With a major difference, though - that Adam does not create by naming, he names what God has already created. Interestingly enough, the importance of Naming appears in different mythologies - for instance, in parts of Egyptian (and Greek) mythology, Gods exist because they are named.
With a major implication - that God created man in his image does not mean we are God (or gods), nor even a toned-down version of him. In his image, we name things, but we are not all-powerful - and, pre-Fall, we do not know of good and evil (cf. Gen 3:5 - "you will be like God, knowing good and evil")
Which brings me to the core of Genesis 2-3: the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. You see, it had always bothered me a tiny little bit, the story leading up to the Fall. It seemed a bit petty to expel Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden on a single fruit eaten (why is it always represented with apples, by the way?). And indeed, every time I was told about the Fall, the fruit that was eaten was from the Forbidden tree. The fact that it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil only appeared by Adam and Eve being aware that they were naked.
Now I am aware that the following views are controversial, but I have not found someone yet to convince me the usual explanation had more worth. I believe that, when there is no knowledge of good and evil, there can be no sin - thus, we would not talk of sin for animals, or for babies who have not learnt yet what was good and what was evil. And one of the basic assumptions of Christianity is that man is imperfect (and therefore needs salvation). Thus, as soon as the fruit was eaten, and knowledge of good and evil was acquired, sin was commited, and this, not the infringement on the rule that one should not eat from the Forbidden tree, led to Adam and Eve being kicked out of the Garden of Eden.
Also (a fact that is underrepresented), there was a tree of life. Let us look at the final paragraph of Genesis 3:

"Now lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever-" (Gen 3:22)

is an unfinished sentence. What would happen? To take on the theme of Man being God's image, would that make Man God? It is thematically suggested; but the unended sentence leaves this open to other interpretations. My two pennies' worth is that, being a sinner, Man can only find redemption and forgiveness via a (harder) life, and death. Should Adam eat from the tree of life, he would be aware forever of his imperfection and be forever a sinner. God's warning in Gen 2:16, which appears in the title of this entry, is not a threat; just a (logical) consequence of the transgression.




To finish this entry on Genesis 2-3, a couple more thoughts/comments:

  • Regarding capitalisation and Genesis 1, it appears that different English versions have inconsistent capitalisations, leading me to the conclusion that it was a translator's choice. More on this here
  • What is the point of locating Eden geographically?
  • Angels will appear later - when were they created, if at all?
  • Is the serpent a sinner? Did he have free will enough to suggest temptation? Or is it just all metaphorical, with "cuteness" syncretically added?
  • My best friend Adam wishes to apologise for the Fall.


Also, I'm having a little trouble with Genesis 4-5 (which I feel should be treated together as well), if anyone wants to give their stance on it, contact me and I'll give you editor privileges.
To see all Bible-related entries, follow this link.

Saturday 24 May 2008

Eurovision 2008

Tonight, because of the Eurovision Song Contest, there will be no Doctor Who... well, a special trailer. Grrr.
Anyway, just like every year, some entries are ridiculously bad (entire playlist here)! Amongst the worst are Latvia's, Spain's, heck, even France's and Britain's. (The latter two partly because it is tradition to comment negatively on the songs of one's country... Britain's is actually not too bad, it just blatantly lacks originality, and the chorus is bland.)
However, some of them are quite good to very good! Here is my pronostic for the top six:



Alright, so some of those six are not even great, but they are at least original. Now, in terms of personal favourites (in order this time):
  • Croatia: Kraljevi Ulice feat. 75 cents - Romanca. I really like that song!
  • Albania: Olta Boka - Zemrën E Lamë Peng. It comes at a tie with Croatia - a really good song!
  • Armenia: Sirusho - Qele Qele. Maybe a bit cheesy nineties music, but it sounds good!
  • Azerbaijan: Elnur Huseynov and Samir Javadzadeh - Day after Day. Goth ish music, but made me laugh and is not that bad!
As for Iceland (techno ish) and Denmark, well, it's not that I really like them, it's more that they have their originality (actually, Azerbaijan could come under that as well), and that might just make them win!

Monday 19 May 2008

And God saw that it was good...

The Bible can be read with many different levels of, shall we say, intricacy. To start with, there's the raw story - the one that has been taught in Religious Education back in school, and that is part of the general knowledge and heritage of the Western Civilisation. Thus, people will usually know the outline of the myth of creation, they will have heard about King Solomon, Moses, and know of Jesus' death on the cross. That's a first level of reading, and it is quite important, if only via the Bible's influence on Western culture.
Then there's various levels of detail that can be added to it. Passages can be taken individually, and analysed, in order to extract their message (for there is one). Every single chapter can be interpreted in a specific way. And where there is interpretation, there is the possibility for misunderstanding. Now I'm not saying there is one right way of understanding the Bible (and the variety of religions leads to think at least some common interpretations are flawed); however, discussion, I believe, leads to a better understanding of the Bible. Which is why musings, and interpretations, should be expressed and discussed - somehow the purpose of the set of entries that I am now starting.
Now on to the problems set by such an intention. Firstly, the Bible is an intricate work, and there is some back-referencing, and to a smaller degree, forward-referencing (at least foreshadowing). So there is the question of the order of reading. I'm setting out to comment it, chapter by chapter, in "chronological" order, as it seems the most logical thing to do. If some other passages seem relevant, feel free to indicate them. Secondly, the texts that are available to us are translations; and, especially in English, there are many translations. I will be using the English Standard Version (ESV), not because I believe it is particularly better than the others, but because it is the one that is available to me in printed form. All different translations can be found here.



On first reading, Genesis 1 seems a bit trivial - just another creation myth. Now, as a scientist, I cannot possibly agree with a physical six-day creation (though far-fetched reconciliations are not impossible).

(Picture from ASBOJesus)
As explained in the introductory passage, however, this is not the main point. The chapter is very notable by a repetition of processes, with a rupture at the end.
Indeed, each of the first five days is described in a similar way:

And God said (...) And God saw that it was good.

Also notable is that creation happens simultaneously with the naming (of the "big" principles), and that the said creations first occur capitalised.
The sixth day, the creation of man (uncapitalised!), shows many differences with the rest. First, And is changed into Then. Secondly, and possibly more importantly, the repeated sentence And God saw that it was good is changed into And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. There is a distinct change of perspective here.
This leads to the following statements/questions:

  • How is capitalisation consistent with the original texts? (Are there capital letters in arameic?)
  • If it is not consistent, how is it relevant of a particular way of thinking in the Church?
  • An interpretation: capitalisation is given to Godly things: the very concept sprouting forth from God's Word. This would explain that, once they have their own individual nature, they are capitalised no longer (echoed in Genesis 2, when man names the animals). But then, why is man uncapitalised? Is it a foreshadowing of the fall, or a sign of their well-known imperfection (also to be noted, man is the only item of Creation that needed blessing!)
  • Man appears at the end of creation and only makes sense after it. This would explain the Then instead of And. It fits well together with man's role as ruler over the rest of Creation, and with the idea of completion that replaces the And God saw that it was good.


So, as a summary, two lessons can already be drawn from Genesis 1: that man was conceived to rule over Creation, only as a completion to it; and that it is imperfect. How these two derive from one another is left to personal interpretation!
To finish, I'll throw in a couple more remarks:

  • Contrary to Genesis 2, man and female seem to be created simultaneously. This, again, shows that the stress is not put on the physical order of Creation, but (possibly?) on relative orders of importance. In advance on its time, females and males are put on the same level!
  • The stress is also put on the Word of God. He actually says things into existence (you've gotta love the English language which allows such constructions!) It might go with the (far-fetched) theory that the six days are concerned with God's conception of Creation, and setting the whole evolution process in motion. I'll admit it is far-fetched, but there is to my knowledge no better way to reconcile both, erm, theories.

Sunday 18 May 2008

Web + Comic = Webcomic

It is a while now since I started toying with the idea of this entry. The web is simply full of amazing online, free comics that are not found in print. Here is a small selection (only those where it is more or less clearly stated that reproduction is authorised under certain conditions are displayed)
  • geek comics
    • xkcd:

      Some of these comics are just amazingly funny!
    • Piled Higher and Deeper Comics: a comic about postgraduate life.
    • Shortpacked!: a really really great comic about the team of a toys shop (like, Doctor Who action figures), with great characterization and brilliant storylines (especially since the drama tag was pulled).
  • spiritual comics
    • Sinfest: a webcomic about the devil, buddha, god, and cute little emo people. Quite funny, very touching at times.
    • ASBOjesus: more like a blog, but in the form of comics. Some of them are really great like these two:
      It's a sign!
      Non-conformity will not be tolerated
  • other comics
    • Pon and Zi, by Azurephe. Not technically a webcomic, but still some pretty great stuff. It is now very much emo stuff (which is great) but some of it is more cruel, like this:
    • Something Happens, with my favourite here
Obviously, there's many many more of them out there. Which one's your favourite?

The thrill is in the chase...

... never in the capture. I could have started this review of yesterday's Doctor Who episode, The Unicorn and the Wasp, with another quote from it: "This has certainly been a most entertaining evening". However, the former captures better the idea of this piece of whodunnit. The formula is well-known - a thick murder(s) mystery, and, because it is Who, a monster-of-the-week (maybe a bit more than that). The plot, however, does not advance much throughout the episode. The Doctor and Donna are landed in the middle of marmite-thick mystery, and - obviously - take over the whole process of investigation, pretending to be from Scotland Yard. These introductory scenes are a clear nod to series 2's historical episode, Tooth and Claw, the last time or so that the psychic paper worked properly, and the sidekick trying to adapt to the period's language with the Doctor saying No, no, don't do that.
Then, another murder. And another. The plot thickens, and just about no clue is given as to who may have commited it. It looks as though the author wants to, rather than giving anything away, bury any elements that may lead to the discovery of the murderer so deep that, in the end, when the Doctor confounds her or him, you just feel like what is going on here?



In spite of everything, The Unicorn and the Wasp has a strong basis to build on. It references, or is inspired by, many other pieces of fiction. Cluedo is one of them, but it is played up so much at the beginning (and, in a way, at the end), that it fails to deliver as well as it would have if hinted upon more subtly. I have already mentioned Tooth and Claw, however, this is a reference that appears more in terms of script editing than storywise. Then, there is the obvious attempt to resemble an Agatha Christie plot.
But more than anything else, it is inspired by Black Orchid, a Fifth Doctor historical whodunnit, actually quite possibly the latest whodunnit in Who until The Unicorn and the Wasp. Unsurprisingly, the 2|entertain DVD release just preceded the broadcast of the episode. Completists may buy it at amazon.co.uk (Region 2 DVD). Now, people say the 2|entertain release schedule is in no way related to the new series plot, but when this release comes right after the Sontaran boxset, one is left to wonder... Still, it is a pity that, from all of Classic Who to pick from, it is one of the poorest stories that got chosen to base this latest episode upon. The Unicorn and the Wasp is, essentially, a remake of that one Peter Davison near disaster, minus the twin plotline and the Adric annoyance, plus a couple of weak plotlines. Let us make a list: the TARDIS and its crew land in the middle of a family in the not-so-distant past. Check. They quickly integrate, for barely any given reason (though that could be said of most Who). Check. There is a series of unexplained murders. Check. Doors have been locked for ages. Check. [spoiler-ish] There is illegetimate offspring from the housemistress, from an earlier journey to a distant place (India or Amazon, what difference?). Check. That offspring is mysteriously linked to a still element in plain sight of everybody. Check. [end of spoiler-ish]
Now, in fairness, both stories do differ quite a bit. For one, the resolution of the plot felt like a so what? that is it? moment in Black Orchid, whereas in The Unicorn and the Wasp, it felt more like a hang on, where did all that come from? moment. Also, there is a (albeit weakly exploited) reason for TUATW - Agatha Christie, whereas Black Orchid was just there. Furthermore, production values were a lot higher in yesterday's episode: no, the clown costume is definitely not missed. The easy doubles plotline is not exploited, which is also a relief, as it was quite ridiculous in the Davison story. Also, there is a science-fiction element, explained away though it may be. Finally, sadly (and I did not think I would ever say it), Murray Gold's music is actually too absent in this episode!



And in the end, one cannot help but feel cheated at the end of The Unicorn and the Wasp. For at least three reasons: firstly, the promised Unicorn is in no way essential to the plot, and one would have expected a more fantasy-like story with a stag and a horn glued to it. Makes me think I should re-watch The Horns of Nimon. I must be getting sick. There is worse for an episode than not to act on its title, but considering the hype around this episode and especially around its title, it feels important. Secondly, the fanboys (including myself) had theorised that the repeated mentions of disappearing bees were linked with this episode whose name was known prior to the broadcast of episode one. Incidentally, the only episode whose title is yet to be confirmed (despite rumours) is episode 12. And thirdly, and this is an aaaaaarg moment, the voice-over over the end credits announced that there would be no Who next week due to the Eurovision. Now that is blipping annoying.

Tuesday 13 May 2008

Jason Mraz!

An awesome artist releases his third album today! Buy it from amazon.com for the bargainous price of $9.99 + P&P. It is cheaper than the UK iTunes download (£10.99), and than the amazon.co.uk offer (which, furthermore, is only released in June).
Here's Jason's latest single, I'm yours

So, did you like it? If you did, then know that Jason is touring the UK, with a performance at the Warwick Arts Centre on July 5th!

Monday 12 May 2008

Crutches dance

Found via snotr:

It seems that this is the music video for Work it out by Rjd2. The music is quite good; the video even better!

Sunday 11 May 2008

Greenhorn: a definite improvement

Last year, episode 6, The Lazarus Experiment, was, just like this year's The Doctor's Daughter written by Stephen Greenhorn. However, where the human-scorpion episode was a bit meh, and felt a bit like a shopping list for the end of the series (ageing device? check. Mr Saxon paranoia? check. Jones family? check. Human nature? big check), The Doctor's Daughter impressively manages to be an original piece of fiction, on a definitely alien planet, and checks more subtly the shopping list Russel T Davies doubtlessly gave Greenhorn. Beware, spoilers for episode 4x06 follow!



The piece opens on the TARDIS landing in the middle of trouble (as usual), and a machine extrapolates, from a sample from the Doctor's hand, what can fairly be called his daughter. It is a nice and original way of giving offspring to the Doctor without any implication of intercourse, and without tying it to the classic series (which would have had diehard fans screaming and cringing). It also follows on the theme of the nature of a Time Lord as a soldier, alluded to in The Fires of Pompeii. Unsurprisingly, then, the Time War gets a namecheck.
During the first few minutes, Martha is abducted (in a way that strangely reminds us of Gridlock) by the fish-like Hath. As a result, we can follow two distinct, however similar, stories - the Hath and the humans. Two factions which seem to be in an endless war against one another, to which is added the quest for a mystical artifact. At this point, and with all the seemingly meaningless numbers which keep popping up as well as a "map" which is expanded by a turn of sonic screwdriver, the threadbare simplicity of the reasons for the war and the relative youth of the warriors, everything points to a story that would be mocking RPGs, and I must admit I half expected an overlord (the player) to appear to explain it all away.
It is quite possible that giving this impression was deliberate, insofar as some elements are not accounted for by the (far more brilliant and original) explanation given at the end. For instance, why all the corridors are zigzagging. Or the laser beam thingy. Still, the result is that the viewer keeps guessing what the real story behind all this is, and yet is surprised at the end. As a byproduct of this process, our mind can focus on the other aspects of the story.
Like the Doctor's father side. Or his humanity. And, more importantly, his warrior side, revealed by his daughter. And there, hats off to David Tennant, who gives in this episode his best performance in NewWho. Even better than his monologue against the Beast from The Satan Pit. And he does it twice - once explaining the Time War to his daughter, and then at the end, in his I would never speech. Both awesome, toned-down performances. If the show were not his to start with, one could say he definitely stole it. And competition was rude - Freema was as good as ever, albeit slightly overacting when her Hath friend died; Catherine Tate kept on being the pleasant surprise she's been since the start of the series, minus the annoying tears. And Miss Moffet, the Doctor's Daughter, gave a flawless performance!
So what is to be remembered of this episode, then? Is there a moral message? The answer is yes - a message of tolerance, a lecture on the futility of war. And here's an interesting fact: the TARDIS is supposed to translate stuff directly into its crew's brains, right? Yet, all we could hear from the Hath was a gurgle; but Martha seemed to have little trouble getting herself understood or understanding them. This implies that the TARDIS did its job, only we didn't get the translated bits. Thus, Martha could sympathise with the Hath; where the Doctor and Donna had trouble getting themselves understood by the humans. By making the Hath sound more alien but act more humanely, Greenhorn emphasises the message of tolerance from the episode.



Now on to the speculation and shopping-list check. Once more, we get the old "we're not a couple/we're not married" line. It may be little more than just an inside joke, but it is quite interesting, especially considering that Donna first appeared in a wedding dress. What's more, the emphasis is put on Martha being herself settled down, showing that TARDIS crew can settle down. Now, even though in the light of spoilers concerning the Christmas Special, I do not believe it, it strongly hints on the Doctor settling down in modern-day Earth (because it wouldn't be any place else). After all, it was so in the Pertwee years, and I reckon in some of the Virgin New Adventures as well.
The recurring theme of the Warrior Doctor comes back as well. What follows is pure fanw*nk theory, but what if, following on the settling down of the Doctor, next year's specials were all about the Time War (or even, this year's finale?).
Rose, for once, is not here. However, UNIT appears in the background. Bring Ross back for the finale. Again, fanw*nk, obviously.
And, as someone mentioned on The Doctor Who forums terraforming is present as well. In Partners in Crime and Planet of the Ood, this was less obvious, but a planet was still used in a way it should not have. In Fires of Pompeii, the Pyroviles were trying to terraform Earth, just like the Sontarans in Helen Raynor's two-parter. And now, terraforming appears at the end of the Doctor's Daughter.
CAREFUL, the following speculation is VERY SPOILERY: it is possible that Skaro is terraformed in the finale. It is rumoured that episode 12 is called War on Skaro, so whether it is happening before or after the Time War, I reckon terraforming will play some role in it.



I couldn't finish this review without mentioning the great Murray Gold: after a couple of dodgy episodes in terms of music, the score is back on par with the first three series. It was good to hear the new arrangement of the Gallifrey tune, with a bassoon, and those drums towards the end! A new theme (or one I didn't pick up before) has appeared, I guess it is linked with the Doctor's Daughter, and it is awesome. Here's a request for Mr Gold - how about some clarinet next time? ;-)
All in all, The Doctor's Daughter was an excellent episode, on par with the best - and this, despite its filler slot! The new series has lots of individual episodes which are better than their series 3 equivalent; however, it does not seem to be much more than the sum of its parts. Maybe it will all come together in a masterscheme unveiled for the finale!
Bring out the wasps! At a later time of 7. More viewers?

Saturday 10 May 2008

A petition

Avoid clicking the link if you have not seen The Poison Sky yet.
Here you go.

Tuesday 6 May 2008

Raynor: not too bad!

After last year's episode five, Evolution of the Daleks, the odds were not in favour of a good second part to the Sontaran story, The Poison sky.
However, Helen Raynor, for once, managed to pull off a good enough story. Following on last week's Sontaran Stratagem, it would seem that she pitched the returning elements from the classic series just right: the Sontarans were good (despite their teeth), UNIT was its good old self, minus the Brig (who got a namecheck), and the Tenth Doctor went back (in a maybe too obvious way) to his basics: giving a chance, but no second chances.
It looks like Doctor Who is going back to the classic series' recipe - a cliffhanger that, even though was tense, is solved within seconds of the second part, the Doctor disliking military chumps, and yet liking some of them, nicely action-packed (but no ridiculous James Bond-like chase scene [Planets of the Spiders, anyone?]).
Two disappointements with the story, however. One, clone Martha does not work that well as a clone who suddenly gets feelings etc. As someone on the Doctor Who forums pointed out, it looks like Helen Raynor has a thing for humanising "monsters". After the Hybrid from last year. Two, why, why on Earth did they have to kill off Ross Jenkins? Just like last year, it is a waste of a perfect opportunity to expand the series in a very interesting direction (a UNIT-strong series, human Dalek last year). And it is a shame!
Still, Ross might not be dead. He may just be stunned! One can but hope.
Talking of hope, next week's looks like a totally weird episode, that can be either a complete rewrite of the Doctor Who mythology, or a total screw-up!