You’re right on the crowbarred references, but it’s entirely deliberate and one of those innovations that’s lost impact through familiarity since: the first time Who really existed as culturally contemporary (bar the odd Beatles reference in the 60s/70s), with references to the things 70s kids grew up with and watched/read/listened to. It’s the second big generational shift in Who writers, which we don’t quite acknowledge because it’s so close to the last one, and it’s a shift that lasts up to the Chibnall era.
Paul’s right that his later books are technically better, and he may well be right that Russell would’ve made all the same moves in 2005, but it certainly opened up the books as a distinctive flavour of Who and at least pointed the way to how the series could successfully be revived. Like all revolutionary works though, you maybe had to be there to get the full impact because so much of what it brought in is just the texture of the series these days.
Which generational shifts do you mean? I think there's one in 79-80, when you start getting writers (Adams, Smith) who'd grown up with the show, and another around 88-93, when you get writers who literally never knew a world without Who. (Ben Aaronovitch, as Jim likes to point out, was the first Who writer born after An Unearthly Child.) I think we're still on the generation really - RTD and Moffat are in that age bracket, Chibnall only a few years younger.
We've had writers in my sort of age bracket, who don't remember the show being on TV the first time and grew up in the wilderness years... but they've not yet been in a position to define the direction of the show. So the next jump is either to already quite old people like me or, more likely, to people who grew up with RTD.
As to the book - yeah, it really jumps out at you, reading in order, how much of the fabric of the modern show comes from these pages. They probably would have got there anyway, but they didn't have to, there was already a version of Who that had done it they could draw on. It just wasn't the TV show.
I don’t quite see the Adams/Smith as a shift as there’s not a great impact outside S17 and their stories: the big generational shift for me comes in 1987 where Time and the Rani’s the last story written by anyone born before the end of WW2 and shaped by the long shadow it cast (post-war austerity, a world where the welfare state was a novelty). Think I’m right in saying that Adams and Smith are the only writers born after 1945 before Cartmel, exceptions rather than the rule. Maybe it’s better to say it’s a completion of the shift that Cartmel begins?
I suspect the next shift will be to the RTD1 generation, purely on the volume of fans and writers it generated. That generation of writers is already doing plenty of fun and fascinating stuff in books and audios. Though purely on how long it takes to get to exec status as a writer, I reckon we’ll likely get someone around our ages as RTD’s successor.
Yeah, maybe there's only really been one shift, it just takes ages to play out? It's striking that Andrew Smith is actually younger than Steven Moffat.
I wonder who the oldest Who writer was? I know the oldest actor was the woman who played old Sara Kingdom in The Destruction of Time, who is getting on for a century older than the new Doctor
I am kind of hoping that this is RTDs gameplan here; he wants to get "his" generation on board now to give the show a solid future when it became clear (even during his tenure) that you need more than just a good showrunner/producer combo to make a show like Who. They may be able to create a new model here, and if anyone can, Davies/Gardner may be the best shot.
You’re right on the crowbarred references, but it’s entirely deliberate and one of those innovations that’s lost impact through familiarity since: the first time Who really existed as culturally contemporary (bar the odd Beatles reference in the 60s/70s), with references to the things 70s kids grew up with and watched/read/listened to. It’s the second big generational shift in Who writers, which we don’t quite acknowledge because it’s so close to the last one, and it’s a shift that lasts up to the Chibnall era.
Paul’s right that his later books are technically better, and he may well be right that Russell would’ve made all the same moves in 2005, but it certainly opened up the books as a distinctive flavour of Who and at least pointed the way to how the series could successfully be revived. Like all revolutionary works though, you maybe had to be there to get the full impact because so much of what it brought in is just the texture of the series these days.
Which generational shifts do you mean? I think there's one in 79-80, when you start getting writers (Adams, Smith) who'd grown up with the show, and another around 88-93, when you get writers who literally never knew a world without Who. (Ben Aaronovitch, as Jim likes to point out, was the first Who writer born after An Unearthly Child.) I think we're still on the generation really - RTD and Moffat are in that age bracket, Chibnall only a few years younger.
We've had writers in my sort of age bracket, who don't remember the show being on TV the first time and grew up in the wilderness years... but they've not yet been in a position to define the direction of the show. So the next jump is either to already quite old people like me or, more likely, to people who grew up with RTD.
As to the book - yeah, it really jumps out at you, reading in order, how much of the fabric of the modern show comes from these pages. They probably would have got there anyway, but they didn't have to, there was already a version of Who that had done it they could draw on. It just wasn't the TV show.
I don’t quite see the Adams/Smith as a shift as there’s not a great impact outside S17 and their stories: the big generational shift for me comes in 1987 where Time and the Rani’s the last story written by anyone born before the end of WW2 and shaped by the long shadow it cast (post-war austerity, a world where the welfare state was a novelty). Think I’m right in saying that Adams and Smith are the only writers born after 1945 before Cartmel, exceptions rather than the rule. Maybe it’s better to say it’s a completion of the shift that Cartmel begins?
I suspect the next shift will be to the RTD1 generation, purely on the volume of fans and writers it generated. That generation of writers is already doing plenty of fun and fascinating stuff in books and audios. Though purely on how long it takes to get to exec status as a writer, I reckon we’ll likely get someone around our ages as RTD’s successor.
Yeah, maybe there's only really been one shift, it just takes ages to play out? It's striking that Andrew Smith is actually younger than Steven Moffat.
I wonder who the oldest Who writer was? I know the oldest actor was the woman who played old Sara Kingdom in The Destruction of Time, who is getting on for a century older than the new Doctor
I think it’s Geoffrey Orme, and that’s by a distance - born in 1904, with Bill Strutton next in 1915.
I am kind of hoping that this is RTDs gameplan here; he wants to get "his" generation on board now to give the show a solid future when it became clear (even during his tenure) that you need more than just a good showrunner/producer combo to make a show like Who. They may be able to create a new model here, and if anyone can, Davies/Gardner may be the best shot.
There's the hope that new writers might emerge and be mentored through various of the Expanded Universe spinoffs.
Steve Gallagher born 1954.
There a few other writers born after 45. Stephen Gallagher. Christopher Bailey. Glen McCoy. Names to conjure with.
My understanding is that there was a 6th Doctor / Valeyard section that PDE/Bex asked to be cut out.