Redemption through Redemption?

I always find Conventions inspiring and this year's Redemption was certainly no exception. It offered, however, a different form of inspiration. Usually, when I return home, I'm promising myself vaguely that I will read and/or watch more sf, more fantasy, more tie-in fiction and even read a little slash (largely because the practitioners are always interesting people). Naturally, other things get in the way and I end up reading less rather than more and watching stuff for work rather than pursuing new tv series or films that interest me particularly. This year, though, Redemption directed me towards two specific activities. Firstly, it encouraged me to go away and read Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan series. I read 'Shards of Honor' a few years ago and somehow never got around to reading any others despite enjoying the novel a great deal. When I sat on in a panel discussing the novels, it was very difficult to remain aloof from the enthusiasm inspired by Bujold's books. It made a refreshing change to sit in a room of twenty-odd people all engaged in a variety of debates about the books they had been enchanted by. Given that I'm an academic who teaches literature, that's a pretty sharp indictment of the levels of engagement we often experience from students who don't like reading and have nothing to say about the novels they were supposed to have read. Such was the enthusiasm for Bujold that I found myself digging out my (unread) Bujold collection as soon as I got home and adding it to the top of my 'must-read' pile. This bumped down a couple of Dan Simmons, which shows how keen I am to explore the Vorkosigan books.

The second thing the con inspired me to do was revisit new 'Doctor Who'. From my experiences at the con, it is clear that I'm one of the few people sceptical about the quality and content of new 'Who', particularly the work of writer-producer Russell T. Davies. Now, I could be arrogant and satisfy myself with the thought that only I am right and almost everyone else is wrong about the new show (tempting, if you're lazy or a philosopher) or I could actually do some work and try to reason out why I tend to dislike much of new 'Who'. The latter seemed more interesting as an exercise. I suspect part of this reasoning is influenced by the fact that many people I met at the con, and whose opinions I respect, are quite partisan about Davies' reworking, finding in it some brilliance that has eluded me. I began to feel that, over the last three days, I had missed something - or indeed many somethings - about the series that I should have noted. Hence, what I intend to do is re-view all of the new episodes on an irregular basis and write a short blog about each of them. I've set myself a number of criteria for each blog, however. These are:

1. Each episode will be evaluated on its own merit. I will not be reading around it. I believe that any narrative text should stand independent of comments by the writer, the producer, whoever.
2. Comparisons between 'classic' 'Doctor Who' and 'New Who' will be avoided unless there are productive similarities or contrasts. The new show, to me at least, is so radically different in visual style, direction, content and the treatment of its main characters that such an approach is unlikely to be very illuminating.
3. Each episode will be viewed without conscious prejudice. That is, even though I may have loathed a particular episode in the past, I will try to approach it with an open mind and not pre-judge what my own observations might be. This will be a challenge given my feelings towards 'Love and Monsters'.

In short, what I'm trying to do is discover whether there are foundations for my dislike of the series or whether I am reacting viscerally, emotionally. Of course, the blogs will all be subjective but at least there will be a reasoned justification for my subjective perceptions.

Next episode: Rose