Published as Reader Reminiscenses – “Is Old ‘Who’ Good and New ‘Who’ Bad?”, Infinity #4, 2017.
Awww, it’s my first published article, written following an online invitation for new material. I’m trying a little too hard in places but overall I’m very fond of this one. These days I use “Fanboy” rather than “Fan” as a derogatory term, as it’s much funnier. Speaking of which, issue six carried a letter which said that I’d ‘missed certain points’ and that the whole thing was ‘not enough’. In short, the letter was a perfect example of the blinkered Fanboy whining I’m attacking. In the unlikely event that Mark Brunton from Lincoln is reading this, you’re a prick.
Hello. I’m a Doctor Who fan. Even after 12 years of everyone liking Who, why is that so difficult to type? Maybe because of the stigma that still attaches itself to being a fan, the stereotype of the socially inadequate dribbling fanboy is ever present in the mind of the lazy journalist. We fans are not alone, anyone who votes UKIP is a rabid Little-Englander, football supporters are beer-swilling hooligans, people who like Mrs Brown’s Boys have no sense of humour – er, hold on, you know there might be something in this stereotyping lark. Even the most broadminded of us will occasionally resort to social and political shorthand, it’s how we manage to make it through the day. But there’s more to it than this. Sad to say, the biggest problem with the general perception of fans is, well, the fans themselves.
And despite all this I still don’t identify as a Fan. I need to make something clear, I’m not having a go at the “traditional” fan. The sort you’ll see at signings and conventions all over the world. Often dressed in black, somewhat overweight, awkward around others and clutching stacks of merchandise. Partly because enthusiasm and devotion are surely to be applauded in these smart and cynical times, and partly because that description does sound a bit like me. Yes, they may seem incapable of talking about anything other than their obsession, but in the same way many parents cannot last a minute without mentioning their children. And I know what I’d rather hear about. One of the best qualities of The Big Bang Theory is that it has a lot of fun with sci-fi fans, but always retains an affection for the characters. Or in Who terms, it is never cruel or cowardly. Of the fans that I’ve encountered in person or online, 90% of them have been genuinely decent people, funny, dedicated and self-aware. Which does leave us with 10% who, shall we say, fall slightly short of the mark.
Perhaps some examples would help define my theory. Or in Who terms, I intend to adumbrate typical instances from separate epistopic interfaces of the spectrum. And why not start with the biggest bone of contention in Who history, even bigger than UNIT dating or just exactly what was that Dalek doing in the Thames – the old series versus the current series.
Let’s make one thing absolutely clear, the show being broadcast today is the same one which started in 1963. Why can’t we just call the whole thing Doctor Who? I use the terms ‘old’ and ‘new’ only as handy temporal identifiers. “Nu Who” is precisely the sort of phrase that the Doctor would be appalled by, and frankly referring to stories such as The Time Monster as “Classic Who” is a bit rich. Yet many Fans eagerly express their disdain for the current series by saying “It’s not Doctor Who“.
Not since Michael Hayes looked at the Taran Wood Beast and said “Yes, that’ll be alright” has there been such an absurd statement. We’re not talking canon here – there are valid reasons why offshoots such as the Amicus films (fun though they are), Big Finish (frequently excellent) and even the TV Movie (a mixed bag) may or may not be considered canon, but if something is made by the BBC and called “Doctor Who” then what you are watching is Doctor Who. You might not like it, but don’t make specious claims about its authenticity. I can’t stand The Creature From The Pit but it would be ridiculous to deny its status as Doctor Who. And yes, I have got the DVD. And yes, I have watched it recently. I’m a fan. Choosing to watch something you don’t like – is there a better definition of being a fan?
The inanity of the “Doctor Who ended in 1989″ contingent becomes even clearer when you examine their necessary assumption that the old series is a uniform product. The Aztecs is about as similar to Inferno as Dragonfire is to Turn Left. But they’re all Doctor Who. The tendency of Fans to belittle the current series in relation to the old conveniently ignores the fact that 30 years ago the same Fans would be slagging off Sylvester McCoy stories for not being “proper” Doctor Who. This is another trait of Fans, they will draw a line and declare that anything after that is rubbish. The line will entirely coincidentally be somewhere around their tenth birthday. When John Nathan-Turner said “the memory cheats” he was met with howls of derision, but he was absolutely right. Who is not unique in this respect, in George Melly’s excellent autobiography Owning Up we see exactly the same attitudes displayed by jazz fans in the fifties. “Old Who good, New Who bad” is ridiculous. Not as ridiculous as trying to open the TARDIS doors underwater to flush out the Master, but still ridiculous. “Doctor Who is rubbish these days” often means “I’m not six years old any more, boo-hoo”. Yes, there are some who only have eyes for the current series and of course that is equally blinkered, but it is nowhere near as prevalent an attitude as the opposite. I’ve yet to see a facebook group called “Doctor Who Fans Hate The Original Series”.
I’m not saying that the current series is better than the original or vice versa. They’re equally good, and equally bad. I much prefer the Fifth Doctor to the Tenth, and would rather watch Christopher Eccleston than Williams-era Tom Baker. You might be the polar opposite, which is great. But I’m not going to tell you you’re wrong. Because it’s your choice, your taste, your opinion.
Fans laying down the law about what constitutes good or even “real” Doctor Who is not a 21st Century phenomenon. As well as upsetting Mary Whitehouse, The Deadly Assassin prompted a thundering attack from the then president of the Doctor Who Appreciation Society, who hit his Caps Lock key and demanded to know “WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE MAGIC OF DOCTOR WHO?”. In the seventies and eighties the elder statesmen (and it really was just men) of fandom issued decrees on the worthiness of certain stories, or at least the ones they could remember seeing. You never heard about The Smugglers or The Faceless Ones. Maybe the elder statesmen’s Mums didn’t let them stay up to watch those stories. Of course, in the absence of being able to actually see them we believed what were told. And so it was that a generation grew up knowing for a fact that The Gunfighters was the worst Who story of all time. Then along came VHS releases and the scales fell from our eyes. Remember how we were told that The Daemons was the epitome of scary Who? How no horror film could come close to the sheer unadulterated terror of Devil’s End? The somewhat unexpected early nineties repeat on BBC2 revealed it to be great, but not exactly in the bed-wetting league. Undeterred, the elder statesmen anointed The Tomb of the Cybermen as the official best-ever story. What’s that? Weren’t born when it aired? Oh, poor you. What a story. And you never saw it, and you know what, you never will. I did. Never mind that I was five at the time and hardly at the peak of my critical faculties, I saw it, you didn’t, therefore I am perfectly entitled to say it was the best. What’s that? Found in Hong Kong? Oh no…
Tomb is alright, but no more than that. Of course it had been assigned a reputation it couldn’t possibly live up to and it would be daft to blame the story for that. But that doesn’t stop present day fans making similarly absurd pronouncements. A few years ago a Who forum (I can’t remember which one, I really try and avoid them these days) ran an exercise to determine the best ever story. The result? The Power Of The Daleks. Now this was prior to the cartoon version being released, so anyone under 55 had to base their opinion on the audio, telesnaps and book. I’m sorry, but you can’t rate a television story if you haven’t seen it. You can listen to the soundtrack and state “This sounds good, I’d love to see this”, you can read the book and say “What a cracking plot” but what you can’t do is say “This is the best-ever story”. It probably is at least very good, but until you actually watch it you can’t make a definitive judgement. Even if you’ve watched the version with the rather sinister cartoons. You can rate that as an animated version, but you can’t compare it against an existing story. Where people have more than three facial expressions.
Although fan militancy isn’t anything new – you can bet your life someone wrote to the BBC in early December 1963 saying “Doctor Who used to be a contemporary mystery adventure, but now has gone into the realms of absurdity with this silly caveman story. The show is a sad shadow of its former self” – it is much more accessible thanks to the internet. When the aforementioned lazy journalists want an easy story, a quick visit to any forum will provide them with plenty of inspiration. And which headline do you think most pleases the editor? “Fans hail latest series as best yet” or “Fans slam latest series”. Throw in a few words from an anonymous BBC “source”, a photo of Peter Capaldi and hey presto – instant story. In the 1980s all we had to contend with was a few self-appointed experts going on BBC shows like Did You See? and Open Air to slag off JNT-era Who because it wasn’t being made exactly the way they wanted it to be. It would be nice for the tables to be turned on these juvenile critics, but that’s never going to happen. Is it Chris?
One of the reasons I avoid forums is the generally low standard of debate, which rarely rises above the level of “I’m right, you’re wrong”. Whilst this is endemic on the internet in general, it’s especially depressing when encountered in discussions about a hero who preaches tolerance and acceptance. Until the final episode that is, when he usually blows the bad guys up. My last foray into online discourse was daring to suggest that maybe Terry Nation’s script for Genesis of the Daleks had been slightly polished by Robert Holmes, bearing in mind the respective quality of their previous offerings. Turns out I was completely wrong and had obviously misunderstood the purpose of a script editor. Silly me.
I’m not saying that we should never criticise Who, which if we’re honest has enjoyed a fluctuating relationship with the concept of quality control. But let’s do it constructively. You might hate Delta and the Bannermen. I love it. Tell me why you hate it, you’ll be highly unlikely to change my mind, but at least we’ll be behaving like intelligent beings. And I’ll promise to do the same in defending or attacking any stories. Apart from New Earth. That was shit.