#oscars #WatchInstead BBCA: The Doctors Revisited – Second Doctor

The Doctors Revisited – Second Doctor | Videos | Doctor Who | BBC America

Sure, you could watch the Oscars with the bulk of the twitterverse, but you'd be much better served watching this classic Doctor Who instead. They did a nice job putting together a special for The Aztecs last month, so I'm very much looking forward to his edition and the presentation of The Tomb of the Cybermen. This is a great opportunity to not watch Seth McFarlane try to wring a few laughs out of Ted which, if it were going to happen, would have at least once during the entire feature film devoted it. Watching black-and-white, scientifically-dodgy-but-oh-so-charming British TV that's even older than me will not only give you far more to laugh with and occasionally at (and I mean the dialogue, not just the special effects), it will prepare you for full-on geekgasm later this year when we get the 50th anniversary special.

Besides, following a few clever tweeters and watching their feeds out the corner of your eye will give you all you need to know about the Oscars, without actually enduring it.

Readlists - Gather and share some of your favorite longer reads ...

Cryptonautical - Readlists

An intriguing way to share a group of themed articles.

Here's how the embed looks:


If you make one after seeing this, please share.

FTR, before using my own posts as an example, I tried doing this for some of Mr. Murphy's posts over at the GitM, but I guess it didn't like his WordPress theme. Which is a shame, because they're much better reading.


↬ The Morning News

Philosophers and scientists getting to the bottom of things on the @state_of_things

Philosopher Searches For The Origin Of The Psychopath | WUNC: 

“Many people have some of these traits,” said Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, professor of philosophy at Duke University, during an interview on the State of Things. “The thing about psychopathy is it’s a perfect storm.”

Heard the tail end of this on the way to the vet's this afternoon so I came home to catch it from the beginning. What caught my attention was the discussion of how the formulation of non-ambiguous questions and the perspective of the philosopher working with the scientist to design studies is helping to increase our understanding of the roots of psychopathy.

Related: Dr. Michael Caldwell on the treatment of psychopaths.

------------------
In case you're wondering why the atheism label on this post, it's meant to underscore that philosophers and scientists can work together because they are both honestly engaged in attempting to gain a deeper understanding of reality. They are not working in the magisterium of the theologian. 

I'd already applied the label before I had listened to the point the discussion turned to theism, the Problem of Evil, and religious morality.

The Caves of Androzani: "Is this wise, I ask myself?"

BBC - Doctor Who Classic Episode Guide - The Caves of Androzani - Details

Season 21, Story 6 (Complete Series Story #136) | Previous - Next | Index

I love and hate this story. That is to say, I love it because it's one of the better stories of the classic series and I hate that it means the end of the Davison era -- and it's all downhill from here. Sure, there are a few bright spots even as the series lurches through its death throes, but there was nothing better for twenty long years of experienced time on the audience's part. I wanted to like Colin Baker, I really did. And I think he could have been a fine Doctor except for the misfortune of landing the role as the show was being run into the ground.

Nicola Bryant is much more at ease and playful as Peri in this one than she was Planet of Fire, bantering with Peter Davison as they explore the sands of Androzani Minor and a little later when she and Five were finishing each other's sentences with sirs for the General; it's a shame they didn't have more time together. She also gets to ask a pertinent question about part of the Doctor's "costume," so we know the celery is, somewhat puzzlingly, meant to alert him the presence of an allergen (which, if he's allergic to the stuff, you'd think he'd know by the allergic reaction) and just be a healthy snack.

It's not all light-hearted quipping though, not by a long shot. Davison is occasionally sharp and callous (as when Peri falls into the raw spectrox: "Probably harmless," "But it stings," "Well, don't fall in any more of it,")  traits that will be overplayed by his successors in the classic series, and Five's death blow is (ignominiously) dealt to him early, though he won't realize it for a while.

Sharaz Jek is not the main villain of the story, though he's an interesting one with kind of observational powers that make him compelling. He tells the Doctor: "You have the mouth of a prattling jackanapes... But your eyes... they tell a different story." He is also transfixed by Peri's innocence and beauty, so the viewer immediately feels a certain sympatico.

Jek and Five

Jek raises some interesting questions about the nature of the Doctor's relationship with his companions. Jek would like to keep Peri around as a reminder of what it is to be uncorrupted, but ironically, she'd probably be just as safe, though imprisoned, with him as running around getting into adventures with the Doctor. It's mad, when you think about it, that he travels with companions. They're always in terrible danger and, much as he'd like, he can't protect them from all of them. The current show makes a point showing us he needs companions to be his best, but to some extent that runs the risk of reducing them to crutches for the Doctor instead of autonomous, fully-realized persons in their own right. Five, like Nine does later for Rose, and Ten does later for Wilf, sacrifices himself to save Peri, recognizing that she is every bit as important as he is and that he, with the ability to save her, has an obligation to do so, even if it means sacrificing himself. Or, at least, an aspect of himself.

As a quibbler, I feel obliged to quibble about a couple things: first, about that spectrox, I'm surprised the Doctor has been to this system before but didn't know what that (tremendously valuable, widely known) substance was; and, second, he calls a die a "dice." When there's only one, it's a die. C'mon, Doctor, you should know that.

Oh, and I nearly forgot about the magma monster -- not very magmanificent. It's like they said, "Hey, we're shooting in a bunch of narrow hallways dressed as caves, there ought to a monster shambling around down here ... what, no budget? Well, toss something together anyway!"

It's the classic series though, so we expect odd, shambling monsters and move on ...

Ultimately, this one one you need to have in your collection. Tea with Morbius (a nod to one of my favorite episodes, and another Holmes-penned -- with Dicks, under a pseudonym -- tale involving a mad scientist and a Fountain of Youth substance) rightly elevates this story over some of the classic series stories generally mentioned as being one of the best ... though I'm surprised anyone gets that excited about City of Death, one of the more tedious Fourth Doctor entries, as I remember it.

*Wonders how long "cyberpragmatics" has been a word*

Language Log | The cyberpragmatics of bounding asterisks: 

The origins of such usage likely can be found in text-based role-playing games in MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons/Domains), which were superseded by IRC and instant-messaging interfaces. As one "Role Play Manual of Style" explains, "Actions are enclosed in asterisks and written in third person perspective." But this type of asterisking has thoroughly infected Usenet posts, blog comments, tweets, and anywhere else online that people feel the need to describe real-world actions in a virtual space. 

So, by giving yourself your own stage directions enclosed in asterisks, you treat your own words as lines in a play, and then step outside of your character to give the perspective of the playwright in the play you're acting in. It's all so meta.

ᔥ NEILALIEN