First meta (of the new year)
Found on a Doctor Who community (RTD refers to Russell T. Davies, one of the show’s producers): “I feel quite happy to critique RTD's plotting and writing without having to offer an alternative.”
That statement bothers me. Not the bit about RTD’s writing; certainly, the poster is welcome to his opinions, whether I agree with them or not. No, the real problem in that sentence is the bit about not offering an alternative.
Maybe it’s the writer in me, but I always figured that if you thought something was bad, you instinctively knew what would have made it good. Otherwise, what basis would you use for comparison? “Man, that really sucked.” “Okay, what would have made it not suck?” “I dunno, just… something else.”
Does. Not. Compute.
When I negatively review an episode of one of my series, I have reasons for disliking it: “Red Sky” was bad because they ignored both scientific reality and SG’s own canon; “That Which Is Lost” was bad because neither Ed nor Al learned anything of value; “Love and Monsters” was bad because the Doctor and Rose were treated like secondary characters. In all three cases the alternative (at least one of them) is fairly obvious.
So, my questions are: is it okay to just say “New Who sucks, the last episode sucked, RTD’s writing sucks,” without going any further or giving any reasons? Is my brain the only one that automatically says, “they shouldn’t have done that, they should have done _x_ instead?” And, could I really write a better episode of SG than “Red Sky?”
Don't know about the others, but on that last one, I’d have to say, “yeah.” :)
That statement bothers me. Not the bit about RTD’s writing; certainly, the poster is welcome to his opinions, whether I agree with them or not. No, the real problem in that sentence is the bit about not offering an alternative.
Maybe it’s the writer in me, but I always figured that if you thought something was bad, you instinctively knew what would have made it good. Otherwise, what basis would you use for comparison? “Man, that really sucked.” “Okay, what would have made it not suck?” “I dunno, just… something else.”
Does. Not. Compute.
When I negatively review an episode of one of my series, I have reasons for disliking it: “Red Sky” was bad because they ignored both scientific reality and SG’s own canon; “That Which Is Lost” was bad because neither Ed nor Al learned anything of value; “Love and Monsters” was bad because the Doctor and Rose were treated like secondary characters. In all three cases the alternative (at least one of them) is fairly obvious.
So, my questions are: is it okay to just say “New Who sucks, the last episode sucked, RTD’s writing sucks,” without going any further or giving any reasons? Is my brain the only one that automatically says, “they shouldn’t have done that, they should have done _x_ instead?” And, could I really write a better episode of SG than “Red Sky?”
Don't know about the others, but on that last one, I’d have to say, “yeah.” :)