Shakespeare'sQuill.co.uk

The following entry is a replacement for a planned post concerning Wimbledon which has been rained off.

Did you see the 3rd series finale of Dr Who, ‘Last of the Time Lords’? I’m not sure what to make of it. This series has been my favourite so far, with a marvellous new addition to the regular cast along with some imaginative and diverse plotlines, and I still think that Russell T. Davis’s writing is among the most reliable and trustworthy on television at the moment but I can’t help feeling that something’s gone awry. I was let down by the conclusion and, I hate to admit this, I’m not excited about the Christmas special.

Beware! There will be spoilers.

Before I sound as though I hated the whole thing I’ll start with the usual good things. There were top-notch performances, excellent CGI, nice little tie-ins with past episodes and with Torchwood and some terrific music.

However, there were three things that left me feeling cheated of the finish, I feel, the rest of the series had promised. Firstly, Martha leaving?! Yes, it’s left open for her to call the Doctor, and if Richard of Richard and Judy is right she will be back for the next series but it doesn’t make for a satisfying ending. Martha’s a strong and fiesty character, with intellect and drive so the ‘will she/won’t she’ thing isn’t working for me. Martha’s decisive: either she’s with the Doctor or she isn’t.

Messing around like that is just manipulating the audience. While I know the job of a writer is to create a tension by manipulating the audience, but isn’t the trick to ensure they don’t notice that? If they feel manipulated you run the risk of alienating or insulting the very people you’re trying to entertain. That’s certainly how I felt watching it.

The second problem I had was with the end of The Master. Refusing to regenerate! What a let down and a cop out.

Great scene for Tennant though. But isn’t killing off the Doctor’s best villain a bit like shooting yourself in the foot? I do so hope that Davis has a wonderful plan for his resurrection. Something that isn’t obvious, such as using the object lifted out of The Master’s ashes. That felt a little rushed to me. As though someone thought they’d made a mistake and had to rectify it quickly. Although the death could be a great opportunity to cast another actor of the calibre of Derek Jacobi - more villainous in his few minutes than Simm in two full-length episodes.

The last cheat was the revelation about the Face of Boe. Two characters being one! No. No. No. The phrase that springs to mind isn’t one I want to appear in type. As a long-time fan of the show I’m just plain unhappy about that. Apart from my love of the general gorgeousness that is Captain Jack and indignation about what this then makes him, it just doesn’t make sense.

In series 2 the face of Boe told the Doctor he had something to impart the third time they met; how would Boe know which time that would be when technically they’ve travelled together many times before? I just can’t figure it out because every time I try to work out the timelines it still works out that Boe knows they’ve met many more times than that so how does he know the Doctor doesn’t know that? I’m confused. Russell T. Davis, I’m on my knees, please explain it soon.

I applaud the concept of ‘The Pen is Mightier’ behind the revival of the Doctor but telepathy reversing time and leading to levitation asked me to suspend my disbelief a step too far, even for Sci-Fi. The effect it’s had is that I don’t care that the Titanic has crashed into the Tardis now. Last week I would have.

What did you think about it all? Did anyone actually find it satisfying?

Thank you for the replies (0):

Yay, it’s The Eurovision Song Contest night again. I love Eurovision. Have done since I was little and used to beg to stay up late to see whether the UK had won, back in the days when we, or any western country, stood a chance of winning.

Not that I’m going to go into a rant about political voting. I’ve always been drawn to the eastern European entries anyway. Estonia caught my attention a few years before they won, 1994 or 1996, and I’ve been searching for their entry ever since. It was in the days before it became cool to watch so no CD was released.

I’m still kicking myself for not putting a bet on Estonia the year they won. I’d contemplated placing it online before the show that year - they were 110-1. I used to predict the winner a lot back then, shame I’ve lost that skill.

Now for my thoughts on this year:

Marvellous staging. Spectacular and actually quite artistic. The presenters have been too intrusive either, which is nice.

The UK’s Scootch is Eurovision friendly with quite an appropriate ‘flying the flag’ theme and it’s rather fun. Although I don’t hold out much hope for getting into double figures with the votes. Mind you, it got quite a good cheer from the audience.

So far I’m backing Sweden. It was funky, psychedelic and foot-tappingly retro fun. But I’ve also enjoyed the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, annd Hungary but wouldn’t mind the simple artistry of Lithuania’s performance to win.

I didn’t mind the Bosnia and Herzegovina and Moldova entries either. Big, belt songs.

The Ukrainian entry was insane!

Romania’s effort smacked of desperation to me. All those languages.

I did rate all the entries out of ten, being the Eurovision nerd that I am, but I won’t bore you with it. I miss being able to see Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway and Cyprus though. Norway always came up with something interesting.

So what’s my top pick? I think Sweden was the best entry but that Ukraine will win.

Who do want to win?

Thank you for the replies (0):

I’ve been contemplating joining PayPerPost. I’ve signed up and been nosing around, asking a few questions before throwing myself in head first. Their community is incredibly friendly. Everyone’s keen, helpful and nice and I think I could enjoy it there. But as I poked around I got a little unsettled. Maybe I’m a bit cynical but I don’t believe there’s such a thing as altruism and as I’ve heard a number of bloggers bashing PPP posts I did a bit more digging into it. I’m now torn. I have to admit, I have difficulty with elemtents of it.

It’s not the Sponsored posts themselves with which I have difficulty. I’ve yet to meet a 4 year old who can’t recognise an advertisement when they see one and we, as readers, are all more than capable of making the choice to read one of those posts or to skip it. So, in my mind, to say it corrupts the blog content itself is naive. On most blogs the other posts are normal and we’re all media savvy enough to take sponspored posts with a pinch of salt and maybe even learn about something new, the blog we’re reading or ourselves. So I see the posts can be quite useful, which is why I’m contemplating them.

No, for me, the problem with PPP comes from elsewhere. The higher your blog ranks in various methods of measuring these things, such as Google, Alexa and Technorati, the more your blogs posts are worth and consequently, the more the blogger can earn. It makes sense for advertisers to reward those with larger readerships and greater internet exposure expontentially. But that brings with it unscrupulous exploitation.

There are a number of PPP bloggers who are increasing their Google and Alexa PageRanks by exchanging links with anyone who asks, not just sites they like. When I visit a site, there are certain things that will make me warm to it and its owner. Usually it’s a shared interest or outlook on the world, and it’s this perceived connection that makes me feel I can trust their judgement. I’ll take time to visit their admired or blogrolled links assuming that there will something of interest to me somewhere there as well.

Take Valiant Knife as an example. I discovered this webmistress years ago and felt like I had found a kindred spirit in her passion for literature and history. So after exploring her site, I visited the sites on her links page and, sure enough, I found several other sites I visit at least once a month, even years later. Some bloggers, such as Jenn clearly label the links they exchange for PPP purposes, but I’ve visited many that don’t. I’ve followed links and found myself looking at sites that are about things the first person has clearly stated they abhor. True, they could still be friends but the cynic in me says it’s to do with rankings. And that contradiction confuses this poor old brain of mine.

Even more worryingly, in my mind, is the manner in which some of the bloggers themselves are manipulating other sites, and consequently deceiving all of its visitors. I find it to be morally dubious and a subversion of everything I love about the internet. Strong words, I know, but let me explain.

Sites such as Technorati are built on word-of-mouth and this word of mouth has to be honest. I’ve seen a number of people add numerous sites to their technorati profiles because someone else has asked them to. This ‘you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’ attitude is subverting the organic nature and accuracy of other recommendations. When I visit technorati, I expect a favourited blog to be someone’s favourite not a favour for a stranger. Where’s the honesty? the transparency many of these people have declared in the individual ‘Disclosure’ policies?

There’s nothing wrong with doing a favour for a mate, but if they are your mate then you’ll have done these things already, so you won’t need to ask strangers. These sites should showcase the best of user-generated web content and it’s made me wary of them.

And it’s not PayPerPost’s fault: it’s the individual bloggers themselves who make those choices. So my question is: is it possible to become an active and successful member of the PayPerPost community without compromising my integrity? I guess there’s only one way to find out.

Thank you for the replies (1):

Guess whose telly broke down? No sooner has Persiflage been launched than it’s all quiet on the TV front with an alarming smell of burning emanating from the corner of the room. Much to-ing and fro-ing ensued when the replacement didn’t work either. Apparently modern devices have difficulty connecting a DVD and a VHS. Who knew?

There is now a shiny square one in its place. It has the most unusual screen I’ve ever seen: it’s got a bizarre, almost circular, tint around the outside that colourises the edges of the picture, blues become purples and pinks; greens and oranges become yellow. Sounds hideous but it’s creating the most beautiful pictures I’ve seen outside an art gallery. Skylines, in particular, are now wonderfully artistic and somehow it’s really relaxing on the eyes. Impressionism on the ‘Box’. Literally.

During Persiflage’s little hiatus, Shakespeare’s Quill has managed to attain a Google PageRank of 2! Persiflage’s itself is 1. Not too bad for only a couple months online and with lots to come.

So what have I been watching? Not a lot of new things really, but I’ll leave the DVDs for another time and concentrate on new transmissions. Apart from the lack of a TV set, there seems to have been a drought in the schedules with few ‘must-see’ programmes around. Doctor Who being the one exception.

I’ve loved this programme since I was little; am especially fond of David Tennant’s Doctor, he has a likable and trustworthy quality that I think the Doctor needs. So I was looking forward to seeing his new sidekick. Freema Agyeman’s beauty struck me during the final storyline of Season 2; she and David looked good together so on the surface she seemed perfect. The only question was whether she’d step into Rose’s shoes. The answer was that she didn’t; she stepped into her own shoes and, for me at least, has created a a companion with greater presence and potential than I can recall seeing before.

Don’t get me wrong, I liked Rose. I was impressed with Billie Piper’s acting talents and screen presence and cried buckets during her final scenes with the Doctor, but the character always seemed to me to lack something that marked her out as her own person. We saw her stranded, helping the Doctor by working things out on her own but it never rang true with me. Yes, she had the intuition and empathy that the Doctor seemed, at times, to try to leave behind but she was a girl who was defined by the Doctor and was that enough? Martha is a multi-faceted woman. She has it all: intuition, empathy, beauty, independence, direction and intelligence. I can’t wait to see how she develops. I just hope the production doesn’t bottle out on a character with the potential to be such a powerful role in her own right.

On a sidenote, I had to mention it: the Shakespeare episode filled me with joy. You know why.

Thank you for the replies (0):

Re: BBC3s The Real Dirty Dancing. Does any one else want to be a Burlesque Dancer?

That is all.

Thank you for the replies (2):