Monthly Archives: August 2011

Who Review: Let’s Kill Hitler

The Time Lord(s) returned to television last night in the first episode of the second half of the sixth series (phew). Having finally dropped the bombshell of the identity of River Song, now Steven Moffat gets to have some fun with the character. Oh, and Hitler’s there too.

First, let’s talk about Hitler. His fleeting cameo appearance was a mixed blessing. On one hand, it was good that they didn’t try and make an entire story out of it, having him in a 45-minute episode simply as puppy-stomping evil would’ve been boring, and if you try and show any character development you risk appearing to redeem Hitler. On the other hand, what an idea for a story! Though, as much as I would’ve liked to see a full story made out of this, and kudos to Moffat for taking the risk, it would’ve managed to piss somebody off, so better leave it alone.

On the Eleventh Doctor’s sudden attainment of the greatcoat, it’ll probably grow on me in the end but I don’t like it at the moment. Long, sweeping coats are a heroic staple as we’ve seen with Neo (of ‘The Matrix’), the latest incarnation of Sherlock Holmes (a character at present owned and operated by Moffat), Captain Jack Harkness and the Tenth Doctor; but the point is that they’ve been done to death by Doctor Who. When we saw that Matt Smith’s costume consisted simply of a tweed suit jacket, I thought that’d be a great chance to redefine some of the hero stereotypes. After all, how many superheroes do you know wear tweed jackets and bow-ties? Rather than going along with the trends, Doctor Who should be showing us why it’s been so influential and set the trends. Sherlock Holmes suits the coat, as does The Doctor, but since Moffat’s other show, Sherlock, uses it you would think that he’d noticed the recurring heroic themes. But that’s my only real qualm with the coat, I’ll probably get used to it and eventually want my own soon enough. Nerds, like Facebook users, quickly grow accustomed to change (sometimes).

The ongoing saga of River Song is, I have to admit, shattering my expectations. I certainly never expected they would show the regeneration of Melody Pond into the ‘River Song’ incarnation. But the idea that an earlier incarnation of Melody Pond knocked around with Amy for her entire life, going to school and hearing stories about The Doctor, seemed odd to me. Why would a child who was trained and raised to kill The Doctor, be content to spend 20 or so years with her mother at a young age rather than actively seeking out The Doctor. I suppose you could argue that regenerating into a young kid (evidently human/time-lord hybrids age normally) meant she was at a disadvantage, but that’s not just being a sleeper agent, that’s downright lazy.

Though I like seeing the story of River Song unfold, at the same time the limitations of telling an story onscreen will always be poignant. It’s the same reason why Doctor Who should never show the events of the Time War, because for all it’s glory and scale and tragedy, it could never live up to the expectations we have with the limitations of a special effects budget. If it’s going to be chronicled anywhere, it should be in spin-off novels where the imagination of the writer and the reader are unbound. So too should it be with the story of River Song, at least as far as origins.

I do, however, hope that we see earlier versions of Melody, possibly as the little girl seen in earlier episodes, as some sort of sinister antagonist who is shown to repeatedly try and kill The Doctor, whereas the older Melody is the River Song we know, I thought this would be a good way to seperate out the two personas. However, given that “Mels” met The Doctor for the first time here, it wouldn’t be possible within continuity, but there are ways around that.

Oh yeah! I mentioned in my series break review that The Silence turning out to be a species was disappointing, and that the only way it could be threatening would be if we were shown an identifiable villain. Now we learn that The Silence is actually a religious order out to take out The Doctor, and with that the mystery is restored. I love it!

Other than that, the story was a beautifully paced, competently acted and massively enjoyable story. Showing the Amy/Rory thing where she thought he was gay before they got together was a cute moment, and showed how influential Melody had actually been in their lives. But I do hope that Amy doesn’t take the whole “maternal like relationship with a schoolfriend who it turns out to be your daughter” thing as a good enough replacement for actually raising her daughter. I suppose the timelines now effectively forbid it, but still. Maybe when Karen Gillan finally elects to leave Doctor Who, there’ll be some massive deus ex machina that will rewrite history and allow Amy to be reunited with her infant daughter to live a normal life, maybe serving as a good exit for River Song also.

It’s a trap!

Over the past year, I have gone to several job interviews in order to secure a job for my placement year. In one memorable interview, the following request was made:

Describe yourself in three words.

I’d always thought this question to be simply a stereotype of job interviews, and nobody would seriously ask you so obscure a question as this. But no, apparently it’s a thing. A thing that happens.

I maintain that the very question is a trap. How can anyone answer that correctly?

On one hand, you can respond with three of the most undulatingly self-gratifying, generic business-speak answers, and sound like the most insufferably arrogant douchebag this side of Alan Sugar. The problem is that this is totally transparent, nobody would honestly believe that you consider yourself to be dynamic or driven or…. dastardly; anyone who does believe it will then think that you’re pretty arrogant to think so damn highly of yourself. Plus, it’s pretty likely that everyone before and everyone after you in the interview schedule has taken this same tact. Not only do you fail to give an answer that is in any way distinguishable, you’ve directly put a stain on your character that, though it may be overlooked in an objective job interview, certainly doesn’t earn you any respect with the interviewer. But maybe not, maybe they know that this is the inevitable consequence and they don’t take it seriously, in which case why bother to ask at all, unless (as I suspect) for malevolent glee.

The alternative is trying to appear unique or different. The problem with that is that any word that reflects you in a good light has already been usurped by Power-Suited fuckwits, and anything else risks alienating the interviewer or making it appear that you’re not taking this seriously. Even something fairly inocuous, like ‘considerate’, has the immediate implication of being submissive and being averse to taking charge of a situation: basically, it’s interview suicide. It’s not arrogant, and is a positive attribute to have, but the implications are too damaging to make it useful in an interview.

But surely someone of my voluminous vocabulary can procure a trio of words suitably generic in meaning but remarkable in execution. Words that ring with the strength of work ethic and character, but retain utmost humility.

Well, it turns out that I can’t. Try as I might I simply can’t bullshit to such an absurd degree, despite years of practice in the art. Therefore, in my own arrogance (which I assure you is genuine and not an unfortunate outcome of a loaded question), I assume the rest of you are similarly at a loss. So what’s the solution? I’d say that is obvious…we have to make it up. So we need three words that sound like genuine (but obscure) words which imply favourable attributes but also don’t sound too arrogantly assertive or carry any implicit connotations.

Dominamin Consideranistic Co-oporativen

Yes I know they’re terrible. If you can do better comment that shit.

So there you have it. The only way, insofar as I can see, to come off well in a job interview where this question is asked is to resort not to the analytical part of your brain, but the imagination. To get a job, in the 21st century, you have to make shit up; and it is for this reason that I maintain that this question is a trap.