thewritehand

So, after becoming the most successful programme ever to air on BBC3, Torchwood gets bumped up to BBC2, and after trouncing the competition in the ratings, it gets a further bump to BBC1, but gets reduced from a 13 episode series to a 5-episode “event”.

Despite John Barrowman publically describing this drop in episode numbers as a “kick in the teeth”, the move to a 5-nighter appears to have been the best move Torchwood could have made, and both critics and fans agree on that. The fans agree because it made for greater tension, and the single storyline made for more meat on the bones of the plot. The critics agree because it was 8 fewer episodes clogging up the airwaves.

Set over 5 consecutive days, Torchwood: Children of Earth dealt with the threat of an alien race, come to steal our children. The race (known only as the 456, after the frequency on which they communicate) first appeared to us in 1965, when they demanded just 12 children in return for an antidote to a plague that would have devasted the planet. This time around they want more. Considerably more. No, not 14 – even more than that. What’s that? Sorry, I can’t hear you – speak up a bit. No, not 18, either. Look, if you haven’t watched it yet, don’t read this – it’s going to be full of spoilers. Ok, has he gone? Good.

Where was I? Oh, yes – this time around they want 10% of the children on the planet.

The story is centred largely around the British government and their complete and utter ballsing up of the situation. Honestly, if you think the expenses scandal was bad, you ain’t seen nothin’, yet!

Episode One was slow – not a great deal happened, but things rarely do in the first 20% of a programme. It was all set-up, and character introductions. Oh, except for the fact that at the end of the episode the Hub had been blown up, as a bomb had been implanted in Jack’s stomach Ouch. One respected television screenwriter (for the sake of anonymity, let’s call him Julian) described episode one as “the worst science fiction I have ever seen, and that includes the two Matrix sequels”. Episode one wasn’t marvellous, but it certainly wasn’t worse than The Matrix Rehashed (which had… *shudder* Keanu Reeves in it!). It wasn’t a great episode, but it wasn’t as bad as anything in Keanuvision.

Episode Two was much better, though even less happened – it was one long chase scene, but handled pretty well. The science was pretty uneven, though – we know that Jack can’t stay dead, but the scene in which part of his head and torso grew back into a fully-grown Jack inside a body bag was ludicrous. The rest of his body grew from nothing – matter must have simply come into existence for this to happen. Also, of course, if this happened to just part of his head and torso, there must be other bits of Jack blown up from the bomb – why did none of those grow into another Captain Harkness, like a Scottish-American starfish? Mind you, to complain about the accuracy of the science in a programme like this is a bit like complaining about the unfeasible amount of sex that happens in porn films. It happens because it happens, though sometimes the writers should give us something on which to suspend our disbelief.

Episodes Three and Four upped the ante, somewhat, and provided some truly memorable TV (the fans will say it was memorable for mainly good reasons, the critics… less so). Episode Four was noteworthy for a few reasons. It was the episode in which Torchwood’s Grand Plan is discovered to be Jack and Ianto telling the aliens to go away or else. Evidently it’s something Jack learned from the Doctor, but the Doctor has been around a lot longer than Jack, and is a lot better at improvising solutions when things go awry. It’s also the episode in which Ianto dies a pointless death. The character of Ianto has developed significantly since season one, in which most viewers wondered if Gareth David-Lloyd was actually an actor at all, and not just someone who happened to wander onto the set while the show was being filmed. Season Two saw his character grow balls (while Jack systematically emptied them) and the actor appeared to grow a degree of talent. In reality,of course, the writers recognised the popularity of the character, and simply gave David-Lloyd more to do. In Children of Earth, Ianto is a key player, and his death resonates – certainly more than those of Tosh (who was well-named) and wide-mouthed-frog Owen.

Episode Five, however, is the episode that divides. And mainly for that scene – the scene during which Jack Harkness sacrifices his grandson in order to save millions of people across the world. The main complaint is that this action was out of character. I disagree. Jack was and is a soldier. Unlike the Doctor he is comfortable killing others for the greater good. He doesn’t like it, but he recognises that sometimes it is a necessary evil.

He was willing to sacrifice the children of Earth at the end of the previous episode to save his beloved Ianto. Why, then, does he agree (albeit reluctantly) to sacrifice his own grandson at the end of Day Five? Well, Ianto was his life, his love, his reason for living, his grounding, and his soulmate. His grandson was none of these things. Oh, Jack undoubtedly loved him after a fashion, but in a remote sense. His love for his grandson was almost certainly bourne of duty – the thought that you have to love your family, and the love bourne of responsibility. We know that Jack’s daughter ran from him, and keeps out of Jack’s life, as Jack is dangerous to be around. Ironically, it was her running from her father that probably sealed the fate of her son – had Jack and his grandson shared a fraction of the time and the love that Jack and Ianto shared, he might not have been killed.

So, who is right, and who is wrong?

Well, I’m wearing strong trousers, and splinters hold no fear for me, so I’m going to sit on the fence and say : everyone.

How so?

Were Jack’s actions out of character? I’d say no, as we know of Jack’s background as a soldier, and we know that he has had to do things of which he is ashamed. Unfortunately, we have not been shown ebough evidence of this in previous series; we’ve not experienced first-hand Jack’s dark side, so when we see it for the first time, it feels like a betrayal. This is the fault of the writers, of course. Partly of the writers (and series producers) of series 1 and 2, but largely for the writing team on Children of Earth for relying on evidence that was only barely referred to in the past. So, the writers were wrong.

The audience who complain are also wrong for expecting Jack to act in anything but a conventionally heroic way. His background has been hinted at, but if we expect him to act in the interests of himself (by saving his grandson, and therefore his relationship with his daughter) instead of the interests of the world (although, let’s be honest – it would be nice if there were fewer chavs on the street – not that I’m advocating mass alien-abduction, of course… just throwing it out there…) then we’re not only fooling ourselves, but denying ourselves the possibility of enjoying one of the few less-than-perfect heroes on television.

The audience who don’t complain are also wrong, because we should have been given more, and to accept it with the flimsiest of historical references is weak, and shows a willingness to watch just about anything. Including Big Brother.

So, if everyone is wrong, then who is right? Well, everyone, of course. For exactly the same (or diametrically opposite) reasons.

What is clear is that Torchwood: Children of Earth has got people talking, and arguing about television, and that can only be a good thing. It had strong viewing figures, and (unusually for a five-nighter) it retained them. It was certainly better than anything series 1 or 2 had to offer, and it treated the genre seriously. It was adult television which felt comfortable to eschew the need for sex and swearing. In short, it was everything Torchwood always wanted to be, but never was.

Badly written? Badly acted? Badly directed? Opinions differ wildly on this, but what is clear is that it was a television event that made people sit up and listen (and write – my god, did people write about it!*)

It also made people think, and that’s got to be good. Hasn’t it?

*the irony does not escape me.

jongibbs

The other day, my friend, justin_pilon, put up a post about submission blunders, which brought back embarrassing memories of my first ever query letter. 

I wrote it soon after I finished the first draft of my YA novel, Fur-Face.  I was keen to share my genius with the literary world and, since I’d already run it through the spell checker, I knew my book was ready. 

I’ll spare you the gory details of what was a truly dreadful pitch. Suffice to say it would look quite at home in any agent/publisher’s collection of  ‘How to guarantee no one will want to read your book, or ever hear from you again’  letters.  

I did at least know enough to enclose an S.A.E.  The response came back within a few days. I remember thinking this was a good thing, since it showed someone had read the three chapters I’d enclosed and was keen to take a look at the full ms before I offered my book to some other lucky agent. 

The rejection letter – I know, I was surprised too – was also a classic. 

An obvious bad photocopy of a bad photocopy of a bad photocopy, the paragraphs ran at a sloping angle from left to right, with the letters somehow smudging into each other at the end of every line, as if someone had moved the original document in mid-copy. The name, JOHN GUBB, was scrawled across the top in big red capital letters. 

The wording, though a little hard to make out, was quite polite. It contained (what I later learned was) the usual, ‘Thanks for thinking of us’, ‘Not exactly what we’re looking for right now’ kind of stuff. Nevertheless, even with my limited experience of the publishing world, I couldn’t help wondering if there wasn’t a smidge of sarcasm about the whole thing.

As you can imagine, I felt pretty sorry for this poor John Gubb bloke. 

He must have done something awfully dumb to warrant such treatment. I rang the agency to let them know there’d been a mix-up. It was only when the nice lady who answered the phone explained that the rejection was, in fact, for me, that the truth sank in. 

 I remember feeling a complete fool. Later, my embarrassment turned to disbelief. I wasn’t hurt or offended, I was shocked. How could they not want my novel? 

Looking back, that first rejection was probably the best thing that could have happened to me. It made me realize that I had no idea what I was doing, and that if I ever wanted to be a writer, I’d better jolly well find out how it was done.

I’d forgotten all about that letter (and the ensuing rejection) until I saw Justin’s post yesterday. It made me smile. 

After all, it’s like my dear old gran used to say. “You might as well laugh at your stupidity, boy.  Lord knows, the rest of us do.”

How about you? 

Do you remember your first ever rejection letter? 

What was it for?  How did you feel?  Did you change your ways as a result?

dr_phil_physics

DeWitt Theatre, Hope College, Holland MI, 8pm

Highly Recommended

southernweirdo

In other writing news, my poem "Alter Creation," was accepted the other day by Every Day Poets. I love being published in electronic markets like this one because of the ease with which readers can provide feedback and interact. These kinds of markets are a lot of fun.

Movie Recommendation: A Very Long Engagement
Music Recommendation: Dinosaur Jr., Farm
Book Recommendation: The 2009 Rhysling Anthology, edited by Drew Morse

Hope all of you in LJ land had a great week.

jongibbs

Here’s my selection of interesting (and sometimes amusing) posts about writing from the last week:
 

Plotting the Dreaded Middle reneesweet

Why I love Writing Queries raecarson

What Keeps Readers—and agents—Reading nephele

The Hesitation Waltz (Morgan Mandel)
 

Do not reply to rejection letters the_flea_king

Writing As Community – Doing Unto Others (Rhonda Eudaley)

Conference Tips shanna_s

Authorfail: When Authors Attack! (Victoria Strauss)

The Theory of Belief faerie_writer   -  I know this one’s from June, but I first saw it linked on a post by dynastic_queen a couple of days ago.

Advances v. Royalties Conversation Continues sparksflyup

Interview With Hugo and Nebula Award-winning Author, Mike Resnick (Michael Ventrella)

Top 8 Tips for Writing Dialogue (Ginny Wiehardt) – courtesy of jl_johnson

On Set Pieces dpeterfreund

I’m not dissing anybody (Patty Jansen)

To Suck or not to Suck… It Shouldn’t Even be a Question dferguson 

Top Ten Things Writers Do When They Have a Story Rejected marshallpayne1

Links Spotlight: ProBlogger a_r_williams

If you have a particular favorite among these, please let the author know (and me too, if you have time).  Also, if you've a link to a great post that isn't here, feel free to share.

dr_phil_physics

Knickerbocker Theatre, 8th Street, Holland MI. 8pm

Highly Recommended

beth_bernobich

What kind of scene would you like to hear?