British Columbia Welcome U

- this was one of those starter-and-main-course affairs: after the creative orchestra, the next station stop is not until may, and it comes in the form of just one track, and a short one at that… so i worked it into the session for the album which followed it. (this is as good a time as any to ask: do any readers have unreleased recordings of b’s performance(s) from the wildflowers festival? the “official” recordings from this event were, of course, originally available on a box set of five lps; later the same anthology appeared on three cds. but obviously this anthology contained only extracts, not complete live sets - and some other material is in circulation among fans, e.g. a radio broadcast of a brief interview with air, followed by two pieces from that trio - different pieces from the air number on the official release. anyone got more? please drop us a line!)

session 006a: comp. 6f* (from wildflowers)
date: 15th (?) may 1976

http://restructures.net/BraxDisco/braxton_discography.htm#Wildflowers2

- yet another version of this piece, known to us now as 6f, generally known back then as “73 kelvin” (or various permutations thereof)… nor is this version the final one, although in theory the piece has been superseded by now - comp. 40(o) has been in the repertoire for at least two years at this point, but the earlier repetition series, the first of its type, is a piece which b. seemed to rediscover, and evidently loved playing with george lewis…

… and not just lewis! the group for this performance, not a working band (the quartet was on hold at this point), is generally given as a sextet: braxton, lewis and altschul are joined by fred hopkins, phillip wilson and michael (gregory) jackson - was this the first time b. had used a guitarist to help interpret one of his compositions? - but that line-up misses one salient fact, namely that there is a pianist here too, very much so. (someone once told me that it’s anthony davis, which sounds perfectly feasible… and is backed up by a gerry hemingway interview, see comments for details.)

after a gentle start (presumably emerging from a previous link phase), this rendition is taken very fast, the band really tearing into the tricky theme, b. in particular making it sound absurdly easy… but within less than a minute, we are just out there again, and whereas many previous versions of the piece were characterised by a return from hyperspace, a restatement (which generally sounded very different), this one never does come back from beyond - though of course we don’t know what happened after the faded-out percussion which closes the official track. (the applause is for b’s solo rather than for the end of the piece as such.) basically what we have in this recording is two solos, the piano and then the leader’s alto, and both are full of delights - but there is also much coming and going by the various players, allowing all sorts of combinations and complex textures. lewis, though his contribution here is quite limited, sounds perfectly at home: the wah-wah-wah noises he makes in the second minute (picking up from the leader, on a monster of some sort, though it sounds to me like a contrabass clarinet rather than the sax which is listed in the credits… it’s only brought out quite briefly, anyway) represent a very simple idea, but one which works very well to reinforce the sense of vague, pregnant menace; jackson echoes lewis, in turn, with ringing harmonics. davis flies all over the keyboard, superbly backed up by hopkins and the twin percussionists. and shortly before the 4-min mark, the leader’s alto takes over, with some wonderfully contemplative, measured initial entries - from here on out, it’s all about him, and he runs through many of his tricks in quick succession: squeals, flutters, violent distortions and a flowing master-tag which is a joy in itself - while maintaining a dry, thoughtful tone for the majority of his phrases. in the sixth minute of the piece, he really takes off and plays with increasing force and speed, using coerced breaths in that marvellous way of his; at 5.50, he unleashes a simple two-note phrase which i find terribly hard to describe, but it’s as if he’s stepping down on the notes - it’s extremely effective, worth listening to the piece just for this one moment. could i ever tire of listening to this man play? not if he plays like that, at any rate…

clearly, lewis has a good idea by now (if he didn’t already) of what this music is all about. and just to prove that, next up is the first of two duets between the two hornmen this year…

session 006b: elements of surprise
date: 7th june 1976

http://restructures.net/BraxDisco/braxton_discography.htm#Moers1036

… and right from the off, this performance just crackles with excitement.

* * *

“the best you can be” - this is what jazz musicians are not supposed/encouraged/allowed to discover in themselves according to braxton, the philosopher - well, naturally it is merely one of a number of such glass ceilings, undeclared restrictions on one’s creativity - but it’s the one we are most concerned with here, because this magnificent album perfectly demonstrates the self-perpetuating possibility-generator effect which can occur when any two (or more) heretics - musicians who have taken it upon themselves to discover the best they can be, in defiance of the hidden hand - congregate and communicate. the effortless quality of the musicianship makes one gasp with delight, even laugh out loud perhaps. and now we know for certain that a new level has been reached, because this sort of deep and intimate communication was never undertaken with wheeler, nor could it have been - which is to take nothing away from what they did share, which was a very deep form of intimacy in itself, and utterly apposite to its time, in terms of b’s personal development (and arguably some way ahead of the majority of partnerships in mainstream jazz at that time); but what wheeler most offered as a partner was company for lamentation and longing reflection: the discovery of each other’s frailties and vulnerabilities gave each the strength to expose those soft underbellies to the world and know they would survive; but although wheeler is in his natural element doing that, braxton is not and it’s time he moved on now.

the new blood: george lewis’s trombone is one of the most joyous, life-affirming voices i have ever heard in music, and all the more reassuring for the massive intelligence and self-control which is as clear in his playing as if he were discoursing in spoken language (some might say clearer, since lewis the writer has read the likes of lacan, and knows it’s not all about being “understood”..!). and already a virtuoso beyond the ordinary player’s imagining, at such a young age - what a shining example for our man, and what a glorious encapsulation of human interaction at its best: everybody wins, everyone is enriched and ennobled through the transaction which occurs! the teacher has both the pleasure (and the satisfaction) of working with a student whose voracious appetite for learning and advancement is matched by his talent and his easy self-confidence, and also the invaluable lesson of remembering how to enjoy life unworried for a while, taught by the student in this case; and for the student, how much better could learning be than to be given practice which gives absolute free rein to one’s self-expression, whilst at the same time flexing every single one of the muscles, in turn? what better way to learn, to teach? there is none better, i repeat: this is human interaction at its best.

so a blow-by-blow account would be endless, and endlessly self-reflexive. from the territory-establishing “space invaders” motif that starts up within twenty seconds of the first piece, we know that we are in the company of two young masters here: to be a bit more precise about it, at this stage we are probably witnessing a meeting of a third-dan black belt already well respected as a teacher for ambitious and talented students, and a new student, only a first dan but clearly (so clearly!) destined for stellar heights, marked out for greatness from the getgo.

- and today it is get ready, set, and go: comp. 64 is initiated unhurriedly by lewis, ringing out a single note and stretching it like candyfloss, then dropping down a notch for the second entry and giving it already some extra puff (some eyebrows scrawled on the portrait before the party even begins, so we know there’ll be no hollow lip-service paid round here) - then the leader describes a figure in the air which (experience suggests) will be reshown to us later, gives us a pause to think about it; and now the two of them, with commendable nonchalance verging on slackness, set up a very basic three-note descending motif - which lewis is suddenly left to carry, as the leader immediately embarks on the day’s first alto solo. and there is no shame for lewis in this: he understands that the student will be asked to take this role and besides, he understands the freedom to be found in manual labour: so long as the job is done it’s up to you how you go about it, and as the younger man sets about taking charge of the pace, the ambience and the harmonic texture (the threatening “steps of doom” motif is very, very similar to the sort of thing used by the very first “ufo invasion”-style computer games to let you know that you are fighting these moving sigils, not trying to make friends with them - but here the menace is all theatre, just a means of generating tension purely for the explosive joy to be found in harnessing it and releasing it under your own control)… so the leader, octupling the time effortlessly, takes control of establishing the dynamics: during the next thirty-forty secs (what seems like page after page of score because b’s playing is so fast, his speed of articulation always amazing me each time i encounter it, even though by now i have heard literally hundreds of his solos), the improvisation which develops is familiar enough in its content, a whole series of connected and tessellating tags by which our singer is compelled on each new occasion to announce himself, but the soft and fluttering attacks are something quite new in this context, and must surely be an example of a lesson absorbed from warne marsh… and lewis matches the soft intensity, then immediately takes the licence to go in harder as soon as it’s offered, and really pushes it, floors it.

now that is what wheeler couldn’t really do - and it’s not his fault, it’s just not really in him, there is no question of lack of willingness or commitment; he just doesn’t have that much that he wants to say, taken that far out. he’s too far from home. lewis will just run with it and run with it, and will never get scared off or even (confidence of gifted youth in a physically imposing frame) pause for self-doubt.

naturally, this is not the whole of the story of the piece, merely the opening sequence; the phrase dangled so enticingly before our ears by braxton just before the alien invasion kicks off does indeed return round about the three-minute mark, and by that time the piece has covered so much ground already that one’s head could be left spinning if it weren’t all so marvellously entertaining, as well as unbelievably instructive - and among other things, this piece goes on to address approaches to variation/opposition in dynamics in a way just as effective as, and completely different from, the evergreen ballad archetype for solo voice, comp. 8c. so yes, we get wonderfully soft playing, and thrillingly powerful playing too, devilishly so, thanks to
young master lewis and his golden ‘bone - but thanks also to the not-quite-so-young master braxton and his magic alto, exulting in the company of someone who isn’t afraid to make some noise. and yes, when it’s quiet it’s worthy of marsh - and that is still just one aspect of this piece which also, by the beginning of the fifth minute, shows how readily b. can indulge in the free improv approach (which some british critics still claim he did not understand until seventeen years later), and the two guys knock it around in pure conversation form, as long as they feel like. hey, if it’s good enough for dolphy and mingus… right? right… there’s nothing really new under the sun, and all we’re doing is hanging out and talking, ultimately…

… in turn, this easy nonchalance and lack of formality is what frees up the vehicle to carry the message far beyond the level of just hanging out and talking…

… and i’ve still only given some flavour of this one piece, enough to let you know what we’re dealing with here, and how many different things there are to consider and discover; ultimately it’s another sort of access code piece, the dynamic shifts being revealed in due course as one of the key elements in a special phrase for the two voices to repeat together, some notes supplied by only voice, some by both, timing and attack and release and harmony and tone among the other variables to take into account when spelling out the demanding sequence - and with the door opened, all sorts of furies are unleashed, we’re at full battle stations in the ninth minute - but the insights to be gained from using that sequence to open the door, well, the “take that to the bank!” declaration of the final joint attack is all the evidence you need.

you probably get the idea by now, if we went into this in full detail we really would be at it all week. even just to write up my notes for the whole album would keep us here for a day or two; so let’s say instead, if you haven’t heard this album, stop reading and go and get it (see comments again). don’t tell me your interest is not piqued by now! there’s only four pieces, anyway: besides this monstrously good opener, there is a standard, “ornithology”, which reminds me by this point that yes, mr b. will always return to the book from time to time but on his terms, which is to say: with appropriate respect, and appropriate irreverence - tunes pulled wide open and examined for fresh clues, not put in a fucking glass case like some museum exhibit (an approach which is supposedly an honorific, but is really an insult to the artist, to the art itself and to the intelligence of the audience); a teaser, a riddle - as he likes to give us from time to time too, here in the form of comp. 65 which is short here and tantalising, reminiscent in various ways of comp. 23h (five/1975), but which in any case represents unfinished business, since this particular riddle or conjuring trick will still provide food for thought a quarter-century later, and plenty of it; and in a most magnanimous gesture, the whole of the second lp side is given over to the student’s modest offering, lewis’ own attempt to escape the restrictions of tunes and titles, to stake his claim as a composer, simply entitled “music for trombone and b-flat soprano” - and let’s be clear, with no disrespect whatsoever to mr lewis, i was never going to be making any serious attempt to analyse this one structurally anyway, but make no mistake, there are so many superb moments and different angles to this music also, the black hole beckons again. one thing i will single out from it: it’s very curious and interesting to note that around the five-min mark, lewis sets up the kind of military march that surely must delight the teacher, yet b. leaves it alone. on this occasion. there will be plenty of time to get stuck into that idea…

(grading: CCCC. sublime… really, seriously, forget whatever austerities one might anticipate from the sparse instrumentation, this is a perfect example of just how many ways there are to please the ear, the heart and the mind in modern creative music. go get it.)

Bruce Barber: In your latest work you still haven’t lost what was important in the use of the Goffmanian “dramaturgical metaphor”. What interests me about Plot is that here you have a space made up of “pages” which is to all intents and purposes a book, but it becomes something other than a book and you read it differently. How did the audience relate to that?

Vito Acconci: It’s hard for me to tell for a number of reasons. Because of my earlier work, I find it difficult to be at a piece, because as soon as I’m there as a recognizable image the work becomes something else. I really don’t know exactly how the audience reacted. Also I don’t really understand a non-American audience; how, what do an Italian’s movements around a space mean? I don’t really know enough about that so it’s really hard to tell.
BB: in the Addenda section of Plot, you were talking specifically about “imperialism” in relation to that contract you formed with the people in Italy. You were there to do a show; do a piece. Did the same kind of thing happen in Venice?
VA: Not so much, I guess. There’s a piece between the Venice work and this one which was done in Bordeaux this past spring. The piece began … it was a group show called … Identity – Identifications” [I’m not sure.] The show was basically to do with earlier work … person kinds of pieces. The piece started for me as a kind of reaction against the way I usually work. Sometimes I question whether I am just a little too dependent on an existing physical space. It’s very difficult for me to do a piece until I see an existing physical space and I start to define it visually, structurally, graphically, whatever, and then I think, OK, what am I getting at. I wanted to do something opposite to that, which could theoretically exist in any space. Once I thought of this it seemed to me, if the piece could exist in any space, then what becomes emphasized is the fact that something has just been “dropped” into the space. If it could exist anywhere, then the focus becomes on the particular “dropper”, the nature of the person who “dropped” the piece in. So, OK, I am doing this piece in Europe. I am not going to be there, I am going to send it … I’m putting this piece in a space in Bordeaux. It’s coming from me in America, so I’m sort of “dropping” this thing there. What am I “dropping”? The title of the piece became “The American Gift”. It was a black box shape five feet by five feet by seven feet high. A slit at the top of the box around the perimeter, a blue light inside so that there’s this vague blue light on top. The black box would be at one end of the space. At the other were one or two folding chairs. At the folding chairs there were two speakers and then inside the box another speaker. At the folding chairs … speaker on the left, my voice speaking in English, in a whisper saying: “You are the Europeans”. Other speaker on the right, French man and woman’s voice: “Nous sommes les Europeans”. My voice: “You have America in the back of your mind, ah na na na na na” … “You are not responsible for what you say, ah na na na na na”. Of course they are not responsible, I am saying it … they are translating it. That kind of thing. Then every once and a while from the box, my voice speaking in French but obviously in American’s French, saying something like, ah … “Listen America speaks, America speaks, La la ba la la la”. Then my voice by the chairs again: “You learn the language”. French voice: “Nous apprenons le langue, La la la”. But this time in a slightly French accent. Then from the box, my voice saying: “Quiet please. One minute of America”. And there might be a minute of Charles Ives music to a minute of New Orleans dance hall, to gunshots, to a woman screaming. It seemed to me that there were some implications, though this was more narrative, insinuating, round about drift kind of thing. That was more direct. Actually the idea for that piece came from the film 2001 with the black monolith … trying to sniff out this black monolith. The notion of doing pieces elsewhere, the notion of dropping something elsewhere, began to really interest me.
The Venice piece began to develop a kind of ‘we’ voice and it was unclear whether the ‘we’ was a kind of Americans in Europe; almost a kind of desperate ‘we’. Almost trying to make a ‘we’, a ‘we’ that is not this yet but can we be a ‘we’. Can we be this kind of community based on interest. It’s almost a sense of failed revolution.
BB: It seems to me … I’m going to get into intentionality; that invariably ends up with my projection onto the thing.
VA: Sure when I talk about it, it ends up with my motivations.
BB: I’m going to talk about eclecticism in your work. It’s the kind of eclecticism that doesn’t carry a pejorative sense. It’s the kind of eclecticism that one would associate with someone like Borges, only it’s popular eclecticism. You are working with popular psychology, popular sociology, popular politics, popular music, whereas Borges might be dealing with a once popular mythology, theme … I find that kind of relationship quite interesting. When you talk of ‘black box’ my mind goes immediately to Borges, and to Maxwell’s demon. Many of your earlier pieces have to do with … things that were possibly in the air at the time … the entropic function … the exhaustion principle. That seemed to inform your work.
VA: Yes, in a lot of ways. At least in retrospect. I’m not sure how much it was part of a conscious intention at the time but in retrospect it seems that way in many early pieces, those direct body pieces. Almost like a last gasp of Minimal art making myself into a self-enclosed object; circling in on myself, turning in on myself. It really was connected I think to that time, also bringing popular currents … encounter groups and that sort of thing. That stuff is obviously a big part of work of mine. I mean, I hated the idea of encounter groups that existed at that time and yet, obviously, they interested me.
BB: Getting back to Plot. You say in the end of the Prologue that you are constructing a plot and that you are constructing a sub-plot which negates the intention of the plot. The plot might be: “I do not believe anymore in the efficacy of art”. The sub-plot: “But I have to believe in it because I am part of that plot to convince you the viewer of that meaning”. You’ve done your market research and now there’s your imposition. Now going to some notes about video (Art-Rite, No: 7) and going to what is essentially a producer-consumer relationship, you are saying … OK this is the way television works, I deal with video in a similar but more potent way. And when you are dealing with your audience you go through the whole range of human emotions.
VA: I wish you could see the tapes I’ve just finished. They’re called The Red Tapes; two hours of what we have been talking about; trying to come to grips with American history, American culture.
BB: When I started doing my investigations I was annoyed that critics were using ‘reify’, a classic Marxist term … Max Kozloff is a classic example … using that as a pejorative in order to criticize early works of yours and others. And then there’s Lea Vergine, I like what she has done but she has been over-prescriptive and has come up with what I would call a specious psychologism. She hasn’t realized the differences between an artist using certain materials or ideas as his or her subject, the artists’ wants to use this as their subject matter … they don’t necessarily need to do it as some kind of therapy. The artist isn’t always a victim of his or her psychology. And yet going back to an earlier statement by you; if I remember rightly, you said that you used to think that art wasn’t therapeutic and that now you think it is.
VA: Yes … You don’t remember when I said that do you? I’m trying to remember. If it was in ‘73, it would have made sense in regard to pieces I was making then. It had a lot to do with using gallery space to focus on the kind of public-ness of that space. I could use the exhibition space to make something public that supposedly wasn’t public. I would use this situation to effect or change something in my everyday life. Can I just mention briefly a piece as an example. There was a piece called “Air Time” (Sonnabend). It was a closed-circuit video thing where I was in this enclosed space, hidden from the audience. There was a video monitor outside. I was facing a mirror so that the audience could see and hear me on the monitor, not so much talking to myself but talking to a specific you, a person within my life; a person whom I had been living with for four years. My attempt was to recreate incidences in our life together. I want this to be public, I want them the audience to see the way you … once it’s public, I have to see the way I am with you … have to face up to the reality, that I can’t change it now that it’s a public fact. I can’t change it. I’m forced to realize that we can’t be together anymore. If I made that statement then it would have made sense. There were a few pieces like that.
BB: The ‘you’ that you talk about in your pieces is not only singular but also plural. That interests me where you bridge the gap, whether in talking to one you are talking to the other. By extension … I can make a huge leap here and talk about the so-called collective consciousness and collective unconsciousness; that is, we are what our culture and our family has made us. Nothing is going to alter. So when we are talking about the individual, we may be also talking about the group.
VA: Though we’re never sure. We don’t know whether we are keyed into that. The thing that has troubled me about earlier work … I always wonder about my use of self in earlier pieces. It’s always seemed like a very generalized self. Very recently when I see a lot of work by women dealing with self, it seems a really specific self … compare it to some of my stuff and it seems like, my god, as if mine is a general, abstract, a kind of male abstracting notion. A generalized almost grandiose self.
BB: When I talked before of the self-effacement, in a sense, of a work such as Plot, I could in turn generalize about your earlier work as being self-aggrandizing. One of your strongest pieces for me is Seedbed. That piece points out the problem of not only dealing with the individual but also with the group. And not only dealing with a self-aggrandized Vito Acconci but also with a self-effaced Vito Acconci. Not only dealing with the intimacy of your contact with yourself and your audience … that onanistic type of behaviour … turning yourself into a kind of object …
VA: That interesting problem of dealing with people which is, … my god, what am I doing to these people? Bring them into the gallery and make them part of my fantasy life. Of course they can leave. Things like that interest me in the piece but the entrapping of an audience gives me very queasy feelings.
BB: Your work seems peppered with Goffmanian concerns, those also of Edward T. Hall, Reich … lots of people there but the way that you deal with that material is hard to pin down … whether you identify with it or live through it.
VA: Goffman was someone I came across at a really important time for me, a time when my work was in a sense really beginning. My whole background was writing, poetry, fiction and in ‘68/’69, things began to shift. The shift was occurring and I began to search out moves in real space and came upon Goffman. This thing came at such an important time in my life and my work. It’s almost difficult to know what I feel about Goffman aside from that I related to him at the time. There’s almost that kind of positive(ist) side of Goffman that I related to.
BB: So this gave you an idea of what was happening in your own life?
VA: Yeh. It started to … having Goffman’s language at hand, it started to allow me to order things … to clarify things … to put things in some kind of order rather than vague, vague groupings. It was a kind of categorizing I could relate to. I’ve always had to deal with things in terms of categories. Categories can be wide enough to lose things that don’t belong there. I’ve always had that kind of bias. If we’re using words, we’re using categories anyway, the thing is to stretch them as far as possible so that you can’t avoid them.
BB: They’re often stretched enough in our society anyway. We have to attempt to restrain the artifices of the Humpty Dumptys of this world.
“Orchestra Pit” (Plot) … how to dig the harmony of the spheres. Is that some kind of reference to music?
VA: So many pieces of mine come from my own background of playing with words. Centre point. There was this centre point. I don’t know how this came about but there was to be this music coming from the centre. Once you get the centre, you get the pit; once you get the pit, you get the orchestra. Harmony and harmony of the spheres. Dig. I think that happens a lot in my work … taking that semi-mystic notion … I’ve obviously been attracted to it …
BB: it’s a kind of verbal and visual punning in a sense.
VA: Then once I’ve got this kind of plot thing going, there’s a novel field, a movie field; then obviously, if there’s a movie field, there should be background music.
BB: But you’re not dealing with traditional novel of filmic structure. The plot is a plot … not in the sense of being a narrative, climax or denouement? It’s an interesting plot.
VA: The plot started me thinking very much in terms of science fiction. Maybe that is the kind of ultimate, ultimate novel; a combination of horror movie on the one hand and science fiction on the other.
BB: In the different rooms or spaces you are trying to provide analogues for objects from contemporary American art history … say, the last ten years.
VA: Yes, things that were very reminiscent of art that’s been going on.
BB: Still a little ambiguous, in that you need signification of the word to object to get at it. But when it’s on tape … it becomes provisional, a provisional quality in that you can pass by them without any conditions of true acceptance going on.
VA: That’s something which has always troubled me.
BB: It’s always provisional … and as far as art history is concerned it doesn’t help the ‘efficacy’ of art.
VA: What do you mean?
BB: It doesn’t (in terms of plot) help your self-image, maintain or provide for your immortality through your art. It doesn’t make your art live on after you, and doesn’t really impose your will on any other artists.
VA: Hmmm …
BB: Your latest work doesn’t appear to have received a lot of attention. Why?
VA: No, it hasn’t. (Laughs) That troubles me. Even when stuff is written now, it still talks about earlier work, the really blatant frontal image of that earlier work. It’s been really difficult for people to deal with my more recent work. I’m sure that people think it’s regressive, which is a fear of mine.
BB: Regressive?
VA: Yes, if I was dealing with direct person in earlier pieces, now there’s no person there. Now I am dealing with space in a way that could be related to traditional sculpture.
BB: Plot though is dealing with very contemporary kinds of issues and not necessarily popular ones.
VA: Those early pieces, if I want to criticize myself or hate myself, were really media oriented. They were very easily sloganized. Five or six words could give the idea of a piece. You can’t do that with my recent work. Many of those early pieces like “Claim”, where I sat at the foot of the stairs of a basement … there was never any allowance to say … what if I change my mind in this … what if I didn’t want to go on with this constant obsessive drive towards something … what if my mind drifted. That kind of thing was never allowed for; there was always this kind of directness … focus. If those pieces were drive, now I’m more interested in drift. But at the same time … at the base of my work, there still seems to be a kind of I/you/me/you. There’s still that going on. Maybe it had to be at that time when the notion of encounter group seemed as if it was going to lead somewhere. Obviously it couldn’t. Things aren’t quite that simple.
BB: All of your early works have to do with manipulation. They may be exploitative in a sense, sometimes of yourself or your audience but these later pieces take into account the audience.
Tell me about the Venice tape.
VA: The Venice tape stands up by itself; I’m not sure whether that’s good or bad. The verse itself leads to a kind of theatrical situation; it sets up scenes without that situation. It was part of that series of rooms which Germano Celant arranged, called Ambiente. In the Venice section maybe twelve or so contemporary people had rooms to themselves. Interesting space. Each room had a skylight, though in other ways each was varied. In size they were all about thirty by twenty feet. It was a piece that started with the title. I don’t think I’d even seen the space. I thought, well it has to have something to do with Venice so the piece was called Venice Belongs to Us, stolen from the Jacques Rivette movie Paris Belongs to Us. I think that came before I even saw the plans for the space. The thing that struck me … OK, let me go back into what is probably an habitual way I have of going about pieces, what are the quirks in this space? There was a skylight and there were three entrances, something I thought I could make use of. Lately I’ve been thinking of what I can do with a space … simply lay something over a space, or across the space, trying to deal with what is already there and join something to it. So, taking that skylight area, planks were laid across the skylight so that it became a kind of room in itself. At each doorway a large ladder blocked half of the doorway and led up to the skylight. There were some stools placed on top of the planks, the room became loaded with some kind of presence. Four speakers were placed on top so that the sound was directed downwards. Then the text itself; one speaker dealt mainly with in a sense, directing a specific ‘you’ … almost a kind of theatre direction. That was speaker one. Speaker two dealt with kind of movie directions … setting up a scene. Speaker three dealt with an announcement of possible intention, not so much my intention but what ‘our’ intention could be in the “lights, camera, action!” I guess on seeing that space I thought well the skylight area; whoever might be up there … obviously no-one could be up there but you could look down on the space and ideally out on to the city itself, on to Venice. Almost a kind of lookout space. This movie idea, setting scenes of Venice … the piece dealt a lot with this ‘we’ … what are ‘we’ doing here? Almost a kind of … a lot about this piece is in different pieces of mine … that it seems to be stringing people off into “revolutionary fervour”, but I don’t take them anywhere … what do I do? I’ve got nowhere to go and I’ve got nowhere to tell them where to go. There’s this fight … builds up but then plop it drops.
BB: I think you mentioned somewhere (Art-Rite) that Goddard does the same sort of thing …
VA: Yeh.
BB: Seeing some of his films … you almost turn round to the person next to you … did you see that? What are we going to do?
VA: Yeh. For a while that’s enough but it can become self-satisfying. OK, we’re angry … fine.
BB: Well, you’ve got to start somewhere. In some way what you are doing is presenting the issues, yet setting the scenes and the stage for another theatrical … maybe the revolution is theatrical in your case.
VA: Yeh, well I’m not really sure.
BB: The use of the ladder interests me. Weren’t you using ladders, stairs in ‘71?
VA: That’s true actually, there’s a lot of ladder stuff.
BB: Jacob’s ladder? Transcendence?
VA: I’m not sure how consistently … it seems that it’s setting up to something but doesn’t quite get there.
BB: It’s not a simple “Sisyphus” thing … rolling a boulder up a hill and finding it coming back down, though.
VA: There’s a lot of people using ladders. Recently in Ohio (Dayton) there were a lot of ladder structures. There’s a piece that’s going to be done at the Whitney for their Biennial and at least the piece I’m thinking of now involves a kind of ladder structure. So it’s there a lot; it’s a general enough form.
BB: Why do you think the ladder is so prevalent in your work?
VA: I think it has a lot to do with that notion of training, a kind of preparation that either leads to a kind of exhaustion or you break through that exhaustion and you get to something … or is it an illusion of getting to something? When you reach the top … is reaching the top of the ladder … is this a real place of rest, or is this just saying, I have achieved something? I don’t know. It has a lot of these implications.
BB: Chapter 2 of the Plot is “The accelerated mountain. A ladder-like structure closed on the outside. A ladder that will have to be climbed from underneath: inside, coloured lights dot the ascent, like signals, like visual-lights on an upward journey.” The quasi-religious connotations of that kind of thing … “a search for tomorrow”?
VA: Yeh.
BB: One of the most important elements of your work for me is this notion of dealing with the “popular” and in some ways it’s the “popular” things like Goffman that lead me away from your work. I know that you’re a part of your culture as I am of mine. You come out of literature, poetry; you’ve been an heir to the issues confronting abstract expressionism and minimalism. I’ve been an heir only to the minimalist, conceptualist tradition. In some ways that leads me away from identifying too strongly with all the kinds of issues that you’ve involved yourself with because they have become popular in a certain sense. They are popular for a certain section of the population and yet I may conjecture that you have deep feelings for the working class … you live in an area where you are seeing certain sections of the population undergoing so much stress.
VA: Yes, sure, but I’m seeing them with obviously non-working-class eyes … you
know …
BB: My background, even though I may sound like an academic, is British working class … your background … going to Italy to do these pieces … how does that … You have come from New York …
VA: Yes, that’s strange. I’m from New York. My father was born in Italy so I grew up very much with that kind of Italian consciousness.
BB: What does that mean for you?
VA: Well, for me it was entirely an Italian cultural consciousness. I grew up listening to only Italian music, seeing only Italian art. I guess I was twelve before I realized that you didn’t have to be Italian in order to write music or to do art. I grew up so much in the middle of a kind of hero worship for DaVinci and Verdi. My family was really very lower middle class … except I never would have … The attempt was to raise me as … as a kind of Italian prince. I never realized how impoverished my family was until I was in high school.
BB: I hope it wasn’t a Machiavellian prince!
VA: Not quite … no. I don’t think it was quite like that; my family wasn’t that impoverished.
BB: Yet there is something quite Machiavellian about the way you, dare I use the word, use your audience.
VA: Yes that’s been bothering me a little lately. What kind of manipulation, pressure have I been exerting. I’m not exactly clear on that.
BB: Have you talked to many of your audience members? You obviously have some cognizance of what you are doing with an audience, even when your presence is just limited to video tape or sound tape.
VA: Yes. I’ve gotten extremely varied kinds of reactions. Most people have felt that they have been involved … that they have felt some sense of freedom and that they weren’t in fact being exploited. Obviously, that doesn’t apply to all of the pieces. They must have felt exploited with some of the earlier work. I at this point object to that, yet at the same time, I keep wanting to do pieces which take that public situation into account and that you are with that potential audience as very much part of the piece. Now how do I keep that from being a matter of manipulating the audience? I’m not quite sure.
BB: Even when you have your audience empathizing with you as in say Seedbed … though that is always going to be a difficult piece … in a sense you are still manipulating your audience, extending, projecting your fantasies onto them and you are definitely in control of the situation.
VA: Yes, I’m not sure. My conscious aims are towards the opposite of that.
BB: So it’s the empathy that you have for your audience rather than that they have for you?
VA: Yes … but I think the emphasis has been on the other side of that. I’m not so sure with the very recent pieces like the work done at Sonnabend.
BB: Tell me about that.
VA: There was this board that had a kind of table function with stools on either side of it. It extended out the window about six or eight feet like a kind of diving board and was about sixteen feet or thereabouts inside the room. A hanging speaker was midpoint between where the board was a table and where it became a board out the window. Part of the gallery was closed off and in darkness so that it became almost a large black box. A speaker at that plank area, and two speakers at the back. My voice saying … “now that …”. Voice says “rise …” violin music … “change places …” … “rise …”. Sort of like musical chairs. Voice saying “what do we do with that one … no room for that one”, or “where do you think you are going?” “Where do you think you are going?”, then from the black room: … kind of indefinable crowd sounds … many talking, garbled sounds, then a voice above the table. Two women’s voices start to give … define the crowd room as something that is always there in the background. Is it something we are going towards, is it something we are avoiding … this kind of indefinable “they”. The “they” give us reason to exist or “they” give us something to run away from but the main part of the tape is the “now that”. It was repetitive and there were ten sections. The piece which repeats is the “now that we know we’ve failed”, the crowd then goes off into position one but it’s mainly about this kind of vapid gallery situation … the contemporary situation.
BB: It seems we are running out of time. Thank you, Vito.

original text presented on: http://www.imageandtext.org.nz/bruce_vito.html

Here are a further selection of commonly heard Doctor Who fan comments, posted – some with truly monotonous regularity - onto the Outpost Gallifrey Internet Forum. Underneath, you’ll find their translations into English.

The exam will be in two weeks. Good luck.

So, is anything new and exciting happening in the world of Doctor Who?
I’ve been in Outer Mongolia for the last six months - did I miss anything?

I’ve been in Outer Mongolia for the last six months - did I miss anything?
Actually, I was in Slough. For two weeks. And I didn’t miss anything.

Series Four/Series Five/One of Russell’s Specials/David and the Damage Done/E-mails to BBC Executives/The Almost Legendary Alan Fridge/Rumours of My Cancellation Have Been Greatly Exaggerated:

Why are the series so short? We need more episodes … and a Summer Special as well as the Christmas one. Let’s have a theatrical film release as well, please. And isn’t it about time that the Doctor started to show up in Torchwood and Sarah Jane Interferes?
I work in a convalescent home for actors who’ve collapsed through nervous exhaustion, and I really fancy a quick game of doctors and nurses with that there David Tennant.

“Interview with Julie Gardener. New info! Link.”
Excellent. Now, watch all the gullible masses flock to my thread in search of spoilers, when actually all she reveals is that David’s bought some new ties after a trawl through Cardiff’s charity shops.

“Rested”, “Hiatus”, “Pause in production”:
Any difference whatsoever between the start date of production for Series Four and the start date for production for Series Five. Please be advised that anything greater than 24 hours will be considered as disastrous to the show’s future.

“Specials”:
I have no idea what on Earth this production idea actually entails, but nevertheless I can state that it is catastrophically bad, unspeakably awful and represents unbelievable stupidity, arrogance and pomposity from both the Cardiff production team and the BBC and - simply - MUST! MUST! MUST! be STOPPED!!!!!! By force if necessary. I’ve got a hammer and a TV set, who’s with me?

I’ve heard a rumor…:
I live in the United States of America, hence my inability to spell the word ‘rumour’ correctly. Somebody who e-mails me occasionally from the UK - whom I’ve never met and, for all I know could be either a 12 year old or a 30-something paederist - has just told me a right pack of old bollocks concerning Doctor Who’s likely future - or lack of it - and, like a gullible fish, I’ve swallowed it hook-line-and-sinker. I am now presenting this “rumor”[sic] to you in the hope that one or two of you have similar acquarian tendancies and will, therefore, also have your day ruined by the biggest load of old shat that ever masqueraded itself as “truth” in the history of the Internet. Have a nice day.

It is rumoured that certain high-ups at the BBC thought ‘Last of the Timelords’ was dreadful and want Russell to write less episodes. Or, indeed, go.
In actuality, I started this rumour because *I* thought ‘Last of the Timelords’ was dreadful and *I* want Russell to either write less episodes or, indeed, to go. I realise, of course, that it is perfectly possible for individual TV executives to have personal opinions on the quality of a particular television show. But, I am also fully aware that even if these mysterious nameless people didn’t particularly enjoy an episode of a popular TV series they are far more likely to take one look at the extraordinary ratings and AI figures that the episode in question generated, shrug their broad shoulders and ask “can we get this guy to write all 14 episodes next year cos the general public don’t seem to have a problem with it?” than to allow their own personal dislike to, in any way, effect the production.

I have just e-mailed Jane Tranter about this…
Jane Tranter’s lawyers have just e-mailed me back asking from where I obtained her private e-mail address and informing me that if I ever use it again, they’ll send somebody round to break my fingers.

Series five will be ‘Specials’ only:
OMG!!!! The sky is falling! The SKY is FALLING!!!!!!!!!!!! Now, I don’t want to say “I TOLD YOU SO” (but I’m going to anyway … even though, actually, I didn’t tell you this or anything even remotely like it, I told you that the show would be cancelled at the end of Series four and, when I do say “I TOLD YOU SO” I’m going to look like a proper a ‘nana when somebody digs into the archives and finds what I actually DID told you…)

Series five will be all specials - this cannot be allowed to stand:
So, let’s review the situation, shall we? As a fandom we survived sixteen years where we had exactly 100 minutes of new Doctor Who on television. Now, seemingly, we’re worried about twelve months where we might have only, have 180 or 240 minutes instead. Aren’t we just, like, the biggest bunch of badly spoiled brats you ever did see in all yer born days?

I’d rather have a new series with a new Doctor than a gap year.
I didn’t know anything about Doctor Who at all before 2005, but now I’ve forgotten about all other television programmes and other forms of entertainment.

The lead actor is not bigger than the show:
I have seized upon the wild notion that the BBC might sack the star of their hugely successful prime-time show just because I don’t like him. Now, I’m excessively bitter that they didn’t. I want a new Doctor and a series in 2009 now, now, now, now, now, now, now… If I don’t get one I’ll hold my breath till i turn blue and then you’ll be sorry…

The production doesn’t seem to care about what the fans think, only the general public.
I’m genuinely not sure which is the sadder, the fact that I don’t seem able to understand that the views seven millions people are slightly - but only slightly - more likely to influence anything on a TV production than the views of a couple of thousand spotty, inarticulate anorak-wearing obsessives who post their pointless rants on the Internet or my total inability to grasp the vast unimportance that all TV fandoms have in the greater scheme of things. Of course, we like to think we’re madly important - we set up our little websites and message forums and blogs and we do the alpha-male heirarchial things of “I’ve been a fan for 20 years, that means I’m better than you cos you haven’t” and so on. We name-drop and we postulate and pontificate under the clear belief that our voice is actually being listened to by Russell Davies on a daily basis. But, essentially, nobody other than ourselves takes us in the slightest bit seriously.

Why hasn’t David Tennant said one way or the other whether he’ll be doing Series five?
Fer Christ’s sake, the man’s mother has just died, I think he may have slightly more important things on his mind than your entertinment. Geez, get some perspective, willya (see “sense of persepctive, a”).

RTD and Tennant have threatened to quit if they don’t get what they want - namely the series rested while they do other things. They are holding the BBC to ransom and Doctor Who’s future with it.
Since I have never had an actual job, I know nothing about the dynamics of pay and contract negotiations between employers and employees.

RTD and Tennant have threatened to quit if they don’t get what they want - namely the series rested while they do other things. They are holding the BBC to ransom and Doctor Who’s future with it (slight return).
Alan Fridge told me this. It, therefore, must be true.

Peter Fincham and Jane Tranter and other BBC people want a 2009 series - apparently out of fear of what ITV might do.
Alan Fridge also told me this. Having sat on it for a while. On the other hand, he didn’t tell me what Peter and Jane’s fears are concerning the 38 weeks a year that Doctor Who isn’t on at the moment - however, I’m hoping for a report on the state of their underwear any moment. That’s not, actually, anything to do with the future of Doctor Who, I’m just interested …

Suzie Liggat wants to be be full time producer - but may be headhunted by Waking the Dead instead - she has strong ideas as to what she wants to do. Steven Moffat also has ideas for the show - and, apparently, they don’t get on with each other.
The first rule of dramatic storytelling: In any scenario, the first thing you need is conflict to create tension…

I’ve heard that the series will definitely be cancelled following Series four….
I have, however, no earthly idea what the BBC intends to fill the 13 week April to July gap in their schedules with …

I am not very happy about any of this.
So, what else is new…?

I am led to believe…
Note to all “not-we’s” (see The Fan’s Phrasebook): Prior to July/August 2007, the phrase ‘I am led to believe’ carried absolutely no connotation of monstrous dribbling overgrown school bully-boy psychopaths bearing down on mild-mannered fans and bludgeoning them to exhaustion with excessive use of exclamation marks and hyperbole to convey their state of near fatal monstrous-dribbling psychosis. Just thought you might like to know that…

I have it on good authority…
Oi, auntie. Yer fridge appears to be leaking…

The Sun and Doctor Who:

I swear to God this is true, right. It says in the Sun this morning that David Bowie is going to appear in the next series and that Ben Kingsley is playing Davros…
Aw, am I late to the party…? What? Zöe Lucker? Whom…?

According to the Sun James Nesbitt will be the next Doctor.
There appears to be a gap in my dictionary between the words ‘gullet’ and ‘gully’ - I genuinely can’t think of anything that would fit in there. Can anyone?

Completely Baseless Rumour For the Benefit of the Sun:
I had no idea it was loaded! Look at what it’s done to my shoe!

Completely Baseless Rumour For the Benefit of the Sun (slight return):
I think I’ve worked out how Derren Brown does it, so let’s see if my cunning ruse to be the most quoted person on the Internet plays out.

Fandom:

We, as fans, deserve…
I was born in an affluent Western democracy in a time of - relative - peace and prosperity. I do not have to worry about what I shall eat today or where I’ll be sleeping tonight, or where I will wake up tomorrow morning. My life is so comfortable that I can easily afford to take time to watch television and discuss it with like-minded individuals on the Internet. I take most, if not all, of the freedoms, comforts and privileges of my existence completely for granted. Somewhere in this protective cocoon against war, tyranny and hunger I have grown so complacent and become so spoiled that I actually believe that, in a world where children starve to death and people are persecuted for their beliefs and for the colour of their skin, I have a basic human right to be entertained when and where I want it in the manner that I demand. And, I also believe that if my demands for distraction are not met completely, precisely, instantly and continuously, then I have every justificiation in feeling personally wronged and complaining loudly and often to anyone who will listen (and, in fact, anyone that won’t).

The Christmas Special can’t come soon enough!:
I just can’t take six bloody months of Arlene bloody Phillips on Saturday night telly.

The constant inaccuracy of the new show is a reminder that the producers owe us a debt.
The producers have spent time, effort and money to keep me indoors complaining when I could - and probably should - be out losing my virginity. Thank you producers.

You’re sad, you are mate. Sad, sad, sad, saddity sad sad sad.
If I keep saying it long enough I might forget that I am too. And, what’s worse, I know I am and I still don’t do anything about it.

… I heard this on another forum …
Listen, apparently, fandom exists beyong OG. Does that scare you as much as it does me?

Parenting:

I have a five year old child who might get the wrong message from Doctor Who:
Since having a child does not require a license, I went and had one (a child that is, not a license) and now I’m hoping that I can turn it into one of those tobacco-chewing hillbillies who lead joyless lives blighted by hate and resentment…

I have a five year old child who might get the wrong message from Doctor Who (Part 2):
I am with my five-year-old for more hours of more days than any other person, and have spent five years guiding them and raising them, and will have a significant influence over them for many years to come. I also have an off-switch on my television set, and a VCR that I can use for vetting any television programme before my child sees it. Please come to your own conclusions about exactly why I am worried about a message infrequently given by a TV programme that is occasionally on in our house.

I have a five year old child who might get the wrong message from Doctor Who (Part 3):
I have a five year old boy who seems to enjoy playing with his sister’s dolls more than the Macho Mercenary Man action figures I got him for Christmas. I am frightened to death by this and, as a consequence, need someone external to blame.

Fandom Buzzwords:

Drama:
The plot this week featured mainly middle-class people.

Good drama:
The plot this week featured mainly upper-class people.

Soap:
The plot this week featured mainly horrid loud-mouthed and common working-class people.

Dark:
Anything in which the Brigadier wears an eyepatch.

Gritty:
Utterly devoid of warmth, humour or humanity and therefore exactly to my “I hate-the-world-and-the world-hates-me-and-why-can’t-I-get-laid?” teenage tastes.

Adult:
I bloody hate kids.

Childish:
Containing sufficient joy and optimism as to thwart all of my attempts to feel smugly depressed while watching it.

Gimmick:
An original and possibly experimental idea.

Petition:
A list featuring no more than thirty names - almost exclusively aliases - submitted to, variously, the BBC, Parliament and the UN calling for changes in the running of a television show called Doctor Who.

Interesting view…:
… and, here’s my better one…

You raise some very valid points:
Everything you say is wrong…

We:
I…

Everyone I know:
I…

All my friends and family:
I…

Everybody I’ve ever spoken to in the entire world …:
I…

Gravitas/Deus ex Machina/Lazy Writing/Agenda/ Populist/Plot Hole:
I’m not sure what any of these words actually mean but I’m pretty sure I can criticise someone/thing using them with impunity.

Impunity:
Logging out of this forum, quickly, after posting.

Rumourmonger:
A bit like a fishmonger, but with a far worse stench.

Sense of perspective, a:
Nope. Nothing. Nada. Total blank. Is this a Welsh phrase, by any chance?

Human Nature/Family Of Blood/Blink:
The untouchable words and visuals of the Lord. Thou shalt not blaspheme against such deities and thou shalt treasure their infinite worth via weekly viewings en masse every Sunday morning. Thou shalt never speak against them, use their titles in vain, or quote from them carelessly.

With this, the show has definitely jumped the shark.
I simply cannot be bothered to come up with any form of coherent argument, so I’m just going to use the latest vacuous Internet buzz-word. Again.

Hi, I’m a Whovian.
Hi. I’m an American. Please don’t kill me, I didn’t vote for our President…

The Fandom Wars:

Get over it:
My opinion is right, and despite the fact that your argument is well-articulated and well-supported, I’m going to stick my fingers in my ears and go ‘lah-lah-lah!’ because I know you are wrong.

Get over yourself:
My opinion is right, and despite the fact that your argument is well-articulated and well-supported, I’m going to stick my fingers in my ears and go ‘lah-lah-lah!’ because I know you are wrong. And you are a poopy-head. So nyerr.

Grow up:
My opinion is right, but I can’t think of/can’t be bothered to type out an articulate response to your argument. So nyerr.

Get a life:
My irony detector is on the blink again. As, indeed, it has been for the last 25 years. Which way’s the exit?

I have a right to express my opinion.
I can be as offensive, obnoxious and argumentative as I sodding well want to be, and you can’t stop me cos I’m a Big Name Fan and you’re not. Nyerr, nyerr na-nyerr nyerr.

I am outraged by your comments:
You sir, are a blaggard, a wretch, a coward and an insolent cur whom I would thrash with my crop within an inch of your life were it not illegal to do so. Damn and blast your eyes, I demand my satisfaction upon the ‘morrow at dawn.

Any Chance We Could Drop Talking about AI?
I think I’d like to start a very long thread…

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree
… But one day I shall return to destroy this miserable little planet and you along with it! Goodbye!

The Code of Conduct:

Hey guys! Let’s all make smart-arsed snipes at differing opinions in a format that hopefully won’t violate the code of conduct!
I have recognised myself in one too many of these definitions. Unfortunately, I seem to have left my sense of humour somewhere. Anyone seen it? I tried looking down that back of the sofa but all I found there was three toffees and a five pence piece.

You do have a Report button, you know…
Do you feel lucky, punk? Well … do ya?

As far as I can tell this is a thread dealing with humour, most of it fairly self-depricating. If there are any specific posts that you feel are offensive, let us know.
For God’s sake, I’m in the middle of a sandwich, here. Will you little sods just GROW UP?!

I’m not saying there aren’t clever, legitimate posts in this thread, but there’s plenty of offensive rubbish too.
Oh, I REALLY wish I had written a few of those.

The BBC:

“And now on BBC one, more time-travelling adventures with Doctor Who. Record the whole series.”
The schedulers will be arsing about with the start time over the course of the next month or so.

“Right now on BBC THREE, it’s more of the Doctor…”
We’ve finally worn a hole in our tapes of “Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps Please”.

“And now on BBC Four Patrick Troughton stars in a classic episode of Doctor Who.”
Fooled you! You thought we were going to show the whole story! Ha ha! Now all those repeat recordings you’ve programmed on Sky+ will be documentaries on classical music for the next four weeks. That’ll teach you to just tune in for British Sci Fi week then bugger off again, won’t it?

“And Now on BBC Seven Paul McGann is the Eighth Doctor in his latest audio adventure.”
Listen, mate you’ve already got this on CD, why the Hell are you bothering?

Catherine Tate:

Casting an alleged “celebrity” like Catherine Tate will only harm the believablity of the series.
Casting celebrities like Christopher Eccleston, Billie Piper, Richard Wilson, Simon Callow and Pauline Collins has, in no way, harmed the believability of the series, but why let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Kylie:

I don’t like the fact that RTD has cast Kylie Minogue in the Christmas ep
I am not gay.

Felicity Kendall:

Now, that’s a very enterprising bit of casting.
Felicity! Felicity! You fill me with electricity. But you are nice/sugar and spice. Like wot a real girly outta be.

Doctor Who and Sex:

Once again we have a story in which the companion saves the day, severely undermining the character of the Doctor.
I wish Billie/Freema would wear skirts so I could get a glimpse of their underwear when they climb up ladders.

Speaking as a lesbian…
Actually, my arguments are rather threadbare and ill-thought out, but if I mention that I’m a lesbian, hopefully all the hetero-males around here will side with me on the off chance of getting some photos of me and my hot girlfriend PM’ed to them.

I agree.
Please PM those pictures of you and your hot girlfriend.

That’s just about the most thoughtful and intelligent thing I’ve heard on this board in months.
Would you and your hot girlfriend care for dinner one night round my gaff? Followed by some group sex…?

Personally, I am shocked at the purile nature of some of the people on this forum.
Is it wrong of me to find the idea of a woman sat, dressed only in her pants, weeping and feeding her cat cheese faintly erotic?

If I portray myself as sophisticated, open and urbane, whilst seeming to distance myself from the more overtly sexualised comments on this board, I shall come across as cultured and sexually mature, and the lezzas will definately want to shag me.
Oh come on, just post some photos with a bit of tongue action, please? I’m dying here…

Martha:

I hate Martha Jones.
Yes - I know this thread isn’t about her - but if I don’t post how much I hate her in at least fifty threads a day the bogeyman will get me.

Martha was rubbish.
I don’t like black people.

Martha was a wasted opportunity and could have been excellent if it weren’t for the lovey-dovey stuff.
I don’t like black people but think I should make it seem like I do.

Martha going into Torchwood is total proof that the character is not popular.
I’m going to ignore the fact that they’ve done this to expand a character that has already won the hearts of many viewers.

Rose:

I want Rose back.
I have forgotten that there is a real world out there. One in which Billie is happy - and successful - doing other stuff.

I thought the references to Rose in Series three were great!
Ah well, if we can’t have her back at least we can annoy the current companion with constant mentions of her.

Doctor Who and Racism:

The BNP were vocal in their outrage about Rose and Mickey’s relationship in ‘Rose’.
Like most fascist numbskulls, they missed the very bit that would probably have appealed to them most - when Rose left her black boyfriend and ran off with a skinhead.

Doctor Who and Politics:

It’s repetitive that they keep featuring politicians in Doctor Who and why do we have to have the companions families in every other episode?
I understand that most people around here watch and frequently reference brave, challenging TV show like Lost, The West Wing, The Sopranos and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, yet I still can’t get my head around the idea of running plot threads.

Doctor Who and Religion:

I’m uncomfortable with the religious subtext RTD has introduced to the show.
The only book about religion I’ve ever read was by Richard Dawkins. Admire how logical and rational I am!

RTD:

Russell, just leave and cancel the new series NOW!
Yes, I spent the last sixteen years bitching and moaning, protesting outside the BBC and threatening to chain myself to their railings, writing angry letters to Points of View, plotting ways to firebomb Michael Grade’s house and get away with it, smashing my TV set with a hammer on the front page of the tabloids, releasing unlistenable protest records and begging on my knees for someone to please, please, please, pretty please bring back Doctor Who, only to suddenly change my mind as soon as the show becomes popular again with people who are aren’t me.

RTD can’t write for toffee.
Uh-huh, I really did just suggest that one of the most respected writer/producers that British television has produced in two decades can’t write because I - wretched done-nothing berk that I am - didn’t like an example of his work.

RTD needs to quit!!!
I don’t like his episodes. Even though a lot of people do. But I think I’m special and important, so I think the show should be written to my exact specifications.

Here comes that bloody Gay Agenda again!
I am a homophobe.

Music:

Murray Gold’s music is too loud/intrusive/generally awful.
Ah, I remember Deadly Dudley Simpson with such fondness.

I think that incidental music should not actually be noticed. It should only subtly support the scene and not tell you how to feel.
I hate the music in all the Star Wars movies, Jaws, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, E.T., The Matrix, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Gone With The Wind and just about every other film ever made. Apparently.

Torchwood:

I think Torchwood has a perfect right to take everything it can from Doctor Who; it’s not as if children are going to watch it because of that.
I have no knowledge of parenting … and rightly so since I still have the mental capacity of a child myself. My reasons for not having them also include not being able to attract any kind of women, or just being damn scared of those small blighters who can actually enjoy life and be curious. I hate them all.

Torchwood, Sarah Jane Interferes and The Infinate Quest are yet another example of the over expansion of todays modern world.
The new series is good enough to make spin-offs which lasts more than a pilot episode.

Fans of RTD’s episodes only slag off Torchwood coz it makes them look cool… since TW is no worse, really, is it?
I’ve run out of original ways to tell folks what they *really* think.

What’s with all the pointless shagging in Torchwood.
Owen Harper is a foul, loathsome, repellant creature who nevertheless manages to get laid more times in three… maybe four… episodes than I did in the entirety of last year. Not only is this unrealistic, as far as my admittedly sheltered experience of life demonstrates, but it’s SO BLOODY UNFAIR!

Miscellaneous:

Gone a bit quiet in here, hasn’t it?
I’m lonely and have no one to talk to…

It’s gone a bit quiet again.
Come on, you slackers, I want to compile “The Doctor Who Fan’s Phrasebook, Part 2” on my blog and get another gratuitous mention in the Gruniad …!

Bump
I’ve never posted in this thread before, but gave it a great deal of attention when other, funnier, posters used it as a sounding board for their wit and mutual loathing. Selfishly unsatisfied, finding nothing that entertaining on the board since Catherine Tate caused many to claw out their own brains with rusty hooks, I am now hoping that other posters will return to entertaining me.

Well since the end of the series there’s not been a lot to inspire us.
I’m still waiting for the money and the girls from the first blog entry….

Damn, this is fun!
Bollocks, I just got back from the pub and can’t think of anything funny to say, yet I still want to be able to say ‘Oh yeah, I got referenced in ‘The Fan’s Phrasebook’ thread.

This thread just WILL NOT DIE!
We are all sad, sad, sad, sad, sad, sad, sad to the power infinity and beyond. Especially me.

Gosh, this thread’s getting a lot of attention.
We made it into one of the Gruniad’s blogs, aren’t we clever?!

I just got quoted on a blog - meh.
I just got quoted on a blog - after 36 years of utterly deserved obscurity my existence has finally been validated.

Great blog Keith!
You sodding lazy bastard you can’t even be bothered to write anything new; just copied and pasted our efforts.

You sodding lazy bastard you can’t even be bothered to write anything new; just copied and pasted our efforts.
I can’t BELIEVE he didn’t use one of my exampl