J. K. Rowling may write a Doctor Who story.

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/01/will-j ... hort-story

Will J.K. Rowling Write a Doctor Who Short Story?
STUBBY THE ROCKET


Allons-y! Expelliarmus! A rumor is circulating that the magical J.K. Rowling will pen a piece of short fiction featuring our favorite Time Lord from Gallifrey. As reported recently, a series of eleven Doctor Who stories is being comissioned as online “e-shorts” in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of the show, to be followed by a paperback release of all the stories in November 2013. Interestingly, all the stories are said to be written by “well-known children’s authors.” And while names like Philip Pullman and Anthony Horowitz are being bandied about, the biggest rumor is that J.K. Rowling will write one of the stories too!

If this is a legitimate rumor, might this lead to Rowling writing an actual TV episode of Doctor Who? It wouldn’t be without precedent. Russell T. Davies famously wanted the author to participate in a meta-fictitional Harry Potter episode in 2007. (It was scrapped by David Tennant and Davies before it got to script stage, with “Voyage of the Damned” resulting in its place.) And many who have written Doctor Who prose (Paul Cornell, Mark Gatiss) have gone on to write actual episodes.

In any case, on January 11th, the BBC will release a series of promotional videos featuring each author, at which point we’ll know exactly who is writing what, if Rowling is in, and who got stuck with what Doctor.

One wonders which Doctor would Rowling be best at portraying. We could see her portraying the imperiously goofy Tom Baker, with Sarah Jane Smith as the Hermione companion. What about you?

I'm not sure weather this is a good thing. I have a lot of criticisms of Rowling's writing. On the other hand, such a famous author might attract more fans to Doctor Who and its nice to see her continuing to do new things. Also, I doubt she'll be worse than the stuff we're getting on the show these days.

[Eleas]

I'm not sure weather this is a good thing. I have a lot of criticisms of Rowling's writing. On the other hand, such a famous author might attract more fans to Doctor Who and its nice to see her continuing to do new things. Also, I doubt she'll be worse than the stuff we're getting on the show these days.

It couldn't possibly be as bad as Daleks in Manhattan, so why not? Sure Rowling has her weaknesses, but they tend to arise when her stories grow longer, and she's quite a good storyteller.

[The Romulan Republic]

Regardless of weather Rowling's writing one of the stories, I'll probably read this series when it comes out. It sounds like a nice way of commemorating the 50th. anniversary.

I'm curious about who the other authors will be. I don't know a lot of modern children's authors so its hard for me to guess.

[jwl]

Rowling is a good storyteller, but she isn't terribly creative compared to lots of other authors. This will show in something like Doctor who. A book which is just about generic aliens simply doesn't work as well as with more unique designs, in my opinion.

[The Romulan Republic]

Some of the creatures in Harry Potter were quite interesting. I think the Dementors would make a fairly interesting monster for the Doctor to face (though that would be very cruel, since his worst memories are hideous).

Also, Rowling often has problems solved without fighting, which is something the Doctor does. And even when Harry wins by fighting, there's often a twist rather than him being the better fighter. Examples of this are the protection of Harry's mother's love, getting the Philosopher's Stone from the mirror, and the stuff with the wands. Its one of the main characteristics of Rowlings' writing, and its suitable for Doctor Who.

She's also pretty good at combining serious subjects and a sense of humour, which is very important for Doctor Who.

[Haruko]

I am all in favor of seeing more authors trying their hand at Doctor Who.

[jwl]

Yeah, I forgot about the dementors. They were actually quite good, and very Doctor-whoish if you add in some technobabble to explain how they worked.

[The Romulan Republic]

Bogarts are like something from Doctor Who too. Their use of illusions and reacting to being seen is reminiscent of the Weeping Angels and the Silence. They fit Moffat's style from before he was an utter hack.

I think Rowling could create a decent creature for Doctor Who.

Of course, she doesn't have to come up with a new creature. She can use one of the numerous creatures the show has already created.

[jwl]

Boggarts are not an original creation, they existed before rowling. The only Rowling contribution to it was the ridikulas charm.

[The Romulan Republic]

I didn't know that.

But even if she can't come up with a good creature, she can just use one of the existing ones.

[Erik von Nein]

Hey, why not? It's not like the series can get much worse.

oh wait

But, yeah, it'll be good to bring in more writers, if only to make the series more episodic and less grandstanding and over blown. And these new TWEESTS to the stories might be an overall improvement. Fresh ideas and perspectives and all that. Gaiman's episode was kinda wanky (I LOVE YOU LIVING EMBODIMENT OF MY MACHIEEEEENE) but still better than the rest of that season.

Anyhow, here's to hoping.

[DaveJB]

To clarify, Rowling isn't writing for the TV show (at least, not in the immediate future), she's just contributing to a book of Doctor Who short stories.

[The Romulan Republic]

Actually, its not confirmed she's writing a short story yet. This is speculation for the moment.

[Erik von Nein]

Oh, well, never mind then.

[The Romulan Republic]

No news yet on weather Rowling is writing a short story, but the First Doctor story will be written by Eoin Colfer. I am not particularly happy with this choice.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/ja ... oin-colfer

Fifty years after he first materialised on British television screens, Doctor Who is set to appear in a series of new short stories to be written by a series of well-known children's authors.

A Big Hand for the Doctor
by Eoin Colfer

Find this on the Guardian bookshop
Search the Guardian bookshop

The creator of the bestselling teenage spy Artemis Fowl, Eoin Colfer, is due to launch the series on 23 January, with A Big Hand for the Doctor.

Set in early 20th-century London, Colfer's story features the first Doctor, played by William Hartnell. Each of the subsequent stories will be written by a different children's author, with each story featuring a reimagining of one of the eleven Doctors, from Hartnell via Tom Baker to the most recent Doctors David Tennant and Matt Smith.

Colfer told the Guardian he was drawn to write about the first Doctor because, "he is a bit of a grump".

"Subsequent Doctors became more chipper and almost childlike and I found the first Doctor interesting because he was not so developed and I could have a little leeway with the character," he said.

Colfer, who wrote the sixth novel in Douglas Adams' much-loved Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "trilogy" with the support of Adams' widow, explained how his first encounter with Doctor Who was on the page.

"As a boy I had been reading the Doctor Who books for years before I ever saw a single episode," he said, "and I found that the on‐screen version of the first Doctor was almost identical to the version in my imagination."

A new story in the series will be released as an ebook on the 23rd of every month, each costing £1.99. Colfer's story, due on 23 January, will see the first Doctor (played by Hartnell between 1963 and 1966) missing both his hand and his granddaughter Susan. As he searches for her – meanwhile taking on "a strange beam of soporific light, and a host of marauding Soul Pirates" – he embarks on "a dangerous journey into a land he may never forget".

The other authors range from "commercial blockbusters to literary award‐winners", according to the publisher Puffin, and are due to be revealed on the first Tuesday of every month. The publisher Juliet Matthews promised they would each bring "an individual style, imagination and interpretation to their e-short tribute to The Doctor", describing them as "a who's who of children's fiction coming together to celebrate the much‐loved Doctor Who".

The project is intended to mark the 50th anniversary of Doctor Who on 23 November 2013. Puffin is publishing the series in conjunction with BBC Worldwide.

[Crazedwraith]

What's your problem with him?

Did he do a bad job on HHGttG?

[The Romulan Republic]

I never read all of it, but I don't recall anything too terrible, though I don't think he was as good as Douglas Adams. My problem with him is mainly due to what he did with the Artemis Fowl series.

But I can guess why they picked him. He's a fairly well known children's author who's written a lot of science fiction and fantasy, so in a way he's an obvious choice.

[jwl]

Knew he'd get picked. He gets picked for a lot of things.

[Ford Prefect]

Rowling is a good storyteller, but she isn't terribly creative compared to lots of other authors.

Man this is totally backwards. One of Rowling's persistent strengths was that she could draw an incredibly colourful world full of weird and wonderful things with equally weird and wonderful names. Like it wasn't the plotting of the Philosopher's Stone that drew kids in, it was the exciting sights and sounds of the wizarding world being presented to them.

[Connor MacLeod]

Yeah, Rowling had alot of good ideas, but she was terrible at plotting them out. The fact that every successive book in the series introduced a completely new element mostly unrelated to stuff that came before tended to strain credibility. This was particularily evident in the Deathly Hallows when we got a whole bunch of shit tossed in (like the Hallows, and IIRC Beedle the Bard) that had not been run across at all before.

I enjoyed (and still enjoy) the Harry Potter books despite the hype, but they needed much more planning to be a coherent and well told story.

[jwl]

Rowling is a good storyteller, but she isn't terribly creative compared to lots of other authors.

Man this is totally backwards. One of Rowling's persistent strengths was that she could draw an incredibly colourful world full of weird and wonderful things with equally weird and wonderful names. Like it wasn't the plotting of the Philosopher's Stone that drew kids in, it was the exciting sights and sounds of the wizarding world being presented to them.

By that I mean all of her monsters and wizards and stuff were either pretty generic (excluding dementors) or taken from existing stories (like the basilisk). What I would call a creative magic system, for example, would be something like the text-based system in Spellwright or even the conservation of energy system in the inheritance series (even if the plot does rip off star wars). In harry potter, they just point a wand and say a spell, just like every other wizard in fiction, and magic is the main plot point.
In Artemis Fowl which seems to have been mentioned before, is based around technology-powered faeries with time stops and bio-bombs, and their magic system is unique by the restriction to the 3 powers of healing, hypnosis, and invisiblity, as well as acorn ritual necessary to get the magic in the first place. You don't get that anywhere else. Not to mention the fact the main character is a teenage evil genius, and dwarves.
I'm not saying her ideas were not creative, but her world is pretty generic for a magic-based fantasy.

[Connor MacLeod]

Wonderful and colorful do not neccesarily mean 'original.' Rowling wasn't totally original in many of her ideas, but the way she used them was compelling nonetheless for the silliness or the magic or whatever. Maybe it didn't make 100% sense, but most of the time it never broke supsension of disbelief for me because I was drawn in by the stuff happening.

Seriously, is 'generic' a bad thing? Because if you look really hard (or get pedantic enough) no ideas are truly 'new' - its just the way in which they're used that is interesting or appealing. Arguments like that could be levelled against alot of series (rangers apprentice, fablehaven, alot of Garth Nix's writings) but that doesn't mean they aren't 'good' or 'interesting' either. In fact, I tend to find alot of the youth/young adult stuff to be more interesting than alot of supposedly 'adult' writing like Jordan or Goodkind. I think it may be because it lacks alot of the arrogance and padding you get in alot of those stories.

Again the main flaw in her series - if you cna call it one - is that the way things unfolded quite obviously was not planned out very well. I mean if you even look at the first three books or so they seem like a completely different series in tone and structure compared to the way the latter three turned out (four is sort of a 'bridge' between the two as I see it, borrowng elements from both sides of the coin which always gave it for me a really kickass 'twist' - You expected Harry to 'win' the tournament and then everything turns out okay, and then suddenly the rug is pulled out from under you and a completely new book is unveiled.)

[Scrib]

I never read all of it, but I don't recall anything too terrible, though I don't think he was as good as Douglas Adams. My problem with him is mainly due to what he did with the Artemis Fowl series.
.

What did he do to it? Sell out and make his protagonist the cuddly guy at the end of every romantic movie? In retrospect that was always going to happen.

As for Rowling, yeah, she is good at making things seem wonderful and bright, but it's a mirage, most of the stuff isn't new, there are plot holes at times and when you try to dig into the world and it's mechanics you can't really stray off the path she's beaten. But none of that should matter for a short story.

[jwl]

Never said it wasn't good, I just think that doctor who generally works better when you throw out something unique. It might work fine for harry potter, but a Doctor who episode (or book) about greys would leave me feeling disappointed.
I actually quite liked a lot of the harry potter books, especially the Hallows and Azkaban. The only one
Regardless, this should raise the profile of the books which I guess is a good thing.
Regarding your final point, books generally get darker and more serious as you go along to raise the bar and make it seem more dramatic. Even more so in children's/teen books because the audience gets older as the series progresses. I guess Rowling went a bit too quickly, though, it would have been better to start getting darker with the chamber of secrets and make the prisoner of azkaban more dark to get a more gradual approach.
The main flaw of her series, in my opinion, was that because it was set in a school, rowling thought it as an excuse to fill the 5th and 6th books with a load of classroom filler. In all her other books the threat was there all the time, but in those two there seemed to be a lot of unnecessary classroom scenes that deviated from the plot. But the deathly hallows was action and thick plot-lines all the way, so that's what I'm hoping the doctor who book will be like.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Does it really matter if none of her ideas are new? She tells them well. I don't care if the magic system is not explained with time-stop and bio-bombs. If I wanted that stuff I would read SF. Harry Potter is a children's/young adults fantasy book about a kid at boarding school with magic.

Again, so what if that's unoriginal? What matters for me is how well it is written and presented. Frankly I almost like the lack of originality, it makes the work comfortingly familiar; you don't get caught up in the details of the new and original magic system and can spend more time on the characters.

As for the books getting darker, well, Chamber of Secrets features prejudice much more strongly than the first one does and features one of the school founders deliberately leaving behind a deadly monster just to get rid of a certain type of wizard. That's pretty dark.