Paul Gadzikowski

stoplookingup wrote recently that she doesn't think she'll ever take to 20th century Doctor Who because of the campiness. In a paragraph-long post she concludes, "it's fun, but kind of from a distance." (edit I may have oversimplified. She clarifies in a comment below.)

Before I get further into this, though (because it's to the point): You'll've probably noticed that in such discussions I tend not to use the common fannish vocabulary, "old Who" and "new Who". I'll say instead, "20th century Doctor Who" and "21st century Doctor Who". But I've been realizing that either set of phrases are semantically misleading, because since 2000 Doctor Who has had only one showrunner while from 1963 till 1996 Doctor Who had so many showrunners that I can't name them all. And while much that distinguishes the two categories is differences in the expections of tv dramas in two different time periods, many of the differences are specific to the style of the only showrunner to date Doctor Who has had in the 21st century. So what I think I ought to be saying is "20th century Doctor Who" and "Russell Davies Doctor Who", till we see how many of the trails he's blazed are taken up by his successors.

Because while I agree with stoplookingup's assessment, I don't agree with her opinion. My comment to her post was in part, "Finally. Finally, finally, finally, I realize what Davies has done wrong. He leaves the fun out."

But that was only my initial response. The more I think about it, the more Davies Doctor Who is obviously not just un-fun, but anti-fun.

(Disclaimer: Of course fun is entirely subjective. But bear with me.)

( Cut from here because I can never tell what kids these days consider spoilers. )