Doctor's Wife Earns a Hugo

Neil Gaiman collected a Hugo award for the Doctor Who episode the Doctor's Wife this week:

Yesterday I flew to Chicago,

I had my photo taken with the other nominees

I believe Dan Harmon (L) brought the Darkest Timeline instant goatees (well, vandykes)

I went to the Hugo Award ceremonies, brilliantly moderated by John Scalzi, a man who needs his own TV show...

...and collected the Hugo Award for my Doctor Who episode, THE DOCTOR'S WIFE.

More Neil Gaiman's Blog - Hugo is The Doctor's Wife ... - Goodreads

Star Wars vs Alice in Wonderland

Imitated Caterpillar by Ben Chen

I know a few geeks that would enjoy this one...

These past few weeks Threadless has done an amazing job releasing pop culture inspired designs, and its latest might just be my favorite of the bunch! “Imitated Caterpillar” depicts a scene from Disney’s animated classic Alice in Wonderland, but with a twist! AiW’s Caterpillar has been replaced with another popular slug like creature, Star Wars’ Jabba the Hutt. The minute I saw this Star Wars x Alice in Wonderland mash-up I knew I had to have it, and that’s the second Threadless t-shirt that’s happened with in the past few weeks. The artist did a great job seamlessly blending these two iconic characters into a design where both look natural in this strange pairing.

The Star Wars x Alice in Wonderland mash-up t-shirt “Imitated Caterpillar” comes printed on a leaf green t-shirt and is currently available for purchase at Threadless.com for $20. The shirt comes in both guys and girls styles, sizes S-2XL.

 

Threadless Star Wars x Alice in Wonderland T-Shirt “Imitated Caterpillar”

Happy Birthday to Philip K. Dick

I share a birthday with my favorite author, Philip K. Dick. I am, however, blessed with a lack of that psychosis which may have contributed to the unique style which brought us so much prophetic work from the author. Here is one of his essays in part, giving us a perspective on the author as another human, not just a name on a dust jacket. He lived in the real world, interacted with it, and made observations about it.

How to Build a Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later
by Philip K. Dick, 1978

[...]

Science fiction writers, I am sorry to say, really do not know anything. We can't talk about science, because our knowledge of it is limited and unofficial, and usually our fiction is dreadful. A few years ago, no college or university would ever have considered inviting one of us to speak. We were mercifully confined to lurid pulp magazines, impressing no one. In those days, friends would say me, "But are you writing anything serious?" meaning "Are you writing anything other than science fiction?" We longed to be accepted. We yearned to be noticed. Then, suddenly, the academic world noticed us, we were invited to give speeches and appear on panels—and immediately we made idiots of ourselves. The problem is simply this: What does a science fiction writer know about? On what topic is he an authority?


It reminds me of a headline that appeared in a California newspaper just before I flew here. SCIENTISTS SAY THAT MICE CANNOT BE MADE TO LOOK LIKE HUMAN BEINGS. It was a federally funded research program, I suppose. Just think: Someone in this world is an authority on the topic of whether mice can or cannot put on two-tone shoes, derby hats, pinstriped shirts, and Dacron pants, and pass as humans.


Well, I will tell you what interests me, what I consider important. I can't claim to be an authority on anything, but I can honestly say that certain matters absolutely fascinate me, and that I write about them all the time. The two basic topics which fascinate me are "What is reality?" and "What constitutes the authentic human being?" Over the twenty-seven years in which I have published novels and stories I have investigated these two interrelated topics over and over again. I consider them important topics. What are we? What is it which surrounds us, that we call the not-me, or the empirical or phenomenal world?


In 1951, when I sold my first story, I had no idea that such fundamental issues could be pursued in the science fiction field. I began to pursue them unconsciously. My first story had to do with a dog who imagined that the garbagemen who came every Friday morning were stealing valuable food which the family had carefully stored away in a safe metal container. Every day, members of the family carried out paper sacks of nice ripe food, stuffed them into the metal container, shut the lid tightly—and when the container was full, these dreadful-looking creatures came and stole everything but the can.


Finally, in the story, the dog begins to imagine that someday the garbagemen will eat the people in the house, as well as stealing their food. Of course, the dog is wrong about this. We all know that garbagemen do not eat people. But the dog's extrapolation was in a sense logical—given the facts at his disposal. The story was about a real dog, and I used to watch him and try to get inside his head and imagine how he saw the world. Certainly, I decided, that dog sees the world quite differently than I do, or any humans do. And then I began to think, Maybe each human being lives in a unique world, a private world, a world different from those inhabited and experienced by all other humans. And that led me wonder, If reality differs from person to person, can we speak of reality singular, or shouldn't we really be talking about plural realities? And if there are plural realities, are some more true (more real) than others? What about the world of a schizophrenic? Maybe, it's as real as our world. Maybe we cannot say that we are in touch with reality and he is not, but should instead say, His reality is so different from ours that he can't explain his to us, and we can't explain ours to him. The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too diffrently, there occurs a breakdown of communication... and there is the real illness.


I once wrote a story about a man who was injured and taken to a hospital. When they began surgery on him, they discovered that he was an android, not a human, but that he did not know it. They had to break the news to him. Almost at once, Mr. Garson Poole discovered that his reality consisted of punched tape passing from reel to reel in his chest. Fascinated, he began to fill in some of the punched holes and add new ones. Immediately, his world changed. A flock of ducks flew through the room when he punched one new hole in the tape. Finally he cut the tape entirely, whereupon the world disappeared. However, it also disappeared for the other characters in the story... which makes no sense, if you think about it. Unless the other characters were figments of his punched-tape fantasy. Which I guess is what they were.


It was always my hope, in writing novels and stories which asked the question "What is reality?", to someday get an answer. This was the hope of most of my readers, too. Years passed. I wrote over thirty novels and over a hundred stories, and still I could not figure out what was real. One day a girl college student in Canada asked me to define reality for her, for a paper she was writing for her philosophy class. She wanted a one-sentence answer. I thought about it and finally said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." That's all I could come up with. That was back in 1972. Since then I haven't been able to define reality any more lucidly.


But the problem is a real one, not a mere intellectual game. Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups—and the electronic hardware exists by which to deliver these pseudo-worlds right into the heads of the reader, the viewer, the listener. Sometimes when I watch my eleven-year-old daughter watch TV, I wonder what she is being taught. The problem of miscuing; consider that. A TV program produced for adults is viewed by a small child. Half of what is said and done in the TV drama is probably misunderstood by the child. Maybe it's all misunderstood. And the thing is, Just how authentic is the information anyhow, even if the child correctly understood it? What is the relationship between the average TV situation comedy to reality? What about the cop shows? Cars are continually swerving out of control, crashing, and catching fire. The police are always good and they always win. Do not ignore that point: The police always win. What a lesson that is. You should not fight authority, and even if you do, you will lose. The message here is, Be passive. And—cooperate. If Officer Baretta asks you for information, give it to him, because Officer Beratta is a good man and to be trusted. He loves you, and you should love him.


So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing. It is my job to create universes, as the basis of one novel after another. And I have to build them in such a way that they do not fall apart two days later. Or at least that is what my editors hope. However, I will reveal a secret to you: I like to build universes which do fall apart. I like to see them come unglued, and I like to see how the characters in the novels cope with this problem. I have a secret love of chaos. There should be more of it. Do not believe—and I am dead serious when I say this—do not assume that order and stability are always good, in a society or in a universe. The old, the ossified, must always give way to new life and the birth of new things. Before the new things can be born the old must perish. This is a dangerous realization, because it tells us that we must eventually part with much of what is familiar to us. And that hurts. But that is part of the script of life. Unless we can psychologically accommodate change, we ourselves begin to die, inwardly. What I am saying is that objects, customs, habits, and ways of life must perish so that the authentic human being can live. And it is the authentic human being who matters most, the viable, elastic organism which can bounce back, absorb, and deal with the new.

[...]

Philip K. Dick - Introduction to Essays & Other Published Works 

Philip K. Dick's Exegesis

I haven’t posted anything about the release of The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick because I assumed that anyone who likes Philip K. Dick knows about this because of the importance of this release.

I have a copy of the first release of the Exegesis and have only read parts of it because it is difficult to choose to read it over reading VALIS which is my favorite book and one that explains parts of the Exegesis so I get my fix from that.

I haven’t picked up my copy of this yet (I’m sure I will soon). I tend to buy all of my most desired books on the day of release. If anyone would like to post mini-reviews in the comments or send a full length review, I will post (or allow) them here.

Exegesis Is Here! « Book Editions « Philip K. Dick Fan Site

The Second Coming of Philip K. Dick

    The unbilled costar of Paycheck, the latest Hollywood thriller from the battered typewriter of Philip K. Dick, is a bullet. A crack engineer named Jennings, played by Ben Affleck, finds himself in a jam, as Dick's characters invariably do, and the bullet is headed his way. Spiraling through the air in superslow motion, it pierces his chest in a plume of red and bores into his heart. Or does it? Though the image recurs throughout the film, it's hard to tell whether it's actually happening or not. Philip K. Dick liked nothing better than to toy with the fundamentals of human existence, reality chief among them, so what better for the movie than a bullet that may or may not be tearing through the main character's flesh? Like other Dick protagonists - Tom Cruise in Minority Report, Arnold Schwarzenegger in Total Recall, Harrison Ford in Blade Runner- Affleck finds himself struggling for equilibrium in a world where even the most elemental questions are almost impossible to answer. Can the senses be trusted? Are memories real? Is anything real?

    Paycheck, directed by John Woo and set to open Christmas Day, is the latest in a run of films based on Philip K. Dick stories that began 21 years ago with Blade Runner. The writer's hallucinatory tales make for suspense with an epistemological twist: full-bore action pics that turn on questions of perception versus reality. Having agreed to have his memory erased after completing a super-sensitive job, Jennings learns that he apparently signed away his $4.4 billion paycheck in exchange for an envelope of trinkets. Armed men are chasing him, but he has no idea why until he teams up with Rachel (Uma Thurman), whom he vaguely recalls meeting just before he started the job. Jennings, it turns out, is a man who has seen the future but can't remember it.

    Dick died shortly before Blade Runner's release in 1982, and, despite a cult readership, he spent most of his life in poverty. Yet now, more than two decades later, the future he saw has made him one of the most sought-after writers in Hollywood. Paycheck, based on a 1953 short story Dick sold to a pulp magazine for less than $200, will bring close to $2 million to his estate. And movies based on more than a half-dozen other stories and novels are in the works - among them "The King of the Elves" at Disney, "The Short, Happy Life of the Brown Oxford" at Miramax, and A Scanner Darkly at Warner Bros.

    Dick's anxious surrealism all but defines contemporary Hollywood science fiction and spills over into other kinds of movies as well. His influence is pervasive in The Matrix and its sequels, which present the world we know as nothing more than an information grid; Dick articulated the concept in a 1977 speech in which he posited the existence of multiple realities overlapping the "matrix world" that most of us experience. Vanilla Sky, with its dizzying shifts between fantasy and fact, likewise ventures into a Dickian warp zone, as does Dark City, The Thirteenth Floor, and David Cronenberg's eXistenZ. Memento reprises Dick's memory obsession by focusing on a man whose attempts to avenge his wife's murder are complicated by his inability to remember anything. In The Truman Show, Jim Carrey discovers the life he's living is an illusion, an idea Dick developed in his 1959 novel Time Out of Joint. Next year, Carrey and Kate Winslet will play a couple who have their memories of each other erased in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Memory, paranoia, alternate realities: Dick's themes are everywhere.

    At a time when most 20th-century science fiction writers seem hopelessly dated, Dick gives us a vision of the future that captures the feel of our time. He didn't really care about robots or space travel, though they sometimes turn up in his stories. He wrote about ordinary Joes caught in a web of corporate domination and ubiquitous electronic media, of memory implants and mood dispensers and counterfeit worlds. This strikes a nerve. "People cannot put their finger anymore on what is real and what is not real," observes Paul Verhoeven, the one-time Dutch mathematician who directed Total Recall. "What we find in Dick is an absence of truth and an ambiguous interpretation of reality. Dreams that turn out to be reality, reality that turns out to be a dream. This can only sell when people recognize it, and they can only recognize it when they see it in their own lives."  

Wired 11.12: The Second Coming of Philip K. Dick

Starbucks

Explaining Philip K Dick's Exegesis

Philip K Dick rewired my brain when I was a mere lad, after I plucked Clans of the Alphane Moon at random from a shelf in my local library. This was in the 1980s: PKD had not yet become a multi-million dollar industry and his best endorsements came from counterculture figures such as Timothy Leary or fellow denizens of the SF ghetto such as Michael Moorcock.

It was exciting to be a PKD reader back then. Lots of secondary material was being published, such as Paul Williams's interview book Only Apparently Real, or Lawrence Sutin's excellent biography Divine Invasions. Soon it was obvious that not only were PKD's books – with their combination of metaphysical speculation, social satire, bad relationships, and fantastic ideas tossed out as mere afterthoughts – bizarre and wonderful, but that Dick the man was Seriously Weird.

Sure, there was the paranoia, his prodigious appetite for amphetamines, his obsession with Linda Ronstadt and his fear that either the Black Panthers or FBI had raided his house – enough eccentricity for any lifetime, you might think. But that was all eclipsed by what happened on 20 February 1974, when a pink laser beam filled his mind with arcane and beneficial knowledge.

Where had it come from? God? Aliens? A healthy vitamin solution he had quaffed hours earlier? Dick loved to speculate, so much so that this event inspired not only his late "VALIS Trilogy" but also a private work he called The Exegesis. When he died in 1982 it ran to approximately 8,000 pages of analysis, hypothesis and self-questioning.

For some, the pink laser beam is mere lunacy. I recall a TV documentary in which Brian Aldiss dismissed it as the result of neurochemistry gone awry. Others have argued that it was temporal lobe epilepsy. For still others, an unsavoury whiff of L Ron Hubbard hangs over the event. After all, Dick was heavily into theology. Was he starting a cult? If not, would his fans do it for him?

Probably not: Dick's approach to 2-3-74 (as he called the experience, since the cosmic mind invasion was most intense between February and March) was not dogmatic but critical, and he was the first to suggest that it might have been a neurological event. But then again, the light had diagnosed a potentially critical illness in his son which doctors had missed, and he had received information in dream states in dead languages he could not speak. "It" knew things he did not. So what was it?

Dick never intended The Exegesis for publication, and aside from In Pursuit of VALIS, a tiny selection of extracts from the book that was brought out in 1991, it has remained a thing of legend only. Until last month, however, when Houghton Mifflin Harcourt brought out a huge 900-page volume, co-edited by Jonathan Lethem and Pamela Jackson. It's still only about one tenth of the whole thing, but it's a start. But what, if anything, does this text have to offer people who are not Philip K Dick?

Afraid that the answer might be "not much" I started in on it immediately lest it sit on my shelf unread for 20 years like In Pursuit of VALIS. The first thing I noticed is that Lethem et al assume that anyone reading this book already knows what it is, and will only come to it after deep immersion in PKD's fiction. And indeed, Dick himself begins with a discussion of 2-3-74 through the prism of his novel Ubik, where many of the characters are dead bodies lying in "cold-pac", while their ex-employer Glen Runciter seeks to communicate with them from the world of the living … maybe. Was the pink laser beam likewise an invasion of a dead world by something alive?

That PKD had published Ubik four years earlier was not a problem; he writes as if his book might still have related the truth behind appearances. But Ubik doesn't work, as the world is not visibly rotting around him as it was in the novel. However, Dick immediately conceives of another possibility, and I can't help but wonder what his friend Claudia Bush thought when she received a letter in which Dick speculates that a dead bishop named Jim Pike was invading his mind, before suddenly switching to the theory that it might be an ancient Greek named Asklepios. Asklepios's ignorance of Christ suggests something else: did the world go wrong around 2,000 years ago? Is the goal of this higher intelligence to restore man to a pre-Christian path?

A few pages later, however, and Dick confides in Ursula Le Guin that it's the prophet Elijah. Or at least that's what Thomas M Disch (a great SF writer of the 60s and 70s) had suggested. But there is precisely zero possibility that Disch was serious – his take on PKD was that the great man liked to play with his own mental illness. Disch always kept an ironic distance – which is something I miss in the ultra-reverential contemporary introductions to Dick's work written by fanboys with PhDs and MFAs.

These ideas rush past and are discarded within the first 40 pages or so. John Denver also pops up. The Exegesis is dizzying, bewildering, exhilarating, and more or less as strange as it sounds. But again, should you read it? It doesn't contain the answers to all things; it doesn't even contain the answer to what happened to Dick.

Lethem suggests that the reader must simply "surrender". I suspect he's right – but that won't work unless you've read at least 16 of Dick's novels, plus his biography, and love metaphysics. At that point, The Exegesis will bring you extraordinarily close to his unique mind, with its mixture of doubt, wild invention, minuscule detail, grandiose theory and wry humour. Reality collapses and is then remade, over and over again – but what is real?
Who cares? That's part of the game.

In short: if you want to know what it's like to have your world dissolve, and then try to rebuild it while suffering mental invasions from God, Asklepios or whomever, you should read The Exegesis. Then again, you could always try one of Dick's novels, like Ubik, or The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, or even a minor book such as Galactic Pot-Healer. That one's a lot of fun – and considerably less of an investment of time and energy.

Explaining Philip K Dick's Exegesis

Ridley Scott on 'Prophets of Science Fiction' and Philip K. Dick ‎

Ridley Scott is the executive producer of a new television series, “Prophets of Science Fiction,” which premieres on Discovery Communications Inc.’s Science Channel tonight.
“Prophets of Science Fiction” explores how visionary authors such as Philip K. Dick and H.G. Wells accurately predicted future scientific advancements such as medical research, virtual reality and civilian surveillance techniques.

Scott is a host on each hour-long episode, which includes commentary by experts such as theoretical physicists, biographers, and film directors. “Because I have a television company, we gradually have evolved into doing documentary television and reconstruction documentary, so this is how we found our way into this,” Scott told Speakeasy. “They said to me I seem to be a natural fit to be one of the spokesmen on the show. So that’s how it came about and how could I say no? I am a science fiction enthusiast really, deep down.”

Scott has directed two sci-fi films that helped define the genre and cemented his legacy among sci-fi fans for more than three decades: “Alien” (1979) and “Blade Runner” (1982). He just finished his third sci-fi movie, “Prometheus,” shot in 3-D with CGI, which will be released in June 2012, and he told the Journal recently that he plans to direct a “Blade Runner” sequel.

The premiere episode is on Mary Shelley, author of “Frankenstein.” Others who will be featured in the season are Philip K. Dick, H.G. Wells, Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov, Jules Verne, Robert Heinlein and George Lucas.

Scott’s film, “Blade Runner,” was inspired by a novel by Philip K. Dick, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” about Rick Deckard, a bounty hunter searching for sophisticated, rogue androids.

“I think Phil Dick was particularly interesting in that first of all, he was a very modern man and a very modern thinker, but I don’t know what demons drove him,” Scott said in the interview. “I think he was a little bit paranoid and you know how people become obsessive about deterioration or disintegration or growing older? I think he was very conscious of the way the world was going into an area of negativity as opposed to positivity.”

“What science fiction enables us to do is look into those futures from where we are now to where we are going,” Scott continued. “Certain kinds of movies do that and what’s interesting is a lot of them lean very much toward decay. Decay in the metaphorical sense of the world of not getting better but getting worse. People have found the romanticism in that.”

Ridley Scott on 'Prophets of Science Fiction' and Philip K. Dick

Ridley Scott Signs On For Blade Runner Sequel ‎

For those of you born post-1990, Blade Runner is an adaptation of Philip K. Dick's novel Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? Superficially it's the story of a man hunting down android killers, though (depending on which version you watch) it also serves as a meditation on what it means to actually be human.

The film features Harrison Ford, Sean Young and the most intense Rutger Hauer performance not centered on transient vigilantes. Most critics adore Blade Runner, and rank it alongside Alien (another film directed by Scott) as one of the finest science fiction efforts ever committed to the silver screen.

Now, nearly 30 years after the film's debut, Scott has agreed to revisit the universe. Speaking to the Wall Street Journal's Speakeasy blog, Scott said production is already rolling along nicely, and that he is currently seeking a screenwriter to assist in crafting a final script.

"I think I'm close to finding a writer that might be able to help me deliver. We're quite a long way in, actually," Scott says.

As for what exactly this new film might be about, that remains a question mark. Though Scott specifically says that this new tale won't focus on the original's cast of characters, he did mention his impression that the original "is very much about humanity," offering a subtle hint that the follow-up will likewise focus on the original's core existential query.

Revisiting his early successes seems to be a key theme for Scott these days, as the director recently finished filming Prometheus, a movie tied to the same mythos as 1979's Alien.

So, what would you like to see in a new Blade Runner film? I've got my fingers crossed for some of them glittering C-beams.

Ridley Scott Signs On For Blade Runner Sequel
‎

Ridley Scott Brings Us The Prophets of Science Fiction

There are some writers who you would swear must be able to see directly into the future. Even if only through a scanner, darkly, these authors of speculative fiction seem to be looking over your shoulder from the past and reading the headlines from today.

Starting tonight at 10PM ET/PT on Science, movie maker Ridley Scott brings together scientists, writers, and other thinkers to honor the Prophets of Science Fiction. Each episode focuses on a writer who helped explain and expand the world of science through the use of fiction. The series will use film clips, reenactments, illustrations, and interviews with top thinkers — including director Paul Verhoeven and theoretical physicist Dr. Michio Kakuto — to tell the story of the author, and the modern day scientific implications of what they wrote.

According to Scott:

For years I have been fascinated with the connection between creative inspiration and scientific progress. Often there is an attempt to separate the worlds of art and science, when in reality the two are inseparably linked.

I had a chance to preview the first episode, telling the story of Mary Shelly and how she wrote her masterpiece Frankenstein at the tender age of 19 during 1816, the infamous "year without a summer." The narrative follows her own explorations of reanimation based on the best science of the early 19th century, and of the creation of man-made life.

Interestingly — and often overlooked in favor of the Hollywood versions of the story — the actual animation of the monster in Shelley's novel barely takes a page to describe. Yet the mythology around the use of electricity is what most of us remember, and forms an important part of this documentary's narrative, most especially showing clips from Kenneth Branagh's 1994 interpretation. However, what the documentary also spends a good deal of time on is the true central theme of the book — how we might deal with intelligences of our own making — examining robots and artificial intelligence.

I'm more a fan of the Cinéma-vérité style of documentary, and I found the narrator in this episode often annoying. The interviews, although expert and informed, felt a bit on the stilted side. The speakers seemed to have scripted bullet points they were speaking from. Still, the information was interesting, and enlightening. I especially enjoyed how the documentary went back and forth from the story of Shelley, directly tying what she wrote to modern science.

The story of Mary Shelley is the first of the prophets, but by no means the last. The list is not particularly surprising, but may not be without controversy:

• Mary Shelley — Tonight
• H.G. Wells — 16 November
• Phillip K. Dick — 23 November
• Arthur C. Clarke — 30 November
• Isaac Asimov — 7 December
• Jules Verne — 1 February
• Robert Heinlein — 8 February

Notice anybody missing?

The list favors the Classic and Golden Age of science fction, with Dick being the only representative of New Wave sci-fi. There are no Cyberpunk authors. That's not to say any of the authors spotlighted in the series are unworthy, but I hope they do a second season with Harlan Ellison, Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., J.G. Ballard, William Gibson, Neal Stephenson, Pat Caddigen, and Bruce Sterling.

Did I leave anybody out?

http://feeds.wired.com/~r/wired/index/~3/Uf_QvfY0KNU/

Doctor Who Analogy

Recently, I began thinking of an analogy for the Doctor. It came about from watching the Pandorica Opens episode again. I saw all of the villains that the Doctor has fought come together to protect the universe from the Doctor.

Doctor Who 2005 5x12 The Pandorica Opens 3 by IDavros

The Doctor is an adventurist. He travels the universe and time as a tourist, sometimes mucking about and making a mess, even hurting others. He has even been accused of murder. The Doctor, I thought. A killer? A danger to society?

I am reminded of America's adventures throughout the world, bring democracy to countries, whether they want it or not. They force their ideals upon others, often at great cost of life and liberty.

Will there ever come a day when all of the nations of the world come together to do something to truly protect the world?

If we can see that the Master is not necessarily the villain he is made out to be, could the Doctor be worse than he imagines himself?

Planet Gallifrey: Karen introduces Let's Kill Hitler

Not even Matt Smith can say an episode title with that much enthusiasm! Yes, it's the lovely Karen Gillan on what we can expect from the episode...

Source

FETT'S VETTE (my backpack's got jets)