?

Log in

No account? Create an account
parrot_knight [userpic]

The extroversion meme

May 6th, 2006 (10:05 pm)

As seen at many other people's LJs:

Your Extroversion Profile:
Assertiveness: Medium
Sociability: Medium
Activity Level: Low
Cheerfulness: Low
Excitement Seeking: Very Low
Friendliness: Very Low


In fact, I don't believe this, and think it says more about those setting the questions than it does about me.

Comments

Posted by: Penny Paperbrain (pennypaperbrain)
Posted at: May 6th, 2006 11:52 pm (UTC)

Never mind this, people know you're an antisocial wotsit (any other kind of wotsit is creepy). What we care about is your opinions on tonight's Who.

Posted by: parrot_knight (parrot_knight)
Posted at: May 7th, 2006 12:06 am (UTC)

I have been thinking about a 'State of the Tennancy' post; but in the meantime I'll confirm that I enjoyed tonight's episode very much; it's my favourite so far, though there's a nagging uncertainty emerging about David Tennant's portrayal of the Doctor, and the way the part is now written.

Posted by: Disparate Housewife (wryelle)
Posted at: May 7th, 2006 08:01 am (UTC)

I'll look forward to that.

Posted by: wellinghall (wellinghall)
Posted at: May 7th, 2006 08:52 am (UTC)

What she said. (Something written by an articulate expert is always worth reading).

Posted by: Penny Paperbrain (pennypaperbrain)
Posted at: May 7th, 2006 09:21 am (UTC)

Yes, post about the State of the Tennancy. I probably share these concerns, and if the expert articulates them adroitly, I will get to feel clever.

could do without the Doctor lurching around with shades and a tie wrapped round his head

Posted by: parrot_knight (parrot_knight)
Posted at: May 7th, 2006 09:34 am (UTC)

There's been some debate about that scene on Outpost Gallifrey. The exchange has run along the lines of 'he was drunk!' 'No, he was just pretending to be drunk - the wine was really anti-oil' '- but the chemical properties he sketches were those of a fermented alcholic drink...' and so on.

Posted by: Penny Paperbrain (pennypaperbrain)
Posted at: May 7th, 2006 09:59 am (UTC)

He was making a tiresome exhibition of himself, whatever. "Aren't I winsome and amusing?" NO. SHUT UP.

Posted by: Pellegrina (pellegrina)
Posted at: May 7th, 2006 09:50 pm (UTC)

You did???? I thought it was an interesting idea, poorly executed, owing more to Sapphire and Steel than to Who. But then we all know that I am not on the same wavelength as RTD.

Posted by: parrot_knight (parrot_knight)
Posted at: May 7th, 2006 10:06 pm (UTC)
DavidIcon

I thought the episode fell well within the bounds of Doctor Who storytelling. I thought that Sophia Myles was a bewitching Madame de Pompadour, and that as a result it was entirely appropriate that the Doctor should fall in love with her. Steven Moffat's script continued to explore the Doctor's capacity for sexual relations, something sidelined since the early Hartnell era and publicly ruled out by production teams from 1977 onwards, until now. I was still irritated by some aspects of David Tennant's performance but I think the smugness is dispersing, and am looking forward to the 'Rise of the Cybermen' next week.

Posted by: Pellegrina (pellegrina)
Posted at: May 7th, 2006 10:17 pm (UTC)

*blink blink* You put a parrot on him! :-)

About the episode: Sophia Myles might have been bewitching, but she just failed utterly to make me believe in her as a woman of her era, let alone Madame de Pompadour, and King Louis was just an embarrassment. I've read too much French literature and seen too many engravings of the period for her to be remotely believable as Madame de Pompadour, especially with the dialogue being so uneven. If they had to do low-budget they could have picked someone whose era was less documented. As for the Doctor's sexuality, does making doe-eyes at the female-of-the-week really count? This was Tom's Midnight Garden with the serial numbers filed off, really, but I liked the androids getting her name into their CPUs.

Posted by: parrot_knight (parrot_knight)
Posted at: May 7th, 2006 10:21 pm (UTC)

I thought of Tom's Midnight Garden too!

I agree with the sense of period, which I thought was very generally sketched in. You will probably be enraged by RTD's thoughts on the subject as expressed in last night's Doctor Who Confidential, which are that strict accuracy doesn't matter, as long as the audience gets a very general sense of period. I agree with you about Louis XV - a bit too much of a cypher, whose role would have benefited from a stronger performance.

Posted by: Pellegrina (pellegrina)
Posted at: May 7th, 2006 10:49 pm (UTC)

Of course *strict* accuracy doesn't matter, but this was pathetic; the Versailles scenes felt as if they took place on the spaceship too, because the period detail was so vaudevillian and haphazard. This could work with a different framing device (e.g. the film of Jesus Christ Superstar) but here it was just distracting and confusing.

Posted by: parrot_knight (parrot_knight)
Posted at: May 7th, 2006 10:54 pm (UTC)

I confess that at one point I wondered whether we were going to find out that Versailles was all some sort of simulation and not another place time period at all. It was abundantly clear that the Versailles sets adjoined the space station ones. Yet I thought the performance and the writing helped lift the episode above those restrictions.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was 'vaudevillian'; we were caught between conventional historical drama (with hand-me-down costumes from other productions) and the modern theatricality of RTD's Casanova, but I think it for the most part worked.

Posted by: parrot_knight (parrot_knight)
Posted at: May 7th, 2006 10:26 pm (UTC)
DavidIcon

- the broken clock suggests to me that Steven Moffat was probably paying homage to Tom's Midnight Garden connection at some level.

Making doe-eyes at the female of the week counts in this context because it's so rare for the Doctor, and because we have had a brief exploration of the intense bond between the Doctor and his travelling companions in 'School Reunion' last week. It shouldn't become a habit, though.

I'm glad that you like the parrot!

Posted by: Pellegrina (pellegrina)
Posted at: May 7th, 2006 10:52 pm (UTC)

It's not rare for *this* Doctor and his predecessor, apparently. This fixation on the Doctor's emotional bonds is beginning to remind me of novels about women who seduce priests.

Posted by: parrot_knight (parrot_knight)
Posted at: May 7th, 2006 11:43 pm (UTC)
DavidIcon

I'm not familiar with the genre...

...but I think it's more an acknowledgement of the concerns of the early evening audience. I don't think it's a fixation, more a following through of aspects of the Doctor's relationship with his companions which the programme would probably have dealt with before now had it not turned away from them in the late 1970s and then institutionalised the Doctor's asexuality in the 1980s. I agree though that it has to be carefully handled, and I expect that the relationship between the Doctor and Rose will continue in the less giggly vein established in 'The Girl in the Fireplace'.

Posted by: wellinghall (wellinghall)
Posted at: May 8th, 2006 07:08 am (UTC)

I hadn't realised that any of that sort of thing had happened in the early Hartnell era ... ?

Posted by: parrot_knight (parrot_knight)
Posted at: May 8th, 2006 08:05 am (UTC)
DavidIcon

The Doctor flirts with a widowed Aztec lady in The Aztecs (1964) - and while he has an end in sight, and is at first horrified when he finds that he is engaged to her, he seems to enjoy the relationship later.

Posted by: wellinghall (wellinghall)
Posted at: May 8th, 2006 07:08 am (UTC)

I, too, thought of Sapphire and Steel.

Posted by: rustica (rustica)
Posted at: May 7th, 2006 12:03 am (UTC)

How can you have a low activity level??! You always seem to be working!

I didn't believe mine when I was rated very low for assertiveness. Just because I don't stand and argue with people! I find that going away and doing what you want to do is infinitely more effective! Of course, when I'm backed into a corner (or in an argumentative mood) then it's a completely different story, and then *everyone* needs to watch out...!

I also find the distinction between sociability and friendliness very strange. Quite a few of us have got very different results for those two characteristics, and while I do see that there is a difference between these categories, I'm still surprised at how someone (eg me!) can have *totally* different scores on these.

Posted by: parrot_knight (parrot_knight)
Posted at: May 7th, 2006 12:11 am (UTC)
salmon

Well, yes. Exactly, on all points there.

I think I answered the question on activity unhelpfully; I often end up getting little done after trying to multitask and overdoing it.

Going away and doing what you want to do is normally more effective. Just make sure that when called on to report on how a particular system worked for you, you have a cover story prepared if you think that the questioner isn't going to appreciate a description of how you ignored, by-passed and subverted the entire system...

Posted by: wellinghall (wellinghall)
Posted at: May 7th, 2006 07:46 am (UTC)

"Of course, when I'm backed into a corner (or in an argumentative mood)"

But isn't that confusing argumentativeness with assertiveness?

"I also find the distinction between sociability and friendliness very strange."

I agree.

Posted by: rustica (rustica)
Posted at: May 7th, 2006 10:19 am (UTC)

But isn't that confusing argumentativeness with assertiveness?

Well, yes, I guess it is a little! To clarify; if there is something I need to achieve, I will decide whether the best way is to be assertive or argumentative. Real example, if I want a plumber to put a radiator on a particular wall, but he wants to put it somewhere else. One plumber was just trying to skimp on costs and do what what was least bother to him, so I just said (argumentatively), Well, that's where I would be *paying* for it to go. Another plumber was doing a good job, so I explained why I wanted it in the particular place (assertively).

Sometimes I feel like having arguments in the discussion sense, which is really more assertive than argumentative (Balrogs do *so* not have wings!). But other times (not often) I do just pick arguments for the pleasure of having an argument (eg when at Aston the uni refused to clear their crappy furniture out of the Art room).