This interview with Peter Anghelides was conducted
by Kevin Mahoney in early 2000.
KM: There seems to be a whole difference of tone
between Kursaal and Frontier
Worlds. In comparison with the latter, Kursaal seems to be quite
constrained. It's a trend which appears to have affected Kate Orman and
Jonathan Blum also - their recent Unnatural History is far more fun than
Vampire Science. Were the tones of these novels affected by
contemporaneous editorial decisions?
To keep myself interested when writing, I try to make
each thing I write a bit different from the other stuff--whether it's a piece
of short fiction or a novel. Both "Kursaal" and "Frontier
Worlds" were edited by Steve Cole, but at different times in the BBC Books
range's history. When I wrote "Kursaal", I had to adapt my original
proposal to accommodate the new companion, Sam. When I was commissioned to do
one of the linked series of 1999 books, it was with full knowledge of how the
main characters were developing. I'm not sure whether that means "Kursaal"
was less constrained, because it was conceived originally as completely
standalone (and then worked in some of Sam's development leading in to
"Longest Day"), or whether "Frontier Worlds" was more
constrained because I already knew where the characters had to end up.
KM:
You must have fshed around for a lot of the jokes
in Frontier Worlds (as in 'What do you call a fish with no eyes?'). Fitz
cutting wires in his apartment reminds me greatly of Del Boy's famous encounter
with a chandelier in Only Fools and Horses. Why did you decide to
increase the joke content?
I happily stole the fsh joke from the back cover of one
of Steve Cole's books. (One of his other things for BBC Worldwide, this was a
joke book for a kids' magazine, and that was my son's favourite joke in it.) I
first heard the chandelier story long before the Only Fools and Horses thing
(which I'd forgotten until one of my read-through team commented on it). When I
heard the story, it was about a paranoid spy in the British Embassy in Moscow.
I suppose I wasn't consciously increasing the humour content, but as a
lot of "Frontier Worlds" is seen through Fitz's eyes, maybe that's
why it turned out that way. I took out a lot in the final draft, mostly
scatalogical jokes in very poor taste. There are probably fewer jokes in
"The Ancestor Cell" (and no fart gags).
KM: In many ways, Frontier Worlds seems to be quite
reminiscent of the classic Who serial The Seeds of Doom. There's a huge
plant which likes to turn humans into its kind, an evil capitalist or two, and
there's a scene where the Doctor kicks someone in a head, quite
like Tom Baker thumping the chauffeur in Seeds. Was this a deliberate
homage?
Some people have seen parallels with "Seeds of
Doom", and I suppose it's a helpful shorthand for reviewers. That wasn't
my plan. The book started out more like "Invasion of the Body
Snatchers", and as the idea developed the Raab became more of a
background to the humanoid characters' actions and motivations. Does the
Raab turn them into its own kind? I debated the "kick in the head"
with the editors, who originally felt it was a bit out of character for
the Doctor. I persuaded them that it gave him more "edge", given what
he's been put through. He's not always fluffy touchy-feely.
KM: The beginning of Frontier Worlds also feels like
a Bond movie. The Doctor and Fitz are pursued by goons on skis, and
there's even some red fish eyes. Was that an effect you wanted
to achieve?
There's a scene where Fitz is chased through a field,
too, but that doesn't make it "North by Northwest" :-) I wanted
there to be action sequences, certainly, because I see the Eighth Doctor
as being physically capable and resourceful. Most of all, I wanted to
start the book in the middle of some big event, rather than "TARDIS
lands and then..." (which I'd already done in "Kursaal").
I do enjoy Bond movies, but I wasn't playing any soundtracks when
writing. And I don't remember the red fish eyes!
KM: Prior to Frontier Worlds, I'd never really
liked Fitz. He just seemed to be a little too lifeless, and prone
to being kidnapped and brainwashed. But your use of the first person for
his narrative really made me identify with him for the first time.
Did you feel the need to boost his characterisation?
Thank you. In previous books, there hadn't been much
Fitz-and-Compassion-together stuff, so that was an important part of
"Frontier Worlds" for me, so see how they did (and didn't) get on
together, with Fitz as unreliable narrator. I wanted to restrict the
number of points of view in the book, to focus it on a couple of people's
reactions (mostly Fitz and the Doctor), though occasionally it was difficult or
impossible to restrict it to them, so I used Compassion (tricky) and Sempiter
sometimes. The fun parts of Fitz for me were (a) reluctant hero, (b)
would-be con man and (c) 1960s England. And with first-person, one can be
a bit more outrageous with the commentary, because it's the character who's
being a smartarse, and not the author.
KM: One critique I've heard of Frontier Worlds was
that it was too 'political'. Stephen Cole, in his introduction to
Lawrence Miles' Interference, also referred to that novel as 'political'.
How far can politics be brought into Doctor Who books? A lot of your
Doctor Who fiction seems to share an environmental theme. Kursaal is a
planet threatened with the destructive development of a leisure complex
and fox hunting is mentioned, whilst Frontier Worlds deals with
Frankenstein foods. This seems to be very much on a par with the current
concerns about undemocratic multinational companies, witnessed by the
recent protests in Seattle. Is this why the culture on Drebnar had to
seem so contemporary?
The GM foods stuff is a contemporary hook for readers.
When I was writing "Kursaal", there was a lot of fuss in the UK
about a ring road (by-pass) being built through woodland near Newbury, a
town which has some resonances for UK and US people because it's
near to the former US nuclear base at Greenham Common. When I wrote
"Frontier Worlds", the fuss about GM foods had blown up in the UK and
was starting to filter into North America (along with the recent GATT
protests). So it was a motif that people would recognise, which I think
works better than (say) introducing some theory about quantum
subparticles and then having to have the plot stop for eight pages while your
main character lectures his companion about the science of your story. The
other, much lazier reason is that it's a great deal easier to use shorthand
analogies for the mechanics of "phone", "car",
"office", "secretary" than to have to invent a culture,
society, heirarchy, technology, physiology, legal and financial system etc. I
didn't have the time, the page-count, or the inclination to do that!
KM: There's a great scene in Frontier Worlds
where the Doctor palms a gun in Compassion's possession. There have been
quite a few companions in the books who seem more than ready to fire off a few
shots, like Compassion in Parallel 59. What's your view about the
Doctor and guns?
Compassion really tests the Doctor patience and
ingenuity. Unlike other companions, perhaps, she's dangerous because she
chooses to be, rather than because she's a danger to herself or recklessly
overconfident. In that respect, she's a great counterpoint to Fitz. The
Doctor doesn't carry guns or use them, and yet here's a really dangerous
character who he is transporting all round the universe. I think that's a nice
irony--it's like he's got a blind spot, as though he is being somehow reckless
and overconfident.
KM: You receive an acknowledgement within the pages
of Parallel 59. The main similarity appears to be the continuation of
Fitz's narration. What was your contribution to this book?
I read all the books in the linked series--either the
published books or the latest available drafts, right the way through to
"Shadows of Avalon". That way I could ensure that, where appropriate,
I "seeded" ideas for the later two books or I reflected stuff
in earlier ones. I'd been able to see "Parallel 59" from its
outline stage, and had offered some (presumably useful) comments on it then. So
Natalie and Steve got me to read and comment on the whole thing. In the end, I
did the structural edit for the BBC, too. (I did the same thing for "Grave
Matter".)
The Fitz first-person narration was a coincidence,
though. I did suggest some alternative titles for the book, and I can't
remember if "Parallel 59" came from me or Steve. Probably
Steve, as he came up with "The Ancestor Cell", which I wanted to
call "The Horrid Obsession of Greyjan the Sane" and was wisely
talked out of.
KM: With the revelation that Stephen Cole wrote
as Tara Samms, there's been quite a lot of speculation about Natalie
Dallaire. Many fans are guessing that she could be a pseudonym
also. Would they be on the right track?
They'd be completely off the track and into the ditch.
Natalie is alive and well and real and, shortly after delivering the manuscript
for "Parallel 59", delivered her beautiful baby.
KM: Parallel 59 had the revelation of the Doctor
being in the nude, as witnessed by Compassion. Yet she doesn't blink an
eyelid, in much the manner that she reacted to Fitz's nudity in Frontier
Worlds. So, is the Doctor fully humanoid under that Edwardian frockcoat?
Hmm, the Doctor gets his kit off in "Kursaal"
as well, now I think about it. It probably says something about his
unselfconsciousness. As to what he conceals beneath his Marks & Spencer
underpants... well, all I can say at this stage is that they are dimensionally
transcendental, and they weren't spun on any loom.
KM: Frontier Worlds seems to include quite a few
scenes related to the current story arc. How difficult were these to
inject into the plot? What sort of process is there in the creation of
such a linked story?
I knew where things were supposed to be in the linked
story because I'd discussed it at some length with Steve Cole and the
other authors via e-mail, and a bit in person. One of my earliest and longest
contributions to the discussion was a whole series of reasons why
Compassion would be an absolute nightmare to use as a companion. We had some
robust debate on this point, and my punishment was that I had to write a book
with her in it. So rather than cheat and sideline her, I decided to use these
thoughts in her characterisation. And I ended up quite liking her. It's
interesting to pick things up now with "The Ancestor Cell".
KM: What's the best way to cook tofu (the Doctor
seems to be a fan in Kursaal)?
Oh dear, don't ask me! Whenever I've tasted tofu it
reminded me of eating plasticene in infant school. My wife is more of a
devotee--I think she'd recommend frying it and cooking it in a black-bean
sauce. I'd recommend making stick figures out of it for five-year olds.
KM: Why did you decide to have a werewolf-like
race in Kursaal? Do you think that vampires have been done to living
death in Doctor Who?
I didn't think werewolves had been done in DW
before--Mags in "Greatest Show" was a one-off, and I'd conveniently
forgotten about Sorenson in "Planet of Evil" and the Primords from
"Inferno". So perhaps it was that they hadn't been central to a
story, with the familiar trappings a DW "spin". And I thought
it would be fun to do a Hammer Horror set in Disneyland, with a big scene where
our heroes are stalked through Pirates of the Carribbean. (Actually, I've
just remembered that there was a Doctor Who Weekly cartoon about werewolves,
but all I can now recall is the fourth Doctor slavering over his companion, the
implausibly-named Sharon.)
Vampires done to living death? Well, I really enjoyed
"State of Decay", "Goth Opera" and "Vampire
Science", which all had distinctive elements and the DW "spin"
on the legend. Others have had them more peripheral: "Curse of
Fenric" has a wider idea about possession, and I think I remember
"Blood Harvest" more for the gangsters! (Any more? Me and my
rotten memory.)
KM: In a recent article in Doctor Who Magazine,
David Darlington wrote that if a new TV series of Doctor Who were to come
along, then much development in nine years of original Doctor Who novels would
be lost, and that the books had polarised Doctor Who fans. What's your
view on this?
Depends on what this "much development" is. If it
means "story events" (aka "continuity") then I can't get
too excited about the prospect of losing it (or at least, forgetting it for
99.9% of the audience). It's much more interesting for me when DW mines the
spirit of the series, rather than the facts or characters or plots. Few of
the eras of DW that I've really enjoyed have depended on
"developing" stories from the past. Even in the recent repeats of
"Genesis of the Daleks" on BBC2, I think most viewers will remember
the *idea* of the Daleks, rather than the fact that it contradicts a story
first broadcast in 1964. If the series comes back, most viewers will still
assume that Daleks can't traverse a staircase (yes, sad fans like us know a
couple of episodes that contradict that and which were actually watched by a
few million more viewers than saw the "Genesis" repeats).
So a series of books that is read by mere tens of
thousands of DW devotees (or at least aficionadoes) can't expect to have more
influence on a TV or movie revival--even when they're doing such interesting
things with the Doctor's character as (say) "Human Nature"-- unless
it's the current writers who are working on the new show. And even then,
they'd be digging a big hole for themselves if they put nine years of development
for that small audience ahead of compelling original contemporary DW for a huge
new audience.
As to whether the books have polarised DW fans, well I
think it was Lance Parkin who said that if you show two fans any episode of
transmitted DW they'll come up with three contradictory opinions! There's
something in any hobby activity which encourages collection, classification,
deriving an order. (The Eighth Doctor would laugh at the way fans find
patterns that aren't really there.) Polar or binary attitudes are the simplest
categories of all, just like the endless "canon" discussions of
what's in an what's out (no leeway for what's shake-it-all-about there).
That all said, I think most fans can adopt a pick-and-mix
approach. (Like me forgetting that there were actually quite a few previous
werewolf stories. And it's why I usually avoid specific dating for my fiction,
because I'm too lazy to do the research about the History of the Universe...
leave it for others to decide where "Frontier Worlds" fits in.)
The BBC books can be controversial because they're not on
TV, or they're not faithful to TV, or they're not as good as the Virgin books,
or... well, you see my point. For the moment, they are are most regular and
widely-available continuation of the DW franchise, and have a consistently
professional standard. That's good enough for me.
