Because I've been known to work on impossibly long blogging projects (namely, 3 years of daily Star Trek reviews), I'm asked now and again if I'd consider doing daily Doctor Who reviews, starting with 1963's An Unearthly Child. Going by episode rather than story (which usually ran 4-6 episodes apiece, but could go as high as 12), that's almost 700 posts before I even hit the New Series. Am I thinking about it? I am. But there are two main obstacles...1. Availability: For one thing, there are a lot of missing episodes in the canon, almost all in the first 6 years. I do have the first three boxed sets of narrated audios, which gives me access to all the missing episodes in audio form up through The Moonbase. I haven't seen a volume 4 announced yet, and there are still plenty of 2nd Doctor stories still missing after that point. Not that all intact stories are out on DVD yet either. Some are available to steam online, but not all.
2. Relevance: I've read a lot of Doctor Who reviews over the years, most notably in the DisContinuity Guide, Mad Norwegian's About Time series, and most recently, Running Through Corridors. What can I bring to the table that's new and interesting, not just for readers (who may not have read all those books), but for myself, so that I don't feel like I'm regurgitating information and opinion found elsewhere.
The first obstacle will be overcome by timing. When would I start such daily Who reviews? Right now, I could safely do the 1st Doctor's episodes, which represents some 4½ months of reviews, so the stuff I need may turn up before I get to it. In any case, I've got Reign of the Supermen going as a daily feature, and that should last longer than the initial year. Might my 4-year anniversary in early December be a good moment to make the switch (sending Superman to a weekly slot)? Or perhaps the 1st of January 2012? Maybe you have a preference.
The second obstacle is the more important, and I look forward to reading your suggestions in the comments section. Obviously, I'd include a Review of the episode, and notes on the different versions available, but what else? Should it be just like the Star Trek reviews with "Why we like it" and "Why we don't"? Should I include a permanent or occasional "Theories" category in the same style as my New Series reviews? How about "Why it's important" (to the canon)? Should it be more thematically Whovian, with space and time annotations of some sort, or a category I can't think of right now?
I know blogging about blogging is a cardinal sin (with its own statue in Shazam's cave), but I place myself in your hands. What do YOU want out of potential Whovian daily reviews?
Comments
The Doctor wouldn't start at the beginning and plod through in sequential order; he'd go where his whims took him. Why not do the same?
I've seen a fair pile of old Who, but nowhere near all of it; so this will be something.
While one of the attractions for me was doing the Whovian Pilgrimage (they say each of us should do the whole canon in order at least once in our lives), you open a different door.
The problem with doing them in no particular order is that I'd still be forced to keep stories together leading to a strange sort of schedule. Like 4 days of The Ribos Operation, followed by 7 days of Inferno, then 2 days of The Edge of Destruction. Seems like such a schedule would sit better if I were discussing the stories entirely, but that's impossible on a daily schedule for length reasons.
I don't mind "plodding" through the first 6 years because I quite enjoy that era, in any case. But will readers only start showing interest when I hit the Baker years?
"The psychological and thematic aspects interest me."
(Just keeping all the comments in one place.)
Of course, it would involve a lot of speculation (and argumentation) to place some of the stories chronologically, but it would give you something extra to talk about.
Or, alternately, as a test, you could start with just the Dalek stories, or the Cyberman stories. As someone who spent an entire summer trying to order the Dalek stories chronologically from the Daleks' point of view (me=loser), I would appreciate the special hell you'd be putting yourself through.
Alternate reviews suggestion: Sherlock Holmes. The Granada/Jeremy Brett series is all on DVD, which covers most of the canon. Compare/contrast each with the original story. Too short for a daily feature, perhaps? A weekly?
Doing them in the order you want could lead to sitatuations where you just do the ones you like and then you end up putting all the dull ones together in a box set in order to get them out the door *cough* 2|Entertain *cough*
Saying that, I quite like the idea of adressing things like "in what order do these adentures happen for the Daleks/Cybermen", although I suspect that there's no way to make any of that make sense. You've got the potential rewriting of Dalek history with Genesis, and the 50,000 possible variations on Cyberman history...
If you're worried about people not showing interest for the first few years: I think people enjoy your POV enought that that wouldn't be a problem. I read all the Star Trek comic reviews despite not having read the comics, and I think people interested in Who generally would read about episodes they haven't watched. You could make them a bit more forward thinking, pointing out how Rose is a big rewrite of Spearhead from Space, swapping out the military stuff for chavs.
Liam: You make a good argument for the normal broadcast order. In fact, that was always the plan. I think people are more concerned with fixing Problem 1 (which I had the least trouble with) than Problem 2 (which still puzzles me).
Anon: Any hotness discussion that doesn't start and end with Leela is alien to me.
That said, I appreciate your blogging in general, Siskoid, and would read your reviews however and in whatever order you choose to present them.
Pretty much, just do what you did with Star Trek, but with Doctor Who.
Or, if you're part of the "there is no Doctor Who canon" crowd: it isn't.
And yeah, I know what Anonymous@2:14 meant. Whatever approach you take, I'd also like to see you highlight references back to earlier stories.
I will also comment on "Problem 0" though I realise you want comments on Problem 2!
0. Episodes or Stories?
I realise you're thinking of each daily review being one episode.
Star Trek is formed mainly of one-episode stories of 50 minutes.
Doctor Who (Classic) is formed of multi-episode stories, each episode 25 minutes.
Blogging a story such as Season One's "The Sensorites" will be a challenge, as not very much happens at all for 25 minutes at a time, over 6 episodes.
I'm not arguing against the episode-by-episode format just highlighting what could be a difficultly. (This is the format of "Running Through Corridors" though and I think it could mean a fresher perspective as by-story is the norm really.)
Of course, the 21st Century continuation of Doctor Who (and Season 22) is much more Star Trek-like with one-episode stories of 45 minutes being the norm but that would be the future.
"1. Availability"
I'm going to mention my blogging of some of "all" of the Doctor Who stories (link in the John Nor link of this comment, above). I started off with 52 weeks of reviews ending on 13 weeks of Moffat Season 1 that included a season for each Classic Doctor. (Having blogged RTD Season 4 and The Five Specials.) A few years ago the DVDs were much less complete than they are now, so I'm going to try and continue with the blog a-story-a-week idea (having completed Moffat Season 2, and some more of the RTD seasons. Still deciding which seasons when though).
"2. Relevance"
You mention the "About Time" books. They really are rather definitive!
The "Firsts and Lasts" elements of each story-review there seem to be what you're talking about in the comments as an idea (putting the stories in context) though I'd say have a read of their elements-of-reviewing and try a new spin.
And you've understood my malaise in your About Time comment. I don't want to simply regurgitate what others have written, but having read all of that, it's inevitable. I'd probably steer clear of those books while I'm in the process (or just compare days later) so as not to be influenced.
I like what people have been saying about "historical context". It could lead to "At the time" and "Now" sections that discuss how the show would have been perceived and how it now is in hindsight. I'm starting to get a picture in my mind of what it could be.
I'm not against doing two a day.
You can be sure that though I'll be setting the start date a few months from now, I'll actually start writing before then. That way I can see what works and what doesn't and make adjustments before the text appears on the blog.
For the project I'd make it a point to check out different available versions when possible.
I might be able to calculate something so that Survival Part 3 falls on that anniversary, leaving Docs 8-11 for after the date.