AI: Puppets or Puppeteers?

AI – Artificial Intelligence – it conjures up many emotions and motivations – wonder, fear, ambition, competition, vainglory, greed, hope. What is it really? Is it changing too quickly to define? It seems that when we talk of AI we understand different things. There is the sci-fi aspect – Rosie, the Jetsons’ goodhearted home-helper whose autonomous decision making and fast responses will save the domestic day vs Dr Who’s evil Cybermen, robotic soldiers with steely resolve, incapable of autonomous thought and whose metallic responses are powered, in now a very retro way, by commandeered human brains. Then there is the, very now, commercial application of man-made deep learning neural networks that power the advertising powerhouses of Facebook, Microsoft, Uber and Google. Glorified number-crunching processes that we have all interfaced with each time we’ve seen an ad on FB or Google that funnily enough espouses the desirability of that product or service we researched last month.  And then there’s that nebulous space inbetween, research, where the limitless horizons of science fiction are the endgame.

When Google’s AI program AlphaGo beat its human opponent at the ancient Asian boardgame, Go, it wasn’t a case of technology streamlining itself to play a more difficult game of chess. For AlphaGo to win at this game it had to play against the logic of winning. It had to learn that its opponent was playing to a cultural norm. That by playing an unexpected move it gained the psychological high ground and won. Did it signal the beginning of autonomous thought by a machine? Did it mark the first seed of free will? Or was it programmed to collect data on its opponents moves – as in the frequency of a style of logic – and assess the likelihood of the opponent playing against this style?

nations-nationalism-nationalpark

Free will and breath, the common denominators of intelligent life, or are they? Just how intelligent can computers become? Will they ever be able to make autonomous decisions, moral judgements and act on them? Like Pinocchio will they ever be able to transcend the limitations of the materials from which they are made and breathe?

No matter our opinion on the matter, AI is coming and in some ways is already here. But we are told that we can make our voice heard. The Montreal Responsible AI Declaration is a survey of opinions on the matter that cover a series of issues that can be thought to determine personal liberty or impact on it. The University of Montreal through the survey hopes to gather opinions to guide it in writing a protocol for AI researchers and developers to abide by.

 It is requesting your say until 31st March, 2018.

Questions fall under the categories: well-being, autonomy, justice, privacy, knowledge, democracy and responsibility. Some of the questions are very specific and confronting e.g., Is it acceptable for an autonomous weapon to kill a human? while others are so general, they are difficult to limit to a clear response after a first read e.g., how can AI contribute to personal well being?

The types of questions posed highlight concerns that may not immediately cross the mind of the uninitiated. Must we fight against the phenomena of attention seeking which has accompanied advances in AI? This is a question of personal vanity and advancement against perhaps the greater good. Should machine learning be aided to advance when the developer doesn’t know what the machine will be exactly capable of – simply so the developer can show off or sell/publish his/her work?

Or Must we fight against the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a small number of AI companies? At the moment machine learning, the back bone of AI needs a lot of data to operate. Amounts of data so large that few companies are able to collect and manipulate it, companies like Google, Facebook, Uber. These companies are not only data rich but money rich. What is to guarantee that profit motive won’t weigh heavier than an altruistic world view in their decisions of what to develop and how to use it?

There are questions that relate to freedom of speech. How to minimise the dissemination of fake news or misinformation. This statement is a little unclear. Are they referring to fake news and misinformation about the advancements in AI research and development or fake news in general? Fake news actually takes hold of the imagination because it’s answering an anxiety or fulfilling some kind of need, be it curiosity or a dearth in answers. What it does do, at its best, is inspire discussion and research.

Another question relating to freedom of speech and freedom of the individual in general is, Should research results on AI, whether positive or negative, be made available and accessible? Because AI has the potential to impact us all in the way we will live and the way that we earn a living and the world our children will inhabit, AI research should be accessible to all, in my opinion. What must be kept in mind though when thinking about this question is that not all countries foster the same level of freedom for the individual and not all private multinational corporations would be open to sharing their advances that give their marketing strategies an edge and so will have no qualms with using published research but not sharing their own advances (or making transparent the algorithms that form their AI’s Internal decision making processes). AI development is viewed with such trepidation by some that publishing adverse results in behaviours or outcomes may stymie further development funding in that area.

How to react when faced with AI’s predictable consequences on the labour market? This question brings bias into consideration. I recently asked a programmer whether he thought AI development is a good or bad thing. His immediate response was that it was a good thing. It will take away all of the mundane jobs and only the creative ones will remain. His bias was talking. He is an educated, well paid individual in IT. The kinds of jobs that would engage him will be beyond the understanding of many people of sound body in the community. A repetitive job or one that requires little decision making but simple routine-pattern following would not only bore him but take away some of his pride. However, to many in the community being able to perform simple tasks repetitively and earn money for them is a source of self esteem and income – consider mentally and/or physically handicapped people.

AI can not only impact the labour market in the jobs robotic machines could replace but if placed in charge of hiring individuals, they can impact on who gets the job. Arguments have been raised that the personal bias of the programmers of AI have been and may continue to reflect in their outcomes.

The ages old question about original sin and who was more culpable, the snake that gave the knowledge of sin, the woman whose curiosity passed on the knowledge or the man who used it, surfaces in the question, Can an artificial agent, such as Tay, Microsoft’s “racist” chatbot, be morally culpable and responsible? When I read this I had to ask how culpable was the team that wrote the program that fed the chatbot the data it used? Should they have placed a censor on the chatbot, effectively restricting the download of certain words, images or phrases? How would that have impacted its learning?

What if an AI’s behaviour was morally reprehensible and dangerous? eg., an AI that is placed in charge of an abattoir chooses to slaughter not only cows but any four limbed creature that inhabits the yard. Who would be to blame – the AI trying to exceed its quota or the programming team that failed to impress upon their creation the idea of limits or the ability to discern the difference between a Shetland pony and cattle?

For me the most important question asked is: Must AI research and its application, at the institutional level be controlled? Here I have to ask what sort of institutions are being referred to and what and how would the control be policed? What if the institution was a country manipulating its census data to feed an AI application?

In my ideal future, AI would be used to do the tasks that are out of reach of our physical realm  – because they are too small – as in genetic manipulation in medicine, past our reach physically –  space exploration, navigating the Kuiper Belt and beyond – or past our reach for their enormity and the immediacy of their need, like solving environmental catastrophes – or to avoid physical danger or risk.

AI is fascinating and exciting to me but I believe it should also be reined in. IT should serve humanity to humanities betterment and that of our planet. IT shouldn’t be replacing mundane jobs. It shouldn’t be aimed at increasing our leisure time – don’t we have enough – who will work in the end? It should be gathering data and leaving the processing of that data to us. While it doesn’t have a conscience, it should be leaving the decision making to us who do. It should be out there exploring, advancing medicine, studying clouds and global cooling efforts and generally opening new vistas, ai!

Photo Credit

Photo on Foter.com

 

 

 

Advertisements

Aliens, Ghosts and Vanishings

Status

Aliens , Ghosts and Vanushings is a wonderful book by the talented and fun-loving tweens author, Stella Tarakson. She looks at creepy, spooky, reality-pushed stories that have passed into Australian folklore. She presents these stories that are so beloved you just want them to be true in a manner that suggests they are and then gives the other-hand, scientific-historic explanation as well. It’s up to the reader to decide what they will accept.


There’s the Westall High School UFO sighting where 200 witnesses saw a UFO land and take off in a field near the school; the apparent discovery of a massive vein of gold outside Alice Springs in Lassester’s Reef and the location’s subsequent loss; bunyips and drop bears and many, many more curiosities.

The UFO story I find most convincing was caught on radar in 1954 and remains unexplained -the Sea Fury Incident. The disappearance of Harold Holt and Azaria Chamberlain are in there too.


My favourite story by far is the Princess Theatre ghost. She tells the nice side of the story. The story that won’t frighten away theatre-goers from attending the theatre nor actors and crew from working there. It’s a little scarier than that I found out when I was a prop girl on the Phantom of the Opera many years ago.

Stella Tarakson will be doing a book signing at the Berkelouw in Cronulla Mall this Saturday at 1 pm. A great time to pick up a copy, meet the author and get your copy signed.

The Mask, the Monument, the Antiquarian & the Antipodean SF

“Shakespear’s Monument in the Chancell (not in the Parish Church of Stratford Upon Avon) by adjoyning it (I have seen it) Mr Garter Anstis offer’d to get me a cast of it his face . . .( I have got it)”

George Vertue, c.1737.

Writing an, “about me” page or biog is daunting. Attached to my blog, I inevitably feel that I have to somehow justify why I would have the knowledge or know-how to interest you. The other question that it confronts me with is, why blog? And then, why WordPress? The simple answer is that I’ve been told to. Along with, ” If you want to write you must read a lot, and write every day.” As well as the idea that when you blog you put yourself on the line. You have to push yourself to be clear in your thoughts and focus on communicating your ideas. Because WordPress was the buzzword at writer’s festivals, I chose this platform. I think it was a good choice as we who blog here are a part of a writer-reader community. I think it’s paid off. Why?

I’ve just had my first short story published in the Anitpodean SF – issue 206. My story is Regene-eration and, yes, there is a theatrical element to it. If you are interested in reading it – GO AWAY NOW!!!!! Because I’m going to write about the inspiration behind it before my thoughts trail off.

AntipodeanSF Issue 206

AntipodeanSF Issue 206

We write about what we know, what we think we know or what we can imagine. In my case I had recently read Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s, The True Face of William Shakespeare and was inspired.  I read the coffee table version of her thesis that used forensics, professional criminology techniques, old fashioned reading and archival research to find the true likeness of William Shakespeare and in the process test the authenticity of the Darmstadt Death Mask. What is the Darmstadt Death mask? Why, it’s an authentic plaster cast of the face of the man from Stratford, complete with an inscription date of its execution, 1616, and with the down turned moustache and gaunter face of the first sketch-picture of the Stratford monument by antiquarian William Dugdale! So we are told. Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s thesis is an impressive case study.

Her extraordinary research techniques are fun and fascinating, if not convincing. (I can’t have faith in the results of a study that seriously considers images painted with the subjective eye of another human being as being true and precise testimonies of the appearance of their sitter. One of the first pitfalls I was warned against in studying life drawing is that we who draw/paint portraits will err with our judgement primordially making our sitter look a little like ourselves.) Where I admire Hammershimidt-Hummel’s work is in her archival research. The Darmstadt Death Mask turned up in the 19th Century with the claim that it was Shakespeare’s Death Mask but its provenance was incomplete. How did it come to be in Germany?

Hummel tells us that it first appeared in 1842 in an auction catalogue for the possessions of Count Franz Ludwig von Kesselstatt, former Canon at the Cathedral in Mainz. It was displayed in the British Museum in 1864 as Shakespeare’s Death Mask, despite the lack of explanation of how it came to be in Germany. Hammerschmidt-Hummel came across the following quote in her archival searches:

“After his return from Vienna, he (Franz Ludwig von Kesselstatt) went to Strasbourg and Nancy to improve himself, stayed there until March 1775, and then set off on his Journey to London.” (1)

So he went to London. She presents no evidence for his having purchased the mask and indeed whose mask it may have been. Many men died in England in 1616. It could be anyone’s death mask. Where is the evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford had a plaster death mask made?

When I read The True Face of William Shakespeare, I got sooooooo excited. You see I had gone through the Walpole Society’s compilation and publication of the 18th Century English antiquarian, George Vertue’s (1684-1756) Notebooks, and read this:

“Shakespear’s Monument in the Chancell (not in the Parish Church of Stratford Upon Avon) by adjoyning it (I have seen it) Mr Garter Anstis offer’d to get me a cast of it his face . . .( I have got it)”(2)

Vertue I [v.106, BM 586],The Volume of the Walpole Society, XVIII (1929–1930)

And then he repeats this in a different notebook:

“. . . to Stratford on Avon – W(m) Shakespear Poet his monument in the Church his bust got a cast of it in plaister”

Vertue [v.47 BM 30] (3)

Vertue furnishes us with two mysteries here.

The First Mystery

Could Kesselstatt’s mask be the plaster cast John Anstis made from a monument to Shakespeare residing in a room adjacent to the Church in Stratford? The Charnel House perhaps? George Vertue’s notes are intriguing. He was compiling information about all the painters, limner’s and engravers who were active in England to his day. Like many early antiquarians, he gathered a lot of information that he never edited into a history. His Notebooks were not kept for the use of anyone outside of himself. They are lists of art and in whose household he had seen them or where one of his antiquarian buddies had. Entries are not dated nor in chronological order and he seems to have filled some of them simultaneously.

Just before Vertue’s death, Horace Walpole (1717-1797) purchased his Notebooks and compiled the first history of artists working in England. Walpole, a connoisseur in his own right, edited the Notebooks and presented the history from his own understanding.Could he have also purchased the plaster cast? The plaster cast is not listed in the auction catalogue for the sale of Vertue’s books. He may have sold it privately before his death. Walpole being a connoisseur with a taste for the macabre would have been a candidate to purchase it.

Walpole is credited with writing the first English Gothic novel, The Castle of Ortranto (1764). Shakespearean scholar, Samuel Schoenbaum, in his Shakespeare’s Lives(4) reports his more macabre interest in Shakespeare. Apparently in 1769, Walpole offered a challenge to anyone who could furnish him with the skull of Shakespeare.  When it was presented to him in 1794, he declined to pay. If we entertain the idea that Walpole purchased the mask along with the Notebooks in the 1750s, he may have offered the challenge so that he could validate the authenticity of the mask. By the time he was offered the skull, he may have already on-sold the mask and therefore had no need of its authentication. Why would he sell the mask you may ask? In building his dream manor, Strawberry Hill, he was conscious always of his available funds.

Walpole is remembered today as a letter writer as well as an art historian and connoisseur. His letters are an important source of information for his times. He wrote them with his eye on posterity. He is said to have asked them all back and edited them and so they survive in a form that he would have approved for print. Did he mention the mask or Kesselstatt in any of his letters for 1775-6? Not that I could pick up. Would he have wanted posterity to know of such a deal if he did?

Thus the mystery of the provenance remains. But then there is the other mystery. George Vertue makes reference to there being TWO monuments in the 1730s – one in the Chancel and one in the room beside it! Are these the two he meant. . .?

File:Dugdale sketch 1634 Detail.jpg

A thumbnail sketch, from life, of the monument before by William Dugdale (1636). Notice the sack of grain?wool?agriculture! See the differences in the top of the monuments.

The Shakespeare Monument as it has appeared since the 18th Century and can be seen today in Holy Trinity Church, Stratford

The Shakespeare Monument as it has appeared since about the 18th Century and can be seen today in Holy Trinity Church, Stratford

References

(1) Hammerschmidt-Hummel, Hildegard, The True Face of William Shakespeare, Chaucer Press, London, 2006, p.117.

(2)George Vertue, “Notebooks”, The Volume of the Walpole Society, XVIII (1929–1930), XX (1931–1932), XXII (1933–1934), XXIV (1935–1936), XXVI (1937–1938), XXIV (1947; Index), XXX (1951–1952; Index).

(3) ibid.

(4)Schoenbaum references Argosy and C.C.Langton, A Warwickshire Man, How Shakespeare’s Skull was Stolen and Found, (1879) in:

Schoenbaum, Samuel, Shakespeare’s Lives, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991.

photo credits

The cover of Antipodean SF issue 206 features the cover art  – Who wins? (credit – Photovision, Pixabay)

1636 thumbnail sketch by Dugdale (1605-1686) of the Stratford Monument, from Wikimedia Commons

Stratford Monument as we know it:

Image from page 183 of “Shakespeare’s England” (1895)

Photo credit: Internet Archive Book Images /Foter / No known copyright restrictions

2. What Authorship Question: Dr Who? Homer? Shakespeare?

Can stylometry pick the difference between Dr Who, ala Team Davies vs Dr Who ala  Team Moffat?

Spolier Alert: 2005 –The End of the World; Dalek; The Parting of the Ways

2006 – The Impossible Planet; The Satan Pit

2007 – Last of the Time Lords

2008 – Journey’s End

2010 – Vincent and the Doctor

2013 – The Time of the Doctor

Stylometry is the recognition and quantification of patterns of building techniques in the creation of art. The frequency of use of a technique, or groups of them, is thought to be unique to an artist. Armed with the resulting statistics authorship of pseudonymous works or disputed authorship is able to be clarified. In theory at least.

If we take writing for an example, what a stylometric study can focus on is the frequency of use of a particular word over its synonyms; the frequency of coupled words; a favouring of a particular phrase; or the use of archaic or obscure words over more common ones. Apparently the author leaves his/her unique signature in their technique. The same principles are used in music and the plastic arts. But what about TV?

Stylometry threats, slide, Deceiving Authorship Detection talk, 28C3, Berlin, Germany.jpg

Stylometry

Dr Who has been screening on and off TV for over 50 years. In that time there have been 13 Doctors (including the one with no number). If a sample of screenplays were to be picked up for any season over those years there would be a recurrence of words that could be used for a stylometric analysis. This recurrence has a ratio, an operand, in the larger canon of Dr Who screenplays. Because TV is a visual storyteller, I would also employ other operands: visual elements and props. My computer program would search for an enigmatic alien, a sonic screwdriver, the Tardis, an earthling companion, villanous Daleks and Cybermen.

DR.Who. Sand Sculpture.NikonD300s. DSC_1867-1874

Dr Who sand sculpture, featuring from left to right: The 11th Doctor (Matt Smith); Daleks; the Tardis; Cybermen; and the Angels from the terrifying “Blink” episode.

As separate operands I would have themes. My program would: chase time travel throughout British history and the development of the British consciousness; feature an earth coveted by ferocious aliens; return to the alienation/separateness of the well-meaning, travelling Time Lord; have a sense of wonder at the unknown possibilities of the Universe; and espouse the power of the mind for pacifism over physical aggression.

On paper there appears to be a homogeneity of storytelling elements. A stylometric computer program could be forgiven for not being able to recognize what the fans do, it’s changed a lot over the years. A die-hard Whovian for the early episodes may serve you an earful of deficiencies: the new ones move too fast; there’s too much lovey-dovey going on; too much soap-opera with the families of the companions; there are consequences to the adventure that weren’t dealt with before – do they really need to be dealt with??

You may want to fob it off as old-fogey talk complaining about anything new, but then again fans of the 2005 reboot will tell you the 21st century Doctor has undergone a transformation bigger than a few regenerations. A die-hard Whovian will tell you that something changed when creative supervision passed from Russell T. Davies to Steven Moffat. Not that one approach is better than the other, but that they’re different.

The Tardis in the background

The Tardis (disguised spaceship) in the background

The Davies’ episodes tend to be darker. The Moffat ones, more optimistic. I see an underlying thread that binds the Davies episodes that is missing from the Moffat. That thread is Christianity, specifically Davies’ excursions into turning upside-down and inside-out the basic trappings of Christianity, its Jesus story. He questions the need for the story when it’s message, love-acceptance-pacifism, can exist without it. Again and again the belief that God is male, that Jesus is a man, that the creator of an entire race can be the omnipotent creator of all things, races, universes, is questioned. Religious inspired imagery is worked into the futuristic storylines. E.g., In the episode, The End of the World (2005), the Ninth Doctor takes his new companion Rose Tyler to the year 5 Billion where they will watch the explosion of our Sun. The Sun, the source of all earthly life, is coming to an end. To its end of days. To its Apocalypse. The only place to survive from the explosion is on a space station. It’s shape, a gothic-proportioned cross.

In the Dalek episode of the same season, Rose is most obviously set up to assume a divine role, not like the Virgin Mary, but akin to the triune godhead. The imprisoned Dalek is a souless, metallic robot, born to sin, from sin, and is predestined for mass genocide. It maintains within it a spark of life but no higher faculties. The camera focuses in on Rose’s hand as she approaches it. We see her fingers, stretched out to touch it. It’s a very famous sort of stretch, Michelangelo painted its prototype in his masterpiece, the Creation of Adam. After God touched the earthen Adam, after He had given him His image, He gave him life. When Rose touches the metal skin of the Dalek, she passes to it her DNA and gives it sentient life.

The Davies team are not through with Rose yet. In the final episode of the season, The Parting of the Ways, Rose assumes the role of Messiah, Holy Spirit and God. After the Daleks invade a Game Station where Rose and the Doctor have been trapped, Rose is tricked into the Tardis by the Doctor in order to save her life. He believes that he will die. She is returned to her own time and told via hologram to have a good life. Instead, Rose opens the heart of the Tardis and allows its power to permeate her being. She becomes both omniscient and omnipotent. Travelling back through her experiences with the Doctor, she leaves cryptic warnings for him everywhere. She doesn’t do this physically but using the power of the vortex within her. Her words, her Logoi, are imprinted on the environment they shared. In the same way God is the Word (Logos) and by his word all things are possible. It echos Psalm 19:2-4

“Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world…”

While this consuming power rages within her she has the ability to destroy the Daleks and raise the worthy dead. This consuming fire, so reminiscent of the Holy Spirit, will destroy her meager human self as she cannot contain it. Pure of heart, like Jesus, she has come as a Messiah and is a willing sacrifice for the greater good. The Doctor by kissing her, draws the vortex/spirit within himself, saving her life but losing one of his own.

The role of Messiah is alluded to visually and thematically in the third season’s, Last of the Time Lords (2007).The Doctor, being left powerless under the Master’s control is humiliated and impotent. It takes the faith of the world in him, stirred up by his companion Martha Jones, to resurrect his verve and ability to overcome the machinations of the Master. When the Doctor realizes the power of this faith, he levitates towards the Master, assuming the pose of Jesus. After the Master is shot, the Doctor cradles him and urges him to regenerate, to save himself. This kind of love and forgiveness is beyond the understanding of the Master, who allows himself to die, to spite the Doctor. The Doctor who was twice the capacity to love and forgive is Christ-like. The faith of humanity in the Doctor empowers the god/Doctor. Human belief makes him vital and viable. Without human belief the god doesn’t exist.

Davies’ team work the idea that Satan, and via association God, are entities that our belief has created and maintain in a couple of very clever episodes written by Matt Jones, The Impossible Planet and The Satan Pit (2006). A planet orbits around a Black Hole without being sucked in. It’s an anomaly. How? Why? If nothing can exist in or escape from a Black Hole, something very powerful, yet unseen, is at play. Chained down a seemingly bottomless shaft, Satan awaits a body that his soul can possess so that he can be freed. While his soul is in the chained body of the beast, the planet encircles the Black Hole. Once he possesses the free body of a humanoid, he can leave the planet severing its orbit, allowing it to be pulled into non-existence. You see, while people believe in the existence of Satan he cannot be sucked into the nothingness of the Black Hole and so the planet was locked in impossible orbit.

Between Moffat and Davies there is another great difference. There is a darkness over Davies’ Doctor, in his view of the Dr’s personal life but also as a reflection of his world. This is best illustrated when comparing, Moffat’s (2010) Vincent and the Doctor episode written by Richard Curtis, with Journey’s End (2008) written by Davies. In Vincent and the Doctor, the Dr and his companions go back in time and meet Vincent Van Gogh. The encounter touches the Doctor’s companion Amy Pond as much as Amy pond touches the artist. When they return to present time, we hope that Van Gogh’s fate has been changed. That he doesn’t commit suicide. But he has. Is the episode depressing? A little, but it is also uplifting. Moffat’s team deliver a sad ending with a silver lining.

Journey’s End, on the other hand, proposes a “happily ever after” ending for Rose, the Doctor’s true love, that is ulcerous at worst. Rose must be irrevocably returned to her alternative-reality universe or the fabric of the cosmos will collapse. She may no longer participate in the adventures she has enjoyed with her Time Lord boyfriend. To compensate, the Doctor banishes with her, his human self that was accidentally begotten in the Tardis. The Human Doctor has all of the Doctor’s memories, intellect, values and emotion attachments. We must now look at the Human Doctor as the Son. He is best described in the words of the Apostles Creed:

“I believe in… one Lord Jesus Christ (New Doctor)

the only begotten Son of God (Time Lord Doctor)

begotten of the Father before all ages.

Light of Light, true God of true God,

begotten not created, of one essence with the Father…

For us (Rose) and our (her) salvation he came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit (Heart of the Tardis) and the Virgin Mary (companion Donna Noble facilitated the process) and became Human…”

The Human Doctor lacks his “father’s” immortality and ability to time travel. Rose is confused. Now they can grow old together and play house but without the Tardis, without the quest, is this Human Doctor the same person? Has he been emasculated? Can so much knowledge, verve, experience, be satisfactorily contained in a human existence?The Time Doctor returns to his universe, bereft of all companions, alone.

Darkness is expected before the regeneration of Doctors but not so in the transition from the 11th incarnation to the 12th. Under the watchful eye of Moffat, the 11th Doctor is allowed to age. He spends three hundred years in a place called Christmas, a beloved member of the town. He is on duty of course, safeguarding a wound in the fabric of the cosmos, however, he is not alone.

Could Stylometry really tell apart, episodes under Davies’ team from those of Moffat’s? I doubt it.

With heartfelt appreciation, I dedicate this post to my favourite Whovian, Stella Tarakson.

Photo Credits

Stylometry

Photo credit: gruntzooki / Foter / CC BY-SA

Dr Who Series Sand Sculpture

Photo credit: bobchin1941 / Foter / CC BY-ND

Tardis and Time Traveller

Photo credit: guzzphoto / Foter / CC BY-ND

The Nightmare : Where? What? When? . . . Homer, Shakespeare, Dr. Who

The glare. In front. Above. In your ears; on your skin. Radiation. Run! Run outside! Where? The corridor is here, it paces with each of your strides, just ahead of you. Run! It will come into view. That’s all you know. Run, it will meet you. Matter:you create it. Look back: the corridor is long, white, dim. Lockers on either side. Forward: it’s still there, a void. Stop here. Lockers: overburdened, over hanging, over your line…falling. Get up! The weight: white, above. Red trickles down. Cold metal, bare skin, gash. Push up, hard! The hinges pop. Out falls a tee. Clothe yourself. Walk. Don’t look back.

Original image URL: https://www.flickr.com/photos/drurydrama/5203232967/

Doors separate blocks of lockers. With each footfall, another room comes into view. And another block of lockers. There’s more with each step, canter, jog, run. Where is an exit sign? Don’t slow. The white begins to fall. Dash! Grab, turn, yank . . . bang! Silence. The speaker stops. Homer is projected, enormous behind him. The auditors turn to face you. They’re bearded, like Homer.

“Sorry. Late. I’ll just take a seat.”

They rise, all of them. No one smiles. They scowl. They glare. They lift their chairs, each with one hand. The free hand drags across a collapsing trench through their foreheads. They approach. They don’t look at your eyes, just your t-shirt. Homer’s face is written over: Odyssey into Authorship Fraud. You back away from them, a foot at a time with your chair in arms until you reach the door. Turn the knob and push back. Move back and back and back until you feel another door knob to turn.

Cheese, crackers, wine and goatees. English-Lit. Tap-tap on your shoulder.

“When did they start letting your ilk in?”

“I don’t know what you mean. Please?”

A poke is drawn out long, over your shoulder blades while the accompanying voice, louder than polite conversation allows, enjoins, “I Swear, Shaxpere, was wearing red herring!” You run your fingertips over your back. You can discern the rise and fall of paint and cotton. A decanter, shatters. You feel the stares as the silence spills and runs towards you once more.

“I must be in the wrong room.”

“Stay. It’s been a while since they served the meat here, raw.”

Run to the corridor. Close your fingers over the hem of your tee. Shut your eyes. Blue rectangles emerge in the blackness. Yellow rectangles make towers in the blue. Pixels of neon lights organize themselves into a recognizable shape. Pull over and off the tee. Flutter up your lids. Close them again. The blue box! A blink and it’s gone. Pull the tee back down, inside-out. Run. The hall is creating itself once more with your every stride.
You hear a commotion. There is a break in the wall on the right. The echo of feet drumming the floor in measured, robotic pounds, broadens the opening. Another corridor emerges in the wall opposite. It’s the Chinese state army. You stop to allow them to parade by. They may have just created an exit. Will they be your saving grace? A command is called. They stop and turn towards you. The commander picks you with his eyes. Guns are raised. You look down at your t-shirt. “Falun Dafa is Good!” is printed around the wan symbol. You dive into an open doorway. More bearded men. Ringlets escaping their black hats and murmurs fibrillating history and religion in a foreign tongue. One, only needs to see your t-shirt. Revulsion, pain, anger and fear transform the air. It is a different kind of radiation, one of darkness. So black that only sound can warp its way through.

“Hahhhhh-uh. Hahhhhh-uh” The blue box emerges. Run. He is here, the alien-man with the screwdriver. He will fix it. He has to. He’s the Doctor. Who?*

Tardis in the Dark/in black

Nightmare, parable – is there a difference? Ask Jung. When we speak or write we censor our content depending on our audience. Why? For many reasons. Inevitably, individuals outgrow the institutions and social constructs that previous generations have built to deliver needs like education and social harmony and etiquette. Plain speaking in the open isn’t always possible, from reasons of the personality of the speaker to the fear of the government one may be speaking out against. To bring about change and growth there has to be an acceptance of the need for change. How is it managed?

Pseudonyms, allonyms, disguise and deception are the tools of many writers, not just for revolutionary purposes. Could you pick a fraud? Computational text analysis has been used to delve with the mathematical ability of a computer into the Shakespeare Authorship Question. Apparently by counting instances of words, their forms, spelling and usage a computer can determine the authorship of a work purported to be by Shakespeare. But isn’t there more to writing than the words themselves? In my next post I’ll be looking at Homer, Shakespeare and the Doctor as interpreted by Russell T Davies vs Steven Moffat.
Could a computer tell a script by Moffat from a script by Davies?

• For any Whovians among you, in the Nightmare sequence the disguises of the hordes once doffed would reveal in order of appearance: The Slitheen (you guessed it); the Sycorax (Shakespeare actually did get there first – see The Tempest); the Cybermen; and the Ood.

High School Lockers

Photo credit: Len Radin / Foter / CC BY-NC-SA

Original image URL: https://www.flickr.com/photos/drurydrama/5203232967/
Tardis in the Dark

Photo credit: Boyce Duprey / Foter / CC BY-NC-SA