Jason and the Argonauts. In the proper look at Doctor Who and the Underworld, I sort of fall in line with El Sandifer's Tardis Eruditorum verdict that the problem is its irrelevance to contemporary society. Thing is, though that's definitely true of how 'Underworld' handles the myth, I don't really agree. I also have a dim memory of someone (I thought Lawrence Miles and Tat Wood, but I just can't find it in About Time 4) complaining that it was the banality with which 'Underworld' sci-fi'd up the myth that was the problem, the manner in which lasers are far more boring than dragons being the example that really sticks. That's closer to how I think, but it's not the reframed obstacles that are the core of the problem.
Look, Jason (and the Argonauts) are a bunch of thieves. He's a prick, pissed off that he didn't get his kingdom, who goes off to nick something in the hope that'll win it back for him, fails and then callously discards the person who helped him most in his quest when the chance of another kingdom comes calling. The loss of his children, wife (or wife-to-be, I can't quite remember) and kingdom(s) are all firmly his fault, and he dies miserable and alone and slightly comically.
Where exactly does Jackson come from? And why is a quest to rebuild a people nearly eradicated through the empire-building of others told through the prism of this particular myth?
I sort of get to this at the end of the actual reflection on Doctor Who and the Underworld, but I just wanted to make clear how wrong-headed and infuriating 'Underworld' actually is. Anyway, for a more measured approach, click here...
Comments