#37
The King of Terror
By Keith Topping
One of the things I look for in these reviews is context. How did each writer begin? How have they evolved? What interests them? When it comes to writer duos, however — say, Mike Tucker and Robert Perry — it’s not really possible to parse that about either of them until they go their separate ways.
We now have such an example from Keith Topping, of “and Martin Day” fame, and therefore we know what would happen if you subtracted Martin Day. The answer, apparently, is: aaaaarrrrrgggghhhh!!!
Okay, think positive, benefit of the doubt, be nice to him in case it’s his birthday... I think The King Of Terror is just supposed to be a bit of fun, a spirited action adventure that leans silly. It’s quite meta at points, which makes sense as Topping has co-written several irreverent (and very good) TV reference guides. There's nowt wrong with meta if it's applied with the right level of care. That’s Dave Stone and Paul Magrs 101, that is, and they do all right.
Where The King Of Terror goes wrong is in the execution. And, to be honest, the subject matter. Also the meta stuff which is bad actually. The new characters are a problem. So are the pre-existing ones. Somehow just... all of it is bad. This is a "you know what, no thank you" situation. A where-do-we-even-begin-a-palooza. Good. Absolute. Lord.
Okay, okay, I'm getting hysterical now so let's go into review crisis mode: summarise it! The King Of Terror is an alien invasion story set in the modern day. (1999.) The Fifth Doctor, Tegan and Turlough are brought into an investigation by the Brigadier. A shady billionaire is stockpiling plutonium – what's all that about? Meanwhile a couple of UNIT operatives, Paynter and Barrington, are also on the trail. The aforementioned shady people are congregating in boardrooms and various spy shenanigans are had, all of them a prelude to said alien invasion. (Of which there may be more than one.) More locally, a group of Nostradamus-worshipping terrorists are making trouble. Then Turlough goes missing. It's mostly set in Hollywood by the way.
The story is hard to get a hold of. It should be quite exciting. Aliens have infiltrated corporate America! Shades of They Live there, with much opportunity for satire. But the aliens aren't particularly satirical. They're just your typical Bad Guys with an alien garnish – moody, ordering-executions-on-a-whim-type gangsters who occasionally rip their faces off in private. (And presumably attach new ones afterwards?) It’s oddly reminiscent of Endgame, with aliens that we can barely be bothered to manifest and conspiracies that never amount to much. Also for a guy this interested in pop culture it’s bizarre that the “controlling people via the internet” angle fails to catch on outside of a few references to it.
There are next to no opportunities for the Doctor to face off against them, which let's face it is where baddies get most of their best material, but it's also a useful means to advance the plot. As it is, heavy exposition just has to unfold itself via sheer willpower. There's a bit where Turlough, who has been in prison for most of the book (and so we can assume was not invited to any planning meetings) somehow intuits that the aliens are going to use plutonium to poison Earth's atmosphere. The Doctor knows all about the aliens already of course, in that particularly trite-end-of-Doctor Who way, so he's able to just reel off gobs of their back story at will – but only once he's reached the point in the book where Keith Topping decides that it’s okay to remember who they are now, so as to preserve all that precious buggering-about-not-being-of-any-use time for him earlier. There's a bit, incidentally, where he does his "as you know, Bob" routine in a boardroom, to the aliens, while they all just sit there. When we get to the finale – in theory a spectacular bit that rivals Independence Day for scale – it's for some reason done entirely as reported events, with the main characters sitting around for days while it happens. The phrase "mind-numbingly mundane" is thrown around. By the actual book! (Maybe don't do that?!)
For a spy story/alien invasion actioner it's surprisingly torpid. That lack of involvement from the Doctor sure doesn't help. Step back, though – why even bring him in? Yes, it turns out there's a major alien crisis on the way, but all the Brigadier knows at this point is that a rich guy is stockpiling a sensitive material. He's already got people on the job! What does the Doctor accomplish on top of that? Various meetings, as far as I can tell, including a critical one at the end where he incites a conflict between two groups of aliens that was going to bubble over anyway; ah well, at least it gets the climax underway. It's around here that Topping has the Doctor wonder "Would all of this still have happened if I hadn’t been here?” There's an equal chance that this is a real attempt at self-reflection or just lamp-shading, but either way, yes, it clearly would have, as we have the CIA to thank for much of the solution. Thanks so much for underlining it.
If you're wondering how the book can function without the Doctor front and centre, first of all it's fine not to do it that way. Of course it is! Do whatever crazy version of a Doctor Who story you like, as long as you believe in it. Second of all though, the way Keith Topping does this is by frontloading The King Of Terror with a pseudo-protagonist, Geoff Paynter. He's a UNIT operative, albeit in name only since his behaviour is more along the lines of a roided-out The Sweeney. Paynter receives gobs of coverage and since (as mentioned earlier) the plot is rarely dynamic, that means he's got time to sit around and chat. He mostly does this with his similarly laddish partner Barrington, occasionally pausing the book for cod-Porridge/Red Dwarf bunk-bed scenes. These guys enjoy pop culture, which I mean, Topping writes reference guides so that checks out. But Paynter, as well as sounding absolutely nothing like a person that works for UNIT or a military organisation of any kind, just isn't an interesting guy to listen to. He's the sort of bore who says things like "Rumours of our demise were greatly exaggerated," and who looks at a dangerous situation and says in a long-suffering way, "Another day in paradise." He's coarse and colloquial in a way that's clearly meant to be funny (when riling up Barrington he says "Nah, just pulling your tiddler") but occasionally it just comes off as puzzling. (He says "effing" a lot. Is that the book bleeping him out, or is he just whimsical? Given some of the book's other contents I'm surprised they didn't throw in the F word.)
He's violent to an extent that would even make the Brigadier blush, happily executing an enemy after blowing out his kneecaps, and lucky us: he's a rampaging misogynist as well! Now, I'm not silly enough to think that a fictional character's actions are automatically an endorsement. But Paynter's sheer page-count, combined with a moment where he somehow out-philosophises the Doctor (he fails to grasp the concept of underlying pacifism in wartime until good ol' Paynter explains about Dunkirk and the Charge Of The Light Brigade movie – thanks mate, now I've got it!) suggests that we're supposed to think this guy's pretty great actually. And if you're struggling to make sense of that, take it up with Tegan, with whom Topping somehow conspires to create a romance.
The way it's done would be a terrible, bottom-of-the-barrel cliché regardless of the dialogue. It's two characters forced together by circumstance, who yell at each other and fight (he hits her!) until they give in and kiss. This is a misunderstanding of correlation that many bad rom-coms make. (Never to be outdone for self-awareness, Topping lamp-shades this: "It’s a crass romantic comedy subplot that’s impressing precisely no one." All together now: well, that's all right then!) But the dialogue is howlingly dreadful as well. Paynter, annoyed with Tegan, calls her a lesbian. (Phwoar!) Then he manages to get a kiss following the sentiment – I swear this is in the book – "Smoke my cornet, big arse!” Even Alan Partridge wouldn't attempt that one.
The general suggestion here, divorced from the actual content, is that Paynter is a bon-mot-dispensing machine. ("He was winning the argument through humour.") Tegan is quite up front calling him misogynistic names, and that stuff’s all accurate, but she just... fancies him anyway, no doubt tipped over the edge by a teeth-aching bit of sympathy when he winds up in hospital: "[Tegan] saw another side of Paynter, briefly. A deeply hidden side. ‘It’s like having a part of you ripped away,’ he said softly. The shattering loss was clearly there, inches beneath the surface. He hid his feelings well, she gave him credit for that much, but the veneer was in danger of peeling away and allowing the world to look at the vulnerable, confused, hurt man beneath. She could almost have hugged Paynter at that moment. Almost, but not quite." He said like… one thing there.
Trying to skip over the appalling misreading of Tegan, we've now stumbled across one of the book's major flaws. The King Of Terror is not well written. A recurring nuisance is Topping's fondness for over-description of characters, usually out of nowhere and after a line of dialogue. "‘Sure,’ said Ryman. He was powerfully built with a thick, bullish neck and short cropped hair. He had a livid red scar on his left cheek and a prizefighter’s nose that had taken one punch too many, yet his movements were light and graceful, almost balletic." / "She was a small woman in her late twenties, slightly overweight around the hips and thighs, and power-dressed in a tightly fitting, dark blue jacket and skirt combination that emphasised rather than hid her weight. The cut of her ash-blonde hair was as severe as her clothes and her eyes looked like two chips of ice in the dull lighting of the conference room." / "‘The information that we have from our sources in LA,’ said Frank Greaves, ‘is that there’s a UNIT presence in the city.’ Greaves was a gnomish, tired-looking man with thinning blond hair and a sickly pale complexion that suggested far too many sleepless nights. He cast a nervous glance at his CIA superior who was small, completely inconspicuous and in his early fifties."
There's a nugget of actual characterisation in each of these, but it's still an "everything but the kitchen sink" approach. Good lord, get to the point – and if the character's looks aren't remotely important later on, then you needn't bother. There are heaps of characters in this, a lot of them sound the same, and once they're past the initial description-fest they don't get described again. It doesn't really help to have been told 200 pages ago that one of them moves balletically sometimes. (Strangely Topping doesn't go to town describing the aliens, who just look sort of horrible, really. Their back story, relayed in great dollops by the Doctor, isn’t particularly original either; one lot are compared to the Daleks. Ooh.)
The prose has a tendency to waffle on, often with a comedic bent. I get it – Topping's irreverent, see the original Discontinuity Guide – but it's not well integrated here. Omniscient sentences like "Those who believe that, in a world of infinite variety, an improbable amount of duplication occurs naturally would have just loved the coincidence" will just make you go, hang on, I guess that was a bit of a coincidence wasn't it? Stuff like "Newton turned with a quizzical look on his face. ‘I don’t follow?’" is redundant – you just described the feeling he's having, then signified it with dialogue, you can just pick one. Descriptions like "Milligan had the look of whomsoever it was that had been assigned the tough job of converting Saul on the road to Damascus" are disappearing off into their own little world altogether. Huh?
There's a general uncertainty here about what to do with all the bits that aren't dialogue – but much of the actual dialogue is either first-pass obvious or just embarrassing, like an Irish character who says “He saved my life once, so he did” and “We’re supposed to be the good guys, so we are.” A book with this much action shouldn't have this much time to witter on, and when people say something it should be worth saying.
Tone is another of the book's major problems. It's clearly going for funny a lot of the time, and nerdy, if it can get away with both. (You know Topping, reference guides etc.) Sometimes it's quite unobtrusive: “‘Nice effect. Computer-generated?’ ‘Colour separation overlay,’ replied the Doctor dismissively.” Sometimes it's slightly off: "It’s exactly the same technique the Time Meddler used in the Seventies with that pop concert malarkey." (Yay, a Virgin/No Future reference... but does anyone in-universe call him "the Time Meddler"?) And sometimes it just doesn't work. There's a tissue of references to the Fifth Doctor not being a particularly impressive or well-liked incarnation: "[This incarnation]’s symbolic if somewhat mysterious. A lot of people don’t seem to like it.” / "He strikes me as being a bit wet.” / “‘Which one are you?’ ‘Fifth.’ ‘Oh, the vulnerable one. Well, you’d better sit down before you have an accident.’” What the hell are they talking about? They're not Doctor Who fans! This isn't a Doctor Who forum! You're breaking things for a crap joke. (And look, maybe don't keep telling us how limp and rubbish the character we are reading about right now is. Do you think he sucks? No? Well then, just write him with confidence and ignore the critics. This isn’t The Discontinuity Guide.)
Often that urge to tickle our funny bones arrives at the wrong moment. When we first meet them, the terrorists are variously likened to a With The Beatles-era Ringo Starr and "Noddy Holder circa 1973", and they're clearly meant to be hapless in the extreme. But then they're also very successful terrorists who blow up a building killing 70 people, and later blow up a car incinerating one of the main characters. But like? One of them looks like Noddy Holder, I guess? Ho ho? I barely know why they're in the book – their leader blows himself up after his girlfriend, who he fat shames but don't worry about it, gets her head blown off, and shortly afterwards the remainder are rounded up and that's them done. But they're a great example of the book not knowing when to be funny, or how hard to lean into it.
And yeah, stuff like "terrorists who successfully kill people" kind of punctures any nearby jokes, doesn't it? Those gangster aliens are always having people murdered. Paynter gets into various situations where friends of his die horribly, or he's forced to kill people in a nasty way. Pound for pound, this isn’t a funny story – so why does the prose occasionally lean in to roll its eyes, and why does he conspicuously insert song titles into the dialogue? Didn’t anyone chip in here to say, are you sure these things are complementary?
For the worst example of a tonal mismatch you can check out the nastiest thing in the book, which has no business sitting alongside all those comedy bits and arguably nullifies the lot of them: Turlough's capture and torture. This is done for ultimately baffling reasons, i.e. they want his DNA, which you can get from hair follicles. They nevertheless choose to laser him, rip bits of skin off him, blast him with intense heat, drug him and oh yes – they violently anal probe him as well, after which we're told he soiled himself. Sorry – editor? Justin, where you at? This was one of many moments during The King Of Terror – including action that simply isn't moving the story, puerile characters pontificating for pages at a time, exposition that projectiles at us like the book has food poisoning – that made me wonder if Justin Richards got sidetracked rewriting Endgame and simply didn't give this one his full attention. Because seriously, as well as the book being a literal crap-shoot in many respects, this here is unsuitable material for Doctor Who. Come on. Kids read these. What are we doing. (Turlough's revenge, where he beats his captor and seductress to death with a heavy chain, mashing her head to soup, would probably win the "this really shouldn't be here" award if it weren't for the probe. Good grief.)
The clanging tones are perhaps the worst thing about The King Of Terror, but there's more to go. It wasn’t really worth bringing the Brigadier back given the little he has to do here, and it’s done in a way that means having to reckon with his now thoroughly convoluted novel timeline. The book is way too pop-culture-brained, not just keen to make arch references in the dialogue but occasionally leaning on it for characterisation, which makes it all feel a bit more throwaway. (Tegan talks to a wounded man for support specifically because she saw it in an episode of M*A*S*H, and not because, I dunno, it’s the right thing to do.) Paynter’s misogyny leaks out into the book to some extent; there are very few female characters and they’re either dippy, casually offensive or meanly denigrated in description. And not to get all puritan about it but there are some expletives here that do not belong in a Who book. You’ve got a racist bit, where we’re meant to sympathise with the one saying it, an ableist bit between comedy villains and a random dreadfully homophobic slur when someone is mad at their computer for taking too long. (?!) There’s little enough of this stuff that you could easily cut it with no ramifications, but that just makes it more bizarre that it’s there. (Yes, I know times change and I’d put at least one of these down to just being written in a more ignorant real world — but cumulatively, oof.)
All of this is nitpicking to some extent, so here’s a bigger one: this has to be the worst writing for the Fifth Doctor so far in novels. Perhaps as a response to the (baffling and unnecessary) extra-textual criticisms of his character, he has a sudden equal-opportunities penchant for rude sarcasm, a fondness for making self-mythologising speeches at the drop of a hat, a blundering grasp of philosophy and a need to espouse it, and (when it suits) an apparent dumbness so that Geoff Paynter can "as you know, Bob" at him for a change. I don’t recognise him at all. He's not worried enough about Turlough and he/the novel doesn’t get anywhere near to reckoning with what's happened to him after the fact, attempting to cloak it in a "well, Turlough be mysterious I guess" bullet point that just minimises the whole thing. Similarly Tegan's experiences are apparently meant to make her more cynical, as if she needed the help, but that doesn't explain why she fell head over heels for a guy who smacked her in the face. None of the leads ring true, which raises the question of "why write a novel about them specifically.”
But then... none of it rings true. The King Of Terror doesn't have a clue whether it's a wacky comedy or a brutal action thriller, whether it's Doctor Who or a godawful misogynistic crime show about Geoff Paynter, whether it's introspective and descriptive or irritatingly flippant and obsessed with pop culture, whether it's huge in scope or putting its feet up so it can hear about it all on the news. I really cannot believe that this one passed all the usual editing checks. I don't understand how it's in this state generally, since I enjoyed both of Topping's previous co-written novels — surely Martin Day can't have done all the heavy lifting? As a published novel it’s as rough and misguided as any early days Virgin disaster you'd care to name. It’s the clear nadir of the BBC Books run so far, and with sufficient luck for the rest of it as well.
2/10
No comments:
Post a Comment