Doctor Who: Night Terrors & The Girl Who Waited

Some years ago, back when Babylon 5 was on the air, I began to notice a pattern in how episodes in television programs are aired. Some episodes are naturally more powerful than others. For those shows that have ongoing storylines (where the "reset button" isn't hit at the end of each episode), the more powerful eps are sequenced in a particular way.

There's a rhythm to them. And it's a deliberate rhythm. The show producers schedule them so that they come in bursts, with the less powerful episodes between them. Joe Straczynski talked about this openly at the time, referring to the way you want "breather" episodes sequenced between the "wham!" episodes to let the audience catch their breath before you hit them with something big.

(Otherwise the whole show becomes emotionally overwrought and loses some of its potential; cf. the reimagined Battlestar Galactica, which I said at the time was well done but would not age well, as it's got the emotion meter cranked up to 11 all the time–or at least for long stretches.)

The result is if you're watching the "shape" of a season as it unfolds, you can predict  in advance which episodes are more likely to be the more memorable ones. 

In this season of Dr. Who, I noticed that–after the arc-driving, two-part opener (The Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon)–we got The Curse of the Black Spot, which was one of the weakest episodes in some time. The next week, though, we got The Doctor's Wife, which was an extremely strong episode. Penned by Neil Gaiman, the episode reinterprets a major piece of Doctor Who mythology. After that episode, the audience can never look at the Doctor's relationship with the TARDIS the same way again.

That fits with the way you'd want to schedule episodes: After the big "arc" episodes, you'd want a down episode, then an up episode to sustain the audience's attention. (Multiple down episodes in a row = lose your audience).

As I said in my review of A Good Man Goes to War/Let's Kill Hitler, I thought this two-part, arc-driving story stumbled. While it had much to be admired, Moffatt didn't do his best work on it, though he was trying to make these both up episodes.

So I thought, "I bet the next episode–Night Terrors–will be a down episode, but the one after that–The Girl Who Waited–may be an up."

I was right.

Nightterrors Night Terrors was an episode that, like Curse of the Black Spot, had some strong points (the creepy wooden dolls were particularly effective), but it also had significant flaws.

As before, the key flaw dealt with the emotional core of the episode, the way the characters relate to each other; in particular: the way the dad in the episode relates to the little boy.

The ostensibly heartrending, emotional climax–where the father embraces the boy as his son–does not work the way it should. The father has just discovered that his son is only slightly less sinister than the Midwich Cuckoos (or the kids in "Village of the Damned," to use the move version's name).

He's discovered that his and his wife's memories, perceptions, and most intimate, personal, and painful feelings have been profoundly violated in the service of an alien biological agenda.

Despite the years he's spent with the boy, that has to create an emotional separation between him and the child, the kind of separation that will force him to reevaluate his relationship with the boy. Imagine finding out that your son was not actually your son but another man's, and your had been the victim of an elaborate emotional betrayal by his true parents.

While that kind of situation can be overcome and a full filial relationship restored, it would take time (cf. seasons 1-3 of FRINGE and the ups and downs of Walter and Peter's relationship). It will not happen in mere moments.

And thus the ostensibly heartfelt reconciliation moment in Night Terrors rings false emotionally.

Bad climax. Flawed episode. However much good stuff it also had in it.

(BTW, I'd like to mention in passing something that I've noticed happing in multiple episodes of Doctor Who recently: Very important information is often blurted out in rapidfire dialogue during a crisis. It may just be because I have an American accent and my ear is not fully attuned to rapidfire British speech, but I find it difficult to process some of these lines as they whiz past. The Doctor's explanation of what the boy is, for example, just goes by way too quickly. If I didn't happen to catch the word "cuckoo," and know that they are brood parasites, I might not have caught what the Doctor was saying without rewinding and watching the line again. I wish they'd stop doing that!)

So if Night Terrors was okay but flawed–a down episode–was it followed by an up episode?

WOW!!!

The Girl Who Waited was one of the best episodes in I don't know how long! This may be the best episode of the whole season.

Girlwhowaited It's the inverse of Night Terrors. While the former episode has nice window dressing (e.g., the wooden dolls) but a flawed emotional core, The Girl Who Waited's flaws are all on the tinsel level (e.g., scientific implausibilities/non sequiturs, which are par for the course on this show) but it's emotional core is rock solid.

Notice that one of the things that makes it so powerful is that it's about the relationships of the main characters–people we've known and bonded with, not just one-episode walk-ons or suddenly introduced people. This episode focuses on the emotional triangle that the Doctor, Amy, and Rory form, and it puts their relationships to the test in big ways.

It's also a fully activated relationship, with each leg of the triangle under stress: there is drama between the Doctor and Amy, between Amy and Rory, and between Rory and the Doctor.

As in the previous episodes, Rory gets some of the best lines ("I don't want to travel with you!" "It's not fair! You're turning me into you!"), and I think there's a reason for that.

Rory is, perhaps, the most misunderestimated of companions. He seems to be a really mild, unimpressive guy. Not exotic companion material. It's almost like he's just along for the ride (dramatically speaking; literally he–like Amy–is just along for the ride).

But what's really happened is that he has supplanted Amy as the main viewpoint character–the one the audience can identify with and experience the world of the program. He's the everyman character, and as much as I like Amy, I find I identify with Rory and his non-exotic, ordinary responses to the extraordinary situations he finds himself in.

That, in a way, makes Rory a much more important character than he appears to be. Though he's Mr. Ordinary (as far as any time-travelling nurse can be Mr. Ordinary), he finds himself in close proximity to the core of the story and thus in position to get some of the best lines.

This episode also does something that is the flipside of Night Terrors, with its artificial "I accept you as my son and that resolves the plot" moment: It doesn't take the easy way out.

Occasionally on programs there are situations where friends get into life-or-death duels. Almost invariably the writers of the show take the easy way out, and a means of not killing one of the friends is found. How many times have we seen that happen on Star Trek and other shows?

And then Babylon 5 came along and put Londo in a to-the-death duel with a friend of his, and JMS did not take the easy way out, and Londo ended up having to kill his friend. Definite writing points for that.

Well, that's what we have in this episode. 

Only here it works even better because the friend, unlike the one-episode walk-on friend in Babylon 5, is one of the core elements of the show; someone we've spent time with and bonded with. 

Once the central plot problem of the episode had become clear, I could see several ways out that would effectively be "the easy way," and I was really hoping they wouldn't go down one of those paths. And they didn't! The episode thus had a really powerful emotional WHAM! in the last act. It was agonizing, and it was wonderful.

Amy's unanswered question in the last moments of the show is also an awesome stinger to go out on.

Notice also that this episode plays on long-established themes on the show. Amy has been The Girl Who Waited since she very first met the Doctor, just as Rory was the Last Centurion, the Boy Who Waited. This is the second time Amy has had to deal with abandonment issues by the Doctor. And the episode explores one of the staples of time travel stories; it's own version of Einstein's twin paradox. These all help give the show added weight.

There are, certainly, things about the episode that could be improved, but overall this was an outstandingly successful episode, and I am so glad they told this story.

I'll be interested to see if they can top it in what's left of the season.

P.S. One other thing the episode did that was permanently take some of the stupid off of the Doctor's soning "screwdriver." Amy finally said the obvious: It is a sonic probe. He just calls it a screwdriver as a bit of whimsy. (Okay, and can't do everything it does sonically, but that's something that can be resolved in another episode.) Come to think of it, they also partially rehabilitated the sonic screwdriver in Let's Kill Hitler, when Rory explained that it has a point-and-think psychic interface, which definitely explains its observed behavior. (Of course, it's really just a magic wand, and we've had those in stories for a long time.) 

Who Named the TARDIS?

Susan_Foreman So, Doctor Who's very first companion, his granddaughter, Susan (pictured), was said to have named the TARDIS.

At the time it the show first went on the air in 1963, it was thought the Doctor invented the TARDIS, and so it made sense why his granddaughter might have named it.

Later it was established the TARDISes were much older than that, and had not been invented by the Doctor (unless he is also "the Other" who worked with Rassilon and Omega).

Thus whether Susan came up with the name was thrown into question.

But why?

Hello! This is a *time travel* show!

I can think of *multiple* ways Susan could have been responsible for naming a machine invented long before she was born.

That kind of time paradox is nothing!

I mean . . . we've just seen that River Song was responsible for naming *herself*–TWICE–without even trying!

Doctor Who: “A Good Man Goes to War” & “Let’s Kill Hitler”

Doctor-who-lets-kill-hitler-river-song_article_story_main I meant to offer some thoughts on the Doctor Who episode "A Good Man Goes to War" back when it aired a few months ago, but it got away from me. So now I'll offer some thoughts on it and Part 2 of the story: "Let's Kill Hitler."

I think that both episodes were basically enjoyable, but flawed. They were not Steven Moffatt's best work. (Certainly nowhere near as powerful as "Silence in the Library"/"Forest of the Dead.")

To keep this post from getting (even more) overly long, I'll leave the good things to your memory (we probably enjoyed a lot of the same stuff) and focus on what I consider the flaws.

First, the cheeky religious elements didn't work for me (the fat/thin gay married Anglican marines, the headless monks, the papal mainframe herself). Last season's treatment of the 51st century priestly marine corp was much better.

These were minor annoyances, though. The main flaws were larger.

For a start, there was the problem of motivation. Here the Doctor is supposed to be pitted against a massive dangerous enemy that has it in for him in a superdramatic way, and yet we've never seen them before.

Worse, they don't seem to have a motivation for their actions; we don't know why they hate the Doctor so much. Who are these people and why should we–or they–care?

You can't have a superdramatic battle with enemies the audience doesn't know or understand. In fact, it turns out that even the Doctor doesn't know or understand this enemy. He doesn't know, for example, that they are working for the Silence (who themselves are little-understood Johnny come latelies).

All of this sucks emotional punch out of the episode, making all the hyperventilating, over-the-top drama hyping ring hollow. It would been far more effective to reveal that the plot against Amy's baby was being run by a villain we know and understand, like the Master . . . or Davros. Either would have been far more chilling than the Eyepatch Lady.

Then there's the big reveal. If you didn't see that coming, it would have been really cool. My enjoyment of it was marred, though, but the fact I did see it coming. A long way off. Multiple episodes earlier.

Last season, when Amy Pond was introduced, people started speculating about a connection between them and their water-based names. Then this season Amy turns up pregnant, and the TARDIS tells Rory that "The only water in the forest is the river." Oh, and there's been all this talk about the Doctor discovering who River "really is." After that, it's not hard to guess the big reveal.

Then there's what happens when the Doctor find out who River is. He becomes elated and runs off with the TARDIS, saying that he knows where Amy's baby is and everything will be fine. Why doesn't he take everybody with him? Why don't they all go get Amy's baby together?

Dramatically, this makes no sense. The only thing I can suppose is that Moffatt wanted the Doctor off the screen to simplify the revelation to Amy and Rory–and the audience. Having him in the shot would change the dynamic. Either that or–more likely–he needed to do it to set up the introduction of Mels in the next episode.

Previously Moffatt had promised that we would have a "game changing" twist for the midseason cliffhanger, but this revelation–while interesting and clever–was not "game changing." Especially not when it stands in the shadow of the Doctor's apparent death, which was very effectively portrayed in the first episode of the season. Paying that off as the midseason cliffhanger would have been dramatic and game changing, but finding out River's identity? Not so much.

There's also the implication from the phrase "good man" in the episode title that suggests, based on past episodes, it will pay off the Doctor's apparent death in some way.

Finally, we cut to the title card saying Doctor Who will be back in the fall in "Let's Kill Hitler"–an arrestingly dramatic title.

It suggests that Amy's baby may be back in Hitler's time, and that this is where the Doctor is going (though how would he know that?). It also promises an episode in which we get a serious treatment of the eternal time travel question of why the Doctor shouldn't just kill Hitler and save millions of lives. This is the kind of thing time travel stories regularly involve, and the such a dramatic title promises the audience a serious payoff on the question.

But this is not the episode we get.

It turns out that the Doctor doesn't know where Amy's baby is–so why did he ditch the rest of the crew at the previous episode's end? And why was he so elated at the time? This makes no sense.

Worse, while Melody's line when she commandeers the TARDIS and the Doctor asks her if there is any place in particular she wants to go ("You've got a time machine. I've got a gun. Let's kill Hitler!") is really good, the whole Hitler subplot turns out to be a tiny part of the episode that is basically played for comic relief ("Rory, put Hiter in the cupboard." "Right. Putting Hitler in the cupboard.")

This totally welshes on the promise implied by the title card we were shown at the end of the previous episode. You must deliver on that kind of promise, and Moffatt didn't.

Then there's the character of Mels herself. As soon as she drove up and turned out to be Amy and Rory's best friend–who the Doctor AND THE AUDIENCE–have mysteriously never met, I thought, "Oh, no! Another sudden introduction of somebody Really Important who we Don't Know."

You can't generate audience investment in a character on the spot. This is the same flaw that plagued the previous episode with the allegedly impressive villains who we don't know and don't understand. Suddenly introducing someone and telling us they're important and then expecting us to care about them (for good or ill) is Bad Writing.

If you want emotional payoff, you have to let the audience get to know the characters and form strong emotional impressions of them before you use those emotional ties to the characters to create moments of powerful drama. If you don't let the audience do that then the attempt at drama falls flat.

Steven Moffatt's like of sudden introductions of major characters as plot twists, though, conflicts with this.

After the opening credits, we got a montage showing Mels' early life with Amy and Rory, and I have to admit that this was effective. It let us do the kind of bonding with her as a character that we needed to do in order to care about her. Moffatt thus redeemed the mistake he was in the process of making before the opening credits.

But redeeming a mistake is not as good as not making it in the first place. Think of the greater impact this episode would have had if Mels had been introduced long ago, and we'd seen her interacting with Amy and Rory as their best friend for a long time.

Maybe she would have been an additional TARDIS companion along with them! Think of how much mind-bending emotional punch THAT would have given to what happens to her in this episode!

Another flaw in this episode, though I think a lesser one, is the quirky, psychotic way River acts. Partly this is explained by the programming she's been given, but that's not a really good explanation. Crazy people do not make good agents to perform the kind of task she's been given.

A better, more logical explanation is that the way she makes her entrance in this episode has a temporarily unsettling effect on her mind as well as her body–something that has repetated precedents in this show.

Those are the major flaws in the episodes, to my mind. They occur on the structural/plot/emotional dynamics level, though there are some on the detail level as well.

I did think the episodes were, overall, enjoyable, though. And they had some really nice things, again on the larger and the smaller level. 

I thought Rory got some of the best lines in this episode (along with Mels). His panicked silence (a non-line) as a teenager when Amy asks him if there is even one girl he's ever showed any interest in is priceless. 

Then we have gems such as, "I'm trapped inside a giant robotic replica of my wife. . . . I'm really trying not to see this as a metaphor." And, when Amy challenges him on how he knew they were struck by a miniaturization ray, he says, "Well, there was a ray, and we . . . miniaturized." Or when the killbot tells them to remain calm for their executions, a panicked Rory piquedly retorts, "When has that ever worked!"

The killbots get some good lines, too: "You will experience a tingling sensation . . . then death."

Soon I'll try to have some thoughts on the next episode, Night Terrors.

The Rebel Flesh & The Almost People

Rebel_flesh Thought I'd give a few quick thoughts on the recent two-part Doctor Who story consisting of The Rebel Flesh (episode 5) and The Almost People (episode 6).

I was not originally looking forward to this two-parter. It didn't appear connected with the main season arc, it wasn't written by Steven Moffatt, and it seemed to involve just another monster of the week (or, well, group of monsters of the week). I was expecting it to be not-that-great, possibly on the order of Curse of the Black Spot, which I thought had good parts but was overall kinda lame.

It was with pleasure, then, that as soon as we got very far into The Rebel Flesh that the show turned out to be much more interesting than I first thought.

Basically–and this is not a significant spoiler but merely an explanation of the title monster–the story concerns a 22nd century technology that allows for the standard sci-fi staple of rapidly-produced, fully-functional, fully-memoried adult clones.

Normally I don't like that trope (doesn't fit real-world science), but they get there in an interesting way: The humans in the story don't realize at first that creating such clones is what they're doing. They think they are using a generic biological substance (called "flesh") to receive a temporary impression of a person's physical form and consciousness so that it can act as a temporary, remote-controlled disposable worker body to take on dangerous jobs so the human controller won't have to.

What they don't realize is that the way they technology works, they are actually creating new living beings with the bodily forms and memories of their operators. The Doctor even warns them that these beings may (or do) have souls, qualifying them as the subjects of rights just as much as normal humans.

At this point the episode becomes very interesting from a philosophical and theological perspective. The show's creators are now playing with themes that have important real-world applications.

It doesn't matter how you come up with a new human–they can be produced by marital intercourse the way God designed the process to work, or by fornication, adultery, or rape, or by in vitro fertilization, cloning, or materialization in a nanotech chamber–however you get them, they are real humans who have real human rights that must be respectd.

Even if they aren't quite human, if you make something that's alive (and thus has a soul, or animating principle of some sort) that displays human consciousness (and thus rational thought), you have a being with a rational soul that must be treated as equivalent to a human being in terms of rights and dignity. How it got here is irrelevant. Now that it's here, its rights must be honored.

So this episode is doing what sci-fi does well when it's working at its best–using an imaginative context to re-frame actual, important elements of human experience. Ones that our own technology has (since 1978, when Louise Brown, the first test-tube baby was born) begun to confront us with.

Thereafter follows the expected story of how the humans and their "flesh" dopplegangers ("gangers," as the show calls them) will relate. Naturally, it puts them at odds, but it does so without making either side clear-cut villains. It needed to do that–to show good on both sides–or it would have become unbearably cliche and far less interesting.

There are a lot of nice Doctor Who-esque moments along the way (particularly some nice references to the Doctor's prior incarnations), and while the story is not genius from star to finish (there are paint-by-numbers parts, particular in the second episode, The Almost People), it was much better than I expected.

The ultimate resolution of the human/gangers conflict was decent, though it was tainted by the typical bad sci-fi metaphysics regarding identity (one ganger character ends up substituting for his human counterpart in a way that is not plausible), but that's par for the course.

More interesting was the way the episode linked with the overall season arc. It was much more tightly integrated than first appeared.

Moffatt seems to have been doing at least slight script revisions to other authors scripts so that they will include at least passing references to the season arc (e.g., appearances of the eye-patch lady, the Doctor looking at Amy's positive/negative pregnancy through a medical scanner, references to the Doctor's apparent death in episode 1 of the season), but these have been very brief elements clearly added in script revision. 

The Rebel Flesh/The Almost People turns out to be much more tied to the main arc than that. My guess is that Moffatt proposed the idea and assigned someone else to write it. Either that or it was proposed at an early stage of season development and Moffatt realized how nicely it would fit into his overall plan.

Whatever the case, they end up pulling the triggers on several major season elements, which is good, because it was getting a little tiresome watching the eye-patch lady peek in on Amy every episode or two and watching the Doctor looking suspiciously at Amy with the medical scanner every episode. I was afraid they wouldn't pay these elements off until the end of the series, but they did in part two of the episode, and now I don't mind them. They have a decent relative proportion to the overall shape of the season arc.

I'm very keen to see what they do in the mid-season finale which airs this weekend (in America; it aired last weekend in England).

The ominous title (which is even more ominous based on what we've heard River Song say before) is A Good Man Goes To War.

Here's the bonus, online prequel to that episode:

What do you think?

Tardiness & TARDISness

River_song Last week my home was invaded by bees–AGAIN! This was the third time. Apparently when my place was re-roofed recently, the anti-bee measures (netting blocking access to vents) that had been set up got disturbed, and the little varmints got in again.

Multiple people have been joking me that they keep returning because I'm so sweet. All I can say is, that's very . . . sweet . . . of you to say.

In any event, I was basically offline for several days as a result, and that made me rather tardy on blogging. Apologies.

In other news, as predicted, this week's episode of Doctor Who ("The Doctor's Wife," by Neil Gaiman) was way better than last week's. Nice creepiness, humor, and a poignant twist on classic Doctor Who mythology. Just what I would have expected from Gaiman.

It also addresses a timely issue: Even though the Doctor has been married before (and is a father; he's said so explicitly, and we met his granddaughter and first companion, Susan, who was the title character of Episode 1, "An Unearthly Child"), and regardless of what happens with River Song (strongly hinted to be his future wife), from the perspective of the series as a whole there is really one "character" who has an even greater title to the role of Doctor's wife. And thanks to Gaiman, he's now been properly introduced to her.

Now we've got the two-part "rebel flesh" story before we get back to River, the Silence, and the promised "game-changing" mid-season finale.

For those who have been paying attention to the clues about River Song's past (still in the Doctor's future), the title of the finale is ominous: "A Good Man Goes to War." I'm also anticipating that we're likely to return to the beach, this time with more information about who's inside the space suit. 

Jimmy Alt.kin?

Although I played a good number of RPGs in high school and college–and though I even did game design work–I don't regularly play games of any sort. No computer games. No video games. No online games. No FaceBook games. None of that. (Too much else to do!)

But I recently ran across a game that Sprint is running in connection with FRINGE, which I am a fan of, and I thought, "Why not?" This game is called FRINGE: DIVISIONS (the plural makes me think that the Other Side may try to recruit me) and appears to have only five installments, being released once a week or so, so it's not a huge time investment. You can either play via your FaceBook account (the option I chose) or anonymously.

If you play by FaceBook, they personalize the game to you and tell you about your Red Universe counterpart.

How could I resist?

In chapter 1 of the game, SAIC Broyles greets me in his office, welcomes me to FRINGE DIVISION, warns me that anything I will learn is classified, and tells me that Dr. Walter Bishop will be joining us for a briefing.

Walter rushes in, apologetic about the fact he was (ahem) delayed. (I won't say by what.)

He then tells me that our universe is closely linked with another one, where just about all of us have counterparts. He puts his phone on Broyles' desk to show what he found out about my counterpart.

I took screen caps, so here is what is presently known about Jimmy Alt.kin (click to embiggen images):

Altme1
Walter says, "As you can see your double looks exactly like you–just slightly better looking."

Altme2-married this person
Walter says, "In the alternate universe, you married this person."

Guess there wasn't a picture available or something. Perhaps a faulty transmission from the Other Side.

Altme3-work for government

Walter says, "You work for the government."

Well, y'know, church, state, whatever.

Looks like I'm based in Philadelphia and have a contract through January 2018.

Altme4--this is interesting
Walter says, "This is interesting."

Hmmm! That alt universe apple didn't fall too far from the tree. Maybe there's a Church connection after all.

Altme5--oh my look at this
Walter says, "Oh my, look at this."

Cool! I've always wanted children! And I am, apparently, married to someone, even if her image didn't get transmitted.

Walter then picks up the phone, looks me in the eyes, and says, "You'll be contacted by my assistant, Astro, should we need you for anything else."

Cool. I can't wait. I think Jasika Nicole is the cutest, sweetest person on FRINGE!

So that's what's known about my Red Universe self: looks the same (only a little better), married to someone whose image didn't transmit, works for a branch of the government based in Philadelphia, lives in Rome, and has two children.

Meanwhile, the Blue Universe me is waiting for a call from the lovely and elegant Astrid Farnsworth.

Don't know how to choose between those two.

If you'd like to play, CLICK HERE.

And tells us about your alternate self in the combox!

FRINGE Fans! You Can Own Walter’s Favorite Music!

Fringe-Violet-Sedan-Chair-album-Seven-Suns-p In episode 2.10 ("Grey Matters"), Walter asks Astrid to drive him back to the lab so he can hear an album by a band called Violet Sedan Chair (he says listening to it helps him come down from being high on Valium).

In episode 2.21 ("Northwest Passage"), Walter picks up the album–Seven Suns–as pictured here. We also get to hear part of one of the songs ("She's Doing Alright").

In episode 2.23 ("Over There, Part 2"), there is a deleted scene where Peter and Walternate are driving in a car and listening to another song from the album ("Hovercraft Mother"). They also discuss the meaning of the band's music in Peter's life and how the band is different in the alternate universe. Here's the scene:

In episode 3.10 ("The Firefly"), we meet Roscoe Joyce, the keyboardist and songwriter for Violet Sedan Chair.

Now let's put on our grey business suits and fedoras, shave off our hair and eyebrows, flash over to our universe (the real one), and go back in time to Observe an event occurring in April, 2009.

In this event, J.J. Abrams, creator of FRINGE, is guest-editing an issue of Wired magazine. One of the pieces in it is called Musical Mystery Tour: Messages Embedded in Your Favorite Album. It has a timeline of different albums with messages (easter eggs) embedded in them. One item in the timeline is this:

1971 The liner notes on Violet Sedan Chair's album Seven Suns list a missing 11th song, and the penultimate track is rumored to produce hallucinatory effects when played on multiple turntables.

Seven-suns-back-cover The eleventh song on Seven Suns (according to the back cover of the album, same as held up by Walter in the picture, but here is a clearer version) is titled "Greenmana." The penultimate (next to last) track is titled "Re Fa Mi Si Sol La."

If you look on the album's back cover, you'll also see a circle with part of a piano keyboard in it, only it has an extra black key. This is the logo of Seven Suns' record company, 13th Tone Records.

On April 14, 2009, just few days after the Abrams issue of Wired came out, 13th Tone Records was trademarked.

Now let's flash forward in time to Observe an event in a record store in Seattle in early 2011. A human being named Kiki Kane makes a purchase. It is a copy of Seven Suns, published by 13th Tone in 1971. Like any record that old, it is worn and beaten.

Seven_suns1 Word spreads on the Internet that copies of Seven Suns are turning up in record stores around America. Some, after they are discovered, are sold on eBay.

FRINGE fans frantically search record stores for more copies.

HERE'S AN INTERESTING ACCOUNT BY A RECORD STORE EMPLOYEE.

Of course, the number of the vinyl records seeded in independent record stores is nowhere near enough to meet fan demand. Fortunately, you can now purchase your very own copy of Seven Suns in .mp3.

BUY IT HERE ON AMAZON. THEY'LL ALSO STORE IT FOR YOU FOR FREE IN THEIR NEWFANGLED "CLOUD DRIVE" SO YOU CAN ALWAYS DOWNLOAD IT AGAIN WHENEVER YOU WANT (E.G., WHEN YOU GET A NEW COMPUTER; YOU WON'T HAVE TO BUY IT AGAIN).

Rumor has it that there are buried clues in the album that relate to what's going to happen on the show. Maybe. If so, they aren't obvious in advance, so you don't have to worry about spoilers. (I have theories on which lyrics may be clues, but I'll save that for another time.) The album is thus safe for people who haven't yet seen season 3 (or 1 or 2 for that matter).

One word about the band's name. "Violet Sedan Chair" may sound more weird to our ears than it is. We typically think of a sedan and a chair as two different things. To us, a sedan is a type of car and a chair is … well … a chair. But this isn't just an arbitrary juxtaposition of nouns.

Historically a sedan chair (also just called a sedan) is what we sometimes think of as a litter–the kind of chair fancy people used to be carried around in so they wouldn't have to walk. Y'know, like this:

Sedan_Chair
Those things used to be big business before taxis were invented, and they're where we get the name for the type of car.

So a violet sedan chair is just a violet one of those.

"Violet Sedan Chair" is also an anagram of "Olive Can Read This."

In any event, as said, you can now own Walter's favorite music. The songs are actually pretty authentic in terms of period sound (and subject matter), the tunes are catchy, and their lyrics are awesome in a cheesy way.

GET THE MUSIC!

My favorites are "Hovercraft Mother," "She's Doing Fine," "500 Years," and "Last Man In Space."

What are yours?

Olivia. In the Lab. With the Pyrokinesis.

OliveIncidentHere's a little Fringe speculation. For those who have not seen any of Season 3, waiting for it to come out on DVD/BlueRay, don't worry. This post won't spoil anything. It's just my putting together a few pieces from Seasons 1 and 2 and guessing at something that may be revealed at some point in the future.

So here goes . . . 

When we first meet Walter Bishop in the Pilot, he has been institutionalized since 1991. Olivia Dunham explains:

An assistant was killed in his lab. Rumors about Dr. Bishop using humans as guinea pigs. He was charged with manslaughter, but was deemed mentally unfit to stand trial.

We later learn more about both the charges Olivia mentions, the assistant who was killed in the lab and the experiments on humans.

In episode 1.12, The No-Brainer (the one where hands come out of computer screens and grab people's heads) a woman named Jessica Warren starts trying to see Walter. She first approaches Peter, who turns her away. After which Olivia says:

I think I know who that woman was… outside.

PETER: What do you think you know?

OLIVIA: That she's the mother of the lab assistant… that was killed in the fire here almost twenty years ago. It's none of my business.

When Jessica Warren finally gets to meet Walter, we learn:

My daughter's name was Carla Warren.

WALTER: Oh,dear.

JESSICA WARREN: Do you remember her?

WALTER: Yes.

JESSICA WARREN: I want to see you because… you were the last person to see my daughter alive, and…I've always wanted to ask… Was there anything else I could know? Anything,anything else…you could tell me about my daughter.

WALTER: She was… a wonderful girl. What I remember… is her smile. She had a wonderful smile.

WALTER: I miss Carla.

JESSICA WARREN: Me,too. I miss her.

(Walter embraces Jessica Warren.)

Okay, so the assistant's name was Carla Warren and she died in a fire in the lab and Walter was there when it happened (something we could probably have inferred from his being charged with manslaughter, anyway).

Now about fires in labs on Fringe.

In episode 1.17, Bad Dreams (the one where Olivia meets a fellow Cortexiphan kid who mentally forces people to stand along the edge of a building's roof with him, with the threat of making them jump), we get the following exchange:

WALTER: Where’s the fire? I always loved that expression, which is curious, since my lab assistant was killed in a fire.

OLIVIA: What can you tell me about Cortexiphan?

WALTER: Oh, that takes me back. I remember 'Belly' whipping up a peyote mash–

OLIVIA: Walter!

WALTER: Cortexiphan was a highly experimental drug. William theorized that it might enhance certain abilities in predisposed children.

PETER: Let me guess– you experimented on people.

WALTER: Oh, no, no. not me. William. We had quite a disagreement about it.

OLIVIA: What abilities?

WALTER: It worked on perception. Carlos Castaneda, Aldus Huxley, Werner Heisenberg, all focused on one single elementary truth. Perception is the key to transformation.

PETER: Reality is both subjective and malleable. If you can dream a better world, you can make a better world.

WALTER: Or perhaps travel between them.

PETER: What did you just say?

OLIVIA: So if Nick Lane was treated with Cortexiphan, he could change reality with his thoughts. He could make somebody do something just by thinking it.

WALTER: Not his thoughts. It’s how you feel that determines your view of the world.

OLIVIA: You’re saying that Cortexiphan worked on feelings.

WALTER: That’s reductive, but essentially, yes.

Olivia then figures out that she also was subjected to a Cortexiphan trial. At the end of the episode:

(rummaging through a storage box, Walter finds some old cassette tapes and starts watching one. haunted by what he sees and hears – a small blonde child sits huddled on the floor while voices dialogue from off the screen)

WILLIAM BELL: Is the incident contained?

FEMALE VOICE: Yes, Doctor Bell.

WILLIAM BELL: How bad?

FEMALE VOICE: Bad.

WILLIAM BELL: Casualties?

FEMALE VOICE: Not sure yet. We can't locate Brenner.

WILLIAM BELL: Is SHE okay?

FEMALE VOICE: SHE is fine.

WILLIAM BELL: Hell, do we know what triggered it?

WALTER: Obviously she was upset, William. (to the child) It's okay. It's alright now. Nobody is angry with you. You didn't do anything bad. It's alright Olive… everythings going to be okay.

(Walter sits silently, alone in the dark lab and stares at the screen)

The transcript doesn't say it, but Olive (Olivia) is huddled in a small, unburned corner of a room which has apparently been subjected to intense fire as part of the "incident" William Bell refers to.

This is confirmed in episode 2.15, Jacksonville (the one where Olivia revisits the day care center where she was experimented upon), where Olivia gets to watch the same video tape and recognizes herself:

OLIVIA: That's me. What happened?

WALTER: This was the first time you saw the other side. You were frightened. Started a fire with your mind. It should have worked. This is the very sort of thing that William and I were preparing for.

Olivia also indicates that she has no memory of the Jacksonville experiments:

I have a freakishly good memory. I remember everything. But not this. There's just nothing that's familiar.

PETER: Maybe that's a good thing.

And earlier in the ep, Walter also commented on her not remembering her Cortexiphan-produced abilities:

OLIVIA: Walter, when did I see things from the other side?

WALTER: Twenty-six years ago when you were a little girl. The Cortexiphan Trials. As I've said, the drug worked on perception. Of the thirty children that William Bell and I experimented on, you were the first with the ability to identify things from the other side. We gave you the ability.

PETER: Walter, you were conducting illegal drug trials on children. Don't make that sound like charity work.

OLIVIA: Was it me who described it as a glimmer? Well, I can't see it anymore.

WALTER: Because I believe you stopped wanting to. When you did, there were consequences, but I was able to elicit the ability once. I believe I may be able to do it again.

So Walter's lab assistant, Carla Warren, died in 1991 in a laboratory fire and Walter was there.

Olivia, who would have been around 12 in 1991, was given Cortexiphan as a child and, among other things, occasionally started fires with her mind (pyrokinesis) when frightened or upset. However, there were "consequences" to her use of the Coretexiphan abilities, and she decided she didn't want them any more–and today has no memory of the experiments.

What's the dramatically obvious way to connect these facts up?

The very next episode, 2.16, Peter, is the one in which we get a flashback to 1985, when Peter was a boy–and we get to meet Carla Warren for the first time, six years before her death in the lab fire.

My guess is that, at some point in the future, we will have a flashback episode to 1991, when Olive is 12, and the experiments have been relocated from Jacksonville, Florida to Harvard, where the lab fire occurred.

Something momentous will be at stake (very possibly with Observer involvement). Walter and Olive and Carla will be in the lab. Something horrible will happen, pushing Olive over the edge and triggering her pyrokinetic abilities. Carla (who was likely trying to stop Walter from doing something, possibly to Olive) will die. 

Olivia and Walter live, but both will be shattered. Olive will either repress all memory of the Cortexiphan trials or someone (possibly William Bell) will cause them to go dormant.

Walter will have either just had William Bell perform the operation to remove bits from his brain or he will have it immediately after this event, as it is what frightened him of what he was becoming.

In any event, the aftermath of the event will find him mentally and emotionally shattered and he will be committed to St. Claire's for the next 17 years.

Until Olivia Dunhman walks into St. Claire's and recruits him to help solve the case in the Pilot episode.

Now, there are other ways this could work. Other Cortexiphan kids have been shown to have pyrokinesis, but c'mon! This is the obvious, dramatically satisfying way to do it.

How did Carla Warren die?

My money is that it was Olivia. In the lab. With the pyrokinesis.