Scan barcode
andrew_j_r's review against another edition
3.0
A faithful adaptation of an early Doctor Who story that was well known at the time for being visually very ambitious - probably beyond the realms of what was technically achievable for television at the time. The book was one of the first to be adapted into a novel too, and the Doctor being referred to as Doctor Who throughout, always by the narrator and occasionally by the characters themselves - takes a little getting used to!
scarletsky's review against another edition
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
1.5
alysmw's review against another edition
3.0
Pretty good. There was loads of REALLY annoying sexism in it especially to Barbara. They spent the entire novel trying to protect her, asking her to make them food and then after she single handedly saved all their lives (while the rest were being totally pathetic) at the end did she get so much as a thanks? No. Apparently the sexism isn't in the original ep so why was it added??
Otherwise there were great characters and a fun, interesting plot. V enjoyable.
Otherwise there were great characters and a fun, interesting plot. V enjoyable.
jazzab1971's review against another edition
adventurous
tense
slow-paced
2.0
Rather a plodding retelling of this Hartnell story which is rather misogynistic in it's handling of the women.
Strutton rather annoyingly refers to the Doctor as "Doctor Who" throughout and his description of the TARDIS interior suggests he has never actually watched the show, not even his own story.
I've been reading (or re-reading in many cases) the Target novels in story order and this turgid retelling comes as rather a jolt after the excellence of "The Romans".
Strutton rather annoyingly refers to the Doctor as "Doctor Who" throughout and his description of the TARDIS interior suggests he has never actually watched the show, not even his own story.
I've been reading (or re-reading in many cases) the Target novels in story order and this turgid retelling comes as rather a jolt after the excellence of "The Romans".
ziwxbhld's review against another edition
3.0
(I've come back up here after finishing rambling to say that this was the second Doctor Who book ever published and thus contains many niggling differences that have been ironed out since. It is, however, ultimately a satisfying read for a child who lived a few decades ago and liked Doctor Who quite a lot, and possibly spent the majority of her formative Saturdays mooching round Oxfam for second-hand Target Dr. Who books. Which is quite fair, I think.)
I have to say, now I'm pushing thirty-ahem, these are a quick nostalgic read, and I'm clearly setting off on a trend here. But where do they fit into my normal reading habits? Well, they're the genesis of my love of books, and when I was a teenager they mingled nicely amongst The Hobbit, Brother In The Land, Futuretrack 5, The Andromeda Strain, Something Wicked This Way Comes, the various Pan Books of Horror and Alfred Hitchcock Presents Yet More Stories I'm Not Allowed To Present But Will Because Of The Cash. It wasn't a bad read, but then my tastes have moved on. I think there's probably a time-to-nostalgia ratio thing going on. There's also likely to be an optimum point at which to stop doing this revisiting of teenage obsessions. I haven't reached it: The Crusaders are next, and I'm really looking forward to the Autons after that. To be honest, the first doctor wasn't a favourite, and the history-based Dr Who episodes even less so. I'll grit my teeth and make it through...
I have to say, now I'm pushing thirty-ahem, these are a quick nostalgic read, and I'm clearly setting off on a trend here. But where do they fit into my normal reading habits? Well, they're the genesis of my love of books, and when I was a teenager they mingled nicely amongst The Hobbit, Brother In The Land, Futuretrack 5, The Andromeda Strain, Something Wicked This Way Comes, the various Pan Books of Horror and Alfred Hitchcock Presents Yet More Stories I'm Not Allowed To Present But Will Because Of The Cash. It wasn't a bad read, but then my tastes have moved on. I think there's probably a time-to-nostalgia ratio thing going on. There's also likely to be an optimum point at which to stop doing this revisiting of teenage obsessions. I haven't reached it: The Crusaders are next, and I'm really looking forward to the Autons after that. To be honest, the first doctor wasn't a favourite, and the history-based Dr Who episodes even less so. I'll grit my teeth and make it through...
nwhyte's review against another edition
http://nhw.livejournal.com/1022168.ht...[return]Doctor Who and the Zarbi was based on the story now generally called The Web Planet, which crashes and burns spectacularly awfully on screen because today's viewers cannot take the production values seriously. The book is a bit better, because the printed page and the reader's imagination, rather than the unforgiving camera, supplies the details of the various non-human races in conflict on the planet Vortis. In principle it makes a good sf story, perhaps the best sf story, in terms of the norms of the genre, from the whole Hartnell era.[return][return]The book does suffer from a couple of weaknesses. Most bizarrely, and uniquely, the central character is referred to as 'Doctor Who' rather than 'the Doctor' throughout, and the Tardis loses the definite article, as if Tardis was just the name of the vessel. Also, in places the book feels uncomfortably like what it is, a TV script cast in different format, and one feels that Strutton is just writing what appeared to the viewer on the screen. Having said that, though, the book is still better than the original TV story.
More...