The Bootstrap Paradox

Well, I took the good Doctor’s advice and Googled it. It turns out that a bootstrap paradox is what is also known as the causal loop: an event in the past that is caused by an event in the future which has knowledge of that past event prior to its creation. The bootstrap bit comes from a Robert Heinlein short story By His Bootstraps which itself derives from the expression “pulling yourself up by the bootstraps” to indicate a seemingly impossible task. Self-causing events? Timey-wimey? Interestingly this was also used in the recent film Predestination, based on one of Heinlein’s other stories. It has also been used in previous Who stories - notably, Blink.

So much for the explanation but I’m wondering if the entire Doctor Who two-parter was originally to be called The Bootstrap Paradox until the author noticed that this would give the plot away at the start – in which case, why did he do just this in the pre-credit sequence? Regardless, Under The Lake and Before The Flood were far more enigmatic titles and this return to longer form story telling (the two parters are now the same length as the typical 1970’s four part stories) seems to be paying dividends.

Last week’s Under The Lake almost felt like it was lifted from a late 1960s Patrick Troughton adventure: base under siege: check; small cast of guest actors: check; running up and down corridors: check; Zoe in a tight fitting catsuit: well, you can’t have it all. Where it seems to differ is how the cliff-hanger was treated. Back in the day, the cliff-hanger was more of a contrivance to allow a longer story to be split into neat 25 minute chunks whereas here it was critical to the story and only resolved at the end of the episode even though the seeds of the resolution had all been sown in the first part. This was also used to great effect in the opening Dalek two-parter.

Another difference is the actual tone of the two episodes. Although the two halves make a greater whole I think it would be entirely possible for someone who had missed the first part to easily pick up the thread and enjoy the second episode in its own right. Much of this comes down to the fact that most of the elements were pure MacGuffinry: the big bad monster, the Fisher King, effectively plays no part in the story other than forcing the Doctor back in time to create the Bootstrap Paradox. In a way, it was a pity because it rather wasted an intriguing looking monster and the voice talents of Peter Serafinowicz.

If there was one thing that did niggle with me over the two episodes, it was the fact that the Doctor couldn’t communicate in British Sign Language because that is exactly the sort of thing that the Doctor would be able to do. From an entirely practical point of view of storytelling,  I can see why the writer, Toby Whithouse, chose to script it this way but I think it was a bit of a missed opportunity given the intriguing possibilities of having a deaf character. However, this was somewhat made up for (and presumably of help to the hard of hearing) by having a Heavy Metal makeover for the theme tune. I’ve often thought the current arrangement is a bit insipid so couldn’t we have this every week?



Anyway, we are 4 episodes in and my fears that this series wouldn’t live up to expectations appear to have been confounded. If anything my enjoyment has been enhanced by the production team delving back in to the very best of the classic series. I also think this was the very best of Toby Whithouse’s episodes – could he be the showrunner in the future?  Anyway it’s Vikings next week with Arya from Game Of Thrones.