Elsewhere on Nature Network we’ve been having a friendly wrestle over the rumour that Dr Who—a popular SFnal TV series that has been scaring the socks off British children for so long that it’s now regarded as a British institution as much as fish’n’chips, Marmite, Gardeners’ Question Time, the Queen and listening to tapes of kittens being impaled on red-hot skewers—will feature, in its current series, a guest appearance by none other than Dickie D—that Maharajah of Memesis, that Scourge of Santa, that Tilter at Tooth-fairies, that Rabbi of Rationality: yes, Doctor D, the Ayatollah of Atheism himself.
It’s further rumoured that that the Distinguished Ex-Professor and Minor Deity will play himself, which figures – he’d be much scarier in that form than if they dressed him up as one of the itinerant Time Lord’s other adversaries—the Daleks or the Cybermen, Slitheen or Ood, Neutrons or Croutons.
I’d always put Dickie D (he’s got a Ph.D., you know) down as Jason Isaacs’ understudy for Lucius Malfoy, but should he be in a position to curdle my Saturday teatime viewing? Having well-known scientists break into popular culture is a grand thing, but if – and here’s the thing—if they are easily recognized as such. My question is this: what does the general public think of The Dogfather? A scientist? A celebrity atheist? A celebrity author? Or just a celebrity – a person who is famous just for being famous? Will they switch on their TVs and ask—Dr Who? [1]
All of which leaves open the question of which other celebrity scientists, not-so-scientists and other hangers-on will be queuing up for a bit part on the cult show?
I can imagine Susan Blackmore and Carol Vorderman rolling on the floor and scratching each other’s eyes out for a sniff at the chance at being the Doctor’s assistant (such a spectacle would be worth the price of admission, all on its own).
The Bobs—Lords Winston and May (if not O’Hara, who’d send his cat instead) could, with minimal prosthesis, be wise sages of some alien race.
Craig Venter could appear as an evil genius who, just before capture, would snigger archly and dissolve into an ectoplasm of alien genomes.
If Dickie D were going to play an actual part, I have the very one.
What I couldn’t stand, though, is if D… You-Know-Who [2] were to play The Doctor himself, once the current incumbent has done his stint – with (naturellement) his wife as his assistant—the current Mrs D having had a bit of previous in that role. If that were to happen, it would be back to the shed for me, and the kitten torture sessions would have to resume. Remember, every time a person says they Dick to the Doc, a little kitten dies. Your call.
[1] If they do ask such a question, they should be corrected. It’s Dr Whom.
[2] Er… You-Know-Whom? The dative case was never my strong point.
I think it’s great if they get a real scientist in a fictional television series – it’s all good fodder for the whole geek chic movement.
I want a cameo as a Morphant.
Carol Vorderman!? Do me a favour. Soon as they go the advertising-celebrity-endorsing-product cashing in path, they’re off the list.
I have just been informed that if I want the underside of my sofa to be intact tomorrow, I must point out that the Beast is already a wise sage of some alien race. I can’t really disagree, considering the life he leads.
To defend Dawkins (to some extent), most of his writings have been about science, and it was The Selfish Gene that made him famous. I think his trajectory to atheological infamy could be better read as him using his fame as a science writer to push his atheism, and damn he consequences for science.
@Jenny – isn’t ‘geek chic’ a contradiction in terms?
Henry, what with all these time lords and lord-scientists you should check out the house of lords blog. It is a real scream. It is called Lord of the Blogs and it is real – they have real Lords blogging. Some of them go around trying to persuade other Lords to blog—one of them wrote that she had failed in one case because the persuadee was in his late 80s and had not yet learned to use a keyboard.
It is a lovely blog, and very well behaved. Have not yet spotted Lords May and co on there yet, though (or Lord Dawkins and Lord Who/Whom).
Thanks for the tp, Maxine I have added Lord of the Blogs to my newly fangled Technorati favourites list. It is indeed a hoot. I have great respect for the House of Lords. Having sat through many sessions of one of their committees a few years ago, they are a wonderful resource of knowledge and conduct themselves with far more decorum (and with greater effect) than the Other Place.
”@Jenny – isn’t ‘geek chic’ a contradiction in terms?”
Hell, no. Take a look at my wardrobe for starters!
Invitrogen t-shirts don’t count ;-)
Ouch, Cath! That smarts.
What, no link to kittens being impaled on red-hot skewers?
How terribly disappointing.
Henry, don’t knock geek chic. It’s cool to be a geek these days (that’s what I keep telling myself).
I’ve just read that wikipedia…. thing … and it reinforces my impression of wikipedia, as well as my determination to instigate a new world order .
@Jenny – does geek chic work if it has holes in it?
@Richard – sorry about the kittens thing. I’d provide a link but it would offend Bob. Religion – now there’s something one can discuss without fear of hurting peoples’ feelings, but the relationship between a Man and his Pet is sacrosanct.
If Dawkins is a ‘celebrity’, I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem. Rather him, who is famous for something substantial (whether or not one likes his substance) – and he has produced important work – than those famous-for-being-famous, vacuous, insubstantial, so-called celebrities that our culture now churns out relentlessly via Big Brother and the like.
Dawkins is Professor for Public Understanding of Science, so a public profile is useful here. And we (I mean all of us) need someone prepared to put their head above the parapet now and again (he was controversial anyway, before G. D.). If he ends up inviting Hello magazine into his house, or advertising shampoo, then I’d take exception.
Will he be required to join Equity? (Love the rap.)
Yes Lee: But why did it have to be such an arse?
G. D., you mean? I guess I can’t help you there. But I reacted similarly to Russell Stannard’s The God Experiment – one of the drossiest books I’ve ever encountered.
If I ever get round to writing The Dog Illusion, do I get to play a Dalek?
Actually, I had been planning on calling my next book, in whatever topic, Sex, Cooking and Conspiracy Theories: Phylogenetic Systematics, the Princess Diana Way.
In real life it had entered my mind to title a book Tropic of Cladistics, but it was published under another name.
Try this for size.
Oh bugger! (Poop)-scooped again! But I shouldn’t be jealous: to repeat a notice someone on the LabLit forum spotted outside a church – may God make me the person my dog thinks I am.
The subject of dogs is very relevant today. If you’ll allow me, I post this in tribute to my mother’s dog, the indefatigable Pippa, who, I’m very sorry to report, was this morning just too tired.
Lee, you’re most welcome.