Really late to the party on this because I’m way behind on my podcasts, but this was a lot of fun! Well done, folks.

The tv story issues come across better on the page, but the fact that the reader can’t do any thinking of their own throughout frustrates: EVERYTHING is explained in soul-destroying detail, even the mashed-up quotes. It’s a shame because I rather like the Baker’s ideas about the show.

Good news: only one more Pip and Jane Baker novel.

Bad news: still one more Pip and Jane Baker novel.

It is fun, but the ominous foreshadowing is annoying. The adoration of Mel shows less than in Terror but still irks. The attribution of quotes immediately after their utterance remains pedantic.

I’m more of a favourite story kind of guy but I love Peter Capaldi in the role.

With more foreshadowing than a giant 5 placed in sunlight, this also features the same repetitive phrasing used in their previous book and has a rather unhealthy fascination with Bonnie Langford’s appearance. I hope the next couple of books avoid this sort of limp over-emphasis of the drama…

I know! I was so glad I was sitting down for this.

Martin handles the split storylines well but doesn’t flesh out some characters or locations. Yrcanos’s “what is this Earth thing called love” moment and the epilogue made me groan. But it’s tense and scary in most of the right places, making it enjoyable fun.

Season 23 was a new beginning of sorts, so it fits that the first story is written by Robert Holmes and novelised by Terrance Dicks. It’s a return to “traditional” Who, riffing off familiar beats so old and new fans feel comfortable. Perfectly adequate.

Saward’s best book since Visitation. Slightly more disciplined and less smug and pretentious than Resurrection but still with parts that read as though he’s put them off until the last possible moment.

Takes a little while to kick into gear but eventually becomes a lot more exciting than its scripted counterpart. Characterisation is minimal; however, the story makes more sense and the stakes feel higher. Bland and unexceptional but it does the job.

Robert Holmes’ wordplay and wonderful characterisations hide the sparse plot and the cavalier violence of the original script. Lots of fun, but morally dubious: a blackly comic farce with characters entering and exiting the sets, narrowly missing each other, creating tumult rather than tumescence.

I almost always read the foot and endnotes because they frequently teach me more about the author and the book so I can get more out of it. I hate endnotes though: a footnote is a glance at the bottom of the page while footnotes entail a flick to the back, taking you out of the story for too long.

Written in a dated style that was old even when it was written, this is florid, repetitive and sometimes patronising to the reader. However, it feels like a book that the authors had some fun with. And some of that leaks across to the audience, thankfully. A chore but not a terribly onerous one.

What a stupid decision - these companies have had how many years to get ready for change?

Philip Martin rehabilitates his own script a little, downplaying some controversial moments and beefing up the characterisation and humour. It almost works, but the result is a book crowded with incident trying to be a Nigel Kneale script without the scathing hatred of the genre.

The school I went to for Years 11 and 12 had a vision-mixing desk in the studio attached to the Art Department. It was pretty old when I attended in 1986 but it had a lever that could make an image turn negative. It was a pretty basic function so I imagine that it was quite common prior to that.

Will you make it up to him by taking him on a pub Kroll?

He has moments: Visitation was a lot of fun and the first part of this book is great. But he isn’t consistent. Honestly, I feel like bits of this were written at great removes from other bits: possibly in time, definitely in enjoyment.