Kerblam!

[purplecat]

This was another strong episode. The construction of the hunt for the villain, with its undermining of expectations was well done. The very on point parallels with Amazon also worked well. I'm not going to call it satire because I don't believe it was structured that way, but it isn't the first Doctor Who story to model its alien/future world on something existing in our world sufficiently closely that it can be treated as a critique and I doubt it will be the last. There was an actual villain, though not one who showed any real interest in chewing the scenery.

I had a lot of opinions about the whole depiction of Artificial Intelligence, specifically the system's decision to kill Kira in order to make a point to Charlie, but they would form a long essay on machine ethics and the likely legislation surrounding AIs. Suffice it to say on Thursday after the episode I pitched an article on the subject to The Conversation and actually got a response to the effect that they'd have published it if I'd thought of the idea on Monday. I won't bore everyone with it here. I think the AI behaviour works fine within the context of Doctor Who, but its highly unlikely it would work like that in the real world.

Lots has been written about the implicit politics of the episode. This is definitely a story I'd hold up as supporting my thesis that Chibnall (so by extension the Doctor Who he oversees) is interested in systems of oppression but recognises that the Doctor isn't really a suitable hero to tackle them. I think we see here something working towards the idea that you can change the system by engaging with it and influencing those with the power to enact change, and also the acknowledgment that change is show (despite the undertaking to employ more people* and to give the current workers a holiday, they only pay these people for half the time they are giving them off). All that said, on the assumption that that is the kind of discussion the episode is trying to have, I think the execution was a little clunky. Certainly many seem to have interpreted the story as ultimately in favour of Amazon Kerblam! and against people who agitate for better treatment of its workers. That's not my reading of it, but its a perfectly valid reading given what is on screen.

This is also the first time since The Woman who Fell to Earth that we see Yaz act in ways that are clearly influenced by her police background. I wish this kind of thing had been in the scripts from earlier in the series. It feels like too little, too late at this point. The juggernaut that is the relationship between Ryan and Graham has irretrievably sucked the oxygen out of the other characters and their interactions and episode 7 out of 10 is too late for them to gain any momentum.

I don't think Kerblam! is as good as either of the historical episodes that preceded it. It's probably better than any of the Chibnall scripted SF episodes though. It has a clearer idea of what its trying to do and a more equitable use of its characters and I think the series as a whole would have benefitted if it had been appeared earlier.

* The AI expert in me worries about how this would work economically, but I'm already overlooking the ethics and legal issues with AI in the story so lets overlook the economic issues as well.

Comments

[elisi]

My thoughts are more or less summed up by this post: TIBERIAN THOUGHTS – Sheffield Steel, or a Subjective Look at the Thirteenth Doctor #7: “Kerblam!”

[purplecat]

I think you linked to that when the episode first aired. I think its a valid reading of the episode (particularly since I think some parts of its execution lack finesse), but my reading is more of a "this system is terrible, but the kinds of solutions the Doctor normally offers (worker rebellions), don't actually work in practice and a different but longer term approach is needed" but given what's actually on screen either is valid. I think mine comes more from looking at the season as a whole, and coupling that with what Chibnall is clearly trying to do in terms of diversity in casting and behind the scenes employment.

[elisi]

I couldn't remember if I'd linked to that, or to El Sandifer's.

but my reading is more of a "this system is terrible, but the kinds of solutions the Doctor normally offers (worker rebellions), don't actually work in practice and a different but longer term approach is needed" but given what's actually on screen either is valid.
That is not a bad point - clearly the whole society is having massive problems, since people are scrambling for the worst jobs possible - but the Doctor literally says 'The systems aren't the problem.' And seems perfectly happy to let things carry on as they are. If she had, at the end, told the managers that they should implement drastic changes to how they treat their employees (say, maybe they could see their families more than twice a year?), or if she'd gone searching for the actual owners of Kerblam! (who are never seen, and are the actual people in charge - the managers are just going to 'put suggestions forward'), or literally just done ANYTHING other than congratulate them on hiring more people for crappy jobs and applauding the two weeks pay for a month's break, then I could accept it. As it is, then no. It's like if she were confronted by the effects of austerity and said 'the system isn't the problem' and applauded more food banks.

(Sorry about the rant, but this episode made me angrier than anything else in all of Doctor Who ever has. I appreciate that the Doctor probably wants a break from being the Oncoming Storm and all that jazz, but she described herself as 'sorting out fair play throughout the universe' and this doesn't qualify.)

[purplecat]

So tentatively I think what Chibnall is driving at is that the Doctor engages with the people able to make the change - I admit we don't see much of this, I'm just trying to synthesise what we do get on screen with what is happening behind the scenes.

So way back when in Eccleston's season, the Doctor did very little personally, the idea was that he acted as a catalyst in situations.

I think here we see that the Doctor acts as a catalyst for a change in Kerblam's operating practices, next episode (arguably and taking a wider historical context) she acts as a catalyst to get James I and VI to row back on his enthusiasm for witch trials, in It Takes you Away her message to Hanne is the shock that makes Erik realise how rubbish his parenting has been and, in the finale, she more or less gets the Ux to stop serving Tim Shaw. So I think the idea is that the Doctor doesn't topple systems, but that she inspires those with power within the systems to enact change.

And, yes, this is a big reach given what we're actually shown, and is contradicted by things like that statement about systems and people unless you work quite hard to understand it as systems can only be changed if you change the people within the systems (again a reach). But I just find it really hard to imagine that Chibnall wants the show in an ideological position of "never rock the boat" - so I think he wants something else but is delivering it badly...

[elisi]

But I just find it really hard to imagine that Chibnall wants the show in an ideological position of "never rock the boat" - so I think he wants something else but is delivering it badly...
I hope so. I mean, I can see 'never rock the boat' as a deliberate character flaw, but it'd be nice to have something confirmed.

[daniel-saunders.livejournal.com]

I liked this, although the economics didn't make much sense to me. If almost everyone is unemployed due to automation, then how can they afford to buy so much stuff?

Agreed about Yaz.

[parrot-knight.livejournal.com]

I hypothesised that Kandoka suffers for the rest of its neighbouring colonies, but it's an argument from silence I admit.

[purplecat]

As noted in my reply below, 10% population is still a lot of people, and I suspect Kerblam is cheap compared to other vendors. We have to assume it exists within some kind of economic equilibrium where trade is still happening, even if it is one in which large numbers of people have comparatively little.

[purplecat]

I wasn't too worried about the economics at that level. 10% population is still probably a lot of people (and that doesn't count the shareholders of companies like Kerblam! plus people working in, for instance, the arts where its unlikely automation could out-perform humans since the the evaluation of "good" is so subjective). At do that even the unemployed are probably buying from Kerblam! (it's delivery mechanisms would mean they wouldn't need to live close to a functioning space port or roads or anything).

My concern was more that since, presumably, it was only legislation forcing Kerblam to employ as many people as it did then increasing the number of human employees was likely to make it less competitive... but there are lots of ways to head canon that since we don't have a detailed understanding of its world.