Customer Reviews:
 No surprises June 8, 2008
Andrew McCaffrey (Satellite of Love, Maryland)
There are two items on the cover of BLOOD HARVEST that should tell every Doctor Who fan exactly what to expect. The first is the extremely silly looking vampire that's being repelled by Benny holding a flashlight. The second, of course, is the name Terrance Dicks. Terrance Dicks doesn't really surprise us too much these days. We know what sorts of stories he tells, and the only unknown variable in his equation is how promising the execution will be rather than what level of ambition he'll be aiming at. Fortunately, BLOOD HARVEST, while far from being his best work, is an enjoyable enough romp through Chicago mobs of the 1920's and several previous Doctor Who adventures.
As the story begins, the Doctor and Ace are running a rather generic speakeasy in 1929 Chicago. References to mob movies (and, oddly, Casablanca) abound, and what the narrative lacks in originality, it more than makes up for in entertainment. The Doctor's tavern is only a cover while he investigates some strange goings-on in the area, but the sequences concerning the local politics and crime are far and away the more enjoyable sections. The supposed science-fiction element to the story is neither inspired nor adequately explained and comes purely as an interruption to the fun pulp novel that's being told. It's really a pity that Dicks decided not to have the Doctor running the speakeasy just for the sheer hell of it. It would have eliminated the need to have a lot of the non-Chicago scenes, which do have a dragging effect during the rest of the book. For a story that steams ahead at times purely by sheer entertainment and fun, it's oddly jarring when the author tries (and fails) to tie things up into a logical and boring little point.
Benny spends most of the adventure being digitally inserted into location footage from STATE OF DECAY and wandering through those studio sets (while there's unfortunately no Tom Baker nibbling on this dusted-off scenery, there's also no Matthew Waterhouse which comes as no small relief). Other reviewers have complained of the story merely rehashing the adventures that have come before, and while I can't totally disagree with this point of view, I feel that the case has been somewhat overstated. For me, the beginning of the Benny subplot served as a needed reminder of the main events of the previous story. Unfortunately, there is a case for pointing out that the later sections tend to simply repeat the previous story more often than they build anything new. Strangely enough, the portions that do invent new material do so by getting several details about the previous serial wrong. In these passages, Dicks was probably being far more creative than he realized.
Terrence Dicks has always subscribed to the idea of never writing four words when one will suffice. But at the conclusion to this story he takes that philosophy to extreme lengths: never write a concluding chapter, when a sentence will do. The final thirty-five pages end the book in a bizarre sort of sequel to THE FIVE DOCTORS and to say that it feels a little abbreviated is to say the cover of MAD DOGS AND ENGLISHMEN is a little bright. The book flies through revelations and plot-twists faster than the news of rec.arts.drwho.moderated going live went through on-line fandom. The main villain of the story goes from being completely in command to being utterly defeated, literally inside a single paragraph (it's right there on page 279, if you don't believe me). It's impossible to take this sort of thing seriously, and I would advise any potential reader to just sit back and enjoy the ride. To look for logic and seriousness in a story where Terrance Dicks is just trying to have a good time is a fruitless task.
It relies a bit too heavily on coincidences for my liking, but overall I still found myself enjoying BLOOD HARVEST. The sequences of the Doctor and Ace running a prohibition-era speakeasy carry the rest of the book. Even during the more boring parts, I didn't find the book to be anything less than adequate. It's got some definite flaws, and while many of them are major, none are fatal. As a fan I enjoyed it, but I have no idea how anything without some serious knowledge of Who history could even understand major portions of it.
(Note: this review was originally written January 7, 2003.)
|
