Eh?? Tortuous?...justifications? There is nothing to justify. The episode, despite its obvious short comings, was a decent 'modern fairy story'. I don't need to make any more sense of it than the perfect sense it made the one and only time I watched it. Perhaps my personal interest in folklore and folk tales made it easier for me see the underlying themes that were presented, or perhaps the sniggering 'flash mob' you refer to aren't clever enough to appreciate good story telling or open minded enough to explore its meaning. Who knows? It's a matter of personal taste and interpretation.

As far as I am concerned, the faults with the episode are down to the limitations of the programmes format and poor execution of a number of scenes, not with the writer. Add to that 'the mobs' favourite brick bat, child actors, and a resolution that required viewers to 'not look to closely' and '...Forest...' created the perfect target for those determined to find fault with Doctor Who and have Moffat sacked. It was the same with 'classic', it was the same under RTD, it will be the same after Moffat. Ah well, putting up with insults for having differing tastes and opinions is the lot of being any Doctor Who fan.

The name Maebh Arden was not chosen randomly. It has meaning and is the key to understanding the episode. As has been stated elsewhere, Maebh is the name of the Queen of the Faires in Irish folklore and is probably where the name of the British 'Mab' stems from. Today, folk tales of fairies kidnapping children are well known and in the Warwickshire area the phrase, 'they've been Mabeled' is still used in the same way that 'away with the fairies' is used elsewhere. Warwickshire, also, is the place were once stood the mighty, ancient Forest of Arden. So the idea that Maebh was some how 'special' in the eyes of the 'fairies', or connected to them in a deeper way, was actually front and centre in the episode and her sister disappearing and her resulting 'madness' was not some random, inexplicable coincidence but was the heart of the story.

FBC presented us with the idea that 'fairies' are a mysterious 'Earth power' that will rise to protect its domain when faced with destruction. The tales of children being kidnapped and the fear of being lost in the woods are the half remembered results of its past interventions and these seemingly magical effects are half remembered with fear and misunderstanding by the 'pudding brains'. When a child starts behaving oddly these days we pump them full of Ritalin or describe people as 'away with the fairies'. In short, we drug them, ridicule them and offer them counselling out of ignorance and arrogance. Not an uncommon reaction for those with limited knowledge or understanding, it seems?

I could drone on about the underlying beauty and themes that I found in Frank's Forest. Again, I admit that my own interest in British Folklore is the main reason for this rather than the way in which it was presented as an episode of Doctor Who, but will close this rambling diatribe now out of fear of disappearing up my own arse. Perhaps when people stop asking the wrong questions (why was Annabel turned into a plant? why did she run away? why was there a bicycle in a tree?), they might get the right answers. Stop looking at the trees and see the wood folks!!

I do think criticism of the writer is totally unjustifiable and insulting. His ideas, dialogue and story telling were spot on in my opinion. But in a poll I would rate the episode as above average but less than good, but there is not an option for that so I rate it on my own personal scale...did I enjoy the episode, yes or no?. I would say Yes! I would also, without hesitation, be seeking to get another script out of FBC if I was show runner...

Great post! One of the most intelligent I've read about this episode, and so glad I'm not the only one that appears to have understood what this episode was all about!

Straker must be disappointed that the Good vote hasn't overtaken Poor or Average. (you can't get the Flashmob these days.)

Not being serious.

Thank you for a brilliant elucidation, Koquillion.

I agree with smithers - this was my take on the episode, and I thought it was very well done.

I'm not fond of "fairy tales" in DW, (though I love them elsewhere) but if you're going to do it, do it right. This episode did just that.

Yes, a very intelligent post indeed.
I well understood the concepts behind the episode, in fact I voted good believe it or not, because I loved the idea and it looked beautiful on screen (as all episodes do IMO), however it was some of the execution that I had issues with. I said perhaps it will all turn out to have been a dream, and considering it as a "fairy story" would not be far away from the same thing. I just wish that they'd taken the time to cover in the script some of the obvious anomalies in the scenario, like where the rest of the population of London were, and why only one girl's parent seemed to have any interest in what had happened to the children.
Anyway, it will soon be all forgotten after tonight I suspect!

I obviously meant FCB...

Go and stand in the corner of the forum and think about what you've done.

Great post up thread there. That's what is so great about this show. This episode has had the biggest kicking since, um, Rings of Akhaten, I guess, but like that episode, it still connected with some and will be, if not championed, then defended by people who saw the positives.

Don`t worry, it will. Was equal pegging earlier today. The rabid Whovians won`t let me down!


At SIX paras, you kinda did......

And you took the time to read it all. I am flattered...

Forest of Arden! Ha! Great double intent there.
It literally was the forest of Arden, the girl....but also see Shakespeare connection for place of fairies!

This writer is such a tease.

I enjoyed it, it was simple and told a decent story.

It wasn't the best episode of the series, but I don't think it's the worst episode I have ever seen. I enjoyed that there was no monster. I don't think there needs ti be a "monster" in every episode.

Phoned my mum and she said she enjoyed it, she's not a massive fan of Doctor Who, mainly watches it because of me, doesn't understand every episode either, but this one was nice.

In the end that's what I felt about this episode, it wasn't great, it was nice.

This story did not get criticism because the people who aren't happy with Moffat in general saw a prime target and voiced their outrage where they would otherwiise have been silent. That's just silly. I'm sure the Moffat haters are happy to voice their criticisms on every story.

The poll is clear that there are a lot fewer people voting Excellent and Good than previously. That means people who were previously voting Excellent and Good did not do so this time. That's not Moffat haters deciding they didn't like it, that's the people who regularly enjoy the show. For me, it was the first show I voted as low as Average this season.

I think the writer does deserve criticism. He deserves criticism for fundamentally misunderstanding the show. This is a Sci Fi show not a magic show. While it gets quite fantastical it is not a fairy tale and turning it into one does not work. Certainly not for me. As a kid's fairy story it's great. As Doctor Who it doesn't work.

Not what I said at all. People who dont like Moffat state it all the time and I havent said other wise. As for being silly...it is a shame you haven't singled out the post that describes people as in need of 'counselling' and 'tourtous'. I suppose you agree with this though, but I didn't and responded to it directly.

A writer submits a story, it is either rejected or commissioned. This episode was commissioned becuase it was seen as, and I quote Moffat directly, 'genius'. The shorcomings in the final broadcast episode were not anything to do with FCB. If he didn't "get the show" then why did the man responsible for what goes out under the shows banner commission it?

What you appear to be saying is that you, Thrombin, 'get Doctor Who' more than the award winning writer and producer, Steven Moffat. Really? Who is being silly now??

I don't like how some fans like to pigeon hole the show. If we're talking about whether or not the script should have been commissioned then I think a much bolder and less hidebound conception of what Doctor Who can be is necessary, and I think Moffat knows this. Otherwise every episode is the same and it becomes boring. To be honest, that has been happening the last couple of years. Hoopla over the anniversary aside I think there has been a bit of inertia creeping in and a bit of a staleness that has been reflected in both fan opinion and with the general public.

The show, at it's 8th season, has reached the stage where it needs to be bold again. If Moffat gets an interesting, original pitch that does something different he has to try and go with it. This episode, I agree, didn't quite work out, but I applaud the attempt, as I always do, when they try to go off the beaten path a little. The show can either be conservative or it can take a few chances and try some new things. I think season 7 was an example of the previous and there was a general feeling of dissatisfaction with it.

You said that this episode was "a perfect target for those determined to find fault with Doctor Who and want to have Moffat sacked". I don't see how you could have meant anything else other than that the criticism it was getting was more than usual because the Moffat haters saw an opportunity to criticise it more than they would do otherwise.

Which, to me, makes no sense and completely fails to take account of the fact that many people who had previously voted excellent for other episodes were part of that criticism.

As for the counselling and tortuous quotes I have no idea what that refers to. I assume I missed a post or something?


I had not heard that Moffat called it genius. Was that for the outline or the finished product? In any case. why does any dud get commissioned? Are you saying every writer that ever writes for this show is guaranteed to be faultless on the basis that the producer must have agreed to commission it?


Plenty of award winning writers don't get Doctor Who. Why should they? It's a unique show, if you're not familiar with it why would you automatically know how to write for it regardless of how many awards you've won? I was just watching Shada recently. It was written by the script editor of the time (Douglas Adams) because they had been frustrated by finding nobody able to understand how to write for the show and he eventually had to do it himself. Maybe it's changed these days but I reckon it's still hard to find writers who really "get the show", regardless of their credentials elsewhere.

I get what I, personally, want from Doctor Who and what I, personally, don't think works. I was objecting to your apparent assertion that the writer was faultless here and that any criticism was just people who don't like Moffat seeing an opportunity to stick their oar in.

I was pointing out that, for me, and a lot of others who had liked previous shows, the plot, and the nonsensical "magic" elements of the plot where coherent scientific priniciples took a back seat, were a big part of the problem.

The fact that it was all a clever riff of fairy tales sound all very clever but it doesn't work for me unless there's some plausible science to back it up. I believe the writer is getting criticism because the writer didn't take account of many fans' desire for at least some vestige of suspension of disbelief. Maybe the wider audience likes the magically inexplicable stuff more than I do, maybe they just don't know science well enough to know when it's nonsense, but the reason I didn't like the story is because of the plot so I do not accept that the writer is faultless here. Unless he wasn't responsible for the plot then he's the primary reason this was my least favourite episode this season and I stand by that.

Well my post is at the top of this page (22) and has the original post I was responding to quoted in it. So putting my post in context, the author of that post believes that there is a 'flash mob' (its term in this thread, not mine) of Doctor Who fans that come on to DS to do nothing but praise Doctor Who and vote excellent in poles. Sneering jibes are levelled regularly at other contributers. It was that attitude I was sort of trying to blow a raspberry at in my response.

DS carries the article about Moffat talking about FCB and, OK I got it slightly wrong as he called Frank a 'genius' and his script 'magic'. The article reveals that Moffat approached him to write a script and FCB' s obvious delight and enthusiasm at being asked. In my opinion he gets Doctor Who and delivered a good story. You disagree, not something I can or want to change, and I'm not trying to. But your dislike of the theme of the story is not something you can blame on the writer. His only fault is not living up to every single viewers expectations. The delivery and execution of his ideas is a different kettle...

As I do point out in my post, I have an interest in folklore so obviously I am going to find it more satisfying than someone who has not. You have an interest in science and find those themes more satisfying. Why is that the writers fault? The theme presented in Frank's Forest are nothing new in Doctor Who and there are loads of stories that 'riff' on folklore and magical myths...Daemons, Stones of Blood, Satan Pit and so on, are these written by writers at fault? Was Jo trying to sacrifice herself to save The Doctor , destroying a confused Azal, a coherent scientific principal? Seems to me that issues involving an ancient power which has echoed through the centuries in folklore, and a perceived threat to the Earth, were resolved due to the actions of a little girl. Last time I looked that story was generally highly regarded by the wider Doctor Who community. The story is basically the same, the execution and delivery are what sets them apart ( and 40 odd years). Again, I would say the writer delivered a good story, nice ideas and well written dialogue in the spirit of Doctor Who.

For all that, it is also my least favourite episode of the series. I found Sherwood funnier, Moon creepier, Time Heist slicker (what am I on about???) and everything else near as damn it perfect. My frustration with Forest is the waste of a good writer, a superb concept underdeveloped due to production constraints and the lack of proper horror/peril that lurks in every 'fairy story' largely absent. I would definitely be pleased and excited if they asked FCB back for another crack. I'm boring myself now.

Fair enough. My apologies for not noticing the context of your post.


Funnily enough I was thinking of using the Daemons as an example of how a story based on a "magic" theme can actually work in Doctor Who. The thing about the Daemons is that the Doctor made it very clear throughout that there was no such thing as magic and that everything had a scientific explanation. Every element was explained in scientific terms, even the arcane rituals and chanting.

My objection to this story wasn't about the fantasy theme, per se. I enjoy fantasy and mythology as much as I enjoy Sci Fi but, as the Daemons showed, the Doctor does not believe in magic. Magic has no place in the world of Doctor Who and any fantasy elements need to be explained, IMO, in a way that makes them plausible within a non-magical universe. I think that the Daemons was made plausible by the explanations within the episode but what was presented in this episode was not.

To be fair, for all my issues with the story I still voted it average. It's my lowest vote this season but it wasn't an awful episode. I enjoyed the acting, the humour and the visuals. I just had a big problem with the suspension of disbelief in this one. Not to mention the seemingly out of character actions of the Doctor in being so willing to give up and run away. The way the firefly/mote things were presented, just seemed like one more set of invisible creatures sharing the planet since the beginning that nobody ever knew about, like the Silents, which just added to the implausibility of it all. If I'd known that they were a deliberate attempt to explain some ancient folklore legends I might have felt happier with it but that was never alluded to directly enough for me to notice.

I'm not saying the writer was bad and I wouldn't be overly upset if he tried again. Whether the writer did anything wrong is obviously subjective but, in terms of the criticism I've heard on this thread, I think most of it is down to the choices of the writer so, at least in terms of DS fandom, I would say that some of his choices were wrong if he was trying to please us. Whether he did anything wrong in terms of the wider audience and the big picture is another matter but on the basis that the aim is to make an episode that both the general public and core fan base can enjoy I'm not convinced that he can be considered beyond reproach on this one