Anyway, I don’t feel my knowledge is as in-depth as some on my f-list (in particular, the likes of
- The Doctor Who dynamic rankings site – this was the one I meant to link to in my reply to
, but screwed it up, which covers all the broadcast stories since 1963; - The Doctor Who Ratings Guide, which carries reviews of almost all Who stuff, including most of the spinoff fiction;
- Outpost Gallifrey, which has a more generally fannish feel to it;
- and some interesting blog (or blog-like) posts:
- Alex Wilcock’s introductory post, which surveys also the 2005 season in some detail;
‘s assessment of the 2005 season, still one of the best pieces on that; ‘s reminiscences of watching it all at the time of first broadcast; ‘s assessment, having watched all the old series repeated in Australia.
I’m not satisfied with my indexing of my own Doctor Who reviews at the moment, and will give some thought as to how to make them better organised and more accessible, though the livejournal tagging system does help.
On the contrary, it is you who have missed Nicholas’ point, which is that attempting to reconstruct someone’s intellectual life from a limited and arguably irrelevant set of evidence will result in a distorted picture. Your implication that because he knew a pimp, Shakespeare can’t possibly have written such noble verse as it attributed to him is pure prejudice masquerading as argument. One might just as well argue that the Earl of Oxford’s adultery makes him incapable of writing such verse.