Dr Who, Jesus and the Blurflurgh

Our family enjoys the BBC’s flagship family sci-fi series Doctor Who (I’m pretty sure, though it is available on the BBC site, you have to be in the UK – I’m told it also airs on BBC America). This I share with several other bible bloggers. It was the end of the series this week, and unfortunately it ended with a staggeringly Blurflurgh plot. A very sad way to end a series with some significant high-points*

On the Imminent Destruction of the Universe

As a student, watching Star Trek, The Next Generation, my friends and I came up with the concept of the Blurflurgh plot. It goes like this:

“Oh no, there’s a blurflurgh!” “What’s a blurflurgh?” “A blurflurgh is the only thing that can destroy the universe, we can’t let the blurflurgh flemmoxate”. “It’s flemmoxating.” “Its okay, I have a praxindoodle, which prevents the flemmoxate of the blurflurgh destroying the universe”. “But the praxindoodle only works in the presence of gamma-umithrons.” “We can desedrify the ship’s jimgraxle to generate a stream of gamma umithrons to power the praxindoodle that will prevent the flemmoxate of the blurflurgh from destroying the universe. But the only button is on the inside of the jimgraxle room.” “But that will kill you.” “Yes, but its a sacrifice I must make. Goodbye everyone” …5 minute FX shot… “Wait, you’re alive? How.” “I realised that the only way to survive the desedrification field is to finally understand the meaning of love.” “Cool – what’s next?”

As you can see it is a pretty lame plot, although by the frequency of its use you would never know. There are lots of subtleties to how bad this plot is (I could, literally, talk for a couple of hours on it), but for today’s lesson, here’s two.

1. It relies on almost nothing you know or could reasonably anticipate. It makes a nonsensical mortal problem in order to provide the heroes with an opportunity to supply a nonsensical solution. All the time having to tell you why the solution solves the problem, because the nature of Blurflurgh plots is that the connection is so arbitrary, you simply could never guess.

2. The ‘twist’ in the tale bears jarringly little relationship to either the problem or solution. It is a form of Deus Ex Machina, only with the Deus being a magical link between the emotional and the physical world. The less egregious Blurflurghs at least make the desedrification-survival-technique use a Trakanemnon Gun that was given to the hero as a token of universe-healing love. The worse skip the Trakanemnon and just make Love itself do the work.

If you think about the Christian atonement story as a narrative structure, it is a Blurflurgh plot. To tell the story, you have to first create just the right kind of God, then describe the fall, then original sin and universal guilt, then the principle of substitutionary sacrifice, then wrap that around Jesus and his untimely death, and the hero saves everyone but dies himself. But no, “Wait, you’re alive? How.” “Because Death cannot defeat perfect love.” “Cool – what’s next?”

If you’ve ever seen the evangelism story using the cross as a bridge, this is the Blurflurgh plot laid bare. 99% of the story is spent telling the hearer of all the invented rules of the fantasy world that make it so the conclusion is understandable.

On the Best Way to Polish a Poor Plot

I have a vivid memory of discussing the first Wheel of Time book with a fan. I found (and still find) this kind of fantasy narrative very derivative, and more than a little Blurflurgh. You have to create a bunch of arbitrary peril, then a bunch more arbitrary solution, and laden the end with cheap and shallow sentimentality. I was trying to explain this to the fan (before I had the word Blurflurgh). They insisted the story was logically compelling, and did make sense, because, you see, Rand obviously had to have no parents, because, as we’ll see later in the series, such-and-such happened to them. And with the Aes Sedai so powerful, that means that he has to stay on the run, and so on. Layers and layers of post-hoc rationalization built around a Blurflurgh plot with the sole purpose of making the underlying preposterousness seem less preposterous.

If you talk about substitutiary atonement enough it can seem pretty normal too. Hell, even I have fallen into the trap of having long, detailed discussions about its minutiae. Forgetting the obvious, and not well hidden truth: it is a preposterous fantasy and by being utterly arbitrary, is also utterly unamenable to reason.

* Among which have been, for me – the question of whether there is knowledge you would want yourself not to know, and the sublime (and I hope intended) statement on the impotence of fame that was bringing Vincent Van Gogh to his own exhibition in the Louvre in 2010, only for him to still commit suicide when returned.

Advertisements

19 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

19 responses to “Dr Who, Jesus and the Blurflurgh

  1. My wife and I watch it on BBC America HD and we used to catch it on our public broadcasting system. It is a lot of fun.

  2. imarriedaxtian

    Ha Ha! Great post, Ian. Blurflurgh indeed. I almost pause my reading to google the meaning. Brought back memories of my pulp sci-fi days of 50’s.

    And your linking the word to the bible and PSA. Brilliant. Now I have a shorthand way to dismiss pesky proselytising evangelists with one word. Thanks.

  3. Ian

    Thanks Imax. Hi Bob, thanks for filling in where it airs.

  4. Blurflurgh – I like it. It sounds like *exactly* what I need as a key component of the Christianity Compatibility Layer (CCL) I’m working on over at the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist. Amazing what you find that may come in extremely handy! πŸ™‚

  5. Ian

    Good luck with the new blog Shane, and thanks for stopping by. I’ll keep an eye on your blog as you develop it. As someone who regularly participates in Christian ritual, without any illusion about the truth of its dogma, I have a special interest in your topic.

  6. Kay

    Series finale? Not season? Tell me it ain’t so! (I’m waiting for this last season to come out on Netflix, but as a huge David Tennant fan, if the series is ending, perhaps I shan’t bother.)

    And oh – “Blurflurgh” is brilliant! I will never be able to watch Star Trek the same way again.

  7. Ian

    No, just a country difference. There’s plans for another season πŸ™‚

  8. Ian

    Oh, this season doesn’t have David Tennant – it has a new actor playing the Doctor – sorry to disappoint. The significant women in my life tell me he’s nowhere near as hot as Tennant, unfortunately. I quite like him.

  9. Kay

    Sorry. What I mean to imply was that if the series was ending, I wouldn’t bother to move onto a new Doctor. I’d end the series in my mind with Tennant. (Did that make more sense?)

  10. Ian

    Yes, sorry. Gotyanow πŸ™‚

  11. Pingback: Tweets that mention Dr Who, Jesus and the Blurflurgh | Irreducible Complexity -- Topsy.com

  12. Frederick Polgardy

    This was a great post! I should point out that your criticism applies to the “penal satisfaction” view of atonement from Anselm down through the reformers and into modern day evangelical fundamentalism. Not so much to ancient theology, which focuses on restoring humanity to spiritual health, rather than on paying back some bizarre legal debt with lots of technical small print. I’m not a Christian in either case, but I thought it was worth pointing out. πŸ™‚

  13. Ian

    Yes Frederick, absolutely. I ought to do a post on atonement theories, because I do like bashing the easy targets (satisfaction and substitution theories, normally). I’m aware there’s a lot more breadth and nuance around atonement, but I haven’t found any that are fundamentally more than Blurflurghs.

  14. Pingback: Science Fiction Brewed Fresh Daily » Blog Archive » Link Dump

  15. Speaking of blurflurghs, I’m coming under attack from some Christian inerrantist pals in some of my Matthean Double Donkey posts over on my humble blog http://answersingenes.blogspot.com – it’s not that I’m calling for reinforcements, you understand, but just in case anyone wants to see some truly inventive supposition, hypothesis-dressed-up-as-fact and point-missing, you’d be welcome to drop by and check out the posts on biblical fakery and donkeys. i call blurflurgh in their excuses. Am I making too strong a case that Matthew’s extra donkey is fatal to inerrancy? [thanks in advance :-)]

  16. Ian

    I’ll pop along later this evening and join in – thanks for the heads up. Coincidentally I’ve got a bible study to go and lead now πŸ™‚

  17. Thanks Ian- I’ll need to think of a counter-argument! See, theists are *easy*, atheists are *hard* πŸ™‚

  18. Ian

    I’m sorry Shane, I felt bad about not agreeing πŸ™‚ I’m obviously not the person to ask to get your back in a fight πŸ˜‰

  19. Tee hee! Don’t worry about it! Nah – these guys are my friends, and we don’t take each other too seriously. In Northern Ireland it is considered a mark of *respect* to tear strips off each other, and besides, I would rather be shown to be wrong than to persist in error. That said, I think my little donkey has a lot more to say than people (even Baalam!) give it credit for πŸ˜‰

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s