The Monthly Adventures #71 - "The Council of Nicaea" by Caroline Symcox

I’m writing this review after returning from a short break from the Main Range because I was hit with a series of stories I can only describe as mind numbingly fine. I really needed a sabbatical, because I was stagnating and even beginning to consider fully giving up on the range, but I took some time, listened to some other audios, and I’m back. But what have I returned to? The Council of Nicaea is one of the more popular episodes from this bracket of The Monthly Adventures, and is often said to be one of Erimem’s best episodes, so I was expecting a glorious return to Big Finish’s most prolific series. Instead, all I got was a new controversial opinion to bitch about.

Landing in the 4th century, the Doctor, Peri and Erimem arrive at a turning point in the history of the catholic church - the fated First Council of Nicaea. But when Erimem finds herself too deep into the debate, the Doctor has to question whether he values history or his friend more.

(CONTAINS SPOILERS)

This is gonna be a tough one because a lot of people seem to really love this story and I’m not sure why; a decently realised setting paired with an underbaked and oftentimes moronic script that neither does nor says anything new. Have you seen The Aztecs? Great, well you don’t need to listen to The Council of Nicaea, because it is ver-f**king-batim The Aztecs: TARDIS crew go to historical location, companion thinks they can change history for the better, Doctor disagrees, shenanigans ensue. The only real difference here is we have a less dynamic TARDIS team who don’t fit into the structure so well. Plus, this was released over four decades into Doctor Who’s lifespan and The Aztecs was in, you know, the first season, when a story like that hadn’t been done before and was foundational to the show. Here, it’s just a derivative mess that clearly thinks it's profound but ends up utterly logicless.

Now, I can get past a plot that’s been done before, but that’s not really my biggest problem with The Council of Nicaea. No, my biggest problem is Erimem. So, just to recap, Erimem meets up with Arias - a presbyterian who has gone against the views of the church and is the whole reason the council is being called. Within five minutes of meeting him, Erimem has decided that he is unconditionally in the right, is willing to die for his cause and immediately turns on her two closest friends. Hmm? You can see why I feel this is a little sudden, right? Nothing in Erimem’s character really says she would act this way besides, like, leadership qualities - she was a member of royalty who grew up in an unquestioned faith, there’s no actual, preestablished reasons for her actions here. Not to mention her whole last audio was about her getting to trust the Doctor and Peri again, making this feel even more contrived. And just to rub salt on the wound, she randomly u-turns again when the story needs her to be on the Doctor and Peri’s side. Completely unthought out, actively against character, this entire plot relies on Erimem’s unprecedented idiocy.

I guess the story has some merit; I had never heard of the First Council of Nicaea until listening to this after all, and I always enjoy a good history lesson. The world is well realised, the sound design is fantastic and it feels suitably large and populated - this story is good at being a historical; it captures the time well. And if there was one thing that I can genuinely say I loved, it was Emperor Constantine - our main antagonist. Similar to Mary I from The Marian Conspiracy, Constantine is a fascinating depiction of an actual historical figure: tyrannical, impulsive, bloodthirsty but distinctly human, able to negotiate when necessary and he even comes to a fair and just decision at the end, allowing Arias to debate at the council. Paired with a tremendous performance from David Bamber and he was absolutely the highlight for me. However, every other character sucked s**t.

Arias - our “good guy” in this debate - especially is a one note saint who can’t do wrong. Anti-violence, pro-justice and armed with angel-like amicability, he is just a checklist of good things to get us on his side because the story requires it. Let’s have another look at The Marian Conspiracy, as I referenced it earlier; see how both stories situate our characters on one side of a religious debate but one presents real, actual people as flawed individuals and the other has a binary vision of good and bad that sucks any nuance from its plot. 

This story has absolutely nothing to say, it comes to no real conclusion in the end. A whole subplot with an overzealous clerk trying to stop Erimem is just dropped, the actual council happens after the story ends and we’re left with the knowledge nothing changed anything without any actual analysis as to why it mattered. Erimem is completely unchanged, the story has added nothing new to the concept of the web of time and I can’t pull any substantial emotional meaning from it, leaving me asking what exactly the point of this was other than to restate a philosophical debate the show solved in its first season.

Maybe I’m missing something that’s staring me right in the face but in my opinion, The Council of Nicaea is a derivative bore of a story with awful, contrived character beats and a distinct lack of purpose that makes it feel like it amounts to absolutely nothing. It’s a good historical, but it’s a bad story that’s been done a thousand times before in a thousand better ways. Overall, a very disappointing return to the Main Range.

4/10

Pros:

+ Nicaea is well realised

+ Extremely well researched and composed historical

+ Constantine made for a fascinating antagonist

Cons:

- A rehash of one of Doctor Who’s oldest tropes

- Entirely relies on Erimem being uncharacteristically stupid

- Has to break established character dynamics to work

- Doesn’t actually go anywhere or try to say anything new

- Almost the whole cast is blatantly one note