Of all the Doctor Who stories I have read, listened to and watched, there haven’t been many I’ve actively disliked and, for want of a better word, dreaded having to re-experience.  Many of you will know I have a relentlessly positive outlook towards Doctor Who and will always give a story a second, third or nth chance.

But Year of the Pig was always going to be a story that was in for a tough ride with me.  I’ve listened to it once previously and on that first listen, did not enjoy it at all.  My memories of it were that it was far too long and structured as two episodes; nothing really happened; characters spent interminably long scenes talking about not very much; and that the plot, what there was of it, was so inconsequential I couldn’t even remember any salient details except the cliffhanger at the end of part one.

I did remember it had a pretty good cast, though: Colin and Nicola as the 6th Doctor and Peri, of course; Maureen O’Brien, Michael Keating and Adjoa Andoh; and that guy with the funny eye (Paul Brooke) as the pig.

Did it’s second listen grant it a reprieve (as has often happened throughout my marathon) or is this story to remain condemned to suffer my disdain?

Nope.  Still don’t like it (although a don’t like it a little less than before).  I think the best word to describe this story is ‘frustrating’.

The problems I remembered are still problems.  Year of the Pig is simply far too long for the story it is trying to tell.  It is just shy of two and a half hours long and with it only being split into two episodes, the pace is decidely languid.  I’m aware that, probably, this is part of the point.  The Doctor and Peri are having a ‘reading week’ to catch up on the works of Proust.  They are at a rather swish hotel is Ostend, Belgium in 1913.  As such, the story reflects that gentility and luxury, taking its time to introduce the various characters and feeding its plot in little by little.  For me, though, that just doesn’t work.  It takes ages for the story to get anywhere and whilst there are dramatic incidents: a drowning man; dead cows falling from the sky; Peri locked in a steam room; a talking pig, for goodness sake, they don’t grab the attention in the way they should.

I think the reason for this is that they are surrounded by endless scenes of people talking, describing what they can see or listing different types of food.  Over and over, Toby (the sapient pig) sits in his hotel room and demands various humans order him food.  Thereupon, the script demands a full list of various exotic and luxurious foodstuffs.  Once, I could understand to set up the decadent priorities of Toby.  Even twice, to emphasise the character beat and/or provide a humorous aside.  But almost every time the story cuts back to Toby, he orders some more food.

And here, I wonder that I might be missing something.  Year of the Pig talks a fair bit about Marcel Proust, a writer I have to admit to being completely unfamiliar with.  He even appears (in a non-speaking role – yes, a non-speaking role on audio) in the story.  I studied English Literature at university, so this is a little embarrassing, but other more literate people round here might be better placed to elucidate me as to whether the style and structure of Year of the Pig reflects Proust’s writing in anyway.

I’ll admit I’m no fan of Matthew Sweet, the writer of Year of the Pig.  I really dislike the documentary he did for the 50th anniversary.  It was the epitome of my issue with Sweet’s style – a ‘look how intellectual I can make this ostensibly silly and escapist children’s sci-fi show..aren’t I clever’.

His other stories for Big Finish are a mixed bag.  The Magic Mousetrap is probably the best of the bunch, although his first Jago and Litefoot, The Man at the Bottom of the Garden is okay (if victim to his penchant for over-wordiness).  Voyage to the New World, though, is an impenetrable, ‘intellectual’ durge.  Year of the Pig is similar.  It isn’t dense in the same way as Voyage to the New World, but it is far too full of ‘stuff’.  Each guest character is a grotesque – way over the top and too far removed from what could be considered real people.  This might work in the case of Toby (and Inspector Chardalot, in transpires) but its the sort of characterisation for Maureen O’Brien’s Miss Bultitude and Adjoa Andoh’s Nurse Albertine that overstays its welcome in the three hour running time.

But all the ‘stuff’ packed into it is merely window dressing.  It’s the back stories to the characters such as Albertine’s work as a black nurse during the Boer War; Miss Bultitude’s penchant for taxidermy; Chardalot’s detective work; even Toby’s life on the stage as part of the now unfashionable freak shows.  None of it is relevant to the story.

In the hands of a different writer, that wouldn’t be a problem.  We need the history of characters to understand their motivations.  But Sweet just seems to have had idea after idea and not been ruthless enough to cut out what wasn’t needed.  Heaven knows what the script editor was doing on this, he must away that week!

I also think the sense of humour on display in Year of the Pig is simply not to my taste.  Year of the Pig is often cited as an example of a 'witty' script.  The script definitely believes it is being witty but by the end of the first episode it was, for me, becoming one of those people you meet an a social engagement, who you end up smiling politely at whilst trying to catch someone else’s eye so you can escape the conversation.

It just adds to the nagging feeling that I’m being condescended by Year of the Pig.

Now, I’m fully prepared to admit that Year of the Pig just isn’t for me, but that is possibly what I find the most frustrating.  Doctor Who is my thing.  I like every story, to differing degrees.  How ever much I don’t like Genesis of the Daleks, it’s still accessible and I can appreciate many of its aspects even if the whole doesn’t chime with me.  With Year of the Pig, it is a rare example of a story I feel I’m being excluded from.  I may have the idea of a Proust style influencing the story completely wrong but if I am mistaken on that front then I’m not sure why I feel so disconnected from the story.

Historically, the story is set in 1913 and there is mention of the looming Great War.  It is very much an aside, though, almost framed as the misguided ramblings of Toby who has gleaned knowledge of the future from the left over belongings of his creator (an unamed alien intelligence – another source of frustration).  Nurse Albertine has a scene discussing her field work in the Boer War and how, as a black woman, she has seen her contribution go more or less unrecognised.

Other Doctor Who stories set in a similar time period,have involved freakshows and its interesting, here, to see those attractions presented in their dying days.  Much mention is made of the kinematograph and how this new technology is beguiling even avid fans, like Miss Bultitude, of ‘performers’ such as Toby.  It is interesting to see the new, emerging technologies of this period being highlighted by the story.

Year of the Pig is, for me, a rare type of Doctor Who story.  It is one that I do not anticipate returning to for a very long time, if ever.  Whilst there are a few elements I enjoyed more this time around; mainly the performances of the regulars and guest cast (I particularly like Maureen O’Brien’s turn here which is a million miles away from Vicki, and Adjoa Andoh’s Nurse Albertine), there is an overriding sense of superiority in the script that I simply cannot get past.