EDAs now in a different universe
The Count
Zygon Curry
>
> It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
I knew it was only a matter of.... Time :)
What book?
Regards,
Zygon Curry
The Count
: The Count wrote:
: >
: > It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
:
: I knew it was only a matter of.... Time :)
:
: What book?
Henrietta Street, apparently. Also, Peter Anghelides made this statement
over on the message boards:
'Gallifrey has been wiped from history. You can believe otherwise if
you wish--but remember that some people believe the Earth is flat.'
Chad
"The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:9s94et$ov2$1...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net...
> It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
Well, I guess it was only a matter of time before that unpopular place
went out of business. Those Time Lords were too boring, and they had no
regard for their guests. I wonder what they'll open in it's place? I hope
it'll be a new laser tag place. ^_~
Zygon Curry
>
> Zygon Curry <nospa...@logopolis.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> : The Count wrote:
> : >
> : > It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
> :
> : I knew it was only a matter of.... Time :)
> :
> : What book?
>
> Henrietta Street,
Which is written by Miles who also wrote Alien Bodies which ultimately
lead up to the destruction of Gallifrey...
John Elliott
And who's going to make a fortune selling picture postcards of Gallifrey
on Ebay?
--
John Elliott
Chad
"John Elliott" <j...@seasip.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1005090373.1452.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
Well, I've got fist-sized piece of the Capitol. The fact that it
shouldn't exist makes it a lot more valuable.
Andrew McCaffrey
Hey! Hey! Can we have a little spoiler space here, please?
--
+------------------------Andrew McCaffrey+[amc...@gl.umbc.edu]---------+
|"Star Wars is adolescent nonsense, Close|"My thumbs have gone weird!" |
|Encounters is obscurantist drivel [and] | -- _Withnail & I_ |
|Star Trek can turn your brains into |"I can't do chords. No sir." |
|puree of bat guano." -- Harlan Ellison| -- B.B. King |
+------------------ http://userpages.umbc.edu/~amccaf1 -----------------+
Jonathan Blum
Galli-what? Sorry, never heard of it...
Seriously, that statement doesn't imply the message title -- if you
rip a bunch of threads out of a carpet, you don't have a whole
different carpet. You do have a carpet with a bunch of loose threads,
not entirely torn out, flapping about a bit... and space to weave in
new things.
The Doctor has no more ended up in a different universe than he did
after "The War Games", when the War Lord was removed from history. He
was still captured by the Time Lords, even though the person who'd
instigated the events which led to his capture now had never
existed...
--jon
Cliff Bowman
"Jonathan Blum" <jb...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:75d9a022.01110...@posting.google.com...
> "The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:<9s94et$ov2$1...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net>...
> > It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
>
> Galli-what? Sorry, never heard of it...
>
Isn't that going to put something of a dent in the future of decent Who
conventions, not to mention (I'm assuming) your own memoirs?
Cheers,
Cliff Bowman
Lance Parkin
<coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>Zygon Curry <nospa...@logopolis.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>: The Count wrote:
>: >
>: > It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
>:
>: I knew it was only a matter of.... Time :)
>:
>: What book?
>
>Henrietta Street, apparently.
Can anyone spot the 'I haven't actually read the book' word
in that sentence?
Lance
Meddling Mick
>It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
So when did the unhappening officially happen? Or has it actually
happened yet? Or has it always happened? Or unhappened?
--
(Meddling) Mick Gair
Underestimating the power of
organic crystallography since 1384
Andrew J. Brook
> "The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<9s94et$ov2$1...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net>...
> > It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
>
> Galli-what? Sorry, never heard of it...
>
> Seriously, that statement doesn't imply the message title -- if you
> rip a bunch of threads out of a carpet, you don't have a whole
> different carpet. You do have a carpet with a bunch of loose threads,
> not entirely torn out, flapping about a bit... and space to weave in
> new things.
This is almost certainly the correct view.
I haven't read Miles' latest opus yet, but the review on Outpost
Gallifrey is certainly subscribing to the view that:
1) Gallifrey never existed
2) So therefore neither did anything deriving from Gallifrey
3) So therefore neither did the Doctor
4) So therefore neither did anything taking place before the end of
tAC apart from a few anomalies such as the Doctor. Not even the 7th
Doctor exists.
Unfortunately, the 7th Doctor, Ace and the Players to name but three
have all popped up in the EDAs post-tAC, so that's buggered right up.
AJB
Cameron Mason
Lance Parkin <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3be8ef7...@news.freeserve.net...
<snip>
> >Henrietta Street, apparently.
>
> Can anyone spot the 'I haven't actually read the book' word
> in that sentence?
Yes sir!
The word 'apparently', Sir!
What do I get Sir?
Cameron
--
I explored the ashes of Gallifrey and found a lump of TARDIS.
http://members.fortunecity.com/masomika/
Mappy
> Also, Peter Anghelides made this statement
> over on the message boards: 'Gallifrey has been wiped from history.
> You can believe otherwise if you wish--but remember that some people
> believe the Earth is flat.'
Ah, so this obviously means the Doctor, Susan, the TARDIS, Romana,
Compassion et al no longer exist. Now, what is this newsgroup for
again? I know it was for a series, or something, but for the life of me
I can't think what.... ;)
--
MAPPY
Current DW Novel Reading Order:
Players - Terrance Dicks
Last Man Running - Chris Boucher
*> Corpse Marker - Chris Boucher
Psi-ence Fiction - Chris Boucher
Mappy
> Unfortunately, the 7th Doctor, Ace and the Players to name but three
> have all popped up in the EDAs post-tAC, so that's buggered right up.
Pretty much. As much as the big reset tried to remove a large part of
DW's continuity, about the only way one could _really_ reset things is
if you started a whole new series, with a new main character(s) and a
whole new synopsis. Unfortunately, that isn't going to work with people
who want Doctor Who, and trying to stamp out those little spot fires of
series history that writers are going to throw in every so often is
almost impossible. I'm just hoping JR and the writers explore the full
ramifications of Gallifrey's removal from existence in the novels.
After all, nature abhors a vacuum, and there are plenty of old enemies
who would be more than happy to fill that void. :)
Lance Parkin
wrote:
>Andrew J. Brook wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, the 7th Doctor, Ace and the Players to name but three
>> have all popped up in the EDAs post-tAC, so that's buggered right up.
>
>Pretty much. As much as the big reset tried to remove a large part of
>DW's continuity, about the only way one could _really_ reset things is
>if you started a whole new series, with a new main character(s) and a
>whole new synopsis. Unfortunately, that isn't going to work with people
>who want Doctor Who, and trying to stamp out those little spot fires of
>series history that writers are going to throw in every so often is
>almost impossible. I'm just hoping JR and the writers explore the full
>ramifications of Gallifrey's removal from existence in the novels.
>After all, nature abhors a vacuum, and there are plenty of old enemies
>who would be more than happy to fill that void. :)
... which is what we're doing, as the authors (and indeed their
books) have been saying for the last year.
Henrietta Street is specifically *about* the gaps there are now,
the people that hope to fill them and the implications of that,
as anyone who'd even skim read it would know. It's not the
first book that's dealt with it, and it's certainly not the last.
Lance
Unkempt
<mappyt...@start.com.au> skrunggeret:
> I'm just hoping JR and the writers explore the full
>ramifications of Gallifrey's removal from existence in the novels.
>After all, nature abhors a vacuum, and there are plenty of old enemies
>who would be more than happy to fill that void. :)
... except, of course, there should be no void; if Gallifrey never
existed, then there's no void left when it was destroyed, because it
wasn't. The Daleks won't be thinking 'We can fill the shoes of the
Time Lords now they're gone', because the Time Lords never existed in
the first place. [1]
If anyone's filling the Time Lords' role, then they should have been
doing that for a long time by now.
(Thinks: no Time Lords = no 'Genesis OTD' intervention = dead Davros?
Hmm.)
Conrad
[1] And because they have no feet, obviously.
pikelet
the waist and cried out:
>Arb Thu, 08 Nov 2001 00:51:35 +1030, Mappy
><mappyt...@start.com.au> skrunggeret:
>> I'm just hoping JR and the writers explore the full
>>ramifications of Gallifrey's removal from existence in the novels.
>>After all, nature abhors a vacuum, and there are plenty of old enemies
>>who would be more than happy to fill that void. :)
>
>... except, of course, there should be no void; if Gallifrey never
>existed, then there's no void left when it was destroyed, because it
>wasn't. The Daleks won't be thinking 'We can fill the shoes of the
>Time Lords now they're gone', because the Time Lords never existed in
>the first place. [1]
>If anyone's filling the Time Lords' role, then they should have been
>doing that for a long time by now.
In fact, since the Gallifreyans evolved first and established the
morphic field for 'humanoid' life, we should most likely all look like
green, six-eyed, multi-tentacled thingies by now.
Or something.
Tim.
--
Before criticising someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
Then when you do criticise them, you will be a mile away
and have their shoes.
Mappy
> ... which is what we're doing, as the authors (and indeed their
> books) have been saying for the last year.
Ah yes, but I'm yet to see the "New Order" of the universe pan out, and
here I mean those villains from the past who continue to exist and would
have been empowered by the removal of Gallifrey and the Time Lords from
history. There have to be plenty of them around. After all, we all
know who the new masters of time are, and they have yet to show their
faces.... What faces they have. Not that they really have faces as we
understand them, but.... Well, that's a bit irrelevent, really.
They're terribly boring in print form, for the most part, but hey....
Of course, I haven't been able to get my hands on TAoHS yet, so I'll
know more then.
> Henrietta Street is specifically *about* the gaps there are now,
> the people that hope to fill them and the implications of that,
> as anyone who'd even skim read it would know. It's not the
> first book that's dealt with it, and it's certainly not the last.
As I said, I'll know more when I get my hands on it.
Mappy
> ... except, of course, there should be no void; if Gallifrey never
> existed, then there's no void left when it was destroyed, because it
> wasn't. The Daleks won't be thinking 'We can fill the shoes of the
> Time Lords now they're gone', because the Time Lords never existed in
> the first place. [1]
> If anyone's filling the Time Lords' role, then they should have been
> doing that for a long time by now.
This IS what I mean. There can't BE a void, because it is the nature of
things that that void be filled. Therefore all those races who were
suppressed, to varying degrees, shall now be exponentially more powerful
because of the lack of the Time Lords to affect their development. The
Daleks WILL have been fulfilling the role of the Time Lords, which just
makes this universe as dangerous as the previous one: if anything of the
Doctor's past DID survive, and that includes encounters with the Daleks,
then he is in deep shit if they come a-lookin' for him.
Course, they're as boring as the paper their literary stories are
printed on, as novel villains go. And tied down with all kinds of
rights dilemmas.... :)
Peter Anghelides
> > Also, Peter Anghelides made this statement
> > over on the message boards: 'Gallifrey has been wiped from history.
> > You can believe otherwise if you wish--but remember that some people
> > believe the Earth is flat.'
>
> Ah, so this obviously means the Doctor, Susan, the TARDIS, Romana,
> Compassion et al no longer exist.
I don't think that necessarily follows from what I said. And I wrote
it in the context of a longer discussion about how it's not fruitful
to extrapolate by linear logic from a paradox. People can go and have
a look for themselves:
http://pub59.ezboard.com/fthedoctorwhoforumfrm3.showMessage?topicID=771.topic&index=7
Mind you, I realise it's becoming fashionable to comment on the books
without reading them, so who am I to complain that people comment on
threads that I have written before they've bothered to read those. :-)
As for Romana: this week, I've decided that she did not survive the
end of "The Ancestor Cell". Ask me again next week.
Peter Anghelides
http://anghelides.org
Jonathan Blum
pikelet <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.iss.me.not.with.spammy.lips> wrote:
>>... except, of course, there should be no void; if Gallifrey never
>>existed, then there's no void left when it was destroyed, because it
>>wasn't. The Daleks won't be thinking 'We can fill the shoes of the
>>Time Lords now they're gone', because the Time Lords never existed in
>>the first place. [1]
>>If anyone's filling the Time Lords' role, then they should have been
>>doing that for a long time by now.
>In fact, since the Gallifreyans evolved first and established the
>morphic field for 'humanoid' life, we should most likely all look like
>green, six-eyed, multi-tentacled thingies by now.
See carpet analogy above...
Regards,
Jon Blum
The Count
: "The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
: > It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
:
: Galli-what? Sorry, never heard of it...
:
: Seriously, that statement doesn't imply the message title -- if you
: rip a bunch of threads out of a carpet, you don't have a whole
: different carpet. You do have a carpet with a bunch of loose threads,
: not entirely torn out, flapping about a bit... and space to weave in
: new things.
No, that analogy does not work. Ripping threads out is not the same thing as
making those threads to never have existed.
: The Doctor has no more ended up in a different universe than he did
: after "The War Games", when the War Lord was removed from history. He
: was still captured by the Time Lords, even though the person who'd
: instigated the events which led to his capture now had never
: existed...
...in the new universe, if that had been the case. However, later references
to him (Timewyrm: Exodus) imply that he was not erased from history. So he
was not literally erased from history, which I never assumed he was when the
Time Lords 'demateralised' him. I always interpreted 'being as though you
never existed' as the Time Lords' attitude toward death, at least for
non-Time Lords.
The Count
: On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 17:05:17 -0600, "The Count"
And your point is...?
AIUI, Henrietta Street is the first book where the unhappening of
Gallifrey is acknowledged in more than just a 'thow-away line', which is how
you writers here described the line in Escape Velocity, at the expense of
Colin Brake. Like it or not, this is a major event that is worthy of
discussion, even by those who do not yet have the book. Discussion of
current events in Doctor Who should not be limited to the (relatively)
wealthy elite who have the time and money to acquire and consume new
products as soon as they are released.
The Count
: Mappy:
: > > Also, Peter Anghelides made this statement
: > > over on the message boards: 'Gallifrey has been wiped from history.
: > > You can believe otherwise if you wish--but remember that some people
: > > believe the Earth is flat.'
: >
: > Ah, so this obviously means the Doctor, Susan, the TARDIS, Romana,
: > Compassion et al no longer exist.
:
: I don't think that necessarily follows from what I said. And I wrote
: it in the context of a longer discussion about how it's not fruitful
: to extrapolate by linear logic from a paradox. People can go and have
: a look for themselves:
:
http://pub59.ezboard.com/fthedoctorwhoforumfrm3.showMessage?topicID=771.topi
c&index=7
: Mind you, I realise it's becoming fashionable to comment on the books
: without reading them, so who am I to complain that people comment on
: threads that I have written before they've bothered to read those. :-)
As far the thread is concered, I was able to and *did* read that, and the
one that you referenced, before commenting. Just because I read it does not
mean that I have to agree with it. The 'logic of paradox' is not convincing
at all to me. I am not even convinced that you or any of the other authors
believe in it.
Jonathan Blum
> "Jonathan Blum" <jb...@zip.com.au> wrote:
> : Seriously, that statement doesn't imply the message title -- if you
> : rip a bunch of threads out of a carpet, you don't have a whole
> : different carpet. You do have a carpet with a bunch of loose threads,
> : not entirely torn out, flapping about a bit... and space to weave in
> : new things.
> No, that analogy does not work. Ripping threads out is not the same thing as
> making those threads to never have existed.
Only if you get the metaphor wrong.
--jon
Cardinal Zorak
> It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
>
That means the Doctor was never born, and all the Who mythos disappears up
its own arsehole. Hooray! Now we can get on with the Sapphire and
Steel/Quatermass appreciation...
--
Cardinal Zorak
"To art belongs all that is, and all that is not." - Oscar Wilde
Cardinal Zorak
"Peter Anghelides" <peter-an...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:17343b9b.01110...@posting.google.com...
> Mappy:
> > > Also, Peter Anghelides made this statement
> > > over on the message boards: 'Gallifrey has been wiped from history.
> > > You can believe otherwise if you wish--but remember that some people
> > > believe the Earth is flat.'
> >
> > Ah, so this obviously means the Doctor, Susan, the TARDIS, Romana,
> > Compassion et al no longer exist.
>
> I don't think that necessarily follows from what I said. And I wrote
> it in the context of a longer discussion about how it's not fruitful
> to extrapolate by linear logic from a paradox. People can go and have
> a look for themselves:
>
http://pub59.ezboard.com/fthedoctorwhoforumfrm3.showMessage?topicID=771.topi
c&index=7
>
> Mind you, I realise it's becoming fashionable to comment on the books
> without reading them,
Perhaps if they weren't so fucking boring more people might read them. And
they're expensive too, and too frequent.
--
Cardinal Zorak
"The purpose of the artist is to invent, not to chronicle." - Oscar Wilde
Jack Beven
>"The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<9s94et$ov2$1...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net>...
>> It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
>
>Galli-what? Sorry, never heard of it...
>
>Seriously, that statement doesn't imply the message title -- if you
>rip a bunch of threads out of a carpet, you don't have a whole
>different carpet. You do have a carpet with a bunch of loose threads,
>not entirely torn out, flapping about a bit... and space to weave in
>new things.
(Yes, the hurricane is over and my cold is better.)
IMHO ripping Gallifrey out of the carpet would be taking a heck of
a lot of threads with it - enough so that the carpet would likely
disintegrate in the most literal meaning of the word.
A problem I see here is that you and your fellow authors are
seemingly a little *too* selective in what you are writing as the
consequences of the unhappening of Gallifrey. You seem to be
trying to concentrate on how you can take advantage of this
manuver to re-create the Whoniverse to your own desires, and
rather ignoring certain other consequences - like that the Doctor
should be getting transformed into a singularity in Lawrence Miles
fashion and that Earth and humanity should likely be suffering
the same fate. It's Plot Convenience Playhouse Paradox to go along
with Plot Convenience Playhouse Amnesia IMHO.
Do you want the EDAs to be great storytelling, Jon? If so,
then why aren't you trying to tackle *all* of the ramifications of the
unhappening of Gallifrey? Why are you hiding behind excuses such
as "paradox" and the DWM story about no consistent rules about
time travel in DW when confronted with certain question? It looks like
to me that you and your fellow authors are trying to take the easy way
out on this issue (probably because you don't want to have to deal with
the massive continuity snafus it produces), and IMHO *nothing* great
ever comes from taking the easy way out.
If this unhappening is true, then IMHO it's another nail in the
coffin of the EDAs - they are now the adventures of the Lobotomized
Doctor Paradox than the adventures of Doctor Who. It also brings
up some issues regard a conversation we had on this newsgroup
earlier this year...
Jack Beven (a. k. a. The Supreme Dalek)
Tropical Prediction Center
New URL: http://www.mindspring.com/~jbeven/index.html jbe...@mindspring.com
Disclaimer: These opinions don't necessarily represent those of my employers...
Mappy
> Mind you, I realise it's becoming fashionable to comment on the books
> without reading them, so who am I to complain that people comment on
> threads that I have written before they've bothered to read those. :-)
Books? There are books? ;)
> As for Romana: this week, I've decided that she did not survive the
> end of "The Ancestor Cell". Ask me again next week.
Ah, a subject for study! I shall ask you, on the hour every hour,
whether you think Romana is dead or not, and carefully map the changes
in your point of view. From this, we can extrapolate the effects of
human biorhythyms on fannishness, and adjust fandom accordingly. :)
Mappy
> Discussion of
> current events in Doctor Who should not be limited to the (relatively)
> wealthy elite who have the time and money to acquire and consume new
> products as soon as they are released.
Or those who haven't had the opportunity to buy product as it is not yet
available to them, despite it being available to others. I'm usually
spoiled 1000 times over by the time I'm able to get the novels, which
means I practically know what is going to happen before I read it, only
the minutae of the novels are a surprise.
Lance Parkin
<coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>"Lance Parker" <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>: On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 17:05:17 -0600, "The Count"
>: <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>:
>: >Zygon Curry <nospa...@logopolis.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>: >: The Count wrote:
>: >: >
>: >: > It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
>: >:
>: >: I knew it was only a matter of.... Time :)
>: >:
>: >: What book?
>: >
>: >Henrietta Street, apparently.
>:
>: Can anyone spot the 'I haven't actually read the book' word
>: in that sentence?
>
>And your point is...?
> AIUI, Henrietta Street is the first book where the unhappening of
>Gallifrey is acknowledged in more than just a 'thow-away line',
Then you understand wrong.
>which is how
>you writers here described the line in Escape Velocity, at the expense of
>Colin Brake. Like it or not, this is a major event that is worthy of
>discussion, even by those who do not yet have the book.
Yes, but *informed* discussion.
The situation in Henrietta Street is exactly what it's been since The
Ancestor Cell - the Time Lords are gone, there are all sorts of
implications of that, some of which are explored in the book.
The *Time Lords* could have 'unhappened'. Equally, they might
have just blown up. Either way, that leaves room at the top, and
removes a powerful force for stability in the universe.
As with the War Chief, the parallel timeline in Day of the Daleks
and the Demat Gun in Invasion of Time, whatever happened to
Gallifrey, the universe at large is still just where it was and how
it was before TAC. We know from several books now that's the
case - Terror of the Zygons and UNIT are discussed in Father Time,
the seventh Doctor and Ace have appeared, Iris has ... and there
are a few other examples, several of which appear in Henrietta
Street. Even if the Time Lords 'unhappened', people remember
them, and the consequences of their actions remain - the Fendahl
were stopped, evidentally.
Lance
Andrew J. Brook
... which is what I thought, so why is there all this stuff being
claimed about the end of Gallifrey taking everything with it, rather
than just bits?
AJB
Andrew J. Brook
Hmmm... so you've dumped cause and effect, then? This is going to make
future novels *really* complicated to understand....
DAVROS: Bwhahahahahaha! I shall pick up this piece of paper!
DOCTOR: Oh no! As a result, the planet Mars has turned into a
mushroom!
AJB
Jeremy Fitzoliver. At least some logic remains still.
David A McIntee
"The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote >AIUI, Henrietta Street
is the first book where the unhappening of
> Gallifrey is acknowledged in more than just a 'thow-away line',
Except that it's also a book written in a completely different style that,
like Bullet Time, from the start acknowledges that not everything in it is
true.
It's a deliberately unreliable narration designed to provoke a reaction. In
fact it's the onle book that could say such a thing, without having to worry
whether it's right or not - some of it is "true" in the sense that it'll
imping on other book, and some of it isn't...
--
--
"Oh go away, repress someone else."
http://www.btinternet.com/~david.mcintee
Redemption 03- Blake's 7/Babylon 5 convention, 21-23 February 2003.
http://www.smof.com/redemption
Currently reading: Heart Of TARDIS by Dave Stone
This month's guest quote: "Just my luck- a phantom who's an expert
bricklayer. " (Shaggy)
Andrew J. Brook
> "The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
> >It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
>
> So when did the unhappening officially happen? Or has it actually
> happened yet? Or has it always happened? Or unhappened?
It happened during "The Ancestor Cell", its just that "The Ancestor Cell" didn't.
Gosh, the cheering's LOUD.
AJB
Andrew J. Brook
<snip>
The
> Daleks WILL have been fulfilling the role of the Time Lords
No, because in "Dead Romance" it was the TLs who gave them time travel
in the first place
AJB
Steven Kitson
>Hmmm... so you've dumped cause and effect, then?
Doesn't time travel pretty much screw up causality, just by existing?
--
High hopes and aspirations, ideas above my station
Maybe but all this time I've tried to walk with dignity and pride
Lance Parkin
Brook) wrote:
Because the claims are being made by Becker, who hasn't
read the book and doesn't have a clue what he's talking
about.
Lance
Lance Parkin
wrote:
> Do you want the EDAs to be great storytelling, Jon? If so,
>then why aren't you trying to tackle *all* of the ramifications of the
>unhappening of Gallifrey? Why are you hiding behind excuses such
>as "paradox" and the DWM story about no consistent rules about
>time travel in DW when confronted with certain question? It looks like
>to me that you and your fellow authors are trying to take the easy way
>out on this issue
Hmmmm ... so you're saying that what happens in Henrietta
Street is the 'easy way out'?
Lance
Zygon Curry
I can't see myself reading a copy of this for a few years! Got a huge
back log to read though. So any chance of a few spoliers to see what
does happen to Gallifrey, etc (with spoiler space of course!)
Regards,
ZC
--
Regards,
Zygon Curry
Meddling Mick
>Mappy <mappyt...@start.com.au>
>
>>The Daleks WILL have been fulfilling the role of the Time Lords
>
>No, because in "Dead Romance" it was the TLs who gave them time travel
>in the first place
Um... no it wasn't?
--
(Meddling) Mick Gair
Underestimating the power of
organic crystallography since 1384
Meddling Mick
>Mappy wrote:
[snip]
>>I'm just hoping JR and the writers explore the full
>>ramifications of Gallifrey's removal from existence in the novels.
>>After all, nature abhors a vacuum, and there are plenty of old enemies
>>who would be more than happy to fill that void. :)
>
>... which is what we're doing, as the authors (and indeed their
>books) have been saying for the last year.
>
>Henrietta Street is specifically *about* the gaps there are now,
>the people that hope to fill them and the implications of that,
>as anyone who'd even skim read it would know. It's not the
>first book that's dealt with it, and it's certainly not the last.
IMO, this whole idea of 'let's explore the power vacuum resulting from
the Time Lords' vworp-vworping out of the universe' seems a very odd
way of 're-inventing' 'Who' without all the fanwanky continuity that
was in danger of choking the series to death.
At the risk of sparking another head-on collision <g> between Jack
Beven and Jon Blum, the situation does seem to sound scarily like
Jack's 'Neverending Arc That Began With 'Alien Bodies' And Just Never
Seems To Reach An End, Ever, Ever, Because We Can't Find A Way Out Of
It All, Buggerit, Buggerit'. We're *still* dealing with the aftermath
of what was begun in 'AB' (or as early as 'CoaRP').
Admit it, it's all fucked and the Doctor should have become A Nasty
Man With Only One Arm at the end of 'tAC' when he created a bloody big
paradox by retconning the War (and, possibly, his own home planet and
his own birth/Looming, etc., etc., etc.).
Meddling Mick
[snip]
>I haven't read Miles' latest opus yet, but the review on Outpost
>Gallifrey is certainly subscribing to the view that:
>
>1) Gallifrey never existed
>2) So therefore neither did anything deriving from Gallifrey
>3) So therefore neither did the Doctor
>4) So therefore neither did anything taking place before the end of
>tAC apart from a few anomalies such as the Doctor. Not even the 7th
>Doctor exists.
Um... if the Eighth Doctor still exists, then so should all the
previous incarnations because they're all, like, one bloke.
>Unfortunately, the 7th Doctor, Ace and the Players to name but three
>have all popped up in the EDAs post-tAC, so that's buggered right up.
The only way it's buggered up is if Gallifrey unhappened, as there's
no way for the First Doctor to have left Gallifrey in the first place
if it never existed. Perhaps the fact that he's wandering around in a
time machine built on Gallifrey means that the planet only got popped
in the 'present'?
If Gallifrey went all 'unhappening' on us, well... so much for its
supposed 'special relationship with time'.
Lance Parkin
sutur...@sutureself.freeserve.co.uk (Meddling Mick) wrote:
>IMO, this whole idea of 'let's explore the power vacuum resulting from
>the Time Lords' vworp-vworping out of the universe' seems a very odd
>way of 're-inventing' 'Who' without all the fanwanky continuity that
>was in danger of choking the series to death.
So which of the post-Burning books do you think are
choking to death on fanwanky continuity?
Lance
Andrew McCaffrey
> At the risk of sparking another head-on collision <g> between Jack
> Beven and Jon Blum, the situation does seem to sound scarily like
> Jack's 'Neverending Arc That Began With 'Alien Bodies' And Just Never
> Seems To Reach An End, Ever, Ever, Because We Can't Find A Way Out Of
> It All, Buggerit, Buggerit'. We're *still* dealing with the aftermath
> of what was begun in 'AB' (or as early as 'CoaRP').
Well, I think that rather depends on how you're defining "arc". Sure,
elements that were introduced long ago have had impacts on things that had
impacts on things that had impacts on things that are being published
today... but so what? This is a continuing series afterall.
If one is going to reach back as far as Alien Bodies, then one might as
well reach back further to the things that impacted on Alien Bodies. Are
we still dealing with the aftermath of what begin in Tenth Planet, Deadly
Assassin, Trial of a Time Lord?
--
+------------------------Andrew McCaffrey+[amc...@gl.umbc.edu]---------+
|"Star Wars is adolescent nonsense, Close|"My thumbs have gone weird!" |
|Encounters is obscurantist drivel [and] | -- _Withnail & I_ |
|Star Trek can turn your brains into |"I can't do chords. No sir." |
|puree of bat guano." -- Harlan Ellison| -- B.B. King |
+------------------ http://userpages.umbc.edu/~amccaf1 -----------------+
Lance Parkin
>Meddling Mick <sutur...@sutureself.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> At the risk of sparking another head-on collision <g> between Jack
>> Beven and Jon Blum, the situation does seem to sound scarily like
>> Jack's 'Neverending Arc That Began With 'Alien Bodies' And Just Never
>> Seems To Reach An End, Ever, Ever, Because We Can't Find A Way Out Of
>> It All, Buggerit, Buggerit'. We're *still* dealing with the aftermath
>> of what was begun in 'AB' (or as early as 'CoaRP').
Perhaps, to save time, we could just use the people who haven't
read the books who think they've betrayed everything by
completely abandoning all notion of continuity and causality to cancel
out the people who haven't read the books who think they're
choked by their obsession with continuity and causality?
Just a suggestion.
Lance
The Doctor
Cardinal Zorak <Fab31...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
>news:9s94et$ov2$1...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net...
>> It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
>>
>
>That means the Doctor was never born, and all the Who mythos disappears up
>Steel/Quatermass appreciation...
Thank you NAs.
>--
>Cardinal Zorak
>"To art belongs all that is, and all that is not." - Oscar Wilde
>
>
>
--
Member - Liberal International On 11 Sept 2001 the WORLD was violated.
This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
Society MUST be saved! Extremists must dissolve.
Lest we forget on 11 Nov 2001
The Count
: On 8 Nov 2001 00:36:58 -0800, andrew...@hotmail.com (Andrew J.
: Brook) wrote:
:
: >> Henrietta Street is specifically *about* the gaps there are now,
: >> the people that hope to fill them and the implications of that,
: >> as anyone who'd even skim read it would know. It's not the
: >> first book that's dealt with it, and it's certainly not the last.
: >>
: >> Lance
: >
: >
: >... which is what I thought, so why is there all this stuff being
: >claimed about the end of Gallifrey taking everything with it, rather
: >than just bits?
:
: Because the claims are being made by Becker, who hasn't
: read the book and doesn't have a clue what he's talking
: about.
Once again, you prove yourself to be a liar. I never made the claim about
the end of Gallifrey taking everything with it. On the contrary, I pointed
out how the the unhappening of Gallifrey is logically possible, in a
multiverse. As for your insulting bourgeois attitude, you can stick it. I
have been reading the books for years and am still reading them, despite
people like yourself.
R.J. Smith
Meddling Mick <sutur...@sutureself.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:
>>Henrietta Street is specifically *about* the gaps there are now,
>>the people that hope to fill them and the implications of that,
>>as anyone who'd even skim read it would know. It's not the
>>first book that's dealt with it, and it's certainly not the last.
>IMO, this whole idea of 'let's explore the power vacuum resulting from
>the Time Lords' vworp-vworping out of the universe' seems a very odd
>way of 're-inventing' 'Who' without all the fanwanky continuity that
>was in danger of choking the series to death.
Well, it's a Lawrence Miles book, what do you expect?
>At the risk of sparking another head-on collision <g> between Jack
>Beven and Jon Blum, the situation does seem to sound scarily like
>Jack's 'Neverending Arc That Began With 'Alien Bodies' And Just Never
>Seems To Reach An End, Ever, Ever, Because We Can't Find A Way Out Of
>It All, Buggerit, Buggerit'. We're *still* dealing with the aftermath
>of what was begun in 'AB' (or as early as 'CoaRP').
And the Virgin novels were leading there anyway (or can be seen to be,
retroactively). And they followed the end of the TV series. Man, we've
alwasy been screwed :-)
>(Meddling) Mick Gair
>Underestimating the power of
>organic crystallography since 1384
:-)
- Robert Smith?
R.J. Smith
Meddling Mick <sutur...@sutureself.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>andrew...@hotmail.com (Andrew J. Brook) wrote:
>>Mappy <mappyt...@start.com.au>
>>>The Daleks WILL have been fulfilling the role of the Time Lords
>>No, because in "Dead Romance" it was the TLs who gave them time travel
>>in the first place
>Um... no it wasn't?
Um... yes it was. Pgs 111-112.
- Robert Smith?
The Count
:
: "The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
:>AIUI, Henrietta Street is the first book where the unhappening of
:> Gallifrey is acknowledged in more than just a 'thow-away line',
:
: Except that it's also a book written in a completely different style that,
: like Bullet Time, from the start acknowledges that not everything in it is
: true.
:
: It's a deliberately unreliable narration designed to provoke a reaction.
But not discussion?
The Count
news:K2c*6u...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
:Andrew J. Brook <andrew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>Hmmm... so you've dumped cause and effect, then?
:
:Doesn't time travel pretty much screw up causality, just by existing?
No.
Andrew McCaffrey
Yes. Causes happen before effects. If a time machine from the future
lands on The Wicked Witch Of The East then the cause (which is the time
machine departing in the future) happens after the effect (Wicked Witch
being crushed by a time machine in the present).
Lance Parkin
<coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>: >... which is what I thought, so why is there all this stuff being
>: >claimed about the end of Gallifrey taking everything with it, rather
>: >than just bits?
>:
>: Because the claims are being made by Becker, who hasn't
>: read the book and doesn't have a clue what he's talking
>: about.
>
>Once again, you prove yourself to be a liar. I never made the claim about
>the end of Gallifrey taking everything with it.
Dave, look at the title of the thread. Then at who started the
thread. Then read the first post in the thread.
OK ... are you now saying that Gallifrey *didn't* unhappen, that
the post-TAC books *aren't* set in a 'different universe' and
that it *isn't* official?
Lance
Lance Parkin
Brook) wrote:
>Hmmm... so you've dumped cause and effect, then? This is going to make
>future novels *really* complicated to understand....
Which books since The Burning have dumped cause and effect, and
in what ways did it make them complicated to understand?
Lance
The Count
: On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:14:40 -0600, "The Count"
No, that is not the same thing as the claim that the unhappening of
Gallifrey wipes out the entire past series and makes the present situation
impossible, which others have claimed but not I.
Meddling Mick
>Meddling Mick wrote:
>>(Andrew J. Brook) wrote:
>>>Mappy <mappyt...@start.com.au>
>
>>>>The Daleks WILL have been fulfilling the role of the Time Lords
>
>>>No, because in "Dead Romance" it was the TLs who gave them time travel
>>>in the first place
>
>>Um... no it wasn't?
>
>Um... yes it was. Pgs 111-112.
<g> Um... no it wasn't.
There's no mention of the Time Lords *giving* the Daleks anything in
that passage. They *allow* the Daleks to develop their *own* temporal
technology. Helluva big difference, methinks.
Meddling Mick
>(Meddling Mick) wrote:
>
>>IMO, this whole idea of 'let's explore the power vacuum resulting from
>>the Time Lords' vworp-vworping out of the universe' seems a very odd
>>way of 're-inventing' 'Who' without all the fanwanky continuity that
>>was in danger of choking the series to death.
>
>So which of the post-Burning books do you think are
>choking to death on fanwanky continuity?
Oh, none at all, unless you actually want me to list all the times the
EDAs have referred to things like the Players, the Seventh Doctor and
Nazi Earth, the Ice Warriors, the Zarbi, the Kandyman, the Scarlet
Empress, the Infinity Doctor, Iris Wildthyme, UNIT, the Cheetah People
in Perivale, the Second Doctor, the Eighth Doctor's own regeneration
in San Francisco, the Yeti, the War Machines, Gallifrey's sky, the
hermit on the hill, the Doctor's question-mark umbrella...
(Oh. I'm being sad.) :)
I'm simply saying that, when 'The Burning' was due for release we were
told that it'd be a 'fresh, clean slate' for the series. All that
cumbersome baggage like Wars and Time Lords and Daleks was being
tossed away so that authors and readers alike could concentrate on the
present and future of 'Doctor Who'. And yet we still seem to be
dealing with the aftermath of things that were started back in '97?
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply move on completely rather than
setting up a 'Who's Filling the Power Vacuum Left By the Time Lords?'
arc and harking back to the series's (recent) past?
IIRC, part of the reason behind 'Year Zero-ing' the EDAs was to appeal
to potential new readers by, well, banning forty years of continuity
references (hey, that's cool with me). This would - fingers crossed!
- prevent the potential new readers from running away screaming before
this huge weight of 'Who' history fell upon them and threatened to
crush their brains.
But, surely, one of the first things a potential new reader is going
to ask when they pick up one of the upcoming EDAs is 'So how come
there's a power vacuum?' And doesn't the posing of that question mean
the potential new reader is going to be pointed into the direction of
the last four or five years' worth of books?
That doesn't look like the EDAs are looking into the future rather
than the past, IMO? Then again, you're the chaps who are writing
these things and you know where they're heading (if they're actually
heading in a specific direction) - we're just the people who are
hoping you know what you're doing. <g>
Meddling Mick
>(Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>>"The Count" wrote:
>>
>>>It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
>>
>>Galli-what? Sorry, never heard of it...
>>
>>Seriously, that statement doesn't imply the message title -- if you
>>rip a bunch of threads out of a carpet, you don't have a whole
>>different carpet. You do have a carpet with a bunch of loose threads,
>>not entirely torn out, flapping about a bit... and space to weave in
>>new things.
>
>Er, surely though if you remove very large numbers of threads then
>rather than having any sort of carpet you're just left with a tangled
>mass of unconnected threads that are basically useless? I can see
>that you can make small changes in time, one thread here or there
>won't make too much difference to the carpet. Take away a large
>proportion of the threads that were used to create the carpet to begin
>with and there really isn't much you're going to be left with, if
>anything?
So what you guys are saying is that the universe is currently
suffering from the cosmic equivalent of Male Pattern Baldness?
Does that mean the authors are busy writing a 'Comb-over' arc for the
EDAs?
The Count
: Perhaps, to save time, we could just use the people who haven't
: read the books who think they've betrayed everything by
: completely abandoning all notion of continuity and causality to cancel
: out the people who haven't read the books who think they're
: choked by their obsession with continuity and causality?
:
: Just a suggestion.
So now we are talking about 'canceling out' people that we do not like? Even
though I do not belong to either of those two groups, I think that I will
vote no on this suggestion.
Meddling Mick
And a mighty fine one it is to be sure, but that'd still leave all the
people who *have* read the books but who think they've betrayed
everything by completely abandoning all notion of continuity and
causality, and the people who *have* read the books but who think
they're choked by their obsession with continuity and causality.
What are we going to do about those, eh?
The Count
: The Count <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
: > "Steven Kitson" <ski...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
: > news:K2c*6u...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
: > :Andrew J. Brook <andrew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > :>Hmmm... so you've dumped cause and effect, then?
: > :
: > :Doesn't time travel pretty much screw up causality, just by existing?
: > No.
:
: Yes. Causes happen before effects.
'Before' from which viewpoint?
: If a time machine from the future
: lands on The Wicked Witch Of The East then the cause (which is the time
: machine departing in the future)
Does anyone see the flaw here?
: happens after the effect (Wicked Witch
: being crushed by a time machine in the present).
That would be caused by gravity acting on the machine after it materialised.
Andrew McCaffrey
> Andrew McCaffrey <amc...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> : The Count <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
> : > "Steven Kitson" <ski...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> : > news:K2c*6u...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> : > :Andrew J. Brook <andrew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > :>Hmmm... so you've dumped cause and effect, then?
> : > :Doesn't time travel pretty much screw up causality, just by existing?
> : > No.
> : Yes. Causes happen before effects.
> 'Before' from which viewpoint?
That's exactly the whole point. Before you introduce time travel,
everything appears to happen in a strict linear order. If you're looking
at time as being a line going from left to right, causes occur to the left
of effects.
Once you introduce time travel you've got causes and effects occuring all
out of order. Some "cause" on the far right can end up having an "effect"
at some point much further to its left. From the viewpoint of someone in
the time of the effect, you have something happen that had no prior
cause.
Sure, you can rationalize it quite easily. But by having a universe in
which time travel is possible, you have to rework the rules of causality
as we know them in order to take all of this into account. As we
understand it, casuality will be "all screwed up".
> : If a time machine from the future
> : lands on The Wicked Witch Of The East then the cause (which is the time
> : machine departing in the future)
> Does anyone see the flaw here?
It's supposed to the The Wicked Witch of the West?
> : happens after the effect (Wicked Witch
> : being crushed by a time machine in the present).
> That would be caused by gravity acting on the machine after it materialised.
And the machine came from...?
R.J. Smith
Meddling Mick <sutur...@sutureself.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) wrote:
>>Meddling Mick wrote:
>>>(Andrew J. Brook) wrote:
>>>>Mappy <mappyt...@start.com.au>
>>>>>The Daleks WILL have been fulfilling the role of the Time Lords
>>>>No, because in "Dead Romance" it was the TLs who gave them time travel
>>>>in the first place
>>>Um... no it wasn't?
>>Um... yes it was. Pgs 111-112.
><g> Um... no it wasn't.
>There's no mention of the Time Lords *giving* the Daleks anything in
>that passage. They *allow* the Daleks to develop their *own* temporal
>technology. Helluva big difference, methinks.
Ooh, you're right. And they didn't give time travel to the People either,
just let them develop it as well.
- Robert Smith?
R.J. Smith
Andrew McCaffrey <amc...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>The Count <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>> "Steven Kitson" <ski...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:K2c*6u...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>> :Andrew J. Brook <andrew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> :>Hmmm... so you've dumped cause and effect, then?
>> :Doesn't time travel pretty much screw up causality, just by existing?
>> No.
>Yes. Causes happen before effects. If a time machine from the future
>lands on The Wicked Witch Of The East then the cause (which is the time
>machine departing in the future) happens after the effect (Wicked Witch
>being crushed by a time machine in the present).
But in the timeline of the traveller, the cause still precedes the effect.
First she left from the future and then she landed on the Wicked Witch.
So time travel means "relative causality".
Of course, if the reason the time traveller wanted to travel back in time
was because she knew the Wicked Witch was evil and wanted to stop her...
then you'd have screwed up causality, as well as creating a paradox
(because there wouldn't be a reason to go back now, so the Witch would
live, so she'd need to go back, ad infinitum).
- Robert Smith?
Peter Anghelides
> As far the thread is concered, I was able to and *did* read that, and the
> one that you referenced, before commenting. Just because I read it does not
> mean that I have to agree with it. The 'logic of paradox' is not convincing
> at all to me. I am not even convinced that you or any of the other authors
> believe in it.
The clue is where I say "the logic of paradox (such as it is)...". So
I think that you're agreeing with me--which, I'm starting to worry,
may also be a paradox.
Peter Anghelides
http://anghelides.org
Andrew McCaffrey
> In article <9seija$8oq$1...@news.umbc.edu>,
> Andrew McCaffrey <amc...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>>Yes. Causes happen before effects. If a time machine from the future
>>lands on The Wicked Witch Of The East then the cause (which is the time
>>machine departing in the future) happens after the effect (Wicked Witch
>>being crushed by a time machine in the present).
> But in the timeline of the traveller, the cause still precedes the effect.
> First she left from the future and then she landed on the Wicked Witch.
Yes, but from the p.o.v of the person being squished there wasn't a cause.
At least not yet. It makes sense from the observation of an outside
observer, but it doesn't operate in the way that he use causality today...
> Of course, if the reason the time traveller wanted to travel back in time
> was because she knew the Wicked Witch was evil and wanted to stop her...
> then you'd have screwed up causality, as well as creating a paradox
> (because there wouldn't be a reason to go back now, so the Witch would
> live, so she'd need to go back, ad infinitum).
That's where the fun starts...
Peter Anghelides
> [...] the Doctor should have become A Nasty
> Man With Only One Arm at the end of 'tAC' when he created a bloody big
> paradox by retconning the War (and, possibly, his own home planet and
> his own birth/Looming, etc., etc., etc.).
The fact that he didn't become a NMWO1A... well, that would be
another... why, how interesting...
And, unlike the other things you suggest, that one was even pointed
out in the novel. Page 275. No more help, though, or this will turn
into the Cole's Notes version.
Peter Anghelides
http://anghelides.org
The Count
news:17343b9b.01110...@posting.google.com...
: "The Count
No. You are now in a different universe. :-)
The Count
news:9seob5$tc6$1...@news.umbc.edu...: > : Yes. Causes happen before effects.
: > 'Before' from which viewpoint?
:
: That's exactly the whole point. Before you introduce time travel,
: everything appears to happen in a strict linear order. If you're looking
: at time as being a line going from left to right, causes occur to the left
: of effects.
:
: Once you introduce time travel you've got causes and effects occuring all
: out of order. Some "cause" on the far right can end up having an "effect"
: at some point much further to its left. From the viewpoint of someone in
: the time of the effect, you have something happen that had no prior
: cause.
:
: Sure, you can rationalize it quite easily. But by having a universe in
: which time travel is possible, you have to rework the rules of causality
: as we know them in order to take all of this into account. As we
: understand it, casuality will be "all screwed up".
Who is this 'we'? Surely you and most other readers have little or no
problem rationalising the causality of time travel. It is no more 'screwed
up' than the idea that velocity can be negative, whereas speed can not.
Making that step does not require 'reworking all the rules' of physics.
Andrew McCaffrey
> Who is this 'we'? Surely you and most other readers have little or no
> problem rationalising the causality of time travel. It is no more 'screwed
> up' than the idea that velocity can be negative, whereas speed can not.
> Making that step does not require 'reworking all the rules' of physics.
Yes, but you're missing a rather large point here. The rules of time
travel are *fiction*. Different stories use different rules. There are
no set laws of temperal causality because we have no idea how they
"really" work. The way time travel works in Star Trek is not the same way
it works in (some) episodes/novels/audios of Doctor Who. Both of them are
again removed from the way it works in Quatumn Leap and again in a million
other shows, programmes, books, etc.
In fiction, one can make up all sorts of rules as to how casuality works
in time travel, because in reality we don't have any rules. How does
casuality work in cases where there's a time paradox? Different fictions
have different rules. So, no, it isn't just a question of making a minor
alteration to what we know right now.
And we were talking about reworking the laws of causality, not the
laws of physics.
R.J. Smith
Andrew McCaffrey <amc...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>R.J. Smith <smit...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote:
>> In article <9seija$8oq$1...@news.umbc.edu>,
>> Andrew McCaffrey <amc...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>>>Yes. Causes happen before effects. If a time machine from the future
>>>lands on The Wicked Witch Of The East then the cause (which is the time
>>>machine departing in the future) happens after the effect (Wicked Witch
>>>being crushed by a time machine in the present).
>> But in the timeline of the traveller, the cause still precedes the effect.
>> First she left from the future and then she landed on the Wicked Witch.
>Yes, but from the p.o.v of the person being squished there wasn't a cause.
>At least not yet. It makes sense from the observation of an outside
>observer, but it doesn't operate in the way that he use causality today...
Yes, exactly. So causality becomes relative to the observer, like
Einsteinian physics. I don't think that means it gets screwed, though, at
least no more than Newtonian physics got screwed when Einstein came along
(ie you have to reinterpret things a little, but essentially things for
you will work as they did, they just might not work the same way for the
person watching you).
Paradoxes aside, of course :-)
- Robert Smith?
Jonathan Blum
> Do you want the EDAs to be great storytelling, Jon? If so,
> then why aren't you trying to tackle *all* of the ramifications of the
> unhappening of Gallifrey?
For the same reason that I don't want to tackle all of the
ramifications of UNIT dating. Have you got that yet?
Some of the "ramifications" you insist on are ones which I don't
believe would happen; your view of the fictional science of time
travel isn't consistent with mine, or the series's. To which all I
can really say is <Miranda Richardson from Blackadder>"Who's
Queen?"</Miranda Richardson> Or <Peter Falk from The Princess
Bride>"Who's telling the story here?"</Peter Falk>
If you were to actually read the books in question, you'll see
precisely which big ramifications are being addressed -- and the
(IMHO) elegant way in which they're being addressed, which deal with
the consequences *without* having to dredge up tremendous swathes of
backstory.
> It also brings
> up some issues regard a conversation we had on this newsgroup
> earlier this year...
Feel free to let me know what they are, I'll be glad to address them.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
> But not discussion?
Certainly not declarations that something suggested in it is "official".
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
> a lot of threads with it - enough so that the carpet would likely
> disintegrate in the most literal meaning of the word.
Part of the reason why the decision was made to remove Gallifrey was
to put the lie to this fannish perception that the universe revolves
around it.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
> la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:
> >Perhaps, to save time, we could just use the people who haven't
> >read the books who think they've betrayed everything by
> >completely abandoning all notion of continuity and causality to cancel
> >out the people who haven't read the books who think they're
> >choked by their obsession with continuity and causality?
> And a mighty fine one it is to be sure, but that'd still leave all the
> people who *have* read the books but who think they've betrayed
> everything by completely abandoning all notion of continuity and
> causality, and the people who *have* read the books but who think
> they're choked by their obsession with continuity and causality.
> What are we going to do about those, eh?
See if we can even name three of them, for a start...
Regards,
Jon Blum
Cameron Mason
Jonathan Blum <jb...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:75d9a022.01110...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> Part of the reason why the decision was made to remove Gallifrey was
> to put the lie to this fannish perception that the universe revolves
> around it.
So what will happen to the Universe now - will it collapse, will it stop
revolving, what happenes now????
;)
Cameron
--
"I'm half-human on the Other's side."
Jonathan Blum
> If Gallifrey went all 'unhappening' on us, well... so much for its
> supposed 'special relationship with time'.
OTOH, maybe the "special relationship" is part of why the universe is
largely intact after the unhappening. There's no shortage of handy
half-explanations like that...
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
> : Sure, you can rationalize it quite easily. But by having a universe in
> : which time travel is possible, you have to rework the rules of causality
> : as we know them in order to take all of this into account. As we
> : understand it, casuality will be "all screwed up".
> Who is this 'we'? Surely you and most other readers have little or no
> problem rationalising the causality of time travel.
Many have tried...
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jack Beven
(Lance Parkin) wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 06:27:17 GMT, jbe...@mindspring.com (Jack Beven)
>wrote:
>
>> Do you want the EDAs to be great storytelling, Jon? If so,
>>then why aren't you trying to tackle *all* of the ramifications of the
>>unhappening of Gallifrey? Why are you hiding behind excuses such
>>as "paradox" and the DWM story about no consistent rules about
>>time travel in DW when confronted with certain question? It looks like
>>to me that you and your fellow authors are trying to take the easy way
>>out on this issue
>
>Hmmmm ... so you're saying that what happens in Henrietta
>Street is the 'easy way out'?
I don't know for sure. I haven't read Henrietta Street, and I'm
not likely to in the forseeable future.
That being said, I rather doubt that whatever explanation of
the situation that Henrietta Street contains is as difficult as trying
to deal directly with the consequences of the unhappening of
Gallifrey on the history of the Doctor, or on the history of Earth,
humanity, the Doctor's human companions, or the feedback
of those consequences on the Doctor himself (etc,., etc., etc.,
yada, yada, yada). My first guess is the explanation would be
some Plot-Convenience-Playhouse-time-travel-technobabble that
will allow you all to continue building your DW future wihout
having to worry about about such small details like the sections
of the Whoniverse that should have shimmered and vanished when
Gallifrey unhappened.
Lance, when we discussed this several months ago, IIRC you
used the question "Did Gold Usher survive?" as an example of the
kind of things there were unimportant in the post-Gallifrey era.
For me, that's never been the question. My question has been more
along the lines of "Has Earth, the all-time favorite story-telling
setting of DW, survived *unchanged* so that all of the stories that are
set there and all the stories that use characters from there can
actually exist as written?" Now, if Henrietta Street actually pins down
an answer to that question explicitly, decisively, and unambiguously,
then that's probably good - it means Lawrence Miles probably did
something right. (Given that he's the author of Inteference I will
*always* have doubts that his stories are doing things right.)
If Henrietta Street does not address the issue and pin it down,
then the concept of unhappening Gallifrey remains problematic,
and all your stories and all your answers of "we used the settings
and characters so they exist" will not make the problems go
away.
One bottom line is that some people and places in the Whoniverse
are more important than others. To the best of my knowledge Gold Usher
had very little effect on either the Whoniverse or the Doctor, so if he
never existed it's not a big problem. On the other hand, if the *Master*
never existed...
Jack Beven (a. k. a. The Supreme Dalek)
Tropical Prediction Center
New URL: http://www.mindspring.com/~jbeven/index.html jbe...@mindspring.com
Disclaimer: These opinions don't necessarily represent those of my employers...
Jack Beven
>jbe...@mindspring.com (Jack Beven) wrote in message news:<3bea1e65....@news.mindspring.com>...
>> Do you want the EDAs to be great storytelling, Jon? If so,
>> then why aren't you trying to tackle *all* of the ramifications of the
>> unhappening of Gallifrey?
>
>For the same reason that I don't want to tackle all of the
>ramifications of UNIT dating. Have you got that yet?
UNIT dating IMHO is a trivial continuity snafu compared to what
you may be inflicting on the series by unhappening Gallifrey. I think
that it might be *just* a bit more important to deal with the latter
than with the former. Don't you?
>Some of the "ramifications" you insist on are ones which I don't
>believe would happen; your view of the fictional science of time
>travel isn't consistent with mine, or the series's. To which all I
>can really say is <Miranda Richardson from Blackadder>"Who's
>Queen?"</Miranda Richardson> Or <Peter Falk from The Princess
>Bride>"Who's telling the story here?"</Peter Falk>
You're telling the story, of course, and you are free to tell it as
badly as you want to. And I'm free to tell you how badly I think
you're doing it. :-)
>If you were to actually read the books in question, you'll see
>precisely which big ramifications are being addressed -- and the
>(IMHO) elegant way in which they're being addressed, which deal with
>the consequences *without* having to dredge up tremendous swathes of
>backstory.
Two points: First, see my response to Lance about my opinions
about Henrietta Street. Second, which consequences? My much
vaster ones or your much lesser ones?
>> It also brings
>> up some issues regard a conversation we had on this newsgroup
>> earlier this year...
>
>Feel free to let me know what they are, I'll be glad to address them.
All in good time, Jon. When I learn more, we'll discuss them.
Jack Beven
The Universe probably doesn't revolve around Gallifrey. However,
there are a few too many times that the Time Lords have been involved
with the history of the Earth (directly or indirectly) for me to believe
that they can be ripped out of the fabric of existence and leave the
Earth and humanity unchanged. And IMHO that doesn't come under
the heading of fannish perception - that's the "history" of the series
as it has developed during 37 years of stories.
Steven Kitson
> The Universe probably doesn't revolve around Gallifrey. However,
>there are a few too many times that the Time Lords have been involved
>with the history of the Earth (directly or indirectly) for me to believe
>that they can be ripped out of the fabric of existence and leave the
>Earth and humanity unchanged.
The universe probably doesn't revolve around time being constant
everwhere, for every observer. Hwever, there are a few too many things
that are affected (directly or indirectly) with time being constant for me
to believe that we could discover that it isn't.
Your theory doesn't fit with the facts. You know what Sherlock Holmes
would say to you now, don't you?
--
High hopes and aspirations, ideas above my station
Maybe but all this time I've tried to walk with dignity and pride
Steven Kitson
>On 6 Nov 2001 20:14:31 -0800, jb...@zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>>Seriously, that statement doesn't imply the message title -- if you
>>rip a bunch of threads out of a carpet, you don't have a whole
>>different carpet. You do have a carpet with a bunch of loose threads,
>>not entirely torn out, flapping about a bit... and space to weave in
>>new things.
>Er, surely though if you remove very large numbers of threads then
>rather than having any sort of carpet you're just left with a tangled
>mass of unconnected threads that are basically useless?
Maybe Gallifrey wasn't tied in with as many threads as you think? Maybe,
on a universal scale, Gallifrey just wasn't that important?
Maybe there's something else _outside_ the carpet, holding it together and
making sure it stays in roughly the same shape, no matter how much damage
is done to it (<-- my favourite explanation).
What's that sound? Oh, it's a metaphor about to snap...
Iain J Coleman
"R.J. Smith" wrote:
>
> Yes, exactly. So causality becomes relative to the observer, like
> Einsteinian physics.
It's a pretty major feature of Einsteinian physics that causality is
_not_ relative to the observer.
Iain
DaveB
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:18:34 GMT, la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk
> (Lance Parkin) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 06:27:17 GMT, jbe...@mindspring.com (Jack Beven)
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Do you want the EDAs to be great storytelling, Jon? If so,
> >>then why aren't you trying to tackle *all* of the ramifications of the
> >>unhappening of Gallifrey? Why are you hiding behind excuses such
> >>as "paradox" and the DWM story about no consistent rules about
> >>time travel in DW when confronted with certain question? It looks like
> >>to me that you and your fellow authors are trying to take the easy way
> >>out on this issue
> >
> >Hmmmm ... so you're saying that what happens in Henrietta
> >Street is the 'easy way out'?
>
> I don't know for sure. I haven't read Henrietta Street, and I'm
> not likely to in the forseeable future.
>
> That being said, I rather doubt that whatever explanation of
> the situation that Henrietta Street contains is as difficult as trying
> to deal directly with the consequences of the unhappening of
> Gallifrey on the history of the Doctor, or on the history of Earth,
> humanity, the Doctor's human companions, or the feedback
> of those consequences on the Doctor himself (etc,., etc., etc.,
> yada, yada, yada).
Cover me, I'm going in...
I finished Henrietta Street a few hours ago, and my brain still hurts.
SPOILERS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The premise of the book as I see it is that with Gallifrey gone
(certainly destroyed, "maybe" never having existed) the universe is
becoming unstable. Especially Earth.
When the Timelords were still around, their links (via the eye of
harmony) to Gallifrey kept their personal timelines stable as they
moved around the universe. With Gallifrey paradoxed out of existence,
the Doctor is being killed by his link to somewhere that (possibly)
doesn't exist. Gallifrey acted as the reference point from which the
rest of the universe was observed or somesuch. With it gone, all the
other timelines are collapsing.
In order to save Earth (and himself), the Doctor replaces his link to
Gallifrey with one to Earth - Earth replaces Gallifrey as the stable
central timeline from which Time travellers can venture.
Mind you, that's all what I've pieced together. The book's not exactly
written unambiguously. Symbolism is the order of the day, from the
ruins of the Panopticon in the vortex, the symbol of the chaos being
an Eye, the Doctor's second heart being removed when he becomes the
"King of Earth-Time".
And we finally know who Sabbath is - he's the first of the New (human)
Timelords.
> Lance, when we discussed this several months ago, IIRC you
> used the question "Did Gold Usher survive?" as an example of the
> kind of things there were unimportant in the post-Gallifrey era.
> For me, that's never been the question. My question has been more
> along the lines of "Has Earth, the all-time favorite story-telling
> setting of DW, survived *unchanged* so that all of the stories that are
> set there and all the stories that use characters from there can
> actually exist as written?"
I'd say yes. But the rest of the whoniverse will probably be
experiencing changes.
>
> One bottom line is that some people and places in the Whoniverse
> are more important than others. To the best of my knowledge Gold Usher
> had very little effect on either the Whoniverse or the Doctor, so if he
> never existed it's not a big problem. On the other hand, if the *Master*
> never existed...
EVEN MORE SPOILERS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh, the Master exists all right. He's IN Henrietta Street. A fellow
"Time Elemental" like the Doctor, who arrives to represent the
Doctor's family, sees himself as the Doctor's opposite, is recognised
by the Doctor ("at least you got rid of the beard"), has a slightly
latin appearance and dresses all in black.
He says "There are only four of us left now" at one point, so Romana
may still be kicking as well, depending on future authors.
William December Starr
jb...@zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum) said:
> Part of the reason why the decision was made to remove Gallifrey was
> to put the lie to this fannish perception that the universe revolves
> around it.
Egad. Do you have any idea at all how stuck-up and snobbish you just
sounded? "If you don't view *a fictional construct* the same way I
do, you hold to 'fannish perceptions' and believe something that's a
'lie?'" Please.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Meddling Mick
>I finished Henrietta Street a few hours ago, and my brain still hurts.
Well, I'm only up to 'City of the Dead', but I'm a sucker for
possibly-important-sounding spoilers...
Hmm, so contrary to what Jon Blum's been telling us, everything is
*not* okay with the universe, primarily because Gallifrey's been
paradoxed/retconned, therefore lots of events that hinged on Time Lord
intervention (mainly the Doctor's, I guess) are 'unhappening'...?
>When the Timelords were still around, their links (via the eye of
>harmony) to Gallifrey kept their personal timelines stable as they
>moved around the universe. With Gallifrey paradoxed out of existence,
>the Doctor is being killed by his link to somewhere that (possibly)
>doesn't exist. Gallifrey acted as the reference point from which the
>rest of the universe was observed or somesuch. With it gone, all the
>other timelines are collapsing.
Nice to see that the Doctor's actions at the end of 'tAC' *have* had
repercussions. I don't see how you can retcon a bloody huge
space-time war out of existence without some major snafus happening
throughout universal history.
>In order to save Earth (and himself), the Doctor replaces his link to
>Gallifrey with one to Earth - Earth replaces Gallifrey as the stable
>central timeline from which Time travellers can venture.
Oh dear, that sounds a bit crap. So... he replaces his link to the
Eye of Harmony with one to, um, the Eye of Humanity? <g>
>Mind you, that's all what I've pieced together. The book's not exactly
>written unambiguously. Symbolism is the order of the day, from the
>ruins of the Panopticon in the vortex, the symbol of the chaos being
>an Eye, the Doctor's second heart being removed when he becomes the
>"King of Earth-Time".
Oh dear, that sounds even worse than crap.
>And we finally know who Sabbath is - he's the first of the New (human)
>Timelords.
Oh, what total arse. Let me get this straight - we've retconned the
Time Lords to get rid of forty years' worth of Gallifreyan backstory
so that they can be replaced with *human* Time Lords? As Marvin the
Paranoid Android would say, 'Sounds ghastly...'
So where do these human Time Lords come from? The future? No, wait -
I'm not bothered where they come from and I'm not terribly interested
in where they're going, either. :(
--
(Meddling) Mick Gair
Underestimating the power of
organic crystallography since 1384
R.J. Smith
>"R.J. Smith" wrote:
Oops, bad sentence construction there. Sorry, that wasn't what I meant to
imply at all.
- Robert Smith?
Jack Beven
At first glance it looks that way.
>>When the Timelords were still around, their links (via the eye of
>>harmony) to Gallifrey kept their personal timelines stable as they
>>moved around the universe. With Gallifrey paradoxed out of existence,
>>the Doctor is being killed by his link to somewhere that (possibly)
>>doesn't exist. Gallifrey acted as the reference point from which the
>>rest of the universe was observed or somesuch. With it gone, all the
>>other timelines are collapsing.
>
>Nice to see that the Doctor's actions at the end of 'tAC' *have* had
>repercussions. I don't see how you can retcon a bloody huge
>space-time war out of existence without some major snafus happening
>throughout universal history.
Agreed. Especially in light how *how* the said war was retconned out
of existence.
However, something I find rather ominous is that this seems to
be laying the foundation for a Jack L. Chalker-style re-boot of various
sections of the Whoniverse - one executed selectively at the whims of
the various authors.
>>In order to save Earth (and himself), the Doctor replaces his link to
>>Gallifrey with one to Earth - Earth replaces Gallifrey as the stable
>>central timeline from which Time travellers can venture.
>
>Oh dear, that sounds a bit crap. So... he replaces his link to the
>Eye of Harmony with one to, um, the Eye of Humanity? <g>
Interesting way of putting it. :-)
Hmmm. While he concept of what the Doctor is doing sounds
*potentially* intriguing, IMHO Earth is too closely tied to Gallifrey to
be a "stable central timeline". Right now, this sounds like a very
creaky plot device, but Earth's instability and unsuitability for doing
this could be the foundation for an interesting story or two down the
road.
>>Mind you, that's all what I've pieced together. The book's not exactly
>>written unambiguously. Symbolism is the order of the day, from the
>>ruins of the Panopticon in the vortex, the symbol of the chaos being
>>an Eye, the Doctor's second heart being removed when he becomes the
>>"King of Earth-Time".
>
>Oh dear, that sounds even worse than crap.
Two more comments: First, come on authors, enough with the
ambiguity already! These are important issues - pin them down for
crying out loud! Tell everyone clearly, decisively, and umambiguously
what the new rules of the Whoniverse are, what parts still exist, and
what parts have vanished.
Second, if the part about the Doctor's heart is unambiguously true,
then it is crap IMHO.
>>And we finally know who Sabbath is - he's the first of the New (human)
>>Timelords.
>
>Oh, what total arse. Let me get this straight - we've retconned the
>Time Lords to get rid of forty years' worth of Gallifreyan backstory
>so that they can be replaced with *human* Time Lords? As Marvin the
>Paranoid Android would say, 'Sounds ghastly...'
>
>So where do these human Time Lords come from? The future? No, wait -
>I'm not bothered where they come from and I'm not terribly interested
>in where they're going, either. :(
I'm sure Jon and Lance will be along shortly to indict us on
charges of jumping to conclusions, theorizing ahead of our facts,
misinterpreting things, and generally taking the gloomiest possible
view. That being said, there is a certain element of "meet the new
boss, same as the old boss" to this, isn't there?
The Count von Count
: The Count <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
: > Who is this 'we'? Surely you and most other readers have little or no
: > problem rationalising the causality of time travel. It is no more
'screwed
: > up' than the idea that velocity can be negative, whereas speed can not.
: > Making that step does not require 'reworking all the rules' of physics.
:
: Yes, but you're missing a rather large point here. The rules of time
: travel are *fiction*. Different stories use different rules. There are
: no set laws of temperal causality because we have no idea how they
: "really" work.
When it comes down to it, we really have no idea how any thing 'really'
works. Does that mean that we abandon all science and give in superstition
and nonsense? No. But that is what it appears you are advocating. Do you
*really* enjoy fiction that can change its rules on whim and create any deus
ex machina to reset the plot? That is what it appears you are advocating.
Doctor Who as a whole was never meant to be a David Lynch film.
:In fiction, one can make up all sorts of rules as to how casuality works
:in time travel, because in reality we don't have any rules. How does
:casuality work in cases where there's a time paradox? Different fictions
:have different rules. So, no, it isn't just a question of making a minor
:alteration to what we know right now.
:
:And we were talking about reworking the laws of causality, not the
:laws of physics.
There has been tons of scientific work published on causality. Science is
not a bunch of facts based on empirical evidence. Science is an absolute
method that can give us knowledge about things that we do not have 'direct'
experience with.
The Count von Count
: > : "The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
: > :>AIUI, Henrietta Street is the first book where the unhappening of
: > :> Gallifrey is acknowledged in more than just a 'thow-away line',
:
: > : Except that it's also a book written in a completely different style
that,
: > : like Bullet Time, from the start acknowledges that not everything in
it is
: > : true.
:
: > : It's a deliberately unreliable narration designed to provoke a
reaction.
:
: > But not discussion?
:
: Certainly not declarations that something suggested in it is "official".
So you are calling Peter Anghelides a liar?
Cameron Mason
DaveB <DBroo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d40d8f9.01110...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> I finished Henrietta Street a few hours ago, and my brain still hurts.
I can't wait for this book to arrive in Australia...
(Has anyone in Oz seen a copy of Grimm Reality?)
Cameron
--
Dimensions in Crime
http://members.fortunecity.com/masomika/
The Count von Count
in
: > : which time travel is possible, you have to rework the rules of
causality
: > : as we know them in order to take all of this into account. As we
: > : understand it, casuality will be "all screwed up".
:
: > Who is this 'we'? Surely you and most other readers have little or no
: > problem rationalising the causality of time travel.
:
: Many have tried...
Yes, just like many have tried rationalising the world that we live in.
Imagine what it would be like if our governments and leaders just gave up,
and gave in to chaos and terror...
Andrew McCaffrey
> : travel are *fiction*. Different stories use different rules. There are
> : no set laws of temperal causality because we have no idea how they
> : "really" work.
> When it comes down to it, we really have no idea how any thing 'really'
> works. Does that mean that we abandon all science and give in superstition
> and nonsense? No. But that is what it appears you are advocating. Do you
> *really* enjoy fiction that can change its rules on whim and create any deus
> ex machina to reset the plot? That is what it appears you are advocating.
> Doctor Who as a whole was never meant to be a David Lynch film.
What on Earth are you talking about? The question was whether adding time
travel to a universe changes the way in which we have to look at
causality. The way causality works in a time travel enabled universe is
very different to the way it works in one without time travel or where
time travel is physically impossible.
Andrew McCaffrey
Count:
> : > Who is this 'we'? Surely you and most other readers have little or no
> : > problem rationalising the causality of time travel.
> : Many have tried...
> Yes, just like many have tried rationalising the world that we live in.
> Imagine what it would be like if our governments and leaders just gave up,
> and gave in to chaos and terror...
Imagine what it would be like if someone couldn't tell the difference
between problems of goverment leaders and the problem of reconciling
Genesis Of The Daleks with The Aztecs.
The Count von Count
: Imagine what it would be like if someone couldn't tell the difference
: between problems of goverment leaders and the problem of reconciling
: Genesis Of The Daleks with The Aztecs.
You know nothing about Chaos theory.
Cameron Mason
Chris Cwej <cw...@thecia.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ivloutg3ndupmmnr4...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> >To which all I can really say is
> ><Miranda Richardson from Blackadder>
> >"Who's Queen?"
> ></Miranda Richardson>
>
No - he's God...;)