The NA's
MMir
Berry Miley wrote:
>Why can we not accept the NA's for what they are: Good fiction written
>with established and new characters.
At the risk of making a sweeping generalization; most of us do.
>Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
Why the insistance that they not be?
MMir
R.J. Smith
In article <01bb74e6.83ef2a90$1b643a9d@berrym133>,
Berry Miley <ber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>Why can we not accept the NA's for what they are: Good fiction written
>with established and new characters.
>Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
Why can we not accept the Tom Baker era for what it is: Good television
written with established and new characters.
Why the insistence that it be part of the continuity?
- Robert Smith?
Berry Miley
Why can we not accept the NA's for what they are: Good fiction written
with established and new characters.
Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
Jeffery Beuck
MMir (mm...@aol.com) wrote:
: Berry Miley wrote:
: >Why can we not accept the NA's for what they are: Good fiction written
: >with established and new characters.
Although there are a few exceptions to this (Parasite), 90% of the
people on this newsgroup do enjoy the NA's as well-written fiction.
: >Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
: Why the insistance that they not be?
Continuity and canon is for each individual to decide. For lack of
anything better in its place, I choose to accept the NA's as canon.
If the BBC NA's are done even better and contradict the Virgin NA's
(slim chance), I might choose to no longer honor the Virgin NA's as
canon. Canon is largely temporal and ever-changing.
--
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
The White Guardian
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Christopher Norman
Berry Miley (ber...@microsoft.com) wrote:
: Why can we not accept the NA's for what they are: Good fiction written
: with established and new characters.
: Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
Because they're damned GOOD, they make a Herculean effort to tie in and
continue on from the end of the TV series, and they enrich the DW universe
to such an extent that they make it a lot more interesting. Why
*shouldn't* these stories be part of the continuity? It seems to me the
onus of proof is on you.
Christopher Norman
Spencer Berrett
In <4smgkl$9...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA> g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA
(R.J. Smith) writes:
>
>In article <01bb74e6.83ef2a90$1b643a9d@berrym133>,
>
>>Why can we not accept the NA's for what they are: Good fiction
written
>>with established and new characters.
>
>>Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
>
television
>
>
> - Robert Smith?
>
You mean the TBaker era is canon? Oh man...now that totally throws off
my NA canon....man, why didn't you tell me *sooner*?
-Greg
some 'If it's licensed by the BBC, it's canon, unless it contradicts
something, then it's up for grabs' guy
--
'You feel lucky punk...I'm the Doctor' -Stauf, #drwho _n_ *
'Peace, as you know it, is an illusion. It's just not =====
seeing the thing that's trying to kill you.' |#|#|
-The Spathi High Counsel, Star Control II |L|L|
|L|L|
* - TARDIS Annexed from Becky Robinson without permission =====
Paul Rhodes
sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Shannon Patrick Sullivan) wrote:
>> Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
>
>For my part, it's because without it they'd just become curiosities --
How are they rendered less curious by being canonised?
>interesting, but ultimately ephemeral, asides like the Cushing movies and
>the Trevor Martin play.
...and the nocvelisations, and the comics, and the underwear, and the
TV series.
Paul
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> mm...@aol.com (MMir) wrote in article
<4sm9hk$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>...
> Berry Miley wrote:
> >Why can we not accept the NA's for what they are: Good fiction written
> >with established and new characters.
>
> At the risk of making a sweeping generalization; most of us do.
>
> >Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
>
> Why the insistance that they not be?
Not so much an insistance that they not be rather let each fan make that
choice.
I have reconciled it as the Doctor of the NA's is the doctor of a parallel
dimension.
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) wrote in article
<4smgkl$9...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>...
> Why can we not accept the Tom Baker era for what it is: Good television
> written with established and new characters.
>
> Why the insistence that it be part of the continuity?
Because as part of the television show, it is part of the continuity.
That would be like throwing out one of the "Spock dies and is brought
back" Star trek movies.
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> cano...@unixg.ubc.ca (Christopher Norman) wrote in article
<4sml6p$i...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>...
> Because they're damned GOOD,
Good fiction, no arguement
they make a Herculean effort to tie in and
> continue on from the end of the TV series, and they enrich the DW
universe
But there have been some ideas (like the doctors all being in the mind
theory) that I find incompatible with the spirit of the show.
> to such an extent that they make it a lot more interesting. Why
> *shouldn't* these stories be part of the continuity? It seems to me the
> onus of proof is on you.
I just write them off as being the adventures of the Doctor of a parallel
dimension. This allows full enjoyment of the NA's without muddleing up the
Doctor we have come to enjoy.
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> jb...@access5.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) wrote in article
> fiction. Both possibilities leave me a little worried for Berry's
mental
> state... :-)
You're in good company, my mom has her concerns too :-)
GLC
Shannon Patrick Sullivan wrote:
>
> Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on Thu, 18 Jul 1996 16:20:08 -0400, I overheard Berry Miley say:
> > Why can we not accept the NA's for what they are: Good fiction written
> > with established and new characters.
>
>
> For my part, it's because without it they'd just become curiosities --
> continuity lends them a validity -- at least to my mind -- which it would
> be lacking if they weren't.
>
Actually, that's pretty much how I do view them, as a spinoff product and curiosity.
That's to be honest how I'm inclined to view any series of books based on a
television series though; it's just that the NA's, to their possible credit,
push the envelope a little farther and make it an easier call.
--
For Graphics, Literature, Compositions and more
Visit GLC Experience Co. at http://www.io.com/~glc
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Shannon Patrick Sullivan) wrote in article <
> > But there have been some ideas (like the doctors all being in the mind
> > theory) that I find incompatible with the spirit of the show.
>
> Why?
Because they don't mesh with the established series. They don't make sense
given what we have seen established
Especially the idea about the future Doctors living in the mind before
their time and future Doctors ending the lives of their predecessors.
> > I just write them off as being the adventures of the Doctor of a
parallel
> > dimension. This allows full enjoyment of the NA's without muddleing up
the
> > Doctor we have come to enjoy.
>
> How does considering them the adventures of the Doctor of the same
> universe as we saw in the TV series prevent this?
By considering them the advantures of a Doctor in an alternate dimension,
the idea of things being different (the regenration idea for exaple) is
plausible.
If I take it your way when I read the NA in question I am forced to either
throw out things either from the series or the novel.
My way there's no conflict.
Jonathan Blum
In article <01bb75a8.12d253b0$1b643a9d@berrym133>,
Berry Miley <ber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
[why Berry doesn't want the NA's to be canon]
>Because they don't mesh with the established series. They don't make sense
>given what we have seen established
>Especially the idea about the future Doctors living in the mind before
>their time and future Doctors ending the lives of their predecessors.
This in fact fits just fine with the events in the series as aired. It's
just that you don't *like* the idea. Could you make that distinction a
little clearer, please?
Oh, and Berry... if you're asking why can't everyone make up their own
mind about whether the NA's are canon, that's what people pretty much do
right now. On the other hand, if you're asking why can't everyone just
accept that the NA's are not canon, that's never going to happen --
you're going to have to deal with the fact that not everyone agrees with
you about what Doctor Who actually is.
Regards,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
chess... when it was just me playing solitaire!"
D O C T O R W H O : T I M E R I F T
Christopher Norman
Jeffery Beuck (jbe...@Phoenix.kent.edu) wrote:: : >Why can we not accept the NA's for what they are: Good fiction written
: : >with established and new characters.
: Although there are a few exceptions to this (Parasite), 90% of the
: people on this newsgroup do enjoy the NA's as well-written fiction.
: : >Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
: : Why the insistance that they not be?
: Continuity and canon is for each individual to decide. For lack of
: anything better in its place, I choose to accept the NA's as canon.
: If the BBC NA's are done even better and contradict the Virgin NA's
: (slim chance), I might choose to no longer honor the Virgin NA's as
: canon. Canon is largely temporal and ever-changing.
I feel the same way; in the *extremely unlikely* event that the BBC line
comes out with books that make Set Piece and The Also People and Human
Nature look like the work of amateurish children, I'll probably start
thinking of that as the "official" continuity.
For now, though, the manifestly high quality of the stories in the Virgin
line are enough "canonicity" for me.
Christopher Norman
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on Thu, 18 Jul 1996 16:20:08 -0400, I overheard Berry Miley say:
> with established and new characters.
> Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
For my part, it's because without it they'd just become curiosities --
interesting, but ultimately ephemeral, asides like the Cushing movies and
the Trevor Martin play. Including them in my own personal Doctor Who
continuity lends them a validity -- at least to my mind -- which it would
be lacking if they weren't.
Shannon
--
----------------------- Shannon Patrick Sullivan -----------------------
sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sps
Doctor Who Page: http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sps/drwho.html
"'The Old Ways are lost,' you said as you flew, and I wondered why"
Loreena McKennitt, "The Old Ways"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Daniel Henry
Berry Miley wrote:
> > g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) wrote in article
> <4smgkl$9...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>...
> > Why can we not accept the Tom Baker era for what it is: Good television
> > written with established and new characters.
> > Why the insistence that it be part of the continuity?
> Because as part of the television show, it is part of the continuity.
> That would be like throwing out one of the "Spock dies and is brought
> back" Star trek movies.
Oh, so it's a good idea then!
-- R. Dan Henry
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on Fri, 19 Jul 1996 08:24:00 -0400, I overheard Berry Miley say:
> > continue on from the end of the TV series, and they enrich the DW
> universe
> But there have been some ideas (like the doctors all being in the mind
> theory) that I find incompatible with the spirit of the show.
Why?
> > to such an extent that they make it a lot more interesting. Why
> > *shouldn't* these stories be part of the continuity? It seems to me the
> > onus of proof is on you.
> I just write them off as being the adventures of the Doctor of a parallel
> dimension. This allows full enjoyment of the NA's without muddleing up the
> Doctor we have come to enjoy.
How does considering them the adventures of the Doctor of the same
universe as we saw in the TV series prevent this?
Shannon
Peel
Jonathan Blum (jb...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
: >Why can we not accept the NA's for what they are: Good fiction written
: >with established and new characters.
: >Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
: Why shouldn't they be?
: Go on, tell me.
Well, as a writer of NAs (okay, *one* NA...) I can think of a very good
reason. "Doctor Who" is a TV show. Words on pages don't constitute a TV
show, therefore novels based on a TV show are *not* canon. They may be
extremely good, and extremely close to canon, but they cannot by
definition *be* canon.
Then again, considering some of the goof-ups in continuity on the show
itself, what the heck is canon anyway? Pachabel, anyone?
Cheers,
John Peel
Jonathan Blum
In article <01bb756d.7f235e50$1b643a9d@berrym133>,
Berry Miley <ber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> cano...@unixg.ubc.ca (Christopher Norman) wrote in article
><4sml6p$i...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>...
>Good fiction, no arguement
>they make a Herculean effort to tie in and
>> continue on from the end of the TV series, and they enrich the DW
>universe
>But there have been some ideas (like the doctors all being in the mind
>theory) that I find incompatible with the spirit of the show.
With what *you* think is the spirit of the show. Personally, I find some
of the Doctor's actions in "Day of the Daleks" incompatible with the
spirit of the show. Would you therefore accept that I can consider the
Pertwee era non-canon?
>> to such an extent that they make it a lot more interesting. Why
>> *shouldn't* these stories be part of the continuity? It seems to me the
>> onus of proof is on you.
>I just write them off as being the adventures of the Doctor of a parallel
>dimension. This allows full enjoyment of the NA's without muddleing up the
>Doctor we have come to enjoy.
What you mean "we", paleface? The Doctor *I* have come to enjoy is the NA
Doctor.
MMir
John Peel wrote:
>Jon Blum wrote:
>: Why shouldn't they (the NAs) be (canon)?
>: Go on, tell me.
>Well, as a writer of NAs (okay, *one* NA...) I can think of a very good
>reason. "Doctor Who" is a TV show. Words on pages don't constitute a TV
>show, therefore novels based on a TV show are *not* canon. They may be
>extremely good, and extremely close to canon, but they cannot by
>definition *be* canon.
Oh, I see. Therefore, since Star Trek is a TV show, the films aren't
canon. Images on a big screen don't constitute a TV show, therefore films
based on a TV show are *not* canon. They may be extremely good, and
extremely close to canon, but they cannot by definition *be* canon.
That's *your* definition, not mine.
Duke MMir
"This post has been brought to you by 'Robert Smith?'s Reverse Arguments:
Serving radw since last year.'"
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on Fri, 19 Jul 1996 08:51:17 GMT, I overheard Paul Rhodes say:
> sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Shannon Patrick Sullivan) wrote:
> >> Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
> >
> >For my part, it's because without it they'd just become curiosities --
> How are they rendered less curious by being canonised?
Just my personal way of looking at things. Take comics as an example...
DC's "Elseworlds" line (which are all 'What If...' stories, like if
Batman had been given Green Lantern's ring, or if Superman lived on a
post-apocalyptic Earth) is interesting and all, but I personally find
them less attractive to read than comics firmly entrenched in the DC
universe. There's a greater feeling of connectivity, and that in turns
makes it feel more a part of the original. YMMV.
> >interesting, but ultimately ephemeral, asides like the Cushing movies and
> >the Trevor Martin play.
> ...and the nocvelisations, and the comics, and the underwear, and the
> TV series.
Yes, yes, yes, no. In this context, the TV series can't be considered
ephemeral -- it's the original, you might say. :-)
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:20:23 -0400, I overheard Berry Miley say:
> > sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Shannon Patrick Sullivan) wrote in article <
> > > But there have been some ideas (like the doctors all being in the mind
> > > theory) that I find incompatible with the spirit of the show.
> >
> Because they don't mesh with the established series. They don't make sense
> given what we have seen established
> Especially the idea about the future Doctors living in the mind before
> their time and future Doctors ending the lives of their predecessors.
How does this not mesh with the established series?
> > > I just write them off as being the adventures of the Doctor of a
> parallel
> > > dimension. This allows full enjoyment of the NA's without muddleing up
> the
> > > Doctor we have come to enjoy.
> >
> > How does considering them the adventures of the Doctor of the same
> > universe as we saw in the TV series prevent this?
> By considering them the advantures of a Doctor in an alternate dimension,
> the idea of things being different (the regenration idea for exaple) is
> plausible.
> If I take it your way when I read the NA in question I am forced to either
> throw out things either from the series or the novel.
> My way there's no conflict.
What exactly do you have to throw out?
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on 19 Jul 1996 20:41:18 GMT, I overheard Peel say:
> Jonathan Blum (jb...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
> : >Why can we not accept the NA's for what they are: Good fiction written
> : >with established and new characters.
> : >Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
> : Why shouldn't they be?
> : Go on, tell me.
> Well, as a writer of NAs (okay, *one* NA...) I can think of a very good
> reason. "Doctor Who" is a TV show. Words on pages don't constitute a TV
> show, therefore novels based on a TV show are *not* canon. They may be
> extremely good, and extremely close to canon, but they cannot by
> definition *be* canon.
This is an argument I've heard many times, and I really don't understand
it. Why exactly is Doctor Who just a TV show? Why limit it exclusively to
that medium? The NAs dovetail perfectly with the TV series (which is
something most other Doctor Who spin-offs can't claim) and hence put
together they represent a continuous "story" (to use the word in a very
broad sense). IMveryHO, this makes the TV stories and the NAs/MAs *put
together* Doctor Who, not just the former or just the latter.
The Macra Terror
cano...@unixg.ubc.ca (Christopher Norman) wrote:
>Berry Miley (ber...@microsoft.com) wrote:
>: Why can we not accept the NA's for what they are: Good fiction written
>: with established and new characters.
>
>: Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
>
>*shouldn't* these stories be part of the continuity? It seems to me the
>onus of proof is on you.
I'm not stepping into the continuity debate, but I wondered how
"Herculean" an effort it takes to continue right on from the last
televised story? By that standard, wouldn't every Who writer since
Terry Nation have been making a Herculean effort?
MMir
Brett O'Callaghan wrote:
>MMir wrote:
>>Therefore, since Star Trek is a TV show, the films aren't canon.
> <BZZT>
> Funny, I don't see the words "trek" or "star" anywhere in above
>attempted definition. '"Doctor Who" is a TV show' is what he said.
>What exactly Trek canon has to do with WHO canon is beyond me...
It's a parallel argument, using a similar situation in another sci-fi
series, one that John Peel (to whom I was originally responding) is
relatively familiar with.
Duke MMir
"Surely you've met Robert Smith?"
Nick Smale
In article <4sorte$o...@linet06.li.net>,
jp...@newshost.li.net (Peel) wrote:
? Jonathan Blum (jb...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
?
? : >Why can we not accept the NA's for what they are: Good fiction
? : >written with established and new characters.
?
? : >Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
?
? : Why shouldn't they be?
?
? : Go on, tell me.
?
? Well, as a writer of NAs (okay, *one* NA...) I can think of
? a very good reason. "Doctor Who" is a TV show. Words on
? pages don't constitute a TV show, therefore novels based on
? a TV show are *not* canon. They may be extremely good, and
? extremely close to canon, but they cannot by definition *be*
? canon.
For me, as a child in the early seventies growing up reading
the novelisations, Doctor Who was just as much a literary
phenomenom as a visual one. When I read 'Doctor Who and the
Cave Monsters' in 1975 I had no foreknowledge of 'The
Silurians' - for me, that book was just as much an original
Doctor Who novel as was 'Human Nature' twenty years later.
In an age before home video I had no expectation of ever
seeing Hartnell or Troughton - to me they were purely
literary Doctors who existed only as 'words on a page'. And
just as much as Benny, Roz and Chris are today, Jamie,
Victoria, Ian, Barbara and Liz Shaw were purely literary
companions.
Maybe this is why the argument that "Doctor Who is a TV show
and so the books can't be Doctor Who" never jells with me -
because, for me, Doctor Who has *always* been more than just
the TV show. The novelisations, the comic strip, 'The
Pescatons', the Cushing movies, the NAs and the MAs are not
just 'spin offs' to me - just as much as anything ever
broadcast on BBC1 they are at the *heart* of what Doctor
Who *is*.
Any definition of 'canon' which includes 'The Dominators'
and 'Terror of the Vervoids' but not 'The Left Handed
Hummingbird' or 'Junkyard Demon', Mel and Adric but not
Benny or Frobisher, is not a definition I would want to
subscribe to...
- Nick Smale
R.J. Smith
In article <01bb756d.18b28ba0$1b643a9d@berrym133>,
Berry Miley <ber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) wrote in article
><4smgkl$9...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>...
>>In article <01bb74e6.83ef2a90$1b643a9d@berrym133>,
>>Berry Miley <ber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>Why can we not accept the NA's for what they are: Good fiction written
>>>with established and new characters.
>>>Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
>> Why can we not accept the Tom Baker era for what it is: Good television
>> written with established and new characters.
>> Why the insistence that it be part of the continuity?
>Because as part of the television show, it is part of the continuity.
>That would be like throwing out one of the "Spock dies and is brought
>back" Star trek movies.
Exactly! Now you're getting it.
The NAs are as much or as little "Doctor Who" as the Tom Baker era is.
If you or I or anyone wants to ignore the Tom Baker era, they are more
than free to. Or not, as the case may be.
No one's insisting the NAs *have*to* be part of canonicity, any more than
they're insisting the Tom Baker is does (it doesn't, BTW).
But some of us *are* insisting that people be left to make up their own
minds - that neither you nor I nor anyone else has the right to dictate
what is and isn't "Doctor Who" to *anyone* other than ourselves.
- Robert Smith?
R.J. Smith
In article <4spnph$r...@kirin.wwa.com>,
>>: Why can we not accept the NA's for what they are: Good fiction written
>>: with established and new characters.
>>: Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
>>Because they're damned GOOD, they make a Herculean effort to tie in and
>>continue on from the end of the TV series,
[snip]
>I'm not stepping into the continuity debate, but I wondered how
>"Herculean" an effort it takes to continue right on from the last
>televised story? By that standard, wouldn't every Who writer since
>Terry Nation have been making a Herculean effort?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
(some days I just wish I had a big Kate-style one on hand)
Sorry, but from that statement it *really* seems as though we must have
been watching difference shows... :-)
- Robert Smith?
R.J. Smith
In article <4sorte$o...@linet06.li.net>, Peel <jp...@newshost.li.net> wrote:
>Jonathan Blum (jb...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
>: >Why can we not accept the NA's for what they are: Good fiction written
>: >with established and new characters.
>: >Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
>: Why shouldn't they be?
>: Go on, tell me.
>Well, as a writer of NAs (okay, *one* NA...) I can think of a very good
>reason. "Doctor Who" is a TV show.
You are, as always, more than entitled to your opinion, but I do think
this is a very limited way to view the world.
I think Doctor Who is and can be so much *more* than a TV show. I think
the TV show is wonderful and I think the NAs are wonderful. But I also
think that Doctor Who, as a whole, is so much greater than the sum of
these parts (indeed all its parts) that it's not funny.
My world is a richer one for having the NAs in it. It saddens me to think
there are people missing out on them *simply* because they believe DW
cannot survive a change of medium.
Words on pages don't constitute a TV
>show, therefore novels based on a TV show are *not* canon. They may be
>extremely good, and extremely close to canon, but they cannot by
>definition *be* canon.
And the definition of canon is...?
>Then again, considering some of the goof-ups in continuity on the show
>itself, what the heck is canon anyway? Pachabel, anyone?
Ah, yes, a good point! One I've been trying to express for some time now
and now find it much better written in two simple lines. Thank you.
- Robert Smith?
R.J. Smith
>> <BZZT>
And it's a good one, too.
I was planning on doing something with the proposed Lumeire big screen
takes, but you did it *so* much better with the ST films thing. Well done
and allow me to give you a gold star for Reversal Argument excellence :-)
>Duke MMir
>"Surely you've met Robert Smith?"
Sadly, no, he hasn't had that dubious pleasure :-)
- Robert Smith?
Jonathan Blum
>Well, as a writer of NAs (okay, *one* NA...) I can think of a very good
I think that's the fundamental difference. To me, Doctor Who is most
fundamentally an *idea*. Whether that idea is expressed on film, video,
radio, or paper is secondary. And as long as the stories are more or less
consistent with what's gone before, what's wrong with counting them as
"real" Doctor Who?
When you think about it, the question of whether something is canon or not
only really comes into play when you're writing something yourself -- if
something that's already canon contradicts or prevents your story from
taking place. And aside from returning Romana to Gallifrey, the NA's have
done incredibly little in their developments to limit other peoples'
creativity...
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on 20 Jul 1996 14:46:52 +1000, I overheard Brett O'Callaghan say:
> mm...@aol.com (MMir) wrote:
> >John Peel wrote:
> >>Jon Blum wrote:
> >>: Why shouldn't they (the NAs) be (canon)?
> >>: Go on, tell me.
> >>Well, as a writer of NAs (okay, *one* NA...) I can think of a very good
> >>reason. "Doctor Who" is a TV show. Words on pages don't constitute a TV
> >>show, therefore novels based on a TV show are *not* canon. They may be
> >>extremely good, and extremely close to canon, but they cannot by
> >>definition *be* canon.
> >Therefore, since Star Trek is a TV show, the films aren't canon.
> <BZZT>
> Funny, I don't see the words "trek" or "star" anywhere in above
> attempted definition. '"Doctor Who" is a TV show' is what he said.
> What exactly Trek canon has to do with WHO canon is beyond me...
<BZZT>
It's called a parallel, Brett. And a damned good one, too.
Gregg T. Allinson
Jonathan Blum (jb...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
: In article <01bb74e6.83ef2a90$1b643a9d@berrym133>,
: Berry Miley <ber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
: >Why can we not accept the NA's for what they are: Good fiction written
: >with established and new characters.
: >Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
: Why shouldn't they be?
: Go on, tell me.
Well, IMHO, I personally disconnected them from the TV series beacuse
they're so radically different in tone and style from even the late McCoy
episodes ('though the Timewyrm series was still kind of in the late McCoy
mold, and there are a few other exceptions). Now I know that, for
example, the Pertwee years and the Colin Baker years are radically
different, but I accept both as canon. I think the reason why is that it
was a gradual change. With the NAs, overnight Doctor Who was "adult",
when I think that the late McCoy episodes were quite adult without
introducting swearing, excessive violence, the
Aincient-Threat-From-The-Dawn-Of-Gallifreyan-Civilisation/From-The-Matrix-of
-the-Week (tm), drinking, and a total revision of the 6th Doctor's
character into the Valeyard. Now I know some people enjoy the NAs for
their daring, and I'm sure that if the change were a more gradual one or
perhaps even a sudden change bought on by, say, a new regeneration (after
all, early Pertwee is an about-face from late Troughton), I could accept
it easier and would perhaps join in on praising the new daring style. And
while there are good NAs and (IMHO) quite a few bad ones,
only "Exodus", "Nightshade", and "Human Nature" have made me think
"Yeah...that's Doctor Who all right". The rest may be decent science
fiction, but if I want that, there's always Asimov and Ellison. I wanted
new *Doctor Who* and what I got was a highly variable line of science
fiction novels.
--
Half Human on his Mother's Side,
Gregg "Dave" Allinson
Visit The Scrapyard ("You big dummy!") @ http://miso.wwa.com/~roscoe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So now you must believe me, we never lose our dreams."
-Cast-WALKAWAY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAVE DOCTOR WHO! Write FOX at Fox Broadcasting Company PO Box 900 Beverly
Hills, CA 90213-0900 *and* fox...@delphi.com and request a new season of
Doctor Who!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brett O'Callaghan
mm...@aol.com (MMir) wrote:
>John Peel wrote:
>>Jon Blum wrote:
>>: Why shouldn't they (the NAs) be (canon)?
>>Well, as a writer of NAs (okay, *one* NA...) I can think of a very good
>>reason. "Doctor Who" is a TV show. Words on pages don't constitute a TV
>>show, therefore novels based on a TV show are *not* canon. They may be
>>extremely good, and extremely close to canon, but they cannot by
>>definition *be* canon.
>Therefore, since Star Trek is a TV show, the films aren't canon.
<BZZT>
Funny, I don't see the words "trek" or "star" anywhere in above
attempted definition. '"Doctor Who" is a TV show' is what he said.
What exactly Trek canon has to do with WHO canon is beyond me...
Byeeeee.
--
"I Don't know their names... Polaris and ... Vega ... and ... How the
hell should I know their names? I'm not an astronomer. What's happened
to us? What's happened to the stars?"
"What are stars?" Duffy asked.
- _The Demolished Man_ by Alfred Bester
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on 21 Jul 1996 12:45:08 +1000, I overheard Brett O'Callaghan say:
> >>>Therefore, since Star Trek is a TV show, the films aren't canon.
> >> Funny, I don't see the words "trek" or "star" anywhere in above
> >>attempted definition. '"Doctor Who" is a TV show' is what he said.
> >>What exactly Trek canon has to do with WHO canon is beyond me...
> >It's a parallel argument, using a similar situation in another sci-fi
> >series, one that John Peel (to whom I was originally responding) is
> >relatively familiar with.
> I know what it is, I just think it's totally irrelevant.
Which is nonsense. John suggested that, since Doctor Who is (or, I should
say, was originally) a TV show, only TV episodes should be considered
"canon". Now, one presumes that John isn't just pigeonholing Doctor Who
in this respect -- that he'd therefore apply it to any TV show. Star
Trek, then, is an excellent example of why this kind of categorization
doesn't really work. That, in turn, is extremely relevant to the
discussion at hand.
Jim Vowles
Berry Miley wrote:
>
> --
> The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
> the official views of Microsoft Corporation
>
> > > But there have been some ideas (like the doctors all being in the mind
> > > theory) that I find incompatible with the spirit of the show.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because they don't mesh with the established series. They don't make sense
> given what we have seen established
How? Just because an idea wasn't used in the series doesn't mean it
can't happen in the books--that's rather the POINT of the books.
How about some specific examples?
>
> Especially the idea about the future Doctors living in the mind before
> their time and future Doctors ending the lives of their predecessors.
That's NEVER said EXPLICITLY to be the case. It's strongly implied,
I'll agree...and suggested by fellow travellers. However, of the
stories which deal with such matters, one is set in the Doctor's mind,
one is set in a semi-fictional world heavily influenced by the Doc's
state of mind, and one is in an alternate universe in which the Doctor's
state of mind figures very prominently.
Perhaps you might consider that the whole thing is a METAPHOR? You
know, a "like" sort of thing, where we personalize aspects of the
Doctor's complex persona as the folks who exemplified the traits the
best?
>
> > > I just write them off as being the adventures of the Doctor of a
> parallel
> > > dimension. This allows full enjoyment of the NA's without muddleing up
> the
> > > Doctor we have come to enjoy.
> >
> > How does considering them the adventures of the Doctor of the same
> > universe as we saw in the TV series prevent this?
>
> By considering them the advantures of a Doctor in an alternate dimension,
> the idea of things being different (the regenration idea for exaple) is
> plausible.
>
> If I take it your way when I read the NA in question I am forced to either
> throw out things either from the series or the novel.
>
> My way there's no conflict.
There's no conflict with the series either. Sigh.
Show me the conflict with the series.
-jim
Jim Vowles
Brett O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> mm...@aol.com (MMir) wrote:
> >John Peel wrote:
> >>Jon Blum wrote:
> >>: Why shouldn't they (the NAs) be (canon)?
> >>: Go on, tell me.
>
> >>Well, as a writer of NAs (okay, *one* NA...) I can think of a very good
> >>reason. "Doctor Who" is a TV show. Words on pages don't constitute a TV
> >>show, therefore novels based on a TV show are *not* canon. They may be
> >>extremely good, and extremely close to canon, but they cannot by
> >>definition *be* canon.
>
>
>
> Funny, I don't see the words "trek" or "star" anywhere in above
> attempted definition. '"Doctor Who" is a TV show' is what he said.
> What exactly Trek canon has to do with WHO canon is beyond me...
Okay, it's an ANALOGY!!!!!
You know, where you show an exmple of how something works in a similar
case?
Sheesh, some people really go out of their way to be obtuse.
-jim
GaryS63049
In article <01bb756d.7f235e50$1b643a9d@berrym133>, "Berry Miley"
>
>I just write them off as being the adventures of the Doctor of a parallel
>dimension. This allows full enjoyment of the NA's without muddleing up
the
>Doctor we have come to enjoy.
>
Okay, fine, that's your opinion, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest
that you have that opinion.
Here's my opinion.
After there stopped being new TV episodes for me to watch, I gradually
lost interest in Doctor Who. This was eventually jump-started by the
arrival of the TV movie, when I went back and started reading the NAs.
If there weren't NAs to read, and therefore the possibility of new
development in the Who universe, I doubt my interest in Doctor Who
would be alive at the moment. All there would be, to endlessly rewatch
and re-contemplate and bicker with other fans about, since the end
of "Survival" would be "Enemy Within" and a big slab of nothing.
*If* a new series or new telemovies are eventually produced, and *if*
the people who write these new shows come up with ideas that
definitively contradict the NAs, well, then there'll be some justification
for throwing out the NAs. Until such a circumstance comes to pass,
well, it enhances my enjoyment of Doctor Who to belive that these
*are* the "real" adventures he is having.
Or, to put it another way, if the NA Doctor should happen to save
the universe, why should I give a damn under your theory? After
all, it's not *my* universe. :-)
--
Gary Schaper
"We'll burn that bridge when we come to it."
Brett O'Callaghan
sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Shannon Patrick Sullivan) wrote:
>Brett O'Callaghan say:
>> mm...@aol.com (MMir) wrote:
>> >It's a parallel argument, using a similar situation in another sci-fi
>> >series, one that John Peel (to whom I was originally responding) is
>> >relatively familiar with.
>> I know what it is, I just think it's totally irrelevant.
>Which is nonsense. John suggested that, since Doctor Who is (or, I should
>say, was originally) a TV show, only TV episodes should be considered
>"canon". Now, one presumes that John isn't just pigeonholing Doctor Who
>in this respect -- that he'd therefore apply it to any TV show. Star
>Trek, then, is an excellent example of why this kind of categorization
>doesn't really work. That, in turn, is extremely relevant to the
>discussion at hand.
Like I said, I know what it is, I just think it's totally
irrelevant.
Byeeeee.
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on 21 Jul 1996 23:24:59 +1000, I overheard Brett O'Callaghan say:
> sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Shannon Patrick Sullivan) wrote:
> >Which is nonsense. John suggested that, since Doctor Who is (or, I should
> >say, was originally) a TV show, only TV episodes should be considered
> >"canon". Now, one presumes that John isn't just pigeonholing Doctor Who
> >in this respect -- that he'd therefore apply it to any TV show. Star
> >Trek, then, is an excellent example of why this kind of categorization
> >doesn't really work. That, in turn, is extremely relevant to the
> >discussion at hand.
> Like I said, I know what it is, I just think it's totally
> irrelevant.
*sigh* In light of what I just said, how could MMir's post possibly be
irrelevant?
Brett O'Callaghan
>>>Therefore, since Star Trek is a TV show, the films aren't canon.
>> Funny, I don't see the words "trek" or "star" anywhere in above
>>attempted definition. '"Doctor Who" is a TV show' is what he said.
>>What exactly Trek canon has to do with WHO canon is beyond me...
>It's a parallel argument, using a similar situation in another sci-fi
>series, one that John Peel (to whom I was originally responding) is
>relatively familiar with.
I know what it is, I just think it's totally irrelevant. It's
an amazingly common ploy in RADW.
The Macra Terror
g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) wrote:
>In article <4spnph$r...@kirin.wwa.com>,
>The Macra Terror <eng...@pop.wwa.com> wrote:
>>cano...@unixg.ubc.ca (Christopher Norman) wrote:
>>>: Why can we not accept the NA's for what they are: Good fiction written
>>>: with established and new characters.
>
>>>: Why the insistance that they be part of the continuity?
>
>>>continue on from the end of the TV series,
>
>[snip]
>
>>I'm not stepping into the continuity debate, but I wondered how
>>"Herculean" an effort it takes to continue right on from the last
>>televised story? By that standard, wouldn't every Who writer since
>>Terry Nation have been making a Herculean effort?
>
>Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
>
>(some days I just wish I had a big Kate-style one on hand)
>
>Sorry, but from that statement it *really* seems as though we must have
>been watching difference shows... :-)
Pardon? It's not as though the Doctor and Ace stepped right out of
Survival and into Genesys. In that sense, it was less of a "Herculean
effort" than, say, Frontios to Resurrection of the Daleks.
Unless, of course, you have some personal definition of the words "tie
in and continue" that you haven't bothered to tell us.
Christopher Norman
Berry Miley (ber...@microsoft.com) wrote:
: --
: The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
: the official views of Microsoft Corporation
: > cano...@unixg.ubc.ca (Christopher Norman) wrote in article
: <4sml6p$i...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>...
: > Because they're damned GOOD,
: Good fiction, no arguement
: they make a Herculean effort to tie in and
: > continue on from the end of the TV series, and they enrich the DW
: universe
: But there have been some ideas (like the doctors all being in the mind
: theory) that I find incompatible with the spirit of the show.
Berry, read some more NAs before you shoot your mouth off. There's
nothing in any New Adventure that contradicts anything that ever happened
before; like I said before, the authors go out of their way to respect
continuity...a lot more than any TV writers ever did. How is the idea
behind "Revelation" "incompatible" with the "spirit of the show"? That
doesn't make any sense to me. Just because you don't happen to like what
happened in the story doesn't make it "incompatible".
: > to such an extent that they make it a lot more interesting. Why
: > *shouldn't* these stories be part of the continuity? It seems to me the
: > onus of proof is on you.
: I just write them off as being the adventures of the Doctor of a parallel
: dimension. This allows full enjoyment of the NA's without muddleing up the
: Doctor we have come to enjoy.
Name one New Adventure which "muddles up" the Doctor we have come to enjoy.
Christopher Norman
Randy/Jean-Marc Lofficier
What helps the books maintain a canon (or semi-canon) status is the fact
that there is no TV show.
The TV folks, whoever they were/are/will be, will never be bothered to
take the NAs into account. (If only because there are too many of them
to begin with.) As it is, even the BBC folks barely bothered taking into
account previous continuity from the TV show...
When Phil Segal and John Leekley (with full BBC support & input) designed
what could be termed the "Segal Masterplan" (which underlies every
concept incorporated by Matthew Jacobs in EW), they did not bother asking
themselves if it contradicted Cartmel's "Masterplan" or Marc Platt's
NAs. Like Bob Holmes before, they just went ahead and did it.
(An aside: folks who argue that the Cartmel Masterplan is still "canon"
today remind me of the fans who were arguing vehemently against DEADLY
ASSASSIN in '76... But I digress.)
Another example: if the TV movie had gone to series, Phil had toyed with
the idea of bringing Ace back for a story -- and I was told Sophie Aldred
was very happy at the thought. Now it didn't happen, and that's a
shame. But from what Phil told me, the character of Ace would have just
been picked up more or less in the same condition as she was in
SURVIVAL. The assumption was, more or less, that she stayed behind &
that was it. No SET PIECE, no GROUND ZERO, no LOVE & WAR, etc.
As long as there's no DOCTOR WHO being produced, on TV or in the movies,
the books can flourish and establish a subset universe of their own, and
I personally see no problem in accepting them since we have nothing else.
But I also accept Frobisher the Penguin (who I think is a lot more
interesting than Benny, but that's another discussion).
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@haven.ios.com
Peel
MMir (mm...@aol.com) wrote:
: John Peel wrote:
: >Well, as a writer of NAs (okay, *one* NA...) I can think of a very good
: >reason. "Doctor Who" is a TV show. Words on pages don't constitute a TV
: >show, therefore novels based on a TV show are *not* canon. They may be
: >extremely good, and extremely close to canon, but they cannot by
: >definition *be* canon.
: Oh, I see. Therefore, since Star Trek is a TV show, the films aren't
: canon. Images on a big screen don't constitute a TV show, therefore films
: based on a TV show are *not* canon. They may be extremely good, and
: extremely close to canon, but they cannot by definition *be* canon.
: That's *your* definition, not mine.
Oh dear. Maybe I should try words of one syllable in future? Okay, if the
TV production company makes a film based on their show, then *that* can be
considered canon (even if we'd rather forget "The Final Frontier"). Shall
we say "video/film images"? We can't really consider the Cushing films
canon, because although they were based on the TV scripts, they differed a
huge amount.
*Now* do we agree?
Cheers,
John Peel
Peel
: This is an argument I've heard many times, and I really don't understand
: it. Why exactly is Doctor Who just a TV show? Why limit it exclusively to
: that medium? The NAs dovetail perfectly with the TV series (which is
: something most other Doctor Who spin-offs can't claim) and hence put
: together they represent a continuous "story" (to use the word in a very
: broad sense). IMveryHO, this makes the TV stories and the NAs/MAs *put
: together* Doctor Who, not just the former or just the latter.
Come on, do you think anyone making a future TV series based on "Doctor
Who" is going to pay attention to the NAs and MAs and seriously think he's
constrained by what we've written? Most of the time, they don't feel
constrained by previous episodes, let alone novels! Why ask for trouble
and start sulking when the inevitable happens, and the MAs are ignored by
whoever gets around to filming Who again? Let's just enjoy the novels for
what they are, and not try to make them what they aren't.
On which subject, I have to admit I loved "First FRontier."
Cheers,
John Peel
Peel
Shannon Patrick Sullivan (sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca) wrote:
: > Funny, I don't see the words "trek" or "star" anywhere in above
: > attempted definition. '"Doctor Who" is a TV show' is what he said.
: > What exactly Trek canon has to do with WHO canon is beyond me...
: It's called a parallel, Brett. And a damned good one, too.
Hmm... Parallel? Aren't things parallel when they run opposite one another
without ever touching? And since I've written both DW and ST novels...
(You can see where this argument's going, can't you?), then ST isn't a
parallel for Who at all...
Cheers,
John Peel
R.J. Smith
In article <4sscl4$p...@kirin.wwa.com>,
The Macra Terror <eng...@pop.wwa.com> wrote:
>g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) wrote:
>>In article <4spnph$r...@kirin.wwa.com>,
>>The Macra Terror <eng...@pop.wwa.com> wrote:
>>>I'm not stepping into the continuity debate, but I wondered how
>>>"Herculean" an effort it takes to continue right on from the last
>>>televised story? By that standard, wouldn't every Who writer since
>>>Terry Nation have been making a Herculean effort?
>>Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
>>(some days I just wish I had a big Kate-style one on hand)
>>Sorry, but from that statement it *really* seems as though we must have
>>been watching difference shows... :-)
>Pardon? It's not as though the Doctor and Ace stepped right out of
>Survival and into Genesys. In that sense, it was less of a "Herculean
>effort" than, say, Frontios to Resurrection of the Daleks.
No, I was just amused at the idea of the TV writers (and Terry
Nation in particular) bothering to tie in things at all. They didn't for the
most part.
True, ther early Hartnell stories and the Davison stories often
dovetailed, but these were often a few scenes at best, mostly written by
the script *editor*, not the writer.
The Frontios-Resurrection idea is the exception, not the rule (and how
much of a tie in is it anyway? Nothing compared to (say) Sanctuary and
Human Nature).
There really was very little Herculean effort going on between the TV
writers.
- Robert Smith?
R.J. Smith
>Oh dear. Maybe I should try words of one syllable in future? Okay, if the
>TV production company makes a film based on their show, then *that* can be
>considered canon (even if we'd rather forget "The Final Frontier").
So if they made a Who film, but it *wasn't* made by the same TV Company,
you *wouldn't* consider it canon then?
>Shall we say "video/film images"? We can't really consider the Cushing
>films canon, because although they were based on the TV scripts, they
>differed a huge amount.
Well, the NAs aren't based on the TV scripts and don't differ a huge
amount so they should also be canon then! :-)
But if you're sticking to video/film images, then that makes Dimensions in
Time and In a Fix with Sontarans canon, but Timewyrm: Genesys and
evolution not.
What a strange world you must live in! :-)
- Robert Smith?
(who can't quite believe he is defending the validity of the NAs to the
guy who started them)
R.J. Smith
In article <4stnk2$n...@news.ios.com>,
Randy/Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@haven.ios.com> wrote:
>The TV folks, whoever they were/are/will be, will never be bothered to
>take the NAs into account. (If only because there are too many of them
>to begin with.) As it is, even the BBC folks barely bothered taking into
>account previous continuity from the TV show...
And that's probably as it should be.
Still doesn't make the NAs automatically non-canon though.
- Robert Smith?
Jonathan Blum
>what could be termed the "Segal Masterplan" (which underlies every
>concept incorporated by Matthew Jacobs in EW), they did not bother asking
>themselves if it contradicted Cartmel's "Masterplan" or Marc Platt's
>NAs. Like Bob Holmes before, they just went ahead and did it.
>(An aside: folks who argue that the Cartmel Masterplan is still "canon"
>today remind me of the fans who were arguing vehemently against DEADLY
>ASSASSIN in '76... But I digress.)
Except of course that the people who wrote the "Gallifrey Paper" aren't
arguing against the movie's developments -- they're incorporating them
*into* the story of the Doctor's origins. I hate to break it to you, but
Marc Platt's origin story and Phil Segal's "half human on my mother's
side" aren't mutually exclusive.
And unless I've misinterpreted you, the Leekley/Segal origin story doesn't
include Susan, does it? In which case it's not just NA canon they're
ignoring, it's TV canon...
>Another example: if the TV movie had gone to series, Phil had toyed with
>the idea of bringing Ace back for a story -- and I was told Sophie Aldred
>was very happy at the thought. Now it didn't happen, and that's a
>shame. But from what Phil told me, the character of Ace would have just
>been picked up more or less in the same condition as she was in
>SURVIVAL. The assumption was, more or less, that she stayed behind &
>that was it. No SET PIECE, no GROUND ZERO, no LOVE & WAR, etc.
This of course depends on a number of factors: whether such a script was
ever produced, who wrote it, whether a thirty-six-year-old Sophie Aldred
would even attempt to play Ace like an eighteen-year-old again, whether
Phil changed his mind after reading an absolutely killer spec script which
featured an Ace in her thirties (:-)... and also on how the books would
cope in response to this change. I can already think of a number of
continuity loopholes they could work in to take this into account.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that the novel continuity is
like some solid block of marble, which a single hammer-blow to a
correctly-placed chisel could smash irreparably. Well, I'm afraid it's not
-- the NA's and MA's are still evolving, and if they're doing 24 books a
year they're doing a lot more words than a TV show could keep up with. So
what if the TV show says something which doesn't fit -- there are NA
writers who seem to *live* for resolving continuity problems! As long as
the books keep publishing, they're going to be as much of a shifting
organic continuity as the TV show ever was. Trying to contradict them is
more like trying to pound that chisel through a huge blob of Jell-O. :-)
>As long as there's no DOCTOR WHO being produced, on TV or in the movies,
>the books can flourish and establish a subset universe of their own, and
>I personally see no problem in accepting them since we have nothing else.
I see them as more of a superset universe -- whatever the TV show does,
the novels can adjust to fit it.
>But I also accept Frobisher the Penguin (who I think is a lot more
>interesting than Benny, but that's another discussion).
Funnily enough, I think some of the Virgin writers tried to work in
references to Frobisher, but they got cut for some reason... :-)
Jonathan Blum
In article <4sslae$g...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
Christopher Norman <cano...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>Berry, read some more NAs before you shoot your mouth off. There's
>nothing in any New Adventure that contradicts anything that ever happened
>before;
Well, this isn't strictly true -- -- as early as "Genesys", we get Ace
remembering having been in "Paradise Towers". "Revelation" fixes this
cock-up -- but then gets the first name of Hemmings from "Exodus" wrong.
(This finally gets un-cocked in "Happy Endings". :-)
>like I said before, the authors go out of their way to respect
>continuity...a lot more than any TV writers ever did.
Ain't that the truth.
MMir
John Peel wrote:
>re: ST/DW parallel, Shannon Patrick Sullivan wrote:
>: It's called a parallel, Brett. And a damned good one, too.
>Hmm... Parallel? Aren't things parallel when they run opposite one
another
>without ever touching? And since I've written both DW and ST novels...
>(You can see where this argument's going, can't you?), then ST isn't a
>parallel for Who at all...
! !
! !
! !
!----------John Peel ----------!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
^ ^
Doctor Who Star Trek
(Forgive me if this diagram is screwed up, I'm typing using a
non-proportional font.)
Duke MMir
Jonathan Blum
In article <4su7g1$k...@linet06.li.net>, Peel <jp...@newshost.li.net> wrote:
>Come on, do you think anyone making a future TV series based on "Doctor
>Who" is going to pay attention to the NAs and MAs and seriously think he's
>constrained by what we've written?
If the Lofficiers are to be believed, a new production team most likely
won't even feel constrained by the old SHOW. We may not get any more Who
that even tries to keep continuity with what's gone before. So does this
argument really matter?
And I think the NA's have gotten much more respect from the producers of
"Enemy Within" than any other tie-in novels conceivably could -- Segal
said he felt that the NA's took care of explaining Ace's departure.
If there *is* a new Who series at any point, I think some kind of link
to the NA's is almost inevitable. Why? Because among Virgin's writing
stable are a number of up-and-coming TV talents -- Paul Cornell, who's
sold about fifteen TV scripts now (most of which will never see the light
of day, thanks to the collapse of "Chase The Fade"), Russell Davies, even
Steven "Press Gang" Moffatt have written in the Virgin universe. I'd say
it's good odds that one of them would get a script accepted at some point
to a new Who--and that script is bound to contain some kind of nod to the
NA's, if only just to piss off those who keep insisting that the NA's
aren't canon. :-) There's also Terrance Dicks, who seems to just *live*
for in-jokes these days...
>Most of the time, they don't feel
>constrained by previous episodes, let alone novels! Why ask for trouble
>and start sulking when the inevitable happens, and the MAs are ignored by
>whoever gets around to filming Who again?
If a new show ignores them, it ignores them -- that's different from
contradicting them. The NA's have actually introduced very little new to
Who that a new show *could* contradict -- unless they say Ace is dead, or
do a story in which they travel back to the Old Time on Gallifrey. :-)
Even then, if the books are still ongoing, I'm sure someone will write a
book which could rationalize any inconsistencies -- much the way
"Lungbarrow" is incorporating bits from the movie to smooth out the
differences.
>Let's just enjoy the novels for
>what they are, and not try to make them what they aren't.
And what they are, to me, is better Who than a bunch of the TV episodes.
I'd rather believe in them than the show at the moment.
MMir
>: >Well, as a writer of NAs (okay, *one* NA...) I can think of a very
good
>: >reason. "Doctor Who" is a TV show. Words on pages don't constitute a
TV
>: >show, therefore novels based on a TV show are *not* canon. They may be
>: >extremely good, and extremely close to canon, but they cannot by
>: >definition *be* canon.
>: Oh, I see. Therefore, since Star Trek is a TV show, the films aren't
>: canon. Images on a big screen don't constitute a TV show, therefore
films
>: based on a TV show are *not* canon. They may be extremely good, and
>: extremely close to canon, but they cannot by definition *be* canon.
>: That's *your* definition, not mine.
>Oh dear. Maybe I should try words of one syllable in future?
No, polysyllabic words are fine. :-) Seriously, I was a bit snippy in
that original reply, and for that, I apologize. However....
>Okay, if the
>TV production company makes a film based on their show, then *that* can
be
>considered canon (even if we'd rather forget "The Final Frontier").
But if the TV production company merely *licenses* a continuation, without
making it themselves, it can't be considered canon? How about the special
effects sequences, which the company might subcontract to a seperate
effects company (like ILM)? If it's not directly made by the TV company,
it's not canon? If Segal does manage to ressurect DW on Fox, but the BBC
declines to co-produce, will that make the new series non-canon?
>Shall
>we say "video/film images"? We can't really consider the Cushing films
>canon, because although they were based on the TV scripts, they differed
a
>huge amount.
The Cushing films never tried to tie themselves in with the TV show. They
were essentially a retelling, and not a continuation, as the NAs are. If
"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" had been a remake of "Where No Man Has
Gone Before," would it be nearly as canon as the V'ger plot?
>*Now* do we agree?
Nope. IMHO, the NAs are still canon.
Duke MMir
Leviathan
In article <4stnk2$n...@news.ios.com>, rjm...@haven.ios.com says...
>
>What helps the books maintain a canon (or semi-canon) status is the fact
>that there is no TV show.
>
>take the NAs into account. (If only because there are too many of them
>to begin with.) As it is, even the BBC folks barely bothered taking into
>account previous continuity from the TV show...
Is it just me, or do Jean-Marc's statements above -- more or less identical to
John Peel's, by the way -- effectly state that the NAs/MAs have approximately
the same claim to canonicity as previous episodes of the TV series, as future
TV production teams are likely to consider themselves bound by niether?
--
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
http://www.ultranet.com/~jsheen/
Leviathan of the GEI (Detached.)
jsh...@ultranet.com
Memories fade for a *reason!* They're *designed* that way!
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on 21 Jul 1996 21:32:50 GMT, I overheard Peel say:
> Shannon Patrick Sullivan (sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca) wrote:
> : > Funny, I don't see the words "trek" or "star" anywhere in above
> : > attempted definition. '"Doctor Who" is a TV show' is what he said.
> : > What exactly Trek canon has to do with WHO canon is beyond me...
> : It's called a parallel, Brett. And a damned good one, too.
> Hmm... Parallel? Aren't things parallel when they run opposite one another
> without ever touching? And since I've written both DW and ST novels...
> (You can see where this argument's going, can't you?), then ST isn't a
> parallel for Who at all...
Bollocks. "Star Trek" starts out as a TV show, and becomes a movie series
employing many of the same people who worked on the TV show. "Doctor Who"
starts out as a TV show, and becomes a book series employing many of the
same people who worked on the TV show. Looks awfully parallel to me.
David GOLDING
>>(An aside: folks who argue that the Cartmel Masterplan is still "canon"
>>today remind me of the fans who were arguing vehemently against DEADLY
>>ASSASSIN in '76... But I digress.)
Except that back in '76 they were people who were arguing for exclusivity,
like you are doing now. And the Cartmel Masterplan people are arguing for
inclusivity.
higs
Dave
"the anti-fish"
--
david by default . dgol...@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au
[Come visit - http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~aknyra]
BenAaronovitch Frocks&Guns SgloomiPoAwards NA/MAFAQ
MMir
John Peel wrote:
>Come on, do you think anyone making a future TV series based on "Doctor
>Who" is going to pay attention to the NAs and MAs and seriously think
he's
>constrained by what we've written?
Were I an N/MA author, I think I'd rather write under the assumption that
what I wrote would make a difference.
>Most of the time, they don't feel
>constrained by previous episodes, let alone novels!
That puts the N/MAs in the same boat as the original series. Pretty good
company, if you ask me. :-)
>Why ask for trouble
>and start sulking when the inevitable happens, and the MAs are ignored by
>whoever gets around to filming Who again?
Because it's not inevitable. Philip Segal, when asked about the lack of
Ace in the TVM, responded "We felt the NAs took care of that."
>Let's just enjoy the novels for
>what they are, and not try to make them what they aren't.
Sounds good to me. For me, the novels *are* DW, and damn good Doctor Who
at that. They are canon, at very least until any prospective series
contradicts them majorly.
Duke MMir
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on 21 Jul 1996 21:29:37 GMT, I overheard Peel say:
> : (Me: )
> : This is an argument I've heard many times, and I really don't understand
> : it. Why exactly is Doctor Who just a TV show? Why limit it exclusively to
> : that medium? The NAs dovetail perfectly with the TV series (which is
> : something most other Doctor Who spin-offs can't claim) and hence put
> : together they represent a continuous "story" (to use the word in a very
> : broad sense). IMveryHO, this makes the TV stories and the NAs/MAs *put
> : together* Doctor Who, not just the former or just the latter.
> Come on, do you think anyone making a future TV series based on "Doctor
> Who" is going to pay attention to the NAs and MAs and seriously think he's
> constrained by what we've written? Most of the time, they don't feel
> constrained by previous episodes, let alone novels!
Um, John? You've just disproved your own point. Like you said -- writers
of a hypothetical new series would barely keep the original stories in
mind. In other words, the NAs and MAs aren't going to fare much worse
than the original TV show. So why single them out as "definitely not canon"?
Besides, we don't even have a new TV show, and (as "Lungbarrow" will
show), the TV movie certainly didn't screw up continuity with the NAs.
This is rather like putting the wagon before the horse, dontcha think?
> Why ask for trouble
> and start sulking when the inevitable happens, and the MAs are ignored by
> whoever gets around to filming Who again?
Who cares? Chances are, we'll just reconcile the discrepancies just like
we do any other discrepancy in Doctor Who, from the three destructions of
Atlantis to the variant future histories of Earth. And, if the
discrepancies become really large, then eventually maybe I will change my
mind about whether I count the NAs as being canon. But, at the moment,
that's one helluva big "if".
> Let's just enjoy the novels for
> what they are, and not try to make them what they aren't.
That's fine for you. My Doctor Who canon includes the NAs. And it's
much richer for it.
Richard Daniel Henry
Peel wrote:
[snip]
> *Now* do we agree?
Silly question John. This is still USEnet.
-- R. Dan Henry
Build high for happiness. Happiness *will* prevail.
Brett O'Callaghan
>> What exactly Trek canon has to do with WHO canon is beyond me...
>Okay, it's an ANALOGY!!!!!
I know what it is.
>You know, where you show an exmple of how something works in a similar
>case?
And I don't believe the analogy is at all valid.
Alden Bates
In article <4sorte$o...@linet06.li.net>, Peel (jp...@newshost.li.net) writes:
>Well, as a writer of NAs (okay, *one* NA...)
Go on, when are you going to write another one? :-)
>I can think of a very good reason. "Doctor Who" is a TV show.
Prove it. >:-)
Alden Bates.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/ V \ / V \
| .^. .^. | .^. .^. |
| | |_| |_|_| |_| | |
_| |_ Memento _| |_
|_ _| Mori II |_ _|
|_| Coming soon |_|
Brett O'Callaghan
>> Like I said, I know what it is, I just think it's totally
>> irrelevant.
>*sigh* In light of what I just said, how could MMir's post possibly be
>irrelevant?
I don't think it's a valid comparison. So therefore I think
it's irrelevant.
Brett O'Callaghan
mm...@aol.com (MMir) wrote:
>John Peel wrote:
>>and start sulking when the inevitable happens, and the MAs are ignored by
>>whoever gets around to filming Who again?
>Because it's not inevitable. Philip Segal, when asked about the lack of
>Ace in the TVM, responded "We felt the NAs took care of that."
Yeah! Come on! GRASP at those straws. 8^)
>Sounds good to me. For me, the novels *are* DW, and damn good Doctor Who
>at that. They are canon, at very least until any prospective series
>contradicts them majorly.
Good-o.
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Shannon Patrick Sullivan) wrote in article
> > Especially the idea about the future Doctors living in the mind before
> > their time and future Doctors ending the lives of their predecessors.
>
> How does this not mesh with the established series?
Judging from what we know from the series, with the possible exception of
the 2nd-3rd forced regeneration, regeneration is a random event. The 5th
doctor even says "you never know what you're going to get"
> What exactly do you have to throw out?
Either the show or the NA's
The Macra Terror
sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Shannon Patrick Sullivan) wrote:
>Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on Mon, 22 Jul 1996 12:18:42 -0400, I overheard Berry Miley say:
>> > sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Shannon Patrick Sullivan) wrote in article
>> > > Especially the idea about the future Doctors living in the mind before
>> > > their time and future Doctors ending the lives of their predecessors.
>> >
>> > How does this not mesh with the established series?
>
>> Judging from what we know from the series, with the possible exception of
>> the 2nd-3rd forced regeneration, regeneration is a random event. The 5th
>> doctor even says "you never know what you're going to get"
>
>know what lies ahead, now will he? Besides, all that's been shown is that
>templates for the Doctor's future incarnations are stored in his mind; we
>don't know if they're "fully formed" (ie with a physical appearance and
>personality) or not. The Seventh Doctor, of course, would seem to be an
>exception to this... but then, the Seventh Doctor is Time's Champion.
So how does this tie in to the fact that some regenerations can be
shaped by choice (e.g., Romana)? Does she choose the body, but the
incipient mind slips into it? Would all of the possible Second Romanas
have acted the same way?
R.J. Smith
In article <01bb77e9.df33f470$1b643a9d@berrym133>,
Berry Miley <ber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Shannon Patrick Sullivan) wrote in article
>> > Especially the idea about the future Doctors living in the mind before
>> > their time and future Doctors ending the lives of their predecessors.
>> How does this not mesh with the established series?
>Judging from what we know from the series, with the possible exception of
>the 2nd-3rd forced regeneration, regeneration is a random event. The 5th
>doctor even says "you never know what you're going to get"
So? The future incarnations in the mind theory doesn't actually have them
living and existing happily like the past ones - it's more of a template,
as opposed to a waiting room. The Doctor *doesn't* know what he's going
to get until it happens - the incarnations in the mind are just there to
somehow 'determine' what the next incarnation actually will end up as
(and we *know* there's some sort of pre-determination going on from The
War Games).
>> What exactly do you have to throw out?
>Either the show or the NA's
Did you throw out either The Daleks or Genesis of the Daleks, when the
existence of Davros failed to mesh with the original show?
Did you throw out either Mawdryn undead or the entire UNIT era when the
dating was stuffed up?
Did you throw out either The War Games or The Deadly Assassin when it was
revealed that Time lords don't live forever after all?
Did you throw out either The Brain of Morbius or The Five Doctors when it
was revealed that the Davison Doctor wasn't the thirteenth after all?
I think there's just a wee bit of overreacting going on here.
- Robert Smith?
Jonathan Blum
In article <01bb77e9.df33f470$1b643a9d@berrym133>,
Berry Miley <ber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Shannon Patrick Sullivan) wrote in article
>> > Especially the idea about the future Doctors living in the mind before
>> > their time and future Doctors ending the lives of their predecessors.
>> How does this not mesh with the established series?
>Judging from what we know from the series, with the possible exception of
>the 2nd-3rd forced regeneration, regeneration is a random event. The 5th
>doctor even says "you never know what you're going to get"
And *this* doesn't mesh with "Destiny of the Daleks".
I think it's safe to say that the sixth Doctor didn't know what he was
going to get when he regenerated. This doesn't mean the *seventh* Doctor
didn't know at the time... :-)
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on 21 Jul 1996 21:40:17 -0400, I overheard Jonathan Blum say:
> >interesting than Benny, but that's another discussion).
> Funnily enough, I think some of the Virgin writers tried to work in
> references to Frobisher, but they got cut for some reason... :-)
Boo hiss. I'd love to see a Sixth Doctor/Frobisher BBCMA! :-)
Shannon
"some closet frobisher fan guy"
Gregg T. Allinson
Shannon Patrick Sullivan (sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca) wrote:
: Bollocks. "Star Trek" starts out as a TV show, and becomes a movie series
: employing many of the same people who worked on the TV show. "Doctor Who"
: starts out as a TV show, and becomes a book series employing many of the
: same people who worked on the TV show. Looks awfully parallel to me.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Terrence Dicks, Ben Arronovitch, Marc
Platt, and Andrew Cartmel the only people who worked on the TV series
who've done NAs and MAs? 4 authors being carried over from the TV series
is far different than Trek, in which a vast majority of the TV series
vetrans worked on the first film and the entire cast and crew of
"Generations", with a few notable exceptions (ie Malcolm McDowell), were
TNG vets.
--
Half Human on his Mother's Side,
Gregg "Dave" Allinson
Visit The Scrapyard ("You big dummy!") @ http://miso.wwa.com/~roscoe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So now you must believe me, we never lose our dreams."
-Cast-WALKAWAY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAVE DOCTOR WHO! Write FOX at Fox Broadcasting Company PO Box 900 Beverly
Hills, CA 90213-0900 *and* fox...@delphi.com and request a new season of
Doctor Who!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Shannon Patrick Sullivan) wrote in article
> exception to this... but then, the Seventh Doctor is Time's Champion.
Time's Champion? I'm missing something here. Educate me.
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on Mon, 22 Jul 1996 16:03:36 -0400, I overheard Berry Miley say:
> > sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Shannon Patrick Sullivan) wrote in article
> > exception to this... but then, the Seventh Doctor is Time's Champion.
> Time's Champion? I'm missing something here. Educate me.
The Seventh Doctor has been chosen as the Champion of Time, one of the
Gallifreyan Gods. This idea first appeared in "Timewyrm: Revelation", has
popped up every now and then in the NAs, and will culminate in "Lungbarrow".
Shannon
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on Mon, 22 Jul 1996 12:18:42 -0400, I overheard Berry Miley say:
> > > their time and future Doctors ending the lives of their predecessors.
> >
> > How does this not mesh with the established series?
> Judging from what we know from the series, with the possible exception of
> the 2nd-3rd forced regeneration, regeneration is a random event. The 5th
> doctor even says "you never know what you're going to get"
If the future Doctors are living in the Doctor's mind, he isn't going to
know what lies ahead, now will he? Besides, all that's been shown is that
templates for the Doctor's future incarnations are stored in his mind; we
don't know if they're "fully formed" (ie with a physical appearance and
personality) or not. The Seventh Doctor, of course, would seem to be an
exception to this... but then, the Seventh Doctor is Time's Champion.
> > What exactly do you have to throw out?
> Either the show or the NA's
Nope. Check out "A History of the Universe" and find out how compatible
they are. No throwing out necessary (or, at least, no more than you had
to do with individual episodes of the TV series itself).
Dave Roy
I seriously believe I heard rjm...@haven.ios.com (Randy/Jean-Marc Lofficier)
say :
>What helps the books maintain a canon (or semi-canon) status is the fact
>that there is no TV show.
I think this is the reason why this argument will always flare up. With the
Trek books, they can't really change much of anything, and they have a
continuing series of either movies or TV shows which the books had to make great
pains not to contradict. Thus, the canon debates for Trek are a *lot* less
heated.
Since there is no Doctor Who series right now, the NA's are free to invent their
own, and have done so marvelously IMHO.
Dave Roy
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on 22 Jul 1996 17:54:10 GMT, I overheard The Macra Terror say:
> sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Shannon Patrick Sullivan) wrote:
> >Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on Mon, 22 Jul 1996 12:18:42 -0400, I overheard Berry Miley say:
> >> > sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Shannon Patrick Sullivan) wrote in article
> >> > > Especially the idea about the future Doctors living in the mind before
> >> > > their time and future Doctors ending the lives of their predecessors.
> >> >
> >> > How does this not mesh with the established series?
> >
> >> Judging from what we know from the series, with the possible exception of
> >> the 2nd-3rd forced regeneration, regeneration is a random event. The 5th
> >> doctor even says "you never know what you're going to get"
> >
> >If the future Doctors are living in the Doctor's mind, he isn't going to
> >know what lies ahead, now will he? Besides, all that's been shown is that
> >templates for the Doctor's future incarnations are stored in his mind; we
> >don't know if they're "fully formed" (ie with a physical appearance and
> >personality) or not. The Seventh Doctor, of course, would seem to be an
> >exception to this... but then, the Seventh Doctor is Time's Champion.
> So how does this tie in to the fact that some regenerations can be
> shaped by choice (e.g., Romana)? Does she choose the body, but the
> incipient mind slips into it? Would all of the possible Second Romanas
> have acted the same way?
I don't seem to have made myself very clear. All we know from the NAs is
that, somewhere in the Seventh Doctor's mind, is this place where six
more bodies lie, and when the Seventh Doctor nearly regenerates, one asks
if it's his time yet (or something like that). There's no indication that
these mind-bodies already have a fixed physical appearance, nor a fixed
personality. They're just a representation of the Doctor's future lives.
R.J. Smith
In article <4sutto$f...@kirin.wwa.com>,
Gregg T. Allinson <ros...@wwa.com> wrote:
>Shannon Patrick Sullivan (sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca) wrote:
>: Bollocks. "Star Trek" starts out as a TV show, and becomes a movie series
>: employing many of the same people who worked on the TV show. "Doctor Who"
>: starts out as a TV show, and becomes a book series employing many of the
>: same people who worked on the TV show. Looks awfully parallel to me.
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Terrence Dicks, Ben Arronovitch, Marc
>Platt, and Andrew Cartmel the only people who worked on the TV series
>who've done NAs and MAs?
Not to mention David Banks and Barry Letts.
4 authors being carried over from the TV series
>is far different than Trek, in which a vast majority of the TV series
>vetrans worked on the first film and the entire cast and crew of
>"Generations", with a few notable exceptions (ie Malcolm McDowell), were
>TNG vets.
Shannon didn't say it was an *exact* analagy (no two ever are), but it
*is* a similar case, especially as Platt-Aaronovitch-Cartmel were a fair
proportion of the driving team behind the creative influences in the last
few seasons.
- Robert Smith?
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
Also sprach hi...@earthlink.net (Dave Roy) (<4t0e71$e...@guyana.it.earthlink.net>):
+-----
| I think this is the reason why this argument will always flare up. With the
| Trek books, they can't really change much of anything, and they have a
| continuing series of either movies or TV shows which the books had to make great
| pains not to contradict. Thus, the canon debates for Trek are a *lot* less
| heated.
You weren't around the Trek groups before (and when) the folks at Paramount
started decreeing Canon and (IMHO) thereby chased away the better Trek
novelists. (Sometime during the 3rd season of TNG, IIRC.)
(And here I am back in r.a.dw after 3 years and nothing has changed :-)
--
++brandon s. allbery flying with merlin! b...@kf8nh.apk.net
(work address) FORZA CREW! b...@telotech.com
David GOLDING
In article <4t1c63$c...@news.ios.com> rjm...@haven.ios.com (Randy/Jean-Marc Lofficier) writes:
>David GOLDING (dgol...@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au) wrote:
>: Except that back in '76 they were people who were arguing for exclusivity,
>: like you are doing now. And the Cartmel Masterplan people are arguing for
>: inclusivity.
>Run that past me again???
People say this exist, therefore this cannot exist. You also.
Other people say this exist, this may exist also.
Hugging
David
Randy/Jean-Marc Lofficier
Jonathan Blum (jb...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
: Except of course that the people who wrote the "Gallifrey Paper" aren't
: arguing against the movie's developments -- they're incorporating them
: *into* the story of the Doctor's origins. I hate to break it to you, but
: Marc Platt's origin story and Phil Segal's "half human on my mother's
: side" aren't mutually exclusive.
You may well be right, but I somehow doubt that Marc Platt's work and
Phil Segal's *Bible* (which contains a lot more than the bit about the
Doctor's ancestry) will be consistent.
Mind you, I did send Rebecca a copy of said Bible (well, lengthy excerpts
actually), suggesting that she might want to pass them on to whoever. I
don't know what happened after that.
: And unless I've misinterpreted you, the Leekley/Segal origin story doesn't
: include Susan, does it? In which case it's not just NA canon they're
: ignoring, it's TV canon...
No, no contradictions. Susan came later. Remember, this was the
*origin* story, and AFAIC until a new production team changes it, this
is *the* origin story. (And if I write a book, or John Leekley writes a
book, a not impossible event, it will be treated as such.)
: >that was it. No SET PIECE, no GROUND ZERO, no LOVE & WAR, etc.
: This of course depends on a number of factors: whether such a script was
: ever produced, who wrote it, whether a thirty-six-year-old Sophie Aldred
: would even attempt to play Ace like an eighteen-year-old again, whether
: Phil changed his mind after reading an absolutely killer spec script which
: featured an Ace in her thirties (:-)... and also on how the books would
: cope in response to this change. I can already think of a number of
: continuity loopholes they could work in to take this into account.
I can only talk about what was planned, ie: (a) Sophie was delighted at
the chance of doing Ace again (and acting in a US TV production), had it
happened; and (b) the story editor (Leekley/DeLaurentis?) -- this
predated Matthew Jacobs -- would have written the script based on the TV
episodes.
Clearly, the script would *not* have gone out of its way to deliberately
contradict any NAs, but the assumption would have been, this is Ace, this
is who she was in SURVIVAL, this is who she is today, no more, no less.
Beyond that, the odds that it would have either affirmed or contradicted
the NAs are unfathomable.
But then the same could be said of the DW strips featuring the 5th or 6th
Doctors. To me, VOYAGER is as much canon as SET PIECE. I'm happy to
accept it, until contradicted/superseded by a bit of TV info.
: You seem to be operating under the assumption that the novel continuity is
: like some solid block of marble, which a single hammer-blow to a
: correctly-placed chisel could smash irreparably. Well, I'm afraid it's not
: -- the NA's and MA's are still evolving, and if they're doing 24 books a
: year they're doing a lot more words than a TV show could keep up with. So
: what if the TV show says something which doesn't fit -- there are NA
: writers who seem to *live* for resolving continuity problems! As long as
: the books keep publishing, they're going to be as much of a shifting
: organic continuity as the TV show ever was. Trying to contradict them is
: more like trying to pound that chisel through a huge blob of Jell-O. :-)
No, Jon, you are the one who assumes that the NAs form one block (marble
or jello, your choice of weapons! :-) )
As I said above, I grant the NAs, MAs, the same privilege as I grant to
the DW strips in DWM. They are all canon *until contradicted." So EXODUS
may be canon until a future TV episode reveals the War Chief did not
die... But SET PIECE may not... One NA -- many NAS -- may "stand" while
others may "fall" before the TV "canonical sword."
: Funnily enough, I think some of the Virgin writers tried to work in
: references to Frobisher, but they got cut for some reason... :-)
Let's start another discussion. I say: FROBISHER IS CANON.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@haven.ios.com
Randy/Jean-Marc Lofficier
David GOLDING (dgol...@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au) wrote:
: >>(An aside: folks who argue that the Cartmel Masterplan is still "canon"
: >>today remind me of the fans who were arguing vehemently against DEADLY
: >>ASSASSIN in '76... But I digress.)
: Except that back in '76 they were people who were arguing for exclusivity,
: like you are doing now. And the Cartmel Masterplan people are arguing for
: inclusivity.
Run that past me again???
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@haven.ios.com
Randy/Jean-Marc Lofficier
Leviathan (jsh...@ultranet.com) wrote:
: Is it just me, or do Jean-Marc's statements above -- more or less identical to
: John Peel's, by the way -- effectly state that the NAs/MAs have approximately
: the same claim to canonicity as previous episodes of the TV series, as future
: TV production teams are likely to consider themselves bound by niether?
All 4 writers I interviewed for THE NTH DOCTOR (a) knew DW from TV, and
(b) had made an effort to view as many tapes as possible before
starting to write. None had bothered reading a single NA. Fact of life
(which is too short).
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@haven.ios.com
The Macra Terror
If they don't have fixed personalities, what are they? (Mind, I'm not
criticizing the way you're presenting this, just the idea itself.) It
seems a bit odd to compartmentalize the "minds" of the regenerations, as
though a Time Lord has thirteen "souls" or "consciousnesses," or
whatever. While some of the quirks have changed, the basic personality
of the Doctor seems to have been quite stable. The idea of thirteen
meta-Doctors fighting it out in the incumbent Doctor's head seems more
like Sybil than the Doctor we've seen.
Leviathan
In article <4t1c3k$c...@news.ios.com>, rjm...@haven.ios.com says...
>Let's start another discussion. I say: FROBISHER IS CANON.
I thought he was a penguin.....
--
Jonathan Andrew Sheen
http://www.ultranet.com/~jsheen/
Leviathan of the GEI (Detached.)
jsh...@ultranet.com
Memories fade for a *reason!* They're *designed* that way!
Andreas Sekeris
Peel (jp...@newshost.li.net) wrote:
: : This is an argument I've heard many times, and I really don't understand
: : it. Why exactly is Doctor Who just a TV show? Why limit it exclusively to
: : that medium? The NAs dovetail perfectly with the TV series (which is
: : something most other Doctor Who spin-offs can't claim) and hence put
: : together they represent a continuous "story" (to use the word in a very
: : broad sense). IMveryHO, this makes the TV stories and the NAs/MAs *put
: : together* Doctor Who, not just the former or just the latter.
: Come on, do you think anyone making a future TV series based on "Doctor
: Who" is going to pay attention to the NAs and MAs and seriously think he's
: constrained by what we've written? Most of the time, they don't feel
: constrained by previous episodes, let alone novels! Why ask for trouble
: and start sulking when the inevitable happens, and the MAs are ignored by
: whoever gets around to filming Who again? Let's just enjoy the novels for
: what they are, and not try to make them what they aren't.
: On which subject, I have to admit I loved "First FRontier."
But if there were a future series based on BBC's tv show "Doctor Who", wouldn't
they ignore most of the original show as you said? We might as well forget
about arguing about cannon then. It's not as though future writers will be
made to watch all the episodes or even a quarter, contradictions to the NAs
would probably be no worse than contradictions to the TV series.
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> dgol...@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (David GOLDING) wrote in article
> Er, Berry, death is a random event too, unless someone kills you.
True, but what does that have to do with regeneration.
>
> And why does your .sig always appear at the top of your posts? Most
> disconcerting, feels like I've finished when I've only started.
It's the way this particular reader works. I've complained about it and
hopefully it will be addressed
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Shannon Patrick Sullivan) wrote in article
> The Seventh Doctor has been chosen as the Champion of Time, one of the
> Gallifreyan Gods.
An NA concept. Thanks for answering.
However it seems like another imcompatible concept that doesn't fit the
Who universe.
Another good reason to set the NA's as the Doctor of an alternate universe
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) wrote in article
> Did you throw out either The War Games or The Deadly Assassin when it
was
> revealed that Time lords don't live forever after all?
Just the statement about Time Lords living forever
>
> Did you throw out either The Brain of Morbius or The Five Doctors when
it
> was revealed that the Davison Doctor wasn't the thirteenth after all?
Brian of Morbius
>
> I think there's just a wee bit of overreacting going on here.
But that's the fun of it :)
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> cano...@unixg.ubc.ca (Christopher Norman) wrote in article
<4t196q$6...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>...
> : Time's Champion? I'm missing something here. Educate me.
>
> Like I said, Berry, you need to actually read these books before you
> decide they don't fit into your canon.
So it's a NA concept then? Then it would apply to the alternate dimension
Doctor
Berry Miley
If we are supposed to accept the NA's as official, why not the Dr Who
roleplaying game. This introduced several concepts (some quite
questionable) such as:
1. The Meddleing Monk was the Master in an earlier regeneration.
2. Adric was rescued at the last second by another Time Lord using an
experimental TARDIS
3. There is another Time Lord known as The Colonel living on Earth acting
as the scientific advisor for the US branch of UNIT. Actually this might
make a good TV show.
etc, etc
Spencer Berrett
In <4t1lr7$m...@kirin.wwa.com> The Macra Terror <eng...@pop.wwa.com>
writes:
>If they don't have fixed personalities, what are they? (Mind, I'm not
>criticizing the way you're presenting this, just the idea itself.) It
>seems a bit odd to compartmentalize the "minds" of the regenerations,
as
>though a Time Lord has thirteen "souls" or "consciousnesses," or
>whatever. While some of the quirks have changed, the basic
personality
>of the Doctor seems to have been quite stable. The idea of thirteen
>meta-Doctors fighting it out in the incumbent Doctor's head seems more
>like Sybil than the Doctor we've seen.
>
Have you ever read Revelation...I didn't get that feeling, it was more
like they were all off doing their thing
-Greg
--
'You feel lucky punk...I'm the Doctor' -Stauf, #drwho _n_ *
'Peace, as you know it, is an illusion. It's just not =====
seeing the thing that's trying to kill you.' |#|#|
-The Spathi High Counsel, Star Control II |L|L|
|L|L|
* - TARDIS Annexed from Becky Robinson without permission =====
David GOLDING
In article <4t278s$f...@decius.ultra.net> jsh...@ultranet.com (Leviathan) writes:
>In article <4t1c3k$c...@news.ios.com>, rjm...@haven.ios.com says...
>>Let's start another discussion. I say: FROBISHER IS CANON.
>I thought he was a penguin.....
Well it depends on whether we're taking about Frobisher *before* or *after*
he got his monomorphia.
higs
Dave
Jonathan Blum
In article <4t1c3k$c...@news.ios.com>,
Randy/Jean-Marc Lofficier <rjm...@haven.ios.com> wrote:
>Jonathan Blum (jb...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
>: Except of course that the people who wrote the "Gallifrey Paper" aren't
>: arguing against the movie's developments -- they're incorporating them
>: *into* the story of the Doctor's origins. I hate to break it to you, but
>: Marc Platt's origin story and Phil Segal's "half human on my mother's
>: side" aren't mutually exclusive.
>You may well be right, but I somehow doubt that Marc Platt's work and
>Phil Segal's *Bible* (which contains a lot more than the bit about the
>Doctor's ancestry) will be consistent.
Right, then, once someone gets a novel published or an episode made which
tells some bit of the Segal Bible which explicitly contradicts "Time's
Crucible" and "Lungbarrow", then we move on into Phase Two --
rationalizing the inconsistencies, just the way fan authors have
rationalized inconsistencies both in the show (the matter of the first
Doctor apparently only having one heart) and in the books themselves (one
NA author forgetting that the sonic screwdriver had been destroyed).
There's bound to be a way -- even if it's a mini-CRISIS-style novel which
deals with someone mucking around in Gallifrey's (or the Doctor's) past.
But until someone gets a novel published or an episode made, I don't see
what makes Segal's ideas of the origin story any more "canon" that C.E.
Webber's ideas in the first draft of the series outline, which Derrick
Sherwin had absolutely no compunction about hosing away when he wrote "The
War Games". At the moment, the Cartmel-view has made it into one
published novel, soon to be two; the Leekley/Segal view has made it into
a couple of never-to-be-filmed (and mutually contradictory) pilot scripts.
We'll see which one is more absorbed into the evolving Whoniverse -- or
whether the end result is some synthesis of these ideas and more.
>: And unless I've misinterpreted you, the Leekley/Segal origin story doesn't
>: include Susan, does it? In which case it's not just NA canon they're
>: ignoring, it's TV canon...
>No, no contradictions. Susan came later. Remember, this was the
>*origin* story, and AFAIC until a new production team changes it, this
>is *the* origin story. (And if I write a book, or John Leekley writes a
>book, a not impossible event, it will be treated as such.)
And if Susan doesn't feature in it, then it's all the easier to reconcile
the adventures of this young Doctor with the idea that the first Doctor
didn't leave Gallifrey for good until he was old, which the NA's assume.
Quite simply, some time after he left in Leekley's story, maybe even
centuries later, he came back. :-)
>Clearly, the script would *not* have gone out of its way to deliberately
>contradict any NAs, but the assumption would have been, this is Ace, this
>is who she was in SURVIVAL, this is who she is today, no more, no less.
>Beyond that, the odds that it would have either affirmed or contradicted
>the NAs are unfathomable.
>But then the same could be said of the DW strips featuring the 5th or 6th
>Doctors. To me, VOYAGER is as much canon as SET PIECE. I'm happy to
>accept it, until contradicted/superseded by a bit of TV info.
Funny, that sounds a lot like my view. WIth the additional point that, as
long as the NA's continue, they'll be able to patch up any significant
contradictions, so the important bits of NA development will survive in
some form.
>: Funnily enough, I think some of the Virgin writers tried to work in
>: references to Frobisher, but they got cut for some reason... :-)
>Let's start another discussion. I say: FROBISHER IS CANON.
Sure, why not? "Voyager" and "The Tides Of Time" are canon 'cause they're
cool. But Ace's death isn't canon cause "Ground Zero" sucks. :-)
Andreas Sekeris
Brett O'Callaghan (b...@lin.cbl.com.au) wrote:
: and...@ozramp.ozramp.net.au (Andreas Sekeris) wrote:
: >Brett O'Callaghan (b...@lin.cbl.com.au) wrote:
: >: mm...@aol.com (MMir) wrote:
: >: >It's a parallel argument, using a similar situation in another sci-fi
: >: I know what it is, I just think it's totally irrelevant. It's
: >: an amazingly common ploy in RADW.
: >One which you seem to use in almost all your posts too!
: I don't recall ever using an irrelevant parallel argument,
: Senator.
Er, not a parallel argument, just an irrelevant argument.
: If my messages so upset you, I suggest not reading them.
Hmm. This newsgroup is built on sturdy upsetting posts like previous lives
threads and yads arguments.
: Byeeeee.
Goo-bye-bye
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on Tue, 23 Jul 1996 08:59:20 -0400, I overheard Berry Miley say:
> If we are supposed to accept the NA's as official, why not the Dr Who
> roleplaying game.
You just don't get it, do you, Berry? You're not "supposed" to accept the
NAs as official... you don't have to accept Season 7 through 19 as
official if you don't want to! Many of us are just pointing out that in
rejecting the NAs as part of Doctor Who canon, you're ignoring a huge
tract of adventures which very much enhance the Doctor Who concept. I
count the NAs and MAs as canon, and my Doctor Who is much richer for it.
And, hell, count the RPG as canon if you so desire; it's entirely up to
you. I wouldn't because it's not fiction -- it's rules and regulations
and some background to explain it all. YMMV.
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Shannon Patrick Sullivan) wrote in article <
>
> Nope, not a good reason at all. IMHO.
Which basically brings me to my real point.
Each fan should have the option to decide for himself whether or not to
accept parts or all of the NA novels as part of the official continuity.
You do and that's fine. I don't, but enjoy the NA's anyway by considering
them to be of an alternate Doctor.
I don't buy these IMO incompatible concepts such as 1) Future Doctors in
the mind, 2) these future Doctors instigating regenerations, and now this
gallifreyan gods/time champion idea.
Incorporation of them into the official continuity would in my opinion be
a mistake and would leave us only with the videos from years past.
Basic point is: Each fan should make the choice for themselves
Russell Dewhurst
Shannon Patrick Sullivan wrote:
>. All we know from the NAs is
> that, somewhere in the Seventh Doctor's mind, is this place where six
> more bodies lie, and when the Seventh Doctor nearly regenerates, one asks
> if it's his time yet (or something like that).
My interpretation was that all of this was metaphor. The Doctor's mindscape
doesn't really look like this, it's just a model that Ace and co. can interact
with. Like those CyberSpace novels: computer insides aren't really like that,
it's a sort of metaphor for how files are stored and such. The actual structure
and method by which the 8th Doctor asks if it's time to come on-line is
probably hard ot describe without this metaphor.
Perhaps I'm taking this too seriously.
--
----------------------- Russell Dewhurst Esq -----------------------
|| "A citizen of the universe and a gentleman to boot." ||
|| russell....@magdalen.oxford.ac.uk ||
|| URL- http://users.ox.ac.uk/~magd0226 ||
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peel
Jonathan Blum (jb...@access5.digex.net) wrote:
: Well, this isn't strictly true -- -- as early as "Genesys", we get Ace
: remembering having been in "Paradise Towers". "Revelation" fixes this
: cock-up -- but then gets the first name of Hemmings from "Exodus" wrong.
: (This finally gets un-cocked in "Happy Endings". :-)
A mistake? In one of my books? Perish the thought... :) Actually, aside
from Paul's method of explaining my mistake (and, yes, it *was* a
mistake), is that the Doctor took Ace back on an unscreened voyage just to
visit Paradise Towers; or, alternately, she simply remembered the Doctor
telling her about the place...
Cheers,
John Peel
Peel
R.J. Smith (g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA) wrote:
: So if they made a Who film, but it *wasn't* made by the same TV Company,
: you *wouldn't* consider it canon then?
Depends. If they made the Doctor a Venusian, for example, I wouldn't.
: >Shall we say "video/film images"? We can't really consider the Cushing
: >films canon, because although they were based on the TV scripts, they
: >differed a huge amount.
: Well, the NAs aren't based on the TV scripts and don't differ a huge
: amount so they should also be canon then! :-)
They *might* be canon, but it doesn't make them canon, just because they
don't contradict the show.
: But if you're sticking to video/film images, then that makes Dimensions in
: Time and In a Fix with Sontarans canon, but Timewyrm: Genesys and
: evolution not.
Er, DIT isn't necessarily in or out of canon. What's "In A Fix"? You mean
that amateur video that DWeeB produced?
: What a strange world you must live in! :-)
Yes, that's true. But I kind of like it here.
: - Robert Smith?
: (who can't quite believe he is defending the validity of the NAs to the
: guy who started them)
I accept the *validity* of them, it's the *canonicity* of them I'm arguing
against.
Cheers,
John Peel