EDAs now in a different universe

59 views
Skip to first unread message

The Count

unread,
Nov 6, 2001, 11:49:06 AM11/6/01
to
It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.


Zygon Curry

unread,
Nov 6, 2001, 12:15:52 PM11/6/01
to
The Count wrote:
>
> It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.

I knew it was only a matter of.... Time :)

What book?

Regards,
Zygon Curry

The Count

unread,
Nov 6, 2001, 6:05:17 PM11/6/01
to
Zygon Curry <nospa...@logopolis.clara.co.uk> wrote:

: The Count wrote:
: >
: > It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
:
: I knew it was only a matter of.... Time :)
:
: What book?

Henrietta Street, apparently. Also, Peter Anghelides made this statement
over on the message boards:
'Gallifrey has been wiped from history. You can believe otherwise if
you wish--but remember that some people believe the Earth is flat.'


Chad

unread,
Nov 6, 2001, 6:39:27 PM11/6/01
to

"The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:9s94et$ov2$1...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net...

> It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.


Well, I guess it was only a matter of time before that unpopular place
went out of business. Those Time Lords were too boring, and they had no
regard for their guests. I wonder what they'll open in it's place? I hope
it'll be a new laser tag place. ^_~


Zygon Curry

unread,
Nov 6, 2001, 6:40:00 PM11/6/01
to
The Count wrote:
>
> Zygon Curry <nospa...@logopolis.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> : The Count wrote:
> : >
> : > It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
> :
> : I knew it was only a matter of.... Time :)
> :
> : What book?
>
> Henrietta Street,

Which is written by Miles who also wrote Alien Bodies which ultimately
lead up to the destruction of Gallifrey...

John Elliott

unread,
Nov 6, 2001, 6:46:15 PM11/6/01
to

And who's going to make a fortune selling picture postcards of Gallifrey
on Ebay?

--
John Elliott

Chad

unread,
Nov 6, 2001, 6:51:54 PM11/6/01
to

"John Elliott" <j...@seasip.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1005090373.1452.0...@news.demon.co.uk...


Well, I've got fist-sized piece of the Capitol. The fact that it
shouldn't exist makes it a lot more valuable.


Andrew McCaffrey

unread,
Nov 6, 2001, 9:32:30 PM11/6/01
to
The Count <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:

Hey! Hey! Can we have a little spoiler space here, please?

--
+------------------------Andrew McCaffrey+[amc...@gl.umbc.edu]---------+
|"Star Wars is adolescent nonsense, Close|"My thumbs have gone weird!" |
|Encounters is obscurantist drivel [and] | -- _Withnail & I_ |
|Star Trek can turn your brains into |"I can't do chords. No sir." |
|puree of bat guano." -- Harlan Ellison| -- B.B. King |
+------------------ http://userpages.umbc.edu/~amccaf1 -----------------+

Jonathan Blum

unread,
Nov 6, 2001, 11:14:31 PM11/6/01
to
"The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<9s94et$ov2$1...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net>...
> It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.

Galli-what? Sorry, never heard of it...

Seriously, that statement doesn't imply the message title -- if you
rip a bunch of threads out of a carpet, you don't have a whole
different carpet. You do have a carpet with a bunch of loose threads,
not entirely torn out, flapping about a bit... and space to weave in
new things.

The Doctor has no more ended up in a different universe than he did
after "The War Games", when the War Lord was removed from history. He
was still captured by the Time Lords, even though the person who'd
instigated the events which led to his capture now had never
existed...

--jon

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 12:36:23 AM11/7/01
to

"Jonathan Blum" <jb...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:75d9a022.01110...@posting.google.com...

> "The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:<9s94et$ov2$1...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net>...
> > It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
>
> Galli-what? Sorry, never heard of it...
>

Isn't that going to put something of a dent in the future of decent Who
conventions, not to mention (I'm assuming) your own memoirs?

Cheers,

Cliff Bowman


Lance Parkin

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 3:24:03 AM11/7/01
to
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 17:05:17 -0600, "The Count"
<coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:

>Zygon Curry <nospa...@logopolis.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>: The Count wrote:
>: >
>: > It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
>:
>: I knew it was only a matter of.... Time :)
>:
>: What book?
>
>Henrietta Street, apparently.

Can anyone spot the 'I haven't actually read the book' word
in that sentence?

Lance

Meddling Mick

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 5:06:50 AM11/7/01
to
"The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:

>It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.

So when did the unhappening officially happen? Or has it actually
happened yet? Or has it always happened? Or unhappened?
--
(Meddling) Mick Gair

Underestimating the power of
organic crystallography since 1384

Andrew J. Brook

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 5:23:21 AM11/7/01
to
jb...@zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum) wrote in message news:<75d9a022.01110...@posting.google.com>...

> "The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<9s94et$ov2$1...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net>...
> > It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
>
> Galli-what? Sorry, never heard of it...
>
> Seriously, that statement doesn't imply the message title -- if you
> rip a bunch of threads out of a carpet, you don't have a whole
> different carpet. You do have a carpet with a bunch of loose threads,
> not entirely torn out, flapping about a bit... and space to weave in
> new things.

This is almost certainly the correct view.

I haven't read Miles' latest opus yet, but the review on Outpost
Gallifrey is certainly subscribing to the view that:

1) Gallifrey never existed
2) So therefore neither did anything deriving from Gallifrey
3) So therefore neither did the Doctor
4) So therefore neither did anything taking place before the end of
tAC apart from a few anomalies such as the Doctor. Not even the 7th
Doctor exists.

Unfortunately, the 7th Doctor, Ace and the Players to name but three
have all popped up in the EDAs post-tAC, so that's buggered right up.

AJB

Cameron Mason

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 6:15:57 AM11/7/01
to

Lance Parkin <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3be8ef7...@news.freeserve.net...
<snip>

> >Henrietta Street, apparently.
>
> Can anyone spot the 'I haven't actually read the book' word
> in that sentence?

Yes sir!

The word 'apparently', Sir!

What do I get Sir?

Cameron
--
I explored the ashes of Gallifrey and found a lump of TARDIS.

http://members.fortunecity.com/masomika/


Mappy

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 9:14:04 AM11/7/01
to
The Count wrote:
> Also, Peter Anghelides made this statement
> over on the message boards: 'Gallifrey has been wiped from history.
> You can believe otherwise if you wish--but remember that some people
> believe the Earth is flat.'

Ah, so this obviously means the Doctor, Susan, the TARDIS, Romana,
Compassion et al no longer exist. Now, what is this newsgroup for
again? I know it was for a series, or something, but for the life of me
I can't think what.... ;)

--
MAPPY

Current DW Novel Reading Order:

Players - Terrance Dicks
Last Man Running - Chris Boucher
*> Corpse Marker - Chris Boucher
Psi-ence Fiction - Chris Boucher

Mappy

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 9:21:35 AM11/7/01
to
Andrew J. Brook wrote:

> Unfortunately, the 7th Doctor, Ace and the Players to name but three
> have all popped up in the EDAs post-tAC, so that's buggered right up.

Pretty much. As much as the big reset tried to remove a large part of
DW's continuity, about the only way one could _really_ reset things is
if you started a whole new series, with a new main character(s) and a
whole new synopsis. Unfortunately, that isn't going to work with people
who want Doctor Who, and trying to stamp out those little spot fires of
series history that writers are going to throw in every so often is
almost impossible. I'm just hoping JR and the writers explore the full
ramifications of Gallifrey's removal from existence in the novels.
After all, nature abhors a vacuum, and there are plenty of old enemies
who would be more than happy to fill that void. :)

Lance Parkin

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 12:21:01 PM11/7/01
to
On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 00:51:35 +1030, Mappy <mappyt...@start.com.au>
wrote:

>Andrew J. Brook wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, the 7th Doctor, Ace and the Players to name but three
>> have all popped up in the EDAs post-tAC, so that's buggered right up.
>
>Pretty much. As much as the big reset tried to remove a large part of
>DW's continuity, about the only way one could _really_ reset things is
>if you started a whole new series, with a new main character(s) and a
>whole new synopsis. Unfortunately, that isn't going to work with people
>who want Doctor Who, and trying to stamp out those little spot fires of
>series history that writers are going to throw in every so often is
>almost impossible. I'm just hoping JR and the writers explore the full
>ramifications of Gallifrey's removal from existence in the novels.
>After all, nature abhors a vacuum, and there are plenty of old enemies
>who would be more than happy to fill that void. :)

... which is what we're doing, as the authors (and indeed their
books) have been saying for the last year.

Henrietta Street is specifically *about* the gaps there are now,
the people that hope to fill them and the implications of that,
as anyone who'd even skim read it would know. It's not the
first book that's dealt with it, and it's certainly not the last.

Lance

Unkempt

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 12:24:55 PM11/7/01
to
Arb Thu, 08 Nov 2001 00:51:35 +1030, Mappy
<mappyt...@start.com.au> skrunggeret:

> I'm just hoping JR and the writers explore the full
>ramifications of Gallifrey's removal from existence in the novels.
>After all, nature abhors a vacuum, and there are plenty of old enemies
>who would be more than happy to fill that void. :)

... except, of course, there should be no void; if Gallifrey never
existed, then there's no void left when it was destroyed, because it
wasn't. The Daleks won't be thinking 'We can fill the shoes of the
Time Lords now they're gone', because the Time Lords never existed in
the first place. [1]
If anyone's filling the Time Lords' role, then they should have been
doing that for a long time by now.

(Thinks: no Time Lords = no 'Genesis OTD' intervention = dead Davros?
Hmm.)

Conrad

[1] And because they have no feet, obviously.

pikelet

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 12:38:37 PM11/7/01
to
On Wed, 07 Nov 2001 17:24:55 +0000, Unkempt <n...@real.com> stripped to
the waist and cried out:

>Arb Thu, 08 Nov 2001 00:51:35 +1030, Mappy
><mappyt...@start.com.au> skrunggeret:
>> I'm just hoping JR and the writers explore the full
>>ramifications of Gallifrey's removal from existence in the novels.
>>After all, nature abhors a vacuum, and there are plenty of old enemies
>>who would be more than happy to fill that void. :)
>
>... except, of course, there should be no void; if Gallifrey never
>existed, then there's no void left when it was destroyed, because it
>wasn't. The Daleks won't be thinking 'We can fill the shoes of the
>Time Lords now they're gone', because the Time Lords never existed in
>the first place. [1]
>If anyone's filling the Time Lords' role, then they should have been
>doing that for a long time by now.

In fact, since the Gallifreyans evolved first and established the
morphic field for 'humanoid' life, we should most likely all look like
green, six-eyed, multi-tentacled thingies by now.

Or something.

Tim.

--
Before criticising someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
Then when you do criticise them, you will be a mile away
and have their shoes.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~hert1044/

Mappy

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 12:39:01 PM11/7/01
to
Lance Parkin wrote:

> ... which is what we're doing, as the authors (and indeed their
> books) have been saying for the last year.

Ah yes, but I'm yet to see the "New Order" of the universe pan out, and
here I mean those villains from the past who continue to exist and would
have been empowered by the removal of Gallifrey and the Time Lords from
history. There have to be plenty of them around. After all, we all
know who the new masters of time are, and they have yet to show their
faces.... What faces they have. Not that they really have faces as we
understand them, but.... Well, that's a bit irrelevent, really.
They're terribly boring in print form, for the most part, but hey....
Of course, I haven't been able to get my hands on TAoHS yet, so I'll
know more then.

> Henrietta Street is specifically *about* the gaps there are now,
> the people that hope to fill them and the implications of that,
> as anyone who'd even skim read it would know. It's not the
> first book that's dealt with it, and it's certainly not the last.

As I said, I'll know more when I get my hands on it.

Mappy

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 12:46:29 PM11/7/01
to
Unkempt wrote:

> ... except, of course, there should be no void; if Gallifrey never
> existed, then there's no void left when it was destroyed, because it
> wasn't. The Daleks won't be thinking 'We can fill the shoes of the
> Time Lords now they're gone', because the Time Lords never existed in
> the first place. [1]
> If anyone's filling the Time Lords' role, then they should have been
> doing that for a long time by now.

This IS what I mean. There can't BE a void, because it is the nature of
things that that void be filled. Therefore all those races who were
suppressed, to varying degrees, shall now be exponentially more powerful
because of the lack of the Time Lords to affect their development. The
Daleks WILL have been fulfilling the role of the Time Lords, which just
makes this universe as dangerous as the previous one: if anything of the
Doctor's past DID survive, and that includes encounters with the Daleks,
then he is in deep shit if they come a-lookin' for him.

Course, they're as boring as the paper their literary stories are
printed on, as novel villains go. And tied down with all kinds of
rights dilemmas.... :)

Peter Anghelides

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 3:58:04 PM11/7/01
to
Mappy:

> > Also, Peter Anghelides made this statement
> > over on the message boards: 'Gallifrey has been wiped from history.
> > You can believe otherwise if you wish--but remember that some people
> > believe the Earth is flat.'
>
> Ah, so this obviously means the Doctor, Susan, the TARDIS, Romana,
> Compassion et al no longer exist.

I don't think that necessarily follows from what I said. And I wrote
it in the context of a longer discussion about how it's not fruitful
to extrapolate by linear logic from a paradox. People can go and have
a look for themselves:
http://pub59.ezboard.com/fthedoctorwhoforumfrm3.showMessage?topicID=771.topic&index=7

Mind you, I realise it's becoming fashionable to comment on the books
without reading them, so who am I to complain that people comment on
threads that I have written before they've bothered to read those. :-)

As for Romana: this week, I've decided that she did not survive the
end of "The Ancestor Cell". Ask me again next week.

Peter Anghelides
http://anghelides.org

Jonathan Blum

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 4:50:30 PM11/7/01
to
In article <4bsiut4emuluc8p9m...@4ax.com>,

pikelet <timothy...@hertford.ox.ac.uk.iss.me.not.with.spammy.lips> wrote:
>>... except, of course, there should be no void; if Gallifrey never
>>existed, then there's no void left when it was destroyed, because it
>>wasn't. The Daleks won't be thinking 'We can fill the shoes of the
>>Time Lords now they're gone', because the Time Lords never existed in
>>the first place. [1]
>>If anyone's filling the Time Lords' role, then they should have been
>>doing that for a long time by now.

>In fact, since the Gallifreyans evolved first and established the
>morphic field for 'humanoid' life, we should most likely all look like
>green, six-eyed, multi-tentacled thingies by now.

See carpet analogy above...

Regards,
Jon Blum

The Count

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 5:32:38 PM11/7/01
to
"Jonathan Blum" <jb...@zip.com.au> wrote:
: "The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
: > It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.

:
: Galli-what? Sorry, never heard of it...
:
: Seriously, that statement doesn't imply the message title -- if you
: rip a bunch of threads out of a carpet, you don't have a whole
: different carpet. You do have a carpet with a bunch of loose threads,
: not entirely torn out, flapping about a bit... and space to weave in
: new things.

No, that analogy does not work. Ripping threads out is not the same thing as
making those threads to never have existed.

: The Doctor has no more ended up in a different universe than he did


: after "The War Games", when the War Lord was removed from history. He
: was still captured by the Time Lords, even though the person who'd
: instigated the events which led to his capture now had never
: existed...

...in the new universe, if that had been the case. However, later references
to him (Timewyrm: Exodus) imply that he was not erased from history. So he
was not literally erased from history, which I never assumed he was when the
Time Lords 'demateralised' him. I always interpreted 'being as though you
never existed' as the Time Lords' attitude toward death, at least for
non-Time Lords.


The Count

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 5:54:50 PM11/7/01
to
"Lance Parker" <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
: On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 17:05:17 -0600, "The Count"

And your point is...?
AIUI, Henrietta Street is the first book where the unhappening of
Gallifrey is acknowledged in more than just a 'thow-away line', which is how
you writers here described the line in Escape Velocity, at the expense of
Colin Brake. Like it or not, this is a major event that is worthy of
discussion, even by those who do not yet have the book. Discussion of
current events in Doctor Who should not be limited to the (relatively)
wealthy elite who have the time and money to acquire and consume new
products as soon as they are released.


The Count

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 6:28:40 PM11/7/01
to
"Peter Anghelides" <peter-an...@cwcom.net> wrote:
: Mappy:

: > > Also, Peter Anghelides made this statement
: > > over on the message boards: 'Gallifrey has been wiped from history.
: > > You can believe otherwise if you wish--but remember that some people
: > > believe the Earth is flat.'
: >
: > Ah, so this obviously means the Doctor, Susan, the TARDIS, Romana,
: > Compassion et al no longer exist.
:
: I don't think that necessarily follows from what I said. And I wrote
: it in the context of a longer discussion about how it's not fruitful
: to extrapolate by linear logic from a paradox. People can go and have
: a look for themselves:
:
http://pub59.ezboard.com/fthedoctorwhoforumfrm3.showMessage?topicID=771.topi
c&index=7
:
: Mind you, I realise it's becoming fashionable to comment on the books

: without reading them, so who am I to complain that people comment on
: threads that I have written before they've bothered to read those. :-)


As far the thread is concered, I was able to and *did* read that, and the
one that you referenced, before commenting. Just because I read it does not
mean that I have to agree with it. The 'logic of paradox' is not convincing
at all to me. I am not even convinced that you or any of the other authors
believe in it.


Jonathan Blum

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 10:29:44 PM11/7/01
to
"The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<9scd13$648$1...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net>...

> "Jonathan Blum" <jb...@zip.com.au> wrote:
> : Seriously, that statement doesn't imply the message title -- if you
> : rip a bunch of threads out of a carpet, you don't have a whole
> : different carpet. You do have a carpet with a bunch of loose threads,
> : not entirely torn out, flapping about a bit... and space to weave in
> : new things.

> No, that analogy does not work. Ripping threads out is not the same thing as
> making those threads to never have existed.

Only if you get the metaphor wrong.

--jon

Cardinal Zorak

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 11:13:13 PM11/7/01
to

"The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:9s94et$ov2$1...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net...

> It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
>

That means the Doctor was never born, and all the Who mythos disappears up
its own arsehole. Hooray! Now we can get on with the Sapphire and
Steel/Quatermass appreciation...
--
Cardinal Zorak
"To art belongs all that is, and all that is not." - Oscar Wilde

Cardinal Zorak

unread,
Nov 7, 2001, 11:18:44 PM11/7/01
to

"Peter Anghelides" <peter-an...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:17343b9b.01110...@posting.google.com...

> Mappy:
> > > Also, Peter Anghelides made this statement
> > > over on the message boards: 'Gallifrey has been wiped from history.
> > > You can believe otherwise if you wish--but remember that some people
> > > believe the Earth is flat.'
> >
> > Ah, so this obviously means the Doctor, Susan, the TARDIS, Romana,
> > Compassion et al no longer exist.
>
> I don't think that necessarily follows from what I said. And I wrote
> it in the context of a longer discussion about how it's not fruitful
> to extrapolate by linear logic from a paradox. People can go and have
> a look for themselves:
>
http://pub59.ezboard.com/fthedoctorwhoforumfrm3.showMessage?topicID=771.topi
c&index=7
>
> Mind you, I realise it's becoming fashionable to comment on the books
> without reading them,

Perhaps if they weren't so fucking boring more people might read them. And
they're expensive too, and too frequent.
--
Cardinal Zorak
"The purpose of the artist is to invent, not to chronicle." - Oscar Wilde

Jack Beven

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 1:27:17 AM11/8/01
to
On 6 Nov 2001 20:14:31 -0800, jb...@zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum) wrote:

>"The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<9s94et$ov2$1...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net>...
>> It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
>
>Galli-what? Sorry, never heard of it...
>
>Seriously, that statement doesn't imply the message title -- if you
>rip a bunch of threads out of a carpet, you don't have a whole
>different carpet. You do have a carpet with a bunch of loose threads,
>not entirely torn out, flapping about a bit... and space to weave in
>new things.

(Yes, the hurricane is over and my cold is better.)

IMHO ripping Gallifrey out of the carpet would be taking a heck of
a lot of threads with it - enough so that the carpet would likely
disintegrate in the most literal meaning of the word.

A problem I see here is that you and your fellow authors are
seemingly a little *too* selective in what you are writing as the
consequences of the unhappening of Gallifrey. You seem to be
trying to concentrate on how you can take advantage of this
manuver to re-create the Whoniverse to your own desires, and
rather ignoring certain other consequences - like that the Doctor
should be getting transformed into a singularity in Lawrence Miles
fashion and that Earth and humanity should likely be suffering
the same fate. It's Plot Convenience Playhouse Paradox to go along
with Plot Convenience Playhouse Amnesia IMHO.

Do you want the EDAs to be great storytelling, Jon? If so,
then why aren't you trying to tackle *all* of the ramifications of the
unhappening of Gallifrey? Why are you hiding behind excuses such
as "paradox" and the DWM story about no consistent rules about
time travel in DW when confronted with certain question? It looks like
to me that you and your fellow authors are trying to take the easy way
out on this issue (probably because you don't want to have to deal with
the massive continuity snafus it produces), and IMHO *nothing* great
ever comes from taking the easy way out.

If this unhappening is true, then IMHO it's another nail in the
coffin of the EDAs - they are now the adventures of the Lobotomized
Doctor Paradox than the adventures of Doctor Who. It also brings
up some issues regard a conversation we had on this newsgroup
earlier this year...


Jack Beven (a. k. a. The Supreme Dalek)
Tropical Prediction Center
New URL: http://www.mindspring.com/~jbeven/index.html jbe...@mindspring.com
Disclaimer: These opinions don't necessarily represent those of my employers...

Mappy

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 1:31:38 AM11/8/01
to
Peter Anghelides wrote:

> Mind you, I realise it's becoming fashionable to comment on the books
> without reading them, so who am I to complain that people comment on
> threads that I have written before they've bothered to read those. :-)

Books? There are books? ;)

> As for Romana: this week, I've decided that she did not survive the
> end of "The Ancestor Cell". Ask me again next week.

Ah, a subject for study! I shall ask you, on the hour every hour,
whether you think Romana is dead or not, and carefully map the changes
in your point of view. From this, we can extrapolate the effects of
human biorhythyms on fannishness, and adjust fandom accordingly. :)

Mappy

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 1:36:24 AM11/8/01
to
The Count wrote:
> Discussion of
> current events in Doctor Who should not be limited to the (relatively)
> wealthy elite who have the time and money to acquire and consume new
> products as soon as they are released.

Or those who haven't had the opportunity to buy product as it is not yet
available to them, despite it being available to others. I'm usually
spoiled 1000 times over by the time I'm able to get the novels, which
means I practically know what is going to happen before I read it, only
the minutae of the novels are a surprise.

Lance Parkin

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 1:57:19 AM11/8/01
to
On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 16:54:50 -0600, "The Count"
<coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:

>"Lance Parker" <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>: On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 17:05:17 -0600, "The Count"
>: <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>:
>: >Zygon Curry <nospa...@logopolis.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>: >: The Count wrote:
>: >: >
>: >: > It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
>: >:
>: >: I knew it was only a matter of.... Time :)
>: >:
>: >: What book?
>: >
>: >Henrietta Street, apparently.
>:
>: Can anyone spot the 'I haven't actually read the book' word
>: in that sentence?
>
>And your point is...?
> AIUI, Henrietta Street is the first book where the unhappening of
>Gallifrey is acknowledged in more than just a 'thow-away line',

Then you understand wrong.

>which is how
>you writers here described the line in Escape Velocity, at the expense of
>Colin Brake. Like it or not, this is a major event that is worthy of
>discussion, even by those who do not yet have the book.

Yes, but *informed* discussion.

The situation in Henrietta Street is exactly what it's been since The
Ancestor Cell - the Time Lords are gone, there are all sorts of
implications of that, some of which are explored in the book.

The *Time Lords* could have 'unhappened'. Equally, they might
have just blown up. Either way, that leaves room at the top, and
removes a powerful force for stability in the universe.

As with the War Chief, the parallel timeline in Day of the Daleks
and the Demat Gun in Invasion of Time, whatever happened to
Gallifrey, the universe at large is still just where it was and how
it was before TAC. We know from several books now that's the
case - Terror of the Zygons and UNIT are discussed in Father Time,
the seventh Doctor and Ace have appeared, Iris has ... and there
are a few other examples, several of which appear in Henrietta
Street. Even if the Time Lords 'unhappened', people remember
them, and the consequences of their actions remain - the Fendahl
were stopped, evidentally.

Lance

Andrew J. Brook

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 3:36:58 AM11/8/01
to
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote in message news:<3be96b2e...@news.freeserve.net>...


... which is what I thought, so why is there all this stuff being
claimed about the end of Gallifrey taking everything with it, rather
than just bits?

AJB

Andrew J. Brook

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 3:39:10 AM11/8/01
to
jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum) wrote in message news:<9scab6$o48$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au>...

Hmmm... so you've dumped cause and effect, then? This is going to make
future novels *really* complicated to understand....

DAVROS: Bwhahahahahaha! I shall pick up this piece of paper!
DOCTOR: Oh no! As a result, the planet Mars has turned into a
mushroom!

AJB

Jeremy Fitzoliver. At least some logic remains still.

David A McIntee

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 3:43:08 AM11/8/01
to

"The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote >AIUI, Henrietta Street

is the first book where the unhappening of
> Gallifrey is acknowledged in more than just a 'thow-away line',

Except that it's also a book written in a completely different style that,
like Bullet Time, from the start acknowledges that not everything in it is
true.

It's a deliberately unreliable narration designed to provoke a reaction. In
fact it's the onle book that could say such a thing, without having to worry
whether it's right or not - some of it is "true" in the sense that it'll
imping on other book, and some of it isn't...

--
--
"Oh go away, repress someone else."

http://www.btinternet.com/~david.mcintee

Redemption 03- Blake's 7/Babylon 5 convention, 21-23 February 2003.
http://www.smof.com/redemption

Currently reading: Heart Of TARDIS by Dave Stone

This month's guest quote: "Just my luck- a phantom who's an expert
bricklayer. " (Shaggy)

Andrew J. Brook

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 3:43:18 AM11/8/01
to
sutur...@sutureself.freeserve.co.uk (Meddling Mick) wrote in message news:<3bee07b6...@news.freeserve.net>...

> "The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
> >It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
>
> So when did the unhappening officially happen? Or has it actually
> happened yet? Or has it always happened? Or unhappened?

It happened during "The Ancestor Cell", its just that "The Ancestor Cell" didn't.

Gosh, the cheering's LOUD.

AJB

Andrew J. Brook

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 3:43:56 AM11/8/01
to
Mappy <mappyt...@start.com.au>

<snip>

The
> Daleks WILL have been fulfilling the role of the Time Lords

No, because in "Dead Romance" it was the TLs who gave them time travel
in the first place

AJB

Steven Kitson

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 4:48:24 AM11/8/01
to
Andrew J. Brook <andrew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hmmm... so you've dumped cause and effect, then?

Doesn't time travel pretty much screw up causality, just by existing?
--
High hopes and aspirations, ideas above my station
Maybe but all this time I've tried to walk with dignity and pride

Lance Parkin

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 8:08:28 AM11/8/01
to
On 8 Nov 2001 00:36:58 -0800, andrew...@hotmail.com (Andrew J.
Brook) wrote:

Because the claims are being made by Becker, who hasn't
read the book and doesn't have a clue what he's talking
about.

Lance

Lance Parkin

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 8:18:34 AM11/8/01
to
On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 06:27:17 GMT, jbe...@mindspring.com (Jack Beven)
wrote:

> Do you want the EDAs to be great storytelling, Jon? If so,
>then why aren't you trying to tackle *all* of the ramifications of the
>unhappening of Gallifrey? Why are you hiding behind excuses such
>as "paradox" and the DWM story about no consistent rules about
>time travel in DW when confronted with certain question? It looks like
>to me that you and your fellow authors are trying to take the easy way
>out on this issue

Hmmmm ... so you're saying that what happens in Henrietta
Street is the 'easy way out'?

Lance

Zygon Curry

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 8:43:20 AM11/8/01
to


I can't see myself reading a copy of this for a few years! Got a huge
back log to read though. So any chance of a few spoliers to see what
does happen to Gallifrey, etc (with spoiler space of course!)

Regards,
ZC
--

Regards,
Zygon Curry

Meddling Mick

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 9:04:13 AM11/8/01
to
andrew...@hotmail.com (Andrew J. Brook) wrote:

>Mappy <mappyt...@start.com.au>

>
>>The Daleks WILL have been fulfilling the role of the Time Lords
>
>No, because in "Dead Romance" it was the TLs who gave them time travel
>in the first place

Um... no it wasn't?
--
(Meddling) Mick Gair

Underestimating the power of
organic crystallography since 1384

Meddling Mick

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 9:04:19 AM11/8/01
to
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:

>Mappy wrote:
[snip]


>>I'm just hoping JR and the writers explore the full
>>ramifications of Gallifrey's removal from existence in the novels.
>>After all, nature abhors a vacuum, and there are plenty of old enemies
>>who would be more than happy to fill that void. :)
>
>... which is what we're doing, as the authors (and indeed their
>books) have been saying for the last year.
>
>Henrietta Street is specifically *about* the gaps there are now,
>the people that hope to fill them and the implications of that,
>as anyone who'd even skim read it would know. It's not the
>first book that's dealt with it, and it's certainly not the last.

IMO, this whole idea of 'let's explore the power vacuum resulting from
the Time Lords' vworp-vworping out of the universe' seems a very odd
way of 're-inventing' 'Who' without all the fanwanky continuity that
was in danger of choking the series to death.

At the risk of sparking another head-on collision <g> between Jack
Beven and Jon Blum, the situation does seem to sound scarily like
Jack's 'Neverending Arc That Began With 'Alien Bodies' And Just Never
Seems To Reach An End, Ever, Ever, Because We Can't Find A Way Out Of
It All, Buggerit, Buggerit'. We're *still* dealing with the aftermath
of what was begun in 'AB' (or as early as 'CoaRP').

Admit it, it's all fucked and the Doctor should have become A Nasty
Man With Only One Arm at the end of 'tAC' when he created a bloody big
paradox by retconning the War (and, possibly, his own home planet and
his own birth/Looming, etc., etc., etc.).

Meddling Mick

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 9:04:25 AM11/8/01
to
andrew...@hotmail.com (Andrew J. Brook) wrote:

[snip]
>I haven't read Miles' latest opus yet, but the review on Outpost
>Gallifrey is certainly subscribing to the view that:
>
>1) Gallifrey never existed
>2) So therefore neither did anything deriving from Gallifrey
>3) So therefore neither did the Doctor
>4) So therefore neither did anything taking place before the end of
>tAC apart from a few anomalies such as the Doctor. Not even the 7th
>Doctor exists.

Um... if the Eighth Doctor still exists, then so should all the
previous incarnations because they're all, like, one bloke.

>Unfortunately, the 7th Doctor, Ace and the Players to name but three
>have all popped up in the EDAs post-tAC, so that's buggered right up.

The only way it's buggered up is if Gallifrey unhappened, as there's
no way for the First Doctor to have left Gallifrey in the first place
if it never existed. Perhaps the fact that he's wandering around in a
time machine built on Gallifrey means that the planet only got popped
in the 'present'?

If Gallifrey went all 'unhappening' on us, well... so much for its
supposed 'special relationship with time'.

Lance Parkin

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 9:33:38 AM11/8/01
to
On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 14:04:19 GMT,
sutur...@sutureself.freeserve.co.uk (Meddling Mick) wrote:

>IMO, this whole idea of 'let's explore the power vacuum resulting from
>the Time Lords' vworp-vworping out of the universe' seems a very odd
>way of 're-inventing' 'Who' without all the fanwanky continuity that
>was in danger of choking the series to death.

So which of the post-Burning books do you think are
choking to death on fanwanky continuity?

Lance

Andrew McCaffrey

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 9:47:58 AM11/8/01
to
Meddling Mick <sutur...@sutureself.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> At the risk of sparking another head-on collision <g> between Jack
> Beven and Jon Blum, the situation does seem to sound scarily like
> Jack's 'Neverending Arc That Began With 'Alien Bodies' And Just Never
> Seems To Reach An End, Ever, Ever, Because We Can't Find A Way Out Of
> It All, Buggerit, Buggerit'. We're *still* dealing with the aftermath
> of what was begun in 'AB' (or as early as 'CoaRP').

Well, I think that rather depends on how you're defining "arc". Sure,
elements that were introduced long ago have had impacts on things that had
impacts on things that had impacts on things that are being published
today... but so what? This is a continuing series afterall.

If one is going to reach back as far as Alien Bodies, then one might as
well reach back further to the things that impacted on Alien Bodies. Are
we still dealing with the aftermath of what begin in Tenth Planet, Deadly
Assassin, Trial of a Time Lord?

--
+------------------------Andrew McCaffrey+[amc...@gl.umbc.edu]---------+
|"Star Wars is adolescent nonsense, Close|"My thumbs have gone weird!" |
|Encounters is obscurantist drivel [and] | -- _Withnail & I_ |
|Star Trek can turn your brains into |"I can't do chords. No sir." |
|puree of bat guano." -- Harlan Ellison| -- B.B. King |
+------------------ http://userpages.umbc.edu/~amccaf1 -----------------+

Lance Parkin

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 9:57:23 AM11/8/01
to

>Meddling Mick <sutur...@sutureself.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> At the risk of sparking another head-on collision <g> between Jack
>> Beven and Jon Blum, the situation does seem to sound scarily like
>> Jack's 'Neverending Arc That Began With 'Alien Bodies' And Just Never
>> Seems To Reach An End, Ever, Ever, Because We Can't Find A Way Out Of
>> It All, Buggerit, Buggerit'. We're *still* dealing with the aftermath
>> of what was begun in 'AB' (or as early as 'CoaRP').

Perhaps, to save time, we could just use the people who haven't
read the books who think they've betrayed everything by
completely abandoning all notion of continuity and causality to cancel
out the people who haven't read the books who think they're
choked by their obsession with continuity and causality?

Just a suggestion.

Lance


The Doctor

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 10:49:13 AM11/8/01
to
In article <9sd0ot$mji$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,

Cardinal Zorak <Fab31...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
>news:9s94et$ov2$1...@wiscnews.wiscnet.net...
>> It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
>>
>
>That means the Doctor was never born, and all the Who mythos disappears up
>its own a*e. Hooray! Now we can get on with the Sapphire and
>Steel/Quatermass appreciation...

Thank you NAs.

>--
>Cardinal Zorak
>"To art belongs all that is, and all that is not." - Oscar Wilde
>
>
>


--
Member - Liberal International On 11 Sept 2001 the WORLD was violated.
This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
Society MUST be saved! Extremists must dissolve.
Lest we forget on 11 Nov 2001

The Count

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 12:14:40 PM11/8/01
to
Lance Parker <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
: On 8 Nov 2001 00:36:58 -0800, andrew...@hotmail.com (Andrew J.
: Brook) wrote:
:
: >> Henrietta Street is specifically *about* the gaps there are now,

: >> the people that hope to fill them and the implications of that,
: >> as anyone who'd even skim read it would know. It's not the
: >> first book that's dealt with it, and it's certainly not the last.
: >>
: >> Lance
: >
: >
: >... which is what I thought, so why is there all this stuff being
: >claimed about the end of Gallifrey taking everything with it, rather
: >than just bits?
:
: Because the claims are being made by Becker, who hasn't
: read the book and doesn't have a clue what he's talking
: about.

Once again, you prove yourself to be a liar. I never made the claim about
the end of Gallifrey taking everything with it. On the contrary, I pointed
out how the the unhappening of Gallifrey is logically possible, in a
multiverse. As for your insulting bourgeois attitude, you can stick it. I
have been reading the books for years and am still reading them, despite
people like yourself.


R.J. Smith

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 12:28:12 PM11/8/01
to
In article <3bec90e0...@news.freeserve.net>,
Meddling Mick <sutur...@sutureself.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:

>>Henrietta Street is specifically *about* the gaps there are now,
>>the people that hope to fill them and the implications of that,
>>as anyone who'd even skim read it would know. It's not the
>>first book that's dealt with it, and it's certainly not the last.

>IMO, this whole idea of 'let's explore the power vacuum resulting from
>the Time Lords' vworp-vworping out of the universe' seems a very odd
>way of 're-inventing' 'Who' without all the fanwanky continuity that
>was in danger of choking the series to death.

Well, it's a Lawrence Miles book, what do you expect?

>At the risk of sparking another head-on collision <g> between Jack
>Beven and Jon Blum, the situation does seem to sound scarily like
>Jack's 'Neverending Arc That Began With 'Alien Bodies' And Just Never
>Seems To Reach An End, Ever, Ever, Because We Can't Find A Way Out Of
>It All, Buggerit, Buggerit'. We're *still* dealing with the aftermath
>of what was begun in 'AB' (or as early as 'CoaRP').

And the Virgin novels were leading there anyway (or can be seen to be,
retroactively). And they followed the end of the TV series. Man, we've
alwasy been screwed :-)

>(Meddling) Mick Gair

>Underestimating the power of
>organic crystallography since 1384

:-)

- Robert Smith?

R.J. Smith

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 12:24:33 PM11/8/01
to
In article <3beb90d9...@news.freeserve.net>,

Meddling Mick <sutur...@sutureself.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>andrew...@hotmail.com (Andrew J. Brook) wrote:

>>Mappy <mappyt...@start.com.au>

>>>The Daleks WILL have been fulfilling the role of the Time Lords

>>No, because in "Dead Romance" it was the TLs who gave them time travel
>>in the first place

>Um... no it wasn't?

Um... yes it was. Pgs 111-112.

- Robert Smith?

The Count

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 12:33:30 PM11/8/01
to
David A McIntee <david....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
:

: "The Count" <coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
:>AIUI, Henrietta Street is the first book where the unhappening of
:> Gallifrey is acknowledged in more than just a 'thow-away line',
:
: Except that it's also a book written in a completely different style that,
: like Bullet Time, from the start acknowledges that not everything in it is
: true.
:
: It's a deliberately unreliable narration designed to provoke a reaction.

But not discussion?


The Count

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 12:50:45 PM11/8/01
to
"Steven Kitson" <ski...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:K2c*6u...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

:Andrew J. Brook <andrew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>Hmmm... so you've dumped cause and effect, then?
:
:Doesn't time travel pretty much screw up causality, just by existing?

No.


Andrew McCaffrey

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 1:23:38 PM11/8/01
to

Yes. Causes happen before effects. If a time machine from the future
lands on The Wicked Witch Of The East then the cause (which is the time
machine departing in the future) happens after the effect (Wicked Witch
being crushed by a time machine in the present).

Lance Parkin

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 1:26:04 PM11/8/01
to
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:14:40 -0600, "The Count"
<coun...@mailandnews.com> wrote:

>: >... which is what I thought, so why is there all this stuff being
>: >claimed about the end of Gallifrey taking everything with it, rather
>: >than just bits?
>:
>: Because the claims are being made by Becker, who hasn't
>: read the book and doesn't have a clue what he's talking
>: about.
>
>Once again, you prove yourself to be a liar. I never made the claim about
>the end of Gallifrey taking everything with it.

Dave, look at the title of the thread. Then at who started the
thread. Then read the first post in the thread.

OK ... are you now saying that Gallifrey *didn't* unhappen, that
the post-TAC books *aren't* set in a 'different universe' and
that it *isn't* official?

Lance

Lance Parkin

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 1:32:15 PM11/8/01
to
On 8 Nov 2001 00:39:10 -0800, andrew...@hotmail.com (Andrew J.
Brook) wrote:

>Hmmm... so you've dumped cause and effect, then? This is going to make
>future novels *really* complicated to understand....

Which books since The Burning have dumped cause and effect, and
in what ways did it make them complicated to understand?

Lance

The Count

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 2:08:47 PM11/8/01
to
<la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
: On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 11:14:40 -0600, "The Count"

No, that is not the same thing as the claim that the unhappening of
Gallifrey wipes out the entire past series and makes the present situation
impossible, which others have claimed but not I.


Meddling Mick

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 2:23:38 PM11/8/01
to
smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) wrote:

>Meddling Mick wrote:
>>(Andrew J. Brook) wrote:
>>>Mappy <mappyt...@start.com.au>
>
>>>>The Daleks WILL have been fulfilling the role of the Time Lords
>
>>>No, because in "Dead Romance" it was the TLs who gave them time travel
>>>in the first place
>
>>Um... no it wasn't?
>
>Um... yes it was. Pgs 111-112.

<g> Um... no it wasn't.

There's no mention of the Time Lords *giving* the Daleks anything in
that passage. They *allow* the Daleks to develop their *own* temporal
technology. Helluva big difference, methinks.

Meddling Mick

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 2:23:42 PM11/8/01
to
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:

>(Meddling Mick) wrote:
>
>>IMO, this whole idea of 'let's explore the power vacuum resulting from
>>the Time Lords' vworp-vworping out of the universe' seems a very odd
>>way of 're-inventing' 'Who' without all the fanwanky continuity that
>>was in danger of choking the series to death.
>
>So which of the post-Burning books do you think are
>choking to death on fanwanky continuity?

Oh, none at all, unless you actually want me to list all the times the
EDAs have referred to things like the Players, the Seventh Doctor and
Nazi Earth, the Ice Warriors, the Zarbi, the Kandyman, the Scarlet
Empress, the Infinity Doctor, Iris Wildthyme, UNIT, the Cheetah People
in Perivale, the Second Doctor, the Eighth Doctor's own regeneration
in San Francisco, the Yeti, the War Machines, Gallifrey's sky, the
hermit on the hill, the Doctor's question-mark umbrella...

(Oh. I'm being sad.) :)

I'm simply saying that, when 'The Burning' was due for release we were
told that it'd be a 'fresh, clean slate' for the series. All that
cumbersome baggage like Wars and Time Lords and Daleks was being
tossed away so that authors and readers alike could concentrate on the
present and future of 'Doctor Who'. And yet we still seem to be
dealing with the aftermath of things that were started back in '97?

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply move on completely rather than
setting up a 'Who's Filling the Power Vacuum Left By the Time Lords?'
arc and harking back to the series's (recent) past?

IIRC, part of the reason behind 'Year Zero-ing' the EDAs was to appeal
to potential new readers by, well, banning forty years of continuity
references (hey, that's cool with me). This would - fingers crossed!
- prevent the potential new readers from running away screaming before
this huge weight of 'Who' history fell upon them and threatened to
crush their brains.

But, surely, one of the first things a potential new reader is going
to ask when they pick up one of the upcoming EDAs is 'So how come
there's a power vacuum?' And doesn't the posing of that question mean
the potential new reader is going to be pointed into the direction of
the last four or five years' worth of books?

That doesn't look like the EDAs are looking into the future rather
than the past, IMO? Then again, you're the chaps who are writing
these things and you know where they're heading (if they're actually
heading in a specific direction) - we're just the people who are
hoping you know what you're doing. <g>

Meddling Mick

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 2:28:00 PM11/8/01
to
Chris Cwej <cw...@thecia.co.uk> wrote:

>(Jonathan Blum) wrote:


>>"The Count" wrote:
>>
>>>It is official. Gallifrey unhappened.
>>

>>Galli-what? Sorry, never heard of it...
>>
>>Seriously, that statement doesn't imply the message title -- if you
>>rip a bunch of threads out of a carpet, you don't have a whole
>>different carpet. You do have a carpet with a bunch of loose threads,
>>not entirely torn out, flapping about a bit... and space to weave in
>>new things.
>
>Er, surely though if you remove very large numbers of threads then
>rather than having any sort of carpet you're just left with a tangled
>mass of unconnected threads that are basically useless? I can see
>that you can make small changes in time, one thread here or there
>won't make too much difference to the carpet. Take away a large
>proportion of the threads that were used to create the carpet to begin
>with and there really isn't much you're going to be left with, if
>anything?

So what you guys are saying is that the universe is currently
suffering from the cosmic equivalent of Male Pattern Baldness?

Does that mean the authors are busy writing a 'Comb-over' arc for the
EDAs?

The Count

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 2:20:34 PM11/8/01
to
"Lance Parkin" <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
: Perhaps, to save time, we could just use the people who haven't

: read the books who think they've betrayed everything by
: completely abandoning all notion of continuity and causality to cancel
: out the people who haven't read the books who think they're
: choked by their obsession with continuity and causality?
:
: Just a suggestion.

So now we are talking about 'canceling out' people that we do not like? Even
though I do not belong to either of those two groups, I think that I will
vote no on this suggestion.


Meddling Mick

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 2:39:41 PM11/8/01
to
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:

And a mighty fine one it is to be sure, but that'd still leave all the
people who *have* read the books but who think they've betrayed


everything by completely abandoning all notion of continuity and

causality, and the people who *have* read the books but who think
they're choked by their obsession with continuity and causality.

What are we going to do about those, eh?

The Count

unread,
Nov 8, 2001, 2:40:42 PM11/8/01