NAs canon? Not to me.

317 views
Skip to first unread message

Chris Maples

unread,
Apr 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/1/96
to
I simply wanted to express my opinion on the NA as canon issue.
Ultimately it is up to each individual to decide. I personally will
not likely ever accept the NAs as canon. Yes I have read the first
twenty or so and will continue to read them. I find most of them
enjoyable with only a few duds.
The problem for me is two-fold. Mainly, if the story was not televised
as a part of a particular season then it is not a part of who history to
me. I do make exceptions. Shada is canon, simply a victim of a strike
and fully intended for the small screen (and was subsequently released
on video). On the other hand the children in need program poses a
serious canon question for a who purist like myself. Also the two Peter
Cushing movies to me are not even close to canon. Sure it uses the name
and has daleks a tardis and the whole nine yards but that character is
not a time lord but simply an eccentric genius HUMAN being who created a
time machine. Both those movies are a big dissapointment for me.
Secondly, the Doctor and Ace of the NAs do not in any shape, form or
fashion even vaguely resemble the Doctor and Ace from the televised who.
The Doctor of the NAs is such a departure that it is not even funny. I
love McCoys doctor but really honestly dont like the NA doctor one bit.
I consider the NAs as fiction about fiction. No offense to any writers
or whomever who reads this. On the other hand the three novels for Colin
Bakers aborted season were in the process of being made into actual
stories for that particular season. I would consider them as canon well
before I would the NAs. So my gripe is not with who in print alone.
In conclusion the NAs are good filler to pass time between December 7,
1989 and May 14, 1996. To me that is all they will ever be. From what I
have read I am in the majority on this issue with you folks. So be
it. Thanks for reading and I welcome your responses.


Chris Maples


Mommy is it May 14th yet?


Chris Maples

unread,
Apr 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/2/96
to
In article <4jp7g6$q...@lou.teclink.net>, wave...@teclink.net says...

>From what I have read I am in the majority on this issue with you folks.
> So be it. Thanks for reading and I welcome your responses.
>
>
*CORRECTION*

Sorry, I was in a hurry and I meant to say "...in the minority on this
issue...". Though I don't mind being in a minority. Then again, am I in
the minority on this issue? Does it really matter? Aw, who cares
anyways. Stop reading this and get back to watching Who.

Thanks

Chris

David GOLDING

unread,
Apr 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/2/96
to

To me, the NAs are canon.

Dave

david by default <*> dgol...@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au
======= Fiver. Whovian. Student. Dreamer. &c. =======
------------- "Wel' I don' wanna di-e." -------------
the New New Adventures of Doctor Who on FOX in May!

Glenn Langford

unread,
Apr 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/2/96
to
In article <4jp7g6$q...@lou.teclink.net>, wave...@teclink.net (Chris
Maples) wrote:

> I simply wanted to express my opinion on the NA as canon issue.
>Ultimately it is up to each individual to decide. I personally will
>not likely ever accept the NAs as canon. Yes I have read the first
>twenty or so and will continue to read them. I find most of them

>enjoyable with only a few duds...

>
>Chris Maples

The canonicity of any form of non-BBC-televised Who has always been
somewhat of a bugbear. It's hard to even include all of televised Who (can
anyone really tell me that they consider the "Jim'll Fix It" sketch and
"Dimensions in Time" to be serious Who??)

The problem with the NA's is that, while they have an overall editor to
keep the book series' continuity on track, they don't have a script editor
as such to keep the characters in some sort of check. They also do not
have the benefit of established actors to say things like "my character
just wouldn't do that". Add into the fact that you have 28 authors of 44
books up to "The Also People" and it's not a wonder that the characters
are so different from where we left them at "Survival".

Personally, I can't see the problem with McCoy's Doctor growing and
becoming Time's Champion - it opens up so many possibilites. Ace, I will
agree, turned quite unlikeable toward the end (victim of too many people
trying to grow her up? - perhaps that's why the younger companions always
left so quickly), and the addition of Roz and Chris I'll leave to another
discussion. But I quite like McCoy's Doctor in the NA's - he still has
that ability to be surprised by his companions, despite the fact he
usually knows what happens in the end.

--
langas
lan...@wr.com.au
"Why did the plane crash? 'Cause the pilot was a tomato"

R.J. Smith

unread,
Apr 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/2/96
to
In article <langas-0204...@dialup17.wr.com.au>,
Glenn Langford <lan...@wr.com.au> wrote:

>The canonicity of any form of non-BBC-televised Who has always been
>somewhat of a bugbear. It's hard to even include all of televised Who (can
>anyone really tell me that they consider the "Jim'll Fix It" sketch and
>"Dimensions in Time" to be serious Who??)

Er, actually I don't think it was ever much ofg a problem before the NAs
came along. The fact that the NAs have caused us to reconsider what we
think of as canon says rather a lot for their authenticity IMO.

>The problem with the NA's is that, while they have an overall editor to
>keep the book series' continuity on track, they don't have a script editor
>as such to keep the characters in some sort of check. They also do not
>have the benefit of established actors to say things like "my character
>just wouldn't do that". Add into the fact that you have 28 authors of 44
>books up to "The Also People" and it's not a wonder that the characters
>are so different from where we left them at "Survival".

Just like the original series had the benefit of Tom Baker to keep his
character firmly on track with such insightful suggestions as a talking
cabbage companion? :-)

And while we're at it, just where was the script editor for the Williams
era if the job description was to keep the character of the Doctor in
check? (then again, considering that it was Douglas Adams for at least
psrt of the time...)

I prefer my Doctor on the anarchistic side anyway...

- Robert Smith?

Tre Hellman

unread,
Apr 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/2/96
to
In article <4jp7g6$q...@lou.teclink.net>, wave...@teclink.net (Chris
Maples) wrote:

[Snip argument that the NAs aren't canon cuz they weren't televised and
the characters don't resemble the TV versions....]

Hmm....

I don't consider them canon, either really. I love them and wouldn't miss
one for the world... but for me they aren't canon. (They have their own
canon :) and I consider myself as much a fan of the books as I do of the
series.)

The main reason I don't consider them canon is because so many of them
succumb to the fannish need to refer to everything they can and answer as
many arguments as they can: they are *much* too interested in the
mythology of Who - in a way that the series never was.

This can be done in a clever way: Kate in Sleepy - she expands the idea of
the Exxilons being involved in other races' development. So, in effect, it
opens the mythology out.

It can also be done in incredibly annoying ways that really get up my
nose: Man in the Velvet Mask ( a book that I rate very highly actually) -
why was it necessary to "solve" the one heart problem? It didn't add to
the plot, the characterization, the poetry, anything! It only served to
unnecessarily enforce one aspect of fannish opinion. Bully for O'Mahoney,
but I still think it's crap. Worse than that, rather than expanding the
mythology it close it down around a single point.

When the NAs quit being a bully pulpit to "canonize" certain sides of
certain arguments, then I'll consider them part of Who canon.

This is, I realize, a very selfish and arbitrary definition of what canon
is. But, hey, canon has always been what I like for the reasons I like at
any given time. If you don't like that, cruk off. I don't expect anyone to
agree with my canon and I don't expect anyone to expect me to agree with
their's....

Tre.
And that's the way it is....

Kate Orman

unread,
Apr 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/3/96
to
I never know what people mean when they say, "What is canon?" I suppose
for me canonicity is a very practical thing - not "What really
happened?", because none of it did :-), but "What can I draw on when I'm
writing *this* story?"


--
__
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au | http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au:80/~korman
Kate Orman - "A broad too deep for the small screen"

David Hutchison

unread,
Apr 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/3/96
to
wave...@teclink.net (Chris Maples) wrote:
> I simply wanted to express my opinion on the NA as canon issue.
>Ultimately it is up to each individual to decide.

Thank you for acknowledging this fact. Many other people
believe their own opinions are solely what matters. It is nice
to find an open-minded poster on this newsgroup. (I'm not
looking for flame-outs or taking the mick here, either.)

> The problem for me is two-fold. Mainly, if the story was not televised
>as a part of a particular season then it is not a part of who history to
>me. I do make exceptions. Shada is canon, simply a victim of a strike
>and fully intended for the small screen (and was subsequently released

>on video). On the other hand Dimensions in Time poses a

>serious canon question for a who purist like myself. Also the two Peter
>Cushing movies to me are not even close to canon. Sure it uses the name

>and has Daleks, a Tardis and the whole nine yards

(???)

> but that character is
>not a time lord, simply an eccentric genius HUMAN being who created a
>time machine. Both those movies are a big disappointment for me.

And the fact that they were both big-screen remakes of The
Daleks and The Dalek Invasion of Earth didn't do anything for
me either.

> Secondly, the Doctor and Ace of the NAs do not in any shape, form or
>fashion even vaguely resemble the Doctor and Ace from the televised who.
>The Doctor of the NAs is such a departure that it is not even funny. I

>love McCoys doctor but really honestly don't like the NA doctor one bit.

I wouldn't go **that** far. We needed a change from the dark,
manipulative Doctor we saw in The Curse of Fenric. We needed
him to lighten up a little -- it didn't happen overnight
though, but it did happen, and those of you out there who are
about to cite Timewyrm: Revelation, Love and War, Deceit,
Lucifer Rising, No Future, Tragedy Day, Conundrum, The Pit,
Head Games and the rest to me, don't bother.

What Segal meant by his comment was that he felt the NA's did a
good enough job of writing out Ace, and that he didn't feel the
need to include any references in the new pilot which would
have contradicted that -- a prime example of which is the
second Doctor telling Jamie that puzzling reference to Victoria
studying graphology (handwriting analysis) in The Two Doctors,
when he didn't need to say anything. That would have let us
slot it in between leaving Victoria and arriving on the wheel
(the recap in The Wheel in Space part one).

Segal wasn't declaring the New Adventures as canon, he was
simply acknowledging their existence, and the work they've done
in keeping the show's profile up.

DAVID HUTCHISON
Brisbane, Australia
dhut...@cin.gov.au

Eva W. Jacobus

unread,
Apr 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/3/96
to
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) wrote:
>I never know what people mean when they say, "What is canon?" I suppose
>for me canonicity is a very practical thing - not "What really
>happened?", because none of it did :-), but "What can I draw on when I'm
>writing *this* story?"

I have a small suitcase full of torture scenes involving Cwej. I'll be
happy to send them to anyone who desires to draw from them, particularly
if radw will then argue about which of his 5,782 brutal deaths is canon.

--Eva


R.J. Smith

unread,
Apr 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/3/96
to
In article <4jt0cg$r...@canb.cin.gov.au>,
David Hutchison <dhut...@cin.gov.au> wrote:
>wave...@teclink.net (Chris Maples) wrote:

>> The problem for me is two-fold. Mainly, if the story was not televised
>>as a part of a particular season then it is not a part of who history to
>>me. I do make exceptions. Shada is canon, simply a victim of a strike
>>and fully intended for the small screen (and was subsequently released
>>on video). On the other hand Dimensions in Time poses a
>>serious canon question for a who purist like myself. Also the two Peter
>>Cushing movies to me are not even close to canon. Sure it uses the name
>>and has Daleks, a Tardis and the whole nine yards

>(???)

The "Tardis" was nine yeards long in the film, obviously :-)

>> but that character is
>>not a time lord, simply an eccentric genius HUMAN being who created a
>>time machine. Both those movies are a big disappointment for me.

>And the fact that they were both big-screen remakes of The
>Daleks and The Dalek Invasion of Earth didn't do anything for
>me either.

Okay, here's my take on why the Cushing movies are canon :-)

Sure, they're not consistent with the TV series. But consistency ain't
the backbone of canonicity, 'cause otherwise you couldn't have Pyramids
of Mars and Mawdryn Undead being canon together (some may argue that this
is a good thing).

Yep, they're remakes of recently screened episodes. But then again, so
was The Moonbase and Resurrection of the Daleks (to name but two). And
not to mention the fact that most of the Hinchcliffe stories were ripoffs
of Hammer Horror films.

And one of Segal's plans at one stage was to remake classic episodes
(such as Evil of the Daleks and Genesis IIRC). So would these have been
non-canon? (could still happen, y'know!)

There's nothing really about the movies that makes them non-canon, other
than (drum roll) personal preference.

And so here's the fully paid, glittering neon reason WHY the Cushing
movies are canon:

'Cause they have the name "Dr Who" on them and they're fun.

- Robert Smith?

Scott Wasilewski

unread,
Apr 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/3/96
to
On 3 Apr 1996 09:51:46 +1000, kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman)
wrote:

>I never know what people mean when they say, "What is canon?" I suppose
>for me canonicity is a very practical thing - not "What really
>happened?", because none of it did :-), but "What can I draw on when I'm
>writing *this* story?"

Well, Kate, I don't know about you, but it always helps me write if I
can draw on all the used up paper...

With crayons, of course...
--
Scott-Raven Wasilewski: sco...@TheRamp.net
FW for Connor MacLeod and Christopher Lambert
Owned by Cats Hannibal, Sheba, and Yoda, and Tim the Dog
Frenetic Doctor Who Devotee

Graeme Burk

unread,
Apr 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/4/96
to

--

Graeme Burk

unread,
Apr 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/4/96
to
Tre Hellman (t...@quake.net) wrote:

: It can also be done in incredibly annoying ways that really get up my


: nose: Man in the Velvet Mask ( a book that I rate very highly actually) -
: why was it necessary to "solve" the one heart problem? It didn't add to
: the plot, the characterization, the poetry, anything! It only served to
: unnecessarily enforce one aspect of fannish opinion. Bully for O'Mahoney,
: but I still think it's crap. Worse than that, rather than expanding the
: mythology it close it down around a single point.

Actually, this isn't O'Manohy's own doing. The NA/MA Guidelines are
quite specific about the First Doctor only having one heart and growing
the second upon regenerating. And other MAs have alluded to it; for
instance in Managra the Doctor says something like "In the days when I
only had one heart..." and ISTR it coming up in an NA, I just don't
remember which one.

So Bully for Virgin's editorial guidelines, this one wasn't the author--
just the author reflecting on something already established.

Graeme Burk
oh, and Man in the Velvet Mask is a great read as well...

Trav1701

unread,
Apr 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/4/96
to
Could someone please explain what an NA is, and why the discussion on
wether they should be canon.

Traveller
trav...@aol.com
John Bodin 1:2624/701.1 Fidonet

Shannon Patrick Sullivan

unread,
Apr 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/4/96
to
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on 4 Apr 1996 05:25:29 -0500, I overheard Trav1701 say:

> Could someone please explain what an NA is, and why the discussion on
> wether they should be canon.

The NAs are the New Adventures, a series of original Doctor Who novels
published by Virgin Books which continue the adventures of the Seventh
Doctor beyond the end of the last televised episode, "Survival". The NAs
currently number almost fifty books, and have been authored by many
famous names like Ben Aaronovitch, Terrance Dicks, Andrew Cartmel and
Marc Platt as well as a number of talented newcomers.

The discussion on their canonicity arises from the fact that they
have been designed to continue the series and fit in with established
continuity, rather than being ignorable one-shots like the "Star Trek"
books. The 50 NAs since 1991 have been the next best thing to an ongoing
Doctor Who television series. Furthermore, Phil Segal, executive producer
of the new Doctor Who movie, explained that he felt Ace's departure has
"take care of" by the NAs, although whether this is tantamount to Segal
canonizing the books is a matter of personal opinion.

Really, it is up to each fan to decide whether the NAs (and their
companion series, the Missing Adventures) is part of their version of the
Doctor Who canon or not.

Shannon

--
| Shannon Patrick Sullivan | "I just want a little passion |
| sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca | To hold me in the dark, |
| http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sps | I know I got some magic buried, |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+ Buried deep in my heart, yeah" |
| *DOCTOR WHO ON FOX, MAY 14TH!* | -- Tori Amos, "Take To The Sky" |

mray...@acs-mail.bu.edu

unread,
Apr 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/4/96
to
In <4jseii$n...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>, kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) writes:
>I never know what people mean when they say, "What is canon?" I suppose
>for me canonicity is a very practical thing - not "What really
>happened?", because none of it did :-), but "What can I draw on when I'm
>writing *this* story?"

This would have come in handy for me a few posts ago... :)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=
Matthew Raymond - mray...@acs.bu.edu
---------------------------------------
http://acs2.bu.edu:8001/~mraymond/home.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=


mray...@acs-mail.bu.edu

unread,
Apr 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/4/96
to
In <4k082p$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, trav...@aol.com (Trav1701) writes:
>Could someone please explain what an NA is, and why the discussion on
>wether they should be canon.

Easily explained: NA stands for "not availible". They were arguing as to
whether of not cannons should be availible in the United States, and whether
the ban on cannons would continue if the assault weapons ban was lifted.

(Either that, or NA could be a reference to the Dr. Who New Adventure Novels
printed by Virgin, which are not universially accepted as a basis for Doctor
Who information and facts, which is the root of the canon discussion.)

mray...@acs-mail.bu.edu

unread,
Apr 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/4/96
to
>And so here's the fully paid, glittering neon reason WHY the Cushing
>movies are canon:
>
>'Cause they have the name "Dr Who" on them and they're fun.
>
> - Robert Smith?

I knew it!!! He thinks anything with "Dr. Who" on it is canon!!! I knew it!!
I knew it!!!!!!!!! :)

Jim Vowles

unread,
Apr 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/4/96
to
Trav1701 wrote:
>
> Could someone please explain what an NA is, and why the discussion on
> wether they should be canon.
>
> Traveller
> trav...@aol.com
> John Bodin 1:2624/701.1 Fidonet

The New Adventures (hence, NA)of Doctor Who. Have your local Waldenbooks
or whatever do a search on Timewyrm as the title to see how they're
listed *that* week.

-jim
death to a dalek is short and wears a white fedora (thanks, Kate)


Trina L. Short

unread,
Apr 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/4/96
to

In article <4jvhl2$3...@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca> Graeme Burk wrote:

>Graeme Burk
>oh, and Man in the Velvet Mask is a great read as well

Oh, you forgot the d in dread. :)

(Okay, so maybe that's just my O. I just had a hard time reading it.
Let me guess, Graeme, you had a hard time dreading it...)

trinalin

If you're not part of the solution, then you must be the precipitate.
©1996 ACME Page Fillers, Inc.


R.J. Smith

unread,
Apr 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/4/96
to
In article <4k0m38$m...@news.bu.edu>, <mray...@acs.bu.edu> wrote:
>>And so here's the fully paid, glittering neon reason WHY the Cushing
>>movies are canon:

>>'Cause they have the name "Dr Who" on them and they're fun.

> I knew it!!! He thinks anything with "Dr. Who" on it is canon!!! I knew it!!
>I knew it!!!!!!!!! :)

Yeah, but I think this newsgroup is canon as well, so what do I know? :-)

- Robert Smith?

Pat1974

unread,
Apr 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/4/96
to
In article <4k1jsj$g...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>,

Is it canon if I'm listening to 'Slipback' in my walkman while utilizing a
public urinal?

Because if not then I'm not even going to bother. . .

t.o.Patrick

Jonathan Blum

unread,
Apr 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/4/96
to
In article <4k082p$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,

Trav1701 <trav...@aol.com> wrote:
>Could someone please explain what an NA is, and why the discussion on
>wether they should be canon.

The New Adventures of Doctor Who -- a series of novels continuing the
travels of the seventh Doctor beyond the end of the series. (Some written
by established series writers such as Terrance Dicks and Ben Aaronovitch,
but the majority written by new SF authors.) People are arguing about
whether they should be canon because they actually develop the Whoniverse
in some significant ways.

There's also the Missing Adventures (MA's) -- a companion line of novels
featuring earlier Doctors, which are integrated into the NA continuity.

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

Trav1701

unread,
Apr 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/5/96
to
Shannon thank you for the information on NA

Christopher D. Heer

unread,
Apr 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/5/96
to
In article <4k21cc$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, pat...@aol.com says...

>Is it canon if I'm listening to 'Slipback' in my walkman while utilizing a
>public urinal?

>Because if not then I'm not even going to bother. . .

I wouldn't bother anyway.

--christopher d. heer
"some slipback sucked guy"


mray...@acs-mail.bu.edu

unread,
Apr 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/5/96
to
In <dgolding.4...@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au>, dgol...@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (David GOLDING) writes:
>To me, the NAs are canon.

To me, they're books. The question of following them when writing a story
is a matter of choice. I personally, however, do not use them for sources of
general Dr. Who info because they are not as easy to obtain as the videos and
cannot be seen on TV. Also, calling them canon means you have to read them
all to know what canon is, which for me is a problem due to my slow reading
speed.

Jason Abner Miller

unread,
Apr 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/5/96
to
In article <4k082p$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> trav...@aol.com (Trav1701) writes:
>Could someone please explain what an NA is, and why the discussion on
>wether they should be canon.

An "NA" is a New Adventure -- a series of novels, published
monthly, that serve as the officialy licensed continuation of "Doctor
Who".
In print for the last six years, the NAs offer high-quality
TV-series fiction (usually a contradiction in terms). Three authors
wrote for the original TV series (Terrance Dicks, Ben Aaronovitch,
Marc Platt), and three others were also strongly affiliated with the
show (David "CyberLeader" Banks, Nigel Robinson, former editor of
the Target novelizations, and John Peel, who novelized some books
and wrote some non-fiction in the late '80s).
The series began after "Survival", featuring the 7th Doctor
and Ace in a series of linked adventures. The series has evolved,
however; there are three new companions, some new villains -- but still
a host of returning villains. The hallmark of the NAs, however, is
originality. The fiction is sometimes cutting-edge sci-fi, and strives to
maintains a standard of diversity and depth that the original series
kept to.

Lots of fun, and especially controversial. Do pick some up.

-Jason A. Miller
"some doctor guy"

Jason Abner Miller

unread,
Apr 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/5/96
to

Slaking or weeping, you can never escape me, Heer.

-Jason A. Miller
"some pustules guy"

Alden Bates

unread,
Apr 7, 1996, 4:00:00 AM4/7/96
to

In article <4jurn7$d...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>, R.J. Smith (g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA) writes:
>And so here's the fully paid, glittering neon reason WHY the Cushing
>movies are canon:
>
>'Cause they have the name "Dr Who" on them and they're fun.

Why isn't this post dated April 1st? :-)

But surely if they have "Dr Who" on them, that makes them Dr Who
canon and not Doctor Who canon? And the second movie doesn't even
have "Dr Who" on it.

Alden Bates.

--
/~~~|_|~~~\ DOOM editing handiwork on ftp.cdrom.com in /pub/idgames
/ _' _ _ < Alternate DOOM ][: levels/doom2/a-c/altd2.zip
/_/ |_| |___.' Memento Mori level 10: themes/mm/mmall.zip
Alden Bates | al...@bates.wn.planet.gen.nz | See Doctor Who on Fox, May 14th

S. Berman

unread,
Apr 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/8/96
to
In article <4k4q3l$l...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>,

Jason Abner Miller <doc...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> wrote:

>-Jason A. Miller
>"some pustules guy"

Jason, your pustules are stinking up the newsgroup again!
Why can't you keep them in a freezer like everyone else?
Sheesh.

-SpiGi
"Well how ABOUT that!"

Dave Forth

unread,
Apr 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/8/96
to
t...@quake.net (Tre Hellman) wrote:

>In article <4jp7g6$q...@lou.teclink.net>, wave...@teclink.net (Chris
>Maples) wrote:
>
>[Snip argument that the NAs aren't canon cuz they weren't televised and
>the characters don't resemble the TV versions....]
>
>Hmm....
>
>I don't consider them canon, either really. I love them and wouldn't miss
>one for the world... but for me they aren't canon. (They have their own
>canon :) and I consider myself as much a fan of the books as I do of the
>series.)
>
>The main reason I don't consider them canon is because so many of them
>succumb to the fannish need to refer to everything they can and answer as
>many arguments as they can: they are *much* too interested in the
>mythology of Who - in a way that the series never was.
>
>This can be done in a clever way: Kate in Sleepy - she expands the idea of
>the Exxilons being involved in other races' development. So, in effect, it
>opens the mythology out.
>

>It can also be done in incredibly annoying ways that really get up my
>nose: Man in the Velvet Mask ( a book that I rate very highly actually) -
>why was it necessary to "solve" the one heart problem? It didn't add to
>the plot, the characterization, the poetry, anything! It only served to
>unnecessarily enforce one aspect of fannish opinion. Bully for O'Mahoney,
>but I still think it's crap. Worse than that, rather than expanding the
>mythology it close it down around a single point.
>

>When the NAs quit being a bully pulpit to "canonize" certain sides of
>certain arguments, then I'll consider them part of Who canon.
>
>This is, I realize, a very selfish and arbitrary definition of what canon
>is. But, hey, canon has always been what I like for the reasons I like at
>any given time. If you don't like that, cruk off. I don't expect anyone to
>agree with my canon and I don't expect anyone to expect me to agree with
>their's....
>
>Tre.
>And that's the way it is....

I don't count them as canon because the majority of fans don't seem to
have read them, or at least a large number of them, and so it is
difficullt to bring them into any debate about the show. I just stick
with the episodes the BBC made because, on the whole, they have been
more accessible. In most cases it was the TV show that captured our
interest and so anything always seems some how peripheral. This is not
to say they aren't as well done or as imaginative, they are just not the
original, you might say.

Anthony
(using D.Forth's account)
Dave
St. Ives, England

Christopher D. Heer

unread,
Apr 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/8/96
to
In article <4k4q3l$l...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, doc...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu says...

>-Jason A. Miller
>"some pustules guy"

Witness, boy, the *nemesis* of the Miller!
Nya-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
<squawk>
--
Christopher D. Heer: "Stonge Age Megoglomaniac" | ch...@us.oracle.com
Doctor Who, coming to Fox in May, 1996! Be there! | ch...@eskimo.com
My opinions are my own and do not reflect those | Not just cheer. . .
of Oracle Corp. Not that I've asked, of course. | all tempa-cheer!


R.J. Smith

unread,
Apr 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/8/96
to
In article <4k3mdt$h...@news.bu.edu>, <mray...@acs.bu.edu> wrote:
>In <dgolding.4...@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au>, dgol...@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (David GOLDING) writes:
>>To me, the NAs are canon.

> To me, they're books. The question of following them when writing a story
>is a matter of choice. I personally, however, do not use them for sources of
>general Dr. Who info because they are not as easy to obtain as the videos and
>cannot be seen on TV.

Come round to my place then. There's a couple on the TV right now...:-)

The question of following Power of the Daleks when writing a story is a
matter of choice. I, personally, however, do not use Power of the Daleks for
sources of general Dr. Who info because it is not as easy to obtain as

the videos and cannot be seen on TV.

Also, calling them canon means you have to read them
>all to know what canon is, which for me is a problem due to my slow reading
>speed.

Calling Power of the Daleks canon means you have to watch it all to know
what canon is, which for me is a problem due to the stupidity of the BBC
in the 1970s.

- Robert Smith?

R.J. Smith

unread,
Apr 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/8/96
to

St Anthony's Ives:

>I don't count them as canon because the majority of fans don't seem to
>have read them, or at least a large number of them, and so it is
>difficullt to bring them into any debate about the show. I just stick
>with the episodes the BBC made because, on the whole, they have been
>more accessible. In most cases it was the TV show that captured our
>interest and so anything always seems some how peripheral. This is not
>to say they aren't as well done or as imaginative, they are just not the
>original, you might say.

I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
to have seen it, or at least a number of them and so it is difficult to
bring it into any debate about the show. I just stick with the episodes
the BBC released on video because, on the whole, they have been more
accessible.

In most cases it was the Doctor we first saw that captured our interest
and so anyone else always seems some how peripheral. This is not to say
that the other Doctor's aren't as well done or as imaginative, they are

just not the original, you might say.

- Robert Smith?

Walter OGrady

unread,
Apr 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/8/96
to
>In article <4k21cc$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, pat...@aol.com says...
>
>>Is it canon if I'm listening to 'Slipback' in my walkman while utilizing a
>>public urinal?
>
>>Because if not then I'm not even going to bother. . .

You can't hold it in forever, y'know!

- Carrie, who loved the guy's post that said "If the series
contradicts the NAs, it could be really, really serious"
<wog...@epas.utoronto.ca>

Jason Abner Miller

unread,
Apr 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/8/96
to
In article <4kbffs$o...@inet-nntp-gw-1.us.oracle.com> ch...@eskimo.com writes:
>In article <4k4q3l$l...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, doc...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu says...
>>In article <4k3a98$h...@inet-nntp-gw-1.us.oracle.com> ch...@eskimo.com writes:
>>>--christopher d. heer
>>>"some slipback sucked guy"

>> Slaking or weeping, you can never escape me, Heer.
>>-Jason A. Miller
>>"some pustules guy"

>Witness, boy, the *nemesis* of the Miller!
>Nya-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
><squawk>

Your silver tongue won't save you this time.

Brett O'Callaghan

unread,
Apr 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/9/96
to
doc...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) wrote:
>trav...@aol.com (Trav1701) writes:

>>Could someone please explain what an NA is, and why the discussion on
>>wether they should be canon.

>originality. The fiction is sometimes cutting-edge sci-fi, and strives to

I really don't want to start the "NA's and SF" thread again, but
could you name a couple that you consider "cutting-edge sci-fi" and what
exactly you mean by this?

Byeeeee.

----
Mars will never be free until the sands run red with Earther blood.
----

Nick Smale

unread,
Apr 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/9/96
to
In article <31691c8...@news.compulink.co.uk>,
dfo...@kos.compulink.co.uk (Anthony, using Dave Forth's account) wrote:

? I don't count them as canon because the majority of fans don't seem to
? have read them, or at least a large number of them, and so it is
? difficullt to bring them into any debate about the show.

Well... the majority of fans I know *have* read the NAs (or at least a
large number of them) and we find it difficult to have any debate about the
show *without* bringing them into it...

It's interesting to note that, when I passed on what I'd learned of the
movie from r.a.dw to these non-Internetted friends, their first reaction
was disappointment that Benny wouldn't be in it...


.--/O\--.
| .===. | Nick Smale
|||o o||| <ni...@smale.demon.co.uk>
|| _ || Manchester, UK
'___'

Brad Filippone

unread,
Apr 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/9/96
to
R.J. Smith (g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA) wrote:

: St Anthony's Ives:
: >I don't count them as canon because the majority of fans don't seem to
: >have read them, or at least a large number of them, and so it is
: >difficullt to bring them into any debate about the show. I just stick


: >with the episodes the BBC made because, on the whole, they have been
: >more accessible. In most cases it was the TV show that captured our
: >interest and so anything always seems some how peripheral. This is not
: >to say they aren't as well done or as imaginative, they are just not the
: >original, you might say.

: I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
: to have seen it, or at least a number of them and so it is difficult to
: bring it into any debate about the show. I just stick with the episodes

: the BBC released on video because, on the whole, they have been more
: accessible.

Which brings us to another debate! What about the novelizations of TV
episodes that were based on the scripts as I believe most of them were?
As A matter of fact I just finished reading Marco Polo AND the Reign of
Terror. And these adventures are reffered to (At least Marco Polo is )
in the episodes followign them. (Ian and Barbara, at the beggining of
The Sensorites, list all the places they've been with the Doctor.

: In most cases it was the Doctor we first saw that captured our interest

: and so anyone else always seems some how peripheral. This is not to say
: that the other Doctor's aren't as well done or as imaginative, they are
: just not the original, you might say.

: - Robert Smith?

--

Sean Gaffney

unread,
Apr 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/9/96
to
> b...@lin.cbl.com.au (Brett O'Callaghan) writes:
> doc...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) wrote:
> >trav...@aol.com (Trav1701) writes:
>
> >>Could someone please explain what an NA is, and why the discussion on
> >>wether they should be canon.
>
> >originality. The fiction is sometimes cutting-edge sci-fi, and strives to
>
> I really don't want to start the "NA's and SF" thread again, but
> could you name a couple that you consider "cutting-edge sci-fi" and what
> exactly you mean by this?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

--Sean "No, we won't. Sorry, Brett." Gaffney
--"You git! I thought you were dead! Git git git!" - Benny, No Future

Ian McIntire

unread,
Apr 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/9/96
to
b...@lin.cbl.com.au (Brett O'Callaghan) wrote:
>doc...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) wrote:
>>trav...@aol.com (Trav1701) writes:
>
>>>Could someone please explain what an NA is, and why the discussion on
>>>wether they should be canon.
>
>>originality. The fiction is sometimes cutting-edge sci-fi, and strives to
>
> I really don't want to start the "NA's and SF" thread again, but
>could you name a couple that you consider "cutting-edge sci-fi" and what
>exactly you mean by this?

File this post in the same category as Gary Morris' comment in the
thread entitled "What do we call the new movie?"

He wrote,
>I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but how about "Crap?"

Ian McIntire i...@cwru.edu
"As the days go by, we find ourselves faced with the increasing
inevitability that we are alone in a godless, hostile, uninhabited and
meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?" -Holly,
Ship's Computer, JMC vessel Red Dwarf.

Jonathan Blum

unread,
Apr 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/9/96
to
In article <4kdpeu$8...@apollo.isisnet.com>,
Brad Filippone <al...@ccn.cs.dal.ca> wrote:
>R.J. Smith (g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA) wrote, to prove a point:

>: I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
>: to have seen it, or at least a number of them and so it is difficult to
>: bring it into any debate about the show. I just stick with the episodes
>: the BBC released on video because, on the whole, they have been more
>: accessible.

>Which brings us to another debate! What about the novelizations of TV
>episodes that were based on the scripts as I believe most of them were?
>As A matter of fact I just finished reading Marco Polo AND the Reign of
>Terror.

Then at least in the case of "Marco Polo", you only have a pretty vague
idea of what happened in the TV story. You probably think it's "canon"
that Tegana was killed by an arrow to the back, like he is in the final
pages of the novelization, right? And judging by how much of the dialogue
in the novelization of "The Aztecs" actually occurs in the TV version, I'd
lay good odds that Lucarotti was none too faithful to the scripts of
"Marco Polo" either.

And if you count events as canon based on having read about them in the
novelization, I can't wait till you both read and see "The Romans"...

> And these adventures are reffered to (At least Marco Polo is )
>in the episodes followign them. (Ian and Barbara, at the beggining of
>The Sensorites, list all the places they've been with the Doctor.

The Braxiatel Collection is referred to in "City of Death". Does that
make "All-Consuming Fire" canon? Ditto the Hoothi in "Brain of
Morbius"...

Regards,
Jon Blum
(who's not quite sure what his point is, but figured it needed to be made
nonetheless)

Brett O'Callaghan

unread,
Apr 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/10/96
to
gaf...@iconn.net (Sean Gaffney) wrote:
>> b...@lin.cbl.com.au (Brett O'Callaghan) writes:
>> doc...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) wrote:

>> >originality. The fiction is sometimes cutting-edge sci-fi, and strives to
>> I really don't want to start the "NA's and SF" thread again, but
>> could you name a couple that you consider "cutting-edge sci-fi" and what
>> exactly you mean by this?

>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

>--Sean "No, we won't. Sorry, Brett." Gaffney

Hey, if people are going to use terms like "cutting edge sci-fi"
I'd like to know exactly what they mean by it. 8^)

Bozzie

unread,
Apr 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/10/96
to
jb...@access2.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) wrote:

>> And these adventures are reffered to (At least Marco Polo is )
>>in the episodes followign them. (Ian and Barbara, at the beggining of
>>The Sensorites, list all the places they've been with the Doctor.
>
>The Braxiatel Collection is referred to in "City of Death". Does that
>make "All-Consuming Fire" canon? Ditto the Hoothi in "Brain of
>Morbius"...

Bad thinking. Rarely can you do continuity backwards. Simply one odd
phrase here and there doesn't mean a thing... but direct references, such
as film clips (eg The War Game clips of Jamie and Zoe back home, Cybermen
clips in Earthshock, etc.) references via recollections and phrases (eg
paraphrasing "Ice Warriors are a great enemy which I've defeated", or
"Mondos blew up when they tried to invade Earth", etc) or other
references (Ian wearing clothes from the Kublai KAhn and says they are
from there... Episodes which *do* exist, etc.) are a little more
substantial then a phrase like "the dreaded hoothi". Now if you had an
example of somewhere wear the Doctor says I will have done such and such
in a future incarnation of mine in this place, that'll give you a bit
more credence, but not as much.

Pat1974

unread,
Apr 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/10/96
to
In article <4kfrrj$e...@dziuxsolim.rutgers.edu>, Bozzie
<edh...@eden.rutgers.edu> writes:

>
>jb...@access2.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>
>>> And these adventures are reffered to (At least Marco Polo is )
>>>in the episodes followign them. (Ian and Barbara, at the beggining of
>>>The Sensorites, list all the places they've been with the Doctor.
>>
>>The Braxiatel Collection is referred to in "City of Death". Does that
>>make "All-Consuming Fire" canon? Ditto the Hoothi in "Brain of
>>Morbius"...
>
>Bad thinking. Rarely can you do continuity backwards. Simply one odd
>phrase here and there doesn't mean a thing...

Why?

>but direct references, such
>as film clips (eg The War Game clips of Jamie and Zoe back home, Cybermen

>clips in Earthshock, etc.) references via recollections and phrases (eg
>paraphrasing "Ice Warriors are a great enemy which I've defeated", or
>"Mondos blew up when they tried to invade Earth", etc) or other
>references (Ian wearing clothes from the Kublai KAhn and says they are
>from there... Episodes which *do* exist, etc.) are a little more
>substantial then a phrase like "the dreaded hoothi".

Why?

>Now if you had an
>example of somewhere wear the Doctor says I will have done such and such
>in a future incarnation of mine in this place, that'll give you a bit
>more credence, but not as much.

Why?

t.o.Patrick

Steven Moffat

unread,
Apr 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/10/96
to
Why all this fuss about canon - and, indeed, continuity - in a
show about a man who changes history for a living?

Steven Moffat

Dave Forth

unread,
Apr 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/10/96
to
g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) wrote:

>
>St Anthony's Ives:
>>I don't count them as canon because the majority of fans don't seem to


>>have read them, or at least a large number of them, and so it is

>>difficullt to bring them into any debate about the show. I just stick
>>with the episodes the BBC made because, on the whole, they have been


>>more accessible. In most cases it was the TV show that captured our
>>interest and so anything always seems some how peripheral. This is not
>>to say they aren't as well done or as imaginative, they are just not the
>>original, you might say.
>

>I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
>to have seen it, or at least a number of them and so it is difficult to
>bring it into any debate about the show. I just stick with the episodes
>the BBC released on video because, on the whole, they have been more
>accessible.
>

>In most cases it was the Doctor we first saw that captured our interest
>and so anyone else always seems some how peripheral. This is not to say
>that the other Doctor's aren't as well done or as imaginative, they are
>just not the original, you might say.
>
> - Robert Smith?

Very sharp. Ha, ha, ha. All I was trying to say is that what a fan
views as canon is really just whatever we like to view as canon. We
don't count things as canon for any logical reason, we just count them
because they happen to feel right. I don't claim that my opinion is
definitive, it's just my opinion and it is as valid as any other
opinion posted. Surely that is something I don't need to explain every
time I comment on a thread?

christopher j rednour,sa120a cd,244-5012,8

unread,
Apr 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/10/96
to

In a previous article, pat...@aol.com (Pat1974) says:
>In article <4kfrrj$e...@dziuxsolim.rutgers.edu>, Bozzie
><edh...@eden.rutgers.edu> writes:
>>jb...@access2.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>>>
>>>The Braxiatel Collection is referred to in "City of Death". Does that
>>>make "All-Consuming Fire" canon? Ditto the Hoothi in "Brain of
>>>Morbius"...
>>
>>Bad thinking. Rarely can you do continuity backwards. Simply one odd
>>phrase here and there doesn't mean a thing...
>
>Why?

I think because I could say "Argh I hate Hoothi" but that doesn't meant
any reference that I make to them imply that the reason I hate Hoothi is
tied in with the story later. However the other option:

>>>> And these adventures are reffered to (At least Marco Polo is )
>>>>in the episodes followign them. (Ian and Barbara, at the beggining of
>>>>The Sensorites, list all the places they've been with the Doctor.

Doesn't help either. Writing a book refering back to incidents doesn't
tie it back to the original. It just shows a shared set of ideas, just
as the opposite way does.

Unfortunately, the debate over what is canon and what is not is not going
to be settled by references like these.

>
>>but direct references, such
>>as film clips (eg The War Game clips of Jamie and Zoe back home, Cybermen
>>clips in Earthshock, etc.) references via recollections and phrases (eg
>>paraphrasing "Ice Warriors are a great enemy which I've defeated", or
>>"Mondos blew up when they tried to invade Earth", etc) or other
>>references (Ian wearing clothes from the Kublai KAhn and says they are
>>from there... Episodes which *do* exist, etc.) are a little more
>>substantial then a phrase like "the dreaded hoothi".
>
>Why?

The problem with this line of thinking, IMO, is that by this definition,
if Ace were to appear in the first NA exactly as she exited 'Survival'
the NA's should be canon.

>
>>Now if you had an
>>example of somewhere wear the Doctor says I will have done such and such
>>in a future incarnation of mine in this place, that'll give you a bit
>>more credence, but not as much.
>
>Why?

But how would he know that he had done it, if its in his future? And how
likely [from a production standpoint] would their be a line like that?

-Ibis
--
==================Ibis the Invincible=================================
Watch Doctor Who when it comes to FOX in May!

Jonathan Blum

unread,
Apr 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/10/96
to
In article <4kfrrj$e...@dziuxsolim.rutgers.edu>,
Bozzie <edh...@eden.rutgers.edu> wrote:
[canon wibbling snipped]

>Now if you had an
>example of somewhere wear the Doctor says I will have done such and such
>in a future incarnation of mine in this place, that'll give you a bit
>more credence, but not as much.

At the end of "Masque of Mandragora", Sarah realizes that Mandragora will
be in position to attack Earth again at the end of the twentieth century.
So that makes the story of Mandragora's return -- the DWM comic strip
"Mark of Mandragora" -- canon, right? :-)

Regards,
Jon Blum
(who's jerking an awful lot of chains tonight, isn't he?)

R.J. Smith

unread,
Apr 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/10/96
to
In article <4keuhp$4...@access2.digex.net>,

Jonathan Blum <jb...@access2.digex.net> wrote:
>In article <4kdpeu$8...@apollo.isisnet.com>,
>Brad Filippone <al...@ccn.cs.dal.ca> wrote:
>>R.J. Smith (g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA) wrote, to prove a point:
>>: I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
>>: to have seen it, or at least a number of them and so it is difficult to
>>: bring it into any debate about the show. I just stick with the episodes
>>: the BBC released on video because, on the whole, they have been more
>>: accessible.

>>Which brings us to another debate! What about the novelizations of TV

>>episodes that were based on the scripts as I believe most of them were?
>>As A matter of fact I just finished reading Marco Polo AND the Reign of
>>Terror.

>Then at least in the case of "Marco Polo", you only have a pretty vague
>idea of what happened in the TV story. You probably think it's "canon"
>that Tegana was killed by an arrow to the back, like he is in the final
>pages of the novelization, right? And judging by how much of the dialogue
>in the novelization of "The Aztecs" actually occurs in the TV version, I'd
>lay good odds that Lucarotti was none too faithful to the scripts of
>"Marco Polo" either.

Not to mention what he did to The Massacre (Of St Bartholomew's Eve),
which is probably a much better example. Is there a script book for this
one? If not, there damn well should be...

>And if you count events as canon based on having read about them in the
>novelization, I can't wait till you both read and see "The Romans"...

Er, Jon, my post was a parody of the post I was responding to. I don't
*actually* believe that M<arco Polo isn't canon.

Sorry, but I'm now terribly, terribly frightened that if Jon Blum can
swallow whole an obvious joke post, then what this says for the average
rec.arts.drwho reader is just too scary for words...

>> And these adventures are reffered to (At least Marco Polo is )
>>in the episodes followign them. (Ian and Barbara, at the beggining of
>>The Sensorites, list all the places they've been with the Doctor.

>The Braxiatel Collection is referred to in "City of Death". Does that

>make "All-Consuming Fire" canon? Ditto the Hoothi in "Brain of
>Morbius"...

I think you mean Legacy, Theatre of War and Empire of Glass. The
Braxiatal Collection wasn't mentioned in All Consuming Fire to the best
of my knowledge (and barely in Empire, since it hadn't happened to
Braxiatal yet).

- Robert Smith?
(worried about what's happening in Jon's life for him to make this many
mistakes in one post)

R.J. Smith

unread,
Apr 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/10/96
to

The Smith?ster:

>>I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
>>to have seen it, or at least a number of them and so it is difficult to
>>bring it into any debate about the show. I just stick with the episodes
>>the BBC released on video because, on the whole, they have been more
>>accessible.

St Anthony's Fire (sorry, but I keep think of you as this):


>Very sharp. Ha, ha, ha.

Thankyouverymuch, I'll be here all week! :-)

All I was trying to say is that what a fan
>views as canon is really just whatever we like to view as canon. We
>don't count things as canon for any logical reason, we just count them
>because they happen to feel right.

This is great. This is exactly what it should be. Pity it doesn't work in
practice though :-)

I don't claim that my opinion is
>definitive, it's just my opinion and it is as valid as any other
>opinion posted. Surely that is something I don't need to explain every
>time I comment on a thread?

There's a difference between presenting something explicitly as your
opinion and stating your opinion as fact. Sometimes the difference in
obvious, sometimes it isn't.

IMHO, I try to state that something's my opinion whenever I feel that it
should be pointed out (as opposed to every time it actually *is* my
opinion).

Besides, falling to the defence of "Well, it's just my opinion and
therefore it can't be wrong" is a common copout around here. What if I
state that my opinion is that all science fiction fans are subhumans who
should be shipped into labour camps at birth? Do I have a right to this
opinion? What if I choose a more controversial group to have this opinion
about? What if I don't explicitly state that this is my opinion?

- Robert Smith?

Corey Klemow

unread,
Apr 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/11/96
to
Robert Smith wrote:

>And one of Segal's plans at one stage was to remake classic episodes
>(such as Evil of the Daleks and Genesis IIRC). So would these have been
>non-canon? (could still happen, y'know!)


Er... no. That was just a silly rumor some silly people believed, for some
silly reason.

Segal's actual plan was to remake classic episodes of STAR TREK--a plan he's
followed through with, as the just-revealed-at-MANOPTICON title of the TV
Movie ("The Enemy Within") attests.

coreY
76602...@compuserve.com

Jon Preddle

unread,
Apr 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/11/96
to
In article <4kbt8a$1...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>,
g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA$

Robert Smith says...

>>I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
>>to have seen it,

Is this guy for real??????????????????????

--
Jon Preddle
New Zealand
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


top...@ibm.net

unread,
Apr 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/11/96
to
Robert Smith says...
>I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
>to have seen it

Excellent point. I don't count anything as canon which doesn't feature
the Doctor--Wartime, K-9 & Company, Shakedown, er... Mission to the
Unknown. I mean Dalek T/A. I mean Mission Cutaway. Oh damn, now
look what you've made me do.

Topsham

Ed Powell

unread,
Apr 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/11/96
to
There's a simple way of fixing all of this...

Ditch everything. Commission a new pilot. Start again. And stay with
one vision this time.

--- Ed "Hey, I never said it was going to be easy..." Powell

--
Ed Powell -- http://members.aol.com/JoeyLemur/
Freelance Computer Consultant, MSTie #27968 and perpetually confused
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Writing fiction is easy. Just make it up as you go along."
--- Ed Powell

top...@ibm.net

unread,
Apr 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/11/96
to
I just stumbled across the "Professor X" spoof pages at:
http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~dma/ProfX/

Stephen Jenkins, Darrel Manuel, John Toon, and Scot Ferre are
responsible for this travesty of a fine British institution. Their
parodies of the series structure, episode titles, logotypes, character
names, and cross-cultural referencing to easy targets elsewhere
in British television and society are juvenile, scatalogical, insensitive,
deeply offensive to right-thinking cautious individuals, and are an
outrage to hardcore fans of Doctor Who the world over. Well done,
let's have plenty more of it, chaps!

This deserves wider publicity - links to home pages, a mention in the
Quote File(TM), and lots more visitors. There will be a special prize
for the person who is the 888,888th visitor to the page.

Topsham


Walter OGrady

unread,
Apr 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/11/96
to

I think a lot of NAs are deliberately trying to go outside the canon
-- take the Who universe one or two or a lot of steps further. If
they weren't pushing the boundaries, they'd be deadly boring! So it
seems to me that a discussion of whether they're "canon" or not (and
surely "canon" isn't something that's rigid, doesn't it mean a set of
standards that can change according to context?) is a sort of
contradiction in terms.

- Carrie Canon
<wog...@epas.utoronto.ca>


R.J. Smith

unread,
Apr 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/11/96
to
In article <4ki9ad$p...@hn.hn.planet.gen.nz>,

>Robert Smith says...

That's "Smith?" to you :-)

>>>I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem

>>>to have seen it,

>Is this guy for real??????????????????????

Well, you've met me, you tell me! (Okay, so it was a long time ago and in
a country neither of us are actually in right now, but still...)

Somebody (was it you) said that the NAs weren't canon because the
majority of fans didn't seem to have read them. I just applied the same
logic to Marco Polo to show how ridiculous the idea was.

And I have been *thoroughly* frightened as to the average IQ of
rec.arts.drwho by the number of people who thought I was serious.

Sheesh! :-)

- Robert Smith?


Anonymous User

unread,
Apr 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/12/96
to
pat...@aol.com (Pat1974) wrote:

>Why?
>
Becuase.
>Why?

Why not?
>
>Why?

Oh I give up, your reasoning is just too much for me.

Edan Harel
"Some guy"


Anonymous User

unread,
Apr 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/12/96
to
top...@ibm.net wrote:

>Excellent point. I don't count anything as canon which doesn't feature
>the Doctor--Wartime, K-9 & Company, Shakedown, er... Mission to the
>Unknown. I mean Dalek T/A. I mean Mission Cutaway. Oh damn, now
>look what you've made me do.

Hmm, so every scene which doesn't feature the Doctor isn't cannon...
EEEennnteresting!
Must make the stories blotched up, though.


Anonymous User

unread,
Apr 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/13/96
to
jpr...@hn.nznet.gen.nz (Jon Preddle) wrote:
>In article <4kbt8a$1...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>,
>g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA$
>
>Robert Smith says...
>
>>>I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
>>>to have seen it,
>
>Is this guy for real??????????????????????
>

He's real, only satirical. He was illustrating the absurdity of the
(surprisingly) common argument against NA canonicity. That argument
asserts that since some not inconsiderable number of DOCTOR WHO fans
have little or no knowledge of the events taking place in the NAs (or
even of the NAs themselves, in many cases), the NAs should not be called
canon. Robert Smith? was entirely correct in his projection of the
"logical conclusion" of this argument. The conclusion that (I trust)
he meant for you to draw from his post was this: Since you might validly
infer an absurd conclusion through the application of the argument under
consideration, the argument is invalid.

Of course, if you happen to believe that MARCO POLO is not canon for the
very reason stated above, then go on arguing your position. Canonicity,
as always, is entirely subjective.

Andrew R. Vogel
avo...@eden.rutgers.edu
IMHO
not "anonymous user"

P.S. Well said, Robert Smith?


Alden Bates

unread,
Apr 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/13/96
to

Pat1974 (pat...@aol.com) writes:

>Bozzie <edh...@eden.rutgers.edu> writes:
>
>>but direct references, such as film clips (eg The War Game clips
>>of Jamie and Zoe back home, Cybermen
>>clips in Earthshock, etc.) references via recollections and phrases (eg
>>paraphrasing "Ice Warriors are a great enemy which I've defeated", or
>>"Mondos blew up when they tried to invade Earth", etc) or other
>>references (Ian wearing clothes from the Kublai KAhn and says they are
>>from there... Episodes which *do* exist, etc.) are a little more
>>substantial then a phrase like "the dreaded hoothi".
>
>Why?

Why? Why not? If Ian says that they visited Kudlai Khan, then we
can safely assume that if in the last story they visited Kublai
Khan, then if the 1st story is canon, so is the first one.

Oh, you were asking why it's different from the first one...

Well, a vague mention of the Hoothi is not quite the same as saying
that the Doctor encountered them...

Alden Bates.

--
Name: Alden Bates STR INT SPE END RNK COU FRP SKL
Function: Computer Programmer :
Quote: "Bugger." | . | |
Stats variable on equipment supplied: : | | | : | | |

Dave Forth

unread,
Apr 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/13/96