October BBC Novels
LennyTyke
happy that I feel I have to tell everyone about it.
With 'Divided Loyalties', the BBC has clearly signed on to the Virgin series
(or they've invented their own House of Lungbarrow, Other etc etc). I hated
the Virgin novels I read, the ethos behind the Virgin Gallifreyan stuff and so
I hoped (in vain, it seems) that the BBC would discredit them. Virgin for me,
NOT CANON. Therefore, now, BBC PDAs NOT CANON (for me). Then 'Taking of
Planet 5' (ToP5) not only buys into Virgin series history, but also makes
continuity reference to 'Infy Docs', the least canonisable book in the whole
series!
With ToP5 (and to a lesser extent, Blue Angel) it has become clear that the
8DAs have decended into farce. One companion character is a cross between 7
of 9 and S.A.I.N.T. Number 'Johnny' Five. The other is, well, Fitz.
The BBC are doing what I felt happen when I read Virgin novels, or reviews or
synopses of them. They are killing the magic and mystery of Dr. Who. Once
the Doctor is only special because he has a Destiny and a great past
(somethbing to do with the 'Other') then we are no longer allowed to aspire to
be as good as he. Once the Time Lords can only master Time through extra
genetic bits that they artificially plug in after completing the course at
Academy, we can no longer dream of being like the Doctor. And most of all,
once all the marvellous abilities are explained away like this, there is no
magic or wonder left. In an attempt to make the Doctor special like this,
authors make him less and less interesting, less and less wonderful. When he
was a renegade who bucked the trends, and *despite* his background became
something special, he was miraculous. Now he, the Time Lords and even the
TARDIS are made commonplace.
'Divided Loyalties' had no fun in it. There was clear distaste for all the
characters (including both versions of the Doctor) so why on Earth Gary Russell
chose to write for them, I have no idea. The novel struck me as cynical,
20/30-something Thatcher-generation fare with no love for the story. That
sums up my utter dislike of this book (plus the fact that I threw it across the
room every forty pages or so).
ToP5 was like two books by different authors. Some bits were great, others
were tacky and worthless (as far as I could see). I shall possibly never find
out who was responsible for which. The overall feel was disappointing,
however, and I think that comes from all the bits where the magical feel of Dr.
Who just trickled away (the 'real science' basis for it, however, was
refreshing!). Taken after Divided Loyalties, in which there was never any
magic to begin with, this novel was just too cynical. (BTW, referencing the
thing you're ripping off by name isn't funny - Tomb Raider III also has
Antarctic discoveries of ancient artefacts of alien origin, so it really is
Lara Croft stuff...)
On the basis of the past three months of BBC Dr. Who novels, I think that in
the future my money will be better spent on the Dr. Who audio dramas from Big
Finish, and the occasional video. I shall read the November novels and if
they further this feeling, then I shall act accordingly. It is with great
sadness that I realise that this is so, because Dr. Who has been one of the
greatest stories ever told, but now that that greatness seems to have been
sacrificed to make it look big, I will return to those with a smaller vision
that preserves the big picture.
A rather upset and depressed,
OJT
Paul Cornell
> the least canonisable book in the whole
>series!
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! 'Canonisable' indeed!
On a more serious note, please hang on for Avalon, which I'm very proud
of, but more to the point is too 'traditional Doctor Who' for words! I'm
actually afraid it'll alienate some of the book fans by being too
old-fashioned and straightforward: it's very much the Doctor as a hero.
13th...@my-deja.com
> Avalon... it's very much the Doctor as a hero.
Isn't that how he's *supposed* to be?! I'm really looking forward to
it, Paul. And I hope it won't be your last BBC book.
13th
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
I. Inayat
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
LennyTyke wrote in message <19991021192942...@ng-fg1.aol.com>...
>I'm back, and I'm not happy. The reason I am back is because I am so not
>happy that I feel I have to tell everyone about it.
>
>With 'Divided Loyalties', the BBC has clearly signed on to the Virgin
series
>(or they've invented their own House of Lungbarrow, Other etc etc). I
hated
>the Virgin novels I read, the ethos behind the Virgin Gallifreyan stuff and
so
>I hoped (in vain, it seems) that the BBC would discredit them.
'neither confirm or deny the Virgin books' which, in practice, means
'confirm the broad strokes and don't sweat the details of the Virgin books'.
'He is a mystery' - Leela, in Lungbarrow.
Cold Fusion........
Virgin for me,
>NOT CANON. Therefore, now, BBC PDAs NOT CANON (for me). Then 'Taking of
>Planet 5' (ToP5) not only buys into Virgin series history, but also makes
>continuity reference to 'Infy Docs', the least canonisable book in the
whole
>series!
Why is TID non-canonisable for you?
Umm....because the books refer to stuff that isn't canonical to you, does
that make them non-canonical?
Seeing I, Unnatural History and Interference all refer to TID. Does that
make them non-canonical?
Oh, and Face of the Enemy 'buys into' Virgin history too.......as well as
Millennium Shock and Business Unusual.........
>
>With ToP5 (and to a lesser extent, Blue Angel) it has become clear that the
>8DAs have decended into farce. One companion character is a cross between
7
>of 9 and S.A.I.N.T. Number 'Johnny' Five. The other is, well, Fitz.
Why TBA? What, in particular, is farcial?
And your problem with Fitz is........? Especially given Interference........
And what's wrong with having a '7 of 9' type, hmm? Given that whatever she's
learning to be, it doesn't look like being human..............I think she's
going on a different path.....
>
>The BBC are doing what I felt happen when I read Virgin novels, or reviews
or
>synopses of them. They are killing the magic and mystery of Dr. Who.
Once
>the Doctor is only special because he has a Destiny and a great past
>(somethbing to do with the 'Other') then we are no longer allowed to aspire
to
>be as good as he.
He's not. He's special because he's undefinable, something you can't pin
down to a single definition, something that teases at you, hints you might
understand if you could only learn a _little bit more_......
And besides.......he doesn't have a destiny. Who'd want one? That'd mean his
future was laid out, with some titanic Goal for him to achieve. He has a
prophecy.......but Sam nicked it from Babylon 5. He doesn't have a great
past; he has a mysterious past, an everchanging past...(Lungbarrow didn't
establish the Other as great.......)
We can _try_ to be as good as the Doctor, to do the best we can in our own
worlds,
but we can't travel in time and space, we can't regenerate, we can't live
Rassilon knows how long......
We can stay in one place, work for long-term causes, put our life on the
line.....
He can do things we can't; we can do things he can't. Does that rob the
capacity to be a hero from either him or us?
>Once the Time Lords can only master Time through extra
>genetic bits that they artificially plug in after completing the course at
>Academy, we can no longer dream of being like the Doctor.
Having read ToP5........do you _want_ those bits in you? And if time
travel's possible, why should it be through extra genetic bits?
And since when could a human regenerate?
And most of all,
>once all the marvellous abilities are explained away like this, there is no
>magic or wonder left.
<looks at Unnatural History, Autumn Mist and The Blue Angel> I'm sorry?
The 'explanations' don't matter. What matters is that he's the Doctor,
capable of doing incredible, magical things. Maybe he was marked from birth;
maybe he learned them over time. What matters is *that* he can do them, not
why.
The reasons are window-dressing, explanations to make us feel that there's
some basis for what he does. But what if the reasons _aren't real_? What if
it's a titanic con?
What if the TARDIS is really a 'magic door' built from the wood of the World
Tree? What if the Doctor's a human sorcerer who stole the secret of
immortality? What if he's a refugee from the far future? What if he's an old
inventor, dreaming of an incredible life as a galactic hero?
In the end, it doesn't matter; he is the Doctor..........and we don't know
who he really is.
And that's as it should be.
> In an attempt to make the Doctor special like this,
>authors make him less and less interesting, less and less wonderful. When
he
>was a renegade who bucked the trends, and *despite* his background became
>something special, he was miraculous. Now he, the Time Lords and even the
>TARDIS are made commonplace.
>
Wha? Errr.....Shoggoth-TARDISes? Time Lords who escape into the Matrix?
He's a _mystery_. Is it because of or in spite of his
background.................or is there another reason why he's special and
miraculous? Maybe he's _become_ special and miraculous as time
passes............or maybe there's something about him that refuses to be
pinned down, no matter _what_ his background was..........(thank you,
Kate'n'Jon.....)
>'Divided Loyalties' had no fun in it. There was clear distaste for all
the
>characters (including both versions of the Doctor) so why on Earth Gary
Russell
>chose to write for them, I have no idea. The novel struck me as cynical,
>20/30-something Thatcher-generation fare with no love for the story. That
>sums up my utter dislike of this book (plus the fact that I threw it across
the
>room every forty pages or so).
Fun? Like the bit where Badger shoves Runcible out of the way? Or the bit
where Adric talks to a cow? Or Tegan's memories of Brisbane? Or the scene in
the club with Sir Henry?
Distaste? Odd...... I thought Gary _did_ like the characters.....especially
the 1st Doctor. The heroes get the good endings......and so do some of the
baddies.
Cynical? <looks at mirror scene> <looks at final paragraph> <looks at the
Doctor and Nyssa comforting the Doctor's oldest friend> <sees what Oakwood
finally decides to do>
Thought it was quite hopeful, myself......
And......Why do the Guardians exist?
Did Rassilon _really_ know what the Great Old Ones were? Or are they
something beyond his mere definitions?
Is that spark in the Doctor's eyes from his half-humanity, the
Other.......or is it from somewhere else?
Who _are_ the other Guardians? And what, really, are the Eternals?
What do the CIA want? What do _they_ find so interesting about the Doctor?
What are the Guardians really capable of? And I wonder about Shayde, from
the DWM strip, now.........and what happened to him......
No magic? There's magic.....if you know where it lives....
>
>ToP5 was like two books by different authors. Some bits were great,
others
>were tacky and worthless (as far as I could see). I shall possibly never
find
>out who was responsible for which. The overall feel was disappointing,
>however, and I think that comes from all the bits where the magical feel of
Dr.
>Who just trickled away (the 'real science' basis for it, however, was
>refreshing!).
If it's explained to you, the magic trickles away? Very well.......
<uses magic to conjure up a fireball> There. I've just done something, and
explained how I did it.
But that doesn't answer what magic is, though.
A good explanation should answer all your questions........and leave you
free to pose more.
Who _were_ the TARDISes contacting..............and why did they call upon
Shub-Niggurath (aka the Nestene Consciousness)?
What agenda could the Rassilonic Imprimatur have?
What are the legends the Future TARDISes have of the Doctor?
What does Marie know of Compassion?
Who *is* the President? And, depending on your view, how'd he get there from
TID?
> Taken after Divided Loyalties, in which there was never any
>magic to begin with, this novel was just too cynical. (BTW, referencing
the
>thing you're ripping off by name isn't funny - Tomb Raider III also has
>Antarctic discoveries of ancient artefacts of alien origin, so it really is
>Lara Croft stuff...)
Oh, so _that_ was the joke......
>
>On the basis of the past three months of BBC Dr. Who novels, I think that
in
>the future my money will be better spent on the Dr. Who audio dramas from
Big
>Finish, and the occasional video. I shall read the November novels and if
>they further this feeling, then I shall act accordingly.
Awww....... Shame.
So....why do I find magic in the BBC Books?
>It is with great
>sadness that I realise that this is so, because Dr. Who has been one of the
>greatest stories ever told, but now that that greatness seems to have been
>sacrificed to make it look big, I will return to those with a smaller
vision
>that preserves the big picture.
>
Oh.
Hmmm. Not to me. I think they've managed to keep the balance between the
Doctor being an ideal, and being a role model.....
Just let me check.......as long as the books appear to make being like the
Doctor an attainable goal, you'd keep buying them?
Is this what you refer to that when you mention 'greatness'? I'm a little
unsure what you meant.there.....
Imran 'baffled' Inayat
Prince Reynart
news:7uoulk$u54$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
<snip>
| On a more serious note, please hang on for Avalon, which I'm very
proud
| of, but more to the point is too 'traditional Doctor Who' for words! I'm
| actually afraid it'll alienate some of the book fans by being too
| old-fashioned and straightforward: it's very much the Doctor as a hero.
Good Goddess, Mr Cornell! What are you thinking? I hope at least you've
managed not to have any corridors :-)
--
'I didn't call you an idiot, I asked if you were an idiot, ya f@ck*n'
idiot!'
Benjamin
Paul Cornell
<7upn03$qqa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>> Avalon... it's very much the Doctor as a hero.
>
>Isn't that how he's *supposed* to be?! I'm really looking forward to
>it, Paul. And I hope it won't be your last BBC book.
Thanks. Oh dear, there *are* corridors too... And I used to be so radical!
I must be getting old.
LennyTyke
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
Cold Fusion........
Virgin for me,
>NOT CANON. Therefore, now, BBC PDAs NOT CANON (for me). Then 'Taking of
>Planet 5' (ToP5) not only buys into Virgin series history, but also makes
>continuity reference to 'Infy Docs', the least canonisable book in the
whole
>series!
Why is TID non-canonisable for you?
Umm....because the books refer to stuff that isn't canonical to you, does
that make them non-canonical?
Seeing I, Unnatural History and Interference all refer to TID. Does that
make them non-canonical?
Oh, and Face of the Enemy 'buys into' Virgin history too.......as well as
Millennium Shock and Business Unusual.........
---------------------------
Not so that I couldn't ignore it. FoTE was the first book I read to introduce
the name Koschei. Cool name, nothing wrong with it. Millennium Shock was
obviously referring to a previous adventure, but there was no reason to assume
anything about whether that adventure was recorded elsewhere. Likewise,
Business Unusual. Similarly, if SI, UH and Interference all link to TID, I
missed it therefore, I assume it wasn't obvious enough to check.
The reason TID is not canonisable (I'm rather proud of coining this phrase,
however meaningless it may be to some people!) is because there is nowhere it
can logically fit into the storyline of the Doctor's life that I can see.
-----------------------
T.I.Inayat continues:
>
>With ToP5 (and to a lesser extent, Blue Angel) it has become clear that the
>8DAs have decended into farce. One companion character is a cross between
7
>of 9 and S.A.I.N.T. Number 'Johnny' Five. The other is, well, Fitz.
Why TBA? What, in particular, is farcial?
And your problem with Fitz is........? Especially given Interference........
And what's wrong with having a '7 of 9' type, hmm? Given that whatever she's
learning to be, it doesn't look like being human..............I think she's
going on a different path.....
------------------------------------
TBA because Compassion's character as 7 of 9 becomes apparent there.
Farcical because we now have two pathetic companions with personality disorders
as distinguishing features (or that's how it looks to me). Seven - sorry,
Compassion, is defined purely by this non-understanding of human values. Fitz
is defined by character traits that Just seem pathetic.
--------------------------------
T.I.Inayat continues:
>
>The BBC are doing what I felt happen when I read Virgin novels, or reviews
or
>synopses of them. They are killing the magic and mystery of Dr. Who.
Once
>the Doctor is only special because he has a Destiny and a great past
>(somethbing to do with the 'Other') then we are no longer allowed to aspire
to
>be as good as he.
He's not. He's special because he's undefinable, something you can't pin
down to a single definition, something that teases at you, hints you might
understand if you could only learn a _little bit more_......
And besides.......he doesn't have a destiny. Who'd want one? That'd mean his
future was laid out, with some titanic Goal for him to achieve. He has a
prophecy.......but Sam nicked it from Babylon 5. He doesn't have a great
past; he has a mysterious past, an everchanging past...(Lungbarrow didn't
establish the Other as great.......)
We can _try_ to be as good as the Doctor, to do the best we can in our own
worlds,
but we can't travel in time and space, we can't regenerate, we can't live
Rassilon knows how long......
We can stay in one place, work for long-term causes, put our life on the
line.....
He can do things we can't; we can do things he can't. Does that rob the
capacity to be a hero from either him or us?
--------------------------------------
The problem is, the Doctor and every exceptional talent he has, *is* being
defined and explained and pidgeon-holed (like the Unnaturalist did). It is no
longer enough that Time Lords regenerate, they regenerate because of
artificially introduced genetic information that they earn. Similarly their
link with their TARDISes is specifically explained. Similarly, the reason the
Doctor is different is because of his link with the Other. Similarly, the
Doctor's origins on Gallifrey are defined, explained and put in the appropriate
place. There is no magic left, no, 'if an ordinary Time Lord can rise above
his background, then so can we rise above ours'. It is a very mechanistic
view of Dr. Who that I cannot accept.
---------------------------------
>Once the Time Lords can only master Time through extra
>genetic bits that they artificially plug in after completing the course at
>Academy, we can no longer dream of being like the Doctor.
Having read ToP5........do you _want_ those bits in you? And if time
travel's possible, why should it be through extra genetic bits?
And since when could a human regenerate?
And most of all,
>once all the marvellous abilities are explained away like this, there is no
>magic or wonder left.
<looks at Unnatural History, Autumn Mist and The Blue Angel> I'm sorry?
The 'explanations' don't matter. What matters is that he's the Doctor,
capable of doing incredible, magical things. Maybe he was marked from birth;
maybe he learned them over time. What matters is *that* he can do them, not
why.
-------------------------------
For you, maybe, but for me the Doctor is a symbol not defined by what he can
do, but by what he has overcome. If he has been gifted all these powers, by
history or by artificial augmentation to lift him above others, then what is
he? If a robot designed to lift a tonne does so, it is nothing special. If
a human does it, then that is an achievement.
Time manipulation etc. is made possible, according to Interference, Divided
Loyalties and ToP5 by the extra genetic augmentation Time Lords receive when
they graduate, but I reject that because that means it is something that
differentiates the Doctor from the ordinary people of Gallifrey. I don't want
those bits in me; I want to be able to figure out a TARDIS by myself (given
time).
UH, Autumn Mist and Blue Angel have magic events, but are not magical. In Dr.
Who everything is explicable by science, but some things are unexplained. The
magic is in the Doctor, not in the events he encounters. Until, of course,
the Doctor becomes something out of reach, in which case he is just doing what
he is programmed to do.
------------------------------
The reasons are window-dressing, explanations to make us feel that there's
some basis for what he does. But what if the reasons _aren't real_? What if
it's a titanic con?
What if the TARDIS is really a 'magic door' built from the wood of the World
Tree? What if the Doctor's a human sorcerer who stole the secret of
immortality? What if he's a refugee from the far future? What if he's an old
inventor, dreaming of an incredible life as a galactic hero?
In the end, it doesn't matter; he is the Doctor..........and we don't know
who he really is.
And that's as it should be.
-----------------------------------
Then the novels shouldn't keep showing us the mechanics of what makes the
Doctor different. The Doctor is amazing, because he is just an ordinary Time
Lord but he has become more than all the others put together. Or, he's
amazing because he's just an ordinary person who discovered space-time travel.
Or he's a human who has learned to master magic door out of the doodah wood
blah blah. In all these, the Doctor started off as an ordinary person -
therefore, any ordinary person could achieve some of what he has done in our
limited lifespan.
The Doctor is a symbol of hope, a symbol of egalitarian society in which those
who make the effort can better themselves and others, and a symbol that we are
all capable of making a difference. Or at least, he was until people started
explaining away his amazing abilities. Even when the Doctor held himself
above those around him, there was the offer that one day, we might equal him.
Now, that sense of magic and wonder that an ordinary person could achieve so
much, has evaporate, trickled away, and been lost in the neat boxes and
mechanistic view that confines the novels these days.
--------------------------------------
> In an attempt to make the Doctor special like this,
>authors make him less and less interesting, less and less wonderful. When
he
>was a renegade who bucked the trends, and *despite* his background became
>something special, he was miraculous. Now he, the Time Lords and even the
>TARDIS are made commonplace.
>
Wha? Errr.....Shoggoth-TARDISes? Time Lords who escape into the Matrix?
He's a _mystery_. Is it because of or in spite of his
background.................or is there another reason why he's special and
miraculous? Maybe he's _become_ special and miraculous as time
passes............or maybe there's something about him that refuses to be
pinned down, no matter _what_ his background was..........(thank you,
Kate'n'Jon.....)
--------------------------------
But this is my point. That is precisely what the novels are destroying!
Every time the abilities of the Doctor are explained as something extra, the
Doctor's backround becomes more important, and he becomes less important.
When the Doctor was just an ordinary Gallifreyan who became a Time Lord by
learning how to do stuff, and then became a renegade, then the Doctor had made
himself special. When his abilities are the mark of an elite, gifted him by
others, then he is no longer special but doing what he is programmed to do.
The only way the Doctor can be special and miraculous is if there is no reason
in his past that he should be - if he has made *himself* special and
miraculous. If he has been given a mission by the Gallifreyan Gods, if he
has been granted special powers as a Time Lord not because all his people have
them, but because the elite are given them, if he has some special, different
'Other' important in his past, then doing special things are ordinary to him,
and not special or miraculous at all.
--------------------------------
>'Divided Loyalties' had no fun in it. There was clear distaste for all
the
>characters (including both versions of the Doctor) so why on Earth Gary
Russell
>chose to write for them, I have no idea. The novel struck me as cynical,
>20/30-something Thatcher-generation fare with no love for the story. That
>sums up my utter dislike of this book (plus the fact that I threw it across
the
>room every forty pages or so).
Fun? Like the bit where Badger shoves Runcible out of the way? Or the bit
where Adric talks to a cow? Or Tegan's memories of Brisbane? Or the scene in
the club with Sir Henry?
Distaste? Odd...... I thought Gary _did_ like the characters.....especially
the 1st Doctor. The heroes get the good endings......and so do some of the
baddies.
Cynical? <looks at mirror scene> <looks at final paragraph> <looks at the
Doctor and Nyssa comforting the Doctor's oldest friend> <sees what Oakwood
finally decides to do>
Thought it was quite hopeful, myself......
--------------------------------------
No, I could find no affection for any of the characters. The scenes you
mention came across to me as a spit in the face of the characters, not as
'fun'. The ending struck me as mainly self-interested in terms of the
characters, except for Oakwood (the only character who receives a half-way
sympathetic treatment, IMO). It was the, 'And we're all better people as a
result!' "Mega-happy" ending of Wayne's World all over again, and hence it just
felt totally insincere after the rest of the book.
------------------------------------
> And......Why do the Guardians exist?
We had that before!
> Did Rassilon _really_ know what the Great Old Ones were? Or are they
something beyond his mere definitions?
'Course he didn't. And why couldn't he have given them original names!?
> Is that spark in the Doctor's eyes from his half-humanity, the
Other.......or is it from somewhere else?
It's from his inner personality, I imagine (not believing in the Other).
> Who _are_ the other Guardians? And what, really, are the Eternals?
Chaos, Light and Dark and the mysterious Twins. Why only six? Why not give
the other authors something to play with!?
> What do the CIA want? What do _they_ find so interesting about the Doctor?
Well, DUH! The Doctor's put right what might otherwise gone wrong in so many
eras and locations, that anyone with an interest in the outside universe who
would be aware of him, would be interested to their own ends. As for what the
CIA want, that's obvious: POWER!
> What are the Guardians really capable of?
Anything, if we are to believe the hype.
> And I wonder about Shayde, from
> the DWM strip, now.........and what happened to him......
I don't. I just think that the Watcher just became rather more boring.
--------------------------------
No magic? There's magic.....if you know where it lives....
>
>ToP5 was like two books by different authors. Some bits were great,
others
>were tacky and worthless (as far as I could see). I shall possibly never
find
>out who was responsible for which. The overall feel was disappointing,
>however, and I think that comes from all the bits where the magical feel of
Dr.
>Who just trickled away (the 'real science' basis for it, however, was
>refreshing!).
If it's explained to you, the magic trickles away? Very well.......
<uses magic to conjure up a fireball> There. I've just done something, and
explained how I did it.
But that doesn't answer what magic is, though.
--------------------------------
You misunderstand me. It is not the fact of the explanation, but what the
explanation *is* that has destroyed the magical feel of the Doctor, and hence
Dr. Who.
Dr. Who has no magic that is not science (part of the show's background since
at least Daemons), except in people's actions especially the Doctor. Explain
away the Doctor, as has been done, in terms of science and the Doctor ceases to
be amazing.
---------------------------------
A good explanation should answer all your questions........and leave you
free to pose more.
Who _were_ the TARDISes contacting..............and why did they call upon
Shub-Niggurath (aka the Nestene Consciousness)?
What agenda could the Rassilonic Imprimatur have?
What are the legends the Future TARDISes have of the Doctor?
What does Marie know of Compassion?
Who *is* the President? And, depending on your view, how'd he get there from
TID?
---------------------------------------
Why do I feel that all these strands will be neatly tied off at the end of the
story-arc? Why don't I understand some of them (presumably because I haven't
read many Virgin novels, I guess)?
--------------------------------------
So....why do I find magic in the BBC Books?
-------------------------------------
I don't know who you are to answer that question. It may be that compared to
other things you see, Dr. Who BBC books are magical. I've seen magical places
all around me in real life, and the BBC books no longer live up to that.
VampSci still does, and a few others, but...
-------------------------------------
>It is with great
>sadness that I realise that this is so, because Dr. Who has been one of the
>greatest stories ever told, but now that that greatness seems to have been
>sacrificed to make it look big, I will return to those with a smaller
vision
>that preserves the big picture.
>
Oh.
Hmmm. Not to me. I think they've managed to keep the balance between the
Doctor being an ideal, and being a role model.....
----------------------------------------
The Doctor is both at once, there is no 'balance' to be found. The ideal and
role model was always for me to overcome obstacles by perseverence and thought,
and to be greater than what you were made. That has gone from the novels now,
so...<shrugs>
----------------------------------------
Just let me check.......as long as the books appear to make being like the
Doctor an attainable goal, you'd keep buying them?
Is this what you refer to that when you mention 'greatness'? I'm a little
unsure what you meant.there.....
-----------------------------------------
I refer you to my last paragraph - what made the Doctor great was that he
became better, greater, than his origins, and surpassed the barriers in his way
not with violence and anger, but with inner strength, courage of his
convictions, and compassionate concern for others.
He still has those qualities, but he no longer has become greater than his
origins, it seems, because his origins were special anyway.
And with that, I'll say goodbye, because I've said an awful lot here.
OJT
Imran 'baffled' Inayat
Paul Cornell
But it was someone else who used the word:
>non-canonisable!
>The reason TID is not canonisable (I'm rather proud of coining this phrase,
>however meaningless it may be to some people!)
But then he went and got proud of it. So I really think he should go down
as the one who took this whole sorid 'canon' business from the realm of
nouns to the previously gorgeous realm of verbs.
What's next? Canonlike? Canonous? Canonism?
I suppose I should be pleased that people have mostly started to spell
the root of it correctly, at least.
Meddling Mick
>I'm back, and I'm not happy. The reason I am back is because I am so not
>happy that I feel I have to tell everyone about it.
>
>With 'Divided Loyalties', the BBC has clearly signed on to the Virgin series
>(or they've invented their own House of Lungbarrow, Other etc etc). I hated
>the Virgin novels I read, the ethos behind the Virgin Gallifreyan stuff and so
>I hoped (in vain, it seems) that the BBC would discredit them. Virgin for me,
>NOT CANON. Therefore, now, BBC PDAs NOT CANON (for me).
But the Looms crop up earlier in the EDAs. They're mentioned a couple
of times in The Scarlet Empress. So why didn't the novels become
uncanonical for you previously?
>Then 'Taking of Planet 5' (ToP5) not only buys into Virgin series history,
>but also makes continuity reference to 'Infy Docs', the least canonisable
>book in the whole series!
But just because tID doesn't seem to fit in *now* doesn't mean it
won't fit in later...?
<snip>
>The BBC are doing what I felt happen when I read Virgin novels, or reviews or
>synopses of them. They are killing the magic and mystery of Dr. Who. Once
>the Doctor is only special because he has a Destiny and a great past
>(somethbing to do with the 'Other') then we are no longer allowed to aspire to
>be as good as he.
In which way do you mean 'as good as the Doctor'? How heroic,
selfless, etc? Or something else?
>Once the Time Lords can only master Time through extra
>genetic bits that they artificially plug in after completing the course at
>Academy, we can no longer dream of being like the Doctor.
But wasn't this explained in the TV series? The Two Doctors mentioned
the Rassilon Imprimature, didn't it? The novels are only adding to
what has gone before.
>And most of all, once all the marvellous abilities are explained away like
>this, there is no magic or wonder left. In an attempt to make the Doctor
>special like this, authors make him less and less interesting, less and less
>wonderful.
Hmm. I'm one of those chaps who believe the more we get told about
the Doctor's past the more questions it actually raises, and we
discover just how little we do know for certain.
>When he was a renegade who bucked the trends, and *despite*
>his background became something special, he was miraculous. Now he,
>the Time Lords and even the TARDIS are made commonplace.
What's commonplace about being Loomed and wandering around time and
space in a TARDIS? It all sounds rather miraculous to me. Is it the
fact that he's Loomed, or the fact that his origins have been
explained *full stop*? Would you have been happier if the Doctor's
beginnings had been revealed to be different, ie born?
<snip DL and tToP5 stuff>
>On the basis of the past three months of BBC Dr. Who novels, I think that in
>the future my money will be better spent on the Dr. Who audio dramas from Big
>Finish, and the occasional video.
Well I wasn't impressed with tSoT (although it's probably supposed to
be BFs equivalent of tED), but Phantasmagoria seems to be a bit of an
improvement, although I haven't listened to the whole thing yet.
--------------------
(Meddling) Mick
"I'm half-Loom, man. On my Other's side."
(What the Doctor *really* said)
Ben Woodhams
[snip]
> And I used to be so radical!
> I must be getting old.
You'll be writing for Dreamwatch next.
ben w.
--
Joke! Joke, Godamnit!
Paul Cornell
>Paul Cornell wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> And I used to be so radical!
>> I must be getting old.
>
>You'll be writing for Dreamwatch next.
But my heart belongs to SFX. Speaking of which, there's not only a
fantastic Tom Baker interview in the issue out this week (58) with questions
asked by the fans, but the first of my regular columns, where this month I
talk about Doctor Who!
Richard Jones
<paulc...@owlservice.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>But then he went and got proud of it. So I really think he should go down
>as the one who took this whole sorid 'canon' business from the realm of
>nouns to the previously gorgeous realm of verbs.
Hasn't 'canonise' been around for a while?
Admitedly 'non-canonisable' is an unsightly bit of morphology, and
used absurdly here, but I don't think it is in itself a radical act of
language change.
--
Richard Jones.
LennyTyke
The whole thing is about symbolism. The Loom symbolises artificial creation,
and hence design, therefore a Loom-created being is inherently less special
than a more organically created one. The Doctor having this unique 'Other' in
his background makes him unique, and therefore not special because he is
different by creation and not by being himself. The Time Lords being only
able to manipulate time, regenerate etc etc because they are artificially given
these powers again makes an elitist statement, and says that being special is
not open to everybody.
I'm not bothered about more questions (I fail to see how 'They are made on
Looms' opens more questions, beyond the mechanics and sociology of the process,
which are mere details). I'm bothered about what is done to the symbolism.
When I was younger, the Doctor was a renegade who was a relative failure
amongst his own people, but who rose above this. Now it looks as if he was
always something different and unique, and that makes him a nobody because he
is only doing what he is made to do.
The Doctor, for me, was always a symbol of what the ordinary man can achieve if
he put his mind to it, not what the exceptional person does as a matter of
course - if I wanted that, then I would watch Superman instead. So the
Doctor's people are exceptional, but the Doctor is exceptional amongst them for
what he does, not for who he was made. Likewise, we can all be exceptional
amongst humans, if we put our minds to it. Martin Luther King was not a
special man but he changed the world. Mahatma Gandhi was only special in that
he had a good education - which anyone can achieve in theory - and *he* changed
the way we think about protest! Why do people not want the Doctor to be of
the same mettle as these heroes?
By the way, I rejected only Scarlet Empress at the time, because I recognised
none of the characters as being the same as those in the other BBC novels. At
that time, the other novels were good enough in their own rigfht to retain my
interest. The same is not true now, it seems. As for Two Docs, I was all of
five years old at the time, so yes I watched it, but I had no understanding of
the Rassilon whatsit.
TID doesn't fit because there is no slot for it to go into - either prior to An
Unearthly Child or later than we've seen thus far, there are enormous problems
to fitting it in because of TV Series events.
OJT
LennyTyke
revelations in Interference, Divided Loyalties and ToP5 that Time Lords'
abilities are merely bolted-on artificial bits'n'pieces, and my response to
that, there is a way to break all that down.
<SPOILERS for Divided Loyalties>
1
2
3
4
5
It requires a PDA set entirely with the pre-departure 1st Doctor as seen in
Divided Loyalties, in which we discover just how he escaped the majority of his
500-year sentence to traffic-control duties (well, he must do since the Second
Doctor is only 450!) and discovers that the add-on bits are really a fiction
designed to keep the Time Lords in power, and to keep the ordinary Gallifreyan
citizens as a separate class. If nobody else has already submitted such an
idea, this is going in the post within a week or two of this message.
Naturally, I will cling to this explanation until somebody makes it utterly
impossible, or I get published. It doesn't undo all the sins of the Virgin
series, but it makes them bearable, perhaps.
However, I still doubt that I will continue buying the novels, if the November
novels aren't an improvement on this months'. Still, Peter Anghelides is
probably capable of winning me over (I respect him as an author, and I believe
his is next?)
Lots of Love,
OJT
Charles Daniels
> The Doctor has superhuman abilities regardless of whether he was given
> them by birth or by graduation from the Academy. His heroism is not in
> what extra abilities he has compared to us, but in how he uses them.
Yes, I think the best illustration of this is when he stands Trial on War
Games. These other Time Lords seem so powerful, even more powerful than
the Doctor himself, and yet they really dont give a damn.
The Doctor has incredible gifts and yet instead of wearing arrogant robes,
peering into the universe, seeing 50 billion people getting needlessly
killed and not caring about it either way because he's too powerful for it
to really effect him in the safety of his advanced society, he actually
goes out that CARING about people and puts his ass on the line for others.
>>He still has those qualities, but he no longer has become greater than his
>>origins, it seems, because his origins were special anyway.
>
> His origins have _always_ been special, because he's from another planet.
Yeah I mean it's apparent that is is something incredibly more than human
from episode 1 of the series on.
"You're treating us like children!"
"The children of my civilization would be insulted."
Nyctolops
wrote:
><SPOILER space for Divided Loyalties, Taking of Planet 5>
>
>s
>
>p
>
>o
>
>i
>
>l
>
>e
>
>r
>
>
>s
>
>p
>
>a
>
>c
>
>e
Snip great swathes of stuff.
>
>LennyTyke wrote in message <19991021192942...@ng-fg1.aol.com>...
>
>> Taken after Divided Loyalties, in which there was never any
>>magic to begin with, this novel was just too cynical. (BTW, referencing
>the
>>thing you're ripping off by name isn't funny - Tomb Raider III also has
>>Antarctic discoveries of ancient artefacts of alien origin, so it really is
>>Lara Croft stuff...)
>
>
>
>Oh, so _that_ was the joke......
>
I think the joke is really that HP Lovecraft had ancient artifacts of
alien origin in Antarctica in At the Mountains of Madness, first
published in 1939. And he based part of his story on Narrative of A.
Gordon Pym by Edgar A. Poe which first saw the light of day in the
1840s. See how far you can trace these things back if you *really*
try?
Nyctolops
rec.arts.drwho General Information FAQ
http://nitro9.earth.uni.edu/doctor/FAQ/faq_1.txt
Quotefile nominations to radwqu...@geocities.com
Jonathan Blum
I. Inayat <T.I.I...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>Umm....because the books refer to stuff that isn't canonical to you, does
>that make them non-canonical?
But of course! "Canon" isn't about what's *possible*, it's about what you
*hate*, and more importantly _denying_ what you hate.
[...]
>>Once the Time Lords can only master Time through extra
>>genetic bits that they artificially plug in after completing the course at
>>Academy, we can no longer dream of being like the Doctor.
>Having read ToP5........do you _want_ those bits in you? And if time
>travel's possible, why should it be through extra genetic bits?
>And since when could a human regenerate?
From this bit, I'm getting the image that OJ thinks that if he's a really
good person and lives the best possible life he can and says his prayers
at night, one morning he'll wake up with twelve extra regenerations and a
second heart.
None of that physical stuff, the symbiotic nuclei or respiratory bypass
system or even the ability to time travel, is really important to the
Doctor's Doctorishness. It also doesn't really matter whether he was born
as part of an alien planet's ruling elite a thousand years ago, or part of
that same planet's mythical ancient ruling elite ten million years ago.
If you want to be like the Doctor, to be heroic and offbeat and thoroughly
unconfinable, you can do that -- but you'll do it as a human. He's not
human.
[rest of a great post from Imran snipped]
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
LennyTyke <lenn...@aol.com> wrote:
>For you, maybe, but for me the Doctor is a symbol not defined by what he can
>do, but by what he has overcome. If he has been gifted all these powers, by
>history or by artificial augmentation to lift him above others, then what is
>he? If a robot designed to lift a tonne does so, it is nothing special. If
>a human does it, then that is an achievement.
The Doctor has superhuman abilities regardless of whether he was given
them by birth or by graduation from the Academy. His heroism is not in
what extra abilities he has compared to us, but in how he uses them.
[...]
>I refer you to my last paragraph - what made the Doctor great was that he
>became better, greater, than his origins, and surpassed the barriers in his way
>not with violence and anger, but with inner strength, courage of his
>convictions, and compassionate concern for others.
>He still has those qualities, but he no longer has become greater than his
>origins, it seems, because his origins were special anyway.
His origins have _always_ been special, because he's from another planet.
But even in the flashbacks in "Lungbarrow", he's shown doing things not
because of his origins, not because of some "destiny", but because he
bloody well feels like it. His origins never led him to want to save
planets and lives left right and center. That's still coming from him.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
>however meaningless it may be to some people!) is because there is nowhere it
>can logically fit into the storyline of the Doctor's life that I can see.
Beg pardon Mr. Griffin, but you don't know the whole storyline yet.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Elflore
I'm not sure fans like us have to let their mere mention destroy stories for
us. Though I do not include the Virgin books, and especially the Looms, in my
personal canon, I read and loved Scarlet Empress. I simply ignored the mention
of looms and Lungbarrow. It wasn't important to the story. Now, as for the
new books...I've yet to read Divided Loyalties, but I've been told the looms
aren't important there either, and I don't see how the Other can factor in to a
story about the 5th Doctor. In the case of the current arc...I just blame
Faction Paradox. I think Unnatural History made it wonderfully easy for fans
like myself to decided what *really* happened, and through the rest out as
muddled timelines.
John Clifford
John L Beven II
>>that make them non-canonical?
>
>*hate*, and more importantly _denying_ what you hate.
Jon, maybe that's your definition. Mine is that canon is what "fits", and
I
try to take as broad-brush of a view of that as possible. For example,
I don't knock the DWM comics out of canon because I dislike them.
I dislike them because they deliberately knocked themselves out of
my definition of canon.
If what I hated wasn't canon, then the half-human Doctor wouldn't be
canon. But as much as I dislike it, it meets my objective criteria
to be canon, and thus it is.
Jack Beven (a. k. a. The Supreme Dalek)
Tropical Prediction Center
http://people.delphi.com/jbeven/ jbe...@mindspring.com
Disclaimer: These opinions don't necessarily represent those of my
employers...
Jonathan Blum
John L Beven II <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Jonathan Blum wrote in message <7uqsqd$fsa$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au>...
>>In article <7updp8$k9t$1...@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk>,
>>I. Inayat <T.I.I...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>that make them non-canonical?
>>But of course! "Canon" isn't about what's *possible*, it's about what you
>>*hate*, and more importantly _denying_ what you hate.
> Jon, maybe that's your definition. Mine is that canon is what "fits",
It sure as anything isn't *my* definition, but it does seem to be the one
being used in this thread!
Regards,
Jon Blum
orinoco
Elflore wrote in message <19991022201809...@ng-fz1.aol.com>...
<snip>
>Though I do not include the Virgin books, and especially the Looms, in my
>personal canon, I read and loved Scarlet Empress. I simply ignored the
mention
>of looms and Lungbarrow. It wasn't important to the story
<snip>
This is the sort of attitude we should all have. The continuity slipped into
the books should be treated as name-dropping is - if you notice it and are
amused/interested, fine. It has added something to your enjoyment of the
story. Don't get hung up because a word or concept you don't like is
mentioned in passing. Fair enough to argue if the book is *about* what you
don't like (ie Lungbarrow), but you don't drop things from canon simply
because you don't agree that Trey Korte (for example) is used for a
characters name, do you?
Orinoco, wombling senselessly
I was brave, I was bold, I was fearless
I was famous for the things that I did
I was quick on the draw as I tidied up the floor
So they called me the Orinoco Kid
Finn Clark
> But of course! "Canon" isn't about what's
> *possible*, it's about what you *hate*, and
> more importantly _denying_ what you hate.
Really? I don't think the books are canon, yet
I buy them all and post happy reviews of 'em.
Finn Clark.
LennyTyke
the best you can be, I'm saying that by making the Doctor a member of an elite,
with extra powers above the ordinary people of his society, he is no longer
transcending himself, but limited by the powers he has. What makes the Doctor
great is not that he has special powers, but that he was an ordinary dumb
Gallifreyan who was a failure by his society's standards, indeed, had in many
ways, *lesser* powers than those around him, and yet still managed to transcend
those barriers and become something more.
There is a whole existential thesis to be written on this kind of thing, which
I shall skip on here.
In human terms, if a person is built to be a sprinter, then it is no surprise
when they run 100 metres in 10 or 11 seconds. If someone who is just an
ordinary guy runs it in 11 or 12, then he's achieved something. I refer you
also to my post regarding Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
OJT
LennyTyke
The Doctor is not from a different planet to other Gallifreyans, which is the
point I'm making. The Doctor with no Gallifrey is as you say, special because
of how he uses his powers - but if that were all I wanted, I could be just as
happy with Superman.
The Doctor is seen in relation to Gallifrey, even from An Unearthly Child, but
in different ways. I always experienced him as being an ordinary Gallifreyan
who had transcended his background to become amazing. If he is different from
other Gallifreyans, in whatever way, then he is no longer transcendent, but
merely following a pre-ordained path which is determined by his being
different. This is strongest against the 'Other' being linked to the Doctor
in some way, but informs my emotive response when dealing with the other
augmentations, even if the elite all receive them.
The Doctor's heroism is in how he chooses to use what he's got, but also in the
example he sets. If in his society he is unique, or set apart, then that says
that in our society only those who are unique or set apart can be heroes, and
that I reject. It seems to me also that the Doctor also rejects this, but
that may be projection.
OJT
LennyTyke
You are, of course, quite right. One shouldn't let a tiny thing like canon
spoil one's enjoyment of a good story, and I don't. My reasons for deciding
not to buy future BBC novels, should I take that decision, will be that the
books are, in my view, neither canon, NOR good stories. I have indeed ignored
many references to Virgin novel events and ideas thus far, but the ideas and
philosophy that I despise are becoming too important to the fabric/background
to the BBC novels, it seems, for me to ignore. Both Divided Loyalties (Looms
aren't mentioned, but the Other is, and so are many other bits that I find
distasteful) and ToP5 (once again the augmentation aspect especially) make a
big thing out of signing on to the Virgin philosophy, so it is not just
name-dropping (as the InfyDocs reference is).
OJT
LennyTyke
many times in the past, but it obviously needs repeating with specific
reference to this thread:
Continuity is how we link those stories we consider canon into a single
storyline.
Such is the flexibility of continuity, that it can adapt to include just about
anything we want it to, so continuity is not in itself a reason to reject a
story as canon.
Therefore, we must find other means of choosing what we include as canon.
If anything can be included in continuity if we want to try hard enough, then
the only thing to decide on is if we don't want to try hard enough to include
it.
I don't like, for the most part, the ideas presented by the Virgin series (or
those novels from that series that I have read or heard tell about) and I would
very much rather they weren't included, at least in so far as the Virgin novels
include these ideas (some don't, I know, and that's all right). Since the BBC
books are now making a concerted effort, it seems, to make the Virgin ideas
that I dislike so much, into an integral part of the series, I no longer want
to include the BBC books in my version of canon.
Since canonicity, or rather its lack, is not a reason in itself not to buy the
books, I would of course continue reading them if I thought they would be of
sufficient quality to justify 6 quid apiece. Unfortunately, this has not
frequently been the case in recent months, so I will wait to see if November
brings improvement - and if it does not, then I'll save my money. However, it
should be noted that, like the sad Who addict that I am, as long as I
considered the books canonical, I did buy them regardless of quality of
writing...
OJT
I. Inayat
This has got entirely too long, so I've broken it up into 2 smaller pieces.
LennyTyke wrote in message <19991022105942...@ng-fa1.aol.com>...
>T.I.Inayat wrote the following:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
><SPOILER space for Divided Loyalties, Taking of Planet 5>
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
>LennyTyke wrote in message
<19991021192942...@ng-fg1.aol.com>...
>
<snip bits of Virgin that might fit OJ's ethos>
Savar's eyes and Griffin living near the Needle: These weren't obvious. Wow.
Hmmm....Gary, Justin and DM will be happy to know you can read their books
without knowing what happened earlier, but they (I assume) intended
that......
For me, I find knowing what has gone before adds an extra layer to a
follow-on story.
You're right, they don't intrude.......but it's fun seeing where they slip
references in......
>The reason TID is not canonisable (I'm rather proud of coining this phrase,
>however meaningless it may be to some people!) is because there is nowhere
it
>can logically fit into the storyline of the Doctor's life that I can see.
>
Oh, I have places where it can go (at least 3, the last time I looked)......
Besides, I slot the DWM strip into my canon, even though there's nowhere it
can 'logically fit'. Doesn't stop me from calling it, and whatever else I
choose, part of the ongoing stories........
-----------------------
>T.I.Inayat continues:
>
>>
>>With ToP5 (and to a lesser extent, Blue Angel) it has become clear that
the
>>8DAs have decended into farce. One companion character is a cross
between
>7
>>of 9 and S.A.I.N.T. Number 'Johnny' Five. The other is, well, Fitz.
>
>
>
>Why TBA? What, in particular, is farcial?
>
>And your problem with Fitz is........? Especially given
Interference........
>
>And what's wrong with having a '7 of 9' type, hmm? Given that whatever
she's
>learning to be, it doesn't look like being human..............I think she's
>going on a different path.....
>------------------------------------
>TBA because Compassion's character as 7 of 9 becomes apparent there.
>
>Farcical because we now have two pathetic companions with personality
disorders
>as distinguishing features (or that's how it looks to me). Seven - sorry,
>Compassion, is defined purely by this non-understanding of human values.
Is she? Funny, I thought she was described by her concern for signals, and
signals alone. She cares about the Doctor's world view because it's one of
the major signals in her life, not because she thinks it's 'right' or
'true'. But she still understands it.
She does understand _some_ human values. (I can't imagine someone making the
'Library of Congress' joke, or perceiving someone else as a sociopath, or
becoming embarrassed/ashamed because you've had to admit you don't know how
you did something, without _some_ awareness of what humans value..... )
There's something inside her mind.....and even she doesn't know what it is.
And that worries her.......Does that sound like a total unawareness of human
values?
She wants to hang on to her identity, without sacrificing the signals in her
life. _That_ sounds like a human conflict......
Not a disorder, though.......
> Fitz is defined by character traits that Just seem pathetic.
And these are?
He supports and helps others; he comforts people when they're hurting; he's
trying to reestablish his personality after a trauma that would shatter
anyone (Interference); he jokes about, and fears, insanity because he's
spent so much of his life living with his mother's madness; he reads, and
dreams, and hopes for a brighter future; he's the grounding, human
perspective to Compassion and the Doctor's alien worldviews; he thinks
himself into becoming different roles; he does things because it's _him_
doing it, and because he's choosing to do it; he cares about, and misses,
Sam........there's a lot left unspoken there, too.
He's known despair, and grief, and prejudice.......
He makes mistakes, he slips up....and he tries to cover for it, because it
doesn't fit the role....
He finds himself believing in the Doctor's causes.....but he can also rage
at the Doctor, when the Doctor's about to do something stupid....
If you're going to define him purely on his smoking, drinking, and wandering
eye, then you're doing a Griffin; defining him simply on the characteristics
you see, treating him purely as a type.....
And as the Doctor or Sam would say: 'Fitz Kreiner is more than that.'
(Compassion wouldn't, but she's another matter.....)
Does that *explain* regeneration? Does it explain how regeneration works?
Does it explain where the genetic information came from, whether it was
artifical or natural in origin? No. All we can do is come up with the best
human approximations to how, and why regeneration works.........because the
reason we're given is something to make us feel that there's a basis for it.
A reason. It wouldn't matter whether it was a magical spell or artifically
introduced genetic data: Regeneration remains as much a mystery to us as it
did at 'The Tenth Planet'.
>Similarly their link with their TARDISes is specifically explained.
The 'Rassilon Imprimatur'? That they have a link is stated; how it works,
what precisely it is, and what, exactly, it does to a Time Lord and/or
TARDIS when they join is never stated.
And the link can be overridden by a Gallifreyan from the Pythia's era. How?
(Legacy of the Daleks)
It's also pointed out that the Doctor was an exception. And it's hinted the
link has an awareness and agenda of its own.....
That's 'specifically explained'?
> Similarly, the reason the Doctor is different is because of his link with
the Other.
No it's not. Is he different because of his link with the Other? Because
he's half-human? Because he's _become_ different over time? Because he
_always was_ different, and it has nothing to do with the Other?
Because his past can change, so that at one point his difference is because
he contains a part of the Other, and at others because he has an 'other
other body', and at others, he's a demigod? So that you can't pin down a
single, specific reason why he's different?
And if yours is the reason, why does the Doctor have memories that aren't
his _or_ the Other's? Is it as simple as you say?
And who/what *is* the Other? Where did he come from? What was he capable of?
What did he intend? How could his memories survive in the Loom?
Both the Doctor and the Other were different, 'other' than the norm. And the
reasons for their 'otherness' have _smeg_ to do with each other.
>Similarly, the Doctor's origins on Gallifrey are defined, explained and put
in the >appropriate place. There is no magic left, no, 'if an ordinary
Time Lord can rise >abovehis background, then so can we rise above ours'.
It is a very mechanistic
>view of Dr. Who that I cannot accept.
Are they? As far as his peers knew, he *was* an ordinary Time Lord. He
thought he was ordinary...and he transcended that. He was booted out of the
Academy, a low-level menial job, he rejected the Hand when it came to
him......
Look at the other renegades: they _weren't_ marked by the Other, and they
left, they went out and changed the Universe in their own ways. Once we
learned that a number of Gallifreyans went renegade, the Doctor was no
longer different. Others had challenged the system before; others would in
the future. What made the Doctor _different_? What made his challenge to the
system different?
He learned. He changed over time. His past changed over time. It shifted to
include many things, maybe even things he wasn't aware of.
But the fact remains: He chose to get involved. He chose to intervene. If he
could.....why can't we? If the Doctor could choose to get involved, to set
things _right_, to make things _better_, why don't we?
His origin shouldn't be what we try to imitate. What he _did_ and what he
_does_.....That's what makes him different. That's what we can live up to
(or dream of, anyway....)
He has a brother. How, on a Gallifrey where there are only Cousins? He has
memories of his parents......and at no point has it ever been said that
they're the Other's. What if they really _are_ his memories? What if he did
have parents?
Why _were_ the CIA watching? Was it because of his genes.....or was it
because of the hermit?
The _special_ things about him didn't manifest until he'd started to go
beyond what his fellows did, started to meddle, started to get involved.
And he meddled, he got involved, because of _who he was_, not because he was
a Time Lord, or a reincarnation of the Other.......but because he was the
Doctor.
<looks at Jon Blum's post> But the Doctor _has_ gone beyond what he's
allegedly capable of......whatever he is. He's faced off against the
Guardians; he's held the Key to Time; he's defied Fenric and trashed the
Gods of Ragnarok......Maybe he's the Other, maybe he isn't. But in those
confrontations, he has faced off against the powers of the Universe......and
survived. But not because he's a reincarnation of the Other. Because he's
the Doctor.
<thinks 'Superman isn't super because of what he does, or what he's capable
of, but because of _why_ he does what he does..........'>
>
>Time manipulation etc. is made possible, according to Interference, Divided
>Loyalties and ToP5 by the extra genetic augmentation Time Lords receive
when
>they graduate, but I reject that because that means it is something that
>differentiates the Doctor from the ordinary people of Gallifrey. I don't
want
>those bits in me; I want to be able to figure out a TARDIS by myself (given
>time).
Who says you need to? Susan did, and _she_ didn't have those genetic
bits.....
Ummm......lemme think here: Penelope Gate was capable of building a time
machine off her own bat. So was Magnus Greel. And Kadiatu
Lethbridge-Stewart. And _they_ were human.
You're assuming that a) time travel is only possible via TARDISes or
Gallifreyan technology. It isn't.
And b) that only Time Lords are capable of building time machines.....They
aren't.
You want to be capable of deducing how a TARDIS works? Read p.149 of
Interference: Book 2. It's possible for someone originating on Earth to
do......
Hmmm...Does your Gallifrey go: All Gallifreyans are Time Lords, but not all
Time Lords are Gallifreyans?
The Doctor distinguished himself from other Time Lords _when he chose to
intervene_.
That has *nothing* to do with his being Gallifreyan, or a Time Lord,
or...whatever. And it has _everything_ to do with *who* the Doctor is.
Who he is does not define what he is. Neither does what he is define who he
is.
>
>UH, Autumn Mist and Blue Angel have magic events, but are not magical. In
Dr.
>Who everything is explicable by science, but some things are unexplained.
The
>magic is in the Doctor, not in the events he encounters. Until, of
course,
>the Doctor becomes something out of reach, in which case he is just doing
what
>he is programmed to do.
Right. Explain the laws of the Enclave. Explain how the rules of Hyspero
work. Explain what the Eternals are. Explain the customs of the Sidhe; why
eating of their food means you stay there, how they can return someone from
death. Explain how the unicorns work. But of course, they're unexplained.
But science can explain everything.
No it can't.
Oh yes. One word: Watchmaker.
Not everything can be explained. Besides, 'explaining away' is not the same
thing as explaining 'how' or 'why'......
You can equally explain everything in Who through magic: The Doctor is a
sorcerer from an ancient race, who have learned the spells of immortality.
The TARDIS draws its power from a magic pool. It has been built using the
wood of the World Tree, which enables you to walk between the worlds; which
transcends humanity's conception of space, and so can be bigger on the
inside than on the outside.
And of course, there are things it can't account for.
Magic and science are ways of looking at the world........but they're not
the world. And they can't explain everything in it.
What is life? What is death? These are things beyond our reach; we live with
them every second of every day, and yet we don't understand them. Are these
'programmed'?
The magic is in the Doctor, and in the things he encounters. Through the
things he encounters we see him differently. Through him, we see the world
differently. Both are magical.
I. Inayat
>
>And with that, I'll say goodbye, because I've said an awful lot here.
>
>OJT
>
And with that, I'll leave, 'cause I've said a hell of a lot too.
Imran 'oh good grief' Inayat
I. Inayat
our
>limited lifespan.
I _love_ that. Can I use it? 'Doodah wood blah blah......'
<thinks>........Hmmm, Merlin springs to mind here......
He was an ordinary person with access to things that are, as yet,
non-existent. Ghandi and King.....they were ordinary people who chose to
act.
In all cases, what matters is _what they chose to do with what they had_.
Ghandi could have chosen not to fight for peace and India's freedom. King
could have chosen not to fight for equality. And the Doctor could have
chosen not to fight on the side of good.
But he did. Not because of the Other. But because he was _himself_.
>
>The Doctor is a symbol of hope, a symbol of egalitarian society in which
those
>who make the effort can better themselves and others, and a symbol that we
are
>all capable of making a difference. Or at least, he was until people
started
>explaining away his amazing abilities. Even when the Doctor held himself
>above those around him, there was the offer that one day, we might equal
him.
>Now, that sense of magic and wonder that an ordinary person could achieve
so
>much, has evaporate, trickled away, and been lost in the neat boxes and
>mechanistic view that confines the novels these days.
>
Oh yes, I meant to ask last time. You're a Marxist, have I got that right?
Explaining? Explain where the tea settings come from in Option Lock. Explain
what the Lord of Time is. Explain how he got the name Nayenezgani. Explain
how he can lose
his shadow.....and how he can get a false one. Yeah, he's infected with
Paradox....but _that_ doesn't explain it......
Oh, that's what you see as magic. I see it a little differently.
<in 50-foot letters of fire>
He's a _ mystery_, for Rassilon's sake!
</letters of fire>
He can be an icon, a symbol, a myth-figure, a trickster, a human, Merlin, an
entertainer......
That's the magic in the Doctor: that he refuses to be pinned down to any one
role, that he refuses to be defined, that you can never be sure about what
you're being told about him. And are you sure everything you're told is
true?
Sometimes he's that role-model, and that symbol, you dream of.
Sometimes.....he's an old man, who wants to withdraw from the world.
And look at the companions. _They_ achieve things they never believed
themselves capable of. Not because the Doctor was their icon, or their
symbol (although that's part of it), but because by coming into their lives,
and being who he is, and showing them that there's so much more out there,
so much you can try, so much you might be capable of, he changes them. And
is himself changed. So it may be explained. BUT AT LEAST YOU KNOW THERE'S
SOMETHING MORE OUT THERE! </stops shouting>
Ahem.
_Neat boxes_? _Mechanistic world view_? Classify the Doctor. Maybe he's a
human, the two-hearted son of a mermaid who lives with his friends in
Newcastle who dreams of other places.
But the other books say.....
And what makes this possibility any less _real_ than the many others
suggested, hmmm?
What _is_ special to the Doctor, anyway? Perhaps muddling through everyday
life with all its inconsistencies and traumas, where there's no set
beginning or set end, perhaps _that's_ what's important, as well as saving
the Universe on a regular basis.
Perhaps if doing 'special' things are ordinary to him, then the things that
are ordinary to us could become things for him to cherish. I mean, let's say
he_is_ Time's Champion, a reincarnation of the Other, with abilities that
set him apart from others.
Yet ........he can lose himself in the fact his shoes fit.......or that he's
having an ice cream.....
He can discover wonder in the ordinary and the miraculous. That's not
because of _what_ he is, but because of _who_ he is. That's what matters.
That he can still _do_ this.....that makes him special and miraculous no
matter where he came from. And the more stuff that makes it apparently
impossible for him to combine the two, the more incredible it is.......
He's special because of _who_ and _what_ he is. We know something about
_what_ he is.....but does that tell us who he is?
'The Deca - one, Runcible the fatuous - nil.'
'Most people who come through here run away screaming.'
The ending struck me as mainly self-interested in terms of the
>characters, except for Oakwood (the only character who receives a half-way
>sympathetic treatment, IMO). It was the, 'And we're all better people as
a
>result!' "Mega-happy" ending of Wayne's World all over again, and hence it
just
>felt totally insincere after the rest of the book.
The Doctor was a better person? The Toymaker? The Deca? Nyssa? You read it
......and you thought it was a _happy_ ending?
<giggles> Sorry, but for some reason .....<giggles> ...that has to be one of
the ....<giggles> ......funniest things I've heard...<turns away so he
doesn't embarrass himself>
>------------------------------------
>
>> And......Why do the Guardians exist?
>
>We had that before!
To keep the Balance. We know. But why is there a Balance in the first place?
Why are creatures from another Universe needed to maintain it? Why _six_
Guardians?
>
>> Did Rassilon _really_ know what the Great Old Ones were? Or are they
>something beyond his mere definitions?
>
>'Course he didn't. And why couldn't he have given them original names!?
>
They _were_ original, in the Doctor's Universe. The Time Lords (or the Great
Old Ones themselves, perhaps) came up with the names.....and somehow
Lovecraft and his circlew learned them too......
>> Is that spark in the Doctor's eyes from his half-humanity, the
>Other.......or is it from somewhere else?
>
>It's from his inner personality, I imagine (not believing in the Other).
'Non-Gallifreyan', remember. Heh. Heh. Heh.
>
>> Who _are_ the other Guardians? And what, really, are the Eternals?
>
>Chaos, Light and Dark and the mysterious Twins. Why only six? Why not
give
>the other authors something to play with!?
He is. Why _are_ there only six? Why is the number so important? Who are the
Twins? Do the other Guardians bond to mortal hosts?
And the Eternals.....
(Good grief, this reminds me of my conversations with Mick......)
>
>> What do the CIA want? What do _they_ find so interesting about the
Doctor?
>
>Well, DUH! The Doctor's put right what might otherwise gone wrong in so
many
>eras and locations, that anyone with an interest in the outside universe
who
>would be aware of him, would be interested to their own ends. As for what
the
>CIA want, that's obvious: POWER!
Is it? They knew he was special _before_ he left.......
And .....I've looked at what the CIA have done across the books. And I'm not
so confident that power is their goal.....
(Look, we're both behaving reasonably. Can we not let this develop into a
flame war?)
>
>> What are the Guardians really capable of?
>
>Anything, if we are to believe the hype.
>
Oh, but there are limitations
>> And I wonder about Shayde, from
>> the DWM strip, now.........and what happened to him......
>
>I don't. I just think that the Watcher just became rather more boring.
For anyone who doesn't know, Shayde is Rassilon's troubleshooter in the DWM
strip. Could he be...?
That the Time Lords can create independent living beings from
themselves........and this is boring?
And if so, what happened when Shayde bonded with a human? Would that make
her....?
>--------------------------------
>
>No magic? There's magic.....if you know where it lives....
>
>>
>>ToP5 was like two books by different authors. Some bits were great,
>others
>>were tacky and worthless (as far as I could see). I shall possibly never
>find
>>out who was responsible for which. The overall feel was disappointing,
>>however, and I think that comes from all the bits where the magical feel
of
>Dr.
>>Who just trickled away (the 'real science' basis for it, however, was
>>refreshing!).
>
>
>If it's explained to you, the magic trickles away? Very well.......
>
><uses magic to conjure up a fireball> There. I've just done something, and
>explained how I did it.
>
>But that doesn't answer what magic is, though.
>--------------------------------
>You misunderstand me. It is not the fact of the explanation, but what the
>explanation *is* that has destroyed the magical feel of the Doctor, and
hence
>Dr. Who.
Look above. There are always questions to ask. Are you sure the
explanation's the truth, or even part of the truth..........or is it just
trying to explain away something you can't understand?
>
>Dr. Who has no magic that is not science (part of the show's background
since
>at least Daemons), except in people's actions especially the Doctor.
Explain
>away the Doctor, as has been done, in terms of science and the Doctor
ceases to
>be amazing.
And The Scarlet Empress and Autumn Mist promptly stick two fingers up at
this (In fact, Time's Crucible starts this.......)
Like I said 'Explaining away is not the same as explaining 'Who' or 'how or
'why'. Every question leaves something more to ask......'
>---------------------------------
>
>A good explanation should answer all your questions........and leave you
>free to pose more.
>
>Who _were_ the TARDISes contacting..............and why did they call upon
>Shub-Niggurath (aka the Nestene Consciousness)?
>
>What agenda could the Rassilonic Imprimatur have?
>
>What are the legends the Future TARDISes have of the Doctor?
>
>What does Marie know of Compassion?
>
>Who *is* the President? And, depending on your view, how'd he get there
from
>TID?
>---------------------------------------
>Why do I feel that all these strands will be neatly tied off at the end of
the
>story-arc? Why don't I understand some of them (presumably because I
haven't
>read many Virgin novels, I guess)?
>
Which ones don't you understand? None of them have anything to do with
Virgin.
Oh, I agree some of the questions will be answered......buut there are some
that won't, and we don't know what those are......
>--------------------------------------
>
>So....why do I find magic in the BBC Books?
>-------------------------------------
>I don't know who you are to answer that question. It may be that compared
to
>other things you see, Dr. Who BBC books are magical. I've seen magical
places
>all around me in real life, and the BBC books no longer live up to that.
>VampSci still does, and a few others, but...
I see magic in my real life. I see magic in the fact my family's still
alive. I see magic in the places I see, in the things I encounter, in the
dreams I have......
And I see magic in the books.
And I see that the BBC books leave me with .....well, a different
perspective to yours.
>-------------------------------------
>
> >It is with great
>>sadness that I realise that this is so, because Dr. Who has been one of
the
>>greatest stories ever told, but now that that greatness seems to have been
>>sacrificed to make it look big, I will return to those with a smaller
>vision
>>that preserves the big picture.
>>
>
>Oh.
>
>Hmmm. Not to me. I think they've managed to keep the balance between the
>Doctor being an ideal, and being a role model.....
>----------------------------------------
>The Doctor is both at once, there is no 'balance' to be found. The ideal
and
>role model was always for me to overcome obstacles by perseverence and
thought,
>and to be greater than what you were made. That has gone from the novels
now,
>so...<shrugs>
He is greater than what he is Look, _what_ you are tells me very little
about who you are. The Other, the half-human thing, the Looms, Ancient
Gallifrey.....this doesn't tell me who the Doctor is. He's experienced _so
much more_ than the Other. He's been reborn 7 times...........and none of
that tells me who the Doctor is. Being told everything we've learned in the
books about his origin.....that doesn't tell me who he is.
What does he dream? What does he want? What does he do when the spotlight's
not on him? What are his hopes, his fears? What does he get angry about?
What does he hate? What does he love? Why does he keep on doing what he
does? Would we recognise what he feels? Does he snuggle up in bed with a
good book?
Those are the important questions, not 'Where does he come from?' or 'What
is he?'
We _know_ that.
But we don't know who he is. And as long as _that's_ left alone, I'm happy.
Don't let the fact his past is (sort of) known put you off. Ultimately, the
lesson we learn from all his origin books, even Lungbarrow, is: It doesn't
matter where he came from or what he was. What matters is that he's out
there, intervening, changing the Universe, trying to make things better.
That's what's important: no matter who he was, or is, he chose to go out
there and _change_ things.
Whether it's as part of the Estabishment, as a rebel against it, as
something set apart from us, or as one of us....._he changes things. He
tries to make things better_.
After all, he's a Doctor. It's his job.
Hmmm.....'No matter who you are, you can make a difference.' Sounds about
right.
>----------------------------------------
>Just let me check.......as long as the books appear to make being like the
>Doctor an attainable goal, you'd keep buying them?
>
>Is this what you refer to that when you mention 'greatness'? I'm a little
>unsure what you meant.there.....
>-----------------------------------------
>I refer you to my last paragraph - what made the Doctor great was that he
>became better, greater, than his origins, and surpassed the barriers in his
way
>not with violence and anger, but with inner strength, courage of his
>convictions, and compassionate concern for others.
I point you to Human Nature and Timewyrm: Revelation, where these things are
revealed. I point to Unnatural History, where he confronts Griffin to allow
Sam and Fitz to seal the scar. I point to Taking of Planet 5, where he risks
his life to banish the Memeovore.
His origins don't define him. The only person who might define him is the
Doctor himself.
>
>He still has those qualities, but he no longer has become greater than his
>origins, it seems, because his origins were special anyway.
Why should his origins matter? His origin was special : so? He could have
had the origin he did, gone back to Gallifrey, and led a dull, boring life.
Instead, he chose to go out there and make a difference. And that choice,
IMO, is what makes him the Doctor.
Steven Kitson
> >series!
> Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! 'Canonisable' indeed!
No, no, I think you've got it wrong here Paul. What he means is that 'The
Infinity Doctors' is the least likely of all the books to be mde a Saint.
--
The close association between gymnastics and philosophy is I believe
unique to this university.
Steven Kitson
> Such is the flexibility of continuity, that it can adapt to include just about
> anything we want it to, so continuity is not in itself a reason to reject a
> story as canon.
> Therefore, we must find other means of choosing what we include as canon.
Beep! Beep! Non sequitur detected!
Why do we have to reject things?
> If anything can be included in continuity if we want to try hard enough, then
> the only thing to decide on is if we don't want to try hard enough to include
> it.
But just because you don't want to try hard enough, someone else will.
Therefore everything is canon.
> Since canonicity, or rather its lack, is not a reason in itself not to buy the
> books, I would of course continue reading them if I thought they would be of
> sufficient quality to justify 6 quid apiece. Unfortunately, this has not
> frequently been the case in recent months, so I will wait to see if November
> brings improvement - and if it does not, then I'll save my money.
That's your decision, and good on you. Myself, I like the books - at
least, the ones I've read - and will keep buying them.
> However, it
> should be noted that, like the sad Who addict that I am, as long as I
> considered the books canonical, I did buy them regardless of quality of
> writing...
I don't understand this. Why buy something you don't like, just because it
has 'Doctor Who' on the cover? Surely that's just wasting money?
Charles Daniels
>The Doctor is seen in relation to Gallifrey, even from An Unearthly Child, but
>in different ways. I always experienced him as being an ordinary Gallifreyan
>who had transcended his background to become amazing. If he is different from
>other Gallifreyans, in whatever way, then he is no longer transcendent, but
>merely following a pre-ordained path which is determined by his being
>different.
Well is is obviously somewhat different because he did put his neck out.
Even if he WERE different from regular old plain clothes Gallifreyains
(which I think Deadly Assassin establishes he is because of that
presidency stuff) just because he's different doesnt mean he is
automatically pre-ordained to do something.
Im pretty different from everyone I know and yet I havent been
pre-ordained to do anything Im aware of! :)
>The Doctor's heroism is in how he chooses to use what he's got, but also
>in the example he sets. If in his society he is unique, or set apart,
>then that says that in our society only those who are unique or set apart
>can be heroes, and that I reject. It seems to me also that the Doctor
>also rejects this, but that may be projection.
Well I have no problem with him being a weirdo who goes out and does
something no one else around him would ever be inclined to.
I mean a lot of time unique people in society do weird things because they
want to, and that doesnt make them less heroic.
If someone is a member of the Royal Family and decides to go and use
that position to actually get involved and make the world a better place
and puts everything on the line, they are still a hero even though they
had an unusual backround.
It doesnt mean ONLY the Royal Family can be heroes if one of them, who is
sort of a unique part of society, goes out and does something heroic.
Charles Daniels
> Jonathan Blum wrote in message <7uqsqd$fsa$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au>...
> I try to take as broad-brush of a view of that as possible. For example,
> I don't knock the DWM comics out of canon because I dislike them.
> I dislike them because they deliberately knocked themselves out of
> my definition of canon.
Well can you imagine how much of a story killer it would be if the comic
book strips always had to check in with the books before they ran
anything and the books always had to check all the comic book strips going
all the way back before they could be written.
"Nope Im sorry. Your submission is brilliant and would be an excellent
story, however it conflicted with part 3 of The World Shapers in DWM 147."
or
"Your comic strip is fascinating, visually compelling, and flows
wonderfully telling your story flawlessly. However it takes place
on Earth in 2109 and so does Transit. Sorry, someone got their first."
Charles Daniels
>Sorry, Jon, but you have missed my point completely. While it is about being
>the best you can be, I'm saying that by making the Doctor a member of an elite,
>with extra powers above the ordinary people of his society, he is no longer
>transcending himself, but limited by the powers he has. What makes the Doctor
>great is not that he has special powers, but that he was an ordinary dumb
>Gallifreyan who was a failure by his society's standards, indeed, had in many
>ways, *lesser* powers than those around him, and yet still managed to transcend
>those barriers and become something more.
Well the Doctor sure was weird and not as good in various eras as many of
his fellow time lords but he wasnt really a lesser time lord. There was
something going on with him. He was obviously at least related to someone
special or had some special thing going at least since Deadly Assassin.
To use a continuing analogy you can be a member of the royal family who
maybe isnt as good in several skills and areas, who perhaps is seen as
sort of a weird misfit of the family, yet you can still overcome both your
inabilities and your backround and do something great for society.
> In human terms, if a person is built to be a sprinter, then it is no surprise
> when they run 100 metres in 10 or 11 seconds. If someone who is just an
> ordinary guy runs it in 11 or 12, then he's achieved something. I refer you
> also to my post regarding Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
Yes but jsut being a special time lord doesnt automaticlaly mean he was
pre-ordained to be a hero. Indeed its rather possible the Doctor could
have gone the way of the Master or Borusa. However something about HIM
didnt allow such a thing.
William December Starr
jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum) said:
>>> But of course! "Canon" isn't about what's *possible*, it's about
>>> what you *hate*, and more importantly _denying_ what you hate.
>>> [Jonathan Blum]
>>
>> Jon, maybe that's your definition. Mine is that canon is what
>> "fits", [John L Beven II]
>
> It sure as anything isn't *my* definition, but it does seem to be
> the one being used in this thread!
No, Jon, I have to agree with Mr. Bevin... to me, you appear to be
strawmanning people who disagree with you (he said, happily verbizing
a noun).
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
William December Starr
Charles Daniels <cdan...@web1.calweb.com> said:
> Well can you imagine how much of a story killer it would be if the
> comic book strips always had to check in with the books before they
> ran anything and the books always had to check all the comic book
> strips going all the way back before they could be written.
>
> "Nope Im sorry. Your submission is brilliant and would be an
> excellent story, however it conflicted with part 3 of The World
> Shapers in DWM 147."
>
> or
>
> "Your comic strip is fascinating, visually compelling, and flows
> wonderfully telling your story flawlessly. However it takes place
> on Earth in 2109 and so does Transit. Sorry, someone got their
> first."
I don't think you're making the ironclad point you think you are.
In the first case, you change the part that creates a conflict with
the previously produced story. And in the second case you, um, change
the part that creates a conflict with the previously produced story.
And if the *entire* *freaking* *story* is absolutely dependent upon
the part that creates the conflict, well, congratulations: you're
screwed. It happens. Put the idea aside in a folder labeled either
"Ideas to recycle into other stories" or "brilliant stories that I
have to keep trying to think of a way to make work," and get on with
your authorial life...
m_eli...@my-deja.com
lenn...@aol.com (LennyTyke) wrote:
[snip]
However, it
> should be noted that, like the sad Who addict that I am, as long as I
> considered the books canonical, I did buy them regardless of quality
of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> writing...
>
I suppose that's one reason why the authors tend to get involved in
canon wars ;).
see u,
M. Elizabeth
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
LennyTyke
doesn't matter how ordinary the Doctor, or anyone else, *thinks* the Doctor is,
the fact is that, if he has any unique link to this Other, then that
automatically invalidates his wonderfulness because we cannot know what effect
that uniqueness has had on the Doctor. It *might* explain every wonderful
thing that he has managed. Likewise, if he has received some kind of
augmentation from the Time Lords, then the suspicion is open that the CIA have
simply programmed him to be capable of defeating the powers of Sutekh, the
Great Old Ones, etc etc.
You state that the Doctor's reasons for being different are not necessarily the
same as the Other's reasons for being different, nor is there necessarily any
link between them, but the link has been made in th Virgin novels (or so I
understand it). Once that is done, there is no need to explain the link.
The damage to the symbol is done. Asking a whole stream of questions as you
did, does not constitute an argument here. Is there or is there not a link
between the Doctor and the Other made in the Virgin series? If the answer is
yes, then it matters not what the link is, or what the Other was/is: the Doctor
is made unique and therefore valueless as a role model. If the answer is no,
or don't know, then the discussion so far has misled me into believing the
answer is yes. If the answer is don't know, then the Doctor is still not free
of the accusation, 'He's only special because he was made that way'.
If he has been programmed, then he is not great at all.
Also, it is not in 'what he chose to do with it' - for that, I could take any
magician hero in fiction, practically. Gandalf is not, for me, nearly as
great a figure as either Frodo or Samwise. The Doctor I always believed in
from seven years old (when I first became better versed in the history of Dr.
Who through the local library's collection of Target books) was both at once -
a magician to us, but a hobbit compared to his own people.
The thing that made the Doctor great was that others like him, or even better
than him, didn't choose to do it - he was special by his deed, not by his
nature. There may well be other renegades, but most of them ended up turning
to evil (or at least, the ones we hear about have). The Doctor hasn't. That
alone makes him special, but if there is a link with the Other, then that robs
him of his choice, symbolically speaking, whether he knows it or not. He
makes the choice, but how do I know he's not programmed to make that choice?
By the way, the names you link with making their own time machines: I don't
recognise any of them, except one and that seemed to be linked with a
dangerous, damaging time machine, not the stable kind the Doctor has.
Also, I assumed Savar's eyes were a link in InfyDocs *to* Seeing I, not the
other way around - which was easily skipped over by assuming that Lance was
simply keying into something everyone would know (just like Gallifrey does, or
the Doctor, or the Magistrate, or Omega...). Remind me again what the Needle
was in InfyDocs, or alternatively, don't bother - just understand that that
passed me by as a link.
Note also that, in my definition of canon, I point out that you *can* fit
anything into canon, if you are willing to work hard enough. InfyDocs seems
to require the most work of all, that is all my comment meant. I personally
don't think it is worth the work, despite InfyDocs being a very good novel in
its own right. I happen to think it would work better as a stand-alone.
You obviously see the characters of the companions in a very different light to
the one I do (although I take your point about Compassion's signals - but I
still find her irritating in general and the overall character does *so* remind
me of Seven of Nine that I can't picture Compassion as anyone but...). Fitz
has been through a lot, but I have never felt much affection for him in the
writing, and I simply have not been able to identify with him thus far. Sam,
I did begin to in some novels, but Fitz has thus far remained words on a page
rather than a real character. I think your remark, 'Compassion wouldn't'
probably explains this - Fitz is seen more often through Compassion's eyes than
anyone else's in recent books, I think (at least, most memorably for me). I
have experienced the writers as treating Fitz as a type, rather than doing it
myself, and hence my dislike for the character. He has thus far, as I said,
not become distinct in any other way.
OJT
LennyTyke
I never stated that we *must* reject things as canon, only that continuity is
not a reason to do so. As for why we would want to reject things as canon -
that is up to the individual.
Canon, here, does not carry its usual meaning of 'generally accepted', but
tends to mean instead, 'that which the individual currently talking accepts'.
Thus for whatever reasons, people may decide that they do not want to include
certain stories, or series, as 'canon', and not affect anybody else (except in
how vehemently they argue for their point of view).
As for buying something just because it said Dr. Who on the front, this I don't
do. What I bought was novels telling what I took to be the ongoing story of
the Doctor's life/lives - which, as a sad fanboy, I just *had* to have the
entirety of as soon as possible. Foolish I know, but fandom is not a rational
affliction - sorry, state of mind.
I think I might learn something from this experience, but I doubt it!
OJT
LennyTyke
they were able to do would be down to how much they inherited from dear papa,
not down to who they were as a person. It would be down to their fame in this
society, and their standing in this society and hence not something an ordinary
bloke could necessarily achieve (why doesn't an American back me up here?
This is supposed to be the American Dream ideal, isn't it, for crying out
loud!?).
If some minor royal went and backpacked around the world with a trusty
companion, without any of that fame or wealth to back them up, and then on the
way managed to advance a protest against injustice here, save a few km square
of rainforest here, etc etc, then that would be equivalent to the Doctor,
perhaps, and it would be amazing. But if that person spent a lot of money on
equipment to do it in, then it becomes less amazing, and that is equivalent to
what is happening to the Doctor at the moment - his past is full of extra
expenditure above and beyond that available to the ordinary Gallifreyan.
It doesn't matter what the Doctor chose to do; it's about who else is able to
choose to do it also, and that number seems to be being narrowed down as much
as possible by the novel writers. They are creating a Griffin-box set which
goes, [Gallifreyan] [Time Lord] [Doctor] - thus making sure only the Doctor is
capable of doing Doctor-ish things amongst his people. Thus making the Doctor
less of a hero in my eyes.
OJT
Jonathan Blum
LennyTyke <lenn...@aol.com> wrote:
>You make some very good points, I think, but you keep missing my point. It
>doesn't matter how ordinary the Doctor, or anyone else, *thinks* the Doctor is,
>the fact is that, if he has any unique link to this Other, then that
>automatically invalidates his wonderfulness because we cannot know what effect
>that uniqueness has had on the Doctor. It *might* explain every wonderful
>thing that he has managed.
So you're complaining so much because of a "might"?
There's nothing "automatic" about his wonderfulness being invalidated;
that's a conclusion you're leaping to. Even if the Doctor is the only one
on his world with a link to the ancient past, that isn't what really
matters; what really matters is the *choices* he makes, of what to do with
what he has. That's why the important bit of the Doctor's story isn't the
hundreds of years he spent sitting around on Gallifrey with his birthright
and his Time Lord abilities; he starts to matter when he starts *acting*,
by stealing the TARDIS.
[...]
>the Doctor
>is made unique and therefore valueless as a role model.
That idea makes very little sense to me. Lots of peoples' role models
had privileges -- whether native intelligence, financial advantages,
personal spiritual experiences, royal lineage, or brains that are just
wired up funny -- that aren't generally available. You can still admire
them their personal inner strength, the courage of their convictions,
their use of their enhanced potential.
After all, how many people in this world view Jesus Christ as their role
model? You can't get much more unique than the Son of God. :-)
And the Doctor's already unique, from a present-day human point of view,
because he has a time machine. He obtained this product of his society,
in much the same way he obtained the benefits of his Time Lord rank.
Where is the difference?
[...]
If the answer is no,
>or don't know, then the discussion so far has misled me into believing the
>answer is yes. If the answer is don't know, then the Doctor is still not free
>of the accusation, 'He's only special because he was made that way'.
>If he has been programmed, then he is not great at all.
And you appear to be judging him on this accusation on a
guilty-until-proven-innocent basis. There's *no* evidence for the idea
that, say, the CIA programmed the Doctor with a special knowledge of
Venusian Akido to allow him to defeat the Borad for them. There's no
evidence that the Doctor's previous life as the Other gave him any
special edge -- the Doctor may have inherited the Other's desire to leave
Gallifrey and play a part in the universe, but that's no more dramatic
than the second Doctor inheriting the first Doctor's wanderlust.
So why act like the mere existence of these remote possibilities is a
complete betrayal of the entire nature of the series?
>Also, it is not in 'what he chose to do with it' - for that, I could take any
>magician hero in fiction, practically. Gandalf is not, for me, nearly as
>great a figure as either Frodo or Samwise. The Doctor I always believed in
>from seven years old (when I first became better versed in the history of Dr.
>Who through the local library's collection of Target books) was both at once -
>a magician to us, but a hobbit compared to his own people.
And nothing has changed there. If he gets augmented abilities when he
becomes a Time Lord, we know he became a Time Lord by scraping through
with a minimum score on his second attempt. (And I've got a couple of
choice words for the idea that college graduates are automatically Not
Like Reg'lar People.) His link to the Old Time is a source of
embarrassing nicknames, not of profound mystical knowledge. He's still a
talented underachiever.
>The thing that made the Doctor great was that others like him, or even better
>than him, didn't choose to do it - he was special by his deed, not by his
>nature.
Which was precisely my point above. Nothing has been destroyed.
[snip]
Regards,
Jon Blum
John L Beven II
>John L Beven II <jbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Jonathan Blum wrote in message <7uqsqd$fsa$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au>...
>> Jon, maybe that's your definition. Mine is that canon is what "fits", and
>> I try to take as broad-brush of a view of that as possible. For example,
>> I don't knock the DWM comics out of canon because I dislike them.
>> I dislike them because they deliberately knocked themselves out of
>> my definition of canon.
>
>book strips always had to check in with the books before they ran
>anything and the books always had to check all the comic book strips going
>all the way back before they could be written.
>
>"Nope Im sorry. Your submission is brilliant and would be an excellent
>story, however it conflicted with part 3 of The World Shapers in DWM 147."
>
>or
>
>"Your comic strip is fascinating, visually compelling, and flows
>wonderfully telling your story flawlessly. However it takes place
>on Earth in 2109 and so does Transit. Sorry, someone got their first."
Two words, Charles: occupational hazard!
I'm sure it would not be the first time in literary history that such
coincidences
have occurred. It probably wouldn't be the first time in the history of
writing DW!
And as I've commented in the past, if the story is *really* that strong
and
deserving of publication, it's quite likely it can stand some re-writing to
remove the conflicting bits.
John L Beven II
>In reply to Steven Kitson:
>
>I never stated that we *must* reject things as canon, only that continuity
is
>not a reason to do so. As for why we would want to reject things as
canon -
>that is up to the individual.
Here's where I disagree with you. Continuity is the *basis* for my canon.
How well a certain *class* of stories (books, comics, audios, etc) fits
into the overstory determines whether that class is canon or not.
In this way, I can try to make canon more objective and put it above
my like or dislike for individual stories or events. That's means I
have to accept some things I don't like, but so be it.
(That doesn't mean I won't argue about the things I don't like, though!
:-) )
Ed Jefferson
(LennyTyke) writes:
>
>You make some very good points, I think, but you keep missing my point. It
>doesn't matter how ordinary the Doctor, or anyone else, *thinks* the Doctor
>is,
>the fact is that, if he has any unique link to this Other, then that
>automatically invalidates his wonderfulness because we cannot know what
>effect
>that uniqueness has had on the Doctor. It *might* explain every wonderful
>thing that he has managed. Likewise, if he has received some kind of
>augmentation from the Time Lords, then the suspicion is open that the CIA
>have
>simply programmed him to be capable of defeating the powers of Sutekh, the
>Great Old Ones, etc etc.
Why does it automatically invalidate his wonderfulness?? You are making rather
large assumptions.
>
>You state that the Doctor's reasons for being different are not necessarily
>the
>same as the Other's reasons for being different, nor is there necessarily any
>link between them, but the link has been made in th Virgin novels (or so I
>understand it). Once that is done, there is no need to explain the link.
>The damage to the symbol is done. Asking a whole stream of questions as you
>did, does not constitute an argument here. Is there or is there not a link
>between the Doctor and the Other made in the Virgin series? If the answer
>is
>yes, then it matters not what the link is, or what the Other was/is: the
>Doctor
>is made unique and therefore valueless as a role model. If the answer is
>no,
>or don't know, then the discussion so far has misled me into believing the
>answer is yes. If the answer is don't know, then the Doctor is still not
>free
>of the accusation, 'He's only special because he was made that way'.
>
Why should the Doctor have to be a role model? Does someone for you only have
valueif they set a good example? All the books I've read have seemed to point
to the fact that he's special because he chose to go out into the universe and
help people. The fact that he *may* be the reincarnation of the other is not
necessarily related to this. It was intended to add a darker feel to the
series, that we don't really know as much about the Doctor as we thought.
(While you would say the likes of Lungbarrow have gone against this, stuff
like Unnatural History is defiantely going down that path, as is Alien Bodies).
>If he has been programmed, then he is not great at all.
Where do you get these ideas? Who says he's been programmed.
>
>Also, it is not in 'what he chose to do with it' - for that, I could take any
>magician hero in fiction, practically. Gandalf is not, for me, nearly as
>great a figure as either Frodo or Samwise. The Doctor I always believed in
>from seven years old (when I first became better versed in the history of Dr.
>Who through the local library's collection of Target books) was both at once
>-a magician to us, but a hobbit compared to his own people.
I can see why you don't like the NAs, where the Doctor is defiantely a
Gandalf-like figure, while his companions are Frodo and Sam types. IMHO this is
no bad thing though.
>
>The thing that made the Doctor great was that others like him, or even better
>than him, didn't choose to do it - he was special by his deed, not by his
>nature. There may well be other renegades, but most of them ended up
>turning
>to evil (or at least, the ones we hear about have). The Doctor hasn't.
>That
>alone makes him special, but if there is a link with the Other, then that
>robs
>him of his choice, symbolically speaking, whether he knows it or not. He
>makes the choice, but how do I know he's not programmed to make that choice?
>
Do we know that the Other went out and did stuff like the Doctor? Do we even
know for sure that the Doctor is the reincarnation of the Other?
>By the way, the names you link with making their own time machines: I don't
>recognise any of them, except one and that seemed to be linked with a
>dangerous, damaging time machine, not the stable kind the Doctor has.
>
>Also, I assumed Savar's eyes were a link in InfyDocs *to* Seeing I, not the
>other way around - which was easily skipped over by assuming that Lance was
>simply keying into something everyone would know (just like Gallifrey does,
>or
>the Doctor, or the Magistrate, or Omega...). Remind me again what the
>Needle
>was in InfyDocs, or alternatively, don't bother - just understand that that
>passed me by as a link.
>
>Note also that, in my definition of canon, I point out that you *can* fit
>anything into canon, if you are willing to work hard enough. InfyDocs seems
>to require the most work of all, that is all my comment meant. I personally
>don't think it is worth the work, despite InfyDocs being a very good novel in
>its own right. I happen to think it would work better as a stand-alone.
InfiniDocs IS being worked into canon in the current arc. I personally think
it's set in Doc8's future.
>
>You obviously see the characters of the companions in a very different light
>to
>the one I do (although I take your point about Compassion's signals - but I
>still find her irritating in general and the overall character does *so*
>remind
>me of Seven of Nine that I can't picture Compassion as anyone but...). Fitz
>has been through a lot, but I have never felt much affection for him in the
>writing, and I simply have not been able to identify with him thus far.
>Sam,
>I did begin to in some novels, but Fitz has thus far remained words on a page
>rather than a real character. I think your remark, 'Compassion wouldn't'
>probably explains this - Fitz is seen more often through Compassion's eyes
>than
>anyone else's in recent books, I think (at least, most memorably for me). I
>have experienced the writers as treating Fitz as a type, rather than doing it
>myself, and hence my dislike for the character. He has thus far, as I said,
>not become distinct in any other way.
Each to his own, I find Fitz to have much more of a charcater than Sam.
--
Or something....
Ed Jefferson, posting through time from 2003
"They're a backward lot, the natives of Gallifrey. Idiots with no dress sense."
take out the SPAM to e-mail me
orinoco
LennyTyke wrote in message <19991023205302...@ng-fj1.aol.com>...
>Yes, Charles, a member of the royal family could do a great deal, but then
what
>they were able to do would be down to how much they inherited from dear
papa,
>not down to who they were as a person.
Bullshit. Anyone can achieve anything regardless of background if they have
the will to achieve it (didn't Richard Branson make his fortune form
nothing?). This is like the complaints that Ed Windsor is trading on his
name as a royal when he makes & sells things.... People do things because
they *want* to do things. Money and contacts help, but aren't the reason
that people do things.
It would be down to their fame in this
>society, and their standing in this society and hence not something an
ordinary
>bloke could necessarily achieve (why doesn't an American back me up here?
>This is supposed to be the American Dream ideal, isn't it, for crying out
>loud!?).
The American Dream sucks if it states that you must be someone to be
important, or that if you are someone, what you do isn't important.
>
>If some minor royal went and backpacked around the world with a trusty
>companion, without any of that fame or wealth to back them up, and then on
the
>way managed to advance a protest against injustice here, save a few km
square
>of rainforest here, etc etc, then that would be equivalent to the Doctor,
>perhaps, and it would be amazing. But if that person spent a lot of money
on
>equipment to do it in, then it becomes less amazing, and that is equivalent
to
>what is happening to the Doctor at the moment - his past is full of extra
>expenditure above and beyond that available to the ordinary Gallifreyan.
It doesn't matter how much you use of what you have. You just use what you
have got.
<brigadier> I just do the best I can <brigadier>
The brig works for UNIT, is obviously pretty wealthy, and IMHO seems a
pretty special guy (excellent training & resources), but he still gets up
and faces the Destroyer. Because of who he is. Not because of his training.
UNIT troops don't face aliens just because they have superior weapons to
everyone else. Does this make them less heroic than a companion who doesn't
have a big gun? No - it still takes guts to go out there
>
>It doesn't matter what the Doctor chose to do; it's about who else is able
to
>choose to do it also, and that number seems to be being narrowed down as
much
>as possible by the novel writers. They are creating a Griffin-box set
which
>goes, [Gallifreyan] [Time Lord] [Doctor] - thus making sure only the Doctor
is
>capable of doing Doctor-ish things amongst his people. Thus making the
Doctor
>less of a hero in my eyes.
>
The Dr can do doctorish things any time, regardless of his background. A
hero is defined by what he does. Not by why he is able to do the things he
does. Superman is a hero - he saves the world. He does it using super
powers. Because he is the type of hero he is, he uses those powers to save
the world. He coul sit back and say 'nah, don't fancy this hero shit' and
use his powers for his own ends. The same applies with the Dr. As long as he
is acting on behalf of others than himself, he is being heroic.
Orinoco, feeling this thread is bashing its head against a brick wall
Simon Simmons
Paul Cornell wrote:
> On a more serious note, please hang on for Avalon, which I'm very proud
> of, but more to the point is too 'traditional Doctor Who' for words! I'm
> actually afraid it'll alienate some of the book fans by being too
> old-fashioned and straightforward: it's very much the Doctor as a hero.
As a devout canonivore, I'd just like to ... well, use the word 'canonivore',
really...
Simon
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/kneale and subscribe to [Kneale], the
mailing list dedicated to the works of Nigel Kneale.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
orinoco
LennyTyke wrote in message <19991023202349...@ng-fj1.aol.com>...
>You make some very good points, I think, but you keep missing my point.
>doesn't matter how ordinary the Doctor, or anyone else, *thinks* the Doctor
is,
>the fact is that, if he has any unique link to this Other, then that
>automatically invalidates his wonderfulness because we cannot know what
effect
>that uniqueness has had on the Doctor. It *might* explain every wonderful
>thing that he has managed. Likewise, if he has received some kind of
>augmentation from the Time Lords, then the suspicion is open that the CIA
have
>simply programmed him to be capable of defeating the powers of Sutekh, the
>Great Old Ones, etc etc.
But he still had to go out there and do it. Sure, if noone else but a
superhero can save the world, then we want a superhero to save the world.
The hero has a choice. It is that choice that makes him the hero
>
>You state that the Doctor's reasons for being different are not necessarily
the
>same as the Other's reasons for being different, nor is there necessarily
any
>link between them, but the link has been made in th Virgin novels (or so I
>understand it). Once that is done, there is no need to explain the link.
>The damage to the symbol is done. Asking a whole stream of questions as
you
>did, does not constitute an argument here. Is there or is there not a
link
>between the Doctor and the Other made in the Virgin series? If the answer
is
>yes, then it matters not what the link is, or what the Other was/is: the
Doctor
>is made unique and therefore valueless as a role model. If the answer is
no,
>or don't know, then the discussion so far has misled me into believing the
>answer is yes. If the answer is don't know, then the Doctor is still not
free
>of the accusation, 'He's only special because he was made that way'.
>
>If he has been programmed, then he is not great at all.
>
>Also, it is not in 'what he chose to do with it' - for that, I could take
any
>magician hero in fiction, practically. Gandalf is not, for me, nearly as
>great a figure as either Frodo or Samwise. The Doctor I always believed
in
>from seven years old (when I first became better versed in the history of
Dr.
>Who through the local library's collection of Target books) was both at
once -
>a magician to us, but a hobbit compared to his own people.
But Gandalf was still a hero. He risked his life in the fight with the
Balrog because noone else could. He used his powers to help everyone, doing
the best he could. The hobbits did the best they could. Its like claiming
that <insert fantasy hero> isn't a hero because he's big and strong, or has
superior thief skills....
>
>The thing that made the Doctor great was that others like him, or even
better
>than him, didn't choose to do it - he was special by his deed, not by his
>nature. There may well be other renegades, but most of them ended up
turning
>to evil (or at least, the ones we hear about have). The Doctor hasn't.
That
>alone makes him special, but if there is a link with the Other, then that
robs
>him of his choice, symbolically speaking, whether he knows it or not. He
>makes the choice, but how do I know he's not programmed to make that
choice?
Because you do not have to believe that he *is* programmed. Sure, he has
genetic modifiers. Who cares. If I made you 10x stronger than you are via
genetic modification, it doesn't change the way you think. You may act
differently, but this would be a concious decision based upon your new
strength. You could now achieve more. You still have to want to achieve
more. A hero by definition will try and achieve all that he can using all of
his abilities. Do you want the Dr to tie one hand behind his back before
defeating the daleks? Does it make him less heroic if he doesn't?
<snip remainder>
Orinoco, wombling free
orinoco
Jonathan Blum wrote in message <7utpt0$ang$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au>...
<snip>>[...]
>
>>the Doctor
>>is made unique and therefore valueless as a role model.
>
>had privileges -- whether native intelligence, financial advantages,
>personal spiritual experiences, royal lineage, or brains that are just
>wired up funny -- that aren't generally available. You can still admire
>them their personal inner strength, the courage of their convictions,
>their use of their enhanced potential.
Hallelujah! the exact point I would make. We are all to some extent unique.
Someone is a role model because of what they do. Not why they do it, or how
they are able to do it. If this were the case, the Doctor couldn't be a role
model because he travels in time and space. I can't do that so I can't be
like the Dr..
Jonathan Blum
LennyTyke <lenn...@aol.com> wrote:
No really concrete SPOILERS for "Unnatural History" below, but if you're
especially sensitive, you might want to skip this...
>It doesn't matter what the Doctor chose to do; it's about who else is able to
>choose to do it also, and that number seems to be being narrowed down as much
>as possible by the novel writers. They are creating a Griffin-box set which
>goes, [Gallifreyan] [Time Lord] [Doctor] - thus making sure only the Doctor is
>capable of doing Doctor-ish things amongst his people.
As the person mainly responsible for unleashing the whole Griffin meme
onto fandom, let me hijack this particular metaphor back:
The thing which makes Griffin so wrongheaded isn't merely that he has the
desire to classify and organize; reputable scientists, even the Doctor,
have this instinct as well. Griffin's problem is that he insists on his
classifications, hierarchies, and rules *at the expense of the subtleties
of reality*. If something comes along which blurs the lines, or combines
elements from radically different categories, then Griffin disassembles,
twists, and generally destroys it until it does fit.
To me, OJ, when you insist that if the Doctor has _some_ the traits of a
particular kind of character -- a unique backstory, a degree of privilege
in his abilities -- then his entire character *must* flow from these
traits, and this *inevitably* destroys his unique heroism... that seems
more like a Griffinesque denial of subtlety and ambiguity than anything
the authors have done.
(As an aside, I'd also rather not have seen the flashbacks to the young
Doctor in "Divided Loyalties" either -- not because I feel that his nature
is somehow destroyed by the fact that some of his traits come from going
through the Academy rather than from birth, but simply because I think it
shows us too much and too unambiguously.)
It seems similarly telling that, in another thread, you're determining
canonicity (or rather, non-canonicity based on references to things you
hate) not in terms of individual ideas you dislike, but again in terms of
*categories* and classifications -- lumping entire book ranges together:
>Virgin for me, NOT CANON. Therefore, now, BBC PDAs NOT CANON (for me).
When in fact, there's nothing in the overwhelming majority of the BBC
PDA's which triggered your NOT CANON reflex. If you're not so focused on
the categories, you can simply squint and ignore "Divided Loyalties" and
anything else which suggests Virgin-era Gallifrey, and go on treating the
rest of the books the way you did before.
You could just say "Looms, for me, NOT CANON. Therefore, 'Divided
Loyalties' NOT CANON (for me)." No need to throw the baby out with the
bathwater. No need to insist that everything in that whole classification
behaves exactly the same way...
Regards,
Jon Blum
Meddling Mick
>In answer to Meddling Mick:
>
>The whole thing is about symbolism. The Loom symbolises artificial creation,
>and hence design, therefore a Loom-created being is inherently less special
>than a more organically created one.
But isn't that similar to saying a test-tube baby is, oh, less human,
than someone gestating in a womb?
>The Doctor having this unique 'Other' in his background makes him unique,
>and therefore not special because he is different by creation and not by being himself.
Actually, I may be wrong on this, but we're never told that the Doctor
does have a part of the Other in his being? The Other hurls himself
into the Looms. The Doctor is Loomed. It's never stated they are one
and the same, only us assuming that they are.
It could still be feasible that the two aren't linked at all. We've
only got the Doctor's... muddled memories in Lungbarrow to go by,
IIRC.
>The Time Lords being only able to manipulate time, regenerate
>etc etc because they are artificially given these powers again makes
>an elitist statement, and says that being special is not open to everybody.
But that's the way it is on Gallifrey, isn't it? The 'common'
Gallifreyans can't go wandering around in TARDISes because they
haven't 'earned the right' to become Time Lords. Well, that's the way
I've always looked at it, anyway.
>I'm not bothered about more questions (I fail to see how 'They are made on
>Looms' opens more questions, beyond the mechanics and sociology of the process,
>which are mere details).
No, I didn't mean it that way. I meant there are more questions
because we seem to have more conflict about the Doctor's origins. Is
he Loom-born or does he have parents? Is he 100% Gallifreyan, or is
he half-human?
These conflicting ideas about the Doctor's beginnings, to me at least,
make his origins *less* cut-and-dried to us, than the other way round.
>I'm bothered about what is done to the symbolism.
>When I was younger, the Doctor was a renegade who was a relative failure
>amongst his own people, but who rose above this.
Hmm. He still seems that way to me. The only time he seemed 'more'
than an ordinary Time Lord was with some of the 7th Doctor NAs.
Wasn't too keen on some of that myself.
>Now it looks as if he was always something different and unique,
>and that makes him a nobody because he is only doing what he is made to do.
Oh? Are you saying he's got a destiny or something? This must be
referring to something I haven't read yet, because I can't think of
anything which implies the Doctor is following some kind of
preordained path?
>The Doctor, for me, was always a symbol of what the ordinary man can achieve if
>he put his mind to it, not what the exceptional person does as a matter of
>course - if I wanted that, then I would watch Superman instead. So the
>Doctor's people are exceptional, but the Doctor is exceptional amongst them for
>what he does, not for who he was made. Likewise, we can all be exceptional
>amongst humans, if we put our minds to it. Martin Luther King was not a
>special man but he changed the world. Mahatma Gandhi was only special in that
>he had a good education - which anyone can achieve in theory - and *he* changed
>the way we think about protest! Why do people not want the Doctor to be of
>the same mettle as these heroes?
I see your point, although I still see the Doctor as an 'average' Time
Lord, if there is such a thing. He isn't omniscient or omnipotent.
He's as fallable as anyone else, but he tries his best to win through.
Mostly he wins, but other times he loses.
>By the way, I rejected only Scarlet Empress at the time, because I recognised
>none of the characters as being the same as those in the other BBC novels. At
>that time, the other novels were good enough in their own rigfht to retain my
>interest. The same is not true now, it seems. As for Two Docs, I was all of
>five years old at the time, so yes I watched it, but I had no understanding of
>the Rassilon whatsit.
Well it's a bit vague in The Two Doctors as to what the Rassilon
Imprimature actually is, but it may go into more detail Robert Holmes'
novelisation? It's clearly an artificial thing created by Rassilon,
implanted, or encoded into Time Lord DNA. So the idea of Time Lords
utilising an 'artificial' means to travel the space-time vortex has
been around since 1985 at least, so it's nothing new. The novels are
just adding to it, surely?
>TID doesn't fit because there is no slot for it to go into - either prior to An
>Unearthly Child or later than we've seen thus far, there are enormous problems
>to fitting it in because of TV Series events.
Well, I wasn't trying to say that it's 'our' Doctor in the novel.
Maybe he's an 'alternative universe' Doctor, much in the same way as
the Inferno Earth's Doctor was supposed to be the tyrannical ruler of
the planet. So tID could still be canonical?
I'm pretty certain that tID, and the question of its canonicity, will
be answered at some point. Lance Parkin has said as much, hasn't he?
--------------------
(Meddling) Mick
"I'm half-Loom, man. On my Other's side."
(What the Doctor *really* said)
I. Inayat
to deal with these.....
LennyTyke wrote:
<snip>
>By the way, the names you link with making their own time machines: I don't
>recognise any of them, except one and that seemed to be linked with a
>dangerous, damaging time machine, not the stable kind the Doctor has.
Really? Shame. You missed 3 very good (IMO) Virgin NAs (Set Piece, Room With
No Doors, The Also People. (Yes, I know about Transit, but I prefer
these.)). Would have thought the name 'Lethbridge-Stewart' would have been
familiar.
And the 'other names' I mentioned both, eventually, developed their own
stable time machines........
>Also, I assumed Savar's eyes were a link in InfyDocs *to* Seeing I, not the
>other way around - which was easily skipped over by assuming that Lance was
>simply keying into something everyone would know (just like Gallifrey does,
or
>the Doctor, or the Magistrate, or Omega...). Remind me again what the
Needle
>was in InfyDocs, or alternatively, don't bother - just understand that that
>passed me by as a link.
Where the three men who remembered the future lived. Where the Doctor
entered Omega's realm.
The lines get blurred here: whether Lance or Kate'n'Jon thought up the idea
first isn't clear (even to them, if I'm clear on this.....)
>Note also that, in my definition of canon, I point out that you *can* fit
>anything into canon, if you are willing to work hard enough. InfyDocs
seems
>to require the most work of all, that is all my comment meant. I
personally
>don't think it is worth the work, despite InfyDocs being a very good novel
in
>its own right. I happen to think it would work better as a stand-alone.
Oh...... Besides, in my definition of canon, canon doesn't exist, and I can
choose what I want in Who (which I do with TID...and the books, and the
strip, and the TV series...... )
Working out where it goes in _continuity_ is another matter.....and given
the hints and clues in the other books, I do think it's worth playing with
the pieces (and fun, too! <g>) to see where it could go...especially since
it's influencing the other books.....
Yes, it's good as a standalone........but like 'Remembrance of the Daleks',
the authors draw on it to inspire further books (and I'm not talking about
War of the Daleks......)
>You obviously see the characters of the companions in a very different
light to
>the one I do (although I take your point about Compassion's signals - but I
>still find her irritating in general and the overall character does *so*
remind
>me of Seven of Nine that I can't picture Compassion as anyone but...).
Having only seen a couple of Voyager eps., (one of those being 7's intro), I
think this is why I *don't* see Compassion as 7.
(What's interesting is that, from what I've seen, people like Compassion
because she's unpleasant, cynical, rude and almost amoral. Almost the
antithesis of a companion. We appear to like her because she's so utterly
_not_ our idea of a companion's like that she makes for a refreshing break
from the norm....)
(There's a good article waiting to be written on the various 8th Doc
companions: Sam, Fitz, Compassion, Stacy, Ssard, Izzy and Fey.......not
comparing and contrasting them, but something about the changes they undergo
and experience......Regeneration, symbiosis, paradox, rebirth, mental
restructuring, cross-species romance......Between the seven of them, it
sounds almost like a particularly bizarre super-team waiting to be
created......<raised eyebrow> )
And for some reason, I can't imagine 7 asking 'Where do you keep the big
guns?'.....
> Fitz has been through a lot, but I have never felt much affection for him
in the
>writing, and I simply have not been able to identify with him thus far.
Any particular reason?
>Sam, I did begin to in some novels, but Fitz has thus far remained words on
a >page rather than a real character. I think your remark, 'Compassion
wouldn't'
>probably explains this - Fitz is seen more often through Compassion's eyes
than
>anyone else's in recent books, I think (at least, most memorably for me).
I
>have experienced the writers as treating Fitz as a type, rather than doing
it
>myself, and hence my dislike for the character. He has thus far, as I
said,
>not become distinct in any other way.
'Not distinct in any way'.........fine. That's what you see. Distinct as a
personality in his own right, you mean? Someone you can see as a person,
distinct from anybody else?
Rather than the authors treating him as a basic stock 'type', yes?
<looks at Unnatural History, Revolution Man, and Taking of Planet 5>
Don't think I agree there. The authors may have an image, or parallels, in
mind when they write him, but he is, as far as I can see, becoming a
personality independent of these.....
(He may already be independent, depending on inclination, but apparently you
don't agree.)
(Give it time....it took Benny some time to be independent from her
parallels. And I'd point out that Sam had over 15 books' development before
Fitz arrived......and she was less popular with them than Fitz......)
(Out of curiosity..........which type? 'Cause I find it difficult to view
him as a 'type'. Would there be anything you could point to, and say 'That
combination of characteristics marks him as a type', where I couldn't point
to a character trait from the books that showed him as being distinct from
that? )
Imran 'founder of the Fitz fan club' Inayat
Charles Daniels
> Charles Daniels wrote in message <38123...@news.calweb.com>...
>>story, however it conflicted with part 3 of The World Shapers in DWM 147."
>>or
>>"Your comic strip is fascinating, visually compelling, and flows
>>wonderfully telling your story flawlessly. However it takes place
>>on Earth in 2109 and so does Transit. Sorry, someone got their first."
>
> Two words, Charles: occupational hazard!
> I'm sure it would not be the first time in literary history that such
> coincidences
> have occurred. It probably wouldn't be the first time in the history of
> writing DW!
Well I find it weird that people would kill excellent stories to exercise
some ancient continuity that may or maynot be good for Doctor Who in the
first place.
k
Charles Daniels
>Yes, Charles, a member of the royal family could do a great deal, but then what
>they were able to do would be down to how much they inherited from dear papa,
>not down to who they were as a person.
Than what chance have any of us got! :)
> It would be down to their fame in this society, and their standing in
> this society and hence not something an ordinary
> bloke could necessarily achieve (why doesn't an American back me up here?
> This is supposed to be the American Dream ideal, isn't it, for crying out
> loud!?).
Well yeah but the Doctor has 13 lives, he has time travel, he's descended
from a race with godlike powers. So on the big picture of the universe,
he's an incredibly powerful being, period.
> expenditure above and beyond that available to the ordinary Gallifreyan.
But an ordinary Gallifreyian is still an ultra amazing anything else to
start with. The community of the universe views the Doctor already as
sort of a sort of royalty..they are Time LORDS you know.
Charles Daniels
> Charles Daniels <cdan...@web1.calweb.com> said:
>> Well can you imagine how much of a story killer it would be if the
>> comic book strips always had to check in with the books before they
>> ran anything and the books always had to check all the comic book
>> strips going all the way back before they could be written.
>>
>> excellent story, however it conflicted with part 3 of The World
>> Shapers in DWM 147."
>>
>> or
>>
>> "Your comic strip is fascinating, visually compelling, and flows
>> wonderfully telling your story flawlessly. However it takes place
>> on Earth in 2109 and so does Transit. Sorry, someone got their
>> first."
>
You dont think Im doing what I think Im doing?
Well nice to meet you Mr. Telepath! Nice to find someone who always knows
what I am thinking, or thinking Im thinking anyway. :)
> In the first case, you change the part that creates a conflict with
> the previously produced story. And in the second case you, um, change
> the part that creates a conflict with the previously produced story.
Yes however what if it was a CENTRAL POINT. I mean let's say for ease,
and ignore it would be total fanwank for a second, that in the first
case the Cybermen were fighting a war with the total alien race the Voord.
This book would have to be re-wrriten and changed in every detail from
scratch because World Shapers 3 says they are the same race so it goes
from the cybermen fighting some very strange alien race on a weird planet
to some awkward civil war.
Imagine the time it would take, and how long it would slow down the BBC
book releases if they had to check everything against every comic strip
going back to 1964!
In the second one it would conflict with the idea of the transit tube
existing.
> And if the *entire* *freaking* *story* is absolutely dependent upon
> the part that creates the conflict, well, congratulations: you're
> screwed.
So youd rather throw away the REALLY Great story which doesnt fit some
detail in some 10 year old comic book and take the second best "well it
fits and it's adequate" story?
The thing is you need innovation and change because otherwise Doctor WHo
will strangle itself with too many certainities. Eventually every story
would conflict with SOMETHING.
Richard Jones
wrote:
>(There's a good article waiting to be written on the various 8th Doc
>companions: Sam, Fitz, Compassion, Stacy, Ssard, Izzy and Fey.......not
>comparing and contrasting them, but something about the changes they undergo
>and experience......Regeneration, symbiosis, paradox, rebirth, mental
>restructuring, cross-species romance......Between the seven of them, it
>sounds almost like a particularly bizarre super-team waiting to be
>created......<raised eyebrow> )
Doesn't it? That big Lee Sullivan picture of them all (except
Compassion, obviously) looks like they're about to spring into action
to defeat Super-villains in an ensemble-ish way. Most likely using
thier multivarious specialties, backgrounds and quirks.
I still think the Comic companions and the Novel ones live in the
TARDIS simultaneously, and are kept unaware of each other's existence
by a sleepless Doctor who's adventuring in shifts.
Hmm...I wonder if Who did get back on telly whether it would make any
concessions to the current trend of genre shows to have a cast of at
least three million regulars.
--
Richard Jones.
LennyTyke
I don't understand Loom technology. I do understand artificial insemination,
in which the genesis of the genes is not artificial, but the process of
bringing them together can be.
Yes, I would regard a genetically modified baby, or one for whom the parents
made an informed choice as to its characteristics, not to be less human, but
not so amazing as a more randomly produced child. The characteristics of such
a child can only be a disappointment, or meet expectations. If (s)he achieves
what the parent expects, then that child has less reason to feel proud (I would
say) than a random child.
You see, I'm not Griffin on this issue, it's the authors who set the Doctor
apart who are (at least, this is how I see it).
As for ordinary Gallifreyans, yes there is the *social* exclusion, but if that
is the only distinction, then that can be overcome. A more fundamental,
physical distinction suggests (but doesn't require) an insurpassable barrier.
The fact that our hero is started off beyond that barrier is my problem.
The Doctor may be fallible, and he may make mistakes, but this does not bring
him down to the level of the other Time Lords, if he is in any way special.
Since we have no control specimen thus far (save the other members of the Deca,
who all failed, lending weight to my argument) we cannot say how much the
Doctor is affected by these things.
I repeat what I said elsewhere. It is the suggestion, not the knowledge, that
the Doctor is in some way unique, that damages his heroic credentials. Since
you accept that that is there, I rest my case (so to speak).
Fundamentally, the Doctor does not have to be omniscient and omnipotent to be
above the other Time Lords. Sutekh was neither, and he was many orders of
maginitude above them, after all, before the othe Osirans captured him. The
question is, is the Doctor, due to some artificial or Other factor, more
powerful than an average Gallifreyan? If the evidence suggests yes, then he
is no longer a great hero, merely an average one. When there is no evidence
either way, we are free to assume what we will in this area.
OJT
LennyTyke
For the umpteenth time, I don't care how special the Doctor is on *this
planet*!!! Superman is special on this planet, and so are enough other heroes
to make the Doctor nothing too special there!
The whole point is about whether or not he is special amongst his *own* people!
You say you have a few choice words for people who believe college graduates
are Not Like The Rest Of Us. But this is precisely what we are being told
with the idea that only Time Lords are allowed to have genetic enhancements
x,y,z. And moreover, we are being told that the Doctor is not like the rest
of the Ordinary Folk. Now do you see my objection?
I may have misunderstood the debate going on around here concerning the Other,
not having ever had the opportunity to read the first-hand evidence (i.e. any
novel including an explanation of what's going on there). Equally, I know
very little about the mechanism of the Looms. The possibilities I mentioned
are not the crux of the matter, however. What is important is the implication
that the Doctor as a unique link with the Other, and is therefore something
that no other Gallifreyan could hope to be. This has been stated as if it is
what everyone knows, but wouldn't hold up in a court of law.
Yes, I can admire a hero who has been gifted with extraordinary physical
attributes, but I admire *more* the hero who has overcome a lack of such
attributes, rather than relied on having them. This is how I see the Doctor.
You say nothing has changed, but if the Doctor is set apart as different in
*any way* then it has changed crucially. He *cannot* be a hobbit if he is in
nature a wizard. Gandalf was a race apart. I want a wizard/Doctor who is
not a race apart.
OJT
OJT
Charles Daniels
>The whole point is about whether or not he is special amongst his *own* people!
he has been painted that way since Deadly Assassin.
I mean he's one of the likely candidates for Lord President!
Charles Daniels
> Charles, I suggest you read the rest of my comments before answering, in
> future. I shall repeat myself (again!):
Well I have been addressing the Doctors status amoungst HIS FELLOW TIME
LORDS which seem to be your objection.
> The point of my objection is:
>
> Is the Doctor an ordinary Gallifreyan or not?
No of course not. He never has been in the series and this is why -
As to my understanding not all Gallifreyans are Time Lords but all
Time Lords are Gallifreyian.
Now if the Time Lords are a special higher class in society than the
Doctor is already special from having passed the Academy stuff and all
that.
Also the Doctor has obviously some major social importance as he
has often been pushed toward "taking his rightful duty as Lord President".
Now this places him in the elite class of even the Time Lords.
Its sort of like the Doctor is up there high in the royal family of time
lords.
If you take into account some of the things that happened in the McCoy
stories he may have been even MORE than just a mere Time Lord. What
could be beyond the requirements to become Lord President in time lord
society is probably very extreme.
In a way the Doctor must have been some special consideration. If not
maybe they would have disposed of him as well in The War Games.
> If he is not, then how can we
> respect him as much, if we don't know whether or not an ordinary Gallifreyan
> could achieve the same?
because from our glimpses into Time Lords via the gallifrey based stories,
the Doctor seems the vast exception and not the rule because he cares
about the universe and the beings who live in.
> It might just be that he has something that makes him
> in a different league.
Yes, well he obvious does.
> Gallifreyans are by no means the most powerful race there has ever been,
> but if the Doctor is special, then he *might* be the most powerful race
> (with one member) that there has ever been, and *if* he is unique physically,
> then his achievements merely bear this out. If he is not unique, but
> merely an average or lower Gallifreyan, then he is spiritually unique.
I believe it is possible for someone to be socially, physically, and
spiritually unique.
Being born into a good situation with good genes does not inherently
make one somehow unable to even go beyond that and seek true enlightenment
or true serivce to lifekind beyond his official expectations.
It must be very difficult to have someone whom society says "You have to
be The Lord president over us all, one of the most powerful races in the
cosmos" turn around and reply "No, ive got more important things to do.
I've got to go out and help others at the cost of my own life."
Just because you are highly placed doesnt mean that heroism is impossible.
The Doctor transcends his limitations of power. He doesnt call on his
godlike buddies to help him out, and he doesnt always call about the
powers of the advanced gallifreyian technology, he often pitches in help
with whatever is available.
Charles Daniels
> In article <19991024203957...@ng-fj1.aol.com>,
> LennyTyke <lenn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Because he still does bloody amazing things from our point of view -- and
> by his *own choice*, regardless of what genes he has.
Yeah I think people just expect there to be a gene for everything.
Genes arent the sole guide of all things.
There's no gene for heart, soul, or heroism.
> That's enough reason for me to respect the character right there.
Yeah I think the Doctor is all about doing what's right in the face of
danger. Trying to uphold the idea of justice and righteousness
against all odds.
Michael Lee
>The whole point is about whether or not he is special amongst his *own* people!
My impression (from "The Five Doctors" especially) is that yes, he is
special amongst his own people. He is somehow *uniquely* qualified to
be president after Borusa gets locked into stone, and he is instantly known
by Rassilon.
Some of this may be because he's done all of the heroic things throught
his lives -- but I think it is also because of his genetic background
-- perhaps his human heritage, or his other side, or because he's traveled
so much through time that his, well, biodata changed.
That doesn't mean that we can't use the Doctor as a role model; it never
hurts to try not to be Cruel or Cowardly(tm).
I'm not a huge fan of the looms -- but I don't see it as being something to
dismiss the series because I don't like some of the elements added to
the series. Because there are enough other things that are being added
that I like.
--
Michael Lee
http://www.execpc.com/~michaell
Joxer
orinoco <ho...@orinoco.netlineuk.net> wrote in message
news:7uuj4q$gb3$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
then
> what
> >they were able to do would be down to how much they inherited from dear
> papa,
> >not down to who they were as a person.
>
have
> the will to achieve it (didn't Richard Branson make his fortune form
> nothing?). This is like the complaints that Ed Windsor is trading on his
> name as a royal when he makes & sells things.... People do things because
> they *want* to do things. Money and contacts help, but aren't the reason
> that people do things.
No, *some* people can. Ten times as many end up penniless. Drive and
determination
are of course essential, but without money and contacts you need a *lot* of
luck as well...
--
A great big socialist old Colin B.
http://x-stream.fortunecity.com/scullyst/25
LennyTyke
The crucial issue is, did the Doctor overcome his background, or was he given
an extra boost that helped him on his way?
If it is the former, then he is a role model for those who wish to do likewise.
If he did the latter, then he is not, and his position as a role model is
diminished (but not completely destroyed, for the reasons you mention).
I would still find the Doctor to be an entertaining hero if he were a hero only
for the reasons you mention, but not a completely compelling one. He has been
the only such fictional hero I have discovered as an ongoing saga, and I
desperately want that maintained. The Doctor having struggled up from the
bottom is crucial to the reasons I am a fan.
I should add that, it may have been a second attempt, but if he has some
special background, it looks to me as if he just dossed around at the Academy
both times, hence the low mark? That's not commendable at all. If, however,
he had no unique mark, then it is easier to beilieve that he simply was not
suited to the studies but overcame that difficulty, then that makes him a hero
simply for achieving Time Lord status! These assumptions are not certainties,
of course, but they are part of the implications, and the symbolism, of setting
the Doctor aside as different.
OJT
LennyTyke
attack, and hence you miss my point entirely.
The Griffin box-set that I described does force things to be one or the other,
and fit the categorisation. My view of a continuous stream from one to
another allows there to be crossover, variation and things which don't fit.
The Doctor is, in my view, someone who should be in the middle, but *also* fits
on the 'high' end. The boxes I described don't allow that.
As for rejecting whole series at once - well, forgive me, but I understood the
series to be telling a single, on-going story about the Doctor. Thus, if one
novel introduces an idea, then that is tacitly included in every subsequent
novel and forms a part of the way in which prior novels are understood.
I accept it is not a subtle approach, but I have made exceptions (for example,
*not* including Scarlet Empress, but skipping over the bits I didn't like in
Return of the Living Dad). My lack of subtlety is simply down to not having
an analytic mind and not being able to remember which books I thought were
canon on a book by book basis.
It does not, however, seem unreasonable that a series of novels with an editor
should tend to stick to the same assumptions about their subject matter.
Otherwise, they become merely an anthology, not an on-going saga.
OJT
LennyTyke
future. I shall repeat myself (again!):
The point of my objection is:
Is the Doctor an ordinary Gallifreyan or not? If he is not, then how can we
respect him as much, if we don't know whether or not an ordinary Gallifreyan
could achieve the same? It might just be that he has something that makes him
in a different league.
Gallifreyans are by no means the most powerful race there has ever been, but if
the Doctor is special, then he *might* be the most powerful race (with one
member) that there has ever been, and *if* he is unique physically, then his
achievements merely bear this out. If he is not unique, but merely an average
or lower Gallifreyan, then he is spiritually unique.
OJT
Jonathan Blum
LennyTyke <lenn...@aol.com> wrote:
[snippetty snip]
>Yes, I would regard a genetically modified baby, or one for whom the parents
>made an informed choice as to its characteristics, not to be less human, but
>not so amazing as a more randomly produced child. The characteristics of such
>a child can only be a disappointment, or meet expectations. If (s)he achieves
>what the parent expects, then that child has less reason to feel proud (I would
>say) than a random child.
No matter what genes you give a child, they're *still* random. You can
control lots of physical traits, but when it comes to mental
characteristics the most that's been demonstrated are genetic
*predispositions* towards some personality traits. Brain diseases may be
genetically determined, but is IQ?
So even if a parent has such a rigid set of expectations, a child still
has a chance to exceed them. They may have genetically chosen him to be a
baseball player, but he can still be Babe Ruth off his own bat, as it
were. (Personally, I'd think the real problem is not the genetic
selection, but the ridiculous expectations of the parents -- even if you
leave out the technology, that would imply the kind of mindset where they
give the newborn a toy baseball bat to play with, or put headphones on the
mother's belly so the child can listen to great baseball games while in
the womb... Hmm. Would you say it would be less impressive for a child
who was given *that* kind of leg-up to succeed at baseball?)
In any case, I don't see why this idea of absolute genetic determinism
comes into play when dealing with the Looms. The idea behind the Other's
rebirth -- that after millions of years, his genetic combination would
eventually resurface through random chance -- suggests that there's still
a substantial random component to Looming. Which makes sense, if the idea
is to ensure genetic variation.
So the Doctor *wasn't* Chosen to have these Otherly genes; he got them in
the lottery, the same way Albert Einstein or Carl Lewis got whatever gave
them their edge. Are their achievements lessened?
[snip]
>The Doctor may be fallible, and he may make mistakes, but this does not bring
>him down to the level of the other Time Lords, if he is in any way special.
>Since we have no control specimen thus far (save the other members of the Deca,
>who all failed, lending weight to my argument) we cannot say how much the
>Doctor is affected by these things.
How do you go from saying definitively -- "this does not bring him down to
the level of the other Time Lords" -- to "we cannot say", in the space of
one sentence?
[snip]
Regards,
Jon Blum
Chris Summerfield
tige...@net.ntl.com (Richard Jones) wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 16:03:25 +0100, "Paul Cornell"
> <paulc...@owlservice.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >But then he went and got proud of it. So I really think he should
go down
> >as the one who took this whole sorid 'canon' business from the realm
of
> >nouns to the previously gorgeous realm of verbs.
>
> Hasn't 'canonise' been around for a while?
>
> Admitedly 'non-canonisable' is an unsightly bit of morphology, and
> used absurdly here, but I don't think it is in itself a radical act of
> language change.
It's less of a language change, and more of a canonic irritation.
Love,
CS
--
I took a taxi from LA to Venus in 1985
I was electromagnetically sucked back
into a party going on that night
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jonathan Blum
>Is the Doctor an ordinary Gallifreyan or not? If he is not, then how can we
>respect him as much, if we don't know whether or not an ordinary Gallifreyan
>could achieve the same?
Because he still does bloody amazing things from our point of view -- and
by his *own choice*, regardless of what genes he has.
That's enough reason for me to respect the character right there.
[snip]
Regards,
Jon Blum
Elflore
Just a few almost random thoughts to tack onto this debate.
1) OJT, I think the authors have given us plenty of ways to ignore the bits we
may not like (Looms etc.) and still enjoy stories which mention them. From the
current arc, there is the flexible history concept, as well as faction paradox.
It's easy enough for me at least to just believe the bits that bother me
aren't real, that they've been tampered with. And I think it's great that
people who love those bits can see them expanded on. Also, Scarlet
Empress-which you seem to have rejected-makes us look at who we are getting
these tales from. If the Doctor really exists somewhere, and someone is
writing down his adventures and publishing them on our world, mightn't that
someone be editing or embellishing them, as Iris seems to with her Doctor
stories? Can't you or I just shrug off the Looms as propaganada?
2) Do we know for sure that all Time Lords are Gallifreyan? I thought there
was an offhand reference in InfiniDocs to the contrary. Also, the idea that
Ace could be admitted to their Academy (and become a Time Lady?) also suggests
otherwise.
Any thoughts, folks?
John Clifford
Daniel Gooley
>The point of my objection is:
>
>Is the Doctor an ordinary Gallifreyan or not? If he is not, then how can
we
>respect him as much, if we don't know whether or not an ordinary
Gallifreyan
>could achieve the same? It might just be that he has something that makes
him
>in a different league.
Is the Doctor an ordinary human or not? If he is not, then how can we
respect him as much, if we don't know whether or not an ordinary human could
achieve the same. It might just be that he has something that makes him in
a different league.
In fact, he does. We know he does. And it doesn't worry you at all.
Because if that difference didn't matter, the Doctor would become not the
shining example that inspires us, but the impossibly high beam we'd have to
compare ourselves against.
If it doesn't worry you that the Doctor has some advantages which put him in
a different league to us, why should it matter if he has something which
puts him in a different league to Gallifreyans? He is spectacularly
selfless on his own terms. What is the point of using Gallifreyans as some
kind of "norm"? As a wise engraving once said, whenever you compare
yourself to others, you will become vain or jealous. If you are looking for
examples of the greatness to which *we* can aspire, there are so many
examples in the real world.
>Gallifreyans are by no means the most powerful race there has ever been,
but if
>the Doctor is special, then he *might* be the most powerful race (with one
>member) that there has ever been, and *if* he is unique physically, then
his
>achievements merely bear this out. If he is not unique, but merely an
average
>or lower Gallifreyan, then he is spiritually unique.
But we have a pretty good handle on his physical powers. His body has
doubtless experienced enough slings and arrows over they years to transform
it into an Artifact of some interest, but functionally he has basically the
same capabilities as the average Time Lord. Intellectually, he has the
erratic non-academic genius of an Einstein. The fact that he is so
selflessly in love with life is unrelated to his biological or mental
makeup - his advantages merely help him to *survive* those selfless impulses
better than we might.
If the Doctor really were one of the most powerful beings in the universe,
and his acts of random kindness did not endanger him, then his spiritual
grandeur would be very diminished. Regardless of any comparison with humans
or Gallifreyans or penguins. And since I don't care to believe that, I
don't.
Danny
Lance Parkin
<cdan...@web1.calweb.com> wrote:
>LennyTyke <lenn...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Charles, I suggest you read the rest of my comments before answering, in
>> future. I shall repeat myself (again!):
>
>Well I have been addressing the Doctors status amoungst HIS FELLOW TIME
>LORDS which seem to be your objection.
>
>> The point of my objection is:
>>
>> Is the Doctor an ordinary Gallifreyan or not?
>
>No of course not. He never has been in the series and this is why -
>As to my understanding not all Gallifreyans are Time Lords but all
>Time Lords are Gallifreyian.
>Now if the Time Lords are a special higher class in society than the
>Doctor is already special from having passed the Academy stuff and all
>that.
>Also the Doctor has obviously some major social importance as he
>has often been pushed toward "taking his rightful duty as Lord President".
>Now this places him in the elite class of even the Time Lords.
>Its sort of like the Doctor is up there high in the royal family of time
>lords.
>If you take into account some of the things that happened in the McCoy
>stories he may have been even MORE than just a mere Time Lord. What
>could be beyond the requirements to become Lord President in time lord
>society is probably very extreme.
Um ... this thread reminds me of the people who say they prefer
Batman to Superman 'because Bruce Wayne is just a man and
I could be like him if I tried hard enough'. Well,
yes, but he's inherited billions and can afford to spend his life
obsessively training. He's not 'normal' in any sense of the word,
or real, for that matter. You've got about as much chance as
being born on Krypton as being Bruce Wayne.
The Doctor is an underachiever who never saw the point of
exams, brought up on a planet that was basically a big university.
He was a member of the social elite, but never saw the point of
the rituals and social structures that kept that elite in power. He's
an aristocrat who has *rejected* the comforts of his former
life and the role that was expected of him. He has no real
'superpowers' other than a keen intelligence and a lot of
learning (there are occasional bells and whistles like hypnotism
and Venusian Aikdo, but nothing to get worked up about). He
solves problems not through violence, but through wit and
reason.
No-one can be the Doctor, he's more than human, but we
can try to be *like* the Doctor - peaceful, intelligent, witty,
reasonable, aware of what is truly important. If the fact that
the Doctor has a respiratory bypass system bothers you,
then you're already way off the last one of those.
Lance
Nick Caldwell
Here's another one. Brilliant. Thanks.
--
Nick Caldwell-----------------------------------------
s32...@student.uq.edu.au | http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/
------------------------------------------------------
Allan Bednar
"Paul Cornell" <paulc...@owlservice.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> LennyTyke wrote in message <19991022105942.02104.00000422@ng-
fa1.aol.com>...
>
> But it was someone else who used the word:
>
> >non-canonisable!
>
> >The reason TID is not canonisable (I'm rather proud of coining this
phrase,
> >however meaningless it may be to some people!)
>
> But then he went and got proud of it. So I really think he should go
down
> as the one who took this whole sorid 'canon' business from the realm
of
> nouns to the previously gorgeous realm of verbs.
>
Lawrence Miles has been accused of being "canonivorous".
(I write all my own material.)
INAYAT
Richard Jones wrote in message <3813600e...@news.net.ntl.com>...
>>companions: Sam, Fitz, Compassion, Stacy, Ssard, Izzy and Fey.......not
>>comparing and contrasting them, but something about the changes they
undergo
>>and experience......Regeneration, symbiosis, paradox, rebirth, mental
>>restructuring, cross-species romance......Between the seven of them, it
>>sounds almost like a particularly bizarre super-team waiting to be
>>created......<raised eyebrow> )
>
>Compassion, obviously) looks like they're about to spring into action
>to defeat Super-villains in an ensemble-ish way.
Who's up for a revised 8th Doc 'family portrait'?
(would you still have Lee Sullivan, or would you go for someone else?)
(I have strange and bizarre hallucinations of a US-style comic.....
'From across time and space
Seven people have been brought together
To protect and defend the timelines
From those who would twist them to their will.....
They are......The 'Who' Men!'
Now _that's_ gonna be hard to get out of the head.....)
>Most likely using thier multivarious specialties, backgrounds and quirks.
The 8th's companions, on getting into a nightclub:
Izzy: bogs off to the cinema down the road, 'cause they're doing an
all-night marathon of seriously pants '50s horror flicks.....
Fitz: portrays himself as seriously pissed-off 'prima donna' musician, who's
offended that these 'no-talents' are getting in where *he* isn't. Failing
that, will attempt to chat up suitably attractive member of the queue.
Ssard: '.....and people _pay_ to be assaulted by these sonic weapons?'
<sighs> '_Humans_!'
Sam: searches for the _real_ alternative clubs in town, where they
_seriously_ challenge the accepted. Failing that, will start one
herself......
Fey: uses her lifetime pass, which she received from the owner's grandfather
as a favour for her help with that messy situation involving 'a member of
the Royal Family', six oranges, two goats, and a shipment of flesh-eating
gerbils......
Compassion: tunes into the radio signals coming from the club..... After
all, it's so much more interesting than these _sounds_ they insist on using
instead.......
Stacy: wonders why so many people are interested in her parents' music.
You're seriously telling me that was _ever_ in fashion? Ohmigod, I _am_ my
parents.......
>I still think the Comic companions and the Novel ones live in the
>TARDIS simultaneously, and are kept unaware of each other's existence
>by a sleepless Doctor who's adventuring in shifts.
.....which he's only able to do thanks to his own brand of Gallifreyan
Prozac, which he developed after that particularly messy double-booking with
The Scarlet Empress and Wormwood. No wonder he's only twice as enthusiastic
as a human......
I prefer 'Officially, they're not allowed to talk about the _other_ people
in the TARDIS. _Offically_.......'
Or 'Thanks to a future Doctor's shifting history, there are now two Eighth
Doctors running around the universe, trying desperately to ignore the
other's existence.....'
>
>Hmm...I wonder if Who did get back on telly whether it would make any
>concessions to the current trend of genre shows to have a cast of at
>least three million regulars.
Well, at least they'd be able to do The Left-Handed Hummingbird without
resorting to:
Ace <looks off-screen>: 'Cruk, Professor, there are _thousands_ of them down
there!'
Imran 'Ed Wood' Inayat
m_eli...@my-deja.com
lenn...@aol.com (LennyTyke) wrote:
> I should add that, it may have been a second attempt, but if he has
some
> special background, it looks to me as if he just dossed around at the
Academy
> both times, hence the low mark? That's not commendable at all. If,
however,
> he had no unique mark, then it is easier to beilieve that he simply
was not
> suited to the studies but overcame that difficulty, then that makes
him a hero
> simply for achieving Time Lord status! These assumptions are not
certainties,
> of course, but they are part of the implications, and the symbolism,
of setting
> the Doctor aside as different.
>
Even before all the malarkey with the Other, I always thought the Doctor
was a slacker at his school. I like the idea of being the Gallifreyan
version of a juvenile delinquent. As a reader, I find imperfect heroes
more interesting.
see u,
M. Elizabeth
orinoco
Joxer wrote in message <7v051s$2cr$4...@uranium.btinternet.com>...
OK so I was exaggerating a smidgin. But my point is that money and contacts
aren't everything, and the person has to want to use those contacts to
achieve..
Orinoco, wombling free
orinoco
LennyTyke wrote in message <19991024203957...@ng-fj1.aol.com>...
>Charles, I suggest you read the rest of my comments before answering, in
>future. I shall repeat myself (again!):
>
>
we
>respect him as much, if we don't know whether or not an ordinary
Gallifreyan
>could achieve the same? It might just be that he has something that makes
him
>in a different league.
Does it matter if he is an ordinary Gallifreyan or not? He is a hero to us
because he does heroic things. Poeple are defined by actions, not what they
are - its the same as not respecting someone because they are black, or gay
IMHO.
Orinoco, wombling free
orinoco
LennyTyke wrote in message <19991024200002...@ng-fj1.aol.com>...
>Orinoco, you have missed my point completely.
>
>The crucial issue is, did the Doctor overcome his background, or was he
given
>an extra boost that helped him on his way?
The extra boost doesn't matter. He still has to want to do the things he is
doing. Is his using a TARDIS to time travel and beat the daleks an unfair
advantage?
>
>If it is the former, then he is a role model for those who wish to do
likewise.
> If he did the latter, then he is not, and his position as a role model is
>diminished (but not completely destroyed, for the reasons you mention).
The role-model should be of someone who cares enough to try and make a
difference. I remember a quote in a Gemmell book which is about being able
to look in a mirror and be proud of what you see. IMHO this reflects the
Doctor (mostly, the 7th may not be). This is what you should look up to.
Otherwise, it is like saying people with advantages are unable to achieve,
which isn't fair on them.
>
>I would still find the Doctor to be an entertaining hero if he were a hero
only
>for the reasons you mention, but not a completely compelling one. He has
been
>the only such fictional hero I have discovered as an ongoing saga, and I
>desperately want that maintained. The Doctor having struggled up from the
>bottom is crucial to the reasons I am a fan.
But you already knew he wasn't from the bottom - he got a second (or
whatever) at academy - this is like saying that most uni students are
failures!
>
>I should add that, it may have been a second attempt, but if he has some
>special background, it looks to me as if he just dossed around at the
Academy
>both times, hence the low mark? That's not commendable at all. If,
however,
>he had no unique mark, then it is easier to beilieve that he simply was not
>suited to the studies but overcame that difficulty, then that makes him a
hero
>simply for achieving Time Lord status!
But even the with added abilities, he can get a low mark. Idiot savants can
do horrendously difficult maths and still can't do much else. The added
skills may not be in the areas suited to acedemia.
These assumptions are not certainties,
>of course, but they are part of the implications, and the symbolism, of
setting
>the Doctor aside as different.
>
>OJT
I can see we are always going to differ on why the Dr is ahero *8-(
Orinoco, wombling free
Richard Jones
On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 15:20:32 +0100, INAYAT <T.I.I...@ncl.ac.uk>
wrote:
>Who's up for a revised 8th Doc 'family portrait'?
>
>(would you still have Lee Sullivan, or would you go for someone else?)
It's nice that he did the first once...since it lets us see the others
existing in Stacey&Sssard's visual world. If we were having a big
poster of the EDA/DWM super team though, I'd have Phil Jimnez. He's
done some art for "I, Who", you know. That makes me happy.
>(I have strange and bizarre hallucinations of a US-style comic.....
>
>'From across time and space
>Seven people have been brought together
>To protect and defend the timelines
>From those who would twist them to their will.....
Except when when they're the ones doing the twisting of course.
The weird thing about the current crew is that all of them are *owned*
by the Faction in a different way.
The Doctor - Much discussed.
Compassion - From a group that that owes it all to them.
Fitz - Both is and isn't the real him.
>They are......The 'Who' Men!'
Ssard : Who are you calling human?
Now we've just got to find them superhero names and costumes.
Stacey, Feyde and Ssard can keep thier outfits, and the later two can
even keep the names.
Sam's costume would most obviously be a bit like DC's current
Star-Spangled Kid, but with Amnesty International candles instead of
stars. Though, I think it would be more fun to make her a (TV)
Avengers girl like she is in Revolution Man and Femme Fatal.
>The 8th's companions, on getting into a nightclub:
[snip]
Brilliant. I'd nominate it for the Quotefile if it looked like there
still was one.
I started doing individual fanfics for each of PaulDoc's companions,
but I seem to have stalled halfway along.
>>I still think the Comic companions and the Novel ones live in the
>>TARDIS simultaneously, and are kept unaware of each other's existence
>>by a sleepless Doctor who's adventuring in shifts.
>
>.....which he's only able to do thanks to his own brand of Gallifreyan
>Prozac, which he developed after that particularly messy double-booking with
>The Scarlet Empress and Wormwood. No wonder he's only twice as enthusiastic
>as a human......
And no wonder he occasionally needs Nick Briggs to fill in for him!
>I prefer 'Officially, they're not allowed to talk about the _other_ people
>in the TARDIS. _Offically_.......'
>
>Or 'Thanks to a future Doctor's shifting history, there are now two Eighth
>Doctors running around the universe, trying desperately to ignore the
>other's existence.....'
Or perhaps thanks to a past Doctor... it could be a result of the
escalating Paradox in his system that two halves of his current life
don't fit together. :-)
--
Richard Jones.
Charles Daniels
> On 24 Oct 1999 18:23:04 -0700, Charles Daniels
>>>
>>
> Um ... this thread reminds me of the people who say they prefer
> Batman to Superman 'because Bruce Wayne is just a man and
> I could be like him if I tried hard enough'. Well,
> yes, but he's inherited billions and can afford to spend his life
> obsessively training. He's not 'normal' in any sense of the word,
> or real, for that matter.
Yeah it's interesting to see such a whole hearted agreement! :)
I think people have gone a bit loonby on this issue as well.
Regardless of anything The Doctor is one unusual strange ass creature.
David Brider
>Hmm...I wonder if Who did get back on telly whether it would make any
>concessions to the current trend of genre shows to have a cast of at
>least three million regulars.
It might be the current trend, but it's not written in stone - don't forget
that Quantum Leap made do with only two regulars, and some would argue that
it was all the better for it.
David.
--
This week I have been mostly re-reading: "Cold Fusion" by Lance Parkin.
http://www.dwjbrider.freeserve.co.uk/homepage.htm
LennyTyke
his impending execution (or so the novelisation says, anyway). In Invasion of
Time, he is President only because the other candidate for the post (in Deadly
Assassin) died before the contest, leaving the Doctor the only candidate and
hence the winner by default (and not by any extra worthiness). But by this
time, he is already special by virtue of his actions, not his beginnings. He
has already been exhiled, and pardoned, as a result of his having done things
no other Gallifreyan got up to, including the defeat of Omega which involved
the meeting of three of his incarnations.
It is the Doctor's origins which are important. There is no reason to assume
that he is special just because he is a member of the Prydonian Chapter (which
in the novelisation is the most powerful of the Chapters), any more than there
is reason to assume that an MP in the Labour Party has any particularly special
role in the politics of the UK. I assumed that the Doctor had the right to
claim his allegiance, but was relatively minor amongst his fellows in the
Chapter. Once again, he achieves the allegiance not through inheritance, but
his own motivation.
With the Family of Lungbarrow, that hard work is lost - he gains his position
by being given it rather than earning it.
OJT
LennyTyke
or against the novels in which they appear.
However, I saw no reason to assume the Doctor was special in any other way than
in his deeds.
In Five Doctors, he has just faced up to the most powerful Time Lord then
alive, and won. He has a record of protecting Gallifrey from threats that
most Time Lords were unable to fight. It is not, perhaps, surprising that
they turn to him in a crisis by this stage. Prior to this, he is accepted
despite his past, not because of it. If he really had such a special
position, then why didn't Borusa try to keep him as President at the end of
Invasion of Time?
The TV series stories dealing with the Doctor and Gallifrey can be interpreted
either way by viewers, and that is as it should be. There is less
equivocation in the novels that I can see.
OJT
LennyTyke
kind of a hero he is.
I can tell you that, no matter what I had achieved, if I were assisted by my
background, by genetic design, or family connections, then I would not be able
to look in the mirror and be *as* proud of what I saw, then if I had built
myself up from the bottom.
A person starting with a boost of whatever kind *is* less able to achieve,
since there is simply less distance to go to reach the top, and hence less that
can be achieved. Their achievement is no longer their own, but that of their
wealth or contacts.
What the Doctor has is a scrape-through. We don't know how the Gallifreyan
degree system works (or at least, I don't!) but I understood from context that
the Doctor's was closer to a Third in English degree terms. But the point is
not what he got, but how it corresponds to what might be expected of him.
An example: my sister needed a GCSE Maths grade C or above to take the A level
courses she wanted, but only made an 'E' on her first attempt. She had to
redo a year and retake the exams, and actually made a 'C' grade on the second
attempt, despite the fact that she finds maths incredibly difficult. That is
an achievement.
I, however, could probably have made a 'A' grade at 'A' Level maths, but only
came out with a 'C'. That makes me a failure, comparatively speaking. If a
student honestly puts in the work for a degree and only comes out with a Third,
then that is still a triumph. If they are capable of a First, but doss around
and only do enough for a 2:2, then they are a failure.
Oh, and my father came from a Working Class background, and wasn't expected to
go to University at all, but came away with a Second degree. Are you saying
that he hasn't started from the bottom? I would claim he has, and is as much
a hero as many people alive today. A degree is not something you are given at
birth (unless you're a member of the Royal Family).
But you obviously never saw the Doctor the way I do, so my response will mean a
lot less to you. We must agree to differ here.
OJT
LennyTyke
was doubt as to whether the Doctor was merely genetically equivalent to the
Other, or was *actually* the Other.
As a symbol, the Doctor either is definitely the same as the other
Gallifreyans, in which case he has achieved despite his background.
Otherwise, with the strong implication that he is special, then the Doctor can
never escape the accusation that he has only succeeded because of his
uniqueness. It doesn't matter that we don't *know* that this is true, he is
still tainted with the implication.
Really, for an author you seem to have a very poor grasp of English!
Re-reading what I wrote, there is a full-stop and capital letter between the
phrases you picked up. In most people's view of the language, this means that
a sentence has ended and a new one begun. The two sentences you refer to as
one sentence are very different.
OJT
Joxer
--
Colin B.
baggy...and a bit loose at the seams.
http://x-stream.fortunecity.com/scullyst/25
LennyTyke <lenn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991024200002...@ng-fj1.aol.com...
> Orinoco, you have missed my point completely.
>
> The crucial issue is, did the Doctor overcome his background, or was he
given
> an extra boost that helped him on his way?
>
> If it is the former, then he is a role model for those who wish to do
likewise.
> If he did the latter, then he is not, and his position as a role model
is
> diminished (but not completely destroyed, for the reasons you mention).
Why should the Doctor be a role model? Don't follow leaders.
>
> I would still find the Doctor to be an entertaining hero if he were a hero
only
> for the reasons you mention, but not a completely compelling one. He has
been
> the only such fictional hero I have discovered as an ongoing saga, and I
> desperately want that maintained. The Doctor having struggled up from
the
> bottom is crucial to the reasons I am a fan.
Why should the Doctor be a hero? By calling someone a hero you appropriate
them
and mould them in your desired image. The Doctor is much more than that.
>
> I should add that, it may have been a second attempt, but if he has some
> special background, it looks to me as if he just dossed around at the
Academy
> both times, hence the low mark? That's not commendable at all. If,
however,
> he had no unique mark, then it is easier to beilieve that he simply was
not
> suited to the studies but overcame that difficulty, then that makes him a
hero
> simply for achieving Time Lord status! These assumptions are not
certainties,
> of course, but they are part of the implications, and the symbolism, of
setting
> the Doctor aside as different.
You seem to be complaining that the Doctor is more than a one-dimensional
cipher.
If you truly need to see the Doctor as hero, this is understandable, but
part of what
Who is about to me is the rejection of such heroes. The Doctor has failings
and
neuroses, these are what makes him an enduringly interesting character IMHO.
Joxer
>
> Joxer wrote in message <7v051s$2cr$4...@uranium.btinternet.com>...
> >
> >orinoco <ho...@orinoco.netlineuk.net> wrote in message
> >news:7uuj4q$gb3$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >> Bullshit. Anyone can achieve anything regardless of background if they
> >have
> >> the will to achieve it (didn't Richard Branson make his fortune form
> >> nothing?). This is like the complaints that Ed Windsor is trading on
his
> >> name as a royal when he makes & sells things.... People do things
because
> >> they *want* to do things. Money and contacts help, but aren't the
reason
> >> that people do things.
> >
> >No, *some* people can. Ten times as many end up penniless. Drive and
> >determination
> >are of course essential, but without money and contacts you need a *lot*
of
> >luck as well...
> >--
> >
>
> OK so I was exaggerating a smidgin. But my point is that money and
contacts
> aren't everything, and the person has to want to use those contacts to
> achieve..
Yep, on that side of the coin I'm in full agreement. Sorry to have been so
aggressive,
I just thought I could smell another 'the homeless are homeless because they
choose to
be' argument developing. Glad I was wrong :-)
--
Colin B.
"What's the best way to get a million pounds?"
"Start with two million."
LennyTyke
The versions of the Gallifrey-based stories that appear in the novelisations,
suggest that the Doctor has only been pushed towards taking the role of
President *after* his fourth regeneration, by which time he has already saved
Gallifrey from Omega twice (well, the second was during his fifth incarnation,
but it was prior to Five Doctors).
His first Presidency was as a result of a simple ruse to buy time to prove his
innocence, and was seen as derisory and not worth looking at by the other Time
Lords. His second was as a result of having just deposed the prior,
tyrannical President, leaving a power vacuum which nobody else wanted to fill.
The third time it is offered is in similar circumstances, and he easily
wriggles out of it by simply endorsing another candidate who appears to be
quite as good for the job. The language of duty often goes with the role of
President (it gets bandied about a lot in the USA, anyway) but means little.
By the way, InfyDocs states clearly that *not* all Time Lords are Gallifreyan.
However, the status of Time Lord has to be achieved. One might as well claim
that there is no difference between an honorary degree and one that is
conferred for actually having taken the course and passed it. A degree is
merely proof of having been taught something. It does not make one
automatically able to drive a car, where one could not if one never received a
degree. While Time Lords *are* a special class in Gallifreyan society, what I
believed was that the Doctor forced his way in from below, rather than being
born into it.
I shall repeat my claim very simply: Heroism itself is not dependent on
starting-point, but the type and dgree of heroism is. When the Doctor seemed
to have been an ordinary, working-class Gallifreyan who worked his way up to
Time Lord status and then became somehting more than his fellows by doing
stuff, then he was a greater hero than if he was given loads of special
assistance to do the same.
If the Doctor is more than just a Time Lord, then it is in his deed that he is
so, not in his body. Or so I would like to believe.
The TV stories can be interpreted either way, but the books do not seem to
offer the same leeway. I will stick to my view and I am sure you will stick
to yours.
OJT
LennyTyke
Is the Doctor an under-achiever, or an over-achiever?
If he is an under-achiever - someone who through his special position might be
expected to do well, then it is no surprise if he does do well, but if he does
badly then it is his own stupid fault.
If, however, the Doctor is someone who came from the equivalent of the
Gallifreyan working-class, and worked up through the Academy by his own belief
in the rightness of what he was doing, and his own joy at learning etc. then he
has already made a bigger leap than most of his peers.
The Doctor is now being portrayed as peerless - enhanced beyond the ordinary
Gallifreyan, even beyond the ordinary Time Lord. This means that his
achievements have no comparison, and he is a hero of the Superman type.
Note: I view Batman as no better than Superman since both have unusual
advantages, as pointed out. I viewed the Doctor as better than either because
I saw a hero who had nothing over the others of his race.
I have no quarrel with any of the other issues you list, Lance, and have
repeated this several times.
OJT
LennyTyke
---------------------------------------------------
>Is the Doctor an ordinary Gallifreyan or not? If he is not, then how can we
>respect him as much, if we don't know whether or not an ordinary Gallifreyan
>could achieve the same?
Because he still does bloody amazing things from our point of view -- and
by his *own choice*, regardless of what genes he has.
That's enough reason for me to respect the character right there.
[snip]
Regards,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------
Look, you [expletives deleted], there is no question of whether or not the
character can be respected - of *course* he can. The question I wrote was,
how can we respect him *AS MUCH*!!! If you can't be bothered to answer the
question that is actually put, then don't bother posting at all, since you make
a mockery of the idea of reasoned debate.
OJT
LennyTyke
Your points as numbered...
1/. I regard 'flexible history' as having as much meaning as the statement,
'This sentence is false'. In Doctor Who, not least, because parallel
universes exist. Faction Paradox can't change that, merely be instrumental in
creating paradoxes which are quite okay. I regarded Scarlet Empress as having
Iris telling adventures of her own, which merely reflected some of the Doctor's
own adventures, and there is nothing wrong with that. Scarlet Empress merely
made me think that Paul Magrs had his head up his own arse. As for
embellishments by the authors, it's all very well, but why would I be
interested in an inaccurate portrayal of my hero? Especially if it one that I
don't consider flattering? And if the Doctor doesn't exist, why should I not
expect him to be the greatest possible?
2/ I don't know where Ace enrolling at the Academy comes from at all, but yes
there is a reference that non-Gallifreyans can enter the Academy in InfyDocs.
It doesn't change my emotive response, or the reasons for it.
OJT
Prince Reynart
news:3813f253...@news.freeserve.net...
| On 24 Oct 1999 18:23:04 -0700, Charles Daniels
<snip the serious & nasty bits>
| No-one can be the Doctor, he's more than human, but we
| can try to be *like* the Doctor - peaceful, intelligent, witty,
| reasonable, aware of what is truly important. If the fact that
| the Doctor has a respiratory bypass system bothers you,
| then you're already way off the last one of those.
|
| Lance
Speak for yourself, Mr Parkin. When you live in a university residence with
11 other students, there are times when a respiratory bypass system is
foremost on your wish-list. That's why I spend so much time on this NG, so
I can avoid those ancient smells from the dawn of time! That and the fact
that the phrase 'mature age students' does not include mature behaviour.
I have noticed on the being like the Doctor front, I now find it impossible
not to run up & down my corridor. It calls to me...excuse me for a
moment...
--
'I didn't call you an idiot, I asked if you were an idiot, ya f@ck*n'
idiot!'
Benjamin
Allen Robinson
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:
The best explanation of why The Doctor is such a special character that
I've ever read. Absolutely beautiful. May I have permission to quote it
on my web site?
--
Allen Robinson
Who's Doctor Who? and Who LINK
http://www.dwebs.net/~allenrob/whoshome.html
http://www.dwebs.net/~allenrob/wholink.html
LennyTyke
It doesn't matter whether or not the Doctor is an ordinary human, since he was
never human in the first place. You clearly miss out on the symbolism aspect
of my argument, in which it is the comparison with others of the *same kind*
that is important. My problem is that people want to put the Doctor in a kind
all on his own, a child of the Gods even when compared against his own people.
This I cannot abide by. If the Doctor is special in this way, then we don't
really know anything about how much of what he has picked up over the years
really comes from that.
If Superman had become a hero without ever having possessed super powers, or if
Bruce Wayne had become a successful crime fighter without ever having been born
to become a billionaire, then they would be *more* special than they are now.
It is the symbol of surpassing the expectations of one's own background that is
important. I have no quarrel with the greatness of what he does now, but the
total sum of his greatness is still greatly diminished for me.
OJT
Chris Summerfield
lenn...@aol.com (LennyTyke) wrote:
> The Doctor is now being portrayed as peerless - enhanced beyond the
ordinary
> Gallifreyan, even beyond the ordinary Time Lord. This means that his
> achievements have no comparison, and he is a hero of the Superman
type.
Hello.
I'm afraid that I have to disagree with this point. I may get quite
vehement here, so I apologise in advance if I make any point that's
been made elsewhere. I've given up coffee and I am getting tetchy -
not that that is any excuse, naturally, but never mind.
Here will be liberal spoilers, mainly for Interference, Blue Angel,
Alien Bodies, Planet Five.
The whole point of the arc seems to be the fact that the Doctor is
completely and utterly out of his league. He doesn't have a clue.
Okay - maybe it's not the whole point, but it's a biggie.
Look at Interference - outclassed throughout. The Blue Angel, where he
is hauled out of the action at the end for reasons that are never
satisfactorily explained, and Planet Five, where he bumbles through,
and bluffs his way, and never comes close to seeing the full picture.
We're being presented with big concepts - including the rewriting of
the Doctor's own history, that succeed in casting doubt on some of the
tenets of the Virgin era, without actually undermining it. The
Doctor's place in the universe is becoming smaller. He is stumbling
into things he can't cope with.
I don't know where he will end up - at the moment I am enjoying the
ride through both the books and through the web of opinion (informed
and uninformed) that is Usenet.
However, one possibility - quite a strong one, I feel - is that by the
end, the Doctor will not be 'more than just a Time Lord' any more - in
fact by the standards of the Time Lords, he may be completely impaired
and inadequate.
Because the interesting things that are happening are happening to
history - and the Doctor is still - for me, and for many others - the
Doctor.
Love and hugs,
CS
--
I took a taxi from LA to Venus in 1985
I was electromagnetically sucked back
into a party going on that night
Daniel Gooley
>It is the symbol of surpassing the expectations of one's own background
that is
>important.
I'm not exactly surprised to find you applying a certain critique to Doctor
Who, Oliver, but I'd have expected it to be a leftist perspective. I assume
you realise how dearly the Right clasps to their didactic bosoms the concept
of the individual raising themselves from the chattering masses to a more
exulted position. Of course, this cant measures success in the more
traditional scale of material wealth and social status, but the concept of
the individual excelling in relation to their peers is certainly a
laissez-faire dream.
Socialist thought is more concerned with the individual being allowed to
realise their own potential. In order to do that, you don't need to measure
yourself against your peers, because that's a false measurement. Within any
apparently homogenous group, there is naturally a wide range of abilities,
interests and aspirations. It doesn't make sense to say that the Doctor is
in any way greater than other Time Lords because he has been President of
the High Council or because he has gone renegade and endangered his life for
unknown strangers, if 99% of other Time Lords had no desire to do these
things in any case. The only real measure of the Doctor's greatness is in
what he personally sets out to do.
Danny
Murray
Lenny why don't you see a psycho-therapist (if it is ture that you do throw
the book across the room every 40 pages).
LennyTyke <lenn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991021192942...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
> I'm back, and I'm not happy. The reason I am back is because I am so not
> happy that I feel I have to tell everyone about it.
>
> With 'Divided Loyalties', the BBC has clearly signed on to the Virgin
series
> (or they've invented their own House of Lungbarrow, Other etc etc). I
hated
> the Virgin novels I read, the ethos behind the Virgin Gallifreyan stuff
and so
> I hoped (in vain, it seems) that the BBC would discredit them. Virgin
for me,
> NOT CANON. Therefore, now, BBC PDAs NOT CANON (for me). Then 'Taking
of
> Planet 5' (ToP5) not only buys into Virgin series history, but also makes
> continuity reference to 'Infy Docs', the least canonisable book in the
whole
> series!
>
> With ToP5 (and to a lesser extent, Blue Angel) it has become clear that
the
> 8DAs have decended into farce. One companion character is a cross
between 7
> of 9 and S.A.I.N.T. Number 'Johnny' Five. The other is, well, Fitz.
>
> The BBC are doing what I felt happen when I read Virgin novels, or reviews
or
> synopses of them. They are killing the magic and mystery of Dr. Who.
Once
> the Doctor is only special because he has a Destiny and a great past
> (somethbing to do with the 'Other') then we are no longer allowed to
aspire to
> be as good as he. Once the Time Lords can only master Time through extra
> genetic bits that they artificially plug in after completing the course at
> Academy, we can no longer dream of being like the Doctor. And most of
all,
> once all the marvellous abilities are explained away like this, there is
no
> magic or wonder left. In an attempt to make the Doctor special like
this,
> authors make him less and less interesting, less and less wonderful.
When he
> was a renegade who bucked the trends, and *despite* his background became
> something special, he was miraculous. Now he, the Time Lords and even
the
> TARDIS are made commonplace.
>
> 'Divided Loyalties' had no fun in it. There was clear distaste for all
the
> characters (including both versions of the Doctor) so why on Earth Gary
Russell
> chose to write for them, I have no idea. The novel struck me as cynical,
> 20/30-something Thatcher-generation fare with no love for the story.
That
> sums up my utter dislike of this book (plus the fact that I threw it
across the
> room every forty pages or so).
>
> ToP5 was like two books by different authors. Some bits were great,
others
> were tacky and worthless (as far as I could see). I shall possibly never
find
> out who was responsible for which. The overall feel was disappointing,
> however, and I think that comes from all the bits where the magical feel
of Dr.
> Who just trickled away (the 'real science' basis for it, however, was
> refreshing!). Taken after Divided Loyalties, in which there was never
any
> magic to begin with, this novel was just too cynical. (BTW, referencing
the
> thing you're ripping off by name isn't funny - Tomb Raider III also has
> Antarctic discoveries of ancient artefacts of alien origin, so it really
is
> Lara Croft stuff...)
>
> On the basis of the past three months of BBC Dr. Who novels, I think that
in
> the future my money will be better spent on the Dr. Who audio dramas from
Big
> Finish, and the occasional video. I shall read the November novels and
if
> they further this feeling, then I shall act accordingly. It is with
great
> sadness that I realise that this is so, because Dr. Who has been one of
the
> greatest stories ever told, but now that that greatness seems to have been
> sacrificed to make it look big, I will return to those with a smaller
vision
> that preserves the big picture.
>
> A rather upset and depressed,
> OJT
Lance Parkin
>Lance, you have inadvertently hit upon the crucial aspect of my objection.
>
>Is the Doctor an under-achiever, or an over-achiever?
>
>If he is an under-achiever - someone who through his special position might be
>expected to do well, then it is no surprise if he does do well, but if he does
>badly then it is his own stupid fault.
>
>If, however, the Doctor is someone who came from the equivalent of the
>Gallifreyan working-class, and worked up through the Academy by his own belief
>in the rightness of what he was doing, and his own joy at learning etc. then he
>has already made a bigger leap than most of his peers.
There has never, ever, been a hint that the Doctor is anything other
than privileged. He's a feckless aristocrat, a member of the Prydonian
order (the most powerful), an ambassador, a campaigner, a member of
the political elite. There's never been a *hint* that he's 'working
class' - most fan theories and other speculation puts him at the exact
opposite of the social spectrum. His 'joy of learning' involved people
telling him to buckle down to work, failing his exams and doing less
well than his contemporaries. He leaves because he is 'bored' or
'kicked out'. He's an underachiever, in Gallifreyan academic terms,
no doubt about it, no room for discussion.
>The Doctor is now being portrayed as peerless - enhanced beyond the ordinary
>Gallifreyan, even beyond the ordinary Time Lord. This means that his
>achievements have no comparison, and he is a hero of the Superman type.
>
>Note: I view Batman as no better than Superman since both have unusual
>advantages, as pointed out. I viewed the Doctor as better than either because
>I saw a hero who had nothing over the others of his race.
>
>I have no quarrel with any of the other issues you list, Lance, and have
>repeated this several times.
'Now' is an interesting word - all this Other stuff was being hinted
at over ten years ago on TV. But the influence of the Other doesn't
make the Doctor Superman, it just means he's got an interesting
family history. We knew *that* already.
Lance