The end of Doctor books as we know them?

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Luke Curtis

unread,
May 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/31/00
to
from the Lawrence Miles Interview....

I really liked the look of what Justin [Richards] was going to do,
when he took over as editor. He sent me a rough outline of the way he
thought the mythology worked, and it was great. There was a big
article at the front that basically said, "well, when you think about
it, neither the Doctor nor the TARDIS are strictly speaking
necessary..."

this statement worries me not a little.....
--
Dr Who Fans:-
We Want This. And That. We demand a share in That. And some of
This. and F***ing all of That. More of This. And f***ing plenty
of This. We want it NOW. We want it yesterday, We want more
Tomorrow and the Demands will be changed then, so f***ing stay awake.

Adam Richards

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
On Wed, 31 May 2000 18:40:54 +0100, Luke Curtis
<luke....@virgin.net> wrote:

>from the Lawrence Miles Interview....
>
>
>
>I really liked the look of what Justin [Richards] was going to do,
>when he took over as editor. He sent me a rough outline of the way he
>thought the mythology worked, and it was great. There was a big
>article at the front that basically said, "well, when you think about
>it, neither the Doctor nor the TARDIS are strictly speaking
>necessary..."

And then of course you have McGann appearing in the audios, which
complicates things further... :-)


======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk

Adam Richards

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
On Wed, 31 May 2000 18:40:54 +0100, Luke Curtis
<luke....@virgin.net> wrote:

>from the Lawrence Miles Interview....
>
>
>
>I really liked the look of what Justin [Richards] was going to do,
>when he took over as editor. He sent me a rough outline of the way he
>thought the mythology worked, and it was great. There was a big
>article at the front that basically said, "well, when you think about
>it, neither the Doctor nor the TARDIS are strictly speaking
>necessary..."
>
>

>this statement worries me not a little.....

And then of course you have McGann appearing in the audios, which
complicates things further... :-)

Also, is it just me or do the book readers here seem to be getting
nervous? All of a sudden there's a massive upswing in the number of
book threads, almost as if there's a concerted campaign to tell the
BBC, "DON'T IGNORE THE BOOKS! WE READ THEM!"


======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk

Adam Richards

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 08:04:05 +0100, Adam Richards
<Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 May 2000 18:40:54 +0100, Luke Curtis
><luke....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>>from the Lawrence Miles Interview....
>>
>>
>>
>>I really liked the look of what Justin [Richards] was going to do,
>>when he took over as editor. He sent me a rough outline of the way he
>>thought the mythology worked, and it was great. There was a big
>>article at the front that basically said, "well, when you think about
>>it, neither the Doctor nor the TARDIS are strictly speaking
>>necessary..."
>

>And then of course you have McGann appearing in the audios, which
>complicates things further... :-)

Whoops - didn't mean to send the "radio edit" of that post there...

======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk

Finn Clark

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
Adam Richards wrote:

> Also, is it just me or do the book readers here
> seem to be getting nervous? All of a sudden
> there's a massive upswing in the number of
> book threads, almost as if there's a concerted
> campaign to tell the BBC, "DON'T IGNORE
> THE BOOKS! WE READ THEM!"

Heh heh. Yes, you're right that certain book fans do suddenly seem to be
getting a bit defensive. For almost a decade the standard claim has been that
the NAs and 8DAs were the standard bearers of new Doctor Who, but now these
upcoming Paul McGann audios have got everyone excited. I think it's a terrific
development and a little competition can be no bad thing. :-)

Review season also seems to have come around, with Robert Smith? producing a
burst of 'em and me about to do the same. But it always seems to go like that,
every month or two.

Finn Clark.
http://members.aol.com/kafenken/

Lance Parkin

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
On 2 Jun 2000 00:53:24 +1000, jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum)
wrote:

>In article <ahjajscch88h9ta15...@4ax.com>,


>Luke Curtis <luke....@virgin.net> wrote:
>>from the Lawrence Miles Interview....
>
>>I really liked the look of what Justin [Richards] was going to do,
>>when he took over as editor. He sent me a rough outline of the way he
>>thought the mythology worked, and it was great. There was a big
>>article at the front that basically said, "well, when you think about
>>it, neither the Doctor nor the TARDIS are strictly speaking
>>necessary..."
>

>>this statement worries me not a little.....

>I've seen the document Lawrence is referring to, and it doesn't say that.

It does.

I quote: "Which brings us to the conclusion that *nothing is
sacrosanct* - even the Doctor and the TARDIS can be dropped
and the result could still be Doctor Who'.

(Wait for the paramedics to revive MH ... )

Right. It does go on to qualify that. 'For the moment, rest assured we
shall keep both the Doctor and the TARDIS. But perhaps not in the form
that most people expect'.

Tee hee.

It's an eleven page document, and I wouldn't base rants, flames or
buying decisions on one sentence taken out of context.

>As for the other bit, about Justin having an ultra-secret master-plan
>about the Doctor's true nature which only his elite inner circle are privy
>to... um, no. Lawrence seems to have very much the wrong end of the stick
>when it comes to Justin's attitude towards the Doctor and his past. He's
>produced a guide on that subject, which went not only to the commissioned
>writers but some who Justin wanted to commission, including me and Kate...
>I can only guess that Lawrence wasn't on that list because of his loud
>statements that he wasn't going to write for the line any more.
>And given how much he *tries* to give away about "Ancestor Cell" and the
>subsequent stories in that interview, I think not giving him much actual
>information was probably a good call on Justin's part. :-)

Lawrence said he didn't want to write another one. The fact that
Justin sent him the document suggests Justin's at least left the door
open. But Lawrence is out of the loop at the moment - he's heard
what's going, he doesn't know what's replacing it.

Lance

sr.wilson

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to

Luke Curtis <luke....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:ahjajscch88h9ta15...@4ax.com...

> from the Lawrence Miles Interview....
>
>
> I really liked the look of what Justin [Richards] was going to do,
> when he took over as editor. He sent me a rough outline of the way he
> thought the mythology worked, and it was great. There was a big
> article at the front that basically said, "well, when you think about
> it, neither the Doctor nor the TARDIS are strictly speaking
> necessary..."
>
> this statement worries me not a little.....

It doesn't worry me at all. In many ways I agree with Justin. I've read his
books and think he's got a good grasp of the series. I'm looking forward to
future developments. If any taboos are broken in the process, well about
time too!


Adric

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
Believe it or not, there was actually an entire episode of
Doctor Who during its original television run which featured
neither Doctor nor the Tardis! So there is a precedent...

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


M.H. Stevens

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to
Lance Parkin wrote:
>
> On 2 Jun 2000 00:53:24 +1000, jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <ahjajscch88h9ta15...@4ax.com>,
> >Luke Curtis <luke....@virgin.net> wrote:
> >>from the Lawrence Miles Interview....
> >
> >>I really liked the look of what Justin [Richards] was going to do,
> >>when he took over as editor. He sent me a rough outline of the way he
> >>thought the mythology worked, and it was great. There was a big
> >>article at the front that basically said, "well, when you think about
> >>it, neither the Doctor nor the TARDIS are strictly speaking
> >>necessary..."
> >
> >>this statement worries me not a little.....
>
> >I've seen the document Lawrence is referring to, and it doesn't say that.
>
> It does.
>
> I quote: "Which brings us to the conclusion that *nothing is
> sacrosanct* - even the Doctor and the TARDIS can be dropped
> and the result could still be Doctor Who'.
>
> (Wait for the paramedics to revive MH ... )
>

Why is the room spinning?

> Right. It does go on to qualify that. 'For the moment, rest assured we
> shall keep both the Doctor and the TARDIS. But perhaps not in the form
> that most people expect'.
>
> Tee hee.
>

Why do I find no comfort in that statement?

Andrew J. Brook

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to

sr.wilson <sr.w...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:p2AZ4.2249$Ym5....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...


>
> Luke Curtis <luke....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:ahjajscch88h9ta15...@4ax.com...

> > from the Lawrence Miles Interview....
> >
> >
> > I really liked the look of what Justin [Richards] was going to do,
> > when he took over as editor. He sent me a rough outline of the way he
> > thought the mythology worked, and it was great. There was a big
> > article at the front that basically said, "well, when you think about
> > it, neither the Doctor nor the TARDIS are strictly speaking
> > necessary..."
> >
> > this statement worries me not a little.....
>

> It doesn't worry me at all. In many ways I agree with Justin. I've read
his
> books and think he's got a good grasp of the series. I'm looking forward
to
> future developments. If any taboos are broken in the process, well about
> time too!
>
>

"This month's Shelf Life sees the final novel to feature the Doctor, and
reviews in a perfectly reasonable manner something else that therefore
infuriates a load of radwers....."

--
Andrew J. Brook esq.


Andrew J. Brook

unread,
Jun 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/1/00
to

Adric <stephenw2...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:1d4ce4c5...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com...


> Believe it or not, there was actually an entire episode of
> Doctor Who during its original television run which featured
> neither Doctor nor the Tardis! So there is a precedent...
>


Bits of the Web of Fear, right? "Mutant Cutaway" I think you refer to, but
that did have the Mutants in it.

Jonathan Blum

unread,
Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00
to
In article <ahjajscch88h9ta15...@4ax.com>,
Luke Curtis <luke....@virgin.net> wrote:
>from the Lawrence Miles Interview....

>I really liked the look of what Justin [Richards] was going to do,
>when he took over as editor. He sent me a rough outline of the way he
>thought the mythology worked, and it was great. There was a big
>article at the front that basically said, "well, when you think about
>it, neither the Doctor nor the TARDIS are strictly speaking
>necessary..."

>this statement worries me not a little.....

The thing to be aware of, when it comes to Lawrence's interview, is that
the stuff he comes out with is about 50% scathing truth and 50% wild
nonsense. (Your guess which is which. :-)

I've seen the document Lawrence is referring to, and it doesn't say that.

I can only assume Lawrence's version of that document comes from the same
universe as his copy of "Eight Doctors" -- since he still insists in that
interview that "Eight Docs" contradicts "Blood Harvest". (Even after the
last time I spoke to him, when I actually ended up reading out to him over
the phone the bit where Borusa goes back to sleep in the tomb to allow
"Blood Harvest" to happen...)

As for the other bit, about Justin having an ultra-secret master-plan
about the Doctor's true nature which only his elite inner circle are privy
to... um, no. Lawrence seems to have very much the wrong end of the stick
when it comes to Justin's attitude towards the Doctor and his past. He's
produced a guide on that subject, which went not only to the commissioned
writers but some who Justin wanted to commission, including me and Kate...
I can only guess that Lawrence wasn't on that list because of his loud
statements that he wasn't going to write for the line any more.

And given how much he *tries* to give away about "Ancestor Cell" and the
subsequent stories in that interview, I think not giving him much actual
information was probably a good call on Justin's part. :-)

Regards,
Jon Blum

Simon Jerram

unread,
Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00
to
Adric wrote:

> Believe it or not, there was actually an entire episode of
> Doctor Who during its original television run which featured
> neither Doctor nor the Tardis! So there is a precedent...

Actually in the early days, more than one...

--
Simon Jerram Email:sje...@ntlworld.com
Personal home page http://www.telos.clara.co.uk/

Adam Richards

unread,
Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00
to
On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 11:46:34 +0100, Simon Jerram
<sIjerra...@ntlworld.c0m> wrote:

>Adric wrote:
>
>> Believe it or not, there was actually an entire episode of
>> Doctor Who during its original television run which featured
>> neither Doctor nor the Tardis! So there is a precedent...
>
>Actually in the early days, more than one...

But it was "Hmmmm, the Doc isn't around for a bit" as opposed to "The
Doc's gone and won't be coming back - let's carry on without him!"

======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk

Martin Wicks

unread,
Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00
to
In article <8h5td4$lvr$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au>,
jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum) wrote:

<snip, snip, snip>

>[Justin Richards has] produced a guide on that subject, which went not


>only to the commissioned writers but some who Justin wanted to
>commission, including me and Kate...

<snip>

> Regards,
> Jon Blum

I hope you said yes. It's been over a year since the last Blum/Orman
book. Now that Lawrence is 'out of the loop' I need to know that there's
SOMEONE writing 8DAs who can both write well and surprise me.

Unless you're both too busy working on the upcoming TV series of course
;-)

Martin


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Matthew Fitch

unread,
Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00
to
>>And then of course you have McGann appearing in the audios, which
>>complicates things further... :-)
>
>Whoops - didn't mean to send the "radio edit" of that post there...
>
It's allright. I prefer the radio edit anyway, especially the US version
remixed by Club 69 ;)
3 pts to anyone who knows what I'm referring to, btw...
-Matt

"Whatever I've done for you in the past I've more than made up for!"-Tom Baker


gal8

unread,
Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00
to


> There was a big
> > > article at the front that basically said, "well, when you think about
> > > it, neither the Doctor nor the TARDIS are strictly speaking
> > > necessary..."

Of course the Doctor and his TARDIS are bloody nesscary. Its a frickin DOCTOR
WHO book sersis!!!!!!!

Whats the point of the BBC publishing bloody Doctor Who novels without the
Doctor or the TARDIS?!?

If you want to read Doctorless Doctor Who you can just get Virigin's New
Adventures!

Trying to do a sersis with the central character missing just WILL NOT WORK!


gal8

unread,
Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00
to

Simon Jerram

unread,
Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00
to
Adam Richards wrote:

> Simon Jerram wrote:

> >Adric wrote:

> >> Believe it or not, there was actually an entire episode of
> >> Doctor Who during its original television run which featured
> >> neither Doctor nor the Tardis! So there is a precedent...

> >Actually in the early days, more than one...

> But it was "Hmmmm, the Doc isn't around for a bit" as opposed to "The
> Doc's gone and won't be coming back - let's carry on without him!"

Worked for Taggart...

Adam Richards

unread,
Jun 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/3/00
to
On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 14:41:49 +0100, Simon Jerram
<sIjerra...@ntlworld.c0m> wrote:

>Adam Richards wrote:
>> Simon Jerram wrote:
>
>> >Adric wrote:
>
>> >> Believe it or not, there was actually an entire episode of
>> >> Doctor Who during its original television run which featured
>> >> neither Doctor nor the Tardis! So there is a precedent...
>
>> >Actually in the early days, more than one...
>
>> But it was "Hmmmm, the Doc isn't around for a bit" as opposed to "The
>> Doc's gone and won't be coming back - let's carry on without him!"
>
>Worked for Taggart...

Yep, it did; I'm not saying Who wouldn't work without the Doc (I'd
have to see it/read it first to tell for sure), it's just that some
people are saying there are precedents for a Doctorless 'Who' in the
*TV series*, and I don't think there truly was.

======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk

MAPPY

unread,
Jun 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/3/00
to
Simon Jerram wrote:

> > But it was "Hmmmm, the Doc isn't around for a bit" as opposed to "The
> > Doc's gone and won't be coming back - let's carry on without him!"
>
> Worked for Taggart...

Yes, but it begs the question.... If you like the concept of a
Doctorless series, why are you bothering to describe yourself as a
Doctor Who fan?

In my humble opinion, one automatically negates the other.

--
MAPPY the Mouse - Pro Colin Baker Troll Extraordinaire ^_^
High on Life, Cheese and Caffeine >^.^< Squeak!
--
A Sailormoon Romance Fanfic Archive - http://www.moonromance.com/

Lance Parkin

unread,
Jun 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/3/00
to

We're not.

Lance


Meddling Mick

unread,
Jun 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/3/00
to
On Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:57:19 +0100, "David Brunt" <D...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

>Luke Curtis wrote in message


>><stephenw2...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Believe it or not, there was actually an entire episode of
>>>Doctor Who during its original television run which featured
>>>neither Doctor nor the Tardis! So there is a precedent...
>>>

>>one sinle episode whice was simlpy the first part of the Dalek
>>Masterplan, which IIRC did actually include the Doctor. The Fact that
>>The Myth Makers was shown in between is irrevelent
>
><Cough> The Keys of Marinus ep 3 & 4 has neither the Doctor or TARDIS....
>
>Why do I get the feeling that there's a run of Doctorless books on the
>horizon for next year?

If they end up as thrilling as 'Turlough and the Earthlink Dilemma'
you can count me out...
--
(Meddling) Mick Gair

My parents went to Skaro and all I got was this lousy pair of genes...

Meddling Mick

unread,
Jun 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/3/00
to
On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 14:41:49 +0100, Simon Jerram
<sIjerra...@ntlworld.c0m> wrote:

>Adam Richards wrote:
>> Simon Jerram wrote:

<snip>


>> But it was "Hmmmm, the Doc isn't around for a bit" as opposed to "The
>> Doc's gone and won't be coming back - let's carry on without him!"
>
>Worked for Taggart...

Not IMO. :(

Jonn Elledge

unread,
Jun 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/3/00
to
"Andrew J. Brook" <andrew...@feelinghothothotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qURZ4.1597$Js.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...

>
>
> Adric <stephenw2...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1d4ce4c5...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com...
> > Believe it or not, there was actually an entire episode of
> > Doctor Who during its original television run which featured
> > neither Doctor nor the Tardis! So there is a precedent...
> >
>
>
> Bits of the Web of Fear, right? "Mutant Cutaway" I think you refer to, but
> that did have the Mutants in it.

Now I'm really confused. The Daleks=The Mutants, therfore Dalek
Cutaway=Mutant Cutaway... Given all this information, is Ground Zero canon?

Jonn

Phyllis E. Blum

unread,
Jun 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/3/00
to
In article <8h8d6a$klj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

Martin Wicks <mjw...@bolton.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <8h5td4$lvr$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au>,
> jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>>[Justin Richards has] produced a guide on that subject, which went not
>>only to the commissioned writers but some who Justin wanted to
>>commission, including me and Kate...

>I hope you said yes. It's been over a year since the last Blum/Orman


>book. Now that Lawrence is 'out of the loop' I need to know that there's
>SOMEONE writing 8DAs who can both write well and surprise me.

Well, since we've gotten that document, we've submitted three proposals --
the first Justin wasn't keen on, the second (my "The Why Knot") he sent
back to me for reworking and I haven't gone back to it, and the third has
gotten to the here-are-our-fixes-for-those-couple-of-points-you-were-
worried-about-now-will-you-please-please-please-say-we-can-go-ahead-O-
great-and-merciful-editor stage...

Cheers,
Jon Blum
(on holiday, so my net access is very patchy for the next few weeks)

Andrew J. Brook

unread,
Jun 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/3/00
to

Jonn Elledge <JonnE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8hbc8v$orm$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...


No, only a Colt 75.

--
Andrew J. Brook esq.

"The fringe benefits of cultivating an inveterate drunkard are rarely
acknowledged"

Jonn Elledge

unread,
Jun 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/3/00
to
"Phyllis E. Blum" <pb...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
news:8hbi31$jm6$1...@saltmine.radix.net...

You have to write the second one. Just because I want to read a book called
"The Why Knot" before I die.

Jonn

Ed Jefferson

unread,
Jun 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/3/00
to

Why the fuck does Jon's post come from 'Phyllis E. Blum'? Or am I just
imagining that?

--
Or something...
Ed Jefferson, posting through time from 2004
"The lunatics it seems run the whole asylum."

http://members.xoom.com/radwdatabank Are *you* in the RADW databank?
http://.../upgbook/ The Alt. Book Programme Guide
not iluvjam BTW

Ronnie Clark

unread,
Jun 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/4/00
to
>Why the fuck does Jon's post come from 'Phyllis E. Blum'? Or am I just
>imagining that?

Well, he did write:

"Jon Blum
(on holiday, so my net access is very patchy for the next few weeks)"

Ronnie
--
Waar is my pikkewyn?
--
http://listen.to/beatles_rarities

John Pettigrew

unread,
Jun 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/4/00
to
On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 23:38:59 +0100, the incredibly wonderful, sexy and
fragrant Luke Curtis <luke....@virgin.net> massaged the keyboard in
a cute and fluffy way and came up with this...:

>On 01 Jun 2000 11:01:00 GMT, kafe...@aol.com (Finn Clark) wrote:
>
>>Adam Richards wrote:
>>
>>> Also, is it just me or do the book readers here
>>> seem to be getting nervous? All of a sudden
>>> there's a massive upswing in the number of
>>> book threads, almost as if there's a concerted
>>> campaign to tell the BBC, "DON'T IGNORE
>>> THE BOOKS! WE READ THEM!"
>
>I`m nervous because you can only stretch the format of DW so much. The
>writers have been pushing the envelope of what is possible for a
>while, and I do not have a problem with that, but that envelope is
>very near to breaking... The series has in its heart always been
>about The Doctor, and the idea that you can do a Doctor Who series of
>Books without the Doctor for any extended length of time is wrong.

It's already been done, anyway - with the Benny New Adventures!

Best Wishes
John Pettigrew

"I'm just a sitting on the dock of the bay, watching the Guardian trilogy..."

The RADW Rogues Gallery is part of Club Tropicana -
www.club-tropicana.org.uk

John Pettigrew

unread,
Jun 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/4/00
to
On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 01:05:19 +0100, the incredibly wonderful, sexy and
fragrant Adam Richards <Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk> massaged the

keyboard in a cute and fluffy way and came up with this...:

>>> But it was "Hmmmm, the Doc isn't around for a bit" as opposed to "The


>>> Doc's gone and won't be coming back - let's carry on without him!"
>>
>>Worked for Taggart...
>

>Yep, it did; I'm not saying Who wouldn't work without the Doc (I'd
>have to see it/read it first to tell for sure), it's just that some
>people are saying there are precedents for a Doctorless 'Who' in the
>*TV series*, and I don't think there truly was.

I'm sure they could produce some imaginative and entertaining stories
set against the Doctor Who mythos without having to have the Doctor or
his TARDIS in them.

The Benny NAs were almost an example of this (but due to copyright
reasons, not 100% so).

But I'm sure most people want to read about the Doctor's adventures in
a series called "Doctor Who"!

Trey Korte

unread,
Jun 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/4/00
to
>It's allright. I prefer the radio edit anyway, especially the US version
>remixed by Club 69 ;)
>3 pts to anyone who knows what I'm referring to, btw...
>-Matt

I Don't Know What You.........


are talking about at all.

Trey
"Express Yourself, Don't Repress Yourself"
send email to treyk...@hotmail.com

Luke Curtis

unread,
Jun 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/4/00
to
On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 10:11:31 GMT, our....@SQUIDbtinternet.com (John
Pettigrew) wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 23:38:59 +0100, the incredibly wonderful, sexy and
>fragrant Luke Curtis <luke....@virgin.net> massaged the keyboard in


>a cute and fluffy way and came up with this...:
>

>>On 01 Jun 2000 11:01:00 GMT, kafe...@aol.com (Finn Clark) wrote:
>>
>>>Adam Richards wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also, is it just me or do the book readers here
>>>> seem to be getting nervous? All of a sudden
>>>> there's a massive upswing in the number of
>>>> book threads, almost as if there's a concerted
>>>> campaign to tell the BBC, "DON'T IGNORE
>>>> THE BOOKS! WE READ THEM!"
>>
>>I`m nervous because you can only stretch the format of DW so much. The
>>writers have been pushing the envelope of what is possible for a
>>while, and I do not have a problem with that, but that envelope is
>>very near to breaking... The series has in its heart always been
>>about The Doctor, and the idea that you can do a Doctor Who series of
>>Books without the Doctor for any extended length of time is wrong.
>
>It's already been done, anyway - with the Benny New Adventures!

which are not Doctor Who books.....

>
>Best Wishes
>John Pettigrew
>
>"I'm just a sitting on the dock of the bay, watching the Guardian trilogy..."
>
>The RADW Rogues Gallery is part of Club Tropicana -
>www.club-tropicana.org.uk

--
Dr Who Fans:-
We Want This. And That. We demand a share in That. And some of
This. and F***ing all of That. More of This. And f***ing plenty
of This. We want it NOW. We want it yesterday, We want more
Tomorrow and the Demands will be changed then, so f***ing stay awake.

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jun 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/4/00
to
On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 14:32:06 -0500, in rec.arts.drwho M.H. Stevens
wrote:

> Lance Parkin wrote:
> >
> > On 2 Jun 2000 00:53:24 +1000, jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum)


> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <ahjajscch88h9ta15...@4ax.com>,
> > >Luke Curtis <luke....@virgin.net> wrote:
> > >>from the Lawrence Miles Interview....
> > >
> > >>I really liked the look of what Justin [Richards] was going to do,
> > >>when he took over as editor. He sent me a rough outline of the way he

> > >>thought the mythology worked, and it was great. There was a big


> > >>article at the front that basically said, "well, when you think about
> > >>it, neither the Doctor nor the TARDIS are strictly speaking
> > >>necessary..."
> > >

> > >>this statement worries me not a little.....
> >

Jon Blum (just for clarity)


> > >I've seen the document Lawrence is referring to, and it doesn't say that.
> >

Lance:
> > It does.
> >
> > I quote: "Which brings us to the conclusion that *nothing is
> > sacrosanct* - even the Doctor and the TARDIS can be dropped
> > and the result could still be Doctor Who'.
> >
> > (Wait for the paramedics to revive MH ... )
> >
>
> Why is the room spinning?

Dunno, but I found Lance's correction of Jon's correction of
Lawrence's summary (returning us back to Lawrence's version and flatly
contradicting Jon) of that sentence to be highly amusing :)

> > Right. It does go on to qualify that. 'For the moment, rest assured we
> > shall keep both the Doctor and the TARDIS. But perhaps not in the form
> > that most people expect'.
> >
> > Tee hee.
> >
> Why do I find no comfort in that statement?

Perhaps you should. Recent surveys (that I haven't seen) aside,
according to The Authors (tm) "most people" like the way the books
have been going, and expect them to continue in a similar vein rather
than return to a Doctor Who style. Now if they're right on this then
_IN_THEORY_ what Justin might have proposed (and could describe as
being "not in the form that most people expect" could actually turn
out to be exactly your cup of tea. After all, can I be the only one
who looks at the size of the DWM readership, compares it to the size
of the EDA readership, and thinks that instead of slamming DWM readers
as being stupid, attracting them to the EDA fold might be a better
idea?

> > It's an eleven page document, and I wouldn't base rants, flames or
> > buying decisions on one sentence taken out of context.


> >
> > >As for the other bit, about Justin having an ultra-secret master-plan
> > >about the Doctor's true nature which only his elite inner circle are privy
> > >to... um, no. Lawrence seems to have very much the wrong end of the stick
> > >when it comes to Justin's attitude towards the Doctor and his past. He's

> > >produced a guide on that subject, which went not only to the commissioned
> > >writers but some who Justin wanted to commission, including me and Kate...

So Justin's not kept his master-plan to just himself and an "elite
inner circle" but has shared it out far and wide amongst himself and
authors who already have been commissioned, or that he wants to
commission. What definition of "inner circle" are we working to here?
(although admittedly from the actual interview I think I can piece
together what Jon means - it just takes a lot more text than what he
provides).


Cheers, Cliff Bowman - The meek may well inherit the earth, but probably only because we'll have thrown it in their eyes
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
PS change "canyoupleasesendnospam" to "net"if replying via e-mail

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jun 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/4/00
to
On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 14:05:55 -0700, in rec.arts.drwho Adric wrote:

> Believe it or not, there was actually an entire episode of
> Doctor Who during its original television run which featured
> neither Doctor nor the Tardis! So there is a precedent...
>

Also IIRC a couple of books by Andrew Cartmell that worked pretty well
(and were almost Doctor-less).

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jun 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/4/00
to
On 03 Jun 2000 22:15:50 GMT, in rec.arts.drwho Ed Jefferson wrote:

[snip]


>
> Why the fuck does Jon's post come from 'Phyllis E. Blum'? Or am I just
> imagining that?
>

Nope - I assumed he was finally coming out of the closet <eg>

Finn Clark

unread,
Jun 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/5/00
to
Cliff Bowman wrote:

> After all, can I be the only one who looks at
> the size of the DWM readership, compares
> it to the size of the EDA readership, and
> thinks that instead of slamming DWM readers
> as being stupid, attracting them to the EDA
> fold might be a better idea?

Sadly, there appears to be hostility between the two camps. DWM readers hate
Interference and everything to do with it (read the polls, for they have
spoken!) and I'm hearing really anti-DWM comment from some book fans at the
moment. It's a shame. Obviously these latest poll results kicked all this
into the open, but whether they caused it or were merely a prompt to start
speaking is a more open question.

Finn Clark.
http://members.aol.com/kafenken/

Lance Parkin

unread,
Jun 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/5/00
to
On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 21:01:35 GMT, c.bo...@cwc.canyoupleasesendnospam
(Cliff Bowman) wrote:


>So Justin's not kept his master-plan to just himself and an "elite
>inner circle" but has shared it out far and wide amongst himself and
>authors who already have been commissioned, or that he wants to
>commission. What definition of "inner circle" are we working to here?
>(although admittedly from the actual interview I think I can piece
>together what Jon means - it just takes a lot more text than what he
>provides).

Justin's guidelines have been sent to anyone who's likely to write
an EDA - including the newbies who are writing them. Lawrence
very, very publically said that he wasn't going to ... and still got
a copy.

The guidelines haven't been *published*, but that's not the
same as them being retained for a tiny clique. Hell, ten times
as many people have seen Justin's plan as ever saw the
Cartmel Masterplan.

Lance

Meddling Mick

unread,
Jun 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/5/00
to
On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 21:01:36 GMT, c.bo...@cwc.canyoupleasesendnospam
(Cliff Bowman) wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 14:05:55 -0700, in rec.arts.drwho Adric wrote:
>
>> Believe it or not, there was actually an entire episode of
>> Doctor Who during its original television run which featured
>> neither Doctor nor the Tardis! So there is a precedent...
>>
>Also IIRC a couple of books by Andrew Cartmell that worked pretty well
>(and were almost Doctor-less).

I'd say 'The Wise' works miles better without the Doctor at all.
Great book. A cross between his 'War' trilogy and 'Scanners'. Or
summat.

Jonn Elledge

unread,
Jun 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/5/00
to
"Lance Parkin" <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:393b5e75...@news.freeserve.net...

> The guidelines haven't been *published*, but that's not the
> same as them being retained for a tiny clique. Hell, ten times
> as many people have seen Justin's plan as ever saw the
> Cartmel Masterplan.
>
> Lance

I'm guessing from Cold Fusion and AHotU that you saw the Cartmel masterplan.
(Actually, thanks to AHotU, we all saw about 5/6ths of it - just not the
important bit...) So I was wondering - how significantly was the plan
changed in the light of the telemovie?

Jonn

Phyllis E. Blum

unread,
Jun 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/5/00
to
In article <8hc7sc$set$1...@sun-cc204.lboro.ac.uk>,

Ronnie Clark <ron...@blugman.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>Why the fuck does Jon's post come from 'Phyllis E. Blum'? Or am I just
>>imagining that?

>Well, he did write:

>"Jon Blum
>(on holiday, so my net access is very patchy for the next few weeks)"

Exactly -- this is what happens when you drop in from your darling
mother's computer, and neither you nor she can figure out how to change
the settings. :-)

Regards,
Jon Blum

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jun 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/5/00
to
On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 10:26:57 GMT, in rec.arts.drwho Meddling Mick
wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 21:01:36 GMT, c.bo...@cwc.canyoupleasesendnospam
> (Cliff Bowman) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 14:05:55 -0700, in rec.arts.drwho Adric wrote:
> >
> >> Believe it or not, there was actually an entire episode of
> >> Doctor Who during its original television run which featured
> >> neither Doctor nor the Tardis! So there is a precedent...
> >>
> >Also IIRC a couple of books by Andrew Cartmell that worked pretty well
> >(and were almost Doctor-less).
>
> I'd say 'The Wise' works miles better without the Doctor at all.
> Great book. A cross between his 'War' trilogy and 'Scanners'. Or
> summat.
> --

Sadly I can't comment on "The Wise" at present (mainly 'cos I haven't
bought it - YET. If it's still around when I've got a few quid
spare...)

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jun 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/5/00
to

Reading between the lines on radw over the years there's been a
distinct prevelance of looking down one's nose at DWM and it's readers
for some time. Or so it's seemed to me (when I was an avid EDA reader
and DWM reader, and avid EDA reader and a usually DWM reader, a rarely
EDA reader and occasional DWM reader right through to "practically
never EDA" and "very rarely DWM" but "occasional BFA listener").

Or so it's seemed to me at each stage. Lawrence's interview struck a
few chords with me - like his comments about going for a new audience
with a new version of Doctor Who with little or no enforced compliance
to the existing backstory (at least that's something I've interpreted
about his views on both his own masterplan for DW, as was, is, and may
be, and Justin's "New Approach").

I can't see what's so terribly exciting about dumping the old fans
(who DWM readers seem to represent most clearly, at least when reading
radw) when there seem to be more of them (confirmed) than there are
for fans of the "New, different" Doctor Who (an audience it seems he
thought they'd generate with the EDA's - though from where if not fans
of the TV show I'm at a loss to speculate).

Ed Jefferson

unread,
Jun 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/5/00
to

Cheers 'Phyllis' , I just needed to be sure someone wasn't spiking my newsfeed.
:-)

Phyllis E. Blum

unread,
Jun 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/5/00
to
In article <393b5e75...@news.freeserve.net>,
Lance Parkin <la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 21:01:35 GMT, c.bo...@cwc.canyoupleasesendnospam
>(Cliff Bowman) wrote:
>>So Justin's not kept his master-plan to just himself and an "elite
>>inner circle" but has shared it out far and wide amongst himself and
>>authors who already have been commissioned, or that he wants to
>>commission. What definition of "inner circle" are we working to here?
>>(although admittedly from the actual interview I think I can piece
>>together what Jon means - it just takes a lot more text than what he
>>provides).

>Justin's guidelines have been sent to anyone who's likely to write
>an EDA - including the newbies who are writing them. Lawrence
>very, very publically said that he wasn't going to ... and still got
>a copy.

And to clarify even further -- the document which Lawrence quoted from
(distinctly out of context, IIRC, which is why I didn't recognize the bit
he was referring to!) *is* the document which was sent to the group of
writers described above. Lawrence's interview implied that there was a
_different_ ultra-secret plan of Justin's, about the Doctor's true nature,
which he wasn't privy to. Considering that the document which Lawrence
*did* read makes it quite clear that Justin isn't interested in exploring
the Doctor's hidden past / true nature -- preferring that the Doctor
remain an enigma -- I have no idea where Lawrence came up with this!

Regards,
Jon Blum

Gareth G. Jelley Esq.

unread,
Jun 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/5/00
to

> > >> Believe it or not, there was actually an entire episode of
> > >> Doctor Who during its original television run which featured
> > >> neither Doctor nor the Tardis! So there is a precedent...
>
> > >Actually in the early days, more than one...

>
> > But it was "Hmmmm, the Doc isn't around for a bit" as opposed to
"The
> > Doc's gone and won't be coming back - let's carry on without him!"
>
> Worked for Taggart...
>

Wouldn't it just be depressing to lose the Doctor. He is the one thing
which ties together a truly radical, ready-for-anything TV show \
novel range \ audio range and to lose it would be like losing
*Glasgow* from Taggart, not Taggart. *The Doctor* is the *only* thing
which should remain. Stuff everything else... (although *why*, why o
why, do we need to lose the TARDIS :) :) :) ) it just looks so damn
COOL.

Gareth.

Gareth G. Jelley Esq.

unread,
Jun 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/5/00
to
Meddling Mick <Sutur...@SutureSelf.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3956ffd6...@news.freeserve.net...

> On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 14:41:49 +0100, Simon Jerram
> <sIjerra...@ntlworld.c0m> wrote:
>
> >Adam Richards wrote:
> >> Simon Jerram wrote:
> <snip>
> >> But it was "Hmmmm, the Doc isn't around for a bit" as opposed to
"The
> >> Doc's gone and won't be coming back - let's carry on without
him!"
> >
> >Worked for Taggart...
>
> Not IMO. :(

Here here! Although Taggart *did* work without Taggart, I just don't
think *Doctor Who* is *Doctor Who* without *Doctor Who* :)

Gareth.

Nick Lancaster

unread,
Jun 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/6/00
to
On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 10:26:57 GMT,
Sutur...@SutureSelf.freeserve.co.uk (Meddling Mick) wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 21:01:36 GMT, c.bo...@cwc.canyoupleasesendnospam
>(Cliff Bowman) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 14:05:55 -0700, in rec.arts.drwho Adric wrote:
>>

>>> Believe it or not, there was actually an entire episode of
>>> Doctor Who during its original television run which featured
>>> neither Doctor nor the Tardis! So there is a precedent...
>>>

>>Also IIRC a couple of books by Andrew Cartmell that worked pretty well
>>(and were almost Doctor-less).
>
>I'd say 'The Wise' works miles better without the Doctor at all.
>Great book. A cross between his 'War' trilogy and 'Scanners'. Or
>summat.

Not quite as good as Warlock or Warchild, but still pretty brilliant.


love,
Nick
-I just want to get drunk and headbang
http://go.to/lanky

Alex Steer

unread,
Jun 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/6/00
to

Gareth G. Jelley Esq. <gareth...@trinity.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8hh6ua$rn0$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...

Tune in next week for another exciting adventure with... erm... um...

Alex

Meddling Mick

unread,
Jun 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/6/00
to
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:58:38 +0100, "Alex Steer" <ast...@mail.com>
wrote:

>Gareth G. Jelley Esq. wrote
<snip>


>> Here here! Although Taggart *did* work without Taggart, I just don't
>> think *Doctor Who* is *Doctor Who* without *Doctor Who* :)
>
>Tune in next week for another exciting adventure with... erm... um...

...The Asian Child!

Gareth G. Jelley Esq.

unread,
Jun 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/6/00
to
Meddling Mick <Sutur...@SutureSelf.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:395075b7...@news.freeserve.net...

> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:58:38 +0100, "Alex Steer" <ast...@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Gareth G. Jelley Esq. wrote
> <snip>
> >> Here here! Although Taggart *did* work without Taggart, I just
don't
> >> think *Doctor Who* is *Doctor Who* without *Doctor Who* :)
> >
> >Tune in next week for another exciting adventure with... erm...
um...
>
> ...The Asian Child!

Now I AM perplexed... think I'll switch channel and watch Corry...

Gareth.

Andrew J. Brook

unread,
Jun 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/7/00
to

Meddling Mick <Sutur...@SutureSelf.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:395075b7...@news.freeserve.net...
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:58:38 +0100, "Alex Steer" <ast...@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Gareth G. Jelley Esq. wrote
> <snip>
> >> Here here! Although Taggart *did* work without Taggart, I just don't
> >> think *Doctor Who* is *Doctor Who* without *Doctor Who* :)
> >
> >Tune in next week for another exciting adventure with... erm... um...
>
> ...The Asian Child!
> --
> (Meddling) Mick Gair
>


"Absolutely nobody of interest in an exciting adventure with the Daleks!"

Actually, have BF scrapped those audios......?

--
Andrew J. Brook esq.

"The fringe benefits of cultivating an inveterate drunkard are rarely
acknowledged"

Ed Jefferson

unread,
Jun 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/7/00
to
"Andrew J. Brook" andrew...@feelinghothothotmail.com wrote:
>
>Meddling Mick <Sutur...@SutureSelf.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:395075b7...@news.freeserve.net...
>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:58:38 +0100, "Alex Steer" <ast...@mail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Gareth G. Jelley Esq. wrote
>> <snip>
>> >> Here here! Although Taggart *did* work without Taggart, I just don't
>> >> think *Doctor Who* is *Doctor Who* without *Doctor Who* :)
>> >
>> >Tune in next week for another exciting adventure with... erm... um...
>>
>> ...The Asian Child!
>> --
>> (Meddling) Mick Gair
>>
>
>
>"Absolutely nobody of interest in an exciting adventure with the Daleks!"
>
>Actually, have BF scrapped those audios......?
>
Nick Briggs presents: Nick Briggs, Dalek Killer.

Ed Jefferson

unread,
Jun 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/7/00
to
>
>Ed Jefferson <edjef...@aol.comiluvjam> wrote in message
>news:20000607150131...@ng-ch1.aol.com...

>> "Andrew J. Brook" andrew...@feelinghothothotmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >Meddling Mick <Sutur...@SutureSelf.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:395075b7...@news.freeserve.net...
>> >> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:58:38 +0100, "Alex Steer" <ast...@mail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Gareth G. Jelley Esq. wrote
>> >> <snip>
>> >> >> Here here! Although Taggart *did* work without Taggart, I just don't
>> >> >> think *Doctor Who* is *Doctor Who* without *Doctor Who* :)
>> >> >
>> >> >Tune in next week for another exciting adventure with... erm... um...
>> >>
>> >> ...The Asian Child!
>> >> --
>> >> (Meddling) Mick Gair
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >"Absolutely nobody of interest in an exciting adventure with the Daleks!"
>> >
>> >Actually, have BF scrapped those audios......?
>> >
>> Nick Briggs presents: Nick Briggs, Dalek Killer.
>>
>> --
>> Or something...
>> Ed Jefferson, posting through time from 2004
>> "The lunatics it seems run the whole asylum."
>>
>
>
>QUOTEFILE!
>
>
>You really don't like him, do you?
>

No, I suffer from 'Sirens of Time' syndrome and still get flashbacks. And
suffice to say that the damage caused by me listening to the clip of his Doctor
on the DWM freebie CD... well, what are a few streets eh?

Andrew J. Brook

unread,
Jun 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/7/00
to

Ed Jefferson <edjef...@aol.comiluvjam> wrote in message
news:20000607150131...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> "Andrew J. Brook" andrew...@feelinghothothotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >Meddling Mick <Sutur...@SutureSelf.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:395075b7...@news.freeserve.net...
> >> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:58:38 +0100, "Alex Steer" <ast...@mail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Gareth G. Jelley Esq. wrote
> >> <snip>
> >> >> Here here! Although Taggart *did* work without Taggart, I just don't
> >> >> think *Doctor Who* is *Doctor Who* without *Doctor Who* :)
> >> >
> >> >Tune in next week for another exciting adventure with... erm... um...
> >>
> >> ...The Asian Child!
> >> --
> >> (Meddling) Mick Gair
> >>
> >
> >
> >"Absolutely nobody of interest in an exciting adventure with the Daleks!"
> >
> >Actually, have BF scrapped those audios......?
> >
> Nick Briggs presents: Nick Briggs, Dalek Killer.
>
> --
> Or something...
> Ed Jefferson, posting through time from 2004
> "The lunatics it seems run the whole asylum."
>


QUOTEFILE!


You really don't like him, do you?

--

Paul Andinach

unread,
Jun 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/8/00
to
On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Cliff Bowman wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 14:05:55 -0700, in rec.arts.drwho Adric wrote:
>
> > Believe it or not, there was actually an entire episode of
> > Doctor Who during its original television run which featured
> > neither Doctor nor the Tardis! So there is a precedent...
>
> Also IIRC a couple of books by Andrew Cartmell that worked pretty
> well (and were almost Doctor-less).

Assuming you mean the War trilogy, I don't think they're a good
example. They always give me the feeling of non-Who pretending to be
Who, which is not what I want from a Doctorless Who.

Paul
--
The Pink Pedanther


Paul Andinach

unread,
Jun 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/8/00
to
On 5 Jun 2000, Phyllis E. Blum wrote:

> Lawrence's interview implied that there was a _different_
> ultra-secret plan of Justin's, about the Doctor's true nature,
> which he wasn't privy to. Considering that the document which
> Lawrence *did* read makes it quite clear that Justin isn't
> interested in exploring the Doctor's hidden past / true nature --
> preferring that the Doctor remain an enigma -- I have no idea
> where Lawrence came up with this!

Neither do I, but I'd like to remind people that Lawrence did begin
that response with the words "Apparently... and this is just what I've
been told, so I'll apologize now in case I'm wrong..."

Anthony Brown

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
In article <8hjl96$9r7$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>, ast...@mail.com (Alex
Steer) wrote:

>
> Gareth G. Jelley Esq. <gareth...@trinity.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:8hh6ua$rn0$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...

> > Meddling Mick <Sutur...@SutureSelf.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message

> > news:3956ffd6...@news.freeserve.net...
> > > On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 14:41:49 +0100, Simon Jerram
> > > <sIjerra...@ntlworld.c0m> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Adam Richards wrote:
> > > >> Simon Jerram wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > >> But it was "Hmmmm, the Doc isn't around for a bit" as opposed to
> > "The
> > > >> Doc's gone and won't be coming back - let's carry on without
> > him!"
> > > >
> > > >Worked for Taggart...
> > >
> > > Not IMO. :(
> >

> > Here here! Although Taggart *did* work without Taggart, I just don't
> > think *Doctor Who* is *Doctor Who* without *Doctor Who* :)
>
> Tune in next week for another exciting adventure with... erm... um...
>

> Alex
>

You can certainly do Doctor Who books without the Doctor, but only by
setting them in the known bits of the Who universe (unless of course you
give supporting characters time-motorbikes and turn them into surrogate
Doctors), and that loses something - the original concept, in fact.
You can't do "Here's a planet - the only thing we know about it is that
there's now a police box standing on its surface and the Doctor's about to
step out of it" stories. Well, you can, but what makes them Doctor Who
rather than general SF, aside from being limited by Doctor Who's
vaguely-defined laws of physics?
All of which would exageratte one of the more unfortunate trends in Who
over the last 20 years (started by Saward's assumption that everybody knew
about the Time Lords, and necessarily continued by the prevalance of arc
plots in the books) - it has become a very small universe where the same
people, power structures and intrigues keep on turning up almost
everywhere.

Gareth G. Jelley Esq.

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
"Well, I could never write a verse,- could you?
Lets to the Prado and make the most of time."
Anthony Brown <abr...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2000060...@abrowne.compulink.co.uk...

There are ways round that. Just do a ST: Voyager *if you wanted to*
and send him and the TARDIS to the Doctor Who narrative equivalent of
the Gamma \ Delta (?I can never remember?) quadrant.

Gareth.

Cliff Bowman

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:10:28 +0800, in rec.arts.drwho Paul Andinach
wrote:

I did, though I may have been feeling a little tongue-in-cheek as I
typed. As with Infinity Doctors, I quite liked the book but wished I'd
bought something wich "Doctor Who" in the title instead...

My best bet for a REAL "Whoish" feel without The Doctor, offhand, is
merely a preview episode (or, if you prefer, cut-away). Which cheats
(perhaps) by having landmarks like Daleks in it.

Hmmm... Who without The Doctor. I'll have to try and find someone with
some Benny Audios I can borrow :)

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages