Terrance Dicks, sell out?
Kathleen Wolff
I'm in the US, so it was only possible for me to read the 8 Doctors
recently. Now, I am left outwardly wondering if Mr. Dicks has sold us
out? Now I realize that the NA's are not so popular with some of you,
but Mr. Dicks was one of the chief contributors to that line,
establishing a lot of it's canon. Why is it that he chooses to attempt
to utterly demolish that canon that he was a major part in creating? It
had left me rather bitter towards the whole BBC line of books. Since
then I've read Vampire Science and Body Snatchers, and I thought they
were Excellent. Now, I'm left bitter only to Mr. Dicks.
Matthew Wolff
Corey Klemow
Answer: He doesn't.
He makes references to some of his own books (particularly "Blood
Harvest", with Gallifrey's "Council of Three"), and only contradicted
LUNGBARROW because EIGHT DOCTORS was being written at the exact same
time for a completely different editorial team, each of whom had no idea
what the other was doing. Besides which, the pedants here have come up
with explanations for all of 8DOCS supposed "irreconcilable
contradictions"...
Richard Jones
> I'm in the US, so it was only possible for me to read the 8 Doctors
>recently. Now, I am left outwardly wondering if Mr. Dicks has sold us
>out?
Sold us out ?
What, you mean producing hackwork for money ?
Never ! ;-)
>Now I realize that the NA's are not so popular with some of you,
>but Mr. Dicks was one of the chief contributors to that line,
>establishing a lot of it's canon. Why is it that he chooses to attempt
>to utterly demolish that canon that he was a major part in creating?
Probably just because he didn't know was 'demolishing' anything. T8D
was written before Lungbarrow, The Dying Days et al were published, so
there was no way for the BBC's editor to get them to fit together.
Also Dicks almost certainly hadn't read a Virgin book since
'Shakedown' so he had no way of knowing what toes he was treading on.
If you're still uncomfortable about his intent, then just comfort
yourself with the fact that he refernces 'Blood Harvest' in it, and
that 'Mean Streets' shows he still wants the Virgin line linked
strongly to Who. Or if you're just uncomfortable about the
contradictions between T8D and the Virgin books then just say which
ones and half a dozen posters here will come running to explain thier
fan theories as to how they can be patched up, papered over, and
generally made to fit. :-)
> It
>had left me rather bitter towards the whole BBC line of books. Since
>then I've read Vampire Science and Body Snatchers, and I thought they
>were Excellent.
Well I'm with you on VampSci at least (*still* my favourite BBC book).
You'll be pleased to know that lots of other books in the line make a
point of linking the continuity to the Virgin books, and that a few
refs to the BBC novels have even started to appear in the Bernice NAs.
Nothing's geting demolished.
> Now, I'm left bitter only to Mr. Dicks.
Fine, but if you're going to get cross with him, it would probably be
better to do so for having written a crap book.
------------
0800-RICHARD - "I am not a man, I am a free number".
------------
Sean Daugherty
On or about Wed, 17 Jun 1998 10:29:02 -0700, the accused, Corey Klemow
<CKl...@compuserve.com>, was heard saying:
> He makes references to some of his own books (particularly "Blood
> Harvest", with Gallifrey's "Council of Three"), and only contradicted
> LUNGBARROW because EIGHT DOCTORS was being written at the exact same
> time for a completely different editorial team, each of whom had no idea
> what the other was doing. Besides which, the pedants here have come up
> with explanations for all of 8DOCS supposed "irreconcilable
> contradictions"...
<Spoilers, particularly for American fans>
Well, to be fair, he contradicted himself by freeing Borusa twice (in "Blood
Harvest" first); he contradicted Paul Cornell with the whole Romana bit
(admittedly, he might not have had a way to get around this). Plus, he came
close to contradicting some television episodes (by the middle of the War
Games, the second Doctor would already have been aware that Lethbridge-Stewart
was a Brigadier from "The Invasion.")
Although, to be honest, I rather enjoyed "The Eight Doctors." It was
essentially a 300-page fanfic, with all the prerequisite sad-fan revealations
and plot devices, but was kind of fun. I don't even try to fit it into
continuity, but I don't try to fit most of the old Frobisher strips into
continuity either: They're still better than, oh, Timelash. <G>
--
Sean Christian Daugherty (sean...@erols.com) ~ (AIM Name: HeiwaIkari)
"I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
"Excuse me, but what's your attitude towards the nature of existance?
For example, do you hold any theological opinions?"
"Oh look! Rocks!"
Tim Roll-Pickering
> He makes references to some of his own books (particularly "Blood
> Harvest", with Gallifrey's "Council of Three"), and only contradicted
> LUNGBARROW because EIGHT DOCTORS was being written at the exact same
> time for a completely different editorial team, each of whom had no idea
> what the other was doing. Besides which, the pedants here have come up
> with explanations for all of 8DOCS supposed "irreconcilable
> contradictions"...
Doesn't he also contradict HAPPY ENDINGS, where Romana has become
President?
Kathleen Wolff
Matthew Wolff
Kathleen Wolff
Well, I'm inclined to agree with you. It's too bad so many people
feel the need to come out and defend the man, for what I'm assuming is
only because of his name and past greatness. He really turned out some
kindleing this time.
Matthew Wolff
Kathleen Wolff
Richard Jones wrote:
Fine, but if you're going to get cross with him, it would probably be
better to do so for having written a crap book.
Well, now that you mention it, I thought he had gone somewhat senile and decided to write from a 3rd grade perspective on this book. I guess he thought that it might be for a children's audience, but still, I found myself feeling patronized by his writing style. I mean, set aside that fact that I couldn't only not see the 8th Doctor in this story, but with the exception of the First Doctor, I thought he got the characters wrong for all of the Doctors. Also, he didn't need to know what was going on in Lungbarrow, there was plenty of continuity that he fouled up from Blood Harvest on, such as the fact that Romana was President. If it is true that he simply didn't know what was going on in the series after Blood Harvest, then maybe he's not a sell out, but he certainly was no where near deserving of kicking off this new series, whether he's Terrance Dicks or not. All in all, the book was very disappointing for me. Now, I don't know if you are defending Terrance here, or just trying to point out inaccuracies in my understanding of the situation when 8 Docs was written. Did you honestly like the book?
Matthew Wolff
Corey Klemow
Sean Daugherty wrote:
>
> On or about Wed, 17 Jun 1998 10:29:02 -0700, the accused, Corey Klemow
> <CKl...@compuserve.com>, was heard saying:
>
> > Harvest", with Gallifrey's "Council of Three"), and only contradicted
> > LUNGBARROW because EIGHT DOCTORS was being written at the exact same
> > time for a completely different editorial team, each of whom had no idea
> > what the other was doing. Besides which, the pedants here have come up
> > with explanations for all of 8DOCS supposed "irreconcilable
> > contradictions"...
>
> Well, to be fair, he contradicted himself by freeing Borusa twice (in "Blood
> Harvest" first)
Borusa sort of just mysteriously dissapears at the end of 8 DOCS;
perhaps he's gone to retroactively imprison himself in time for BLOOD
HARVEST? Which, of course, doesn't explain how he can still be there at
the start of 8 DOCS. Damn -- I can't remember the logic used at the
time; anybody remember?
; he contradicted Paul Cornell with the whole Romana bit
> (admittedly, he might not have had a way to get around this).
There are some who advanced the theory that this Gallifrey story is out
of sequence for the Doctor -- therefore Flavia can still be in power,
and Borusa can be set free and imprisoned again in time for BLOOD
HARVEST with no contradiction.
However, there is a vague reference to this being Flavia's *second* term
of office and that there had been some time she wasn't in power, so if
the story *is* in sequence, then we can presume that Romama was in power
in between Flavia's two terms.
Richard Jones
> Romana had been established as President in many of the NA's, so I
>don't see how just because he didn't know what was going on in
>Lungbarrow, he could happily go on an contradict himself.
Rommana became president in 'Happy Endings', after Shakedown so
Terrance wouldn't have known about it.
As for how to reconcile it then you could just say that because of all
the time disturbance created, Flavia was dealing with a then-future
Doctor. This would also explain why, in Lungbarrow, the CIA can be so
certain that the Doctor's going to regenerate if he goes to Skaro.
> He also, with
>the 7th doctors appearance, at least in my oppinion, hints that none of
>the NA's happened. The 7th Doctor is overly melancholic, and out of
>character. We are lead to believe that he has been that way for a long
>time.
Which indeed he had been from So Vile a Sin right up to Room with No
Doors, during which time he and chris were living as strangers in the
TARDIS, hardly seeing each other as the Doctor got more and more
depressed. Setting the T8D segement immediatley before 'Room with No
doors' actually enhances the emotional content of both books.
Richard Jones
> Well, now that you mention it, I thought he had gone somewhat senile and
>decided to write from a 3rd grade perspective on this book. I guess he
>thought that it might be for a children's audience, but still, I found
>myself feeling patronized by his writing style.
I think that must have been very much the case. Somewhere along the
line he must have got it into his head that with the switch to the BBC
then the books' auidence suddenly regressed in age faster than Nyssa
and Tegan in Mawdryn Undead. Someone here once pointed out that the
ideal reader for T8D was a ten year old who was nostaligic for the
seventies, and that the march of time being what it is, no such child
could possibly exist.
Probably a bit rude calling him 'senile' though, he just misjudged his
readership. The genuinely sad thing you get a sense of while reading
The Eight Doctors is that Dicks seems to think we're enjoying it, and
that he's giving us a lovely treat by having a Raston Robot take on
some Sontarans.
> I mean, set aside that fact
>that I couldn't only not see the 8th Doctor in this story, but with the
>exception of the First Doctor, I thought he got the characters wrong for all
>of the Doctors.
I don't think it was so much a case of getting the characters wrong,
so much as forgetting to give them characters. That said, I seem to
remember his Second Doctor really grating with me, and I actually
liked the little risk he took with the Third's actions (But probably
just because it was the only risk in the book).
> Also, he didn't need to know what was going on in
>Lungbarrow, there was plenty of continuity that he fouled up from Blood
>Harvest on, such as the fact that Romana was President. If it is true that
>he simply didn't know what was going on in the series after Blood Harvest,
>then maybe he's not a sell out, but he certainly was no where near deserving
>of kicking off this new series, whether he's Terrance Dicks or not.
I agree that 'The Eight Doctors' was an awful book to begin the series
with, and if you ask me then its placement was the biggest thing wrong
with it. After books as fab as 'Room with No Doors' and 'The Dying
days' then it was like being plunged into a bucket of cold water, and
I think that a lot of radical-fandom's contempt for the book comes out
of the horror that all the BBC books were going to be this backward
looking (And until Nuala Whatshername got replaced as editor by Steven
Cole, then we might have been right).
Starting the BBC line with the Eight Doctors was a daft as it would
have been to have started the NAs with 'Happy Endings'. It would have
been a mistake even if it had been 'The Eight Doctors by Lance Parkin'
or 'The Eight Doctors by Gareth Roberts'. Fair play to him though,
Terrance did a superb job of executing a bad idea in a truly terrible
way.
> All in
>all, the book was very disappointing for me. Now, I don't know if you are
>defending Terrance here, or just trying to point out inaccuracies in my
>understanding of the situation when 8 Docs was written. Did you honestly
>like the book?
Um. See the above. Mostly I was just trying to defend its author, not
because of his past glories (I've not got too much time for them
either) but because I don't think there was any dodgy motivation
behind The Eight Doctors. He just tried to write a fun and enjoyable
novel that he thought we might like to read, and on this occasion, in
the case of most of us, failed.
Kathleen Wolff
Actually, a friend of mine pointed out that an excellent place to
put in the 8 Docs sequence is while Chris is in the bath tub at the
beginning of Lungbarrow. He gets a warning about a telepathic message,
returns into the Tardis, and gets it as Chris enters the Console room.
Then they end up on Gallifrey, where the Doctor simply adopts the
attitude of Que sera sera, and takes fate as it comes heading off to
Skaro.
That aside, however, this is just a fans way of trying to reconcile
the inaccuracies, and does not excuse Terrance, in my opinion. I mean,
given the fact that there is the hint of a telepathic message in the
beginning of Lungbarrow, it's more likely that Marc read the BBC
published book of the movie, and seeing the telepathic message in there,
knew that Terrance was more likely to go with a "telepathic message
theory" approach in the 8 Docs, so he included a place for it in
Lungbarrow.
Also, saying that Terrance is excused from all this just because it
happened after Happy Endings, to me, is just bunk. If he was to be
chosen to do the first book of this new series, I feel he should have
had the decency to read up, or at least get a briefing on what had
happened in the NA's after Happy Endings.
Matthew Wolff
Kathleen Wolff
Well, based on this, I'd have to say that it looks like we agree on
just about everything here. I'm glad to see that you saw the 8 Docs for
the so much wasted space that it was. I just find it hard to say that
the same man, with the same intentions as the man who wrote such
excellent NA's as Blood Harvest and Shakedown, could even find it
possible to write something as horrible as this. I think that the
original editor probably told him to get away from the NA's as much as
possible, or that sticking with Virgin continuity didn't matter, and
Terrance went along with this. My criticism of him is that he would do
anything like this after being such an integral part of the Virgin
continuity.
Matthew Wolff
Tim Roll-Pickering
Terrance Dicks, is the first of the BBC range and is called 'The Eight
Doctors', making us hope for a whole lot more. If it was being released
NOW, after a year of the BBC books, I think most of us would appreciate
it a whole lot more.
And I do think the wrong decision was taken. TIMEWRYM: GENESYS hardly
relies at all on old mythology, and successfully starts the NAs. Okay,
it's not great, but expectations damage that. The old mythology comes in
gradually throughout the NAs and MAs, with the first old enemies being:
Spoiler space
The War Chief and War Lords, and the Great Vampires respectively. The
NAs start with the Master and a lot more. Hardly the best beginning for
a series of NEW, ORIGINAL stories, is it?
Sean Daugherty
On or about Thu, 18 Jun 1998 11:44:26 -0400, the accused, Kathleen Wolff
<kwo...@mason.gmu.edu>, was heard saying:
> Well, now that you mention it, I thought he had gone somewhat senile and
> decided to write from a 3rd grade perspective on this book. I guess he
> thought that it might be for a children's audience, but still, I found
> myself feeling patronized by his writing style. I mean, set aside that fact
> that I couldn't only not see the 8th Doctor in this story, but with the
> exception of the First Doctor, I thought he got the characters wrong for all
> of the Doctors.
<sarcasm> Oh, what, you can't see the third Doctor threatening to kill
someone? I mean, let alone himself? </sarcasm> And he managed to strip Colin's
Doc down to such a ridiculous caricature of himself, while still managing to
only give him approximately 2 lines, all of which were essentially acting as
exposition to the eigth Doctor's extended narration...
That aside, I did rather like the book. Honestly. It was childish, but fun in
a silly sort of way. Best not to think about it too hard, and just ignore the
more annoying bits.
Sean Daugherty
On or about Thu, 18 Jun 1998 11:32:08 -0400, the accused, Kathleen Wolff
<kwo...@mason.gmu.edu>, was heard saying:
> Well, I'm inclined to agree with you. It's too bad so many people
But he's also one of the series' greatest storytellers: He's not as good a
wordsmith as, say, Parkin, Orman, Cornell, or McIntee, but, up until T8D, he
was responsible for what were, IMO, the greatest *stories* of the series'
run, both in TV and books. He's got the ideas, but not always the style to
effectively back it up. When the story's good, I think people are more willing
to forget that. With T8D, however, which is essentially a juvenile piece of
fan wank, lack of both is thrown into a greater spotlight. But I'm more than
willing to believe (not to mention hoping) it was merely a momentary lapse.
John Carlson
Kathleen Wolff wrote:
>
> I'm in the US, so it was only possible for me to read the 8 Doctors
> recently. Now, I am left outwardly wondering if Mr. Dicks has sold us
> but Mr. Dicks was one of the chief contributors to that line,
> establishing a lot of it's canon.
I think he wrote the best NA by far and a couple of other good(ish)
books, I dont think he had much to do with the general canon thing.
Which I think in many cases is more of a compliment to him. Rather than
him selling us out, I think its a case of Virgin leaching off the Dr Who
logo to sell their books. Now they have lost it, the NA sales seem to
have crashed, at least in all of the book shops I've seen. I've seen
Doctorless NA remainderd in Newcastle (UK) Granger Market if anyone
wants them.
Why is it that he chooses to attempt
> to utterly demolish that canon that he was a major part in creating? It
> had left me rather bitter towards the whole BBC line of books.
I quite enjoyed his book, such as it was, and much more than the most of
the Virgin books. Quite honestly I loved the fact that it seemed to get
up the nose of so many people who take it all so seriously. Rather like
John Peel and his retcons. But I dont think he set out to demolish
anything. He may just have been told, 'new book, new range', do what you
want. However he does have definate ideas about what is the essence of
Dr Who and the TVM is not it. Dont be bitter, like the Virgin NA the
Eight Doctors is just history now.
Best
John Carlson
Jonathan Blum
[re "Eight Docs"]
> From what I heard, there was editing problems. Nuala Buffini was leaving so
> there was basically little to no editing on it AFAIK. Terrance was probably
> also confused as to whether the book line was still going to be geared towards
> adults. There was also confusion on to whether Virgin Continuity was going to
> be used. Plus, Terrance Dicks hated the "Enemy Within" so it's only natural
> that he got the 8th Doctor nearly completely wrong.
The questions of Virgin continuity and the line's audience were all settled
by Nuala before Terrance started work on "Eight Docs" and we started work
on "Vamp Sci". And by the time the manuscript came in, Steve was already
installed as editor -- though the manuscript was late, because Terrance had
a bout of the flu, which probably cramped the editing time a little anyway.
> Now all these problems does not excuse "The Eight Doctors" for being poorly
> written crap. But I doubt that Dicks deliberately wrote the book just to piss
> off continuity fanatics.
I pretty much agree -- I doubt he paid much attention at all to continuity
beyond what he remembered from the TV show and his own books.
Regards,
Jon Blum
--
jblum at access.digex.net
"Eep," said an I.
Jonathan Blum
In article <35919927...@news.erols.com>, sean...@erols.com (Sean
Daugherty) wrote:
[again re "Eight Doctors" -- possible minor SPOILERS if you still haven't
found a copy, but hey, it's been about a year...]
> Well, to be fair, he contradicted himself by freeing Borusa twice (in "Blood
Actually, "Eight Doctors" does take this into account -- Borusa goes back
to share Rassilon's sleep on the next to last page of the book, as recorded
in the Epilogue Of Rassilon.
> he contradicted Paul Cornell with the whole Romana bit
> (admittedly, he might not have had a way to get around this).
Fortunately, considering the state of Romana's presidency at the end of
"Lungbarrow", that book suggests it's quite plausible that she might not be
in office by the next time we see Gallifrey. :-)
Jonathan Blum
In article <358970ED...@mason.gmu.edu>, Kathleen Wolff
<kwo...@mason.gmu.edu> wrote:
> I think that the
> original editor probably told him to get away from the NA's as much as
> possible, or that sticking with Virgin continuity didn't matter, and
> Terrance went along with this. My criticism of him is that he would do
> anything like this after being such an integral part of the Virgin
> continuity.
The original editor, Nuala Buffini, told all the early authors that the
official policy was to neither confirm nor deny Virgin continuity -- they
didn't want to alienate the Virgin audience by blatantly contradicting the
old books, or alienate new readers by blatantly referring to lots of old
continuity they hadn't read.
Little contradictions and references were bound to slip through the net,
though -- hence, in "Eight Doctors", there are lines which refer to "Blood
Harvest", and lines which seem to contradict "Cold Fusion" (or at least
suggest that the Time Lords aren't aware of it).
And while I wish Terrance had played along as well, it's worth pointing out
that he wasn't really that much of an "integral part" of the Virgin
continuity. Other people built on his stories to a degree, yes, but he
didn't build much on anyone else's -- he was off doing his own thing,
regardless of what other books were up to.
For example, the last time Terrance looked at Gallifrey, in "Blood
Harvest", he made no reference to any of the Gallifrey stuff Virgin had set
up in "Time's Crucible" -- or indeed to the revolution on Gallifrey we
heard about in "Trial of a Time Lord". As far as that book was concerned,
it seemed as if nothing had changed on Gallifrey since the last time
Terrance wrote for it in "Five Doctors".
Looking at it like that, then suddenly the sixth Doctor segment of "Eight
Doctors" looks like a massive and involved retcon by Terrance to show how
the revolution in "Trial" and Flavia being in power in "Blood Harvest"
could coexist. What a ringing endorsement of the continued validity of
Virgin continuity -- or at least the bits of it Terrance wrote! :-)
Ian McIntire
In article <jblum-ya02408000...@news.zip.com.au>,
jb...@access.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
I still say that the Gallifreyan bits of "8 Docs" are set before "Happy
Endings." Given the tangled timelines in the former book, it's not
unreasonable to shuffle it about a bit.
Ian McIntire
i...@cwru.edu
Brett O'Callaghan
Kathleen Wolff <kwo...@mason.gmu.edu> wrote:
> I'm in the US, so it was only possible for me to read the 8 Doctors
>recently. Now, I am left outwardly wondering if Mr. Dicks has sold us
>out? Now I realize that the NA's are not so popular with some of you,
>but Mr. Dicks was one of the chief contributors to that line,
>establishing a lot of it's canon. Why is it that he chooses to attempt
>to utterly demolish that canon that he was a major part in creating? It
Firstly, many "dedicated" fans have come up with ways to reconcile
most, if not all the "problems" between the virgin books and the 8
docs.
Secondly, the TV series was never particularly consistent with itself,
so why expect one series of books to slavishly follow what another,
different set of books did?
Thirdly, they're only books.
Fourthly, I mean really, who gives a ?
Fifthly, they're only books.
.eeeeeyB
--
http://www.cbl.com.au/~boc/
Home of WhoINFO, free Doctor Who database for W95/NT.
Brett O'Callaghan
rej...@rejoice.demon.co.uk (Richard Jones) wrote:
Kathleen Wolff <kwo...@mason.gmu.edu> wrote:
>>decided to write from a 3rd grade perspective on this book. I guess he
>>thought that it might be for a children's audience, but still, I found
>I think that must have been very much the case. Somewhere along the
>line he must have got it into his head that with the switch to the BBC
>then the books' auidence suddenly regressed in age faster than Nyssa
>and Tegan in Mawdryn Undead. Someone here once pointed out that the
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Gary Russell asked to write the
novelisation of the movie for a somewhat younger audience than the
NA's?
Now consider when Terrance must have initially been approached to
create a new books companion and write the first book, with the time
contraints that entails.
Add to that the fact the the first "editor" of the BBC books series
wasn't planned to be there very long at all and I think we can cut
Terrance a little bit of slack can't we?
BTW, I thought the 8 Doctors was a heck of a lot more enjoyable than
say, _Vampire Science_, which I found so tedious I couldn't be
bothered finishing, so let us remember it's all opinion, eh?
Richard Jones
> Actually, a friend of mine pointed out that an excellent place to
>put in the 8 Docs sequence is while Chris is in the bath tub at the
>beginning of Lungbarrow.
No no no. That's a *terrible* place to put it, since to have the
Doctor depressed and sucidal there takes away the whole point of Room
with no Doors, which would IMO be one of the worst crimes against Who
it's possible to commit !
Jonathan Blum
In article <358af1ff...@news.cbl.com.au>, b...@lin.cbl.com.au wrote:
> rej...@rejoice.demon.co.uk (Richard Jones) wrote:
> >I think that must have been very much the case. Somewhere along the
> >line he must have got it into his head that with the switch to the BBC
> >then the books' auidence suddenly regressed in age faster than Nyssa
> >and Tegan in Mawdryn Undead. Someone here once pointed out that the
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Gary Russell asked to write the
> novelisation of the movie for a somewhat younger audience than the
> NA's?
Yep. But by the time the Eighth series was put together, Nuala
specifically said in our first conversation that the new novels were aimed
at the same age bracket as the Virgin books. (This first phone call was
before "Eight Docs" was commissioned.)
> Now consider when Terrance must have initially been approached to
> create a new books companion and write the first book, with the time
> contraints that entails.
I think Terrance's book came in slightly later than ours, and we were
commissioned about the same time -- and "Vamp Sci", at 7-8 months, was one
of the longer writing times for a Who book. (Only "Hummer" out of Kate's
books took longer than that -- "Seeing I" was about the same.)
As for creating companions, Roz and Chris were created on the fly by Andy
Lane while writing "Original Sin", because the previously-proposed
companion wasn't working. I don't think Andy had substantially more than
that length of time to create them -- and they have much more substantial
roles in "Original Sin" than Sam does in "Eight Doctors".
> Add to that the fact the the first "editor" of the BBC books series
> wasn't planned to be there very long at all and I think we can cut
> Terrance a little bit of slack can't we?
I've just been watching "Horror of Fang Rock" again, and realizing how
simple but classy it is... it's proof that even on a *real* rush job,
Terrance can do much better than "Eight Doctors".
[snip]
h.p...@icrf.icnet.uk
jb...@access.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
> In article <358af1ff...@news.cbl.com.au>, b...@lin.cbl.com.au wrote:
> > Now consider when Terrance must have initially been approached to
> > create a new books companion and write the first book, with the time
> > contraints that entails.
> As for creating companions, Roz and Chris were created on the fly by Andy
> Lane while writing "Original Sin", because the previously-proposed
> companion wasn't working. I don't think Andy had substantially more than
> that length of time to create them -- and they have much more substantial
*Everyone* in Original Sin has much more substantial roles than Sam does in
The Eight Doctors.
--
Henry
NR: T h e D r y P i l g r i m a g e
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
h.p...@icrf.icnet.uk
CKl...@compuserve.com wrote:
> Sean Daugherty wrote:
> > On or about Wed, 17 Jun 1998 10:29:02 -0700, the accused, Corey Klemow
> > <CKl...@compuserve.com>, was heard saying:
> > > He makes references to some of his own books (particularly "Blood
> > > Harvest", with Gallifrey's "Council of Three"), and only contradicted
> > > LUNGBARROW because EIGHT DOCTORS was being written at the exact same
> > > time for a completely different editorial team, each of whom had no idea
> > > what the other was doing. Besides which, the pedants here have come up
> > > with explanations for all of 8DOCS supposed "irreconcilable
> > > contradictions"...
> >
> > <Spoilers, particularly for American fans>
> > Well, to be fair, he contradicted himself by freeing Borusa twice (in "Blood
> > Harvest" first)
>
> Borusa sort of just mysteriously dissapears at the end of 8 DOCS;
> perhaps he's gone to retroactively imprison himself in time for BLOOD
> HARVEST? Which, of course, doesn't explain how he can still be there at
> the start of 8 DOCS. Damn -- I can't remember the logic used at the
> time; anybody remember?
>
> > ; he contradicted Paul Cornell with the whole Romana bit
> > (admittedly, he might not have had a way to get around this).
>
> There are some who advanced the theory that this Gallifrey story is out
> of sequence for the Doctor -- therefore Flavia can still be in power,
> and Borusa can be set free and imprisoned again in time for BLOOD
> HARVEST with no contradiction.
>
> However, there is a vague reference to this being Flavia's *second* term
> of office and that there had been some time she wasn't in power, so if
> the story *is* in sequence, then we can presume that Romama was in power
> in between Flavia's two terms.
AFAIR, there were a number of references to people returning to their
positions, suggesting that Dicks was aware that had been changes on Gallifrey
in other books and wanted to set things up properly for his own book. And yet
the way he does this is almost more offensive than that he did. His
explanations are so dire that the result seems like pathetic fanwank, while I
fail to understand why he wanted these particular characters in place when he
subsequently gives them no characterisation worth speaking of!
--
Henry
Kathleen Wolff
Well, to say that would be to say that the Doctor was real depressed
and suicidal throughout Room with No Doors, and even more so, that he
was simply uninterested. That doesn't fit with the way I read that book
at all. Any hint of suicidal tendencies, in the end, was simply part of
his efforts to win against evil.
Matthew Wolff
Saulchurch
>I doubt that Dicks deliberately wrote the book just to piss
>> off continuity fanatics.
>
>I pretty much agree -- I doubt he paid much attention at all to continuity
>beyond what he remembered from the TV show and his own books.
>
>
Guide, is pretty much the way it was done on the show anyway.
Ben Varkentine
"I'm tired of playing on the team
It seems I don't get time out anymore
Would it change if we set the pace face to face
No one even trying to score"-Hall
"He who lives by the smiley dies by the smiley."-Varkentine
Kathleen Wolff
From my reading of 8Docs, it seems to me that perhaps he does know
that there were changes on Gallifrey, as you said. His choice to
completely regress Gallifrey, though, is part of what is so offensive to
me about his writing.
Matthew Wolff
Kathleen Wolff
Matthew Wolff
Kathleen Wolff
I see what you are saying about Terrance not being an integral part of the Virgin continuity. He certainly was for the original series, and since I saw the rest of the authors playing along with what he wrote, I guess I assumed that he too was aware of what was going on in the Virgin line. I haven't been able to get any of the really early Virgin line, so my first bit of Gallifrey in the line was Blood Harvest. I was rather miffed that the revolt over the high council was not mentioned in BH, and that somehow, Flavia is still President. (Thanks for mentioning the revolt in Time Rift!)
The sixth Doctor segment did make ammends for what he had written in the Virgin Continuity, but then as you said, he had also seemed to contradict the VC in other parts. I don't see what he has done as a ringing endorsement for VC, just a "gee, now I guess I should make sure what I wrote fits together, and why should I care what the other authors wrote?" To me, this is just a very nasty attitude for an author that is writing for an audience that wants continuity.
Matthew Wolff
Kathleen Wolff
Also, just to add onto what Jonathan says, if you felt that the 8
Docs was better reading that Vampire Science, than your taste is sorely
lacking. I was very depressed after reading the 8 Docs, thinking that
this is what I had to look forward to for the new Who books. Jonathan
and Kate wrote a superb story, and it's because I gave that a chance
that I was dragged out of the gloom and was actually made enthusiastic
about all of the future BBC line.
Matthew Wolff
Kathleen Wolff
Matthew Wolff
Kathleen Wolff
And it's too bad that he didn't pay any attention to the continuity,
given what an excellent writer he had proved to be in the past.
Matthew Wolff
Anthony Brown
In article <358A957A...@mason.gmu.edu>, Kathleen Wolff
<kwo...@mason.gmu.edu> wrote:
Therein lies the problem - the BBC would be at least hoping to attract Dr
Who fans who DIDN'T read the New Adventures (and we know from DWM that there
are quite a lot of them), and hence get even bigger sales.. and those fans
want continuity too, and would be very very confused to find Gallifrey and
Romana etc massively changed from how they last were on screen... It's a
balancing act, trying to make the BBC range accessible to newcomers and keep
Virgin fans happy - and one which is going to get more difficult each year
as more young fans who know the videos and the BBC books, but never got the
chance to buy the NAs come along...
Kathleen Wolff
I'm sorry, but what is Dr. Who without continuity? It is by default
necessary to include continuity in Dr. Who, because it is, in essence,
the continueing story of a man named the Doctor and his companions. I
don't see how you can excuse any story of Dr. Who if it defies
continuity. And besides, what did you see in the 8 docs that appealed
to you? It was, without question, the worst Dr. Who book I've ever
read.
Matthew Wolff
Kathleen Wolff
Firstly, the Fans' attempt to reconcile differences between the
books doesn't really reprieve Terrance does it? And for everything
else, I'd have to say, what is Who without continuity? Nothing...
Matthew Wolff
Kathleen Wolff
And yet, this really isn't such a huge problem. I mean, all it
takes is a little bit of reestablishment of what the readers of the NA's
knew already, and so that the new readers can learn what they already
knew, am bam. You've established these ideas as canon in the BBC
books. Quite frankly, I don't see how something like maintaining Romana
as President is going to alienate fans who didn't like the NA's. In the
end, it has to be the way the stories themselves were written that
alienated some fans, although I felt they were very cool. If it was the
canon that alienated them, then they are probably the sort of fans who
were alienated the first time the Doctor regenerated, or the first time
we found out about the Time Lords, or any other change that happened in
the series. New canon is going to be forged in any series of books,
change is inevitable. Some fans are simply going to have to learn to
accept that.
Matthew Wolff
Jeff Gilson
Kathleen Wolff dazzled us with the following:
: Firstly, the Fans' attempt to reconcile differences between the
: books doesn't really reprieve Terrance does it? And for everything
: else, I'd have to say, what is Who without continuity? Nothing...
Not to disagree with you, merely to extend the idea, but if Who
becomes too reliant on continuity, it will choke under its own
weight. The c--er, the ca--ah, darn it, I can't say it, but you know
what I mean, must be shaken up from time to time to keep it new.
What is Who without coninuity? Nada, but it has to be a smartly
maintained and occasionally streamlined continuity. Otherwise, the
newness of the show we love will be forever lost.
'later,
jeff.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
And you see, there are all these words, nothing but
words, nothing but words, what are these words, and
there they are, so that's what you're faced with,
words, words...
-- Steven Millhauser, _Edwin_Mullhouse_
Daniel Frankham
I think Dapol is starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel. But I
guess some fans'll buy anything.
--=======================================================================--
The Inferno video is really in colour.
roge...@msn.com
In article <358A9FDA...@mason.gmu.edu>,
Kathleen Wolff <kwo...@mason.gmu.edu> wrote:
>
> Firstly, the Fans' attempt to reconcile differences between the
> books doesn't really reprieve Terrance does it? And for everything
> else, I'd have to say, what is Who without continuity? Nothing...
>
A story about a trickster alien with an elusive past who travels in a time
machine disguised as a police box who is in, someway, a hero.
see u,
M. Elizabeth
Rayctate
Hello,
Mary Elizabeth wrote:
>What is Who without continuity?
>
>A story about a trickster alien with an
>elusive past who travels in a time
>machine disguised as a police box who is
>in, someway, a hero.
An agnostic blessing to you, Mary.
Ray
"I'm half-human, on my mother's side."--The eighth Doctor
Rayctate
Hello,
Resist, Ray. Resist.
Nuts.
Matt wrote:
>And yet, this really isn't such a huge
>problem. I mean, all it takes is a little
>bit of reestablishment of what the readers
>of the NA's knew already, and so that
>the new readers can learn what they
>already knew, am bam.
You assume the Virgin NAs have earned
the right to be called canon. They haven't.
They have the right to be called a continuity.
One that is or isn't separate from series
continuity depending on your view point.
>You've established these ideas as canon
>in the BBC books. Quite frankly, I don't
>see how something like maintaining Romana
>as President is going to alienate fans who
>didn't like the NA's.
Because for some of us, she is still in e-space
attempting to win the Tharils their freedom.
>In the end, it has to be the way the
>stories themselves were written that
>alienated some fans, although I felt they
>were very cool.
No, it's both. Its the way some of the stories
were written--with ham-fists--and some of
the additions made--and just to show I do
have other bones to pick other than those
beginning with the letter l--for example
the companions stripping naked to warm
the Doctor when in shock. Note that the
BBC book "Devil Goblins from Neptune"
gets it correctly. When the Doctor's
injured but not to the extent when
regeneration is required, he goes into a
deep, deep coma.
> If it was the canon that alienated them,
>then they are probably the sort of fans
>who were alienated the first time the
>Doctor regenerated, or the first time
>we found out about the Time Lords, or
>any other change that happened in
>the series.
Far from it.
>New canon is going to be forged in any series of
>books, change is inevitable. Some fans are simply
>going to have to learn to accept that.
There are a lot of people who hope to enjoy a
book as merely a book and nothing else.
Brett O'Callaghan
Kathleen Wolff <kwo...@mason.gmu.edu> wrote:
> Also, just to add onto what Jonathan says, if you felt that the 8
>Docs was better reading that Vampire Science, than your taste is sorely
>lacking.
And if you feel that then your sense of perspective is sorely lacking.
Did I say people who preferred VS had no taste? No, I don't think I
did. I think I said that I preferred 8D as I thought VS was a bore.
>I was very depressed after reading the 8 Docs, thinking that
>this is what I had to look forward to for the new Who books. Jonathan
>and Kate wrote a superb story, and it's because I gave that a chance
I think it's time you were introduced to a little thing called a
"IMHO".
IMHO 8D was a more interesting book than VS, thus I enjoyed it more.
Big deal. Maybe VS really picked up and became interesting in the
second half - I'll never know because the first half was so slow and
un-engaging I felt no desire to ever finish it. 8D has it's problems,
but a slow pace is not one of them.
Brett O'Callaghan
Kathleen Wolff <kwo...@mason.gmu.edu> wrote:
Please learn to quote.
> I'm sorry, but what is Dr. Who without continuity? It is by default
A fun, exciting SF TV show.
Was is it with continuity?
A fun, exciting SF TV show.
>necessary to include continuity in Dr. Who, because it is, in essence,
>the continueing story of a man named the Doctor and his companions. I
>don't see how you can excuse any story of Dr. Who if it defies
>continuity.
<Calling Mr Blum with his list of stories that defy the above
statement. You are needed in this thread. ;-)>
Eng6gcgs
(Brett O'Callaghan) writes:
>BTW, I thought the 8 Doctors was a heck of a lot more enjoyable than
>say, _Vampire Science_, which I found so tedious I couldn't be
>bothered finishing, so let us remember it's all opinion, eh?
*****
Of course it's opinion. But I am surprised by yours - I found finishing 'T8D' a
chore (although I did perservere - which I deeply regret doing). There was no
spark, no interest, nothing worth reading. At least if you don't like Kate and
Jon's prose style, 'Vampire Science' has an original and interesting story, a
real plot with development and things like that, a sustainable narrative, and
rounded characters - you know, all the thing missing from 'T8D'. In fact, 'T8D'
was the only DW book that I didn't really enjoy. In fact, apart from 'Pilgrim's
Progress' it is the only thing that I have ever truly regreted reading.
_________________________________________________________________
'What does it profit a man if he gain the world but lose his soul? It profits
him the *world*, of course. Don't ask stupid questions.'
('Oblivion', by Dave Stone)
Eng6gcgs
John Carlson <j.ca...@cableinet.co.uk> writes:
>I think he wrote the best NA by far and a couple of other good(ish)
>books, I dont think he had much to do with the general canon thing.
>Which I think in many cases is more of a compliment to him.
ME:
It would be, if he hadn't written such a fan-wankish book. It's your opinion
about the books - I've only read one of his NAs ('Timewyrm: Exodus') and while
it was entertaining, it wasn't more than average IMO. I certainly think he made
a better Tv writer (although not a great script editor).
> Rather than him selling us out,
>I think its a case of Virgin leaching
>off the Dr Who logo to sell their books.
ME:
And yet every NA I've read (40 odd) is a lot truer to Who (not to mention
better written) than 'T8D' is. And as for leeching off the DW logo, the Beeb is
arguably a lot more guilty of that than Virgin ever could be.
JOHN CARLSON:
> Now they have lost it, the NA sales seem to
>have crashed, at least in all of the book shops I've seen.
ME:
Well, they probably would do. Who is a recognisbale logo, and people in general
have very little taste - thus, something like 'War of the Daleks' ot 'T8D' will
probably outsell 'Beyond the Sun' or 'Oblivion', because buyers tend more
towards logos and recognisable names than original, well-written and
intelligent stories. Mills and Boon sell better than 95% of sci-fi books
JOHN CARLSON:
>I quite enjoyed his book, such as it was, and much more than the most of
>the Virgin books. Quite honestly I loved the fact that it seemed to get
>up the nose of so many people who take it all so seriously.
ME:
What, by trying to suggest that DW is a load of crappy old tat, and we
shouldn't be wasting our time and money buying and reading these books and
videos, you mean.
JOHN CARLSON:
> Rather like John Peel and his retcons.
ME:
Which seem like bitter attempts to ignore that Ben Aaronovitch can write better
Daleks than Terry Nation to me.
JOHN CARLSON:
> But I dont think he set out to demolish anything.
ME:
Well, he certainly succeeded in demolishing most of what DW is about.
Seriously, at the time I wondered if it was a thinly veiled attempt to sabotage
the BBC line and get the rights back to some publishers who cared about the
series.
JOHN CARLSON:
> He may just have been told, 'new book, new range', do what you
>want. However he does have definate ideas about what is the essence of
>Dr Who and the TVM is not it.
ME:
But, again the TVM is closer to DW than 'T8D', or Dicks' era as Script Editor
for that matter (IMO). And as someone (Jon Blum perhaps?) pointed out - if you
are going to criticise something in the way that he criticises the TVM, it's
best not to write something so much worse it seems ridiculous.
Eng6gcgs
Jonathan Blum) writes:
>The original editor, Nuala Buffini, told all the early authors that the
>official policy was to neither confirm nor deny Virgin continuity -- they
>didn't want to alienate the Virgin audience by blatantly contradicting the
>old books, or alienate new readers by blatantly referring to lots of old
>continuity they hadn't read.
ME:
<Incredulous Splutter>
Can I read that again. "Nuala Buffini [...] didn't want to [...] alienate new
readers by blatantly referring to lots of old continuity [...]" So, why on
Earth did she commission a first book that was so jam-packed with old, often
innacessible (certainly to new DW audiences garnered by the TVM, and probably
to anyone who isn't already a fan) continuity checks??? And surely by
refferring to all that continutiy, and then allowing contradicitons to the
Virgin series, the book *was* going to alienate Virgin fans. I mean, a lot of
wrongs were righted with 'Vampire Science', but I am now wondering more than
ever how 'T8D' ever got comissioned.
Eng6gcgs
sean...@erols.com (Sean Daugherty) writes:
>Best not to think about it too hard, and just ignore the
>more annoying bits.
*****
Leaving what?
Jonathan Blum
In article <358A90C6...@mason.gmu.edu>, Kathleen Wolff
Well, if the NA's had continued, we might not have gotten Romana's arc in
"Lungbarrow" at all -- even if it had been commissioned, I have no idea how
the editors would have wanted the situation on Gallifrey to develop. They
might not have dared to have such radical developments if they'd definitely
had to deal with the consequences... I hope they would have anyway, but I
don't know.
Regards,
Jon Blum
--
jblum at access.digex.net
"Eep," said an I.
Eng6gcgs
rayc...@aol.com (Rayctate) writes:
>You assume the Virgin NAs have earned
>the right to be called canon. They haven't.
>They have the right to be called a continuity.
>One that is or isn't separate from series
>continuity depending on your view point.
1) They have the same claim to canonicity as the TVM. They have the same right
as any other professional Who fiction.
2) Whether or not they are canon (or part of continuity) is entirely a matter
of personal opinion. You don;t think they have earned the right to be called
canon, others do. I don't believe in the term canon, and I don't really see how
it is a matter of rights.
3) Canon is a silly term, prescriptive and discrimantory.
4) The books are fucking great.
>>You've established these ideas as canon
>>in the BBC books. Quite frankly, I don't
>>see how something like maintaining Romana
>>as President is going to alienate fans who
>>didn't like the NA's.
>Because for some of us, she is still in e-space
>attempting to win the Tharils their freedom.
Goodness, she isn't half taking her time.
>ts the way some of the stories
>were written--with ham-fists--
But since we accept this of series stories and Tv movies, why not the book like
this (and I won;t mourn if 'T8D' is dropped from continuity).
>and some of
>the additions made--and just to show I do
>have other bones to pick other than those
>beginning with the letter l--for example
>the companions stripping naked to warm
>the Doctor when in shock.
Which books *does* this happen in? And what is the problem - how is it
different from the first kiss?
>>New canon is going to be forged in any series of
>>books, change is inevitable. Some fans are simply
>>going to have to learn to accept that.
>There are a lot of people who hope to enjoy a
>book as merely a book and nothing else.
Fine - but some us like some vegetables with our meat. And since the canon
comments have never dtracted from the stories in DW, I don't see the problem.
Eng6gcgs
>: books doesn't really reprieve Terrance does it? And for everything
>: else, I'd have to say, what is Who without continuity? Nothing...
>becomes too reliant on continuity, it will choke under its own
>weight.
Absolutely. If it too precious to do new things with that continuity.
> The c--er, the ca--ah, darn it, I can't say it, but you know
>what I mean, must be shaken up from time to time to keep it new.
But, IMO, not without completely abandoning what has proceeded but still
capitalising on the shows history. I don;t really want to see a complete
re-boot - it wouldn't accomplish anything IMO. DW has capitalised on change,
adapting to new audiences, thus the added horror in the late 70s, the more
intricacy and dpth in potting in the 80s, and the more adult (as in non-family)
approach of the NAs.
>What is Who without coninuity? Nada, but it has to be a smartly
>maintained and occasionally streamlined continuity. Otherwise, the
>newness of the show we love will be forever lost.
I think the point is this:
'Lungbarrow' and the TVM involve continuity (arguably, the TVM has more
irrelevancies than 'Lungbarrow'). They include irrelevant references to past
stories and established facts, build on what we already know, and add new
things while (IMO, sigh) remaining true to the show we love. They feature
continuity. However, they do not re-gurgitate it ad nauseum without any
elements of originality or newness, nor do they stamp all over what we know.
IMO, 'T8D' does. the question now is: Did Dicks do this earnestly, like
Frankenstein, completely unaware of the monster he was creating, or did he do
it knowingly, is he playing games and being intentionally crap for some reason?
Eng6gcgs
b...@lin.cbl.com.au (Brett O'Callaghan) writes:
>IMHO 8D was a more interesting book than VS, thus I enjoyed it more.
>Big deal. Maybe VS really picked up and became interesting in the
>second half - I'll never know because the first half was so slow and
>un-engaging I felt no desire to ever finish it. 8D has it's problems,
>but a slow pace is not one of them.
It had pace??? Surely pace implies movement, progression. I don't think it can
be used accurately to describe repetition and stagnancy.
Jonathan Blum
In article <358A9FDA...@mason.gmu.edu>, Kathleen Wolff
<kwo...@mason.gmu.edu> wrote:
> Firstly, the Fans' attempt to reconcile differences between the
> books doesn't really reprieve Terrance does it? And for everything
> else, I'd have to say, what is Who without continuity? Nothing...
Who can be done quite successfully without (much) continuity; of the top 10
TV stories in the DWM poll, about five of them make minimal reference to
any Who that's gone before. (Weng Chiang, Robots of Death, Pyramids of
Mars, City of Death, and Caves of Androzani.) The top ten also includes
stories like "Genesis of the Daleks" and (at #11) "Deadly Assassin", which
took a very loose attitude to the previous continuity they drew on.
Of course, this doesn't excuse "Eight Doctors", because it set out to do a
detail-filled continuity-heavy story, and then got the continuity wrong!
Even more than ignoring the Virgin books, it's the little slips that are
annoying -- why go to the lengths of precisely describing the sets from
"The War Games", and then get Major von Weich's rank wrong? It's from
Terrance's own TV story fercryinoutloud...
Jonathan Blum
In article <199806200159...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
eng6...@aol.com (Eng6gcgs) wrote:
> Jonathan Blum) writes:
> >The original editor, Nuala Buffini, told all the early authors that the
> >official policy was to neither confirm nor deny Virgin continuity -- they
> >didn't want to alienate the Virgin audience by blatantly contradicting the
> >old books, or alienate new readers by blatantly referring to lots of old
> >continuity they hadn't read.
> ME:
> <Incredulous Splutter>
> Can I read that again. "Nuala Buffini [...] didn't want to [...] alienate new
> readers by blatantly referring to lots of old continuity [...]" So, why on
> Earth did she commission a first book that was so jam-packed with old, often
> innacessible (certainly to new DW audiences garnered by the TVM, and probably
> to anyone who isn't already a fan) continuity checks???
Don't ask me -- I think the idea was that it's OK because it's *TV*
continuity. They figured the old fans would know all that stuff, and the
new fans would be introduced to it through the book.
It's still a fanwank epic, and I think it's the wrong way to introduce new
fans to the past of the show, but there's some method to their madness...
> And surely by
> refferring to all that continutiy, and then allowing contradicitons to the
> Virgin series, the book *was* going to alienate Virgin fans.
Well, once you get past "Lungbarrow" -- which the Beeb didn't know about at
the time -- there's not much in the way of blatant contradictions to the
Virgin line. Despite the desperate attempts of Virgin-bashers to find
them. :-) There are a few details that don't quite mesh, but that's par
for the course even within the Virgin line...
Jonathan Blum
In article <199806191622...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
saulc...@aol.com (Saulchurch) wrote:
> >I doubt that Dicks deliberately wrote the book just to piss
> >> off continuity fanatics.
> >I pretty much agree -- I doubt he paid much attention at all to continuity
> >beyond what he remembered from the TV show and his own books.
> Which, if one is to believe Terrance Dicks' introdution to The Discontinuity
> Guide, is pretty much the way it was done on the show anyway.
Well, done in his time on the show, at least...
Susannah Tiller
Eng6gcgs wrote:
> to anyone who isn't already a fan) continuity checks??? And surely by
> refferring to all that continutiy, and then allowing contradicitons to the
> Virgin series, the book *was* going to alienate Virgin fans. I mean, a lot of
> wrongs were righted with 'Vampire Science', but I am now wondering more than
> ever how 'T8D' ever got comissioned.
>
<cynical mode on> Because it was written by Terrance Dicks <cynical mode
off>.
Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for Terrance. But I suspect
that if a) anyone apart from him had submitted 8Dox or b) he'd submitted
it to Virgin, it would never have seen the light of day.
IMHO, of course...
Regards,
Susannah :-)
--
Susannah Tiller - c970...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/5460/index.html
"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right
to be taken seriously" - H. H. Humphrey
Sean Daugherty
On or about 20 Jun 1998 01:59:03 GMT, the accused, eng6...@aol.com
(Eng6gcgs), was heard saying:
> Leaving what?
Erm... The scene where the Drashig tore lose on Gallifrey was funny, for one
(admittedly, one because it was so incredibly ridiculous and nonsensical, but
still...)
--
Sean Christian Daugherty (sean...@erols.com) ~ (AIM Name: HeiwaIkari)
"I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
"Excuse me, but what's your attitude towards the nature of existance?
For example, do you hold any theological opinions?"
"Oh look! Rocks!"
The Funklord... Grandmaster Flash
Kathleen Wolff wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, but what is Dr. Who without continuity?
A moving starring Paul McGann and Eric Roberts.
(Not that I didn't like it anyway.)
--
The Funklord... Grandmaster Flash: "Gettin hip -- on the mothership"
Author: RFD and CFV --> rec.music.hip-hop E-Mail --> remove 'nospam'
Suite 101's Hip-Hop --> http://www.suite101.com/topics/page.cfm/116
Rap Lyrics Archive --> http://www.ohhla.com/
181.4 Hip-Hop Today --> http://www.181-4.com/
Anthony Brown
In article <199806200249...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
eng6...@aol.com (Eng6gcgs) wrote:
>1) They have the same claim to canonicity as the TVM. They have the same
right
>as any other professional Who fiction.
Not quite. The TV movie was Tv, the medium Doctor Who began in, and
therefore canon by definition (or has anyone argued otherwise?). The books
are a seperate argument (and IMHO, the mere fact thjat the NAs are becoming
unavailable, means the proportion of fandom who feel they're canon will
reduce over time and the argument will die out by apathy).
If professional Who fiction is the marker, then we're writing in the Play
Your Own books, the annuals, the comics, The Earthlink Dilemma, and Terry
Nation and Eric Saward's stories in the two RT specials (and god, does Birth
of a Renegade make a mess of the Susan/Loom plot!)
>2) Whether or not they are canon (or part of continuity) is entirely a
matter
>of personal opinion. You don;t think they have earned the right to be
called
>canon, others do. I don't believe in the term canon, and I don't really see
how
>it is a matter of rights.
>3) Canon is a silly term, prescriptive and discrimantory.
canon is an accepted term in analysis of fiction, meaning the definitive
body of work on which to comment, and with which any additions should be
consistent - in continuity or style - even if they're being deliberately
inconsistent (eg: All those Holmes stories where Moriarty turns out to be a
figment of Holmes' imagination).
>4) The books are fucking great.
>
whihc has nothing to do with it - best Holmes novels I've ever read are
non-canon, because it's not by Conan Doyle!
Kathleen Wolff
Matthew Wolff
Kathleen Wolff
Your forgetting that the same authors that created that Virgin
continuity are also writing for the BBC books. I think your mistaken if
you think they're going to let a continuity they worked on for years be
sunk. Now I've only been able to read the first 3 BBC novels, and I
already see it happening in Vampire Science. I think you'll see plenty
of Virgin continuity poking into the BBC series.
Matthew Wolff
Kathleen Wolff
Matthew Wolff
Kathleen Wolff
Brett O'Callaghan wrote:
> >Please learn to quote.
> I am sorry, I will get the hang of it one of these days. It's just so
> tedious....
> >> I'm sorry, but what is Dr. Who without continuity? It is by default
>
> >A fun, exciting SF TV show.
>
> >Was is it with continuity?
>
> >A fun, exciting SF TV show.
> Well, in order to be a fun exciting TV show, I feel that, whenever
> necessary, there should be a good bit of believability, ie continuity.
> >>necessary to include continuity in Dr. Who, because it is, in essence,
> >>the continueing story of a man named the Doctor and his companions. I
> >>don't see how you can excuse any story of Dr. Who if it defies
> >>continuity.
>
> <Calling Mr Blum with his list of stories that defy the above
> >statement. You are needed in this thread. ;-)>
> I'm well aware that there are so many TV episodes that do defy continuity,
> but that is, quite frankly, utterly annoying. I think that the writers of
> the books can do better. Can you obviously tell me that you don't find
> dissjointed continuity in the series anything but annoying? If you can,
> we'll just have to dissagree on that one....
Matthew Wolff
Kathleen Wolff
roge...@msn.com wrote:
> >In article <358A9FDA...@mason.gmu.edu>,
> > Kathleen Wolff <kwo...@mason.gmu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Firstly, the Fans' attempt to reconcile differences between the
> >> books doesn't really reprieve Terrance does it? And for everything
> > >else, I'd have to say, what is Who without continuity? Nothing...
> >
> >What is Who without continuity?
>
> >A story about a trickster alien with an elusive past who travels in a time
> >machine disguised as a police box who is in, someway, a hero.
>
> And yet, you have just established continuity. You wouldn't be too happy if
> you watched that one day on an episode, and the next day, the trickster was
> driving a Mac Truck down the interstate instead of traveling through time,
> would you? Oh, I know, it's not as subtle, but it's a break in continuity
> none the less. The bottom line is that loss of continuity is frankly
> annoying, and should be avoided wherever possible, and it sure was possible
> in the 8 Docs.
Matthew Wolff
Kathleen Wolff
Yeah, and don't get me wrong. I see the breaks in continuity for
the TV series as much as anyone else, but then they're exactly what you
would expect since the series was run by the beeb. A writer with soul
control of the going of a story should be able to do it much better, and
Terrance, as you said, made the stupidest of mistakes on a project that
was supposed to be about continuity. It's seems to me that he simply
does not care about anything in Who but how much money he gets,
anymore. Sell out.
Matthew Wolff
Richard Jones
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 12:15:29 -0400, Kathleen Wolff
<kwo...@mason.gmu.edu> wrote:
> Well, to say that would be to say that the Doctor was real depressed
>and suicidal throughout Room with No Doors,
It's not much of a stretch to say that he's depressed - He's belives
he's going to hell, that he's to blame for the deaths of his friends,
that his decsion to end his sixth life was wrong, that he's become a
bad person, that everything is sorrow and could you please pass the
Radiohead album.
The only reason he's not suicidal is that, since he knows his
regeneration is coming, he doesn't *need to be*.
The period from SVAS to RWTDs is the bleakest in the Doctor's life,
which is what makes, IHM, his decision to redeem himself and rise from
his self-inflicted grave, the highpoint of the NAs.
------------
0800-RICHARD - "I am not a man, I am a free number".
------------
Richard Jones
> There is deffinitely the suggestion that Romana is not liked by all
>of the Time Lords in Lungbarrow, but do you think that this unspoken
>deposition of Romana is where her story would have lead if the NA's
>continued, or that it really should lead in that direction?
Probably not, but then Lungbarrow itself would have been different
without the production of the TVM, Season four would have been
different without Hartnell's departure, etc. Stuff outside the
fiction, like the change in license, is always going to have a big
effect on the story.
> I think it
>is all simply without meaning. And besides, I think Romana knew what
>she was doing by instigating all these changes on Gallifrey,
She's just taken one of the universe's two most powerful races out of
isolationism and down the road towards casual intervening in time.
Clever as she is, it would be almost impossible for her to know
*exactly* what she's doing, or what it's going to lead to.
Read Alien Bodies yet ?
Eng6gcgs
"Anthony Brown" <anthon...@futurenet.co.uk> writes:
>eng6...@aol.com (Eng6gcgs) wrote:
>>1) They have the same claim to canonicity as the TVM. They have the same
>>right as any other professional Who fiction.
>Not quite. The TV movie was Tv, the medium Doctor Who began in, and
>therefore canon by definition (or has anyone argued otherwise?).
Yes - frequently. It was TV, but it was an American production, not made by BBC
drama like the original series, and therefore not automatically canon with the
series, by some theories. Defining canon is a matter of personal choice - there
are no rules here except the ones you make up for yourself, and those are fine
as long as you don't try and ram them down other people's throats, or prove
that your canon is better than other people's.
> The books
>are a seperate argument (and IMHO, the mere fact thjat the NAs are becoming
>unavailable, means the proportion of fandom who feel they're canon will
>reduce over time and the argument will die out by apathy).
Possibly. But, say DW did return, and someone who liked the books was involved
in its production and included references to the Other, brought back Ace, that
kind of thing. It would then be rather more difficult to try and exclude them
from a canon. Some people have said that if the series returns, and it
acknowledges the books, then they will ignroe it - apparently it wouldn;t be
proper DW or soemthing.
> If professional Who fiction is the marker, then we're writing in the Play
>Your Own books, the annuals, the comics, The Earthlink Dilemma, and Terry
>Nation and Eric Saward's stories in the two RT specials (and god, does Birth
>of a Renegade make a mess of the Susan/Loom plot!)
Absolutely. But if ignoring non-TV stories is your marker, then you lose 'Human
Nature' (greatest DW story *ever*) but get stuck with 'DiT', 'K9 & Co.', and Jo
Grant. Not to mention trying to get the TVM to gel with the series, without
'Human Nature' and 'Lungbarrow' to make the transition easier to swallow. That
is the problem - if you try and pretend that there are reasons and markers for
this, not just opinions and personal value judgements, you encounter little
annoyancies like being stuck with some utter crap, but losing some truly great
stuff. AFAIAC, those excluding the NAs seem to be chucking away some of the
greatest Who stories, and in the process consiging Who to a TV grave, but some
people have their reasons for ignoring the books (unfathomable as they may be)
which is fine - its ony when they try to justify that and, above all, *prove*
it that I start getting a bit annoyed.
Now, if you are going to discuss continuity, I think you can progress further.
There is a continuity running theorugh the series, the NAs, the TVM, and the
BBc books. There are contradicitons (everywhere - and IMO the series
contradicts itself on a alrger scale than the NAs ever have), but this is
ficiton and we can glaze over those. The annuals, comics, etc., etc., tend not
to gel with that continuity (unless they do), and so are perhaps less steadfast
- but nevertheless, I am sure most of these things can be worked into the
continuity somehow, and I see no reason why they should not be.
[snip]
>>3) Canon is a silly term, prescriptive and discrimantory.
>canon is an accepted term in analysis of fiction, meaning the definitive
>body of work on which to comment, and with which any additions should be
>consistent - in continuity or style - even if they're being deliberately
>inconsistent (eg: All those Holmes stories where Moriarty turns out to be a
>figment of Holmes' imagination).
You haven't been paying attention (or, at least, you haven't read any other
canon threads - probably this, I don;t recall seeing your name in any of them).
The term canon, applied to fiction, means simply a body of work. But it also
means a lot more, and has (IMO) vaguely sinister overtones. In particular, it
is used as a term for the books in "the great tradition", ie the supposedly
best books in the Enlgish language, the ones everybody is supposed to read. If
you studied or taught non-Canon texts during a certain period of literary
education, you would have been laughed at. The use of the term canon implies
that one set of Who ficiton is better than another. The suggestion that the
books aren't canon but the series is seems a bit silly in light of this
The use also implies attempts to impose will - the canon and the great
tradition were used to enforce certain percieved standards of correctness, and
to class those who did not conform as inferior and misguided - particularly
when coupled with the word definitive. On the whole, it is a bad choice of
words IMO - and anathema to a post-structualist, so on the whole I would be
quite happy never to see it mentioned on this ng again.
>>4) The books are fucking great.
>whihc has nothing to do with it - best Holmes novels I've ever read are
>non-canon, because it's not by Conan Doyle!
But that doesn't make it non-canon. A few things:
1) There has been a long, long, long discussion about this.
2) Canon is a bad term to use in the first place because of its connotations -
continuity is probably better.
3) This is fiction, so it really isn't as if there is an overall say so - it is
a matter of personal opinion.
4) But, the people producing new Who do have some claim to authority - the BBC
books seem to accept that the NAs and that the TVM happened, they are clearly
canon from that point of view. The TVM didn;t contradict the NAs, so there is
no reason to start excluding there.
5) The NAs and the BBC books are the only new Who we seem to be getting. If
they ain't canon, lets face it, Who is dead and buried.
6) It is entirely a matter of personal choice (yes, again), and there are no
definite, immutable or concrete laws in this.
7) Who started as a TV series, so what, since that is over and new Who takes
the form of books, and the rare TV Movie, the series has changed and moved into
broader ficitonal forms.
8) Doyle not writeing the Holmes book you mention doesn;t seem like good enough
reason to exclude it from a Holmes canon if it is as good as you say. Surely
that is just rather silly?
9) This is all ficiton - the idea of canon seems to suggest otherwise, which is
also rather silly.
Eng6gcgs
Kathleen Wolff <kwo...@mason.gmu.edu> writes:
>This would keep from alienating both audiences. It has not
>been decided whether the NA's are canon or not, at least, not to my
>knowledge.
Can any one tell me who we are waiting for to make such a decision, and when
they might get around to it? ;)
Rayctate
>A moving starring Paul McGann and Eric Roberts.
>(Not that I didn't like it anyway.)
You're right, Funklord, the episode
"Enemy Within" IS moving. Which of us
didn't well up when the Doctor asked
Grace to join him for his adventures in
time and space? Or when Sylv "died" on
the operating table, or when Grace got
her life back. Doggone it, you did it to me
again (sniff.) Thank you, Funklord. You
remind me why I'm here.
Ray
"I'm half-human, on my mother's side."--The eighth Doctor
Rayctate
Hello,
Matt wrote:
>First off, it you are reading the books just
>to read them, then you shouldn't be
>alienated by the BBC books admiting in
>the continuity of the Virgin line, in fact,
>all of your arguements here become futile
>then. Since the BBC doesn't want to
>alienate the NA audience, they could
>simply admit such continuity as the fact
>that Romana is President, and other
>things that they could not avoid. Then,
>they simply take everything off in their
>own direction from there. Since they
>would be restating the continuity in
>order to catch fans that didn't read the
>virgin novels up (after all, a lot of time has
>to have passed between the series and the >telemovie, you only have to look at
the 7th >doctor to see that). This would keep from >alienating both audiences.
It has not
>been decided whether the NA's are canon
> or not, at least, not to my knowledge. So I >don't see how you can justify
your statement >that the NA's have not earned the right to be >canon. That may
be your beleif, and
>others as well, but it is still simply oppinion.
This is called cramming a Virgin down
another's throat.
Magrat
Kathleen Wolff wrote ...
>
>> I'm well aware that there are so many TV episodes that do defy
continuity,
>> but that is, quite frankly, utterly annoying. I think that the writers
of
>> the books can do better. Can you obviously tell me that you don't find
>> dissjointed continuity in the series anything but annoying? If you can,
>> we'll just have to dissagree on that one....
I think we'll just have to disagree on this then...;-)
I would rather have all the stupid continuity mistakes ("but, Barry, we've
done Atlantis *before*!") and a series that evolves and, more importantly,
*enjoys itself* than an anally-retentive series where everything was mapped
out years in advance and no deviance or contradictions from the uberstory
were allowed.
Besides, if we took away the discontinuity, what on earth would r.a.dw have
to argue about?
Magrat
--
"A mind is like a parachute: If you don't pack it right, it'll fail to work
properly, and you'll plummet to your violent, bloody death."
The SFF&H Forum: http://forums.msn.com/sciencefiction/
news://msnnews.news.com/msn.forums.sciencefiction.general
Eng6gcgs
eng6...@aol.com (Eng6gcgs) writes (to Anthony Brown):
>You haven't been paying attention (or, at least, you haven't read any other
>canon threads - probably this, I don;t recall seeing your name in any of
>them).
But I thought it was familiar - SFX, or just coincidence?
The Funklord... Grandmaster Flash
Actually, I did shed a tear when Sylvester McCoy died.
I'm not kidding. Next to Patrick Troughton (who was shafted
by the BBC archive, not the series) I think his loss hurt the
most in terms of me wanting to see MORE from that Doctor.
My most infamous post ever to this group was probably "Sylvester
McCoy does NOT suck" and I still feel that way.
Peace, Flash
Rayctate wrote:
>
> >A moving starring Paul McGann and Eric Roberts.
> >(Not that I didn't like it anyway.)
>
> You're right, Funklord, the episode
> "Enemy Within" IS moving. Which of us
> didn't well up when the Doctor asked
> Grace to join him for his adventures in
> time and space? Or when Sylv "died" on
> the operating table, or when Grace got
> her life back. Doggone it, you did it to me
> again (sniff.) Thank you, Funklord. You
> remind me why I'm here.
>
> Ray
>
> rayc...@aol.com
>
> "I'm half-human, on my mother's side."--The eighth Doctor
--
The Funklord... Grandmaster Flash
Unless she's actually in the employ of the White Guardian.. and he DID
put her on The Doctor's team, now didn't he?
Richard Jones wrote:
> She's just taken one of the universe's two most powerful races out of
> isolationism and down the road towards casual intervening in time.
> Clever as she is, it would be almost impossible for her to know
> *exactly* what she's doing, or what it's going to lead to.
--
Brett O'Callaghan
Kathleen Wolff <kwo...@mason.gmu.edu> wrote:
... yet another message with no quoting at all.
Quoting is an important tool to remind people what the heck you are
replying to.
Without it your messages are baffling. Please quote enough to let
people know what you are talking about, or else I see no reason to
spend my very limited on-line time downloading your messages.
.eeeeeyB
--
http://www.cbl.com.au/~boc/
Home of WhoINFO, free Doctor Who database for W95/NT.
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
Anthony Brown (anthon...@futurenet.co.uk) wrote:
: The TV movie was Tv, the medium Doctor Who began in, and
: therefore canon by definition (or has anyone argued otherwise?).
Yes, in fact. But I don't pay attention.
--
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman:
Paul Gadzikowski, scar...@iglou.com Bedivere's Round Table - Cartoons -
Archy the Cockroach - DOCTOR WHO, STAR
DrWho on LambdaMOO, DownMOO, MOOchine TREK [including T*R*E*K] and BUFFY
THE VAMPIRE SLAYER fanfiction
Lao Tze: "There is no path to harmony with the universe but the Way."
Homer Simpson: "Tao!"
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
Eng6gcgs (eng6...@aol.com) wrote:
: 5) The NAs and the BBC books are the only new Who we seem to be getting. If
: they ain't canon, lets face it, Who is dead and buried.
Unless you write your own.
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
Eng6gcgs (eng6...@aol.com) wrote:
: Kathleen Wolff <kwo...@mason.gmu.edu> writes:
: >This would keep from alienating both audiences. It has not
: >been decided whether the NA's are canon or not, at least, not to my
: >knowledge.
: they might get around to it? ;)
Once I posted on radw that, to condense an argument I was already trying
to keep concise, for practical purposes DOCTOR WHO canon is what the
present screen producer believes it is.
About a week later, I decided that wasn't quite right; or at best it was
imprecise. If one tries to apply practical realization to the canon
question, the bottom line is that, to have the right to decide what DOCTOR
WHO canon is, one must be a DOCTOR WHO storyteller. *Any* DOCTOR WHO
storyteller.
A new screen producer gets to decide what DOCTOR WHO canon is, subject to
constraints (if any) imposed by the BBC. Segal decided when he produced
the TVM that the NAs weren't in his canon.
A writer of lisenced DOCTOR WHO tie-ins gets to decide what DOCTOR WHO
canon is, subject to constraints imposed by the BBC on the editors for
them to impose on the writer(s). Apparently the BBC has decided that the
Virgin NAs are not canon for writers of BBC NAs.
Fanfiction writers get to decide what DOCTOR WHO canon is with no
constraints at all. Next door on alt.drwho.creative, canon changes from
author to author and sometimes from story to story. I have decided that
the DOCTOR WHO canon includes the canons of THE PRISONER, THE X-FILES,
STAR TREK (all of it), LOIS & CLARK and BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER; whatever
*they* may be.
But the point I'm making is that DOCTOR WHO is first and foremost for
telling stories with. DOCTOR WHO may also be anything else anyone wants.
But for anyone who doesn't personally use it to tell stories with (in any
venue), then s/he can explain and complain what s/he thinks ought to
constitute canon until s/he's blue in the face and/or until his/her
fingers fall off into his/her keyboard, and it won't make one whit of
difference anywhere in the real world.
Except in his/her own head - because every viewer/reader gets to decide
what canon is too.
The Funklord... Grandmaster Flash
Neither do I. The only definition of canon that applies to the
Doctor Who Movie(s) is cannon ... foder.
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI wrote:
>
> Anthony Brown (anthon...@futurenet.co.uk) wrote:
> : The TV movie was Tv, the medium Doctor Who began in, and
> : therefore canon by definition (or has anyone argued otherwise?).
>
> Yes, in fact. But I don't pay attention.
>
> --
>
> http://members.iglou.com/scarfman:
> Paul Gadzikowski, scar...@iglou.com Bedivere's Round Table - Cartoons -
> Archy the Cockroach - DOCTOR WHO, STAR
> DrWho on LambdaMOO, DownMOO, MOOchine TREK [including T*R*E*K] and BUFFY
> THE VAMPIRE SLAYER fanfiction
>
> Lao Tze: "There is no path to harmony with the universe but the Way."
> Homer Simpson: "Tao!"
--
Jonathan Blum
In article <anthony.brown-2...@172.18.22.130>, "Anthony Brown"
<anthon...@futurenet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <199806200249...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> eng6...@aol.com (Eng6gcgs) wrote:
> >1) They have the same claim to canonicity as the TVM. They have the same
> right
> >as any other professional Who fiction.
> Not quite. The TV movie was Tv, the medium Doctor Who began in, and
> therefore canon by definition (or has anyone argued otherwise?). The books
> are a seperate argument (and IMHO, the mere fact thjat the NAs are becoming
> unavailable, means the proportion of fandom who feel they're canon will
> reduce over time and the argument will die out by apathy).
> If professional Who fiction is the marker, then we're writing in the Play
> Your Own books, the annuals, the comics, The Earthlink Dilemma, and Terry
> Nation and Eric Saward's stories in the two RT specials (and god, does Birth
> of a Renegade make a mess of the Susan/Loom plot!)
Gregg said that they have the same *claim* to canonicity as the TV stuff.
That doesn't mean they all have to be canon. Just that you -- J. Random
Fanboy, with your own opinions and judgments and tastes -- can consider any
of them canon.
Cause there's no official list saying what is and isn't Real Who. And even
if there was, we fans might not listen to them anyway -- ask a "Battlestar
Galactica" fan if they consider "Galactica 1980" canon, for a start. :-)
You can be as idiosyncratic in your own personal True Who Canon as you
want. It's only when you try to apply your arguments to other people that
they're open to have holes picked in them. For example, your "Who started
on TV, so TV is automatically more real than anything else"... Why should
people automatically have to buy into that? For a lot of people, the
question of whether Who began on TV or radio or on stage doesn't matter in
the slightest... the only question is what bits of Who they *like*, what
bits fit in best with their ideas of what Doctor Who is.
As for unavailability as a criteria for being non-canon -- when's "The
Massacre" going to be deleted from canon, then? No one's seen an intact
version of that in nearly thirty-five years, the novelization (which wasn't
terribly accurate anyway) is out of print, most people only know what
happens in it only from a brief Lofficier summary and an old DWM archive...
and yet, after all this time, people still care. Even if the argument over
the books were to die out over time, that wouldn't make the
considering-the-books-canon position a less valid one to hold.
Regards,
Jon Blum
--
jblum at access.digex.net
"Eep," said an I.
Jonathan Blum
In article <199806201759...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
rayc...@aol.com (Rayctate) wrote:
> Matt wrote:
> >First off, it you are reading the books just
> >to read them, then you shouldn't be
> >alienated by the BBC books admiting in
> >the continuity of the Virgin line, in fact,
> >all of your arguements here become futile
> >then. Since the BBC doesn't want to
> >alienate the NA audience, they could
> >simply admit such continuity as the fact
> >that Romana is President, and other
> >things that they could not avoid. Then,
> >they simply take everything off in their
> >own direction from there. Since they
> >would be restating the continuity in
> >order to catch fans that didn't read the
> >virgin novels up (after all, a lot of time has
> >to have passed between the series and the >telemovie, you only have to
look at
audiences.
> It has not
> >been decided whether the NA's are canon
> your statement >that the NA's have not earned the right to be >canon.
That may
> be your beleif, and
> >others as well, but it is still simply oppinion.
>
> This is called cramming a Virgin down
> another's throat.
*gigantic comedy double-take*
Ray, *this* is the Canon Police you were so worried about? That's gotten
you crying help-help-I'm-being-oppressed-by-the-Virgin-fans at every
opportunity?
The poster even goes out of their way to say that "It has not been decided
whether the NA's are canon or not". All he's saying is "You can't say that
the books definitely automatically count less".
He's not even saying "*You* can't count the books less than the TV show."
He's saying "You can't tell *everyone* that they have to count the books
less than the TV show."
Whether or not you count them is still clearly being left as a matter of
personal choice.
Jonathan Blum
In article <358B4BC5...@pobox.com>, funkadel...@pobox.com wrote:
> Kathleen Wolff wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but what is Dr. Who without continuity?
> A moving starring Paul McGann and Eric Roberts.
> (Not that I didn't like it anyway.)
"It was on the planet Skaro that my old enemy the Master was put on trial
by the Daleks, and executed for the final time. Time Lords have thirteen
lives, and the Master had used all of his, but even in death I didn't trust
him, so I locked him safely away with my sonic screwdriver and settled down
for a nice snack of jelly babies in my TARDIS... Hey, Phil? I'm not sure
about this next bit in the narration, the one that goes 'which is powered
by the Eye of Harmony, though of course that's only a link to the real Eye
of Harmony on Gallifrey as established in the 1976 classic "The Deadly
Assassin"', can I cut that bit?"
Brett O'Callaghan
eng6...@aol.com (Eng6gcgs) wrote:
>(Brett O'Callaghan) writes:
>>BTW, I thought the 8 Doctors was a heck of a lot more enjoyable than
>>say, _Vampire Science_, which I found so tedious I couldn't be
>>bothered finishing, so let us remember it's all opinion, eh?
>*****
>Of course it's opinion. But I am surprised by yours - I found finishing 'T8D' a
>chore (although I did perservere - which I deeply regret doing). There was no
>spark, no interest, nothing worth reading.
IYO. IMO it was at least engaging enough to continue turning the
pages.
>At least if you don't like Kate and
>Jon's prose style, 'Vampire Science' has an original and interesting story, a
>real plot with development and things like that, a sustainable narrative, and
>rounded characters - you know, all the thing missing from 'T8D'.
Well, I don't know about that, in the half I read the book seemed more
concerned with "doing a mood", establishing some supporting characters
I didn't give a shit about, and trying to do some character work on
Sam. Not much happened, and when it did, I didn't care. = no desire
on my part to continue turning pages. And have I mentioned how boring
the vampire stuff was? I thought vampires were supposed to be either
1. Scary or 2. Funny. They were just tedious wankers in black in the
half I read. No doubt you think that K&J were just cleverly
subverting the norm or something, well maybe, but if you're going to
do that, replace it with something interesting eh?
And BTW, you can read my "thoughts on Short Trips" message if you
think I'm just grinding my ax here.
>In fact, 'T8D'
>was the only DW book that I didn't really enjoy. In fact, apart from 'Pilgrim's
>Progress' it is the only thing that I have ever truly regreted reading.
Goodness! I could recommend some *real* turkeys for you to add to
your "regret" pile if you like. Dozens of them, and that's just in
the SF genre!
Richard Jones
On Sat, 20 Jun 1998 16:49:25 -0500, "The Funklord... Grandmaster
Flash" <funkadel...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Richard Jones wrote:
>> She's just taken one of the universe's two most powerful races out of
>> isolationism and down the road towards casual intervening in time.
>> Clever as she is, it would be almost impossible for her to know
>> *exactly* what she's doing, or what it's going to lead to.
>Unless she's actually in the employ of the White Guardian.. and he DID
>put her on The Doctor's team, now didn't he?
Interesting. In fact, shortly after her investiture in Happy Endings,
then when Spandrell comments that there haven't been any sightings of
the Guardians recently, Rommana quickly and dramaticly changes the
subject.
(Isn't it nice that fandom is starting now to talk about the books in
the way we've always talked about the TV series - making wild
connections and not giving a damn about what was intended ? Wonder why
it took us so long. Perhaps it's because we're not at such a great
'distance' from David McIntee as we were from Robert Holmes. Or
perhaps it's because it seems like a pointless activity when the
authors were so keen to make the connections for us)
Jonathan Blum
In article <358BE2DB...@mason.gmu.edu>, Kathleen Wolff
Sometimes you can even get away with big breaks in continuity -- "Genesis"
and "Deadly Assassin" are the two classic examples, where previously
established points are ignored outright. (You could even make a case that
"Deadly Assassin" does to "Three Doctors" some of what "Eight Doctors" does
to "Lungbarrow" -- suddenly Rassilon is the father of time travel, and
there's no mention of Omega ever having existed.)
But the trick is, if you want to do that, you've got to do a story that's
so mind-bogglingly brilliant that the fans will *want* to accept the
changed version of events. "Deadly Assassin" and "Genesis" pulled it off
because they had lots of great new concepts to offer -- "Eight Doctors",
though, offers bloody little in the way of compelling new ideas.
Richard Jones
> Even if the argument over
>the books were to die out over time, that wouldn't make the
>considering-the-books-canon position a less valid one to hold.
Not that the argument over the books is likely to die out before
fandom does.
As long as there are new fans then there'll be people asking, "So
what was the Doctor hinting at in those last two BBC seasons ?". And
as long as there are people asking that then there'll be people
saying, "Well..."
Richard Jones
> And have I mentioned how boring
>the vampire stuff was? I thought vampires were supposed to be either
>1. Scary or 2. Funny. They were just tedious wankers in black in the
>half I read. No doubt you think that K&J were just cleverly
>subverting the norm or something,
That's the one.
>well maybe, but if you're going to
>do that, replace it with something interesting eh?
I think the point was that being dead isn't as interesting as the
gothic sensibility would have you believe. I bet the book would
probably have balanced out and worked fine for you had you found the
forces of Life to be interesting characters.
Nicholas R Smale
Eng6gcgs <eng6...@aol.com> wrote:
> eng6...@aol.com (Eng6gcgs) writes (to Anthony Brown):
>
> >You haven't been paying attention (or, at least, you haven't read any
> >other canon threads - probably this, I don;t recall seeing your name in
> >any of them).
>
> But I thought it was familiar - SFX, or just coincidence?
Not a coincidence at all - Anthony is Reviews Editor of SFX magazine.
(And, IIRC, he was editor of DWB for a couple of years in the early 90s,
during the period before it regenerated into DreamWatch).
--
Nicholas R Smale <n...@smale.demon.co.uk>
Manchester, UK
Kafenken
Eng6gcgs writes:
> Canon is a bad term to use in the first place because
> of its connotations - continuity is probably better.
But someone elsewhere demonstrated that canon and continuity are not the same
thing. IIRC he discussed Superboy in DC Comics as an example, where the
canonical Superboy is not part of current continuity. Seriously, Gregg, if I
say that something is not canon I am not discarding it, belittling it, sticking
out my tongue at it, dropping my pants at it or otherwise being horrid to what
could easily be a far better story than a canonical one.
Hands up anyone who gets the same connotations from the word "canon" that Gregg
does. I'm not trying to prove him "wrong" (he's got every right to his
opinion) but I would guess that most people can accept the definition of canon
that he dislikes because of its "connotations".
Finn Clark.
Nicholas R Smale
Anthony Brown <anthon...@futurenet.co.uk> wrote:
> the mere fact thjat the NAs are becoming unavailable,
Are they becoming unavailable? They're getting hard to find in high
street bookshops, certainly, however all but the rarest title is easy to
obtain second hand - every used bookshop in Manchester seems to have at
least a shelf full of Virgin titles in stock. That's likely to continue
to be the case for some time, too - those same shops have equally
brimming shelves of Target novelisations, some of which date back to the
early seventies.
Even were the NAs to disappear entirely from shops, that wouldn't
prevent them from continuing to be available within fandom - twenty five
years after it was published, it's still possible to pick up a copy of
the Radio Times tenth anniversary special at a convention.
How 'available' something is depends largely upon how much demand there
is for it - if sufficiently many people still want to read Virgin's
titles (and, as Richard Jones suggests, the magnitude of the
'Lungbarrow' revelations are such that fans will always want to read
that book at least) then they'll find a way to get hold of them.
(I'm reminded of the video scene of the early eighties. In an era before
BBC Video had released more than a handful of stories commercially, most
of the back history of 'Who on TV was theoretically 'unavailable' -
whilst actually circulating freely amongst fans. Maybe reading a
samizdat photocopy of 'The Left Handed Hummingbird' will give the next
generation of fans the same thrill we used to get from watching blurry,
fifth generation tapes of 'The Invasion'?)
> means the proportion of fandom who feel they're canon will reduce over
> time and the argument will die out by apathy
Don't forget that the books haven't died with the passing of Virgin -
all that's happened is that the torch of literary 'who has been passed
to a new production team. The Book versus TV canonicity debate isn't
going to go away - it's just that the arguments are increasingly going
to be dominated by the issues raised by BBC Books continuity.
Richard Jones
>How 'available' something is depends largely upon how much demand there
>is for it - if sufficiently many people still want to read Virgin's
>titles (and, as Richard Jones suggests, the magnitude of the
>'Lungbarrow' revelations are such that fans will always want to read
>that book at least) then they'll find a way to get hold of them.
Which is nice for our generation of fans, since the way they'll
probably find to get a chance to read them will most likely involve
buying us lots of drinks. :-)
Nicholas R Smale
Richard Jones <rej...@rejoice.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jun 1998 12:24:02 +0100, n...@smale.demon.co.uk
> (Nicholas R Smale) wrote:
>
> >How 'available' something is depends largely upon how much demand there
> >is for it - if sufficiently many people still want to read Virgin's
> >titles (and, as Richard Jones suggests, the magnitude of the 'Lungbarrow'
> >revelations are such that fans will always want to read that book at
> >least) then they'll find a way to get hold of them.
>
> Which is nice for our generation of fans, since the way they'll probably
> find to get a chance to read them will most likely involve buying us lots
> of drinks. :-)
This could add a whole new dimension to the art of the convention chat
up...
"Hello little fan-girl. Do you fancy coming back to my hotel room for
some 'Original Sin'? I'll show you the 'Time of Your Life'!"
And they call them Virgin books...
--
Nicholas R Smale <n...@smale.demon.co.uk>
Manchester, UK
(Um, feel relieved I didn't use the line about 'Head Games'...)
Sam Nelson
Kafenken <kafe...@aol.com> wrote
>
>Hands up anyone who gets the same connotations from the word "canon" that Gregg
>does. I'm not trying to prove him "wrong" (he's got every right to his
>opinion) but I would guess that most people can accept the definition of canon
>that he dislikes because of its "connotations".
>
I hope I'm not making a habit of disagreeing with Gregg on word
definitions, but I agree with you Finn. Well, sort of...
I posted the dictionary definition of 'canon' recently. It included "a
rule; a decree." If Gregg doesn't like these connotations, maybe he
should take it up with the people who make dictionaries?
Instead he just ignores this aspect of the word and talks about 'your
personal canon.' But your personal choice is just that. *YOUR* choice.
It is more important than any silly old canon, and that's why it
shouldn't be called 'canon.'
--
SAM NELSON.
The Red Queen shook her head. "You may call it 'nonsense' if
you like," she said, "but I've heard nonsense, compared with
which that would be as sensible as a dictionary."
Sam Nelson
Jonathan Blum <jb...@access.digex.net> wrote
>
>Gregg said that they have the same *claim* to canonicity as the TV stuff.
>That doesn't mean they all have to be canon. Just that you -- J. Random
>Fanboy, with your own opinions and judgments and tastes -- can consider any
>of them canon.
<Enfield mode>
Oi Blum! No!
</Enfield mode>
Canon is not about personal choice. It's about "a rule; a decree."
Personal choice is far too important to be described by using the term
"canon."
Perhaps drop the word completely (except for official statements from
Stephen Cole and his successors). That way we'd be actively celebrating
personal choice, and avoiding all these canon wars as well.
>
>Cause there's no official list saying what is and isn't Real Who.
I agree. And becuase an offical list is the only type of list that's
dry enough to be called a canon, we shouldn't be using the word.
>
>You can be as idiosyncratic in your own personal True Who Canon as you
>want.
But don't insult yourself by calling it canon. It's *your* personal
choice. Not some arbitrary list that's been imposed on you by a man
behind a desk in the BBC.
>It's only when you try to apply your arguments to other people that
>they're open to have holes picked in them.
Again, calling it a "choice" instead of a "canon" could stop people
trying to impose it on others.
<Enfield mode again>
You don't want to do that. You don't want to go around applying your
choices on other people. You want me to go around applying my choices.
That's what you want.
</Enfield mode again>
>the only question is what bits of Who they *like*, what
>bits fit in best with their ideas of what Doctor Who is.
I agree. And that's why I think a word like "canon" - with it's
implications of an official rule or decree - is just too misleading to
be used to describe something like this.
John Carlson
Kathleen Wolff wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, but what is Dr. Who without continuity? It is by default
> necessary to include continuity in Dr. Who, because it is, in essence,
> the continueing story of a man named the Doctor and his companions. I
> don't see how you can excuse any story of Dr. Who if it defies
> continuity.
Wow, you must dislike a lot of Who then.
And besides, what did you see in the 8 docs that appealed
> to you? It was, without question, the worst Dr. Who book I've ever
> read.
Have you read the Celestial Toymaker then? I found it much truer to Dr
Who than most of the NA's. So there you go.
Best
John Carlson
Eng6gcgs
b...@lin.cbl.com.au (Brett O'Callaghan) writes:
>>At least if you don't like Kate and
>>Jon's prose style, 'Vampire Science' has an original and interesting story,
>>a real plot with development and things like that, a sustainable narrative,
>>and rounded characters - you know, all the thing missing from 'T8D'.
>Well, I don't know about that, in the half I read the book seemed more
>concerned with "doing a mood", establishing some supporting characters
>I didn't give a shit about, and trying to do some character work on
>Sam.
The mood was established quickly enough, the characters were interesting (and
at least remained true throughout) - Caroline and Slake particularly, and
latterly the group of vampires all worked well - and Kramer was the most
realistic UNIT head yet (perhaps not as interesting as the Brigadier in the
NAs, but certainly better than the post-season 8 pre-'Battlefield' Colonel
Bogey). And the reason for doing the character work on Sam was that she
desperately needed a character, not just a name and a brief sketch.
> Not much happened, and when it did, I didn't care. = no desire
>on my part to continue turning pages.
Well, we have very different tastes then - this is exactly the reaction I had
with the first and second Doctor set pieces in 'T8D' (from the third onwards it
was more about the completely off-target writing).
> And have I mentioned how boring
>the vampire stuff was? I thought vampires were supposed to be either
>1. Scary or 2. Funny. They were just tedious wankers in black in the
>half I read.
Well, during the second half we see older vampires (who are melancholic) and
younger ones (who are vicious bastards). I've never found Vampires particularly
funny, nor scarey since turning 13, but I do tend to assume they will be sexy
or seductive. These weren't, which was...
> No doubt you think that K&J were just cleverly
>subverting the norm or something,
I was about to say as much. Surely intentionally subverting the norm (VS) is
better than just getting it wrong (T8D).
> well maybe, but if you're going to
>do that, replace it with something interesting eh?
Like characters faced with moral decisions, a Doctor who risks his own life to
save the group we percieve as villains, an edgy Doctor-UNIT relationship (OK,
this is building on the McCoy era, but VS has to be the least UNITfamily-ish
story yet), evangelical and idealist vampires (on both sides), young vampires
who desperately want to fit the stereotypes and older ones who know better, and
a wonderfully represented setting.
>>In fact, 'T8D' was the only DW book that I didn't really enjoy. In fact,
apart from
>>'Pilgrim's Progress' it is the only thing that I have ever truly regreted
reading.
>
>Goodness! I could recommend some *real* turkeys for you to add to
>your "regret" pile if you like. Dozens of them, and that's just in
>the SF genre!
Oh, I've read some very bad books - but 'T8D' was the first book I truly
regretted reading, the first book in which I found nothing to spark my
imagination, nothing to hold my interest. Of course, I tend to steer clear of
stuff that I know I won't like, but since Dicks (while not one of my preferred
writers) has done plenty of good stuff (I confess, I was only really aware of
his Tv work, and 'Timewyrm: Exodus' at the time, and not his extensive range of
Target novelisations), I assumed I would enjoy this - indeed I had high
expectations. I imagined that it would be a bit silly, along the lines of 'Happ
Endings', but I didn;t expect soemthing that went nowhere, that seemed like the
literary equivalent of a tape-worm, and that got so many things utterly wrong.
I imagined something like 'The 5 Doctors' - and only after realised that the
only reason that worked was because of the actors, and without them this kind
of book is probably doomed to failure (although Cornell did manage accurate and
enjoyable portrayals of previous Doctors in 'Revelation', even managing to
improve on the third Doctor).
Eng6gcgs
scar...@iglou.com (PAUL GADZIKOWSKI) writes:
>A new screen producer gets to decide what DOCTOR WHO canon is, subject to
>constraints (if any) imposed by the BBC. Segal decided when he produced
>the TVM that the NAs weren't in his canon.
But he said that there was no need for Ace to be present, as her leaving had
been dealt with in the NAs, IIRC.
>A writer of lisenced DOCTOR WHO tie-ins gets to decide what DOCTOR WHO
>canon is, subject to constraints imposed by the BBC on the editors for
>them to impose on the writer(s). Apparently the BBC has decided that the
>Virgin NAs are not canon for writers of BBC NAs.
Stephen Cole, and the writers themselves, may not agree.
[snip rest of polite, restrained and intelligent posting]