NAs canon? Not to me.
Chris Maples
Ultimately it is up to each individual to decide. I personally will
not likely ever accept the NAs as canon. Yes I have read the first
twenty or so and will continue to read them. I find most of them
enjoyable with only a few duds.
The problem for me is two-fold. Mainly, if the story was not televised
as a part of a particular season then it is not a part of who history to
me. I do make exceptions. Shada is canon, simply a victim of a strike
and fully intended for the small screen (and was subsequently released
on video). On the other hand the children in need program poses a
serious canon question for a who purist like myself. Also the two Peter
Cushing movies to me are not even close to canon. Sure it uses the name
and has daleks a tardis and the whole nine yards but that character is
not a time lord but simply an eccentric genius HUMAN being who created a
time machine. Both those movies are a big dissapointment for me.
Secondly, the Doctor and Ace of the NAs do not in any shape, form or
fashion even vaguely resemble the Doctor and Ace from the televised who.
The Doctor of the NAs is such a departure that it is not even funny. I
love McCoys doctor but really honestly dont like the NA doctor one bit.
I consider the NAs as fiction about fiction. No offense to any writers
or whomever who reads this. On the other hand the three novels for Colin
Bakers aborted season were in the process of being made into actual
stories for that particular season. I would consider them as canon well
before I would the NAs. So my gripe is not with who in print alone.
In conclusion the NAs are good filler to pass time between December 7,
1989 and May 14, 1996. To me that is all they will ever be. From what I
have read I am in the majority on this issue with you folks. So be
it. Thanks for reading and I welcome your responses.
Chris Maples
Mommy is it May 14th yet?
Chris Maples
>From what I have read I am in the majority on this issue with you folks.
> So be it. Thanks for reading and I welcome your responses.
>
>
Sorry, I was in a hurry and I meant to say "...in the minority on this
issue...". Though I don't mind being in a minority. Then again, am I in
the minority on this issue? Does it really matter? Aw, who cares
anyways. Stop reading this and get back to watching Who.
Thanks
Chris
David GOLDING
To me, the NAs are canon.
Dave
david by default <*> dgol...@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au
======= Fiver. Whovian. Student. Dreamer. &c. =======
------------- "Wel' I don' wanna di-e." -------------
the New New Adventures of Doctor Who on FOX in May!
Glenn Langford
Maples) wrote:
> I simply wanted to express my opinion on the NA as canon issue.
>Ultimately it is up to each individual to decide. I personally will
>not likely ever accept the NAs as canon. Yes I have read the first
>twenty or so and will continue to read them. I find most of them
>enjoyable with only a few duds...
>
>Chris Maples
The canonicity of any form of non-BBC-televised Who has always been
somewhat of a bugbear. It's hard to even include all of televised Who (can
anyone really tell me that they consider the "Jim'll Fix It" sketch and
"Dimensions in Time" to be serious Who??)
The problem with the NA's is that, while they have an overall editor to
keep the book series' continuity on track, they don't have a script editor
as such to keep the characters in some sort of check. They also do not
have the benefit of established actors to say things like "my character
just wouldn't do that". Add into the fact that you have 28 authors of 44
books up to "The Also People" and it's not a wonder that the characters
are so different from where we left them at "Survival".
Personally, I can't see the problem with McCoy's Doctor growing and
becoming Time's Champion - it opens up so many possibilites. Ace, I will
agree, turned quite unlikeable toward the end (victim of too many people
trying to grow her up? - perhaps that's why the younger companions always
left so quickly), and the addition of Roz and Chris I'll leave to another
discussion. But I quite like McCoy's Doctor in the NA's - he still has
that ability to be surprised by his companions, despite the fact he
usually knows what happens in the end.
--
langas
lan...@wr.com.au
"Why did the plane crash? 'Cause the pilot was a tomato"
R.J. Smith
Glenn Langford <lan...@wr.com.au> wrote:
>The canonicity of any form of non-BBC-televised Who has always been
>somewhat of a bugbear. It's hard to even include all of televised Who (can
>anyone really tell me that they consider the "Jim'll Fix It" sketch and
>"Dimensions in Time" to be serious Who??)
Er, actually I don't think it was ever much ofg a problem before the NAs
came along. The fact that the NAs have caused us to reconsider what we
think of as canon says rather a lot for their authenticity IMO.
>The problem with the NA's is that, while they have an overall editor to
>keep the book series' continuity on track, they don't have a script editor
>as such to keep the characters in some sort of check. They also do not
>have the benefit of established actors to say things like "my character
>just wouldn't do that". Add into the fact that you have 28 authors of 44
>books up to "The Also People" and it's not a wonder that the characters
>are so different from where we left them at "Survival".
Just like the original series had the benefit of Tom Baker to keep his
character firmly on track with such insightful suggestions as a talking
cabbage companion? :-)
And while we're at it, just where was the script editor for the Williams
era if the job description was to keep the character of the Doctor in
check? (then again, considering that it was Douglas Adams for at least
psrt of the time...)
I prefer my Doctor on the anarchistic side anyway...
- Robert Smith?
Tre Hellman
[Snip argument that the NAs aren't canon cuz they weren't televised and
the characters don't resemble the TV versions....]
Hmm....
I don't consider them canon, either really. I love them and wouldn't miss
one for the world... but for me they aren't canon. (They have their own
canon :) and I consider myself as much a fan of the books as I do of the
series.)
The main reason I don't consider them canon is because so many of them
succumb to the fannish need to refer to everything they can and answer as
many arguments as they can: they are *much* too interested in the
mythology of Who - in a way that the series never was.
This can be done in a clever way: Kate in Sleepy - she expands the idea of
the Exxilons being involved in other races' development. So, in effect, it
opens the mythology out.
It can also be done in incredibly annoying ways that really get up my
nose: Man in the Velvet Mask ( a book that I rate very highly actually) -
why was it necessary to "solve" the one heart problem? It didn't add to
the plot, the characterization, the poetry, anything! It only served to
unnecessarily enforce one aspect of fannish opinion. Bully for O'Mahoney,
but I still think it's crap. Worse than that, rather than expanding the
mythology it close it down around a single point.
When the NAs quit being a bully pulpit to "canonize" certain sides of
certain arguments, then I'll consider them part of Who canon.
This is, I realize, a very selfish and arbitrary definition of what canon
is. But, hey, canon has always been what I like for the reasons I like at
any given time. If you don't like that, cruk off. I don't expect anyone to
agree with my canon and I don't expect anyone to expect me to agree with
their's....
Tre.
And that's the way it is....
Kate Orman
for me canonicity is a very practical thing - not "What really
happened?", because none of it did :-), but "What can I draw on when I'm
writing *this* story?"
--
__
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au | http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au:80/~korman
Kate Orman - "A broad too deep for the small screen"
David Hutchison
> I simply wanted to express my opinion on the NA as canon issue.
>Ultimately it is up to each individual to decide.
Thank you for acknowledging this fact. Many other people
believe their own opinions are solely what matters. It is nice
to find an open-minded poster on this newsgroup. (I'm not
looking for flame-outs or taking the mick here, either.)
> The problem for me is two-fold. Mainly, if the story was not televised
>as a part of a particular season then it is not a part of who history to
>me. I do make exceptions. Shada is canon, simply a victim of a strike
>and fully intended for the small screen (and was subsequently released
>on video). On the other hand Dimensions in Time poses a
>serious canon question for a who purist like myself. Also the two Peter
>Cushing movies to me are not even close to canon. Sure it uses the name
>and has Daleks, a Tardis and the whole nine yards
(???)
> but that character is
>not a time lord, simply an eccentric genius HUMAN being who created a
>time machine. Both those movies are a big disappointment for me.
And the fact that they were both big-screen remakes of The
Daleks and The Dalek Invasion of Earth didn't do anything for
me either.
> Secondly, the Doctor and Ace of the NAs do not in any shape, form or
>fashion even vaguely resemble the Doctor and Ace from the televised who.
>The Doctor of the NAs is such a departure that it is not even funny. I
>love McCoys doctor but really honestly don't like the NA doctor one bit.
I wouldn't go **that** far. We needed a change from the dark,
manipulative Doctor we saw in The Curse of Fenric. We needed
him to lighten up a little -- it didn't happen overnight
though, but it did happen, and those of you out there who are
about to cite Timewyrm: Revelation, Love and War, Deceit,
Lucifer Rising, No Future, Tragedy Day, Conundrum, The Pit,
Head Games and the rest to me, don't bother.
What Segal meant by his comment was that he felt the NA's did a
good enough job of writing out Ace, and that he didn't feel the
need to include any references in the new pilot which would
have contradicted that -- a prime example of which is the
second Doctor telling Jamie that puzzling reference to Victoria
studying graphology (handwriting analysis) in The Two Doctors,
when he didn't need to say anything. That would have let us
slot it in between leaving Victoria and arriving on the wheel
(the recap in The Wheel in Space part one).
Segal wasn't declaring the New Adventures as canon, he was
simply acknowledging their existence, and the work they've done
in keeping the show's profile up.
DAVID HUTCHISON
Brisbane, Australia
dhut...@cin.gov.au
Eva W. Jacobus
>I never know what people mean when they say, "What is canon?" I suppose
>for me canonicity is a very practical thing - not "What really
>happened?", because none of it did :-), but "What can I draw on when I'm
>writing *this* story?"
I have a small suitcase full of torture scenes involving Cwej. I'll be
happy to send them to anyone who desires to draw from them, particularly
if radw will then argue about which of his 5,782 brutal deaths is canon.
--Eva
R.J. Smith
David Hutchison <dhut...@cin.gov.au> wrote:
>wave...@teclink.net (Chris Maples) wrote:
>> The problem for me is two-fold. Mainly, if the story was not televised
>>as a part of a particular season then it is not a part of who history to
>>me. I do make exceptions. Shada is canon, simply a victim of a strike
>>and fully intended for the small screen (and was subsequently released
>>on video). On the other hand Dimensions in Time poses a
>>serious canon question for a who purist like myself. Also the two Peter
>>Cushing movies to me are not even close to canon. Sure it uses the name
>>and has Daleks, a Tardis and the whole nine yards
>(???)
The "Tardis" was nine yeards long in the film, obviously :-)
>> but that character is
>>not a time lord, simply an eccentric genius HUMAN being who created a
>>time machine. Both those movies are a big disappointment for me.
>And the fact that they were both big-screen remakes of The
>Daleks and The Dalek Invasion of Earth didn't do anything for
>me either.
Okay, here's my take on why the Cushing movies are canon :-)
Sure, they're not consistent with the TV series. But consistency ain't
the backbone of canonicity, 'cause otherwise you couldn't have Pyramids
of Mars and Mawdryn Undead being canon together (some may argue that this
is a good thing).
Yep, they're remakes of recently screened episodes. But then again, so
was The Moonbase and Resurrection of the Daleks (to name but two). And
not to mention the fact that most of the Hinchcliffe stories were ripoffs
of Hammer Horror films.
And one of Segal's plans at one stage was to remake classic episodes
(such as Evil of the Daleks and Genesis IIRC). So would these have been
non-canon? (could still happen, y'know!)
There's nothing really about the movies that makes them non-canon, other
than (drum roll) personal preference.
And so here's the fully paid, glittering neon reason WHY the Cushing
movies are canon:
'Cause they have the name "Dr Who" on them and they're fun.
- Robert Smith?
Scott Wasilewski
wrote:
>I never know what people mean when they say, "What is canon?" I suppose
>for me canonicity is a very practical thing - not "What really
>happened?", because none of it did :-), but "What can I draw on when I'm
>writing *this* story?"
Well, Kate, I don't know about you, but it always helps me write if I
can draw on all the used up paper...
With crayons, of course...
--
Scott-Raven Wasilewski: sco...@TheRamp.net
FW for Connor MacLeod and Christopher Lambert
Owned by Cats Hannibal, Sheba, and Yoda, and Tim the Dog
Frenetic Doctor Who Devotee
Graeme Burk
--
Graeme Burk
: It can also be done in incredibly annoying ways that really get up my
: nose: Man in the Velvet Mask ( a book that I rate very highly actually) -
: why was it necessary to "solve" the one heart problem? It didn't add to
: the plot, the characterization, the poetry, anything! It only served to
: unnecessarily enforce one aspect of fannish opinion. Bully for O'Mahoney,
: but I still think it's crap. Worse than that, rather than expanding the
: mythology it close it down around a single point.
Actually, this isn't O'Manohy's own doing. The NA/MA Guidelines are
quite specific about the First Doctor only having one heart and growing
the second upon regenerating. And other MAs have alluded to it; for
instance in Managra the Doctor says something like "In the days when I
only had one heart..." and ISTR it coming up in an NA, I just don't
remember which one.
So Bully for Virgin's editorial guidelines, this one wasn't the author--
just the author reflecting on something already established.
Graeme Burk
oh, and Man in the Velvet Mask is a great read as well...
Trav1701
wether they should be canon.
Traveller
trav...@aol.com
John Bodin 1:2624/701.1 Fidonet
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
> Could someone please explain what an NA is, and why the discussion on
> wether they should be canon.
The NAs are the New Adventures, a series of original Doctor Who novels
published by Virgin Books which continue the adventures of the Seventh
Doctor beyond the end of the last televised episode, "Survival". The NAs
currently number almost fifty books, and have been authored by many
famous names like Ben Aaronovitch, Terrance Dicks, Andrew Cartmel and
Marc Platt as well as a number of talented newcomers.
The discussion on their canonicity arises from the fact that they
have been designed to continue the series and fit in with established
continuity, rather than being ignorable one-shots like the "Star Trek"
books. The 50 NAs since 1991 have been the next best thing to an ongoing
Doctor Who television series. Furthermore, Phil Segal, executive producer
of the new Doctor Who movie, explained that he felt Ace's departure has
"take care of" by the NAs, although whether this is tantamount to Segal
canonizing the books is a matter of personal opinion.
Really, it is up to each fan to decide whether the NAs (and their
companion series, the Missing Adventures) is part of their version of the
Doctor Who canon or not.
Shannon
--
| Shannon Patrick Sullivan | "I just want a little passion |
| sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca | To hold me in the dark, |
| http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sps | I know I got some magic buried, |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+ Buried deep in my heart, yeah" |
| *DOCTOR WHO ON FOX, MAY 14TH!* | -- Tori Amos, "Take To The Sky" |
mray...@acs-mail.bu.edu
>I never know what people mean when they say, "What is canon?" I suppose
>for me canonicity is a very practical thing - not "What really
>happened?", because none of it did :-), but "What can I draw on when I'm
>writing *this* story?"
This would have come in handy for me a few posts ago... :)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=
Matthew Raymond - mray...@acs.bu.edu
---------------------------------------
http://acs2.bu.edu:8001/~mraymond/home.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=
mray...@acs-mail.bu.edu
>Could someone please explain what an NA is, and why the discussion on
>wether they should be canon.
Easily explained: NA stands for "not availible". They were arguing as to
whether of not cannons should be availible in the United States, and whether
the ban on cannons would continue if the assault weapons ban was lifted.
(Either that, or NA could be a reference to the Dr. Who New Adventure Novels
printed by Virgin, which are not universially accepted as a basis for Doctor
Who information and facts, which is the root of the canon discussion.)
mray...@acs-mail.bu.edu
>movies are canon:
>
>'Cause they have the name "Dr Who" on them and they're fun.
>
> - Robert Smith?
I knew it!!! He thinks anything with "Dr. Who" on it is canon!!! I knew it!!
I knew it!!!!!!!!! :)
Jim Vowles
>
> Could someone please explain what an NA is, and why the discussion on
> wether they should be canon.
>
The New Adventures (hence, NA)of Doctor Who. Have your local Waldenbooks
or whatever do a search on Timewyrm as the title to see how they're
listed *that* week.
-jim
death to a dalek is short and wears a white fedora (thanks, Kate)
Trina L. Short
In article <4jvhl2$3...@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca> Graeme Burk wrote:
>Graeme Burk
>oh, and Man in the Velvet Mask is a great read as well
Oh, you forgot the d in dread. :)
(Okay, so maybe that's just my O. I just had a hard time reading it.
Let me guess, Graeme, you had a hard time dreading it...)
trinalin
If you're not part of the solution, then you must be the precipitate.
©1996 ACME Page Fillers, Inc.
R.J. Smith
>>And so here's the fully paid, glittering neon reason WHY the Cushing
>>movies are canon:
>>'Cause they have the name "Dr Who" on them and they're fun.
> I knew it!!! He thinks anything with "Dr. Who" on it is canon!!! I knew it!!
>I knew it!!!!!!!!! :)
Yeah, but I think this newsgroup is canon as well, so what do I know? :-)
- Robert Smith?
Pat1974
Is it canon if I'm listening to 'Slipback' in my walkman while utilizing a
public urinal?
Because if not then I'm not even going to bother. . .
t.o.Patrick
Jonathan Blum
Trav1701 <trav...@aol.com> wrote:
>Could someone please explain what an NA is, and why the discussion on
>wether they should be canon.
The New Adventures of Doctor Who -- a series of novels continuing the
travels of the seventh Doctor beyond the end of the series. (Some written
by established series writers such as Terrance Dicks and Ben Aaronovitch,
but the majority written by new SF authors.) People are arguing about
whether they should be canon because they actually develop the Whoniverse
in some significant ways.
There's also the Missing Adventures (MA's) -- a companion line of novels
featuring earlier Doctors, which are integrated into the NA continuity.
Regards,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
chess... when it was just me playing solitaire!"
D O C T O R W H O : T I M E R I F T
Trav1701
Christopher D. Heer
>Is it canon if I'm listening to 'Slipback' in my walkman while utilizing a
>public urinal?
>Because if not then I'm not even going to bother. . .
I wouldn't bother anyway.
--christopher d. heer
"some slipback sucked guy"
mray...@acs-mail.bu.edu
>To me, the NAs are canon.
To me, they're books. The question of following them when writing a story
is a matter of choice. I personally, however, do not use them for sources of
general Dr. Who info because they are not as easy to obtain as the videos and
cannot be seen on TV. Also, calling them canon means you have to read them
all to know what canon is, which for me is a problem due to my slow reading
speed.
Jason Abner Miller
>Could someone please explain what an NA is, and why the discussion on
>wether they should be canon.
An "NA" is a New Adventure -- a series of novels, published
monthly, that serve as the officialy licensed continuation of "Doctor
Who".
In print for the last six years, the NAs offer high-quality
TV-series fiction (usually a contradiction in terms). Three authors
wrote for the original TV series (Terrance Dicks, Ben Aaronovitch,
Marc Platt), and three others were also strongly affiliated with the
show (David "CyberLeader" Banks, Nigel Robinson, former editor of
the Target novelizations, and John Peel, who novelized some books
and wrote some non-fiction in the late '80s).
The series began after "Survival", featuring the 7th Doctor
and Ace in a series of linked adventures. The series has evolved,
however; there are three new companions, some new villains -- but still
a host of returning villains. The hallmark of the NAs, however, is
originality. The fiction is sometimes cutting-edge sci-fi, and strives to
maintains a standard of diversity and depth that the original series
kept to.
Lots of fun, and especially controversial. Do pick some up.
-Jason A. Miller
"some doctor guy"
Jason Abner Miller
Slaking or weeping, you can never escape me, Heer.
-Jason A. Miller
"some pustules guy"
Alden Bates
In article <4jurn7$d...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>, R.J. Smith (g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA) writes:
>And so here's the fully paid, glittering neon reason WHY the Cushing
>movies are canon:
>
>'Cause they have the name "Dr Who" on them and they're fun.
Why isn't this post dated April 1st? :-)
But surely if they have "Dr Who" on them, that makes them Dr Who
canon and not Doctor Who canon? And the second movie doesn't even
have "Dr Who" on it.
Alden Bates.
--
/~~~|_|~~~\ DOOM editing handiwork on ftp.cdrom.com in /pub/idgames
/ _' _ _ < Alternate DOOM ][: levels/doom2/a-c/altd2.zip
/_/ |_| |___.' Memento Mori level 10: themes/mm/mmall.zip
Alden Bates | al...@bates.wn.planet.gen.nz | See Doctor Who on Fox, May 14th
S. Berman
Jason Abner Miller <doc...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> wrote:
>-Jason A. Miller
>"some pustules guy"
Jason, your pustules are stinking up the newsgroup again!
Why can't you keep them in a freezer like everyone else?
Sheesh.
-SpiGi
"Well how ABOUT that!"
Dave Forth
>In article <4jp7g6$q...@lou.teclink.net>, wave...@teclink.net (Chris
>Maples) wrote:
>
>[Snip argument that the NAs aren't canon cuz they weren't televised and
>the characters don't resemble the TV versions....]
>
>Hmm....
>
>I don't consider them canon, either really. I love them and wouldn't miss
>one for the world... but for me they aren't canon. (They have their own
>canon :) and I consider myself as much a fan of the books as I do of the
>series.)
>
>The main reason I don't consider them canon is because so many of them
>succumb to the fannish need to refer to everything they can and answer as
>many arguments as they can: they are *much* too interested in the
>mythology of Who - in a way that the series never was.
>
>This can be done in a clever way: Kate in Sleepy - she expands the idea of
>the Exxilons being involved in other races' development. So, in effect, it
>opens the mythology out.
>
>It can also be done in incredibly annoying ways that really get up my
>nose: Man in the Velvet Mask ( a book that I rate very highly actually) -
>why was it necessary to "solve" the one heart problem? It didn't add to
>the plot, the characterization, the poetry, anything! It only served to
>unnecessarily enforce one aspect of fannish opinion. Bully for O'Mahoney,
>but I still think it's crap. Worse than that, rather than expanding the
>mythology it close it down around a single point.
>
>When the NAs quit being a bully pulpit to "canonize" certain sides of
>certain arguments, then I'll consider them part of Who canon.
>
>This is, I realize, a very selfish and arbitrary definition of what canon
>is. But, hey, canon has always been what I like for the reasons I like at
>any given time. If you don't like that, cruk off. I don't expect anyone to
>agree with my canon and I don't expect anyone to expect me to agree with
>their's....
>
>Tre.
>And that's the way it is....
I don't count them as canon because the majority of fans don't seem to
have read them, or at least a large number of them, and so it is
difficullt to bring them into any debate about the show. I just stick
with the episodes the BBC made because, on the whole, they have been
more accessible. In most cases it was the TV show that captured our
interest and so anything always seems some how peripheral. This is not
to say they aren't as well done or as imaginative, they are just not the
original, you might say.
Anthony
(using D.Forth's account)
Dave
St. Ives, England
Christopher D. Heer
>-Jason A. Miller
>"some pustules guy"
Witness, boy, the *nemesis* of the Miller!
Nya-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
<squawk>
--
Christopher D. Heer: "Stonge Age Megoglomaniac" | ch...@us.oracle.com
Doctor Who, coming to Fox in May, 1996! Be there! | ch...@eskimo.com
My opinions are my own and do not reflect those | Not just cheer. . .
of Oracle Corp. Not that I've asked, of course. | all tempa-cheer!
R.J. Smith
>In <dgolding.4...@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au>, dgol...@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (David GOLDING) writes:
>>To me, the NAs are canon.
> To me, they're books. The question of following them when writing a story
>is a matter of choice. I personally, however, do not use them for sources of
>general Dr. Who info because they are not as easy to obtain as the videos and
>cannot be seen on TV.
Come round to my place then. There's a couple on the TV right now...:-)
The question of following Power of the Daleks when writing a story is a
matter of choice. I, personally, however, do not use Power of the Daleks for
sources of general Dr. Who info because it is not as easy to obtain as
the videos and cannot be seen on TV.
Also, calling them canon means you have to read them
>all to know what canon is, which for me is a problem due to my slow reading
>speed.
Calling Power of the Daleks canon means you have to watch it all to know
what canon is, which for me is a problem due to the stupidity of the BBC
in the 1970s.
- Robert Smith?
R.J. Smith
St Anthony's Ives:
>I don't count them as canon because the majority of fans don't seem to
>have read them, or at least a large number of them, and so it is
>difficullt to bring them into any debate about the show. I just stick
>with the episodes the BBC made because, on the whole, they have been
>more accessible. In most cases it was the TV show that captured our
>interest and so anything always seems some how peripheral. This is not
>to say they aren't as well done or as imaginative, they are just not the
>original, you might say.
I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
to have seen it, or at least a number of them and so it is difficult to
bring it into any debate about the show. I just stick with the episodes
the BBC released on video because, on the whole, they have been more
accessible.
In most cases it was the Doctor we first saw that captured our interest
and so anyone else always seems some how peripheral. This is not to say
that the other Doctor's aren't as well done or as imaginative, they are
just not the original, you might say.
- Robert Smith?
Walter OGrady
>
>>Is it canon if I'm listening to 'Slipback' in my walkman while utilizing a
>>public urinal?
>
>>Because if not then I'm not even going to bother. . .
You can't hold it in forever, y'know!
- Carrie, who loved the guy's post that said "If the series
contradicts the NAs, it could be really, really serious"
<wog...@epas.utoronto.ca>
Jason Abner Miller
>In article <4k4q3l$l...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, doc...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu says...
>>In article <4k3a98$h...@inet-nntp-gw-1.us.oracle.com> ch...@eskimo.com writes:
>>>--christopher d. heer
>>>"some slipback sucked guy"
>> Slaking or weeping, you can never escape me, Heer.
>>-Jason A. Miller
>>"some pustules guy"
>Witness, boy, the *nemesis* of the Miller!
>Nya-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
><squawk>
Your silver tongue won't save you this time.
Brett O'Callaghan
>>Could someone please explain what an NA is, and why the discussion on
>>wether they should be canon.
>originality. The fiction is sometimes cutting-edge sci-fi, and strives to
I really don't want to start the "NA's and SF" thread again, but
could you name a couple that you consider "cutting-edge sci-fi" and what
exactly you mean by this?
Byeeeee.
----
Mars will never be free until the sands run red with Earther blood.
----
Nick Smale
dfo...@kos.compulink.co.uk (Anthony, using Dave Forth's account) wrote:
? I don't count them as canon because the majority of fans don't seem to
? have read them, or at least a large number of them, and so it is
? difficullt to bring them into any debate about the show.
Well... the majority of fans I know *have* read the NAs (or at least a
large number of them) and we find it difficult to have any debate about the
show *without* bringing them into it...
It's interesting to note that, when I passed on what I'd learned of the
movie from r.a.dw to these non-Internetted friends, their first reaction
was disappointment that Benny wouldn't be in it...
.--/O\--.
| .===. | Nick Smale
|||o o||| <ni...@smale.demon.co.uk>
|| _ || Manchester, UK
'___'
Brad Filippone
: St Anthony's Ives:
: >I don't count them as canon because the majority of fans don't seem to
: >have read them, or at least a large number of them, and so it is
: >difficullt to bring them into any debate about the show. I just stick
: >with the episodes the BBC made because, on the whole, they have been
: >more accessible. In most cases it was the TV show that captured our
: >interest and so anything always seems some how peripheral. This is not
: >to say they aren't as well done or as imaginative, they are just not the
: >original, you might say.
: I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
: to have seen it, or at least a number of them and so it is difficult to
: bring it into any debate about the show. I just stick with the episodes
: the BBC released on video because, on the whole, they have been more
: accessible.
Which brings us to another debate! What about the novelizations of TV
episodes that were based on the scripts as I believe most of them were?
As A matter of fact I just finished reading Marco Polo AND the Reign of
Terror. And these adventures are reffered to (At least Marco Polo is )
in the episodes followign them. (Ian and Barbara, at the beggining of
The Sensorites, list all the places they've been with the Doctor.
: In most cases it was the Doctor we first saw that captured our interest
: and so anyone else always seems some how peripheral. This is not to say
: that the other Doctor's aren't as well done or as imaginative, they are
: just not the original, you might say.
: - Robert Smith?
--
Sean Gaffney
> doc...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) wrote:
> >trav...@aol.com (Trav1701) writes:
>
> >>Could someone please explain what an NA is, and why the discussion on
> >>wether they should be canon.
>
> >originality. The fiction is sometimes cutting-edge sci-fi, and strives to
>
> I really don't want to start the "NA's and SF" thread again, but
> could you name a couple that you consider "cutting-edge sci-fi" and what
> exactly you mean by this?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
--Sean "No, we won't. Sorry, Brett." Gaffney
--"You git! I thought you were dead! Git git git!" - Benny, No Future
Ian McIntire
>doc...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) wrote:
>>trav...@aol.com (Trav1701) writes:
>
>>>Could someone please explain what an NA is, and why the discussion on
>>>wether they should be canon.
>
>>originality. The fiction is sometimes cutting-edge sci-fi, and strives to
>
> I really don't want to start the "NA's and SF" thread again, but
>could you name a couple that you consider "cutting-edge sci-fi" and what
>exactly you mean by this?
File this post in the same category as Gary Morris' comment in the
thread entitled "What do we call the new movie?"
He wrote,
>I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but how about "Crap?"
Ian McIntire i...@cwru.edu
"As the days go by, we find ourselves faced with the increasing
inevitability that we are alone in a godless, hostile, uninhabited and
meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?" -Holly,
Ship's Computer, JMC vessel Red Dwarf.
Jonathan Blum
Brad Filippone <al...@ccn.cs.dal.ca> wrote:
>R.J. Smith (g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA) wrote, to prove a point:
>: I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
>: to have seen it, or at least a number of them and so it is difficult to
>: bring it into any debate about the show. I just stick with the episodes
>: the BBC released on video because, on the whole, they have been more
>: accessible.
>Which brings us to another debate! What about the novelizations of TV
>episodes that were based on the scripts as I believe most of them were?
>As A matter of fact I just finished reading Marco Polo AND the Reign of
>Terror.
Then at least in the case of "Marco Polo", you only have a pretty vague
idea of what happened in the TV story. You probably think it's "canon"
that Tegana was killed by an arrow to the back, like he is in the final
pages of the novelization, right? And judging by how much of the dialogue
in the novelization of "The Aztecs" actually occurs in the TV version, I'd
lay good odds that Lucarotti was none too faithful to the scripts of
"Marco Polo" either.
And if you count events as canon based on having read about them in the
novelization, I can't wait till you both read and see "The Romans"...
> And these adventures are reffered to (At least Marco Polo is )
>in the episodes followign them. (Ian and Barbara, at the beggining of
>The Sensorites, list all the places they've been with the Doctor.
The Braxiatel Collection is referred to in "City of Death". Does that
make "All-Consuming Fire" canon? Ditto the Hoothi in "Brain of
Morbius"...
Regards,
Jon Blum
(who's not quite sure what his point is, but figured it needed to be made
nonetheless)
Brett O'Callaghan
>> >originality. The fiction is sometimes cutting-edge sci-fi, and strives to
>> I really don't want to start the "NA's and SF" thread again, but
>> could you name a couple that you consider "cutting-edge sci-fi" and what
>> exactly you mean by this?
>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
>--Sean "No, we won't. Sorry, Brett." Gaffney
Hey, if people are going to use terms like "cutting edge sci-fi"
I'd like to know exactly what they mean by it. 8^)
Bozzie
>> And these adventures are reffered to (At least Marco Polo is )
>>in the episodes followign them. (Ian and Barbara, at the beggining of
>>The Sensorites, list all the places they've been with the Doctor.
>
>The Braxiatel Collection is referred to in "City of Death". Does that
>make "All-Consuming Fire" canon? Ditto the Hoothi in "Brain of
>Morbius"...
Bad thinking. Rarely can you do continuity backwards. Simply one odd
phrase here and there doesn't mean a thing... but direct references, such
as film clips (eg The War Game clips of Jamie and Zoe back home, Cybermen
clips in Earthshock, etc.) references via recollections and phrases (eg
paraphrasing "Ice Warriors are a great enemy which I've defeated", or
"Mondos blew up when they tried to invade Earth", etc) or other
references (Ian wearing clothes from the Kublai KAhn and says they are
from there... Episodes which *do* exist, etc.) are a little more
substantial then a phrase like "the dreaded hoothi". Now if you had an
example of somewhere wear the Doctor says I will have done such and such
in a future incarnation of mine in this place, that'll give you a bit
more credence, but not as much.
Pat1974
<edh...@eden.rutgers.edu> writes:
>
>jb...@access2.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>
>>> And these adventures are reffered to (At least Marco Polo is )
>>>in the episodes followign them. (Ian and Barbara, at the beggining of
>>>The Sensorites, list all the places they've been with the Doctor.
>>
>>The Braxiatel Collection is referred to in "City of Death". Does that
>>make "All-Consuming Fire" canon? Ditto the Hoothi in "Brain of
>>Morbius"...
>
>Bad thinking. Rarely can you do continuity backwards. Simply one odd
>phrase here and there doesn't mean a thing...
Why?
>but direct references, such
>as film clips (eg The War Game clips of Jamie and Zoe back home, Cybermen
>clips in Earthshock, etc.) references via recollections and phrases (eg
>paraphrasing "Ice Warriors are a great enemy which I've defeated", or
>"Mondos blew up when they tried to invade Earth", etc) or other
>references (Ian wearing clothes from the Kublai KAhn and says they are
>from there... Episodes which *do* exist, etc.) are a little more
>substantial then a phrase like "the dreaded hoothi".
Why?
>Now if you had an
>example of somewhere wear the Doctor says I will have done such and such
>in a future incarnation of mine in this place, that'll give you a bit
>more credence, but not as much.
Why?
t.o.Patrick
Steven Moffat
show about a man who changes history for a living?
Steven Moffat
Dave Forth
>
>St Anthony's Ives:
>>I don't count them as canon because the majority of fans don't seem to
>>have read them, or at least a large number of them, and so it is
>>difficullt to bring them into any debate about the show. I just stick
>>with the episodes the BBC made because, on the whole, they have been
>>more accessible. In most cases it was the TV show that captured our
>>interest and so anything always seems some how peripheral. This is not
>>to say they aren't as well done or as imaginative, they are just not the
>>original, you might say.
>
>I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
>to have seen it, or at least a number of them and so it is difficult to
>bring it into any debate about the show. I just stick with the episodes
>the BBC released on video because, on the whole, they have been more
>accessible.
>
>In most cases it was the Doctor we first saw that captured our interest
>and so anyone else always seems some how peripheral. This is not to say
>that the other Doctor's aren't as well done or as imaginative, they are
>just not the original, you might say.
>
> - Robert Smith?
Very sharp. Ha, ha, ha. All I was trying to say is that what a fan
views as canon is really just whatever we like to view as canon. We
don't count things as canon for any logical reason, we just count them
because they happen to feel right. I don't claim that my opinion is
definitive, it's just my opinion and it is as valid as any other
opinion posted. Surely that is something I don't need to explain every
time I comment on a thread?
christopher j rednour,sa120a cd,244-5012,8
In a previous article, pat...@aol.com (Pat1974) says:
>In article <4kfrrj$e...@dziuxsolim.rutgers.edu>, Bozzie
><edh...@eden.rutgers.edu> writes:
>>jb...@access2.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>>>
>>>The Braxiatel Collection is referred to in "City of Death". Does that
>>>make "All-Consuming Fire" canon? Ditto the Hoothi in "Brain of
>>>Morbius"...
>>
>>Bad thinking. Rarely can you do continuity backwards. Simply one odd
>>phrase here and there doesn't mean a thing...
>
>Why?
I think because I could say "Argh I hate Hoothi" but that doesn't meant
any reference that I make to them imply that the reason I hate Hoothi is
tied in with the story later. However the other option:
>>>> And these adventures are reffered to (At least Marco Polo is )
>>>>in the episodes followign them. (Ian and Barbara, at the beggining of
>>>>The Sensorites, list all the places they've been with the Doctor.
Doesn't help either. Writing a book refering back to incidents doesn't
tie it back to the original. It just shows a shared set of ideas, just
as the opposite way does.
Unfortunately, the debate over what is canon and what is not is not going
to be settled by references like these.
>
>>but direct references, such
>>as film clips (eg The War Game clips of Jamie and Zoe back home, Cybermen
>>clips in Earthshock, etc.) references via recollections and phrases (eg
>>paraphrasing "Ice Warriors are a great enemy which I've defeated", or
>>"Mondos blew up when they tried to invade Earth", etc) or other
>>references (Ian wearing clothes from the Kublai KAhn and says they are
>>from there... Episodes which *do* exist, etc.) are a little more
>>substantial then a phrase like "the dreaded hoothi".
>
>Why?
The problem with this line of thinking, IMO, is that by this definition,
if Ace were to appear in the first NA exactly as she exited 'Survival'
the NA's should be canon.
>
>>Now if you had an
>>example of somewhere wear the Doctor says I will have done such and such
>>in a future incarnation of mine in this place, that'll give you a bit
>>more credence, but not as much.
>
>Why?
But how would he know that he had done it, if its in his future? And how
likely [from a production standpoint] would their be a line like that?
-Ibis
--
==================Ibis the Invincible=================================
Watch Doctor Who when it comes to FOX in May!
Jonathan Blum
Bozzie <edh...@eden.rutgers.edu> wrote:
[canon wibbling snipped]
>Now if you had an
>example of somewhere wear the Doctor says I will have done such and such
>in a future incarnation of mine in this place, that'll give you a bit
>more credence, but not as much.
At the end of "Masque of Mandragora", Sarah realizes that Mandragora will
be in position to attack Earth again at the end of the twentieth century.
So that makes the story of Mandragora's return -- the DWM comic strip
"Mark of Mandragora" -- canon, right? :-)
Regards,
Jon Blum
(who's jerking an awful lot of chains tonight, isn't he?)
R.J. Smith
Jonathan Blum <jb...@access2.digex.net> wrote:
>In article <4kdpeu$8...@apollo.isisnet.com>,
>Brad Filippone <al...@ccn.cs.dal.ca> wrote:
>>R.J. Smith (g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA) wrote, to prove a point:
>>: bring it into any debate about the show. I just stick with the episodes
>>: the BBC released on video because, on the whole, they have been more
>>: accessible.
>>Which brings us to another debate! What about the novelizations of TV
>>episodes that were based on the scripts as I believe most of them were?
>>As A matter of fact I just finished reading Marco Polo AND the Reign of
>>Terror.
>Then at least in the case of "Marco Polo", you only have a pretty vague
>idea of what happened in the TV story. You probably think it's "canon"
>that Tegana was killed by an arrow to the back, like he is in the final
>pages of the novelization, right? And judging by how much of the dialogue
>in the novelization of "The Aztecs" actually occurs in the TV version, I'd
>lay good odds that Lucarotti was none too faithful to the scripts of
>"Marco Polo" either.
Not to mention what he did to The Massacre (Of St Bartholomew's Eve),
which is probably a much better example. Is there a script book for this
one? If not, there damn well should be...
>And if you count events as canon based on having read about them in the
>novelization, I can't wait till you both read and see "The Romans"...
Er, Jon, my post was a parody of the post I was responding to. I don't
*actually* believe that M<arco Polo isn't canon.
Sorry, but I'm now terribly, terribly frightened that if Jon Blum can
swallow whole an obvious joke post, then what this says for the average
rec.arts.drwho reader is just too scary for words...
>> And these adventures are reffered to (At least Marco Polo is )
>>in the episodes followign them. (Ian and Barbara, at the beggining of
>>The Sensorites, list all the places they've been with the Doctor.
>The Braxiatel Collection is referred to in "City of Death". Does that
>make "All-Consuming Fire" canon? Ditto the Hoothi in "Brain of
>Morbius"...
I think you mean Legacy, Theatre of War and Empire of Glass. The
Braxiatal Collection wasn't mentioned in All Consuming Fire to the best
of my knowledge (and barely in Empire, since it hadn't happened to
Braxiatal yet).
- Robert Smith?
(worried about what's happening in Jon's life for him to make this many
mistakes in one post)
R.J. Smith
The Smith?ster:
>>I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
>>to have seen it, or at least a number of them and so it is difficult to
>>bring it into any debate about the show. I just stick with the episodes
>>the BBC released on video because, on the whole, they have been more
>>accessible.
St Anthony's Fire (sorry, but I keep think of you as this):
>Very sharp. Ha, ha, ha.
Thankyouverymuch, I'll be here all week! :-)
All I was trying to say is that what a fan
>views as canon is really just whatever we like to view as canon. We
>don't count things as canon for any logical reason, we just count them
>because they happen to feel right.
This is great. This is exactly what it should be. Pity it doesn't work in
practice though :-)
I don't claim that my opinion is
>definitive, it's just my opinion and it is as valid as any other
>opinion posted. Surely that is something I don't need to explain every
>time I comment on a thread?
There's a difference between presenting something explicitly as your
opinion and stating your opinion as fact. Sometimes the difference in
obvious, sometimes it isn't.
IMHO, I try to state that something's my opinion whenever I feel that it
should be pointed out (as opposed to every time it actually *is* my
opinion).
Besides, falling to the defence of "Well, it's just my opinion and
therefore it can't be wrong" is a common copout around here. What if I
state that my opinion is that all science fiction fans are subhumans who
should be shipped into labour camps at birth? Do I have a right to this
opinion? What if I choose a more controversial group to have this opinion
about? What if I don't explicitly state that this is my opinion?
- Robert Smith?
Corey Klemow
>And one of Segal's plans at one stage was to remake classic episodes
>(such as Evil of the Daleks and Genesis IIRC). So would these have been
>non-canon? (could still happen, y'know!)
Er... no. That was just a silly rumor some silly people believed, for some
silly reason.
Segal's actual plan was to remake classic episodes of STAR TREK--a plan he's
followed through with, as the just-revealed-at-MANOPTICON title of the TV
Movie ("The Enemy Within") attests.
Jon Preddle
g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA$
Robert Smith says...
>>I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
>>to have seen it,
Is this guy for real??????????????????????
--
Jon Preddle
New Zealand
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
top...@ibm.net
>I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
>to have seen it
Excellent point. I don't count anything as canon which doesn't feature
the Doctor--Wartime, K-9 & Company, Shakedown, er... Mission to the
Unknown. I mean Dalek T/A. I mean Mission Cutaway. Oh damn, now
look what you've made me do.
Topsham
Ed Powell
Ditch everything. Commission a new pilot. Start again. And stay with
one vision this time.
--- Ed "Hey, I never said it was going to be easy..." Powell
--
Ed Powell -- http://members.aol.com/JoeyLemur/
Freelance Computer Consultant, MSTie #27968 and perpetually confused
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Writing fiction is easy. Just make it up as you go along."
--- Ed Powell
top...@ibm.net
http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~dma/ProfX/
Stephen Jenkins, Darrel Manuel, John Toon, and Scot Ferre are
responsible for this travesty of a fine British institution. Their
parodies of the series structure, episode titles, logotypes, character
names, and cross-cultural referencing to easy targets elsewhere
in British television and society are juvenile, scatalogical, insensitive,
deeply offensive to right-thinking cautious individuals, and are an
outrage to hardcore fans of Doctor Who the world over. Well done,
let's have plenty more of it, chaps!
This deserves wider publicity - links to home pages, a mention in the
Quote File(TM), and lots more visitors. There will be a special prize
for the person who is the 888,888th visitor to the page.
Topsham
Walter OGrady
I think a lot of NAs are deliberately trying to go outside the canon
-- take the Who universe one or two or a lot of steps further. If
they weren't pushing the boundaries, they'd be deadly boring! So it
seems to me that a discussion of whether they're "canon" or not (and
surely "canon" isn't something that's rigid, doesn't it mean a set of
standards that can change according to context?) is a sort of
contradiction in terms.
- Carrie Canon
<wog...@epas.utoronto.ca>
R.J. Smith
Jon Preddle <jpr...@hn.nznet.gen.nz> wrote:
>In article <4kbt8a$1...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>,
>g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA$
>Robert Smith says...
That's "Smith?" to you :-)
>>>I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
>>>to have seen it,
>Is this guy for real??????????????????????
Well, you've met me, you tell me! (Okay, so it was a long time ago and in
a country neither of us are actually in right now, but still...)
Somebody (was it you) said that the NAs weren't canon because the
majority of fans didn't seem to have read them. I just applied the same
logic to Marco Polo to show how ridiculous the idea was.
And I have been *thoroughly* frightened as to the average IQ of
rec.arts.drwho by the number of people who thought I was serious.
Sheesh! :-)
- Robert Smith?
Anonymous User
>Why?
>
Becuase.
>Why?
Why not?
>
>Why?
Oh I give up, your reasoning is just too much for me.
Edan Harel
"Some guy"
Anonymous User
>Excellent point. I don't count anything as canon which doesn't feature
>the Doctor--Wartime, K-9 & Company, Shakedown, er... Mission to the
>Unknown. I mean Dalek T/A. I mean Mission Cutaway. Oh damn, now
>look what you've made me do.
Hmm, so every scene which doesn't feature the Doctor isn't cannon...
EEEennnteresting!
Must make the stories blotched up, though.
Anonymous User
>In article <4kbt8a$1...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>,
>g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA$
>
>Robert Smith says...
>
>>>to have seen it,
>
>Is this guy for real??????????????????????
>
He's real, only satirical. He was illustrating the absurdity of the
(surprisingly) common argument against NA canonicity. That argument
asserts that since some not inconsiderable number of DOCTOR WHO fans
have little or no knowledge of the events taking place in the NAs (or
even of the NAs themselves, in many cases), the NAs should not be called
canon. Robert Smith? was entirely correct in his projection of the
"logical conclusion" of this argument. The conclusion that (I trust)
he meant for you to draw from his post was this: Since you might validly
infer an absurd conclusion through the application of the argument under
consideration, the argument is invalid.
Of course, if you happen to believe that MARCO POLO is not canon for the
very reason stated above, then go on arguing your position. Canonicity,
as always, is entirely subjective.
Andrew R. Vogel
avo...@eden.rutgers.edu
IMHO
not "anonymous user"
P.S. Well said, Robert Smith?
Alden Bates
Pat1974 (pat...@aol.com) writes:
>Bozzie <edh...@eden.rutgers.edu> writes:
>
>>but direct references, such as film clips (eg The War Game clips
>>of Jamie and Zoe back home, Cybermen
>>clips in Earthshock, etc.) references via recollections and phrases (eg
>>paraphrasing "Ice Warriors are a great enemy which I've defeated", or
>>"Mondos blew up when they tried to invade Earth", etc) or other
>>references (Ian wearing clothes from the Kublai KAhn and says they are
>>from there... Episodes which *do* exist, etc.) are a little more
>>substantial then a phrase like "the dreaded hoothi".
>
>Why?
Why? Why not? If Ian says that they visited Kudlai Khan, then we
can safely assume that if in the last story they visited Kublai
Khan, then if the 1st story is canon, so is the first one.
Oh, you were asking why it's different from the first one...
Well, a vague mention of the Hoothi is not quite the same as saying
that the Doctor encountered them...
Alden Bates.
--
Name: Alden Bates STR INT SPE END RNK COU FRP SKL
Function: Computer Programmer :
Quote: "Bugger." | . | |
Stats variable on equipment supplied: : | | | : | | |
Dave Forth
>
>The Smith?ster:
>>>I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
>>>to have seen it, or at least a number of them and so it is difficult to
>>>bring it into any debate about the show. I just stick with the episodes
>>>the BBC released on video because, on the whole, they have been more
>>>accessible.
>
>St Anthony's Fire (sorry, but I keep think of you as this):
I'd be careful about that if I were you. I was the devil in a video
version of Faust the other week.
>>Very sharp. Ha, ha, ha.
>
>Thankyouverymuch, I'll be here all week! :-)
>
>All I was trying to say is that what a fan
>>views as canon is really just whatever we like to view as canon. We
>>don't count things as canon for any logical reason, we just count them
>>because they happen to feel right.
>
>This is great. This is exactly what it should be. Pity it doesn't work in
>practice though :-)
>
>I don't claim that my opinion is
>>definitive, it's just my opinion and it is as valid as any other
>>opinion posted. Surely that is something I don't need to explain every
>>time I comment on a thread?
>
>There's a difference between presenting something explicitly as your
>opinion and stating your opinion as fact. Sometimes the difference in
>obvious, sometimes it isn't.
>
>IMHO, I try to state that something's my opinion whenever I feel that it
>should be pointed out (as opposed to every time it actually *is* my
>opinion).
Yes, but if, IMHO, we're discussing a topic that is purely based, to
some degree, around idiosyncratic opinions it is not necessary for me to
say my opinion is idiosyncratic. IMHO this is not a mathematics
conference.
>Besides, falling to the defence of "Well, it's just my opinion and
>therefore it can't be wrong" is a common copout around here.
I AM NOT SAYING, IMHO, MY OPINION CANNOT BE WRONG!!! AND YES I KNOW I
AM, IMHO, WRITING IN CAPITOLS. Obviously it is good, IMHO, that we
disagree with each other.. IMHO, this newsgroup would be a bit dull
otherwise. IMHO, you should not flame me just because you disagree with
my honest opinion on Doctor Who.
What if I
>state that my opinion is that all science fiction fans are subhumans who
>should be shipped into labour camps at birth? Do I have a right to this
>opinion? What if I choose a more controversial group to have this opinion
>about? What if I don't explicitly state that this is my opinion?
I think that if you did say this anyone reading would realise that it is
just your opinion.
> - Robert Smith?
Surely having a question mark on ones sig should be reserved for those
with something within a million miles of an identity crisis.
Dave Forth
>jpr...@hn.nznet.gen.nz (Jon Preddle) wrote:
>>In article <4kbt8a$1...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>,
>>g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA$
>>
>>Robert Smith says...
>>
>>>>I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
>>>>to have seen it,
>>
>>Is this guy for real??????????????????????
>>
>
>He's real, only satirical. He was illustrating the absurdity of the
>(surprisingly) common argument against NA canonicity. That argument
>asserts that since some not inconsiderable number of DOCTOR WHO fans
>have little or no knowledge of the events taking place in the NAs (or
>even of the NAs themselves, in many cases), the NAs should not be called
>canon. Robert Smith? was entirely correct in his projection of the
>"logical conclusion" of this argument. The conclusion that (I trust)
>he meant for you to draw from his post was this: Since you might validly
>infer an absurd conclusion through the application of the argument under
>consideration, the argument is invalid.
>
>Of course, if you happen to believe that MARCO POLO is not canon for the
>very reason stated above, then go on arguing your position. Canonicity,
>as always, is entirely subjective.
>
>Andrew R. Vogel
>avo...@eden.rutgers.edu
>IMHO
>not "anonymous user"
>
>P.S. Well said, Robert Smith?
>
Twas I who was the target of Robert Smith and his rapier wit. I think
my argument still stands because, in my experience at least, more fans
are aware of the events of the missing stories through the novelisations
(which seem to have been more widely read than the NAs), the
photonovels, the existing audio versions etc. than know what happened in
the average NA. I only know one person who has read all of the NAs and
beyond that I think that I've have read more of the NAs +MAs than anyone
else I know and I've only read a dozen or so. That it is why I don't
think of the NAs as canon. However if you're surrounded by friends
who've read mostly read lots of them or you've read a lot yourself then
you'll think differently. As you say, it is entirely subjective.
mray...@acs-mail.bu.edu
>The question of following Power of the Daleks when writing a story is a
>matter of choice. I, personally, however, do not use Power of the Daleks for
>sources of general Dr. Who info because it is not as easy to obtain as
>the videos and cannot be seen on TV.
>
>Also, calling them canon means you have to read them
>>all to know what canon is, which for me is a problem due to my slow reading
>>speed.
>
>Calling Power of the Daleks canon means you have to watch it all to know
>what canon is, which for me is a problem due to the stupidity of the BBC
>in the 1970s.
I believe that all episodes are canon, with the exception of what is
superseded in later episodes. It's unfair to assign canon based on the stupidity
of the BBC.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=
Matthew Raymond - mray...@acs.bu.edu
---------------------------------------
http://acs2.bu.edu:8001/~mraymond/home.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=
R.J. Smith
>>There's a difference between presenting something explicitly as your
>>opinion and stating your opinion as fact. Sometimes the difference in
>>obvious, sometimes it isn't.
St Anthony:
>>IMHO, I try to state that something's my opinion whenever I feel that it
>>should be pointed out (as opposed to every time it actually *is* my
>>opinion).
>Yes, but if, IMHO, we're discussing a topic that is purely based, to
>some degree, around idiosyncratic opinions it is not necessary for me to
>say my opinion is idiosyncratic. IMHO this is not a mathematics
>conference.
Pity, really :-)
If you re-read what I said, I was pointing out that "IMHO" was only
required if you felt it *should* go there, as opposed to every time it
actually is your opinion.
>>Besides, falling to the defence of "Well, it's just my opinion and
>>therefore it can't be wrong" is a common copout around here.
>I AM NOT SAYING, IMHO, MY OPINION CANNOT BE WRONG!!! AND YES I KNOW I
>AM, IMHO, WRITING IN CAPITOLS.
How'd you get the Panopticon onto the screen? I've never been able to do
it...:-)
Besides, I think there's hope for you...Opinions *can* be wrong. Not many
around here realise that. And they can change, too (goodness knows mine
do!).
Obviously it is good, IMHO, that we
>disagree with each other.. IMHO, this newsgroup would be a bit dull
>otherwise. IMHO, you should not flame me just because you disagree with
>my honest opinion on Doctor Who.
No flame here (IMHO...:-) ).
I wasn't actually referring to you when I mentioned that passing to the
opinion line was a common copout. Sorry if you've seen a bit of a debate
as a flame. It really wasn't my intent...
>What if I
>>state that my opinion is that all science fiction fans are subhumans who
>>should be shipped into labour camps at birth? Do I have a right to this
>>opinion? What if I choose a more controversial group to have this opinion
>>about? What if I don't explicitly state that this is my opinion?
>I think that if you did say this anyone reading would realise that it is
>just your opinion.
What if I happen to 'control' a group that has the power to wipe out a
minority that it is my "opinion" should be eradicated from the face of
the earth?
>Surely having a question mark on ones sig should be reserved for those
>with something within a million miles of an identity crisis.
Actually, I don't have a .sig ("Nasty habit").
The ? is part of my *name*. Has been for years...
- Robert Smith?
R.J. Smith
Dave Forth <dfo...@kos.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>Twas I who was the target of Robert Smith and his rapier wit.
Aw, shucks! :-)
I think
>my argument still stands because, in my experience at least, more fans
>are aware of the events of the missing stories through the novelisations
>(which seem to have been more widely read than the NAs), the
>photonovels, the existing audio versions etc. than know what happened in
>the average NA. I only know one person who has read all of the NAs and
>beyond that I think that I've have read more of the NAs +MAs than anyone
>else I know and I've only read a dozen or so. That it is why I don't
>think of the NAs as canon. However if you're surrounded by friends
>who've read mostly read lots of them or you've read a lot yourself then
>you'll think differently. As you say, it is entirely subjective.
I can see your point, but mine was simply to state that popularity should
not determine canonicity.
Otherwise "Destiny of the Daleks" and "Dimensions in Time" would be
somewhow "more canon" than "Power of the Daleks".
- Robert Smith?
Kate Orman
Brett O'Callaghan <b...@lin.cbl.com.au> wrote:
>doc...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) wrote:
>
>>>Could someone please explain what an NA is, and why the discussion on
>>>wether they should be canon.
>
>>originality. The fiction is sometimes cutting-edge sci-fi, and strives to
>
> I really don't want to start the "NA's and SF" thread again, but
>could you name a couple that you consider "cutting-edge sci-fi" and what
>exactly you mean by this?
Anything stolen from Gibson or Banks.
*running*
--
__
kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au | http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au:80/~korman
Kate Orman - "A broad too deep for the small screen"
R.J. Smith
>In <4kbsr3$s...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>, g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) writes:
>>Also, calling them canon means you have to read them
>>>all to know what canon is, which for me is a problem due to my slow reading
>>>speed.
>>Calling Power of the Daleks canon means you have to watch it all to know
>>what canon is, which for me is a problem due to the stupidity of the BBC
>>in the 1970s.
> I believe that all episodes are canon, with the exception of what is
>superseded in later episodes. It's unfair to assign canon based on the
>stupidity of the BBC.
Right!
Which is why your argument is as ridiculous as my parody of it.
Just because you haven't read or seen something doesn't make it
non-canonical.
And it doesn't mean you *have* to read or see it either if you can't or
don't want to. It's still there (in the canon I mean).
- Robert Smith?
Pat1974
>
>In <4kbsr3$s...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>, g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA
(R.J.
>Smith) writes:
>>The question of following Power of the Daleks when writing a story is a
>>matter of choice. I, personally, however, do not use Power of the Daleks
for
>
>>sources of general Dr. Who info because it is not as easy to obtain as
>>the videos and cannot be seen on TV.
>>
>>Also, calling them canon means you have to read them
>>>all to know what canon is, which for me is a problem due to my slow
reading
>>>speed.
>>
>>Calling Power of the Daleks canon means you have to watch it all to know
>>what canon is, which for me is a problem due to the stupidity of the BBC
>>in the 1970s.
>
> I believe that all episodes are canon, with the exception of what is
>superseded in later episodes. It's unfair to assign canon based on the
>stupidity
>of the BBC.
I believe everything is canon, with the exception of what I don't
personally like. It's unfair to assign canon based on the stupidity of a
single fan.
Pat 90210
Pat1974
g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) writes:
(snipped entirely out of context - what could be more radw?)
>I wasn't actually referring to you when I mentioned that passing to the
>opinion line was a common copout. Sorry if you've seen a bit of a debate
>as a flame. It really wasn't my intent...
Unfortunately, it seems that this is a bigger problem than one might
think. Opinions here are all too often carved in stone and defended as
perfectly valid, and thus any attempt to persuade the holder otherwise is
seen as a flame.
It's ridiculous, and makes having a debate between two opposing 'sides'
quite difficult.
Pat 90210
"Too many opinionseses. . ."
Jonathan Blum
>>>I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
>>>to have seen it,
>Is this guy for real??????????????????????
Are you asking whether Robert Smith? counts as canon? It's true, the
majority of fans haven't seen him...
(Seriously, Jon, allow me to introduce you to this little guy called the
Devil's Advocate. He's all over the place around here...)
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
Dave Forth <dfo...@kos.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>I don't count them as canon because the majority of fans don't seem to
>have read them, or at least a large number of them, and so it is
>difficullt to bring them into any debate about the show. I just stick
>with the episodes the BBC made because, on the whole, they have been
>more accessible. In most cases it was the TV show that captured our
>interest and so anything always seems some how peripheral.
When your fandom is suddenly swamped by a horde of new people who only got
into the show with McGann, and have little access to or awareness of the
old episodes, then you're in for a *shock*, boy. :-)
Jim Vowles
You know, it occurs to me that this may (hopefully) be a problem, and
then we will get to spend endless hours answering questions about the old
show...
Actually, as I see it, the question isn't about canonicity--whatever that
means. It's about what things we see as critical in the Doctor's
history. Do the NAs *really* answer any questions about the Doctor's
past, or Gallifrey, or anything? Not really. They tell us that Romana
got out of E-space. They tell us that the Brig's family eventually
produces Kadiatu. They fill in some details about "future history" (from
our current perspective). They question the Doctor's actions. They deal
with Ace and introduce Benny, Roz, and Chris.
Do they ever contradict any of the fundamental tenets of the show? No.
There's a Tardis, usually used to get the group into the situation, but
seldom used as a tool during the plot. There's companions for the Doctor
to explain things to, and to get annoyed by his lack of explanations on
our behalf. There's a mysterious alien called "Doctor", who tries to
save the universe (or bits thereof). There are new takes on familiar
threats and foes.
Nothing contradicts the show. And as the writers of the old show did,
you can simply ignore (or fail to acknowledge) the events depicted in
the NAs and MAs; if the story as told can't stand on its own merit, screw
it.
Doctor Who works best when it's only a bit self-referential; past events
should enrich the plot, not be incessantly crucial to it.
-jim
who keeps nipping forward in time to the end of this thread...and there
isn't one...
Chris Thornett
> gaf...@iconn.net (Sean Gaffney) wrote:
> >> b...@lin.cbl.com.au (Brett O'Callaghan) writes:
> >> doc...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) wrote:
> Hey, if people are going to use terms like "cutting edge sci-fi"
> I'd like to know exactly what they mean by it. 8^)
>
> Byeeeee.
There is VERY little 'cutting edge' science fiction, even in the world
of books, and absolutely none on tv/film, and Doctor Who does relatively
well in that respect. Even when it does not, the series (especially the
NAs) has the _capacity_ to explore the most controversial scientific
theories.
Star Trek is clearly only a runner-up in this respect, for all its
tetrion fields, nanites, etc. It is still a series about some pretty
normal humnans who have barely changed in 500 years.
Whereas in Doctor Who (yes, it is easier to find examples in the books)
we have the human race radically changed by biotechnological and
cybernetic advances. We have worlds built in klein bottles, panoplies of
alternate universes including the Land of Fiction, psychedelic drugs and
cyberspace, fortean flickers, magic (of a sort), aliens from beyond both
ends of time, aliens which only exist if you believe in them, quantum
technology, relativity, and of course time-travel, which is always
cutting-edge if it's done well.
And some people still think Doctor Who is about wobbly sets and rubber
monster masks.
Gee, that felt good. A nice bit of invective.
The most cutting edge writer I've come across is Greg Bear. If only
someone could persuade him to write for Doctor Who...
--
Chris Thornett
--------------
aure enteluva
David GOLDING
>means. It's about what things we see as critical in the Doctor's
>history. Do the NAs *really* answer any questions about the Doctor's
>past, or Gallifrey, or anything? Not really. They tell us that Romana
>got out of E-space. They tell us that the Brig's family eventually
>produces Kadiatu.
The Brig's family does not produce Kadiatu. An Imogen lab does. Unless the
Lethbridge-Stuart family is into some seriously kinky shit these days (and
documentation!).
>They fill in some details about "future history" (from
>our current perspective). They question the Doctor's actions. They deal
>with Ace and introduce Benny, Roz, and Chris.
>Do they ever contradict any of the fundamental tenets of the show? No.
>There's a Tardis, usually used to get the group into the situation, but
>seldom used as a tool during the plot. There's companions for the Doctor
>to explain things to, and to get annoyed by his lack of explanations on
>our behalf. There's a mysterious alien called "Doctor", who tries to
>save the universe (or bits thereof). There are new takes on familiar
>threats and foes.
>Nothing contradicts the show.
Well...
>And as the writers of the old show did,
Yup.
>you can simply ignore (or fail to acknowledge) the events depicted in
>the NAs and MAs; if the story as told can't stand on its own merit, screw
>it.
>Doctor Who works best when it's only a bit self-referential; past events
>should enrich the plot, not be incessantly crucial to it.
Lovely post, Jim. Lovely. *applause*
Dave
--
david by default <*> dgol...@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au
======= Fiver. Whovian. Student. Dreamer. &c. =======
"This is the best party I've been to" Faith No More
=== DOCTOR WHO 'Enemy Within' on FOX/BBC1 in May! ===
Jim Vowles
>
> In article <31727B...@eaicorp.com> Jim Vowles <jvo...@eaicorp.com> writes:
>
> >means. It's about what things we see as critical in the Doctor's
> >history. Do the NAs *really* answer any questions about the Doctor's
> >past, or Gallifrey, or anything? Not really. They tell us that Romana
> >got out of E-space. They tell us that the Brig's family eventually
> >produces Kadiatu.
>
> The Brig's family does not produce Kadiatu. An Imogen lab does. Unless the
> Lethbridge-Stuart family is into some seriously kinky shit these days (and
> documentation!).
>
I said "eventually produces"--meant the same way as I might comment that
the early homo sapiens eventually produce Einstein. She's not a direct
descendant, as I recall...but without Alistair Gordon L-S, there'd likely
be no Kadiatu.
> >They fill in some details about "future history" (from
> >our current perspective). They question the Doctor's actions. They deal
> >with Ace and introduce Benny, Roz, and Chris.
>
> >Do they ever contradict any of the fundamental tenets of the show? No.
> >There's a Tardis, usually used to get the group into the situation, but
> >seldom used as a tool during the plot. There's companions for the Doctor
> >to explain things to, and to get annoyed by his lack of explanations on
> >our behalf. There's a mysterious alien called "Doctor", who tries to
> >save the universe (or bits thereof). There are new takes on familiar
> >threats and foes.
>
> >Nothing contradicts the show.
>
> Well...
Okay, not in a really blatant way, nor any worse than the show did to
itself.
>
> >And as the writers of the old show did,
>
> Yup.
>
> >you can simply ignore (or fail to acknowledge) the events depicted in
> >the NAs and MAs; if the story as told can't stand on its own merit, screw
> >it.
>
> >Doctor Who works best when it's only a bit self-referential; past events
> >should enrich the plot, not be incessantly crucial to it.
>
> Lovely post, Jim. Lovely. *applause*
>
> Dave
>
Thanks. :)
-jim
whose brain attempted hari-kari after a few thousand posts, but luckily
Kan-po was nearby....
Jonathan Blum
R.J. Smith <g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA> wrote:
>In article <4keuhp$4...@access2.digex.net>,
>Jonathan Blum <jb...@access2.digex.net> wrote:
>>In article <4kdpeu$8...@apollo.isisnet.com>,
>>Brad Filippone <al...@ccn.cs.dal.ca> wrote:
>>>R.J. Smith (g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA) wrote, to prove a point:
>>>: I don't count Marco polo as canon because the majority of fans don't seem
>>>: to have seen it, or at least a number of them and so it is difficult to
>>>: bring it into any debate about the show. I just stick with the episodes
>>>: the BBC released on video because, on the whole, they have been more
>>>: accessible.
>>>Which brings us to another debate! What about the novelizations of TV
>>>episodes that were based on the scripts as I believe most of them were?
>>>As A matter of fact I just finished reading Marco Polo AND the Reign of
>>>Terror.
>>Then at least in the case of "Marco Polo", you only have a pretty vague
>>idea of what happened in the TV story. You probably think it's "canon"
>>that Tegana was killed by an arrow to the back, like he is in the final
>>pages of the novelization, right? And judging by how much of the dialogue
>>in the novelization of "The Aztecs" actually occurs in the TV version, I'd
>>lay good odds that Lucarotti was none too faithful to the scripts of
>>"Marco Polo" either.
>Not to mention what he did to The Massacre (Of St Bartholomew's Eve),
>which is probably a much better example. Is there a script book for this
>one? If not, there damn well should be...
For that matter, "The Myth Makers". And if "Dalek Masterplan" and "War
Games" were written like the books, they'd each be at least an hour
shorter than they are...
>>And if you count events as canon based on having read about them in the
>>novelization, I can't wait till you both read and see "The Romans"...
>Er, Jon, my post was a parody of the post I was responding to. I don't
>*actually* believe that M<arco Polo isn't canon.
>Sorry, but I'm now terribly, terribly frightened that if Jon Blum can
>swallow whole an obvious joke post, then what this says for the average
>rec.arts.drwho reader is just too scary for words...
Well then be even more scared, 'cos *I* was joking too, and *you* missed
it. :-)
Sigh... Just too many devil's advocates round here these days...
>>> And these adventures are reffered to (At least Marco Polo is )
>>>in the episodes followign them. (Ian and Barbara, at the beggining of
>>>The Sensorites, list all the places they've been with the Doctor.
>>The Braxiatel Collection is referred to in "City of Death". Does that
>>make "All-Consuming Fire" canon? Ditto the Hoothi in "Brain of
>>Morbius"...
>I think you mean Legacy, Theatre of War and Empire of Glass. The
>Braxiatal Collection wasn't mentioned in All Consuming Fire to the best
>of my knowledge (and barely in Empire, since it hadn't happened to
>Braxiatal yet).
I thought someone said that there was a link between the Library of St.
John the Beheaded (in ACF) and the Braxiatel Collection, mentioned in
Empire of Glass? Tenuous, I know, but then so is this whole canon
debate...
(All right, all right, so I screwed up the name! :-) I realized it right
after I sent the thing...)
> - Robert Smith?
>(worried about what's happening in Jon's life for him to make this many
>mistakes in one post)
Well, clearly I'm far too obsessed with Segonax to think straight... :-)
David GOLDING
>David GOLDING wrote:
>> The Brig's family does not produce Kadiatu. An Imogen lab does. Unless the
>> Lethbridge-Stuart family is into some seriously kinky shit these days (and
>> documentation!).
>I said "eventually produces"--meant the same way as I might comment that
>the early homo sapiens eventually produce Einstein. She's not a direct
>descendant, as I recall...but without Alistair Gordon L-S, there'd likely
>be no Kadiatu.
The only way in which the Lethbridge-Stewarts could be considered to have
produced Kadiatu, is that Yembe saved her as a baby. But then, since *he*
was the one going to kill her, that doesn't work either. Kadiatu *really*
has no link at all to the Lethbridge-Stewarts. She not strictly even human.
She's a genetic construct of an uber-human.
Ian McIntire
>
>The only way in which the Lethbridge-Stewarts could be considered to have
>produced Kadiatu, is that Yembe saved her as a baby. But then, since *he*
>was the one going to kill her, that doesn't work either. Kadiatu *really*
>has no link at all to the Lethbridge-Stewarts. She not strictly even human.
>She's a genetic construct of an uber-human.
Yeah, but you have to wonder where Imogen labs got the raw material to
create such a perfect fighting machine. I think that it's perfectly
possible that Kadiatu has a bit of the Lethbridge-Stewart genetic
milkshake in her somewhere.
Ian McIntire i...@cwru.edu
"He can rejoin the Village People now!"
Nick Smale
jb...@access2.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
? I thought someone said that there was a link between the Library of St.
? John the Beheaded (in ACF) and the Braxiatel Collection, mentioned in
? Empire of Glass?
There's certainly a link in 'Theatre of War'...
(Benny is in Braxiatel's Drawing Room) "She negotiated the writing desk,
glancing idly at the blotter and silver fountain pen lying on it. The
blotter was headed _Custodian of the Library of St John the Beheaded_, but
before Benny could ask what that meant, Braxiatel called her over." (p182)
.--/O\--.
| .===. | Nick Smale
|||o o||| <ni...@smale.demon.co.uk>
|| _ || Manchester, UK
'___'
mray...@acs-mail.bu.edu
Is this an insult or a self-insult??? :)
David GOLDING
>Yeah, but you have to wonder where Imogen labs got the raw material to
>create such a perfect fighting machine. I think that it's perfectly
>possible that Kadiatu has a bit of the Lethbridge-Stewart genetic
>milkshake in her somewhere.
Mmm... she ponders if there's any bits of Yembe in her in SET PIECE. There
may be, but it's just a couple of bits of gene amongst many.
Jon Preddle
g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA" Robert Smith ? says...
>
>That's "Smith?" to you :-)
Sure, 8-), but why the "?".
>Well, you've met me, you tell me! (Okay, so it was a long time ago and in
>a country neither of us are actually in right now, but still...)
Have I? Please enlighten me! I'd love to know when and where. The only
places I can guess is either UK or Australia, but since I'm not entirely
sure where you *are* at the moment (your mail-address doesn't really tell)
that's hard to judge.
>Somebody (was it you) said that the NAs weren't canon because the
>majority of fans didn't seem to have read them. I just applied the same
>logic to Marco Polo to show how ridiculous the idea was.
No, it wasn't me.
>And I have been *thoroughly* frightened as to the average IQ of
>rec.arts.drwho by the number of people who thought I was serious.
Er, did you think *I* was serious....? If you have met me, you'd know that!
Yippe Kay Yay!
--
Jon Preddle
New Zealand
Pat1974
>
>In <4kqvcf$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, pat...@aol.com (Pat1974) writes:
>>In article <4koqq9$1...@news.bu.edu>, mray...@acs-mail.bu.edu writes:
>>> I believe that all episodes are canon, with the exception of what is
>>>superseded in later episodes. It's unfair to assign canon based on the
>>>stupidity
>>>of the BBC.
>>I believe everything is canon, with the exception of what I don't
>>personally like. It's unfair to assign canon based on the stupidity of
a
>>single fan.
> Is this an insult or a self-insult??? :)
Both. I'm not going to tell you what canon is, but I'm certainly going to
rip apart any who tries to define it for me. . .
Your definition of canon is just as moronic as mine probably is.
t.o.Patrick, who even finds The Pescatons canon. . .
Brigitte Darcel
Chris Thornett <thor...@cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
>
>There is VERY little 'cutting edge' science fiction, even in the world
>of books, and absolutely none on tv/film, and Doctor Who does relatively
>well in that respect. Even when it does not, the series (especially the
>NAs) has the _capacity_ to explore the most controversial scientific
>theories.
I don't know what your definition of "cutting edge" is. If you mean
technology, well, it's awfully hard to keep up with the "real" world.
I caught part of a speech by Bill Gates the other day and he was saying
that 20 years ago things taht we thought would not be possible for 50-100
years are now common place. Then 10 years ago things we thought wouldn't be
possible for 50 years are now common place. The point he was making is that
technology is on an exponential track. This being the case, it was a lot easier
for a Jules Verne to be "cutting edge" than an a SciFi writer today.
If your not talking about technology then I guess I don't know what you mean by
"cutting edge" SciFi.
>Star Trek is clearly only a runner-up in this respect, for all its
>tetrion fields, nanites, etc. It is still a series about some pretty
>normal humnans who have barely changed in 500 years.
Do you think humans have change all that much since 1492?
>Whereas in Doctor Who (yes, it is easier to find examples in the books)
>we have the human race radically changed by biotechnological and
>cybernetic advances. We have worlds built in klein bottles, panoplies of
>alternate universes including the Land of Fiction, psychedelic drugs and
>cyberspace, fortean flickers, magic (of a sort), aliens from beyond both
>ends of time, aliens which only exist if you believe in them, quantum
>technology, relativity, and of course time-travel, which is always
>cutting-edge if it's done well.
STTNG has addressed many of these ideas. Moreover, the idea of worlds in a
bottle was addressed in Superman Comic books more than 30 years ago (Brainiac)!
>And some people still think Doctor Who is about wobbly sets and rubber
>monster masks.
But I like that :=)
--
===========================================
"A yawn may be defined as a silent yell"
- G. K. Chesterton
Brigitte Darcel __
LMPS Motorola )o (--o EXTERMINATE!
Schaumburg, IL """"===-( EXTERMINATE!
|::|:\ EXTERMINATE!
|::|::\
=======
===========================================
EClayton
Patrick,
Here's a question for you. I *think*, if I recall correctly, that you
posted that the NA's are in your canon. (Though this thread is just
not interesting enough for me to follow it closely.) OK, they're in
mine, too. I think you and I actually come close to agreeing on what
is canon. My question is: suppose there was no McGann movie coming,
and the NA's regenerated the Seventh Doctor into an Eighth Doctor
of their own. Or suppose they regenerate McGann into their own Ninth
Doctor someday. Would you accept this new, never-on-TV, only-in-the-books
Doctor as part of your canon? I have to say, I would not. I have
embraced both villains and companions who exist only in the books, but
I do not think I would be able to buy into a Doctor whose face and
personality weren't anchored down by an actor's performance onscreen.
Even though the NA's are part of my canon, I guess that is where I
draw the line between books and TV. It seems maybe other people do,
too, since Virgin never got up the nerve to regenerate the Doctor
themselves until the telemovie was final, and now it appears they
will waste no time in doing so once the character of the new Doctor
has been established for them. Could that indicate that they felt
the readers wouldn't accept a new, books-only Doctor?
And it's about time! God love 'im, it's time to put the Seventh Doctor
into the MA lineup and give him (and us) a well-deserved rest...
Ed
R.J. Smith
> gaf...@iconn.net (Sean Gaffney) wrote:
> >> b...@lin.cbl.com.au (Brett O'Callaghan) writes:
> >> doc...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) wrote:
> >> >originality. The fiction is sometimes cutting-edge sci-fi, and strives to...
> Hey, if people are going to use terms like "cutting edge sci-fi"
> I'd like to know exactly what they mean by it. 8^)
Well, in *exact* terms, it's a reference to the classic sci-fi television
show "Doctor Who". The term was coined from a 1960s episode, entitled
"The Feast of Steven", featuring a dastardly villian and an enormous
buzz-saw. Hence, "cutting edge".
- Robert Smith?
Al
>Anonymous User <nob...@rutgers.edu> wrote:
>
>>jpr...@hn.nznet.gen.nz (Jon Preddle) wrote:
>>>In article <4kbt8a$1...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>,
>>>g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA$
>>>
>>>Robert Smith says...
>>>
>>>>>to have seen it,
>>>
>>>
>>
>>(surprisingly) common argument against NA canonicity. That argument
>>asserts that since some not inconsiderable number of DOCTOR WHO fans
>>have little or no knowledge of the events taking place in the NAs (or
>>even of the NAs themselves, in many cases), the NAs should not be called
>>canon. Robert Smith? was entirely correct in his projection of the
>>"logical conclusion" of this argument. The conclusion that (I trust)
>>he meant for you to draw from his post was this: Since you might validly
>>infer an absurd conclusion through the application of the argument under
>>consideration, the argument is invalid.
>>
>>Of course, if you happen to believe that MARCO POLO is not canon for the
>>very reason stated above, then go on arguing your position. Canonicity,
>>as always, is entirely subjective.
>>
>>Andrew R. Vogel
>>avo...@eden.rutgers.edu
>>IMHO
>>not "anonymous user"
>>
million people, which makes it slightly bigger than the NA's
Al
Sean Gaffney
> However, when first broadcast, Marco polo was actually seen by several
> million people, which makes it slightly bigger than the NA's
So, therefore, The Smugglers is *less* canon than City of Death?
Bzzt! Sorry, try again!
--Sean Gaffney
--"You git! I thought you were dead! Git git git!" - Benny, No Future
Alden Bates
In article <4l388e$5...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>, Ian McIntire (i...@cwru.edu) writes:
>> [Kadiatu has no L-S ancestry]
>I think that it's perfectly possible that Kadiatu has a bit of the
>Lethbridge-Stewart genetic milkshake in her somewhere.
Erm, the propensity to expand like James Doohan when she hits 45?
That is a _really_ thought.
Alden Bates.
--
___ _ _ ___ | ____ ___ ___ ___ ___ _________
__/ , | |_| | _ \ | \ - - ` |_| | : The Doctor is back.
_ _ _ _ < | DOCTOR /| _ | []] | Fox, May 14th
/_/ |_|_| |_|___.'| \___-___/>|___| |___|_________;
Pat1974
EClayton <cla...@rouge.phys.lsu.edu> writes:
>Here's a question for you. I *think*, if I recall correctly, that you
>posted that the NA's are in your canon. (Though this thread is just
>not interesting enough for me to follow it closely.) OK, they're in
>mine, too. I think you and I actually come close to agreeing on what
>is canon. My question is: suppose there was no McGann movie coming,
>and the NA's regenerated the Seventh Doctor into an Eighth Doctor
>of their own. Or suppose they regenerate McGann into their own Ninth
>Doctor someday. Would you accept this new, never-on-TV,
only-in-the-books
>Doctor as part of your canon? I have to say, I would not. I have
>embraced both villains and companions who exist only in the books, but
>I do not think I would be able to buy into a Doctor whose face and
>personality weren't anchored down by an actor's performance onscreen.
Actually, this is why I think putting the McGann Doctor in the NA's after
one two-hour film is the most stupid move Virgin could make.
In a 90 minute story in which the new Doctor is largely unstable, how the
hell can anyone grab a definite "Doctor" character distinct from the
previous seven?
I can see McGann novels after the first season or so, but doing them based
on one performance (a performance likely to be much different if the show
goes to series) is extremely short-sighted and just setting the line up
for major trouble down the road. . .
t.o.Patrick
Christopher D. Heer
(al...@bates.wn.planet.gen.nz) says...
>In article <4l388e$5...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>, Ian McIntire (i...@cwru.edu)
>writes:
>>> [Kadiatu has no L-S ancestry]
>>I think that it's perfectly possible that Kadiatu has a bit of the
>>Lethbridge-Stewart genetic milkshake in her somewhere.
>Erm, the propensity to expand like James Doohan when she hits 45?
>That is a _really_ thought.
A really, *really* thought, if you ask me. Or a weally thought, if you asked
Terrance Dicks.
So what's a really, anyway?
--
Christopher D. Heer: "Stonge Age Megoglomaniac" | ch...@us.oracle.com
Doctor Who, coming to Fox in May, 1996! Be there! | ch...@eskimo.com
My opinions are my own and do not reflect those | Not just cheer. . .
of Oracle Corp. Not that I've asked, of course. | all tempa-cheer!
Ian McIntire
>
>Actually, this is why I think putting the McGann Doctor in the NA's after
>one two-hour film is the most stupid move Virgin could make.
>
>In a 90 minute story in which the new Doctor is largely unstable, how the
>hell can anyone grab a definite "Doctor" character distinct from the
>previous seven?
>
>I can see McGann novels after the first season or so, but doing them based
>on one performance (a performance likely to be much different if the show
>goes to series) is extremely short-sighted and just setting the line up
>for major trouble down the road. . .
Well, Virgin *is* waiting until February of next year to put the 8th
Doctor in the NAs. By then, we'll certainly know if the movie has
spawned a series or not. If it does, we'll probably have seen a few
episodes and any prospective 8th Doctor NA author will know a little
about this new Doctor (of course, I know *nothing* about what kind of
schedule Virgin has with respect to dates of publication versus dates an
author has to have a completed manuscript). If the series doesn't
materialize, the NAs will be free to go in whatever direction they feel
like.
Ian "Read in due course" McIntire i...@cwru.edu
"As the days go by, we find ourselves faced with the increasing
inevitability that we are alone in a godless, hostile, uninhabited and
meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?" -Holly,
Ship's Computer, JMC vessel Red Dwarf.
Jonathan Blum
>Actually, this is why I think putting the McGann Doctor in the NA's after
>one two-hour film is the most stupid move Virgin could make.
>In a 90 minute story in which the new Doctor is largely unstable, how the
>hell can anyone grab a definite "Doctor" character distinct from the
>previous seven?
The same way the writers for the TV show were able to characterize a new
Doctor in his first season, every time?
(In other words -- not flawlessly, but they manage.)
Considering the rapid radical shifts in the Doctor's character even within
incarnations after the first year or so -- look at second-season Hartnell
compared to first, or "Four to Doomsday" compared to "Snakedance", or Sylv
suddenly growing a personality after Season 24 -- I don't think the NA's
being a bit off-model from the portrayal in a later series will be a
problem.
Not least because the NA's are booked up with McCoy stories at least
through January, and possibly a couple of months after that -- and if
there's another movie or a series, chances are it'll have premiered by
then anyway. So the writers _will_ have more to work with than just the
pilot movie.
And even if there's inconsistency in the character, I'm sure certain
continuity-happy NA authors will be glad to find ways of sorting it all
out. :-)
Ed Powell
wrote:
> Well, Virgin *is* waiting until February of next year to put the 8th
> Doctor in the NAs. By then, we'll certainly know if the movie has
> spawned a series or not. If it does, we'll probably have seen a few
> episodes and any prospective 8th Doctor NA author will know a little
> about this new Doctor (of course, I know *nothing* about what kind of
> schedule Virgin has with respect to dates of publication versus dates an
> author has to have a completed manuscript). If the series doesn't
> materialize, the NAs will be free to go in whatever direction they feel
> like.
I suppose this means I'm going to have to wait a while to get a new
edition of the Writers Guidelines?
:::sigh::: This is truly wreaking havoc with my writing efforts...
nevermind that I can't keep up with the NA series as it is...
:::grumble:::
--
Ed Powell -- http://members.aol.com/JoeyLemur/
Computer Consultant, MSTie #27968 and perpetually confused
------------------------------------------------------------
"Writing fiction is easy. Just make it up as you go along."
--- Ed Powell
Pat1974
>Well, Virgin *is* waiting until February of next year to put the 8th
>Doctor in the NAs. By then, we'll certainly know if the movie has
>spawned a series or not. If it does, we'll probably have seen a few
>episodes and any prospective 8th Doctor NA author will know a little
>about this new Doctor (of course, I know *nothing* about what kind of
>schedule Virgin has with respect to dates of publication versus dates an
>author has to have a completed manuscript).
We'd get more than a few based solely on the film, with Virgin's schedule.
>If the series doesn't
>materialize, the NAs will be free to go in whatever direction they feel
>like.
If we don't get anything else, fine. Go right ahead with Eighth Doctor
NA's. But as long as he's current (and therefore liable to destroy NA
canon with a single line), it's a mistake.
IMHO, obviously. And I really just want 50 more Seventh Doctor NA's. . .
t.o.Patrick
Pat1974
(Jonathan Blum) writes:
>In article <4lgarm$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Pat1974 <pat...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>>Actually, this is why I think putting the McGann Doctor in the NA's
after
>>one two-hour film is the most stupid move Virgin could make.
>>In a 90 minute story in which the new Doctor is largely unstable, how
the
>>hell can anyone grab a definite "Doctor" character distinct from the
>>previous seven?
>The same way the writers for the TV show were able to characterize a new
>Doctor in his first season, every time?
We've had this discussion before - I think it's 99% the actor who nails
down any incarnation's first season characterization based on the scripts.
With the NA's, there would be no McGann to get a consistent
characterization. We'd get the Orman McGann based on 90 minutes, the
Cornell McGann based on 90 minutes, the McIntee McGann based on 90
minutes, etc. . .
>(In other words -- not flawlessly, but they manage.)
>Considering the rapid radical shifts in the Doctor's character even
within
>incarnations after the first year or so -- look at second-season Hartnell
>compared to first, or "Four to Doomsday" compared to "Snakedance", or
Sylv
>suddenly growing a personality after Season 24 -- I don't think the NA's
>being a bit off-model from the portrayal in a later series will be a
>problem.
Yes, but my point is not that the Doctor doesn't change (all of them did
to a greater or lesser extent), but that the consistency in first season
characterizations are due almost solely to Hartnell or Baker or McCoy
rather than any work of the scriptwriters. With Eighth Doctor NA's, we're
going to get a year of novels based on how twelve different people
perceive a Doctor who's "normal" for only a fraction of the film. It's a
mistake.
>Not least because the NA's are booked up with McCoy stories at least
>through January, and possibly a couple of months after that -- and if
>there's another movie or a series, chances are it'll have premiered by
>then anyway. So the writers _will_ have more to work with than just the
>pilot movie.
Not so. If the new series starts in September (and not the spring), it'd
still be too late for the initial spring authors to base a
characterization on. . . I know it's my opinion, but what happened to
Benny, Cwej, Roz and the new Ace should never happen to the Doctor, and it
would without an actor to guide the performance.
>And even if there's inconsistency in the character, I'm sure certain
>continuity-happy NA authors will be glad to find ways of sorting it all
>out. :-)
I don't doubt it. But it also means reading the Eighth Doctor's "New
Adventures" simultaneous with his new televised adventures, and most
likely discovering that the two have nothing in common but the TARDIS. . .
t.o.Patrick
David GOLDING
>Actually, this is why I think putting the McGann Doctor in the NA's after
>one two-hour film is the most stupid move Virgin could make.
>In a 90 minute story in which the new Doctor is largely unstable, how the
>hell can anyone grab a definite "Doctor" character distinct from the
>previous seven?
If DW goes to series, we will probably see new episodes by the end of the
year (I could be talking out of my arse here, but this is the impression
I've got from the talk about the series). Now the NAs won't be changing
until next year. So they will have more than just the film to go on.
(Also, I think there is a kind of "default Doctor", who is recognisably the
Doctor, but not quite the specific Doctor in question, who appears in quite
a few of the books.)
EClayton
On 22 Apr 1996, Pat1974 wrote:
[Virgin publishing books with new Doctor]
> Actually, this is why I think putting the McGann Doctor in the NA's after
> one two-hour film is the most stupid move Virgin could make.
>
> In a 90 minute story in which the new Doctor is largely unstable, how the
> hell can anyone grab a definite "Doctor" character distinct from the
> previous seven?
>
> I can see McGann novels after the first season or so, but doing them based
> on one performance (a performance likely to be much different if the show
> goes to series) is extremely short-sighted and just setting the line up
> for major trouble down the road. . .
>
> t.o.Patrick
I see your point, but since McCoy novels are commissioned into next year,
the first McGann novel should appear after we've had a chance to see the
8th Doctor in action for a while, supposing we actually get a series
out of this. If there is no series, then the novels can pick up the
8th Doctor and make something out of him. That, at least, guarantees
that no matter what happens, we *will* have a new Doctor to get
acquainted with (unless Virgin can't renew its license and the books
disappear). I am looking forward to them giving the 7th Doctor a bit
of a rest...I mean, with TV and NA's combined, he's been around *forever*.
Ed