rec.arts.drwho
............. .... ..............
: : : : : :
: ........: . .. . :.... ....:
: : : : : : : :
: :..... . :..: . : :
: : : : : :
: .....: . ...... . : :
: : : : : : : :
: : ... : : : : ... : :
:...: :.: :...: :...: :.: :....:
Frequently Appearing Threads
post
v2.5
by Daniel Frankham
About the FAT:
1.1 What is the FAT and why do we need one?
---------------------------------------
The FAT outlines the threads that appear frequently on rec.arts.drwho.
It's posted on the first Monday of every month. Or not, if I'm busy or
have server trouble. It's purpose is to assist newbies and amuse
regulars.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
2. What the FAT isn't
------------------
This FAT in no way attempts to supplant or compete with any of the
fine
FAQs that appear in the newsgroup, and which every newbie should read.
Although questions such as the ones that are answered by the FAQs are
also
arguably FATs, and some even appear in the FAQ, unlike the FAQ the FAT
is
largely concerned with questions which have no clear answers, and
which
can thus inspire long threads.
PLEASE NOTE: It is not an attempt to lay down the law, to limit the
range of discussion in the newsgroup, or to condemn those who wish to
discuss the issues that appear in the FAT. I'm nobody's boss. If you
want
to discuss something then go right ahead. After all, the oldbies could
always have skipped it if they'd seen it before, and who are they to
deny
newbies the pleasure of arguing these topics just as they did when
they
were newbies? I mean it - if you're interested in these subjects, post
away. If you like, you can just use this post as a rough guide to
what's
been said already.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
3. The FATs:
This is a brief rundown of some Frequently Appearing Threads. For more
information, consult the DejaNews or AltaVista usenet search engines,
or rec.arts.drwho.
3.1 UNIT dating
3.2. Canon
3.3 The Brain of Morbius faces
3.4 Romana's regeneration
3.5 The Doctor's real name
3.6 Test
3.7 Sexiest companion?
3.8 The McCoy episodes suck!
3.10 The NAs suck!
3.10 The movie sucks!
3.11 The Doctor is NOT half-human!!
3.12 Return of the Living Thread
3.13 Weekly Stats Must Die!!!!!
3.14 Jinx words
3.15 Was the War Chief the Master?
3.16 Who or what is the Valeyard?
.................................................
:...............................................:
3.1. UNIT Dating
-----------
For some reason this thread almost always has the same title...
When did the UNIT stories take place? Well, nobody knows. As with many
FATs, there is no answer. But here is a brief description of the
various
arguments and pertinent facts.
3.1.1. The 'near future' hypothesis:
The UNIT stories all take place in the 'near future' of their time of
production; this is generally taken to be between 5 and 10 years
later.
_The Abominable Snowmen_ is set in 1935 (as stated in _The Web of
Fear_), and _The Web of Fear_ is set 40 years later. In _The
Invasion_, the
Brigadier tells the Doctor and Jamie it's about 4 years since he last
saw
them (in _The Web of Fear_), placing that story in c1979. If we then
assume that _Spearhead from Space_, made a year later, is set a year
later, then season 7 is dated to c1980. Thus the Pertwee and Tom Baker
UNIT stories are set in the early to mid 1980s.
Other corroborating evidence: the female PM mentioned in _Terror of
the Zygons_; 'future' technology as part of everyday life (eg
Britain's
manned space program in _Ambassadors of Death_ and _Android
Invasion)_; the
existence of BBC3 (_The Daemons_); the production team of the time
says that they deliberately set the series in the near future; I
gather an
NA places the Pertwee/Baker UNIT stories in the 80s as well.
3.1.2. The 'present' hypothesis:
The UNIT stories all take place at around the time they were made.
This
hypothesis is largely based on _Mawdryn Undead_, in which the
Brigadier
says that he retired from UNIT in 1977, indicating that the last time
he
was mentioned as still being in UNIT (_Seeds of Doom_), must have been
before 1977. Unlike the 'near future' hypothesis, the date is actually
mentioned on-screen; if you don't count _The Web of Fear_, no dates
are
given in other UNIT stories.
Other corroborating evidence: Paul Cornell's NA _No Future_, which
features UNIT after the Tom Baker UNIT stories, is set in 1976.
3.1.3. The 'near past' hypothesis:
Similar to the 'present' hypothesis; but the UNIT stories occurred in
the
recent past. Popularised by _Doctor Who: The Discontinuity Guide_,
this is
based on close examination of such minutiae as calendars and car
license
plates, and studied avoidance of everything else. Yes, even your
dispassionate FAT-keeper has an opinion on this issue :)
3.1.4. The '90s' hypothesis:
This is basically a result of Barry Letts's Doctor Who radio serials
_The
Paradise of Death_ and _The Ghosts of N-Space_, starring Jon Pertwee,
and
set in season 11. In the tradition of the Pertwee UNIT stories (which
he
produced) these are set in "the near future" -- but the near future
from
the time they were produced, the early 1990s...
3.1.5. The 'I'm from 1980' problem:
In _The Pyramids of Mars_ Sarah says she's from 1980. This basically
buggers up all the hypotheses :)
Does it mean it was 1980 when she started time travelling - ie Season
11 -
or does it mean it would be 1980 if she'd stayed on Earth, which puts
season 11 in the late 70s? Or was she merely approximating?
3.1.6. The Jo and Mike Yates joke:
"Here I am, all dolled up for a night on the town with Mike Yates!"
(Jo, in _The Curse of Peladon_)
Been there, done that :)
Obviously, most of these hypotheses are mutually exclusive, though
there
is good evidence for all of them. There ain't no answers here, folks.
If
you're curious about the issue because you want to write a UNIT novel,
the
Virgin novels generally - but not exclusively - set the Pertwee and
Tom
Baker UNIT stories in the 70s, and the BBC novels will probably
continue
to do so.
.................................................
:...............................................:
3.2. Canon
-----
aka "Cannon", "Aaargh, not the canon thread again!", "The NAs are not
cannon!" etc
What is *real* _Doctor Who_? Is it everything that has _Doctor Who_ on
the cover/in the opening sequence? Is it everything called _Doctor
Who_ and
made by the BBC? Everything called _Doctor Who_ and made by or
licensed by
the BBC? Everything I like? Does it include the novelisations, the
comics,
the stories in the Annuals, the New Adventures, the Missing
Adventures,
the alternate season 23 novelisations, the Cushing movies, _The
Masters of
Luxor_ (an unproduced script available in Titan Books' _Doctor Who_
scripts series), _Shada_, the new version of _The Five Doctors_, the
Universal/Fox/ BBC movie, the newspaper strip, _Dimensions in Time_,
the Philip Segal writer's 'bible', the Prime commercials etc etc etc?
The answer is: no-one knows. There is no absolute answer to this
problem.
IMHO the only meaningful way it can be addressed is to first ask: why
do
you want to know? Basically, 'canonicity' depends on circumstances. If
you're trying to write a novel, for instance, then obviously you have
to
regard at least the other novels, and of course the TV series, as
'real'.
If you have no particular reason for wanting to know, my advice is
just
enjoy the damn show (or books or comics or movie etc etc etc), and
stop
worrying about these silly issues :)
.................................................
:...............................................:
3.3. The Brain of Morbius Faces
--------------------------
aka "Those Faces in the Brain of Morbius", "Lives Before Hartnell"
etc.
The Big Question on the typing fingers of everyone who's seen _The
Brain
of Morbius_ is: just whose faces were those that we saw when the
Doctor
was mentally wrestling with Morbius? It seems that when someone is
losing
the fight, we see their lives flash before our eyes, in reverse
order...
so who are those people we see after the '1st' Doctor?
3.3.1. The 'Morbius' hypothesis:
They were Morbius's earlier incarnations. Well, he was losing, wasn't
he?
3.3.2. The 'Young Doctors' hypothesis:
No, Morbius was winning. Until his plastic head short-circuited, that
is.
The Doctor was clearly losing; and during the 'faces' sequence Morbius
says "How far back do you go, Doctor?" - so they were pre-Hartnell
Doctors.
3.3.3. The 'Young Hartnell' hypothesis:
But why couldn't they just be younger versions of the Hartnell Doctor?
3.3.2. The 'Young Doctors' hypothesis (cont.):
'Cos they looked so different. And the production team intended them
to be
earlier Doctors.
3.3.4. Reality introduction disqualification!
Authorial intent has been
discredited for decades, and has no place in a discussion of fictional
worlds!
3.3.5. The 'not earlier Doctors!!!' hypothesis:
It's been stated several times, especially in _The Three Doctors_ and
_The
Five Doctors_, that Hartnell was the first. End of discussion!
3.3.6. The 'maybe they were pre-Doctor incarnations?' hypothesis:
But they said Hartnell was the first *Doctor*. Maybe the guy had
several
incarnations before he became known as the Doctor? Hence when they say
Hartnell was the first Doctor that doesn't necessarily contradict the
'pre-Hartnell' hypothesis. (I believe Robert J. Smith? is the
originator
of this theory.)
3.3.7. The 'but then he must be on his 12th incarnation!' problem:
If he had 4 pre-Doctor lives, and is now in his 8th incarnation as the
Doctor, then this is it! He can't regenerate any more! Aaaauuurrgghh!
(Since writing this entry, I've learned that there are *8* 'young
Doctors'. So Paul McGann is the 16th Doctor... Tom was the 12th
incarnation... So, was the Valeyard the Watcher? :)
3.3.8. Nope, it means he's got one more life after this one. 12
regenerations, 13 incarnations.
Again, no answers here, folks. The faces were a bit of an in-joke
where
the production team of the time made themselves earlier incarnations
of
the Doctor. The faces can't easily be reconciled with the rest of the
series, except maybe if you accept 3.3.6...
And somehow this thread always manages to go on for months and
months...
.................................................
:...............................................:
3.4. Romana's Regeneration
---------------------
How come Romana was able to try on all those bodies at the start of
_Destiny of the Daleks_? How could she waste all those regenerations?
3.4.1. The 'joke' hypothesis:
Douglas Adams was the script editor. It was season 17. It was a joke,
and
best forgotten. Unless of course you liked it. (I did.)
3.4.2. Bzzzzt! Reality introduction disqualification! (See 3.3.4)
3.4.3. The 'it was only 1 regeneration' hypothesis:
Although she tries on a lot of bodies, Romana only regenerates once.
Maybe
she and other Time Lords are able to do this as a matter of course.
Like,
during regeneration, their cell structure becomes sufficiently
unstable
that they can change appearance a number of times, until they find the
look they like best.
3.4.4. The 'Doctor' problem:
Then how come the Doctor can't do that?
3.4.5. Solutions to the Doctor problem:
3.4.5.1: He was away the day they taught how to do that at the
Academy.
3.4.5.2: Only Time Ladies can do it.
3.4.5.3: The Doctor usually regenerates in violent and stressful
circumstances; maybe if he had the opportunity to choose to regenerate
in
friendly, safe surroundings, he could do it too. For instance, in _The
War
Games_ he's given a choice of faces, suggesting that regenerations
aren't
always as haphazard as the Doctors'.
3.4.5.4: Maybe he just likes a surprise.
3.4.5.5: The Doctor is half-human, and thus does not have all of the
abilities of ordinary Time Lords.
3.4.6. Various other hypotheses:
3.4.6.1: They were holograms of bodies Romana was considering; she and
the Doctor were kidding around and pretending they were the real
Romana.
3.4.6.2: Between seasons 16 and 17, Romana briefly became the Keeper
of
Traken, acquiring the ability to steal other people's bodies. She's
kidnapped a whole lot of women, who she keeps in a cupboard in her
bedroom, so that she can steal their bodies when she gets tired of her
current one. In _Destiny_ she tries some of them on, until she finds
one
the Doctor likes. (sigh> It might be evil, but she did it all for
love.
This was my theory :)
.................................................
:...............................................:
3.5. The Doctor's real name
----------------------
3.5.1. The 'Feet' hypothesis:
The Doctor's real name is 'Feet'. Drax says so in _The Armageddon
Factor_!
3.5.2. What's wrong with the 'Feet' hypothesis:
Umm... no. Drax has a cockney accent, which renders 'Thete' as 'Feet'.
It's clearly established that 'Theta Sigma', for which 'Thete' is an
abbreviation, was the Doctor's nickname at the Time Lord Academy.
3.5.3. Other hypotheses:
3.5.3.1: The Doctor's 'real' name appears in the first edition of _The
Making of Doctor Who_ by Terrance Dicks and Malcolm Hulke. It's a
sequence
of Greek-looking Gallifreyan symbols.
3.5.3.2: In _Remembrance of the Daleks_ the Doctor signs a note to the
Daleks with two enigmatic symbols, which are presumably his name, or
an
abbreviation of it, in Gallifreyan (or Dalek?) Or is it just the
Gallifreyan (or Dalek) for 'Doctor'?
3.5.3.3: I believe an NA has the Doctor saying that his real name is
impronouncible by humans.
.................................................
:...............................................:
3.6. Test
----
aka "This is a test", "Test - do not read!", "Can anyone see this?"
etc
Yes, we get lots of these. A typical response is that there are other
newsgroups dedicated to the receipt of test posts, and the reportage
of
their arrival on various servers around the world. Very useful they
are,
too. Unfortunately, in my experience, some newsreading software can
develop newsgroup-specific posting problems, meaning that sometimes
people
have to specifically check whether their posts are appearing in
rec.arts.drwho.
.................................................
:...............................................:
3.7. Sexiest companion?
------------------
'Nuff said. Always a fun thread :)
.................................................
:...............................................:
3.8. The McCoy episodes sucked!
--------------------------
This thread generally takes the form:
'McCoy episodes sucked' thread begins
post stating that the McCoy episodes sucked
reasoned rebuttals, and flames
repeat until end of thread:
flames
'McCoy episodes sucked' thread ends, eventually
.................................................
:...............................................:
3.9. The NAs suck!
-------------
see 3.8. Substitute 'NAs' for 'McCoy episodes'.
Special characteristics: Generally begins with someone who admits to
having read very few attacking the series as a whole; continues with
accusations that the NAs are not enough like the TV series, that
they're
bleak and angst-ridden, and that they're not canon anyway; continues
with
refutations etc etc. Standard usenet stuff, really :)
.................................................
:...............................................:
3.10. The movie sucked!
-----------------
See 3.8. Substitute 'movie' for 'McCoy episodes'.
This thread also features complaints about continuity errors, the
Doctor
kissing Grace, the high special effects budget, the "chase" scene, the
differences between it and the TV series, and the "Americanness" of
the
movie, as well as accusations of non-canonicity. Another feature is
Jon
Blum's tireless crusade against these detractions :)
.................................................
:...............................................:
3.11. The Doctor is NOT half-human!
-----------------------------
This is one type of that subset of "The movie sucked!" posts which
attack
the movie on the grounds that it contradicts or perverts the original
series.
Salient facts, factoids, opinions and hypotheses include:
3.11.1: The Doctor is NOT half-human! They never said he was in the
old
series. In fact they often said he was alien!
3.11.2: That they never said it, didn't mean he wasn't half-human in
the
old series. And they also said he was alien in the movie. Clearly,
then,
"alien"-ness does not preclude "half-human"-ness.
3.11.3: He was only joking!
3.11.4: But the Master independently confirmed it when he saw the
Doctor's
eyes, using the Eye of Harmony.
3.11.5: Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of
elderberries!
3.11.6: The Hartnell Doctor only had one heart. Maybe the Doctor was
human
at the start of the series, and only acquired Gallifreyan biology when
he
regenerated? The "half-human" thing explains this.
3.11.7: All references to the 1st Doctor's single heart can be
explained
by injury, or by unqualified diagnosis. This is inconclusive.
3.11.8: Yeah, but that's clutching at straws a bit, isn't it?
3.11.9: Then explain why the Doctor can't pick his new body when he
regenerates? The only time we've seen another Time Lord have a natural
regeneration, she was able to change her appearance at will until she
found a body she liked. The Doctor being half-human would explain why
he
can't!
3.11.10: But it drastically alters the character in a way which
degrades him, makes him less unique. And it's a terrible Star Trek
cliche.
3.11.11: But it opens up new and exciting possibilities for the
character.
3.11.12: Well, I don't like it.
3.11.13: Sorry, but you're stuck with it now.
3.11.14: Unless someone retcons it away. Bwahahahaha!
I confess I've been avoiding these threads for a while, so there may
be
some omissions.
.................................................
:...............................................:
3.12. Return of the Living Thread
---------------------------
aka "Not another Orman NA!"
Generally appears when Kate Orman announces that she's sold another
Doctor
Who novel... making it one of the most common threads in radw :) May
soon
be replaced by "Not another Ormanblum BBCNA!"
.................................................
:...............................................:
3.13. Weekly Stats Must Die!!!!!
--------------------------
aka "Weekly Stats 03/08 Must Die!!!!!"
A heartfelt plea from those who've had enough of the Weekly Stats
03/08
posts, this thread has been independently posted on a number of
occasions
since that fateful date in 1996, thus making it eligible for inclusion
in
the FAT. These threads generally decry the number and off-topicness of
posts in the Weekly Stats 03/08 thread. A common variant seeks the end
of the Stats themselves, on the basis that they encourage people to
post a
lot just to get in the Stats. If there were any truth in that
assertion, I suppose people would also start posting enormous 800-line
messages just to reduce their quoting percentage in the stats... Nah,
it'll never happen.
(And since this entry was written, the Stats have indeed been
discontinued - though they're still available on the WWW. However, the
Weekly Stats 03/08 thread yet lives...)
.................................................
:...............................................:
3.14. Jinx words
----------
Are there words which gaurantee that a Doctor Who story will fail to
impress, when those words are included in the title? It has been
observed
that stories with the word "Time" in their titles tend to be
unpopular.
"Space" titles don't seem to work too well, either.
.................................................
:...............................................:
3.15. Was the War Chief the Master?
-----------------------------
Is the War Chief the Master, or vice versa? Unlike most FATs, this one
may
now have an answer.
The War Chief behaves rather like the Master, siding with aliens,
planning
to ditch them when they've served their purpose, and then take over
the
galaxy; and of course he wants the Doctor to join him. He even has a
Beard
of Evil. However, there is of course no on-screen evidence to say that
the
characters are the same person; but nor is there any evidence that
they
aren't.
However, the MA _The Dark Path_ has the Troughton Doctor meeting the
Delgado Master in season 5 (and that's not a spoiler, 'cos he's on
the
cover.) And an NA (_Exodus_) which I haven't read yet, even though it
was
only the second one, also apparently puts a great deal of strain on
this theory.
.................................................
:...............................................:
3.16: Who or what is the Valeyard?
----------------------------
Is the Valeyard a future Doctor? This has long been a subject of
controversy, due largely to the (IMHO) lousy explanation provided in
the
script for _Trial of a Time Lord_ 14. The Master says the Valeyard is
an
"amalgamation of the Doctor's dark side from between his 12th and
final
incarnations". Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to mean anything.
Hence
the question has become a FAT.
The Master's explanation raises a number of possibilities, including:
3.16.1: The Valeyard is the 13th Doctor
Well, if he was, you'd have thought the Master would have said so.
Unless
what he means is that the Valeyard is both the 13th incarnation of the
Doctor *and* an amalgamation of his dark side from etc etc. So,
perhaps
something went wrong with a regeneration, and his new body was
controlled
by his "dark side"? Maybe he had a transporter accident which split
him
into two, and there's a Good-but-Weak Doctor also played by Michael
Jayston going around somewhere?
3.16.2: The Valeyard is a Watcher
This is suggested by the Master's choice of words: "between his 12th
and
final incarnations". "Between"? How can someone come from "between"
the
Doctor's incarnations? Unless he's a Watcher. The Watcher in
_Logopolis_
may have come from "between the Doctor's 4th and 5th incarnations"...
but
then, since the Watcher was yet another rather ill-explained Weird
Time
Lord Thing it's difficult to say :)
3.16.3: The Valeyard is a future Doctor, but not necessarily the 13th.
The Master doesn't say "between his 12th and 13th incarnations". He
says
"between his 12th and *final* incarnation". Could be a lot of Doctors
between the 12th and final, if the Doctor somehow manages to outlive
his
allotted span. (This interpretation allows us to avoid the problem of
how
the Valeyard can come from "between" the Doctor's incarnations.)
3.16.4: The Master was lying.
Well, he might've been, eh? Considering how much angst it caused, and
all
the trouble the NAs and MAs have revealed it led to, this one line may
well be the Master's most effective blow against the Doctor.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
4. The request for feedback
------------------------
Feedback is welcome. Have I got it all wrong? Have I missed a major
FAT?
Should these posts be banned, lest they inspire more discussion on the
topics contained within? Should they be banned because they intimidate
people who want to talk about these things?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
5. The copyright notice
--------------------
(c) Daniel Frankham 1997. All rights reserved.
--=======================================================================--
To email me, delete SPICED_HAM from my email address.
--=======================================================================--
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/3906/ : featuring the upgraded,
annotated _Doctor Who: The Never-Ending Story_!
--=======================================================================--
The Inferno video is really in colour.