XPost: rec.arts.drwho, uk.media.tv.sf.drwho, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   XPost: rec.arts.tv, can.arts.sf   
   From: mike@xenocyte.com   
      
   Yads got ChatGPT to do his thinking for him again:   
      
   [SNIP opening comments that are pretty much inarguably true].   
      
   > This article argues for the retconning of   
   > the Timeless Child narrative, citing its departure from established canon and   
   > its detrimental impact on the essence of Doctor Who.   
      
   OK - so what we are looking for from this article is   
      
   1) evidence that the Timeless Child narrative departs from “established   
   canon”   
      
   and   
      
   2) that any such departure, if present, has had a detrimental impact on the   
   “essence” of Doctor Who.   
      
      
   > Doctor Who is renowned for its intricate and well-established lore,   
   > meticulously crafted over decades.   
      
   Absolutely not the case.   
      
   Made up and retconned lore #1:   
      
   In the first episode of the show, Susan says that she invented the name   
   TARDIS and its expansion. But in Escape Switch (The Daleks Master Plan   
   episode 10) the Monk refers to his time ship as a TARDIS.   
      
   In the War Games, the War Chief calls his knockoff time machines “SIDRATs”   
   - clearly a play on TARDIS. And by the mid seventies the Time Lords all   
   refer to their own machines as TARDISes.   
      
   Made up and retconned lore #2:   
      
   In The Daleks, the Daleks are mutated descendants of the Dals. But in   
   Genesis of the Daleks, they become descendants of the Kaleds.   
      
   So elements of the very first two stories were retconned without reverence   
   to this “meticulously crafted lore”.  It’s truer to say that the lore of   
   the show has always been mutable and that the writers have made it up as   
   they went along, rarely worrying whether it fitted in with past stories.   
      
   The examples are legion: Hartnell’s Doctor initially is a human from   
   another future world, with one heart, and a follower of a popular human   
   religion. The TARDIS is initially very vulnerable - the Sensorites are able   
   to completely remove its door lock. History is at first immutable - it   
   cannot be changed, not one jot! … The Time Lords can live forever barring   
   accidents - no, wait, after twelve regenerations, that is the end for a   
   Time Lord - no, wait, the Time Lords can grant a Time Lord a “new cycle” of   
   regenerations.   
      
   The whole idea of a meticulously crafted, rigid canon and lore is a myth,   
   wheeled out specifically to complain about some specific change or other.   
      
      
      
      
   > The revelation of the Timeless Child in the   
   > Series 12 marked a significant departure from this established canon.   
      
   > The   
   > introduction of an unknown incarnation of the Doctor prior to the First   
   Doctor   
   > contradicts decades of storytelling and undermines the mystery surrounding   
   the   
   > character.   
      
   There are two elements to this claim:   
      
   For the first one, like it or not, (and personally I don’t) the Timeless   
   Child narrative introduces a sinister agency capable of interfering with   
   the collective memory of the Time Lords - resulting in an almost   
   universally held BELIEF that the Hartnell incarnation is he first Doctor.   
   Therefore there is a change int he perception of decades of storytelling -   
   but no actual contradiction. In fact, the Timeless Child narrative is a   
   rare case of paying careful attention to the existing lore, and crafting   
   itself deliberately to FIT IN with all we have seen previously.   
      
   The second claim, that this undermines the mystery of the character, is   
   plainly untrue. The Doctor had been being “demystified” over decades - an   
   indifferent student at the Academy who had run off in a stolen TARDIS out   
   of boredom who then became a criminal for interfering with history and then   
   an agent of the Time Lords doing exactly the same thing, then destroying   
   both Time Lords and Daleks to end the Time War …damn little “mystery”   
   left   
   about that.   
      
      
   > The Doctor's origin story, once shrouded in mystery and intrigue, is   
   > now reduced to a mere footnote in a convoluted narrative.   
      
   Agreed the new narrative is INSANELY convoluted, but now there are whole   
   vistas of NEW mysteries in the Doctor’s origins. Should anyone choose to   
   investigate them … but the ending of the Flux would seem to make that   
   unlikely. The Doctor has chosen not to open that particular mystery box   
   (fob watch).   
      
   > Furthermore, the Timeless Child's revelation diminishes the significance of   
   the   
   > Doctor's choices and experiences throughout their many lives.   
      
   How? All those choices, all those experiences, are the same, and shaped the   
   Doctor of today exactly as they always had.   
      
   > By implying that   
   > the Doctor's abilities are innate rather than earned through centuries of   
   > learning and growth,   
      
   What “abilities”? There is just one effective difference - the Doctor has   
   always been able to regenerate, and has no known innate limit to those   
   regenerations : rather than being granted cycles of 12 at a time by the   
   Time Lords.  The Doctor has gained no other new abilities, and all the   
   abilities they do have were earned the same way they always were. This   
   claim is false.   
      
   > the Timeless Child narrative diminishes the agency and   
   > heroism of the character. The Doctor's journey, once defined by their quest   
   for   
   > redemption and their commitment to justice, is overshadowed by a   
   predetermined   
   > destiny imposed upon them by outside forces.   
      
   No, because there is no forward destiny - the change is that the Doctor is   
   now not just a Time Lord, but is the ancestor of all Time Lords. Which   
   changes what, exactly? If the argument was that this change is unnecessary   
   and adds little to the lore - I agree. But it changes the Doctor’s own   
   motivations and beliefs not one iota.   
      
   These arguments form a straw man with no basis in actual events in the   
   show.   
      
      
   > Alienating the Fanbase:   
   >   
   > Doctor Who boasts a dedicated fanbase that spans generations, united by their   
   > love for the series and its enduring legacy.   
      
   Fair enough.   
      
   > However, the Timeless Child   
   > storyline has proven divisive among fans, with many expressing their   
   > dissatisfaction with the direction of the show under Chibnall's stewardship.   
      
   So? There was plenty of dissatisfaction in the eighties. And with RTD’s   
   “Last of the Time Lords” change to the lore. And with the idea that Time   
   Lords could change gender and racial phenotype on regeneration. This is not   
   the first, and won’t be the last, new creative choice that divides the fan   
   base.   
      
   > The decision to radically alter the Doctor's backstory without proper   
   > justification or regard for established canon has alienated long-time fans   
   > and eroded their trust in the creative team.   
      
   “We , a specific small group of fans, don’t like this change so it must be   
   retconned!” That’s all this argument boils down to, in the end.   
      
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)