XPost: rec.arts.drwho, uk.media.tv.sf.drwho, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   XPost: rec.arts.tv, can.arts.sf   
   From: doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca   
      
   In article ,   
   The Last Doctor   wrote:   
   >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.   
   >   
      
   That is from the start.   
      
   >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.   
   >   
   >   
      
   Including Chibnall?   
      
   >   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   Excuse us, but are you with the Chibnall faction?   
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   Exactly what is does!   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   And yet in LEt's Kill hitler...   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   Wrong you are!   
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   Yet in North America in the 1908s DW was gaining a fanbase.   
      
   >> The decision to radically alter the Doctor's backstory without proper   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)