Canon: Difference between revisions
m (Bot: Cosmetic changes) |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{real world}} | {{real world}} | ||
{{you may|T:CANON|n1=this wiki's canon policy|Canonicity|n2=the concept of interest to the Time Lords}} | {{you may|T:CANON|n1=this wiki's canon policy|Canonicity|n2=the concept of interest to the Time Lords}} | ||
'''Canon''' is a fan-based idea that exists in a unique way within ''[[Doctor Who]]'' fandom. | '''Canon''' is a fan-based idea that exists in a unique way within ''[[Doctor Who]]'' fandom. but it is more commonly thought as what a fan considers what forms part of the [[Doctor Who universe|''Doctor Who'' universe]], or what "really happened". Despite this being a personal choice, it has been discussed and argued about in practically every ''Doctor Who''-related forum or message board that has existed on the internet. | ||
== A literary canon of ''Doctor Who'' == | |||
In academic theory, "canon" refers to a body of work that an established body of literature that can drawn upon by future installments in the same broader tradition. In this sense, ''Doctor Who'' objectively has a canon, in the sense of later stories drawing upon the concepts and imagery of earlier works.<ref name="Eruditorum">{{cite web|url=http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/you-were-expecting-someone-else-ii-1966-annual-the-dalek-book-dalek-world/|title=You Were Expecting Someone Else II (1966 Annual, The Dalek Book, Dalek World)|author=Elizabeth Sandifer|date of source=16 March 2011|website name=Eruditorum Press|accessdate=17 July 2018}}</ref> | |||
A | A good demonstration of this principle may be the mythos of [[Peter Cushing]]' [[Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks)|Dr. Who]]; ''[[Dr. Who and the Daleks]]'' and ''[[Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D.]]'', due to being retellings of the TV stories ''[[The Daleks (TV story)|The Daleks]]'' and ''[[The Dalek Invasion of Earth (TV story)|The Dalek Invasion of Earth]]'' which brazenly contradicted the televised version of events, are often considered "extra-canonical" in the continuity sense of the term. However, these stories still "exist" and have not been ignored by even the BBC; a short story starring this Dr. Who notably appeared in the [[BBC Books]] short story anthology ''[[Short Trips and Side Steps]]'' featuring Dr Who,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nzdwfc.tetrap.com/archive/tsv61/rev-shorttrips.html|title=Short Trips and Side Steps: A Collection of Short Stories - Book review|author=Jon Preddle|date of source=December 2000|website name=NZDWFC|accessdate=22nd October 2011}}</ref> and critics have noted clear influences by the movies on the imagery of the [[Steven Moffat]] era of ''[[Doctor Who]]'', from the vibrant [[TARDIS blue|colour]] of [[the Doctor's TARDIS]] to the fairy-tale atmosphere to even the details of [[Matt Smith]]'s physical performance as [[the Doctor]] owing something to Cushing's.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://downtime2017.wordpress.com/2020/05/15/looking-for-telos-dr-who-and-the-daleks/|title=LOOKING FOR TELOS – “Dr. Who and the Daleks”|date of source=May 2020|website name=Downtime|accessdate=15th December 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/you-were-expecting-someone-else-dr-who-and-the-daleks/|title=You Were Expecting Someone Else? (Dr. Who and the Daleks)|date of source=March 2011|website name=TARDIS Eruditorum|accessdate=15th December 2020}}</ref> | ||
As a narrative history, the fact that it exists is enough to consider it "part of the canon", in the sense that elements might make their way into future productions. The Dalek spacecraft of ''[[The Dalek Chronicles (comic series)|The Dalek Chronicles]]'' were worked into CGI replacement shots on the DVD of ''[[The Dalek Invasion of Earth (TV story)|The Dalek Invasion of Earth]]'', and then further into television stories such as ''[[The Parting of the Ways (TV story)|The Parting of the Ways]]''. Again, this in an example of [[continuity]] within the show rather than as an established canon. | |||
== In-universe canonicity == | |||
=== Acknowledgement by the BBC — or lack thereof === | |||
== | Unlike the principal rights-holders of other popular science-fiction and fantasy universes, such as ''[[Star Trek]]'', ''[[Star Wars]]'' or ''[[Lord of the Rings]]'' universes, the [[British Broadcasting Corporation]] has never made a pronouncement about what is or is not canon for ''Doctor Who''.<ref name="PC Canon in DW">{{cite web|url=http://www.paulcornell.com/2007/02/canonicity-in-doctor-who/|title=Canonicity in Doctor Who|author=Paul Cornell|date of source=10 February 2007|website name=PaulCornell.com|accessdate=17 July 2018}}</ref> Shortly after he brought ''Doctor Who'' back to television in [[2005 (releases)|2005]], [[Russell T Davies]] specified that canon "is a word which has never been used in the production office, not once, not ever".<ref>[[DWM 356]]</ref> Even when specifying that the television show was going to contradict certain revelations about [[Time Lord]] history and biology from the [[Virgin New Adventures]], [[Steven Moffat]] declared that those novels were "a separate" but "''equally valid'' continuity".<ref>[[DWM 482]]</ref> | ||
The only exception to this is in regards to video games: in August 2010, a BBC press release stated that, in ''[[The Adventure Games (video game)|Doctor Who: The Adventure Games]]'', "Players will encounter new and original monsters, in stories which form part of the overall Doctor Who canon".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/04_april/08/doctor_who.shtml|title=BBC unveils Doctor Who – The Adventure Games|date of source=08.04.2010|website name=BBC - Press Office|accessdate=22nd October 2011}}</ref> Similarly, in July 2018, BBC Studios announced that, with games like ''[[Infinity (video game)|Doctor Who Infinity]]'', they would be "taking content from our major brands and delivering gaming experiences that actually form part of the canon. It's not led from TV series it comes to the game first."<ref>{{Cite web|url = https://www.mcvuk.com/business/bbc-new-gaming-first-initiative-to-turn-game-ips-into-bigger-franchises|author = Marie Dealessandri|title = BBC new ‘Gaming First’ initiative to turn game IPs into ‘bigger franchises’|year of source = 2018|month of source = July|website name = mcvuk.com|publisher = Future Publishing|accessyear = 2018|accessmonthday = July 17}}</ref> Another factor regarding the BBC's lack of an "official canon" for ''[[Doctor Who]]'' is that the BBC would simply not have the proper authority to declare one, as they do not, strictly speaking, own the [[Doctor Who universe|''Doctor Who'' universe]]; while they control the trademark "''Doctor Who''" and the copyright of a handful of key concepts and characters (such as [[the Doctor]], [[the Doctor's TARDIS|the TARDIS]] or the [[Time Lord]]s), a [[List of recurring Doctor Who concepts not owned by the BBC|staggering amount]] of essential building blocks of the DWU are (or once were) in the control of individual rights-holders, including such elements [[K9]], the [[Dalek]]s or the [[War in Heaven]] mythos<ref>''[[Downtime – The Lost Years of Doctor Who]]'.</ref>. As [[Paul Cornell]] noted<ref name="PC Canon in DW">{{cite web|url=http://www.paulcornell.com/2007/02/canonicity-in-doctor-who/|title=Canonicity in Doctor Who|author=Paul Cornell|date of source=10 February 2007|website name=PaulCornell.com|accessdate=17 July 2018}}</ref> | |||
{{quote|[The modern fandom notion of "canon"] works fine if you’re dealing with works by one author. It works not at all in any other frame of reference. Doctor Who was created by many people, over a long period of time, and they did not cooperate. There is no authorial authority, and […] no council of Bishops.|[[Paul Cornell]]}} | |||
As close to executive ''non-canonisation'' as the BBC ever came was the effective "disowning" of the webcast ''[[Scream of the Shalka (webcast)|Scream of the Shalka]]'' over the course of its production. 2003's ''[[Scream of the Shalka (webcast)|Scream of the Shalka]]'' ''was'' to have been the continuation of ''Doctor Who'', with [[Richard E Grant]] promoted as the "new" Ninth Doctor, and was written in that spirit;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2003/07/09/5660.shtml|title=BBCi's Ninth Doctor|accessdate=22nd October 2011|date of source=11 July 2003|website name=BBC - News|publisher=bbc.co.uk|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20060815015720/http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2003/07/09/5660.shtml|archivedate=August 15 2006}}</ref> The BBC's first edition of ''[[The Legend|Doctor Who: The Legend]]'' even has several pages which details the "Ninth Doctor".<ref>''[[The Legend]]''.</ref> However, some time before release, plans for [[Russell T Davies]]'s live-action revival of the series kicked into gear and prompted the BBC to cease all advertising of the "Shalka Doctor", due to the understanding that Russell T Davies intended to cast his own [[Ninth Doctor]]; by the time of its release, the authors of ''Scream of the Shalka'' had complied with the BBC's guidelines and acknowledged that the story "didn't count". | |||
=== Discussion among authors === | |||
[[Paul Magrs]] argued that a large issue when attempting to construct a definition of canon for ''Doctor Who'' is that it is never finished; between its many stories across practically every medium, ''Doctor Who'' has been in more or less constant production in one way or another since [[1963 (production)|1963]]. Some fans may want a complete narrative, but ''Doctor Who'' can never be complete.<ref>[[Paul Magrs|Magrs, Paul]], (2007), "Afterword - My Adventures", ''[[Time and Relative Dissertations in Space]]'', Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK, &, Room 400, New York, USA, p.302</ref> | |||
At a 2008 [[San Diego Comic-Con]] panel, [[Steven Moffat]] remarked, "It is impossible for a show about a dimension-hopping time traveller to have a canon", laying the foundation for one way for "all stories to be true": rampant [[time travel]] and [[Alternate timeline|dimension-jumping]] combined to allow seemingly-contradictory stories to make up a single reality.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://teatimebrutality.blogspot.com/2009/07/canon-and-sheep-shit-why-we-fight.html|title=Canon and Sheep Shit: Why We Fight.|author=Teatime Brutality|date of source=23 July 2009|website name=Teatime Brutality|accessdate=17 July 2018}}</ref> [[Paul Cornell]] later wrote an essay on his blog in which he accused "canon" of being a reductive concept which primarily boils down to an excuse for fandom quarrels, highlighting how "‘non-canonical’ is a term of abuse in Who circles. A threat. It’s the worst thing someone can say about a televised ''Who'' story, that they regard it as not having ‘happened’." <ref name="PC Canon in DW" /> | |||
Echoing a similar sentiment, [[Nate Bumber]] released a short essay in which he compared the conception of canonicity in ''Doctor Who'' to the original context of terms such as "canonicity": the history of the Abrahamic religions.<ref>{{cite web|url=htmlhttps://doctornolonger.tumblr.com/post/183453390594/every-time-i-meet-someone-in-academic-biblical|title=Untitled essay|author=Nate Bumber|date of source=14 March 2019|website name=On the Fringes of War|accessdate=15 December 2020}} Bumber's fellow ''[[Faction Paradox (series)|]]'' writer [[Jacob Black]] pioneered systematic use of the more positive term "canon-welding" in online ''Doctor Who'' circles, treating "canon" not as quantifiable data, but as raw material to be "welded" into new patterns of continuity.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://rassilon-imprimatur.tumblr.com/post/183640439394/ive-gone-on-before-about-how-much-i-enjoy-mags-l|title=''The Book of the Ceasefire''|author=Jacob Black|date of source=December 2019|website name=Professional Canon Welder<ref>{{cite web|url=https://rassilon-imprimatur.tumblr.com/post/613863124612890625/i-keep-seeing-awesome-posts-in-the-archive|title=What is ''The Book of the Ceasefire''?|author=Jacob Black|date of source=April 2020|website name=Professional Canon Welder}}</ref> | |||
== Footnotes == | == Footnotes == | ||
Revision as of 18:07, 15 December 2020
- You may be looking for this wiki's canon policy or the concept of interest to the Time Lords.
Canon is a fan-based idea that exists in a unique way within Doctor Who fandom. but it is more commonly thought as what a fan considers what forms part of the Doctor Who universe, or what "really happened". Despite this being a personal choice, it has been discussed and argued about in practically every Doctor Who-related forum or message board that has existed on the internet.
A literary canon of Doctor Who
In academic theory, "canon" refers to a body of work that an established body of literature that can drawn upon by future installments in the same broader tradition. In this sense, Doctor Who objectively has a canon, in the sense of later stories drawing upon the concepts and imagery of earlier works.[1]
A good demonstration of this principle may be the mythos of Peter Cushing' Dr. Who; Dr. Who and the Daleks and Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D., due to being retellings of the TV stories The Daleks and The Dalek Invasion of Earth which brazenly contradicted the televised version of events, are often considered "extra-canonical" in the continuity sense of the term. However, these stories still "exist" and have not been ignored by even the BBC; a short story starring this Dr. Who notably appeared in the BBC Books short story anthology Short Trips and Side Steps featuring Dr Who,[2] and critics have noted clear influences by the movies on the imagery of the Steven Moffat era of Doctor Who, from the vibrant colour of the Doctor's TARDIS to the fairy-tale atmosphere to even the details of Matt Smith's physical performance as the Doctor owing something to Cushing's.[3][4]
As a narrative history, the fact that it exists is enough to consider it "part of the canon", in the sense that elements might make their way into future productions. The Dalek spacecraft of The Dalek Chronicles were worked into CGI replacement shots on the DVD of The Dalek Invasion of Earth, and then further into television stories such as The Parting of the Ways. Again, this in an example of continuity within the show rather than as an established canon.
In-universe canonicity
Acknowledgement by the BBC — or lack thereof
Unlike the principal rights-holders of other popular science-fiction and fantasy universes, such as Star Trek, Star Wars or Lord of the Rings universes, the British Broadcasting Corporation has never made a pronouncement about what is or is not canon for Doctor Who.[5] Shortly after he brought Doctor Who back to television in 2005, Russell T Davies specified that canon "is a word which has never been used in the production office, not once, not ever".[6] Even when specifying that the television show was going to contradict certain revelations about Time Lord history and biology from the Virgin New Adventures, Steven Moffat declared that those novels were "a separate" but "equally valid continuity".[7]
The only exception to this is in regards to video games: in August 2010, a BBC press release stated that, in Doctor Who: The Adventure Games, "Players will encounter new and original monsters, in stories which form part of the overall Doctor Who canon".[8] Similarly, in July 2018, BBC Studios announced that, with games like Doctor Who Infinity, they would be "taking content from our major brands and delivering gaming experiences that actually form part of the canon. It's not led from TV series it comes to the game first."[9] Another factor regarding the BBC's lack of an "official canon" for Doctor Who is that the BBC would simply not have the proper authority to declare one, as they do not, strictly speaking, own the Doctor Who universe; while they control the trademark "Doctor Who" and the copyright of a handful of key concepts and characters (such as the Doctor, the TARDIS or the Time Lords), a staggering amount of essential building blocks of the DWU are (or once were) in the control of individual rights-holders, including such elements K9, the Daleks or the War in Heaven mythos[10]. As Paul Cornell noted[5]
[The modern fandom notion of "canon"] works fine if you’re dealing with works by one author. It works not at all in any other frame of reference. Doctor Who was created by many people, over a long period of time, and they did not cooperate. There is no authorial authority, and […] no council of Bishops.
As close to executive non-canonisation as the BBC ever came was the effective "disowning" of the webcast Scream of the Shalka over the course of its production. 2003's Scream of the Shalka was to have been the continuation of Doctor Who, with Richard E Grant promoted as the "new" Ninth Doctor, and was written in that spirit;[11] The BBC's first edition of Doctor Who: The Legend even has several pages which details the "Ninth Doctor".[12] However, some time before release, plans for Russell T Davies's live-action revival of the series kicked into gear and prompted the BBC to cease all advertising of the "Shalka Doctor", due to the understanding that Russell T Davies intended to cast his own Ninth Doctor; by the time of its release, the authors of Scream of the Shalka had complied with the BBC's guidelines and acknowledged that the story "didn't count".
Discussion among authors
Paul Magrs argued that a large issue when attempting to construct a definition of canon for Doctor Who is that it is never finished; between its many stories across practically every medium, Doctor Who has been in more or less constant production in one way or another since 1963. Some fans may want a complete narrative, but Doctor Who can never be complete.[13]
At a 2008 San Diego Comic-Con panel, Steven Moffat remarked, "It is impossible for a show about a dimension-hopping time traveller to have a canon", laying the foundation for one way for "all stories to be true": rampant time travel and dimension-jumping combined to allow seemingly-contradictory stories to make up a single reality.[14] Paul Cornell later wrote an essay on his blog in which he accused "canon" of being a reductive concept which primarily boils down to an excuse for fandom quarrels, highlighting how "‘non-canonical’ is a term of abuse in Who circles. A threat. It’s the worst thing someone can say about a televised Who story, that they regard it as not having ‘happened’." [5]
Echoing a similar sentiment, Nate Bumber released a short essay in which he compared the conception of canonicity in Doctor Who to the original context of terms such as "canonicity": the history of the Abrahamic religions.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag
Footnotes
- ↑ Elizabeth Sandifer (16 March 2011). You Were Expecting Someone Else II (1966 Annual, The Dalek Book, Dalek World). Eruditorum Press. Retrieved on 17 July 2018.
- ↑ Jon Preddle (December 2000). Short Trips and Side Steps: A Collection of Short Stories - Book review. NZDWFC. Retrieved on 22nd October 2011.
- ↑ LOOKING FOR TELOS – “Dr. Who and the Daleks”. Downtime (May 2020). Retrieved on 15th December 2020.
- ↑ You Were Expecting Someone Else? (Dr. Who and the Daleks). TARDIS Eruditorum (March 2011). Retrieved on 15th December 2020.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Paul Cornell (10 February 2007). Canonicity in Doctor Who. PaulCornell.com. Retrieved on 17 July 2018.
- ↑ DWM 356
- ↑ DWM 482
- ↑ BBC unveils Doctor Who – The Adventure Games. BBC - Press Office (08.04.2010). Retrieved on 22nd October 2011.
- ↑ Marie Dealessandri (July 2018). BBC new ‘Gaming First’ initiative to turn game IPs into ‘bigger franchises’. mcvuk.com. Future Publishing. Retrieved on July 17, 2018.
- ↑ Downtime – The Lost Years of Doctor Who'.
- ↑ BBCi's Ninth Doctor. BBC - News. bbc.co.uk (11 July 2003). Archived from the original on August 15 2006. Retrieved on 22nd October 2011.
- ↑ The Legend.
- ↑ Magrs, Paul, (2007), "Afterword - My Adventures", Time and Relative Dissertations in Space, Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK, &, Room 400, New York, USA, p.302
- ↑ Teatime Brutality (23 July 2009). Canon and Sheep Shit: Why We Fight.. Teatime Brutality. Retrieved on 17 July 2018.
