Image of the Fendahl (reference book): Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Adding categories)
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{title dab away}}
{{title dab away}}
{{non-fiction}}
{{non-fiction}}
{{real world}}
{{Infobox Reference Book
{{Infobox Reference Book
|image        = Image of the Fendahl (reference book).jpg
|image        = Image of the Fendahl (reference book).jpg

Latest revision as of 07:04, 14 March 2024

This is a work of non-fiction.

Unlike other fictional universes, the Doctor Who universe is created solely by fiction. To us, this is not a valid source. Information from this source can only be used in "behind the scenes" sections, or on pages about real world topics.

RealWorld.png

Image of the Fendahl was a reference book published by Obverse Books in 2016. The book covered the Doctor Who serial Image of the Fendahl.

Publisher's summary[[edit] | [edit source]]

'12 million years ago, on a nameless planet which no longer exists, evolution went up a blind alley.'

Image of the Fendahl (1977) is a fusion of the last great hurrah of the Gothic years of Doctor Who, before Graham Williams' changes really began to bite, with the colder post-Gothic tradition drawn from Nigel Kneale and HP Lovecraft. A priory, a haunted wood, a village coven, and a scientific investigation that reaches back 12 million years in time and hundreds of millions of miles away in space.

Writer Chris Boucher (responsible for The Face of Evil and The Robots of Death) builds on his successes with a story that functions as a human drama, a scientific puzzle, a horror story, and a masterpiece of unease. Building its audience by nearly three million from episode one to episode four, this story is one of the great classics of the series, and still works as an effective adventure drama for a modern audience.

Simon Bucher-Jones has written or co-written five novels for Doctor Who and its spinoffs. The Taking of Planet 5 draws on material from Image of the Fendahl and HP Lovecraft, and ends with a pseudo- scientific paper which some critics mistook for the author’s doctoral research.

Subject matter[[edit] | [edit source]]

Notable features[[edit] | [edit source]]

to be added

Notes[[edit] | [edit source]]

to be added

External links[[edit] | [edit source]]