Forum:Is The Infinity Doctors canon?: Difference between revisions

::Lance Parkin says himself in ''[[AHistory]]'' (Second Edition) about ''The Infinity Doctors "is a story set on Gallifrey that takes all information from every previous story (in all media) set on Gallifrey - and other references to it - at face value and incorporates them into the narrative"''. This would suggest that if we look at the wider stories there shouldn't be anything problematic in incorporating it into the wiki. I admit he also says ''"''The Infinity Doctors''' super-adhearance to established continuity actually makes it impossible to place at a particular point in continuity without contradicting something established elsewhere."'' This, I don't consider an issue because we deal with contradictory information all of the time. He also states in the same body of text that ''"References in ''[[Seeing I (novel)|Seeing I]], [[Unnatural History (novel)|Unnatural History]], [[The Taking of Planet 5 (novel)|The Taking of Planet 5]], [[Father Time (novel)|Father Time]] and [[The Gallifrey Chronicles (novel)|The Gallifrey Chronicles]]'' all make it clear that ''The Infinity Doctors'' (or at the very least events identical to it) took place in the "real" ''Doctor Who'' universe."'' --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 16:08, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

I really can't believe some of the arguments I'm hearing with this topic. It's clear to me that most of you haven't actually read the book, and therefore you should really learn more about the content of the book before making these opinionated judgements.  

Of course, neither course would be a statement about one or the other. However the distinction is rarely so clear when one is in the middle of a heated argument. For example, there's been a lot of discussion of the metafictional qualities of this work.  As metafictional details concern themselves with things outside the incidents of the story, it has no reference to the in-universe "facts" of the story, any more than, say the references to Narnia in ''[[The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe]]: perhaps a "behind the scenes" note, but no more. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] ^{[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]} 01:23, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

:That's not the case with ''The Curse of Fatal Death''. The Rowan Atkinson Doctor clearly says that he's in his ninth incarnation, and he then proceeds to regenerate four more times. It's just not possible to reconcile that with, say, the Matt Smith Doctor explicitly saying that he's in his eleventh incarnation. The uncertainties of ''TID'' are of a completely different quality from that.

:::::And I'm not sure I can let you get away with implying there's some sort of time limit on the validity of an author's statements.  It matters not one whit it was a statement from "a decade later".  If we applied this notion more broadly, then we couldn't use any classic era DVD infotext, commentary, documentaries, ''nada''.  Absolutely contemporaneous statements are hard to find, because 1998 is going back a bit far for most internet archives, and because he didn't give a print interview to DWM.  Unfortunately, too, the book falls at that awkward time when nobody ''other'' than DWM would have given a damn, and when fanzines were very much on the wane.  As far as I know, there's nothing contemporaneous to be had, aside from the substance of a contemporaneous DWM review, which clearly puts the book into the Land of Metaphor. Besides, you've consistently attacked the very first quote made on the page, without noticing there is a ''pattern'' of statements from Parkin.  He's ''never'' declaratively said outright the thing is in the proper DWU.  He's ''always'' hedged his bets, even in ''Ahistory'', even on his personal website.  Whenever he's his own editor, his own writer, his own publisher, he consistently refuses the opportunity to just say, "Yeah, it's straight-up DWU."  There's ''always'' a proviso, always a way out, always a tricky little wording that lets him hedge his bets.  As of yet, I've never seen ''any'' quote from the author in which he tries to claim, '''unambiguously''', that the book takes place in the DWU.   

:::::Moreover, I dunno about you, but I've got a lot of experience with other franchises that have stories declared, for some reason or another, "outside the fence".  I'm not, therefore, seeing how the odd mention of a concept from this book in ''another'' book means the '''entire book''' is within the DWU.  ''[[Doctor Who?]]'' is replete with continuity references, but that doesn't make it something you can reference in in-universe sections..  ''Scream of the Shalka'' has continuity references in it, but that doesn't make REG the "real" Ninth Doctor.  If I read an Elseworlds comic, it may have Lois Lane in it, but I'm completely capable of understanding it's not the Lois Lane of ''any'' part of the DC continuity.  But that doesn't mean that an Elseworlds concept might not get pulled into the current continuity.  For instance, there are many concepts from ''The Dark Knight'' — an explicitly extra-continuous story — which did eventually get pulled into the mainstream DCU.  There's perhaps no single work that's as informative to the character of the Batman as ''The Dark Knight''.  '''But it's explicitly outside the boundaries of the main continuity'''.  Equally, people we just '''accept''' as part of the DCU — like Jimmy Olsen and Harlequin — were pulled into the main DC continuity from other, "non-canon" stories.  I mean, sure, "Donelli's Protection Racket" might feature the first actual appearance of Jimmy Olsen, and all subsequent serials of ''The Adventures of Superman'' might well have informed us ''greatly'' as to the basic character and function of Jimmy, but that doesn't make ''TAOS'' a valid part of ''Superman'' canon.  

:::::I suppose what I'm saying is that just because a story "informs" another story that doesn't '''automatically''' make it a valid source.  ''Frankenstein'' '''informs''' ''The Brain of Morbius''.  Does that mean ''Frankenstein'' is a valid source for ''this'' wiki?  No.  Equally, ''The Curse of Fatal Death'' completely informs ''Let's Kill Hitler''.  Why do we accept the silly lil timey-wimey "hide the gun from River" scene?  Because we've seen it before in ''Curse'' and we collectively say to Moffat, "I see what you did there, sir, I see what you did."  

:::::And if the thought of banishing ''Infinity'' to "behind the scenes" sections doesn't agree with you, I'd be equally happy with the "Star Wars Tales" solution.  At Wookieepedia, they do this inline demarcation thing where they set off a block of text with a warning that whatever appears within the bracket holds an uncertain position in canon.  There's a whole raft of such templates, found at [[starwars:category:advisory templates]], but one in particular that comes close is [[starwars:template:talesstart]].  I would think that something like that would accurately reflect the stalemate here.