Talk:The Leader: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
m (Scrooge MacDuck moved page Talk:Third Doctor (Inferno Earth) to Talk:The Leader)
Tag: 2017 source edit
Line 2: Line 2:
How do we know for sure this is the ''third'' Doctor from Inferno Earth? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}} 19:20: Tue 17 Dec 2013</span>
How do we know for sure this is the ''third'' Doctor from Inferno Earth? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}} 19:20: Tue 17 Dec 2013</span>
:In "TimeWyrm: Revelation", it is established the leader on Inferno Earth was one of the faces offered to the second Doctor at his trial[[Special:Contributions/86.147.101.255|86.147.101.255]]<sup>[[User talk:86.147.101.255#top|talk to me]]</sup> 20:16, September 28, 2014 (UTC)
:In "TimeWyrm: Revelation", it is established the leader on Inferno Earth was one of the faces offered to the second Doctor at his trial[[Special:Contributions/86.147.101.255|86.147.101.255]]<sup>[[User talk:86.147.101.255#top|talk to me]]</sup> 20:16, September 28, 2014 (UTC)
== The Doctor? Or just another human? ==
For the Leader's background, we have two different accounts:
* Paul Cornell's ''[[Timewyrm: Revelation (novel)|Timewyrn: Revelation]]'', which establishes that the Leader's face is one of those that were offered to the Doctor at his trial, and therefore heavily implies that the Leader is the Inferno universe's Doctor.
* Robert Mammone's ''[[I, Alastair (novel)|I, Alastair]]'', which explores the Leader's character more in depth, and beyond references to "rumours" of him living forever, Mammone intended to write him as human. "Another in a long line of very human tyrants", as he describes him.
Naturally, this has led to a lot of conjecture when trying to reconcile these two accounts. It appears headcanon has been used to fill in the gaps. Two claims in particular stuck out to me, which both cite ''I, Alastair'' as the source. One says that the Leader's TARDIS materialised in 1930s Britain. Yet, the novel mentions nothing of the TARDIS. Similarly, this article also claims that the Leader "could no longer regenerate, as the  Time Lords had taken this ability from him". Yet, if Mammone wrote the novel with the idea that the Leader was human, then does it actually say "the Doctor" had lost his ability to regenerate and the Time Lords took it from him? Also mentioned are a reference to the Leader's alien biology and great age, though as far as I can tell nothing about the Leader being an alien is mentioned, simply references to rumours of "living forever" and the ability to extend his life through a "miraculous procedure". This isn't necessarily a confirmation that the Leader would be the Doctor, as such claims are typical of real life cult of personalities, and that's how Mammone stated he intended it. We know this not just because of Mammone's later statements, but evidence in the writing stating how the Leader's "age had caught up", a contrast with most accounts describing the Doctor ageing at a much slower rate than humans.
With Cornell's ''Timewyrn: Revelation'' account, Cornell obviously intended the Leader to be an alternate Doctor, but as a result, this article seems to have become a confusing mish-mash trying to combine to completely different accounts of the Leader. This article is written with the Cornell interpretation of the Leader in mind, but in doing so, has disregarded Mammone's interpretation and relegated it to a small mention in the behind the scenes section. The two sources are also quite different. Whereas in ''Timewyrn: Revelation'', the Leader and his face is merely mentioned in a line of conversation the Doctor has, ''I, Alastair'' goes into much more detail regarding the Leader as a character.
Keep in mind, ''Timewyrn: Revelation'' doesn't actually confirm that the Leader ''is '' an alternate Doctor, just that he happens to resemble a potential face the Doctor could have chosen. In that novel, the Doctor notes the resemblance, and does wonder of his place in that universe, but the actual connection is not stated. Again, it is quite obvious what Cornell intended, but it does not seem right for this article to acknowledge Cornell's intentions while essentially ignoring Mammone's. At the very least, an assumption that the Leader is an alternate Doctor can still be made, given that Cornell's source came first, but we should absolutely remove the spurious claims made in the article regarding ''I, Alastair'' account of the Leader. [[User:BlueSupergiant|BlueSupergiant]] [[User talk:BlueSupergiant|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:53, 5 August 2023

Third?

How do we know for sure this is the third Doctor from Inferno Earth?
czechout<staff />    19:20: Tue 17 Dec 2013

In "TimeWyrm: Revelation", it is established the leader on Inferno Earth was one of the faces offered to the second Doctor at his trial86.147.101.255talk to me 20:16, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

The Doctor? Or just another human?

For the Leader's background, we have two different accounts:

  • Paul Cornell's Timewyrn: Revelation, which establishes that the Leader's face is one of those that were offered to the Doctor at his trial, and therefore heavily implies that the Leader is the Inferno universe's Doctor.
  • Robert Mammone's I, Alastair, which explores the Leader's character more in depth, and beyond references to "rumours" of him living forever, Mammone intended to write him as human. "Another in a long line of very human tyrants", as he describes him.

Naturally, this has led to a lot of conjecture when trying to reconcile these two accounts. It appears headcanon has been used to fill in the gaps. Two claims in particular stuck out to me, which both cite I, Alastair as the source. One says that the Leader's TARDIS materialised in 1930s Britain. Yet, the novel mentions nothing of the TARDIS. Similarly, this article also claims that the Leader "could no longer regenerate, as the Time Lords had taken this ability from him". Yet, if Mammone wrote the novel with the idea that the Leader was human, then does it actually say "the Doctor" had lost his ability to regenerate and the Time Lords took it from him? Also mentioned are a reference to the Leader's alien biology and great age, though as far as I can tell nothing about the Leader being an alien is mentioned, simply references to rumours of "living forever" and the ability to extend his life through a "miraculous procedure". This isn't necessarily a confirmation that the Leader would be the Doctor, as such claims are typical of real life cult of personalities, and that's how Mammone stated he intended it. We know this not just because of Mammone's later statements, but evidence in the writing stating how the Leader's "age had caught up", a contrast with most accounts describing the Doctor ageing at a much slower rate than humans.

With Cornell's Timewyrn: Revelation account, Cornell obviously intended the Leader to be an alternate Doctor, but as a result, this article seems to have become a confusing mish-mash trying to combine to completely different accounts of the Leader. This article is written with the Cornell interpretation of the Leader in mind, but in doing so, has disregarded Mammone's interpretation and relegated it to a small mention in the behind the scenes section. The two sources are also quite different. Whereas in Timewyrn: Revelation, the Leader and his face is merely mentioned in a line of conversation the Doctor has, I, Alastair goes into much more detail regarding the Leader as a character.

Keep in mind, Timewyrn: Revelation doesn't actually confirm that the Leader is an alternate Doctor, just that he happens to resemble a potential face the Doctor could have chosen. In that novel, the Doctor notes the resemblance, and does wonder of his place in that universe, but the actual connection is not stated. Again, it is quite obvious what Cornell intended, but it does not seem right for this article to acknowledge Cornell's intentions while essentially ignoring Mammone's. At the very least, an assumption that the Leader is an alternate Doctor can still be made, given that Cornell's source came first, but we should absolutely remove the spurious claims made in the article regarding I, Alastair account of the Leader. BlueSupergiant 16:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)