Forum:How to handle the Deca
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
This discussion is whether the concept and information regarding the Deca from the PDA Divided Loyalties is real(/canon) or not. While it is obvious that there is a sequence in the novel, what is often forgotten/overlooked is that this all takes place in a dream. Ie. it is not a flashback in the senese that the term is usually used. The fact that The Doctor had a dream is canon. What occurs in the dream itself is the subject of discussion. Both in Doctor Who and in real life, dreams often involve real people and real events which have been mixed up in some way. We have seen other characters(eg. Tegan in Snakedance having a dream which features some images from reality, but jumbled up and made pretty surreal. It is interesting that both the idea of the "Deca" as well as the usage of the term Deca occur only in Divided Loyalties, and then only within the dream in Divided Loyalties. Therefore this entire sequence can not be considered real/canon in the way that the rest of the book is. If we accept this as canon, then every dream/hallucination/mirage/false entry in The Matrix must be treated similarly, which of course would be ridiculous.
My proposal is that the entry for Divided Loyalties be corrected so that the term "flashback" be changed to "dream". In addition, the entry for "Deca" state that it has never appeared in "real life" Doctor Who canon, only within The Doctor's dream. Any biographical articles or timelines using the Deca information as part of a real biography or real timeline should be corrected as well. Just because The Doctor dreamed it doesn't make it any more real than The Valeyard's manipulation of The Matrix. 41.133.0.68talk to me 14:03, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't a canon question — indeed we don't deal with issues of canonicity at this wiki. So I've changed the title of the thread. The only sorts of questions we deal with that have anything at all related to canonicity is in trying to ascertain the copyright holder's mindset in writing the story. If they were demonstrably writing a parody or something extra-continuous, then we declare the source "invalid" for the writing of in-universe articles here.
- But there's no evidence that Divided Loyalties was meant to be extra-continuous. Sure there's an halucination or dream depicted in the story, but that's miles apart from saying the story "isn't canon". As you suggest, the term "flashback" should just be changed to "dream" or "hallucination". Any statements to the contrary on the wiki should be corrected so as to more accurately reflect the book's narrative intent. But no forum discussion is required for this. It's obviously true that all articles should be edited so as to be accurate.
- Since you're the one who spotted this issue, I nominate you to correct it. Have fun editing here. :)
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 21:01: Tue 04 Sep 2012
First, "the mindset of the copyright holders" who made things like Dimensions in Time and the FASA Doctor Who Role Playing Game was clearly not that what they were making was extra-continuous. But I'll let that go here. Because that's not what this discussion is about. Neither is it about whether Divided Loyalties is canon, nor whether Gary Russell intended Divided Loyalties to be extra-continuous.
The only point here is that in Divided Loyalties The Doctor has a dream. Stuff happens in that dream, as stuff happens in everyone's dreams. However people here are using stuff that only happens in the dream and NOWHERE else for biographical details and information in articles. As an example, the term "Deca" is only ever used in a dream. The Rani being referred to as "Ushas" only ever happens in the dream. Magnus being identified as The War Chief only ever occurs in the dream. Thus, this is not about whether Divided Loyalties is canon. I made that clear. It is about the idea that something someone dreams can be used for biographical details/background history/story information. If something is used elsewhere(eg The Master was also called "Koschei" in Dark Path) then that is ok. But any names, revelations, details etc. that only occur within the dream are clearly not acceptable for biographical detail. Again, not Divided Loyalties as a whole, only the dream sequence within Divided Loyalties. If anything within the dream isn't confirmed elsewhere, then that is not canon. To give a real world analogy, you could have a dream where you're President of the USA. If someone writes a biography of you, they wouldn't include that you were President of the USA, because that's just something you dreamed, not something that actually happened. So any references that can only be "verified" within the dream need to go. 41.133.0.68talk to me 08:16, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
- Again, we don't determine canonicity on this wiki. Divided Loyalties is a valid source, and as such, all of it is acceptable fodder for our in-universe articles. Yes, the narrative contains a dream state. Anything which happens within that dream must be characterised as a dream on this wiki. But I'm not as quick to completely delete that information as you are. I think it should be de-emphasised and firmly characterised as coming from a dream. But that's not the same as deleting it outright.
- A part of the goal of the wiki is to dispel fan misconceptions. A good example of this is the section Dodo Chaplet#Did Dodo die from syphilis? Similarly, previous editors have made mistakes about aspects of the Divided dream. I think it's a positive good, therefore, to carefully catalogue this dream so that we can clearly label which elements only appear in the dream — and therefore are possibly not "real" to the inhabitants of the DWU — and which elements recur in other stories.
- In other words, it's useful to have articles about imagined things, so that we can say that they're imaginary. Were we to follow your advice, the next logical step would be to delete all fictional characters, because they're equally unreal.
- I also find spurious your example about someone dreaming about being president. You're right that a biographer likely wouldn't include such a dream — unless her subject became president. But the very fact that our storyteller here has included the dream means that it is narratively important. All DW authors are writing to a page count. Though we may disagree with the narrative choices they make, they're not going to include something they don't feel is important to the story.
