Talk:The Doctor and the Enterprise

do we really need to have this article?

I mean, why this piece of fanfic versus any other? the charity anthologies can get a pass because ofthe overlap betwen some of the writers and professionally published stuff, but I mean, I don't think this has any excuse, even if it did get published by a semi-pro publisher, once.

have a little bit of personal prejudice here because I have read the book in question and not liked it, but I have read fanfic and liked it (a lot) and I don't argue for their inclusion in this Wiki. --Stardizzy2 23:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about this, on the one hand yes I somewhat agree with your reasoning (in that it's basically fan fic). However, It was published (the second edition anyway, with an ISBN) so that makes it relatively professional also the author had previously written a factual Doctor Who book. For now I think we can leave it, it is part of Doctor Who's cultural landscape. --Tangerineduel 13:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

on a factual note, I think this may have had three, not two editions. one, the fanzine version, two the paperback and three, the paperback, though with a different-looking cover. (I think that the illustration to the article shows the third cover.) I know for a fact that the first, fanzine version exists, because I have a copy. (lucky me!) --Stardizzy2 15:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

While i agree to having the Charity ones. This one while fan fic is written by someone who has worked on doctor who (Or at least a reference book) so i think its fine but it may lead to people with no connection to doctor who trying to post their fan fic on the wiki Dark Lord Xander 13:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Lance Parkin has also published at least one fanfic novella ("The Secret of Falkus" and at least one other work, as well as the very first version of AHistory). the difference comes down to The Doctor and the Enterprise having gotten re-printed by a semi-professional publisher, namely Pioneer Press.

As the person who created the article, allow me to respond. First, it was published by a professional publisher, not a semi-professional one. Pioneer Press had North America-wide distribution, and I purchased my copy at the University of Calgary Bookstore. If it's good enough to be carried by a university, it's a professional publisher. Second, Jean Airey has written non-fiction for Target, making the existence of this book of additional interest. Third, it is the only example to date of a piece of DW fanfic being republished professionally (reportedly some of the early Star Trek novels were also this way). Fourth, TardisWikia has a responsibility to cover all aspects of the DW franchise, including fanfic. Most fanfic can be covered in a single article on the topic, but this one broke away from the pack by being professionally published. So I have no problem with having this book here. It's just as legitimate as having an article on John Peel's unauthorized I Am the Doctor. 23skidoo 14:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This greatly confuses me. It sounds as if you're suggesting that number of eyeballs in front of a work has something to do with whether we should take it seriously. Well, worldwide, more people have had an opportunity to see the "international cut" of Journey's End. Does that mean that it's the "true" version of that episode?

No, I really do think you have to take into consideration authorial intent, especially with this work. Airey never meant for this to be considered a part of anyone's canon. She's quite clear in her internet spiel against the Pioneer edition that she only meant Enterprise as fan fiction, and that the version sold by Pioneer was mutilated beyond recognition. The Pioneer version is not, as other people are alleging, a "reprint" or a "second edition". If you actually compare the versions side-by-side, you see that they are, in many regards, works too different to be called the "same".

Which is why I'm puzzled by your logic. You want to keep this page on the basis of a version that the author herself is protesting. If we went with only what the author considers "official", I think your own definition above wouldn't be able to justify keeping this page.

I think it's mightily important at this juncture in the discussion to read Airey's own words, and consider if it's even possible to square them with the general policies of the wiki in such a way that will allow this article to be kept:

"The story was not intended to be a satire, it was intended to be an honest representation of what might happen if these two particular universes met. It was intended as a fanzine in the most classic tradition of that particular genre. Unfortunately that popularity resulted in the ultimate "ripping off" of the story without my permission into a highly priced "book" format (in one version) and to a complete travesty of the original in yet another." — Jean Airey

What's really fascinating about this case, though, is that the "non-professional" version has almost certainly been read by more people than the Pioneer one. She's got a date on the "ebook" of 1991, and that sounds about right to me. Airey was an early adopter of Compuserve (or was it Delphi?). This old file has been around FOREVER. And this is the 30th anniversary of the story in (non-professional) print. I know I read it in 'zine format back in the 80s. So I'm not even sure your "distribution" argument works with this particular work. She's been pushin' the "correct" version for something on the order of 25 years. Given the fact that Pioneer was an extremely minor publisher, and that it failed sometime in the 1990s, her version simply must be the one that's more widely read.

Another factor to consider: MemoryAlpha does not consider this book worthy of its own page. It's on a page called fan publications, which seems a reasonable enough place for us to put it as well. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 19:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)