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)

Perhaps we could just put this whole article on Jean Airey's author page? Re-edit it a bit and give it some citable sources and it'd bulk out her author page a little bit.

Alternatively it could be a sub-page of her author page.

So Pioneer effectively (from what Airey says stole her fanfic and published it, kinda odd that if they stole it they still attributed her), did she ever receive anything for the book/fanfic/use of her name?--Tangerineduel 15:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In a word, no. Here is a contemporary quote from an an archive of what was likely one of the original DW message boards:

Msg#: 8022 *WHO*
05/01/92 13:36:00 (Read 1 Times)
From: ROMANA
To: ALL
Subj: WHO-TREK INFO
In a message in the WHO echo, Noel "Mick" Spencer gave out this on how to attain a copy of the cross-over story about Doctor Who and the Enterprise.
 "When I asked Jean for a copy of her book a few months ago, she gladly
  supplied it and also included a note which stated:"

<BEGIN QUOTE> To whom it may concern;
At the present time there appears to be a copy of my story "The Doctor and The Enterprise," 
being sold as a mass market commercial edition by Pioneer Books, Inc. 5715 N. Balsam Rd.Las Vegas, NV 89130 for $9.95 (C$13.95). 
This publication is completely without my approval or consent. I have no contract with this publisher; 
I am not getting a penny from them for this publication; 
I have not even recieved a copy of the publication. 
Equally, I am sure the same applies to Paramount and the BBC; in whose copyright universes this original adventure takes place. 
I consider such behavior to be a "rip-off" of Paramount, the BBC, fans who might pay such an outrageous price for the book, and myself as its author. 
I am asking anyone reading this notice not to buy this edition -- 
please. If you really want a copy, I'll send you a "free" copy (plain paper copyi1ng) if you will send me a large (9X12) SASEd 
with $1.75 in stamps, and marked "first class." 
If you want a copy with color pages, at one time Debbie Goldstein, 840 Young's Lane, Nashville, TN 37207 
was making them available (with my permission) for $5 1st class mail. I'm not sure if she still has copies or not.
I would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication printing this notice.
Thanks for your support.

Jean Airey     <END QUOTE>
--------
PS, the message with the address was lost (I know...again) sorry.
--- Msged/sq
* Origin: Inner Circle BBS: Home Of WHO * HST * (1:362/708)

Obviously, none of the addresses in this message should be taken as current, so don't go mailing money to anyone mentioned. When you have time, you might want to read all the messages in the thread. It's a fascinating, almost archaeological, look at how DW fandom used to be. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 19:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And here's a bit of relevant text from the excellent Complete Starfleet Library, which has been on a ten-year, um, trek to catalogue every single Star Trek book, authorized or not:

 It's worth noting that the book is different from Airey's approved version, as every Trek character's name has been removed and replaced 
by his or her rank or title. Kirk is called Kirk in Airey's original, but is always called The Captain in this edition. 
Airey also says that "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." 
Pioneer's edition is positioned as a parody, through the use of that word in the blurb, the ugly caricature on the cover, 
and the MAD Magazine-style illustrations throughout the book. Given that unauthorized Star Trek fiction cannot be legally published, 
but parody is legally protected, it appears that Pioneer did everything they could to make sure this book was seen as parody. 

Thus, Pioneer's 1989 rip-off didn't reprint Airey's work, so much as use the then-fan-famous title and basic plot to sell a version of the work that wouldn't get them into trouble with the copyright holders. Naturally, one of the legally interested parties would've been Airey herself. By printing a parody, they didn't just skirt Paramount and the Beeb, but they also cut Airey out of the deal as well. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 19:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

making the work into a supposed parody may have worked (in theory) for getting the BBC and Paramount off their backs, but that wouldn't have made them any less liable for Airey to have sued them. I own the original 'zine (i.e. the one printed before Pioneer ripped) and I suppose I could check, but I wonder if she perhaps forgot to copyright her work. not an excuse for the publisher's brazen rip-off, though. --Stardizzy2 00:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, she wouldn't have had the ability to copyright her work, as she doesn't own anything about it. No official Star Trek book has any other copyright than © Paramount Pictures. Star Trek is not Doctor Who, where — quite bizarrely — individual authors can claim copyright to original characters in their scripts. If she'd tried to claim copyright, Paramount coulda been all over her like white on rice. But even if she had claimed copyright, and it was held up in court, what Pioneer did would have still been legal under US law, because they were parodying her work. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 01:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well based on this (interesting) info I still suggest we chuck it all on Airey's article page, it'd make for an interesting read and a more lengthy article. --Tangerineduel 16:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)