More actions
This probably isn't worth the thought I've put into it, but… I think RTD borrowed the term "fixed point in time" from the NAs, without borrowing its meaning. Am I right?
The original meaning of a "fixed point in time", from the NAs, is this: The "universal present" is somewhere around Rassilon Era 6500; everything before that is the past, and therefore immutable; everything after is the future, and therefore in flux. But time travelers "drag their present" with them. So, when the Doctor visited Perivale in 1989, he created a fixed point that was part of his (and therefore the "universal") present, and is therefore now part of the past, and therefore can't be changed.
The new series completely tossed out the way history worked in the NAs, and even gave us an in-universe explanation: With the destruction of Gallifrey, the Web of Time was replaced by a great big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff. (The BBC novels had earlier done the exact same thing, except with a different destruction of Gallifrey in a different Time War, and without the word "timey-wimey".)
Nevertheless, the new series (unlike the BBC novels) uses the term "fixed point in time", all the time. Is it the same concept, or even related? For example, the Silence seeing the Doctor get killed at Lake Silencio in 2011 was a fixed point in time, one that the Silence intentionally created. Does that have anything to do with the Doctor dragging his present along to 2011? I can't see any way in which it does.
(By the way, if I'm right that they're completely unrelated concepts, I think the RTD version is a much more interesting one. But that's neither here nor there.) --70.36.140.233talk to me 06:25, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
The RTD version is certainly an interesting one but it makes no sense. 94.72.194.203talk to me 15:41, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to try comparing the two uses of the term "fixed point in time", since I've no knowledge of the NAs. What I will do is ask 94 to explain why he/she thinks the RTD version makes no sense. We don't know a huge amount about the RTD version & we certainly don't know all the fine details of it, let alone how it's related to the Moffat concept of a "still point in time", but there's a substantial difference between "we don't have enough information to make proper sense of it" & "it makes no sense".
Please note: I'm not saying 94's wrong about it not making sense. It's just that the bald statement without explanation doesn't get us anywhere. (There's also the question: How is an idea that makes no sense capable of being interesting?) --89.240.250.160talk to me 20:48, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the bald statement doesn't get us anywhere. There are a few things that are problematic; I think there are answers for most of them which don't require too much fanwank, but maybe I'm fooling myself.
- A fixed point can never, ever be changed, but River changed one: It's not that it's physical impossible to change them, just that doing so unravels all of causality, which is something you should never, ever do.
- All Time Lords can sense fixed points; they're "the burden of the Time Lords", but they're part of the timey-wimey nature of post-LGTW history where there are no Time Lords: He's using the same words for pre-LGTW events that, if pulled on, would tear the Web of Time as for post-LGTW events that would unravel the chaotic ball of timey-wimey, because they feel exactly the same to him.
- Nobody can sense them but Time Lords, but the Daleks were afraid to touch Adelaide Brooke because she was a fixed point: The Daleks have some technological way to detect them.
- Captain Jack isn't an event, he's a person: The Doctor is speaking loosely; maybe it's Jack's existence at each moment in time that's fixed.
- Anything else? --70.36.140.233talk to me 01:55, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
- About Jack: The Doctor did say that Jack was "an impossible thing" & that both he & the TARDIS were extremely uncomfortable in Jack's presence. That's presumably related to their perception of a fixed point that's a person, not an event. The Doctor said that Jack, not Jack's existence, was a fixed point & he was in "technical explanation mode" when he did so, making it unlikely that he was speaking loosely. (I'm usually 89 but I'm 2, just now.) --2.96.31.113talk to me 07:01, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
- I have a theory that Jack's "immortality" is simply him being stuck in a single moment of time, but he carries it around with him and can interact with others, ages, and can travel through time and space. This is why he just feels wrong to TARDIS and the Doctor.AthertonX ☎ 22:36, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
- When the Doctor was talking to Donna inside Vesuvius (The Fires of Pompeii), he spoke of knowing what could be changed "and what must not". That emphasises that a fixed point is something it would be disastrous to change, not something it's physically impossible to change. If it were impossible to change a fixed point, there'd not be much to worry about -- you could do whatever you wanted & it wouldn't change, though it might foul up what you were trying to do. --2.96.31.113talk to me 08:50, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
- 2 aka 89, that makes sense. After all, the Doctor tried to change a fixed point in The Waters of Mars, and seemed to succeed, but then the major event (Adelaide's death) still happened, just not in the "original" way. So it is "doable" but either is ultimately futile or causes all of reality to unravel. Shambala108 ☎ 15:10, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
- Shambala108: Yes, The Waters of Mars is important because it shows that, even when an event is a fixed point, not all of the circumstances are necessarily fixed. Although the central event -- Adelaide's death by her own hand -- still occurred, almost all the surrounding circumstances were different: location -- Earth, not Mars; method -- gun, not nuclear explosion; other fatalities & so on. The Fires of Pompeii, apart from the Doctor's description of what a fixed point is (something it'd be disastrous to change), also shows that the Doctor's perceptions -- or his interpretation of his perceptions -- can be wrong. He thought the destruction of Pompeii was a fixed point but then realised it was something he had done: "It's not history, it's me. I make it happen." (Quote from memory, so may not be word perfect.) Mind you, that might not be him being wrong about it being a fixed point. It might instead be another example of the surrounding circumstances being changeable -- the destruction was fixed but the events leading to it were not & any set of events that brought about the eruption would be OK. Not OK from the point of view of the Pompeiians, obviously, but OK for the integrity of the timestream. (Having been 89 & then 2, I now seem to be 78, but I'm still me.) --78.146.190.43talk to me 16:02, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
I think the concept of a "Fixed Point," as related in the Davies and Moffat eras makes complete sense. The NA concept only "makes more sense" because there is more of a schematic for it. But if time is naturally in flux, then a schematic makes little sense. The concept of a "Fixed Point" as I understand it, is essentially that it quantifies a moment. If we look at the entirety of Time and the nature of causality as a whole, we must accept that it is made up of an innumerable amount of parts. Now, as with many machines, there are certain parts that the machine simply cannot run without. A computer with no mainframe, for example. There are other parts, smaller parts, with which the machine would find a way to function with very little operating differently: A graphics card with slightly better or worse tech specs. say, or a damaged battery that will still hold a charge just not for as long. Time itself goes on, History remains unchanged. Remember that so much of what happens in time is never recorded in history. Do you know what George Washington had for breakfast on the day of the Battle of Bunker Hill? Would eating an apple rather than a bowl of oatmeal have changed the course of the battle? Only a Time Lord can tell. That is how their brain works, and what they have built their society around. It is their burden to make sure that the answers to these questions are never challenged. If something must happen, it. must. happen. I think this is the explanation for why the Doctor was able to save a family from Pompeii, even though he could do nothing else about it. And the reason that he could not save Adelaide Brooke, and that Time had to find a way of correcting itself (with the help of Captain Brooke's realization that "the Time Lord Victorious is wrong.") It's about which events in time are so great that they cannot be changed without the nature of causality itself crumbling into nothingness; as seen when River failed to kill the Doctor.
It also provides more of a frame for how the Doctor works this way. Because, if we accept that his problem with the Time Lords was their platform of non-intervention, and that their burden was simply making sure everything ran according to the schedule which Fixed Points would lay down, (a logical assumption based on every time the Doctor steps out of the TARDIS and can already tell something is wrong by observing technology that should not have been developed yet) his argument could very easily have been that they could still be helping to make better the moments that did exist in flux, and that seeing Time the way a Time Lord did, they would know when they had gone too far. That the only reason that Time Lords "swore never to interfere" was because they were beaurocratic, officious, authoritarians who would rather police the Universe than help spread hope through it. The Doctor's argument could have very easily been that if they assisted those dealing with events in flux, that by the time the Universal Present approached, they may not be needed any more. Which would seem to echo in the Doctor's plea to Craig in "Closing Time," "I have to die, but that's okay, as long as you prove me right."
- 2/89/78, I think after The Wedding of River Song, your interpretation is nearly unimpeachable. A fixed point can be changed, because we saw River do so; it has disastrous consequences, which we actually saw; the event doesn't necessarily have to happen in the exact same way, just happen, because we saw the Doctor change the circumstances of his death.
- But I think that actually makes the Jack case more difficult. If it would just be disastrous for Jack to die, how does that stop a bunch of 20th century humans from killing him?
- Unsigned poster: I really like your point about non-intervention. The Time Lords used the risk to the Web of Time as an excuse to avoid helping, but they knew, or should have known, that there was no risk.
- Going back to your first point, I think you've hit the nail on the head: The NA concept makes more sense, but only because it's part of a complete framework, completely explained to us. Which is also why it's less interesting. The best Who writers have always given us the sense that time is far more complicated than we can possibly understand, while letting us understand just enough to make sense of their stories. There are moments where we say, "Wow, I didn't think of that!" (The Wedding of River Song, or Unnatural History), or where we feel a little thrill at piecing things together (Ghost Light, or Interference), and none of that's possible if we already know all the rules. Darvill-Evans was trying to turn Doctor Who into hard science fiction, and if he'd succeeded it would have been a disaster. --70.36.140.233talk to me 21:31, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
- Wow. I mean, even beyond the general "Wow" of the story of Amelia Pond, and Nick Hurran turning out to be even better than Adam Smith at directing an Angel episode, and so on… "Wow" that the whole episode was about fixed points in time. At the end, when Amy lets the Angel send her back, she's creating "fixed time", so the Doctor can never see her again. Doing so would blow New York off the map.
- The odd thing is that the conversation around 12:50 about not reading ahead didn't have any mention of fixed points. Does that mean that it _was_ still changeable, just not by _them_ now that they'd read it? --70.36.140.233talk to me 22:35, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
- It sounded to me as if that conversation did mean the fixing effect applied only to them. (I've only watched the episode once, though, so I reserve the right to reconsider after I've seen it a couple more times.) --89.241.77.184talk to me 23:12, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
- I should mention that I've also only watched it once, although I did rewind that 12:05 conversation just to see if the Doctor mentioned "fixed point" or anything similar. --70.36.140.233talk to me 23:19, September 29, 2012 (UTC)