User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-6032121-20190914173756/@comment-6032121-20190918190437

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
< User:SOTO‎ | Forum Archive‎ | The Panopticon/@comment-6032121-20190914173756
Revision as of 23:56, 27 April 2023 by SV7 (talk | contribs) (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

But what place would you make on "Creation" for War’s reconciliation of the two stories as Davros interfering with the Genesis of Evil version of event? The reason I wrote the page the way I did wasn't to marginalize the Davros accounts but simply to put the whole thing in the logical order of events posited by War, so first time as it originally was, then how it was rewritten to be. Which has the added benefit of matching up to the real-world order in which these stories were told.

You write: “Thankfully, we don't need an ounce of authorial intent to conclude that the Dalek Prime = Golden Emperor = Dalek Emperor (The Evil of the Daleks), because it's sufficiently specified in-text.” That we don't. But I was merely worried about whether we could definitely say the Dalek Prime that Peel mentions in his novelisations of The Chase, Mission to the Unknown and Master Plan was the same Dalek Prime rather than possibly another Dalek belonging to the Dalek Prime rank as featured in The Four Doctors. Peel very very definitively meant for those mentions to be of his Dalek Prime, the character.

(Also, Ulysses/Daddy Doctor may be another matter, but I'm fairly sure the reason we keep ignoring the War King=Master connection isn't so much the lack of clear in-universe hints as the fact that if we accepted the link, a bunch of stories featuring the War King would now have to be invalid because they didn't have the rights to use the Master. Think Cosmic Hobo. The problem isn't that we can't conclude he's the Doctor from the evidence, but that if we did, which if these were BBC-released stories we definitely would, we would then have to say Candy Jar was in breach of copyright.)