Talk:The Leader

Third?

How do we know for sure this is the third Doctor from Inferno Earth?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  19:20: Tue 17 Dec 2013

In "TimeWyrm: Revelation", it is established the leader on Inferno Earth was one of the faces offered to the second Doctor at his trial86.147.101.255^{talk to me} 20:16, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

The Doctor? Or just another human?

For the Leader's background, we have two different accounts:

• Paul Cornell's Timewyrn: Revelation, which establishes that the Leader's face is one of those that were offered to the Doctor at his trial, and therefore heavily implies that the Leader is the Inferno universe's Doctor.
• Robert Mammone's I, Alastair, which explores the Leader's character more in depth, and beyond references to "rumours" of him living forever, Mammone intended to write him as human. "Another in a long line of very human tyrants", as he describes him.

Naturally, this has led to a lot of conjecture when trying to reconcile these two accounts. It appears headcanon has been used to fill in the gaps. Two claims in particular stuck out to me, which both cite I, Alastair as the source. One says that the Leader's TARDIS materialised in 1930s Britain. Yet, the novel mentions nothing of the TARDIS. Similarly, this article also claims that the Leader "could no longer regenerate, as the Time Lords had taken this ability from him". Yet, if Mammone wrote the novel with the idea that the Leader was human, then does it actually say "the Doctor" had lost his ability to regenerate and the Time Lords took it from him? Also mentioned are a reference to the Leader's alien biology and great age, though as far as I can tell nothing about the Leader being an alien is mentioned, simply references to rumours of "living forever" and the ability to extend his life through a "miraculous procedure". This isn't necessarily a confirmation that the Leader would be the Doctor, as such claims are typical of real life cult of personalities, and that's how Mammone stated he intended it. We know this not just because of Mammone's later statements, but evidence in the writing stating how the Leader's "age had caught up", a contrast with most accounts describing the Doctor ageing at a much slower rate than humans.

With Cornell's Timewyrn: Revelation account, Cornell obviously intended the Leader to be an alternate Doctor, but as a result, this article seems to have become a confusing mish-mash trying to combine to completely different accounts of the Leader. This article is written with the Cornell interpretation of the Leader in mind, but in doing so, has disregarded Mammone's interpretation and relegated it to a small mention in the behind the scenes section. The two sources are also quite different. Whereas in Timewyrn: Revelation, the Leader and his face is merely mentioned in a line of conversation the Doctor has, I, Alastair goes into much more detail regarding the Leader as a character.

Keep in mind, Timewyrn: Revelation doesn't actually confirm that the Leader is an alternate Doctor, just that he happens to resemble a potential face the Doctor could have chosen. In that novel, the Doctor notes the resemblance, and does wonder of his place in that universe, but the actual connection is not stated. Again, it is quite obvious what Cornell intended, but it does not seem right for this article to acknowledge Cornell's intentions while essentially ignoring Mammone's. At the very least, an assumption that the Leader is an alternate Doctor can still be made, given that Cornell's source came first, but we should absolutely remove the spurious claims made in the article regarding I, Alastair account of the Leader. BlueSupergiant ☎ 16:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely sounds like things have gotten very tangled-up. I don't think it's inappropriate to cite the idea of him being a Doctor to Timewyrm - the "implication" in this case is just an artistic way of conveying a plot point, not intended as actually unclear, as you say. But we should treat this as two conflicting accounts, and thoroughly rewrite the page. Since his species is in doubt, the |species= field in the infobox should be left blank. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it is just as presumptuous to assert that I, Alastair identifies the Leader as human; this is never explicitly stated in the book and there are subtle hints he is not entirely human. There is nothing inherently contradictory between Timwyrm and I, Alastair. Mammone did say in an interview that he had forgotten about the suggestion the Leader may be the Doctor's counterpart but interviews about works cannot be used to make assertions about the text; otherwise one might as well include Nicholas Courtney's statement in the DVD commentary for Inferno that he idea he had was that the Brigade Leader had fought a duel with someone; this was later completely contradicted by The Schizoid Earth. Writers sometimes even change their minds about their works which were not covered in the original text contradicting interviews they gave. Mammone's statement about the Leader's species belongs in the "behind the scenes" section, not in the main body, which should remain as vague as I, Alastair itself and stick to the suggestions actually made in the works themselves. 92.9.2.202^{talk to me} 23:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the relevant precedent is the number of Hartnell-era stories which were written under the assumption that he'd built the TARDIS and was a human being. A lot of these references are vague enough that they can be retrofitted into modern lore (at worst by just implying that he's lying, which some post-Time-Lord-lore stories genuinely assert), but in recent years the Wiki has moved away from a one-size-fits-all mentality, and towards covering such references in the spirit in which they were written. If I, Alastair mostly seems to be doing its own thing and was in fact written to do its own thing, we should cover it primarily as its own thing — though of course, neither should we erase the ambiguities in the text altogether.

Speaking of which, could we see some quotes? We've seen people arguing that the idea that he's immortal is flagged in the text as propaganda, whereas you seem to be implying that no such disclaimers exist. I think this discussion would have better chances of getting somewhere if the relevant quotes could be posted here directly. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure where my copy of I, Alastair is at the moment, but I can offer some recollections: the Leader is first met in person upon his return from a lengthy stay at his holiday home in Bognor; when explaining his prolonged convalescence he says "hearts are not what they once were". Later, when thinking about "party zealots", Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart recalls that "one even claimed that there was a time when the Leader could extend his life through some kind of miraculous procedure, but that option was no longer available to him. Taken away, or something".

I think it is a little more like the contrast between the unaired version of An Unearthly Child and the version that was screened; in the original version the Doctor and Susan are explicitly identified as extra-terrestrials: "we are not of this race, we are not of this Earth", but in the aired version things are left much more vague "I was born in another time, another world". My proposal is that we should not assert what a text says based on any external non-prose source unless adding behind the scenes out-of-universe comments. Some 1960s Doctor Who stories did hint the Doctor was a human from the future, but that does not seem to be the case with I, Alastair and the Leader; there are textual hints the Leader is not human, so I do not believe the article should categorically state he is human. I agree his species and place of origin should be left blank, at least for the time being.

One thing to remember is licensing constraints: Candy Jar do not have the rights to the character of the Doctor or the concept of the TARDIS, so overt and explicit references cannot be made. If in a future work the Leader is confirmed to be a Time Lord then that can be added to the infobox, but for now let us try to keep to published material in the main bodies of articles. 81.96.145.214^{talk to me}

Personally, I disagree with this approach. To me, it seems very contradictory for you to state that we must take the text as written, while also trying to make the explicit link to the Leader being an alternate Doctor in your more recent edits. You also seem to take issue with the article "asserting" what the text states on an external non-prose source without behind the scenes out-of-universe comments, except we already have behind the scenes notes stating Mammone's intention of the Leader being a human tyrant. I started this discussion specifically because previous editors had conflated the two accounts. Whether Candy Jar can make explicit references does not seem particularly relevant either, when the author has also stated that he had completely forgotten about the Timewyrm implication. The quotes regarding "hearts" could just as easily be implied to be a slip due to poor health, and given Mammone's later statement, that seems to have been the approach he was going for. Likewise, "miraculous procedure", while you could interpret that as being a reference to regeneration, it would not make much sense when we consider the context of the quote. How would a seemingly random party zealot actually know the "Doctor" used to be able to regenerate? It would seem to be the case that this was referring more to the propagandistic personality cult around the leader.

As far as I can tell, there seems to be just as much of an implication that the Leader was a human as there is of him being an alternate Doctor. At the very least, characters generally assumed him to be human. I don't believe we should be redacting all mention of this while also trying to link it to the Timewyrm interpretation, otherwise this article will end up back into the same state that prompted this discussion in the first place. BlueSupergiant ☎ 09:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I felt my previous edit was a good compromise between the two. The suggestions that the Leader was the counterpart of the Doctor were added by the editor, as can be seen in the comments of the video the original interview featured in; [1] where he says "You are quite correct, the inference to the Leader being the Doctor was added by the editor (namely me). Robert created a wonderful character, and while working through it I remembered (never forgot really) who Cornell's referenced the Leader to be. So, a couple of dialogue tweeks, and the inference was there again." Books are always collaborations between the author and their editor. If those hints were not there I would be inclined to agree with you, but there is sufficient reasonable doubt to conclude that it should not be asserted that the Leader is categorically portrayed as human in I, Alastair. It feels like you are seeing things that are not there in the text based on some external sources but dismissing other sources just as invested in the work as the one you are depending on. 82.16.150.34^{talk to me}

Despite all my efforts, it seems as though BlueSupergiant is intent on monopolising this page and is determined to impose their edits just because they are theirs, including restoring poor formatting. I have repeatedly tried to get you to engage with me constructively, yet you appear unable to do so. 82.16.150.34^{talk to me}

I'm not asserting the Leader is human, I'm going with the position that the Leader was generally implied to be such. It's clear that's how he's perceived by most characters in the novel, hence the dismissal of remarks like the "miraculous procedure" or the "hearts" comment by other characters. The general characterisation is there of him being a paranoid, frail old man. I do think at least the assumption that he is a human should be mentioned. My main concern was more so with your edits that specifically linked the "miraculous procedure" with regeneration while removing anything linking it with the Leader's human cult of personality. If we were to, as you say, take the text as it was written, then we cannot with certainty make that assertion. In context, the hints that he may otherwise be an alternate Doctor don't exactly make sense, at least with the particular regeneration hint. And that's all they really are, hints. As I said previously, there's still room for reasonable doubt, and I believe leaving it vague was the intention. As the editor terms it: "inference", and in a way that also keeps with the spirit of the Timewyrm account. The editor could have just as easily added a more explicit dialogue from the Leader where he claims he's an extraterrestial who has been exiled on Earth (while of course keeping within the legal boundaries), but he didn't. By redacting all implications of his "humaness", we risk conflating the two accounts once again. This article can certainly mention the hints of the Leader being an alternate Doctor in I, Alastair while also noting the general implication of him being human. But I do not think we can solely say he is "heavily implied" to be the Inferno universe's Third Doctor based on that and not touch on the human element. If you look at my recent edits, you'll see I simply clarified the human connection by building on your edit. Accusing me of 'monopolising' this page is an utterly silly thing to say, and I do not appreciate the personal attacks. BlueSupergiant ☎ 10:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be devolving into a bit of an edit-war, so, following BlueSupergiant reaching out to me on my talk page (and also justifiedly complaining that the tone itself was getting too heated: please both remember to argue the point, not the person, and to assume good faith). I have temporarily protected this page to encourage both of you to cool off and to keep discussion here rather than as an endless back-and-forth of edits. If you truly feel you cannot make your point without actually writing out the page as you would like it to appear, you can copy the text of the page into a sandbox that's a subpage of your userpage — e.g. user:BlueSupergiant/Sandbox/The Leader.

As regards the practical issue itself… my, it's a bit confusing to have a text that is substantially implying two different things, because two different creatives involved in its production were hinting at two incompatible things. This may be an instance where using {{note}} would be welcome. Both perspectives should definitely be represented. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 14:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I have tried very hard to argue my case that Timewyrm and I, Alastair are in no way in inherent contradiction. A single out-of-context statement by an author outside of a literary context is not sufficient evidence to restructure the entire article. I restrict myself to only editing articles relating to words I have read, listened to, or watched. Sources external to the work an article is the subject of should be mentioned only in passing in the "behind the scenes" section because these can and often are revised substantially by later writers who used only the body of text rather than sources such as interviews.

While it should not be categorically stated the Leader is the Doctor, there is enough doubt that the opposite should not be taken as fact; it should not be stated categorically that he is depicted as human in I, Alastair. It feels as though this is just going to go round and round in circles until more editors who have actually read the book chip in. Backin63 ☎