Trusted, emailconfirmed, threadmoderator
41,285
edits
Talk:An Unearthly Child (TV story): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
no edit summary
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
::: OK, so that's literally worse than my working assumption. Why is a non-fiction and from what I gather self published ''memoir'' that's mostly about watching a show and the two people's romantic relationship any kind of authority or precedent holder over what is or is not for the production of a TV show? I could say and publish on social media that ''Rose'' is the tenth story of the fifth series and is also a nine-parter, that still wouldn't will it as such. -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 23:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC) | ::: OK, so that's literally worse than my working assumption. Why is a non-fiction and from what I gather self published ''memoir'' that's mostly about watching a show and the two people's romantic relationship any kind of authority or precedent holder over what is or is not for the production of a TV show? I could say and publish on social media that ''Rose'' is the tenth story of the fifth series and is also a nine-parter, that still wouldn't will it as such. -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 23:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC) | ||
:: No, but if you published a book claiming as much and it garnered significant attention in the fandom, that would be a notable fact about the public reception to ''An Unearthly Child''. We're not arguing about tablets of law here, or an underlying objective reality. How people lump and number serials ''post hoc'' is a sociological observation about trends in fandom, critical thought, and BBC record-keeping. "Wrong" ideas that gain significant public acknowledgement are as notable as "true" (BBC-ordered) data. And certainly ''Wife in Space'' is a very significant book as far as non-BBC-authored non-fiction goes, at about the same level as ''AHistory'', ''About Time'', ''TARDIS Eruditorum'', etc. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 23:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC) | :: No, but if you published a book claiming as much and it garnered significant attention in the fandom, that would be a notable fact about the public reception to ''An Unearthly Child''. We're not arguing about tablets of law here, or an underlying objective reality. How people lump and number serials ''post hoc'' is a sociological observation about trends in fandom, critical thought, and BBC record-keeping. "Wrong" ideas that gain significant public acknowledgement are as notable as "true" (BBC-ordered) data. And certainly ''Wife in Space'' is a very significant book as far as non-BBC-authored non-fiction goes, at about the same level as ''AHistory'', ''About Time'', ''TARDIS Eruditorum'', etc. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 23:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC) | ||
::: Wrong ideas are by their very essence false and fallacious. Kate Bush still did not write ''Kinda'' even though it's jokingly treated as fact within the ''Wife'' blog. RTD mistakenly believed for ''decades'' his own unmade script was similar to ''The Long Game'' and that story is all over the place. Also, nothing links to Neil and Sue's blog besides this (fallacious) passage, while links to almost every other thing I've seen listed (apart from maybe Eruditorum) has been on real world and behind the scenes sections all over this wiki. By definition that's not equivalent in significance. -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 23:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::: No pages that link to Neil Perryman mention the blog either (though the page itself does). -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 23:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::: Then the error is in the other direction. We should definitely have a page on ''Wife'' if we don't already, and the redlink indicates as much. | |||
::: The ''Wife''-specific Kate Bush joke might be another matter, but certainly RTD's own wrong beliefs, expressed in a variety of notable reference sources, should be recorded ''as'' wrong beliefs somewhere on the Wiki. All our TV stories have a "Myths" section for similar reasons. We are historians of ''Doctor Who'' fandom and production, as much as we are recorders of the fictional contents of actual ''Doctor Who'' media. Documenting errors, controversies, etc. is part of that duty. | |||
::: And again I stress that I don't think there's any comparison between ''false empirical claims'', and differing classification systems. There's no ''fact of the matter'' as to whether ''AUC'' is best considered as a story in its own right distinct from the cavemen episodes; it's a critical position, a literary conceit. You can't put the serial in a supercollider to try and see whether it's "really" two distinct stories or not. That it was commissioned in one way is a fact; that a number of published works evidencing the views of ''Doctor Who'' fandom and critics say something else is another fact. These facts are both interesting and should both be recorded. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 23:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::Technically the ''Eruditorum'' thread from the old forums never actually came to a 100% clear solution on how to cover things from it, Czech didn't want to use it to base policy off of because it was a "special snowflake". But [[T:UNOFF REF]] and [[Tardis:Resources]] still remain in conflict as to whether or not we can use websites to this day. We really do need a thread to go over this issue in more detail. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: Aye, but it's a book too, is the point. We don't need it to consider it as 'simply' a blog. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 23:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::: I don't even see how UNOFF REF or Resources plays here. Wife in Space is a fan watching episodes of a show with his non-fan wife and recording and transcribing on the spot reactions of Sue's first viewing. If 700 pages linked there and it ''was'' a page on Tardis Wiki that would still be the case. It is not ''Doctor Who'' scholarship. It is closer in purpose to a law (but not necessarily ''Doctor Who'') expert reacting on YouTube to a trial on the show. | |||
::: Unsurprisingly (to me anyway), [http://wifeinspace.com/2011/01/an-unearthly-child/ the blog lists the four episodes in one place (unsecure link)]. The separation of scores is attributed entirely to Sue "enjoy[ing] the first episode a great deal, but the remaining episodes got bogged down in the politics of the cavemen, and she didn’t really care about them that much." Neil uncontroversially calls all four episodes one collective story story when he writes | |||
:::: When I ask my wife to score the four episodes collectively known as – actually, let’s not get into that now – she doesn’t hesitate: | |||
:::: Sue: Three out of 10. | |||
::: So the whole bit about Wife in Space (the blog and accompanying book) definitively considering it two stories, even as a massive rulebend if not lie to call a reference book, isn't backed up. Like I prefer the Vardan part of ''Invasion of Time'' to the Sontaran and hospital corridor TARDIS part. It is still, as released on digital and physical media, and production terms, and to me subjectively, one story. -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 17:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
