Theory:Doctor Who prose discontinuity and plot holes/Lungbarrow: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Theory:Doctor Who prose discontinuity and plot holes/Lungbarrow (edit)
Revision as of 10:31, 26 August 2011
, 26 August 2011no edit summary
m (Robot: Adding Category:DW prose discontinuity) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
*The concept of Looming contradicts previous references by the Doctor to having been born and having been a little boy, as well as Gallifrey having maternity services. | *The concept of Looming contradicts previous references by the Doctor to having been born and having been a little boy, as well as Gallifrey having maternity services. | ||
::The concept of looming didn't originate in this book; as early as ''[[Cat's Cradle: Time's Crucible]]'' (the 5th NA) they'd already incorporated the looms, and the [[Andrew Cartmel|Cartmel]] contingent (including [[Mark Platt], who wrote both ''Lungbarrow'' and ''Crucible'', and [[Ben Aaronovitch]] and a few others) had an explanation planned for how to deal with ''[[The Time Monster]]'', ''[[Shada (TV story)]]'', and other mentions of 'time tots'. However, after the TV movie came out, they had to revised everything to include the Doctor's half-humanness. Platt sincerely believed that ''Lungbarrow'' managed to explain everything, and if you dig up the old threads on rec.arts.drwho and interviews from the time and so on, he and his backers do at least make a case for it, but I don't feel competent to summarize it (especially since I never liked it). | |||
::Some of the other writers (I believe it was originally [[Stephen Cole]]) came up with the idea that Gallifrey had both looms and natural birth, but the 'great houses' always used looms, and possibly only those who were loomed could become Time Lords (with the Doctor being, as usual, an exceptional case of some kind). Which explains why some of the NAs say that all Time Lords are loomed, and why it was a scandal on the House of Lungbarrow that the Doctor had a navel, and so on. The only big question here is why Romana, who's from a Great House (and isn't the Doctor), remembers being a 'time tot' (in ''Shada''). Anyway, in some of the early EDAs, we get hints that this was true until Romana III changed the policy to use the looms exclusively so they could crank out new Time Lords as fast as possible in preparation for the upcoming War, but that wasn't true in the era when the Doctor and Romana were born.) | |||
::[[Lawrence Miles]]'s explanation is that ''Lungbarrow'' and ''The Time Monster'' probably take place in different universes. (The NAs were in a bottle universe inside the EDA universe, which might itself be a bottle universe inside the classic TV series universe.) | |||
::Some of the other writers (I don't know who originally came up with this) suggested that Time Lord history changed. In the original history, they were born. After some change (that we don't know the background to), they'd been loomed ever since the Curse of Pythia. After another change (this one presumably caused by the Enemy or Faction Paradox), they'd had loom technology since the days of Rassilon, but nearly everyone had been born normally up until the point when Romana III became War Queen. (We saw this change affecting the Doctor; he remembered being loomed, and having a father, and couldn't remember which was a dream.) And after the next change (in ''The Ancestor Cell''), they'd never existed in the first place, so it was a moot point. Anyway, whoever's idea this originally was, when [[Justin Richards]] took over the EDAs, he told the other writers that this was the official explanation, but no one was allowed to state it directly (which made sense given that the Doctor had amnesia, history was unraveling, etc.). | |||
::[[Dave Stone]] suggested that Time Lords were born, grew up normally for 21 years, then went into the looms and emerged as fully formed 21-year-olds. Like everything Dave Stone ever said, this was not entirely serious, but not entirely joking, and completely ridiculous and workably plausible at the same time. | |||
::So anyway, the problem isn't that there's no explanation for this discrepancy, but that there are too many… | |||
[[Category:DW prose discontinuity]] | [[Category:DW prose discontinuity]] | ||
