Talk:A History of Humankind (novel)
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Novel[[edit source]]
I would say this was more of a reference guide with a slight narrative like the brilliant book rather than a novel. Yeah, it's me "Denchen"... I couldn't believe it either. ☎ 17:51, November 15, 2016 (UTC)
- It has a similar appearance to How to Be a Time Lord, which also features scribbled notes by the Doctor. So I'm inclined to think it's closer to that. A history of Doctor Who, even where the universe is treated as "real", isn't really a NOVEL, is it? I mean, The Secret Lives of Monsters isn't treated as a source, right? And that has examples of historical clippings, government memos, in-story novel excerpts, and even dialogue lifted from the episodes. -- Tybort (talk page) 00:57, January 8, 2017 (UTC)
- I'd say there's a great many differences between this and The Secret Lives of Monsters. That one has no narrative at all, and doesn't try to. A History of Humankind, from what I understand, has a backstory—the Doctor has a history book from the Coal Hill library, and was unpleased, so decided to correct stuff on his own—and the Doctor tells many stories within. In effect, throughout, he's telling the real story of humanity, from the start of life on Earth to the Cold War in the 20th century, as he's encountered it throughout his travels. I'd argue this has more narrative than do Captain Jack's Monster Files, and those are treated as valid sources.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 06:18, January 8, 2017 (UTC)- Well, since there are now pages made based on this book, perhaps, it would be good to close this argument one way or the other. The "backstory" argument is not sufficient for me because it applies to something else rather than this book. Something that tells the backstory would be a story. But this seems like a prop from this presumed backstory. The first rule of validity states: "Only stories count." So my question is: what makes this novel as printed a story? Is there a narrative or is this
- I'd say there's a great many differences between this and The Secret Lives of Monsters. That one has no narrative at all, and doesn't try to. A History of Humankind, from what I understand, has a backstory—the Doctor has a history book from the Coal Hill library, and was unpleased, so decided to correct stuff on his own—and the Doctor tells many stories within. In effect, throughout, he's telling the real story of humanity, from the start of life on Earth to the Cold War in the 20th century, as he's encountered it throughout his travels. I'd argue this has more narrative than do Captain Jack's Monster Files, and those are treated as valid sources.
publication[...] — or even some reference work[...] — [...] present[ing] "biographical" or "historical" information about characters and situations in the DWU in a non-narrative style. [...] an article that's a kind of "pseudo-history".
