With the proliferation of original novels, and now the Big Finish Audio Adventures entering into the fray, it's becoming harder to keep sight of what is and isn't canon. Here at the Doctor Who boards, I've been encouraging everyone to stick close to the definition as laid out at www.gallifreyone.com:

--official Doctor Who, produced directly by BBC. This includes the telemovie and radio dramas.
--official Doctor Who stories not produced by the BBC. This includes the Virgin novels and new audio adventures.
--BBC Books series.

The only place where I diverge is the Doctor Who "apocrypha"--the comics, the short stories, and the "Companions of Doctor Who" novels. I do include the missing 23rd season books, though.

I realize this is still a big chunk, and really hard to justify. So far there have only been one or two cases of recent Who stories directly contradicting earlier stories (without bringing Fation Paradox into it). I don't have any explanations for them, but maybe you all do.

Sharky, this message is going out to you. I know what they do in the Star Trek world, but that's neither here nor there. Who fandom in general has accepted the above list as canon, so that's what we're going to do here. I'd like to encourage everyone to be creative (but not ludicrous) in explaining apparrent contradictions, and not just dismiss them.

Okay, I got you. Still then there is the problem between what was established in State of Decay and what was written in "Blood Harvest". There is really NO way to reconcile the two stories. State of Decay clealy said ONE Tower, ONE Village-period! All the people on the planet were descended from the Hydrax crew, prior to that, the planet was deserted!

Blood Harvest totally throws that to the wind! How can you explain that!

Hey, it's in E-Space. Rationality may be a little dubious there. Maybe both are true.

The only ICBN (inter-continental ballistic nit) is that the TARDIS scanners could only spot one city on the planet in "State of Decay." I can't explain that. Unless maybe the Great Vampire(s) used some sort of cloaking device.

Or here's another. In "Full Circle" we saw that the TARDIS scanner didn't work properly until replaced with local components. We took the Doctor's word that replacing the N-space component would make it work, but he could have been wrong. In that case, the original scan of the "SOD" (love that acronym) planet was wrong.

I can explain the citizens not knowing that there might be other cities. They were forced to live in very primitive conditions. I'm sure that they were never allowed to venture very far from their homes, so they'd never know there was anyone else around.

Where'd the other people come from? Well, if one ship crash is possible, so are two or more. We've already seen the crashed ship on Alzarius, and the lost ship in "Warrior's Gate." N-Space must be something like a galactic Bermuda Triangle.

A+ for effort, guys. But the real answer is plain and simple, Terrence Dicks screwed up. This is amazing because he wrote State of Decay as well! Either did it by accident (he forgot what he had established in State of Decay), or deliberately (he hoped no one would point out what he had originally established). We'll probably never know the real reason why he changed established facts, we can only speculate.

Ah, but by using so called 'reality' to make an argument is taking away all the fun. In my reality Terrence Dicks doesn't exist. I have to use what is front of me on the screen. Essentially, that is what nitpicking is all about. You are probably right as far as the 'real' reason for the paradox between the book and show.

As far as canon go. If the Beeb insists the novels are canon, maybe we should have an hierarchy here. Such as, the TV series is 100% canon and true. Then go down the list where the novels are canon except when they contradict the series. And somewhere near the bottom of the list is comics and Dimensions in Time.

An example, in Curse of the Fatal Death, the sonic screwdriver has multiple settings (oo-la la) and a male Timelord can switch from male to female. This doesn't contradict as far I know with the TV series, so it is canon. However, since JoAnna Lumley is playing the final Doctor, that can't be canon because the final Doctor, as we all know, is the Valeyard, a man.

That way everything works. The novel State of Decay is canon except at points where it differs with the TV series, which takes precendence.

A quick post script to above message.

If a future series does have a female doctor, I will be more than exstatic to watch it. I have always thought that JoAnna Lumley would make an excellent Doctor, which you would know from other discussions.

Isn't the Valeyard "a distillation of all that is evil" between the Doctor's 12th and final (not 13th) incarnation - which means the Valeyard isn't the final Doctor.

Is it possible the planet in Blood Harvest is a parallel world, with many similarities but some differences, to the one we see in State of Decay?

But Sharky, this has no bearing on the novels canonicity, because there are errors within the TV series itself.

But... can't we find a workaround for BH- the vampires delibarately kept the villagers unaware of the other villages, for some reason, but as soon as they were gone, the villagers were contacted by the other lords.

Romana has become aware of this on a previous visit to the planet, hence her lack of surprise.

What is the Dimensions In Time everyone keeps bringing up? Please clarify.

http://www.geocities.com/~boies00/who/dimens.htm

That link should clarify- it was a charity thing done for Children in Need- two short DW episodes with all surviving Doctors and loads of companions. Utter, utter rubbish, in the opinion of anyone with any taste, ever.

It's the only Doctor Who production that the team of Howe, Stammers, and Walker, on a scale of one to ten, gave a zero.

I wonder... If we are asking ourselves if DoT fits into Who continuity, do EastEnders fans consider it part of their continuity?

You know, I've actually wondered that myself. I've never seen any reference to it on the EE websites.

If Doctor Who was still an ongoing television production when Dimenions In Time was made, do you think there would a debate as big as there currently is over its canonicity?

Oh, I dunno. I think this site is proof positive that Who fans will argue about ANYTHING! ;-)

Let's put is this way: the debate for the canonicity of In A Fix With Sontarans is not nearly so great as that for Dimensions in Time.

Is there really a debate going on as to DiT's canonicity? I'd have thought it would be the one thing all Who fans (yes, even Bonnie Langford admirers) could agree on...that DiT is canon over our dead bodies.

The Discontinuity Guide considered it canon enough for its guide. Doctor Who Magazine seems to have an obsession with it - in a poll of all the stories ever made, it even included DiT.

Well from what I have heard and looked up, at least Dimensions in Time was done for a good cause (Children in Need). Okay maybe it wasn't the best, but at least it had the surviving Doctors and some Companions in it. Wish I could see it to judge for myself.

Besides, if we have to consider that horrible, awful, Fox TV movie part of official canon, surely there is room for Dimensions in Time!

We could ask ourselves what are some of the events in Dimensions in Time that make it lose its credibility for canonicity?

(And let's get "the whole thing" joke right out of the way, right here)

What about the "I tell you later" joke of Curse of the Fatal Death?

Are you asking if that's canon?

Chris, considering that the DG decided it was a fourth Doctor and Romana story (what the f?!?!?!?!) let's just brush that one under the carpet.

If we take it, as it fairly obviously is, a 7th Doctor and Ace story, with K9 travelling with them, it also makes the Search out Science episode canonical.

Of course, are we forgetting that it was a bad dream according to First Frontier?

And the Fox TV movie's canonicity isn't really questioned, considering it forms the basis for the EDAs, which we consider canon too.

I don't necessarily agree with the DG, just pointing it out.

May First Frontier is only making us *think* it was a bad dream. If it was only so easy to make up an easy excuse for Mel.

If K-9 was travelling with the Doctor and Ace, which one was it? Or was it Mark IV?

Either that or Mark 1, who is missing when Romana turns up in Blood Harvest, but reappears in Lungbarrow.

There's actually a short story in Short Trips and Side Steps set between the DiT and SoS...

When would the Doctor have picked up Mark I then?

Of course The Curse of the Fatal Death is canon. It has the lovely JoAnna Lumley (who've I had a crush on since the New Avengers) playing the final Doctor.

I think I just contradicted myself in the above post. Oh well. That's Dr Who for you.

All I can say about K-9, is that it didn't look like the Mark One. Probably Mark N or whatever.

Maybe the Doctor's got an endless supply of K-9 kits, a la the end of The Invasion of Time? Just takes him a while to get around to building another, a bit like the sonic screwdriver.

And of course, one of these days he get that darn chamelion circuit fixed.

He did for a while, didn't he? In Attack of the Cybermen.

This has always amused me. The chameleon circuit idea and the fact it is soooo complex the Doctor just cannot repair it. It is a circuit for Pete's sake. Yet he's toyed with everything from Demat Guns to Yeti spheres to TARDIS gubbins - surely, as with any circuit, it has a cause and effect. Why can't he do it? Can't he just show it to someone who can? What exactly is wrong with it?

The reason DiT is a canon obsession is because it epitomises all that is bad about the show - nonsense plots, poorly lit monsters who wave their bits about, fan-obsessions like continuity being brought to the fore... It also got 13 million viewers, and is the most-watched Who related thing to be seen on British TV since 1979 and Creature From The Pit. (I don't have the figures on me, so I may be a story out). It matters not for us so much, I guess, but for the whole Who image. And if the viewing many have been privy to Erato and DiT in 21 years, whilst the joys of Fenric and stair-climbing Daleks have largely been forgotten, I'd say it matters we nip this toss in the bud.

You may be thinking of City of Death, I think in terms of UK ratings - 16.1 million for Episode One, IIRC.

As for the chameleon circuit, maybe it's a combination of laziness and a recalcitrant TARDIS - it's semi-sentient, so maybe it likes looking like a police box.

A TARDIS with vanity, now that's a thought.

I suspect the Doctor couldn't be bothered until Logopolis. Of course he nearly gets killed and has to regenerate. So maybe he is a little wary about fixing it after that.

I hadn't realised DiT had that big an audience (or
ANY audience, come to think of it...) Well, that
certainly solves the mystery of why the BBC are so
reluctant to make any more Who, and why the public
aren't threatening the BBC with violent
revolution in an attempt to get it back.

Edje, Short Trips and Side Steps is deliberately
non-canon. It says so itself. Which is just as
well, given that 'last rolo' scene.

As for the TARDIS...she wouldn't be the TARDIS if
she wasn't a policebox. It's her destiny. Everyone
knows that - except Colin Baker and Paul Cornell,
of course :(

Emily- never said it was.

Oh and you better include Kate Orman on that list, and Steve Lyons (for Hummer and Conundrum respectively).

Oh, and Nick Walters (for Dominion).

Re: Cameleon ciruit--As a matter of fact, the Doctor did succeed in repairing. In "Attack of the Cybermen", the circuit works for a while, but never quite gets the hang of blending in. Eventually it breaks again. It's also working in the NA "No Future", but at the end the Doctor intentionally breaks it, so that we get our good old Police Box back.

I was under the impression that repairing the TARDIS is incredibly complicated, and requires a lot of specialized tools, plus the time to do it. I believe the Doctor doesn't have the neccessary focus to detail to do it properly, so it takes him ages to get work done. You can see changes over the years; by the time of the 3rd Doctor some of the steering capability has been restored, something which was totally missing during the 1st and 2nd Doctors' era. The 4th Doctor regains some control over the interior architecture, and changes the look of the interior several times.

There are some setbacks, too. The TARDIS sustains some serious damage during the time of the 4th and 5th Doctor (especially during "Frontios"!), and the "repairs" done by the 6th Doctor do more harm than good ("Vengance on Varos"). It's not until the 7th Doctor that we see a lot of significant work done on the old girl, much of which is undone by damage ("Bloodheat", for example). The 8th Doctor really dings up the TARDIS ("Dominion", "Unnatural History", and "War of the Daleks" are good examples).

What's this Jade Pagoda TARDIS I've heard about?

It's basically an escape pod- is made out of green marble and looks oriental in design.

Seen in Iceberg, where it gradually becomes more and more police box like until it looks like the original TARDIS and is pulled back inside it- prior to this it can travel, at least in space.

Also used in Sanctuary.

So does it have the Jade Pagoda shape because of a chameleon circuit?

Dunno, it isn't really explained.

As far as I can tell, nobody here is going to come up with a definitive list of what is or what isn't canon to meet everyones opinion, and it makes me wonder why we're letting anyone or any website dictate what we have to accept as canon. If you hated the TV movie and reject it, fine. If you want to try and figure out how Dimensions In Time figures into Who history, go right ahead.
Me, personally, I consider every novel and short story canon on the CONDITION that I like it, and can picture it happening in the Whoniverse. This throws alot of stuff out of whack for others, but that's just my opinion of canon.
And once stories start to contradict one another, such as the fate of Dodo, I blame the authors and pick the timeline I like more, pending some kind of time anomaly that might have changed the original outcome.
The motto; you can't please all the people all the time, especially with time travel involved, so pick and choose all you want.

I think our canon definitions are lose, and deliberately so. It's fun to see if you can force an EDA into the existing timeline, and what kind of gyrations you have to go through to justify it.

Besides, it doesn't look like any new TV adventures will be premiering any time soon, so we have to make do with what we have.

However, I don't think one's like or dislike should be used as a way of measuring the canonicity of a story. Like it or not, the TV movie did meet the criteria: (1) We saw the regeneration, (2) it contained references to accepted past events, and (3) it was sanctioned by the BBC and most of Who fandom. Now the game is to explain (or explain away) the inconsistancies (like the Eye in the center of the TARDIS, or the new interior).

Going by that logic the play Sevens Keys To Doomsday could hold up as well:
(1) We saw the regeneration - there was footage of Pertwee turning into Trevor Martin at the start of the play. This was before Tom Baker had been cast.
(2) It contained references to accepted past events - Terrance Dicks wrote it, so no surprise there.
(3) It was sanctioned by the BBC - they would have needed a licence to use the characters.

Then I'll add one additional requirement:
(4) The Doctor portrayed must appear in more than one adventure. This would disqualify SKtD, since that Doctor was a one-timer.

But doesn't that then nullify Paul McGann, since he was a one-timer as well?

I could argue that one for Mike, Chris. The Telemovie also had Sylvestor McCoy in it, a multi-episode Doctor, so technically it is canon.

If only Sylvestor had not agreed to do it, then it wouldn't be canon. But I suspect the BBC and FOX had at one time plans for a complete series.

Ah - but the play SKTD also had a bit of Pertwee at the start regenerating into Trevor Martin, so you could argue that's a multi-Doctor story as well.

Why wouldn't it have been canon if McCoy wasn't in it? You might then say Spearhead From Space wasn't canon because we never saw Troughton metamorphasise into Pertwee.

Paul McGann appears in the official novels, so he is a multi-appearance Doctor.

The 3rd Doctor's regeneration was implied. Having McCoy in the telemovie was the clincher.

I just want to point out that I really enjoyed the TV movie from the first viewing (I've watched it on tape another 4 times since). I was just using that as an example, and as such, I like Paul McGann and so far all of his novels. I had a problem with a couple of Virgin's McCoy novels, though; 'Falls The Shadow', 'Warlock', and 'Warhead' weren't much fun, so using my own personal canon theory, they don't exist.
Maybe that's another way of deciding what each of us wants as canon; if you haven't seen it or read it, you don't have to consider it canon. 99.99999 % of us here probably never say the play '7 Keys To Doomsday', so how can we accept it, other than an alternate Whoniverse where Pertwee turned in someone other than Tom Baker.

I'm just playing devil's advocate, that's all.

CBC- I'm interested- do you apply this theory to TV stories too?

Personally I dislike a system where something individual isn't canon because I didn't like it- surely this system falls down if you really liked (for example) Interference II, but hated Interference I...

Or something...

However, personally, I think the best way is to accept 'chunks' of things as canon- the entire TV series 1963-1989, or all the PDAs, rather than individual things. Stage plays are difficult beasts though- there's more of the •••• things than you might think, but personally I don't count *any* of them as canon (though I might go and see an adaption of the Web of Fear in Portsmouth in a couple of months)- you can't reasonably expect novel/TV writers to have seen them- you can reasonably expect them to have seen at least some of the TV series, and in the case of novel writers, probably most of it and a good chunk of novels too- the problem with discounting things you don't like is that future novel writers will still consider them canon- certain people would prefer Shadows of Avalon to be non-canon becuase of events in it- the trouble is, every novel at least until Escape Velocity next year seems to have been directly affected by it...

And then authors put references to spin-off videos in their works, such as Gary Russell in the MA The Scales of Injustice who gives a nod to the Liz Shaw PROBE videos by including one of the characters from those spinoffs earlier in her career in his book.

It's like the movies, Dr Who and the Daleks and Dr Who: Dalek Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. with Peter Cushing. It is based off of Terry Nation's scripts for the series. We can't consider them canon because of the original TV series, or can we? It is Terry Nation's Daleks, Susan is definately the Doctor's granddaughter, though apparently Barbara is Susan's mother. It was blessed by the BBC.

7 Keys to Doomsday stageplay has similar provenence.

I am not suggesting that the movies or the stageplay is canon, but the BBC allowed them. The BBC also allowed the novels.

Ah, I think you'll find Barbara was Susan's older sister in Dr Who and the Daleks - making Dr Who the grandfather of both.

Oops. I stand corrected (I hate when that happens).

No, I can't apply my theory to the tv episodes, much as I'd like to in some instances. What we've seen on tv is the honest-to-god canon, as it should be. However, as the novels and short stories are by non-BBC writers, producers, and directors, we as fans seem to give them a different approach. Out of 90 or so novels I've read, and all those short stories, I liked or 'approved of' about 80, so I feel that the majority of the authors 'got it right'. As for the Peter Cushing movies, I can't consider them canon, as they change the relationships of the characters around from established tv fact, so they'd have to be assumed as a different universe where there are no such things as time lords.

CBC: what's your position on Shada?

Some TV Who writers have written novels, too - such as Terrance Dicks, Marc Platt, Ben Aaronovitch, Chris Boucher, Barry Letts.

As Shada has been released on video and I've seen it, it was made while the show was in production, and it's a decent enough story, I consider it canon.
I especially like novels written by anyone connected with the show, for the most part.

Of course just because a novel was written by someone connected with the show doesn't mean it's going to be any good (i.e. Blood Harvest).

And surely by definition, any BBC novel is written by a BBC writer?

Only the filmed footage of Shada was made while the show was in production, the video was made in 1992 after the BBC cancelled the show.

Would you say the show was in production in 1996 when the telemovie was being made? And, if so, would that make any spin-offs made at the time canon?

Gordon; Call me a masochist, but I liked Blood Harvest.
Edje; When I say 'BBC', I meant the tv division. They created the realm with all the people and subjects and planets we've grown up with, while the BBC novelists have simply built upon that.
Chris; It doesn't matter that it took almost 20 years for somebody to piece together Shada; it still has Tom Baker, Lalla Ward, and everything else from when they were the stars of the show, so it's canon (to me, at least). The re-release of The Five Doctors with extra footage and different special effects doesn't change my opinion of it, even though it was altered many years after it was filmed; the new version is as much canon as the original, to me.
Now as for the tv series being in production while the 1996 movie was being made, and are any spin-offs at the time considered canon, my opinion is what I've always said before; if I liked what I read, it's canon to me. I don't get to read my books simultaneously with whatever's on tv, so I'd obviously lose track of what was on the shelves at the same time. I've never seen the short videos like Auton or any of the others, so I can't give an opinion about them, other than I like the idea of things from the Who universe occurring that don't involve the Doctor; after all, the Daleks invaded enough planets to be called an empire, so he obviously couldn't save or help everyone.

He probably _could_ have saved everyone in the universe a doozen times over, if he didn't waste 99% of his time on Earth. If I'd been the Doctor I'd have just left Earth get on with being invaded, and concentrated on the rest of the cosmos.

Never having seen it, I never thought of the canonical implications of the Five Doctors re-release. I suppose we'll just have to take the original as canon, and the newer one as happening in an alternate, but very similar, universe.

OK, if CBC's got the guts to confess it, so have I - I liked Blood Harvest too. It should never have been written, but...*shrugs* it's fun.

CBC- surely Anthony Coburn, Verity Lambert, Aydney Newman, Waris Hussein and others involved in the creation of the show created it. Terry Nation et al were just building upon that.

Don't forget C.E. "Bunny" Webber.

Now I know why it's called the 'NitCentral'.
If you want to get right down to the moment of it's conception, everyone involved after the first half-hour pilot was building upon the basis of the show.
But ask anyone out there and they'll say that the Daleks and the Master and the Cybermen are as much a part of the show's history as any companion from the first show.
I'm saying that now that the show is over, just as Star Trek and the Mark Hamil/Carrie Fisher Star Wars movies are over, subsequent BOOK writers are taking established tv SERIES history, and building upon it; sometimes good and sometimes not so good.
If Terrence Dicks writes a really horrible book, then I'll reject it and not consider it canon. So far, I like what I've seen from him.

But they're no more building on it than Marc Platt built on it when he wrote Ghost Light- does the fact that they're novels make them so different?

Including The Eight Doctors???????????

I think they are different and here's why; all the men and women who worked at BBC tv studios had a job in the tv industry; their job was to produce a tv show and nothing else. The novelists, on the other hand, more than likely have real jobs, and work on their books, based on Dr.Who characters created by X-number of people, and then move on to something else, perhaps even an original novel. In other words, they are not as committed to the final product as some lighting technician or sound engineer back then who needed to keep his or her job on Dr.Who, as opposed to an author who already has a full-time job and the novel is fun (bloody hard work, but still 'fun' compared to deadlines and meetings with clients or customers or whatever).
Don't get me wrong; I consider the authors to be our best source of Dr.Who now, and respect whatever effort they've put into a book, but you can't tell me that when Diane Duane writes a Star Trek novel or Joe Blow writes a Quantum Leap novel that they are on the same level as the script writers while the series were in production, and we *must* consider their work canon, just because it has the name 'Doctor Who' on it.
Subsequent writers down through the seasons built upon what was first established; a strange alien with a time machine. This is true from The Daleks to Survival, as much as if I started a painting and you added detail to it, then Emily added detail and so on. A basis was established, but everyone after that first pilot episode built upon the creators ideas, and moreso for the novelists because the series is over. I guess that's my point; if the tv show is over, and you write a novel based on it, using main characters that YOU did not create, you're building on other peoples work, and that's not such a bad thing, as long as the readers like your book.

Chris; I guess you're asking whether I liked Dicks' Eight Doctors? Yea, I have the guts to come right out and say that I did. I'm a sucker for any novel or short story that combines two or more Doctors, or two or more companions that never met (like when Jo and Sam met in Genocide). What it comes down to, guys, is that I was entertained and not bored out of my skull. The Eighth Doctor was inserted into various previous episodes; so what? I had fun reading it. Are you telling me you preferred the weird and incomprehensible Sky Pirates! to The Eight Doctors or any of the early Virgin New Adventures where the Doctor was in about five scenes?

Interesting argument, probably the best I've seen for the novels not being canon.

However, doesn't the fact that the novel writers are writing for something they love, whereas some of the TV writers may just have been desperate for work, affect things?

I would say that any of the early Virgin Novels and definately the fantastic Sky Pirates is far, far superior to the recycled hack work of tED.

Ouch!
Sky Pirates was 'fantastic'??????? I must have missed something after, oh, page 5 or so.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, Ed, if I'm to follow my own advice (ie, if YOU liked it fine, if someone else didn't, also fine. We're all different here). Besides, the odds are some of my favourites are some of yours...the odds are too big to claim otherwise.
I don't think we can say who on the series and who amongst the novelists 'loved' his or her job, and who was/is in it for a buck. You can't base your own opinion of whether a book is canon or not by asking yourself 'Did the author have a good time writing it?' any more than you can say, 'John Nathan-Turner was having a bad day when he produced episode 3 of Four To Doomsday, so I won't consider it canon.'

Having admitted that I like the blatant fan-oriented gimmicks like more than one Doctor in a novel, Ed, can I assume you prefer total originality in a novel, with new aliens and settings that step out of the average Dr.Who mold?

Most lighting technicians and sound technicians were employed by the BBC and then assigned to various department, so they might do one of two Doctor Whos but lots of other programs as well.

Marc Platt and Andrew Smith were fans of the series who had regular jobs and got to write for the show they loved.

Comed to think of it, John Lucarotti already had a job as a copywriter when asked to write Marco Polo, which he did over a period of weekends.

CBC, no, I'll be happi-ly picking up Dave Stone's Heart of TARDIS featuring the 2nd and 4th Doctors, but I do think originality is very, very important- this can be providing a new spin on something old tho.

I doubt anyone who didn't love the show would write for the novels- it takes a long time to write a book, and it's a fairly low return with Who novels.

I'm not basing my opinion on that whether someone loved the show they wrote for, just pointing out that it would be equally valid to do so.

If an author was a non-Who fan and was approached to do a Who novel, he/she might still consider it.

As a journalist, sometimes I'm approached to write things that I have no particular love for but if someone said "Hey Chris, could you write us a piece on what's involved in flower arranging?" even if I have no prior knowledge of the subject, I'd certainly consider it. Especially if I had a few bills to pay and so on. So an author with no prior love for Who might opt to write a Who novel as a sideline to what he usually does.

Chris- this rarely happens with the Who line, AFAIK- authors usually approach the BBC, rather than the other way round. Authors who have already written for the range might be approached. I can't think of a single example of a non-DW author being approached to write for the NAs/EDAs (I think Terrance Dicks may have been approached for tED, but he's a longstanding DW author).

The reason why we are questioning the validity of the novels is because a sufficient number of fans are questioning the novels. Whether they are doing this out of staunch hatred of the written form or because of unfavourable developments, it does not matter. Silly skits aside, we are unanimous in the canonicity of Masque of Mandragora, to pluck a story out the air. All fans know of it, many have seen it, pictures of Hieronymus frequent DWM and glossy hardbacks, and so Masque of Mandragora sits well in the Whoniverse with Everybody.

And then, say, we have The Also People. A book. Not everyone likes reading, and not everyone who likes reading likes reading NAs. Although elitism is the wrong word, it nevertheless shows that Joe Fan has a distinct disadvantage if he is not an NA follower, as the adventures are perhaps made less accessible. The logistics of canonicity are important, even perhaps if they bear little relevance to the actual Whoniverse itself. The fact is, many Whoovers simply don't care about The Also People or The Pit or The Face Eaters. They are pocket books in a pocket universe! What I am getting at in my usual roundabout way is that Canonicity is perhaps governed by popularity and accessibility. The stage plays were seen by a relatively small number of fans, which is why even we small band of Nitpickers don't question them half as much as Dimensions in Time or The Eight Doctors.

My approach is odd, (it wouldn't be anything else!), and is this: If I don't encounter it, it isn't there. This isn't the short-sighted ostrich-like observation you may think, as it simply means I allow myself to ignore The Face Eaters and embrace Masque of Mandragora because in my life, I doubt I will ever set eyes on the former.

I shall pre-empt any retaliation which begins "But you surely can't ignore the missing episodes because you can't see them unless through the also elitist, (wrong word), combination of Telesnaps and audio tapes..."
The fact is, these missing episodes were once whole and at the core of the series following at the time, so obviously Power of the Daleks can't be deemed uncanonical.

When toss such as DiT does come my way and I'm forced to make a decision, it is made easier by the simple fact that DiT is utter nonsense. A Fix with Sontarans is also silly. In the same way that that Crackerjack sketch is silly. And Victor Lewis-Smith's Gay Daleks sketch is silly. I know that Twin Dilemma is fairly silly, but it is dramatic silliness as opposed to a couple of minutes of pot shots or comic turns or Gareth Jenkins and Jimmy Saville.

And to end on the thing with the books, I don't know if it's just me, but despite all the NAs I've read, (and that's quite a few), I find myself simply unable to remember much about any of them. Books merge, memories fade and through my own terrible mind, books like Infinite Requiem get completely forgotten. I can remember nothing at all about Infinite Requiem. This is rather like not coming across them at all, and so allows me the perfect excuse not the think about them very much simply because I can't. I don't propose for one minute that this is the same for everybody, but it just illustrates how the range of million+ novels even when read do not have the same kind of bite as the television adventures! ;-)

That's me done.

Edje - I only said it was possible a non-Who fan may consider writing a Who novel if approached, although I know it would be an extremely rare thing.

Going on a Doctor Who Magazine with Terrance Dicks, it appears he was approached to put in a submission for Timewyrm: Exodus and Blood Harvest and was asked to expand upon Shakedown for the NA range.

As for the books being canon and so on... Paul Cornell has himself admitted only a percentage of the Who audience will ever read the books, simply because it's easier watch the TV show than work your way through a book.

I have to agree with PJW regarding my memory of the novels contents. I, too, have forgotten much of what I've read, but still retain a certain amount of data. That's why I've kept a ratings list for my Who novels and some others, giving them my own personal 1 to 5 star rating. Otherwise, I might not remember how much I enjoyed 'Legacy', and how much I disliked 'Lucifer Rising'. or maybe it just bored me...I forget. I think the books have a disadvantage, usually read that one and only time. Should anyone find the time to read them two or more times they'd stand a better chance against an episode that one has seen two or more times.

Considering the drastic character change Ace underwent in the Virgin New Adventures (a cold, ass-kicking, bitchy, commando who seemed to hate the Doctor), could this be a reason why some fans rejected the novels as canon, or didn't like reading them?

Perhaps. But Doctor Who is full of out and out stereotypes, from Mr Fibuli to The Master to Nord. We are used to outlandish people in that respect. Had Ace entered the cosier world of the Star Trek (dare I say it) novel, then that would've caused more of a stink. But no, Ace's character merely followed on from Absalom Daak, who had followed on from Glitz, who had followed on from Lytton. I think what actually did the most harm was concentrating so hard on Ace. The Doctor became relegated to Brooding Man In The Corner Who Knows Everything. The Doctor became a cliche for me. He'd go 'Aah...' a lot, and he'd go too cryptic. If he told a joke it would be laced with meaning. Every adventure would seem to feature a something from the dawn of time, would try to be the big adventure, would try for epic status. Yes, they tried too hard.

Is it me, or is this kind of perception of the NAs a kind of weird generalisation of about 3 of the books?

Looking along my shelf, I can't see too many that I recall being something from the dawn of time (ok, IIRC Time's Crucible, White Darkness, The Dimension Riders, All Consuming Fire), or really very many trying for 'epic' status (anything by Jim Mortimore or Paul Cornell is as near as I can get to).

And Ace didn't actually become the lead character very much- Benny was much more of a focus, IIRC. Ace was only the lead during some of the early books which were taking their lead from the TV series.

I think the simple reason people don't follow the books is simple: it's easier to watch TV than it is to read and it's probably safe to say they like other sci-fi as well, and there's enough of that on TV to keep them interested, without having to pick up a book.

I don't necessarily agree it's good idea and I don't mean to make a sweeping generalisation. But I'd say it's true of many or some.

You're probably right, Chris. Once upon a time, print was the chosen medium for SF, but no more. Now it's TV and movies, with print being more and more relegated to the role of marketing tie-in.

I have to give some credit to the Who writers for trying to do something different, instead of slavishly sticking to the old agenda. I may not always like it, but they do get points for trying.

And this goes to everyone out there--don't judge all the novels by just one or two bad examples. What if you had judged the series solely on "The Gunfighters"?

IMHO it's a problem if SF becomes too TV/movie based- TV executives are scared of SF- they just don't get it at all.

For my money, the best SF stories will always be told in print, because the writers have so much more freedom.

Here, here! And I think that's why I've begun to enjoy the Who novels. No more rock quarries, no more silver spray-painted Doc Martens, no more latex suits with visible zippers.

The EDA I just finished, "The Taking of Planet 5", could NEVER have been made on TV, either now, 20 years ago, and possibly even 20 years from now. The written word always has an unlimited special effects budget.

TV/Movie execs aren't afraid of SF; they're just afraid of new ideas. How else do you explain the Matthew Broderick version of "Godzilla"?

It was made by the same people as Independence Day. 'Nuff said.

Does anyone know anything about a US straight-to-video release from 1986 called 'Doctor Who and the Holy Grail'?

I've never heard of it until now. Apparently it was for conventions.

Found a site you can see clips of it, though. Looks like an interesting premise.

http://fedvideo.net/federation/400feature.htm

Cheers Luiner. A quirky little site that. The Three-Headed Fan, the Dalek that says 'Ni', burning a woman because she's American... Although if you haven't seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail, you probably won't get it at all!

Help! I can't see any of the videos!

Is your VCR broken?

[blows dust off topic]
Well given how much Emily hates about 95% of these books judging by her overly sarcastic and bitter synopsis' of them I'd be happy just to let the books sit on the shelves and not open them at all. Am I missing anything?? Naah.

That's why you should never go by one person's opinion, Rodney. I admit that none of the Who novels are going to win a Nobel prize for literature (or even a Hugo award), but most of them are good reads. Emily just has high standards.

VERY high standards....

However, I would avoid "Longest Day", anything by Barry Letts, and "Rags."

You're probably right, Mike, but I value her opinion and every synposis has companions dying, getting diseases, pregnant and stuff like that, which is fine when it happens to them once, instead it happens to them over and over, it's like there is no continuity at all. That's just too much to digest for me.

Of course, Emily says the same thing about the series too. Also, she has a few good things to say about the books; I'm sure you noticed she is fond of Lawrence Miles.

The only critic to trust is the one in your head, Rodney. Give "Alien Bodies" or "Heart of TARDIS" a try.

Okay, I followed the debate in this topic. The last post made was in 2003, two years before the New Series started.

So, are the novels still considered canon, or did that go out the window once the show went back into production?

The novels said the Doctor destroyed Gallifrey, while the New Series said the Daleks did it. Obviously, the series is going to be the official reason.

One of the novels suggested that Sarah Jane was shot and killed in 1997 (never mind that other novels, such as Millenium Shock show her alive in 1999). Of course, the New Series and the Sarah Jane Adventures show us that Sarah is alive and well today.

In my opinion, once the show was back, the novels were consigned to an alternate reality. It seems the only logical solution. Not that this takes anything away from the novels, mind you, I still enjoy reading them.

As for the Audio Adventures, I could say they're canon, because the actual actors are taking part in them.

So, are the novels still considered canon, or did that go out the window once the show went back into production?

Oh, I reckon they went straight out the window. Not that I noticed. Or cared. Too busy dying and going to heaven.

The novels said the Doctor destroyed Gallifrey, while the New Series said the Daleks did it.

Well, the novels did leave it open for Gallifrey to be restored (cos the Doc, um, had it all in his head) - in order, no doubt, to be destroyed AGAIN at a later date. (Incidentally, nice of you to blame the Daleks, I have little doubt it was the Doc who pushed that button. Lever. Whatever.)

One of the novels suggested that Sarah Jane was shot and killed in 1997 (never mind that other novels, such as Millenium Shock show her alive in 1999).

Well, at least that stupid Bullet Time gave us a get-out clause (the Doc might have been talking to the real live Sarah and not a pigeon) but that still leaves Interference and Christmas on a Rational Planet, where Sarah marries some Morley bloke, sets up the Black Seed political movement, bumps into the Eighth Doctor, lives with Sam Jones, etc etc.

In my opinion, once the show was back, the novels were consigned to an alternate reality. It seems the only logical solution. Not that this takes anything away from the novels, mind you, I still enjoy reading them.

Well, for me, the fact - OK, opinion - that they're no longer canon takes away the one shred of justification for those godawful piles of ****.

As for the Audio Adventures, I could say they're canon, because the actual actors are taking part in them.

But actors are by their very nature non-canonical and therefore irrelevant. And the audios often seem to be going out of their way to contradict each other, the books AND the TV series. Plus they're almost all rubbish too.

The novels said the Doctor destroyed Gallifrey, while the New Series said the Daleks did it.

Well, actually, New Who FINALLY confessed that it was the Doctor wot dunnit...

In my opinion, only stories in odd-numbered seasons are canon, with the exception of The Reign of Terror, where episodes 1, 3 and the last 15 minutes of 4 are canon.
Oh, and the blurb on the back cover of the original VHS release of The Time Warrior is also canon.

I'm guessing that the above post in a joke.

Yes

With them it’s also a bit of a ****post like always