Doctor Who question

Umbran said:

And failing miserably

Click to expand...

Well, sure. But that is Ian's limitation, not Susan's. No wonder she is so frustrated in that scene!

While your construction isn't bad, but it is ex post facto.

Click to expand...

Thank you, and I know it is.

I far prefer to watch the series & determine what unintended internal consistencies it might reveal than to go by author statements. First off, it is more fun. Second off, it results in a more consistent programme!

I haven't watched the old episodes in ages, but I strongly suspect that there's stuff back there that violates your construction with passion and gusto.

Click to expand...

I watch it regularly, and you would be surprised how well that construction holds up! There are actually a lot of interesting things implied by the Doctor Who stories as to how temporal physics work, esp. now that we can compare and contrast temporal physics pre- and post-Time War.

Now, if only the Beeb would hire me as Continuity Editor, things would be fine.......

In response to the OP:

1-Get your hands on a copy of Primer.

2-Be forever cured of wishing subsequent movies explored fully what time machines can do or how much can they screw with your mind.

Umbran said:

Well, that's even worse!



And failing miserably

While your construction isn't bad, but it is ex post facto. I've never seen any sign the authors had any such self consistent structure in mind when writing Susan's lines in 1963. I haven't watched the old episodes in ages, but I strongly suspect that there's stuff back there that violates your construction with passion and gusto.

Click to expand...

This very thing violates it.

He also has no direct telepathic contact with any other Time Lord through the TARDIS's link to Gallifrey. There is reason to believe that other Time Lords may have survived -- the Doctor's claim that he would known is sheer bunkum. After all, both the Doctor and the Master were on Earth before Archangel launched, and the Doctor didn't know. Likewise, he has failed to recognize Azrael, the Master, and K'Anpo/Cho Je in the past.

Click to expand...

RC has detected a contradiction and said the Doctor is wrong. But why would he be wrong here and why can't Susan be wrong about "space" as 5th dimension? Or anything else that contradicts it could be wrong.

Mustrum_Ridcully said:

This very thing violates it.

RC has detected a contradiction and said the Doctor is wrong. But why would he be wrong here and why can't Susan be wrong about "space" as 5th dimension? Or anything else that contradicts it could be wrong.

Click to expand...

Susan could be wrong about "Space", but her statement makes sense within the framework of what is seen in other Doctor Who stories.

Likewise, about the telepathic contact with other Time Lords, the Doctor could be right, but his statement does not make sense within the framework of what is seen in other Doctor Who stories.

If there are multiple possible interpretations, the one that makes sense within the framework of what is seen in other Doctor Who stories seems best.

To me at least. YMMV.

In any event, a construction is not violated by examining the likelihood of any given statement being true within the framework of the programme. Rather, a construction is invalidated by not doing so.

We see Kroll; that Kroll existed is a "fact" of the Whoniverse. We do not see the drill flies mentioned in The Power of Kroll. We do not know whether or not drill flies exist. From the delivery, I rather suspect that Romana is being simply being put on.

A character being mistaken, or making an untrue statement (intentionally or unintentionally -- "I didn't want to say magic door.") is not a contradiction in the continuity of the programme. Nor is any conflict between what is seen in two stories necessarily a contradiction. It is quite possible that the conflict can be reconciled.

When future stories reinforce a construction, the construction is strengthened. When future stories apparently contradict it, the construction must be modified to accept the new data.

This is not horribly dissimilar to the scientific method.


RC