User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-28349479-20161216221639/@comment-28349479-20161218143238

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-28349479-20161216221639/@comment-28349479-20161218143238 Oh, and then Philip Purser-Hallard and Andrew Hickey show up and definitively end the authorial intent and "same universe" debates. This is why I should refresh before replying! Thanks for stopping by, both of you; I'm a big fan of your works!

I'd like to note that reinterpretation of previous stories is nothing new to Doctor Who. In fact, since it's reinterpretation and not actual contradiction, it's significantly less problematic than properly subversive stories like Ground Zero. Stories that have tried reinterpretation of previous Doctor Who stories include War of the Daleks, Zagreus, Day of the Doctor, Time of the Doctor, Divided Loyalties, Millenial Rites, and The Sands of Time, just to name a few. And subverting audience expectations is similarly nothing new: just look at Midnight, Listen, Kill the Moon, and Night of the Doctor, to give four of the most recent and obvious televised examples.

As Fwiffahder noted earlier, using in-text evidence from The Book of the War to draw conclusions about the Faction Paradox series' relationship with the Doctor Who universe is a self-defeating idea, since it's deliberately written as a propaganda piece of the Great Houses, continually rewritten by the Shift. This gives it the same "unreliable narrator" status as All-Consuming Fire, which, despite being identified in-text as a misrepresentation of events, is treated as a valid source in this wiki. This precedent should also be applied to BotW and, if need be, the rest of the FP series.