User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170306172600/@comment-5918438-20200604050514

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170306172600/@comment-5918438-20200604050514

I have indeed been looking all this over and taking into account the latest developments. And, after careful examination of the stories brought up in the opening post, I am able to bring this thread to its logical conclusion. References or connections to past stories which have been disqualified from validity for reasons which do not apply to the newer entry do not make them automatically invalid.

(Equally, it should be noted, assertions made in valid stories do not retroactively change the rule 1/2/3/4 violations of past sources--outside very special cases in the forums, anyhow.)

This is because validity is not primarily determined by continuity. Any illusion of having one easily traceable continuity for Doctor Who has long been shattered. Instead, our one rule to do with DWU continuity is about intention. Just as contradictions between stories mean little to these rulings, continuity nods to stories that don't count here don't swallow the rest of the narrative whole. If it can be established that the same problems don't plague the "sequel", and if it's not clear that the writer(s) of the newer work actually intended a non-DWU setting, then it should be considered on its own terms.

Remember, our determination of invalidity is external: we should not take it as given that authors share our same point of view, writing in a time before this site existed. (Short Trips and Side Steps brings us a really interesting case: included in these Side Steps is a "step sideways" into the continuity of Doctor Who's TV Comic and TV Action runs, which are not so alternative to us.)

Long-time editors will know that references to stories that we call invalid are nothing new -- there is nothing here that hasn't been seen in, say, Face Value, The Tomorrow Windows, First Frontier or Vampire Science. What we do is note only what can be gleaned from the valid story, as though the adventure referenced took place entirely "off-screen", like the reference to Woman Wept discussed above. For Tikka, this would be that the Doctor and Ace encountered the Rani in East London. For First Frontier, which we already cover, it's instead that the Doctor once had a dream in which he was chased around the set of EastEnders. In both cases, Dimensions in Time remains invalid, no problem.

The stories
So, with one possible exception: in the cases brought up in this thread, issues of licensing in one case, or narrative inscrutability in another, do not carry over into the newer works that they inspire.

Short Trips and Side Steps
Fixing a Hole does not break the fourth wall, as did the "story" it quickly references. Storm in a Tikka is fully licensed, and does not rely on the stories it has wedged itself between. Each stands on its own. A Fix with the Sontarans places Six and Tegan together, but, aside from a brief description of how Tegan felt about her unwelcome return to the TARDIS, which intersects with Fix, Fixing a Hole very much departs from.. whatever Fix was. Outside background is not necessary to justify a TARDIS team (we don't even know what version of K9 travelled with Ten and the delightful Rose-the-Cat). Rather than falling into the same traps, Fixing a Hole takes an idea suggested by Fix as its premise -- that Tegan might show up in the Sixth Doctor's TARDIS -- and builds something new from it, something which seems to pass all four rules.

On the logic established above, now we have no canon, these two have no reason to remain invalid. Neither falls apart if you don't understand the reference, because they tell their own stories, and they're taken seriously as character pieces. They're good to go.


 * Dr Who and the House on Oldark Moor is currently under discussion in a separate thread, The Cushing Conundrum. Further comments should be directed there. It is beyond the scope of this thread to resolve that one.

David Roden
Rescue, on the other hand, will require further examination before it can be deemed valid. This is in part because it was written by David Roden, who is implicated in the rule 4 ruling of Dimensions in Time. It may be that Roden and JN-T, co-writers on the special, held different views, and that the very existence of a short story by Roden that takes DIT seriously indicates he intended this to be set in the DWU. But on the face it seems that the disqualifier for Dimensions in Time might very well apply to this one. It also does not benefit from the context of Short Trips and Side Steps, which gives us points of comparison to work out that the writers intended to bring obscure works into the DWU by way of their references. It might also be that Rescue relies too heavily on its unlicensed source material.

This is up for discussion in its own thread, if anyone familiar wants to argue for validity.

Future cases
What this means for stories not yet brought to the forums is that referencing a past story which we call invalid does not on its own make the new source invalid. However, any evidence that problems with the "original" apply just as well to the story that calls back to it will most likely mean it'd meet the same fate. Also, any indication that the writer seriously thinks setting their new story alongside, say, The Curse of Fatal Death, would make that story "non-canon" would likely point to rule 4 invalidity. Generally speaking, these stories should also stand on their own as narratives. If they depend entirely on the previous invalid story in order for you to understand the new plot developments, we may not be able to cover them as valid sources. But original fiction that treats invalid stories as if they happened are not automatically invalid.