Talk:TARDIS Tour (short story)

Got to say, I agree with User:SarahJaneFan here. The "Sorry, Yaz" feels more like an aside comment that as if the Doctor was talking to her in-person. Like how people go, "Sorry, Mum/Dad", to themselves when they're about to do something they know their parents would disapprove of.BananaClownMan ☎  00:03, November 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree with this. Scrooge also said that non-valid information would be needed to claim this isn't Yaz, but a) authorial intent has been used in the past to determine who is appearing (see: PROSE: Canaries) and b) even limiting to the contents of this story, the mention is more of an offhanded joke-y apology, as BananaClownMan has said, rather than an indication that she's giving this tour to Yaz. Danochy ☎  01:58, November 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * There may or may not be precedents about using authorial intent in such matters, but I would caution against citing something as recent as PROSE: Canaries. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to about our current coverage, but it can hardly be a solid precedent when there has (to my knowledge) been no discussion on the subject — the talk page is blank.


 * Also, the issue with authorial intent is that the framing device given in Meet the Fam doesn't mesh with the narrative of TARDIS Tour. In the framing device the Doctor is just sending a book out into the world like a message-in-a-bottle; in TARDIS Tour she's by all appearances physically giving-a tour of the TARDIS to… somebody. Unless we start to speculate about some sort of double-fiction framing device, whereby the Doctor-as-seen-in-Meet-the-Fam wrote the text of TARDIS Tour and phrased it as though she were giving a tour of the TARDIS as part of a set of events that never actually happened… but again, that's speculation, and speculation trying to justify an invalid framework at that.


 * I will defer to consensus if it is felt that, taking the text of "TARDIS Tour" on its own terms, the line still reads more like "the Doctor is making an offhand comment about Yaz but is giving the tour to someone else we don't know" more than "the Doctor is talking to Yaz, who must therefore be who she's giving the tour to". But IMO some sort of guess about authorial intent based on Meet the Fam’s framing device should not, and indeed cannot, enter into it. -Scrooge MacDuck ☎  02:09, November 3, 2020 (UTC)


 * As per Meet the Fam, the entire book is intended to be written and made by the Doctor under the "invalid framework", including the TARDIS Tour and all its images and references. If the Doctor appears to be in the TARDIS in this story, it's because she wrote it that way. Of course, since the framework is currently not valid, this may be a pointless exercise. I just wanted to point out that it is not speculation to link the book together, and that it could even be deemed speculative to assume that the stories are not linked by the framing narrative.


 * On that note, could you quickly explain what makes the framing narrative invalid? I gather it's because the book appears to be addressing the audience, but that's speculation in itself. The book could just as easily be addressing any potential in-universe reader and is even framed that way.


 * Anyway, basing my opinion entirely on TARDIS Tour as you have requested, I do still maintain its status as an "offhanded comment". The comment is something the Doctor could always say, regardless of whether or not Yaz were actually there, so I'd argue it's speculative in this case to to claim either to be true. Danochy ☎  23:21, November 3, 2020 (UTC)


 * Seconded. BananaClownMan ☎  23:29, November 3, 2020 (UTC)


 * To answer User:Danochy's question, the reason the "framing narrative", as encompassing the whole book, is invalid, is that per the precedent of Thread:213311, if we called the framing device valid, we'd have to count all the framed story as being part of it, and probably dub the whole thing a "(novel)". We can't simply cut apart the little tidbits of framing narration to suit ourselves.


 * And if we did that, we'd have to acknowledge the technically-"CYOA" stories, like Colour Chameleon, as part of that narrative. These things cannot be valid under the current policy, therefore "The Official Annual 2021 (novel)" would be invalid on arrival too.


 * So all in all, it's much more simple to write off the bits-and-bobs of "framing narration" running through the book in the same way we make light of the introductory panels of Tales from the TARDIS (or, if you will, of the "in-character" linking material of the 1999 Doctor Who Nigh), and treat the individual items of the Table of Contents as individual stories.


 * That is, anyway, clearly how they were written, at least to a point. There can be a meta-narrative that Zellin's Nightmare World or The Doctor vs the Master are just fiction the Doctor wrote, but that's not how they read when you consider them individually at all, any more than the Doctor Who Night was sincerely asking its viewers to watch the TV Movie with the understanding that it's a piece of media the Doctor owns, rather than actual events in N-Space. Indeed, the games are no fun at all if you're not allowed to pretend, on some level, that "you" are indeed fighting Zellin. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  23:33, November 3, 2020 (UTC)


 * It’s either all one valid in-universe document, or it’s invalid. Can’t just cherry pick and interpret things to make them fit rules, that opens us up for all sorts of trouble.


 * These aren’t individual short stories, they’re an in-universe document consisting of various notes, fact files and diary entries all collated by the Doctor for the benefit of a hypothetical reader. To suggest otherwise would be breaching the factual accuracy of the page.


 * Whether this is valid or not doesn’t make a huge difference to me, but what I am opposed to is false information and out of context writing appearing on wiki pages just so something might fit with the rules slightly better than it actually does. Anyone who reads the annual will understand what I’m saying. It’s just not honest to interpret this as anything other than what is plainly presented to us. SarahJaneFan ☎  00:01, November 4, 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with SJF here, but to my knowledge I don't see why it should be invalid. I wrote the following before SJF posted, so apologies for any repetition.


 * Within the narrative Colour Chameleon would be considered a game devised by the Doctor for her book; The Doctor vs the Master would be considered a conversation with the Master transcribed for her book; Zellin's Nightmare World would be considered a spot-the-difference game made by the Doctor for her book. None of this is invalid when taken under the intended framework that it is a book written by the Doctor for some intended reader (we can't speculate as to whom) to read if she gets stuck in somewhere like the Dog dimension. Danochy ☎  00:05, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, guys, the thing is, you have to apply some common sense here. Almost every annual has a framing device of some kind. Last year's did. Doctor Who The Official Annual 2016 does. The Dalek Outer Space Book does (that's even part of the reason for the validity of COMIC: The Sea Monsters). The 2021 Annual isn't some kind of weird exception.


 * What you are proposing would be a fundamental change to how we cover nearly every annual, proposing to redefine them as weird atypical "novels", most of which would now have to be invalid. We're talking dozens if not hundreds of story page merges here, and to achieve a result completely unlike what any sane reader of the Wiki would expect.


 * I would call your attention to anthologies with a framing device. The Book of the Enemy or Short Trips: Zodiac aren't considered novels, even though they both have "framing devices" — and indeed, valid ones, which we account for as their own short stories! Much as TV series can have story arcs across several episodes, one short story in an anthology/annual positing a framing device does not necessarily mean we have to cover it all as one story.


 * But when parts of the "anthology" are invalid, that only works if the framing device can be separated from the things it frames, and considered its own short story. That's the case in Zodiac, but it's not the case in The Incomplete Death's Head and it's not the case in Annuals. Not because the comic stories, games, short stories, etc. in an Annual aren't stories in their own right — but because the framing device around them doesn't stand up as a story in its own right.


 * In short you are proposing a fundamental, and I think reckless, change to how we cover dozens of anthologies and annuals. It would absolutely demand a Panopticon thread before any action could be taken, and I don't think that Panopticon thread would lead much of anywhere for the common-sense reasons I stated above. The Pest of Paternoster Row and Zorgo the Terrible are just not the same story, regardless of what I'm The Doctor! says. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  00:12, November 4, 2020 (UTC)


 * There aren’t any short stories in the 2021 annual except The Guide to the Dark Times. Usually there’s comics and short stories dispersed throughout that are separated from the sketchy framing narrative, but in this case there isn’t except the one story I mentioned. Everything else is part of the so-called sketchy framing narrative. To try and claim these are short stories in their own right and separate from the framing narrative is still wrong. No one here has claimed that the framing narrative would make Pest of Paternoster Row and Zorgo the Terrible the same story. They’re separate in their own right to the framing narrative. That’s not the case here and to claim otherwise would be misleading. SarahJaneFan ☎  00:20, November 4, 2020 (UTC)
 * All the various stories (prose and game), and non-narrative features, in the 2021 Annual are separately listed in the Table of Contents, on the same terms as The Guide to the Dark Times. I frankly have no idea where you're coming from here when claiming The Guide… is any different from, say, The Doctor vs the Master. Or that the 2021 Annual is different from (for example) the 2016 Annual. Or for that matter from the 2020 Annual, which mock-presents all its contents as part of the TARDIS's information systems being displayed on the TARDIS scanner. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  00:24, November 4, 2020 (UTC)