Talk:First Monk

Renaming the article
We should consider moving this page to either First Monk or Monk I.

The incarnation in question is explicitly stated to be the first incarnation by virtue of PROSE: The Mutation of Time. The only material which could be construed as contradictory is the idea that "the Monk" seen in his two televised appearances were the sixth incarnation of the Master. That being said, this would still be the first incarnation to go by the title. Since we don't call Christopher Eccleston's Doctor "the Tenth Doctor" because his predecessor didn't go by "the Doctor", we can still easily call this incarnation "the First Monk". That's ignoring the fact that the claim that the Monk was an incarnation of the Master was from an in-universe source (which was in-universe wiped of all information regarding the Master and can very easily be construed as unreliable.) Using "The Monk (The Time Meddler)" rather than "First Monk" or "Monk I" is rather silly when we are explicitly told this is the First Monk.

Personally, "First Monk" follows the precedent we currently have set (where Time Lords with titles use spelled out numbering and those that go by their true name use Roman numerals) and generally reads better, but I figured presenting both options wouldn't be a bad idea.NoNotTheMemes ☎  15:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. An account stating he’s the first incarnation paired with the fact that he’s very clearly the first “monk” even if he isn’t the first Mortimus is more than good enough for me. I think I’d lean more towards “First Monk” than “Monk I” to match the Doctors. SarahJaneFan ☎  18:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think I'll voice my support, preferably for Monk I, seeing as I already object to "First" being used on characters like the Doctor. The only possible issue I could see is that another story might one day and say that this guy isn't the first, but until then, this page should be housed at Monk I or somethin'. 📯 📂 01:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Monk I" is terrible — the clear standard is that "First", "Second", etc. is used for Time Lords with a "the" title (like the Rani), while "I", "II", etc. is used for Time Lords with a proper name (like Romana). Also, as your proposal not to use "First Doctor" and "Second Doctor" has been officially rejected, using it as some kind of pseudo-precedent would seem to go against the spirit of T:POINT and/or T:BOUND, albeit not falling directly into the domain of either.


 * I remain agnostic as to the wisdom of the move; it would be within policy, but I am not sure it is the best or the clearest option. However: if it is done, and it may yet be done, it will be to First Monk, certainly not to Monk I. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  04:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Scrooge about preferring "First Monk". "Monk I" just reminds me of Guard 1 and pages of the like. LauraBatham ☎  05:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I support this move, preferably to First Monk. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  05:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah @Scrooge MacDuck, the reason I mentioned my objections to "first" was honestly just becuase I prefer not naming characters with "first", "second", whatever - not because of some ill-concieved notion of "pseudo-precedent", you guys made it abundantly and extraordinarily clear that the Doctor's rename would not happen. However, seeing as "First Rani" exists, I wouldn't mind "First Monk" based on the precedent of that character. 📯 📂 12:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright, First Monk it is. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  13:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The only problem is...he was never actually called "The Monk", the way the Doctor is called "The Doctor". I understand it's used for convenience, but it's clear he disguised himself using the monastery. Furthermore, and this has been stated elsewhere(though I think it was deleted), using this wiki's rules, there is NOT sufficient evidence to merge "Mortimus". If Magnus from Flashback is deemed a separate character, if the War King is deemed a separate character etc. then there is not enough in-universe evidence to force these separate characters together.

Lastly, just watch The Time Meddler and The Daleks' Master Plan, and read the novelisations of those stories...just by themselves. Ignore everything else you "know". Just going by those stories, and ignoring any continuity that would only be added years later... it is abundantly clear that Butterworth's character is fully homo sapiens. ALL the problems came with trying to force a square peg into a round hole. The simplest explanation made him be "the First onscreen Master", something that many people today can't or won't accept. Then we got "The Time Meddler", "Mortimus I", "Mortimus II", "The Monk", "The Meddling Monk", and nearly "Roger". No two of which share compatible continuity with each other OR with Butterworth's onscreen character, even with the retcon that he was a Time Lord all along. Again if this wiki gives individual articles to Magnus, War King etc. then this wiki is breaking its OWN rules to force these different characters together. All there is to link them is authorial intent, but the same is true of Professor Stream.


 * Again, this is a MAN. The Time Meddler(especially the novelisation) makes it vlear that he and the Doctor know each other from before. Yet..No Future makes it 100% clear that Mortimus and the Doctor did NOT know each other on Gallifrey, and first met off-world. Likewise the entire VNA cycle centres around Mortimus having been trapped on an ice planet...which never happened to Butterworth.


 * Then there's the fact that it is established in The Book of Kells that the Doctor and the Garden Monk never knew each other on Gallifret, and they haven't seen each other since the Doctor was Hartnell!


 * The Rufus Hound Meddling Monk likewise never knew the Doctor in Gallifrey.


 * If authorial intent wasn't enough for this wiki to say that the Magnus from Flashback and the Magnus from Divided Loyalties are the same person...then authorial intent can't be invoked here. From a purely in-universe narrative point, it's not just different incarnations of "the Monk"...it's different characters. The Mortimus of No Future never knew the Doctor on Gallifrey. He left Gallifrey after the Doctor. They first met off-planet. The Mortimus of Divided Loyalties was close friends with the Doctor. He left Gallifrey before the Doctor. Apart from authorial intent, and sharing a name, there is NOTHING to make this wiki merge them. And we know Big Finish intent. But, using purely in-universe narrative...Butterworth, Garden and Hound HAVE TO BE three entirely separate characters.

Whether or not the continuity lines up exactly between every use of the Monk character is entirely irrelevant. Virgin wrote No Future with licensed use of the Monk, and revealed his real name to be Mortimus. Whether you think they got details wrong and damaged his continuity is irrelevant. The difference between Mortimus and Magnus is, well Magnus’s identity was very intentionally left open to interpretation whereas No Future was a direct licensed sequel to the Monk’s involvement in DMP. Yes he uses the name Mortimus for most of the story, but this is in order to get around the exact issue you’re complaining about. He’s called Mortimus because his name isn’t the Monk in the same way that the Doctor’s is the Doctor.

The Monk may not have originally been written as a Time Lord, and may not have used the name “The Monk” (this is actually explored in a lot of stories) but that doesn’t mean that the later retcon causes a character divergence. We don’t split the First Doctor and all the Doctor's after him into entirely different individuals because of conflicting origins, do we?

The War King isn’t the Master because although wholly intended to be the Master, no one had the legal rights to call him so. All these appearances by the Monk/Mortimus on the other hand? 100% licensed use of the character, and therefore you haven’t really got a foot to stand on here.

They’re not different characters. You know that, everyone knows that. If you genuinely do believe they’re different then please by all means go and make the same argument on pages for the Seventh and Eighth Doctors, the Master, and even Ace. SarahJaneFan ☎  11:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * So, you're shifting the goalposts, and ignoring what was stated? For the longest time, the argument has been that this wiki uses in-universe/narrative sources only. And real world intentions go in the "Behind the scenes" footnotes. And, going by that, you are trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Yes, the creator thought that the peg was round, and intended it to fit the hole, but it isn't and it doesn't. Again in-universe/narrative is What Counts. And it doesn't matter for biographical details what "we all know was intended". If TWO characters from two different stories have pretty much EVERY biographical detail different, including all the key/major details, then does "what the author intended" trump that?

Timeline is wrong
Take note of the fact that in 4-Dimensional Vistas, the Time Meddler is dressed warmly, and is accompanied by Ice Warriors. Implying he's come from an icy planet. Further, his TARDIS is (wrongly) in the form of a police box. As this clearly and unambiguously comes AFTER The Daleks' Master Plan for him, not before. And the ending for the Time Medfler in 4DV would lead to regeneration...

Again, people are trying to force everything to fit ONE narrative, in this case Cornell's version.

There is NOTHING in The Time Meddler, The Daleks' Master Plan or 4-Dimensional Vistas to make anyone think "Mortimus", and while we know authorial intent, there is nothing to directly link the Mortimus of Ni Future to any of those stories. In fact, there is a lot of biographical information that makes them mutually exclusive.

Further, it is explicitly stated in The Book of Kells that Graeme Garden's Monk and the Doctor haven't encountered each other since the Doctor was Hartnell. So Garden's Monk can't be Mortimus, or The Time Meddler, or the Rufus Hound Meddling Monk.

And, read the "Where are they now?" section at the end of Divided Loyalties very carefully. The Mortimus section. Do you see what Mortimus was hoping to achieve in 1066? Yes, the exact oppisitevof what Butterworth was doing! In fact, ALL his exploits were different to Butterworth. So, while Butterworth was in Northumbria, trying to prevent the Norman Invasion, Mortimus was on the South Coast making sure the Norman Invasion succeeded! While the other Mortimus was supposedly trapped on an ice planet. And Rufus Hound's Meddling Monk was playing dress-up.

But, 4-Dimensional Vistas clearly follows The Daleks' Master Plan, and the Time Meddler is getting bolder, more power-hungry, more...

And, there is nothing in any Butterworth story to suggest he was ever called "Mortimus".

Is he the first?
Could someone share the exact quote of The Mutation of Time which establishes that this character is the Monk's first incarnation? – n8 (☎) 21:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Even then I'd be hesitant naming the article as such considering that the Monk debuted before regeneration was a thing. 21:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * That's the beaty of an evolving franchise; It adds elements that enrich previous entries and prevent stagnation in creativity. A facet that seems to be sadly lost on some editors these days, whom insist on sticks to how things were pre-development, as if to discard later developments. BananaClownMan ☎  07:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not just us, it's literally policy, and if you want to change it, you have to start a forum thread. Aquanafrahudy   📢   🖊️  07:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Sadly, I feel people are just throwing around T:NPOV to make others adjure to their perspective, blind to the irony that they are following the letter of the policy, but not the spirit. To truly be natural is to embrace all facets of the fandom, not to stick to thew old while sidlining the new. To bring it back to topic, to say he isn't the First Monk because he predates regeneration is to ignore regeneration itself; Sure, he was the only Monk at the time, but his character has evolved to the point that he is now recognised as the first of many. Think royalty; Elizabeth I was just Queen Elizabeth until the ascension of Elizabeth II necessitated the need for an Elizabeth I. BananaClownMan ☎  07:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't think the "he was originally intended as a human" aspect is much of a concern here. So was Hartnell, sort of, sometimes, and we still call him the First Doctor. After all, even within this paradigm, it's not technically wrong. The first of a set of "one" is still, technically, the 'first': supposing he was a human and never regenerated, then Butterworth would be his one and only face, i.e. his first and last. It's ironically within the accounts depicting him as a Time Lord that the primacy of the Butterworth face becomes a question. --Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 07:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I don't dispute that, it's just the anti-T:NPOV-ness which I'm against. Aquanafrahudy   📢   🖊️  08:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)