Forum:Inclusion debate: Death Comes to Time

Death Comes to Time is sometimes regarded as being out of mainstream continuity. I think some of our pages indicate this. I know I personally don't give it much credence. But I can't think of any argument which would cause us to exclude it from our list of valid in-universe sources.

Just to formally get this one out of the way, does anyone know of any valid reason why this story shouldn't be considered valid? I know that the creators have declared The Minister for Chance sequel series to be set outside the DWU, but can anyone point to a statement from the BBC or the writers which indicates any valid, out-of-universe reason to exclude Death Comes to Time? 15:46: Sat 26 May 2012


 * I think that the lack of replies to this topic indicates that nobody really wants DCTT to be considered canonical, but nobody else can think of a good out-of-universe reason to exclude it either. —Josiah Rowe talk to me 05:49, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

I think the lack of replies indicates that few people have an opinion they wish to air. Not quite the same thing. Silence indicates that no one is talking, not that no one is thinking. Boblipton talk to me 13:20, May 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * It's valid, we should include it.
 * I can't see how it contains any more controversial material than anything else that is in any of the ranges. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:02, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Nooooo, nothing controversial at all. Other than the fairly explicit death of the Doctor in his seventh incarnation, of course. Be fair, TD, it does postulate something that no other story has ever done, and this is the reason many fans do have a problem with it. But again, inclusion debates aren't about the narrative merits of the story, but rather any out-of-universe clues that the producers didn't think the story within the bounds of the normal DWU.   18:56: Fri 01 Jun 2012


 * Well, it could be argued that the simple act of creating a television series in 2005 in which the Doctor, now in his ninth incarnation, was not killed in his seventh incarnation (and in which the eighth incarnation has been acknowledged on-screen) is a statement that the producers aren't following on from DCTT in narrative terms. —Josiah Rowe talk to me 00:38, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that's an interesting line of thought. I hadn't really considered that RTD pushed this thing "off the farm" simply by airing Rose.  But really that is the truth.  This should be gone for exactly the same reasons as Shalka.


 * On the other hand, maybe we don't want to set he precedent that implication of a new producer's actions can be used to DQ a previous story. So forget the new series for a moment.  Does the fact that the producers of DCTT released a show in 2001 that killed the Doctor in his seventh body — when the TVM, the RT comic strips, about half the DWM comic strips, a lot of the EDAs, the NA transition to the Eighth Doctor, and the first season of Eighth Doctor audios had already been released — automatically place this thing outside our fences?


 * Does the simple fact that they killed of what was, even at the time, a past Doctor turn it automatically into a "what if" story? I think if they could have made it with McGann, they probably would've, right?  Isn't the behind-the-scenes reality of not using McGann what marginalises this story?   16:49: Sat 02 Jun 2012

Switching to a more negative stance
After doing some research of my own, I'm now strongly leaning towards outright disqualification.
 * The DWM review — something which satisfies our rules as a legitimate resource — couldn't put the issue more clearly:
 * "[In DCTT] the Doctor does and says the right sorts of things, and has the right sorts of adventures, but has as much in common with his televised predecessor as does Peter Cushing's movie Dr Who. Instead of being an outsider, the boy who ran away from the passive non-interfering Gallifreyans, he is one of the Time Lords, or Gods of the Fourth, a homeless order of wandering interventionists who work for good or evil, using the same mystical powers . . . It does feel like a pilot for a new series, but not a new series of Doctor Who." (Dave Owen, DWM review, DWM 319)


 * Dan Freedman, talked in DWM 314 about McGann, which I think gives some insight into why he went with the Seventh instead of Eighth Doctor. While the story of how he got Sylvester to join him on the project is one of happenstance, I think his statements about the TVM reflect a belief that the TVM wasn't "real" Doctor Who, and didn't need to be considered when producing DCTT. This puts Freedman at odds with the inclusionary goals of this wiki.


 * "You can explain it away however you like, but [the TVM] still bombed. Well, everyone watched it, but only because it was Doctor Who.  They didn't know what it was going to be like.  Now they know what it's like, not many people are buying it."
 * "The moment I get [the commission to produce DW on television], I think people will stop whining: 'Oh it's got to be McGann' — wel, it's not going to be McGann, right? No way!  It might be McGann in the future, you know, a future regeneration or something.  That would be a nice way to have him in it, but the next Doctor will not be McGann."


 * Granted, none of that is conclusive evidence as to Freedman's stance on the Eighth Doctor. But it does prove he absolutely knew who McGann was and that he chose not to consider him the current Doctor.


 * Nev Fountain, script editor of DCTT, also from DWM 314:
 * "I think [the darker Doctor idea] can be a dead-end, but you can do a lot of things with the Doctor, especially with an online or radio format — and if you want to accept it as canon, you can. or not.  Whatever you prefer."
 * This kind of ambiguity from a paid script editor of Doctor Who about the thing he or she personally worked on is just weird. I think he's not even trying to argue that this is "real" DW.  Can you imagine Steven Moffat saying about The Wedding of River Song, "Eh, maybe it's canon?"  I can see him saying, cause I think he actually has, "Eh, there's no such thing as canon".  But to admit there is a canon and then to say that his work might not be in it — that's strange.


 * Fountain is more declarative later in the piece when he says:


 * "I think Death Comes to Time is very much a one-off project as far as I'm concerned, but perhaps this online thing will prove to be a stepping stone."
 * To me, this is a bit of a clincher. It proves that they weren't in any way attempting to carry out a legitimate continuation with these narrative elements.  But if that's not proof enough, here's Freedman again, talking about what he would do with if his bid to produce televised DW were accepted:


 * "No regeneration scene, no continuity references, no nothing. You've got to get to know this character and his companions again."


 * Freedman also says he already had someone cast "theoretically" as the "next Doctor" for his proposal of a new series. This means, as far as I can make out, that the death  in DCTT simply wouldn't have been narratively respected.


 * Had his proposal, instead of RTD's, been the one that carried the day, he wouldn't have even used DCTT as a part of the backstory. Ya gotta wonder, too, whether there would have been any effort at making the Freedman Doctor number nine or number eight, given the earlier dismissal of "McGann as Eight". Hell, ya gotta wonder if Freedman's first Doctor might not have been a new first Doctor.  He does seem to be talking in absolutes when he says "no continuity references, no nothing".  On the other hand, it could be fairly said that this was RTD's approach — for series 1.


 * In any event, it seems clear to me that Freedman/Fountain took a number of decisions that disqualify the piece:


 * They actively chose not to involve McGann when it was clear that they had no qualms about asking other, arguably "bigger", actors to participate.
 * They weren't looking to continue this continuity at all, so I think they felt liberated to do whatever they wanted with it.
 * They were looking to produce DW on television at the time, and Freedman seems to be saying he wouldn't have continued this continuity on television.
 * Fountain publicly backed away from definitively calling DCTT "canon" before the whole thing had actually come out.


 * We should be running like hell from something that has these kind of lukewarm statements from key members of its production team. 20:07: Sat 02 Jun 2012


 * In light of this information I have no issues with it being placed in the NC category and not being included in our regular coverage. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:19, June 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * "Canon" arguments in a franchise that specifically eschews canon are meaningless. Nobody's arguing that Death Comes to Time doesn't belong on the wiki (or that it's not "in the scope of the wiki"); you're just arguing about what labels to slap on it. Well, the BBC didn't slap a label on it. We have some quotes from people involved in making it, but those people don't control the franchise now. None of this is helpful to readers or editors, Czechout; it's misleading to those who might be given the impression the Doctor Who universe is more formally structured than it actually is. It would be simpler if Doctor Whowere a franchise in which we could confidently say that events that plainly take place outside of other continuity are noncanonical, but it isn't and we can't. -- Rowan Earthwood talk to me 14:10, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a common misapprehension that this wiki is somehow trying to "define canon". But that's not our goal at all. (This misapprehension isn't helped by the fact that we have Tardis:Canon policy, an unfortunately-named document which was begun before Paul Cornell popularised the "myth of canonicity".  This debate, however, is helping to inform the rewriting of that policy so that it's clearer what we're trying to do.)


 * It is the foundational precept of this wiki that articles about narrative elements — characters, locations, concepts — shall be written from an in-universe perspective.  That's very difficult to do unless the universe is defined in some way.  Otherwise, Peter Cushing's "Dr. Who" and Joanna Lumley's "Thirteenth Doctor" would have to be included when writing the article about the Doctor.


 * For this reason, a process — which, incidentally, I did not personally invent — emerged whereby we occasionally examine a story or range to see whether it should be considered a valid source for the writing of in-universe articles. If there's evidence that the creators/copyright holders did not intend for the story to be a part of the DWU, or if there's a question about the story's legal status, we exclude it.  Even though, again, I'm not the author of this process, I do approve of it.  We have to have some mechanism for defining the wiki's scope, or we'd have no defense against fan fiction, obvious parody, and things which are explicitly meant by the author and/or copyright holder to be viewed as extra-continuous.


 * Debates like this one say nothing about what you as an individual may wish to regard as "canon". They merely enforce the rules that we use to define a valid source for the writing of articles on this wiki.  Big difference.   16:55: Tue 05 Jun 2012


 * That doesn't sound right to me. It's pretty easy to see the difference between fan fiction (not approved/licensed by the BBC) and something like Death Comes to Time (officially released by the BBC on their website). I don't have any particular fondness for the latter, and as I said it's obviously incompatible with the rest of the body of Doctor Who media, but if the wiki isn't "Dan Freedman's Doctor Who" then I'm not sure why his opinion should govern our in-character interpretation of the show. Incorporating aberrant timelines into in-character descriptions can be somewhat difficult to do, but it's been done successfully nonetheless throughout the wiki. A single line or short paragraph here and there mentioning what from an in-character perspective are obscure and dubious sources would suffice.


 * That said, I'm not exactly emotionally fixated on this, so I won't argue about it any further. I just don't see the utility of it, and it seems misleading for our in-character narrative to so explicitly pick sides. -- Rowan Earthwood talk to me