In article <uqtfec$1ca52$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>Yads got ChatGPT to do his thinking for him again:
>
>[SNIP opening comments that are pretty much inarguably true].
>
>> This article argues for the retconning of
>> the Timeless Child narrative, citing its departure from established canon and
>> its detrimental impact on the essence of Doctor Who.
>
>OK - so what we are looking for from this article is
>
>1) evidence that the Timeless Child narrative departs from “established
>canon”
>
>and
>
>2) that any such departure, if present, has had a detrimental impact on the
>“essence” of Doctor Who.
>
>
>> Doctor Who is renowned for its intricate and well-established lore,
>> meticulously crafted over decades.
>
>Absolutely not the case.
>
>Made up and retconned lore #1:
>
>In the first episode of the show, Susan says that she invented the name
>TARDIS and its expansion. But in Escape Switch (The Daleks Master Plan
>episode 10) the Monk refers to his time ship as a TARDIS.
>
>In the War Games, the War Chief calls his knockoff time machines “SIDRATs”
>- clearly a play on TARDIS. And by the mid seventies the Time Lords all
>refer to their own machines as TARDISes.
>

That is from the start.

>Made up and retconned lore #2:
>
>In The Daleks, the Daleks are mutated descendants of the Dals. But in
>Genesis of the Daleks, they become descendants of the Kaleds.
>
>So elements of the very first two stories were retconned without reverence
>to this “meticulously crafted lore”. It’s truer to say that the lore of
>the show has always been mutable and that the writers have made it up as
>they went along, rarely worrying whether it fitted in with past stories.
>
>The examples are legion: Hartnell’s Doctor initially is a human from
>another future world, with one heart, and a follower of a popular human
>religion. The TARDIS is initially very vulnerable - the Sensorites are able
>to completely remove its door lock. History is at first immutable - it
>cannot be changed, not one jot! … The Time Lords can live forever barring
>accidents - no, wait, after twelve regenerations, that is the end for a
>Time Lord - no, wait, the Time Lords can grant a Time Lord a “new cycle” of
>regenerations.
>
>The whole idea of a meticulously crafted, rigid canon and lore is a myth,
>wheeled out specifically to complain about some specific change or other.
>
>

Including Chibnall?

>
>
>> The revelation of the Timeless Child in the
>> Series 12 marked a significant departure from this established canon.
>
>> The
>> introduction of an unknown incarnation of the Doctor prior to the First Doctor
>> contradicts decades of storytelling and undermines the mystery surrounding the
>> character.
>
>There are two elements to this claim:
>
>For the first one, like it or not, (and personally I don’t) the Timeless
>Child narrative introduces a sinister agency capable of interfering with
>the collective memory of the Time Lords - resulting in an almost
>universally held BELIEF that the Hartnell incarnation is he first Doctor.
>Therefore there is a change int he perception of decades of storytelling -
>but no actual contradiction. In fact, the Timeless Child narrative is a
>rare case of paying careful attention to the existing lore, and crafting
>itself deliberately to FIT IN with all we have seen previously.
>
>The second claim, that this undermines the mystery of the character, is
>plainly untrue. The Doctor had been being “demystified” over decades - an
>indifferent student at the Academy who had run off in a stolen TARDIS out
>of boredom who then became a criminal for interfering with history and then
>an agent of the Time Lords doing exactly the same thing, then destroying
>both Time Lords and Daleks to end the Time War …damn little “mystery” left
>about that.
>

Excuse us, but are you with the Chibnall faction?

>
>> The Doctor's origin story, once shrouded in mystery and intrigue, is
>> now reduced to a mere footnote in a convoluted narrative.
>
>Agreed the new narrative is INSANELY convoluted, but now there are whole
>vistas of NEW mysteries in the Doctor’s origins. Should anyone choose to
>investigate them … but the ending of the Flux would seem to make that
>unlikely. The Doctor has chosen not to open that particular mystery box
>(fob watch).
>
>> Furthermore, the Timeless Child's revelation diminishes the
>significance of the
>> Doctor's choices and experiences throughout their many lives.
>
>How? All those choices, all those experiences, are the same, and shaped the
>Doctor of today exactly as they always had.
>

Exactly what is does!

>> By implying that
>> the Doctor's abilities are innate rather than earned through centuries of
>> learning and growth,
>
>What “abilities”? There is just one effective difference - the Doctor has
>always been able to regenerate, and has no known innate limit to those
>regenerations : rather than being granted cycles of 12 at a time by the
>Time Lords. The Doctor has gained no other new abilities, and all the
>abilities they do have were earned the same way they always were. This
>claim is false.
>

And yet in LEt's Kill hitler...

>> the Timeless Child narrative diminishes the agency and
>> heroism of the character. The Doctor's journey, once defined by their
>quest for
>> redemption and their commitment to justice, is overshadowed by a predetermined
>> destiny imposed upon them by outside forces.
>
>No, because there is no forward destiny - the change is that the Doctor is
>now not just a Time Lord, but is the ancestor of all Time Lords. Which
>changes what, exactly? If the argument was that this change is unnecessary
>and adds little to the lore - I agree. But it changes the Doctor’s own
>motivations and beliefs not one iota.
>
>These arguments form a straw man with no basis in actual events in the
>show.
>

Wrong you are!

>
>> Alienating the Fanbase:
>>
>> Doctor Who boasts a dedicated fanbase that spans generations, united by their
>> love for the series and its enduring legacy.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>> However, the Timeless Child
>> storyline has proven divisive among fans, with many expressing their
>> dissatisfaction with the direction of the show under Chibnall's stewardship.
>
>So? There was plenty of dissatisfaction in the eighties. And with RTD’s
>“Last of the Time Lords” change to the lore. And with the idea that Time
>Lords could change gender and racial phenotype on regeneration. This is not
>the first, and won’t be the last, new creative choice that divides the fan
>base.
>

Yet in North America in the 1908s DW was gaining a fanbase.

>> The decision to radically alter the Doctor's backstory without proper
>> justification or regard for established canon has alienated long-time fans
>> and eroded their trust in the creative team.
>
>“We , a specific small group of fans, don’t like this change so it must be
>retconned!” That’s all this argument boils down to, in the end.
>

IYIO.

>>
>> Moreover, the casting of Jodie Whittaker as the Thirteenth Doctor was
>> initially met with excitement and anticipation, as she became the first woman
>> to portray the iconic character. However, Whittaker's tenure has been marred
>> by inconsistent writing and lackluster storytelling, exacerbated by the
>> controversial Timeless Child arc. While Whittaker's performance has been
>> widely praised, her tenure as the Doctor has been overshadowed by creative
>> decisions that detract from the core principles of the series.
>
>All true. Very few people are claiming that the Chibnall era was the
>greatest in the show’s history.
>

Chibnall Whittaker was a disaster!

>Still, even as McCoy’s dire tenure does, it has its adherents.
>

And that was due to Grade and Powell!

>>
>> Preserving the Essence of Doctor Who:
>>
>> At its core, Doctor Who is a show about hope, resilience, and the triumph of
>> good over evil. Throughout its long history, the series has tackled complex
>> themes and moral dilemmas, all while celebrating the boundless
>potential of the
>> human spirit.
>
>None of which are changed by the Timeless Child, regrettable as it might
>be.
>
It was.

>> Retconning the Timeless Child narrative is not about erasing the
>> past but rather reclaiming the essence of Doctor Who and restoring the
>sense of
>> wonder and mystery that defines the series.
>
>Total bollocks. “Retconning the Timeless Child” is the sulky demand of some
>sad people who can’t accept that the show is just a show and it can move on
>and survive even the silliest of stories and changes.
>
>Time and the Rani. What an unmitigated pile of s*t. But it is still part
>of the show.
>

The Timeless Child even moreso!

>> By retconning the Timeless Child, Doctor Who can once again embrace its rich
>> history while charting new and exciting adventures for the Doctor and their
>> companions. The show can return to its roots as a beacon of optimism and
>> imagination, inspiring viewers of all ages to believe in the power of
>kindness,
>> empathy, and the endless possibilities of the universe.
>
>It can continue to do all those good things WITHOUT wasting time and energy
>in a retcon. I want to see new stories, not another Gordian knot of
>retroactive alterations to continuity to salve the egos of a few desperate
>malcontents.
>

A retcon is needed!

>>
>> Conclusion:
>>
>
>Some people sulk. Get over it. By moving on and letting the Timeless Child
>narrative drift unremarked into the past, we can all enjoy the future of
>the show with just one pointless question and problem permanently removed:
>no longer do we need to count regenerations and wonder what loophole or new
>change to lore will be needed to allow the Doctor to continue past a
>certain number of “lives”.
>
>The show is timeless. So is the Doctor. Worlds without end.
>
>--
>“The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
The ignorant won't rest until everyone is as dumb as they are. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com