The question of canon and logical consistency- a dilemma concerning NuWho and its fandom

Amidst the obvious fact that Chibnall will likely completely undermine and dismantle the entire lore and DNA of the programme during tomorrow’s absolute farce by the sounds of it, I thought I’d discuss something I have noticed becoming increasingly apparent amongst NuWho fandom of late, although it was indeed already there amidst Jodie’s casting.

Amongst Facebook groups related to Doctor Who (yes, friends of mine have asked me to join one in particular, which I reluctantly obliged to do) and on Twitter (as highlighted by links posted here by many other members), many corners of fandom seem reluctant to admit that the programme has any canon, and often seem obliged to disregard rules concerning the series in general. One particular comment I encountered stated that the only two constants in the programme are that of the character of the Doctor and the Tardis, and that everything else doesn’t matter as far as consistency goes (RTD clearly adopted this mindset through dumbing down the character’s vocabulary and transforming him into a quotidian binman and subsequently a cockney lothario who travels for completely different reasons to the original character). Indeed, the likes of RTD and Moffat have labelled critical fans as “Ming-Mongs” in the past for daring to acknowledge poor writing or inconsistencies within a written narrative, either related to canon or in relation to a particular script.

I find this attitude rather bizarre, given that it basically disregards any measurement for competent writing. Genesis of the Daleks may incorporate a name change concerning the original name of the Daleks, with the shift from “Dals” to “Kaleds” being cited by such people, but the former is only referred to within documented records and cannot be ascertained as fact, and the story does little else in the way of compromising previous information established within the series. Indeed, had it gone ahead and re-written a vital component of the Daleks themselves for no intelligent reason, as Moffat himself had done in The Magician’s Apprentice, the story would absolutely be seen in a more scathing light, as to do so would be to undermine the very core of the characters and the story itself. How do these people not understand this?

Defenders of lacklustre scripts that go back on previously established lore (The Last Jedi being a key example) often cite that themes and emotional resonance are more important than logical consistency, and that the former is what dictates quality (see the videos by YouTuber Just Write concerning The Last Jedi, and Quinton Reviews concerning Doctor Who and “accepting change”) as objectivity does not exist within art. This logic seems to disregard the mantra for the quality concerning how such themes can be executed, and how a piece of media that strictly adheres to passive audience spectatorship and presents such themes in a sloppy manner will not age well in the slightest. People are more likely to emotionally connect with a narrative if it also adheres to some semblance of verisimilitude or consistency, as stated by Aristotle when exploring the elements of tragedy (and who also declared that, in reference to narrative resolutions, “a convincing impossibility is preferable to an unconvincing possibility”, and thus can also be applied to fantasy and science fiction contrary to some of these arguments raised). Both themes and consistency are equally essential and are not mutually exclusive, and to argue that they are is completely disingenuous. If so, why should we bother studying works of literature, film, TV, art, music etc that have been analysed for years due to their longevity and quality if no measurement for genuine quality exists? Someone can therefore produce an absolute pile of arse, yet someone can laude it as a masterpiece and have that be that.

The NuWho production team, and its fandom, seem intent on dismissing any element of thought, effort or consistency within their works in favour of utter ineptitude and mediocrity, yet hide behind such a lack of integrity via the mantra of all change being good. Why do they adhere to this mode of thought? In the former’s case, do they lack any genuine belief in their integrity when it comes to scriptwriting? And in the latter’s case, is it because they are unable to accept that NuWho doesn’t hold up?

I know this comes across as a complete ramble, and that Burrunjor has already discussed this a few times beforehand, but this truly baffles me. I know it seems pointless, petty and trivial to bother worrying about NuWho at this rate due to how irreparable it all is (and I’ll probably grow out of this stupid phase once series 12 ends), but I’m hoping that tomorrow’s episode is as awful as to shatter the influence of the sycophancy surrounding NuWho and its fandom.

It's very simple... it's dumb crap for dumb people. That's all there is to it. Who used to be a show for smart people, then New Who came along and dumbed it down massively. And the last two or three years has seen what little meagre intellectual content New Who ever had surgically removed to make way for identity politics, proponents of which are invariably brain dead to begin with.
New Who has never really been Doctor Who, nor aimed at the kind of people who used to like Doctor Who. It's lowest common denominator moronicity.

iank wrote:It's very simple... it's dumb crap for dumb people. That's all there is to it. Who used to be a show for smart people, then New Who came along and dumbed it down massively. And the last two or three years has seen what little meagre intellectual content New Who ever had surgically removed to make way for identity politics, proponents of which are invariably brain dead to begin with.
New Who has never really been Doctor Who, nor aimed at the kind of people who used to like Doctor Who. It's lowest common denominator moronicity.

Very eloquently put. It is very simple indeed- I suppose I’m just pondering all this in such a manner due to my desire to see this shitstorm cancelled.

Great post.

Its funny you bring this up, I just got into a debate on Gormless Bastards.com about this very subject.

I won't repeat what they wrote as they have a rule about not repeating posts from their site on other forums as its private. I respect that.

(Only thing I will say is that I think I annoyed Jon Blum so much that he changed his signature from Cheers Jon Blum to Regards Jon Blum, though he only ever does it for me LOL. Apparently I'm not worthy of a Cheers Jon Blum anymore. )

Don't ask me why I posted there, but it wasn't as bad as the last time. I think it was because they had to drop the I just can't stand women and minorites in leading roles crap. They tried it, but I shut that down as soon as I posted links to my articles about Amy Winehouse, Tulsi Gabbard, etc.

I should have done that the last time, but I didn't want it to look like I was promoting my own blog on GB.

Still it drove me insane the way you could lay out all the logical arguments you wanted and they'd still just chant "DOCTOR WHO HAS NO CANON" almost like its a religious dogma, and bring up the same examples "The Deadly Assassin was different, Bob Holmes didn't care about canon, Hartnell to Troughton etc.

I even provided them with fucking quotes from Bob Holmes were he said EXACTLY the same thing I did, that you don't change canon per se, you build on it, you see what gaps you can fill in etc, and they still just repeated "It has no canon."

Here is the quote.

Robert Holmes wrote:"I looked at all that was known about Gallifrey, and it was very litte. The only occasion when more than one Time Lord had been seen in the programme was at the end of The War Games, when a group of them condemned Patrick Troughton to exile on earth for interfering in the affais of other races.

Hang on! Wasn't it usually a Time Lord who was seen dispatching the Doctor on some important mission? And didn't this normally result in a bit of some distant planet being blown up? In this case wasn't it grossly hypocritical to punish Troughton by turning him into Jon Pertwee?

This new hypothesis seemed to fit better than the old belief that Time Lords were lofty minded, cosmic Buddhists. It explained why the Doctor never went near Gallifrey; why in The Brain of Morbius he flew into a rage over their interference and used the telling phrase "won't soil their lily white hands; and why Morbius himself called them "pallid, devious worms". It also, I thought explained the disproportionately high number of villainous megalomaniacs emanating from Gallifrey. The Meddlesome Monk, The Master, Omega, The War Chief and Morbius.

I have therefore decided to depict the Time Lords as an inward looking oilgarchy, involved in constant political intrique within their own version of the Palace of Westminster. This interpretation seems fully defensible in the light of the known facts..

Of course we had often been told what splendid chaps they were, interested solely in the welfare of the universe, but it was usually a Time Lord who told us this anyway, it could be dismissed as taradiddle."

Here's another one from Robert Holmes about writing the Doctor that contradicts everything these arseholes say too.

Robert Holmes wrote: "I wrote the fifth Doctor in very much the same way as his predecessors. After all, the Doctor is always the same character. His body changes, his manner and idosyncrancies alter, but at the bottom he remains the same person."

And Terrance Dicks

Terrance Dicks wrote: "I think the essential character of the Doctor certainly shouldn’t change."

Yet Jon Blum ignored that and still went back to how DW never had any canon because they got the UNIT dates wrong, and Hartnell changed into Troughton.

At the end of the day I'd say stay away from Gallifrey Base. Even if its not a nasty experience like before, they just will not take ANYTHING you say on board.

Its a waste of time.

Cheers Burrunjor

Bernard Marx wrote:Defenders of lacklustre scripts that go back on previously established lore (The Last Jedi being a key example) often cite that themes and emotional resonance are more important than logical consistency, and that the former is what dictates quality

I personally would put myself more in that 'the spirit is more important than the letter' camp when it comes to Doctor Who. If for no other reason than I saw the 80's era so often sully the spirit by being too petty and fixated on the letter, sometimes to a sociopathic degree.

Inevitably they're not always going to get the continuity right in a long-running show. I can live with the fact that, say, Davros' bunker in Destiny of the Daleks doesn't bear resemblance to the one in Genesis (in theatrical terms it's *meant* to be the same setting, even if they're using a different stage). but as long as they get the main brush-strokes of lore right, then that's usually enough for me.

The problem is, often the actual spirit of New Who is tainted by that nasty arrogance and contempt you speak of. You can practically feel the contempt dripping off the makers toward fans who care even a bit about the finer details. That we really are to them, the embarrassing relative they'd rather keep in the attic.

It's also complacent in a way that doesn't feel like it's a weathered or earned spirit, prevailing against any genuine adversity in the way the spirit of the Hinchcliffe era did. It's just a 'we make our own luck and happy endings by magic, so we don't have to have our conceits challenged'.

The big problem with Moffat's retcons (like The Witch's Familiar) is that they're not just a case of 'mistakes can happen', or even a case of 'a good story comes first over continuity'. They're actually the story going out of its way to trample over lore for no good reason. And they do it because unfortunately Moffat has the budget to be able to go back and recreate war-torn Skaro just for a non-sequitor about Davros' childhood being touched by the Doctor.

As for Series 12's retcons....

I'm almost wondering if it's worth starting a new thread called "Is Series 12 almost making Series 11 look acceptable by comparison?"

Tanmann wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:Defenders of lacklustre scripts that go back on previously established lore (The Last Jedi being a key example) often cite that themes and emotional resonance are more important than logical consistency, and that the former is what dictates quality

I personally would put myself more in that 'the spirit is more important than the letter' camp when it comes to Doctor Who. If for no other reason than I saw the 80's era so often sully the spirit by being too petty and fixated on the letter, sometimes to a sociopathic degree.

Inevitably they're not always going to get the continuity right in a long-running show. I can live with the fact that, say, Davros' bunker in Destiny of the Daleks doesn't bear resemblance to the one in Genesis (in theatrical terms it's *meant* to be the same setting, even if they're using a different stage). but as long as they get the main brush-strokes of lore right, then that's usually enough for me.

The problem is, often the actual spirit of New Who is tainted by that nasty arrogance and contempt you speak of. You can practically feel the contempt dripping off the makers toward fans who care even a bit about the finer details. That we really are to them, the embarrassing relative they'd rather keep in the attic.

It's also complacent in a way that doesn't feel like it's a weathered or earned spirit, prevailing against any genuine adversity in the way the spirit of the Hinchcliffe era did. It's just a 'we make our own luck and happy endings by magic, so we don't have to have our conceits challenged'.

The big problem with Moffat's retcons (like The Witch's Familiar) is that they're not just a case of 'mistakes can happen', or even a case of 'a good story comes first over continuity'. They're actually the story going out of its way to trample over lore for no good reason. And they do it because unfortunately Moffat has the budget to be able to go back and recreate war-torn Skaro just for a non-sequitor about Davros' childhood being touched by the Doctor.

As for Series 12's retcons....

I'm almost wondering if it's worth starting a new thread called "Is Series 12 almost making Series 11 look acceptable by comparison?"

That’s basically what I refer to. The occasional examples of continuity errors scattered throughout a programme as extensive as Who are inevitable, yet if they are insignificant, they don’t break one’s immersion at all. What I essentially mean is that these people will declare that themes are all that matters, without ever exploring how they can be extraordinarily badly done as with The Magician’s Apprentice to the point where the through-line for numerous prior classic stories are completely undone.

Both narrative competence and thematic verisimilitude are equally important in producing excellence, as are objectivity and subjectivity. The lack of one element usually coincides with the lack of the other, hence why the example of The Last Jedi works well. It’s a completely dumbfuck film that makes absolutely no sense narratively speaking (although it’s clear that Rian Johnson thinks he’s made a masterpiece, which makes it all the more insufferable) and also completely buggers up the themes present as a result.

More than anything, it’s when the NuWho fandom completely dismiss any prospect of logic or canon in the midst of critiquing an episode that gives me severe pause, as it implies that no baseline for quality can be truly considered. This kind of thought process enables that exact arrogance and contempt to manifest in awful ways, and criticism for it can be easily dismissed with the mantra of art not requiring any thought put into it due to the idea that logic, consistency and competence do not exist in art (whether it be concerning canon or concerning the thematic integrity of the series- they are not mutually exclusive).

Such a smokescreen completely galvanises such an arrogance and allows it to spread, as seen so many times in NuWho. The character can be re-written into a lothario, alternate between being a pacifist to one who commits double genocide without the need to address this within the narrative, shoot a fellow Time Lord for no other reason after saving Clara, and have their original self be depicted as a chauvinist in Twice Upon a Time as canon nor consistency matter, and the writer can do what they wish. The dismissal of logic and consistency only leads to this sort of shite, and I don’t refer to mere continuity errors as opposed to an arrogant and abject re-writing of the programme itself. It’s an attitude that allows the latter to happen so pervasively, as proven multiple times in the past, and has a direct impact in the hindrance of the spirit of the series.

burrunjor wrote:Great post.

Its funny you bring this up, I just got into a debate on Gormless Bastards.com about this very subject.

Needless to say, I do not plan on joining that place anytime soon if they are in no way open to discussion. It does sound like a waste of time as you say. Thanks for those quotes from Dicks and Holmes, though.

Tanmann wrote:As for Series 12's retcons....

I'm almost wondering if it's worth starting a new thread called "Is Series 12 almost making Series 11 look acceptable by comparison?"

It’s probably worth starting that thread after tonight’s episode airs, I’d say.

Bernard Marx wrote:More than anything, it’s when the NuWho fandom completely dismiss any prospect of logic or canon in the midst of critiquing an episode that gives me severe pause, as it implies that no baseline for quality can be truly considered. This kind of thought process enables that exact arrogance and contempt to manifest in awful ways, and criticism for it can be easily dismissed with the mantra of art not requiring any thought put into it due to the idea that logic, consistency and competence do not exist in art (whether it be concerning canon or concerning the thematic integrity of the series- they are not mutually exclusive).

To be honest I'm not sure that's entirely exclusive to New Who (though I will admit that attitude has coagulated there).

The 80's does often get defended in a mealy-mouthed way on similarly zealous, philistine grounds (including by one moron here who I've had to block because of their inability to grow up), where logic or authenticity is seen not to matter, and it's apparently 'sad' to even be concerned about those things. That the moral 'theme' and vulgar sentimentality of Warriors of the Deep justifies everything moronic and contrary about it (and elevates the defenders to the morally superior side somehow), or if you don't like Delta and the Bannermen, then you don't like 'fun'.

Some might even say that attitude started earlier than that with the period of Williams era reappraisal. The period was unpopular at the time with fandom, then in the 90's that period was looked back upon in as a time when fandom had yet to develop a sense of humor and couldn't appreciate an era that the mainstream did, and from that grew the firm perception that fans who didn't like RTD represented the same problem (and even an embarrassing sign that some fans hadn't evolved their sensibilities over time.... which really means they hadn't subscribed to modern society's happiness cult).

I think that's where those fan positions originated. But they definitely exploded from that and became a lot more weaponized and militarized when it came to battering or stonewalling the critics of New Who.

If anything I think the point to which they completely obliterated canon in the last episode might be a good thing. New Who is on its way out. But now if it comes back again years from now, there is now a more obvious example of what not to do.

Earlier nuwho ruined canon too, but in less obvious ways and it was still popular. Now that the viewing figures are in the toilet and one of the obvious reasons is that they went against the canon of the original show. If it comes back, whoever is doing it might think that in order to get people to actually watch it, they need to start over with a new eighth or ninth doctor and make it more like the original series.

Why is it that it seems impossible now to bring these shows back and not ruin them? Or even create a decent new sci-fi show!?

Compare Dr. Who to Star Trek - Yes, I don't think any of the newer shows were as good as the original, but they did manage to make 4 other Star Trek shows that ranged from pretty damn good to at least ok, that didn't (in any important ways) undo any of the original canon - Then those reboot movies came around and completely fucked it up (not as bad as this last episode of nuwho, but that was probably the worst, most canon-destroying episode of any tv show, ever).

I think the difference has to do with when they started new who (2005) vs. when they started new trek (1987). All the subsequent 3 series following TNG were somewhat patterned after it (and they weren't bad at all), until those movies rebooted everything in 2009 (and they totally sucked). Anything that was that was rethought and redesigned post '05 is shite, but if it was done before that it was ok.

If you combine both British and American TV, there has been a steady flow of good sci-fi tv shows from the 1950s to the 00s. (I'd say the height of American sci-fi TV was in the 60s, British in the 70s -  But there was still quite a lot of good stuff from the 80s through the 00s.) Why are we currently incapable of making this shit? I think people are in recent times looking too much to the mundane, the ordinary - you only have to look to the last two seasons of NuPoo to see this.

I've been rewatching some Star Trek TNG recently, so to quote Q from the first episode,  "For that one fraction of a second, you were open to options you had never considered ... charting the unknown possibilities of existence.” Or consider the intro to the original series which ends with, "To boldly go where no man has gone before."

Or to quote the early intro to the original Twilight Zone "There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination."

Or from the original Outer Limits, "You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... The Outer Limits."

In the end, I don't think the source of the problem is the inability to stick to canon (because at least then we would be seeing entirely new shows different to, but as good as, the old ones), it is that the canon of these shows requires that the writers enter "the dimension of imagination." And that these writers just can't look to the "unknown possibilities of existence," to anything "beyond that which is known to man", or to the Outer Limits anymore... And that is fundamentally what these sorts of shows are about: To boldly go where no man has gone before!

The 20th century was a time of enormous and fast scientific progress, unprecedented in the history of mankind, and it lead to a lot of speculation as to: what is out there that we don't yet know about?, or what might some future possibilities be? But it seems that in the era we currently live in we have to look to the past to find the future?...

Tanmann wrote:
The 80's does often get defended in a mealy-mouthed way on similarly zealous, philistine grounds (including by one moron here who I've had to block because of their inability to grow up), where logic or authenticity is seen not to matter, and it's apparently 'sad' to even be concerned about those things. That the moral 'theme' and vulgar sentimentality of Warriors of the Deep justifies everything moronic and contrary about it (and elevates the defenders to the morally superior side somehow)

Aaaaaw bless, he's STILL crying.