From: ira2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Iain Robert Asplin)
Subject: Re: New Adventures as canon?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:15:28 GMT

In article <15888@umd5.umd.edu> jblum@hamlet.umd.edu (Hi ho -- Kermit the Frog here...) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.153439.23659@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ira2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Iain Robert Asplin) writes:
>
>That's something I'd be willing to argue about.  At the moment, there is
>no Doctor Who production office to determine what is and isn't canon.  Most
>of the final staff at that office, including the last script editor and
>two of the last four writers, are working with the New Adventures people,
>who repeatedly say on their back covers that they have the BBC's blessing.
>Until the novels come up with something blatantly wrong, or until a new
>production team finally shows up and clarifies the status of the books, 
>I'd have no problem accepting Peter Darvill-Evans as a substitute producer.
>
>I've never been one of those strict "if you see it on the screen, it's canon;
>if not, it isn't" people.  After all, if you go that way with Who, you've
>got to explain lots of little slip-ups, ranging from "we're immortal barring
>accidents" to the hand holding Sutekh's seat cushion in place.  After all,
>they appeared on screen...  :-)

Well, the New Adventures novels were making continuity mistakes since
"Timewyrm:Genesys"  (not biggies mind you, but still mistakes).  

I am afraid I am one of those people that say "if you see it on screen,
then it's canon, and if not it isn't.
The reason for this is Target's track record when it comes to continuity
in the novelizations.  Often things would get changed for those books
and thus fans generally think of the shows as the *official* word.
Even though the New Adventures are completely made up, I still feel they
cannot and should not be taken as canon, not only from thetrack record
of Target, but also from a stylisitc point of view, i.e. each individual
writer gets to put their imprints on not only the Doctor's actions as
in television, but also on his very thoughts.  This is a little too much
for me to take as official, as oftentimes one writer's intrepretation of
his innermost opinions and thoughts will vary from others (and mine).
In television at least, we have the safety cushion of not knowing what
he's thinking.   
I think this is perfectly acceptable and should be an encouraged practice
for each writer of the New Adventures, but we shouldn't take their 
writings as utter and complete canon.  In the novel format, there are
essentially only two people in editorial control of what's going to be
changed (the author and the editor).  IOn television, at least approval
still needs to be given from the Producer, input from a Director, and
the BBC Script Unit have a say.  It's more representative that way,
i.e. it feels to me to be less of a dictatorship on television than
what we get in the books.  

As for production gaffes like the hand holding the cushion or a bad
special effect, well come on, as long as everyone can accept that it
shouldn't have been like that, then I think we can ignore those little
things.  The scripts and dialog on screen are the most important things.

However, some recent and upcoming video releases are blurring the continuity
line a little....

Should we consider "Shada" as canon or shouldn't we?
Should we consider the additional bits to "The Curse of Fenric" as canon?

I'm indecisive about these myself.  I think we very gently can take them
as official, meaning should a later story wish to retcon these stories,
I can forgive it, but until that happens, let's assume they happened.