THE CULTURAL FORUM MODEL OF TELEVISION RHETORIC: A Look at 'The
Ark in Space'

By Peter Gregg
01 May 2001


     If  a golden age can be said to exist for a television
series, then surely _Doctor Who_'s golden age occurred with the
arrival of producer Philip Hinchcliffe and script editor Robert
Holmes in 1975 and ended soon after Hinchcliffe's departure in
1977 and Holmes's in 1978.  _Doctor Who_ would run for twelve
more seasons, be controlled by two more producers and six more
script editors, have three lead actor changes, find itself
cancelled twice by the BBC, and see the welcome return of many of
the Doctor's best enemies, but never would it receive as much
press, popularity, and critical praise as it did during those
three seasons.
     Although the decline of a dynasty always seems to attract
much historical retrospection and certainly the decline of
_Doctor Who_'s ratings over twenty-six seasons warrants critical
assessment, I opt to focus on the apogee of the program's
popularity, more precisely at the first story of the
Hinchcliffe/Holmes team, "THE ARK IN SPACE," a four-part serial
that aired 25 January 1975 to 15 February 1975 starring Tom Baker
as the Doctor.  Borrowing from Newcomb and Hirsch's cultural
forum model of television rhetoric, I will first define the
rhetors and audiences who compose the forum of "THE ARK IN
SPACE."  Next, I will examine how that forum addresses real
social and political influences and attracts and retains viewers
in new and novel ways.  Finally, I will explore the ethical
consequences of its rhetoric within the forum.
     Newcomb and Hirsch argue that a cultural focus as basis for
the analysis and criticism of television is "the bridge between a
concern for television as a communications medium, central to
contemporary society, and television as an aesthetic object, the
expressive medium that... unites and examines a culture."[1] 
That is, it allows us as critics to examine both the encoding and
decoding processes, in Stuart Hall's sense of those words.[2] 
Television is a "cultural forum" that allows for issue raising
and, more importantly for this paper, commentary on ideological
problems.  The rhetoric of television drama is a rhetoric of
discussion.[3]  It requires us to view television as a rhetorical
act that can effectively and persuasively generate and respond to
needs. 


RHETORS AND VIEWERS OF "THE ARK IN SPACE"

     When viewing a television show as a cultural forum, the
historical and cultural context plays an essential role.[4]   
The creators of media, its rhetors, are cultural bricoleurs,
searching for and creating new meaning by combining cultural
elements and adapting to technological shift.  They respond to
real events, changes in social structure, and alterations in
cultural values and manifest these responses by the programs they
generate.[5]  It is difficult to indicate the sole rhetor of a
television program.  Howe et al. note, "The production of a TV
drama series relies heavily on teamwork, with many different
people - script editor, writers, directors, designers and actors
among them - all influencing the form and content of the finished
product".[6]  They conclude that it is the producer who has the
greatest ability to contribute influentially.  The producer has
final say on scripts, directors, cast, and crew with BBC
productions.[7]  Newcomb and Hirsh agree, arguing that producers,
writers, and, to a limited extent, actors (and television
directors) are these rhetors.[8]  It is these people who create
the images and the meanings attached to the shows they produce;
specifically, producer Philip Hinchcliffe, script editor Robert
Holmes, and lead actor Tom Baker exert the most influence
directly onto the program's episodes.  To a large extent, the
messages we see are generated by them.
     These rhetors of British programming are not completely free
to do as they wish.  Certain ideological constraints exist in the
hierarchical system that is the British Broadcasting Corporation. 
Because Holmes, Hinchcliffe, and Baker are answerable to the BBC,
they must act within the range of its ideology.  The BBC's
charter emphasized the BBC as disseminator of "information,
education, and entertainment" that also maintained high standards
of quality in content and maintained the "public interest."[9] 
The producer must always be sure the program created is
acceptable to his or her boss, in this case the BBC's head of
drama. 
     Although the BBC is non-commercial, ratings also play a
fundamental role to the work of the rhetor-authors.  They need to
be sure that the program they make and the messages it carries
will be acceptable to the viewers and ideally that more viewers
will tune in to the program.  Thus, the subject matter and the
cliffhangers to each episode must be persuasive and encourage
viewer retention; it is the rhetor-authors' job to make it so,
and to make it effective, the rhetor-authors must be aware of who
their audience is.
     An average of over eleven million people watched the four
parts of "THE ARK IN SPACE," making it the highest rated program
of the Hinchcliffe-Holmes era.[10]  More than likely, the
audience was familiar with other shows of the genre, particularly
_Space: 1999_ and _Star Trek_.  Additionally, since the early
1970s, the program consistently received much press attention, so
the casual viewer probably knew of the program's content. The
rhetors consequently needed to balance certain specific fan
demands without alienating the majority of casual viewers, and
this limited the extent that they could stretch genre conventions
or comment on contemporary social issues.


THE NEGOTIATION OF THESE NEEDS AND "THE ARK IN SPACE" 

     The mid-1970s were a time of social change and political
upheaval in the United Kingdom. The Suez Canal, held primarily by
England after 1875, was seized by the Egyptian government in
1956.  Prime Minister Anthony Eden requested team of French and
English troops to be sent to the region, but they were unable to
wrest the canal from Egypt, and the Suez Canal crisis is
generally regarded as one of the key events which lead to a sense
of disillusionment in England, coinciding with a series of
economic recessions which forced England of the 1970s to become
dependent on the United States and fanned the fire of
frustration.[11]  Harold Macmillan's Prime Ministership also
tarnished the British government's image when in 1963 a series of
sex and bribery scandals forced him to resign, tarnishing the
image of the government leader as infallible.  These changing
social mores, epitomized by the mid-1960s hippie movement and
still strong ten years later, were causing a stir within the
general population, and when Edward Heath's Conservative
government did little to help a Britain in the throes of economic
recession, unrest and discontent became the norm.  By March of
1974 and after four years in office, Heath lost his Prime
Ministership to Labour Party member and former P.M. Harold
Wilson.  
     Britain's entry into the European Economic Community, later
to be the European Union, was regarded as an attempt to
symbolically connect England with the rest of Europe; indeed,
until that point the English often did not consider themselves to
be "Europeans" at all.[12]  Already a part of NATO and the United
Nations, England now began a process of economic dependence where
it had already begun to have military and political dependence
with the rest of the region.
Clearly, the creation of "THE ARK IN SPACE" needed to balance the
political philosophy of its rhetors with the demands placed on it
by a society filled with change and discontent.  It was
successful in that respect in many ways.  First, the
characterization of the lead roles allowed for the British people
to associate with them.  Tom Baker played the Doctor as a college
Bohemian, an irreverent, quick-witted roustabout who could just
as soon insult you as offer you a jelly baby, his favorite
confection. Hinchcliffe argued that the "student rebellion"
features of the Baker Doctor better represented Britain's loss of
status as a world power after Macmillan and Eden, that Baker was
"youth challenging authority" and "reflected what was going on in
England after Suez."[13] 
     By creating a character who appeals to a broader audience
via an embodiment of their dissatisfaction with the status quo,
the message of the program would have more influence and resonate
better within the viewership.  Those Britons who felt a loss of
faith in the government probably felt they had something in
common with this celestial vagabond.  Baker's Doctor did not care
about his appearance, had no respect for authority, and still
tried to right wrongs; he was quick to determine the ethical
action in the narrative and also acted decisively to remedy the
situation.  He was, in many ways, the person many British people
were waiting for to remedy the loss of faith in government.  He
forced the people of the Ark to stop obeying rules for the rules'
sake and instead act in a way conducive to their own survival, an
argument that some might have made to the British population
directly.
     A clear distrust of authority figures and rules runs through
the narrative.  The people of the Ark entered stasis assuming the
fail-safe computer would wake them when the earth was safe; it
failed.  The Doctor disarms a guard machine that would otherwise
unquestioningly kill.  Harry and the Doctor explore the Ark,
willfully disobeying an angry voice-alarm telling them, "This is
a sterile area!  Keep out!"  The Ark's once good leader becomes
possessed by an evil monster, forcing his followers to question
his authority.  The Doctor is skeptical of Vara's explanations of
damage to the ship.  The streak of rebellion within the British
viewers helped to create and then accept the belief that those
people (and things) in charge should not always be trusted.
     Additionally, the optimistic tone of "THE ARK IN SPACE"
embodied Hinchcliffe and Holmes's philosophies regarding the
human spirit and resonated with the British audience.[14]  "THE
ARK IN SPACE" has the Doctor praising human ingenuity twice,
commenting on humanity's indominatability and creativity, while
the camera cranes overhead making him seem insignificant in
comparison.  The Doctor appeals to Noah's memories as a human
while Noah struggles to contain the Wirrn growing inside him. 
Noah loses out to the Wirrn once he loses his memories of Earth. 
When the crew begin to struggle against the Wirrn, the Doctor
encourages them to think, as if in a Platonic sense the answer
already lies within them; indeed, it is not the alien Doctor, but
the mere human Sarah, who devises the plan to repel the Wirrn. 
So although the narrative does reject authority figures, it does
express a belief that by their own nature, people are good, a
fundamental humanist, and not "alienist," perspective.[15]   It
is the inhuman or non-human that is our greatest threat within
this narrative.
     Moreover, the future as demonstrated by "THE ARK IN SPACE"
has room for British culture, a fear probably arising from
England's European Union entrance.  Instead of American or
continental voices, all characters, including the future Prime
Minister of the planet, have an English accent. The narrative
allows a viewer to imagine that no matter how difficult the
situation in the present, the English "way" can still survive if
it can developed unfettered by outside, un-British, or alien
forces.
     Consequently, the program is a strategically ambiguous. 
Leah Ceccarelli argues that one advantage for a rhetor of mass
media who is strategically ambiguous comes when that rhetor can
appeal to two or more otherwise conflicting groups and allow each
group take away its own message.[16]  This narrative helps
coalesce the forum's notions, helping to placate fears of the
future while also motivating viewers to, if anything, believe
that people are by nature good.  The ending of "THE ARK IN SPACE"
tells viewers, even if it feels like it is hopeless, human spirit
will win out.  In an audience in the throes of upheaval, this
metaphor probably had some valence. Those people who already have
faith in the government will nonetheless enjoy the narrative,
willingly accepting its humanistic values as an affirmation of
the "rightness" of the government.  Both interpretations will
lead to an increase in popularity and viewing. 
     A careful analysis of similar programs within the science
fiction genre and the show's own continuity must also play a
fundamental role in analyzing rhetorical nature of a television
show.  Newcomb and Hirsh argue that television production and
viewing emphasizes issue raising over issue solving.  Television
comments on ideological problems via genres, but often fails to
make clear, firm ideological conclusions.[17]  Because of this,
it is often better to look at genre as a way of advancing a
program's particular discourse. Innovative modifications of genre
norms are more likely to be successful and to carry clearly
individuated rhetorical slants.[18]  If Hinchcliffe wants his
message to be seen, he must modify the program's rhetoric to
generate a new, interesting product within the genre.  It is in
the fine line between the known and the unfamiliar that make a
program effective.  Newcomb and Hirsh emphasize:

          The goal of every producer is to create 
          the difference that makes a difference, 
          to maintain an audience with sufficient 
          reference to the known and recognized, 
          but to move ahead into something that 
          distinguishes [the producer's] show for 
          the program buyer, the scheduler, and most
          importantly, for the mass audience... 
          Choices by producers to work in certain 
          generic forms, to express certain political, 
          moral, and ethical attitudes, to explore 
          certain sociocultural topics, all affect the
          nature of the ultimate "flow text" of 
          television seen by viewers and assure a 
          range of variations within that text.[19] 


     Resonating with Newcomb and Hirsh, Hinchcliffe noted at the
time, "Most television writing does not require the sort of
rollicking good yarn we need.  And many writers find it hard to
adjust to our pace of escapist entertainment because what we need
is old-fashioned adventure with scientific wizardry on top."[20] 
In other words, Doctor Who of the time needed to consist of
narratives that were both familiar to and distinct from other
narratives in direct competition.  Consequently, if we examine
"THE ARK IN SPACE" as an example of genre modification and
scrutinize its attitudes towards certain ideologies, we can
uncover how it is that the program was more popular than
competing discourses at the time.
     First of all, "THE ARK IN SPACE" was the most recent attempt
by the program's rhetors to redefine what _Doctor Who_ meant to
themselves, to its genre, and to its audience.  Late 1974 saw the
end of a five season stint (the longest thus far) by the third
actor to play the Doctor, Jon Pertwee.  Moreover, producer Barry
Letts and script editor Terrance Dicks left to pursue other jobs
within the BBC and were replaced by Hinchcliffe and Holmes.
     As was established practice, the next "regeneration" or
incarnation of the Doctor would be unlike his predecessor.  The
already rooted seeds of distrust in authority figures steered
Doctor Who away from the establishment "dandy" portrayal by
Pertwee.  Even during Baker's first episode and earth-bound,
Pertwee-esque yarn, "ROBOT," we see his casual style contrasted
with Pertwee's proper, upper-class Doctor.  By the beginning of
"THE ARK IN SPACE," his second story and first under the
Hinchcliffe/Holmes team, it is clear his Doctor is much less the
civilized gent of any of his three predecessors.  

     Pertwee's era was marked by a deliberate attempt to remain
on Earth in the present day.  Although he did make excursions to
other times and places, Pertwee's Doctor primarily remained on
Earth, a move then producer Derrick Sherwin (and subsequent
Pertwee era producer Letts) hoped would connect the program with
fans of James Bond films, the Quatermass serials, and action
television shows like _Z Cars_ and _The Prisoner_.[31]  At this
same time, the American science fiction program _Star Trek_ began
airing in England, and it would not be until Hinchcliffe took the
reigns as producer five years later that the program would fully
return to outer space and the future, beginning with "THE ARK IN
SPACE."  Hinchcliffe explained this move from modern and
"establishment" style to one marked by a sense of "Gothic horror"
to build up a larger audience base: 

          I felt that the show had become a bit 
          too childish.  I wanted to try and win 
          over more adults to the audience as 
          well as keep the children.  So the 
          whole thing became a bit more scary 
          and a bit more convincing, a bit more 
          plausible.[22] 


In addition to the incredible popularity of _Star Trek_ with
British audiences, ITV (or Independent Television), the BBC's
primary competition, began to run _Space: 1999_ in direct
opposition to Doctor Who.  At this point, ITV, with its more
violent and more "adult" programming, was sapping viewers from
BBC television shows, but because the public considered the BBC
to be upright and moral, it could not respond to the loss of
viewers in kind without attracting criticism.  The idea that the
BBC promoted a certain "way of life" for the British, while ITV
imported American ideals and attracted viewers in droves, put
pressure on producers of BBC programming.  How then to retain
viewers and attract new ones?   As a result, he also hoped to
exploit the notion of "BBC as 'British'":

          We have that special relationship with 
          our audience... we've not been obliged 
          to observe strictly commercial criteria 
          that say a producer on American 
          television has had to observe when 
          everything has to be reduced and ironed 
          out and made to actually work... That's 
          not the way British television works... 
          Certainly not the way the BBC works.  
          So it's a peculiarly British institution 
          and a reflection if you like of British 
          society, or British audiences and British               
          television...  We suddenly woke up and 
          realized that it wasn't just a kids' 
          programme but there was something in this 
          sort of Englishness that was valuable and 
          was prized by the audience... that sort of 
          slightly English comedy.[23]  


     ITV, with its commercial ties to America, was becoming
"Americanized."  With the current atmosphere in England one of
ambivalence toward America, _Doctor Who_ could commodify and
capitalize on its very existence as an artifact of "Britishness." 
Consequently, the efforts to create a "future" for England also
helped to reify notions that _Doctor Who_, unlike other science
fiction shows, belonged to the British people.  Additionally, it
advances ideas that the BBC, not Americanized commercial
television, who can create a future for the British people. 
Because the BBC is a bastion of British ideals, and Doctor Who is
a forum negotiating those ideals, Doctor Who and the BBC ought to
be watched.
     As a result of these pressures, "THE ARK IN SPACE" has many
direct ties and allusions to other shows within the science
fiction genre, but co-opts them into its out narrative world. 
Like _Space: 1999_, it is set on a space station.  The uniforms
of the sleepers on the Ark are almost identical to the uniforms
of the crew of Moonbase Alpha, building visual connections
between the shows.  The sets are minimalist and claustrophobic. 
On both shows, the second in command of the moonbase is a female
medic.  Like _Star Trek_, the show is set in the distant future,
complete with phasers and short range matter teleporters. 
Distant space travel is commonplace, with humanity among the
stars, locked in competition with exotic alien races in a battle
to survive.  The program also borrows elements from science
fiction film.  The concepts of genetic mutation and race memory
are explored in the British motion pictures _The Quatermass
Experiment_ (based on the eponymous BBC serial) and _Quatermass
and the Pit_.  Other aspects of mutation and the struggle for
control are reminiscent of _The Fly_, and _It! Terror from Beyond
Space_.  There is even a direct reference to _Dr. Strangelove_
when Noah struggles for control of his hand.  By borrowing from
other texts, the rhetors make their program more accessible to
newer viewers and give those who enjoy the genre a new way to
understand the genre constraints.  This intertextual shorthand
allows for the rhetors to absorb the familiar contents of other
shows into their own, unique discourse.
     The key differences between "THE ARK IN SPACE" and other
shows of its genre help to make it more successful than the other
competing discourses.  "THE ARK IN SPACE" willingly uses humor to
defuse dramatic situations, unlike _Space: 1999_ or _Star Trek_. 
Its episodic nature forces audiences to return week after week
and allows for greater character and plot development that a
single one-hour show drama can do.  Its incidental music is
neither quasi-futuristic or intrusive, unlike _Space: 1999_.  It
takes itself seriously, but not too seriously , unlike _Star
Trek_.  Audiences can relate to its lead character quickly, even
though he is generally a pacifist, odd-looking, and genuine,
traits not generally seen in science fiction shows, where the
lead willingly fights, is handsome, and never fully developed,
like Kirk on _Star Trek_.  


THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE TEXT'S DISCOURSE

     If "THE ARK IN SPACE" is indeed a cultural forum where
contemporary issues are addressed and generated, then it would
follow that its discourse can be parsed and its potential effects
discussed.  At this point, I should indicate that a single
television program's show, although rich in many things, often
does not push societal values to the fore; these things are
usually abandoned to some extent by the need to tell a good
story, often causing the extant values to be at best polysemic or
at worst contradictory.  However, these values do exist and under
the cultural forum model have currency.  That said, I have
uncovered a few of the underlying ideas lying beneath the surface
of the narrative and believe they merit an examination.  
     First, "THE ARK IN SPACE" is both a novel response to
contemporary, competing shows and a way to encourage viewers to
watch BBC programs and be instilled with "British" ideals. 
Unlike the imported _Star Trek_ and American-produced,
American-starring British _Space: 1999_, "THE ARK IN SPACE" has
characters who are uniquely British.  Harry Sullivan is the
traditional English old boy, Sarah is the "new" English woman,
and the Doctor, despite claims to the contrary, is a British, not
alien, intellectual eccentric.  As mentioned earlier, the public
believed the BBC to be a representative of traditional British
ideals.  It looked to the BBC to re-affirm Britain as mythic
Britain.  As a result, "THE ARK IS SPACE" has characters acting
as British emissaries to a distant future, one in which
ostensibly there is a British culture, but one in which it has
been assimilated into the world.  This assimilation has not meant
the destruction of traditional norms, as the people of the Ark
have little trouble adjusting to 1970s ethics as preached by the
crew of the TARDIS.
     If people enjoy the narrative, they will tune in from week
to week and continue to be imbued with the ideology promoted by
the BBC's own charter.  As a cultural forum, "THE ARK IN SPACE"
helps to shape viewers' notions of cultural identity and personal
meaning.  By modifying genre standards to include distinctly
"British" elements, the rhetors help in some respect to maintain
the status quo.
     Secondly, the program argues that human beings are by nature
good, and conformity and rules keep people from reaching their
potential.  The narrative has humans terrorized by
insect-monsters who want to absorb human culture into their own. 
However, the people of the future also have a rigid, insect-like
hierarchal system, generating uniformity within strata and a
clear division of labor above and below the strata.  The Doctor
has to force them to return to "contemporary" values, where a
distrust of authority and the ability of humans to choose freely
is commonplace; otherwise, if the Wirrn win, the people of the
future will exchange one hierarchy for another.  In other words,
the civil disorder of 1970s England will result in freedom for
people eventually.  Only when people are willing to shake of the
shackles of conformity can they truly be free, and contemporary
society has begun to lay the groundwork.  In that respect, "THE
ARK IN SPACE" is uniquely optimistic.  All the unhappiness of the
viewers in the present will not go to waste if they look toward
the future. But some interesting things happen near the end of
the narrative to complicate matters.  The humans eventually lose
the battle, but the Wirrn, led by once-human Noah, are blown up
because Noah's human love of Vara ultimately wins out.  That is,
it is not human ingenuity but love that will set us free.
     In spite of all this optimism, the underlying assumption is
that people deserve to survive over all other races.  The Wirrn,
like the humans, had been floating in space for years waiting to
find a new home, their planet originally destroyed by human
colonial expansion.  They found the Ark and began to populate it,
using it for a breeding ground, much like the human beings were
going to do once they returned to the Earth.  Both cultures are
inherently Western, with there no chance for harmony or
co-habitation.  Moreover, the narrative has the Doctor condoning
the Wirrn to death when Noah-Wirrn tells him the Wirrn want to
absorb all human knowledge, conveniently held on the Ark, and
replace humans as the dominant species.  It is only when the
Wirrn want to be in our own image that they must be destroyed. 
Consequently, "THE ARK IN SPACE," like most other programs within
the genre, requires human beings to be at the top of the food
chain, with a chance for harmony limited or non-existent.  
     As a message to a British people looking to the BBC for
meaning, this idea is quite disturbing.  If the English want to
survive, they must dominate all other nations, even if those
nations hope to be like them.  This ideology runs parallel to
ideas that the British government of the 1970s prevents people
from reaching their potential by restricting personal choice. 
Taken together, the British people (and people in general) are
good, but the current social situations keep people from being
good, and in the face of opposition, the British people's
goodness deserves to win out.


WHERE WE GO FROM HERE

     I have only touched on the role power plays in shaping
television discourse.  Who is it who ultimately decides what is
acceptable to a mass audience?  What is the nature of the
cultural forum in this regard?  How effective is the cultural
forum model when viewers can have hundreds of channels from which
to choose instead of two?
     My reading also places the program as a response to certain
specific conditions.  With that in mind, how do American and
British audiences who view it today understand "THE ARK IN
SPACE?"  The rhetors certainly could not have expected that
twenty-five years later people would still view their program and
enjoy it.  In what ways is their rhetoric effective now?  By
placing the program in a context different from its own
production, the cultural forum model theoretically would fail. 
How does it work when a program enters syndication?
     The cultural forum model illuminates "THE ARK IN SPACE" as a
text rich in meaning deriving from and responding with the needs
of its viewers.  As an example of the pinnacle of popularity of
_Doctor Who_, the cultural forum model helps to shed light on the
possibilities why the program ran for twenty-six seasons.   It
expertly balances audience expectations and cultural standards in
a way conducive to popular ideological appeal.  Its annexation of
contemporary standards allows for multiple readings that are both
contradictory and welcome to a society fearing its own future.


(c) Copyright Peter Gregg, 2001


                           ENDNOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------

1) Ellipses added by author.  Newcomb, Horace, and Paul J. Hirsh,
"Television as a Cultural Forum," _Television: The Critical
View_,  Sixth Edition, Ed. Horace Newcomb, (New York:  Oxford
     University Press, 2000), 561.

2) Newcomb and Hirsh, "Television as a Cultural Forum,"
_Television: The Critical View_, 562.

3) Ibid, 566.

4) Ibid.

5) Sahlins, Marshall, _Culture and Practical Reason_, (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1976), 217.

6) Howe, David J., Mark Stammers, and Stephen James Walker,
_Doctor Who: The Fourth  Doctor Handbook_, (London: Virgin Books,
1992), 159.

7) Ibid, 159-160.

8) It is important to note that in the BBC, directors are
shuffled from one program to the next, thereby limiting the
extent to which they can influence the course of a given program
or even a specific show.  Newcomb and Hirsh, "Television as a
Cultural Forum," _Television: The Critical View_, 563.

9) Miller, Jeremy S., _Something Completely Different_,
(Minneapolis:  University of Minnesota Press, 2000), 85.

10) Howe, Stammers, and Walker, _Doctor Who: The Fourth     
Doctor Handbook_, 247.

11) Sked, Alan, and Chris Cook, _Post-War Britain: A Political
History_, ( Middlesex (UK): Penguin Books, 1984), 135-137.

12) Morgan, Kenneth O., _The People's Peace: British History
1945-1989_, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 340.

13) Tulloch, John, and Manual Alvarado, _Doctor Who: The
Unfolding Text_, (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983), 112.

14) cf. The Holmes stories "THE KROTONS," "GENESIS OF THE
DALEKS," "THE MASQUE OF MANDRAGORA," "THE FACE OF EVIL."

15) Lavine, T. Z., _From Socrates to Sartre: the Philosophic
Quest_, ( Des Plaines, IL: Bantam Books, 1984), 81.

16) Ceccarelli, Leah, "Polysemy: Multiple Meanings in Rhetorical
Criticism," _Quarterly Journal of Speech_, Journal #84 (November
1998), 405.

17) Newcomb and Hirsh, "Television as a Cultural Forum,"
_Television: The Critical View_, 565-566.

18) Ibid, 567.

19) Ellipses added by author.  Newcomb and Hirsh, "Television as
a Cultural Forum," _Television: The Critical View_, 568.

20) Quoted by Haining.  Haining, Peter, _Doctor Who: The Key to
Time_, (London: W. H. Allen, 1984), 144.

21) Haining, _Doctor Who: The Key to Time_, 88.

22) Tulloch and Alvarado, _Doctor Who: The Unfolding Text_, 58.

23) Ibid, 178.


return Return to the Articles Index page
return Return to the Earthbound Timelords homepage


The High Council can be reached at jcurtis@bw.edu
Copyright Notice
Last Updated May 30, 2001