CANONICITY IN DOCTOR WHO:  A Springboard for Scholarly Research

by Zepo 
original version 07 July 1997
revised version 9 March 2000


INTRODUCTION:  _Doctor Who_ and Canonicity


     One of the most important (yet controversial) subjects
debated, when conducting serious research of the fictional
elements of a television program, becomes deciding which
materials are valid sources of evidence.  With the discovery of
an increasing amount of original materials about cult television
shows, this has become a more complex issue in recent years. 
_Doctor Who_ is no exception.  With many scripts becoming
increasingly available, the circulation of bootleg video and
audio tapes, the discovery of telesnap archives, the release of
previously unbroadcast programs on video, the addition of
previously not included footage on video releases, the removal of
previously included footage on video releases, and the broadcast
of questionable materials related to a program (such as charity
specials), what has formerly been a cut-and-dry issue of
canonicity has become a minefield.  However, to properly present
academic works on the fictional elements of a show, boundaries
must be set about what is valid evidence to the fictional
environment, history, and timeline of a program.  This article
attempts to set forth a standard for researchers of _Doctor
Who_'s fictional reality.  It aims to decide (and explain the
reasons for the choices of) what is canonical and what is not. 
First, it presents the general criteria for determining
canonicity.  Second, it will look at some specific cases, and
lastly, it will weigh the problems of using other non-canonical
supplemental sources for research evidence.


DETERMINING CANON CRITERIA: 
Four Factors--One Rule


     Let us start by examining the definition of canon and
canonicity.  _Webster's Unabridged New Twentieth Century 
Dictionary_ describes "canon" as "a standard in judging
something; a criterion" and also "an official list or catalog."
[1]  'canonical' is defined as "authoritative; accepted." [2]  
The Oxford English Dictionary echoes these definitions as well. [3] 
So what we are trying to determine when speaking about canonicity
is which facts presented to us in the wealth of _Doctor Who_
related information are the most accepted and true.  In
developing a canon, we are trying to establish the sources for
concrete facts we can base other arguments on.  That is what this
paper aims to discover (if some sources are canonical and others
are not).  It sets forth to decide what counts as truth in the
fictional world presented in the _Doctor Who_ television show. 
To do so we must first set a general guideline for determining
canonicity.
     To create a guideline we must establish some important
points about _Doctor Who_.  First, _Doctor Who_ was created as *a
television program*.  Period.  In an age before Star Wars-style
cross marketing, Sydney Newman, the show's creator, would have
had no idea that _Doctor Who_ (or any cult program for that
matter) could generate any sort of significant income in other
serious media. [4]  It was never the BBC's intention to start 
anything other than a television program. This alone should
automatically rule out evidence from outside the realm of
television.  If material is presented about the Doctor Who
Universe in a source other than the original program its validity
is suspect.  Often other sources contradict the television
program, usually for the sake of a quick plot twist.  Sometimes
this happens because the writer did no (or only a bit of shoddy)
research.  Sometimes it is because the writer seems unwilling to
accept a fact presented in the television show itself.  For
example, are we to believe that Adric's death in "Earthshock"
never occurred because the Timelords allegedly saved him as
stated in a _Doctor Who_ role-playing game supplement? [5]  No,
because the source does not come directly from the television
show.  The television show is the guide for producing all other
fiction in other media.  There is no entity controlling the
continuity for these other works, unlike the television show that
has a production team.  These other media, even if they do not
contradict the continuity of the series, as a whole diminish the
actual narrative impact of the original program.  If we were to
accept sources other than the television show, to be fair we
would have to include (accept) all of the information in
non-television sources, regardless if they contradict other 
information or not.  What would make one writer more
canonical than another?  Nothing.  Are we to believe that the
sixth and seventh Doctors traveled around the universe with a
shapechanging being that preferred the appearance of a penguin
simply because it appeared in numerous issues of _Doctor Who
Magazine_? [6]  No.  If a fan writes a story that has the Doctor
becoming a murderer and sex offender should that also be included
as canon even if it does not contradict the continuity of the
series.  No.  Thus, ruling out the canonicity of other media
entirely seems the only practical choice.  It may not seem like
an important distinction but it is the most important of them
all.  It rules out many licensed and unlicensed materials such as
(but including more than these): the New Adventure books, The
Missing Adventure books (as well as all those from the missing
Season 22), any other books, comic strip adventures, graphic
novels, the Peter Cushing films, any other feature or short
films, annuals, magazine specials (such as the _Radio Times_ 20th
Anniversary special), any magazine stories, video and computer
games, radio plays, stage plays, scripts, role-playing game rules
and supplements, fan fiction, stories made for video, artwork,
and songs.  Basically, any information that comes from a source
other than a television program itself is not fact to _Doctor
Who_'s fictional environment, using this rule. 
     To properly narrow the field of evidence we must look at
other factors that determine canonicity.  Second, _Doctor Who_ is
a *specific* television program.  This seems simple enough.  It
means that materials not part of the show itself, but presented
on television, are not valid evidence.  A good example would be
the Dalek skit on _The Dave Allen Show_.  The skit is not
canonical because it did not appear in a series named _Doctor
Who_.  
     Third, _Doctor Who_ is a specific television program
*broadcast on the airwaves when initially presented*.  The first
time the public is introduced to a fact embedded in the narrative
of the program is when the information appears on their
televisions.  It is at this time that the producers of the
program have already determined that the show is finished, that
there are no narrative elements missing, and that the program
requires no more work to be presented.  The show is complete.  It
is understood that the production team has to contend with
certain real world limitations when making a program such as
a limited running time, production deadlines, and a limited
budget for effects.  However, it is the original broadcast
material (not anything finished after the show's initial
broadcast, or included for rebroadcast/video release) that counts
as canon.  Once a show is first broadcast, it establishes to the
world of viewers the events that have transpired and the facts
that affect the characters.  It is true that the production team
is responsible to make sure the continuity of the program is
correct, and continuity mistakes do happen.  If a mistake does
slip through at the time of broadcast it still becomes canonical
and it is the duty of researchers to explain the inconsistency
until another broadcast _Doctor Who_ story officially explains
the mistake (if it ever does).
     The fourth and last factor is that _Doctor Who_ is a
specific television program broadcast on the airwaves when
initially presented *produced solely by the BBC*.  The British
Broadcasting Corporation is the entity that has produced and then
shown the connected adventures of the hero, the Doctor, since its
initial broadcast.  The adventures of that character can only be
canonical if they are produced by the BBC.  This helps us
eliminate any similar programs, such as fan-produced materials
shown on public access cable or broadcast stations.
     There are four important factors that make up the guide rule
of determining what must be present for evidence to be part of
the canon.  First, it must be from a television program.  Second,
the television program must be called "Doctor Who" as its main
title.  Third, only evidence from the show's initial broadcast
counts, not any additions or omissions from other versions.  And
fourth, only solely BBC made shows are valid.  Now it is
established in this interpretation that canonical evidence holds
true to one rule: canonical evidence must be from a first time
broadcast BBC _Doctor Who_ television shows.  Let us examine some
specific examples and determine if certain programs belong to the
canon or not.  Also, let us look at some specific examples where
canonicity has come into question in various Who-related
programs.


CASE STUDIES 1:  
Video Releases and the "Broadcast" Factor


     The BBC has released home video versions of the _Doctor Who_
program.  There are specific cases in which these releases are
different from the original broadcasts.  Identifying these and
investigating them helps us determine their canonicity.
          "Shada" is a _Doctor Who_ story that started production
but was cancelled due to a BBC strike.  It was released on video
after some of the special effects were completed, but for the
most part it remained unfinished (with the unfilmed narrative
explained by Tom Baker on screen).  The story has been included
in some books as canonical. [7]  "Shada" was never broadcast on
television and thus does not in this interpretation qualify as
part of the canon.  Even if it were broadcast now, it would be
shown out of order and remains unfinished thus seriously
questioning its canonicity anyway.   Also, the effect that
"Shada" would have on existing continuity would be a problem, as
the Fourth Doctor footage from "The Five Doctors" was taken from
the episode and thus the continuity between the two stories would
be ruined. [8] "Shada" simply cannot be part of the fictional
canon.
     The issue of "Shada" brings to mind another interesting
question affecting the Doctor Who canon: the validity of
previously deleted footage that is restored in the video releases
of various stories. [9]  While it is always wonderful to see
footage that was cut from an originally broadcast program, such
footage included in the actual narrative of the video often
changes the context of the program and the established order and
existence of events.  To so many people who watch a particular
story on video they cannot distinguish between original materials
and those added after the fact (meaning after the establishment
of the canon).  This added footage is not canonical at all.  In
the case of the video release of "The Curse of Fenric," the video
release actually rearranges  a few of the narrative scenes
causing one shot to come before another in reverse of the
original program. [10]  Thus, altered video versions cannot be
canonical as the broadcast version already established the turn
of events (and this is quite important in a show about time
travel).  
     In 1996 BBC Video released the videotape _Doctor Who: The
Five Doctors (Collectors Edition)/King's Demons_. [11]  The
original story of "The Five Doctors" was re-released with 11 more
minutes of footage embedded in the narrative not in the original
broadcast, as well as having had alternate takes of some scenes 
substituted for the original broadcast take. [12]  To make matters 
worse (and to preempt George Lucas), the BBC allowed the 
special effects footage to be reassembled with completely 
different effects.  No longer is the triangular time scoop black, 
now it is clear and mirror-like to mention one of a few effects 
that are now changed.  The continuity of the show is now 
significantly different.  To increase confusion, "The Five 
Doctors (Collectors Edition) was packaged together with the 
serial "King's Demons."  Thus anyone who wants to get a copy 
of the original (canonical) broadcast version of the "King's 
Demons" episode is pretty much forced to buy the corrupted 
and non-canonical version of "The Five Doctors."  To the 
new (or less informed) fan of _Doctor Who_,  "The Five 
Doctors (Collectors Edition)" will seem to be the "correct" 
version (otherwise, they will think,  it would not be packaged 
as it is).  To give some credit to those at the BBC who 
marketed the "Collectors Edition," the back of the box does read
"Not intended as a replacement for the original edition." [13] 
Any rearranged or manipulated version of an original story is not
canon.
     There is another such example affecting the issue of _Doctor
Who_ canonicity.  It is footage that is removed from video
releases.  There are specifically two _Doctor Who_ video releases
that are missing original footage.  The first was previously
discussed.  "The Five Doctors (Collectors Edition)" is of course
missing original footage due to the fact that the special effects
that were originally in the show have been changed.  Thus it is
not canon.  The second case is the original video release of "The
Brain of Morbius."  The home video release was edited to reduce
the amount of violence in the show.  It contained original
footage in its original order so in a sense it would seem to be
part of the canon.  However, it is not completely canonical
because the show is incomplete.  Almost a full 41 minutes of
footage was removed, and thus the narrative flow is drastically
changed. [14]  While a reference to the edited version of "Brain
of Morbius" may be correct (and canonical), the person making
such a reference must be sure that none of the original footage
edited out of the video release contradicts any assertion made in
their statement.  Only the newly released home video version
_Doctor Who: The Brain of Morbius (Collectors Edition)_ contains
all of the originally broadcast footage. [15]  It is again a 
shameful marketing ploy to call this version a "Collectors Edition" 
as it is indeed the original broadcast version.  Poor marketing will
confuse many people trying to determine the exact origin and
facts of a _Doctor Who_ program.  The term "Original Broadcast
Version" would seem to be the best title for the new "Brain of
Morbius" release.  This may seem bland to some in an age of
"special," "restored," and "collectors" editions, but when using
the rule of canonicity presented here this is the canonical and
definitive version.  As far as video releases go, only "The Brain
of Morbius (Collectors Edition) is completely canonical and true
to the original broadcast.
     When using video releases as evidence, writers must be
careful to know if the footage they refer to was originally
broadcast or if it was added for home video.


CASE STUDIES 2: 
Other Programs and the "Specific Program" Factor


     The nature of _Doctor Who_ as a television program means
that other programs related to it are created.  Sometimes they
are even produced and aired on the BBC itself.  Let us take a
look at four major examples.
     The first and most difficult of these related shows to
tackle is the _Doctor Who_ spin-off show _K-9 and Company_.  It
might seem simple to explain away this program as being
uncanonical by immediately bringing up the point that the show
was not titled _Doctor Who_.  While this is the case, _K-9 and
Company_ does have an apparent impact on canonicity.  In "The
Five Doctors" we are introduced to the character of Sarah Jane
Smith who is talking to K-9 when he warns her that she should not
go out that day.  Nowhere in the series _Doctor Who_ is there
ever a reference to why Sarah Jane is with K-9.  These events
would in fact contradict the established continuity of _Doctor
Who_ and the existence of two K-9 robots each already residing
with one of the Doctor's other former companions. [16]  In fact
the producers intended for the viewers to know that the Doctor
had sent the Mark III model of K-9 for Sarah Jane in the episode
"A Girl's Best Friend" (the only _K-9 and Company_ episode ever
produced or aired). [17]  Thus, we are presented with a dilemma. 
A factor of canonicity suggests that this show automatically be
disregarded, however, the show was a legitimate spin-off of
_Doctor Who_ that existed within the rules of Doctor Who
Universe itself.  The contents of _K-9 and Company_ adhere to the
other three canonical factors set forth to establish the rule of
canonicity.  The strongest argument for the show is simply that
it does indeed blend with "The Five Doctors."  Because of this a
compromise would be nice but in establishing factors for
canonicity we cannot bend.  _K-9 and Company_ does not officially
exist as part of _Doctor Who_ canon because it cannot adhere to
all four of the canonical rule factors.  However, the story is
the most reasonable explanation for how Sarah Jane came to be in
contact with one of the K-9s.  Still there is no direct mention
of the events that transpired in the show _K-9 and Company_ in
"The Five Doctors."  It is a canonical fact that Sarah Jane Smith
has met a K-9 unit as we see it in "The Five Doctors."  However,
other than this fact, there is no other link to _K-9 and
Company_.  If in the future a stronger link is established
between the two shows _K-9 and Company_ easily has the best
chance of belonging to the definitive canon.  For now, because we
only have one small link found in an actual _Doctor Who_ show, we
must leave it out. [18]
     The next example, is also listed in some texts as being
canonical. [19]  This is the case of the BBC's _Children in Need_ 
telethon special "Dimensions in Time."  Much like in the previous
case, we are given a program that, regardless of its production
values, could be part of the Doctor Who canon.  The program seems
to fit most of the criteria.  It was broadcast on the BBC
initially, it was a television program, and it had an apparent
opening sequence called Doctor Who.  It was, however, embedded in
another show when broadcast as it was part of _Children in
Need_. [20]  Thus, "Dimensions in Time" does not quite fit all of
the factors as it was not in a show called _Doctor Who_, but
rather in another with a separate title.  Back in 1983 when "The
Five Doctors" was broadcast it was part of the week of
programming for the _Children in Need_ telethon as well. 
However, there are a few facts that delineate "The Five Doctors"
from "Dimensions in Time."  First, the initial broadcast of "The
Five Doctors"  was in the USA as a regular _Doctor Who_ program
and was not embedded in any other sort of narrative. [21] 
Secondly, "The Five Doctors" was issued a production code by the
BBC.  Thirdly, events of "The Five Doctors" are specifically
referred to in other _Doctor Who_ programs (most notably "The
Trial of a Timelord" when the Doctor claims to be the Lord
President of the High Council of Gallifrey, an honor that was
bestowed upon him by Chancellor Flavia at the end of "The Five
Doctors").  Fourthly, "The Five Doctors" was a "true" story as
the narrative was played out for viewers.  "Dimensions in Time"
allowed the viewers to call in and choose an ending episode. 
Thus the story was never set and viewer input determined what
would happen. [22]  Lastly, the show was made as a _Doctor Who_
program and only included in a charity event.  In the case of
"Dimensions in Time," it was not produced as a regular program as
the actors did not get paid, it was made for one time broadcast,
and the contracts stated that the show could not be put on
video. [23]   However, if we allow "Dimensions in Time" to be
considered canonical then we must also accept other _Doctor Who_
stories that were made for reasons of charity and embedded in
another program.  The _Doctor Who_ show "A Fix With Sontarans"
comes to mind.  Little Gareth Jenkins wrote a letter to the show
_Jim'll Fix It_ and got his wish to be inside the TARDIS.  The
show did one better and had Colin Baker and Janet Fielding
(Nicola Bryant was unavailable at the time) return in a story for
Gareth that also featured two Sontarans.  Master Jenkins helps
gas the Sontarans to death only to see supposed true horror
appear on the TARDIS scanner when the head of the host, Jimmy
Saville, appeared.  Again, as in the case of "Dimensions in Time"
one of the stars (in this case both Colin Baker and Janet
Fielding) talk to the host outside of the _Doctor Who_ element of
the program.  "A Fix With Sontarans" cannot fit into the Doctor
Who universe because the guise of the programming having a
fictional reality is destroyed when the host walks into the
TARDIS and the guise of the reality is broken and does not return
in a way that cannot be explained to fit canonicity.  There are
no end titles to the Doctor Who segment and the program _Jim'll 
Fix It_ moved on to a new segment. [24] Clearly, both "A Fix With 
Sontarans" and "Dimensions in Time" were not broadcast as a 
program called specifically _Doctor Who_ as its main title.  
Thus they are missing one of the four requirements of canonicity 
and cannot be part of the official canon.  Due to the interesting 
nature of both of these  shows however, only this small element 
stands between these two shows being part of the _Doctor Who_ 
canon in the same way as _K-9 and Company_.  In fact, it would 
be quite easy to accept both of  these shows as canon if ever a 
mention is made to one of them in an actual canonical broadcast 
_Doctor Who_ show. [25]  For now both "Dimensions in Time" and "A 
Fix With Sontarans" are clearly not canon.
     Now we come to the most recent point in the debate of
canonicity.  What is the fate of the American-made Fox Television
Doctor Who movie?  Well, it seems to fail in meeting all of the
criteria factors set forth in the rule of canonicity.  The
American Fox Television movie was not produced solely by the BBC. 
Instead the BBC sold the rights to make a movie to Philip Segal
who got the program made in a joint venture between the Universal
and Fox Television.  The BBC had a contractual share in the
program, but declined to influence the production other than the 
choice of the actor and vetoing small parts of the script. [26]  
While the movie was to some entertaining, it clearly did not match 
the continuity of the original BBC program.  The Fox TV movie 
unsuccessfully tried to present continuity by mentioning parts of 
the established _Doctor Who_ canon such as the Daleks and Skaro 
and by having Sylvester McCoy return as the Doctor.  However, 
so many other fictional "facts" in the movie blatantly disregarded 
_Doctor Who_ canon that it was difficult to take the show even 
remotely seriously.  Apparently the Eye of Harmony has relocated 
from underneath the panopticon on Gallifrey to the inside of the 
Doctor's TARDIS.  Apparently, the Master (and Doctor) can inhabit 
the bodies of other people when they reach the end of their 12th 
regeneration.  If this is so, why did the Master even bother 
returning to Gallifrey in the show "The Deadly Assassin?"  
[In the case of "Keeper of Traken" it is implied that because 
he gained power from being the Keeper for a short period of time, 
the Master had the ability to steal Tremas's body.]  Also, the 
Fox TV movie implied that the life essence of the Master (a 
disintegrated Timelord according to the movie) survived and was 
held in a box by the Doctor.  If this is the case, why did the 
Timelords not just get the Lord President's life essence in 
"Deadly Assassin" and hold it in a box until a new body could 
be found for him.  Also, why would the Doctor even fear 
disintegration in "Arc of Infinity" if it turns out that
disintegration cannot destroy a Timelord's life essence?  In 
the Fox TV film the Master could not operate the Doctor's TARDIS
because the TARDIS is fitted to the Doctor's half-human DNA. 
Interesting.  It is rather illogical that a full human could
operate parts of the TARDIS.  Should they not have had as much
trouble as a full Gallifreyan?  This deconstruction and criticism
could run on for pages upon pages, but let us simply accept that
the American Doctor Who Fox Television movie's continuity was
lacking. 
     The Fox-Television movie was also not part of the continuing
series of _Doctor Who_.  Much like the proposed _Doctor Who-The
Movie_ silver screen projects, the American television film was
produced as a film on its own not as a direct continuation of the
series.  The Fox-Television movie, often referred to as "The
Enemy Within," is the result of the proposed work toward a Doctor
Who feature film.  It was meant to be a singular film that was
also seen "as a 'backdoor pilot' for a possible series." [27]
     Regardless of likes or dislikes aside, and limiting
ourselves to the argument presented by the application of the
rule this article presents, the show was not solely produced by
the BBC and thus its fate as a segment of the canon is not to be
included.  Due to the fact that the BBC have shown the program on
their own channel and have released the program on video cassette
(as well as using the character of the eighth Doctor in books),
we may in the future find that the movie may be considered
canonical if a future _Doctor Who_ series directly mentions the
events in the film and uses Paul McGann as the Doctor. [28]  Much
like _K-9 and Company_ and "Dimensions in Time" the fate of the
Fox Television film's canonicity rests in the future.  As of now,
the show is not canon.  
     As established at the start of the investigation, the rule
must always be followed, without exception, to determine
canonicity.


CASE STUDIES 3:  
Canonical televised information and its interpretation


     Story titles in _Doctor Who_ are another debate for
canonicity.  There are few specific cases that must be examined. 
The determining title for a serialized story is the title given
on-screen.  Applying the four factors of canonicity makes it
clear that all valid facts must come only from first time
broadcasts of the BBC _Doctor Who_ television program.  On screen
at the beginning of each broadcast we are given the title of the
story.  This is the canonical title (and episode number) of that
specific story.  There are a few cases that many fans bring up to
debate on this subject.  Hopefully a guideline for these cases
can be established here.  
     To start, the issue of the season 23 story "The Trial of the
Timelord" must be tackled.  The story is broken up into three
separate production codes, novelized in four separately titled
books, yet given only one title on the air. [29]  Quite simply,
the canonical name for all 14 episodes of Season 23 is "The Trial
of the Timelord" because this is title of the story as it
appeared on screen.  However, for the sake of referring to the
subplots of this story (which are broken into four distinct
stories used for the novelizations) fans often use the
novelization titles for clarity.  This is not correct however
when referring to canonicity.  Referring to the subtitle names
should be avoided unless the correct title of "The Trial of the
Timelord" is also included.
     Another issue that needs to be tackled regards the proper
titles for _Doctor Who_ serials before the stories were broken
down into episodic parts.  I am referring to the William Hartnell
stories before "The Savages" when each single episode in a
serialized story was given its own specific name. [30]  As there
is not an "official" on-screen name for any of these stories it
is a matter of conjecture for television historians to decide
what the exact title should be.  Over the span of more than 30
years since these programs aired originally, authors of
television history and fans for the most part have collectively 
agreed on a name for each story that due to their prolonged use 
and acceptance have become canon.  In more recent years, some 
television historians have discovered working titles for some 
stories and attempted to change the established names. [31]  
Though these working titles are interesting history, they are no 
more canon as the working titles that never made it to the screen 
for episodic stories due to the fact that the title did not appear 
on-screen.  The sensible course of action is to use the already 
established titles.  They have become canon due to the length of 
their use, their general and universal acceptance, and their 
ability  to communicate what is being talked about to the largest 
amount  of people.  In short, in a case where there is no 
definitive answer using the four established factors of 
canonicity, the most universally accepted answer wins out.  If 
one has any questions as to what the accepted canonical titles 
are (and the episodes they include) click here.  To avoid any 
confusion one must remember that it is not improper to refer to 
an episode title for one of these stories. 
     With the exceptions of the early William Hartnell stories,
the proper title for a story can easily be seen in each _Doctor
Who_ episode's opening titles.


CASE STUDIES 4: 
Canonicity Issues in Canonical _Doctor Who_ Shows


     We have established a criteria for determining canon (solely
BBC produced, broadcast, _Doctor Who_ television shows) and for
our investigation to be complete we must also look at a few cases
where we want to determine the canonicity of specific
information.  
     One case of determined canonicity are the names of
characters.  As established before for a name to be canon it must
appear on-screen in the television program.  For the most part
this is easy as the character's name appears in the credits. 
Production notes do not count.  For instance Polly's last name
was never properly given on-screen, though production notes
reveal her name to have been "Wright." [32]  Thus having not
appeared in a canonical piece of evidence regarding the show's
fictional reality the surname of Wright is not valid.  As far as
the show's fictional reality is concerned, Polly's last name is
unknown. [33]  However, sometimes we are given a first or last
name and never given a proper spelling.  For instance we are
introduced to Zoe's last name and Turlough's first name, but
never given an example of their exact spelling in a canonical
source.  Thus, separate sources spell the names differently. [34] 
In this case, as with the case of the early Hartnell story
titles, one should use the most accepted spellings. If one has
any doubt to what those might be simply click here.
     Another problem effecting on-screen canon is determining if
it is the end of one episode or the beginning of another that is
canon.  For instance, is the true turn of event that which
happens at the climax of "The Mark of the Rani (Episode 1)" or
the start of "The Mark of the Rani (Episode 2)."  In the climax
of the first episode, we see the Doctor tied to a gurney speeding
down the hill with no one nearby to help him.  But in the second
episode, the same sequence is replayed with George Stevenson
running to help the Doctor.  Which turn of events is correct? 
Both, but more so the second part.  Both parts took into account
that the character yelled to help the Doctor, but for the sake of
tension this was missing in episode 1.  The second episode
reveals narrative intended to be included or hidden from the
viewer in the first part to create suspense.  If the two episodes
are edited together to form a single story such as in an omnibus
broadcast, it is always the follow-on episode's sequence that is
used.  Thus, in two identical sequences in two separate episodes,
the second is more logically used as more canonical information
is revealed.  This is an interesting case, because in many of the
early Hartnell and Troughton stories (and sometimes for the other
Doctors as well) the same sequence would be reshot for each
episode meaning that there would be slight continuity problems
between the two shows (voice inflection is the easiest to catch
for the general viewer).  Though a specific case does not come to
mind, it is possible that at the end of an episode someone may be
holding an object in one hand and then in the same sequence in
the next episode is holding the same object in their opposite
hand.  These indicate flaws in _Doctor Who_ but hopefully should
not affect canon in too great a degree.  In some cases a specific
ending was shot to an episode that was not repeated in the next
episode.  In this case, the original footage included is also
canon.  For the most part (unless a solid argument can be made to
the contrary) it is the second of two sequences used between
episode breaks that represent the canonical version of events.
     Another issue is that of accepting odd events in a canonical
piece of evidence.  For instance, when in "The Dalek Masterplan
(Episode 7('The Feast of Steven'))," the Doctor turns to the 
camera and says "Incidentally, a happy Christmas to all of you at
home." [35]  Does this count as part of the canon?  The answer is
a qualified yes as the evidence comes from a canonical source. 
Even though the character of the Doctor seemingly addressed the
viewers at home, this does not mean that his character in the
fictional reality universe did not say the words.  In the case of
a fictional program, the camera represents the omnipotent and
unintrusive eye to the events occurring.  For the most part the
camera is placed so that it is never directly addressed or looked
at.  Even if the camera is addressed, as is the case with
the Doctor's sentence, it does not mean that the character of the 
Doctor just did not face a given direction and speak (to himself 
for instance).  With the camera in a piece of fiction not existing,
the only explanation is that the Doctor looked to the side and
uttered a toast to all the people around the world in a reflective 
moment to himself.  The fact is that the Doctor said the 
sentence in a canonical _Doctor Who_ program.  His words were
broadcast.  They are included in the canon as it is interpreted
here.  In fact, it is a travesty that the sentence is not included 
in the novelization and often discounted by researchers
and historians. [36]
     When determining canon one must take certain situations into
account, but as long as the four factors of the rule of
canonicity are followed a person should have no problem in
deciding if a fact is true and legitimate or not.


RESEARCHING CANONICITY: 
Problems with using supplemental sources


     Having established that evidence valid in the fictional
reality universe of _Doctor Who_ comes from canonical sources
found only in broadcast _Doctor Who_ television programs solely
produced by the BBC, most historians and researchers are left
with gaps of evidence.  In the early 1970s many of the early
episodes deemed to lack historical or rebroadcast value were
destroyed. [37]  This leaves a great deal of complete canonical
information missing.  For the list of episodes still missing from
the BBC vaults click here and look for the episodes marked with
an "X."  This should not stop research on these episodes and 
their impact on the show's fictional reality.  There are other 
near-canonical sources that can be used for research.  It must be 
remembered that these sources are not completely canonical.  
However, in most cases they are rather close or an extract from 
the original canonical source.  An investigation of these sources 
and their shortcomings is necessary.
     The first of these research sources are scripts.  Whether
these are the original scripts held at the BBC or those released
in book form, they are valuable insights as to the plot and
actions of these missing episodes.  It is important to remember
that scripts are not always accurate.  Often, scripts are
deviated from during the recording stage when a dynamic actor or
the production staff make changes that appear in the broadcast
version and as a result the canonical events are not annotated or
included in the script.  Scripts are often excellent resources,
but often they are not perfectly canonical.  This should be
remembered when referring to a script for evidence.
     Another source of evidence used to support claims of
canonicity recently discovered are telesnap photos.  These are
photographs taken by photographers (most notably John Cura) of
the _Doctor Who_ episodes as they were aired on broadcast
television.  These photographs were used for "technical reference
to directors and designers, and a valuable visual portfolio for
actors." [38]  In sets of contact sheets, these telesnaps provide
excellent references for the actual visuals of the canonical
broadcast evidence.  However, it must be pointed out that the
photos are separated by a significant amount of time.  In the
case of the telesnaps of "Tenth Planet (Episode 4)" there are 72
photos for a 25 minute episode. [39]  This works out to 1 photo
every about 21 seconds which at the rate of a PAL television 
broadcast (25 frames a second) means 524 frames pass between
photographs. [40]  This is a very insignificant amount of visual
evidence in the large scheme of things, however, it is more than
we have without the existence of the actual episodes.  It must be
remembered that these telesnap photos cannot convey all visual
information missing because most events occurred between photos. 
Even more important, there may be a clue in the audio soundtrack
of the episode that negates an event in the episode that a
telesnap shows.  For instance the Doctor may be smiling in the
telesnap photo but may have just said in a very serious tone to
someone "I am not happy with you at all."  In essence, there may
be an audio clue refuting what we think we see in a telesnap
photo.  As long as the researcher using, and reviewer reading,
the evidence supported by the telesnap remembers that these
photos only give a limited amount of visual information, they can
be used to significantly support an assertion about canonicity. 
However, they are by themselves not canon.
     The next piece of possible evidence are audio recordings. 
If these are the actual audio recordings held by the BBC, bootleg
audio recordings that seem to circulate between fans, or the
commercially released recordings the issue of canonicity is the
reverse of the one made with the telesnap photos.  The audio of a
given episode only reveals a limited amount of information, the
part of the episode that can be heard.  We are missing any visual
clues that may exist.  Similarly, in this case, the Doctor could
be holding his finger to his lips and pointing to a hidden
microphone while loudly announcing to his companions "The Daleks
are my friends."  Simply because we hear someone say something
does not mean that the statement is absolutely true and
canonical.  Audio evidence cannot allow us to discover video
clues that may refute what we hear.  The same is true for
attempting to interpret what a sound was without any visual
clues.  Researchers must always be weary of any statements made
on audio alone.  As with telesnap photos, audio recordings are by
themselves not canonical.
     Episodes that are transcribed by someone from an audio
source must also be looked at with a grain of salt.  A
transcribed episode is always open to mistakes created by the
transcriber misunderstanding or miswriting the dialog.  In a
choice between a script or a transcribed audio recording use both
and attempt to determine the best true description of the dialog,
but if a choice must be made I would defer to the script itself
because it will most likely hold the meaning closer to the
original broadcast than someone trying to interpret what was said
on an old and distorted audio tape.  Again, transcribed episodes
are not truly canonical.
     Another good source for evidence when doing research on the
fictional reality of _Doctor Who_ are the novelizations of the
broadcast stories.  The writers of the novels often used the
original scripts or watched the original existing episodes to
help write their novels.  Researchers should be aware that the
novels are not exact transcriptions and descriptions of the
broadcast episodes in many cases.  When using a novel, one
should be aware that sometimes writers add information to the
story not given in the original _Doctor Who_ serial. [41]  Writers
of books do us a disservice by adding material that was not
broadcast.  This added information is clearly not canonical.  The
same is true of writers who omit broadcast (canonical)
information such as the Doctor's Christmas greeting in the Target 
novelization of "The Dalek Masterplan." [42]  Another misleading 
way that some of the novelization authors present their work is 
by presenting the story in a style that does not reflect how the 
story was broadcast.  For instance, the novelization of "The 
Myth Makers" is told by the character of Homer in the first 
person style rather than in the third person omnicent style that 
the original show was recorded in. [43]  As with other
near-canonical sources, it must be remembered that the 
novelizations are not pure canonical information but can often 
help fill the gaps of information caused by the lack of existence 
of copies for certain episodes.
     Photographs are also good resources for research evidence. 
However, almost no photographs were taken during the actual 
recording sessions. Photos on sets are usually staged publicity 
photos, pictures of rehearsals, or run throughs of actual 
recordings sessions.   Even if  a photo was taken during an 
episode's recording it may not be from the broadcast take.  
Often photographs are most often taken for publicity  purposes 
or during rehearsal sessions as not to interrupt or interfere  
with the production and recording crew.  In these cases the sets 
as well as the appearances and actions of the characters in the
photographs may vary greatly from the actual canonical look of
the broadcast episode.  It is important that researchers remember
this when studying photographs for evidence.
     As with all sources of research information that are not
from the canonical broadcast television program, it is important
for a researcher to be extra careful when using these sources. 
All information should be cross referenced for accuracy when
possible.  When making an assertion that uses a missing episode
as evidence, there seem to be enough near-canonical sources that
can support the claim of fictional "truth" and by meticulously
researching these sources a good television historian can present
solid evidence.


CONCLUSION: 
Canonicity and Its Uses


     This article intended to set a standard for the sources of
evidence used by researchers of _Doctor Who_'s fictional reality. 
It establishes a four factor rule for determining canonicity when
deciding if materials are valid pieces of evidence.  Using
these four factors it is determined that legitimate,
undisputable, evidence comes from first time broadcast, solely
BBC produced, television programs with the greater title of
_Doctor Who_.  The article also investigated some specific cases
to decide if certain other _Doctor Who_ related programs or
sources count as canon or not.  Lastly, it weighed the problems
associated with using sources, other than those purely canonical,
to study aspects of the fictional universe established in the
show.  In all, a near complete guideline to deciding the validity
of evidence is created.  Establishing such canon allows
researchers and historians that are interested in the fictional
reality universe of the _Doctor Who_ program a specific pool of
legitimate evidence that they can use when investigating a topic. 
It is important to realize that one cannot make an undisputed
assertion about the shows fictional reality if the source is not
canonical.  
     The hope is that in the future more researchers and
historians of _Doctor Who_, whether it be the show's fiction or
production, will be more aware of the sources that are the best
and most legitimate and put them to good use in articles and
books.  A problem plaguing _Doctor Who_ literature is that most
assertions made lack the bibliographical references to sources
where the information or evidence can be found.  It would be
better if _Doctor Who_ writers and historians actually wrote
their materials in a more scholarly style.  Through decent
documentation it would be possible to check assertions, prove
statements and support or refute arguments in other critical
works.  In essence, writers should present a scientific approach
that allows others to duplicate their findings.  If historians of
_Doctor Who_ take this approach to their writing, the entire
_Doctor Who_ community could only benefit.  When evidence is
properly presented it allows for the canon to be strengthened and
established more concretely having the effect of allowing fewer
mistakes to be made in the research of the program.  Hopefully in
the future the producers will be more aware of established
history regarding the program and the seriousness by which it is
researched.  The professionalism exhibited by historians of the
program will only force producers to heighten their own standards
and professionalism in regard to continuity and production.  The
Doctor would most likely champion this line of thinking.  The use
of scholarly reference should be reinforced even more for those
who research the production of the show.  Presenting a fact in
one's book and not revealing the source leaves a huge air of
doubt in the minds of those objective enough not to believe
everything they read.  Simply because someone has access to
production notes and is looking for the opportunity to be the
first to present evidence to the public should not excuse them
from not documenting the exact sources and location of their
evidence.  Only by being scholarly as a community and supporting
one another's search for evidence will the _Doctor Who_ research
community be seen as serious, intellectual, and truthful.
     Those who study the events that occur within the fictional
framework of the show, may use the four factored rule of 
canonicity as the outline of what one can prove concretely.  This 
would be a good foundation on which to build any argument.  It is 
not incorrect to make assertions that are supported by other 
sources.  However, one should then expect serious rebuttal of 
their argument from those who adhere to canonical facts more 
closely.  The presentation of this article on canonicity is meant 
to open the gates of opinion and debate rather than close or 
narrow them.  After all, it is up to writers, historians and fans 
of a program to assemble the facts and explain the 
inconsistencies in continuity that exist in the fictional _Doctor 
Who_ history.  The interpretation of canon presented here is not 
the only interpretation, but hopefully it will lend itself to the
scholarly community of _Doctor Who_ as  a solid basis from 
which to discuss and debate the show's fictional reality.  This 
article intends to help those understand the best sources of 
evidence when used for such a purpose.  It is the hope that more
interesting and better arguments are generated because of this
article's groundwork.

(c) copyright Zepo, 1998.


                          Endnotes:
--------------------------------------------------------------
                                    
1.  _Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged) _,  
2nd ed. (1980), s.v. "canon," 256.  These are the fifth and
seventh definitions of "canon."

2.   _Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged) _,  
2nd ed. (1980), s.v. "canonical," 256.  This is second definition
of "canonical."

3.  _The Oxford English Dictionary_, 2nd ed. (1989), Vol. II
(B.B.C.-Chalypsography), s.v. "canon," 838-839.  The second
definition of "canon" reads as: "a. a law, rule, edict (other
than ecclesiastical). b. A general rule, fundamental principle,
aphorism, or axiom governing the systematic or scientific
treatment of a subject; eg. canons of decent or inheritance, a
logical grammatical, or metric canon; canon of criticism, taste,
art, etc. c. A standard of judgement or authority; a test,
criterion, means of discrimination."  _The Oxford English
Dictionary_, 2nd ed. (1989), Vol. II (B.B.C.-Chalypsography),
s.v. "canonical," 839-840.  The fourth definition of "canonical"
reads as: "Of the nature of a canon or rule; of admitted
authority, excellence, or supremacy; authoritative; orthodox,
accepted; standard."  The sixth definition of "canonical" reads
as: "According to the rules of canon, in canon form."  Thus, the
use of "the four factor rule to determine _Doctor Who_
canonicity" presented in this discourse are the measure to see if
things are canonical, that is to be in alignment according to the
rule of canon.

4.  Sydney Newman was the head of the BBC Drama Department in 1963
when he proposed the idea for the show _Doctor Who_.  (David J.
Howe, Mark Stammers, and Stephen James Walker, _Doctor Who: The
Sixties_ (London: Virgin Publishing, Ltd., 1992), 3.

5.  J. Andrew Keith, _The Master_, (Chicago: FASA Corp., 1985), 
52.

6.  The shapechanger (from a race called the Whifferdill) called
Frobisher became the Doctor's companion in _Doctor Who
Magazine_'s comic strip between issues #88 (in the story called
"The Shape Changer (Part 1)") to #133 (in the story called "A
Cold Day in Hell (Episode 4)").  As a note of accuracy, the
magazine's proper title between issues #85 to #98 was _The
Official Doctor Who Magazine_;  Between issues #99 to #106 it was
titled _The Doctor Who Magazine_; and between issues #107 to the
present it was titled simply _Doctor Who Magazine_.

7.  Paul Cornell, Martin Day, and Keith Topping, _Doctor Who: The
Dis-Continuity Guide_, (London: Virgin Publishing, 1994),
245-249.

8.  The "Shada" footage used in "The Five Doctors" appears on the
video release of _Doctor Who: Shada_  (Los Angeles: FoxVideo,
1992), NTSC video cassette.  The video does not include any
information or footage that would even imply that the two stories
could fit together.  Both shows could not be canon as the "Shada"
footage used for "The Five Doctors" was from various times and
scenes in the original story.   It would make no sense to present
the Fourth Doctor's disappearance and return from a time eddy in
"The Five Doctors" without disrupting the entire "Shada" story
line.

9.  Previously unbroadcast footage was included within the video
releases of the following Doctor Who video releases: _Doctor Who:
Curse of Fenric_ ,(Los Angeles: FoxVideo, 1991), NTSC video
cassette; _Doctor Who: Silver Nemesis_ , (Beverly Hills:
FoxVideo, 1994) NTSC video cassette; and _Doctor Who: The Five
Doctors (Collectors Edition)/King's Demons_ , (Beverly Hills:
FoxVideo, 1997) NTSC video cassette.

10.  Ibid (_Doctor Who: The Curse of Fenric_).

11.  _Doctor Who: The Five Doctors (Collectors Edition)/King's
Demons_ , (London: BBC Video, 1996), PAL video cassette.  The
same video was released a year later in the USA (though the
packaging dates the video in 1996, it was not released until May
of 1997): _Doctor Who: The Five Doctors (Collectors Edition)/
King's Demons_ ,(Beverly Hills: FoxVideo, 1997), NTSC video
cassette.

12.  _Doctor Who: The Five Doctors (Collectors Edition)/King's
Demons_, videobox back cover.  This box gives the running time as
101 minutes, as opposed to the original running time of 90
minutes.

13.  Ibid.  The full description on the back of the box reads:
"Not intended as a replacement for the original edition of the
story, this is an alternate version which uses state-of-the-art
technology to embellish and enlarge one of the greatest _Doctor
Who_ adventures ever..."

14.  _Doctor Who: The Brain of Morbius (Collectors Edition)_,
(Beverly Hills: FoxVideo, 1996), videobox back cover.   _Doctor
Who: The Brain of Morbius_, (Los Angeles: BBC/FoxVideo, 1984),
videobox back cover.  The "Collectors Edition" box gives the
running time as 100 minutes, as opposed to the original edited
video release listed at 59 minutes.  The "Collectors Edition"
video was released in the USA in May 1997 (though the packaging
dates the video in 1996).

15.  The video of this story is complete. However, there is a 
section of missing audio. Part One is missing a small portion of 
music that was originally broadcast but is missing on all the video 
tapes that the BBC holds.  Robert Franks (Columbus, Ohio).  
"Nick's Article." Private e-mail message to Nick Seidler 
(Milwaukee, WI).  23 January 1998 (0:02:37).  Printout and 
electronic copy in the possession of the author. ["You'll note that 
Part One is missing a small portion of music.  For some reason it 
is missing on all the VT's that the Beeb hold, but it was present 
during the initial broadcast."] 

16.  The first K-9 robot (introduced as the creation and "pet" of
Doctor Marius in the story "Invisible Enemy" [BBC Serial
Code-4V]) stayed with Leela on Gallifrey at the end of the story
"Invasion of Time" [BBC Serial Code-4Z].  In the same story we
see the Doctor show us a box Labelled "K-9 M 2" with the second
version of K-9 almost assuredly boxed inside as the robot dog
reappears in the next story ("The Ribos Operation" [BBC Serial
Code-5A]).  This second version of K-9 stayed behind with Romana
in E-space at the end of the story "Warrior's Gate"[BBC Serial
Code-5S].

17.  Cornell, Day, and Topping, _The Dis-Continuity Guide_,
265-266.

18.  As a note, I had always accepted _K-9 and Company_ as
canonical until I undertook this article.  Simply, the episode "A
Girl's Best Friend" loses out because bending the rule of
canonicity would allow other outrageous Who related programs
[such as fan parodies] into the canon for the same reason.  It
would be nice if "The Five Doctors" would have contained a
stronger link between the two programs.

19.  Cornell, Day, and Topping, _The Dis-Continuity Guide_,
249-250.  

20.  The beginning of the first of two parts of "Dimensions in Time" 
featured presenter Noel Edmunds who briefly interviewed Jon 
Pertwee before the start of the program.  Part One of 
"Dimensions in Time" was its own show during the "Children 
in Need" broadcast, but Part Two was definitely part of another 
show, namely _Noel's House Party_.  The show also required 
that the presenter inform the audience to wear their 3-D glasses 
before the show began.  "Dimensions in Time", _Children in 
Need_,(London: BBC, 1993), video recording, in the possession 
of the author.

21.  "The Five Doctors" was first broadcast on American Public
Television stations on 23 November 1983, to commemorate the
show's 20th Anniversary.  It was shown on station WMVS
(Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA --channel 10) on 23 November 1983,
witnessed by the author.  In the United Kingdom, the show was
delayed two days (until 25 November 1983) so it could be shown as
part of the _Children in Need_ telethon.  

22.  Viewers had a choice to choose between two characters from
_Eastenders_ who would "help" the Doctor (the first was a large
man named Big Ron, the second was Mandy, a petite teenage girl--
needless to say it was no surprise to see Mandy [played by Nicola 
Stapleton] win for pure comic value).  Both endings were exactly 
the same with the "helping" _Eastenders_ character being scared 
off by the Rani in both versions moments after their appearance.  
Producer John Nathan-Turner showed both endings (before 
broadcast) at the Visions '93 Doctor Who/British Television 
Convention in Chicago, Illinois, USA, 26 and 27 November 1993.

23.  John Nathan-Turner speaking about "Dimensions in Time" at a
panel discussion at the Visions '93 Doctor Who/British Television
Convention in Chicago, Illinois, USA, date believed to be 26
November 1993.  Author present.  It is interesting to note that
Mr. Nathan-Turner was making a point for why the show should be
considered canonical ("Part of _Doctor Who_") at the time. 
However, his comments seemed to strengthen the reasons for why it
should not be.

24.  "A Fix With Sontarans", _Jim'll Fix It_ (London: BBC, 1986),
video recording, in possession of author.

25.  Clearly, if a strong mention is made to "Dimensions in Time"
in a future canonical _Doctor Who_ story, there is a strong
opportunity for the show to be counted.  In the case of "A Fix
With Sontarans" an end point to the shows fictional reality must
be chosen (such as the moment after the Sontarans are killed, but
before Jimmy Saville's head appears on the TARDIS scanner).  Then
it too could fit in with established canon.  Let us keep things
easy (and sensible) and leave "A Fix With Sontarans" out no
matter what. 

26.  Robert Franks (Columbus, OH).  "Nick's Article." Private 
e-mail message to Nick Seidler (Milwaukee, WI).  23 January 
1998 (0:02:37). Printout and electronic copy in the possession of 
the author. ["The only things the[y] did comment on were the 
script and the choice of lead actor.  They could have vetoed any 
part of the production buy they chose not to."]

27.  Jean-Marc Lofficier, _Doctor Who: The Nth Doctor_, (London:
Virgin, 1997), 259. 

28.  The eighth Doctor has since appeared in the BBC Doctor Who 
adventure novels such as _The Eight Doctors_. Terrance Dicks, 
_The Eight Doctors_, (London: BBC, 1997). Personally, I have 
no qualm with any of the acting ability of the main characters 
seen in the Fox Television movie.  Quite simply, the lack of 
continuity and the poor script damaged the validity of the show 
in my opinion.  I would hope that Paul McGann would return 
as the Doctor in a _Doctor Who_ series produced solely by the 
BBC that completely ignores the Fox television movie.  I hope
that the show is brought back with a producer who has a more
watchful eye for continuity.  My apologies to Philip Segal with
whom I have no personal animosity and whose love for the show 
I have no doubts.

29.  "The Trial of the Timelord" has production codes 7A, 7B, and
7C.  It is novelized in the four books:  Terrence Dicks, _Doctor
Who: The Mysterious Planet_, (London: Target Books, 1988); Philip
Martin, _Doctor Who: Mindwarp_, (London: Target Books, 1989); Pip
and Jane Baker, _Doctor Who: Terror of the Vervoids_ (London:
Target Books, 1988); and Pip and Jane Baker, _Doctor Who: The
Ultimate Foe_ (London: Target Books, 1988).  On screen it is
titled "The Trial of the Timelord" for all 14 episodes.

30.  "The Savages" [BBC Serial Code- AA] was the first _Doctor
Who_ serial to give a specific title for all 4 episodes in the
story and break each part into "episodes" that were numbered
on-screen.

31.  Examples of this can be found in: Adrian Rigelsford, _The
Doctors: 30 Years of Time Travel_ (London: Boxtree Ltd, 1994),
154-159. The following list gives the episode titles that Mr.
Rigelsford uses with the canonical titles in parenthesis:
"100,000 BC" ("An Unearthly Child") [BBC Serial Code-A], "Inside
the Spaceship" ("Edge of Destruction") [BBC Serial Code-C], "The 
Daleks' Master Plan" ("The Dalek Masterplan) [BBC Serial Code-V], 
and "The Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Eve" ("The Massacre") 
[BBC Serial Code-W].  Even Mr. Rigelsford returns to the tried 
and true canonical titles in his own text, one example being on 
page 48 when talking about "The Massacre."

32.  "[Polly's] surname was only revealed in a special audition
piece written by [Gary] Davis for the auditioning actress to
perform."  David J. Howe and Mark Stammers, _Doctor Who: The
Companions, (London: Virgin Publishing Ltd., 1995), 36.

33.  Polly says her last name in a missing second episode of the
serial "The Faceless Ones."  Audio copies of the episode are said
to be not clear enough to discern the name she gives though many
fans believe it to be "Lopez."  Others do not think so and simply
accept "Wright" regardless that it does not appear on-screen.
[Chris Howarth and Steve Lyons, _Doctor Who: The Completely
Useless Encyclopedia_, (London: Virgin Publishing Ltd., 1996),
102-103.]  In another source the introduction of her last name is
described as follows: "Arriving back at Immigration, a new flight
arrives, and on it is Polly. She maintains her name is Michelle
Lopez, and has a passport to prove it..." [John Peel, _Files
Magazine Spotlight on Doctor Who: Season Four: Part II_ (Canoga
Park, CA: Psi Fi Movie Press, 1986): 28.]  The novelization gives
a different name altogether having the quote as "I am Michelle
Leuppi from Zurich." [Terrance Dicks, _The Faceless Ones_,
(London: Target, 1986), 37.]  Anyway, the point seems null as it
is a look-alike Chameleon that takes the name not the Doctor's
assistant the actual Polly.

34.  Turlough's first name is spelled "Vislor" [Jean-Marc
Lofficier, _Doctor Who: The Universal Databank_, (London: Virgin
Publishing Ltd., 1992), 417] and "Vizlor" [Howe and Stammers,
_Doctor Who: The Companions_, 101].  Zoe's surname is also often
found with multiple spellings.

35.  Different sources give different versions of what they 
report as Steven's line.  "Incidentally, a happy Christmas 
to all of you at home" is correctly reported in: Howarth and Lyons, 
_Doctor Who: The Completely Useless Encyclopedia_,  87.  It is 
reported to be "And a Merry Christmas to all of you at home" in: 
Cornell, Day, and Topping, _Doctor Who: The Dis-Continuity Guide_, 
49.  The line is truly spoken by the Doctor and is correctly quoted 
as "Incidentally, a happy Christmas to all of you at home."  To hear 
the actual audio of the quotation for yourself click here.

36.  John Peel, _Doctor Who: The Dalek Masterplan Part 2 (The
Mutation of Time)_, (London: Target, 1989), 42.  The Doctor's line
should have been included on page 42.

37.  Brian J. Robb, "Into The Archives," _Doctor Who Magazine_,
No. 150 (July 1989): 19.

38.  Marcus Heam, "The Tenth Planet," _Doctor Who Magazine_, No.
207 (22 December 1993): 19.

39.  Ibid.  

40.  The mathematics works out to 20.833 seconds between photos
which for the simple math in the article is rounded to 21
seconds.  At 525 frames per 21 seconds, 524 frames pass and on
the 525th a telesnap photo is taken.  However, using the correct
fraction (20.833 seconds) it works to 520.825 (or about 521) frames 
total each 21 seconds; 520 frames between telesnap photos.  To the 
best of my knowledge, telesnap photos were manually taken so this 
is not the exact number of frames that passes between each photo, 
but the average.

41.  An article about descriptions of the TARDIS that appeared in
the novelizations but were not seen on screen appear in: Gary
Russell, "The TARDIS in Fiction," _Doctor Who Magazine_, No. 174
(12 June 1991): 44-45.

42.   John Peel, _Doctor Who: The Dalek Masterplan Part 2 (The
Mutation of Time)_, 42.  Steven's line should have been included
on page 42.

43.  Donald Cotton, _Doctor Who: The Myth Makers_, (London: 
Target, 1985).


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 March 9, 2000