Talk: The Three Doctors (novelisation)

Meeting Time Lords before Omega

Well, the novelisation of The Three Doctors explicitly states that, prior to his encounter with Omega, the Doctor had only ever come up against one other Time Lord...the Master.

Someone said that this was a deviation from the television series, pointing out that the Doctor had also previously faced both 'the Monk' and 'the War Chief', clearly failing to comprehend what Terrance Dicks meant by that comment.

This was then edited, withe the resulting consensus seeming to be stating that Dicks had meant(as other Target novelisations had) that the 'Monk', 'War Chief' and 'Master' were implied to be one and the same. And that, prior to the Virgin New Adventures, this was the default position.

And then some over-eager ip editor came and radically rewrote this, making sweeping comments, adding her own point of view, and speaking of 'this era', which is both ambiguous and likely to date very quickly. Should a wiki article even make comments like "this era"? What if the article doesn't get edited for years? Will 'this era' still mean the same thing then?

I have reverted it to the consensus version. But I am keen for others' input.

"This era" doesn’t mean the current one you illustrate anteater! 86.183.123.28^{talk to me} 17:07, May 13, 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, unless I've got my wires crossed, "Deviations from the TV story" doesn't necessarily mean contradictions with the TV story; just anything in the novelisation that isn't onscreen. If there were, say, an explicit mention of Borusa in the novelisation somehow, when no such comment was made on TV, that would constitute a "deviation from the TV story" whether or not this contradicted other pieces of lore.

As to the specific issue of whether we can take that comment to mean the Monk and the War Chief were both the Master: eh. There are other in-universe, valid-source grounds to argue for the War Chief and the Master possibly being the same individual, and I plan to create a thread on this subject once the thread intended to split off The Master page into all the different Masters is concluded. But in the absence of any valid source telling us the Master and the Monk, or the Master and the War Chief, are the same person — well — while Dicks's authorial intent is fairly clear, you could just as well suppose that The Three Doctors is saying that The Time Meddler didn't happen at all. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 18:31, May 13, 2020 (UTC)

I have actually rethought this one. I tried to start a discussion about it on the Panopticon, but someone relentlessly trolled it, and then it was shut down before any actual discussion took place. First thing, the War Chief is the Master, and the Master is the War Chief. That is beyond any reasonable doubt. As Terrance Dicks wrote both this novelisation, as well as Doctor Who and the Terror of the Autons, and Malcolm Hulke novelised Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon, Doctor Who and the Sea Devils and Doctor Who and the War Games. Any ONE of those makes it beyond obvious that Edward Brayshaw and Roger Delgado were playing the same Time Lord. Period.

But what of Peter Butterworth? if we go by what this novelisation says, does that make him the Master too? That is certainly what FASA, the officially licensed board game, and other sources would say. And then, we get the kneejerk response, and stuff like No future and the recent "Missy/Monk meetup" from Big Finish. So, we now have two totally contradictory viewpoints, and it's wrong to state that one ir "right", and the other is "wrong". Because, they could both be wrong.

The first character ever identified as a Time Lord is the War Chief/Master. In The War Games. And then the Doctor is called one too. And then, it's repeatedly stated that the Doctor and the Master/War Chief were the only two renegade Time Lords of the Era, and that, prior to Omega, the Doctor had only ever had one other Time Lord adversary, the Master(who is the same character as the War Chief).

But, and this is extremely important, as recently as The Wheel in Space, the Doctor still was written as a human being from the far future. he had one heart, repeatedly referred to himself as a "human being", and even the so-called "regeneration" in The Tenth Planet was said to be entirely thanks to the TARDIS, and NOT the Doctor's own biology. He was "a human being like you and me"(The Savages, which aired AFTER both The Time Meddler and The Daleks Master Plan). Originally, the Doctor and Susan were human beings from the far future, Susan came up with the name TARDIS, and the Doctor may have invented it himself. Then, we found out that there was at least one other TARDIS. There is nothing at all in either The Time Meddler or The DAleks Master Plan to make one think that the Time Meddler is anything other than a human from the future. All his time meddling, all his references to historical events, all his schemes, all the treasures that are in his TARDIS...they all come from the same planet...Earth. And his knowledge of Earth history is actually much better than most human beings today, it should be added. Yes, the Doctor states that they're "from the same place", but that may be the same future Earth, or may possibly be the same human scientific institute that developed TARDISes. and, as noted, even by The Wheel in Space there is NOTHING AT ALL suspicious about the Doctor's physiology, when he gets a medical examination.

Then came The War Games and everything changed. The Doctor was now a Time Lord. The Doctor and the War Chief/Master speak of "the humans" as "they", and the Time Lords as a totally different species. This then becomes the norm, and the Doctor was retroactively always a Time Lord. Yet, nowhere in any actual Season 1-3 episodes is that applicable to either the Time Meddler or Susan Foreman. And, if the Time Meddler becomes a Time Lord, then, as the Doctor had only faced one other Time Lord, prior to Omega, the Time Meddler appears to become a pre-Edward Brayshaw Master.

Modern viewpoints take it for granted that everything from An Unearthly Child on has the Doctor as "a Time Lord from Gallifrey", and everyone he meets from his own point of origin is automatically a Time Lord too. Thus, Carole Ann Ford and Peter Butterworth were both playing "fellow Gallifreyans". Which resulted in some absolutely terrible writing about "how Susan wasn't really the Doctor's granddaughter" or "the Monk(?) was working for the Celestial Intervention Agency".

The simplest solution however may be this...The Hulke/Holmes/Dicks people era were only concerned with their own era. They wrote a group of television serials, and then novelised those same stories. They made it clear that the Master is the War Chief. But, they never directly indicated anything about anything from any other era. (Actually, why Doctor Who is so poor right now may be because the writers are trying to "explain" continuity points from different eras, when the very idea of what Doctor Who even is were wildly different at those different points in time.)

Had nobody ever tried to "explain" how Peter Butterworth's character fits in, it wouldn't really have been anything other than a very minor thing only fanboys ever even thought about. The first character identified as a Time Lord is the 'War Chief'. The Target novels make it explicitly clear that the 'War Chief' is the Master. And the Doctor and the Master were the only two Time Lords to steal TARDISes and leave Gallifrey. And the only two renegade Time Lords of the era. And the Master was the only Time Lord the Doctor came up against before Omega. That's it. But then fanboys weighed in. One group stated "that means the Time Meddler is ALSO the Master/War Chief". That is on a par with the comic The World Shapers. But, even worse, another group then pushed the idea of the Doctor encountering a Time Lord BEFORE the Master/War Chief, who is NOT the Master/War Chief, and even giving him an "origin story", and then repeatedly bringing back the "Meddling Monk"(?) in more and more embarrassing stories.

In fact, if we look at the stories as they were written, then Peter Butterworth isn't the Master/War Chief. But he's also certainly not the character who Paul Cornell wrote for in No Future, and he's definitely not the character(s) portrayed by Graeme Garden and Rufus Hound in Big Finish Audios.

So, this book is evidence, if any were ever actually needed, that Terrance Dicks knew that the War Chief and the Master are the same character. However, it can't be taken for rganted that he's saying that Peter Butterworth's character is also the same character, as Peter Butterworth never actually played a Time Lord on television. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 197.83.246.23 (talk).

For future readers, the thread in question is Thread:275417, and Thread:278505 is relevant as well. Interpret these comments as you will, having read those threads. Najawin ☎ 10:06, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

And you have nothing relevant to say on the issue at hand? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 197.83.246.23 (talk).

I think my comments have been made in the prior forum posts, though I do think, politely, that you should read T:SIG WHEN and I'm curious as to why you deleted a signature I placed for you. Najawin ☎ 10:28, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you that the in-universe evidence should be sufficient to say the Master and the War Chief are one and the same — though this wouldn't be the right place to discuss it. However, all this business about the Monk not being a Time Lord… thing is, this is one point in which you could stand to read User:Shambala108's closing posts more closely, I think. This Wiki does not take authorial intent into account; the text of the sources must stand on its own.

You are absolutely correct that the Monk is as much a human as he is a Time Lord (and for that matter, his regenerations could still be seen as human as well; remember "It comes with the TARDIS" in The Power of the Daleks). However, the account that existed at the time shouldn't take primacy any more than the retconned "Mortimus" idea. Depending on accounts the man in The Time Meddler may or may not be a human — but in the exact same way that the Doctor in Into the Dalek may or may not be an Earthman from the 49th century. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 10:28, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Part of it was replying to the constant attempts to derail the Master/War Chief thread. But, going by narrative, we get..

a) Peter Butterworth played an unnamed character, who is a human from the future

b) The Master once disguised himself as a monk in 1066 AD(Earth).

c) There is a Time Lord called "the Time Meddler", who is not the Master, and who once disguised himself as a monk in 1066 AD(Earth).

d) There is a Time Lord who is actually called 'the Monk', who is not the Master, and once er, disguised himself as a monk, in 1066 AD(Earth). This "Monk" had never met the Doctor before 1066 AD(Earth).

e) There is a Time Lord called "Mortimus", who is actually a monk, and who met the Doctor for the first time ever in 1066 AD(Earth).

f) There is a Time Lord called "Mortimus", who was good friends with the Doctor at the Academy on Gallifrey.

g) A human character resembling Butterworth, appears in the short story The Church of Football'. Clearly he is not called "the monk", and is not a Time Lord.

(And, although not mentioned in-narrative, there was a prominent fan theory way back when that Drax was a regenerated Butterworth.)

The moment you say "The Time Lord called the Monk", you are favouring not one, but two narratives over others. 1) That he's a Time lord, and 2) That he's actually called "the Monk" the way the Doctor is called "the Doctor". Because there's more than enough in-narrative evidence to squash both of those. Alternatively, there may be more than one separate character, as the biography of "Mortimus"(No Future) and "Mortimus"(Divided Loyalties) clearly don't match. Even within Big Finish, Rufus Hound's "Meddling Monk" states that he met the Doctor for the first time ever in 1066 AD(Earth) in an adventure that only resembles The Time Meddler in the very vaguest of terms. Likewise, in The Book of Kells', the Doctor states that he met this "Monk"(Graeme Garden) for the first time ever in 1066 AD(Earth), in a story that was clearly intended to be The Time Meddler, yet is nothing at all like it in what was actually stated in-narrative. Whereas in The Rani Elite, the Doctor and the Rani reminisce about their old friend "Mortimus" from the Academy on Gallifrey.

So, even the name of the article The Monk is personal preference, and favours one narrative over another.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 197.83.246.23 (talk).

Reductio ad absurdums are not attempts to derail an argument. They're a perfectly valid form of argument, namely, a specific instance of the more general form of Modus Tollens. This characterization is silly. Najawin ☎ 11:58, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

"Silly"? Let's forget the War Chief for a moment. Why does this wiki have separate articles for Man with the Rosette, Stream (The Hollows of Time), The War King? Everyone knows they were intended to be the Master. But, going just by in-narrative, they can't be connected to the Master. AND, regardless of intentions, going just by in-narrative, nobody in books or audios called "Mortimus" or "the (Meddling) Monk" can be connected to the character Peter Butterworth played in two television serials. You can't change the rules as it suits you.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 197.83.246.23 (talk).

What I characterized as silly was you saying I derailed the the argument by presenting reductio ad absurdums. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't change the subject. Najawin ☎ 12:15, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

For the War King, there is another concern than narrative: licenses. But as was examined in the forums way back when, the narrative evidence that the Man with the Rosette is the Master is much thinner on the ground than "rogue time traveller whom the Doctor met in 1066 Northumbria".

(edit conflict)

You are attempting to derail the discussion, and tried to turn it into and argument. You have also yet to actually address any actual points being made. I have asked you to explain different points, all of which you ignore. As such, you haven't really added anything to any discussion. Again, if this wiki has doesn't include The Man With the Rosette, Professor Stream, and the War King as the Master, then using that same reasoning, why should an assortment of time travellers all be lumped together under a single "the Monk" article? Even if we just take "the War Chief", why is it that the "War Chief" article mentions him being called "Magnus" at the Academy, and being friends with the Doctor...yet "Magnus" from Flashback gets his own, separate article? If we do that then the two Time Lords called "Mortimus" clearly each warrant their own article. And neither "Mortimus" has an in-narrative biography that matches what we actually saw, in-narrative, in either The Time Meddler or The Daleks Master Plan. Please try and actually address the issues at hand.

There's a lot I could pick out in your reply, but I'm going to focus on the thing that puzzles me most: where are you getting that there is any connection between the guy in The Church of Football and the "Monk" in The Time Meddler? Could we get some quotes on the alleged "physical resemblance" of John Scanlon to Butterworth? I don't think Scanlon's timeship containing stolen Earth artifacts from throughout history means much of anything. It's a pretty common trope for rogue time-travellers. And Scanlon appears to be travelling back in Time with definitive purpose, rather than simply to lackadaisically improve things like the "Monk" in The Time Meddler.

And — does the Fifth Doctor himself not notice the physical resemblance/recognize Scanlon as the man he met back in The Time Meddler? If Scanlon is the "Monk", with no regeneration involved, then surely he would, unless amnesia is involved.

Those are genuine questions, by the way, not 'gotchas'. Independent of your, I think, somewhat shaky assertions about how it all relates to the War Chief business, it is perfectly possible that we ought to deal with "the Monk" in the same way that we do with the Time Lord played by John Franklyn-Robbins in Genesis of the Daleks, who may be Valyes or Ferain, and is covered at both pages. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 12:22, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

It's an interpretation. There are resemblances with the man, and with the interior of his timeship. But the point, is that this editor is very insistent about "what counts". And, according to them, there is insufficient evidence for those pages (Master, War King, War Chief, Magnus, Stream, Man with the Rosette) to be anything but separate pages. And, of course, the War Chief page actually mentions the War Chief being called "Magnus" at the Academy, yet even that isn't enough to combine the 'War Chief" and "Magnus" pages.

Yet this person has NO PROBLEM with an assortment of completely contradictory characters ALL being lumped into a single "The Monk" page. Which clearly shows that, for this person at least, different rules apply to different characters. And, it's clearly about their personal preference. If, as Najawin says, we can't combine the War Chief and the Master, then we sure as hell can't say that Rufus Hound's Big Finish Audios character is the same character as Peter Butterworth's television character.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 197.83.246.23 (talk).

It's worth noting that once, The War Chief actually did include the Flashback character. It was rightly split because Flashback never said that its Magnus was the War Chief, and, indeed, was never intended to say so. Divided Loyalties, on the other hand, says pretty clearly that its Magnus was the War Chief — but fails to directly connect its Magnus to the Flashback Magnus in a tangible way. "Magnus" is a fairly common name; assumptions can't be made.

I'm also unsure what the conflict is between the guy in Big Finish and the guy in The Time Meddler. I can see the argument for uncertainty about who "Mortimus" is (or rather, who the two inconsistent takes on Mortimus are, depending on whether they grew up with the Doctor). But whether the man in The Time Meddler was Scanlon or Mortimus or Roger, why should that stop him from later becoming Hound?

The Time Meddler may not say the Monk was a Time Lord, but neither does it state its character is human. And even if you stick to your guns on that (against Wiki policy), well, again, "owning a TARDIS" is sufficient, per certain accounts, to acquire the power of regeneration. Why shouldn't Hound be playing a future Time Meddler/John Scanlon/what-have-you, whether or not he used to be Mortimus? I frankly don't follow.

Anyway, please sign your messages. And if you're going to be arguing at such lengths for such major changes to the Wiki, I can't recommend enough that you create an account for yourself. It will make discussion easier and probably make people more inclined to listen to you. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 12:40, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

So this talk page is quite clearly becoming disorganized very quickly, but I'll just note that I have indeed explicitly refused to discuss the points you're attempting to make, though I disagree that I'm attempting to make this an argument. I'm correcting your mischaracterization of certain things as it comes up, and then moving on. I specifically said "I think my comments have been made in the prior forum posts", as I didn't want to continue this discussion and considered it resolved until another forum post was made (as I specifically asked an admin for special permission for Scrooge to make one even without new evidence but with a new perspective on the same evidence and have yet to hear back from them).

I note that my original comment was merely adding a signature to your comment and providing links to the forum posts, without even explicitly pointing out that I didn't "relentlessly [troll]" the post and just moving on, when you asked me if I wanted to comment more. I'm not sure how on any earth I can be the one interpreted as wanting to turn something into an argument, when I've explicitly tried not to comment.

I also note that I have never once said that we can't combine The War Chief and The Master. Could you please stop accusing me of holding positions that you have imagined and motives that are entirely fictitious? Najawin ☎ 12:44, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

(Replying to Scrooge MacDuck): Well, the reason we can't combine Butterworth and Hound's characters is the same reason we can't combine certain other characters. Since this wiki uses narrative, not authorial intention, then where, in-narrative, does it explicitly say that Hound's character IS the same character as Butterworth's character. Yip, it was authorial intention, Hound is called "the Monk". Although, of course, Butterworth's character was never called "the Monk" at all. But there were also Headless Monks, Monks from the Pyramid saga with the Twelfth Doctor and Bill, and in fact the Doctor was explicitly said to be called "the Monk" in The Bells of Saint John's. Thus, using "narrative, not authorial intention" a better case could be made that Rufus Hound is playing a future Doctor than he he is playing the same character from The Time Meddler that Peter Butterworth played. gain, if we just go in-narrative, and put aside authorial intention, there is NOTHING to connect the characters played by Peter Butterwoth and Rufus Hound. Yes, there are a few hints, and we know who he was he was intended to be, but the same could be said for the Man with the Rosette...– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 197.83.246.23 (talk).

So, nothing at all. Why post here at all, unless it's attempting to derail a topic? Your haven't addressed anything at all. The only "disorganized" is coming from the one person who refuses to address the topics, and just makes attack posts.

But let's take one example. If we use "in-narrative, not authorial intent"...then how can we possibly say that the character of the Time Meddler in 4-Dimensional Vistas is the same character who Peter Butterworth played on tv?– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 197.83.246.23 (talk).

(I note for future readers that the above two paragraphs that had separate spacing were made by the same user at the same time, they just used inconsistent spacing.) The claim of disorganization was one about spacing and how comments were being placed. As for posting, again, I've corrected mischaracterizations and posted relevant threads to discussions that were ongoing. That seems to be addressing things. I'm still baffled as to the idea that I'm making an attack post, but w/e. Najawin ☎ 13:36, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

"Deviations from televised story"

One editor is insisting that passage contained on page 93 of this novelisation "deviates from the television story". The relevant passage is..

• "In his various incarnations, the Doctor had found himself up against many terrifying enemies. With the exception of the Master, this was the first time he had found himself opposed by a fellow Time Lord. And in comparison to Omega, the Master shrank almost to a petty criminal."

Now, this one editor is insisting that this is a "Deviation from the televised story". But..how? How does that passage deviate from The Three Doctors (TV story)? Surely it belongs in "Writing and publishing notes"? Where it actually was before this one ditor took it upon him/herself to edit the article. 197.83.246.23^{talk to me} 11:51, July 31, 2020 (UTC)

Clearly this does not deviate from the television story The Three Doctors. And it is notable. Plus, it didn't "deviate" from anything at all at the time when the book was published. The article needs to make that point clear, as well as of course referring to what came later.197.83.246.23^{talk to me} 12:23, July 31, 2020 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The revision history is as follows.

In January a user who is most likely you using a different IP address, but certainly an anonymous user, decided to add the detail that "The Monk The Master and The War Chief are all the same", due to the events of the story (paraphrased). LauraBatham reverted it, the user redid this, SOTO reverted it again.

In March a different IP added the exact same edit once again (I will hereafter refer to this as "the first IP" even if they're technically the second). LauraBatham once again reverted it. They attempted this again, with a more nuanced approach, that LauraBatham cleaned up. They reverted some of her attempts to clean this up, wherein another IP intervened, and rewrote the section again to be more neutral, pointing out that it did have a genuine place in the article but the user was being biased. The original IP refused to accept this revision and undid it. At this point we are at May 13th.

BananaClownMan removed it from Writing and Publishing Notes, cut it down drastically and put it in "errors", much as the second IP suggested would happen. First IP undid it, second IP undid that, first IP undid that, BananaClownMan undid that. A THIRD IP came in, called the first IP "disruptive", but said it wasn't an error and put it back in Writing and Publishing Notes, with a neutralish tone.

July 17th, the first IP was unable to accept this neutral tone and edited the article to do away with it. BananaClownMan moved it back to its shortened form in errors.

LauraBatham moved it to Deviations from Televised Story as a compromise, as it wasn't explicitly an error. You come in, are unable to accept this, and place it in "Writing and Publishing Notes".

I undo this as Thread:278505#10 and Thread:275417#55 made rulings on this issue, and you're blatantly pushing your own agenda.

So I only got involved in editing this article after you continued to edit it after the relevant ruling was made, the user who originally moved it to Deviations was not I, and to say it was "originally" in Writing and Publishing Notes is basically completely false. Najawin ☎ 12:26, July 31, 2020 (UTC)

WHAT "relevant ruling was made"? 197.83.246.23^{talk to me} 12:27, July 31, 2020 (UTC)

Those would be the threads in question. Najawin ☎ 14:18, July 31, 2020 (UTC)

And more...

So now the same user is trying to say that it is only implied that some writers of the time may have felt a certain way. Which is clearly not the case.

ALL the narrative material of the time either makes no claim either way or makes the stance that "they" are one and the same. Can this user name ONE piece of material from the era when this book was released which explicitly states that that is not the case?

And again, who wrote The War Games, and then wrote for the Roger Delgado Master? Yup, the exact same people. The same man who co-wrote The War Games, also novelised that story, and then both wrote and novelised(among others) Colony in Space, The Sea Devils and Frontier in Space. Meanwhile, his co-writer of The War Games was the same man who novelised(amng others) Terror of the Autons, The Mind of Evil, The Claws of Axos, The Time Monster, The Deadly Assassin , and of course The Three Doctors, where the supposed "deviation" was stated.

In multiple novelisations(as well as real-world interviews such as the one with Malcolm Hulke in DWM 91), the "deviation" is not only mentioned, but hammered home. You want to read Doctor Who and the Terror of the Autons (pages 24-26) or Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon(pages 7-9), and try and say with a straight face that the "Master" is NOT the same character as "the War Chief"? Especially as those two books were written by the same two men who wrote The War Games.

Clearly, at the time Malcolm Hulke AND Terrance Dicks BOTH believed that the War Chief and the Master are one and the same. And they both said so in their novelisations. To claim otherwise is preposterous.

And there is NOTHING AT ALL to the contrary from the Era when this novelisation was released. I repeat, nothing. Nada. Zip. Nought.

What this reference on Page 93 of The Three Doctors is then is simply a repeat of a statement that was taken for granted by everyone(INCLUDING THE WRITERS), and had already been made crystal clear in previous books.

It's noteworthy, but it's NOT a "deviation" or an "error" or a "contradiction". And it's ludicrous to try and claim that "this implies that some writers may have felt..."

Now, in later decades, was there subsequent narrative that took a different view? Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that, at the time this book was written and published, it was 100% clear and obvious what this reference meant.

And to try and claim that it's some sort of "mistake", or even that "it may be implying" something is just plain wrong. 10:34, August 1, 2020 (UTC)10:33, August 1, 2020 (UTC) 10:34, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is what we call "implication". If the authors said it in interviews, or outright said that the characters were the same (rather than having scenes we could interpret as them ignoring or forgetting about them), that would be an explicit statement, not an implicit statement we have to infer from their work. Your refusal to accept this after multiple threads and creating new threads to argue around this arguably violates T:POINT. Please stop. For all our sanity. Najawin ☎ 10:41, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

It's not about "your sanity". It's about your personal fan-canon. And, whatever happened in later decades, it was 100% true in the 70's that Brayshaw, Delgado and Pratt all played the same Time Lord character.

In early television serials it was also 100% true that the Doctor invented the TARDIS, and that Susan was the one who came up with the name 'TARDIS'. Now, pay close attention, while subsequent narrative contradicted both of those, both were true and correct at the time. And any novelisation of those stories would NOT be "deviating from" or "contradicting" the story it is novelising. 197.83.246.23^{talk to me} 11:22, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Technically, since Holmes made The Master, and we have no reason to think that Holmes holds the view you're suggesting, that comment falls apart immediately. But again, the distinction is implicit vs explicit. You're just disrupting the wiki to force your own fan-canon on the wiki. Nobody is saying that it's not implied that some authors had this view. We're saying it's not made explicit. Najawin ☎ 11:27, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, talking about "fan-canon" obscures the issue. What our anonymous friend needs to understand is that we do not care about canon, only valid sources. If recognized DWU authors have said X in interview, X is, by any reasonable metric, canon. It is by all accounts canonical that the War Chief is the Master and so on. But it's also perfectly canonical that Jack Harkness is the Face of Boe. The rub is that no valid sources (allegedly) say so. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 11:41, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Oh, it does say so. Again, just read Doctor Who and the Terror of the Autons and/or Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon. But that's not what Najwain is complaining about. it's because a dream sequence in a book published in 1999 has two characters(one of who is identified as the Master, the other of who is not identified as anyone else) together at the same time. And so, in the minds of some, something written in the 1970's that contradicts something written in 1999 must be wrong.

However, using this line of "rationalisation", there's ANOTHER glaring "error"/"contradiction" in The Three Doctors.

In Chapter 3, a senior Time Lord tells a junior Time Lord "Show me the first incarnation"(of the Doctor).

And then the junior Time Lord shows him what is very clearly the William Hartnell incarnation of the Doctor.

But, according to Najwain's line of thought, that HAS TO BE AN ERROR. because the Timeless Children showed us that there were incarnations of the Doctor before William Hartnell. Therefore this novelisation made a clear contradiction/mistake when the junior Time Lord showed the senior Time Lord William Hartnell as the "first incarnation of the Doctor". Maybe some clever author can write a story that "fills in this gap", and explains this obvious error! But in the meantime, I think that needs to be added to this page, because Terrance Dicks was obviously wrong! Or maybe we should say that it was "a belief held by some time writers at the time that William Hartnell may be the first incarnation of the Doctor". Because we in 2020 know better what professional writers in the 70's were writing than the writers themselves did! 13:33, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

And, yes, I have been adding four of these (~), but it's not signing my posts. Anyway, I don't care. it is clear that there are no set rules for information on this wiki. Anything and everything is forced to fit into preconceived notions. And something that is used as "evidence" for one article is dismissed out of hand for another one. And now anonymous editors are actually "correcting" what an author wrote about his own characters in a book at a time when everyone who read it knew exactly what he meant! Seriously, a bunch of anonymous internet users on an unofficial wiki in 2020 know more about what Terrance Dicks meant in 1975 than Terrance Dicks in 1975 did? That's a good place for me to leave. Yes, "the War Chief" and "the Master" were UNDOUBTEDLY THE EXACT SAME CHARACTER, whether people here like it or not. And all your "rationalising" that away with hopelessly contradictory "rules" doesn't change that FACT. And, even if Chris Chibnall "brings back the War Chief" played by, say, Anne Hegarty, that also doesn't change that fact.

And whoever "Mortimus" is, one thing is certain...he can't possibly be the same character who Peter Butterworth played on tv. And the same for the Graeme Garden/Rufus Hound "character". 197.83.246.23^{talk to me} 13:38, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Something that hasn't been brought up yet is that the novelisations have their own separate continuity. Take Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon for example. It depicts a completely different introduction for Jo as it was the first time she had appeared in the novelisations. At the point of publication of both The Three Doctors and Doomsday Weapon novels, the Master was the only other Time Lord to have been appeared in the novels, as the introductory TV stories for the Monk and War Chief were not novelised until later, so it is completely possible that the writers were just keeping with continuity of the novels instead of that of the TV series. LauraBatham ☎ 13:56, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

I really don't know why this IP user keeps insisting that I have an insistent urge to consider these characters separate and do so based on Divided Loyalties. I've consistently denied this and it outright contradicts some of my actions. (Also, I'm far more inclined to think Chibnall is the one in error than anyone prior, but, again, it's not clear that The War Chief was made with The Monk in mind nor was The Master made with The War Chief in mind. Though that's a total digression.) Najawin ☎ 14:58, August 1, 2020 (UTC)