Talk:Regeneration (Doctor Who)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor Who Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Edits of 1 December 2006

Just to clarify a few things: as the article says, and this is stated in the "Brief History of Time (Travel)" cite, the idea that the First Doctor rejuvenates, i.e. becomes younger, was in Innes Lloyd's head, so this is not mere opinion. The way The Power of the Daleks uses "rejuvenation" and "renewal" is a very different concept, in context, than "regeneration" was used in The Planet of the Spiders on. In addition, the TARDIS aiding in the renewal is not ambiguous. The exact line of dialogue is: "Renewed? Have I? That's it, I've been renewed. It's part of the TARDIS. Without it I couldn't survive." --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that regeneration/renewal/rejuvenation is named differently at different points of the series's history does not mean these are different things (initially, there was only supposed to be one TARDIS; does this now mean that other Gallifreyan time-travel capsules are not TARDISes?). The website [1] says that "Davis posited that, since the Doctor was an alien, he could die and come back to life in a new body; Lloyd expanded on this idea, suggesting that this “renewal” could be a regular ability of the Doctor's, to transform himself from an elderly man to a younger one." So it says he could die, then return in a younger form. This does not say that the younger and older Doctor are the same body. The site's use of 'transform' and 'younger one' suggest this. The site also shows that the two Doctors were envisaged as different, as you have noted in a recent edit: "Hartnell was cheered by the possibility of Troughton being his replacement, and also by the notion that the new Doctor would be characterised much differently from his own version." Besides, it obviously is a regeneration: Troughton looks nothing like a young William Hartnell. Jsteph 10:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the line is ambiguous. If anything your extended quote more strongly suggests that 'it' refers to regeneration/renewal. Jsteph 10:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that what we now call regeneration only solidified into the concept we know it today with The Planet of the Spiders. This is the out-of-universe perspective, not the in-universe one. The way it was envisaged wasn't as a replacement, but as a renewal, a rejuvenation, and that was the way it was presented and taken by the viewing public. In-universe, of course, we can come up with any number of justifications we want to say it's the same concept (which, for fictional consistency, it has to be), but from a out-of-universe perspective its a whole other matter.

And as for the line, by any sensible rule of grammar, the "it" should refer to the last object mentioned, which is the TARDIS, not the renewal. In fact, referring to the TARDIS is more consistent with the in-universe explanation, if one considers the Zero Room. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert anything as I think it's enough to have my objections on this talk page: aside from a claim in Doctor Who Monthly, where are you getting this 'replacement' stuff from? There's no evidence for it on the page you cite - see above - (and 'renewal' is used in The Twin Dilemma too [2], clearly a synonym for regeneration). As for 'it', there is no rule of English that says that a pronoun must refer to the previous noun in the sentence. Consider: 'Bill phoned Fred. He was upset.' (Could be either). Or: "...it's been in the TARDIS ever since I built it..." Jsteph 05:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a matter of terminology, and again I point out the difference between what was perceived at the time and post facto justifications (hence in-universe as opposed to out-of-universe perspectives). Of course it would be said that a renewal equals regeneration in The Twin Dilemma since this was when regeneration lore was more firmly fixed. However, at the time of The Tenth Planet, the "renewal" was not presented or perceived in the same as the way we understand "regeneration" to mean today. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to agree here. My interpretation is there's little or no evidence from the time that the first change was presented and perceived as something different from what went later. Jsteph 02:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)