The DisContinuity Guide : The Unofficial Doctor Who Companion

Rating:
Summary: At last--a funny reference guide!
Review: "The Discontuity Guide" is typical of the works written by hardcore British Who fans--they adore the show, but don't let that get in the way of tough (sometimes harsh) criticism. Even such sacred cows as the Tom Baker years get the same tough love as the worst of the Pertwee years.

What really made this book interesting for me was the authors obvious well-read background, which came out in the "Roots" sections. It's here that you can see the sources for some of the many tropes of Who (and all TV SF, for that matter).

I was a bit put off by the insistence of the authors to find a gay subtext in virtually every Who episode. Apparently British Who fandom has a very vocal guy section, some of who are intent on proving that many Who characters are gay. Whatever floats your boat.....

If you're a Who fan...well, you probably already own this! If you're not, you still will get a chuckle out of this book.

Rating:
Summary: At last--a funny reference guide!
Review: "The Discontuity Guide" is typical of the works written by hardcore British Who fans--they adore the show, but don't let that get in the way of tough (sometimes harsh) criticism. Even such sacred cows as the Tom Baker years get the same tough love as the worst of the Pertwee years.

What really made this book interesting for me was the authors obvious well-read background, which came out in the "Roots" sections. It's here that you can see the sources for some of the many tropes of Who (and all TV SF, for that matter).

I was a bit put off by the insistence of the authors to find a gay subtext in virtually every Who episode. Apparently British Who fandom has a very vocal guy section, some of who are intent on proving that many Who characters are gay. Whatever floats your boat.....

If you're a Who fan...well, you probably already own this! If you're not, you still will get a chuckle out of this book.

Rating:
Summary: Irreverant but far from irrelivant
Review: I bought this book because the title intrigued me. Now I can't sit down to watch a video without this trusty tome by my side. The book is interesting, informative, painstakingly detailed and often hilarious in its observations. I was also pleased to see that when the authors disagreed on a rating, it was noted in the text. (Poor Creature for the Pit!) While some of the goofs need to be watched frame-by-frame to catch, others are so glaringly obvious I couldn't believe I'd missed them.

I purchased the "Pocket Essentials" recently and was extremely dissapointed. With this volume to compare it too...well, actually, there is no comparison. The "Guide" is quite simply better.

Rating:
Summary: Irreverant but far from irrelivant
Review: I bought this book because the title intrigued me. Now I can't sit down to watch a video without this trusty tome by my side. The book is interesting, informative, painstakingly detailed and often hilarious in its observations. I was also pleased to see that when the authors disagreed on a rating, it was noted in the text. (Poor Creature for the Pit!) While some of the goofs need to be watched frame-by-frame to catch, others are so glaringly obvious I couldn't believe I'd missed them.

I purchased the "Pocket Essentials" recently and was extremely dissapointed. With this volume to compare it too...well, actually, there is no comparison. The "Guide" is quite simply better.

Rating:
Summary: Take the bad with the good
Review: It's difficult to ascertain what to make of this book. The factual references are terrific, goofs, blunders, dialogue triumphs and disasters, and the double entendres are hysterical. The problem I have with this book arise when the authors try to explain the inconsistencies that plague the show, filling in the continuity blanks. This is reminiscent of geeks trying to decide who'd win in a fight between Superman and Batman. Who cares! Does everything have to be explained. Here's an idea: Take each story as a separate entity without trying to link something that the writers obviously did not deem worthy to be linked, unless that link is implied in the story. You're enjoyment of the show will drastically increase. In other words, if it ain't there, don't look for it. Their explanations bewilder more often than not, and leave the reader more confused than before.

Rating:
Summary: Dr. Who analyzed with a fine tooth comb
Review: Paul Cornell, Martin Day, and Keith Topping really must have taken a year's worth vacation days to come up with this book, and they spent all that time watching Dr. Who stories over and over. Some people get all the fun! However, their purpose was to examine programs, stories, or movies that influenced certain stories, and more important to point out goofs and links, both within a story and the entire series, which is where the C-word comes in--continuity. They also write down dialogue that have double meanings, makes one (well, them anyway) cringe, and those that are positively memorable.

Example of a Dialogue Triumph: "Listen to that! It's the sound of the planet screaming its rage." That was from Inferno, where the Doctor is referring to the parallel Earth that will soon become engulfed in molten lava. From Colony In Space, when Jo asks on any other living things on Uxarius, Mary Ashe answers: "There's no animal life, just a few birds and insects." Now that's a Dialogue Disaster!

And finally, to find out what they thought of it, there's The Bottom Line section. While I see pointing out errors useful, there is a clear border between justifiable mistakes and petty nitpicking. In the latter case, well, there could be an unstated explanation. Why, does everything have to be explained for the benefit of the viewer? When I was in the now-defunct Friends of Doctor Who fan club, one member disparagingly referred to it as the Disco Guide.

One justifiable "goof," for example, is the in The Three Doctors, where UNIT, being a top secret establishment, has a sign advertising its headquarters, as well as Lethbridge-Stewart's name listing him as commanding officer. That's understandable. I mean, to use a similar example, would the powers that had Kennedy killed have a sign reading "Military Industry Complex-Assassinating JFK since 1963" on their headquarters? Puh-leeze!

An easily explained "goof" is when Tegan speaks to Kukurtji, the ancient-era aborigine, in Four To Doomsday. Cornell and company complained that Tegan responded in the correct language and era. Well, pardon me, guys, but remember The Masque Of Mandragora, when the Doctor explained to Sarah that her ability to understand foreign languages was a Time Lord gift he shared with her? Surely it applies there? So there!

Which of my favorite stories do they give the highest honors to? Spearhead From Space, Inferno, The Pirate Planet, Remembrance Of The Daleks, and The Curse Of Fenric, to name a few. Lowest honors? The Time Monster, Monster Of Peladon, Planet Of The Spiders, The Android Invasion, Time-Flight, and Time And The Rani. Well, actually, there aren't any Who stories I totally loathe but I do admit there are some that are worth watching but aren't as good as others.

The troika also do not look favorably on Dalek and Cybermen stories and go out of their way to find flaws. There must be a full page of flaws listed in Resurrection Of The Daleks! The Invasion doesn't get shredded as much as Earthshock and Attack Of The Cybermen, or Silver Nemesis. It's very generous in rating Timelash, surprising considering its reputation as the worst Who story ever.

There are elaborate histories on the Daleks and Cybermen in here. They also point out that Loch Ness is referred to in two stories, Terror Of The Zygons and Timelash. One can assume that the Zygons, with their obviously superior power, killed the Borad. Well, maybe they did.

Still, I use this as a valuable reference guide, and a work comparing analyses of various Dalek, Cybermen, and Earth Empire histories with other Who works. I've gained an appreciation for program continuity.

Rating:
Summary: Dr. Who analyzed with a fine tooth comb
Review: Paul Cornell, Martin Day, and Keith Topping really must have taken a year's worth vacation days to come up with this book, and they spent all that time watching Dr. Who stories over and over. Some people get all the fun! However, their purpose was to examine programs, stories, or movies that influenced certain stories, and more important to point out goofs and links, both within a story and the entire series, which is where the C-word comes in--continuity. They also write down dialogue that have double meanings, makes one (well, them anyway) cringe, and those that are positively memorable.

Example of a Dialogue Triumph: "Listen to that! It's the sound of the planet screaming its rage." That was from Inferno, where the Doctor is referring to the parallel Earth that will soon become engulfed in molten lava. From Colony In Space, when Jo asks on any other living things on Uxarius, Mary Ashe answers: "There's no animal life, just a few birds and insects." Now that's a Dialogue Disaster!

And finally, to find out what they thought of it, there's The Bottom Line section. While I see pointing out errors useful, there is a clear border between justifiable mistakes and petty nitpicking. In the latter case, well, there could be an unstated explanation. Why, does everything have to be explained for the benefit of the viewer? When I was in the now-defunct Friends of Doctor Who fan club, one member disparagingly referred to it as the Disco Guide.

One justifiable "goof," for example, is the in The Three Doctors, where UNIT, being a top secret establishment, has a sign advertising its headquarters, as well as Lethbridge-Stewart's name listing him as commanding officer. That's understandable. I mean, to use a similar example, would the powers that had Kennedy killed have a sign reading "Military Industry Complex-Assassinating JFK since 1963" on their headquarters? Puh-leeze!

An easily explained "goof" is when Tegan speaks to Kukurtji, the ancient-era aborigine, in Four To Doomsday. Cornell and company complained that Tegan responded in the correct language and era. Well, pardon me, guys, but remember The Masque Of Mandragora, when the Doctor explained to Sarah that her ability to understand foreign languages was a Time Lord gift he shared with her? Surely it applies there? So there!

Which of my favorite stories do they give the highest honors to? Spearhead From Space, Inferno, The Pirate Planet, Remembrance Of The Daleks, and The Curse Of Fenric, to name a few. Lowest honors? The Time Monster, Monster Of Peladon, Planet Of The Spiders, The Android Invasion, Time-Flight, and Time And The Rani. Well, actually, there aren't any Who stories I totally loathe but I do admit there are some that are worth watching but aren't as good as others.

The troika also do not look favorably on Dalek and Cybermen stories and go out of their way to find flaws. There must be a full page of flaws listed in Resurrection Of The Daleks! The Invasion doesn't get shredded as much as Earthshock and Attack Of The Cybermen, or Silver Nemesis. It's very generous in rating Timelash, surprising considering its reputation as the worst Who story ever.

There are elaborate histories on the Daleks and Cybermen in here. They also point out that Loch Ness is referred to in two stories, Terror Of The Zygons and Timelash. One can assume that the Zygons, with their obviously superior power, killed the Borad. Well, maybe they did.

Still, I use this as a valuable reference guide, and a work comparing analyses of various Dalek, Cybermen, and Earth Empire histories with other Who works. I've gained an appreciation for program continuity.

Rating:
Summary: Won't Watch Doctor Who Without It!!!
Review: Since receiving this book, I can't watch a Doctor Who episode without it. I don't know how the authors could analyze and link all the episodes together, but they did. I love to read the fluffs and goofs sections before watching an episode to spot the same bloopers. The book has a rather curious habit of taking any line with "end" or "take it" or other such language and turning it into something sexual. This may be a result of watching too many episodes and trying to insert humor into a book that has more of a reference quality. My copy is well worn and I also use it to see which episodes I am missing when searching to buy videos. If you don't have this book- get it!!!