Talk:The Valeyard

Doctor Who C‑class Mid‑importance

	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.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A sweep needs to be done of this article. As much as the information is useful, as it is, it's mostly a synopsis of Trial of a Time Lord when it really needs to be reduced to information relevant to the Valeyard. Some of the information can be moved/merged with the other Trial articles and excised from this so as to leave only items that pertain directly to the subject at hand. Also, as this is a character article and not a story synopsis, it should be in the past tense. I'll do just that later in my day when I get the chance. --khaosworks 14:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok I have changed it to the past tense. I did try to stick to details which directly concern the character of the Valeyard, but some details of the story I found necessary to include so that the whole thing makes sense. There are certainly many aspects of the four serials which I did not include (for example Queen Katya). --TimPope 16:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's all irrelevant, just that I think some of it can be condensed and we can leave it up to the individual serials for more information. I'm not knocking the work you've done - it's all good - just that for a character study it needs to be tighter. --khaosworks 20:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see, in the Doctor who breakout box, a reference to some of the quasi doctors. The Valleyard is a perfect example - we reference the Cushing Doctor, but neither the Watcher nor the Valleyard.Jahenderson 8:47 EST 8 March 06

It's a good point, but I guess ultimately it's also a measure of notability as well as whether they are recognisable as the Doctor - the Watcher being this mysterious figure that only Nyssa said was the Doctor (how does she know?) and the Valeyard only revealed in the end as an evil "potential" incarnation. The others are incontrovertibly (in thet context) the Doctor. That and the fact that the Watcher doesn't really deserve his own article and that by identifying the Valeyard in the breakout box we're spoilering The Ultimate Foe... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a little surprised there hasn't been speculation that "John Saxon" in the current season of Doctor Who might not be the Valeyard. Or, if there is, might it not belong here? Zahir13 16:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if there is, it doesn't belong on WP anyway. (And isn't it Harold Saxon?) Peeper 18:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation

Actually, it's pronounced with 3 syllables, as in Valley-ard. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it depends on which character is saying it too - Baker pronounces it Valyard.Mmm commentaries (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just what the Valeyard is

This is something the novels seem to avoid covering. Is the Valeyard a renegade future incarnation (as he appears to have originally been planned and seems to be in Eric Saward's unused script for the last Trial episode), an interim projection, a separated off part of the Doctor (as the dialogue about wanting to be free of the Doctor suggests) or even a darker version created by accident (as was planned in early drafts of State of Change)? Timrollpickering 23:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The novelizations tend to use the original scripts and the Trial of a Time Lord one has the Master say "The Valeyard, Doctor, is your penultimate reincarnation ... Somewhere between your twelfth and thirteenth regeneration" For people not familiar with the relationship between regeneration and incarnation this can be confusing but simply put each regeneration results in the next incarnation. Take this sequence of the first four Doctors as an example, 1st incarnation (William Hartnell)->1st regeneration-->2nd incarnation (Patrick Troughton)->2st regeneration->3rd incarnation (Jon Pertwee)->3rd regeneration->4th incarnation (Tom Baker).

The "Twin Dilemma" revealed that Time Lords do have a 13th regeneration but because there is no 14 incarnation using this last regeneration is normally fatal. By saying the Valeyard is between your twelfth and thirteenth regeneration the Master not only states that the Valeyard is the Doctor's 13th incarnation but that the Doctor will hijack a body just as the Master did (which the Valeyard does at the end of the story.) Again the sequence: 12th incarnation->12th regeneration->13th incarnation (Valeyard)->13th regeneration->Death (normally)/another incarnation if a body can be hijacked--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up...in the literature "nth regeneration" usually means an incarnation rather than the process, that is the 5th regeneration means the 6th incarnation rather than the 5th regeneration process shown on screen. Admittedly, sometimes writers get confused by the terminology; sometimes they say 5th regeneration to mean 5th incarnation. All in all, it's a little confusing what anyone actually means. Oh well, nothing that can be done about that other than to question the writers themselves. DonQuixote (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly in this case talking to the writer in question is impossible. Robert Colin Holmes died in May of 1986 while the episode in question was shown December 1986. Given that Anthony Ainley has also passed away it may be impossible to find out if the difference in the original script line and what was said was a last minute script change or a line flub that the director decided wasn't worth reshooting. Also writers in the past have also played fast and loose often contradicting themselves (UNIT continuity for example is a total FUBAR or the Time Lord CIA which contrary to the current writer DID interfere with other cultures.)--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recording scripts presumably still exist and it's possible one of the in-depth studies of this story in variously Doctor Who Magazine, In Vision or the like does cover any significant line changes between the script and what was broadcast (although "somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation" sounds like a deliberate attempt to make it more open ended and indeed in his DWM memoirs John Nathan-Turner explicitly said he asked for a change to avoid wasting a future incarnation on the Valeyard). If Eric Saward's part fourteen script is anything to go by then Holmes was presumably still working on the assumption that the Valeyard was literally the Doctor's future self trying to rewrite his own past and hijack extra lives, but this was changed after Saward's departure. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we moving into murky territory by referencing what is in a shooting script? I appreciate the desire to get to the bottom of this but if we are to present the findings of such an investigation on a Wiki page as fact, then we can only go by what is seen on screen, any other reference is conjecture, musings and just plain mis-leading. It's nice to have this extra info, but if you find something that contradicts the on-screen evidence in the shooting script, the onscreen interpretation will always win out. The Valeyard, according to on-screen evidence, appears somewhere in the Doctor's 13th incarnation - and I have always taken it to mean that some form of seperation occurs, rather than the Doctor himself changing into the Valeyard.Mmm commentaries (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of the Vervoids

I think that the statement in the main article that the Valeyard manipulated the evidence to make it appear the Doctor had committed genocide is incorrect. While the Valeyard certainly mainpulated the evidence to make it appear the Doctor was sending Mel into danger or performing sabotage, the total destruction of the Vervoids most certainly was the Doctor's intent. He had already observed that coexistence with the Vervoids was impossible and that hence there was a 'kill or be killed' situation. He did deliberately destroy every Vervoid, as he admitted himself, in order to prevent them reaching Earth. The Doctor, during the trial, pointed out several instances where he saw alterations in the evidence, but made no such comment regarding the destruction of the Vervoids, clearly regretting that it was necessary. The Valeyard simply seized on that to change the charge to genocide. 82.26.65.159 23:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was a strange charge as in "Genesis of the Daleks" the Doctor is given the task of averting the creation of the Daleks which when you get right down to is would be genocide. This is ignoring his killing of Set the last of the Osirians in "Pyramids of Mars" or the death of Eldrad in "Hand of Fear" (also the last of his race)--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]