Yads got ChatGPT to do his thinking for him again:

[SNIP opening comments that are pretty much inarguably true].

> This article argues for the retconning of
> the Timeless Child narrative, citing its departure from established canon and
> its detrimental impact on the essence of Doctor Who.

OK - so what we are looking for from this article is

1) evidence that the Timeless Child narrative departs from “established
canon”

and

2) that any such departure, if present, has had a detrimental impact on the
“essence” of Doctor Who.

> Doctor Who is renowned for its intricate and well-established lore,
> meticulously crafted over decades.

Absolutely not the case.

Made up and retconned lore #1:

In the first episode of the show, Susan says that she invented the name
TARDIS and its expansion. But in Escape Switch (The Daleks Master Plan
episode 10) the Monk refers to his time ship as a TARDIS.

In the War Games, the War Chief calls his knockoff time machines “SIDRATs”
- clearly a play on TARDIS. And by the mid seventies the Time Lords all
refer to their own machines as TARDISes.

Made up and retconned lore #2:

In The Daleks, the Daleks are mutated descendants of the Dals. But in
Genesis of the Daleks, they become descendants of the Kaleds.

So elements of the very first two stories were retconned without reverence
to this “meticulously crafted lore”. It’s truer to say that the lore of
the show has always been mutable and that the writers have made it up as
they went along, rarely worrying whether it fitted in with past stories.

The examples are legion: Hartnell’s Doctor initially is a human from
another future world, with one heart, and a follower of a popular human
religion. The TARDIS is initially very vulnerable - the Sensorites are able
to completely remove its door lock. History is at first immutable - it
cannot be changed, not one jot! … The Time Lords can live forever barring
accidents - no, wait, after twelve regenerations, that is the end for a
Time Lord - no, wait, the Time Lords can grant a Time Lord a “new cycle” of
regenerations.

The whole idea of a meticulously crafted, rigid canon and lore is a myth,
wheeled out specifically to complain about some specific change or other.

> The revelation of the Timeless Child in the
> Series 12 marked a significant departure from this established canon.

> The
> introduction of an unknown incarnation of the Doctor prior to the First Doctor
> contradicts decades of storytelling and undermines the mystery surrounding the
> character.

There are two elements to this claim:

For the first one, like it or not, (and personally I don’t) the Timeless
Child narrative introduces a sinister agency capable of interfering with
the collective memory of the Time Lords - resulting in an almost
universally held BELIEF that the Hartnell incarnation is he first Doctor.
Therefore there is a change int he perception of decades of storytelling -
but no actual contradiction. In fact, the Timeless Child narrative is a
rare case of paying careful attention to the existing lore, and crafting
itself deliberately to FIT IN with all we have seen previously.

The second claim, that this undermines the mystery of the character, is
plainly untrue. The Doctor had been being “demystified” over decades - an
indifferent student at the Academy who had run off in a stolen TARDIS out
of boredom who then became a criminal for interfering with history and then
an agent of the Time Lords doing exactly the same thing, then destroying
both Time Lords and Daleks to end the Time War …damn little “mystery” left
about that.

> The Doctor's origin story, once shrouded in mystery and intrigue, is
> now reduced to a mere footnote in a convoluted narrative.

Agreed the new narrative is INSANELY convoluted, but now there are whole
vistas of NEW mysteries in the Doctor’s origins. Should anyone choose to
investigate them … but the ending of the Flux would seem to make that
unlikely. The Doctor has chosen not to open that particular mystery box
(fob watch).

> Furthermore, the Timeless Child's revelation diminishes the significance of the
> Doctor's choices and experiences throughout their many lives.

How? All those choices, all those experiences, are the same, and shaped the
Doctor of today exactly as they always had.

> By implying that
> the Doctor's abilities are innate rather than earned through centuries of
> learning and growth,

What “abilities”? There is just one effective difference - the Doctor has
always been able to regenerate, and has no known innate limit to those
regenerations : rather than being granted cycles of 12 at a time by the
Time Lords. The Doctor has gained no other new abilities, and all the
abilities they do have were earned the same way they always were. This
claim is false.

> the Timeless Child narrative diminishes the agency and
> heroism of the character. The Doctor's journey, once defined by their quest for
> redemption and their commitment to justice, is overshadowed by a predetermined
> destiny imposed upon them by outside forces.

No, because there is no forward destiny - the change is that the Doctor is
now not just a Time Lord, but is the ancestor of all Time Lords. Which
changes what, exactly? If the argument was that this change is unnecessary
and adds little to the lore - I agree. But it changes the Doctor’s own
motivations and beliefs not one iota.

These arguments form a straw man with no basis in actual events in the
show.

> Alienating the Fanbase:
>
> Doctor Who boasts a dedicated fanbase that spans generations, united by their
> love for the series and its enduring legacy.

Fair enough.

> However, the Timeless Child
> storyline has proven divisive among fans, with many expressing their
> dissatisfaction with the direction of the show under Chibnall's stewardship.

So? There was plenty of dissatisfaction in the eighties. And with RTD’s
“Last of the Time Lords” change to the lore. And with the idea that Time
Lords could change gender and racial phenotype on regeneration. This is not
the first, and won’t be the last, new creative choice that divides the fan
base.

> The decision to radically alter the Doctor's backstory without proper
> justification or regard for established canon has alienated long-time fans
> and eroded their trust in the creative team.

“We , a specific small group of fans, don’t like this change so it must be
retconned!” That’s all this argument boils down to, in the end.

>
> Moreover, the casting of Jodie Whittaker as the Thirteenth Doctor was
> initially met with excitement and anticipation, as she became the first woman
> to portray the iconic character. However, Whittaker's tenure has been marred
> by inconsistent writing and lackluster storytelling, exacerbated by the
> controversial Timeless Child arc. While Whittaker's performance has been
> widely praised, her tenure as the Doctor has been overshadowed by creative
> decisions that detract from the core principles of the series.

All true. Very few people are claiming that the Chibnall era was the
greatest in the show’s history.

Still, even as McCoy’s dire tenure does, it has its adherents.

>
> Preserving the Essence of Doctor Who:
>
> At its core, Doctor Who is a show about hope, resilience, and the triumph of
> good over evil. Throughout its long history, the series has tackled complex
> themes and moral dilemmas, all while celebrating the boundless potential of the
> human spirit.

None of which are changed by the Timeless Child, regrettable as it might
be.

> Retconning the Timeless Child narrative is not about erasing the
> past but rather reclaiming the essence of Doctor Who and restoring the sense of
> wonder and mystery that defines the series.

Total bollocks. “Retconning the Timeless Child” is the sulky demand of some
sad people who can’t accept that the show is just a show and it can move on
and survive even the silliest of stories and changes.

Time and the Rani. What an unmitigated pile of shit. But it is still part
of the show.

> By retconning the Timeless Child, Doctor Who can once again embrace its rich
> history while charting new and exciting adventures for the Doctor and their
> companions. The show can return to its roots as a beacon of optimism and
> imagination, inspiring viewers of all ages to believe in the power of kindness,
> empathy, and the endless possibilities of the universe.

It can continue to do all those good things WITHOUT wasting time and energy
in a retcon. I want to see new stories, not another Gordian knot of
retroactive alterations to continuity to salve the egos of a few desperate
malcontents.

>
> Conclusion:
>

Some people sulk. Get over it. By moving on and letting the Timeless Child
narrative drift unremarked into the past, we can all enjoy the future of
the show with just one pointless question and problem permanently removed:
no longer do we need to count regenerations and wonder what loophole or new
change to lore will be needed to allow the Doctor to continue past a
certain number of “lives”.

The show is timeless. So is the Doctor. Worlds without end.

--
“The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor