Image result for the timeless child
Doctor Who, a series celebrated for its longevity and capacity for reinvention, has seemingly detonated its own foundations. The latest narrative arc spearheaded by Chris Chibnall has not only rewritten established lore but, in the eyes of many, undermined the very essence of the beloved Time Lord. What was initially planned as part of a broader critique of the show’s direction has now become a subject demanding its own urgent examination: the devastating impact of the “Timeless Child” revelation. This article will delve into why this retcon, particularly the notion of the 13th Doctor and her connection to the Timeless Child’s origins as a girl, has sparked such controversy and whether this narrative thread can ever be salvaged.
The Timeless Child: A Retcon Too Far for the 13th Doctor?
The mysterious Timeless Child, depicted in a swirling vortex, symbolizing the unknown depths of the Doctor’s newly revealed origins and the cosmic scale of this Doctor Who retcon.
Where does one even begin to dissect the narrative wreckage left by the “Timeless Child” storyline? For those unfamiliar with this divisive plot twist, it was unveiled in a recent episode that the Doctor, specifically the incarnation embodied by the 13th Doctor, Jodie Whittaker, was not originally a Time Lord at all. Instead, the Doctor’s genesis traces back to a being known as the Timeless Child, originating from another universe. This Timeless Child, crucially depicted as a young girl, possessed the innate ability to regenerate endlessly.
The narrative unfolds with the Timeless Child being discovered on a remote planet by Tecteun, an explorer from the ancient race of the Shobogans, the original inhabitants of Gallifrey. Tecteun’s relentless experiments on the Timeless Child led to the extraction and replication of the regeneration ability, which was then spliced into the Shobogan race, birthing the Time Lords.
The Timeless Child, far from being celebrated as the source of their species’ greatest gift, became a subject of further manipulation by the nascent Time Lords. They subjected the Timeless Child to repeated brainwashing and memory wipes, deploying them as a secret agent across countless lives. To maintain the illusion that the Timeless Child was simply another Time Lord, a cycle of forced regressions was imposed. Whenever the Timeless Child reached the end of a 13-life cycle, their memories were erased, and their form was reset to that of a child, perpetuating a lie for eons. The thirteen regenerations from William Hartnell to Peter Capaldi were presented as merely the latest iteration in this unending cycle.
Beyond the sheer incredulity of this storyline, the “Timeless Child” retcon fundamentally dismantles Doctor Who’s established mythology in several critical aspects.
Firstly, the mystique surrounding the Doctor, a core element of the character since the very beginning (“Doctor Who?”), has been obliterated. While incremental revelations about the Doctor’s past have been woven into the narrative over decades, none have been as comprehensively and definitively揭露 (unveiling) as this. The enigma at the heart of “Who” has vanished. The Doctor’s identity, previously a source of intrigue and exploration, is now seemingly laid bare.
Furthermore, this plot development strips the Doctor of their agency, reducing them to a mere instrument of the Time Lords. For over half a century, the Doctor was understood as a renegade, a Time Lord who chose to reject their society’s isolationist doctrines to explore the vastness of the universe. This departure, driven by a thirst for discovery and perhaps other, more enigmatic reasons, was a defining characteristic. The Doctor’s strong moral compass, leading to frequent interventions in galactic affairs, further solidified this image of an independent actor.
This established a compelling dynamic between the Doctor and their people. A maverick who defied Time Lord laws, yet paradoxically, the one they often turned to when crises arose, precisely because their extended exposure to the universe granted them a unique perspective.
Now, the “Timeless Child” retcon casts the Doctor’s interventions in a different light. Were they always a programmed tool of the Time Lords, unknowingly fulfilling a preordained purpose? Were actions previously attributed to free will and moral conviction merely the result of Time Lord programming?
Even iconic elements of the Doctor’s persona – stealing a TARDIS, their unwavering moral code, their affection for Earth – are now potentially reinterpreted as manufactured traits, implanted during the Time Lords’ brainwashing of the Timeless Child. The very essence of the Doctor’s identity is thrown into question. Decades of character development are seemingly rendered a construct, akin to the false persona of John Smith created by the Chameleon Arch.
The unsettling implication that even the TARDIS’s police box disguise, a visual hallmark of the Doctor, might be a Time Lord contrivance further deepens this sense of fabricated identity. The only plausible explanation is that the Time Lords favored this form, and the Doctor, in their subconscious programming, replicated it in “An Unearthly Child,” making it far more than a simple coincidence.
The Doctor’s exceptional status, previously rooted in their adventurous spirit and moral independence among the often-stagnant Time Lords, is now solely attributed to their being a “magic being” from another universe, brainwashed and manipulated.
Ironically, while diminishing the Doctor’s agency, the retcon simultaneously elevates them to an almost god-like status. The Doctor is no longer merely an advanced alien; they are now a being of cosmic significance, the progenitor of Time Lord society, a figure of immense, almost divine importance.
While “New Who” has occasionally flirted with “God Moding” the Doctor, these instances have generally been met with criticism from fans. Even Steven Moffat, often accused of elevating the Doctor’s status, never fundamentally dismantled their identity as a renegade, an outsider from Time Lord society.
Furthermore, the “Timeless Child” narrative can be perceived as a profound disrespect to William Hartnell, the actor who originated the role of the Doctor. Hartnell’s Doctor is no longer the first; he is relegated to being merely one iteration in an unfathomably long line, perhaps the billionth or trillionth regeneration. Rassilon’s statement in “The End of Time” about Time Lord history spanning billions of years implies that the Doctor, as the founder of their civilization, must be of comparable age.
It’s important to acknowledge that Chibnall isn’t the first to explore the concept of pre-Hartnell Doctors. Andrew Cartmel considered a similar idea, and even during the transition from Hartnell to Troughton, there were plans to suggest prior facial changes. The “Brain of Morbius” storyline in 1975 famously featured images of faces preceding Hartnell’s during a mind-wrestling scene.
However, crucial distinctions exist. These earlier explorations were either unofficial, abandoned, or deliberately ambiguous. Cartmel’s “Masterplan” was rejected, the “Power of the Daleks” scene was cut, and the “Morbius Doctors” were intentionally vague, easily interpretable as previous incarnations of Morbius himself. Producers historically refrained from definitively establishing pre-Hartnell Doctors, perhaps recognizing the potential disrespect to Hartnell’s foundational performance.
Some defenders of the “Timeless Child” retcon fall back on the well-worn argument that “Doctor Who is all about change.” While change is inherent to Doctor Who, this argument is often misapplied. The nature and scale of change matter. This particular change isn’t a natural evolution; it’s a retroactive demolition.
Past canon revisions, such as revealing the Doctor as a Time Lord or introducing regeneration, filled in existing gaps in the character’s backstory. They added layers to a character who was initially presented as enigmatic. Once established, these elements became integral to the Doctor’s identity. Rewriting these foundational elements after decades of established canon is fundamentally different from filling in early blanks.
For over five decades, the Doctor has been a Time Lord. Countless spin-offs, storylines, and the very public perception of the Doctor are intertwined with their Time Lord identity. To rewrite this now, equating it to revealing the Doctor’s species name early in the series, is disingenuous. It’s akin to retconning Superman’s Kryptonian origins or Spock’s Vulcan heritage after decades of established lore.
The overwhelming sentiment among many long-term fans is that the “Timeless Child” retcon is unsustainable. It is a narrative cul-de-sac that will likely be retconned itself in due course. The franchise’s future viability hinges on moving beyond this controversial and, for many, destructive storyline.
The Lazy Destruction of Gallifrey: A Redundancy
Another significant and arguably overlooked consequence of Chibnall’s narrative direction is the second destruction of Gallifrey. While the Time Lord homeworld was previously destroyed during the Time War arc, that destruction was narratively different.
The Time War’s destruction of Gallifrey occurred off-screen, leaving open the possibility of its return, a narrative thread that was indeed explored and resolved in the 50th-anniversary special. Furthermore, while the Time War destruction was a dramatic event, it was, at the time, a relatively novel and impactful narrative choice.
This second destruction, however, feels like a redundant and diminished echo of the first. The entire 50th-anniversary special revolved around saving Gallifrey, restoring the Time Lords, and even included a future Doctor assuring its eventual return. All of this narrative resolution has now been undone, seemingly for shock value rather than compelling storytelling.
The rationale behind this second destruction also feels flimsy. It’s attributed to the Master, yet the how and why remain largely unexplained, especially considering the Master’s apparent redemptive arc as Missy. Furthermore, this destruction is depicted as utterly final, Gallifrey reduced to dust. This eliminates Gallifrey and Time Lord mythology as potential narrative elements for future writers, seemingly closing off a rich vein of Doctor Who lore.
No previous writer has so comprehensively and definitively extinguished such a significant aspect of Doctor Who’s universe. Even narrative events intended to be definitive, like Davros’s apparent demise in “Remembrance of the Daleks,” still allowed for future possibilities.
In this regard, Chibnall’s era has arguably diminished the narrative potential of Doctor Who. It has attempted radical change while simultaneously recycling familiar tropes. The Doctor is once again the “last of their kind,” a narrative beat revisited numerous times. The finale also features the Master and the Cybermen collaborating, a recurring villain pairing, and a plot centered on rewriting the Doctor’s past, reminiscent of “Hell Bent.”
It’s perhaps unsurprising that mainstream viewership has declined. The show appears trapped in an ouroboros of rewriting its own history, sacrificing established lore for fleeting novelty.
The “Fitzroy Crowd” mentality, exemplified by Paul Cornell’s quote about the necessity of destruction in Doctor Who writing: “To be a good writer, you have to smash things up. To make great Doctor Who, especially, you have to destroy something someone values with every step. Those footsteps of destruction will, in a few years, be cast in bronze and put on a plinth for the next great story to destroy,” perfectly encapsulates the mindset that may have led to the “Timeless Child.”
However, this destructive approach is not the only path to creative renewal. Rewriting established canon is not a prerequisite for keeping a long-running series fresh. Furthermore, comparing changes made to a relatively blank slate character in the early years to wholesale revisions after decades of established identity is a false equivalence.
Rewriting the Retcon: Charting a Course Away from the Timeless Child
Image result for alternate universes
While undoing the “Timeless Child” retcon presents a narrative challenge, Doctor Who’s inherent flexibility, particularly its embrace of multiversal concepts, offers potential solutions. One approach, aligned with a broader theory of Doctor Who’s fractured continuity, involves embracing the multiverse to compartmentalize the Chibnall era.
The argument can be made that Classic Doctor Who (1963-1989) and New Doctor Who (2005-present) already exist as distinct, albeit related, universes. Despite cameos and shared elements, inconsistencies and tonal shifts suggest a divergence. This “alternate universe” theory allows Classic Who to stand as a complete entity, akin to the original Sherlock Holmes stories, with New Who existing as a separate, albeit derivative, continuity.
Following this logic, future iterations of Doctor Who could be explicitly set in alternate universes, loosely connected but ultimately independent. Each “version” could have its own internal lifespan, perhaps concluding after a 13th Doctor incarnation, before a new “version” begins with a fresh 9th Doctor, and so on. Crossovers between Doctors from different universes could further enrich this multiversal framework.
However, the “Timeless Child” retcon strains even this multiverse concept, creating a narrative chasm that makes the Chibnall era feel irreconcilable with both Classic and earlier New Who. While the first decade of New Who retains considerable merit and shouldn’t be entirely discarded, the Jodie Whittaker era may need to be narratively isolated as a distinct, and perhaps less canonical, universe.
While splitting a single production into separate universes is a less than ideal solution, these are, as stated, exceptional circumstances. The “Timeless Child” retcon represents an unprecedented level of narrative disruption, fundamentally altering the Doctor’s character and the series’ core mythology.
So, how can the “Timeless Child” be integrated into a multiversal Doctor Who framework? One potential interpretation is to position the “Timeless Child” narrative as originating from an alternate universe – specifically, the “Y-Space” universe of the Chibnall era.
In this interpretation, the “Y-Space” universe, unlike the “M-Space” universe of earlier New Who, features a Gallifrey that persists until the very end of the universe, as depicted in “Hell Bent.” This contradicts the Master’s destruction of Gallifrey in the Timeless Child arc, suggesting two divergent timelines.
In “Y-Space,” the Time Lords, facing universal collapse, sent a single Time Lady, the Timeless Child, through a portal to escape. This child was engineered with perpetual regeneration and a Matrix-like repository of Time Lord history, intended to seed a new Gallifrey in another universe. Designated the “Timeless Child,” she was sent to what would become the Classic Who/New Who “M-Space” universe.
Upon arrival, the Timeless Child was discovered by Tecteun. Tecteun’s experiments yielded not only regeneration but also access to the Timeless Child’s stored knowledge of “Y-Space” Time Lord civilization. Tecteun and her people then emulated this advanced culture, becoming Time Lord “knock-offs” in “M-Space.” They programmed and manipulated the Timeless Child, creating a figure resembling the Doctor of “Y-Space,” drawing on the knowledge extracted from her mind. Flashes of the Tenth Doctor (from “M-Space”) and Jodie Whittaker’s Thirteenth Doctor emerging from Capaldi could be interpreted as visual echoes of this “Y-Space” template influencing the Timeless Child’s regenerations in “M-Space”. However, the Timeless Child’s history in “M-Space” diverged significantly, leading to variations like the Jo Martin Doctor.
This multiversal model could be summarized as:
- N-Space: Classic Who (1963-1989)
- M-Space: New Who (2005-2017, pre-“Timeless Child” era)
- Y-Space: Chibnall era Who (Jodie Whittaker era, “Timeless Child” origin)
Future Doctor Who iterations could then establish their own distinct universes. This multiversal compartmentalization offers a potential pathway to mitigate the disruptive impact of the “Timeless Child” and excise the Chibnall era from the core continuities of both Classic and earlier New Who, allowing the franchise to potentially rediscover its footing and move forward.
