What do you think?
Rate this book
Doctor Who: The Unfolding Text
A study of the creation and development of the popular BBC series, "Doctor Who," offers facts, trivia, background data, and more about this extraordinary television phenomenon
342 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1983
5 people are currently reading
73 people want to read
About the author
John Tulloch
23 books1 followerJohn Tulloch is a British university lecturer who is best known as a survivor of the 7 July 2005 London Bombings. He had became a symbol of the attacks when a photograph with his injuries was published. Tulloch faced deportation from the United Kingdom due to a dispute over his citizenship which was resolved in November 2012.
Tulloch was born in India to British Parents. The family moved back to Britain when Tulloch was at the age of three. Tulloch was educated at a school in Bournemouth and took courses in Cambridge University and Sussex University.
Tulloch had a research programme which led to a book on Australia's first Television soap, Country Practice and spent six months working for the production team on Doctor Who which resulted in the seminal academic book "Dr Who: the Unfolding Text" co-authored by Manuel Alvarado in 1983. He won a research grant in 2003 to work on risk, reconstruction and media in Kosovo at the time of the start of the Iraq War. He had changed his topics of keynote speeches at two separate conferences in Melbourne and the University of Kent. By the end of January 2005, Tulloch was changing his research interest to new-wars theory and sources of insecurity having been struck by concern of people dealing with risk professionally and insecurity on how to communicate with the media.
In early July 2005, Tulloch arrived back from Australia to travel to his home in Cardiff. On 7 July 2005, he made his preparation when boarding a train in the Edgware Road tube station. As he sat down, Tulloch moved closer to Mohammed Sidique Khan who had two rucksacks carrying explosives because another man had been "spilling over" Tulloch's seat. Just as Tulloch was about to stand up, the explosives from Khan's rucksacks exploded, killing seven people and critically injuring Tulloch who sustained swollen and cut eyes and shrapnel embedded in his head. He was photographed with his injuries which became an iconic image of the bombings. The photograph would later be used in a headline in The Sun which was used without the consent of Tulloch.
Since the bombings, Tulloch wrote a book entitled "One Day in July" recalling the events about surviving the attacks and has suffered from post-traumatic distress disorder.
On 15 May 2012, Tulloch filed a lawsuit against News Corporation believing that he had become a victim of Phone Hacking and that his personal details were in the hands of Glenn Mulcaire.
Librarian note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
John^^Tulloch
Tulloch was born in India to British Parents. The family moved back to Britain when Tulloch was at the age of three. Tulloch was educated at a school in Bournemouth and took courses in Cambridge University and Sussex University.
Tulloch had a research programme which led to a book on Australia's first Television soap, Country Practice and spent six months working for the production team on Doctor Who which resulted in the seminal academic book "Dr Who: the Unfolding Text" co-authored by Manuel Alvarado in 1983. He won a research grant in 2003 to work on risk, reconstruction and media in Kosovo at the time of the start of the Iraq War. He had changed his topics of keynote speeches at two separate conferences in Melbourne and the University of Kent. By the end of January 2005, Tulloch was changing his research interest to new-wars theory and sources of insecurity having been struck by concern of people dealing with risk professionally and insecurity on how to communicate with the media.
In early July 2005, Tulloch arrived back from Australia to travel to his home in Cardiff. On 7 July 2005, he made his preparation when boarding a train in the Edgware Road tube station. As he sat down, Tulloch moved closer to Mohammed Sidique Khan who had two rucksacks carrying explosives because another man had been "spilling over" Tulloch's seat. Just as Tulloch was about to stand up, the explosives from Khan's rucksacks exploded, killing seven people and critically injuring Tulloch who sustained swollen and cut eyes and shrapnel embedded in his head. He was photographed with his injuries which became an iconic image of the bombings. The photograph would later be used in a headline in The Sun which was used without the consent of Tulloch.
Since the bombings, Tulloch wrote a book entitled "One Day in July" recalling the events about surviving the attacks and has suffered from post-traumatic distress disorder.
On 15 May 2012, Tulloch filed a lawsuit against News Corporation believing that he had become a victim of Phone Hacking and that his personal details were in the hands of Glenn Mulcaire.
Librarian note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
John^^Tulloch
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
June 1, 2010
One of the first, if not the first, academic studies of Doctor Who. It suffers from being over-jargony. (I used to read Science Fiction Studies now and then, and the jargon of literary science fiction studies is not totally unfamiliar to me, but even I had trouble keeping straight what the authors were saying about "hermeneutic" and "proairetic" codes.) It is also now dated - it's impossible to read the authors' discussion of the role of the female companion without wondering how Ace, much less Rose, Martha, and Donna, would have changed the argument. The Troughton and Pertwee eras also get relatively short shrift; overall the authors get most of their mileage out of the Tom Baker and Peter Davison eras.
Still, there is some good "behind-the-scenes" stuff here, and some interesting perspectives on how one's definition of "good Doctor Who" changes depending on whether one is a diehard fan, a casual viewer, or a producer. (One interesting observation that the book makes is that despite the way the tone and style of the show varied under different producers, they all tended to justify their approaches using very similar values about what makes good television: plausibility, consistency, dramatic realism, etc.) There were a couple of surprises: one was the suggestion that while Leela was a big hit with young female viewers, contemporary adult male hardcore fans felt that she didn't work well as a companion. That was a surprise to me, since most fans my age, male and female, tend to rate Leela very highly. The authors' evidence for this assertion is largely anecdotal, so perhaps it doesn't mean much.
Mostly, this book has whetted my appetite for a more comprehensive and better-written academic study of Doctor Who.
Still, there is some good "behind-the-scenes" stuff here, and some interesting perspectives on how one's definition of "good Doctor Who" changes depending on whether one is a diehard fan, a casual viewer, or a producer. (One interesting observation that the book makes is that despite the way the tone and style of the show varied under different producers, they all tended to justify their approaches using very similar values about what makes good television: plausibility, consistency, dramatic realism, etc.) There were a couple of surprises: one was the suggestion that while Leela was a big hit with young female viewers, contemporary adult male hardcore fans felt that she didn't work well as a companion. That was a surprise to me, since most fans my age, male and female, tend to rate Leela very highly. The authors' evidence for this assertion is largely anecdotal, so perhaps it doesn't mean much.
Mostly, this book has whetted my appetite for a more comprehensive and better-written academic study of Doctor Who.
February 14, 2016
A classic text of cultural studies, even though the scholars describe the book as part of media studies. While perhaps the least famous and cited of the key cultural studies books published from 1980 to 1990, this book is powerful and important because it reveals the seams of this emerging interdisciplinary paradigm. The views of producers and consumers - writers and fans - intertwine in a relaxed and provocative fashion. This was the period where 'negotiated readings' were becoming fashionable in cultural studies, but it is great to see a rigorous but considered engagement with the multiple interpretations of the programme.
I have read the many hundreds of articles and books written on Doctor Who since this key monograph. None demonstrate its expansive vision or complexity. Particularly, Tulloch and Alvarado recognize the 'problem' of women in Doctor Who. They do not desire a female doctor. That is a smokescreen discussion. Instead, they recognize that except for the first producer of the programme, ever subsequent show runner has been male, most of the writers and directors have been male. So they do not become lost in representational politics. Instead, they probe the media industries and ask that Doctor Who steps out of conventional realist narratives which too frequently are English, white and male.
A landmark book. Read it before you die.
I have read the many hundreds of articles and books written on Doctor Who since this key monograph. None demonstrate its expansive vision or complexity. Particularly, Tulloch and Alvarado recognize the 'problem' of women in Doctor Who. They do not desire a female doctor. That is a smokescreen discussion. Instead, they recognize that except for the first producer of the programme, ever subsequent show runner has been male, most of the writers and directors have been male. So they do not become lost in representational politics. Instead, they probe the media industries and ask that Doctor Who steps out of conventional realist narratives which too frequently are English, white and male.
A landmark book. Read it before you die.
March 17, 2015
I was all set to give this book not exactly a bad review but certainly not a ringing endorsement. I have come to like the book more now that I have fought my way through it. This is not a fun book to read, it is not a romp through the history of Doctor Who with interesting plot synopses and little known behind-the-scenes secrets. It is, as the author points out, but which the book jacket does not, a text book on media theory. It uses words like "hermeneutic," "actant," "Greimasian," "syntagmatic," and a whole host of other abstruse words that your browser is likely to say that you have misspelled when you try to look them up. Try reading this sentence:
"Hinchcliffe's successful era as producer of Dr. Who suggests that the 'phantasm' which estranges the linear development of the narrative is not necessarily the realist construction of an alternative culture symptomatic of Angenot's 'absent paradigm'."
It is full of sentences like that. The authors assume that the readers have a lot of knowledge about literary and media theory and about Dr. Who. It eases up a bit about halfway through the book and becomes a lot more enjoyable, so I am giving it 3.5 stars for chapters 4, 5, and 6, but only 2.5 stars for chapters 1, 2, and 3.
"Hinchcliffe's successful era as producer of Dr. Who suggests that the 'phantasm' which estranges the linear development of the narrative is not necessarily the realist construction of an alternative culture symptomatic of Angenot's 'absent paradigm'."
It is full of sentences like that. The authors assume that the readers have a lot of knowledge about literary and media theory and about Dr. Who. It eases up a bit about halfway through the book and becomes a lot more enjoyable, so I am giving it 3.5 stars for chapters 4, 5, and 6, but only 2.5 stars for chapters 1, 2, and 3.
November 20, 2015
It looks from other reviews that the common complaint of The Unfolding Text is its media-studies focus and jargon-heavy prose, and yes there are times when the authors get bogged down in their insider lingo and analysis of television "coding" and "semiotics." But that aside, it seems to me that this is still essential reading for the Doctor Who fan and scholar. It seems to be the first substantial academic analysis of the show, written as it was in the early 1980's around the time of the show's 20th anniversary. It has a WEALTH of interviews with past and current personalities involved with the show (writers, producers, actors, Big Name Fans) which provide famous quotes. And actually, the analysis is pretty interesting. It's obviously quite dated to what was current and in vogue in the 80's but that makes it even more interesting. It's a great peak into Doctor Who's past from the point of view of when that past was present, if that makes any kind of sense. It's all pretty fascinating. Also, I know this is low-hanging fruit, but man John Nathan-Turner is hard to like. This book really conveyed his personality and vision for the show a lot more clearly than many other things I've read about him and his era.
December 23, 2022
This is an important book for a number of reasons. It's one of the first and only true critical studies of Doctor Who, appearing just as the programme was celebrating its 20th anniversary. It includes original research of the making of the series with current and recent past practitioners (conducted in 1983 or so). It later influenced Andrew Cartmel and his bevy of new writers as they revitalized the series in the late 80s. Thus, an important primary source with an influence on the later series.
I come from an academic background, versed in film and media studies (my degree) as well as sociology . So I can speak with a reasonable level of understanding. The big problem with the book is that it's just wrong. Its overwritten academic language aside, it does something a lot of critical theory works do--it over theorizes. That might seem like a contradiction, but I'm not attacking it as a piece of critical theory per se, it's sound in its theory. And I'm not against the idea of analyzing media in the ways that it does. What I'm talking about is a bit more nuanced. It's the reading of the "text" of the show that presents a very particular, very dated, and very uber-fan view of the series, while not fully understanding the methodology of producing narrative to begin with. It leads them to some bizarre conclusions that are just too ethereal to be meaningful.
It's particularly harsh on Graham Williams and Douglas Adams and late Tom Baker stories. It seems to champion JNT's approach, while lacking the ability to really understand that JNT had no idea what he was talking about in terms of dramatic construction. A great technical producer, sure. But a dramatist...nay.
Some of this isn't their fault. We have greater hindsight now, more resources that can talk about how the show was developing at the time, and all the years afterwards that presents an incredibly larger sample size of Doctor Who to work with. We might, for example, benefit from relying less on a deep read of The Krotons.
The authors have gone on to impressive and distinguished careers. This is an early work for them. With all its flaws it is nonetheless worth a read for fans of the series that wish to engage with the critical theory of the show. Not a complete picture at all, and certainly one I would disagree with in substantial ways. But a great start to a fascinating conversation.
I come from an academic background, versed in film and media studies (my degree) as well as sociology . So I can speak with a reasonable level of understanding. The big problem with the book is that it's just wrong. Its overwritten academic language aside, it does something a lot of critical theory works do--it over theorizes. That might seem like a contradiction, but I'm not attacking it as a piece of critical theory per se, it's sound in its theory. And I'm not against the idea of analyzing media in the ways that it does. What I'm talking about is a bit more nuanced. It's the reading of the "text" of the show that presents a very particular, very dated, and very uber-fan view of the series, while not fully understanding the methodology of producing narrative to begin with. It leads them to some bizarre conclusions that are just too ethereal to be meaningful.
It's particularly harsh on Graham Williams and Douglas Adams and late Tom Baker stories. It seems to champion JNT's approach, while lacking the ability to really understand that JNT had no idea what he was talking about in terms of dramatic construction. A great technical producer, sure. But a dramatist...nay.
Some of this isn't their fault. We have greater hindsight now, more resources that can talk about how the show was developing at the time, and all the years afterwards that presents an incredibly larger sample size of Doctor Who to work with. We might, for example, benefit from relying less on a deep read of The Krotons.
The authors have gone on to impressive and distinguished careers. This is an early work for them. With all its flaws it is nonetheless worth a read for fans of the series that wish to engage with the critical theory of the show. Not a complete picture at all, and certainly one I would disagree with in substantial ways. But a great start to a fascinating conversation.
September 17, 2021
I am an avid fan of Doctor Who and as such looked to this text to give a different more analytical perspective of the show. It certainly accomplished this.
Unfortunately, the Authors used the first fifty or so pages to show off their grasp of the English language. You spend too much time trying to "elucidate his convoluted prose" which severely affects the enjoyment of the text and the basic aim of the book. (HERMENEUTIC, PROAIRETIC, SEMIOTIC!!!.)
Fortunately, this eased up in the latter part of the book (almost as if their was an author change) resulting in a very interesting and informative critique of the program.
Most of the text was focussed on the Tom Baker/Peter Davidson eras with a lot of attention paid to the different directorial approaches to the show. The gothic horror approach by Phillip Hinchcliffe, the more humorous approach by Douglas Adams and the subsequent reversal of this humorous send up to a more grounded self (Doctor Who lore) referential approach by John Nathan-Turner. These comparisons flow into an in depth study and breakdown of KINDA. (Most interesting).
The earlier doctors and the approach by the writers to the acquisition of story lines based on current affairs, literature, folklore, science and religious doctrines all recieved the Doctor Who treatment.
All this as well as a reflection on the various hurdles inherent in producing around 26 half hour episodes in a year made for interesting reading.
The book is dated in so far as it only covers shows up to the THE FIVE DOCTORS but this only adds to it's entertainment as it relates to a more difficult non-computerised era and the non-computerised approach where actors, not special effects, rehearsals rather than point and click acting, dominated the scene. The low budget productions brought out great innovation, in some cases on the spot last minute decisions due to lack of resources and/or time constraints.
A different time and different approach when compared to the "New" Doctor Who.....
Generally difficult to read but worth it in the long run. It will add to your appreciation of the show as a whole.
Unfortunately, the Authors used the first fifty or so pages to show off their grasp of the English language. You spend too much time trying to "elucidate his convoluted prose" which severely affects the enjoyment of the text and the basic aim of the book. (HERMENEUTIC, PROAIRETIC, SEMIOTIC!!!.)
Fortunately, this eased up in the latter part of the book (almost as if their was an author change) resulting in a very interesting and informative critique of the program.
Most of the text was focussed on the Tom Baker/Peter Davidson eras with a lot of attention paid to the different directorial approaches to the show. The gothic horror approach by Phillip Hinchcliffe, the more humorous approach by Douglas Adams and the subsequent reversal of this humorous send up to a more grounded self (Doctor Who lore) referential approach by John Nathan-Turner. These comparisons flow into an in depth study and breakdown of KINDA. (Most interesting).
The earlier doctors and the approach by the writers to the acquisition of story lines based on current affairs, literature, folklore, science and religious doctrines all recieved the Doctor Who treatment.
All this as well as a reflection on the various hurdles inherent in producing around 26 half hour episodes in a year made for interesting reading.
The book is dated in so far as it only covers shows up to the THE FIVE DOCTORS but this only adds to it's entertainment as it relates to a more difficult non-computerised era and the non-computerised approach where actors, not special effects, rehearsals rather than point and click acting, dominated the scene. The low budget productions brought out great innovation, in some cases on the spot last minute decisions due to lack of resources and/or time constraints.
A different time and different approach when compared to the "New" Doctor Who.....
Generally difficult to read but worth it in the long run. It will add to your appreciation of the show as a whole.
April 4, 2020
A very in-depth, scholarly look at the first 20 years of Doctor Who and apparently the first book of its kind about DW (by the time this book came out, the latest episode aired was THE FIVE DOCTORS, which is a landmark in itself for the series). Goes into a lot of the background production information of the series and also examines the themes and eras of the show through various critical lens. Even for someone like myself, who has been watching Doctor Who for over 20 years, I learned a lot from this volume. It would have been interesting to read an updated version of this that includes the rest of the 1980s episodes.
August 28, 2017
Knocking off 2 stars for how obstructive and outdated the academic analysis can get, and for the obvious bias towards the Tom Baker and Davison eras.
Most of the book is pretty solid. It has interviews and data of huge historical value for a fan of the classic era, all within the context of the time.
Most of the book is pretty solid. It has interviews and data of huge historical value for a fan of the classic era, all within the context of the time.
Read
April 8, 2009http://nhw.livejournal.com/1072828.html[return][return]I guess this was the first book on Who from an academic point of view (published 1983). Better such books have been published since (in particular Time and Relative Dissertations in Space, and the meatier parts of the About Time series) but this is a decent enough start - easy to mock for its slips ("Mandragola", "Castravalva" and variations, "Doug Adams") and for its rather partial selection of stories from the black and white era, and for its occasional repetitiveness, but I found a number of really interesting points too: despite the authors' somewhat uncritical acceptance of Ian Levine's views, Graham Williams is allowed to put his side of the story and puts it well, and one gets a sense as in nowhere else that I have seen of Who as emerging from continual dialogue among its creators. Also they actually explain the phrase "semiotic thickness" and make it comprehensible. If you have read the Butler collection and want more you should try and get hold of this.
December 8, 2014
Make no mistake, this is an academic text. Much of it is accessible, but parts are quite challenging. While it is designed for students of television studies who may go on to work in tv, it can be appreciated by original series devotees, but having been to college will definitely aid in comprehending it. It has useful insights and behind the scenes info. It came out while Peter Davison was playing the Doctor, so it only covers the first five. It has five chapters, each is focused mainly on one of the doctor eras, plus a detailed analysis of Kinda. In addition to being an analytical text, it provides details about the influences and conditions, both societal and corporate, that led to the formation of the program. It also has many of the producers and actors contributing in kind of a written forum where they comment on their own as well as other eras of Who and respond to criticism.
April 12, 2016
For those of you looking for a light read about the beginnings of your favorite television show with cute anecdotes, move on. This book explicates in great detail the difficulties of getting a television show put on the air. From proposal to first episode and beyond, this is a great primer on what anyone going into the entertainment business, and specifically television, should prepare themselves for. Passion and talent aren't enough, and even the events of history can work against you. The author uses his love of Doctor Who to explore and present the realities most television viewers are not willing to confront. Read it at your own risk, as you will learn something more than what you expect.
August 22, 2011
I have a soft spot for this one. It's almost unfathomable at times, as it pours on media criticism in a manner that would have made Marshal McLuhan's head spin. But for a 14 year old discovering a love of academia, the thought that "Doctor Who" could intersect with my educational perspectives made me shiver with delight. It's dated incredibly...but it shows that "Doctor Who" attracted academic attention long before shows such as "Buffy" managed to trumpet their intellectual credentials. It's also the most delightful piece of archival nostalgia for "Who" fans.
January 4, 2016
Excellent study of the classic Doctor Who series. The field is media studies, so much attention is paid to how Doctor Who was produced. There are some efforts at literary interpretation, but mostly the authors look at the technical values, the visual and audio elements and how these elements code certain ideas.
June 17, 2015
I don't quite understand why people are saying that this book is jargon-heavy and laced with incomprehensible media theory, because it contains very little actual theory and none of it is of the kind that could be considered incomprehensible.
September 12, 2007
Unfathomable media theory as applied to Doctor Who.
Read
May 27, 2009As with most studies of subjects one knows very well, this is bound to disappoint. It had some interesting points, but it's shallow, and really doesn't discuss much of what really interested me.
Read
January 13, 2018A semiotic analysis of the Doctor Who television series.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews