Perryman – Literature Overview

Neil Perryman (2008) writes about how Doctor Who has used transmedia storytelling alongside new technology to drive the popularity of the Russell T. Davies era.

They outline how the BBC have used Doctor Who as a powerhouse behind what the BBC considers their “most successful attempt at turning a transmedia strategy into a successful and sustainable reality” (Thompson, 2007, as quoted in Perryman, 2008, p. 22). Perryman outlines Michael Grade’s speech about how “on-demand is coming and it will change everything” (Grade, 2006, as quoted in Perryman, 2008, p. 21), but note that a technical revolution is “not the endpoint for media convergence” (p. 21), suggesting that a story can be told using a new form of technology, but should not rely on that technology for longevity.

They also quote Jana Bennet saying “How and where we can watch comedy, drama and entertainment have undergone a revolution. The programmes themselves have not” (Bennet, 2004, as quoted in Perryman, 2008, p. 22), which is interesting when comparing this statement to Doctor Who, especially when investigating the different forms of media the storytellers have used to allow audiences to remain connected to the narrative.

Perryman writes that the “first steps into convergence culture began, not during the transmission of the original series, but rather after its cancellation in 1989” (p. 23). During this time the BBC licensed novelisation rights for Doctor Who to Virgin Publishing. Importantly, Perryman highlights “what really set these novels apart from other examples of tie-in merchandising . . . was the fact that Virgin Publishing operated an open submissions policy” (p. 24). This allowed fans to submit their stories and “contribute to the official Doctor Who mythos” (p. 24). As the authors were “already connected by a loose and informal grassroots network” (p. 24) the level of cooperation and collaboration between them allowed the continuity to remain consistent throughout each publication.

These stories “sometimes [provided] extra scenes and information that could not be gleaned from the episodes themselves, while occasionally correcting factual or narrative errors that had crept into the original television text” (p. 22), but these definitions became blurred due to the “little or no collaboration [existing] between the BBC and the books’ publishers”, often leading to “contradictions and surreal interpretations of the show’s protagonist” (p. 23). Paul Booth points out that this is not necessarily something negative, as “[the authors] built up a fanbase for Doctor Who that, importantly, demonstrated a willingness and a desire to participate with alternate versions of the story” (2018, p. 284), but resulting in “Doctor Who’s texts [existing] in a nebulous realm between canon and non-canon” (p. 295).

Perryman also outlines how the 2003 webcast series “made specifically for the internet, rather than being adapted from another medium . . . featured a brand new Doctor instead of a past incarnation, which signalled to fans . . . that the Doctor had found himself a new home” (2008, p. 25). This is important when considering the launch of the new series in 2005, and the BBC Disney partnership in 2023. Perryman continues by outlining recurring story elements such as Bad Wolf and Torchwood and their involvement in keeping fans interested and encouraging participation across multiple media platforms, including unofficial blogs and the official forums, as well as their down sides, such as Russell T. Davies “had never bothered to explain to [Steven Moffat] what [Bad Wolf] meant or how it should have been included in his story” (p. 28).

Overall, Perryman forms a strong outline of the different ways in which Doctor Who has used transmedia storytelling which allows an analysis into the BBC Disney partnership, and predictions for creative decisions moving forward. They conclude that “Doctor Who is a franchise that has actively embraced both the technical and cultural shifts associated with media convergence since it returned to our television screens in 2005” (p. 36), which is important as it suggests that they will continue to make these decisions as Doctor Who develops.