You may have enjoyed reading TARDIS Eruditorum, the blog of Dr Phil Sandifer. The first two volumes of his blog archives are now available in print, covering the First Doctor and Second Doctor eras respectively. We may hope that the next volumes will soon find themselves in print.

TARDIS Eruditorum attempts to chart the development of Doctor Who as a cultural text from An Unearthly Child to the BBC Wales series. I did wonder at one time whether this project was really worthwhile after the very exhaustive About Time, by Tat Wood and Lawrence Miles. However, Sandifer offers analysis of the Doctor Who stories that is a good deal more thoughtful and rather less hurried than that of the About Time books.

Sandifer began his Doctor Who project after graduating with his PhD and finding that job opportunities in his chosen field were rather scarce. I can identify with Sandifer, as I also gained a PhD and then found it to have limited currency in the employment market. Thankfully, I found an alternative career working with drug users and alcoholics.

The blog is written in a somewhat intellectual style. Occasionally, Sandifer loses me, but this tends to be when he gets into discussion with fellow intellectuals in the comment section. He also writes from a strongly left of centre position. Sometimes his socialism can be irritating, but I'm happy to read writers who don't share my conservatism.

That you can read the TARDIS Eruditorum blog for free rather raises the question of why one would want to buy a printed copy. I have no regrets about buying the book and plan to buy future volumes. The book contains some great bonus material, including fascinating essays and some reviews of spin-off material not covered on the blog.

In dealing with the Hartnell material, Sandifer charts the appearance in the show of those things that make the series Doctor Who as we know it- the Doctor's need for companions and his discovery that there are monsters that must be fought. He has a lot to say about what he calls the 'Problem of Susan' (named from the interesting but problematic short story by Neil Gaiman). By this he means textual difficulties inherent in Susan's character which ultimately resulted in her complete disappearance from the show. This ties into wider difficulties connected to the sexuality of female companions in Doctor Who.

Sandifer makes a powerful case that there are no pre-Unearthly Child adventures. He argues that the character we see in that first serial is utterly unequipped to be the Doctor. It is only his interaction with Ian and Barbara that make him into the heroic figure we see in later stories. This was argued on the blog, but is given further exploration in an essay on the Doctor's travels before Totters Lane. I tend to agree with Sandifer on this, though this is problematic for me because I view The Infinity Doctors as a pre-Unearthly Child story (and not an Unbound story). I think Sandifer's thesis of an unheroic older Hartnell is not incompatible with him being a bit more adventurous in the days when he was the younger Hartnell Doctor that I believe we see in The Infinity Doctors. Sandifer has not yet covered The Infinity Doctors, so we shall have to wait to see his view of how that story fits into the Doctor Who mythos.

I very much enjoyed Sandifer's discussion of The Web Planet, seeing it not as a disaster, but as one of the high points of the show. He sees in that serial a delightful exploration of just how weird and unearthly Doctor Who can get. He also joins the chorus of those of us who love the much maligned The Gunfighters. He finds much value in the Dalek spin-off material of the Sixties, arguing that it enables us to imagine the grandeur of the Doctor Who universe beyond the confines of the screen.

In an interesting bonus essay, Sandifer considers the question of whether William Hartnell was a bigot. He condemns two stories in particular for their racial subtext, The Ark and The Celestial Toymaker. It's hard to argue with Sandifer's condemnation of the racism of The Celestial Toymaker. He is appalled that the Celestial Toymaker has been re-used several times by Big Finish. I understand his anger, but I also understand why the character has returned. There is a such a strong sense of nostalgia about Michael Gough's Toymaker. He also cuts a very striking visual image. Yes, it might be racist to have a baddie looking like a Chinese Mandarin, but it is an undeniably impressive costume choice.

Maybe it's because I'm a right-wing bastard, but The Ark is very dear to me. I do think that The Ark can be defended against Sandifer's Post-Colonialist criticisms. Sandifer's reading rests upon the assumption that the Monoid's negative qualities are inherent in their nature and are not a result of their treatment by the humans. I think the Monoid tyranny can be seen as generated by the intolerance and stupidity of the Guardians, an hypothesis that the Doctor seems to allude to in that story. Like it or not, The Ark seems to reflect reality to some degree, as colonialism was often replaced by hideously corrupt and brutal dictatorships. I have heard people who once condemned Ian Smith as a racist bigot admit that in hindsight his opposition to majority rule in Rhodesia made sense.

Sandifer feels so strongly about The Celestial Toymaker and The Ark that he wants to exclude them from the canon of Doctor Who stories. This is unsurprising, as he has argued on his blog against the idea of a 'Whoniverse,' that is, a single unified fictional universe in which all Doctor Who stories take place. He seems to favour instead a canon in the artistic sense of an anthology of recognised texts. This is not my philosophy. Seeing Doctor Who as a unified fictional universe is an important part of how I consume and enjoy Doctor Who. I prefer a canon that is inclusive of as many texts as possible, including more problematic material like that of the Sixties TV Comic. This raises the question of what I would do with Doctor Who stories that contain racism or sexism. For me the answer to that is to regard such texts as unrealiable narrations of the events. Every story is true, but the details may not be accurate. Racially problematic materials can be seen in the same way as zips on the Silurian costumes or Ace remembering Paradise Towers.

For me, the most welcome addition in the book was the essay on whether Doctor Who is the name of the titular character. Yet I was irritated by one statement. Sandifer says "The problem is that there are no dedicated fans advocating for his name being Doctor Who." I am a dedicated fan and I have argued on my blog that his name really is Doctor Who.

His glorious essay on The Chase has to be read to be believed. Who could imagine that this silly story was about deconstructing the narrative essence of Doctor Who? That's much more interesting than saying it's 'silly but fun.'

I would heartily recommend Doctor Who fans to buy this book and also the second volume that is now available.

The first volume in Phil Sandifer's look at the classic series of "Doctor Who" is an absolute must have for hardcore Doctor Who fans. The articles are thought provoking and will make you really think a lot harder about those episodes you've seen and heard far too many times to mention. The author poses many questions about the episodes and places them in historical context so that the reader gets an unblinkered view of the era in which the stories were written, produced and screened for the first time. Whether you choose to read the book cover to cover or reference it as you watch various episodes, you will get an enormous satisfaction from this volume.

Sandiford also looks at a number of the key novels and films that represent the era (both Cushing movies get an airing here) as well as numerous essays that further enhance one's enjoyment of the series.

What you will not find in this particular book is a basic plot summary or a cast list. There are other websites or books for those.

Sadly, this book loses a star for two main reasons- the absolute shoddy proofreading that sees far too many typos throughout the volume and also the fact that one whole article (the one on "The Massacre") is missing. Do not despair, Sandiford will more than likely do a second edition which addresses both of these concerns (and by all accounts, this has been fixed for volume two)

I was dubious of buying this book, thinking it yet another analysis of Doctor Who, but the Kindle version was cheap at the time so I thought, why not? I am very glad I did. Sandifer's analysis is always interesting and thought-provoking.

The one fly in the ointment was his review of The Ark. I could accept his criticisms of the racism in The Celestial Toymaker as I think the accusation of racism is warranted by the content of the story as bordacast and as novelised. However I am unconvinced by his criticisms of The Ark, as I just don't see the same pro-colonial and racist overtones that he sees in the story. Certainly his take on it is one possible interpretation, and whilst his arguments are plausible, they are not persuasive enough to carry the day. His very strong condemnation of what he sees as racism would be justified if he could prove beyond reasonable doubt that racism was present, but when he fails to do so I think he ought to have pulled his punches and qualified his condemnation somewhat to allow for the possibility that he had misinterpreted the text. What I am really saying is that the principle of innocent until proven guilty should apply, and since he fails to prove convincingly that the writer/producer/director/script editor are guilty of racism, it goes against any sense of fair play to see them condemend in such strong terms.

That is however only one minor point in what is overall a very impressive book.

This is actually the first review I have ever written on Amazon (or anywhere) and I like to think Dr Sandifer would be pleased that his book was thought-provoking enough to prompt me to review it.

This book is something very rare, in that it's something I feel I need to write a review on Amazon about. But for a Doctor Who fan that's looking for an intellectual critique of the programme that's still perfectly accessible, this is exactly spot on. Each story is put into its historical and cultural context with a brief round up of that month's charts and headlines, and then the story is analysed with intelligence and humour. It's really readable and the use of literary critical techniques is judged just right so that intelligent points are made without needing a degree to understand them.

There are also whole essays about other cultural goings-on of the time and also some entries cover some of the 90's novels set during the era.

This isn't even my favourite era of Dr Who but it's fascinating to see the evolution of the character interpreted by the author, and I very much look forward to his next volume!

I came across Sandifer's books via word of mouth (well, tweet). I grew up with Doctor Who (Davidson was my era) and still watch the new series, although don't own any episodes, comics or books. So although I am a fan I wouldn't be able to call myself a Whovian. Despite lacking an encyclopedic knowledge of Who, I have nevertheless been utterly addicted by these accessible yet rigorous critical histories and am devouring these volumes. Sandifer offers refreshingly erudite and balanced views on the cast, crew and context of an unforgettable programme that really benefits from historical and cultural contexts. My current regret is that I'll reach the end of Vol 7 prior to the publication of Vol 8.

I suppose by its very nature a blog is going to be a personal account. That’s a given. And as Sandifer appears to be the biggest liberal on the face of the Earth if you enter this series with that in mind there is much to be enjoyed in this book.

He does seem to be of the persuasion who ‘pass out’ if ‘The Silurians’ is not referred to as “Dr Who and the Silurians’ every time it’s mentioned - because of an onscreen error 40+ years ago - which is a bit irritating; but again it’s his blog and he is entitled to be that way. He’s also a little too literal for my taste, with the Doctor’s inability to pilot the TARDIS and conceptual matters… that said, I’ve only reached page 4…

No, I’m joking.

He’s very P.C. forgetting that these shows were made long before the ‘nanny’ state of ‘do gooders’ existed. And I think that’s a theme that will continue and possibly increase during subsequent books. Of what I’ve read I’d only agree with about 60% of it. But that does not detract from the enjoyment of it and it is agreeable to have the serials put into a contextual backdrop of the world events that were enfolding around them. Also the inclusion of broader aspects relating to DW is a bonus.

Now, I’m a reasonably intelligent sort of fellow but some of the time I find myself wondering what this chap, Philip is on about – even with Dictionary.com open before me. His dismissal of the Hartnell era is a little too frivolous for me to be comfortable with. His claim that: season 1 was not Dr Who yet, is a little laughable as that was Dr Who at that time although I see the point he is trying to make, he’s just not doing it very well.

He’s clearly opinionated but to be fair who among us is not? That said I find the book far more enjoyable than the ‘About Time’ series.

As someone who has watched Doctor Who for many years and built up a great knowledge of what happened in the show I don't need to read synopses.....I know what happened. What Phillip Sandifer does in his essays is take a much deeper look into the stories of each era and in some ways academically find themes in them that I would never see myself. I don't always agree with what he says but I find it fascinating reading to see something new that I had not considered before. Well worth a read if you love Doctor Who and are looking for a new take on things.

I love Eruditorum. I discovered the series in the Kindle book store (I have not been a follower of the blog) and love his approach to the history of Doctor Who. His essays (blogs) are always well written, develop themes across the different eras of Who and make their points with the assured confidence only a thoroughly well researched devotee of Doctor Who can achieve. I do not agree with everything he writes (and I am sure he would be upset if I did) but the case presented in Eruditorum make you analyse your own views properly rather than simply disregard someone else's opinion simply because you do not agree with it.

I have just finished the first Tom Baker volume (same review applies to all volumes, truth be told) and I am eagerly awaiting the next instalments.

Got this for a friend for his birthday, had to get his GF to help figure out if he had this or not, once he opened the gift and saw this he was so excited to see this book, totally worth getting this for any Whovian who is looking for a book to add to their collection

I purchased TARDIS Eruditorum Volume 1 on a whim. The price for Kindle was right, and an in-depth look at the early years of Who seemed interesting especially when the current events of the time and the behind-the-scenes action was factored in.

Sandifer does a wonderful job of balancing the historical aspects, the summary, and his opinion on each episode. He's not shy about giving his opinion and comparing/contrasting them with the others who've published. Sandifer also critiques some of the "extra" Who of the time (movies and other tie-ins) and some of the Missing Adventures written for Hartnell.

One of the two things that really made this book for me was the fact that Sandifer made sure to look at each of the episodes through the lens of how the episodes were first viewed. When talking about the Daleks, it was in the context that no one had ever seen them before. We didn't have the Genesis of the Daleks or the Time War with which to paint the experience. Taking time to pause and look through the eyes of a viewer from the 1960s was wonderful especially when other things going on in England at the time politically and socially was mixed in. A wonderful perspective.

The second part was the look at the behind-the-scenes. The filming pace was almost year-round - some individual episodes were written without a principal or two to give them time off. The changes in lead producers and the effect it had on the show was significant. What was the thought behind the Dalek Masterplan arc? Too many people in the TARDIS? Was William Hartnell really more racist than most people at the time? All of this painted how early Who was made, and it's fascinating history to read.

I can't wait for the Troughton volume to come out. If you like backstory, history and behind-the-scenes by all means buy this.

As a fan and avid reader of Dr Sandifer's TARDIS Eruditorum blog, this is an essential purchase. For anyone looking for a deeper understanding of the early years of 'Doctor Who', this is a distinctly novel approach that enhances your understanding and appreciation of these episodes. With plenty of new material, this edition extends on the original blog making it really an important text for anyone who wants deeper readings of a brilliant television show.

I had thought no one would be able to match the legendary six-volume Lawrence Miles and Tat Wood analysis of Doctor Who, which seemed like the last (very long) word on the subject. Then came a blog started last year by one incredibly productive academic, and suddenly there's a viable challenger.

First, a caveat: as other reviewers have noted, the book version is missing a chapter, and sadly, it's for a fantastic story (and good essay), "The Massacre." You may wish to get the Kindle version if that omission will bother you (Sandifer has put his revised essay up for free on his site, and will include it in the next volume.) Also, the restrictions of self-publishing are evident in places. I wished for some different fonts now and again, some pull quotes or something to break up what can seem like an endless run of identical-looking pages. But that's really minor stuff.

What's great about Phil's book is his fearlessness, his willingness to stake out a jaw-dropping argument (e.g., that "The Ark" and "Celestial Toymaker," two fairly revered Who stories, are irredeemable racist garbage) and make his case clearly and succinctly (and convincingly). His take on the "Tenth Planet" argues that serial has been entirely misunderstood by generations of fans, and that it's in fact the horrifying sudden demise of the show, from which Who has never quite recovered. He analyses the much-maligned "The Chase" as postmodern goof. He rightly praises Maureen O'Brien, the oft-forgotten, secret Mod heart of Hartnell's best era. With great insights into Nineties novels that attempted to reclaim the era.

Essential stuff. Buy this book.

For my graduate thesis, I'm writing a feminist analysis of the female companions of Doctor Who from 1963-1979. After reading some of Sandifer's blog entries, I knew these books would be excellent secondary sources. There is little real academic scholarship on Doctor Who out there (this seems to be changing, however), and this is some of the best I have found. The nice thing about Sandifer's books is that it they contain high quality scholarship, but are written in a very accessible voice. We get the benefit of insightful analysis, but at the same time, instead of being dry like most academic scholarship, they are incredibly fun to read. I bought the first five volumes of TARDIS Eruditorum and they are proving to be a very worthwhile investment. My only criticism is that I wish there was more bibliographic information about his own sources, such as end notes, foot notes, or Works Cited entries.