The Tommy Westphall Universe Hypothesis or St. Elsewhere Autistic Kid Devours All TV
11-01-08, 11:32 PM
#1
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Thread Starter
The Tommy Westphall Universe Hypothesis or St. Elsewhere Autistic Kid Devours All TV
I'm kind of surprised I didn't find this in any threads on DVDTalk. Maybe it's because it takes a little bit of explaining (Yes, that means this is a bit long):
I read about this a few weeks ago and it's taken over my mind like a cancer, since almost all of Television seems to now fall within a kid's mind. I can't explain it any better than they can here:
So, basically, if any of the characters as they appear in Tommy's dream crossover into another show, than they, too, must be taking place inside Tommy's head. If that is so, then this is just the beginning of what shows are simply dreamed:
(edit - image far too large) http://home.vicnet.net.au/~kwgow/crossovers(scaled).jpg
They have a few ground rules, though...
Some of these rules are made simply for simplicity's sake. But...ignoring some of these rules will blow your mind even further. Not even counting the scores of shows that would be swallowed up by a Simpsons inclusion, imagine this: To include cartoons means that the ENTIRE DETECTIVE COMICS UNIVERSE (Batman, Superman, et cetera) is taking place in the kid's mind. Movies may be excluded to prevent the crossing of mediums. I understand that, because if you cross mediums next, DC and Marvel have crossed a few times in comics, so all Marvel movies/shows/cartoons are next to fall. If Angel is included and has a crossover with Firefly because Mal's weapons were Weyland-Utani and that was also a Wolfram and Hart client, than ALSO the Alien Quadrilogy or however many movies you want to count, and the Predator series are also sucked in.
Sidebar - Also when looking for the Buffy/Firefly crossover links someone mentioned that it was 'heavily hinted at' that River was supposed to be a Slayer in the future. Thoughts on that?
Anyway, everyone has their own criteria...for instance, the Alien/Angel thing is talked about by the guys at Poobala, who I tend to agree with most of the time.
Like I said, maybe it's just me, but this has been driving me crazy just in the scope of what could be theoretically included, based on each individual's differing criteria. It could be rather limited or ridiculously black-hole-ish. On Wikipedia, they talk about how Tom Fontana, St. Elsewhere creator, said this: "Someone did the math once... and something like 90 percent of all television took place in Tommy Westphall's mind. God love him." Then, I read somewhere else that Tom wants all of television to someday be made to take place inside Tommy's mind.
What would your criteria be?
I read about this a few weeks ago and it's taken over my mind like a cancer, since almost all of Television seems to now fall within a kid's mind. I can't explain it any better than they can here:
Originally Posted by Tommy Westphall - A Multiverse Explored
Who is Tommy Westphall?
Tommy Westphall was an autistic child on the TV series St Elsewhere who, it was revealed in the closing moments of the final episode of that series, had dreamt the entire run of the show.
What's this about his Mind?
St Elsewhere has direct connections to twelve other television series - many of them direct crossovers of character to and from the series. Others make mention of specific parts of the St. Elsewhere fictional universe, placing them within the same fictional sphere.
So?
If St Elsewhere exists only within Tommy Westphall's mind, then so does every other series set within the same fictional sphere.
Some of the links are direct - characters cross over from television series to television series all the time, it's a long-time television tradition. Some series spin off entire other series, obviously expanding their fictional universes.
Some connections are indirect - fictional places, character names, awards, newspapers, cigarette brands, companies place some shows within the same fictional universe.
There isn't necessarily any rhyme or reason with having one series connect to another. There is no attempt to have any crossover consistency either within the series themselves or here as we discover more connections.
Tommy Westphall was an autistic child on the TV series St Elsewhere who, it was revealed in the closing moments of the final episode of that series, had dreamt the entire run of the show.
What's this about his Mind?
St Elsewhere has direct connections to twelve other television series - many of them direct crossovers of character to and from the series. Others make mention of specific parts of the St. Elsewhere fictional universe, placing them within the same fictional sphere.
So?
If St Elsewhere exists only within Tommy Westphall's mind, then so does every other series set within the same fictional sphere.
Some of the links are direct - characters cross over from television series to television series all the time, it's a long-time television tradition. Some series spin off entire other series, obviously expanding their fictional universes.
Some connections are indirect - fictional places, character names, awards, newspapers, cigarette brands, companies place some shows within the same fictional universe.
There isn't necessarily any rhyme or reason with having one series connect to another. There is no attempt to have any crossover consistency either within the series themselves or here as we discover more connections.
(edit - image far too large) http://home.vicnet.net.au/~kwgow/crossovers(scaled).jpg
They have a few ground rules, though...
Rules/Exclusions - In almost every category of rules/exclusions there are things that we would love to include. However, we cannot cherry pick which one or two things in a certain category we would like to include, instead we would have to include all of a type if we allowed in some of a type. So for simplicity (hah!) and our remaining bits of sanity we do not include any show that is not a narrative live action program with a shared continuity from episode to episode. The particulars of the rules & exclusions are below (along with mentions of what we wish we could include, and often why the category is excluded):
1. Crossovers with "real" shows and "real" people.
A. Episodes where reality shows exist within a fictional sphere are not included (such as the X-Files/COPS crossover and the Chicago Hope/Entertainment Tonight crossover)
B. Episodes where actual people exist within a fictional sphere are not included (such as Jay Leno, Alex Trebek, and professional wrestlers and athletes who have played themselves on many shows some of which are listed here).
C. These real/fictional crossovers are often great for a laugh and it is usually really interesting to see the real and fictional spheres meld briefly but there is no way to fully document all of these crossovers and there is no logical stopping point for the inclusion of a show on the grounds of a shared real space.
2. Cartoons & Puppets
A. There are a few legitimate cartoon & puppet crossovers that we would like to include (namely the Simpsons' crossovers with Cheers and X-Files and the Sesame Street crossover with L&O:SVU) but opening the door for the Simpsons & Sesame Street would forces us to include more than a score of 1960s cartoon. Not only are most of those cartoons bad but cartoon crossover history is to poorly documented for even our best searching to yield a complete list and the cartoon crossovers were rarely more than cameos
B. The cartoons that are related by loose ties to shows on the grid include: The Simpsons, The Brady Kids, the entire 1960s DC cartoonverse (Superman, Justice League of America, Superboy, etc), the entire 1990s DC cartoonverse (Justice League, Batman Beyond, Gotham Knights, Static Shock, etc), The Addams Family cartoon, Scooby-Doo, and the rest of the Hanna-Barbera cartoonverse.
3. Movies with theatrical debuts
A. TV miniseries, movies and reunion specials do count (assuming shared continuity with the TV show) as if they were any other episode of the show. Movies that appeared in theaters first do not count even if they have shared continuity with the TV series (X-Files: Fight the Future, Serenity). And they don't count twice over when they do not share internal continuity (The Brady Bunch Movie (1995), A Very Brady Sequel (1996), Superman & Batman movies, etc.)
4. Pilots & Spin offs.
A. In order for a pilot or spin off to be included on the grid it must exist as a distinct aired entity. Back-door pilots that only appeared on the main show and were never there own distinct show do not count.
5. Anthology series
A. Anthology television series (such as The Outer Limits and The Twilight Zone) which assume no shared continuity between episodes are excluded because of their lack of internal continuity.
6. The Munch Rule
A. A few different characters on the grid (John Munch, Mike Logan, Lucy Ricardo, and others) moved completely from one show to another and then crossed over to a third show for an episode or two. On the grid and the key the crossover is only listed between the show the character was on at the time of the cross and the show he/she crossed onto. For example, any new shows on which John Munch now appears are simply crossovers with L&O:SVU not L&O:SVU and Homicide.
1. Crossovers with "real" shows and "real" people.
A. Episodes where reality shows exist within a fictional sphere are not included (such as the X-Files/COPS crossover and the Chicago Hope/Entertainment Tonight crossover)
B. Episodes where actual people exist within a fictional sphere are not included (such as Jay Leno, Alex Trebek, and professional wrestlers and athletes who have played themselves on many shows some of which are listed here).
C. These real/fictional crossovers are often great for a laugh and it is usually really interesting to see the real and fictional spheres meld briefly but there is no way to fully document all of these crossovers and there is no logical stopping point for the inclusion of a show on the grounds of a shared real space.
2. Cartoons & Puppets
A. There are a few legitimate cartoon & puppet crossovers that we would like to include (namely the Simpsons' crossovers with Cheers and X-Files and the Sesame Street crossover with L&O:SVU) but opening the door for the Simpsons & Sesame Street would forces us to include more than a score of 1960s cartoon. Not only are most of those cartoons bad but cartoon crossover history is to poorly documented for even our best searching to yield a complete list and the cartoon crossovers were rarely more than cameos
B. The cartoons that are related by loose ties to shows on the grid include: The Simpsons, The Brady Kids, the entire 1960s DC cartoonverse (Superman, Justice League of America, Superboy, etc), the entire 1990s DC cartoonverse (Justice League, Batman Beyond, Gotham Knights, Static Shock, etc), The Addams Family cartoon, Scooby-Doo, and the rest of the Hanna-Barbera cartoonverse.
3. Movies with theatrical debuts
A. TV miniseries, movies and reunion specials do count (assuming shared continuity with the TV show) as if they were any other episode of the show. Movies that appeared in theaters first do not count even if they have shared continuity with the TV series (X-Files: Fight the Future, Serenity). And they don't count twice over when they do not share internal continuity (The Brady Bunch Movie (1995), A Very Brady Sequel (1996), Superman & Batman movies, etc.)
4. Pilots & Spin offs.
A. In order for a pilot or spin off to be included on the grid it must exist as a distinct aired entity. Back-door pilots that only appeared on the main show and were never there own distinct show do not count.
5. Anthology series
A. Anthology television series (such as The Outer Limits and The Twilight Zone) which assume no shared continuity between episodes are excluded because of their lack of internal continuity.
6. The Munch Rule
A. A few different characters on the grid (John Munch, Mike Logan, Lucy Ricardo, and others) moved completely from one show to another and then crossed over to a third show for an episode or two. On the grid and the key the crossover is only listed between the show the character was on at the time of the cross and the show he/she crossed onto. For example, any new shows on which John Munch now appears are simply crossovers with L&O:SVU not L&O:SVU and Homicide.
Sidebar - Also when looking for the Buffy/Firefly crossover links someone mentioned that it was 'heavily hinted at' that River was supposed to be a Slayer in the future. Thoughts on that?
Anyway, everyone has their own criteria...for instance, the Alien/Angel thing is talked about by the guys at Poobala, who I tend to agree with most of the time.
Like I said, maybe it's just me, but this has been driving me crazy just in the scope of what could be theoretically included, based on each individual's differing criteria. It could be rather limited or ridiculously black-hole-ish. On Wikipedia, they talk about how Tom Fontana, St. Elsewhere creator, said this: "Someone did the math once... and something like 90 percent of all television took place in Tommy Westphall's mind. God love him." Then, I read somewhere else that Tom wants all of television to someday be made to take place inside Tommy's mind.
What would your criteria be?
Last edited by DarkestPhoenix; 11-01-08 at 11:38 PM.
11-01-08, 11:53 PM
#2
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Thread Starter
Six Objections To The Tommy Westphall Universe Hypothesis
There are also those vehemently opposed. Brian Weatherson of Cornell (the highest rank in the military) wrote this when they had only linked 164 shows up to St. Elsewhere. They're up to at least 280, now:
Originally Posted by Brian Weatherson
It’s a nice little idea, but there are half a dozen things wrong with it.
P1. All of St. Elsewhere (except the last scene) takes place in Tommy Westphall’s mind.
P2. If all of St. Elsewhere (except the last scene) takes place in Tommy Westphall’s mind, then any show that bears the ancestral of the sharing a character relation with St. Elsewhere takes place in Tommy Westphall’s mind.
C. So all shows on this grid take place in Tommy Westphall’s mind.
As mentioned in the title, I have six objections to this little argument. Two to P1, two to the overall argument, and two to P2.
Objection One – Dreaming Never Works
I’m generally suspicious of the effectiveness of the “It was all a dream” move. I think it was true in the Wizard of Oz movie that the scarecrow didn’t have a brain and the tinman didn’t have a heart. It wasn’t true that the scarecrow didn’t have a heart and the tinman didn’t have a brain. If we take the movie seriously to the end then neither of these are really true, they are only true in Dorothy’s dream. So we should, for purposes of working out what is true in the story, not take the final scenes too seriously.
I don’t want to rest too much weight on this, since it is possible that our inclination to say that the scarecrow didn’t have a brain and the tinman didn’t have a heart is because we couldn’t be bothered always prefixing “According to Dorothy’s dream…”
Objection Two – This Dream Sequence Doesn’t Work
I know the St. Elsewhere characters intended the final scene to make it true in the fiction that the entire storyline took place in Tommy Westphall’s head. But I’m not sure they succeeded. There are way too many alternative interpretations of the final scene to bed down that interpretation. For one thing, we could interpret it as a dream of the real Tommy Westphall, the child of Dr Westphall. Maybe he wishes his father really was a construction worker. As people on numerous comment boards have argued, it would be very implausible a child his age could imagine everything that happened in the show’s run. So these alternative explanations are somewhat to be preferred, especially given the show’s preference for realism.
Objection Three – The One from Moore
I reckon nobody will believe this argument, but I thought it was worth making.
P3. Some of the things that (fictionally) happen in Friends happen in a different city to some of the things that (fictionally) happen in Joey.
P4. If the Westphall hypothesis is true, then all of the things that (fictionally) happen in Friends happen in the same city as all of the things that (fictionally) happen in Joey, namely the city that Tommy lives in.
C2. The Westphall hypothesis is not true.
Obviously anyone who believes the Westphall Hypothesis will not believe P3. But I think most of us have better reason to believe P3 than we have to believe any complicated argument to the contrary. Indeed, I think we know P3 to be true, so we can use it in arguments. (What else could we need in order to use a premise in an argument?)
Objection Four – Charity
Maybe you don’t think the previous argument is conclusive. (I do, but contemporary philosophers are specially trained to let known facts override complicated arguments.) Still, that kind of consideration should be an important part of our overall interpretation. We get an interpretation of TV-land generally that is simpler, more realistic, and more in keeping with the authors’ wishes if we don’t include the Westphall hypothesis than if we do. It would be very odd to override all of those points on the strengths of a few ambiguous minutes at the end of St Elsewhere.
Put another way, even if we accept that the story writers for, say, Cheers wanted their show to be set in the same world as the world of St Elsewhere, it doesn’t follow that they wanted their show to be set in a child’s dream. In fact it is clear they didn’t. Now since St Elsewhere is set in a child’s dream, it follows the writers for Cheers had inconsistent intentions. But from that nothing much follows. It may be (indeed it is) true that the best way to resolve the inconsistency is by denying that Cheers really takes place in the same world as St Elsewhere.
All that is basically skirmishing to clear the ground. The next two objections are the really decisive ones.
Objection Five – De Re Dreams
The argument for P2 seems rather weak to me. It seems to involve the following inference.
P5. Show X included character Y.
P6. Character Y is part of Tommy Westphall’s dream.
C3. So show X is part of Tommy Westphall’s dream.
But this inference is clearly bad. Tommy could be dreaming about people who really (or really in the fiction) exist.
For instance, I could have a dream where I’m spending a lazy Sunday strolling along St Kilda esplanade. That Sunday and St Kilda esplanade are in my dream doesn’t prevent them being real.
Or I could have a dream where I’m catching Pedro Martinez as he strikes out 22 Yankees to clinch the ALCS. Again, that wouldn’t mean Pedro Martinez, or the New York Yankees, or the American League are not real.
The same thing is going on here. Just because Tommy Westphall had a dream in which some character from St Elsewhere appears, it doesn’t mean that character doesn’t really exist in Tommy’s world. Indeed, most of the characters that appear in our dreams are real people. So the inference that gets the argument off the ground fails.
Objection Six – De Re Fictions
This is related to the previous objection. From the fact that a character appears in two different TV shows, it doesn’t follow automatically that those shows take place in the same fictional world.
P1. All of St. Elsewhere (except the last scene) takes place in Tommy Westphall’s mind.
P2. If all of St. Elsewhere (except the last scene) takes place in Tommy Westphall’s mind, then any show that bears the ancestral of the sharing a character relation with St. Elsewhere takes place in Tommy Westphall’s mind.
C. So all shows on this grid take place in Tommy Westphall’s mind.
As mentioned in the title, I have six objections to this little argument. Two to P1, two to the overall argument, and two to P2.
Objection One – Dreaming Never Works
I’m generally suspicious of the effectiveness of the “It was all a dream” move. I think it was true in the Wizard of Oz movie that the scarecrow didn’t have a brain and the tinman didn’t have a heart. It wasn’t true that the scarecrow didn’t have a heart and the tinman didn’t have a brain. If we take the movie seriously to the end then neither of these are really true, they are only true in Dorothy’s dream. So we should, for purposes of working out what is true in the story, not take the final scenes too seriously.
I don’t want to rest too much weight on this, since it is possible that our inclination to say that the scarecrow didn’t have a brain and the tinman didn’t have a heart is because we couldn’t be bothered always prefixing “According to Dorothy’s dream…”
Objection Two – This Dream Sequence Doesn’t Work
I know the St. Elsewhere characters intended the final scene to make it true in the fiction that the entire storyline took place in Tommy Westphall’s head. But I’m not sure they succeeded. There are way too many alternative interpretations of the final scene to bed down that interpretation. For one thing, we could interpret it as a dream of the real Tommy Westphall, the child of Dr Westphall. Maybe he wishes his father really was a construction worker. As people on numerous comment boards have argued, it would be very implausible a child his age could imagine everything that happened in the show’s run. So these alternative explanations are somewhat to be preferred, especially given the show’s preference for realism.
Objection Three – The One from Moore
I reckon nobody will believe this argument, but I thought it was worth making.
P3. Some of the things that (fictionally) happen in Friends happen in a different city to some of the things that (fictionally) happen in Joey.
P4. If the Westphall hypothesis is true, then all of the things that (fictionally) happen in Friends happen in the same city as all of the things that (fictionally) happen in Joey, namely the city that Tommy lives in.
C2. The Westphall hypothesis is not true.
Obviously anyone who believes the Westphall Hypothesis will not believe P3. But I think most of us have better reason to believe P3 than we have to believe any complicated argument to the contrary. Indeed, I think we know P3 to be true, so we can use it in arguments. (What else could we need in order to use a premise in an argument?)
Objection Four – Charity
Maybe you don’t think the previous argument is conclusive. (I do, but contemporary philosophers are specially trained to let known facts override complicated arguments.) Still, that kind of consideration should be an important part of our overall interpretation. We get an interpretation of TV-land generally that is simpler, more realistic, and more in keeping with the authors’ wishes if we don’t include the Westphall hypothesis than if we do. It would be very odd to override all of those points on the strengths of a few ambiguous minutes at the end of St Elsewhere.
Put another way, even if we accept that the story writers for, say, Cheers wanted their show to be set in the same world as the world of St Elsewhere, it doesn’t follow that they wanted their show to be set in a child’s dream. In fact it is clear they didn’t. Now since St Elsewhere is set in a child’s dream, it follows the writers for Cheers had inconsistent intentions. But from that nothing much follows. It may be (indeed it is) true that the best way to resolve the inconsistency is by denying that Cheers really takes place in the same world as St Elsewhere.
All that is basically skirmishing to clear the ground. The next two objections are the really decisive ones.
Objection Five – De Re Dreams
The argument for P2 seems rather weak to me. It seems to involve the following inference.
P5. Show X included character Y.
P6. Character Y is part of Tommy Westphall’s dream.
C3. So show X is part of Tommy Westphall’s dream.
But this inference is clearly bad. Tommy could be dreaming about people who really (or really in the fiction) exist.
For instance, I could have a dream where I’m spending a lazy Sunday strolling along St Kilda esplanade. That Sunday and St Kilda esplanade are in my dream doesn’t prevent them being real.
Or I could have a dream where I’m catching Pedro Martinez as he strikes out 22 Yankees to clinch the ALCS. Again, that wouldn’t mean Pedro Martinez, or the New York Yankees, or the American League are not real.
The same thing is going on here. Just because Tommy Westphall had a dream in which some character from St Elsewhere appears, it doesn’t mean that character doesn’t really exist in Tommy’s world. Indeed, most of the characters that appear in our dreams are real people. So the inference that gets the argument off the ground fails.
Objection Six – De Re Fictions
This is related to the previous objection. From the fact that a character appears in two different TV shows, it doesn’t follow automatically that those shows take place in the same fictional world.
Last edited by DarkestPhoenix; 11-02-08 at 01:44 AM.
