As with the Davison book, Howe and Walker face a difficulty with "The Third Doctor Handbook" in that this is a period of the programme's history which has been pretty thoroughly investigated and documented. It is not an era shrouded in controversy like Colin Baker's, nor a time virtually ignored by past historians, like William Hartnell's. Indeed, the early Seventies produced some of the most outspoken and forthcoming convention attendees of Doctor Who's history: the late Jon Pertwee, Nicholas Courtney, Lis Sladen, John Levene.... the list goes on. I feared, then, that this book would prove as tough a slog as its predecessor.

Fortunately, Howe and Walker pick things up a bit this time around. While (perhaps unavoidably) this is not as unmissable as earlier entries into the "Handbook" range, it is still a well-written, enjoyable recapitulation of well-known and much-loved details and stories. It may just be that Howe and Walker find this a more pleasant era to document (comparing their reviews of the Pertwee adventures to those of Peter Davison, this certainly appears to be the case), but for whatever reason, the pair have picked up the liveliness of their writing, with the chapters of this book always a joy to read. The book is also helped by a more sensible approach to some sections -- in particular, the Script to Screen chapter is a vast improvement on "The Fifth Doctor Handbook"; whereas that book analysed a story hardly representative of the Davison era ("The Five Doctors"), the choice of subject this time -- "Day Of The Daleks" -- makes a lot more sense. The reader really gets the feeling that he's been given a window into the day-to-day production of the Pertwee era, and this gives the whole book a lift.

As with the Davison volume, it is a little unfortunate that Howe and Walker have such similar opinions on the Pertwee era; this makes the Reviews section drag noticeably, as opinions are often duplicated virtually word for word. In reviewing "The Trenchcoat Discontinuity Handbook", I remarked on how the disparate opinions offered up by that book's reviewers accounted for much of its fun. The "Handbook"s series really needs this kind of dichotomy; Howe and Walker are clearly graduates of the same school of Doctor Who fandom, and while there's nothing wrong with that, a little diversity wouldn't go astray -- I would have been very interested to see the largely positive comments by Howe and/or Walker put side by side with what I'm sure would be very different reviews by someone like Paul Cornell. Variety, as they say, is the spice of life, and "The Third Doctor Handbook" (and, frankly, the "Handbook"s in general) are in need of a little more of this.

Still, "The Third Doctor Handbook" proves to be another fine release from the "Frame" team, and bodes well for the series' final two volumes. Indeed, I expect the "Handbook"s have now successfully gotten over the hump, as it were, of having little new to talk about -- both the Second and Seventh Doctors' eras have been rather less well documented than either the Fifth or Third Doctors, and hence the last two "Handbook"s should be very interesting and informative. I, personally, can't wait.

6/10.

Back to Reviews From The Land Of Fiction