User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45314928-20200606025128/@comment-6032121-20200606133430: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I think the way to sum up the conflict is that [[User:DiSoRiEnTeD1]]: | I think the way to sum up the conflict is that [[User:DiSoRiEnTeD1]]: | ||
| Line 13: | Line 12: | ||
You're correct that an extract, presented as an extract, is not a short story. But ''[[Doctor Who and the Time War (short story)|Doctor Who and the Time War]]'' very much is a short story, just one that ''pretends'' it's an extract from a bigger story so that it can get people wondering. I think that ''[[How The Monk Got His Habit (short story)|How The Monk Got His Habit]]'', the 2020 short story, is doing basically the same thing. It's a finished work that's unseriously "claimed" to be an extract from a nonexistent novelisation, but can and should be read as its own fun little farce about the Monk arguing with his TARDIS. | You're correct that an extract, presented as an extract, is not a short story. But ''[[Doctor Who and the Time War (short story)|Doctor Who and the Time War]]'' very much is a short story, just one that ''pretends'' it's an extract from a bigger story so that it can get people wondering. I think that ''[[How The Monk Got His Habit (short story)|How The Monk Got His Habit]]'', the 2020 short story, is doing basically the same thing. It's a finished work that's unseriously "claimed" to be an extract from a nonexistent novelisation, but can and should be read as its own fun little farce about the Monk arguing with his TARDIS. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20200606025128-45314928/20200606133430-6032121]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 15:18, 27 April 2023
I think the way to sum up the conflict is that User:DiSoRiEnTeD1:
- thinks that the unfinished 2015 novelisation of How The Monk Got His Habit actually existed, and that what we cover at How The Monk Got His Habit (short story) is in fact an extract from that 2015 draft, as opposed to a new piece of prose written in 2020 and intentionally released with the framing of being part of an imaginary novelisation.
- thinks that when Emily Cook said that the "unproduced story mentioned by Harness" wasn't part of Lockdown!, she was talking about the prose he shared, rather than the unfinished TV story of the same name, which is the thing he mentioned.
- thinks that Cook is the sole determinator of what is part of Lockdown!, and that Harness releasing his story as part of the Lockdown! tweetalong event doesn't "count" unless it's acknowledged by Cook's official Twitter account.
Naturally, the relevance of the third point would be conditional on granting the second, anyway.
I strongly dispute all three points, as does User:Najawin (and IIRC a few other people weighed in on the original talk page discussion this sprang from), for reasons I've shown many times before, which DiSoRieNTed thinks are insufficient for reasons he has yet to write out in an orderly format.
You're correct that an extract, presented as an extract, is not a short story. But Doctor Who and the Time War very much is a short story, just one that pretends it's an extract from a bigger story so that it can get people wondering. I think that How The Monk Got His Habit, the 2020 short story, is doing basically the same thing. It's a finished work that's unseriously "claimed" to be an extract from a nonexistent novelisation, but can and should be read as its own fun little farce about the Monk arguing with his TARDIS.
