Talk:The Time Lord Letters (novel)

Rename

This release is an anthology, rather than a novel, as it is a collection of short stories in the form of letters and writings by the Doctor. Each short story deserves a page of its own - similar to Brief Encounter and The Blogs of Doom. Xx-connor-xX ☎ 11:11, July 6, 2020 (UTC)

You should not have created The Slow Path... without discussion. I don't have the book on me right now but from memory I'm not entirely convinced that some of the letters would pass rule 1 if we classified them separately. --Borisashton ☎ 15:14, July 6, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with Boris on this one. The epistolary novel (a book made up of a succession of increasingly connected letters from various characters within the diegesis) is an established literary form, and doesn't mean the various "collected texts" are short stories in their own right. Is Bram Stoker's Dracula an anthology now? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:03, July 17, 2020 (UTC)

Boris, you are not an admin - putting across your opinion is fine but stating that I should not have done something is not your job. All of these instalments are individual stories, just like Brief Encounters / the Blogs of Doom. And as for you, Scrooge, how are any of these letters “increasingly connected”? They are all standalone. Xx-connor-xX ☎ 00:07, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

It's not Boris's job to forbid you from doing something, but surely advice isn't prohibited. Pointing out what T:BOUND says is not the same thing as trying to enforce it, and the fact is, T:BOUND states pretty clearly that you can't both open a discussion about something and already start making edits based on one of the proposals in that discussion.

As for the "connected" phrase, I was referring to the general definition of an epistolary novel, not making a definitive statements about The Time Lord Letters itself. It seems to me like the whole is meant to be greater than the sum of its parts — drawing up a general portrait of the Doctor and their life through a series of snapshots.

I also dispute that it's the same thing Brief Encounters and The Blogs of Doom, in that those were series with individual installments released months or even years apart, and by different authors. By contrast, The Time Lord Letters has not, to my knowledge, been released as anything else than a whole object. That doesn't mean it can't be an anthology — but BE and TBoD are not, I think, the closest precedents you could find. To play devil's advocate against my own position, I'd say you'd be better off looking at something like The Book of the Peace with its "briefing segment" interludes. And even that's not quite right for the kind of thing you're arguing that Time Lord Letters is. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:15, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

<edit conflict>

Regardless, User:Borisashton is correct, and it's ok for experienced users to remind other users about policy, as long as they don't confuse other users about their status. (Admins can't be everywhere at once.) It's not opinion, but rather is policy, that changes cannot be made while an issue is under discussion.

The Slow Path has been deleted for now; if it is determined that it can be considered a separate story, it can be restored. Shambala108 ☎ 00:23, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

And how exactly is it current policy for these stories to be contained separately? There are several other sources (Brief Encounters / The Blogs of Doom) set up in the exact same format which give a page to each and every letter / story - also, on pages like Rosita part of the page links to one specific story within the The Time Lord Letters (there are many other examples of this but that is what springs to mind). Xx-connor-xX ☎ 06:47, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

@User:Xx-connor-xX, as I said in my previous messages, it's simply not true that The Blogs of Doom or Brief Encounters are set up in "the exact same format". Whatever else may be the case, a book with an in-universe introduction tying all the letters together is simply not the same thing as a long-running series o findividually-released stories by different writers.

As for the pagelinks to specific stories, that is, as was uncontroversially mentioned at Thread:276856, an unusual application of the same policy which allows us to cite individual episodes of Hartnell-era serials for clarity of citation.--Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 09:45, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat unrelated to this, but can I voice my dissent to the current rename tag? Using a certain user's name is going to be meaningless to non invested users who might otherwise be interested in joining the discussion and it also smacks of "why is this one person making all this fuss" which is a criticism I've tried to avoid even when I've certainly believed it about some users in a few particular other threads. "as it might be seen as a collection of short stories" seems far less, I dunno, aggressive? Maybe I'm overthinking things, but this just seems a bit inappropriate and unhelpful. (That said, I did see Connor's original one as question begging.) Najawin ☎ 10:00, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Najawin, the addition to the rename tag was part of the reason I called @Borisashton out for not being an admin. I don’t believe that he had any reason to change the tag, as I’m pretty sure the original tag was more than acceptable. I viewed this change as an attempt to single me out, and I actually found it pretty offensive as no other tag specifically targets the one that raised the discussion. Xx-connor-xX ☎ 11:40, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

I do think some clarifying edit was warranted, because your original tag simply asserted that it was a collection of short stories as if it was a fact, rather than a controversial interpretation that was in itself the crux of the debate. And I don't think Boris was trying to single you out as such.

But it is true that the effect isn't very fair to the position you defend, as it kinda invites ad hominems instead of arguing the point on its own merits. I think this gives the fullest picture of the case without singling out any individual users as arguing for one or the other.--Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 12:02, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

In general I think "it could be argued" is better than "some have argued" as it makes the issue one about theoretical strength of arguments, rather than the fact that someone actually advanced the arguments. (EG: Even if someone just pointed this out as Devil's Advocate, and didn't believe it and didn't really defend it, it would merit discussion if people recognized it was a decent position in its own right.) But the current change is fine as it stands, this is more a general point. Najawin ☎ 12:26, July 18, 2020 (UTC)