Talk:You are the Absurd Hero (short story): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Clarity) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::Which doesn't include you as a character. (Speaking of which, that's ''another'' thread we should have, discussing where the line between Flip Flop and branching path stories is. I agree with the change you made to [[T:VALID]], I think the branching path decision was stupid in the first place, but it was never fully examined.) Again, fully willing to have a larger discussion when the forums are back. But prima facie it seems invalid. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 05:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC) | ::Which doesn't include you as a character. (Speaking of which, that's ''another'' thread we should have, discussing where the line between Flip Flop and branching path stories is. I agree with the change you made to [[T:VALID]], I think the branching path decision was stupid in the first place, but it was never fully examined.) Again, fully willing to have a larger discussion when the forums are back. But prima facie it seems invalid. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 05:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC) | ||
::: I've just a thought I'd like to highlight. While branching narratives are defacto invalid (barring ''Flip-Flop'' as this was an exception, and I don't agree with branching narratives being flat out invalid), I do not believe the reader is in this story. This sort of mindset of "here's a blank slate character for you to project yourself into" should not equal "this is literally the DWU equivelent of every single person who has ever read this story simulataneously". While us as readers can "insert" ourselves, no information about us is actually present within the narrative; [[T:NO RW]] even goes as far as to say... | ::: I've just a thought I'd like to highlight. While branching narratives are defacto invalid (barring ''Flip-Flop'' as this was an exception, and I don't agree with branching narratives being flat out invalid), I do not believe the "reader" is literally in this story. This sort of mindset of "here's a blank slate character for you to project yourself into" should not equal "this is literally the DWU equivelent of every single person who has ever read this story simulataneously". While us as readers can "insert" ourselves, no information about us is actually present within the narrative; [[T:NO RW]] even goes as far as to say... | ||
{{simplequote|And don't go further than what the DWU source actually tells you.|[[T:NO RW]]}} | {{simplequote|And don't go further than what the DWU source actually tells you.|[[T:NO RW]]}} | ||
::: ...so while this source may be invalid due to the branching narrative, the idea that "you" are the character thus making the story unreliable makes ''no sense'' in policy. And while in this instance, we may not have a source like ''[[Companions and Allies]]'' to give us some juicy Wikifiable information, I would like to guide everyone here to look at [[Human (Attack of the Graske)]] for how an avatar-style character in a branching narrative can be handled on the Wiki. <div style="background-color:#0E234E; border: solid 0.5px gold; display: inline; white-space: nowrap;">[[doctorwho:user:Epsilon the Eternal|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white"><code>Epsilon</code></span>]][[doctorwho:user talk:Epsilon the Eternal|📯]] [[doctorwho:special:Contributions/Epsilon the Eternal|📂]]</div> 08:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC) | ::: ...so while this source may be invalid due to the branching narrative, the idea that "you" are the character thus making the story unreliable makes ''no sense'' in policy. And while in this instance, we may not have a source like ''[[Companions and Allies]]'' to give us some juicy Wikifiable information, I would like to guide everyone here to look at [[Human (Attack of the Graske)]] for how an avatar-style character in a branching narrative can be handled on the Wiki. <div style="background-color:#0E234E; border: solid 0.5px gold; display: inline; white-space: nowrap;">[[doctorwho:user:Epsilon the Eternal|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white"><code>Epsilon</code></span>]][[doctorwho:user talk:Epsilon the Eternal|📯]] [[doctorwho:special:Contributions/Epsilon the Eternal|📂]]</div> 08:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 08:34, 12 September 2022
Rename
On Obverse's website for the anthology the story's title is written as the page is currently. Are there any other sources that suggest the the should be lower case? --Tangerineduel / talk 14:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Validity
So we all agree that according to the current wiki rules this should be invalid, right? You're a character in the narrative and it's a branching path story. At the very least invalid until forums come back and we discuss it there, yes? (Also, dammit, it's similar enough in execution to a story I thought about writing that I'm not sure if I want to do that now. Ugh.) Najawin ☎ 08:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not necessarily so; there is the Flip-Flop precedent to consider. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 05:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- Which doesn't include you as a character. (Speaking of which, that's another thread we should have, discussing where the line between Flip Flop and branching path stories is. I agree with the change you made to T:VALID, I think the branching path decision was stupid in the first place, but it was never fully examined.) Again, fully willing to have a larger discussion when the forums are back. But prima facie it seems invalid. Najawin ☎ 05:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- I've just a thought I'd like to highlight. While branching narratives are defacto invalid (barring Flip-Flop as this was an exception, and I don't agree with branching narratives being flat out invalid), I do not believe the "reader" is literally in this story. This sort of mindset of "here's a blank slate character for you to project yourself into" should not equal "this is literally the DWU equivelent of every single person who has ever read this story simulataneously". While us as readers can "insert" ourselves, no information about us is actually present within the narrative; T:NO RW even goes as far as to say...
"And don't go further than what the DWU source actually tells you."
- ...so while this source may be invalid due to the branching narrative, the idea that "you" are the character thus making the story unreliable makes no sense in policy. And while in this instance, we may not have a source like Companions and Allies to give us some juicy Wikifiable information, I would like to guide everyone here to look at Human (Attack of the Graske) for how an avatar-style character in a branching narrative can be handled on the Wiki. 08:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
