User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-2.26.183.189-20170416191252/@comment-4028641-20170416231633: 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: | ||
<div class="quote"> | <div class="quote"> | ||
Thefartydoctor wrote: | Thefartydoctor wrote: | ||
| Line 18: | Line 17: | ||
I respect your wishes to figure out how Moffat did or did not make it "fit," but to me none of that matters at this point. | I respect your wishes to figure out how Moffat did or did not make it "fit," but to me none of that matters at this point. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170416191252-2.26.183.189/20170416231633-4028641]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 13:50, 27 April 2023
Thefartydoctor wrote: The thing that you need to realise Ottsel, and I mean this with all due respect, is that intent of the writer isn't everything. It's one corner of validity debates.
Kinda is tho. Kinda is the basis for most debates. Almost every single one of recent memory.
We have never, not since the days of "canon" at least, called a story invalid because it contradicted another story. It has always been about what the author intended.
When we talked about the Titan back-up strips, did we talk about how they were silly? We sure did, but that ended up not mattering at all. Because the authorial intent was for them to count. So they're valid.
Lungbarrow fails to correctly tie-into many stories within the Virgin and non-Virgin series of DW stories. Is it invalid because of that? No, because the authorial intent was for it to count.
In the inclusion debates, we mainly ask four questions: #1 is "Is it a story?" #2 is "Is it licensed?" #3 is "Was it released?" and #4 is "What was the authorial intent?"
It is a story, it was licensed, it was released, and we have the authorial intent.
I respect your wishes to figure out how Moffat did or did not make it "fit," but to me none of that matters at this point.
