User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-45314928-20200610043202/@comment-33695797-20200610081758: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(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: | ||
Yes, I do think these points can be raised here— even if they were ultimately irrelevant to the validity decision, they are relevant here. To be honest both options are speculation (that the extract comes from a novel, or that said novel was an invention for the release of the extract), but logic points us to the latter. I will also add that if we look at the way the "short story" is written, the style implies that it was intended as an extract of a missing novel, and not the start of an actual one. | Yes, I do think these points can be raised here— even if they were ultimately irrelevant to the validity decision, they are relevant here. To be honest both options are speculation (that the extract comes from a novel, or that said novel was an invention for the release of the extract), but logic points us to the latter. I will also add that if we look at the way the "short story" is written, the style implies that it was intended as an extract of a missing novel, and not the start of an actual one. | ||
Although on a possibly larger note I must add that, quite strangely, it appears that Peter Harness's Twitter account (and the story along with it) have ceased to exist. I'm trying to find a copy of it, but this also changes things. | Although on a possibly larger note I must add that, quite strangely, it appears that Peter Harness's Twitter account (and the story along with it) have ceased to exist. I'm trying to find a copy of it, but this also changes things. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20200610043202-45314928/20200610081758-33695797]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 23:43, 27 April 2023
Yes, I do think these points can be raised here— even if they were ultimately irrelevant to the validity decision, they are relevant here. To be honest both options are speculation (that the extract comes from a novel, or that said novel was an invention for the release of the extract), but logic points us to the latter. I will also add that if we look at the way the "short story" is written, the style implies that it was intended as an extract of a missing novel, and not the start of an actual one.
Although on a possibly larger note I must add that, quite strangely, it appears that Peter Harness's Twitter account (and the story along with it) have ceased to exist. I'm trying to find a copy of it, but this also changes things.
