Toggle menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45314928-20200606025128/@comment-6032121-20200607202100

< User:SOTO‎ | Forum Archive‎ | Inclusion debates‎ | @comment-45314928-20200606025128
Revision as of 15:19, 27 April 2023 by SV7 (talk | contribs) (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))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

He didn't mention Target, but he did call it a novelisation, and aside from the BBC Books things (which are a possibility, I suppose), a Doctor Who novelisation tends to imply a Target novelisation.

Notably, he's very clearly pastiching the classic Terrance Dicks novelisation writing style in the short-story-or-whatever-it-is; opening on "The mysterious traveller in all of Time and Space known only as…" and spelling TARDIS "Tardis", for example.

@DiSoRiEnTeD1, what you propose is just epistemologically wrong. A thing which was never finished, and an extract from said thing, are two different concepts. You can mention the unfinished whole thing (indeed, all you can do is mention it) while releasing the finished extract from the thing.

Again, an ape skull is not consubstantial with the skeleton it may or may not once have been attached to.

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.