Forums: Index > Watercooler > Original text continuity

I read the original text of The House on the Cliff not to long ago and was in the process of writing articles for all the characters who appear in the book when I realized I'd run into a problem. Many characters were heavily characters changed when the books got revised and will lead to a lot of contradictions within articles about the characters from the Original continuity. See Ezra Collig (Original), the only article I've published so far, for example. As you can see the character described in the article is vastly different than the character from the revised books and the rest of the Original continuity from about 1959 onwards. Things could get even more complected for non-recurring characters who appeared in books that were totally changed, like The Secret of the Caves, many of whom are the same character in name only.

To fix this problem, I was thinking of creating Ezra Collig (pre-1959). The new "pre-1959" articles would be used for all characters who appeared between 1927 and 1959 before the books were revised, while the "Original" articles would be for characters who appeared in the revised books and all other Original stories that appeared after 1959. What do you think?

WHLfan (talk to me!) 00:22, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

It certainly makes sense to differentiate between OT and RT versions of the same character. Would it be better to use the existing convention of (original text) and (revised text) which we use for books? It's discussed in this article here: Forum:"Original" vs "Original Continuity". The only question left, then, would be should we "double up" on parentheses - ie. should there be an article Ezra Collig (Original) (original text) and Ezra Collig (Original) (revised text) or just Ezra Collig (original text) and Ezra Collig (revised text) given that the "(Original)" for the continuity is implied by the fact that it's an original or revised text?
Paul Hassett 19:01, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

That's an idea I hadn't thought of before but, thinking it over now, one that has problems. I think it will be confusing for people when an article called Frank Hardy (revised text) is actually about, not only Frank in the 38 revised texts, but Frank in the over 150 books that followed in the Original continuity until 2005. So, "(original text)" instead of "(pre-1959)" might work but I don't think "(revised text)" would work for character articles very well. WHLfan (talk to me!) 04:07, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

You're right of course - the "(revised text)" label is redundant. I hadn't thought that part through far enough. So, should it be Ezra Collig (Original) (original text) or just Ezra Collig (original text)? My preference is for the first because it's helpful (if clunky) to keep the series reference.
Paul Hassett 22:13, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.