Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-188432-20130514042227/@comment-188432-20130525163349

No, we have to treat them as advertisements, and recognise that ads are often cut these days so as to include narrative elements. Seriously, where's the line between the Strax stuff and the in-character Donna ads of series 4? Where's the difference between SS, HS, and the in-character Martha/Ten stuff at the top of series 3? Where's the difference between these things and the Rose/Ten stuff at the top of series 2, or the Rose/Nine stuff at the top of series 1? Or the Four thing at the top of season 13? If we allow this, we're going to have to treat any number of clear adverts as "stories".

And I shudder to think what implication allowing these things in would have for in-character ads for things other than Doctor Who itself. I mean, where would this leave us with the totally in-character Prime Computer ads? Will we seriously be allowing a Prime Computer ad as the source for the exact length of the Doctor's scarf? Or will we allow the ad to tell us that Sol is a constellation? Or that Four and Romana II — as opposed to Tom Baker and Lalla Ward — got engaged?

Obviously, you can have advertisements with the look and feel of narrative. Indeed it's a major facet of advertising. Here's just the tip of the proof iceberg, if proof is really required for this:


 * Exeriencing Ad Meanings: Crucial Aspects of Narrative/Drama Processing
 * Surprise! Narrative Ads Work Better
 * Who Talks Advertising? Literary Theory and Narrative "Point of View"
 * Narrative ads: The effect of argument strength and story format

But just because you can have narrative advertisements, it doesn't mean that such advertisements would pass our rule #1. There are serious nightmares involved in confusing the terms in-universe and in-character.