User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45314928-20200606025128/@comment-45692830-20200606033404

Let's address each of these supposed arguments in order.

This is the first page of a discarded novelization
Let's be very clear about what Harness said in his comment before we go any further. He did, in fact, say it was the first page of a discarded novelization.

Why do people think that this is a framing device?
Well, it relies on the fact that he noted it was a novelization. These are not given to unproduced scripts. Given this fact, we have two options. Either to assume Harness was using a framing device, as Davies was, or he was lying to us. So in fact to say "we have to go by what Harness himself claimed" is to call Harness a liar.

"Some [of you] seemed to appreciate the discarded Meddling Monk idea"
If you'll notice, unlike previous participants, Harness just kept talking to people past the end of the tweetalong. There's no reason to think that his framing device couldn't play into this if this is his personality.

Cook's statement
Let's be very clear. Cook did not say that Harness's short story wasn't part of lockdown. Anyone attempting to say differently is flat out misinterpreting the facts at best.

What was asked of Cook?
A fan asked Cook whether Harness's "unproduced story" was part of the event. Note that this is not the same thing as a short excerpt posted on his twitter, it refers to something else he specifically mentioned in his tweetalong. Not to the short story he posted on his twitter.

What did Cook actually say?
Cook said "that was just something he mentioned". Not "something he posted". Something he "mentioned". It's clear from her language that she's not referring to the short story but instead to the unproduced story in 2015. Since, you know, that's what the person asked her about.

Four little rules
Obviously this passes one and four. The issue is two and three. Your evidence against two amounts to not thinking it was part of Lockdown! because of a misinterpretation of what Cook said and your evidence against three is a misinterpretation of what Cook said and an assumption that Harness was lying rather than using a framing device. Quite obviously this fails to be persuasive.

Now, we could assume instead of Harness being a liar he was being sloppy, and meant novelization of an uncompleted script (a truly bizarre idea, but alright, I'm being charitable to your position), which would constitute a novel, but at best this just renders the evidence neutral rather than in your favor, since you're so badly misinterpreting what Cook actually said.