User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45692830-20200803153341/@comment-45692830-20200804054530

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45692830-20200803153341/@comment-45692830-20200804054530 I clearly agree that the book isn't analogous to The Gallifrey Chronicles or AHistory. It would be closer to TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manual, were that to be ruled invalid. An in universe reference text, something we would call "non narrative", rather than "non fiction".

The discussion of "The Creation of History" is about two things, one - specifically talking about the mechanics that go into such a thing, and couching everything into broad terms, rather than discussing the specific history of the DWU. For instance, a scientist who changed the gravitational constant leaving WWI static because he wanted to see what changed when he varied the gravitational constant but nothing else.

Two, a brief, very brief, discussion of the Anchoring of the thread. I note here that this is in the section on biodata just to enforce how non narrative this is. Here is what we learn about the Anchoring from this section:


 * They used biodata technology to effect this change, because this is "inevitable".


 * It seems to be straightforward but with immense consequences.


 * It appears they only designed its simplest principles.


 * Based on this we can infer that the Houses lack the skill to manipulate biodata on a universal level or would have been more thorough.

So three of the four are inferences at best, the fourth is still something stated about the event by someone who has no frame of reference except pure deduction. At least two of these, arguably all, tell us nothing about the actions that went into the anchoring itself from a narrative point of view, but instead the mechanics behind the event. Which is the charge I'm leveling at the entire book.

As for the Yssgaroth issue, reference is actually made to history here, in that they specifically say "This brings us, finally, to a lesson from ancient history" - namely, just that this war happened, standard stuff seen elsewhere - before bringing them up and then speculating on their origin. The speculation was non narrative though, couched solely in mechanics.

As for Miles commenting, it was originally written as an "in universe guide" for other FP writers. Pretty much everyone agrees on this (Nate's blog says that it was inspired by Warlords of Utopia), but I'm having a hard time finding an original source. Mad Norwegian Press calls it "an original essay by Miles on the mechanics of the Faction Paradox universe". Not a short story, and makes it very clear that it's about the mechanics of the universe, which is what my contention is.