User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-45314928-20200610043202/@comment-45692830-20200610183104

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-45314928-20200610043202/@comment-45692830-20200610183104 DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: other releases have been presented as discarded

I once again see no reason to give one care in the world what Emily Cook says. But I'll bite. I pulled up her tweets from that tweet along. Where does she say that the script extract was written during Lockdown and she produced it? We might be meant to think that given her general comments about Lockdown, but she obviously said produced, and there's no producer role to this. Clearly I'm not saying these things aren't fake. But this is an example of where we clearly have someone saying "oh, no, this is actually a discarded script", when it isn't.

DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: a discarded release saw the light of day

You misunderstand the Doctor Who and the Time War (short story) point. The point is twofold, both that stating something was discarded is not sufficient for dismissing it, and that Doctor Who and the Time War was itself presented as part of a book that doesn't exist. And while we've been told in the post that it doesn't exist as it was a discussion of the history of the piece, I don't see why we'd think that would be the case if it were to be published normally.

DiSoRiEnTeD1 wrote: Harness would be "incompetent" to pitch the story

Your argument that Harness would have had hopes on pitching this to Target is just utterly absurd. Nobody with passing familiarity with Target would have thought this proposal had a snowball's chance in hell. Indeed, they had been reprinting older novelizations since 2011, so it was clear that they were sticking to tradition.

As for the idea that Harness never pitched this to anyone, I certainly agree, since it never existed. The point is that there's nobody he would have pitched it to, so it makes no sense for him to have even begun to write.