User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-37.225.52.51-20130510140359/@comment-188432-20130510203458

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-37.225.52.51-20130510140359/@comment-188432-20130510203458 Tangerineduel wrote: Both versions, novel and audio I think are valid, but I wouldn't argue about overlaying the novelisations policy on all of the first series of Benny audios, not just the Doctor Who New Adventure derived ones. As Dragons' Wrath (audio story) especially suffers the adaption process being cut down from a full novel to a single story CD. Just to bring us back on point, I really have to question this statement, TD. How can a story like Birthright loose four of its five major characters and be considered "equally valid". How are we to write events from that story? "One account said that Roz and Chris did , while another held that Bernice Summerfield did?" I mean that just seems clunky and unwieldy. You'd have to do that with so much from that story that you'd almost need to create a template.

What's the benefit of keeping the audio version around? I just think from a simple editorial standpoint, audio adaptations of novelisations by definition have much less information than the novel. It's kind of opposite to the novelistation/serial relationship. There, the novelisation often tells you something the serial doesn't. So it's useful.

With these things, you're not going to find the name of a character in the audio version that's not present in the book. You're not going to get more motivation. You're not going to have a plot point explained better. You're only going to get less and/or confused information from the adaptation.

Our articles surrounding these stories are going to be as confusing to read as w:c:harrypotter. It's bad enough that the DWU is a continuity nightmare as between stories. We shouldn't be making it more confusing within the same stories.