[003]
MrL1193
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The first two paragraphs of the description set the standard quite clearly, especially this part: \
to:
The first two paragraphs of the description set the standard quite clearly, especially this part: \\\"A character (main or bit) whose presence would be either plot-relevant or at least plausible in the episode, and is completely absent for the episode. They don\\\'t even get a non-speaking cameo \\\'\\\'\\\'even though they should be involved with the plot at hand, or at least present in the location\\\'\\\'\\\'.\\\" The absence has to be conspicuous.
The part you\\\'re pointing to is listed as a possible \\\'\\\'reason\\\'\\\' for the absence, and it would fall under the LawOfConservationOfDetail. It simply means that if you asked the writer why the character was absent, the writer might reply that \\\"there was just nothing for the character to do\\\"--that is, that their presence wouldn\\\'t have served any purpose in the episode as it was written. It does not negate the requirement that the character\\\'s absence be eyebrow-raising.
The part you\\\'re pointing to is listed as a possible \\\'\\\'reason\\\'\\\' for the absence, and it would fall under the LawOfConservationOfDetail. It simply means that if you asked the writer why the character was absent, the writer might reply that \\\"there was just nothing for the character to do\\\"--that is, that their presence wouldn\\\'t have served any purpose in the episode as it was written. It does not negate the requirement that the character\\\'s absence be eyebrow-raising.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The first two paragraphs of the description set the standard quite clearly, especially this line: \
to:
The first two paragraphs of the description set the standard quite clearly, especially this part: \\\"A character (main or bit) whose presence would be either plot-relevant or at least plausible in the episode, and is completely absent for the episode. They don\\\'t even get a non-speaking cameo \\\'\\\'\\\'even though they should be involved with the plot at hand, or at least present in the location\\\'\\\'\\\'.\\\" The absence has to be conspicuous.
The part you\\\'re pointing to is listed as a possible \\\'\\\'reason\\\'\\\' for the absence, and would fall under the LawOfConservationOfDetail. It simply means that if you asked the writer why the character was absent, the writer might reply that \\\"there was just nothing for the character to do\\\"--that is, that their presence wouldn\\\'t have served any purpose in the episode as it was written. It does not negate the requirement that the character\\\'s absence be eyebrow-raising.
The part you\\\'re pointing to is listed as a possible \\\'\\\'reason\\\'\\\' for the absence, and would fall under the LawOfConservationOfDetail. It simply means that if you asked the writer why the character was absent, the writer might reply that \\\"there was just nothing for the character to do\\\"--that is, that their presence wouldn\\\'t have served any purpose in the episode as it was written. It does not negate the requirement that the character\\\'s absence be eyebrow-raising.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The first two paragraphs of the description set the standard quite clearly, especially this line: \
to:
The first two paragraphs of the description set the standard quite clearly, especially this line: \\\"A character (main or bit) whose presence would be either plot-relevant or at least plausible in the episode, and is completely absent for the episode. They don\\\'t even get a non-speaking cameo \\\'\\\'\\\'even though they should be involved with the plot at hand, or at least present in the location\\\'\\\'\\\'.\\\" The absence has to be conspicuous.
The part you\\\'re pointing to is listed as a possible \\\'\\\'reason\\\'\\\' for the absence, and would fall under the LawOfConservationOfDetail. It simply means that if you asked the writer why the character was absent, the writer might reply that \\\"there was just nothing for the character to do\\\"--that is, that their presence wouldn\\\'t have served any purpose in the episode as it was written. It does not negate the requirement that the character\\\'s absence be eyebrow-raising.
The part you\\\'re pointing to is listed as a possible \\\'\\\'reason\\\'\\\' for the absence, and would fall under the LawOfConservationOfDetail. It simply means that if you asked the writer why the character was absent, the writer might reply that \\\"there was just nothing for the character to do\\\"--that is, that their presence wouldn\\\'t have served any purpose in the episode as it was written. It does not negate the requirement that the character\\\'s absence be eyebrow-raising.
