Timeline for Where Are (Narrative) Aspect Permissions Comprehensively Covered?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 23, 2019 at 21:00 | answer | added | svachalek | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 18, 2019 at 17:45 | answer | added | HufflepuffBR | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 30, 2019 at 7:07 | vote | accept | vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica | ||
| Mar 28, 2019 at 17:43 | history | edited | vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
+ clarification on what is meant by narrative permissions and what isn't
|
| Mar 28, 2019 at 14:46 | answer | added | Glazius | timeline score: 8 | |
| Mar 28, 2019 at 13:44 | comment | added | vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica | @Jadasc They're certainly useful answers. If they're the 'rootmost' texts available, they're the best possible answer. But if there's a 'rootier' basis than those, that'd be even better. (Possible example: explicit assumptions from prior editions that have been carried over 'unwritten' by fans despite not being found in the new edition's text.) | |
| Mar 28, 2019 at 13:40 | comment | added | Jadasc | @vicky_molokh Are paratexts like blog posts or tweets from creators acceptable sources? | |
| Mar 28, 2019 at 11:55 | comment | added | vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica | Related, but that question seems more focused on how people do things in practice, while I'm trying to focus more on the more detailed textual basis for those conclusions. If my question doesn't make that clear enough (particularly the middle paragraph), I'm open to suggestions of how to clarify that. | |
| Mar 28, 2019 at 11:31 | comment | added | Szega | Related, not sure if duplicate... | |
| Mar 28, 2019 at 11:26 | history | asked | vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |