Jurisfiction and TGC seem to have no problem with changing endings when it suits them (as evidenced by Shadow). Why then was Thursday put on trial for changing the ending of JE? Was it because the change was unauthorized? Seems a bit unfair...

Incidentally, that Wonderland trial was one of the funniest parts of the book. It's even better than it was in Alice.

Jane Eyre's new ending had not been sanctioned by Jurisfiction so I guess that's where the kerfuffle comes in. Maybe Jurisfiction don't like the fact that Thursday changed the book unintentionally andyet it turned out to be better than anything They could have come up with.

Jealousy!!!

Kaz: 'kerfuffle' An excellent word. I shall use it more often.

I agree the explanation is essentially jealousy

That, and petty bureaucracy...

The ending of 'Shadow' wasn't materially changed. All that Thursday did was fiddle with the backstory such that the bloop-hole was filled. No charge can be laid against her - that's what Jurisfiction do.



PSD

==========

This is the work of an Italian narco-anarchic collective. Don't bother insulting them, they can't read English anyway.

Actually, it was an Internal Plot Adjustment ordered by the Council of Genres to provide Shadow with a happy ending. Which brings us back to the issue of authorized vs. unauthorized plot changes.

I wonder if Jurisfiction has test audiences like the big film companies have. And that is why they sometimes choose to change the endings.

/Mattias
(Not even slightly related to Mathias, the horse)

If they do, they're probably generics from the Well.



--------------

There's a hole in my creativity bucket and it's all leaked out.

If they did employ generics for that then wouldn't there be a signifcant risk that lots of those generics might model themselves on major characters from the stories for which they were used as test audiences?

************************************************************

"God rot Botchkamos Istochnik!"

Good point... what about alerady developed ones, like Lola and Randolph?



--------------

There's a hole in my creativity bucket and it's all leaked out.

or maybe the Mrs Danvers?



_ _ _ _ _

If the English language made any sense, a catastrophe would be an apostrophe with fur.

I don't think that they would use whole audiences full of Mrs Danvers for that job, as they'd presumably want a wider range of viewpoints... Their using formed characters who are currently "at liberty", like Randolph and Lola, on the other hand, does indeed seem plausible to me...

************************************************************

Warning! Product may contain Newts!

yes that makes more sense... perhaps with the occasional Merlin too? :)



_ _ _ _ _

If the English language made any sense, a catastrophe would be an apostrophe with fur.

The magical puppy?

ok now you've lost me Kaz. Magical puppy?



_ _ _ _ _

If the English language made any sense, a catastrophe would be an apostrophe with fur.

Is this a reference to some Australian radio or television series?

************************************************************

Warning! Product may contain Newts!

the kids show and book called Merlin the Magical Puppy. He's a labrador pup with a magic collar. I thought it was a British show, but I may be wrong there.

Actually, if it's a fairly recent kids' show then I wouldn't have seen it (being in the happy situation of having neither kids nor a television...), and probably wouldn't have heard of it, even if it was a British one.

************************************************************

"God rot Botchkamos Istochnik!"