Thread:Uskok/@comment-27295021-20180325125431/@comment-27295021-20180412014919

That's just you speculating, and speculations are not allowed in our articles.

It's not speculation, it's logic. That is - from where I'm standing at least. I fail to see how it is any more speculative for events connected to the character of Jim Hawkins's father to take place than it is for us to conclude that his Captain Hawkins is a man based on the fact that A) He looks like a man. B) He dress like a man. And C) He is a father, meaning he can't be a female in man's clothing/in disguise trying to get ahead in a man's world. Because then he'd be a she, and a mother, not a he/father.

I need you to explain this to me. How can you possibly conclude that it is speculative. How's your thought process? (Sorry, not to be difficult, I just simply can't follow your train of thought. (Or is it "thread" of thought?))

For someone who claims to have a copy of The Price of Freedom you show a surprising lack of knowledge about its characters. The book explains everything about Lord Penwallow, his job, his duties, and his titles.

In my defense, I haven't read it in - four or so, and just vaguely remembered a fleeting exchange between Beckett and Penwallow when the latter visits him and they discuss Beckett's excellent work for the EITC and Beckett reflect on his desire for a title one day. I must have remembered incorrectly, my apology.

Again, the stories from Treasure Island and Peter Pan have never been told in Pirates of the Caribbean.

...

James Hook was adapted by Ann C. Crispin for her novel. The rest of the Peter Pan characters were not.

Why on Earth would day have to be? Any individual, fictional or otherwise, is, the last time I checked, the sum of their life and experiences. And how can James Hook possibly exist displaying all of the traits indicative of the experiences we know him to have gone through in Peter Pan without him actually having gone through in Peter Pan? How do you explain that?

And then I repeat, one cannot exist without the other because a individual, fictional or otherwise, is Are there anything in canon contradicting the co-existence of those stories within POTC canon?

The problem here is that you still don't understand how this Wiki works. This is not the Storytelling Wiki. This is not the Ninclow's Theories and Speculations Wiki.

No, I actually have one for that, which is why I refrain from bringing either storytelling or speculation into this discussion.

This is the Pirates of the Caribbean Wiki. We cover only the Pirates of the Caribbean materials. That includes the film series, novels, comics, video games, etc. We do not cover non-POTC materials.

And I am not asking you to. I am merely questioning the logic behind how you can reasonably assume two characters from other stories to be part of POTC canon without those stories also existing within the extended universe in some shape or form. Why would they even put those characters in there, even "as a joke", if they weren't? It'd make no sense, because there'd be no events in their life leading up to their appearance in POTC canon, they're just "there". How does that make sense at all?

If Jack bids Will farewell on Port Royal and later encounters him on Tortuga because he was looking for him, it is reasonable to assume Will must have gotten from point A to B, and that there is a reason for him to taking the trouble of journeying that distance. Why would James and Captain Hawkins be any different?

What prevents the stories of Treasure Island and Peter Pan to exist in POTC canon? How do they conflict canon, in what manner are their existence at all impossible in the light that characters, not inspired from, but hailing from them, is not?

I repeat, being intended to be something and actually being something are two different things. James Norrington was intended to be an evil character who would join forces with Barbossa but he ended up being an honorable naval officer.

That's not even remotely the same thing. You're taking the words "supposed to be" out of a sentence and out of the context in which they were uttered. There is a difference between a clarification of a character's identity (Captain Hawkins) and a change in the script during the creative process.

There is no "great Disney plan" to combine two or three different universes into one.

It don't have to be a "great Disney plan", because by putting a character from one story into another, they're co-existing by default. Otherwise - how did the characters get there? This isn't Once Upon a Time, where fairy tale or otherwise fictional characters can travel "between realms" with magic beans or something like that. They didn't just magically appear from nowhere, from an in-universe perspective, they would have to come from somewhere.

Exactly! I knew you were a smart cookie.

The longer the waiting, the sweeter the reading. I'm sure you'll get your hands on the book sooner or later. In the meantime, you can read a few excerpts on Ann C. Crispin's website. It's not much but it's better than nothing.

Oh, okay then. ^^'

Also, I would like to clarify my position on the HarryPotterRules1 thing:

I have fallen on a patch of bad luck lately, and I have very poor self-esteem to boot. I feels good, fulfilling almost, to be able to leave the stresses of real life behind and simply talk about something about which I have a passionate interest, even if we don't agree. I asked HarryPotterRules1 on discord to give me feedback on our discussion in order to get an objective, third-party opinion on whether I was somehow lacking something in my arguments or otherwise missing something in yours since neither of us have been able to convince the other. Initially, I was mentally prepared for a response on discord for my own benefit and nothing more.

However, HarryPotterRules1 suddenly told me that he had joined the discussion, and this is where my poor self-esteem comes in. As mentioned above, I really enjoy this discussion, even if we don't agree, and I sort of freaked out, worried that you would hold it against me if HarryPotterRules1 somehow inadvertently came across as someone I had "marshaled to my own cause", as it were. I have joined discussions before, where fact have been determined by what the majority thinks, not necessarily what the piece of information implies, and I didn't want you to feel like I was doing something like that to you.

In short, I overreacted, and I'm not proud of it. HarryPotterRules1 is welcome to join if he wants to. I simply had my plate full of adversity and depression in real life right now and got worked up because I was outright frightened something similar would happen online - being the place to which I escape to catch a break from the above and all.

So - in short, I messed up, and I apologize. :-/