@Randal'Thor Setting questions has an entirely different meaning in PSE, so I was confused for a minute :-)

Fun fact: both specific day counts that I've shared in here were later discovered to be wrong

cracks knuckles time to jump back in

> There is some timeline math that I’ll explain here since it’s complicated. Hazel arrives at the ditch on Day 23 + a + b, night. He “stayed three days” there, so Days 24, 25, and 26 (all + a + b, of course). During the “one evening” when Hazel and Holly discuss the need for Efrafran does, Hazel remarks that he’ll leave “tonight”, placing that conversation on Day 26 + a + b. Holly telling Hazel of Efrafa is “on the previous day” from the “one evening” conversation, which means Day 25 + a + b.

@Randal'Thor is that ^ what you imagined?

I'm not even sure if this footnote will make it into the final answer, but it's part of my exhaustive book-keeping and trying to place at least one important event for every day

@bobble Perhaps I missed this earlier, but do we know for a fact that the timeline is internally specific? Could it be generally nonspecific? I no longer have a copy of💧🚢⬇️🐇.

It's pretty self-confirming - once I had all my days lined up, it rained at the same time for two different groups of rabbits, and when one gets news of the other it matches. Etc.

[tag:💧🚢⬇️🐇] should be a synonym for Watership Down, I think

Too bad SE doesn't allow emojis in tags. Boooooo

Page 322. Day 31 + a + b, Bigwig is on his first silflay in Efrafa

@verbose During my re-read I picked up a strong impression that the timeline is carefully designed to be consistent - there are lots of mentions of specific times of day, and something happening exactly the day after something else, and even (as bobble mentioned) consistency of the same things happening at the same time for two different groups of rabbits when they separate. Stuff like that makes me crave to have a clear detailed list of the timeline, hence my question.

@Randal'Thor ah

@bobble You must have a different edition from me. I'm on page two hundred and something and Bigwig's on his last day in Efrafa.

@bobble Awesome! This is even more complicated than the slightly tricky deductions I needed to do recently when identifying characters :-)

> the number of different characters, often referred to by different names (e.g. who's to know that "Eileen" and "Dr Harmon" both refer to the same person until you see "Eileen Harmon" mentioned in the text later?)

@b_jonas "Everyone’s got nine different names / So look it up in your program / We’d appreciate it, thanks a lot"

@GarethRees What is that a quote from?

@b_jonas The answers you got there aren't very good.

@b_jonas It's from Natasha, Pierre & The Great Comet of 1812, a musical adaptation of (part of) Tolstoy's War and Peace. "Gonna have to study up a little bit / If you wanna keep with the plot / 'Cause it's a complicated Russian novel"

@verbose I have an input method for Chinese characters but I'm not looking forward to installing one for emoji, regardless whether it relies on bopomofo or cangjie.

@Randal'Thor my edition is paperback with an introduction from the author preceding the text - checking the various copyrights, it was released in 2005

The terminology tag has almost enough questions to enable tag badges.

I went looking to see if there were any old questions to add terminology to, so far found this closed one

(and I'm not sure there)

a-hah, found a better one!

now there are 100 questions with terminology

Doesn't look like anyhow has enough score though

this question that I just added terminology to is ripe for answering, seeing as there is already an answer in a comment

Now terminoloy joins inspiration in the list of tags that I will be slowly adding to old questions which lack the correct tag

@Bookworm It turns out that "Myopia" does have a meaning in literary studies, after all. But not in the way the OP expected.

@bobble I'm not sure I would add terminology to that question.

@Mithical Baguette and French vampires: that must be love at first bite. (Old joke, probably.)

@Tsundoku I wasn't sure either, so I didn't

Thoughts on the rollbacks here? I tried to make the title nicer and break up the separate questions, and now they've removed the questions entirely. I don't want a rollback war and am not sure what to do.

@bobble Flag it and leave any further action up to the moderators

@bobble I've handled it as best I could, and tried to explain to the OP as kindly as possible that this is how the site works without bashing them over the head with rules. Let's hope there won't be any more rollbacks forcing a post lock.

You are a good mod! Hopefully they listen to you.

They deleted the question :-( That's what I was afraid of.

Should we undelete it?

I am not a neutral observer here, but I don't think it has much value - it's a copy-paste of uninteresting "list things I think are literary devices" homework

We could undelete it, but I would wait a bit to avoid a deletion-undeletion war.

I thought it combined several questions, but the OP did not want to split it up.

nineteen-eighty-four still has three unanswered questions even though everyone has probably read the book.

I see 4, one with a single non-upvoted answer

Right. I counted three without any answers. I believe at some point that was one of the tags with the highest number of questions.

ah. I counted the 4th question because SE counts it as "Unanswered" for the purpose of statistics

Oh, and we have 30 users with 3000+ reps again. We dropped to 29 when Riker deleted their account in September last year.

I read The Lord of the Flies in 9th grade English and 1984 after 10th grade English was over (to celebrate being able to read books without analyzing them). It never occurred to me to ask questions about them.

@Tsundoku Yes, congratulations to Mary.

@bobble I also read those in school. But I reread 1984 after the 2016 presidential elections. (You know in which country.)

I read 1984 for English Literature GCSE, although I definitely would've read it sooner or later anyway.

Lord of the Flies is still on my rereading list.