This discussion has been closed.
Posted by taddydogman (U13374770) on Friday, 6th January 2012
Tayler, I'm sure this must have been commented on by others already but I am surprised to see that the Archers Family Tree (on pp 8-9) contains a number of basic errors and omissions for which there can surely be no excuse.
According to the tree both Phil and Nigel are still alive, Alice is still single and Henry the miracle babe has not yet been born.
These are fundamental errors which would certainly confuse new listeners to the programme.
Another omission in the tree is any direct link between Phil and Jill and their three eldest children ie Shula, Kenton and David.
Did nobody think to check the chart before the book went to press?
Bump
The Archers is not exactly a precise science.
You need to use your imagination.
The trendy word is "faith" I understand.
, in reply to message 1.
Posted by Tayler Cresswell - Host (U14232848) on Wednesday, 11th January 2012
Tayler, I'm sure this must have been commented on by others already but I am surprised to see that the Archers Family Tree (on pp 8-9) contains a number of basic errors and omissions for which there can surely be no excuse.
According to the tree both Phil and Nigel are still alive, Alice is still single and Henry the miracle babe has not yet been born.
These are fundamental errors which would certainly confuse new listeners to the programme.
Another omission in the tree is any direct link between Phil and Jill and their three eldest children ie Shula, Kenton and David.
Did nobody think to check the chart before the book went to press?Â
Hi taddydogman
I'll pass on your comments to the team.
Thanks
Tayler
, in reply to message 4.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Wednesday, 11th January 2012
ATM the family trees are blank!
Hopefully for updating!
Thank you Tayler.
, in reply to message 5.
Posted by Tayler Cresswell - Host (U14232848) on Thursday, 12th January 2012
Hi OI
There's been some technical problem with the online family tree. Hopefully it'll be back with us soon,
Tayler
, in reply to message 1.
Posted by Tayler Cresswell - Host (U14232848) on Friday, 13th January 2012
Hi again taddydogman
The omissions re Henry and Nigel are deliberate as the book was published in the Autumn so people could buy it for Christmas. Including those events would have blown the story.
I've passed on the other points re Phil, Alice and the link for Phil and Jill's children on the family tree.
Tayler
The omissions re Henry and Nigel are deliberate as the book was published in the Autumn so people could buy it for Christmas. Including those events would have blown the story. Wouldn't that be the 2011 edition?
, in reply to message 9.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Friday, 13th January 2012
Wouldn't that be the 2011 edition?Â
Or indeed the 2010 edition, if honestly dated.
Silly to produce a book dated 2011 if you already know a major character is for the chop on the second day.
, in reply to message 10.
Posted by Tayler Cresswell - Host (U14232848) on Friday, 13th January 2012
It's the 2012 edition - on sale Autumn 2011 in time for Christmas.
Tayler
on sale Autumn 2011 in time for Christmas. When Nigel hasd been DEAD for 9 months, and Baby Cheesus ALIVE for 9 months!!!!!!
Ms Tayler, I hate to break bad news to you, but if what you said in your is what you have been given to say, you have been given something silly.
The omissions re Henry and Nigel are deliberate as the book was published in the Autumn so people could buy it for Christmas. Including those events would have blown the story.Â
makes no sense for the edition you say we are talking about, the 2012 one mentioned in the header for this thread.
If the book was sent to the printers in autumn 2011 for the Christmas 2011 market, there is absolutely no reason for it not to have included things that happened during 2010 and in January 2011.
, in reply to message 13.
Posted by Tayler Cresswell - Host (U14232848) on Friday, 13th January 2012
Hi Chris - yes - you're right there. I'm pretty sure it came out autumn 2011.
Anyway, I've let Keri know!
Tayler
Well, that is kind, Ms Tayler, but it is too late to get it reprinted and redistributed now, and it wasn't his book anyhow, it was Graham Harvery's.
Perhaps you could let whoever is going to do *next* year's know that s/he ought to alter the family tree and not just put "stet" beside this year's and the year before's and the year's before that and the one preceding that one. (ie it has been the same for 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012)
Putting in birthdays for people like Nic, Jake and Mia would be good as well, though I do understand that unlike everyone else in Ambridge neither of those two poor children has been allowed to have a birthday party and so their birthdays remain unknown...
, in reply to message 13.
Posted by Dinah Shore (U14984316) on Saturday, 14th January 2012
As I pointed out in Message 9.
, in reply to message 16.
Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 14th January 2012
Yes; I don't think from her replies that Ms Tayler can have taken in the point of your message 9, so I said it again in different words, as you had in your message 12 as well.
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.