Talk:Children of the Stones

message: The plot description as given in the article does not give a clear indication of the way the plot progresses in the series, due to the author's analysis of the plot as part of the time circle. IMHO the article should begin with a linear description of the plot as seen in the series, and only then go on to analyse the events of the plot in terms of the time circle. Lee M (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it needs to be rewritten telling the events as happened on screen rather than going into the details of past events and presented as a single 'plot outline' section, rather than split up the way it is. It seems to be more an interpretation by someone rather than a straightforward plot description.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot description

message: Surely the black hole would eventually move out of alignment due to precession of the Earth? -unsigned anon user
:Maybe that was why the main villian had all the computers in the basement and had to brainwash everyone within a certian amount of time. -Husnock 16:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We know the position of the black hole in terms of where it is in the sky right now, but we do not know the distance of the black hole or its trajectory through space. We also do not know if the energy involved would be sufficient to "pull" the black hole back onto alignment. Also, this is assuming that the remote point is a naturally-occurring black hole and not something that can be externally steered into position. In short, the series is vague enough to allow many explanations possible without being so vague as to make the concept an embarrassing plot device with more holes than a sieve (as happens way too often with children's television, regrettably.) Jcday (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Hole

message: I remember seeing an episode of this when it first aired in the 70s as a little boy. It was terrifying. I watched it again on DVD recently and was surprised (and pleased!) that it was still terrifying. But I have to say the clarity of the backstory contained in this article is not in the series. I had no idea of what was going on in the last episode which seemed to make very little sense. A shame as otherwise the series is brilliant. True British horror in the tradition of The Stone Tape and Nigel Kneale. We don't seem to able to find that atmosphere in our horror any more. ThePeg30 June 2006
Presumably once the Brakes leave the stone circle they return to normality - which is why Matthew wonders whether the events actually happened. There may well be a distinction between "permanent inhabitants" and "passers through" - otherwise why have a permanent museum (and occasionally inhabitants might leave). A parallel universe scenario could also be invoked - Dai's change of vocation, and the practicalities of the change of ownership of the central big house.
::The novelization more-or-less confirms that the circle is a parallel universe (though still, unhelpfully, not using that term for it).  It is clear, though, that this is the concept Burnham and Ray are trying to get across.  Adam comes close to using the phrase in the finale episode when he says "we're in a 'now' that's parallel to our own."  He also notes failing to mention "the time turning."  Parallel universes in speculative fiction are sometimes described in terms of time, rather than space, as going "sideways in time" (rather than forward or backward) as one episode of The New Twlight Zone put it.  The idea of 'sideways in time' refers to alternate events diverging from one point, both existing in parallel time streams (and hence, parallel universes).  If you travel to the same moment in time, but into the other universe, you could be said to be time traveling not forward, nor backward, but sideways.  Strong support for this is indicated in the penultimate scene when Margaret notes that Sandra will be furious to know she missed Matt and Adam leaving and remarks that Matt is "best in the class."  This indicates that during the experiences of Matt and Adam as we see them, in the post-climax restored universe, there must have been duplicates of Matt and Adam having a very normal experince during their time in a very normal Milbury... a Milbury that has not yet had the power of the stone circle tapped by a malevolent neo-druidic magus.  For one thing, the Matt that we see in the series is clearly not the best in the class.  An interesting ontological quandary posed here is what happened to Normal Matt and Normal Adam who experienced their time in Normal Milbury?  They are clearly replaced by Our Matt and Our Adam, so are the consigned to oblivion?  Do they bump over to yet another strange parallel world?  A sequel had always been planned, but did not come to fruition.  Perhaps these questions would have been explored further. -- tuttlemsm
:::There are many different types of parallel universe. The popular one at the moment is the "many worlds" version, where at each point at which alternatives are possible, ALL alternatives happen - just in a different copy of the universe. (This might be testable scientifically, but that's not the discussion here.) Another alternative universe system is the one postulated in Timeslip, where the potential for an event to occur creates a projection of that potential universe into the here-and-now, or at least into a time bubble that is present in the here-and-now. A third, developed by Geoffrey Hoyle, the scientific advisor for Timeslip, and Sir Fred Hoyle was that what we call time is nothing more than a slide show where the slides already exist, and it would be possible to re-order those slides, overlap them, set up multiple projectors, etc. (This is covered in their novel "October 1st is Too Late"). Modern science also recognizes the idea that multiple independent universes may exist in parallel, though these would not strictly be what we'd call a "parallel universe". They'd be totally different and have no relationship with each other except insofar as one universe can spawn off another under very rare and specific types of supermassive star collapse. "Pocket" universes (universes inside of universes) have also been theorized. Finally, Relativity states that relative time varies as a function of velocity:  \Delta t' = \frac{\Delta t}{\sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over c^2}}} \,. The only detail that matters here is what happens when v is greater than c - you travel faster than light. The square root of a negative number is not a regular number at all, it is a number at right angles to the regular numbers. In terms of time, you are quite literally going "sideways" and not forwards or backwards. What happens then is anyone's guess.
:::This raises two questions. Firstly, is the Avebury complex intended as a true parallel universe (and, if so, which sort) or is it intended as a pocket universe? (A pocket universe has the benefit that we can explain why nobody can leave the circle -- that's as far as the pocket goes. The pocket is sewn on to the real universe, so you -see- what's outside, but travel in and out of the pocket would only be possible at specific times. Think of a pocket universe as a stomach ulcer - something inside the host, completely joined on, but nonetheless wholly independent.) Secondly, if a person who had been converted was (somehow) taken out of the circle, would they revert to a monolith or revert to how they were before entering?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcday (talk • contribs) 09:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So add them!  It's a wiki!
I have made slight enhancements to the plot structure, particularly as pertaining to the Time Circle and its slightly-different variations (e.g., Dai is a poacher in one iteration, then a blade-sharpener in the next, etc.).  In so doing I have attempted to remain factual, steering clear of original research;  if you disagree, please re-phrase rather than deleting/removing entirely.  Sskoog 17:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion

message: Not plot holes, errors, inconstancies, just really strange comments and behaviors. eg: Museum curator revives the Professor. Professor asks for scotch. She goes over and swigs a dram or so in one shot, then pours the Professor some. He offers he a glass. "No, I don't like it." (Sudden revelation on her part, a bit in shock herself, or is she a masochist?)
Dai: "This chicken." Matthew: "Mrs. Crabtree cooked it. What's wrong with it?" Dai: "How should I know? I'm no vet. It's certainly dead." This is one of his more intellectual exchanges.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcday (talk • contribs) 09:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Weirdisms

message: Where in the series is Hendrick's forename revealed?  Don't remember that at all.
Simon Coward (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the pub (episode one I think) Adam has heard of him - the famous astronomer.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Names 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Children of the Stones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070811181214/http://sausagenet.com:80/program.asp?mode=view&progid=134&progname=Children+of+The+Stones to http://www.sausagenet.com/program.asp?mode=view&progid=134&progname=Children+of+The+Stones
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should mention be made of 'Children of Stones - A History of the Worshipful Company of Paviors of the City of London' - /? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: There’s a sequel book, Return to the Stones, but I can find no evidence that an audiobook (voiced by Gareth Thomas or otherwise) was ever made of it as opposed to the one made of the original book. That claim is not cited *and* I believe it to be false, so am deleting. Would be delighted to be wrong and to find another audio by Mr Thomas! Claudia (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably because it's unmitigated rubbish. It is a truly terrible nothing of a story. 176.24.254.90 (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  sequel audiobook?