Talk:Professor Challenger

message: Wikipedia style is to present fictional characters as fictional, rather than treating them as though they're real.  The whole middle section of this article needs to be reworked--by someone with more knowledge of Doyle's work than I have. Nareek 03:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fiction

message: The article says that professor Challenger died in January 1938.  Which story does this come from?  Arthur Conan Doyle died in 1930, so I don't see how it could be from anything he wrote.  Is it from a film or something like that?  Or is it just fan-speculation?  Also the article for When the World Screamed says Challenger is killed by the World Echidna in that story.  I've not read the novel, so I don't know if that's true.  Does anyone know?  80.43.3.214 17:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Late to the party again. In case this is still being wondered, "When the World Screamed" was published in 1938 (and it is a short story, not a novel). A short course of research found nothing reliable about why it was published posthumously. Challenger does not die in this story, and the associated WP article does not claim otherwise, either by an echidna (which does not appear in the story either) or by the echinus (which does). I don't recall Doyle ever being interested in the deaths of his main serial characters, so a citation would be required if someone were to reintroduce the suspicious date of Challenger's demise. Canonblack (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death in 1938? 

message: On a similar note, where do you get the date that The Lost World takes place in 1912?  The book has a reference to "Tuesday, August 18th", which would suggest 1908, not 1912.  Was this date over-ridden by a correction in one of Arthur COnan Doyles later books?  Or is it just fan-speculation again.  If I wanted unreliable articles full of wild speculation instead of solid canonical references, I'd go to the Wold Newton site!  People expect slightly higher standards from Wikipedia!  80.43.3.214 17:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need not erect apologetic arguments for Doyle's characters but rather recall that Doyle was notorious for failure to maintain continuity in his serial fiction. The most famous example, of course, is that in A Study in Scarlet Watson has been demobbed after receiving a bullet wound in the leg in Afghanistan, but in a story in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes the wound is in his shoulder. The gist is that Watson received a medical discharge for a wound that caused him continued discomfort, and the exact location of the unease was not important to Doyle. Likewise, Doyle did not refer to his earlier work but charged on ahead because the exact date of a fictional event was less important to him than its chronology relative to an earlier fictional event. Canonblack (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Continuity errors are frequently the results of the faulty memories of the original writers. Doyle devoted several decades in writing or revising his stories, and some details  had apparently been forgotten. Dimadick (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lost World in 1912? 

message: I have just read 'Land of Mist' and there are many discrepancies between it and the other Challenger stories.
In an early chapter, GEC mentions that is name and those of the other characters have been used in some fantastical literature. I believe that what Conan Doyle is saying here is that these are not the actual characters from the 'Lost World' but people that have been used as templates for them.
This separation is necessary because 'Land of Mist' is a serious effort to advance Spiritualism. It is clearly a problem to get the reader to treat Spiritualism as real using a character who hunts dinosaurs.
Which of course raises the question of why Challenger is used at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.249 (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Challenger in 'Land of Mist?' 

message: This Page, which list a copyright of 1993, contains paragraphs, that  appear word for word in this article. This should be changed immediately. 70.21.231.66 04:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyrighted Text?

message: It's been a while since I've read The Lost World and I don't have a copy available.I have a vague memory that when Challenger is first mentioned, his "titles" or "awards" or "honours" (whatever is the correct shorthand for this) are mentioned -- "George Edward Challenger, PhD, FRS, KSO, MSG, H2SO4", etc, etc (just making these up, obviously). I think that if these are actually in his description they'd be worth adding to the article. Could somebody with a copy of the book handy please take a quick look for this? Thanks. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenger's "titles": Can we add? 

message: There is at least one dinosaur that I know of named for Challenger, Irritator, and maybe more. Does one suppose that this merits mention in the article?--67.186.35.160 (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that it's article lacks a source for that statement. With one, absolutely, but I'm putting up a cite request there. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Response was quick on that article, and I'm now going to add it to this one. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References by palaeontologists 

message: Forgive me if this is blindingly obvious, Doyle buffs, but I'm guessing that Challenger's name might have been inspired by the Challenger expedition (there is nothing about his name in our article). Anyone care to confirm/debunk this with a ref? Ericoides (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: His name?

message: The "Echinus" link goes to an article on sea urchins, the underwater animals.  I hardly think that's right.  Describe the theory inside the article; it probably wouldn't meet notability standards given that the Challenger article itself is so short.
4.249.96.37 (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad link 

message: The introduction to the article contrasted Challenger with "laid-back" Sherlock Holmes. Holmes is in fact one of the LEAST "laid-back" characters in all literature!  He's an obsessive, hyperactive overachiever.  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 07:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sherlock Holmes is NOT "laid-back"!!