Entertainment desk
< July 8	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 9

Length of time for correspondence

A couple/few weeks ago, I wrote to Today (U.S. TV program), CBS This Morning and Good Morning America. How long does it take for them to get back to me?2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly never. I'm sure they get lots and lots of letters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing what you wrote to them about would help. Some situations require a response within certain guidelines - others do not, and might never actually get a response. Wymspen (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The days when all correspondence was (1) answered, and (b) promptly, are, sadly, (4) long gone. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case in Australia, but Britons are more conscientious. We have the Citizens' Charter and Codes of Practice which ensure that letters are acknowledged within a set timescale, and if the matter cannot be resolved immediately then a timescale for action is given. There are regular reports setting out, for each head of the code, what the timescale is and the percentage of matters resolved within the relevant time. Even the train companies give a percentage breakdown of the number of trains running to time. 86.176.127.7 (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the BBC is required to respond to even the most bizarre correspondence they might get? What a waste of postage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No - the requirements to respond generally relate to complaints and similar issues, not to every single letter or email. Wymspen (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote to the above American TV shows about donating items to their studios.2604:2000:7113:9D00:CDEE:E2C8:B362:33BB (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Characters who are never seen, but are not "unseen characters"

Up above I wrote "Non-existent non-characters that do not appear in a movie or TV show have no feelings". That got me thinking. In some shows, someone who never appears is talked about in various episodes. We know their name, their relationship to the real character, and sundry other things about them. The wives and family of the MASH characters are good examples. Over time, we got to build up mental pictures of what sort of people they are.

Are these called "unseen characters"? I suspect not, because that applies to people whose very existence is a major structural part of the plot, such as in Rebecca (novel). An unseen character is one who, though not seen, "influences the action of the play". The people I'm talking about could easily be written out of the script without damage to the plot (it could be just "the folks back home" rather than "my wife Peg and my two sons Chip and Spud"). But they're in the script (in a minor way) and hence we are aware of them.

How would they be classified? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would call them unseen characters. It's just F. C. Green's stipulation that they play a significant role. Columbo's wife is listed, even though she doesn't help his investigations, as I recall (were there any exceptions?). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're called "silent characters" in The Archers, but, as far as I can tell, that usage is unique to that show. Tevildo (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As The Archers is a radio programme, "unseen" would describe all its characters... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they all had great faces for radio, which is why they were selected. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]