Talk:Children of the Stones

Plot description
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)


 * 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)

I don't know the show as I was too old for children's TV by then. It sounds a bit like The Owl Service (the motif of an ancient story replaying itself), except it's not based on a real local legend. There is a real element in the back-story, though, which also feeds the main story. In The Avebury Monuments by Faith de M Vatcher FSA and Lance Vatcher MBE (HMSO, 1976 -- the official government handbook), p.42, you find this:-- 'During the 1937-39 excavations in the north-west, south-west and north-east quadrants, Alexander Keiller found that a number of missing stones had been carefully felled and buried, and underneath one particular stone in the south-west quadrant were not only medieval pottery sherds but the crushed skeleton of a local barber-surgeon, complete with leather purse containing scissors, probe and money. Two of the coins were pennies of Edward I, issued at Canterbury between 1300 and 1307. The third was a sterling or penny from the city of Toul in France, minted in the early fourteenth century. The man had evidently been joining in the process of burying the stone, digging its pit, when it fell on top of him, pinning him against the side of the hole and probably breaking his neck.' The felling and burying of stones was the 'result of superstition', to break the stones' pagan power. -Hugo Barnacle 87.112.59.33 (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Black Hole
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)
 * 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)

Painting
Does anyone have any idea who actually painted the evil painting that is seen in the series. Apart from being a scary prop, it was in fact a very good piece of art. -Husnock 16:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I'm afraid I don't know the answer. --bodnotbod 17:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The picture is not necessarily "evil" - it just exists to prevent the link/the circle being completed. (Whether the picture will change the "people leaving" to reflect the number/gender of the people who will break the pattern next time is idle speculation.) Jackiespeel 18:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In the novelization, after Matt and Adam break the spell, they go to retrieve the painting only to find that the original painting has been replaced with an innocuous pastoral scene.


 * I wouldn't say evil, but there WERE elements that reminded me heavily of Cthulhu mythos novels, which may be what you're referring to. Rather, I see the painting as exceptionally good and a minor talisman against evil. It knocked out the housekeeper, Mrs. Crabtree, in the DVD, when she saw it. She was one of the "Happy People" at that point. It did not affect the lord of the land so much, but it did seem to perturb him. The painting was therefore not that powerful. The Latin phrase did not seem to affect anyone and its significance is never explained. I'm only guessing here, but the only ones who would need to deny what they know are the "Happy People", suggesting the painting may have had clues not only of escape but also of freeing minds that had been captured. Without explanation or illustration, though, this is pure idle fan speculation. Jcday (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Quod non est simulo dissimuloque quod est" is badly translated in the program. The quotation is from Ovid, and a closer meaning is "I feign what is not, and falsely conceal what is."  Possibly this is a reference to the two states of Milbury (in parallel worlds) in the program: the 'normal' Milbury we see at the end, concealing the sinister Milbury we see through most of the show.User:tuttlemsm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.248.50 (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Bristol-based artist Les Matthews painted it

Confusion
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)

More of the actual plot could be included - Matthew's psychic ability, Dai's abode (and the appearance of the symbol at his feet at the end), the "not-quite-relationship" between Adam and Margaret, the transformation of the people as Henderson "converts" them etc Jackiespeel 18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

Nice work people. Good memories also. I'll have to rewatch this one. HasleMere (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that it's a parallel universe but simply protected by the power of the ley lines to displace some people around it whilst others are drawn in. A pattern it repeats if defeated in some way previously (hence the arrival of Sir Joshua at the end). Things obviously get in and out (the food and drink, the telegram to the USA, electricity, etc), but the people are trapped there and protected from the outside world (such as the lorry in episode 1). If the people try to leave, the stones / ley power stops them but not in a pocket dimension sense. So the power draws people in and keeps them there unless the latest cycle is broken and it has to begin again. This also means there are no parallel Matthews and Adams in another world and the "best in class" reference was just about Sandra's fondness for Matthew. LeapUK (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Best in class would also be Matthew’s likely status if none of the students were Happy Ones. It’s one of the signs of the partial reset that has occurred. It needn’t mean that there was a parallel Matthew. It can just be that memories have altered. Claudia (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Source Citation
My correction of the DVD error comes from conversations with the composer Sidney Sager, who, before he died, was the topic of a paper I had written while at the University of Bristol. I also had access to the musical score (i.e., the score written on music paper) itself. tuttlemsm

Weirdisms
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)

Yes, she swigs it in one shot, but she's clearly in shock and thinks she needs it although she doesn't like it. She grimmaces at the taste. As for your second comment - what was your point?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes?
A plot error occurs at the start of the series, when Professor Brake arrives in Milbury to find that a moving company has delivered several boxes of scientific equipment. The moving company departed the village after dropping off the shipment, before Professor Brake arrived. At the end of the series, however, it is revealed that anyone entering the Circle of Stones was trapped within a "time bubble", from which they could not leave. The moving company, however, was able to depart the village without any problem. This is not a mistake - obviously people can get in and out - where else would their food come from etc - obviously not produced within the stone circle? Clearly, people can enter and leave the area. We even see a delivery van in episode 1.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am guessing that those trapped are those who represent a figure in the painting and (with the exception of the two who escape) also represent one of the stones. Anyone not a part of the cycle (tourists, tradesmen, etc) is presumably able to enter or leave at will. Those who ARE a part of the cycle appear to all be "invited" (Professor Blake and his son are "found" by the painting, the astronomer is "found" by the ancient manuscript, and so on). I would therefore suspect that it is impossible for anyone to become a part of the cycle without such an invite. Since Dai is implicitly the person from the Barber's Stone, and the butler is rejuvenated, some residents appear to be effectively immortal. Others, presumably, are not as there would be no need for the new families that moved in otherwise. Well, that depends on whether they are truly new families - the new landlord is clearly the old one on a new cycle, so that could also apply to the new families. In that case, the only question that remains is whether Professor Blake and his son are locked into the cycle as well, or if the escapees must be different each time. --Jcday (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Professor Brake and son are not locked into the circle - they are seen to leave it at the end. The others however I agree are there for eternity. The 'new' families were probably new at the time that the cycle first started. I'd also agree that they are rejuvinated each time it starts again - the Butler appears younger and Margaret has a different hairstyle (probably in an attempt to make her appear younger perhaps?) I think the people affected are those that take up residence in the village. Perhaps a diferent father and son each time - but then that begs the question, once the father and son are transformed (as was the intention for Adam and Matthew), does that then complete the village forever - and time moves on in a normal fashion for the villagers? But what happens then? It's clear by the arrival of Lytton at the end that the cycle will begin again. It's a bit much if you really think about it, and I don't suppose all this speculation has a place in the article anyway, but it's interesting. I just wish they'd made the sequal - that might have answered a lot of questions. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But, then again, the father and son never are transformed anyway, in any iteration of the cycle, so there is no "what happens then"; it's undefined. I think the suggestion is that the 'system' in place in the stone circle cannot and will never support more than 53 people in it.  The father and son always make 55, and there are 53 stones in the circle.  Adam sums it up succinctly: "We seem to have thrown a spanner into it."  The father and son are always destined to escape.  I do like your premise that it's a different father/son each time; I think it would be interesting to go further than that and have the only common element for each iteration of the cycle be the outcome of the painting, but with a completely different scenario leading up to it each time.  My hunch is that may be what they intended with the sequel.  Anybody know what Jeremy Burnham and/or Trevor Ray are up to these days?User:tuttlemsm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.248.50 (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The DVD itself in the extras points out the continuity error with Matthew's shirt changing within the course of an episode.


 * The DVD extras misidentify the repeated syllable whispered in Sidney Sager's score. The DVD says it's "happy day"; while a logical assumption, this is untrue.  The written score (in my possession) reveals the word to be "Hadave'" which according to Sager was a quasi-Icelandic nonsense syllable chosen to represent timelessness.  The Icelandic language is one of the oldest and least-resistant-to-change languages in human history.  These comments are based on my research and constitute original research, which is why I am making them here rather than on the main page.  User:tuttlemsm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.248.50 (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Families
Is there a significance in that all the families seem to be one parent - one child? Does it say anything about it in the novelisation?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but the implication is clear anyway. Hendrick is arranging marriages.  He intends Adam and Margaret to marry, and Matt and Sandra to marry when they're older.  The program in my view also very subtly implies a gay relationship between Hendrick and Link.  Link: "There is much to be said for a celibate life."  Hendrick: "And yet I have my children."  Hendrick: "The best of both worlds."  "Celibacy" I think is just a euphemism for the appearance of celibacy, i.e., bachelorhood.  The novelization also refers to Link as Hendrick's "manservant."  Unfortunately, too, the association between homosexuality and sinisterness was a stereotype still well in force when Children of the Stones was made.   The point being, Hendrick is arranging his "one big happy family" although he has no commitment to participating in a nuclear heterosexual marital relationship himself.  User:tuttlemsm


 * Yes, I can see that now, however I don't really think there was ever a gay subtext. Presumably Hendrick is hundreds of years old (perhaps thousands?) and probably has no interest in anything sexual. I would think that the "celibate" tag is genuine.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The best of both worlds line refers to the fact that he is celibate, but has "children" - no gay subtext there at all. And he was his manservant, that is his role, or valet. As for not being part of the family himself, he is described as being above it, he is the priest, the leader to be looked up to. There's no issue with there being a relationship between Hnedrick and Link, but I really don't think that's what the programme was presenting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.40.157 (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation
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)

sequel audiobook?
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)


 * 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)