Sort of technical writing question
I am currently working on my piece for QuoteME: Challenge 5 on section7muf.
Carla Drosten, the head of Section VI (Security and Personnel), who was utilized in the MFU series episode THE WAVERLY RING AFFAIR, is featured in the story. I am putting in a footnote in my story stating the character was introduced in that episode of the series.
Some background for my particular question:
In my story Carla is responsible for my antagonist in the tale being assigned to Napoleon as a temporary assistant. I don't want to spoil the story by giving away too much, but the gist is that under normal conditions this particular employee would not have been assigned to such a position. Now Carla does have a perfectly reasonable personal justification for doing what she does (nothing to do with any possible Thrush connection). However, in THE WAVERLY RING AFFAIR it is ultimately revealed that Carla is connected with Thrush.
My story though takes place in 1963, a few years before the timeline of THE WAVERLY RING AFFAIR. And it did appear in that episode that Carla was vey much a trusted employee of U.N.C.L.E. and had been for some years. So whether her connection with Thrush was of long standing or not is up-in-the-air.
So my actual question:
Do I need to footnote that Carla in THE WAVERLY RING AFFAIR was revealed to have a connection with Thrush? Or leave it completely up to the reader to recall that she did and decide whether 1) what she does in my story has that ulterior motive? or 2) what she does has no motivation other than that she actually states to Illya in the story?
My gut reaction is not to do that footnote, but I did want to get a few opinions.
Carla Drosten, the head of Section VI (Security and Personnel), who was utilized in the MFU series episode THE WAVERLY RING AFFAIR, is featured in the story. I am putting in a footnote in my story stating the character was introduced in that episode of the series.
Some background for my particular question:
In my story Carla is responsible for my antagonist in the tale being assigned to Napoleon as a temporary assistant. I don't want to spoil the story by giving away too much, but the gist is that under normal conditions this particular employee would not have been assigned to such a position. Now Carla does have a perfectly reasonable personal justification for doing what she does (nothing to do with any possible Thrush connection). However, in THE WAVERLY RING AFFAIR it is ultimately revealed that Carla is connected with Thrush.
My story though takes place in 1963, a few years before the timeline of THE WAVERLY RING AFFAIR. And it did appear in that episode that Carla was vey much a trusted employee of U.N.C.L.E. and had been for some years. So whether her connection with Thrush was of long standing or not is up-in-the-air.
So my actual question:
Do I need to footnote that Carla in THE WAVERLY RING AFFAIR was revealed to have a connection with Thrush? Or leave it completely up to the reader to recall that she did and decide whether 1) what she does in my story has that ulterior motive? or 2) what she does has no motivation other than that she actually states to Illya in the story?
My gut reaction is not to do that footnote, but I did want to get a few opinions.