Random Questions Thread

What "reads" better?

Or:

Or:

edited 17th Jan '13 7:14:43 AM by chihuahua0

Depends upon the context.

Let me conjure some context up then:

To be transparent, do you think the dropping of articles at the beginning of sentences can affect a sentence positively, or negatively? From experience, I find that occasionally dropping the article can "oversaturate" a sentence and give it a Purple Prose feel, especially if the method is used often.

edited 17th Jan '13 7:20:28 AM by chihuahua0

Dropping the article before 'murder of crows' comes across more as the narrator just being terse. In the first example, though, it reads better without the 'the'.

I assume that was just a mistake.

edited 17th Jan '13 11:24:48 AM by Noaqiyeum

Neither 'A few murder of crows' nor 'Murder of crows' make sense. In the former, you can't use 'few' with the singular noun 'murder' (it is a collective noun, but it is still syntactically singular). In the latter, you can't use a noun without an article unless it's plural or proper.

I'd expect [The reddening leaves swirled around in a vortex.] to mean that said leaves had already been mentioned before, or that at least we would expect there to be leaves. [Reddening leaves swirled around in a vortex.] to me mostly just sounds like you're introducing it as a new thing.

Would placing a character in a caravan/motorhome achieve the same effect/appeal as a Houseboat Hero except on land or would it just make the character look homeless?

edited 17th Jan '13 3:17:37 PM by peasant

The plural of "murder of crows" is "murders of crows".

That said, chi, if the correct plural is substituted in, I think either format works (and that includes both sets of sentences). It really depends on what tone you're going for as to what structure you want to use.

What's the word for a place you'd find telescopes and do things related to astronomy?

Observatory? Astronomy lab?

Observatory.

For some reason I wasn't sure if that was the right word or not. Okay.

So I've got a story idea that involves characters daring each other to do things at an amusement park. One woman is dared to ride a roller coaster while not wearing a bra.

As a man, I only have the vaguest idea of what it's like to have breasts, so I've got to ask: assuming this character has fairly large breasts, and the roller coaster is bumpy with lots of twists and turns, just how much discomfort is she likely to have?

Women with large chests are generally advised to wear sports bras when running or jogging on level ground because it will cause a lot of back pain as well as a sore chest. So, a general soreness in the back until the next day or so. Depending on the extremes of the coaster and the safety measures (a lap bar or belt will allow her to cross her arms for support and reduce the pain, a chest harness will not and she will suffer accordingly), she might have sharpish aches and redness too.

I think he means more at the time of actually going on the roller coaster, not later.

I think it would mostly be a painful bounce every time the roller coaster took a sharp turn or reached the bottom or top of a hill.

Probably not a lot actually. Yes, boob wise it would be annoying, but rollercoasters are designed to keep things safe. One time in Disney, I was in Hollywood Studios, on line for the Rock 'n Roller Coaster, and the guy was talking about how you could put a cellphone on the armrest, and if no one touched it, it would be there when it ended. Obviously it varies on how the ride is structured and stuff, but yeah.

Well, of course it would vary depending on the gentleness on the coaster.

What kind of psychological trauma I can expect for a dude who's just been blinded, and then is locked in a small room for about month, with no human contact. He had just been through a grueling torture session lasting several hours.

He's adequetly fed, and the food is decent, and he has a small bathroom, and is clothed. He's also very introverted, but he's at high risk for paranoia-type schizophrenia. He's also on suicide watch.

The room he's locked in consists of a 10'-by-10' room and smaller bathroom with a toilet, sink and shower. The bed has covers and a pillow that cannot be removed no matter how much you try (It's welded on. Don't ask why.). There is a small "table" in a corner where the trays of food are placed. The floor is carpet.

Also, is there any reason why anyone would want to lock someone up for that long, especially if they want to exploit that person, not kill them?

Anyone know of any folkloric basis for hobbits?

Lera: Then it's not much of a rollercoaster now is it?

Also, even without bra, if it goes upside down, there will be minimal embarassment, due to how the seats strap you in. see here.◊

Hobbits were, as far as I know, a distinctly Tolkeinian invention of no direct folkloric origin. They owe more to docile rural Englishmen than anything. There might be a bit of traditional hobgoblin or brownie in them, but the differences are many. To name but two, hobbits are a relatively mundane humanoid species, not fae, and they build their own civilizations instead of living around human-built towns.

edited 19th Jan '13 7:59:09 AM by KillerClowns

People have been abducted and kept in reasonable physical health for years. The reasons are various. You can really pick any reason you want as long as you establish a lack of sanity on the captors' part.

I've been playing around with the idea of writing a trigun/firefly style comic for a while, and if I did I wanted one of the characters to be based on Zorro. The catch is, I don't know if he could be called Zorro by name or not, due to much confusion in regards to the copyright.

Would calling him "the fox", mentioning his inspiration and giving him the classic black outfit put me in danger of a lawsuit?

The name Zorro isn't copyrighted, but it is a registered trademark, so using it is probably a no-no in any commercially published work.

But if you're just going for a look and ethos inspired by Zorro ... well, if Batman hasn't gotten in trouble for it, I doubt you will.

edited 19th Jan '13 1:09:26 PM by RavenWilder

During my writing of a Cast Herd of "ninja-esque private-military-contractor scientificially-reanimated full-body-conversion bio-augmented cyborgs"^note As in, each one's entire body is completely artificial, be it in a "replaced/augmented flesh with mechanical/electronic/inorganic/nonbiological technology" or "replaced natural flesh with vat-grown genemodded synth-flesh with superhuman properties.". who form a six-member version of The Team with their own combat roles and associated weaponry (i.e. The Big Guy has a WH40K-style Power Fist), I came upon an essential problem: What defines the "ninja" in such "cyborg ninjas"? Do they all have to be superfast and superstrong cyborg who can run up walls and fights with one or more Stock Ninja Weaponry, a la Metal Gear "Cyborg Ninja"? Or can the "ninja-ness" be done with something other than weapons?

Ninja is about not being conspicuous and blending into the people and environment. Also "hit and hide away again".