Random Questions Thread

Do they need to keep the humans alive? Because it could be quite easy to kill most of the population with specially engineered viruses, laser satellites or killer drones.
Otherwise, a series of EM pulses across the globe would ensure that all Earth communications and most of their transportations would be knocked down, leaving most of its forces completely disorganised and easy to subjugate.

As for the second question - Earth forces having their weapons supplied by deities - it depends on how powerful these deities are and what kind of weapons they give. If they simply resupply Earth forces with the same weapons they have, the aliens would simply have to start their invasion over. If they hand out more powerful, mystical weapons, then it's up to how you want the story to progress. A human being granted Excalibur or Mjölnir (to cite only two mythical weapons on the top of my head) may be able to slaughter large armies of aliens by him or herself.

how would you describe someone summoning a sword via fire?

It depends on what you'd like to draw attention to, and what you wouldn't like to draw attention to, and how the act itself happens, of course.

"Forge Anew"

If a car crashed into a man-made arroyo, would there be some possible means of ensuring it wont flash-flood, while the police investigate?

I meant a example for reference. But that's helpful too.

Is it a good idea to write your story out of order?

I'm not saying the plot being offered in Anachronic Order, I'm talking about writing certain parts of the plot first, and then going back to write in the rest (and make changes as fit for the previously written parts). I ask because often times, I get the urge to write, but only very specific parts of my story come fresh to my mind - I've never written because I can never come up with what happens before the parts I've already got down and can't get my head around the right way. So, I figured "Well, I'll just write what I already have in my head, then add in the tangential ideas that happen before/after/in between these parts, and then make everything fit just how I want it!"

Would that be a good idea to do? Or would it make much more sense to write a story in the right direction and leave the fresh ideas to be written later?

Personally I tend to write very piecemeal. I tend to find it helps with creative thinking and world building. The couple of times I did try a serial format I hated it since it felt like I had to make the story "digest-able" and ironically it felt more fragmented than the piecemeal approach.

With creation there is no "right" or "wrong" way to do it. It is good to experiment with a few formats to find what you like though.

It's really a matter of personal preference. I used to jump to parts I was inspired to write when I hit writer's block, but I stopped it because I noticed that I ended up with Swiss cheese stories, with nothing to look forward to but parts I was still not inspired to write. On the other hand, writing serially means my writing can slow down to a crawl when I'm in a part for which I'm definitely not inspired for. So both methods have their advantages and drawbacks.
The only complication I can see about writing a story out of order is keeping it coherent, so make sure to read it linearly once it's completed to make sure there is no plot hole or style change. Then again, this counts for stories written linearly as well.

edited 9th Jan '17 12:18:30 AM by C105

This is exactly what I started doing about 6 months ago, and it made me infinitely more productive. I stopped going "I just want to get out of this scene and get to the good part!" and now writing feels less like work and more like "letting things fall on the page."

Write out the scenes you're excited about, then the connective tissue to bring them all together.

Anecdotally, at least some big-name authors write that way, too.

Would the concept of family change? If so, what would actually be like in your vision?

I remember one interview where J. K. Rowling revealed that she had written the last chapter of Deathly Hallows first, just so she knew where the Harry Potter books would end up. (She didn't reveal anything from it, of course, because this interview was sometime between Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince.)

I write more or less chronologically, but I do occasionally write a scene from the end of the book first to sort of give an end goal. But otherwise I prefer chronological because it makes it easier for me to brain

It seems like some sort of game. Write the most outrageous climax first, then write the rest of the book in a way that could actually lead to that happening!

There's a bit of that. The most satisfying climaxes come as a result of a number of plot, thematic, and character elements all developing together, which means they must all be developed and put in place, first.

A specialized example would be one of Conan Doyle or Christie's murder mysteries. Before the detective puts together the story and reconstructs exactly what happened (and then possibly rereads the story, this time with clarity), all the clues and all the suspects must be laid out to the audience first, and done so in a natural progression. In that way, the entire story builds up to that moment of revelation, when all of the story elements show themselves to be part of a coherent whole.

Just be lrepared to go back and rewrite scenes. The hazard of writing the early scenes later is that you end up with a really good first half of a story... but it no longer leads to a scene that you've written.

I'm in the middle of writing a heist story. I planned out the heist itself first, just to be sure I could get the most out of every character and their roles (a few characters got axed because I didn't think they had enough presence) and properly set up the Disaster Dominoes the crew encounters along the way.

I've started to be pretty aggressive with the linking parts of my story, because as it turns out most of them aren't needed. When I postpone a boring-but-necessary scene and write the scene I actually want to write, I end up with a) a scene that's more fun than if I'd also written the linker and b) the realisation I don't need the linker at all. If I do write the linker, nine times out of ten I'll end up deleting it anyway.

Is there an antonym for "hungover"? I know "sober" is an antonym for "drunk", but it doesn't have quite the same connotations for describing someone who doesn't have a hangover. And I'd prefer it to be an adjective; I've got an exchange where someone describes their Hideous Hangover Cure that I'd like to keep.

I was considering a second setting for my stories (meaning, more world building). It'd be a magitech setting where the Gods gifted people with magic, which is part of their daily lives - mana is everywhere, is stored in most living beings' souls so they can use it however they like. What's confusing me is the reason people would equally rely on magic and science? Maybe because people don't really make a distinction anymore?

edited 11th Jan '17 1:40:17 PM by eital

well no poop, i had the same idea, well minus the whole soul part i guess.

Because in their world it is not like there is a strong distinction. If magic can be studied, stored, harnessed, used to affect matter and maybe power systems, then for practical aspects of someone used to its existence it is not completely unlike heat or electricity.

Plus, the so called divide of magic and technology as opposites is much more of an stylistic choice than a logical conclusion.

Ps: funnily enough, many sterotypes and tropes associated with scientists nowadays (having eccentric habits, an unusual amd arcane manner of speaking, having a specific attire as a mark of their role, holdimg either unquestionable truth or delusions of godhood, etc) have strong paralels with tropes associated with mystics. Whatever that is ironic or fitting depends on your personal opinion.

Have them cover different areas of application.

Maybe magic is a more micro force and it isn't able or efficient enough to do something, like fertilize an industrial sized farm. Or limit magic to not be able to handle everything. Such as not being able to summon food, or maybe powered transport is more efficient. Otherwise people will tend to take the path of least resistance and go with what is easier.

Yep. Science just has another type of phenomenon to play with, that is universally present and available to study. Now you go through every notable invention in history and decide whether it'd be easier to do with magic involved or without. And then come up with a few things that either don't exist IRL but can be done by clever application of magic; or that can be skipped ahead in tech evolution and be available earlier due to magic.

At the very least, you can ban storing mana in anything non-living and technology is going to have a dedicated niche in things that work without direct human control.

For example, even at low techlevel, you the farmer can throw jets of water and you use it to water your farms. OR you can construct an elaborate system of pipes to redistribute it from one big cistern and save yourself the everyday's walk. So irrigation is still technology rather than magic. (Also if magic easily goes all the way up to "cover the whole field with rain", proper irrigation still allows for easier control of the water amounts; plus it depends on whether the rain is conjured out of nothing or if it gathers the clouds from the area - so the neighbours would fight for them)

Or for a higher example, cars. You can have a magical car, sure, but that'd require to either 1)you expend your mana to make it go or 2)have a chauffeur to do it instead. Meanwhile technology allows it to move on its own power.
So in this world there may have been a long standing rivalry between magical carriages powered by the driver and the classical real world horse-drawn carriages, onto which the internal combustion engine muscles its way through once its invented.

edited 11th Jan '17 10:30:52 PM by Adannor