How do you feel about infinite earths as a writter?

I like the concept of a multiverse when it is used for crossover purposes/Massive Multiplayer Crossover.

But for some reason I don't like the idea of an infinite variants multiverse... Now I know this isn't a place to Soap boax/rant about tropes... after all Tropes Are Not Bad.

But I want to ask you as a writter and from a literary point of view. How do you feel about the concept of having your characters and universe as part of an infinite multiverse for example your work is "earth 323223B" or multiverse "x1313299".

I feel this multiverse idea while fun as a writter when you want to have crossovers/Mirror Universe/what if stories etc.It does have big drawbacks

1. It steals the feeling that your characters are unique or at least special (lets face it pass the basic tropes/newbie/cliche stage no two peeople will ever create two identical stories. So from a doylist point of view it's a bit unnesesary to imply it (even when two writters are writting about the same "universe"). Why not "version" instead of "universe"?

2. It steals the ide of free will.According to your personal beliefs you may deny free will. But even then with an infinite earths multiverse you are implying that we are following the luckiest universe/ (or not so lucky) Universe and therefore what ever ideals/achivements your characters had on a story become meanigless.Becuase they are only true for that universe.

Ex you want to imply that love conquers all/misogism is bad/racism is bad, a great aesop... But it becomes meaningless. Because that is only true for this universe and it may not work in another. maybe in another universe racism is good! and love is meanignless in yet another...

what is your opinion about having your story as part of an infinite universe multiverse (from a narrtative and not moral point of view)?

edited 3rd May '12 8:29:30 PM by FallenLegend

When I did fanfiction, I usually only did crossovers I could justify logically with whatever happened to be in the settings I was using. I prefer not to use things like this because it introduces too many logical implications and too many complications. It's like the teleporters from Star Trek, in my opinion.

Or time travel. I actually have a canonically infinite multiverse in my comics, but it really doesn't come up much, and I certainly would never consider using it for crossovers (I hate intercontinuity crossovers) or similar stuff. It's mostly there in the background.

Although this particular part of the argument is just outright nonsensical:

^Is not an argument, I am being neutral, as I havent made my mind about the subjet yet.

It isnt nonesensical ether but very simplified I admitt.To clarify what I meant is that whatever message you want to give becomes meaningless in a multiverse.

Ex Alice has to either to choose between saving her loved one or become queen. In your story Alice choses saving her true love and has a happy ending. Because you want to give the message that true love is more important than power... Wich is cool and all but...

In an alternate universe Alice choses to save her true love too and both die... and you get a Downer Ending. In another Universe Alive choses power first and she saves her true love.... Etc etc.

Yor message of Love is more important than power becomes love is more important than power only on this universe therefore leaving any character achivent/aesop meaningless.

edited 3rd May '12 8:58:44 PM by FallenLegend

Yes, I realize that's what you're saying, and I'm saying it's nonsensical - in fact, I'm not even certain I understand it now. Morality does not change between universes; if it's right for Alice to choose love over power, then it's still right regardless of how many alternate universes feature an Alice making that other choice.

I like the idea of a multiverse not for any plot or meta plot implications it might have, but for the Applied Phlebotinum potential.

The One is, in my humble opinion, a good example of this; it had a good Magic A approach to the mechanics of alternate universes, and used those mechanics to construct something easy to follow but more complex than your usual action movie.

Personally, I would only use this concept as a last resort when there is no other way to reasonably justify the presence of more than one verse in a setting (i.e. a crossover). Superhero crossovers (such as The Avengers) work because the heroes are usually crime fighters who just happened to be in the same city. It gets more difficult when you try to cross two series (that take place on the same planet) with completely different ideas of how the universe works and/or who controls it, and in those cases, I think a multiverse is a feasible solution.

My stories (at least Forgotten Lore, Zaran il Legio and an unnamed fantasy setting I haven't really done anything with yet) take place in an infinite multiverse. The other universes don't factor into the plot, but the stuff outside the universes does as that's where the Herald of the Outer Gods (the big bad of Forgotten Lore) comes from. Incidentally, the Outer Gods in question are indeed the Lovecraftian ones (the Herald is of course an expy of the Messager and Soul of the Outer Gods, aka. Nyarlathotep). The universe the story takes place on isn't the Mythos universe (although there are a lot of characters named after characters from the mythos since I'm a big fan of Lovecraft), but since the Gods exist in the void between universes, it would make sense for them to exist in every universe. I had intended to include some obvious signs of the story taking place in a different universe (alternate histories and such), but decided to leave them out since it wouldn't contribute to the plot and would potentially be confusing to the reader and result in awkwardly inserted and ultimately pointless exposition.

I can understand why nrj thinks your argument is nonsensical. For one, racism generally leads only to bad things. And give that "always chaotic evil" isn't a thing that happens in real life, saying racism could ever be good is going to require you as a writer to go against whatever it is you said before regarding racism. Unless you (hypothetical you, mind) are for racism. Same things go for misogynism, given that leads to denying the value of a significant portion of any population. There is nothing in the idea of using multiple universes that couldn't be used to illustrate how bad these things are, perhaps by giving us examples. (This is also a matter of Deliberate Values Dissonance in the cultures represented.)

Also, the power versus love thing; That is also nonsensical. Being queen involves taking on responsibility. It'd be interesting to contrast an Alice who chose duty and responsibility over love. There's also the possibility that Alice could end up having both, depending on the setting. The only option you seemed to have considered here is whether or not Alice wants love or is power hungry. Also, this particular scenario has more to do with a personal choice rather than any mechanics of a given universe. Love conquers all could also involve dealing with the difficulties of a high political office and the impact it has on your personal life. There is also the fact that the two hypothetical Alices have made different choices, and as a result had to make different choices later on and essentially became different people. (This idea has been tackled more times than you know, actually.) Therefor free will is not meaningless, because they are not the same people and most likely never were! They simply had the same starting conditions.

Seriously, multiple universes don't render themes or aesops meaningless. What renders them meaningless is bad writing. Multiple universes only have drawbacks when they're used badly.

And anyway, I like it. Not that I'm currently using it, but sometimes I use it as a mental exercise when I'm trying to determine which way I should make a character go.

Now I have to disagree.

You are assuming that morality is constant in every posible variant. But if we are assuimg every possible variable could change that would include morality. There wouldn't be a variable that couldn't change.

Maybe an entire universe being racist is a good thing, (yeah you heard that right). You may think that "Racism generally leads only to bad things". But I could imagine an universe where racism only leads to good things even an universe where racism is justified. I agree that racism is always wrong but inside a fictional alternate universe it may not...

2.- In my example of Alice, Alice could be the exact same person make the exact same choices and yet... get different results. Like Futurama did with an universe that only had one difference (flipping a coin would give you different results)

I mantin that they are not nonsensical.

Still I really don't want to debate ethics. I am just curious about everyone's stance of the concept of infinte universes

edited 4th May '12 1:06:46 PM by FallenLegend

It's not a matter of ethics, really, but of logic. If we assume morality is objective - whether that's actually true or not is irrelevant, but it's a necessary component to An Aesop - then the objectivity of that morality is independent of how anyone acts in relation to it. So your original example simply does not work.

This new position makes somewhat more sense, but only if we make the assumption that morality is objective only in any given universe - which, given that this would presumably incorporate a many-worlds theory where new universes split off based on events going a different way, once again suggests that "objective" morality is in fact determined by the choices of individuals, and even random chance. This means that morality cannot be objective in any universe, which further means that your hypothetical "racism-is-objectively-good" universe cannot exist. (Neither, admittedly, would a "racism-is-objectively-bad" universe, but honestly, I don't think we need objective morality to oppose racism).

edited 4th May '12 2:28:16 PM by nrjxll

You're basically setting up a universe to be entirely crapsaccharine. It's not hard to take a setting where racism is a normal thing and scratch that surface to see the out and out ugly. Seriously, who but a racial supremacist would write a world in such a way as to portray racism as a positive thing?

And, why would an author who's been portraying that specifically as a bad thing as suddenly being a good thing simply because they're using the alternate universe trope? I've never read anything by any author that massively inconsistent with their former writings. (Well, except for terrible fanfiction and none of it was focusing on racism.) That's kind of a huge thing and not simply a forgotten plot hole. I don't think many authors would use this trope and do something so deliberately at odds with their previous assertions on these particular matters.

As for the Futurama example; None of them ever said that either result of the coin flip wasn't a legitimate choice. Leela, in both cases, asserted her free will by previously deciding to depend on the results of the coin flip. That the results were different in both cases does not mean that Leela didn't practice free will in both universes. She did; it was just a twist on the whole "made a different choice" thing that happens with these plots. The results turned up, and she followed through with it; at any point she could have decided not to but actively decided to follow through on her previous decision.

Mmm I have two choices debate or agree to disaagree. I like better choice two

We disagree lets leave it at that . I want to discusss a plot device not ethics.

I feel those topics while interesting are very off topic ( not to mention too complex for a thread like this)and as I said on the first post I dont want to debate.. Lets pretend I never said that

To quote myself:

Though the very existance of this discussion, accentuates my point that there are a lot of implications with this trope than a simple "he is female in earth 16b!"

I think the etics/free will/ objetive norality debate is better suited for the "on topic forum"

edited 4th May '12 5:38:23 PM by FallenLegend

No, it doesn't, because real-life morals don't come into it at all. Your position, irrespective of one's feelings on ethics, is logically flawed. It does not indicate anything meaningful about The Multiverse except that you poorly understand it. That's why I'm not 'agreeing to disagree' - it's not a subjective issue, but one of logic.

While I fond that a bit offensive...

I dont debate you because I cant. I have a lot of counter- arguments in mind.

For starters I have studied logic, ethics and law at university level courses, so yes I know what I am talking about. Part of the reason I find it rude what you said.

Agree to disagree means just that. That the debate is over before it begins.

edited 4th May '12 5:52:51 PM by FallenLegend

I have explained why your position is illogical. If you refuse to provide any counter-arguments, then I have no choice but to assume that they do not exist, regardless of whether you claim that they do.

And before you ask, the reason why "agree to disagree" does not work here (besides the fact that you are objectively wrong) is that you have made this a major point of your argument. You are saying that The Multiverse is difficult to use as a trope at least in part due to this claim; if that claim is totally nonsensical, then I (or anyone else reading the thread) have a right to point that out.

wich ironically enough is an illogical assumption aN argument from ignorance fallacy no less

Maybe you forgot but I never said l I was "arguing". I simply stated that I like rhe trope, but I also see some drawbacks period.

The title of the thread is " what do you think" not "why I am right"

'Edit :if you want to continue this discussion please pm me'

edited 4th May '12 6:08:54 PM by FallenLegend

Basically, you brought up morals and then said the multiverse trope makes them utterly pointless. Which, if it works that way in a story, particularly one which presents a moral in the vein of "racism is bad", (or any other fairly straightforward moral) and then shows one where racism is genuinely good, is incredibly bad and inconsistent writing. Themes and morals need to be consistent within a story.

Any writer with any ability to be consistent with their themes and ideas isn't going to get themselves derailed by portraying a universe where the exact opposite of their moral positions is right. That an author is using the alternate universe trope does not automatically nullify all the uses of previous tropes. You also are wrong about the whole "multiverse where a character chose power means love is meaningless" because someone making one decision does not render the decision of other characters meaningless. Any writer who does this is using their tropes badly and inconsistently. And also probably a sign of shark jumping.

The multiverse is a tool. It can be used badly. The things you presented as drawbacks are things that would be so glaringly inconsistent in a story only bad writers and readers wouldn't recognize them as such. Seriously, how do you get "love is meaningless" from "my other self chose to be queen" when supposedly the one who chose love is happy with their decision?

Have you ever heard the saying "put your money where your mouth is"? If you have some reason to believe that these "drawbacks" of yours make sense, please, say it. Until then, I'm going to be very skeptical.

And I am saying what I think: that your "drawbacks" are nonsensical and appear founded on a poor understanding of The Multiverse, logic, the concept of objective morality, and/or some combination of the preceding.

Why should I? Starting a thread doesn't give you the authority to decide what is or isn't allowed in it. If you're going to make absurd claims about the topic, then I and others have every right to dispute them. Heck, we'd have a right to dispute your claims period, even if they were logical. That's how forums work.

edited 4th May '12 7:57:44 PM by nrjxll

It's hogwash! A bullshit cop-out to Hand Wave away the inconsistencies, retcons, and the fact your story just got told by some outside events.

It didn't help The DCU, it won't help many if any writers to allow that as a fallback.

I never sais that you had to obey me. I only said that if you truly want a debate with me to pm becase you are in fact off topic. This is not a debate thread at all

I never implied I was "undermining your rights" even though I could tell a mod you are derailing the thread. For courtesy I didn't. But if you continue I will ask mod intervention. I ask you kindly please stop.

You have a right to express yourself. You don't have the right to be a jerk.

I have a policy of not debating over the internet just ask how many debates I have given up on this site . Life is to short to waste it on that.

If you want to believe you are very smart for fighting someone that isn't definding himself then so be it. I am just a username with a pony avatar for you.I see no point in fighting or arguing with "nrjxll" specially when you are being so rude.

You are right and I am a moron/Ilogical for daring to disagree with you happy?

That's the kind of dicussion I wanted .

edited 4th May '12 8:42:38 PM by FallenLegend

That's hardly the only reason or way a multiverse can be used.

Go right ahead; I'm not doing anything wrong. Questioning the claims made in the original post is among the basic purposes of a thread, not a derail. And it's hardly being a jerk to call your claims illogical when they fit the literal definition of the word:

The claim that the existence of multiple realities would invalidate morality does not follow logically from any premise - that there are multiple realities, that morality is objective, whatever - that I can think of. You claim that you have arguments that support it, but have repeatedly declined when challenged to produce them. I have arguably been condescending, but by that measure we're both "jerks".

Your repeated claim that "it's only my opinion, so you can't argue with me" is just an attempt to divert attention from the main point. Opinions are not sacred cows that cannot be challenged: they can be objectively right or wrong. There are people today whose opinion is that the world is flat, but their existence does not make them correct.

I think belaboring my point any further would violate forum rules, so I will stop now. But nothing I've done in this thread has been wrong, and if in future I see other threads arguing blatantly illogical or incorrect premises, I will not hesitate to call them on it as well, so long as those premises are relevant to the thread.

And I should note that it's utterly absurd to say a thread that specifically asks:

is not a "debate" thread.

edited 4th May '12 8:46:53 PM by nrjxll

Debate is over, that's fair enough for me.

edit:

asking opions=/= debate.

disagree=/= debate

edited 4th May '12 8:52:58 PM by FallenLegend

No problem with it unless it's used poorly.

For all intents and purposes, they're the same. My "opinion" is, in part, that your opinion was based off of faulty logic; it is also that Major Tom's opinion later on reflects only one possible use of The Multiverse. If you ask for someone's opinion, then you should be prepared for the possibility that opinion will express some kind of disagreement.

Like I said, I'm not intending to belabor my point any further, but this needed to be clarified.

edited 4th May '12 8:54:54 PM by nrjxll