Random Questions Thread

I'd like some first reactions to an idea I had: in another thread, there was a discussion about minority protagonists and the prevalence of the feeling that their minority-ness should be part of the story. So as a way of circumventing this, I came up with an idea for a sci-fi setting: trestling. It's an irreversible process (largely undescribed, but it involves cracking the skull open) performed at an early age that allows certain aspects of a child's subsequent growth to be set in stone. In the hypothetical protagonist's case, it was used to ensure that he'd become homosexual (backstory reasons.) I'm interested in the idea as a hypothetical- normalizing a gay protagonist by removing Gayngst, Coming-Out Story, and a ton of the other dramatic baggage usually associated. OTOH, there could be Unfortunate Implications, especially concerning the part where he was "made" this way, not "naturally" so. So what do y'all think?

Kinda of a random question, but strictly from a scientific perspective, what kind of environment/conditions would have been needed on earth for humans to develop Kryptonian durability (not their other powers) as seen in Man Of Steel?

Well, I'm sure it could be the case for somebody, but that's not the way the question is worded.

I... fail to see what this is supposed to achieve.

edited 25th Jan '14 3:03:27 PM by nrjxll

One possible way could be slow, sequential environmental changes coupled with artificial selection. Granted, the only way I can picture this happening would be if this world was controlled by a sentient force using a bunch of people as lab rats.

edited 25th Jan '14 3:03:45 PM by CrystalGlacia

It's theorycraft. "Can you remove the orientation-related drama from the setting while removing the expectation of it from the mind of the reader?"

Using neurosurgery to alter a child to match the parent's desires? That sort of shit gets characters thrown across the Moral Event Horizon, if only because it's a recipe for Fridge Horror by the truckload.

If you're going into a future sci-fi society anyways, why not just have nobody care about the character's sexuality because nobody cares about people's sexuality anymore? Like, one day in school, he mentioned he has a crush on a male classmate and the parents respond exactly the same way they would if he had a crush on a female classmate. You don't have to complicate things.

Or, if you want the parents to have consciously chosen this for the child, for whatever reason, it seems safer to just have him be a Designer Baby with that being added in along with various other bits and bobs the parents chose beforehand. Still comes with the subtle dark baggage of such, but it's a lot less disturbing then the alternative...

edited 25th Jan '14 3:36:30 PM by KillerClowns

I don't think there's any known physics that could make someone as tough as Superman. But if you're assuming the appropriate phlebotinum exists, it could presumably evolve naturally.

That. Since you're already writing science fiction, it seems much easier, much less morally troubling, and frankly more in line with real societal trends to simply have a setting where nobody really cares about sexual orientation.

There's plenty of known physics, but it's completely incompatible with biological life as we understand it. Neutron star matter for example.

Ok sorry, known physics that would let someone be that indestructible while walking around on Earth and looking human.

Re: "trestling": Yes, it would be less disturbing and easier to have the character's sexuality not matter because the society has developed to the point that nobody cares, but that makes it a completely different story, doesn't it? Kind of like answering "How to I make my anti-hero likeable?" by saying "Don't make him an anti-hero at all."

edited 25th Jan '14 7:12:03 PM by Madrugada

I get that, but I interpreted the question as "is this a good way of creating a gay character without all of the Gayngst baggage?" edgewalker 22, is that interpretation correct or is this going to be a central conceit of your story regardless?

edited 25th Jan '14 7:21:22 PM by nrjxll

I think gayngst is actually overused.

Just write a character. Seriously, is being straight a huge character defining trait? Than why does being gay have to be?

edited 25th Jan '14 7:31:00 PM by LadyKatie

Sort of. I want to create a character without the baggage, but I also want to see if I can manipulate the audience's expectations for that character.

I wrote a fun-but-ultimately-unworkable first draft in a sci-fi setting with a gay main where it simply was that nobody cared about orientation, and found him developing massive UST with the local Mr. Fixit despite their mutual loathing. Maybe I had my slash goggles on, maybe they were actually growing together and I just didn't want them to, but I found the narrative growing a Romantic Plot Tumor simply because the potential offered by the character's orientation demanded a followup.

Of course, it's possible that my failed first attempt has me really stretching to find an alternative, and I'm completely overcomplicating the problem.

Re trestling itself: the backstory I thought up involves the near-extinction of the human race followed by a strict eugenics regime being imposed on the survivors. Below-standards fetuses are aborted, marginal ones are brought to term but not allowed to subsequently reproduce. Trestling them this way is seen as a "humane" part of scrubbing them out of the gene pool.

I have trouble coming up with nice futures.

In an Unmasqued World scenario, how would you have humans reacting realistically to the undead actually existing (as well as their cultures, religions, etc.)?

So suppose we've got a bro on a space station or what have you.

No gravity but the air is still nice and plentiful, could he sort like "swim" through it?

Well you could make swimming motions. The air wouldn't be thick enough to provide useful propulsion though.

Have you looked up videos of astronauts working on the International Space Station? (starts around 1:30) They don't swim so much as they grab onto the various handholds installed around the ISS for this very purpose and push off from them.

edited 26th Jan '14 5:10:26 PM by CrystalGlacia

Air's not thick enough to use swimming motions effectively, as it won't arrest momentum your gentle forward motions sufficiently to stop you moving that way before you make more violent backwards ones.

If it was designed for zero-gee there will be an abundance of handholds.

Oh well of course there's the handholds, but say he's not near any and he's trying to get to one from far away, what's the most efficient way to travel through Zero G air?

Well if he's stuck in the air with nothing in reach, the only way to move will be to throw something the other way. Ideally he could toss a backpack or something. In an emergency, he could take off his clothes and throw them. But you really don't want to be out of reach of the handhelds with no momentum in Zero G.

edited 26th Jan '14 6:07:56 PM by storyyeller

Pushing off of something. Not necessarily a handhold; you can throw something in one direction and conservation of momentum will push you in the opposite direction. But if you're talking about, say, being stranded in space with nothing you can afford to get rid of, you're pretty much screwed.

Hmm, hadn't actually thought of that before.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction I suppose.

I understand that if you pull yourself into a fetal position and violently kick your legs, you'll "twirl" yourself out of place, hopefully to come close enough to something to grab it.

You can spin around and stretch out, but the tyranny of Conservation of Momentum means you can't actually move without something to throw. (Well you can move by pressing against the air, but not enough to be meaningful in this situation)

edited 26th Jan '14 6:30:53 PM by storyyeller