Hello, fellow writers! Got any question that you can't find answer from Google or Wikipedia, but you don't think it needs a separate thread for? You came to the right place!
Don't be shy, and just ask away. The nice folks here, writers and non-writers, experts and non-experts, will do their best to help you.
The folder below contains links for special interest threads, mostly at OTC, but also from Yack Fest and Troper Coven.
- Aircrafts and Aviation
- Computer
- Economics
- General Religion, Mythology, and Theology
- General Science Thread
- Chemistry
- Earth Science, including Meteorology
- Medicine
- Physics
- Space
- Just don't talk about space warfare over there; use Sci-fi Warfare thread below instead.
- Chemistry
- History
- Martial arts
- Military
- Police and Law Enforcements
- Politics
- The opening post of the linked thread includes links to political threads on specific countries as well.
- Philosophy
- Psychology
- Sci-fi Warfare
Also take a look at Useful Notes on various topics. They can be pretty useful.
Now, bring on the questions, baby!
edited 11th Apr '18 6:31:51 PM by dRoy
Thanks for the tips! I'll take them into consideration!
That's the entire appeal of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure!
So, say a king marries a woman and grants her a castle that has traditionally been the property/right of the queens. However, since the marriage was purely political on his part, he has her stay at that castle instead of with him at the royal castle/palace.
Sure, he visits her regularly (not quite sure how often, but at least for 4 months on end every year) in order to produce the compulsory heir and a spare at least, but other than that, he does his thing and she does hers.
I also have to add the king is at least smart enough to keep away from women (so that he doesn't accidentally father a bastard son who may lead an uprising).
Would the nobility be turning against him? If they are rattled, would that be quieted by the arrival of the heir and a spare ("At least he fulfilled his duty..."), or would it only make things worse? ("I thought we only had this weirdo to worry about and when he's dead that is the end of it, but now it turns out his dynasty is here to stay?!")
(Please also see my previous question here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13006086500A85708700&page=659#16470)
Edited by akanesarumara on Oct 13th 2019 at 4:09:25 PM
In Real Life, if the nobility gots upset with king, it leads to a civil war no matter present heir or not. If that king of yours is a really clever and smart, he could try and communicate with nobles to settle matter down. And please, give more details on involvement of the Queen to King-Nobility quarrel.
Ok after a bit of thinking, I've come up with the following details.
The king and queen neither hate nor love each other. They're both doing their duty.
The queen's opinion on the situation is... complicated. Sure she thinks it could be worse, much worse (she has companionship, guards to protect her, fine foods and all, and she can actually come and go in the country, for example her parents, it's just that when she goes "home", it isn't to the royal palace, which she isn't allowed to visit), but she isn't certain what will happen to her when the king deems she had enough children - or what will happen to the children once they are considered to be old enough to be trained in courtly and royal matters.
When the match was announced, the nobility was "meh, sounds legit". It was seen as an appropriate match for the king. Which is why I'm not sure they would even bat an eyelid to be honest. The king is pretty new too so most of the nobility may be playing the wait and see game.
As for how smart the king is, I'm not sure yet, I imagine the queen would be smarter but the king is no fool either. Far from suicidally stupid, at the very least
I guess so, it's just that at the start there are no heirs yet so the king has... what, 13-18 years? To figure shit out, if I count right. Even an impatient and very resentful heir would be I think at least 13/15 before moving, and the queen won't off the king because she would be suspect number one.
Do the nobility have any other beef with the king? As long as he taxes fairly, distributes land and titles to the right people and doesn't appoint people who are too incompetent or widely hated, I don't think the arrangement of his marriage is going to be a big issue. Just to bring up a historical example, the Spartan royalty (well, actually the entire spartiate citizen class) had husbands and wives living separately until they're 30. People who already dislike him for other reasons might use it as a gossip fuel, but I don't see it being especially damaging by itself.
One day, we will read his name in the news and cheer.
Hm... not sure they would really have a big beef with him. I was more curious about whether it would be damning in and of itself, and you answered that, so thank you everyone for the insights!
Any ideas about my second (earlier) question, about the orphanage/foster homes?note
Edited by akanesarumara on Oct 14th 2019 at 4:19:10 PM
![]()
Another thing is to remember Values Dissonance, because marriage in ancient times was almost NEVER for "love" as we recognize it—Altar Diplomacy was the primary reason for marriage, not a thing to be hated and feared unless the pair actively hates/abuses each other. Both parties could very well have a secret lover on the side (or not-so-secret), and it was generally a "don't ask, don't tell" or "hi, this is the king/queen's extremely-close-friend" situation.
Edited by Sharysa on Oct 15th 2019 at 1:58:43 AM
Not an orphan, but my mum did change schools roughly that often (grandpa was career military). Between the constantly-changing curricula, absentee teachers and weird school hours in some places and personal disinterest, she just barely managed to get good enough results to get into an agriculture diploma program.
A student with strong academic interest, personal motivation and access to self-study resources could get over those obstacles, but getting shuffled between foster homes is going to be hard on their ADHD treatment and overall mental health, which in turn could be catastrophic for their academic performance.
One day, we will read his name in the news and cheer.![]()
![]()
As for a lover on the side, the king would actively avoid having that for himself as mentioned, because he doesn't want a rebellion on his hands lead by a bastard son or by the brother/father of the lover or the lover himself (if the lover is highranked enough). Which at least would also mean one less reason for nobles to have the king in their bad book (can't see nobles disliking that they don't have to be afraid their daughters would be taken by the married king).
Ok thank you for the pointers!
Actually, you may need to reverse that to "the king just sleeps with anyone and the queen is a lot more careful." Historically and in real-life, the Double Standard for "men can keep as many mistresses as they want, but women have to worry about getting pregnant or constantly taking contraception" is a BIG pattern in patriarchal society. Mama's Baby, Papa's Maybe is a thing for a reason, after all.
Ah yes, that would definitely be trouble. Of course, both royals would be well aware of that, so they may decide to take lovers with either a) their own physical traits, or b) their spouse's, to throw off any IMMEDIATE Chocolate Baby situations.
And a lot of folks just waited until they safely had two or three legitimate kids, and THEN they started taking on some "special-friend" action.
I know you said they didn't hate each other, but if they also don't CARE about each other to the point where she views the queen's castle as home and only "visits" the palace with her legal husband in it, that's basically a rich-people's version of a (nearly) Sexless Marriage and people WILL notice.
Edited by Sharysa on Oct 15th 2019 at 11:41:16 AM
Usually they'd only send their female relatives to a convent if they were getting too old or troublesome, since even the female line was useful for providing more spare royals. The Single Line of Descent of fantasy is VERY unrealistic because in reality, folks had a whole LIST of genealogy records with Hidden Backup Princes among the cousins, in-laws, and female lines, just in case the main royal family died.
The king and queen's lack of relationship would certainly raise QUESTIONS about "is he trying to stick her in a nicer version of a convent? What did she do?" but people would also gossip about how the REAL marriage only lasted three/four years (the shortest pre-industrial time for an heir and a spare to be born).
Hell, you could have his attempt to be faithful to his wife actually backfire—since she's not living at the palace and nobody's heard of him taking any mistresses, people would gossip about how he's either gone impotent, he might be gay, or one of them must have done something REALLY bad to piss the other one off.
Edited by Sharysa on Oct 16th 2019 at 8:50:13 AM
Hm good point, good point, even if I'd wager going all Frey (100+ children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren) may have been pretty rare too.
Oh that's actually a good idea, people would probably even suspect the children weren't even really his, regardless of truth. Especially since she isn't a commoner (I mentioned everyone thought the match was appropriate when they were betrothed).
Yeah, a lot of people would go "Hey, the queen is rich, she's powerful, and she's good-looking (folks might even settle for "decent/not-bad" with the other two parts lined up). Why is he only nailing her once every quarter now???"
As for suspecting his legitimate children of being bastards, there'd definitely be some whispers about it, but there's dozens of people who'd be able to stop THOSE rumors (doctors/midwives, priests, whichever guard/servant found her going into labor and therefore could track the conception time, the queen's maids who could ALSO track her periods). It would most likely be the feudal equivalent of "tabloid drama that only drunk people actually believe."
Edited by Sharysa on Oct 16th 2019 at 8:27:54 AM
So I got a butcher turned to mob enforcer. His main weapon is, obviously, his butcher knife (this is a setting where guns are hard to obtain, even for criminals), but he also uses extra-long sharpening steel stick(25 inches/51 centimeters) as a side weapon.
It got me thinking: Can a sharpening steel stick be reasonably used as a weapon, or would it be a bit too unwieldy?
Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.
Hm technically the sharpening stick should be dense enough that if you swing it hard (should be no problem with a butcher) and hit someone on the right spot (head or neck) it should do the job. Not sure if it could break arms, but probably yeah. It also might be longer than his knife, and less unwieldly than a hatchet (used for breaking bones/joints).

I have another question pertaining to tone:
Can you still have a very serious story despite having "bizarre" elements in it?
"Fan, a Mega Man character."