TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Improving the 'Apocalypse How' scale...

Go To

Vorthon from a pale blue dot Since: Feb, 2010
#1: Apr 21st 2011 at 7:00:53 AM

I was looking at the Apocalypse How scale, and there's something about it that bugs me. Namely, the discrepancy in scale between X-2 and X-3, and the discrepancy in scale between X-3 and X-4.

A star is a lot smaller compared to a galaxy than a planet is to a solar system. I propose several additions be placed between X-2 and X-3, tentatively titled X-2.25, X-2.5 and X-2.75. X-2.25 would cover something on the scale of the destruction of small portion of a galaxy (Say, a quarter or less), making it the galaxy-scaled equivalent of a type 0. X-2.5 would be a destruction of between a quarter and half of galaxy, making it the galaxy-scaled equivalent of a type 1. And X-2.75 would cover the destruction of a large portion of galaxy.

There should also be two categories between X-3 and X-5 (Covering the destruction of a galaxy cluster and a galaxy super cluster respectively.).

Feedback?

"If there are any gods whose chief concern is man, they can't be very important gods." - Arthur C. Clarke
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#2: Apr 21st 2011 at 7:04:13 AM

I think you're getting too nitpicky. Categories are for convenient sorting. We don't need to break them down so minutely that each one only has two examples. Just pick the closest one that fits.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Vorthon from a pale blue dot Since: Feb, 2010
#3: Apr 21st 2011 at 7:08:22 AM

It can be a problem. There can be a lot of space between galaxy clusters. Same goes for galaxy superclusters.

So there should be at least two new categories between X-3 and X-4.

edited 21st Apr '11 7:10:33 AM by Vorthon

"If there are any gods whose chief concern is man, they can't be very important gods." - Arthur C. Clarke
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#4: Apr 21st 2011 at 7:20:04 AM

Did you read what I said? We're dealing in narrative conventions. Astronomy is not the point.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Vorthon from a pale blue dot Since: Feb, 2010
#5: Apr 21st 2011 at 7:22:26 AM

Still, the gaps make the scale seem awkward and clunky.

"If there are any gods whose chief concern is man, they can't be very important gods." - Arthur C. Clarke
TriggerLoaded from Canada, eh? (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Healthy, deeply-felt respect for this here Shotgun
#6: Apr 21st 2011 at 3:01:29 PM

No, not really. I agree the division at this point is pretty pedantic.

When you move beyond blowing up a solar system, the scale matters less, really. Is blowing up half a galaxy really that much different from a narrative position than blowing up the entire galaxy?

Don't take life too seriously. It's only a temporary situation.
Vorthon from a pale blue dot Since: Feb, 2010
#7: Apr 21st 2011 at 4:04:47 PM

Okay forget the ones between X-2 and X-3. I still say blowing up a galaxy cluster or blowing up a galaxy supercluster still deserves distinction.

"If there are any gods whose chief concern is man, they can't be very important gods." - Arthur C. Clarke
TriggerLoaded from Canada, eh? (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Healthy, deeply-felt respect for this here Shotgun
#8: Apr 21st 2011 at 5:35:49 PM

Again, from a narrative position, I see no difference. Saying you're blowing up the galaxy or supergalaxy still effects the story the same. The only way to really get bigger is to try and destroy existence.

Don't take life too seriously. It's only a temporary situation.
LatwPIAT Since: Jan, 2001
#9: Apr 22nd 2011 at 11:00:12 AM

The real problem with that scale, as I see it, is that the distinction between a Scale 5 and a Scale 6 is completely arbitrary, as far as it can only meaningfully be conveyed by the distinction of having a character or narrator say whether they did manage to kill off single-celled life or not. Unless you're going to let your story span a few billion years, whether life develops again is a footnote.

And a single uttered line on the fine details of single-cellular life is hardly worthy of a class of Apocalypse on its own.

Class X-3 makes sense. To an audience, their monkeysphere cannot really even begin to comprehend the distinction between a galaxy-arm, a galaxy or a supercluster. They're all just the space between "our solar system (Sun out to Pluto; the Kupier Belt does not exist in Our Common Understanding of the Solar System. Nor does the Oort Cloud, but that one might not actually exist...)" and "the entire universe". Distinguishing between a galaxy, a cluster and a supercluster makes no more sense than distinguishing between "the Inner and Outer System", "everything within the Kupier Belt" and "everything within the Oort Cloud."

Things I like: Ghost In The Shell |Serial Experiments Lain |Eden: It's an Endless World! |Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri |Aeon Natum Engel
Add Post

Total posts: 9
Top