[005]
DaibhidC
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
*However, the \'\'most\'\' fundamental rule on the Discworld and its magic should be NarrativeCausality and its corollaries, and the adherence to this (or at least its interpretation) has not been consistent. For example, turning a person into a frog or a newt or something should be easy and not involve worrying about the details not making sense, because it\'s such a cliché and it\'s about morphic fields rather than matter anyway. But in a newer book it suddenly involves the leftover stuff remaining as a \
to:
*However, the \\\'\\\'most\\\'\\\' fundamental rule on the Discworld and its magic should be NarrativeCausality and its corollaries, and the adherence to this (or at least its interpretation) has not been consistent. For example, turning a person into a frog or a newt or something should be easy and not involve worrying about the details not making sense, because it\\\'s such a cliché and it\\\'s about morphic fields rather than matter anyway. But in a newer book it suddenly involves the leftover stuff remaining as a \\\"balloon\\\" of, well, stuff, just in order to make sense.
Pterry\\\'s always been pretty clear that Narrative Causality does not necessarily over-rule the requirement that things make sense (because the conflict between the two is funnier than Narrative just trumping everything else), and the ShapeshifterBaggage question actually predates Narrative Causality by [[Discworld/EqualRites nine books]]. (The inconsistancy is \\\'\\\'Discworld/WitchesAbroad\\\'\\\', where it \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' easy.)
-->\\\'\\\'\\\'Esk\\\'\\\'\\\': I don\\\'t think people can turn themselves into animals.\\\\\\\\
\\\'\\\'\\\'Cern\\\'\\\'\\\': Oh yes, Miss Clever?\\\\\\\\
\\\'\\\'\\\'Esk\\\'\\\'\\\':Granny is quite big. If she turned herself into a fox what would happen to all the bits that wouldn\\\'t fit?\\\\\\\\
\\\'\\\'\\\'Cern\\\'\\\'\\\':She\\\'d just magic them away.\\\\\\\\
\\\'\\\'\\\'Esk\\\'\\\'\\\': I don\\\'t think magic works like that.
Pterry\\\'s always been pretty clear that Narrative Causality does not necessarily over-rule the requirement that things make sense (because the conflict between the two is funnier than Narrative just trumping everything else), and the ShapeshifterBaggage question actually predates Narrative Causality by [[Discworld/EqualRites nine books]]. (The inconsistancy is \\\'\\\'Discworld/WitchesAbroad\\\'\\\', where it \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' easy.)
-->\\\'\\\'\\\'Esk\\\'\\\'\\\': I don\\\'t think people can turn themselves into animals.\\\\\\\\
\\\'\\\'\\\'Cern\\\'\\\'\\\': Oh yes, Miss Clever?\\\\\\\\
\\\'\\\'\\\'Esk\\\'\\\'\\\':Granny is quite big. If she turned herself into a fox what would happen to all the bits that wouldn\\\'t fit?\\\\\\\\
\\\'\\\'\\\'Cern\\\'\\\'\\\':She\\\'d just magic them away.\\\\\\\\
\\\'\\\'\\\'Esk\\\'\\\'\\\': I don\\\'t think magic works like that.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
[[SarcasmMode Yes]], killing two thirds of the space-time continuum is a horrible, horrible thing to do when your only other option is inaction, which will kill three thirds of the space time coninuum minus the population of Galifrey, and [[SarcasmMode riiight]], the Daleks would be completely harmless and \'\'not\'\' killing everyone everywhere without him around.
to:
[[SarcasmMode Yes]], killing two thirds of the space-time continuum is a horrible, horrible thing to do when your only other option is inaction, which will kill three thirds of the space time continuum minus the population of either Galifrey or Skaro, and [[SarcasmMode riiight]], the Daleks would be completely harmless and \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' killing everyone everywhere without him around constantly.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yes, killing two thirds of the space-time continuum is a horrible, horrible thing to do when your only other option is inaction, which will kill three thirds of the space time coninuum minus the population of Galifrey, and riiight, the Daleks would be completely harmless and \'\'not\'\' killing everyone everywhere without him around.
to:
[[SarcasmMode Yes]], killing two thirds of the space-time continuum is a horrible, horrible thing to do when your only other option is inaction, which will kill three thirds of the space time coninuum minus the population of Galifrey, and [[SarcasmMode riiight]], the Daleks would be completely harmless and \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' killing everyone everywhere without him around.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I thought the skulls were neat, and that the Doctor Who bit was a nifty meta-joke, so apparently this is just YourMilageMayVary.
to:
I thought the skulls were neat (how does it work? same thing that lets headless bodies operate fine, obviously), and that the Doctor Who bit was a nifty meta-joke (i.e., it must never be answered because that would ruin the mystique the show works hard to build up, and it IS the first question in the show), so apparently this is just YourMilageMayVary.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yes, killing two thirds of the space-time continuum is a horrible, horrible thing to do when your only other option is inaction, which will kill three thirds minus the population of Galifrey, and riiight, the Daleks would be completely harmless and \'\'not\'\' killing everyone everywhere without him around.
to:
Yes, killing two thirds of the space-time continuum is a horrible, horrible thing to do when your only other option is inaction, which will kill three thirds of the space time coninuum minus the population of Galifrey, and riiight, the Daleks would be completely harmless and \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' killing everyone everywhere without him around.
