On Creating Imaginary Worlds: Questions and Answers

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by lin robinson

Not really. The magical powers of "infinite" are over-rated. Infinite monkeys wouldn't REALLY write all of Shakespeare. And there's not a square planet out there. Or another planet just like ours except the Cubs win world series.

A lot of the leading scientific minds in the world think so though. That's enough for me and most science fiction readers.

[Anthony G Williams]

The two examples are rather different. In theory, a bunch of monkeys could type all of Shakespeare - except that the statistical probability is so vanishingly remote that the process would probably take many times longer than the universe has existed or is likely to exist (no doubt a statistician could work it out). So it's an example of the theoretically possible being practically impossible.

A cubical planet, on the other hand, would conflict with the laws of science, and would thus be theoretically as well as practically impossible in this universe. You would need to postulate a universe with very different scientific laws to make that work.

[chrispenycate]

To a mathematician, infinity is not merely uncountable, it has a meaning outside numerical theories. The difference between factorial googleplex, which is a very large number indeed, and infinity is infinite. If you had an infinite number of monkeys, and typewriters to match you would be certain to have the collected works of Shakespeare, and every other literary work that can be transcribed in the roman alphabet, each an infinite number of times, because there are a finite number of possible combinations and infinity divided by anything finite, however large, is always infinity. (We'll leave Cantorian transfinites till later, OK?)
If the big bang theory is correct, the universe, though unbounded (and thus etymologically speaking without limits ie, infinite) is actually finite. Very big indeed, but not mathematically infinite. So we've nowhere to put all those monkeys. If since the creation of the universe every particle in the universe has created a complete other universe very minimum transition time, we've still got an infinity of monkeys left over (and some of the ones in intergalactic space are getting pretty bolshy about typing).
A cubical planet; do you need one? The highest probability is of an artificial constuct, but I think I could construct one with cosmic strings (wouldn't last long; that's an awful lot of gravitational strain. And the corners would probably stick out of the atmosphere)
Did you want dots on the faces, too?

[lin robinson]

To hell with, I lost this stuff on the edit and just went through it on another forum.

If you want to think there are square planets and that whatever number of monkeys would produce a single work of shakespeare, go for it.

But great scientific minds believe neither. For real.

(Doesn't mean a lot of SF fans wouldn't buy it.)

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by chrispenycate

To a mathematician, infinity is not merely uncountable, it has a meaning outside numerical theories. The difference between factorial googleplex, which is a very large number indeed, and infinity is infinite. If you had an infinite number of monkeys, and typewriters to match you would be certain to have the collected works of Shakespeare, and every other literary work that can be transcribed in the roman alphabet, each an infinite number of times, because there are a finite number of possible combinations and infinity divided by anything finite, however large, is always infinity. (We'll leave Cantorian transfinites till later, OK?)
If the big bang theory is correct, the universe, though unbounded (and thus etymologically speaking without limits ie, infinite) is actually finite. Very big indeed, but not mathematically infinite. So we've nowhere to put all those monkeys. If since the creation of the universe every particle in the universe has created a complete other universe very minimum transition time, we've still got an infinity of monkeys left over (and some of the ones in intergalactic space are getting pretty bolshy about typing).
A cubical planet; do you need one? The highest probability is of an artificial constuct, but I think I could construct one with cosmic strings (wouldn't last long; that's an awful lot of gravitational strain. And the corners would probably stick out of the atmosphere)
Did you want dots on the faces, too?

What Chrispenycate is saying in a long way (I believe anyway and if I'm wrong correct me) is that all this is neat, but it isn't a story.

The square planet isn't the story, but the characters on it.

Start with a character, then go to the square planet.

That is how I think anyway. My characters describe the setting for me. Why does he feel this? Because of that is why.

What does your characters think and feel which relates to them being born and living on a square planet?

[The Pelagic Argosy]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

What Chrispenycate is saying in a long way (I believe anyway and if I'm wrong correct me) is that all this is neat, but it isn't a story.

The square planet isn't the story, but the characters on it.

Start with a character, then go to the square planet.

That is how I think anyway. My characters describe the setting for me. Why does he feel this? Because of that is why.

What does your characters think and feel which relates to them being born and living on a square planet?

"Mia always regretted that she never told her father how much she loved him. Then, one day, as so often happens, he tripped and fell off the edge of the square planet and was lost forever..." Damn you, physics!!!!

[chrispenycate]

Right, I've worked out how to do it, carbon crystallising out in the heart of a gas giant planet, then blowing off all the hydrogen exterior to leave an Earth-sized diamond. You couldn't fall off it; if you succeeded in climbing up to one of the edges the worst that could happen is that you end up on another facet.
And when the sun is shining off it, that system is one to remember…
Who needed a non.sperical planet, anyway?

Oh, and science fiction has several examples of the setting being more important than the characters (or the story, for that matter) I cite the multi-award winning "Ringworld" as an example.

[lin robinson]

Superman created a square planet for the citizens of Bizarro world, so they'd be more bizarre. He did it by quickly making a huge bulldozer blade and lopping off arcs from the planet, leaving it a cube.

The he flew over the cheering Bizarro folk, who were standing on the surface of their newly square planet. This seemed odd to me as a kid, since it seemed to me that the entire surface had just been removed. However, I realized that I was not gifted with super insight.

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by chrispenycate

Right, I've worked out how to do it, carbon crystallising out in the heart of a gas giant planet, then blowing off all the hydrogen exterior to leave an Earth-sized diamond. You couldn't fall off it; if you succeeded in climbing up to one of the edges the worst that could happen is that you end up on another facet.
And when the sun is shining off it, that system is one to remember…
Who needed a non.sperical planet, anyway?

Oh, and science fiction has several examples of the setting being more important than the characters (or the story, for that matter) I cite the multi-award winning "Ringworld" as an example.

But to a reader like me, if setting takes its place above character then I'm not interested in reading it too much.

[Anthony G Williams]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

But to a reader like me, if setting takes its place above character then I'm not interested in reading it too much.

One of the characteristics of SF is that the setting and the plot can both be far more important than in most other types of fiction. That "sense of wonder", of having one's imagination stretched, is what pulled many readers (including me) into the genre in the first place.

A quote from Bob Shaw's book on writing science fiction (attributed to a friend of his): "Why should I turn to science fiction for character studies when I still haven't read all of Dostoevsky?"

Of course, there should be characterisation which is adequate for the purpose - but I have stopped reading, out of boredom, SF books which have devoted so much time to building up the personalities of the characters that the plot has ground to a halt.

[vintagefury]

Just to dash a quick note, I'm with Marvolo on this one. Character over setting, por vida.

That's a cute quote, vis-a-vis character study and how it's been done before. But Dostoevsky didn't write about technology and potential societal development and its affect on the individual. He wrote about Turks shooting babies in the face and how we deal with that (was it Turks? It's been awhile for me, but strikes me that everybody hates the Turks). He wrote in his own time. Who's to look down on me if I'd rather read about John from Brave New World over the Underground Man?

Setting is important, but if it supercedes character, it's pointless. I don't love Star Wars because of spaceships and a vast galaxy (although those are pretty rad), I like it because of Skywalker and Vader and Han Solo's amazing pants. The Gungan city looked awesome, but wow did I want every last one of those guys dead.

And god damnit, I want to be a Jedi. Primarily for telekinesis. But that's an entirely different thread.

[The Pelagic Argosy]

Originally Posted by vintagefury

Han Solo's amazing pants.

Scruffy-looking nerf herder, indeed.

Anyway, in the ideal science fiction story, both character and setting would indispensable and complimentary, and the ideal science fiction reader would have an appreciation for both. Growing up on the desolate sand trap of Tatooine is what gave Luke his thirst for adventure. The fact that Tatooine has two suns is interesting, but try to think about that fact without thinking about Luke gazing iconically at them setting with his feathered 70s haircut. (And if you ever wanted to know more about Tatooine's geopolitical history, there's probably a good chance you lost your virginity embarrassingly late in life.)

[Lhinneill]

I have quite a few books sitting on my shelves unread right now because the author took so long describing the setting and ignoring characters (or the other way around) that I got bored and went to find something else to read. I think there should be a balance between the plot, the setting, and the characters. I mean, if the author plans it all out right, he (or she) can smoothly build the characters and describe the setting as he goes. Like, I've read so many stories where everything grinds to a standstill just so the author can tell me that "John" has brown hair, blue eyes, wears blue jeans and cowboy boots and that he's standing in a crowded room that looks like something out of an old horror movie. Yeah, long sentence, but I think it gets my point across...?

I for one, though, still appreciate the characters a bit more than I do anything else. And, of course, Han Solo. ^_^

[Culhwch]

Just a quick one... Does anyone have any suggestions for an alternate term I can use for 'witch hunter'?

[lin robinson]

1) Each star having it's own set of planets?

This would create the possibility of planets being destined to smash into each other, wouldn't it? I LIKE it.