Two questions.

Subject: Two questions.
Author: Firebird766
Posted on: 2010-09-11 23:05:00 UTC

If an Agent goes insane to the point of not being able to function, what happens to them? Are they kept in FicPsych for eternity? Are they returned to their home continuum? Or do they just wander HQ forever, babbling about whatever drove them insane?

2. Let's use a theoretical example for this next one. Say a badfic has Harry and Hermione summon Bloody Mary so they can take over Hogwarts. Harry and Hermione would be exorcised and any replacement-Sues killed, but what would happen to Bloody Mary? Urban legends and folklore don't really have a continuum of their own, after all. And would artificial urban legends like the Slender Man be treated any differently?

Reply Return to messages

Two questions. by Firebird766 on 2010-09-11 23:05:00 UTC

Whatever works. by Neshomeh on 2010-09-12 06:30:00 UTC Reply

I don't think there's any one answer to these, but since it's a FicPsych question, here's my take:

FicPsych would certainly try to rehabilitate an agent who's that far gone, and they do have a very secret, very removed from the beaten path inpatient facility. They would certainly keep a close watch on anyone likely to be dangerous. However, given limited personnel, that number would have to be very small, restricted to only those most desperately in need of their particular brand of care. They are very good at what they do, though, and since they have loads of experience with agents who've lost it, I'd say their chances of rehabilitating most people are pretty good. And if you think it would make an entertaining story, I'd love to see you write it. {= )

As for the second question, again, whatever seems like it would be the most entertaining is probably fine. I don't think there's any precedent for that sort of scenario, and even if there were, it would depend on the circumstances in the fic. That said, simply banishing anything that was summoned ought to do the trick.

~Neshomeh

I have a question too... by Sister-to-the-Queen on 2010-09-12 09:42:00 UTC Reply

Just something that's been puzzling me.

I love to read, and I've found that good metaphors can really help get a reader more emotionally involved in a story. Yet, in reading PPC missions, it has struck me more than once that mission writers can show a profound dislike for metaphors. Why is this? Does the PPC always consider them a bad thing, or are there certain criteria?

Good metaphos versus bad metaphors by Callista on 2010-09-12 17:17:00 UTC Reply

We really need a wiki article on that...

But yeah, what the others are saying is pretty close to what I'm thinking, too. If you're reading along, and you come to a metaphor and you automatically interpret it as the figurative meaning, then that's a good, non-obstrusive metaphor. (Or simile. They work much the same way.) On the other hand, if you're reading along and the metaphor is jarring enough that you're suddenly picturing it literally, or you're trying to figure out what it means--that's the kind of metaphor where the continuum will struggle to interpret it and finally just settle on the literal version.

One caution to fellow autistic-spectrum writers, though: If you tend to take things literally by nature, remember that tendency when you're checking for misuse/abuse of metaphors. When I was a kid, I took things ultra-literally, finally got annoyed enough that I studied an idiom dictionary meant for non-native English speakers, and got the hang of it, with the result that now I use metaphors frequently, and often metaphors that are original to me. So I've actually swung to the opposite end of the continuum, and have to watch out that I don't over-use the things. Bottom line--if you're autistic, or if you tend to take things literally for some other reason (simply nerdiness can be enough and there's plenty of that here!), be careful about metaphors.
My answer by Miah on 2010-09-12 15:53:00 UTC Reply

I have made fun of some that would have been just fine in another story. For me, once the story has crossed the badfic threshold where things are manifesting literally, no metaphor is safe from literal interpretation.

In the zombie fic I did, the story said something like Mary Watson's eyes were 'aflame' with passion. I probably would not have a problem with that in a generally good story, but by that point in the story, I was a seriously ticked off reader, and not willing to give the story any slack in the suspension of disbelief area. The phrase caused her eyes to be on fire.

I know I only go the absolute literal translation route under extreme annoyance. I have gotten the impression that this often plays a part in missions.

Seconding. by Neshomeh on 2010-09-12 18:54:00 UTC Reply

There's nothing inherently wrong with figurative language, but if a fic is badly written enough, there's no reason for me to believe that the writer knew what they were doing when they used it; no benefit of the doubt = manifesting metaphors.

Also, taking things literally is funny, which is really the important thing. {= )

This isn't the first time this has come up, though. Maybe it should have a space in the FAQ: For Newbies or something?

~Neshomeh

Certainly a good idea. I think we need more detail, though by Sedri on 2010-09-12 23:42:00 UTC Reply

Personally, I'll poke fun at or charge for metaphors when they're badly done, confusing, or absurdly unnecessary for the story. A metaphor that's well done will slip right past me as I read, and that's a good thing.

So how about this FAQ answer be something along the lines of:

How do I handle metaphors and similies and such? Do the Word Worlds take everything literally, and if so, should I charge for it?
Not if it's done well. Metaphors and similies, when properly used, enhance the storytelling process and are undoubtedly a Good Thing. The problem comes when fanfic writers misuse or overuse them, particularly when it causes confusion for the readers. Generally speaking, if it doesn't bother you while reading, don't charge for it. However, if the badfic you're PPCing is already pretty bad, then the Word World will already be weakened and chances are that such phrases as "eyes aflame" will manifest literally.

(Structured like so, though, it might be better in the Mission Writing Guide.) Anyone want me to add something/take something out?

Whew! What a relief... by Sister-to-the-Queen on 2010-09-12 16:23:00 UTC Reply

I was starting to think I was crazy for liking metaphores.

Metaphors are like spices by DL_Blanca on 2010-09-12 12:48:00 UTC Reply

You have to be careful what you use and how much of it are you putting into the mix, otherwise the final product might be impalatable for the consumers ;-)
It depends by IndeMaat on 2010-09-12 12:34:00 UTC Reply

One of the books I'm currently reading is a writing guide, which also covers attractive writing and the use of metaphor. It gives a strong warning about using imagery and metaphor. In serious text infotainment can have negative impact. And humorous writing may only be funny on the screen of the author.

Personally, I have a rather low tolerance for metaphor. Too many metaphors cause me to think outside the story, because they make me think of something that isn't in the story. Send me outside the story too often and I'm staying out of it, i.e. I'm not going to continue reading it.

I don't think PPC-ers always think metaphors are a bad thing. Just the ones that are only funny to the author themselves. Plus, it is fun to make fun of something that was intended as funny.

So... by Sister-to-the-Queen on 2010-09-12 12:51:00 UTC Reply

Let's say you have a (very) serious story very low on metaphors. When the author does employ a metaphor that is certainly not intended as funny and, indeed, succeeds in producing the desired effect, it can be good to very good, yes?

Yes. (nm) by DL_Blanca on 2010-09-12 13:07:00 UTC Reply

My thoughts... by Callista on 2010-09-12 05:33:00 UTC Reply
1. Yes, they'd stay in Medical or FicPsych, depending on their particular needs. Most of the time, agents who go nuts tend to be psychotic rather than just garden-variety traumatized or depressed, probably because the badfic has been re-writing their brains. While it has some things in common with schizophrenia or some kinds of bipolar mania, this condition is not the same thing as either one of those real-world diagnoses. World One doesn't have the facilities to treat badfic-related disorders; the only such facilities are located at HQ (and possibly some other metafictional continua). To have any chance of recovering, insane agents would have to stay at HQ.
  
  2. Depends. The first possibility is that Bloody Mary or the Slender Man would simply be an OC with that name, and dealt with like any other OC. The second possibility is that they would be dealing with the real Bloody Mary. There seem to be characters who have an existence beyond a single continuum of the multiverse. Only a very few are known. Among them are Lady Contrivance and Lord Implausibility, Sekhmet and Imhotep from Egyptian mythology (encountered by Suicide and Ithalond in the HPverse), and all omnipotent beings. These have all been known to pop in and out of the continua at will, entering badfic without portal technology. Notably, Sekhmet and Imhotep are both (non-omnipotent) deities who are part of World One mythology. Bloody Mary would be similar--as an urban legend, she is part of modern mythology. So in this case the agents would be dealing with the real Bloody Mary. Not being omnipotent (if she were, badfic would force character replacement rather than OOC), she'd be forced to go along with it until someone did a few exorcisms or cast a few Avada Kedavras... at which point, watch out.
One and a half answers. by Sedri on 2010-09-11 23:52:00 UTC Reply

1) I think they'd almost certainly be kept in FicPsych until they can be treated and restored to health or, the rules of time and aging permitting, they die. Maybe they'd be sent to a mental health care ward in the Real World, if possible (non-Humans certainly wouldn't go unnoticed), but I'd think they'd be kept in FicPsych because, presumably, with all the advanced technology, magic, and plotholes available, there's a much better chance of treating them there than elsewhere. I certainly don't think they'd be left to wander HQ; even PPC agents aren't so callous as to ignore a (potentially - scratch that - definitely dangerous) loony who's wandering around. IF they're found (and don't get lost in the plotholes of HQ corridors), that is.
However, I don't know if this question has ever been raised before, so don't take my word as final. Let's see what others say.

2) I'm not sure. Not being a specific character, there would be no way to measure a folk character for OOCness - and actually, in a Potterverse fic, something like that is more likely to be allowed than not, given the nature of their magic. Artifican urban legends, however, might be something you can treat more like a standard continuum. Still, what isn't written down in prose isn't a Word World, so chances are you'd have a mess on your hands regardless. Personally, I'd just avoid taking on badfics with those kinds of random elements.
Re: Two questions by DL_Blanca on 2010-09-11 23:37:00 UTC Reply

1) I would say any of those. Depends on your liking - like so many things ;-) Seeing as the Flowers are not much concerned with the well-being of the agents they wouldn't take any particular action as long as you stay away from flamethrowers and such ;-)

2) You could just exorcise it away I guess (in the Bloody Mary case) or it would disappear as soon as the continuum fixes itself. I don't see any reason, why artificial urban legends would be any different.
There is one more idea - take them to the Supernatural continuum and let the Winchester brothers take care of them ;-)