I've been reading through the Original Series like a good little PoDE (Person of Developing Experience), and I come to realize that I had been making badfic my entire life.
Well, its not strictly badfic, because that's breaking of the cannon, but I have always looked at books and movies and figured out different ways to bring it to the same conclusion with different variables i.e. crossovers or the inclusion of new characters.
Quite a little shock, as I had always regarded it as harmless, and it makes me feel sorry for those authors who are unenlightened. I thank my lucky stars that my good friend Ralac instilled a strong respect for CANNON (as he referred to it) a couple years ago.
We have always been roleplayers, and his ability to conduct a fun RP that maintains the cannon is amazing.
AS a side note, I'll be informing him of the PPC.
So, a little something about myself and now a question.
Is their any trans-universe science that takes into account the persistence of a Sue? If there is, then I have not found it on the wiki.
I guess here is an example.
In order for an Agent to assassinate a Sue this equation must be true.
Eo*Io
Where Eo= the original authors effort, which can be found by this:
Length of Story multiplied by the number of new or original characters multiplied by the deviation from a standard badfic (a number that can not be less then 1 or greater then 1.9999999~inf, where 1 equals completely predictable and 2 represents a complete deviation from previous badfic{not possible because it is all based on the authors original work}).
Eo=L*N*D
And where Io= the intelligence of the original author, which can be found by this:
The amount of grammatical and spelling errata under one.
Io=1/G
------------------------------------
The same thing applies to the authors of the agent's exploits, except with these changes.
Ea = the length of the story multiplied by the number of new characters (relative to the badfic and the agents author, so by PPC standards would most often be 2) multiplied by the deviance of the agent's author's work from THEIR OWN PREVIOUS ENDEAVORS.
Ia = the same.
----------------------------------
So for an example.
Larry writes a badfic. His story is fairly lengthy(65), although he only introduces 3 new characters (thank god), but its pretty much like other badfic, so it only gets a deviance score of (1.1). He is not that bright however, and has a few errors on his behalf (lets say 17).
So, the equation goes as such.
65 (length) * 3 (characters) * 1.1 (deviation) = 214.5
That is his Eo.
Now his intelligence score is 1/17, so
214.5 * 1/17 = 12.61 (errors are devastating)
So, Thoman wants to write a rectification story.
Its not as long, only rated at 37 and he uses his standard 2 agents, but he is pretty original with this one and thus gets a 1.4 for deviance. He is smart and spellchecks, leaving only 3 erros in his project.
37 * 2 * 1.4 = 103.6, not as high as the other raw score, but this is where quality and intelligence come into play.
103.6 * 1/3 = 34.53~
Ahh, his final score is much higher then the badfic writers, and his agents are successful in their mission.
------------------------------------------------------
This is not random math however. All that really matters are the theories, the numbers themselves can change to whatever is necessary and don't even have to be "numbers" per say. What this does accomplish:
*Explains why the PPC doesn't go after small or weak badfic very often, as it is not much of a numerical threat.
*Maintains quality, the way the numbers stack, the badfic writer almost always has you outnumbered and the only way you can win is by originality and use of acceptable spelling and grammer.
*Gives me something to do. I like quantifying things, and even if this is unnecessary, I enjoyed the process. ^_^
So, tell me what you think. Is this too limiting? Does there need to be revisions? Is there even a place for this theory in the PPC? This post is pretty poorly formatted, so if you understand its contents, kudos to you. I also thank you for reading this far (unless you skipped).