Subject: On picking a continuum
Author:
Posted on: 2015-05-07 14:23:00 UTC
Personally, I'd choose one that
-
Cipher's Quest for Permission: The Sequel by
on 2015-05-06 22:19:00 UTC
Reply
Hey, guys, sorry I wasn't active last week but I got sick. Luckily, I'm a bit better now and can actually focus my thoughts (that's actually pretty difficult, when I'm sick).
Now, as you may or may not remember, I asked you before about creating a magic-user as my agent. Yeah, I pretty much got the personality, overall design and all the necessary stuff, all I need now is a wrapping. Now, I have three possible outcomes for the character, so I am here to ask for help:
#1 - a Homo Magi from DC Universe. In case you don't know, the Homo Magi are a sub-species of humans who are capable of using magic. Most famous example would be Zatanna Zatara, who uses Backwards Magic. This is kinda risky, since I couldn't notice clear limitations and boundaries of this type. Any DC experts and fans are more than welcome to help me! :)
#2 - something for my Whovian brethren. If you remember "The Shakespeare Code", you know what I'm talking about. This option features a Human/Carrionite hybrid. Again, a quick summary: You know how we use numbers for our science? Well, the Carrionites do the same thing using words, therefore it is easy to mistake it for magic. Again, I'm counting for the Whovians' help.
Option no. 3 is The Secrets of Immortal Nicolas Flamel and, so far, it's the most probable one. I mentioned it before.
So, yeah, I'm counting on you guys. Apologies, if you find this annoying, or thinking that it's some kid trying to do a BAMF character, because it really isn't :).
Also, by the time you read this (probably), it'll be my one-month-anniversary on the Board. Yay me~ :D -
On picking a continuum by
on 2015-05-07 14:23:00 UTC
Reply
Personally, I'd choose one that
-
Your post is cut mid-sentence. (nm) by
on 2015-05-07 14:33:00 UTC
Reply
-
Didn't really mean to post at all, sorry. (nm) by
on 2015-05-07 18:24:00 UTC
Reply
-
While I think a human/carrionite agent would be... by
on 2015-05-07 04:59:00 UTC
Reply
. . really interesting, I agree with Des: don't write a character from a canon you don't feel you know well enough or don't feel you could get around not being a complete expert in by careful research. For example, I have a Klingon agent, but while I know Star Trek pretty well, a lot of the material on Klingons and Klingon society is in the series that I haven't seen very much of. Since my Klingon is from the original series (which I have seen), I rely only partially on my memory of TOS, which is mainly outsider POV anyway, and make sure to boost my knowledge with close reading of the Memory Alpha wiki articles on Klingons. I wouldn't consider myself an expert on Klingons...but I do feel confident writing one!
That's not to say that research doesn't apply even with characters you know more about. I also look at wiki articles for Vulcans (T'Zar) and Time Lords (the Reader), though not as often since I know and remember more about them without the extra research. Elves probably get the most infrequent amount of extra research, if you take out anything to do with researching names, looking up bits of languages, or checking bits of history.
Basically, writing characters from canons that provide anything more than 'this is its name, its function, and the basic way people react to it' will generally involve at least a little bit of research at some point. How intense or intensive the research gets... well, that's up to you and it's up to the canon. Also, your memory of the canon.
So yeah. Feel better, and also don't worry about how frequently you're on or off the Board--people tend to drift in and out a bit, especially around exam times. We'll often give a warning if we're about to disappear for a month or so and know in advance, or do some sort of welcome back post if it's been a long while since we were last on (or even a returnbie post, if it's been a longer while), but generally speaking, things are fairly casual.
So don't stress about how active you are or aren't able to be. Just focus on getting better :) As you can see, we're still here!
Also, hurrah, one month anniversary! *throws confetti* Did you know that in Italian 'confetti' actually has something to do with almonds? Sergio Turbo can tell you more, if he's around...I, unfortunately, have forgotten and am not Italian.
Good luck with the agent!
~DF -
Since I've been called in... by
on 2015-05-07 22:29:00 UTC
Reply
It's time for your resident Italian Boarder to start Sergio Turbo's Italian Lessons!
"Confetti" is indeed the (plural. Singular is "confetto") term that designates sugared almonds or similar candies with an hard sugar coating. The Italian term for the small bits of paper thrown around is another - "coriandoli" (singular: coriandolo, though it is rarely used as you rarely need to refer to a single one).
Another similar case is "pepperoni": if you think it refers to sausages in Italy, you're so off-road you're going to need high-lift suspensions and mud tyres.
"Peperoni" (Yes, you also use one "p" too many in America. And what's with always using the plural even when referring to single things?), singular "peperone", is actually the term for bigger, sweeter peppers.
Since I see "pepperoni" used mainly when referring to pizza toppings, though, I might have an idea about how the slip-up happened. Here in Italy a popular pizza topping is peppers and spicy sausages, so whoever tried importing that to the US probably thought "peperoni" referred to the sausages instead. -
That... seems to be the case. by
on 2015-05-08 19:03:00 UTC
Reply
The OED attests 'peperoni' in English in 1888, in The Times:
There were peperoni, sometimes called diavolini, and poponi.
And then, unusually, they have a note:
Although quot. 1888 suggests an Italian origin, the Italian word is apparently not attested in this sense.
So yeah. Whoever that writer in The Times was, they just... got it wrong. ^_^ (And were English, not American. Just want to make that clear.)
'Confetti' is OED'd as 'Bon-bons, or plaster or paper imitations of these, thrown during carnival in Italy'; the first citation is 1815, about 'little balls, the size of a small marble, made of some soft white plaister that makes a mark wherever it strikes'. Apparently that's where the shift came from, I guess?
hS -
Heck, even if you do know the species well... by
on 2015-05-07 10:47:00 UTC
Reply
...it doesn't hurt to do at least a bit of research on them. While I'm pretty well-versed in Doctor Who, I still wanted to make sure there weren't any details on Time Lord physiology and post-regeneration symptoms that I might not have known because it came from an episode of Classic Who, or the Expanded Universe, or maybe a detail I just missed. You might be surprised at what you find.
Research is good. Research is your friend. :) -
Confetti... by
on 2015-05-07 09:35:00 UTC
Reply
As Sarge would have told you, are sugared almonds. The word you're looking for is 'coriandoli'.
-
No, listen, it's simple. by
on 2015-05-07 10:46:00 UTC
Reply
That's Italian confetti. American confetti has a thicker base and a lot more toppings.
hS -
You guys are overcomplicating this. by
on 2015-05-07 10:49:00 UTC
Reply
Just throw cakefetti like I do and everyone's happy! ;)
...
*throws cakefetti*
:D -
No, I'm sorry, I can't stand for this. by
on 2015-05-07 11:04:00 UTC
Reply
Your use of the word 'cake' to mean anything other than a hard round loaf of bread like it originally meant is quite simply cultural appropriation. Do you have no respect at all for Anglo-Norman culture?
hS -
*sprinkles cakefetti in your hair* by
on 2015-05-07 11:07:00 UTC
Reply
Apparently not. :P
-
CAKEFETTI FIGHT! by
on 2015-05-07 11:37:00 UTC
Reply
*launches a cakefetti bomb at Ixi's face* You've been Cipher'd! :D
-
A simple rule of thumb. by
on 2015-05-06 22:29:00 UTC
Reply
Two of them, actually.
1) If you think it's OP or too undefined, it is, and you shouldn't be using it in your PPC writing.
2) If you're not sufficiently confident you can write an agent without having embarrassing canon-related slip-ups, don't. -
Simple and understandable... thanks! :3 (nm) by
on 2015-05-06 22:38:00 UTC
Reply
-
Glad to help. (nm) by
on 2015-05-06 22:49:00 UTC
Reply