+- thePlenty.net Forums (https://theplenty.net/forums)
+-- Forum: Off-topic (https://theplenty.net/forums/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Other universes (https://theplenty.net/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Pet peeves (beware some RotE spoilers) (/thread-342.html)
RE: Pet peeves - 'thul - Aug-28-2011
In modern, european/american-ish culture, the average age region that many reproduce is in their late 20's. In cultures of similar technological advancement to RotE, the age was significantly lower. Closer to 15 than to 30. Biologically, humans are designed with the capability of reproduction at around 13-14 years. In ancient times (some 25,000 years ago) it was irregular for the various human species to start reproducing later than within the first few years of their gaining the capability (puberty). In those times, Human life span was also significantly shorter. The case of the Rain Wilds is somewhat a mix of those two, with cultural/technological development of around the iron age, whereas they have the life span and mortality rate of the prehistoric times.
RE: Pet peeves - Albertosaurus Rex - Aug-30-2011
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
LSTAlso, Gargoyles just committed the time travel sin again. Argh.
RE: Pet peeves - Nuytsia - Aug-31-2011
RE: Pet peeves - 'thul - Aug-31-2011
Physically adult, mentally not adult.
In this world and age, it is entirely normal to find such difference creepy.
These beings like the books too much to care much about it in RotE.
RE: Pet peeves - Nuytsia - Sep-08-2011
I don't know if we have any evidence that she is physically adult. People certainly found it shocking to see her dressed as a grown woman at that ball she goes to by herself, so I'd say she her appearance at least is not physically adult.
I would say that RH is definitely exploring the issue of 'when does a child become an adult' in several of the characters, and also the consequences of a child pushed into an adult world too soon (Wintrow, Kennit, even Althea, Brashen). We even have a liveship that is a mix of man and child!
RE: Pet peeves - 'thul - Sep-08-2011
Probably not physically adult, no. It would not have been made a point out of things the way it was if she were.
These beings are finally getting closer to finished on the 3D model of Thymara... For the most part only finishing touches left.
Mervi added the spoiler tags for the image.
![[Image: th_Thymara12-1.jpg]](http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh260/suggestive_disorder/Thymara12-1.jpg)
RE: Pet peeves (beware some RotE spoilers) - Albertosaurus Rex - Sep-09-2011
While this discussion about age is mightily interesting, let's try to get back on topic. Following are a few more pet peeves of mine (I didn't know I had so many!), mostly involving children. Thul: that's a nice pic, but... blue skin? Is that what's happening to Thymara, besides the wings?
The child always lives
This happens mostly in films and tv series and (I think) less in books. If there's an epidemic, or a terrorist attack, or a violent hostage situation, or anything else in which lives are in danger... no matter how many adults die, the kid wil allways pull through. Alas, children in real life are not immune to death, so why should fictional children be? It feels like a cop-out, as if viewers can't handle a child dying.
Naming kids after relatives (or friends)
Parents in fiction are the most unimaginative namers ever. They can't just pick a name because it sounds nice, noooo, children have to be named after significant people in their parents' lives.
I don't necessarily hate the idea of naming kids after relatives. In fact, I would like to do that if I ever have children myself... but only as a middle name. I can't imagine calling my children by my parents' names.
RE: Pet peeves (beware some RotE spoilers) - 'thul - Sep-09-2011
Naming:
In modern times it is less common, but in the ancient times, it was the norm.
Icelandic phone books are a good example of such ancient style. They are sorted based on first name, not last name. For example, an icelander named "ashild gudmundsdottir" (we mixed that randomly) is literally named "ashild, daughter of gudmund". During the shift most of western culture took towards modern day last names, That custom of being named after parent shifted over to first names, with last names being static. Royalty also has a tendency for repeating names. And some families have a tendency to copy that royal habit.
Edit: again Mervi adding the spoiler tags.
RE: Pet peeves (beware some RotE spoilers) - Albertosaurus Rex - Sep-09-2011
Ah yes, now I remember.
I am well aware of the old custom of naming children after relatives: it has been a tradition in the Netherlands for hundreds of years. In fact, it was so pervasive that it was standardized: one's oldest son would be named after his paternal grandfather, the second son after his maternal grandfather. The same for daughters, followed by children being named after aunts, uncles or their parents. It is only after World War Two that people have started to abandon this practice, and these days it is virtually nonexistent, although my grandparents seem to have a rather hard time grasping this, despite me and my siblings not being named after our grandparents or any other relatives.
There is a certain beauty about bestowing the name of a loved relative on a child, but the effect of doing this for hundreds of years is stifling. I have done extensive genealogical research on my own family and it looks really stifling to see the same names pop up again and again and again. Apparently, people back then were getting a little tired of it as well, because it led to wide variety of nicknames, to the point that almost nobody went by the name on their birth certificate. Then-common names like Wilhelmina and Elizabeth have four syllables, so there's lots of room to play around. Even so, Miep (Pronounced "Meep") for Wilhelmina and Bep for Elizabeth looks extremely bizarre. (These nicknames have fallen out of favor entirely.)
Long story short, I don't mind the naming after relatives phenomenon if it happens in historical tales or medieval fantasy. I actually liked how in ASOIAF, certain Stark names like Rickard and Eddard popped up again in the related Karstark family. But if a work is set in modern times, it makes me cringe.
RE: Pet peeves (beware some RotE spoilers) - Farseer - Sep-18-2011
I truly dislike it when second and third instalments of movies ignore major events and outcomes from the original eg the characters have grown in the first but, in the second, they are all young again. It happens to a ridiculous point in children's animated movies. Children aren't stupid.
As a specific example: they know that by the end of Cinderella that Cinderella and the Prince marry and Cinderella's step-mother and step-sisters are thwarted. They also know that by the end of Cinderella II that Anastasia (one of the ugly step-sisters) ends up in love with a baker, much to her mother's disgust. In fact, the entire second instalment was based on this desire of Anastasia's to be married by the man of her choice. Why, oh why, then do they bother to make Cinderella III that has the step-mother and step-sisters turn back time and have the Prince fall in love with Anastasia because Anastasia has a strong desire to have someone love her, like the Prince loved Cinderella?! It's like the second and third instalments share the same goal but they've written two different scripts to find Anastasia a love, despite the fact that she was happily in love with her baker after number two!
What I am not talking about here is movies such as Star Wars that follow chronologically but that are just released at different times. I am talking about movies that are released as a sequel or number two, three or four of an original but that don't follow on chronologically from the original. If you want to add a couple of extra movies after the original, release them as Cinderella: Turn Back Time or Cinderella: Love for Anastasia or something.