I've got an idea for a novel which involves a group of kids taking on or
thwarting an oppressive alien civilization. Problem is, for my plot to make
sense, the aliens have been killing a bunch of them before they figure out
they are even oppressed by aliens and then continue to do so as they figure
out how to fight back. I want the kids to be heroes and show how they
figure out the problem and fight back, from their eyes.   For the story to
make any sense, it's better for them to be under voting age.  The older
they are, the plot doesn't make sense.  The younger they are, I imagine
you're more at risk of either violating PC sensibilities or actually
scaring people.

Can you show 10-year olds in a sort of "The Poseidon Adventure" epic where
not all the ones you introduce the reader to survive by the end?

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> I've got an idea for a novel which involves a group of kids taking on or
> thwarting an oppressive alien civilization. Problem is, for my plot to make
> sense, the aliens have been killing a bunch of them before they figure out
> they are even oppressed by aliens and then continue to do so as they figure
> out how to fight back. I want the kids to be heroes and show how they
> figure out the problem and fight back, from their eyes.   For the story to
> make any sense, it's better for them to be under voting age.  The older
> they are, the plot doesn't make sense.  The younger they are, I imagine
> you're more at risk of either violating PC sensibilities or actually
> scaring people.
> 
> Can you show 10-year olds in a sort of "The Poseidon Adventure" epic where
> not all the ones you introduce the reader to survive by the end?

Battle Royale much?

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson <pte### [at] thecommononethatstartswithycom> wrote:
> Can you show 10-year olds in a sort of "The Poseidon Adventure" epic where
> not all the ones you introduce the reader to survive by the end?

  You are going to offend someone.

  This can of course be understood completely in the wrong way, but children
are the Holy Cows of the later 20th century and the 21st. Even completely
fictitious accounts of maltreatment is seen as a tabu. I think it has gone
a bit overboard.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Greg M. Johnson" <pte### [at] thecommononethatstartswithYcom> wrote

> [...]
> they are, the plot doesn't make sense.  The younger they are, I imagine
> you're more at risk of either violating PC sensibilities or actually
> scaring people.
>
> Can you show 10-year olds in a sort of "The Poseidon Adventure" epic where
> not all the ones you introduce the reader to survive by the end?

Of course you can. Granted, sci-fi of any sort (except maybe the fluff that
starts with "Star" and masquerades as sci-fi) will have very limited appeal
to readers/viewers in general.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 05:58:51 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   You are going to offend someone.

That's *generally* true, isn't it?  (ie, no matter what you do, you're 
going to offend someone)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 05:58:51 -0400, Warp wrote:

> >   You are going to offend someone.

> That's *generally* true, isn't it?  (ie, no matter what you do, you're 
> going to offend someone)

  Yeah, but in this case with a much higher probability.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> That's *generally* true, isn't it?  (ie, no matter what you do, you're 
>> going to offend someone)
> 
>   Yeah, but in this case with a much higher probability.

Nuke gay baby whales for Jesus!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:41:55 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   Yeah, but in this case with a much higher probability.

Possibly, yes.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:41:55 -0400, Warp wrote:

> >   Yeah, but in this case with a much higher probability.

> Possibly, yes.

  Not that I'm opposed to the original idea. I'm just stating the
sad facts.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson wrote:

> Can you show 10-year olds in a sort of "The Poseidon Adventure" epic where
> not all the ones you introduce the reader to survive by the end?

You have to explain why the parents of these children don't do 
everything they can to protect them, and if the plot depends on children 
figuring things out before the adults do, that also requires an explanation.

If the aliens are offing the kids but leaving the adults alone, that 
also requires an explanation.

If the enemy regards humans as vermin, then it makes perfect (albeit 
evil) sense for them to kill off any children who get into a position to 
offer effective resistance.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> I've got an idea for a novel which involves a group of kids taking on or
> thwarting an oppressive alien civilization. Problem is, for my plot to make
> sense, the aliens have been killing a bunch of them before they figure out
> they are even oppressed by aliens and then continue to do so as they figure
> out how to fight back. I want the kids to be heroes and show how they
> figure out the problem and fight back, from their eyes.   For the story to
> make any sense, it's better for them to be under voting age.  The older
> they are, the plot doesn't make sense.  The younger they are, I imagine
> you're more at risk of either violating PC sensibilities or actually
> scaring people.
My first reaction was: 'huh, we are talking about fiction'. Judging from 
the other reactions you are apparently correct in assuming this may be a 
problem. So I am not fully in touch with current PC.
Another reaction is: Have you read the latest Harry Potter? Kids as 
heroes and under voting age deaths, (though possibly not named ones, I 
do not remember the details).
Yet another: don't advertise it as a book for children.

> 
> Can you show 10-year olds in a sort of "The Poseidon Adventure" epic where
> not all the ones you introduce the reader to survive by the end?
> 

As is probably evident from the above: I would have absolutely no 
problems with it.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:19:22 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Have you read the latest Harry Potter? Kids as heroes and under voting
> age deaths, (though possibly not named ones, I do not remember the
> details). Yet another: don't advertise it as a book for children.

Hmmm, good point...And that series started as books for kids...The last 
one?  Definitely not for kids IMHO.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:13:59 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:41:55 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> >   Yeah, but in this case with a much higher probability.
> 
>> Possibly, yes.
> 
>   Not that I'm opposed to the original idea. I'm just stating the
> sad facts.

Oh, same here - I'm quite intrigued by Greg's story idea.

I'm the sort who can watch or read fairly gruesome fiction (though I 
don't like "slash horror" - I like there to be an actual story, ala Law & 
Order, for example) and switch my mind to "this is fiction" mode (though 
I have a harder time with L&O: Special Victims Unit, because it tends to 
be sex crimes involving kids as victims); my wife, however, can't watch 
or read anything like this because she gets very empathetic/sympathetic 
to the characters, even if they're fictional.

Raymond Feist's _Faerie Tale_ is an excellent book in this genre - the 
kids are the heroes, and a cat is eviscerated in the process.  I loved 
that book and have reread it several times, but my wife read it once and 
got to the first scene where the kids were in real danger and decided not 
to read any further; her son was about the same age as the kids in the 
book, and it was just a bit too close to home for her as a parent.  I 
don't think she read the bit about the cat - same sort of thing there as 
with the kids.

The thing that makes that sort of thing really terrifying for her is that 
kids/animals don't know *why* the bad things are happening, so for Greg's 
story if the kids demonstrate an understanding about what's going on 
(which, in retrospect, is also a reason why the HP books are perhaps more 
acceptable in this regard -they understand they and are not "innocent 
bystanders" and know what the stakes are), that makes it less 
"politically incorrect".

Jim

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Okay, so my story's not monetizable, so no need to be stingy with it.

--------------------------
The idea was that some aliens see a colony of humans on a few different
planets who are about to face some utter planetary destruction in a hundred
thousand years. Let's say they've lost the ability for space travel.

They figure out that the humans won't ever have the technology to get off
the planet(s) in time.  They survey the surrounding corner of the galaxy
and find two very different and barely habitable planets.

So, they start kidnapping all the prebubescent kids, putting them through
different ordeals until say 1/3 are killed, then they release the survivors
back to their original respective planets. Occasionally one from the other
planet gets dropped off on the other one.

The thing is one set of ordeals has to do with water, the other with trees
or cliffs.

The aliens have this quasi-benevolent idea. They think that they can through
natural selection produce two different races of humans that can survive
better on these other planets-- one an ocean world with little land, and
another say a cliff-y planet.  They think that they can make human dolphins
and birds!

The humans of course are sorely oppressed by this, but eventually some of
the kids figure it all out. They save the humans, yada yada yada.


--------------------------

I suppose the story could work if the aliens kidnapped 21 year olds, but
then the whole thing of artificially-imposed natural selection could be
moot since a non-small percentage of folks have kids by this time anyway.
And parental death for me is weirder than kid death, so that's not gonna
work either.

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson wrote:

> 
> Can you show 10-year olds in a sort of "The Poseidon Adventure" epic where
> not all the ones you introduce the reader to survive by the end?
> 
> 

Ender's game
Harry Potter
Narnia
The Sopranos....oops maybe not that one.

Post a reply to this message

"Greg M. Johnson" <pte### [at] thecommononethatstartswithYcom> a écrit dans 
le message de news: 46eddd81@news.povray.org...
> So, they start kidnapping all the prebubescent kids, putting them through
> different ordeals until say 1/3 are killed, then they release the 
> survivors
> back to their original respective planets.

This really has little to do with "political correctness". Offing fictional 
children has always been a touchy thing to do, for obvious reasons: children 
are supposed to be in the care of adults and protected by them. Of course, 
it's been done many times, sometimes to great critical and public acclaim. 
The big problem is that it requires some pretty good literary skills to kill 
fictional children in an *** entertaining *** fashion that's not a gore 
festival ("the alien machines slowly crushed the toddlers' heads, making 
soft popping sounds") or a tearjerker. Note that the "Think of the children" 
kind of people generally love it, as children are perfect (poster) victims 
for propaganda material...

G.

Post a reply to this message

Not at all.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Greg M. Johnson <pte### [at] thecommononethatstartswithycom> wrote:
> 
>>Can you show 10-year olds in a sort of "The Poseidon Adventure" epic where
>>not all the ones you introduce the reader to survive by the end?
> 
> 
>   You are going to offend someone.
> 
>   This can of course be understood completely in the wrong way, but children
> are the Holy Cows of the later 20th century and the 21st. Even completely
> fictitious accounts of maltreatment is seen as a tabu. I think it has gone
> a bit overboard.

Which is kind of a turnaround since ancient times.  With a few 
exceptions, most ancient cultures treated children as objects.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> 
>> I've got an idea for a novel which involves a group of kids taking on or
>> thwarting an oppressive alien civilization. Problem is, for my plot to 
>> make
>> sense, the aliens have been killing a bunch of them before they figure 
>> out
>> they are even oppressed by aliens and then continue to do so as they 
>> figure
>> out how to fight back. I want the kids to be heroes and show how they
>> figure out the problem and fight back, from their eyes.   For the 
>> story to
>> make any sense, it's better for them to be under voting age.  The older
>> they are, the plot doesn't make sense.  The younger they are, I imagine
>> you're more at risk of either violating PC sensibilities or actually
>> scaring people.
> 
> My first reaction was: 'huh, we are talking about fiction'. Judging from 
> the other reactions you are apparently correct in assuming this may be a 
> problem. So I am not fully in touch with current PC.
> Another reaction is: Have you read the latest Harry Potter? Kids as 
> heroes and under voting age deaths, (though possibly not named ones, I 
> do not remember the details).

One of the underage children to die is named.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

This seems a bit off to me, why would there
be a focus on kids?  Wouldn't this sort of
eugenics apply to adults too?

Also it seems like even if 99% of the
kidnapped people would die on planet X
then 1% would survive, so why not just
take as many as possible to strand on planet X?

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Which is kind of a turnaround since ancient times.  With a few 
> exceptions, most ancient cultures treated children as objects.

  Somehow it seems that the humanity only knows extremes. When something
or someone suffers from one extreme for a long time, this problem is
later "solved" with the complete opposite extreme. This other extreme
more often than not borders the ridiculous, and can sometimes even do
harm. (I'm not saying this is one such case, as this particular case
is pretty complicated, but in general.)

  Is the concept of moderation really so difficult for humanity to
grasp?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:

> This seems a bit off to me, why would there
> be a focus on kids?  Wouldn't this sort of
> eugenics apply to adults too?
> 
> Also it seems like even if 99% of the
> kidnapped people would die on planet X
> then 1% would survive, so why not just
> take as many as possible to strand on planet X?


Wouldn't everyone start having kids right before whatever is the
abductee-age?

Post a reply to this message

Tom Galvin wrote:
> Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> 
>>
>> Can you show 10-year olds in a sort of "The Poseidon Adventure" epic
>> where
>> not all the ones you introduce the reader to survive by the end?
>>
>>
> 
> Ender's game
> Harry Potter
> Narnia
> The Sopranos....oops maybe not that one.
His Dark Material
Memory Sorrow and Thorn
Almost all of Heinlein's juvi books, Podkayne of Mars jumps out as a
really good example even though the editors changed the ending.

And if you really want to argue, how old was Juliet?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Which is kind of a turnaround since ancient times.  With a few
>> exceptions, most ancient cultures treated children as objects.
>
>  Somehow it seems that the humanity only knows extremes. When
> something or someone suffers from one extreme for a long time, this
> problem is later "solved" with the complete opposite extreme.

It's easy to think it seems that way, because our minds are better at 
noticing extremes than noticing lack of extremes. Thus, if an extreme 
gradually disappears over time and is replaced with harmony and moderation, 
chances are nobody makes a big deal out of it or even notice it, while 
extremes that changes into other extremes will certainly be noticed and 
create a lot of fuzz.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:05:31 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   Is the concept of moderation really so difficult for humanity to
> grasp?

Apparently, yes - I wish it wasn't as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:46f00a05$1@news.povray.org...
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:05:31 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>>   Is the concept of moderation really so difficult for humanity to
>> grasp?
>
> Apparently, yes - I wish it wasn't as well.

     Apparently, yes, because we're all so selfish to the extent that we 
really don't care about anything any more unless it's for gain.

      Hussein > Mugabe. Sad, but true.

       ~Steve~



>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:32:06 +0100, St. wrote:

>      Apparently, yes, because we're all so selfish to the extent that we
> really don't care about anything any more unless it's for gain.
> 
>       Hussein > Mugabe. Sad, but true.

I think it's more that many/most people are incapable of/unwilling to 
trying to see the world through any eyes but their own.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:46f0145a@news.povray.org...
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:32:06 +0100, St. wrote:
>
>>      Apparently, yes, because we're all so selfish to the extent that we
>> really don't care about anything any more unless it's for gain.
>>
>>       Hussein > Mugabe. Sad, but true.
>
> I think it's more that many/most people are incapable of/unwilling to
> trying to see the world through any eyes but their own.

      Yes, I'd agree with that. It's the "I'm alright Jack" syndrome again. 
How many times has that reared its ugly head in our lifetime?

      I won't rattle on about Hussein, but really, those green guys need a 
real lesson taught. That's all. Bastards.


        ~Steve~


>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:22:53 +0100, St. wrote:

>       Yes, I'd agree with that. It's the "I'm alright Jack" syndrome
>       again.
> How many times has that reared its ugly head in our lifetime?

Far, far too many.  Of course, the "I'm right and you're wrong" syndrome 
doesn't help things, either, particularly where it's an ideological 
discussion and neither side can prove *definitively* that they're right.

>       I won't rattle on about Hussein, but really, those green guys need
>       a
> real lesson taught. That's all. Bastards.

Green guys?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:46f01eaf$1@news.povray.org...
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:22:53 +0100, St. wrote:
>
>>       Yes, I'd agree with that. It's the "I'm alright Jack" syndrome
>>       again.
>> How many times has that reared its ugly head in our lifetime?
>
> Far, far too many.  Of course, the "I'm right and you're wrong" syndrome
> doesn't help things, either, particularly where it's an ideological
> discussion and neither side can prove *definitively* that they're right.

    Checkmate! Are we not all tired of this by now?


>
>>       I won't rattle on about Hussein, but really, those green guys need
>>       a
>> real lesson taught. That's all. Bastards.
>
> Green guys?

     Yeah, sorry, I meant Green Bombers. Mugabe's army.


       ~Steve~



>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:28:59 +0100, St. wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:46f01eaf$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:22:53 +0100, St. wrote:
>>
>>>       Yes, I'd agree with that. It's the "I'm alright Jack" syndrome
>>>       again.
>>> How many times has that reared its ugly head in our lifetime?
>>
>> Far, far too many.  Of course, the "I'm right and you're wrong"
>> syndrome doesn't help things, either, particularly where it's an
>> ideological discussion and neither side can prove *definitively* that
>> they're right.
> 
>     Checkmate! Are we not all tired of this by now?

Well, I know *I* am. ;-)

>>>       I won't rattle on about Hussein, but really, those green guys
>>>       need a
>>> real lesson taught. That's all. Bastards.
>>
>> Green guys?
> 
>      Yeah, sorry, I meant Green Bombers. Mugabe's army.

Ah, OK - I didn't follow what went on there so much.

Jim

Post a reply to this message