15168 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Elyvern wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Elyvern wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
There's one thing I don't get in the excerpt: Miranda's mental leap from Mordin's speculation about human mating behavior and the human species' biological imperative to Noah's ark. Have I missed anything?

Damn....the reference of needing two units to make one breeding pair wasn't obvious enough still? 

It doesn't work for me at all. Even after your explanation, I don't get why I should make the association.
(1) Needing two units to make one breeding pair is too normal for a human reader to evoke, or even justify, any specific association. The specifics of Noah's ark would rather be that there was only to be one pair left of any species.
(2) Perhaps you underestimate the degree to which Christian mythology, even if well known, is a non-issue for a thoroughly non-religious reader.

This is interesting...

I spent quite a bit of time trying to get the flow of thoughts as natural as possible for this excerpt. So it went through many revisions. For me, the strongest link would be the line "monogamy wasn't always the norm" which can only be said when one thinks back on the history of human culture and religion. At the expense of needing to relate to a western reader, I opted for christianity and its advocation of monogamy even in the early times. The ark reference then came as a suitable analogy to the direness of their situation. Miranda's train of thought is decidedly tangential there, but I still felt it was justifiable.

I'm trying to recapture how my associations went. The whole exchange has some issues as far as I'm concerned:

First, I'm still thinking of how monogamy could increase human genetic diversity as Mordin speculates - or did I understand that wrongly? It doesn't sound plausible in the first place, which is why my thoughts remained there and didn't move away from biology back to culture. Miranda had an answer for him that suggested she thought the idea plausible in principle if not in reality which is also puzzling.

Second, Mordin's next speculation is equally puzzling. "Together with human birth ratios seem to suggest biological imperative achieving equilibrium with mature, space-faring culture." What could monogamy have to do with achieving that equilibrium? I sense a hidden assumption I do not share.

The apocalyptic scenario would be a trigger to associate the Noah's ark story with, except that the conversation focuses too much on biology and culture in general that it remains too much in the background. I would need to hear more of Miranda's thoughts before making that jump, like having her think about the worst-case scenario where they wouldn't be able to stop the Reapers. The jump to Noah's ark from there would be intuitive....except, well, I didn't get the impression that Miranda has been touched by these stories very much as a child. OK, that's why it's fanfic, but while that would be justifiable, it does feel like a bit of a foreign object still. The jump from "monogamy", however, is too far. You've explained it twice now, and I still don't feel it's plausible that it comes up in Miranda's mind at that point.

[Jebel Krong]

Ieldra2 wrote...


Second, Mordin's next speculation is equally puzzling. "Together with human birth ratios seem to suggest biological imperative achieving equilibrium with mature, space-faring culture." What could monogamy have to do with achieving that equilibrium? I sense a hidden assumption I do not share.

educated people (& aliens?) in developed countries have less children. that's been proven many times, so it would also translate to a space-faring analogy.

[Ieldra]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Second, Mordin's next speculation is equally puzzling. "Together with human birth ratios seem to suggest biological imperative achieving equilibrium with mature, space-faring culture." What could monogamy have to do with achieving that equilibrium? I sense a hidden assumption I do not share.

educated people (& aliens?) in developed countries have less children. that's been proven many times, so it would also translate to a space-faring analogy.

That was not in question. In question is: how does monogamy contribute to it?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 octobre 2010 - 12:04 .

[enayasoul]

snfonseka wrote...

not so much her being arrogant.  I in a strange way, think of Miranda as being superior, maybe even like a parent telling a child, that her behavior is unacceptable.  Even Miranda herself thinks Jack is a child and yeah, she is in a way acting like one. Go mommy Miranda and Daddy Shepard.

[enayasoul]

fongiel24 wrote...

jtav wrote...

There's a topic: how would she get along with the ME crew? Garrus seems to dislike her, and I have a feeling it's mutual. Tali despises Cerberus, but she seems mostly indifferent to Miranda. She canonically gets along well with Liara, and they could have been close friends if things had been different. I think she and Ash would rub each other the wrong way. They're both loyal to a fault, but they have opposing temperments. Miranda would think Ash is overly emotional and Ash would think Miranda's an ice queen.

I think Miranda and Kaidan would have some sexual tension. They're of similar temprements: introverted and deliberating and professional. But they're currently on opposite sides and have very different moral compasses. I could see the developing a knack for pushing each other's buttons without hurting each other. I think she'd take a certain pleasure in seeing him flustered. I might be a bit biased here.

No idea about Wrex.

Garrus and Miranda have a bit of a chilly relationship, which becomes obvious in the briefing before the Collector Base mission if you killed Jack. The most their relationship will ever be is mutual respect of each others' abilities.

Tali obviously dislikes everything that has to do with Cerberus. I don't think she's very fond of Miranda, particularly since for most of the game Miranda is a pretty hardcore Cerberus supporter. If Tali stopped to think about it, she'd probably realize it's not really anything personal though.

Liara has her misgivings about Cerberus and probably by extension Miranda (at least in the beginning), but I think they could become at least cordial. They might also be able to relate to each other a bit due to the fact both of them are the children of wealthy, powerful, influential people who they later became estranged from. I think both of them have also led fairly lonely lives at times, although I'm not sure if either of them really dwelled on it much.

Miranda and Ashley would be like mixing kerosene and an open flame. They might both be dedicated to serving humanity, but I think it's apparent that Ashley thinks everybody who isn't working directly for the Alliance is a traitor. Miranda would have a very low opinion of Ashley, I think. Ashley is just a lowly grunt with no special training, no special qualifications, and no real experience yet likes to talk as if she does. She also seems to have a very simplistic view of galactic politics, despite her having seen so little of the galaxy. I would not leave both of them in the same room. Could be worse than Jack and Miranda in some ways.

Kaidan could be interesting. Even if Kaidan has serious misgivings about Cerberus, he's not the fiery, impulsive type and he's much more thoughtful and cerebral than Ashley. He might not like some of Miranda's views, but I think they could have a civil debate over them. Both being old enough to be first or second-generation biotics, I think they might also have some common experiences.

Wrex would be largely indifferent to Miranda, just like I think he was probably indifferent to the rest of the SR-1 crew. Miranda would probably be impressed and somewhat intrigued by the fact he seems to have a different outlook in life than other krogan do though.

enayasoul wrote...

If Miranda had to pick one person to confide in on the Normandy who would be the obvious choice besides Shepard?

I'm going with Jacob as a somewhat obvious choice. Miranda clearly is slow to trust people, both professionally and personally. She's worked with Jacob for a long time and they got close enough to even date for a bit. I think she'd trust him enough to confide in him in most things. For really deeply personal issues, I don't think Miranda would confide in anyone though, not even pre-romance Shepard. Even after the engine room scene, I think there are things Miranda still wouldn't feel comfortable confiding in Shepard with, at least not until their relationship has grown a little deeper.

Thanks guys/gals for the input. I actually had Miranda seek advice from Jacob about all the crap that went down with the collectors and the aftermath of it all.  And Shepard sought out Liara's help.  They both needed to spill their guts but couldn't to each other until afterwards.

I am happy with things are going in my fic. 30 pages later and nearly 10k worth of stuff in just 3 days.  My shepard gives off an awesome speech he learns out of all it.  

[hooahguy]

Good morning beautiful.

[fongiel24]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Second, Mordin's next speculation is equally puzzling. "Together with human birth ratios seem to suggest biological imperative achieving equilibrium with mature, space-faring culture." What could monogamy have to do with achieving that equilibrium? I sense a hidden assumption I do not share.

educated people (& aliens?) in developed countries have less children. that's been proven many times, so it would also translate to a space-faring analogy.

That was not in question. In question is: how does monogamy contribute to it?

This is just a guess, since I'm not entirely clear on the connection either, but perhaps the assumption is that monogamous couples have less children than non-exclusive pairings. Monogamy might imply a commitment towards creating a stable family unit, precluding the biological imperative to have as many children as possible. The problem remains though, that human beings naturally follow a K-selection model of reproduction, meaning our species isn't inclined to reproduce like rabbits anyway.

[Caihn]

hooahguy wrote...

Good morning beautiful.

The best wake up Shepard could hope for.

[Ieldra]

fongiel24 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Second, Mordin's next speculation is equally puzzling. "Together with human birth ratios seem to suggest biological imperative achieving equilibrium with mature, space-faring culture." What could monogamy have to do with achieving that equilibrium? I sense a hidden assumption I do not share.

educated people (& aliens?) in developed countries have less children. that's been proven many times, so it would also translate to a space-faring analogy.

That was not in question. In question is: how does monogamy contribute to it?

This is just a guess, since I'm not entirely clear on the connection either, but perhaps the assumption is that monogamous couples have less children than non-exclusive pairings. Monogamy might imply a commitment towards creating a stable family unit, precluding the biological imperative to have as many children as possible. The problem remains though, that human beings naturally follow a K-selection model of reproduction, meaning our species isn't inclined to reproduce like rabbits anyway.

These are very far-fetched assumptions. There is no indication that the rate of reproduction is higher in non-monogamous societies if you eliminate the economic factors, nor that non-monogamous families are inherently less stable. I don't think Mordin would use such culturally-biased assumptions.

[Ieldra]

enayasoul wrote...

snfonseka wrote...

not so much her being arrogant.  I in a strange way, think of Miranda as being superior, maybe even like a parent telling a child, that her behavior is unacceptable.  Even Miranda herself thinks Jack is a child and yeah, she is in a way acting like one. Go mommy Miranda and Daddy Shepard.

She doesn't look arrogant in that picture, no, and of course it isn't arrogant if it's true. But she definitely doesn't act nice in that scene, however justified.

Apart from that, I must say the association of a couple together with their rebellious daughter works surprisingly well for that picture :lol:

[Jebel Krong]

Ieldra2 wrote...

fongiel24 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Second, Mordin's next speculation is equally puzzling. "Together with human birth ratios seem to suggest biological imperative achieving equilibrium with mature, space-faring culture." What could monogamy have to do with achieving that equilibrium? I sense a hidden assumption I do not share.

educated people (& aliens?) in developed countries have less children. that's been proven many times, so it would also translate to a space-faring analogy.

That was not in question. In question is: how does monogamy contribute to it?

This is just a guess, since I'm not entirely clear on the connection either, but perhaps the assumption is that monogamous couples have less children than non-exclusive pairings. Monogamy might imply a commitment towards creating a stable family unit, precluding the biological imperative to have as many children as possible. The problem remains though, that human beings naturally follow a K-selection model of reproduction, meaning our species isn't inclined to reproduce like rabbits anyway.

These are very far-fetched assumptions. There is no indication that the rate of reproduction is higher in non-monogamous societies if you eliminate the economic factors, nor that non-monogamous families are inherently less stable. I don't think Mordin would use such culturally-biased assumptions.

it is hard to extract the truth from so many variables: socio-economic, political and, particularly, religious factors all contribute. non-monogamous societies are very rare these days.

[fongiel24]

Ieldra2 wrote...

These are very far-fetched assumptions. There is no indication that the rate of reproduction is higher in non-monogamous societies if you eliminate the economic factors, nor that non-monogamous families are inherently less stable. I don't think Mordin would use such culturally-biased assumptions.

I don't know how many truly non-monogamous societies there are left in the world, as polygamy seems to be disappearing and monogamy appears to be the ideal in most countries. "Stability" is difficult to define, but there have been a number of studies that suggest single-parent families in Canada and the United States are more likely to live in poverty, their children don't perform as well academically, and there is a higher incidence of behavioural problems with those children. A possible conclusion we could draw from this is that a family unit of two parents and a limited number of children remains the most efficient and effective at raising successful offspring.

If this conclusion holds true, the superior performance of offspring from monogamous relationships could mean that monogamy increases the rate of development of societies that practice it. Although family units based on stable monogamous pairings are by no means universal in the more developed nations of the world, I would venture that we probably find more of such family units in the world's developed nations than its underdeveloped nations. 

Modifié par fongiel24, 20 octobre 2010 - 01:30 .

[Elyvern]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm trying to recapture how my associations went. The whole exchange has some issues as far as I'm concerned:

First, I'm still thinking of how monogamy could increase human genetic diversity as Mordin speculates - or did I understand that wrongly? It doesn't sound plausible in the first place, which is why my thoughts remained there and didn't move away from biology back to culture. Miranda had an answer for him that suggested she thought the idea plausible in principle if not in reality which is also puzzling.

The reasoning is in a polygamic culture, we're usually looking at 1 male partner and many female partners. All offsprings would therefore share genetic material from the father. SInce human birth ratios remain roughly equal, a large number of lower-ranked males will not have mates. In the long run, that results a reduction in genetic variety, although selective genetic traits will become more prominent.

Second, Mordin's next speculation is equally puzzling. "Together with human birth ratios seem to suggest biological imperative achieving equilibrium with mature, space-faring culture." What could monogamy have to do with achieving that equilibrium? I sense a hidden assumption I do not share.

I'm thinking maybe it's the word "monogamy" that is the problem here. Previously it was taken to be in contrast to polygamy which does reduce genetic variety. But we definitely cannot assume that two-parent famiy units will be the norm in the future. Even though my point was made to say that should family units exist, they will likely remain two-parent units, not polygamic units because there are no longer environmental or social incentives for that to return.  

The apocalyptic scenario would be a trigger to associate the Noah's ark story with, except that the conversation focuses too much on biology and culture in general that it remains too much in the background. I would need to hear more of Miranda's thoughts before making that jump, like having her think about the worst-case scenario where they wouldn't be able to stop the Reapers.

I can see your point here, and I'll look through it again. 

Generally, I know that if I have to explain anything to such detail, then the original point of the writing is lost. It's not meant to withstand such fine-combing and I don't intend for it to either. Thanks for taking the time and effort to clarify your confusion, but right now I don't know...I think I'll have to sit on this discussion for a while.

[Elyvern]

Ieldra2 wrote...
These are very far-fetched assumptions. There is no indication that the rate of reproduction is higher in non-monogamous societies if you eliminate the economic factors, nor that non-monogamous families are inherently less stable. I don't think Mordin would use such culturally-biased assumptions.

This is going really tangential, but what the hell, I wrote a whole paragraph and decide I shan't waste it.

In it’s most basic permutation, polygamy arise from primitive living conditions where the strongest male is seen to be the best provider and the his prowess can be measured by the number of spouses he can maintain. From there it develops into a norm in certain cultures.

I admit Mordin's reasoning involves a little handwaving from me in terms of what kind of specific characteristics a human-based mature, space-faring culture may possess. But admittedly, he may possibly know more than say a 21st century human like you and I who will only have knowledge of current cultural practices to fall back on. And may thus be in a better position to make those assertions than we know.  

For example, there may be a higher monetary cost and a bigger psychological investment involved in raising children, more personal parenting methods advocated, in effect, an extension of the "quality over quantity" mentality that's now mainstay in developed countries. Short of placing hard limits on the number of spouses in a polygamic family unit which would thus also influence the number of children produced, it wouldn't be as easy to meet those requirements, and create individuals that are skilled and mentally prepared to thrive in a sophisticated space environment which includes interactions with alien races. 

Also consider that in Retribution, it was stated most humans have mixed racial and thus cultural parentages. Populations are moving around more rapidly than ever. Take into consideration that people may now move beyond Earth, it makes less and less sense for polygamic family units to exist. Not to mention longer lifespans and longer fertility periods may also make having multiple spouses or be subjected to sharing one spouse with others not as desirable as before.  

And last but not least, how did a fic excerpt blow up to such proportions? My brain hurts....

Modifié par Elyvern, 20 octobre 2010 - 02:09 .

[Caihn]

New Wallpaper :

[Ieldra]

fongiel24 wrote...
I don't know how many truly non-monogamous societies there are left in the world, as polygamy seems to be disappearing and monogamy appears to be the ideal in most countries. "Stability" is difficult to define, but there have been a number of studies that suggest single-parent families in Canada and the United States are more likely to live in poverty, their children don't perform as well academically, and there is a higher incidence of behavioural problems with those children. A possible conclusion we could draw from this is that a family unit of two parents and a limited number of children remains the most efficient and effective at raising successful offspring.

The conclusion I draw is that the increased economic pressure on single-parent families - the single parent has  less flexibility in planning a career - leaves them at a higher risk for poverty, which in turn results in poorer academic performance and a higher rate of behaviour problems. Also, extending that to families with more than two parents would mean they should do better, not worse, than two-parent families.

If this conclusion holds true, the superior performance of offspring from monogamous relationships could mean that monogamy increases the rate of development of societies that practice it. Although family units based on stable monogamous pairings are by no means universal in the more developed nations of the world, I would venture that we probably find more of such family units in the world's developed nations than its underdeveloped nations.

I think you're mixing up cause and effect here - though I can't prove it. But since is going seriously OT, I'm not going into any more details...

...but post a Miranda picture instead.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 octobre 2010 - 03:22 .

[Ieldra]

Yannkee wrote...

New Wallpaper :

Thank you. Very nice!

[hooahguy]

Ieldra2 wrote...


...but post a Miranda picture instead.

Im trying to place that picture... is that on Omega?

[Elyvern]

fongiel24 wrote...
I loved it. Mordin is spot-on. I've really struggled with his peculiar sentence structure so I really appreciate how well you've captured it. Other than what Ieldra pointed out with the Noah's ark reference (I actually liked it, but I too had trouble making the linkage), there isn't much there that I can criticize. 

Somehow I missed your post. Thanks, fongiel.

I've found Mordin's speech and Jack's to the lesser extent, to be the most easiest to write of all the characters. Since Mordin's is so distinctive in syntax, and Jack's through her extensive use of vernacular, you know immediately when you write them wrong. My advice for writing Mordin is recite the lines out loud. His VA adopts a unique rhythm and cadence that's very imitable which helps immensely in figuring where to truncate his sentences. 

Miranda's and Shepard's speech patterns however, tend to drive me up the wall. If you look at the Miranda's speech from the dialogue wheel, and read it off the page, you'll find her syntax and textual-tone very neutral as a rule. Her speech contains a mix of formal and vernacular, but it's not distinctive in any way. It's the same same problem that Shepard has, although some of his paragon and renegade lines are actually more colourful. Sometimes when writing Miranda, it boils down to "I know the one thing she never says is the word 'okay'." In-game, her words carry presence primarily from her accent and the voice acting, and all that is lost in written fiction. (apart from the occasional but rare aussie terms)  And it becomes even more important to bring out her personality to compensate for it, like writing forceful but short sentences, implying her intelligence through word-use and structure of her rationalisations, and refraining from using too many qualifiers.

YMMV, just thought I'd share my experience with fellow writers.

Modifié par Elyvern, 20 octobre 2010 - 03:12 .

[Ieldra]

hooahguy wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...


...but post a Miranda picture instead.

Im trying to place that picture... is that on Omega?

I don't recall exactly, but it should be Omega. Could be Garrus' recruitment mission.

[jtav]

Elyvern, I read your excerpt. Looks very interesting. I can't wait to read more. I think your Mordin voice is spot on.



Curiously, I've always found Miranda easy to write. I have no idea why. Shepard is pure hell, which is why I minimize his/her presence as much as I can. It helps that I have a very clear picture of who Miranda is and that I've written characters like her before.

[Elyvern]

jtav wrote...

Elyvern, I read your excerpt. Looks very interesting. I can't wait to read more. I think your Mordin voice is spot on.

Curiously, I've always found Miranda easy to write. I have no idea why. Shepard is pure hell, which is why I minimize his/her presence as much as I can. It helps that I have a very clear picture of who Miranda is and that I've written characters like her before.

Thanks. I think I got her character and motivations down, it's her speech patterns that give me trouble. Put it this way: if you had to write one line on a neutral topic, without referencing who the speaker is, it's very difficult to decisively convey that the line was spoken by Miranda, compared to characters like Jack, Mordin, or even Samara and Grunt. Other characters like Tali can be signposted by her quarian expletives, Jacob by his "cool-black" diction, and Garrus via his sense of dry humour.

I think the only joke, and I'm not even sure it's a joke, I ever hear Miranda make is when Shepard rails against human experimentation in Mordin's LM, saying someting along the lines of "things like this make Cerberus seem like a good idea" and she responds with "I'll be sure to include that into my report." Honestly, I never knew what to make of that line.

Modifié par Elyvern, 20 octobre 2010 - 06:39 .

[jtav]

She does make another joke. "We're all expecting you to do the impossible, Shepard. No pressure." She says a few other things I found amusing. She seems to tend towards gallows humor.

[Elyvern]

Ah yes, that one. I wouldn't call it morbid humour, more like subtle, tongue-in-cheek kind of conscious irony. Delivered with a deadpan expression that makes you wonder if she meant it as a joke or not.  

Modifié par Elyvern, 20 octobre 2010 - 06:57 .

[Ieldra]

Elyvern wrote...
Thanks. I think I got her character and motivations down, it's her speech patterns that give me trouble. Put it this way: if you had to write one line on a neutral topic, without referencing who the speaker is, it's very difficult to decisively convey that the line was spoken by Miranda, compared to characters like Jack, Mordin, or even Samara and Grunt. Other characters like Tali can be signposted by her quarian expletives, Jacob by his "cool-black" diction, and Garrus via his sense of dry humour.

I don't think you need to make her recognizable by her speech patterns. As you said, they're rather neutral in most cases, so neutral they should be in your fic. It's nice if you can pin something on her, but as opposed to Mordin or Jack, it's not necessary to make her "sound like Miranda" by speech patterns. Instead, I'd look to the content and expressions of her personality. 

BTW, I have another problem right now: how can I make Miranda recognizable to the reader if she's acting? So far I let readers into her head, but I have run into one situation where that isn't feasible.