Page 22 of 67

Re: There should be an Effulgence thread

Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:26 pm
by Alicorn
...Am I missing canonical EFC stories set a century post-quartet or something? What are you talking about?

Re: There should be an Effulgence thread

Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:35 pm
by Kappa
I suspect we made a reference in Chronicle threads to a trans prince of Linderwall whom we have since forgotten. But I might be wrong.

Re: There should be an Effulgence thread

Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:36 pm
by DanielH
I was being confused about the difference between Raxwell and Linderwall, and referring to Milo.

Re: There should be an Effulgence thread

Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:37 pm
by Kappa
Aha.

Re: There should be an Effulgence thread

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 8:17 pm
by Tulip
I've been rereading Shell Bell's section, and it's occurred to me to wonder: is the peal ever going to run into a world whose takeover she helped to plan?

Re: There should be an Effulgence thread

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 8:21 pm
by Alicorn
There are no plans currently in the works about that.

Re: There should be an Effulgence thread

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 8:46 pm
by Bluelantern
Alicorn wrote:There are no plans currently in the works about that.
huh, how reasonable well those plans might have worked? I mean, in terms of "Bell intereference avoided deaths"?

Re: There should be an Effulgence thread

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:57 pm
by Alicorn
Shell Bell at advice-giving stage was young, fairly inexperienced, working with limited information, and giving her plans to people who don't have Bell levels of determination and krasia, but they would have been fairly solid.

Re: There should be an Effulgence thread

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:00 pm
by DanielH
I’m rereading the parts of Effulgence strongly related to EFC, and I’m at Glass’s pealing party. She’s talking about metacausality, and I wondered if you could elaborate on something she says:

[quote]Sherlocks-and-Tonies-as-sets are next [strongest template, after Bells and Jokers], the singlets aren’t particularly strong-looking to me… Actually, no, Sherlock singlet looks like there might be something major on a high layer, but this particular sort of Sherlock singlet doesn’t have a lot of force.[quote]

I’m not sure what this is saying about Sherlock singlets having something major on a high layer. Was this related to the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle books, which she can’t see metacausality of directly (possibly because you hadn’t decided on her exact powerset yet)? Is it because of SherlockJokers occurring without Tonies and thus potentially seeming to be “Sherlock singlets” even though they aren’t really? Is it something else I hadn’t thought of?

Re: There should be an Effulgence thread

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:04 pm
by Alicorn
It's the ACD books. Sherlocks-in-general are a major thing, possibly the most adapted story of all time; purple Sherlocks in general are a subset.