"That was one nice thing about being Queen--she was now immortal for one thousand years. She would no longer age physically and would rapidly heal from any sickness or injury."
I later state that she can died from beheading, but that's all she (physically) fears in a fight because she's immortal.
I granted that this is pushing the primary definition of "immortal," but I thought this 'almost-immortal' definition was so common that using it wouldn't be confusing. Yet I just got a crit back saying that I was contradicting myself and was confusing when I said an immortal person can die.
So, should I call my version of 'immortal' something else, and, if so, what? Any replacement needs to be short and sweet.
Or should I say "practically immortal" in that first sentence and refer to it as immortal after that.
Or is it fine as it is.
Or do you have another suggestion on the topic?
Thanks.
[This message has been edited by DebbieKW (edited April 07, 2007).]
We all knew he could die with beheading.
Didn't bother me.
What does bother me about your proposal is that she is immortal for 1000 years.
IMO this is the contradiction. She has a life-span. She is not immortal, just very long-lived.
BTW the only possibly mitigating factor may be how she dies. Is she ritually beheaded?
quote:
IMO this is the contradiction. She has a life-span. She is not immortal, just very long-lived. BTW the only possibly mitigating factor may be how she dies. Is she ritually beheaded?
Ritual beheading is a cool idea, but, no. She is chosen as Queen by a divine creature that grants this 'immortality' to her for 1,000 years. If someone hasn't beheaded her before then, the immortality is revoked 1,000 years into her reign and time catches up the her.
I guess you could say that the effects of time are held back and her body is renewed (rather than healed, with scar tissue and such) until 1,000 years have passed. Very few people in the story realize this fine difference between healing and re-newing or timeless versus time-held-back, so most people would describe it as my quoted sentence does.
[Edited to correct a word, and I added:]
So perhaps "practically immortal for a thousand years" would work better. Or maybe I can find a way to scratch using the word 'immortal' at all and just keep the effects. I only use the word a could times. Hmm.
[This message has been edited by DebbieKW (edited April 06, 2007).]
More important than jabbering about the nuance of a particular word is the question:
Are you comfortable with how it stands?
If so, then don't change it. If not, then consider a change.
I think this is a case of just making up your mind and being happy with your decision regardless of detractors.
PPS: As an option, why not choose a term like "transcendent" or "unfading" or "exalted" or "amaranthine" that more accurately portrays the whole concept?
(( Actually, 'the amaranthians' would be a cool way to describe this class of woman — I'm off in a veteran's reverie... please excuse. )))
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited April 07, 2007).]
quote:
Yet I just got a crit back saying that I was contradicting myself and was confusing when I said an immortal person can die.
I can accept immortal two ways:
I'm of the opinion that this is just a NIT.
quote:
What does bother me about your proposal is that she is immortal for 1000 years
This IS a bit troublesome.
An immortal that can be killed - no problem.
A being who is "immortal" for 1000 years - is not immortal.
I would definitely find a different word for it or a different way to express it.
I would also suspect that the fact that the queen could be killed would be a closely guarded secret. What queen would want to go spreading the news that no one could touch them...except by beheading them? If people believe they will live for 1000 years, and there hasn't been a beheading in enough time, then the queen is effectively beyond harm from the prospect of the people. I would also think the queen would not venture into battle without some form of neck protection that would prevent said beheading.
I would also wonder why some form of deity would grant the lifespan while still leaving a way of killing the queen. If the deity found the next in line queen wanting...why would it grant it to her over choosing someone else? If you are going to use a deity, then remember to give it more intelligence than the beings below it...not to mention it should be wise enough to convince the reader it is a deity instead of a convenient reason for the conditions you desire.
Figure out the why's of your background, otherwise it will show in the writing.
I've re-writen it so "the deity" confers agelessness and rapid healing upon the ruler for the period of 1,000 years. Because she is ageless, she cannot have children. While she can heal rapidly, it's not instantaneous. She does feel pain and can be incompacitated by the pain and unable to defend herself until she is healed. So she isn't invulnerable, just really hard to kill.
I was planning on having her lose a hand in book two (assuming I sell book one). Yes, cutting her body in half would kill her, but that's not as easy to do as beheading. Heck, sticking a blade through her heart and _leaving_ it there would kill her since the healing can't occur until the 'active damaging' ceases. Beheading was simply the way a past king was killed, so I focused on that in the book. Anyway, I changed a sentence at the beginning of the story to make sure it's clear that other possibilities exist.
Anyway, thanks for all the feedback and ideas.
[This message has been edited by DebbieKW (edited April 07, 2007).]
Edited to seek and destroy my dangling modifier.
[This message has been edited by Sunshine (edited April 08, 2007).]