Hey! It looks like you're new here. You might want to check out the introduction.
Show rules for this event
Even Chewbacca Is Not Bulletproof
This is gonna be a very long day.
The Chief judge listened to the lawyer’s pleading, rubbing his nose and trying to not roll his eyes.
“So,” the Chief judge said, keeping his voice as neutral as possible. “To put it in a nutshell, you’re claiming that your client is innocent, because the man we saw on the video tape isn’t actually your client but his double from a parallel universe.”
“That’s a perfect summary, your Honor.I know it may sound absurd, but it’s the logical conclusion, knowing that three witnesses have seen my client on the other side of the city when the murder happened.”
The Chief judge was trying his best to not bluntly insult the lawyer. His salvation came from the attorney.
“Your Honor, may I?”
“Please proceed,” he answered, too happy to let the little man handle it.
“Ladies and gentlemen, let’s consider for a moment that parallel universes do exist, as my dear colleague has claimed. There could be several other and more logical reasons for the accused to be in two places at the same time, but let’s say that our failing minds tend to accept some arguments more easily.” He grabbed a small clock from his pocket, turned a wheel on its back, and set it down in front of him.
“What does this clock have to do with anything?” asked the Chief judge.
“I’ll need it at the end of my demonstration, your Honor,” he replied. “So, if we assumed parallel universes exist, we need to establish how many parallel universes exist. I don’t think it’s wrong to also assume there is an infinite number of parallel universes, considering that, each time we look at and beyond the stars, or at and beyond the atoms, we still find bigger and smaller elements. That’s why we call them the infinitely large and the infinitely small.”
“Point taken,”
“Thank you, your Honor. That being said, if the man we all saw on the tape came from one of these parallel universes, it means that travelling between all these universes is possible. Therefore, if travel is possible between the infinity of parallel universes, it means that, the moment the clock I’ve put here earlier will ring, a tall white man with a mustache and sunglasses, wearing blue jeans and a dark red jacket, will appear right in the middle of this court. If not, it will mean that, even if parallel universes do exist, travelling between them is impossible, and therefore, the accused is guilty.”
The moment he went quiet, the clock started to ring. The whole crowd was silent, waiting with nervousness a possible apparition, their eyes on the middle of the room where the attorney had pointed with his finger.
When the clock stopped ringing, the attorney spoke “I rest my case.”
The room was now empty, the trial having ended a few hours ago. Suddenly, in a flash of light, a bearded man with sunglasses appeared in the middle of the room.
“I came to warn you that — Bloody hell, I’m late.”
The Chief judge listened to the lawyer’s pleading, rubbing his nose and trying to not roll his eyes.
“So,” the Chief judge said, keeping his voice as neutral as possible. “To put it in a nutshell, you’re claiming that your client is innocent, because the man we saw on the video tape isn’t actually your client but his double from a parallel universe.”
“That’s a perfect summary, your Honor.I know it may sound absurd, but it’s the logical conclusion, knowing that three witnesses have seen my client on the other side of the city when the murder happened.”
The Chief judge was trying his best to not bluntly insult the lawyer. His salvation came from the attorney.
“Your Honor, may I?”
“Please proceed,” he answered, too happy to let the little man handle it.
“Ladies and gentlemen, let’s consider for a moment that parallel universes do exist, as my dear colleague has claimed. There could be several other and more logical reasons for the accused to be in two places at the same time, but let’s say that our failing minds tend to accept some arguments more easily.” He grabbed a small clock from his pocket, turned a wheel on its back, and set it down in front of him.
“What does this clock have to do with anything?” asked the Chief judge.
“I’ll need it at the end of my demonstration, your Honor,” he replied. “So, if we assumed parallel universes exist, we need to establish how many parallel universes exist. I don’t think it’s wrong to also assume there is an infinite number of parallel universes, considering that, each time we look at and beyond the stars, or at and beyond the atoms, we still find bigger and smaller elements. That’s why we call them the infinitely large and the infinitely small.”
“Point taken,”
“Thank you, your Honor. That being said, if the man we all saw on the tape came from one of these parallel universes, it means that travelling between all these universes is possible. Therefore, if travel is possible between the infinity of parallel universes, it means that, the moment the clock I’ve put here earlier will ring, a tall white man with a mustache and sunglasses, wearing blue jeans and a dark red jacket, will appear right in the middle of this court. If not, it will mean that, even if parallel universes do exist, travelling between them is impossible, and therefore, the accused is guilty.”
The moment he went quiet, the clock started to ring. The whole crowd was silent, waiting with nervousness a possible apparition, their eyes on the middle of the room where the attorney had pointed with his finger.
When the clock stopped ringing, the attorney spoke “I rest my case.”
The room was now empty, the trial having ended a few hours ago. Suddenly, in a flash of light, a bearded man with sunglasses appeared in the middle of the room.
“I came to warn you that — Bloody hell, I’m late.”
This is mildly absurd. It could fit into a Monthy Python's skit, I suppose.
It's not really a story, just a scene. I do appreciate the point that whatever absurd the hypothesis, there’s always a part of us that doubts.
“The slightest doubt could kill you,” says Spock in a landmark Star Trek episode. To which McCoy answers (but maybe it’s the other way round): “We’ve not a ticker in our heads that we can click on and off at will”.
Sorry, I just realised I picked up the wrong show. You should have named this entry “Even Mr. Spock is not failsafe.”
It's not really a story, just a scene. I do appreciate the point that whatever absurd the hypothesis, there’s always a part of us that doubts.
“The slightest doubt could kill you,” says Spock in a landmark Star Trek episode. To which McCoy answers (but maybe it’s the other way round): “We’ve not a ticker in our heads that we can click on and off at will”.
Sorry, I just realised I picked up the wrong show. You should have named this entry “Even Mr. Spock is not failsafe.”
This is a straightforward and relatively easy to follow comedy, with a few flaws in its execution.
I don't follow the argument about stars and elements and infinity, and if there's anypony in this competition who understands this topic, it's me. :derpytongue2: If the lawyer's argument is intended to be serious or sensible even by a small margin, I think the logic needs to make some kind of sense. If it's supposed to be silly, I think it needs to be sillier in order to make that clear.
Things like, "judge was trying his best to not bluntly insult the lawyer," and "too happy to let the little man handle it" are a bit on the telly side. It's better if you can lead the reader to come to those conclusions on their own by describing what the judge looks like and does.
I think you could use some work on your English. There's some awkwardness in some of your grammar and word choices. Using a proofreader would help a lot.
Although it isn't key to the story, the lawyer's plan didn't make much sense to me unless he'd spoken to the traveller, and his actions seemed to indicate he didn't. It also isn't clear how the traveller could traverse multiple universes accurately but miss the time by two hours, though that's less of a concern. In general, it feels to me like the framework could use a little more support.
I'm guessing the title is a reference to South Park, but I'm not sure most readers will make that leap. It might be too obscure for a wide audience.
I don't follow the argument about stars and elements and infinity, and if there's anypony in this competition who understands this topic, it's me. :derpytongue2: If the lawyer's argument is intended to be serious or sensible even by a small margin, I think the logic needs to make some kind of sense. If it's supposed to be silly, I think it needs to be sillier in order to make that clear.
Things like, "judge was trying his best to not bluntly insult the lawyer," and "too happy to let the little man handle it" are a bit on the telly side. It's better if you can lead the reader to come to those conclusions on their own by describing what the judge looks like and does.
I think you could use some work on your English. There's some awkwardness in some of your grammar and word choices. Using a proofreader would help a lot.
Although it isn't key to the story, the lawyer's plan didn't make much sense to me unless he'd spoken to the traveller, and his actions seemed to indicate he didn't. It also isn't clear how the traveller could traverse multiple universes accurately but miss the time by two hours, though that's less of a concern. In general, it feels to me like the framework could use a little more support.
I'm guessing the title is a reference to South Park, but I'm not sure most readers will make that leap. It might be too obscure for a wide audience.
Hey, this story is my criticism of Portalfare.
Fine little story with a chuckle-worthy end, though it kind of skates over the issue of what the other "be in two places at the same time" solution is. Or what if the alternate universes are finite. (EDIT: Or what if they are varying sets of larger and smaller infinities!) Etc. Basically, what's holding this story back here is that thinking too hard really derails the core punchline.
Fine little story with a chuckle-worthy end, though it kind of skates over the issue of what the other "be in two places at the same time" solution is. Or what if the alternate universes are finite. (EDIT: Or what if they are varying sets of larger and smaller infinities!) Etc. Basically, what's holding this story back here is that thinking too hard really derails the core punchline.
Sorry to say, this one didn't really do it for me. The first part/scene felt like a bit of a slog, since it plays out in a way that's so perfectly reasonable that I knew it had to be some kind of set-up. And the twist... is simply that the perfectly reasonable assumption made in the first scene was wrong. That really doesn't feel like a joke to me--there's just not very much actual subversion, outside of what you're going to get from a "just kidding" ending.
Give us some awful consequences, or humorous implications, or just something for the reader to think about. Otherwise, I feel like there isn't enough of a payoff. I know I'm being tough, and I know writing humor isn't my forte, but that's my honest opinion.
Give us some awful consequences, or humorous implications, or just something for the reader to think about. Otherwise, I feel like there isn't enough of a payoff. I know I'm being tough, and I know writing humor isn't my forte, but that's my honest opinion.
aw man, an innocent man got convicted.
I mean, I assume he's innocent, because the ending happened. but could just be a coincidence. demonstrating that it's possible doesn't mean he's innocent.
however, the defense doesn't have to prove he's innocent, but the prosecution has to prove he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt. unless this is playing by crazy Phoenix Wright rules, but at least in that world you're rooting for the underdog.
I think this is pretending to be a comedy, but went so far into anti-humor for the "subversive" punchline that it actually feels like a tragedy in logic and tone. nobody was wrong, turns out they were both right about the parallel universes, but none of it matters and a bad result happened all because one guy was late. ehhh. bummer.
I mean, I assume he's innocent, because the ending happened. but could just be a coincidence. demonstrating that it's possible doesn't mean he's innocent.
however, the defense doesn't have to prove he's innocent, but the prosecution has to prove he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt. unless this is playing by crazy Phoenix Wright rules, but at least in that world you're rooting for the underdog.
I think this is pretending to be a comedy, but went so far into anti-humor for the "subversive" punchline that it actually feels like a tragedy in logic and tone. nobody was wrong, turns out they were both right about the parallel universes, but none of it matters and a bad result happened all because one guy was late. ehhh. bummer.
So this whole piece is setup for one joke.
It's a good joke! I laughed!
Then I thought about it, and gosh, that was a mistake. See >>Haze for why. And also: how can you arrive late when traveling through space and time? A time traveler is never late. And also: any sort of questioning about what was going on with the crime, or how this was set up, or how this setting actually works.
It's a simple piece and I don't see a ton to go into otherwise. Good title, good setup, good landing, good fit to format, you got what you were going for, except the curtains aren't quite pulled all the way down and the audience can see into backstage. Looks like this is ending up right around average for me, a little above since I like the competent skeleton here. Thanks for writing!
It's a good joke! I laughed!
Then I thought about it, and gosh, that was a mistake. See >>Haze for why. And also: how can you arrive late when traveling through space and time? A time traveler is never late. And also: any sort of questioning about what was going on with the crime, or how this was set up, or how this setting actually works.
It's a simple piece and I don't see a ton to go into otherwise. Good title, good setup, good landing, good fit to format, you got what you were going for, except the curtains aren't quite pulled all the way down and the audience can see into backstage. Looks like this is ending up right around average for me, a little above since I like the competent skeleton here. Thanks for writing!
For a story that's a set-up to just one joke, that was actually pretty decent. Though personally, I think the courtroom invader should've been a little more heightened body details, like being purple-skinned or having some bizarre alien anatomy. But other than that, it was a pretty good punchline.
7/10, best day in court since the Scopes Monkey Trial
7/10, best day in court since the Scopes Monkey Trial
>>Monokeras
>>Trick_Question
>>AndrewRogue
>>Bachiavellian
>>Haze
>>Ranmilia
>>libertydude
Late retrospective is late. Since this round is over and a new one has already started, I won't go in full details. See at the bottom for the logic behind the story and the 'joke'.
>>Monokeras
I never watched Star Trek, so I can't say anything about that (see you in Discord, I want to understand what you meant)
>>Trick_Question
You don't need to have studied the topic for years to get it. The lawyer states that there is an infinite number of parallel universes. To prove it, he reminds the audience that everytime humanity looks up to the sky, it discovers bigger things everytime (satellites, planetes, stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters...). The same goes for matter.
Because that's the joke? Granted it's not the funniest joke.
>>AndrewRogue
That's somehow the point. See at the bottom.
>>Bachiavellian
I think your main concern is because the 'just kidding' ending is only the first part of the joke. However, the other parts take place 'outside' of the story. Thinking about the lawyer's logic and everything that happened before and after the story. Granted, this is not obvious, and I can't fault people for not thinking beyond the story, especially if the story in itself isn't that good.
>>Haze
And that's exactly the point, like several comedies and jokes. I'm relieved to see some of you got it. Several comedies are funny at first glance but when you look deeper into it, you realise how tragic it is for the characters. I've always thought the more in-depths the joke is, the better it is (don't know if I succeeded here but I tried)
>>Ranmilia
That was more or less intentionnal. See at the bottom.
>>libertydude
Mild success!
Thank you all for you review. Now the 'fun' part.
EXPLANATION
This was supposed to be my take on a prompt I found boring to stay polite. The logic behind the story is obviously flawed but the whole story relies on that flawed logic. It was a reasoning exercise for me and the reader. The lawyer assumes a lot of things are true to prove his theory (the infinite number of parallel universes, the possibility to travel between them...) but even if he's right, it can be still countered within the same logic.
That's why >>Haze is right. The setup is funny and becomes tragic, but that's half of the joke. By following the lawyer's logic, you could argue that the universe in which the story takes place isn't the one where the traveller will come when the clock will ring, but after the trial.
There is one universe where he would come at the right moment, one where he'd come 1 hour early, one where he'd come 1 hour and 1 min early, one where he wouldn't come at all, etc...
That's the problem when you try to talk about time travel. Space travel isn't much of a problem, you can come up with any 'bullshit' to explain why one can travel faster than the speed of light, but when time travel is involved, it's almost impossible to not fall into one of the time paradoxes. That's why I found the prompt annoying and this story was a way to illustrate two things:
-Writing about time travel is futile because you'll almost always end up with paradoxes and your universe can't exist
-Thinking too hard about time travel for a story is futile and prevent the reader from enjoying a good story
Back To The Future has time paradoxes. Does it make it bad movies? Definitely not. There are fun, exciting and enjoyable movies.
I'm glad that some of you chuckled at least. I didn't really aim for something bigger. I'm a bit disappointed that this story, written in one hour and a half (one of the reason the English is sometimes a bit awkward), did better than the one I spent more time to craft and polish. I guess there are some conclusions I need to draw from this but I can't see them for now.
Anyway, thank you again for your comments. See you in the next round.
>>Trick_Question
>>AndrewRogue
>>Bachiavellian
>>Haze
>>Ranmilia
>>libertydude
Late retrospective is late. Since this round is over and a new one has already started, I won't go in full details. See at the bottom for the logic behind the story and the 'joke'.
>>Monokeras
I never watched Star Trek, so I can't say anything about that (see you in Discord, I want to understand what you meant)
>>Trick_Question
I don't follow the argument about stars and elements and infinity, and if there's anypony in this competition who understands this topic, it's me
You don't need to have studied the topic for years to get it. The lawyer states that there is an infinite number of parallel universes. To prove it, he reminds the audience that everytime humanity looks up to the sky, it discovers bigger things everytime (satellites, planetes, stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters...). The same goes for matter.
It also isn't clear how the traveller could traverse multiple universes accurately but miss the time by two hours
Because that's the joke? Granted it's not the funniest joke.
>>AndrewRogue
Basically, what's holding this story back here is that thinking too hard really derails the core punchline.
That's somehow the point. See at the bottom.
>>Bachiavellian
That really doesn't feel like a joke to me--there's just not very much actual subversion, outside of what you're going to get from a "just kidding" ending.
I think your main concern is because the 'just kidding' ending is only the first part of the joke. However, the other parts take place 'outside' of the story. Thinking about the lawyer's logic and everything that happened before and after the story. Granted, this is not obvious, and I can't fault people for not thinking beyond the story, especially if the story in itself isn't that good.
>>Haze
I think this is pretending to be a comedy, but went so far into anti-humor for the "subversive" punchline that it actually feels like a tragedy in logic and tone.
And that's exactly the point, like several comedies and jokes. I'm relieved to see some of you got it. Several comedies are funny at first glance but when you look deeper into it, you realise how tragic it is for the characters. I've always thought the more in-depths the joke is, the better it is (don't know if I succeeded here but I tried)
>>Ranmilia
except the curtains aren't quite pulled all the way down and the audience can see into backstage
That was more or less intentionnal. See at the bottom.
>>libertydude
For a story that's a set-up to just one joke, that was actually pretty decent.
Mild success!
Thank you all for you review. Now the 'fun' part.
EXPLANATION
This was supposed to be my take on a prompt I found boring to stay polite. The logic behind the story is obviously flawed but the whole story relies on that flawed logic. It was a reasoning exercise for me and the reader. The lawyer assumes a lot of things are true to prove his theory (the infinite number of parallel universes, the possibility to travel between them...) but even if he's right, it can be still countered within the same logic.
That's why >>Haze is right. The setup is funny and becomes tragic, but that's half of the joke. By following the lawyer's logic, you could argue that the universe in which the story takes place isn't the one where the traveller will come when the clock will ring, but after the trial.
There is one universe where he would come at the right moment, one where he'd come 1 hour early, one where he'd come 1 hour and 1 min early, one where he wouldn't come at all, etc...
That's the problem when you try to talk about time travel. Space travel isn't much of a problem, you can come up with any 'bullshit' to explain why one can travel faster than the speed of light, but when time travel is involved, it's almost impossible to not fall into one of the time paradoxes. That's why I found the prompt annoying and this story was a way to illustrate two things:
-Writing about time travel is futile because you'll almost always end up with paradoxes and your universe can't exist
-Thinking too hard about time travel for a story is futile and prevent the reader from enjoying a good story
Back To The Future has time paradoxes. Does it make it bad movies? Definitely not. There are fun, exciting and enjoyable movies.
I'm glad that some of you chuckled at least. I didn't really aim for something bigger. I'm a bit disappointed that this story, written in one hour and a half (one of the reason the English is sometimes a bit awkward), did better than the one I spent more time to craft and polish. I guess there are some conclusions I need to draw from this but I can't see them for now.
Anyway, thank you again for your comments. See you in the next round.