Define Cynical Fan Forums

I don't know if someone already wrote about this, but there seems to be a logical inconsistency concerning Locke. We all know he ages into the different direction, becoming younger every day. Now, when he first appeared in Ozy and Millie, he seemed to be 8 years old as well as Millie. But, when he met Millie again in a later storyline, she was 10 years old. So he should have been at least 2 years younger than the first time they met. But we discover that he is as tall as Millie and seems to be, in every respect, 10 years old as well as her.<br><br>Locke can, in any way, only once in his lifetime be at the same age as Millie is. If at one point they both are 10 years old, Locke has to be 12 years old at the time Millie is 8 years old. If they are 8 years old at the same time, by the time Millie is 10 Locke would be 6 or even younger, given the fact that he may well be becoming younger more quickly than Millie becoming older.<br><br>However you put it, there is a plot hole... Or can you think of an explanation?

<img src='http://imagehost.biz/ims/pictes/105872.png' border='0' alt='user posted image' />A dragon did it!

He's R years old.

You're right, it is a plot hole. But it's pretty small and hard to notice unless you look really closely. I say, just ignore it and have a good time reading O&M.

And don't bother bringing up the fact that Locke should have been way older in <a href='http://www.ozyandmillie.org/2001/om20010516.gif' target='_blank'>this strip</a>. It's been said before. It's pretty clear that Simpson didn't think of the aging-backwards part until 2002.

David changed all the ages of the children in the strip in 2000 when he changed his art style. They were about 8 before and 10 years old after the change. Since you said in one story they were 8 and in the later one 10, then it's consistent with the change.<br><br>Unless both storylines are from the same kind of art style then there's no plot hole.<br><br>As for the strip that Octan linked to , I don't know. Call it comic license.

Another way to look at it is that old people sometimes get shorter. Since Locke is breaking the whole aging thing by aging backwards, maybe he started off tall, shrunk, and grew again? I know that's quite the ridiculous thing suggested, but it's a possible idea.

<!--QuoteBegin-UltimateVG+Jan 17 2005, 11:49 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (UltimateVG @ Jan 17 2005, 11:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Another way to look at it is that old people sometimes get shorter. Since Locke is breaking the whole aging thing by aging backwards, maybe he started off tall, shrunk, and grew again? I know that's quite the ridiculous thing suggested, but it's a possible idea. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> And given the line that he and Ms. Mudd will "hit diapers and dentures at the same time," perhaps they stay kids longer in the alternate world, just like we stay adults for a long time. It's the only way that would match up.<br><br>Or Locke just came up with a clever way to put it. I know I'D be voting for the former.

Or maybe nobody ages in magical O&M land.<br><br>Yeah, that sounds nice. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->

It's simple: since this essentially is an alternate reality we're talking about, it can have its own rules of physics. Therefore, it is entirely possible that time passes at a different rate in Ega than it does here. (I call it Ega just for convenience purposes. It's a joke, you see. Reverse "Age")<br>Also, for the "Llewellyn encountering young Locke scenario," there is a plausible explanation. It is possible that one who is born in Ega is born an infant. However, they experience a state of accelerated growth, and as a result, become an adult much sooner than someone not from Ega. Then, as they age, their body starts to <b>slowly</b> revert back. Then, once they reach a certain "age" in their "second childhood," they stay as that for an extended period.<br><br>Here's a (crude) chart that might help explain what I mean:

<!--QuoteBegin-UltimateVG+Jan 17 2005, 12:49 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (UltimateVG @ Jan 17 2005, 12:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Another way to look at it is that old people sometimes get shorter. Since Locke is breaking the whole aging thing by aging backwards, maybe he started off tall, shrunk, and grew again? I know that's quite the ridiculous thing suggested, but it's a possible idea. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> people get short due to too little calcium.i doubt that's the case here.

<!--QuoteBegin-GhostWay+Jan 18 2005, 04:13 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (GhostWay @ Jan 18 2005, 04:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> It's simple: since this essentially is an alternate reality we're talking about, it can have its own rules of physics. Therefore, it is entirely possible that time passes at a different rate in Ega than it does here. (I call it Ega just for convenience purposes. It's a joke, you see. Reverse "Age")<br>Also, for the "Llewellyn encountering young Locke scenario," there is a plausible explanation. It is possible that one who is born in Ega is born an infant. However, they experience a state of accelerated growth, and as a result, become an adult much sooner than someone not from Ega. Then, as they age, their body starts to <b>slowly</b> revert back. Then, once they reach a certain "age" in their "second childhood," they stay as that for an extended period.<br><br>Here's a (crude) chart that might help explain what I mean: <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Well, it would certainly explain the "buy me a pony" incident, too. Maybe this event took place at the time Locke was a BGU child. (BGU children would be children "before grown-up", while AGU will now be used by me for "after grown-up", the state Locke would be in right now.)<br><br>For the sake of logical consistency, I will stick with it. After all, I can't think of any rebuttal. The only flaw of this explanation I can spot: It is mentioned nowhere in O&M.<br><br>Wait - come to think of it, DCS meant for it to be not-mentioned, am I right?<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Or maybe nobody ages in magical O&M land.<br><br>Yeah, that sounds nice. smile.gif<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>You're right, it sounds nice. Shame it doesn't appear to be that way... (After all, Locke does age. Just into the different direction.)<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> David changed all the ages of the children in the strip in 2000 when he changed his art style. They were about 8 before and 10 years old after the change. Since you said in one story they were 8 and in the later one 10, then it's consistent with the change.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>Did he just change the ages or did they actually age?<br><br>I don't know for sure. I assumed that in order to change your age(noun), you have to age (verb). Well, in a comic strip world, the author is equal to God (in a way), so he could have done that. But it'd seem odd to me.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> You're right, it is a plot hole. But it's pretty small and hard to notice unless you look really closely. I say, just ignore it and have a good time reading O&M.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>You're absolutely right. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... iggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> Don't worry, I'm going to have a good time. I wish all of you have one, too!

<!--QuoteBegin-Silfir+Jan 18 2005, 11:41 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Silfir @ Jan 18 2005, 11:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Or maybe nobody ages in magical O&M land. Yeah, that sounds nice. smile.gif<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>You're right, it sounds nice. Shame it doesn't appear to be that way... (After all, Locke does age. Just into the different direction.)<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> David changed all the ages of the children in the strip in 2000 when he changed his art style. They were about 8 before and 10 years old after the change. Since you said in one story they were 8 and in the later one 10, then it's consistent with the change.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>Did he just change the ages or did they actually age?<br><br>I don't know for sure. I assumed that in order to change your age(noun), you have to age (verb). Well, in a comic strip world, the author is equal to God (in a way), so he could have done that. But it'd seem odd to me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Actually they don't age, David has already said this. The only instance they did was to suit the new drawing style and even then it didn't really have any big impact on the comic. To answer your question, he changed the ages. This isn't really that odd to me actually. Anyway, as I said, comic license, I just let it be.

<!--QuoteBegin-GhostWay+Jan 18 2005, 12:13 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (GhostWay @ Jan 18 2005, 12:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> It's simple: since this essentially is an alternate reality we're talking about, it can have its own rules of physics. Therefore, it is entirely possible that time passes at a different rate in Ega than it does here. (I call it Ega just for convenience purposes. It's a joke, you see. Reverse "Age")<br>Also, for the "Llewellyn encountering young Locke scenario," there is a plausible explanation. It is possible that one who is born in Ega is born an infant. However, they experience a state of accelerated growth, and as a result, become an adult much sooner than someone not from Ega. Then, as they age, their body starts to <b>slowly</b> revert back. Then, once they reach a certain "age" in their "second childhood," they stay as that for an extended period.<br><br>Here's a (crude) chart that might help explain what I mean: <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> that is implausible. they're born adults and die children, that's a pretty straight forward rule.

A wizard did it.