Forum: Story Ideas

Djinternet

Does a Disk Jockey (A disc jockey, more commonly abbreviated as DJ, is a person who plays recorded music for an audience. Most common types of DJs include: radio DJs, club DJs, mobile DJs, and turntablists) have an internet not available to others?

have an internet not available to others?

Yes.

And following from AJ it's called the Djintranet.

:)

Missing the joke.

I'm sorry you missed the joke, do you need it explained?

So modern wishes get translated through bronze age morals

Which presumes that Djinn (functionally immortal and immensely powerful beings) share the morals of bronze age humans.

In my opinion, that's rather implausible.

While such misunderstandings are certainly possible, a Djinn is in my opinion most likely to be utterly amoral by human standards, both modern and bronze age.

Right! They're probably even more ancient than that? Maybe even pre-cave man... Dinosauric morals! They tend to appear as hominids, so probably not that far back.

They are generally portrayed as shapeshifters. They take a humanoid form when dealing with humans, but there's no telling what their true form is.

They may even just be amorphous blobs of sentient energy in their true form.

Why not just make the Genie an evil bastard and every well intentioned wish becomes something horrible like a curse.

I think he's going more for comedy than tragedy.

2. She wishes for wealth
Wish granted: So much wealth is piled on top of her, she drowns.

The standard twist there is to have loved ones die in some kind of accident so you get inheritance + insurance + lawsuit settlement.

Other options:
Transfer money to wisher's bank account from other people's accounts in a traceable way. Wisher goes to prison for theft.

Conjure big pile of what looks like cash. When wisher starts spending it, they get arrested for counterfeiting or for robbing a big cash transfer between banks or between the government and a bank.

...place an ancient woman was pressured to belong.

Well... I get what you're about, and it's probably reasonable based on a specific culture Vale knew before her imprisonment but it's for sure far from universal truth.

Take for example:

New DNA Analysis Reveals Ancient Scythian Warrior Was a 13-Year-Old Girl

Late last year, an archaeological discovery of two women thought to be nomadic Scythians from around 2,500 years ago (4th century BCE) was revealed. They were buried in what's now the western Russian village of Devitsa, with parts of a horse-riding harness and weapons, including iron knives and 30 arrowheads.

"We can certainly say that these two women were horse warriors," said archaeologist Valerii Guliaev of the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of Archaeology at the time.

They were found in a burial mound with two other women - one aged between 40-50 years old, who wore a golden headdress with decorative floral ornaments. The other, aged 30-35, was buried alongside two spears and positioned like she was riding a horse.

"During the last decade our expedition has discovered approximately 11 burials of young armed women. Separate barrows were filled for them and all burial rites which were usually made for men were done for them."

Now, another team from Russia has mapped the genome of 2,600-year-old Scythian remains that had been discovered in a wooden sarcophagus with an array of weapons back in 1988.

"This child was initially considered to be male because with him were found characteristics [usually attributed to male] archaeological finds: an axe, a bow, arrows."

The ancient Greek historian Herodotus claimed Amazons fought the Scythians, but it seems they could actually be the Scythian women who trained, hunted and fought alongside their male counterparts.

"About one-third of all Scythian women are buried with weapons and have war injuries just like the men," historian Adrienne Mayor told National Geographic in 2014.

"They lived in small tribes, so it makes sense that everyone in the tribe is a stakeholder. They all have to contribute to defence and to war efforts and hunting."

While more complex established, settled peasant cultures may have tended to gradually push women onto a owned status quite universally indeed, I suspect the perception of the alleged "women's place" to be rather artefact of Abrahamic religions than anything else.

uspect the perception of the alleged "women's place" to be rather artefact of Abrahamic religions than anything else.

Could also be bias in interpreting the evidence by late 19th, early 20th century archeologists filtering the evidence through their own culture.

I think it's quite believable for a Jinn to have very rigid expectations that clash with what Sora expects out of her wish.

I don't disagree in general. I do disagree with including gender in that.

Why?

From what I've read about the mythology of Djinn, even the oldest stories about the Djinn portray them as being shapeshifters whose abilities encompass even forms we would normally thing of as inanimate. This makes me think that the true form of the Djinn is unknown to humans and that their true form likely does not have gender as we understand it.

Given that the Djinn's true form does not possess gender as we understand it, I think it implausible that the Djinn's own native culture would have gender roles of any level of flexibility/rigidity.

Many stories of shapeshifters that pass between genders, Loki from Norse Mythology is a big one as he's been a father and a mother, still have gender as we understand it.

Yes, but as far as I know, Loki never did mist and other inanimate objects, which the Djinn can do. Loki was limited to doing living things.

A shapeshifter that can do inanimate objects and things like mist is probably non-corporeal or amorphous in it's natural state.

Something like Odo from Star Trek Deep Space 9.

Something like that wouldn't reproduce sexually, so having gender wouldn't make sense.

Why?

Mist is definitely she.

At least in my native language, that is. Well, there's my bias, my language is strictly and grammatically unavoidably dual gendered, everything in existence has one of the two genders. One can flip them easily, but nothing can be without gender. Except salt.

A shapeshifter that can do inanimate objects and things like mist is probably non-corporeal or amorphous in it's natural state.

That would be an Allasomorph from Star Trek The Next Generation and their natural state is a luminous figure of energy

Star Trek: The Next Generation
The Dauphin (season 2 episode 10)

Or gender is a function of the shape it shifts into and thus has genders and none.

But the thing is under that, if any Djinn can by any gender at any given moment, among the Djinn as a whole, how do cultural gender roles make sense?

Actually, the actual gender of the djinn, or even possible, doesn't matter here at all. What matters is their assumptions about human gender roles. It doesn't push their culture, it push their understanding of how human culture should be.

it push their understanding of how human culture should be.

But why would they have any view on that at all? And assuming they do have an view on what human culture should be, why would that align with what human culture was back in the bronze age?

Therefore, a genderless shapeshifter taking on a gender is not unlikely to maximize gender roles, at least in part, while they play at or use gender.

Of course they will play around with human gender roles when imitating gendered human forms.

The question is when you have multiple human cultures with different sets of gender roles, on what basis would the Djinn have any particular preference for one set over another?

My nature vs nurture is on a spectrum point addressed this as well. There may be arbitrary fashionable differences but the engine underneath driving the gender roles is still there.

No, it makes no sense that there would be any significant biological driver for an organism that has no gender in it's natural state and can fluidly imitate any gender.

can fluidly imitate any gender.

Don't you mean 'either' gender..?? Any implies there are more than two.

Don't you mean 'either' gender..?? Any implies there are more than two.

There are only two for sexually reproducing life forms on Earth. That doesn't necessarily hold across the entire cosmos.

There are only two for sexually reproducing life forms on Earth. That doesn't necessarily hold across the entire cosmos.

Taking your previous comment at face value;

The question is when you have multiple human cultures with different sets of gender roles, on what basis would the Djinn have any particular preference for one set over another?

It is fair to presume you are confining yourself to human cultures.

It is fair to presume you are confining yourself to human cultures.

Only when they are adopting a human form.

There are two separate issues.

1. What are the Djinn and what are the things that drive their native culture when interacting with each other?

2. How do they go about interacting with humans?

Some of my comments above are about 1 and some are about 2. As I see it, there is very little if any overlap between them.

Don't you mean 'either' gender..?? Any implies there are more than two.

English has three, as is typical for Germanic languages.

English has three, as is typical for Germanic languages.

How many types of toilets do you have in Germany?

In England we have Male. Female. Disabled (Either Sex) A few are Unisex (Either Sex)

Please do inform us all of your -extra- type.

:)

How many types of toilets do you have in Germany?

In England we have Male. Female. Disabled (Either Sex) A few are Unisex (Either Sex)

Please do inform us all of your -extra- type.

:)

The language they speak in Germany is called "German", not "English". Both English and German, along with other languages such as Icelandic, are part of a family of related languages called "Germanic languages".

Both English and German have three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter.

English has only pronomial gender. It once had abnomial gender as well, as German still does, but it lost it during the Middle English period.

"Gender" and "sex" are not the same thing, despite the prudish tendency to use "gender" to avoid saying the dirty, dirty S-word. Sex is biological. Gender is sociolinguistic.

Gender and sex are not necessarily even linked. This is more clear in languages that have abnomial gender, where it is common and normal for the gender of words to be unrelated to the sex, if any, of their referent.

But even in English this can be the case. To use a couple of examples that have come up in this forum before, ships are commonly feminine-gendered, though they have no biological sex, whereas animals are commonly neuter-gendered, even if they haven't been fixed.

A long winded way of replying without answering the question.

Both English and German have three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter.

Actually in English, the four genders of noun are masculine, feminine, common, and neuter.

It can be argued that neither 'common', nor 'neuter' are genders in and of themselves, but rather genderless. Leaving only two actual genders, masculine and feminine.

Any implies there are more than two.

or just one, as for Banana slugs

or just one, as for Banana slugs

Thanks a bunch..!!

:)

I'm talking about when the jinn is in a gendered form, you're talking about all genies, across all states of gender, and all time.

Your talking as if they are copying things down to the genetic level, rather than projecting an image while maintaining their own internal biology (or whatever equivalent if they are something like pure energy in their natural state).

you're talking about all genies, across all states of gender, and all time.

I'm talking about what would drive the Djinn's native culture which controls their interactions with each other and would have the most impact on how they think.

Exactly..!!

:)

But we do know that when they interact with humans that gender and social structures are in place.

But in that case, to me, it only makes sense if the gender and social structures that are in place are being pulled somehow from the wisher.

And in that case, the ancient/modern social structures misunderstanding/conflict is implausible.

Why wouldn't the jinn struggle to catch up to thousands of years of memetic and technological evolution?

Why would the Djinn, get instant understanding of the wisher's language, but not all that other stuff?

Language includes idioms

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiom

an expression in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself either in having a meaning that cannot be derived from the conjoined meanings of its elements (such as up in the air for "undecided") or in its grammatically atypical use of words (such as give way)

Without that thousands of years of cultural, memetic and technological evolution the Djinn would not be able to understand any idomatic references. That would cause much bigger and potentially dangerous misunderstandings than cultural differences around gender roles.

You are basically talking about a situation where any communication between the "wisher" and the Djinn is effectively impossible, so no wishes will be granted.

Are you saying that the very concept of a djinn culture clashing with a wisher is an inconceivable plot devic

No, I just don't think gender roles are an implausible basis for the culture conflict.

Are you saying that using human culture clashes as an example to build off is wrong because your definition of djinn is definitionally untied to gender?

Not exactly.

What I've read on the the Djinn mythology, they were portrayed as an entire races, but their contacts with humans were generally minimal and rarely worked out well for the humans.

However I see the problem with using human culture as a basis as deeper than gender.

In a world where the Djinn really exist I would expect any cultural similarities between Djinn culture and the pre-Islamic Aribic culture to be the result of humans trying to imitate what they saw from their few contacts with the Djinn rather than the Djinn imitating human culture.

Again, from what I've read of the mythology, the Djinn either viewed humans with contempt or viewed humans the way humans would view amusing animals. They would NOT imitate our culture.

ETA:

What I recall of what I've read on the Djinn mythology, those found in bottles, lamps or what not were sealed away by an even higher power as punishment.

The wish granting was one of:

1. Gratitude for being released.
2. Fake gratitude driven by an ulterior motive (usually evil).
3. Part of the punishment. In this case the Djinn is not truly freed from the vessel and will be forced back into it when a given wish granting cycle is complete.

Then maybe pre Islamic culture didn't take the extremes far enough and what was fuzzy and full of exceptions for humans was strict and inescapable for djinn. Gender roles, social strata.

I can't picture immortal shape shifters with that much power as gendered creatures. Without gender in their biology it seems absurd that their culture would have strict gender roles.

I was going with 3. Although switch the word punishment for duty or obligation. And when tied with the above, the genie taking on female form and using a female role, it's possible the punishment/obligation was imposed on her by a patriarch.

The power that bound the trapped Djinn was a higher power, as much beyond the Djinn as Djinn are beyond humans.

In the Islamic versions of the Djinn myths that is Allah.

If I recall correctly from what I've read, in the pre-Islamic version of the Djinn mythology, it was something the Djinn themselves worshiped as a god.

Furthermore, you have provided the idea that humans have emulated their ancient societies to match djinn. Human societies have gender roles.

Um no. You are pushing the idea a billion miles too far. Again, contact between humans and Djinn were few and far between.

I was not remotely suggesting that humans fully emulated a complete Djinn culture, only bits and pieces that were visible to them.

But, you are inferring how much humans have seen, and how much deeper there must be, to strongly declare there must be is a near 0% match.

I'm saying it can't be a 100% match, so you can't infer anything about gender in Djinn culture from gender in human culture.

if a (human cultures emulate pieces of djinn cultures);

then:

b (some but not all of human culture's manifestations resemble djinn cultural manifestations)

Fixed it for you.

It is not valid reasoning to take that and conclude that if human cultures had X Djinn culture must have X

Despite the fact that depictions of djinn are often gendered, possibly even hypergendered, when dealing with humans.

I would suggest that is something they do very deliberately either just to mess with the humans they do have contact with or possibly just for shits and giggles.

The greatest threat to an immortal being would be boredom.

Humans aren't the only gendered creatures they would encounter. Sex and gender are toys that they play around with.

(or whatever equivalent if they are something like pure energy in their natural state)

What is certain is that all Djiin are part of a single gestalt.

Why?

One of the oft quoted 'rules for wishes' is that a wish that countermands a previous wish cannot be granted, no matter, who made the first wish or which Djiin granted it.

The only feasible way in which every Djiin would be aware of every wish ever granted by every Djiin is if they are all part of a gestalt and able to instantly know that information.

That bias hasn't died just because time has passed. Even the article quoted asserts facts not in evidence, undoubtedly (imo) to fall in line with the modern feminist ideology.

Finding knives and arrowheads in a grave with a female does not mean that the female was a warrior. It only means that you found knives and arrowheads in a grave with a female body. Why it was there is anyone's guess.

I was watching Time Team the other day and they talked about finding a shield and spear in a grave with two males and a toddler. The shield was over the toddler, not beside one of the older males. Does this mean the toddler was a warrior? Were the two older males gay lovers who adopted a child and they all died in a horrible house fire?

You can spin any yarn you want, but that doesn't make it so. Bias in today's sciences is thick enough you could walk across it.

I laughed when I recently read an article on two scientists who found some fossilized bipedal footprints. Experts on the subject and highly-regarded in their field, with dozens of papers published between them, then they dared to say that the footprints are bipedal... and the establishment went after them with both barrels blazing. Just hinting at that was enough for their cohorts to turn their backs, raging at the suggestion as pure racism and claiming that the depressions were just depressions even though anyone looking at them would recognize them as footprints in stone. Their only crime was being on the wrong side of the mediterranean.

That bias hasn't died just because time has passed.

I didn't say it would have. My opinion is that we will never have definitive objective answers about the ancient past absent invention of a time machine (highly unlikely). These are questions that science can't answer.

Finding knives and arrowheads in a grave with a female does not mean that the female was a warrior.

True, if that's all it was.

Finding a female body that shows evidence of battle injuries buried with weapons is perhaps a different story.

Finding a female body that shows evidence of battle injuries buried with weapons is perhaps a different story.

Not necessarily, and that's the really big problem. We find so few graves to begin with that drawing conclusions about the society from those graves is always going to be problematic, especially when the archeologists have such a tendency to color their classes a nice shade of rose.

Finding one female body with "battle wounds" and weaponry doesn't automatically mean she was part of a larger culture that supported women as warriors. It could just be that she died fighting to protect family from marauders. Her futile attempt to defend them was recognized as the brave and selfless act it was, so they buried her with the gear of a warrior.

How do you tell the difference between an arm broken in battle and an arm broken in a slip on the ice? Even a spiral fracture often indicative of a defensive posture doesn't mean the woman was a warrior or abused spouse because there are a bunch of ways that the spiral fracture can form.

In ancient times, I could absolutely believe everyone was expected to take up the sword when bandits appeared on the horizon, but that doesn't mean everyone was a warrior. Much the same as you fending off a burglar doesn't make you an infantryman.

Even with writings from close to that period, we can't really trust them to give us an accurate picture of life because the writers were unbelievably biased at that time, and relied on hearsay so much.

Without that time machine, we'll never likely know the truth. A good reason why making even educated guesses is a bad idea lest those guesses become entrenched in the industrial hive mind and lead folks astray.

I've never liked how most treat the "mindless" trope. Who really wants a wife that's an airhead? While it might be fun for a night, stupidity becomes more work than not sooner rather than later. Always having to watch what you say, what they're spending, them always being fired for incompetence. Ugh! No thanks!

The wish coming true in some unforeseen way? Yea, that could certainly work. I love the unintended consequences, in general, and love stories that do it well.

Not smart enough for college? Okay, what's that really mean? It's not like it takes any great brains to get into college or even finish with a degree nowadays. It doesn't imply an IQ around 50 or such, or that everyone would need a super-genius IQ to get in unless the genie decided to set that bar just because they could.

There's a story on AO3 called Confund Us that handles the unintended very well. Probably one of the best takes on it, imo, though the author isn't giving the story as much love as I'd like.