Re: Kryptonian 'birthing matrix' what is it?

Glenn Simpson <glennsim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Which is all perfectly viable. But it needed to be explained, because
there's no reason for us to just expect that a test tube would have
that super-hard coating.

Well, frankly, if you're reading the story and your first
assumption is "boy, that thing in the cone must be made of something
pretty fragile so it's kinda stupid that they're shooting it into space"
instead of "boy, that thing in the cone must be pretty damn durable since
it can withstand interstellar travel," I don't quite know what to say to
that.
Isn't it only reasonable to assume that if Jor-El builds a
spaceship and puts his son in it, he's going to make sure that the
relevant parts are composed of something other than Fragile Substance?
Doesn't, in fact, the fact that the trip goes by without incident prove
that it was hardy enough to take the punishment? Why would you assume
otherwise? Is there really such a great difference between an artificial
womb and a crew compartment in terms of durability? Would it suddenly
become more credible if Jor-El had remarked, while reaching for the launch
button, "It is fortunate that the birthing matrix is extremely durable!" I
mean, doesn't the fact that he's shooting the thing into space kind of
imply that it's not made of tinfoil and cardboard?
Unless you feel that no artificial womb could survive this kind of
a trip unless it was placed, I dunno, somewhere in the middle of the ship.
But that's a kind of a bold assumption. If you can accept the whole "stuff
a baby in a rocket and send him to an alien world where he becomes a
Superman" premise, why is accepting that those things are really built to
last so much more difficult? I mean, even _now_ we could probably
manufacture something durable enough -- from what I understand, aggregated
diamond nanorods that we can already manufacture would easily be hard
enough for that purpose, though I may be grossly mistaken. In any case,
stuffing propulsion, navigation and life support systems into what little
space there is in that tiny ship, that'd be the real problem. Durability
isn't really the concern.

Besides, surely a bit of artistic license should be okay here.
Speaking of that: do you remember that the classic rocket actually had
that windowed hatch little Kal-El himself could open from the inside!
An idea invented in the 1940s. I expect more from a writer in the
1980s.

I'm not equating the two, it just occured to me. (And I think it
was probably from the 60s, not the 40s. But anyway.)

And that fits the type of attitude they had for Superman stories at
the time. But in the midst of trying to create a more "modern"
Superman, sticking a test tube on the front of the rocket is a bit
silly.

Only if the test tube is fragile. I don't see any reason to assume
that. (Well, okay, it's silly even then, sure -- but no more so than
putting a toddler in a rocket.)

- Mikki
.

Loading