In 1996, Markian Gooley posted to talk.bizarre Elinor Glyn's list of 19 hackneyed plots that writers ought to avoid. Much hilarity ensued as the amateur and professional writers who hang out in talk.bizarre attempted to write worthwhile stories using Glyn's forbidden plots, sometimes combining several into the same story.

Well, Bill C-20, currently under consideration by the Canadian House of Commons, criminalizes the possession, much less creation or distribution, of (emphasis added) "any written material the dominant characteristic of which is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act." That phrase "would be" is a big problem when it's combined with the fiction writer's imagination.

There is an exemption for materials that "serve the public good", but only if they "do not go beyond what serves the public good". The "public good" exemption replaces the notorious "artistic merit" exemption; I've heard a claim that anything with artistic merit must automatically serve the public good and so this allows everything that was allowed by the old legislation, but I don't think that argument would convince a court. Since the Bill was specifically written in order to address public complaint about the Robin Sharpe case (which involved fictional short stories claimed to be acceptable for possession under "artistic merit"), then I don't think "This is art, art is a public good, so lay off!" is a good enough argument to protect one from punishment in a C-20 regime. It's clear to me that fiction is covered and meant to be covered. So why is it a problem to decide whether fiction describes acts that "would be" illegal?

Well, Bill C-20 may be all well and good for stories about real human beings in ordinary situations where it's easy to answer questions like "how old is this person?" It may not be so easy to interpret in science fiction or fantasy universes where questions of age and identity can get complicated. Here's my list of 20 plot concepts for science fiction or fantasy stories that would raise tricky interpretation questions for Bill C-20. I follow it with some more detailed examples. If a Canadian wrote and published 2500 words in each category, they would have a nifty little 50k-word short story collection, and potentially their own footnote in legal history as a test case defendant.

The categories

1. Long-lived non-humans A character resembles a human but is actually something else with a longer lifespan, and so is in some sense immature or a child despite being chronologically older than 18.

2. Short-lived non-humans A character resembles a human but is actually something else with a shorter lifespan, and so is in some sense mature or an adult despite being chronologically younger than 18.

3. Slow or stopped physical development Some physical or spiritual condition causes a human character's body to develop much more slowly than normal, or to stop entirely, while their mind continues; the result is a mind older than 18 in a body younger than 18.

4. Slow or stopped mental development Converse of #3: a human's mind is stopped or slowed while the body develops, so that a mind younger than 18 is in a body older than 18.

5. Fast or instant physical development and 6. Fast or instant mental development These two are similar to #3 and #4, but occur by way of one of (physical, mental) development being sped up, instead of the other being slowed down.

7. Suspended animation Combination of #3 and #4: Something causes a character's physical and mental development to both be slow or stopped while time nonetheless passes; afterwards, how do we count their age?

8. Time in a bottle Converse of #7: Someone is rapidly aged, both physically and mentally, in a small amount of chronological time.

9. Special relativity Any of a variety of hard-SF plots which cause there to be more than one inertial reference frame significant to the story, the frames each having their own time scales which may wildly disagree, and confusion over which one is legally significant. Different from #7 and #8 in that it's specifically time differences caused by this one physical phenomenon, instead of more general "magic" or "advanced technology". Note that a specific feature of Relativity is that there is no one "correct" reference frame; we cannot correctly say "you were slow while real life was fast", but only that "less time passed for you than for this other person".

10. Child's mind in adult body The mind of a "normal" human child is transferred, downloaded, or whatever, into a "normal" human body that is or appears to be adult; different from #4, #5, and #8 in that it isn't considered to be "their" body.

11. Adult's mind in child body Converse of #10.

12. Virtual reality, underage avatar Adults pretending to be children in any of a number of ways, possibly convincing or not, and with or without their sex partners being aware of the deception.

13. Virtual reality, underage player Converse of #12; children pretending to be adults. Note that as well as computer-mediated virtual reality, this and #12 could also include astral projection, "dreamwalking", or even just plain old role-playing and lying about your age, with or without costumes.

14. Shapeshifting A character is able to shift among several body shapes, including human bodies of apparent age significantly different from the character's chronological age. Different from #12 or #13 in that the shapeshifter's "wrong-age" form isn't a deception: it's as "real" as any of their other humanoid forms. (Their most natural form, if that is a defined concept, might not be humanoid at all.)

15. Hive mind A character has several or many bodies that all express the same personality, and an existence independent of any of the individual bodies. The character's age, in some important sense, is significantly different from the chronological age of one of its bodies.

16. Reincarnation Someone is incarnated into a series of bodies with at least some of their memories and personality preserved from one lifetime to the next; ambiguity about whether to count their "age" from the start of their personality, or the birth of the current incarnation.

17. Exclusive possession Someone's body is taken over by the mind of another character of significantly different "age", replacing (permanently or temporarily) the native mind of that body. Different from #10 and #11 in that those involve a new body whereas this involves taking over an inhabited body, whose owner might come back and have to deal with the consequences of the possessor's actions. Different from #12 and #13 in that those involve a disguised or simulated body, whereas this involves taking over someone's real body.

18. Inclusive possession Someone's body is caused to contain the mind of another character of significantly different "age", in addition to the native mind for that body, so that both minds are active at once.

19. Dissociative identity disorder Sort of the converse of #15: one body contains several or many characters that are considered in some way independent and to have "ages" (in some important sense) different from each other and from the "age" of the body. Distinct from #18 in that this is considered to be the result of a mental disorder (one person splitting into more than one), or something very similar, instead of the fusion of independent personalities (more than one person joining into one).

20. Inverse aging Someone "ages" (in some important sense) in the opposite time direction from someone else, so that one grows older as the other grows younger.

Notes and examples

Some of these are purely invented; many of them are based on Star Trek or Harry Potter, partly to illustrate my point that the threat of C-20 to science fiction and fantasy is very real and applies even to ordinary, popular works. If you are a fan of either mythos and you spend time on the Internet, you'll doubtless be aware of the phenomenon of "fan fiction" (stories written by readers/viewers using the characters and setting of the "official" books and television shows). Some people write erotic fan fiction; very little of it comes close to having the nature of the material in the Sharpe case, but some of it is borderline in the same way that some of my plot outlines below are borderline. Bill C-20 threatens not only the fan fiction subculture, but also anyone who operates (for instance) a Usenet news server or Web site through which users might be able to access fan fiction, even if the server operator has never read or written anything questionable themselves.

1. Long-lived non-humans. "High fantasy" elves of the general type Tolkien made famous have lifespans of hundreds or thousands of years, or forever, depending on the specific mythos. An elf born 100 years ago might look and act a lot like a human child much younger than 18; would it be illegal to possess a story about sex with a 100-year-old elf child? On the one hand, the character is a child; on the other hand, he or she is over 18 and the law has no exception for elves.

2. Short-lived non-humans. Kes, a character from Star Trek: Voyager, is an "Ocampan" - a humanoid alien with a life expectancy of nine Earth years. She looks and acts like an adult human, even at the age of one year. Is it legal for her to have sex with adult humans (or adults of other alien species with human-like lifespan)? She's an adult of her own species and looks and acts like an adult human, but she is under 18 and the law has no exception for Ocampans. Note that although the television series was never explicit, Kes did spend most of her career on the show in a romantic relationship with a character called Neelix who was much older than herself chronologically, and one episode was all about her unique reproductive biology, implying that their relationship was a sexual one. Would an X-rated "director's cut" script of that episode (note, this law only applies to written material) be illegal to possess?

3. Slow or stopped physical development. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, by J.K. Rowling, features a character called "Moaning" Myrtle: a human who died in the bathroom at the age of about twelve or thirteen and has been a ghost haunting the plumbing ever since. The fan-compiled timeline I found claims that Myrtle died in 1943 and that Harry was working on the Triwizard challenges in 1995 - 52 years later. That's when (as the book records) Harry was upset about Myrtle seeing him nude. So as of that point, Myrtle's mind and identity had been active roughly 65 years, but she still looked and acted like a 13-year-old at most. How old is Myrtle for legal purposes, 13 or 65? Is it legal to possess a story about her engaging in sexual activity with a 13-year-old partner? What about a 65-year-old partner? Her lack of a substantial body isn't an issue, because the offence of s.152 of the Criminal Code could still apply even if she can't touch, or be touched by, any other character. See also the Star Trek: The Original Series episode "Miri", which differs in that although Myrtle and Miri both have long life experiences and youthful bodies, a great deal is made in the episode of the idea that Miri is mentally mature in at least some important ways, whereas Myrtle appears to be mentally a child in most important ways. Does that make a difference?

4. Slow or stopped mental development. In the 26th Century, it is a routine practice to "back up" human minds the same way we might today back up computer hard drives. The saved minds can be restored at a later date - a procedure that often becomes necessary because in the 26th Century, human beings can fall prey to non-physical infectious agents analogous to computer viruses. Yoshiki Parwon, a typical 26th Century citizen, has been backing up his mind to holocube storage every year since he was nine. When he is 13, he unknowingly becomes infected with the Frontrunner AE6 memetic virus, which gradually replaces his memories with plotlines of popular novels, until by the time he is 25, he can remember nothing of his own, is functionally insane, and his wife arranges to have him admitted to a psychiatric hospital. The doctors there restore his backup minds, working backward a year at a time until they find the most recent uninfected backup - the one from Yoshiki's 13th birthday. Now he is effectively a 13-year-old with a 25-year-old body. Is his wife still allowed to have sex with him? If (as is the case under 26th-Century law) the answer to that is "no", then were the psychiatrists doing something ethically questionable by restoring Yoshiki's underage personality without warning his wife of the consequences for their marital relations, and who should win the "loss of consortium" lawsuit she files against them? Are we in 2003 allowed to possess a story explicitly describing this situation?

5. Fast or instant physical development. Little Billy, thirteen years old and tired of getting sand kicked in his face at the beach, mail-orders an assortment of products from sleazy manufacturers who advertise by unsolicited email - including several vials of Human Growth Hormone, a Miracle Home Exercise Kit, and a bottle of Male Enlargement Pills. He puts these to use, along with some bacteria he engineered with his Junior Science Real Biotechnology Laboratory, and amazingly enough, it all works. Over the course of one weekend, his body undergoes twelve years' worth of normal development, leaving his mind unchanged. Big Bill then goes back to the beach and kicks sand in other people's faces, and meets a 23-year-old beach bunny whom he ends up taking home. Is it illegal to possess a story about them having sex, bearing in mind that if you watched the video they made of it (not knowing that Bill had been 13 years old a few days earlier) you would think you were watching a 25-year-old man with a 23-year-old woman?

6. Fast or instant mental development. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, by J.K. Rowling, features a character called Hermione Granger, age 13, who is a keen student. She uses a time machine to do the homework for several classes at once, working for an hour, going a hour back in the rest of the world's timeline and working another hour, and so on. Presumably if she kept doing that she would appear to age faster than normal, but in the book she gives it up before any significant side-effects are apparent. Suppose she remained interested in extra studies, did some library research, and ended up with a formula for magical stimulant potion (like coffee only better!) that effectively "overclocks" her brain, giving her several hours of mental activity per hour of "real life". The potion is better than time travel because her body's aging, sleep requirements, and so on, remain normal while her mind is speeding along, and she ends up drinking the potion habitually. Her mind and personality are soon several years "older" than her body. Is it legal to possess a story about Hermione enticing Ron Weasley, who is the same age as her body, into sexual activity he isn't ready for? What about a partner like Professor Snape, who would be more her intellectual equal but is significantly older than her body?

7. Suspended animation. In the 23rd Century, it is a routine practice to freeze critically ill persons in liquid nitrogen against the day when they might be thawed and cured by more advanced technology. Actually, there have been dead and nearly-dead people being frozen for much the same reason in real life since the 20th Century - but assume that in the 23rd Century, they're really getting it right. Two twelve-year-olds are frozen this way, and then thawed 100 years later and their (by now easily curable) terminal illnesses cured. So they were each born 112 years ago but have only 12 years of physical and mental development. Is it legal to possess a story about them having sex with "regular" twelve-year-olds? Regular adults? Each other?

8. Time in a bottle. In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Hide and Q", a godlike entity grants William Riker extensive magical powers, basically just to make trouble. Riker starts handing out gifts to his friends - including making Wesley Crusher several years older. (That was Wesley's gift, although there are doubtless other characters who would have requested "Please make Wesley older!" too.) The exact consequences (whether Wesley gained mental maturity or just physical) were never really defined, and it got reversed pretty soon anyway, but assume for the sake of argument that he really did become "older" in every sense except that the timeline was not retroactively edited to move his birthdate earlier. Assume also that the change stuck long enough for him to enjoy it, and that he was young enough before the change for age of consent to be significant in some way (I think he started about 16 in that episode, but he'd still be under some important ages, for instance the age of consent for anal sex). Does he now have legal status as being a full adult in the Star Trek universe? Does the post-transformation Wesley have legal status as being a full adult for the purposes of people in our universe possessing a sexually explicit story about him?

9. Special relativity Frank Hardy, boy detective, age 11, gets on a spaceship and travels to Alpha Centauri at a significant fraction of the speed of light. It's 4.35 light-years away from Earth. He arrives there, stays a little while, turns around and comes back. When he returns to Earth, ten years have passed (on Earth). So he can look at an Earth calendar and say, "I was born on such-and-such date, it is now so-and-so date, 21 years between them, I am 21 years old." On the other hand, during his trip he was subjected to extreme relativistic time dilation and only experienced roughly two years' worth of time - making him 13 years old in his own inertial reference frame. Is it legal to possess a story about him engaging in sexual activity with a partner who was born 13 years ago on Earth and remained in Earth's inertial reference frame? What about a partner who was born 21 years ago on Earth (the same day as Frank himself) and remained in Earth's inertial reference frame?

10. Child's mind in adult body. In the 24th Century, it is a routine practice to grow brainless clone bodies, in vats, and transplant old people's brains into younger but still adult bodies so they can live longer. The bodies grow at normal speed in the vats. Two smart twelve-year-olds break into the cloning laboratory, crack the robotic-surgery control computers, and transfer their brains into adult bodies so they can pass as adults and enjoy adult privileges. After the successful surgery, they celebrate by having sex with each other. Is a story about that legal to possess? If they then sexually abuse other, still-brainless, bodies from the vats, is a story about that legal to possess? In order for the transplant to work, the bodies they stole had to be a close genetic match, but obviously couldn't have been cloned from the protagonists themselves, being much older. Actually, the bodies were cloned from the protagonists' parents. So is there an incest angle and does that have any bearing on the legal questions? Assuming they get away with their scheme and are accepted as adults by the rest of the society, is a story about sex between them and "real" adults, legal to possess in Canada under C-20? Bonus question: suppose these twelve-year-olds are actually the same twelve-year-olds, or arguably 112-year-olds, from the example for Plot #7 above. (In that case, the cloned bodies could have been cloned from them themselves, or close relatives now alive.) How, if at all, do the legal issues change?

11. Adult's mind in child body. In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Rascals", a freak transporter beam accident causes several characters' minds to be installed, otherwise unchanged and retaining all personality and memories, into bodies resembling the ones they had as pre-pubescent children. Keiko O'Brien, one of the characters so affected, tries to get intimate with her husband Miles, who is still in an adult body, and he rejects her - grossed out because she looks like a child. What if he hadn't? Would the story about it be illegal to possess?

12. Virtual reality, underage avatar. Jack and Jill are adult humans in their 30s, respectively male and female. They each log into an AOL chat room, Jack pretending to be a 13-year-old girl and Jill pretending to be a 13-year-old boy. They have a sexually explicit "net.sex" conversation. The transcript of their conversation constitutes a story or play about 13-year-olds having legal sexual activity. Is its possession legal? A story about them doing this, not including the transcript itself, is a story about two adults in their 30s having legal quasi-sexual activity. Is possession of that story legal? What if they each did not know that the other was "really" an adult - in that case they would each apparently be committing or trying to commit a "luring" offence. Does that make the transcript of their conversation illegal? Bonus question: what if instead of pretending to be 13-year-old human children, they were pretending to be 100-year-old elf children?

13. Virtual reality, underage player. Freddie and Flossie are each 13 years old. They pretend to be adults in their 30s and have a sexually explicit chat-room conversation, each not knowing that the other party is really a child too. Their parents intercept the conversation, each believe that the other party was "really" an adult, and each side files a "luring" complaint against the other. The police determine that they have two victims and no offender. What should the police tell the irate parents? Is possession of the chatroom transcript illegal? Is possession of the story about Freddie and Flossie, not itself including their chatroom transcript but possibly including other sexually explicit description because they were typing one-handed, illegal?

14. Shapeshifting. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine features a character called Odo, who has almost-unlimited shapeshifting ability. He usually looks like an adult humanoid male, but that is only by choice; his "natural" form is a blob of liquid. He is assumed to be an adult by his own race's standards and more than 18 years old chronologically. (Someone probably knows his chronological age in the TV show; I don't.) For the purposes of evaluating fiction as child pornography or not, should we count how long Odo has been alive, or the apparent age of his present form? What about a very young member of Odo's race, who might assume an adult humanoid form while still "being" a child? If you don't like Star Trek, consider also the character Zeus from classical mythology, who often assumed different forms for sexual purposes.

15. Hive mind. Star Trek again: suppose First of Twelve is the designation of one of the Borg's many bodies. First of Twelve was manufactured quite recently and looks like a young child with cybernetic implants. However, to the extent that this character can be said to have a mind at all, it is the Borg universal mind, which has memories and a continuous thread of consciousness from thousands if not millions of years of life. Is it illegal to possess a story about sex between First of Twelve and a non-Borg adult? First of Twelve and a non-Borg child of the same apparent age? What about First of Twelve and an apparently-adult Borg body, bearing in mind that they are considered to be two parts of the same person? What if another character in the story watches that last situation, not knowing that the Borg all share one mind, and is turned on by it, so that the description of that is a description of forbidden sexuality (pedophilic voyeurism or something) even if the description of the Borg-on-Borg activity might arguably not be?

16. Reincarnation. The Hentai Lama vowed several thousand years ago to reincarnate on Earth and guide seekers of the true path. Ever since then, he has been born many times, each time carrying the complete memories and personality from his previous incarnations. His most recent incarnation was twelve years ago: so today we have a character running around with several thousand years' life experience in a twelve-year-old body. To make things more complicated, he got married in 1223 and his wife has been similarly reincarnating and remarrying him each time - but she is less holy and doesn't carry all her memories, only a few of them. Her current incarnation was born 17 years ago and presently claims not to remember anything of her previous lives; the Lama's word being law, however, her claims about this aren't given much weight. Assuming their religion allows it, is it legal to possess a story about them having sex? If there is something illegal going on here, is it a 17-year-old woman exploiting a 12-year-old man, or is it a multi-thousand-year-old man exploiting a 17-year-old woman, either of those being relationships that could be illegal to describe under C-20?

17. Exclusive possession. In the movie Vice Versa, an accident with a magical artifact causes a father and son to exchange minds, or depending on your point of view, bodies. The young teenaged son in his father's body then proceeds to go off on a date with the father's girlfriend, despite the father-in-son's-body's best efforts to cancel it. As far as I remember, they didn't end up having sex in the movie, but it's easy to imagine that they could have. Would possession of a story about that be illegal? If the father in the son's body masturbated, would a story about that be illegal, as a description of incest?

18. Inclusive possession. This example is also very close to being a #16 plot: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine features a character called Jadzia Dax, formed by the surgical fusion of a human-like creature (Jadzia) and a slug-like creature (Dax). Dax is much older than Jadzia, and carries the memories of previous joinings with other humanoid bodies. The joined creature appears to have only one personality, the seamless fusion of Jadzia, Dax, and all Dax's previous hosts. There are documented cases of her attempting to pick up a romantic relationship from a previous lifetime, and to fulfill a Klingon Blood Oath made in a previous lifetime, clearly considering herself to still be the same person even in the face of her culture's tradition that commitments do not carry over to new lifetimes. Jadzia was in fact an adult when she was joined with Dax, but if she had been much younger, we would end up with a creature that looked like a humanoid child, with most of its body born less than 18 years ago, but also containing a brain hundreds of years old and controlled by a personality combining a child's outlook with hundreds of years' worth of memories. How old would that creature be for the purposes of Bill C-20? Would it be legal to possess a story about sexual activity involving such a character? Would it depend on the age of her partner, and who would be an acceptable partner? Would it even be legal to possess a story about her touching herself sexually with no other characters involved, since that could be viewed as the over-18 Dax's mind molesting the under-18 Jadzia's body never mind that Jadzia Dax is considered (by herself and the culture described in the story) to be just one person? Would it make a difference if Jadzia and Dax were simultaneously and independently conscious, possibly creating something like a #19 situation?

19. Dissociative identity disorder. General Hon Kwok, now aged 46, commanded the Thirteenth Fleet during the Second Martian War and participated in the Olympus Mons Massacre. The stress of that experience, and his subsequent trial for war crimes, caused his personality to split into about a dozen shards including "Po" (a 14-year-old girl) and "The Terrible Old Man" (apparent mental and emotional age at least sixty). The personalities have different voices, memories, eyeglass prescriptions, and other distinguishing characteristics. The original personality, "Hon Kwok", appears to no longer exist; when you talk to the body it's more or less random which personality you are talking to. While the body is sleeping, the different personalities interact as separate characters in dreams. Is it legal to possess a story about General Hon Kwok's 46-year-old body having sex with a normal 14-year-old? A normal 60-year-old? Does it depend on which personality was in control of the body at the time? Is it legal to possess a transcript of one of this body's dreams in which the Terrible Old Man rapes Po, bearing in mind that from the point of view of both characters it is an actual experience, but from the point of view of an external observer, they are both fragments of the personality of a sleeping 46-year-old?

20. Inverse aging. A sex story incorporating this theme is "The Selkie" by "Frank McCoy" (probably a psuedonym); it doesn't spell out the details of the title character's aging process, but it's suggested that she gets younger while her human lover gets older, with some kind of time-travel connection between the start and end of the story. There also appears to be some kind of draining of his life force going on, which could render the relationship "exploitive" in some sense. Note that the story is ambiguous about many details, apparently intentionally, and that's another problem for the law: if a story never mentions its characters' ages, do we assume the best, or the worst? Do words like "boy", "girl", and "teenager", always equate to "underage"? That's not how they're used on Web porn sites, where all three seem to generally translate to "19 years old exactly, documentation on file". Although both characters appear to be adults in all senses throughout McCoy's story, it's possible to imagine a similar story where at the start, he would be underage and she overage, and by the end of the story, she'd be underage and he overage, thus making possession of the story illegal in two equal and opposite ways. Another character with inverse aging, although his sex life is never discussed as far as I can recall, would be the wizard Merlin in T.H. White's version of the Arthurian legends.

What's the bottom line? The bottom line is that these are all questions that we ought not to be asking, or at least not asking when we're playing for keeps in the realm of real-life law. Fictional words should be legal, full stop. The alternative offered by Bill C-20 would be a world where judges have to spend hours trying to sort out absurdly complicated hypothetical questions involving time travel, non-human lifespans, reincarnation, magic, alien cultural norms, artificial intelligence, human deception, Einsteinian physics, cloning, or all of the above. Most of these plots could not occur in real life, at least not at this point in history; but I hope it's obvious that a reasonably competant writer could easily write sexually explicit stories with any of these plots, and then possession of the story would clearly be an act that could occur in real life. Bill C-20 means that we have to be able to decide whether the act of possessing the story is legal, and that means we have to decide whether the acts described in the story would be legal, no matter how complicated and far-fetched they may be.

The plots above are dead easy compared to the plots that some science fiction authors can and will invent. Normal law is at least limited by what can happen in real life, so there is an admittedly generous limit to how weird it can get; but C-20 is a law against the very description of illegal acts, and there are no limits on how weird a description can get.