OK, but I still think that "While their chest and shoulders might resemble male humanoids and giants in form, these cyclopes are incapable of natural procreation." doesn't sound right. Maybe a matter of taste, though, and no biggie if it stays.Don't like the "always male." If they only propagate using their Curse on already pregnant women they technically can't be male or female, since they don't reproduce sexually.
It makes more sense saying they have the appearance of males, but are either not actually male or are incapable of natural procreation (the option I went for).
Can't think of a way of avoiding it without mentioning "Amiraspian" mid-sentence, though, even if it would include something along the lines of the original "there are no female cyclopes".
Ah, yes. I suppose the curse does that, for the cyclopes seem to have no use for female infants. Hmm..., that suddenly makes me think that perhaps the "curse" is an attempt to create female cyclopes but never works in that way?How could this work? Does the curse turn girl babies into boys! Surely some of the babies the curse doesn't affect are girls?
Anyway. What if some infants are girls? Are we gonna mention what happens to them? Or is that yet another can of worms?
I see your point. But maybe not really if the curse is performed directly after the birth? Or moments earlier? I'm saying this because maybe performing the curse during delivery would be too graphic?Don't like the curse being performed after birth. That'd motivate a cyclops to kidnap infants to turn into cyclopes, and the original did not do that.
Heh. Missed that.That's impossible if the curse is performed after the infant is born.
"Pregnant women who escape or are rescued from a cyclops lair before they have been cursed and their child is born give birth to normal children."?