Escape Artists
Escape Pod => Episode Comments => Topic started by: Russell Nash on December 14, 2007, 10:02:47 AM
-
EP136: Bright Red Star (http://escapepod.org/?p=258)
By Bud Sparhawk (http://www.sff.net/people/bud_sparhawk/).
Read by (of Escape Pod Classic (http://classic.escapepod.org/)).
First appeared in Asimov’s Science Fiction (http://www.asimovs.com/), March 2005.
Survivors isn’t exactly the word. What they found were sixteen bodies without arms, legs, and most organs. What remained were essentially heads hooked up to life support and fueled by oxygenated glucose pumps. There were a couple hundred strands of glass fibre running from the ship’s walls into each skull, into each brain, into each soul. Four of the sixteen were still functioning–alive is not a word to describe their condition.
There was no hesitation on the part of Command. They ordered everyone, except combat types like us, from the most likely targets. Humanity couldn’t allow any more people to become components for the Shardie offense.
But civilians never listen. Farmers were the worse, hanging onto their little plots and crops until somebody dragged them away, kicking and screaming at the injustice of it all. That’s why we were here. Forty settlers had stupidly refused to be evacuated from New Mars. Forty we didn’t know about until we got that one brief burst.
My mission was to make certain that they didn’t become forty armless, legless, gutless, screamless weapon components.
Rated R. Contains strong violence and heavy moral themes..
Referenced Sites:
Reading is Fundamental (http://rif.org/)
Starship Sofa (http://www.starshipsofa.com/)
(http://escapepod.org/wp-images/podcast-mini4.gif)
Listen to this week’s Escape Pod! (http://media.libsyn.com/media/escapepod/EP136_BrightRedStar.mp3)
-
I should find this story difficult. It doesn't go to any efforts to hide, nay, in fact presents from the start really it's only hook, which would in other stories of been a "what a tweeest!" Twilight Zone job at the end. It tries to create sympathy for a character in far too short of a time, and begins with what has to be a purposefully ridiculously flowery sentence.
However, it actually went down without any bother. A short, neat, concise bit of fast food. And as someone who values interesting scenarios far over new speculative ground, that makes it rank pretty well in my book.
-
Works for me. Interesting aliens, utterly horrible central premise, nice take on military sci fi and some well realised and plausible human screw ups in there as well. Good stuff.
-
I liked this story. I like how we're left guessing about the aliens' intentions and why they attacked Humans in the first place. I also liked the descriptions of the soldiers and their augmentations. Very cool.
The only downside was I saw the ending coming a mile away. When the little girl (Becky?) asked the soldier if he was here to rescue them and he said he was there to make sure the Shards didn't get them I knew what was going to happen. It was still fun (that's a bad word to use, but the only one I can think of) watching the events unfold. Overall great story.
-
Saddest story ever.
Works well at its job of jerking tears, but not much to chew on once the credits roll.
I liked that the soldier valued the innocence of the child and wanted to spare her from horror, despite the nature of his mission. She remained a person in his eyes.
-
I think this would be a great stroy for a visiual media. The foreshadowing was really strong and not much surprise at the ending. Of course I think that may have been the author's intent because the stroy seem more about the narrator's humanity vs his machine upgrades. Anyway, great story, well done, very enjoyable, even if it was a bit dark (maybe even better because it was a bit dark).
-
I liked the story, though not quite as much as the posters above. While I liked the depiction of the main character a lot - he clearly is not enjoying what he's doing, but he knows it's necessary, and gets it done - but the "war" aspect of it didn't gel for me. Simply put, this wasn't a war, not in the same sense that we have wars on earth. The aliens were well imagined, but their alienness and relentlessness made the whole situation feel more like a plague, with really big viruses. Real wars are messy, and they are fought by people who, if it wasn't for a quirk of fate or politics, would have a whole other range of possible interactions open to them. That didn't exist here, making the whole situation a lot simpler than war ever is.
-
This story gripped me from the beginning. The description of the soldier's augmentations was cool and the portrayal of the soldiers gelled with what I would think a crack unit of suicide soldiers would be (though I have little real experience in this regard).
The foreshadowing (is it really foreshadowing if you are pretty much told how the story ends from the start?) worked well too, I thought, because you saw what had to be done, hoped that somehow something would happen to prevent it, yet watched as the inevitable events unfolded.
This was not a story about escaping impossible odds with heroics. It was a story about heroically doing what must be done. That is, some of the characters acted heroically, and with humanity; the others played the roles given to them.
My only complaints are that some of the farmers seemed a little too much like a stereotype of rural farmers in the old U.S. to me, and that I would have liked to have seen a bit more of the aliens, or a bit more of the soldiers' resistance to the aliens at the end of the story.
Great story.
-
I enjoyed this story enough to listen to it twice in a row.
-
Harsh, brutal and disgusting. I would very much like to know more.
-
Wow. I really liked this story. I didn't see the end coming like most others did and it was like a punch in the gut. What a heart breaker.
-
My only complaints are that some of the farmers seemed a little too much like a stereotype of rural farmers in the old U.S. to me, and that I would have liked to have seen a bit more of the aliens, or a bit more of the soldiers' resistance to the aliens at the end of the story.
Maybe it was a bit of a stereotype but there are plenty of rural types (not just farmers) in the current US that are like the farmers in the story.
-
My only complaints are that some of the farmers seemed a little too much like a stereotype of rural farmers in the old U.S. to me, and that I would have liked to have seen a bit more of the aliens, or a bit more of the soldiers' resistance to the aliens at the end of the story.
Maybe it was a bit of a stereotype but there are plenty of rural types (not just farmers) in the current US that are like the farmers in the story.
Also, it's a self-selecting group - it would only be the people who most conform to the stereotype that would have stayed behind to begin with.
-
I liked this one. The basics of the ending were spelled out right at the beginning, but that wasn't the point. This was about the journey. How did we get here? How will they go about completing thier mission? What kind of "person" is this soldier? Is he more man than machine?
With no reason other than the fact he is still human, the soldier gives the only kindness he can. He kills the child swiftly without her knowing what was coming. And that was the answer to our last question.
My only complaints are that some of the farmers seemed a little too much like a stereotype of rural farmers in the old U.S. to me, and that I would have liked to have seen a bit more of the aliens, or a bit more of the soldiers' resistance to the aliens at the end of the story.
Maybe it was a bit of a stereotype but there are plenty of rural types (not just farmers) in the current US that are like the farmers in the story.
Also, it's a self-selecting group - it would only be the people who most conform to the stereotype that would have stayed behind to begin with.
I don't think rural or city has anything to do with it. You see these type of people every time there's a natural disaster that was predicted. Every hurrican, every wild fire, every volcano. This time it just happened to be brain stealing aliens.
-
My only complaints are that some of the farmers seemed a little too much like a stereotype of rural farmers in the old U.S. to me, and that I would have liked to have seen a bit more of the aliens, or a bit more of the soldiers' resistance to the aliens at the end of the story.
Maybe it was a bit of a stereotype but there are plenty of rural types (not just farmers) in the current US that are like the farmers in the story.
Also, it's a self-selecting group - it would only be the people who most conform to the stereotype that would have stayed behind to begin with.
Points well taken. I think what I was reacting to more than the stereotype was the juxtaposition of a future time and place, with highly advanced spaceships and weapons and augmented half-machine, half-human soldiers fighting inscrutable aliens on a colonized planet somewhere in the distant universe [all of which was portrayed extremely well by the author] to characters who think and live in a way that not only exists today, but existed 50 years ago, and a hundred years ago, and more. Certainly not the first time this type of juxtaposition has been done, but it always gives me pause when I come across it and am faced with a brave new future existing side by side with the present or the past. Not because I don't believe that this could or would happen; indeed, this type of juxtaposition exists today. But because I am left wondering why these particular old ways were selected by the author to continue on into the future.
I don't want to make too much of this, though, as it was a very minor distraction to me, and did not detract appreciably from my attention to the story.
-
And I should also add that "criticism" was too harsh of a term, the portrayal of the farmers and their apparent anachronistic lifestyle was more like something that made me go "hmm".
-
I didn't expect to like this story when I read the info box - the summary said "Pseudopod" to me more than it said "Escape Pod" and despite my tastes in video games I consider myself somewhat squeamish. But like it I did. I think that the idea of humanity being reduced to this dilemma or death versus fate-worse-than, while not necessarily original in the annals of science fiction, was handled in a way that created such pathos for me that by the end I felt like I couldn't not listen.
After a few weeks of stories that have left me pretty cold - good, enjoyable stuff but hasn't really stayed with me afterwards - this one was something of a disturbing jolt. Actually, I don't think I've enjoyed a story that's disturbed me in quite this way since EP90 "How Lonesome A Life Without Nerve Gas."
The funny thing is (and I know I'm taking my life into my own hands here if people more serious about popular music than I are reading ;)): getting the rights to use "No Bravery" by James Blunt for the closing music this week would have been a swine, but the story made the song leap out at me. No bravery in these soldier's eyes anymore, only sadness.
Good thought-provoking pick, Steve. Thanks.
-
Stories like this are why I like EP so much. It's different.
Not my taste, but still different.
I couldn't get in to this story even a little bit.
We were told rather than shown everything: the history, the aliens, the soldier's mental state, even the tech. The whole thing was an El Camino on which the author bolted some clunky high-tech ideas, with a couple of 2D holographs in the passenger seats, which was then put it on a very predictable auto pilot to nowhere.
The tech added nothing to the story other than to say this was in the future, and to show off the author's creativity. None of the body modifications were demonstrated, the aliens were so vague that I didn't care about them, and none of the characters faced any conflict. I think there was some kind of hint at the idea that we were becoming bigger monsters than the Shards. I think the author also hoped to play at some deep emotional meaning, but the characters were all so flat that the dramatic interaction was just pantomime.
We were walked through and spoon fed the world, the war, and the character's emotional states. Everything we were shown I expected to be a moment of contradiction to all the spoon fed status quo, only to be disappointed. I kept waiting for the solider or farmer to be a Shard, the whole thing to be the memories of a canned brain, or a revelation of the true and unexpected nature of the enemy, but alas.
As for the journey vs. the destination, a journey would still indicate that the plot was going somewhere, and the destination would suggest that the end justified the means. I didn't see either of these here. Everything went according to plan, as it would with a well trained troop of crack soldiers. But I couldn't even get the satisfaction of a job well done because it was a half dozen super-modified soldiers against some scared farmers, and even though there was a brief mention of tacts (only thrown in to say "hey, I've seen a war movie too!") they weren't the focus of the story either and could have been simply glossed over for atmosphere.
That said, I'm still glad a story like this made it on EP.
I love the variety we get presented with, and apparently I'm in the minority here.
-
I kept waiting for the solider or farmer to be a Shard, the whole thing to be the memories of a canned brain, or a revelation of the true and unexpected nature of the enemy, but alas.
Me too! I held out to the very last words of this story hoping for this...
Still, I enjoyed this one a lot. I didn't get the worn out humans are really worse than the aliens thing- quite the opposite actually. "Some of them understand" said the soldier- the fight or flight thing we humans have is weird, but at least we have a mechanism. The question is raised if the soldier feels like he is a machine with his mods- clearly he can still feel despite knowing what has to be done. Even Roberts was doing what he thought was a noble thing- The Shardies were just mindless (literally it would seem) killers.
I think it can be argued that, through neccesity, humans were becoming like the Shardies. Still, this story was a brief snapshot of characters that, despite being almost inhuman in modification and training or being stupidly human in their habit for self-preservation, were still very much human and were in opposition to somthing very much not.
-
I liked this one.
I understand people were waiting for something to happen, or dislike just being told somwthing rather than experiancing it for the most part.The soldier knew the story for the most part before the story started, and I can see why people dislike that.
Yes it would have been nice to see something about the war, but for this story it wasn't needed. The story was these people had a horrible job to stop people becoming machines and killing humans by becoming machines and killing humans; the characters knew this was the cas and it was how they dealt with that.
The aliens were just implied to be totally different to us, but when pressured we would do what they were doing anyway. And in the aliens situation (meeting an alien race aggresivly expanding outwards) I can't honestly say that I think we wouldn't attack them and try to destroy them. At the world today, you have people blowing themselves up for their religion killing innocent people. You have wars raged on people due to ignorance because they can. You have people dying of famine and lack of drinkable water while we have a choice of foods, waste lots of it, and buy water in bottles because we prefer it.
Given a race expanding too close to Earth or just us in general, assuming we are out there, I can see us easily attacking and justifying it to ourselves with mild ease.
So I think that the story needed to be told to us, the amount of information we were given needed to be told to us as if it was a breif. Without knowing that we augment the troops to that level, the comparison to the Futurama style heads in jars doesn't work as well. I don't think that going into it a lot of detail about and one of these things would have helped the story at all.
Or it may have helped it, but made it so long as it wouldn't be on escape pod.
So well done. It didn't make my almost cry, but I'll be listening to it again.
-
Enh. I really don't like it when I see the end coming from the beginning. To me, the best stories over about 600 words have an "elbow," a place where the story goes from the initial direction, and go somewhere transcendant.
I think this story started off on the transcendant line.
The large expository lumps would have been better handled in narration, perhaps starting with the discovery of the heads in jars.
-
Ah ha! Thanks to Planish (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1202.msg18245#msg18245) I think a more succinct way of putting it was that there were far too many Chekhov's Guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun) laying around.
I don't at all think the story wasn't well thought out. The universe makes perfect sense when viewed from inside that universe. No problems there, but the author included so many things that didn't go anywhere that the story got lost. If the author had three times as much room, or one third as many cool and important things jammed in to the episode, the story could be amazing. Unfortunately that wasn't what happened.
-
hmm...
this story would have been better had it taken more time to develop the humanity vs. machine aspect of the soldier's character. it seemed to try to deliver the message in the least amount of time possible, and ended up being more about the cool new technology than the inner battle.
fun to listen to, if a little cheesy at parts, but again, should have been longer, taken more time to explain itself.
-
My first thought was that this was a bit heavy-handed in just how mindlessly evil the Shardi were. They attacked without provocation, had no interest in any kind of dialog, much less negotiation, exterminated all humans on sight, and performed vile experiments on those they captured alive. On later reflection, I thought that this might make sense as war-time propaganda. We see the Shardi as pure monsters because that's what the soldiers are told in order to justify the horrors in which "our" side engages. I think the story would have worked better for me if we saw a hint somewhere that this was the case, and that the situation was more complex than our soldier thought.
-
I enjoyed this story to a point, but I have a hard time really getting behind it. I noticed the info-dumping that nobilis pointed out, but you get that sometimes with short sci-fi. Unfortunate, but forgiveable.
My first thought was that this was a bit heavy-handed in just how mindlessly evil the Shardi were. They attacked without provocation, had no interest in any kind of dialog, much less negotiation, exterminated all humans on sight, and performed vile experiments on those they captured alive. On later reflection, I thought that this might make sense as war-time propaganda. We see the Shardi as pure monsters because that's what the soldiers are told in order to justify the horrors in which "our" side engages. I think the story would have worked better for me if we saw a hint somewhere that this was the case, and that the situation was more complex than our soldier thought.
I smelled propaganda in this as well, but I don't think it was meant to be ficticious. In this story, the ends justify the means.
Are the good guys still the good guys when they slash the throats of little girls? The author seems to be arguing to the affirmative.
The use of an utterly implacable, incomprehensible enemy seems to be fairly bare plot mechanism used to illustrate a point. There's proabably a word for that, but I don't know it.
Those issues aside, I still think the story was well written.
-
Maybe I was going in a different mental direction, but I expected the little girl to be one of the Shardi in some sort of disguise. When I figured out the twist -- it was 6:15am, so I was a little slow on the uptake -- I was a little surprised, but not blown away by it necessarily.
I think this story paints a more realistic picture of what will happen when humans eventually do become a spacefaring race: someone else who's more powerful, who we have no comprehension of their reasoning or even who they are, will kick the crap out of us. We as a planet are (for the most part) so anthropocentric that we can't seriously believe there is someone out there better/stronger/faster/more vicious than us. (That's why I liked Titan AE so much... for all its flaws, it showed that humans were not the be-all end-all.)
I might have wanted to know more about the Shardi, but given the nature of the narrator, I understand why I wasn't informed. The exposition was from a soldier's point of view, so while not necessarily the best story-telling method, it was understandable why the choice was made. I do have a minor problem with narrators who are about to die telling a story and then dying at the end. Can't articulate, though.
I didn't really care for the choice of the reader this week. It may be partly due to the editing -- it sounded rough when transitioning from the girl to the narrator. Also, I had some trouble differentiating the narrator from Hunter. I don't know how to describe it, but the voice sounded too "round" to me.
I enjoyed this story to a point, but I have a hard time really getting behind it. I noticed the info-dumping that nobilis pointed out, but you get that sometimes with short sci-fi. Unfortunate, but forgiveable.
My first thought was that this was a bit heavy-handed in just how mindlessly evil the Shardi were. They attacked without provocation, had no interest in any kind of dialog, much less negotiation, exterminated all humans on sight, and performed vile experiments on those they captured alive. On later reflection, I thought that this might make sense as war-time propaganda. We see the Shardi as pure monsters because that's what the soldiers are told in order to justify the horrors in which "our" side engages. I think the story would have worked better for me if we saw a hint somewhere that this was the case, and that the situation was more complex than our soldier thought.
I smelled propaganda in this as well, but I don't think it was meant to be ficticious. In this story, the ends justify the means.
Are the good guys still the good guys when they slash the throats of little girls? The author seems to be arguing to the affirmative.
The use of an utterly implacable, incomprehensible enemy seems to be fairly bare plot mechanism used to illustrate a point. There's proabably a word for that, but I don't know it.
Those issues aside, I still think the story was well written.
I was with you on the propaganda thing. There was some foreshadowing that could've led to a propaganda issue a la Starship Troopers, but I was able to believe that the Shardi were just that evil. We simply didn't know enough about them.
-
I smelled propaganda in this as well, but I don't think it was meant to be ficticious. In this story, the ends justify the means.
Are the good guys still the good guys when they slash the throats of little girls? The author seems to be arguing to the affirmative.
The use of an utterly implacable, incomprehensible enemy seems to be fairly bare plot mechanism used to illustrate a point. There's proabably a word for that, but I don't know it.
Those issues aside, I still think the story was well written.
I was with you on the propaganda thing. There was some foreshadowing that could've led to a propaganda issue a la Starship Troopers, but I was able to believe that the Shardi were just that evil. We simply didn't know enough about them.
I think the main thing is that - unlike Starship Troopers (the movie, I haven't read the book so I don't know about it), we get everything filtered through a narrator. Who is entirely sincere and relibable. And not only thinks that his actions are justified for some ideological reason, but believes they are justified for very concrete reasons. So yeah, he could have been misled. This story can be situated in a universe where the narrator knows the real truth. Or it could be set in a universe where the Shardi are really good guys coming to take everyone to the Big Rock Candy Mountain, and the entire "they kill everyone they don't convert into a tormented weapons system" is a pure lie by the Human Government. But the story isn't about the Shrardi, it's about the narrator, and his internal motivation for his actions, which remains justified, as he is acting by the truth he has.
-
I guess I'm looking at it more from an ideological point of view. I got the idea that the author started with a point: "The ends justify the means in military conflict. How can I demonstrate that?" To that end, some ETs were created to embody the perfect threat, stripped of any sort of intellect, desire, motivation, or any other trait. The only thing anyone knows about the Shardies is that they kill people and steal their heads for computers. In the face of such an absolute, existential threat, the author/main character can rationalize anything. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the authors position, I just didn't like the way the question was handled.
-
I smelled propaganda in this as well, but I don't think it was meant to be ficticious. In this story, the ends justify the means.
Are the good guys still the good guys when they slash the throats of little girls? The author seems to be arguing to the affirmative.
The use of an utterly implacable, incomprehensible enemy seems to be fairly bare plot mechanism used to illustrate a point. There's proabably a word for that, but I don't know it.
Those issues aside, I still think the story was well written.
I was with you on the propaganda thing. There was some foreshadowing that could've led to a propaganda issue a la Starship Troopers, but I was able to believe that the Shardi were just that evil. We simply didn't know enough about them.
I think the main thing is that - unlike Starship Troopers (the movie, I haven't read the book so I don't know about it), we get everything filtered through a narrator.
I haven't read the book in a while, but I remember the film being MUCH more heavy-handed with the propaganda. I believe I read somewhere that that was Verhoeven's decision when he oversaw the film.
-
I guess I'm looking at it more from an ideological point of view.
Your own ideology? Or one that you assume the author has, for some reason that's unclear to me?
I got the idea that the author started with a point: "The ends justify the means in military conflict. How can I demonstrate that?"
That doesn't make any sense (as motivation for the author, not as a position, though I disagree with it) - if that's the intention, then the author chose a really bad way of going about it. To whit:
To that end, some ETs were created to embody the perfect threat, stripped of any sort of intellect, desire, motivation, or any other trait. The only thing anyone knows about the Shardies is that they kill people and steal their heads for computers. In the face of such an absolute, existential threat, the author/main character can rationalize anything. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the authors position, I just didn't like the way the question was handled.
So, in other words, you believe that the author was trying to say "in military conflict, the ends justify the means", and he went about doing that by setting up a scenario that has little in common with actual military conflict? Why assume that the author has a motivation that the story he created doesn't support? Do you have any reason to believe he is not particularly competent at getting his point across?
I think the author's motivation was "What is a case where the ends would justify the means?" The fact that the author had to create such an extreme situation indicates to me that he doesn't think that real wars are such a situation. If he did, he could have written a story situated in a facsimile of one.
-
I smelled propaganda in this as well, but I don't think it was meant to be ficticious. In this story, the ends justify the means.
Are the good guys still the good guys when they slash the throats of little girls? The author seems to be arguing to the affirmative.
The use of an utterly implacable, incomprehensible enemy seems to be fairly bare plot mechanism used to illustrate a point. There's proabably a word for that, but I don't know it.
Those issues aside, I still think the story was well written.
I was with you on the propaganda thing. There was some foreshadowing that could've led to a propaganda issue a la Starship Troopers, but I was able to believe that the Shardi were just that evil. We simply didn't know enough about them.
I think the main thing is that - unlike Starship Troopers (the movie, I haven't read the book so I don't know about it), we get everything filtered through a narrator.
I haven't read the book in a while, but I remember the film being MUCH more heavy-handed with the propaganda. I believe I read somewhere that that was Verhoeven's decision when he oversaw the film.
The Starship Trooper propoganda in the movie was just Verhoeven re-hashing the ads he had in Robocop. Same trick different subject. He also did it in Total Recall.
-
I actually like the fact that the motivation of the aliens is completely inscrutable. Most of the time aliens are just humans with antennae and their characteristics are caricatures of humans and human cultures. I like it that these aliens are unfathomable and nothing they do makes sense.
Although it does make perfect sense if the Shardis view humans as vermin. Do you try to open communications with the cockroaches in your basement? Negotiate a with them? Understand their culture? No: You just spray them until they're all dead, and if they prove more resilient than you'd first expected, you get some better poison. My interpretation of events would be the Shardi are a god-like race who view humans as garden pests and have thrown the equivalent of a Raid bomb at them. They don't try to communicate because they don't consider humans worth communicating with.
It would also make sense if humans are somehow inherently dangerous the Shardi. Perhaps they are a psychic race and human thoughts are a deadly toxin to them? In such a case, they would dispatch machines to destroy the humans while keeping themselves well away.
Or they could be religious fanatics who think humans are demons and that communicating will defile them.
The action of the Shardi only seem implausible if we assume they are fundamentally anthropoid, like Star Trek aliens. If they are radically different in either mind or body, then there are a number of plausible explanations for why they would act as they do.
-
I guess I'm looking at it more from an ideological point of view.
Your own ideology? Or one that you assume the author has, for some reason that's unclear to me?
I got the idea that the author started with a point: "The ends justify the means in military conflict. How can I demonstrate that?"
That doesn't make any sense (as motivation for the author, not as a position, though I disagree with it) - if that's the intention, then the author chose a really bad way of going about it.
As I said, this was the impression I recieved. It is not unheard of for writers to try and use a story to illustrate a position. When I see all the pieces necessary to illustrate a position, I entertain the idea that this is, in fact, the intention of the author. I do not wish to imply that I know the author's state of mind. This is simply my best attempt to understand the piece at hand. In this case, my impression was further reinforced by the attitude of the farmers who did not resist, and by the point cryptoengineer makes. To borrow a phrase, why not glass it from orbit?
To whit:
To that end, some ETs were created to embody the perfect threat, stripped of any sort of intellect, desire, motivation, or any other trait. The only thing anyone knows about the Shardies is that they kill people and steal their heads for computers. In the face of such an absolute, existential threat, the author/main character can rationalize anything. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the authors position, I just didn't like the way the question was handled.
So, in other words, you believe that the author was trying to say "in military conflict, the ends justify the means", and he went about doing that by setting up a scenario that has little in common with actual military conflict? Why assume that the author has a motivation that the story he created doesn't support? Do you have any reason to believe he is not particularly competent at getting his point across?
I guess I don't understand how the story does not suppport that line of reasoning. Under such circumstances as those presented, the actions of the characters are completely necessary and entirely justifiable. If I were attempting to construct a hypothetical situation to support the statement that "The Ends Justify the Means," I might present a very similiar situation. As to his competence, I don't question it at all. I think the point is very well made.
As to this bearing similarity to real miliary situations: It doesn't have to. All he has to do is set up a situation in which a person of presumably ordinary morals/ethics could approve of that actions taken by the principals, and he does that quite well. I probably shouldn't have specified military conflict, but that does appear to be the context of the story.
I think the author's motivation was "What is a case where the ends would justify the means?" The fact that the author had to create such an extreme situation indicates to me that he doesn't think that real wars are such a situation. If he did, he could have written a story situated in a facsimile of one.
Why use a facsimile of one? Sadly, there are plenty of real ones he could use. He creates a fictional situation to eliminate other variables: politics, race, religion, philosophy, etc. Who could argue against the necessity of preserving humanity? That allows his question to be examined in a sort of vacuum.
By the way, I'd like to point out that, as I stated in my first comment, I did enjoy the story. The language was used well, and the dialogue had good flow. Characterization could have been stronger, but you have to let some of that go sometimes to avoid cluttering things up. On the whole, the story was well written.
-
I thought it was a fine tight story that got a lot done in a little space, but....
The mission didn't make sense to me. The reason for the stealth aspects
of the start of the mission (melting spacecraft, etc) was never explained,
and then the stealth itself was blown by using explosives, apparently
'just to be sure' - they even mention that the Shardies are coming as a
result.
Wouldn't a few nukes from orbit have turned the settlement site (which
had only 40 people) into a radioactive hole in the ground - vaporizing
any stray braincells in the process?
To waste highly trained and expensively augmented supersoldiers as
well as a spaceship on this mission seems very inefficient.
CE
-
I guess I don't understand how the story does not suppport that line of reasoning. Under such circumstances as those presented, the actions of the characters are completely necessary and entirely justifiable. If I were attempting to construct a hypothetical situation to support the statement that "The Ends Justify the Means," I might present a very similiar situation. As to his competence, I don't question it at all. I think the point is very well made.
As to this bearing similarity to real miliary situations: It doesn't have to. All he has to do is set up a situation in which a person of presumably ordinary morals/ethics could approve of that actions taken by the principals, and he does that quite well. I probably shouldn't have specified military conflict, but that does appear to be the context of the story.
Yes, it's the context of the story, but it's not what the story is *about*. Or maybe I misunderstood you. There's a big difference between saying "The ends justify the means in military conflict" and saying "It's possible to find situations in a military conflicts were the ends justify the means". The situation depicted here is *not* in any way representative of actual military conflict. And I'm saying this as someone who grew up in Israel, surrounded by military conflict, and who was three years in the military, albeit in a non-combat role. War is messy. And no matter how much propoganda you hear, at the end of the day, you are facing people who are just like you in all ways except a quirk of politics. *That* is the reason why, in military conflict in general, it is not true that the ends justify the means. By making the aliens so inhuman, the author essentially removed the one thing about military conflict that directly relates to the point. I can't see that as not being deliberate.
-
The mission didn't make sense to me. The reason for the stealth aspects
of the start of the mission (melting spacecraft, etc) was never explained
My impression was that the stealth was required to buy them time to find the survivors before the Shardies showed up. However, to answer your point of "why not just blow it all up", I don't have a good answer. Maybe I'll have to listen again.
Overall I thought the story was very well told, even as dark and sad as it was.
-
I guess I don't understand how the story does not suppport that line of reasoning. Under such circumstances as those presented, the actions of the characters are completely necessary and entirely justifiable. If I were attempting to construct a hypothetical situation to support the statement that "The Ends Justify the Means," I might present a very similiar situation. As to his competence, I don't question it at all. I think the point is very well made.
As to this bearing similarity to real miliary situations: It doesn't have to. All he has to do is set up a situation in which a person of presumably ordinary morals/ethics could approve of that actions taken by the principals, and he does that quite well. I probably shouldn't have specified military conflict, but that does appear to be the context of the story.
Yes, it's the context of the story, but it's not what the story is *about*. Or maybe I misunderstood you. There's a big difference between saying "The ends justify the means in military conflict" and saying "It's possible to find situations in a military conflicts were the ends justify the means". The situation depicted here is *not* in any way representative of actual military conflict. And I'm saying this as someone who grew up in Israel, surrounded by military conflict, and who was three years in the military, albeit in a non-combat role. War is messy. And no matter how much propoganda you hear, at the end of the day, you are facing people who are just like you in all ways except a quirk of politics. *That* is the reason why, in military conflict in general, it is not true that the ends justify the means. By making the aliens so inhuman, the author essentially removed the one thing about military conflict that directly relates to the point. I can't see that as not being deliberate.
I can see the story as reading that way, and it bothered me a bit as well. The problem isn't that it gives the message that the end justifies the means, it's that the deck is so heavilly stacked that, if you take the narrator's description of the conflict at face value, all moral questions are erased. The reason that I hit on the idea of wartime propaganda is that it makes sense and lends a level of moral complexity to the events in the story. I'll be the first to admit that nothing in the text explicitly backs my idea, and feel that the story would be stronger if we had hint that the Shardies aren't the implacable evil our narrator things them to be.
-
The mission didn't make sense to me. The reason for the stealth aspects
of the start of the mission (melting spacecraft, etc) was never explained
My impression was that the stealth was required to buy them time to find the survivors before the Shardies showed up. However, to answer your point of "why not just blow it all up", I don't have a good answer. Maybe I'll have to listen again.
I thought they were supposed to lure in whatever kind of force the Shardis use to capture people and take out as much of it as possible, with assumption that they were going to loose and have to blow themselves up in the end.
-
I can see the story as reading that way, and it bothered me a bit as well. The problem isn't that it gives the message that the end justifies the means, it's that the deck is so heavilly stacked that, if you take the narrator's description of the conflict at face value, all moral questions are erased.
Czhorat, You are much better at describing this stuff than I am. :)
The reason that I hit on the idea of wartime propaganda is that it makes sense and lends a level of moral complexity to the events in the story. I'll be the first to admit that nothing in the text explicitly backs my idea, and feel that the story would be stronger if we had hint that the Shardies aren't the implacable evil our narrator things them to be.
I use the term propaganda because there are those who frame every conflict in similiar terms. You could replace the name "Shardie" with "Commie" or "Nazi," "Confederates," "Redcoats," "Indians," and it might not sound so much like speculative fiction any more. In some cases, those terms are appropriate. In others, they are not. One might use this story to argue that such terms should be applied to a given situation "See? Situation A is just like this! Our Enemies are just like the Shardies! No sacrifice is too great to ensure their defeat!"
Orwell was fond of that sort of writing.
-
I thought it was a fine tight story that got a lot done in a little space, but....
Wouldn't a few nukes from orbit have turned the settlement site (which
had only 40 people) into a radioactive hole in the ground - vaporizing
any stray braincells in the process?
I like stories to have a kind of 'logic within the story' and this one was way off the mark.
It spoiled an otherwise gripping yarn.
The cost of a few nukes would be way, way less then losing highly trained, modified soldiers every time that a group of people are discovered on an evacuated planet, not to mention the problems you would have in finding enough volonteers for this kind of mission.
Pre-nuking any world a few days after the evacuation deadline would have an even better effect in deterring people to stay behind.
...mind you, it would have cost us an otherwise nice story ;)
-
I use the term propaganda because there are those who frame every conflict in similiar terms. You could replace the name "Shardie" with "Commie" or "Nazi," "Confederates," "Redcoats," "Indians," and it might not sound so much like speculative fiction any more. In some cases, those terms are appropriate. In others, they are not. One might use this story to argue that such terms should be applied to a given situation "See? Situation A is just like this! Our Enemies are just like the Shardies! No sacrifice is too great to ensure their defeat!"
Orwell was fond of that sort of writing.
Well-said. It fits with the overall theme of most wartime propaganda which is to dehumanize the "other". The fact that in this case the other is literally non-human doesn't change my distaste at seeing them portrayed as morally (and, perhaps, intellectually) less than human. I feel that SF war stories make better allegories for real wars when our foes are either humanized on some level (Ursula Leguin's Vietnam War story The Word For World is Forest comes immediately do mind, as did Katheryn Kristine Rusch's "Sparks in a Cold War" from a few weeks ago here) or given some plausible, even if alien, reason for agression (ie, the Taurans in Joe Haldeman's The Forever War or buggers in Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game). Otherwise it comes across to me as propagandistic and heavy-handed.
-
Ok, I think I understand where you are coming from better, but that still feels pretty bizzare to me. Moreso, because I actually agree with you on many of the premises. I just disagree on the conclusion.
Czhorat said:
Well-said. It fits with the overall theme of most wartime propaganda which is to dehumanize the "other". The fact that in this case the other is literally non-human doesn't change my distaste at seeing them portrayed as morally (and, perhaps, intellectually) less than human.
Two comments:
- One, if you look back to the first page you'll see that I complained about much the same thing. I said that it's easier to compare the shardies with a plague or virus or something than with humans. I don't really think it's valid to plug historical groups into the Shardies and keep the story making sense. But plug "bubonic plague" into the same slot and the story makes perfect sense. If this story *was* about a viral plague, would you be complaining that the virii are de-humanized?
- Where did "less" come from? The inhuman is certainly portrayed as different, morally and intellectually, from the humans. But nowhere in the story is a moral judgement made. Heck, for all we know the Shardies are righteous and are eradicating humanity because of its sinful state. Unlikely, but entirely compatible with what is in the story. I feel that you're bringing in a lot of interpretation that is not supported by the story but rather by what you expected the story to be about.
-
Two comments:
- One, if you look back to the first page you'll see that I complained about much the same thing. I said that it's easier to compare the shardies with a plague or virus or something than with humans. I don't really think it's valid to plug historical groups into the Shardies and keep the story making sense. But plug "bubonic plague" into the same slot and the story makes perfect sense. If this story *was* about a viral plague, would you be complaining that the virii are de-humanized?
- Where did "less" come from? The inhuman is certainly portrayed as different, morally and intellectually, from the humans. But nowhere in the story is a moral judgement made. Heck, for all we know the Shardies are righteous and are eradicating humanity because of its sinful state. Unlikely, but entirely compatible with what is in the story. I feel that you're bringing in a lot of interpretation that is not supported by the story but rather by what you expected the story to be about.
<some snipping for length>
If it was about a viral plague or a natural disaster I'd obviously not talk about dehumanization, but would still complain if the deck was stacked to the point that any solution save the slaughter of apparently innocent people for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time was impossible. That would make it, in my view, a very poor allegory for the difficult moral decisions that need to be made while combatting real plagues or natural disasters.
As far as my second point is concerned, the Shardies were portrayed as being cruel, merciless, and agressive. They refused to negotiate or even acknowledge communication. They slaughtered innocent populations with what was described as ruthlessness. They experimented on people, performing grotesque surgeries on them without the benefit of anasthesia. I know that I don't always have the most optimistic view of humanity, but I would consider any of this to me morally sub-human behaviour.
-
I read this story in last year's best of SF, but I didn't recognize it until the mention of the aliens' name: Shardies. So the unknown aliens were the most memorable part of this story to me.
But they aren't what make the story great. The soldier himself does that. Ultimately, I found him to be sympathetic--because the Shardies are morally less than human as Czhorat pointed out. (They attack without provocation. They never attempt to understand the humans as best we can tell.) So the soldier is fighting a worthy cause. But there's the problem, and the conflict that makes this story so powerful to me. The soldier believes in a cause so much that he goes on a suicide mission to kill innocent people, including children.
No matter what your take on current events, it's scary when that perspective is sympathetic and reasonable.
-
I'm loving this discussion. I don't mean to influence its direction, but if anyone's interested, Bud Sparhawk put some notes on his own motivations behind the story on his bibliography page (http://"http://www.sff.net/people/bud_sparhawk/list.htm"):
Bright Red Star is my reaction to the events of September 11, 2001. I tried to get inside the heads of someone who answers to a higher morality but sacrifices something very human in the process. The core of moral choice in this story is the use to which the protagonist puts a little girl, and the logical consequences of that choice.
Of course this doesn't make any other interpretation wrong. Once a story is written, my personal opinion is that the author has no more authority about what it means than any other reader. >8->
-
Ok, I think I understand where you are coming from better, but that still feels pretty bizzare to me. Moreso, because I actually agree with you on many of the premises. I just disagree on the conclusion.
Czhorat said:
Well-said. It fits with the overall theme of most wartime propaganda which is to dehumanize the "other". The fact that in this case the other is literally non-human doesn't change my distaste at seeing them portrayed as morally (and, perhaps, intellectually) less than human.
Two comments:
- One, if you look back to the first page you'll see that I complained about much the same thing. I said that it's easier to compare the shardies with a plague or virus or something than with humans. I don't really think it's valid to plug historical groups into the Shardies and keep the story making sense. But plug "bubonic plague" into the same slot and the story makes perfect sense. If this story *was* about a viral plague, would you be complaining that the virii are de-humanized?
- Where did "less" come from? The inhuman is certainly portrayed as different, morally and intellectually, from the humans. But nowhere in the story is a moral judgement made. Heck, for all we know the Shardies are righteous and are eradicating humanity because of its sinful state. Unlikely, but entirely compatible with what is in the story. I feel that you're bringing in a lot of interpretation that is not supported by the story but rather by what you expected the story to be about.
Yes, I think we agree on the details, but arrive at different conclusions as to their meaning.
I have tried very carefully to tippy-toe around the most contemporary examples of my interpretation, as I don't want this to veer off into a political argument. There are some who would try and draw an analogy between real-world conflicts and this story. They would like to frame some on-going conflicts in the real world in the same "us or them" terms, claiming that the continued existence of one party is dependent on the eradication of the other.
The Shardies should not be treated as a virus or a plague of locusts. They are (apparently) sentient beings endowed with reason, at least on some level. Interstellar travel is, I think, not the baliwick of insects and fungi. To present them as mechanistic bad guys bent on murder and destruction is, at best, an intellectual short cut.
There isn't anything inherently wrong with 'bug hunt' stories. They can still be fun, but I don't think this is that kind of story. I think this is political allegory disguised as a 'bug hunt' story.
-
Edit: I switched the order of the quotes and my responses to them, since that makes my post make more sense, even though I'm not responding to Czhorat out of order.
As far as my second point is concerned, the Shardies were portrayed as being cruel, merciless, and agressive. They refused to negotiate or even acknowledge communication. They slaughtered innocent populations with what was described as ruthlessness. They experimented on people, performing grotesque surgeries on them without the benefit of anasthesia. I know that I don't always have the most optimistic view of humanity, but I would consider any of this to me morally sub-human behaviour.
Ah, but it is you that are doing the judging. The story isn't portraying them as less than human. It is portraying them as non-human, and you as a reader decide that their particular brand of non-humanity is inferior to us. To give a far more extreme example, imagine a story with aliens who are identical to humans in every way except that they have pitch black skin. A forum poster might then say "I didn't like that the story portrayed the aliens as less than human.", and when asked to elaborate, would say "The aliens have black skin. The darker the skin, the worse you are". Now obviously, you are not being racist, and the values you are exhibiting happen to be ones I share. But that doesn't change the fact that you are complaining about something that is essentially brought to the story by you, not by the author.
Two comments:
- One, if you look back to the first page you'll see that I complained about much the same thing. I said that it's easier to compare the shardies with a plague or virus or something than with humans. I don't really think it's valid to plug historical groups into the Shardies and keep the story making sense. But plug "bubonic plague" into the same slot and the story makes perfect sense. If this story *was* about a viral plague, would you be complaining that the virii are de-humanized?
- Where did "less" come from? The inhuman is certainly portrayed as different, morally and intellectually, from the humans. But nowhere in the story is a moral judgement made. Heck, for all we know the Shardies are righteous and are eradicating humanity because of its sinful state. Unlikely, but entirely compatible with what is in the story. I feel that you're bringing in a lot of interpretation that is not supported by the story but rather by what you expected the story to be about.
<some snipping for length>
If it was about a viral plague or a natural disaster I'd obviously not talk about dehumanization, but would still complain if the deck was stacked to the point that any solution save the slaughter of apparently innocent people for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time was impossible. That would make it, in my view, a very poor allegory for the difficult moral decisions that need to be made while combatting real plagues or natural disasters.
True. But I don't think this is a story about a difficult moral decision. The decisions were made before the story started - there was no wavering on behalf of the protagonist, no second doubts. This is a story about carrying out difficult actions, not about deciding.
Which in a way, I guess, is why I fail to see this story in the same light as you and gelee - the setting, the background, the aliens - they are just a way to set up an envrionment in which it is imaginable that such a decision was already made. The story is a thought experiment on how it may be for the people doing it (and actually, Steve's post which came in while I was writing this seems to confirm this). Whether or not the decision was the right one is not really at stake. In other words, responding to gelee's post which also came in while I was writing this, this is neither a bug hunt nor a political allegory. The shardies are neither the real enemy nor the quarry in terms of the story. They are the setting.
-
Remember back when the Starship Troopers movie came out and people were excited to see power armor and then we found out there wasn't any power armor? This story was kind of like that for me. There were cool cybernetic/hardware upgrades but we never really got to see much of them used. And who are they up against? Not aliens but a bunch of renegade pitchfork-less farmers. Are farmers really supposed to be a threat to guys named Savage and Hunter? Maybe it wasn't supposed to be much of a challenge, maybe it was supposed to be more horrific, but I didn't really find it chilling until the very end.
But I interpreted the story in a different way than most did, more along the lines of becoming a monster to defeat the monster. If this was supposed to be a story where I'm made to believe the ends justify the means (which I'm not convinced it is), it didn't work. Killing kids never seems justifiable to me.
This may be coming across a little harsh. It's not that I hated the story, I just wasn't really that into it, and aside from a brutal twist at the end, I'm kind of left shrugging my shoulders. That said, I do agree with Thaurismunths. I love EP for the variety of stories Steve chooses here and I thought this was an interesting selection (and wouldn't mind hearing more stories along similar lines/tones), this one just didn't hit me the way it seemed to hit most everyone else.
EDIT: I should note I read Steve's comment after I posted this. Oops.
-
I enjoyed this story whilst I listened to it but unlike many Escape Pod's I doubt i'll still be pondering it for the next few days. Although I certainly appriciate the variety of stories that EP presents, Whilst I can't say I don't want to like every episode, I like that I don't know what expect every episode. :)
-
This was GREAT! I have been a lurker here for almost 50 episodes, and this episode was good enough to get me to get off my encounter-suited-butt and join the discussion groups.
I have to say what this episode reminded me of: being 12 and reading "The Cold Equations" by Tom Godwin, 1954, as found in The Science Fiction Hall of Fame Volume One, Edited by Robert Silverberg. If you've seen that story you will recognize the similarities, but that doesn't stop it from being one of the most poignant pieces of short fiction as have ever been written.
In fact, I'd recommend EP consider using some of this older stuff. Some of the best episodes of EP seem to draw from the same creative well as The Nine Billion Names of God by Arthur C. Clarke, Born of Man and Woman by Richard Matheson and Huddling Place by Clifford D. Simak.
Some of these are a little (!) dark, but I would still place them in EP rather than PseudoPod territory. But maybe that's just me.
Eric
-
Bright Red Star is my reaction to the events of September 11, 2001. I tried to get inside the heads of someone who answers to a higher morality but sacrifices something very human in the process. The core of moral choice in this story is the use to which the protagonist puts a little girl, and the logical consequences of that choice.
This really surprises me, as I don't see that there was really any moral conflict in this story. This story is not good vs. evil, it's wise vs. foolish. September 11th was an episode in a clash of ideologies, but everyone in this story shares the same ideology. Both the soldiers and the farmers value human life and freedom and want to see them endure and proliferate. Where they diverge is their assessment of the facts.
When it comes down to it, the farmers don't really believe in Shardies. They don't believe that malevolent aliens who want to steal their brains are going to drop out of the sky at any moment; if they did, they wouldn't be there. They also don't believe that their own soldiers are going to exterminate them; if they did, they wouldn't send a party out to talk. The farmers embrace delusion, and that drives them to put themselves (and all humanity) in danger.
The soldiers, of course, do believe in Shardies. They understand that the farmers have doomed themselves and nothing will save their lives. They embrace reality, and that drives them to do what is necessary to preserve humanity, grim though those deeds may be.
Neither side believes that the other is evil or immoral. Neither is answering to a "higher morality" than the other, or to any morality higher than the basic belief that life is valuable. If both sides embraced the hard facts, there would be no conflict at all. The only conflict is whether or not one believes the Shardies are coming.
-
When it comes down to it, the farmers don't really believe in Shardies. They don't believe that malevolent aliens who want to steal their brains are going to drop out of the sky at any moment; if they did, they wouldn't be there. They also don't believe that their own soldiers are going to exterminate them; if they did, they wouldn't send a party out to talk. The farmers embrace delusion, and that drives them to put themselves (and all humanity) in danger.
The soldiers, of course, do believe in Shardies. They understand that the farmers have doomed themselves and nothing will save their lives. They embrace reality, and that drives them to do what is necessary to preserve humanity, grim though those deeds may be.
Neither side believes that the other is evil or immoral. Neither is answering to a "higher morality" than the other, or to any morality higher than the basic belief that life is valuable. If both sides embraced the hard facts, there would be no conflict at all. The only conflict is whether or not one believes the Shardies are coming.
I'm pretty sure in the story the soldier says somewhere that the farmers/civilians do not know a lot of the stuff about the Shardies that the military knows. So I don't think they had the same facts about the aliens that the soldiers did.
-
Bright Red Star is my reaction to the events of September 11, 2001. I tried to get inside the heads of someone who answers to a higher morality but sacrifices something very human in the process. The core of moral choice in this story is the use to which the protagonist puts a little girl, and the logical consequences of that choice.
This really surprises me, as I don't see that there was really any moral conflict in this story. This story is not good vs. evil, it's wise vs. foolish. September 11th was an episode in a clash of ideologies, but everyone in this story shares the same ideology. Both the soldiers and the farmers value human life and freedom and want to see them endure and proliferate. Where they diverge is their assessment of the facts.
I think the idea was more that the Shardies were the 9/11 attackers and the soldiers and farmers represent the different ways Americans reacted to the attack.
-
One important comment/question:
Is Sparhawk the authors real name? I think it's just one of the coolest names I've ever heard. I kind of thought it was a little over the top when David Eddings used it in [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Eddings#The_Elenium_and_The_Tamuli]The Elenium and The Tamuli[/url], but as a real name it's just too cool. I'm jealous.
-
I think the idea was more that the Shardies were the 9/11 attackers and the soldiers and farmers represent the different ways Americans reacted to the attack.
Oh, no - at least, my interpretation is that the soldiers were the 9/11 attackers, people doing horrible things because they completely believe that they are serving a good cause by doing so. I think that's the only way the quote makes sense.
-
Bright Red Star is my reaction to the events of September 11, 2001. I tried to get inside the heads of someone who answers to a higher morality but sacrifices something very human in the process. The core of moral choice in this story is the use to which the protagonist puts a little girl, and the logical consequences of that choice.
This really surprises me, as I don't see that there was really any moral conflict in this story. This story is not good vs. evil, it's wise vs. foolish. September 11th was an episode in a clash of ideologies, but everyone in this story shares the same ideology. Both the soldiers and the farmers value human life and freedom and want to see them endure and proliferate. Where they diverge is their assessment of the facts.
But that's the whole point - it isn't about an external conflict. It's a story about how it is to do evil in the sake of good. The only difference between this and the 9/11 terrorists is that in that case we (as Westerners) do not believe they were actually serving good. But the abductors themselves thought they were, which is where the parallel lies.
-
I think the idea was more that the Shardies were the 9/11 attackers and the soldiers and farmers represent the different ways Americans reacted to the attack.
Oh, no - at least, my interpretation is that the soldiers were the 9/11 attackers, people doing horrible things because they completely believe that they are serving a good cause by doing so. I think that's the only way the quote makes sense.
I should have read the quote instead of just scanning it. I had the 9/11 images in my head before Steve put the quote up. It just seems the Author and I didn't think about them in the same way.
-
Bright Red Star is my reaction to the events of September 11, 2001. I tried to get inside the heads of someone who answers to a higher morality but sacrifices something very human in the process. The core of moral choice in this story is the use to which the protagonist puts a little girl, and the logical consequences of that choice.
This really surprises me, as I don't see that there was really any moral conflict in this story. This story is not good vs. evil, it's wise vs. foolish. September 11th was an episode in a clash of ideologies, but everyone in this story shares the same ideology. Both the soldiers and the farmers value human life and freedom and want to see them endure and proliferate. Where they diverge is their assessment of the facts.
I think the idea was more that the Shardies were the 9/11 attackers and the soldiers and farmers represent the different ways Americans reacted to the attack.
That was the way I interepreted the story as well. It is about both internal and external conflict. The external conflict between humans and shardies, and between the soldiers and the farmers. The WTC attack, and the U.S. response to it, sparked plenty of internal conflict here in the States, though it hasn't degenerated to a "shooting" situation.
The way I understood the story, the U.S. government was represented in the story by the soldiers, and the civilians were represented by the farmers. Those civilians who objected or failed to cooperate were illustrated as obstructionist and foolish, while those who accepted their fate were wise and understanding. At least, it seemed that way to me.
-
That was the way I interepreted the story as well. It is about both internal and external conflict. The external conflict between humans and shardies, and between the soldiers and the farmers. The WTC attack, and the U.S. response to it, sparked plenty of internal conflict here in the States, though it hasn't degenerated to a "shooting" situation.
The way I understood the story, the U.S. government was represented in the story by the soldiers, and the civilians were represented by the farmers. Those civilians who objected or failed to cooperate were illustrated as obstructionist and foolish, while those who accepted their fate were wise and understanding. At least, it seemed that way to me.
Ok, I think it's pretty clear you (plural you, including Czhorat, Tweedy and Russel) and I read this story in very different ways. I do have a feeling, based on the author's quote, that my way is much closer to the intended reading, but that's pretty immaterial - your reading is clearly one that arises naturally for a lot of people from this story. So what I'm curious about now is why we see this story differently - particularly, why is it that you think the story is about something that I think the story takes pains to avoid. Is it a cultural difference? Is it because both the author and myself were in a military organization and you have not? Something else?
-
That was the way I interepreted the story as well. It is about both internal and external conflict. The external conflict between humans and shardies, and between the soldiers and the farmers. The WTC attack, and the U.S. response to it, sparked plenty of internal conflict here in the States, though it hasn't degenerated to a "shooting" situation.
The way I understood the story, the U.S. government was represented in the story by the soldiers, and the civilians were represented by the farmers. Those civilians who objected or failed to cooperate were illustrated as obstructionist and foolish, while those who accepted their fate were wise and understanding. At least, it seemed that way to me.
Ok, I think it's pretty clear you (plural you, including Czhorat, Tweedy and Russel) and I read this story in very different ways. I do have a feeling, based on the author's quote, that my way is much closer to the intended reading, but that's pretty immaterial - your reading is clearly one that arises naturally for a lot of people from this story. So what I'm curious about now is why we see this story differently - particularly, why is it that you think the story is about something that I think the story takes pains to avoid. Is it a cultural difference? Is it because both the author and myself were in a military organization and you have not? Something else?
I didn't say I saw it as a retelling of 9/11 or anything like that. I said I saw some parallels. I'M not surprised the author and I looked at it differently. I was thinking mostly about how the soldiers talked about the Shardie was like how militant Americans talk about Muslims. Small parallel, but not the entire story
I don't try to read in current parallels to stories. If it comes to me, I look at it; but I judge a story on the story not world politics. Some people try to tie everything they hear into the Bush years. Take Sparks in a Cold War. Because Steve made the comment about wishing our government had never done such things (but didn't say what those things were), our under 25 y/o listeners thought it was preaching about Iraq. Those of us, that lived during the cold war, knew it was about the CIA and KGB always trying to fuck over the other side. We were at war with the Soviets for over 40 years, but never fired a shot directly at one another. We did it all through others.
whoa, way off track. Sorry. I'll stop here.
-
I really enjoyed this story. It was hitting all of the right buttons. well written nice foreshadowing, and a really nice touch in the soldier having farming in his past.
Proper Sci Fi! More please!
-
I don't try to read in current parallels to stories. If it comes to me, I look at it; but I judge a story on the story not world politics.
It is refreshing to hear somebody say that. Not every story has to be compared with current events. Sometimes it is nice to just listen to a story and enjoy it. In fact I would say most of the time that is the case.
Science fiction is really cool in that it is a way to examine ourselves and our world, but I more often enjoy is as a way to escape the rigors of the day. Sometimes I read the forums and say, "Jeesh, do we have to bring current political events and opinions into this? Do I have to form a cohesive opinion and try to expound wisdom based on this week's story? Can't I just say 'that was a great story, here's what I like about it.'?" Case in Point:I really enjoyed this story. It was hitting all of the right buttons. well written nice foreshadowing, and a really nice touch in the soldier having farming in his past.
Proper Sci Fi! More please!
The answer is: I can say whatever I want about it. I can simply say 'great story'; I can wax philisophically eloquent; I can join the controversy of the week; or I can say nothing at all. If don't even have to read the forums if I don't want to. (However, I think I'm addicted. Has anybody started up an Escape Pod Anonymus yet? It could bring new meaning to the mention of EPA.) And then there is my secret hope that something I say will become Steve's quote of the week about the story. Alas.
-
I don't try to read in current parallels to stories. If it comes to me, I look at it; but I judge a story on the story not world politics.
It is refreshing to hear somebody say that. Not every story has to be compared with current events. Sometimes it is nice to just listen to a story and enjoy it. In fact I would say most of the time that is the case.
Good point. I like to listen to EP to escape reality for a bit on my way to work or at lunch, whatever. I don't want to hear a story about current events with changed names. My comments are usually limited to whether I liked it or not. I try not to read to much in to it. For in-depth hard core reality I listen to skeptic podcasts.
-
Ok, I think it's pretty clear you (plural you, including Czhorat, Tweedy and Russel) and I read this story in very different ways. I do have a feeling, based on the author's quote, that my way is much closer to the intended reading, but that's pretty immaterial - your reading is clearly one that arises naturally for a lot of people from this story. So what I'm curious about now is why we see this story differently - particularly, why is it that you think the story is about something that I think the story takes pains to avoid. Is it a cultural difference? Is it because both the author and myself were in a military organization and you have not? Something else?
I think that, as usual, Russel Nash beat me to the punch and did a better job of summarizing my opinion than I would have. The reason I saw it as propagandist and, perhaps, pro-war, is the same reason he gave: the soldiers view their enemy through the lens of propaganda and see them only as pure video-game villain evil to be resisted with force. The fact that the author rigged the game so that force was not only justified but unavoidable made it feel that much more heavy-handed to me. The too-clearly delineated "good guys" and "bad guys" reminded me of nothing more than Geore W. Bush's famous "axis of evil" speech, but I suppose it could have applied just as well to Ronald Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech about the former Soviet Union. Or any other propaganda from any other time of conflict. What I missed, and what eventually made the story not quite ring true for me, was a peak behind the curtain about what the Shardi were really like.
-
Ok, I think it's pretty clear you (plural you, including Czhorat, Tweedy and Russel) and I read this story in very different ways. I do have a feeling, based on the author's quote, that my way is much closer to the intended reading, but that's pretty immaterial - your reading is clearly one that arises naturally for a lot of people from this story. So what I'm curious about now is why we see this story differently - particularly, why is it that you think the story is about something that I think the story takes pains to avoid. Is it a cultural difference? Is it because both the author and myself were in a military organization and you have not? Something else?
I think that, as usual, Russel Nash beat me to the punch and did a better job of summarizing my opinion than I would have. The reason I saw it as propagandist and, perhaps, pro-war, is the same reason he gave: the soldiers view their enemy through the lens of propaganda and see them only as pure video-game villain evil to be resisted with force. The fact that the author rigged the game so that force was not only justified but unavoidable made it feel that much more heavy-handed to me. The too-clearly delineated "good guys" and "bad guys" reminded me of nothing more than Geore W. Bush's famous "axis of evil" speech, but I suppose it could have applied just as well to Ronald Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech about the former Soviet Union. Or any other propaganda from any other time of conflict. What I missed, and what eventually made the story not quite ring true for me, was a peak behind the curtain about what the Shardi were really like.
Am I really so unclear? Neither your response nor Russel's actually answers the question I was trying to ask at all.
Let me try to be clearer:
- It is clear to me why, if you view this as a story about a military conflict between two sides, it makes sense to view this story as propogandist. That is not where we differ.
- Where we differ is that I don't think this is a story about a military conflict, any more than Lord of the Rings is a story about jewelry, or Star Wars is a story about stars.
- Therefore, I was asking not why you think this story is viewed as propogandist (which I understood), but rather I'm asking what about this story makes you think it is a story *about* a military conflict, as opposed to a story about morality that happens to feature a military conflict.
-
I liked the story very much. That being said it was too short. There was too much info in too few words. I would read it again, which for me is often the measure of a good story, but I think that I would be scrounging for details that I don't think are there. As the first descriptions of the aliens started rolling in, all I could think of was The Borg, attack with our provocation and what is left is not really worth saving. It also brought to mind the Dune prequel By Brian Herbert, with the Organ farms and worse the tanks used to create the synthetic Spice.
The descriptions were well written, and the story although some what transparent held me until the end.
One thought on the suicide troops; no troop wants to be a suicide troop (unless they are totally off their rocker and I mean off the rocker by being the the next room.) Sometimes that is what the mission calls for, what is that goofy line from Pearl harbor, you know what Top secret means? Yes, that they give medals to your family. It sounds very sappy and sentimental and even rather Hollywood, but some times as a solider you do what you have to.
Kudos to the author. As an "I should be writing," writer myself I know how hard it is to kill off characters that you have invested any time in, even if that was your plan from the beginning. As you write about them more, or even as you read about them more you root for them, even if you know they are dead from the very beginning. It is so easy sometimes to write an emergency escape pod (no pun intended) into the last few lines of a story.
Steve, thanks for the info about the charities. I will be looking to them. As a little aside this ones name reminds me of posters that all the Physics profs had up in their offices when I was in school "Physics is Phun."
J. Hite
********
I Like to make my own comments before reading others so that they don't influence the way I think. I just read all the other comments including the one from Steve that says, that the author drew on 9/11 to write this and it give the story another twist that I had not thought of. Keeping all of the other comments on the back burner, I think I liked the story better when I didn't know that.
-
- Therefore, I was asking not why you think this story is viewed as propogandist (which I understood), but rather I'm asking what about this story makes you think it is a story *about* a military conflict, as opposed to a story about morality that happens to feature a military conflict.
I never said it was. It's the story of what happens in the shadow of a conflict. All I said was it reminded me of the way Americans turned on each other after 9/11.
-
In my opinion one can't separate the action or morality in the story from the military conflict. Without the Shardies being what they are and the Shardi threat being what it is, there is no justification for the soldiers' actions. Sparhawk took great pains to describe to us the nature of the conflict as seen by the soldiers. By describing the Shardies as almost cartoonishly evil, Sparhawk eliminates any kind of moral gray, leaving us with what Mr. Tweedy described as a conflict between those fighting a threat and those foolishly ignoring it. It was the nature of the war that stacked the deck so far against the farmer and in favor of the soldiers that made me see the piece as propagandist.
I'll throw in a quick reply to JHite.
One thought on the suicide troops; no troop wants to be a suicide troop (unless they are totally off their rocker and I mean off the rocker by being the the next room.) Sometimes that is what the mission calls for, what is that goofy line from Pearl harbor, you know what Top secret means? Yes, that they give medals to your family. It sounds very sappy and sentimental and even rather Hollywood, but some times as a solider you do what you have to.
Nobody wants to be, but so many were. I think it's easy for those of us living in the more powerful military nations of the modern industrialized west to forget that there are and always have been those who've been badly outgunned and had to sacrifice lives to fight an uneven battle. I'm thinking especially of the use of "suicide bombings" as a means to fight foreign occupations, but I'm sure the idea has been there anytime the technology has been.
I never said it was. It's the story of what happens in the shadow of a conflict. All I said was it reminded me of the way Americans turned on each other after 9/11.
Just a point of fact: Americans were very strongly united after the events of September 11, 2001. Our turning against each other didn't happen until, in many people's opinions, some politicians used those events to gain greater power for themselves and force through what would have otherwise been a very unpopular agenda.
-
Wow!
Nobody wants to be, but so many were. I think it's easy for those of us living in the more powerful military nations of the modern industrialized west to forget that there are and always have been those who've been badly outgunned and had to sacrifice lives to fight an uneven battle. I'm thinking especially of the use of "suicide bombings" as a means to fight foreign occupations, but I'm sure the idea has been there anytime the technology has been.
I was not trying to make a political statement. I will have to be more careful in what I say. I was looking at it from the point of a human, I would say 99.9999999999% (oh you get the point) of us on the planet want to live, and a select few would be willing to die to protect that, whatever their motives are, or a contradictory that that sounds.
And to paraphrase an even worse movie, "I have seen a lone boy with a spear beat ten armed soldiers to defend a dieing horse." Point being that fighting for what you believe in is a very powerful thing. The solider in the story believed in what he was doing. He didn't like it, he didn't enjoy it, IMHO he hated himself for what he had to do, but he also believed that he would pay the price along with these people. "I am a monster, there is no place for me in the new world." Firefly (Ok enough of me and the quotes.)
-J. Hite
-
(quotes trimmed for the sake of brevity)
Is it because both the author and myself were in a military organization and you have not?
I did, actually. U.S. Air Force, 1994-98.
Not every story has to be compared with current events. Sometimes it is nice to just listen to a story and enjoy it. In fact I would say most of the time that is the case.
Science fiction is really cool in that it is a way to examine ourselves and our world, but I more often enjoy is as a way to escape the rigors of the day. Sometimes I read the forums and say, "Jeesh, do we have to bring current political events and opinions into this? Do I have to form a cohesive opinion and try to expound wisdom based on this week's story? Can't I just say 'that was a great story, here's what I like about it.'?"
I agree. I didn't go looking for a hidden message in this, and I'm not some lit-crit snob who thinks every decent story should be some kind of extended metaphor. It's enough for a sculpture or painting to be beutiful to behold, and it's enough for a story to be a fun story.
On the other hand, some stories like to be examined on another level, and I think this is one. I think that Sparkhawk wanted his readers to consider the issues we're discussing. I too heard echoes of the "Axis of Evil" speech in the commentary of the main character, and I felt compelled to comment on it.
As for why Eytanz and I see the story in different lights, I really haven't a clue. I don't presume to question your judgement, we just came down on different sides of the fence on this one :) I certainly see how this story could be interpreted as being about conflicts in general, but the specific military context seems to compare very closely with what is going on in the real world.
Something else did occur to me: I may have the comparisons misplaced, (soldiers=government, aliens=terrorists). The more I consider it, the more I think I have it backwards. The soldiers on their suicide mission, killing civilians, are analagous to the people we refer to as terrorists, and the Shardies might be intended to portray a foreign invading force, such as the U.S./coalition forces.
-
I agree. I didn't go looking for a hidden message in this, and I'm not some lit-crit snob who thinks every decent story should be some kind of extended metaphor. It's enough for a sculpture or painting to be beutiful to behold, and it's enough for a story to be a fun story.
On the other hand, some stories like to be examined on another level, and I think this is one. I think that Sparkhawk wanted his readers to consider the issues we're discussing. I too heard echoes of the "Axis of Evil" speech in the commentary of the main character, and I felt compelled to comment on it.
As for why Eytanz and I see the story in different lights, I really haven't a clue. I don't presume to question your judgement, we just came down on different sides of the fence on this one :) I certainly see how this story could be interpreted as being about conflicts in general, but the specific military context seems to compare very closely with what is going on in the real world.
Something else did occur to me: I may have the comparisons misplaced, (soldiers=government, aliens=terrorists). The more I consider it, the more I think I have it backwards. The soldiers on their suicide mission, killing civilians, are analagous to the people we refer to as terrorists, and the Shardies might be intended to portray a foreign invading force, such as the U.S./coalition forces.
<nested quotes trimmed because they make my head hurt>
I'm starting to come around to this way of thinking too, but the whole thing is still just a bit too heavy-handed for me. I thought Escape Pod 120 (The Sundial Brigade) did a much better job with a similar theme.
So far as looking for meaning is concerned, a story is a means of communication as well as entertainment. I'd be surprised if anyone could write a military-based story in the current political climate and NOT make some kind of political point with it, even if unintentionally.
-
I don't try to read in current parallels to stories. If it comes to me, I look at it; but I judge a story on the story not world politics.
It is refreshing to hear somebody say that. Not every story has to be compared with current events. Sometimes it is nice to just listen to a story and enjoy it. In fact I would say most of the time that is the case.
Good point. I like to listen to EP to escape reality for a bit on my way to work or at lunch, whatever. I don't want to hear a story about current events with changed names. My comments are usually limited to whether I liked it or not. I try not to read to much in to it. For in-depth hard core reality I listen to skeptic podcasts.
Yeah. Like I said at first, I don't think this piece was really deep at all, and I don't see any parallels with specific events, historical or current. It was just a tear-jerker. "Ain't it awful!" Sob. Go about business. Which is fine.
I never said it was. It's the story of what happens in the shadow of a conflict. All I said was it reminded me of the way Americans turned on each other after 9/11.
I think "turned on each other" is way, way too strong of language in this case. In my experience, the average American is confused by all shoddy information put out by the worthless news media and doesn't really have a passionate opinion one way or the other. People are mostly just whistling and hoping it all goes away. The media portrays that as anarchic unrest because they're lazy and it makes for an easy story... Which confuses people more and makes them more apathetic. I'm not aware that anybody is really at anyone's throat. Love-Bush and Hate-Bush folk work in the same office in perfect peace. (Which is part of what makes America so cool, but that's a total tangent.)
One thought on the suicide troops; no troop wants to be a suicide troop (unless they are totally off their rocker and I mean off the rocker by being the the next room.) Sometimes that is what the mission calls for, what is that goofy line from Pearl harbor, you know what Top secret means? Yes, that they give medals to your family. It sounds very sappy and sentimental and even rather Hollywood, but some times as a solider you do what you have to.
Um, there are lots and lots of people who want to be suicide troops. If you believe that suicide is a glorious martyrdom that will net you a huge reward in a future life, then there's no reason not to be. Not just today but throughout history there have been tons of people who were rabidly eager to die for their cause. The soldiers in this story weren't of that fanatical vein, but to say that you've got to be nuts to desire an early violent death is demonstrably incorrect.
-
Is it because both the author and myself were in a military organization and you have not?
I did, actually. U.S. Air Force, 1994-98.
Ah well, that's one theory down the drain ;) (and you've probably been a lot more actively military than I ever was).
As for why Eytanz and I see the story in different lights, I really haven't a clue. I don't presume to question your judgement, we just came down on different sides of the fence on this one :)
Oh, I certainly agree with that - your reading is certainly a valid one, I was just curious if there was an explanation of the difference that stemmed from anything specific.
In my opinion one can't separate the action or morality in the story from the military conflict.
Here, unlike gelee, you seem to be denying that my reading is actually valid (or, indeed, you're denying that it is even possible). One *can* certainly separate the action from the military conflict. I did. In fact, I still think (though maybe I'm wrong) that that was the author's intention as well as my own reading. If I am right about that, then obviously he wasn't entirely succesful.
Without the Shardies being what they are and the Shardi threat being what it is, there is no justification for the soldiers' actions.
I think the story would have worked equally well if instead of Shardis there was some sort of plague involved and the colonists needed to be killed before they became carriers. Or some other sort of conflict on non-military terms. I feel that the nature of the conflict was an arbitrary choice by the author and not directly important.
Sparhawk took great pains to describe to us the nature of the conflict as seen by the soldiers.
Yes, but not because he cared about the conflict, but because he wanted us to know that the soldiers were 100% sure that their actions are justified.
By describing the Shardies as almost cartoonishly evil, Sparhawk eliminates any kind of moral gray, leaving us with what Mr. Tweedy described as a conflict between those fighting a threat and those foolishly ignoring it.
Yeah, but that is the point. It's not important what the threat is. Only that (in the narrator's eyes) it is foolish to ignore it and that by doing so you become part of the threat. The fact that there were aliens and a war rather than viruses and a plague or self replicating machines or whatever is incidental (I think).
And Russel - sorry, I clearly misread you.
-
Quote from: Czhorat
In my opinion one can't separate the action or morality in the story from the military conflict.
I can't get off the quotes today.
"In war morality is contraband" A. Einstein
I could not help but adding that little thought.
With all of my quotes you would think I could not think for myself today.
Um, there are lots and lots of people who want to be suicide troops. If you believe that suicide is a glorious martyrdom that will net you a huge reward in a future life, then there's no reason not to be. Not just today but throughout history there have been tons of people who were rabidly eager to die for their cause. The soldiers in this story weren't of that fanatical vein, but to say that you've got to be nuts to desire an early violent death is demonstrably incorrect.
Point well taken. I guess I was thinking purely from my point of view. I don't want to die!
-
In my opinion one can't separate the action or morality in the story from the military conflict.
Here, unlike gelee, you seem to be denying that my reading is actually valid (or, indeed, you're denying that it is even possible). One *can* certainly separate the action from the military conflict. I did. In fact, I still think (though maybe I'm wrong) that that was the author's intention as well as my own reading. If I am right about that, then obviously he wasn't entirely succesful.
(emphasis added)
I gave my opinion of the story only. I meant no real disrespect, only that, as far as I saw it, the military conflict and ensuing moral issues are inextricably linked. I understand that you see it differently, and will agree to disagree.
I think the story would have worked equally well if instead of Shardis there was some sort of plague involved and the colonists needed to be killed before they became carriers. Or some other sort of conflict on non-military terms. I feel that the nature of the conflict was an arbitrary choice by the author and not directly important.
Perhaps, but the fact that it was soldiers was the author's choice. I believe that that decision changes the themes of the story.
I never said it was. It's the story of what happens in the shadow of a conflict. All I said was it reminded me of the way Americans turned on each other after 9/11.
I think "turned on each other" is way, way too strong of language in this case. In my experience, the average American is confused by all shoddy information put out by the worthless news media and doesn't really have a passionate opinion one way or the other. People are mostly just whistling and hoping it all goes away. The media portrays that as anarchic unrest because they're lazy and it makes for an easy story... Which confuses people more and makes them more apathetic. I'm not aware that anybody is really at anyone's throat. Love-Bush and Hate-Bush folk work in the same office in perfect peace. (Which is part of what makes America so cool, but that's a total tangent.)
Agreed. You might understate the quality of the media and overstate general American apathy, but I can't deny that you do have a point.
-
It's enough for a sculpture or painting to be beutiful to behold, and it's enough for a story to be a fun story.
On the other hand, some stories like to be examined on another level, and I think this is one. I think that Sparkhawk wanted his readers to consider the issues we're discussing.
I agree, this does appear to be the author's intent with this story. I may have picked the wrong story to express my weariness. I hope that I did not leave the impression that I wanted to stifle anyone else's desires to ruminate or pontificate upon any story and current events. I was just sharing my inner stuggles on whether to participate or simply enjoy the story.
Something else did occur to me: I may have the comparisons misplaced, (soldiers=government, aliens=terrorists). The more I consider it, the more I think I have it backwards. The soldiers on their suicide mission, killing civilians, are analagous to the people we refer to as terrorists, and the Shardies might be intended to portray a foreign invading force, such as the U.S./coalition forces.
I don't know if Sparkhawk had any direct equivalents in mind. I think he was just trying to answer for himself: In what possible scenario could a person kill innocent civilians with a good concsience?
I'd be surprised if anyone could write a military-based story in the current political climate and NOT make some kind of political point with it, even if unintentionally.
Agreed
-
my quote: no one wants to be a suicide troop.
Um, there are lots and lots of people who want to be suicide troops. If you believe that suicide is a glorious martyrdom that will net you a huge reward in a future life, then there's no reason not to be. Not just today but throughout history there have been tons of people who were rabidly eager to die for their cause. The soldiers in this story weren't of that fanatical vein, but to say that you've got to be nuts to desire an early violent death is demonstrably incorrect.
I think there is a difference between wanting to die and being willing to do so. Even a person with nothing to loose, i.e. someone truly who believes in an after life better than this one, I don't think would truly want to die.
IMHO: there is something about the "human" spirit that says I want to live. Literature and history are shot through with examples of people who were willing to die for their cause, but were not eager to do so. even suicidal folks, may say "i want to die." but really I suspect that it is a want for escape for which they see the only method is through death.
in other words no one as a little kids says when i go up I want to die. There are those who have excepted that, their own death or even the death of others as in this story is morally justified to further their cause, whether that be to be the salvation of the rest of humanity or to make sure that no checks your favorite book out of the library.
As my example illustrates their deaths in no mean makes them right or moral, except in their own eyes.
sorry didn't mean to get so preachy.
- J. Hite
-
I think it's clear that this story causes one to consider some pretty deep questions of morality (mostly of can the ends justify the means variety.) I don't think, however, that it's meant as a direct metaphor to any political situation. The forces involved are just too archetypal. The Shardies are pure destruction, the girl is pure innocence and the goal of the mission is purely necessary. I have a strong feeling that the author was trying to make a moral claim, but I'm not sure exactly what it was.
-
I think there is a difference between wanting to die and being willing to do so. Even a person with nothing to loose, i.e. someone truly who believes in an after life better than this one, I don't think would truly want to die.
IMHO: there is something about the "human" spirit that says I want to live. Literature and history are shot through with examples of people who were willing to die for their cause, but were not eager to do so. even suicidal folks, may say "i want to die." but really I suspect that it is a want for escape for which they see the only method is through death.
(emphasis added)
What you're giving is your own opinion based on your own world view. Some might consider it an honor to be one of the chosen to give up their life for the cause. They see it as giving them a better afterlife, improving the status of their surviving family, or just achieving the notoriety of a big, splashy end. *I* want to live, but acknowledge that there are others who feel differently.
Finally, a nitpick. You said that "nobody wants to be a suicide troop". This is a pet peeve of mine. From Merriam-Webster.com::
Main Entry:
1troop Listen to the pronunciation of 1troop
Pronunciation:
\ˈtrüp\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French trope, troupe company, herd, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English thorp, throp village — more at thorp
Date:
1545
1 a: a group of soldiers
b: a cavalry unit corresponding to an infantry company
c plural : armed forces, soldiers
Troop is a plural noun. A person can't be a "suicide troop" any more than he can be a football team. Let's all try to use language precisely, lest we lose shades of meaning.
-
What you're giving is your own opinion based on your own world view
Yes, I am. that is why I used the phrases like IMHO, I think and I suspect. No offense taken, none given.
Thank you for the English lesson. The term is usually used incorrectly in the military, where I was getting it's use from. The Military is not the best place to pick up language, I really should have known better.
A person can't be a "suicide troop" any more than he can be a football team.
Unless you are following the Army's lead... I am a suicide troop of one. :) Ok bad joke :(
-
Troop is a plural noun. A person can't be a "suicide troop" any more than he can be a football team. Let's all try to use language precisely, lest we lose shades of meaning.
Gah, if there's one thing a linguist hates seeing more than anything else, it's that. Language is not static. It changes. Words mean one thing at one time and mean another at another time. You can like or dislike a particular change, and you can comment about it, but it has nothing to do with "using language precisely". Just as Shakespeare didn't speak Chaucer's English, and we don't speak Shakespeare's English, our descendents won't speak the same English as us. Did the inhabitants of Rome lose shades of meaning when Latin slowly became Italian over several centuries?
Complain about specific language usage as much as you like, but don't frame it in terms of gain or loss or right or wrong. It is a change, and whether you like the change or dislike it. Nothing more or less.
(Note - if anyone wants to discuss this further, we should take it to Gallimaufry)
Moderator: If someone wants to start it hear, because of problems quoting or whatever, I'll move it. Let the fight begin!
-
Man, those Shardies seem almost as bad as Al Qaeda!
Was any resemblence with the Global War on Terror purely coincidental?
I guess the point is that, if humanity is faced with an existential threat that will resort to any method to annihilate us without moral considerations, like Shardies or Al Qaeda, that extreme methods may be necessary to defend the homeland.
-
I guess the point is that, if humanity is faced with an existential threat that will resort to any method to annihilate us without moral considerations, like Shardies or Al Qaeda, that extreme methods may be necessary to defend the homeland.
You mean like taking off my shoes and belt before walking through a detector gate at the airport?
Man, that IS weird. ;D
-
Man, those Shardies seem almost as bad as Al Qaeda!
Was any resemblence with the Global War on Terror purely coincidental?
I guess the point is that, if humanity is faced with an existential threat that will resort to any method to annihilate us without moral considerations, like Shardies or Al Qaeda, that extreme methods may be necessary to defend the homeland.
THis is the same idea we've been tossing around for the last few days, and the one that makes me the most uncomfortable. The Shardies are unlike Al Qaeda in that the latter has goals and an ideology. The Shardie are just a mindless destructive force. Eytanz even thinks that they can be viewed as a force of nature, more analagous to a plague than a military foe. The Shardi also express an existential threat that Al Quaeda really doesn't, despite some politicians' desire to convince you otherwise.
Did you mean the question seriously, or were you being sarcastic? It's hard to tell here on the message board. I apologize if I misread your tone. Also, do you believe that any actions are justified in the case of a grave enough threat? If not, where would you draw the line?
-
THis is the same idea we've been tossing around for the last few days, and the one that makes me the most uncomfortable. The Shardies are unlike Al Qaeda in that the latter has goals and an ideology. The Shardie are just a mindless destructive force. Eytanz even thinks that they can be viewed as a force of nature, more analagous to a plague than a military foe. The Shardi also express an existential threat that Al Quaeda really doesn't, despite some politicians' desire to convince you otherwise.
Did you mean the question seriously, or were you being sarcastic? It's hard to tell here on the message board. I apologize if I misread your tone. Also, do you believe that any actions are justified in the case of a grave enough threat? If not, where would you draw the line?
I was being slightly hyperbolic. You are right it sometimes being hard to judge tone. I guess that's why they invented emoticons, right? ;)
Clearly Al Qaeda is not as dangerous as the Shardies (although, that's probably because they don't have access to the most dangerous weapons). There are legitimate questions we could ask: Because we are a superpower and Al Qaeda is a motley band of terrorists, the threat is "assymetrical" whereas in the case of the Shardies the threat is existential. We can imagine hypothetical situations where extreme measures are indeed justified, right? They do that on 24 every episode, or so I hear (I live in Japan so I don't get Fox here, although I've read about 24). (I don't have time to write more, right now, because I have to leave for work. I'll try to finish my thought later.)
-
Clearly Al Qaeda is not as dangerous as the Shardies (although, that's probably because they don't have access to the most dangerous weapons). There are legitimate questions we could ask: Because we are a superpower and Al Qaeda is a motley band of terrorists, the threat is "assymetrical" whereas in the case of the Shardies the threat is existential. We can imagine hypothetical situations where extreme measures are indeed justified, right? They do that on 24 every episode, or so I hear (I live in Japan so I don't get Fox here, although I've read about 24). (I don't have time to write more, right now, because I have to leave for work. I'll try to finish my thought later.)
I didn't mean different only as in "not as dangerous". I meant different in the sense of "having goals and an ideology" as opposed to being a mindless killing machines for no apparent reason.
I also have trouble imagining situations in which the only choice is to commit acts of torture, murder innocent civilians, etc. Part of my problem with this story is that the deck was very heavilly stacked to create such a situation which, at least to me, is hard to imagine in anything approximating the real world.
-
I also have trouble imagining situations in which the only choice is to commit acts of torture, murder innocent civilians, etc. Part of my problem with this story is that the deck was very heavilly stacked to create such a situation which, at least to me, is hard to imagine in anything approximating the real world.
Wait, what? The news is full of governments and people who commit torture and murder innocent civilians, all the while certain that they are doing good. I hope you saying that you cannot imagine a situaton in which *you* would be faced with such a choice, because there sure as hell are plenty of people who are certain that that is what needs to be done. I'm writing this from my parents house, which is about a mile from the West Bank. Cross the line into Palestine and go to a settler's town, or to many of the Palestinian villages, and you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't think that (obviously, not everyone thinks that they personally should do horrific things, just that these things need to be done).
Sure, the story stacks the deck, as you like saying, because it is trying to make people who do not normally hold such a position imagine a situation which will make them agree with it, and you can't do that without stacking the deck heavily. I guess that in your case it failed. But if you don't think that there is a large number of people in the world for whom these situations are normal, then - well, I guess I envy you more than anything else.
-
Wait, what? The news is full of governments and people who commit torture and murder innocent civilians, all the while certain that they are doing good. I hope you saying that you cannot imagine a situaton in which *you* would be faced with such a choice, because there sure as hell are plenty of people who are certain that that is what needs to be done. I'm writing this from my parents house, which is about a mile from the West Bank. Cross the line into Palestine and go to a settler's town, or to many of the Palestinian villages, and you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't think that (obviously, not everyone thinks that they personally should do horrific things, just that these things need to be done).
Sure, the story stacks the deck, as you like saying, because it is trying to make people who do not normally hold such a position imagine a situation which will make them agree with it, and you can't do that without stacking the deck heavily. I guess that in your case it failed. But if you don't think that there is a large number of people in the world for whom these situations are normal, then - well, I guess I envy you more than anything else.
I obviously live in a safer part of the world than you do, but my point about my own view of morality stands. Simply because people do certain things or believe that it is acceptable to do them does not, in my view, make it true. I see torture, for example, as always wrong. I'll admit that part of my reaction to the story is that it was the actions of a strong group of attackers (the soldiers) against a weaker group (the farmers). I see it as always wrong to use superior military might to commit murder. Creating a far-fetched hypothetical in which it seems like the only choice is not, to my way of thinking, a fair way to argue that point.
-
Wait, what? The news is full of governments and people who commit torture and murder innocent civilians, all the while certain that they are doing good. I hope you saying that you cannot imagine a situaton in which *you* would be faced with such a choice, because there sure as hell are plenty of people who are certain that that is what needs to be done. I'm writing this from my parents house, which is about a mile from the West Bank. Cross the line into Palestine and go to a settler's town, or to many of the Palestinian villages, and you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't think that (obviously, not everyone thinks that they personally should do horrific things, just that these things need to be done).
Sure, the story stacks the deck, as you like saying, because it is trying to make people who do not normally hold such a position imagine a situation which will make them agree with it, and you can't do that without stacking the deck heavily. I guess that in your case it failed. But if you don't think that there is a large number of people in the world for whom these situations are normal, then - well, I guess I envy you more than anything else.
I obviously live in a safer part of the world than you do,
Well, you live in a safer part of the world than were I came from, and where I'm now visiting my parents. I live in the UK.
but my point about my own view of morality stands. Simply because people do certain things or believe that it is acceptable to do them does not, in my view, make it true. I see torture, for example, as always wrong. I'll admit that part of my reaction to the story is that it was the actions of a strong group of attackers (the soldiers) against a weaker group (the farmers). I see it as always wrong to use superior military might to commit murder.
The thing is, I agree with your view of morality. And I also happen to see torture as always wrong (and, I hasten to point out, the soldiers in the story do not torture anyone, instead taking care to make the killings as painless as possible. So I don't think the story can be seen as condoning torture, for all else it may do). But I have a feeling that I went through a different path in life to get to this position.
What I find disturbing in your posts is not that you take a strong moral position which is differnet than that of the soldiers in it. What I find disturbing is that you are equating the thought experiment of putting yourself in the head of someone with a different moral position with condoning the moral position.
Creating a far-fetched hypothetical in which it seems like the only choice is not, to my way of thinking, a fair way to argue that point.
I agree completely. Which is why I don't believe that the story is actually trying to argue against you. The way I read the story, it is arguing on the same side as you. It is saying "it takes a really far-fetched unrealistic situation to justify murder. Therefore, in any actualy situation, murder is not justified". Now, that may be overdoing it to the other side - it may be that the story does not really take an opinion one way or the other. But I simply don't follow your logic: "The story does not actively say what it is arguing for, but it is structured in a way that is a really bad and unfair argument for X. Therefore, I'm opposed to the story because it is clearly arguing X". Huh?
-
I agree completely. Which is why I don't believe that the story is actually trying to argue against you. The way I read the story, it is arguing on the same side as you. It is saying "it takes a really far-fetched unrealistic situation to justify murder. Therefore, in any actualy situation, murder is not justified". Now, that may be overdoing it to the other side - it may be that the story does not really take an opinion one way or the other. But I simply don't follow your logic: "The story does not actively say what it is arguing for, but it is structured in a way that is a really bad and unfair argument for X. Therefore, I'm opposed to the story because it is clearly arguing X". Huh?
(most snipped for brevity)
My contention is that the story was arguing for a certain morality but doing so clumsily. Your view is just as logical and much more charitable to the author.
-
OK, so I see at least two different issues here.
First, I think we have to separate these two questions:
1) “Can we imagine a scenario in which torture or even the killing of an innocent little girl is justified, even a moral imperative (i.e., the end justifies means that would be abhorrent in normal situations)?”
2) “Is such a scenario is likely to happen in reality?”
I think this story does a fine job of answering the first question in the affirmative. And under the (fictional) circumstances I think the soldier did it as humanely as possible. I can’t say that anything he did was blameworthy. Indeed, he was heroically sacrificing himself for humanity.
But whether or not such a scenario is likely to happen in reality is a separate question, right? So I’m comfortable saying, “Yes. If that fictional scenario actually happened, those actions would be justified.” But also, “That scenario has not happened yet, and is probably unlikely to happen.”
-
I agree completely. Which is why I don't believe that the story is actually trying to argue against you. The way I read the story, it is arguing on the same side as you. It is saying "it takes a really far-fetched unrealistic situation to justify murder. Therefore, in any actualy situation, murder is not justified". Now, that may be overdoing it to the other side - it may be that the story does not really take an opinion one way or the other. But I simply don't follow your logic: "The story does not actively say what it is arguing for, but it is structured in a way that is a really bad and unfair argument for X. Therefore, I'm opposed to the story because it is clearly arguing X". Huh?
(most snipped for brevity)
My contention is that the story was arguing for a certain morality but doing so clumsily. Your view is just as logical and much more charitable to the author.
More charitable to the story. Other than the quote Steve provided earlier, I have no idea what the author either intended, nor do I really care.
-
I'm loving this discussion. I don't mean to influence its direction, but if anyone's interested, Bud Sparhawk put some notes on his own motivations behind the story on his bibliography page (http://"http://www.sff.net/people/bud_sparhawk/list.htm"):
Bright Red Star is my reaction to the events of September 11, 2001. I tried to get inside the heads of someone who answers to a higher morality but sacrifices something very human in the process. The core of moral choice in this story is the use to which the protagonist puts a little girl, and the logical consequences of that choice.
Of course this doesn't make any other interpretation wrong. Once a story is written, my personal opinion is that the author has no more authority about what it means than any other reader. >8->
I'm quite glad I listened to the story without having read this first. I think trying to figure out how successful the author was at "getting into the head" of a terrorist would have lessened my appreciation of this story, because I think he missed a few things in that regard. Although now I understand a bit better why the author made some of the choices he did.
Regardless of what the author was or was not trying to do, the important thing for me was that the protagonist did what he had to do with compassion, and in an impossibly horrible situation retained his humanity. That was what made it a compelling story for me.
-
Regardless of what the author was or was not trying to do, the important thing for me was that the protagonist did what he had to do with compassion, and in an impossibly horrible situation retained his humanity. That was what made it a compelling story for me.
I 100% agree. I never read what other people have to say about a story before I read it / listen it. It ruined so many stories for me in high school and college. Teachers / professors trying to sex up Shakespeare or tell me how this or that event influenced this author or how that author was ground breaking in his time.
Don't get me wrong discussion after the fact is great. I really can give you a better understanding of what the story or the world around you. But if you "hear it" before hand it can really taint your view.
Last thought on this story, and really most things that I try to read. I read / listen to a story because I want to visit another place. Sometimes knowing what the author was thinking can kind of ruin that. In this case though I think that because he tried to get in their heads to develop a character, does not mean that he was trying to make a political statement. I don't know, maybe he was, but I like it better just thinking that he used them as a model. It makes it a story with some depth and provokes some good thought, without making me think too much about the real world that I will have to come back to at the end of the story.
-
OK, so I see at least two different issues here.
First, I think we have to separate these two questions:
1) “Can we imagine a scenario in which torture or even the killing of an innocent little girl is justified, even a moral imperative (i.e., the end justifies means that would be abhorrent in normal situations)?”
2) “Is such a scenario is likely to happen in reality?”
To reply, I quote my own post from before. Find "The Cold Equations" by Tom Godwin, 1954, as found in The Science Fiction Hall of Fame Volume One, Edited by Robert Silverberg. It's actually pretty easy to define situations where Scotty does NOT get the engines online before the star blows up.
Also, I really liked that these were not Star Trek aliens, where all we have to do is talk to them and everything will be ok. Inevitably there will be conflicts, resources will be scarce, and blood will be spilled. I doubt those rules of existence will be canceled just because we might figure out how to go faster than light.
Eric
-
I had a slight problem today --- I listened to EP55 (Down Memory Lane) off the Classic feed today, and then this one. Both are fantastic stories, and both are fighting for a spot in my top two or three Escape Pods. Ah well, they'll sort it out.
I had two reactions to this one. Contrary to many of the comments posted I found the complete 'Otherness' of the Shardies liberating. Politically I am a pacifist (and a closet anarchist) but I enjoy descriptions of military stuff and I love reading accounts of historical of battles and the like. This conflicts me no end --- I appreciate this stuff intellectually, but I can't get away from the fact that the hardware I ogle and the battles I read of are ultimately connected with killing other human beings.
That's why I like this story. Savage is the noble warrior --- completely human, yet finely trained and honed to do what he has to do. I like him intensely. The war he fights, though, seems to be completely just. Thus I can revel in the story without the associated guilt that comes from enjoying what I ultimately perceive as evil.
My other reaction is more painful. Like others, I guessed fairly early on what had to happen to Becky. I hoped that a twist would come along and there would be a happy ending, but the twist never came. I remember thinking at the crucial moment to look away, which I did... of course, I averted the wrong sense.
All in all, it was a fantastic story and I would love to hear more about the war with the Shardie. Just as long as they don't become less than pure evil.
-
CammoBlammo, Welcome to the forums. You're out of the gate with a well thought out and interesting post. I agree with you almost completely. This might be why I called it a well thought out and intelligent post. Hope to read more from you soon.
-
The war he fights, though, seems to be completely just. Thus I can revel in the story without the associated guilt that comes from enjoying what I ultimately perceive as evil.
This, in a nutshell, was my problem with the story. A completely just war against a completely evil enemy is simplistic, unrealistic and, in my mind, at least a bit boring.
-
Welcome CammoBlammo.
Very interesting perspective.
Mind if I ask a question? I don't mean to nitpick, and this might just be one of those contradictions you mentioned, but how do you square with the killing of the farmers? I understand being able to jive with the war against absolute evil, but this was a conflict between soldiers and civilians.
This conflicts me no end --- I appreciate this stuff intellectually, but I can't get away from the fact that the hardware I ogle and the battles I read of are ultimately connected with killing other human beings.
That's why I like this story. Savage is the noble warrior --- completely human, yet finely trained and honed to do what he has to do. I like him intensely. The war he fights, though, seems to be completely just. Thus I can revel in the story without the associated guilt that comes from enjoying what I ultimately perceive as evil.
-
Mind if I ask a question? I don't mean to nitpick, and this might just be one of those contradictions you mentioned, but how do you square with the killing of the farmers? I understand being able to jive with the war against absolute evil, but this was a conflict between soldiers and civilians.
This conflicts me no end --- I appreciate this stuff intellectually, but I can't get away from the fact that the hardware I ogle and the battles I read of are ultimately connected with killing other human beings.
That's why I like this story. Savage is the noble warrior --- completely human, yet finely trained and honed to do what he has to do. I like him intensely. The war he fights, though, seems to be completely just. Thus I can revel in the story without the associated guilt that comes from enjoying what I ultimately perceive as evil.
Good question. I don't think I was able to make it all jive that well. As I said, I spent most of the story hoping it wouldn't come to that, and I think that's why I wanted to look away when I did. I knew the murder had to happen, and my squeamishness derives as much from my empathy for Savage as it does my own dislike of murder. I guess I saw it as an invidious decision --- you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, and Savage chose (or had chosen for him) the lesser of two evils. The fact that he knew he was only minutes away from a similar fate helped as well --- he wasn't asking anyone to do what he wasn't willing to do himself.
Of course, the same could be said for your standard, run of the mill suicide bomber too.
The war he fights, though, seems to be completely just. Thus I can revel in the story without the associated guilt that comes from enjoying what I ultimately perceive as evil.
This, in a nutshell, was my problem with the story. A completely just war against a completely evil enemy is simplistic, unrealistic and, in my mind, at least a bit boring.
Yes and no. I guess it depends on what the story is doing. If it's commenting on the human condition and the rightness and wrongness of war, the enemy needs to be more like us. The fact that the enemy might not be human can very useful in getting us to properly question the assumptions underlying our ethical systems.
On the other hand, if the story is meant to be about inter human relationships, the enemy probably isn't as important. (I'm thinking of Starship Troopers but it's been a long time since I saw it, and I don't plan on reading it!) Or, if the story is about how cool the weapons are, or the wonderful intelligence of our generals we need just enough enemy to justify having the weapons (especially if we want to see if they work).
In this case, the war is simply a plot device to set the action. I think that's where I (originally) put this story. Now, I'm not so sure. I might just have to go and listen to it again!
-
I had to listen to this one twice. Stuff of nightmares, this. I liked it.
-
Hi All,
First off I really liked the story. It reminded me a lot of Fred Saberhagen’s Berserker stories.
I had to listen to the story twice because it left me with a strange twisting in my stomach as to how it is seen as normal, acceptable and even automatic to sacrifice a small group of individuals to save a larger group of individuals.
I had not spent time re-examining this simple equation until I considered that this story, in many respects, seemed to deliberately eliminate all the distractions such as an unusual detailed enemy or interesting equipment or even the option of other solutions that had gone untried.
The story could have been, more or less, played out at the launch station where a weapon was being prepared to destroy the settlement. Instead seasoned solders carrying nuclear weapons were expended in a suicide mission to eliminate this small group of individuals. All to illustrate to the audience the real cost of this kind of logic.
I am not in any way arguing that a huge loss of life is better than a small loss of life. Rather that the automatic logic of sacrifice, to cut our losses in some cases even if that cost is life, has become too quick of a solution in our fiction and likely in our reality.
If we continue to fail to really consider sacrifice of this sort as an absolute last choice, once all other measures have been executed and all other considerations weighed, I fear it will ultimately be our undoing.
What if Becky, in some way, was the only one who could have stopped the war?
Regards, O
-
I liked this story. I like how we're left guessing about the aliens' intentions and why they attacked Humans in the first place. I also liked the descriptions of the soldiers and their augmentations. Very cool.
That guessing is exactly what bothered me about the story. Or, rather, in the absence of any other motivation, I couldn't help thinking "If I were an alien race running across humanity for the first time, I'd probably try to exterminate us as quickly as possible, too, given our history."
In my younger days, I could kind of see the point to a story that takes the logical exaggeration of the justification for all-out war... and if/when we run into actual aliens, it's highly likely that we wouldn't understand their motives, so it's "plausible" that we could end up needing this cold, heartless super-soldier figure to save us... but after years of seeing military SF trying to set up scenarios where the all-out balls-to-the-wall augmented super-soldier is the absolute ideal necessity, I find myself unable to enjoy the conceit. I've already seen it play out in "Ender's Game", "Starship Troopers", and (my personal fave) "Forever War".
That said, despite my snarky hindmind with it's pseudo-pacifist naysaying, I did enjoy the story.
-
Hey, guess what!? I enjoyed the story! Surprise!
It feels like a rip off, since I found it in the archive, and no one's going to read through the six pages of comments anymore, but I'll give it my two cents anyway. It deserves that.
The descriptions were what got me the most. I actually felt nauseated by the end of it all, which was a new thing for me listening to EP. Lots of things, never nausea. Not to mention the twisting conflict over all the buried emotions, the ignorance and the stark survivalist themes. I am glad to say I am still optimistic about first encounters, that I can't seem to believe that an alien species would go so far as attempting extermination without talking to us first... but that could just be naivety on my part...
Thanks for a new flavour, however brutal.
-
Liked it a lot! Life is full of hard choices and I think there are things worse than death. I let my older son (11) listen to it and he liked it too. He wanted to hear more about how the soldiers were "changed". We talked about sacrifice, how war can touch so many, how some give all without even knowing why, and how hard being a soldier can be depending on the mission.
Good one!
-
Where to start with this one? Lots of fodder for discussion.
On first listen I thought it was pretty good. Not spectacular, but pretty good. The fact that he was a suicide soldier sent to kill the civilians was very clear early on, though it seemed to be intended to be a surprise. Most noticeably when he said something like "I'm here to save you from the aliens," I said truthfully. Any time "said truthfully" is used, I immediately analyze how that phrase could be both truthful and misleading and in this case I came to the immediate conclusion: he's gonna kill them all. I guess many of my reading habits were formed by reading the Wheel of Time series, and reading about Aes Sedai really makes you watch meanings very closely in cases like this.
One of the most interesting things about first contact that I always like hearing about is the establishment of communication and common language. For anyone else interested in this topic, I strongly suggest you check out the works of Juliette Wade. She's been published twice in Analog, both first contact stories based around establishing culture/lingual relationship with alien species, both very good. And she has a great blog, one of the few that I bother checking back on: http://www.talktoyouniverse.blogspot.com where she often talks about language's usage in SF and fantasy, among many other interesting things.
Anyway, the reason I brought up the language thing is that it's not clear that the Shardies are CAPABLE of communicating with us. The humans blame the Shardies for not responding to communciations, but they seem to assume that the Shardies are capable of both receiving and understanding radio (or whatever technological) means of transmittal. Even if they can see a signal, and can see pattern in the signal, they're not going to know how to interpet it in a meaningful way. Even if we saw them face to face and tried to talk to them, there's no saying if they have auditory sensors or some other means of communications. Perhaps they are telepathic and because we don't respond to them with thought messages then they assume we are unintelligent. Or maybe their sensory organs respond only to electromagnetic waves, and by blasting them with hailing calls we actually managed to overwhelm and blind and/or kill one (like an alien race that communicates through lasers and accidentally flash-fries a human on first contact when he tries to say "hi"). I mean, we don't even know what their physiology is--the ships themselves could be the race! Assuming that all the information given in the story is verifiably true, I'd say it's safe to say that the aliens are intelligent--they are capable of building starships, of tracking trajectories of other starships, and can extract living brain from an organism and wire it to their existing technology. But it's not clear to me, even if everything in the story is a fact, that they are necessarily any more aggressive then we are. Perhaps they think that WE struck the first blow and after that they were only reacting.
It seems like the main point of the story was to show that it in an extreme circumstance it could be considered justifiable to kill in an act of mercy. But I've seen this theme elsewhere, so that wasn't all that inspiring to me. Back to the Wheel of time, early on in the series there's a situation where a man and a woman are traveling together, and they're threatened by something which if it reaches it is abundantly clear that it will kill them in an excruciatingly painful way. He plans, at the last possible moment, to kill her to spare her the pain--luckily he doesn't end up having to. I was horrified by it at first, but it makes logical sense. I don't think that I would have the strength to kill in that situation, but for my weakness another human being would suffer terribly and would still die.
BUT what made the story even more interesting for me was the mention in the comments about the possibility of propoganda. Then things get REALLY interesting. The entire story is through the point of view of the soldier, who only knows his knowledge from what the government has told him. We all know that governments never lie, right? Especially since we don't know anything about the government, I don't think we can rule out the possibility of propoganda. Maybe the humans intentionally attacked the first Shardies. Maybe the Shardies don't actually use human brains, that was just an attempt to dehumanize the enemy to suppress teh possibility of public outcry at killing another sentient race. Maybe there are no Shardies at all, maybe the intergalactic federation of planets was in a state of civil war, and someone decided to create some AI ships and put some brains in there to create the illusion of a common enemy in order to unite everyone against them.
It's very possible that I am just channeling the mindset from one of my favorite games of all time--Deus Ex. Fan-fricking-tastic game with nanotech, dozens of conspiracy theories all tied together into an intricate FPS plot. :)
-
I'm reading The Gathering Storm (the new Wheel of Time story), and it had a passage that related well.
The choice isn't always about what you do, son, but why you do it. When I was a soldier, there were some men who fought simply for the money. There were others who fought for loyalty--loyalty for their comrades, or to the crown, or to whatever. The soldier who dies for money and the soldier who dies for loyalty are both dead, but there's a difference between them. One death meant something. The other didn't.
-
I found myself enjoying this one. There's a sort of Darkside-Starship-Troopers feel to it. I liked that even in the most impossible circumstances you can imagine, the main character still showed some common decency and humanity. The end was quite haunting. I'd give this on a B+.
@Unblinking, I'm afraid your conspiracy theory doesn't quite jive. It doesn't make any sense to send a squad of trained & equipped suicide troop to simply take out a bunch of unarmed civilians. If you're just doing it as part of an anti-insurgence, why not just use normal kill-squads that you can reuse when the mission is done? Why waste all that man-power? Or for that matter, why not just drop a nuke on the colony. Anyone that survives the blast probably won't live much longer due to radiation sickness, and even if they manage to barely live, there won't be enough of them to do anything insurgent-like for decades. The only way this story makes sense is if the goal really *was* to have no human be captured alive.
You do make an interesting point about first contact. Reminds me of the first Membari-Human contact in B5 that started a war.
-
@Unblinking, I'm afraid your conspiracy theory doesn't quite jive. It doesn't make any sense to send a squad of trained & equipped suicide troop to simply take out a bunch of unarmed civilians. If you're just doing it as part of an anti-insurgence, why not just use normal kill-squads that you can reuse when the mission is done? Why waste all that man-power? Or for that matter, why not just drop a nuke on the colony.
That doesn't make sense in the story's explained context either. Why send highly augmented suicide troops when you can just nuke the colony?
And I don't think that rules out the conspiracy theory in any case. It's a question of how widespread the conspiracy goes. We don't even know what sort of government rules these people. Imagine a subset of the ruling council (or whatever) rigged up a robot ship with the brains to give evidence of an enemy to unite against. The soldiers find this, report their information, the entire council meets and comes to a decision to use suicide troops as a last-resort response for an impending Shardi attack. That may not have been the original conspirators intention, but they reached their goal of revealing a uniting "enemy", and there's little to be done about it now. They can't very well say, "Sorry, we changed our minds. The Shardi's aren't all THAT bad. Not bad enough to waste troops on, anyway."
The given plot might be more plausible, but that's exactly what the conspirators want you to think! That's the fun of conspiracy theories, is that there's usually some way the information could be obscured to mislead. Especially when we have a limited point of view from a soldier who could very well be brainwashed, and we have no knowledge of their government. :)
-
It's very possible that I am just channeling the mindset from one of my favorite games of all time--Deus Ex. Fan-fricking-tastic game with nanotech, dozens of conspiracy theories all tied together into an intricate FPS plot. :)
It's not a sci-fi game, but if you want the ultimate "conspiracy-theory salad" check out the novel/trilogy Illuminatus! by (Roberts) Shea and Anton Wilson.
-
@Unblinking, I'm afraid your conspiracy theory doesn't quite jive. It doesn't make any sense to send a squad of trained & equipped suicide troop to simply take out a bunch of unarmed civilians. If you're just doing it as part of an anti-insurgence, why not just use normal kill-squads that you can reuse when the mission is done? Why waste all that man-power? Or for that matter, why not just drop a nuke on the colony.
That doesn't make sense in the story's explained context either. Why send highly augmented suicide troops when you can just nuke the colony?
Because a nuke only reduces a colony's ability to resist: e.g. infrastructure, food production, organizational centers, manufacturing, big buildings, equipment. Aerial bombings, in general, aren't that great at killing actual people. Even with a nuke, you have only fatalities in the immediate blast zone, with most of the majority dying later from burn wounds, radiation sickness from fallout, starvation, or from drinking contaminated water. If your goal was to make sure no civilians get captured, nukes are too slow and too imprecise, especially if you expect a Shardie attack within days: i.e. you can't afford to wait the weeks for the people to die slowly from dysentery.
-
It's very possible that I am just channeling the mindset from one of my favorite games of all time--Deus Ex. Fan-fricking-tastic game with nanotech, dozens of conspiracy theories all tied together into an intricate FPS plot. :)
It's not a sci-fi game, but if you want the ultimate "conspiracy-theory salad" check out the novel/trilogy Illuminatus! by (Roberts) Shea and Anton Wilson.
Fun! I'll have to check that out.
-
As a father of a little girl (and boy) this story is the only one that made me actually cry. A most excellent execution of making the listener become invested in the unfolding drama of the characters. As mentioned before the shards, if machines, bare a strong resemblance to the berserkers of Fred Saberhagen's Berserker universe, both in their relentless attack and use of human brains for calculation. The store makes me want to follow the course of the war.