Escape Artists
PodCastle => Episode Comments => Topic started by: Ocicat on April 19, 2011, 07:35:01 AM
-
PodCastle 153: The Ghosts Of New York (http://podcastle.org/2011/04/19/podcastle-153-the-ghosts-of-new-york/)
by Jennifer Pelland (http://www.jenniferpelland.com/).
Read by Rashida Smith (http://s290748090.onlinehome.us/rjssite/).
Originally appeared in the Dark Faith anthology. Read the story here (http://www.apexbookcompany.com/2010/12/dark-faith-ghosts-of-new-york-by-jennifer-pelland/).
She remembered flailing at the air, as if she could somehow sink her nails into it and cling there until help arrived. She remembered the crash and pop of the people who were landing mere seconds before her. She remembered a fleeting moment of shame when her dress blew up over her head, exposing her underwear to the crowds gathered below. She remembered the burst of shit and piss as she crashed through the awning just a split second before she hit–
The only people who find clarity in certain death are those who somehow cheat it, those who can reflect back upon the experience and use it to goad them into living a better life.
For the ghosts, there is only terror.
After her first fall, she stood by the roadkill smear that was her body, not recognizing what she was seeing at first, until two more bodies rained down from above, splattering on pavement with a crash of glass and a sickening splat.
Then she knew.
Then the North Tower collapsed.
All around her, people screamed and ran while she stood helplessly by the wreckage of her body. Debris flew through her, burying her corpse, leaving the ghost of her untouched.
Rated R for strong violence and disturbing imagery.
-
well now.
I still need some time to digest this one, but I feel the need to say that at first, I was very upset. I live on Long Island and it seems that every single person I know, including myself, knows someone or is someone who was affected by 9-11. The thought of those people who felt they had no option but to jump feeling tortured forever and ever was heart-wrenching. I understand that there was a disclaimer, but that imagery was...oppressive.
But then she had an epiphany. And she found some peace. And I found some peace. But my cheeks were still drenched and I was still sobbing.
Beautiful story. Wretched story.
-
As a non-American it's hard commenting on a story like this without offending anyone, since i clearly dont have the same emotional feelings about the event in the story. So i will just say that i thought it was interesting overall, but i dont think it deserves an R rating.
It was interesting that it was written by Jennifer Pelland, i associate her with fun stories like The Burning Bush & Snow Day, so this was something very different
-
It's hard to say "I enjoyed this story" when the subject matter is so...unpleasant. But yet...in a way I did enjoy this story. The thought of ghosts only existing as long as people remember them is one that I've thought about using for my own fiction.
-
I appreciated the warning, but I decided I'd give our illustrious editors the benefit of the doubt. I wish I hadn't.
I gave it ten minutes, as I generally give any podcast story to catch my interest. It bothered me, and not in a compelling fiction-that-gets-under-my-skin kind of way. I knew from the warning that it was a September 11 piece, so I'd even braced myself for that.
I've never been to NYC, and I don't believe I know anyone who knew people who died that day. But it really bothered me that people who had been much closer than I was could come across this story, which began with the very true terrifying and premature end to their loved ones' lives, but goes on to postulate that their suffering and fear didn't even end at death. Oh no, they went on and on to suffer further, to experience the crash over and over again with all of the emotional wounds and pain fresh in their minds while their surviving friends and relatives are on the outside grieving and trying to heal.
It bothers me that this is considered entertainment, postulating on torturous afterlives after a recent tragedy. It bothers me that Pelland wrote it, and I won't be going out of my way to find her other fiction. It bothers me that multiple editors bought it, and I suspect this will leave a sour taste in my mouth when I think of Podcastle for a while. It bothers me most of all that it's a Nebula nominee. Nebula/Hugo noms often leave me scratching my head, wondering what anyone could have seen in it, but this is the first that's really offended me.
-
If being forgotten is what will give them final rest, I'm doing my part.
-
If being forgotten is what will give them final rest, I'm doing my part.
wow. Thats cold.
-
If being forgotten is what will give them final rest, I'm doing my part.
wow. Thats cold.
What, you want them to keep falling forever?
-
I'd suggest people go gently on the jokes here because the subject is so sensitive.
I appreciated the warning, but I decided I'd give our illustrious editors the benefit of the doubt. I wish I hadn't.
I gave it ten minutes, as I generally give any podcast story to catch my interest. It bothered me, and not in a compelling fiction-that-gets-under-my-skin kind of way. I knew from the warning that it was a September 11 piece, so I'd even braced myself for that.
I've never been to NYC, and I don't believe I know anyone who knew people who died that day. But it really bothered me that people who had been much closer than I was could come across this story, which began with the very true terrifying and premature end to their loved ones' lives, but goes on to postulate that their suffering and fear didn't even end at death. Oh no, they went on and on to suffer further, to experience the crash over and over again with all of the emotional wounds and pain fresh in their minds while their surviving friends and relatives are on the outside grieving and trying to heal.
It bothers me that this is considered entertainment, postulating on torturous afterlives after a recent tragedy. It bothers me that Pelland wrote it, and I won't be going out of my way to find her other fiction. It bothers me that multiple editors bought it, and I suspect this will leave a sour taste in my mouth when I think of Podcastle for a while. It bothers me most of all that it's a Nebula nominee. Nebula/Hugo noms often leave me scratching my head, wondering what anyone could have seen in it, but this is the first that's really offended me.
"recent tragedy" - It will be a decade come September. Just sayin'.
People react to tragedy in different ways. Art is one of those ways. As 9/11 has become a major point in our history, inevitably it will find its way into different artistic mediums, just as other major catastrophes have (Pearl Harbor, for example). In my opinion 10 years isn't "too soon" but of course that's totally subjective. I am sorry you were upset by the story - I personally found it tasteful and sad, but recognize people are going to react differently to it (though I really don't get why its specifically offensive. Unless you're just saying "too soon.."). Can be risky to run stories that touch on sensitive subjects, but I personally would rather have the risk taken than have to avoid all stories about certain subjects, ever, regardless of quality of story.
-
I'd suggest people go gently on the jokes here because the subject is so sensitive.
I appreciated the warning, but I decided I'd give our illustrious editors the benefit of the doubt. I wish I hadn't.
I gave it ten minutes, as I generally give any podcast story to catch my interest. It bothered me, and not in a compelling fiction-that-gets-under-my-skin kind of way. I knew from the warning that it was a September 11 piece, so I'd even braced myself for that.
I've never been to NYC, and I don't believe I know anyone who knew people who died that day. But it really bothered me that people who had been much closer than I was could come across this story, which began with the very true terrifying and premature end to their loved ones' lives, but goes on to postulate that their suffering and fear didn't even end at death. Oh no, they went on and on to suffer further, to experience the crash over and over again with all of the emotional wounds and pain fresh in their minds while their surviving friends and relatives are on the outside grieving and trying to heal.
It bothers me that this is considered entertainment, postulating on torturous afterlives after a recent tragedy. It bothers me that Pelland wrote it, and I won't be going out of my way to find her other fiction. It bothers me that multiple editors bought it, and I suspect this will leave a sour taste in my mouth when I think of Podcastle for a while. It bothers me most of all that it's a Nebula nominee. Nebula/Hugo noms often leave me scratching my head, wondering what anyone could have seen in it, but this is the first that's really offended me.
"recent tragedy" - It will be a decade come September. Just sayin'.
People react to tragedy in different ways. Art is one of those ways. As 9/11 has become a major point in our history, inevitably it will find its way into different artistic mediums, just as other major catastrophes have (Pearl Harbor, for example). In my opinion 10 years isn't "too soon" but of course that's totally subjective. I am sorry you were upset by the story - I personally found it tasteful and sad, but recognize people are going to react differently to it (though I really don't get why its specifically offensive. Unless you're just saying "too soon.."). Can be risky to run stories that touch on sensitive subjects, but I personally would rather have the risk taken than have to avoid all stories about certain subjects, ever, regardless of quality of story.
Not really "too soon", exactly. Or not completely. The Columbine shootings were longer ago, and I would not want to read a story reframing the dead to have torturous afterlives either. Nor the Kent State shootings, actually, which happened before I was born. Or concentration camps, which were before my parents were born. It's not about the time period it's about the nature of the speculation taken here.
Perhaps it is my constantly shifting view of religion and the afterlife that makes this especially offensive to me. Until I die, I can't prove what happens after I die. As a result, I contemplate possible afterlives a lot, both those based on organized religion's beliefs, and ridiculous ones of my own devising. And, no matter how ridiculous they are, they're all equally plausible or implausible, because there is no knowing. I tend to like stories that postulate different afterlives because this is a very interesting avenue of thought for me. But this story illuminates a line that exists for me that I hadn't realized was there between entertaining and offensive. I want a degree of separation between the story and reality, particularly if the afterlife described is torturous . I think What really makes this story offensive to me is how it framed its speculative element carefully so that it didn't vary provably from actual events, yet added ongoing torture for these actual people that already had a decidedly shitty ending. Do that to fictional characters in a fictional event, whatever, that's fine--whether I like it or not will depend on the cleverness of the afterlife idea and the details of the execution. Do that to actual people in an actual historical event, and my reaction is very different. Inventing the torture of fictional people to create a story arc is one thing. Inventing the torture of real people to create a story arc is entirely different.
-
The Columbine shootings were longer ago, and I would not want to read a story reframing the dead to have torturous afterlives either.
OK, I see what you're saying, but I don't think that's what the story was doing.
The story suggested at the end that in fact it was that moment of terror that had been excised from the memories of the souls who went on to the afterlife. Remember, the protagonist didn't recall anything of who she was, because the protagonist of this story was a ghost of the memory of the death, rather than the person. Would YOU want to go on in the afterlife with the memory of your horrific end? I sure wouldn't...
-
I respect the editors decision to produce this episode. It was a bold decision, and one they obviously struggled with.
I also respect Unblinking's opinion that it is offensive to him. I personally wasn't sure if I wanted to listen or not. But I did. And while I also found it apalling that these ghosts were perpetually reliving their horrible deaths, something compelled me to listen on, maybe some hope that there was a release or resolution for this dead woman. I cared about her.
And she ultimately was able to obtain some peace from it, and reach out to comfort the mourning. The story also speculates that this ghost is not the actual spirit of the woman, but some kind of psychic residue left over from the horrific death that actually allowed the spirit to obtain its rest.
This, combined with the idea that these ghosts could escape their fate if forgotten, led me to view this story as a metaphor for the greif suffered by loved ones, as well as the nation (specifically) and the world (in general) when these tragedies occur. Also, how many times did the news programs show these people falling and dying, making us relive the horror over and over again. It brings up questions about how much we should hold on to these horrific memories. Should we forget about these events? I don't think so. But we should come to peace with them and move forward.
-
Unblinking -- thank you for your honest words about the piece. You have every right to be offended, and you have every right not to seek out any of my other work. The only reason why I'm posting is to let you know that I had a lot of concerns about the potential offensiveness of the story after I finished writing it, so before I started trying to sell it, I had a friend from NYC read it to see if he thought I should trunk it. After getting his encouragement not to, I started sending it out and also ran it by a second NYC friend, just to be safe. She also said I should keep trying to sell it. If either of them had said the story crossed the line, I would have pulled it from circulation. That said, I've had five walk-outs to date when I've read the story at conventions*, so I know that the position of "the line" is different for every reader. I'm sorry this piece crossed yours.
(*For the record, I warn people in advance what the story is about when I read it. The walk-outs all happened immediately after the warning.)
-
And she ultimately was able to obtain some peace from it, and reach out to comfort the mourning. The story also speculates that this ghost is not the actual spirit of the woman, but some kind of psychic residue left over from the horrific death that actually allowed the spirit to obtain its rest.
This is why I ultimately found the story beautiful.
Although it ripped me to shreds along the way, and two days later I find myself obsessed with this story, I love that it was written. And that PodCastle had the proverbial balls to run it.
-
The Columbine shootings were longer ago, and I would not want to read a story reframing the dead to have torturous afterlives either.
OK, I see what you're saying, but I don't think that's what the story was doing.
The story suggested at the end that in fact it was that moment of terror that had been excised from the memories of the souls who went on to the afterlife. Remember, the protagonist didn't recall anything of who she was, because the protagonist of this story was a ghost of the memory of the death, rather than the person. Would YOU want to go on in the afterlife with the memory of your horrific end? I sure wouldn't...
To me that doesn't really sound much different than it being the person themselves. Call it an echo or a memory or a ghost, but whatever it is, it is a conscious being able to tell this story, who is a facsimile (if an imperfect one) of the real person. Another version of that person may have moved on, but this is still a person who is pretty darned similar to the original person reliving the experience. Would YOU want to go on in the afterlife knowing that a conscious replica of yourself was in for unending torture in your stead? That's like giving your clone up for torture to save yourself. That's not really much better than the way it seemed at the beginning of the story.
Maybe I would've bought the explanation in story but it rings pretty hollow to me as explained here. The story turned me off before I got to any of that so I guess I'll never know.
This, combined with the idea that these ghosts could escape their fate if forgotten, led me to view this story as a metaphor for the greif suffered by loved ones, as well as the nation (specifically) and the world (in general) when these tragedies occur. Also, how many times did the news programs show these people falling and dying, making us relive the horror over and over again. It brings up questions about how much we should hold on to these horrific memories. Should we forget about these events? I don't think so. But we should come to peace with them and move forward.
Suppose these ghosts of grief, these echoes of lives, actually exist. Then wouldn't the publication of this story prolong their suffering?
[Edited to combined a couple of posts into one, and to say that I think I'd best go silent in this thread now as I've said what I had to say and I don't want to make others feel like they can't respond however they want to. So if anyone posts something addressed to me here and I don't respond, that is why.]
-
I honestly don't know what to say here, other than this: I will not be looking for any Jennifer Pelland fiction, and if any more Jennifer Pelland fiction is published here, I will not listen. I came close to this decision after reading "Captive Girl", and have fully made this decision now. Jennifer is not a bad writer, her writing is just not for me. This can be interpreted as whoever wants to in whatever way they will.
Also, certain comments by certain people have cemented my view of them, and I will filter their comments through this view from now on. Doesn't matter who, what, or why, nor do I expect them to change.
Other than that, I will not be entering in to any discussion of this "story".
Edited to add: Rashida did a wonderful job reading this piece.
-
The story just isn’t good enough to justify its use of the subject matter. I think a story about 9/11 ghosts could potentially be very moving and cathartic, this story just didn’t earn it and so comes across as milking a too-recent tragedy in order to give itself weight.
That said, I think a few people really didn't understand this story.
... but goes on to postulate that their suffering and fear didn't even end at death. Oh no, they went on and on to suffer further, to experience the crash over and over again with all of the emotional wounds and pain fresh in their minds while their surviving friends and relatives are on the outside grieving and trying to heal.
The whole point of the story is that this did NOT happen, that the 9/11 jumpers are living their afterlife cleansed of this memory and that living it for them is the gift the protagonists of the story are giving them.
-
I didn't mind the subject matter so much. It's inevitable that it's going to be written about, and it was a horrific event deserving of horrific imagery. Having been a member of the news media at the time, believe me, I've seen more than my fair share of bodies falling and planes hitting buildings. Of course, being so heavily involved in reporting on the event may have helped me deal with it better than others simply due to oversaturation.
That said... I didn't really care for the story. According to my podcatcher, it took until 23 minutes for anything to actually HAPPEN other than the MC undergoing a lot of pain and anguish as her ghostly self fell over and over and over. It wasn't until 23 minutes (out of a 38-minute podcast, IIRC) that we learned about the world, the rules for these ghosts, etc. THAT was interesting.
And then we get to the saccharine part at the end where the ghost learns to help others. Which felt like it went on FOREVER.
On that part -- I wonder if the author borrowed any of that from people visiting the Vietnam Memorial or other similar locations. When I was 17, we took a family trip to DC, and at the VM my dad picked out names of his friends and people he knew to pay his respects. To me that had more impact than any 9/11 victim list, or even the Holocaust Museum (on the latter -- more oversaturation, having grown up Jewish).
So, while some had problems with the story for its subject matter... my problem is that I just don't think it was that great of a story. Sorry.
-
I think it took too long to get to the point, as I listened to it I was thinking 'get on with it!' but otherwise I liked it. It did seem a little arbitrary that people who die from falling end up as ghosts, maybe they don't see ghosts of people who die in other ways, and to quite why they exist like that at all, maybe it's the psychic energy of people thinking about them that stops them escaping, but I thought the endpoint, of finding some sort of positive thing from such an event to be quite moving.
-
Count me in among the people who didn't really get this story. I thought it was well-written, and well-read, but I'm not sure I fully understood what was going on with the ghosts. But I think that lines up very well with the subject matter of the story. I think it really taps into the frustrated, confused rage that Americans had when 9/11 happened. WHY did this happen? Why was it allowed to happen? And what can we do about it? These are questions we're STILL asking, of ourselves and of other nations. This conversation here proves that people still have very strong feelings about the tragedy, and what a "proper" response to it should be.
::gets up on soapbox::
I don't think it's really fair to call this a piece of exploitation. It's an artistic response to a real-life tragedy. It's an author's attempt to reconcile an unanswerable question. I never got the sense the author was "inventing" tortures for real-life people for the sake of entertainment. No more so than, say, a biopic of Joan of Arc is resurrecting her just to burn her at the stake again. Fictionalizing or allegorizing a real-life tragedy is nothing new in the long sad history of real-life tragedies, and while this particular one is still so fresh in our minds, this doesn't make it in bad taste.
::gets off soapbox::
-
I told myself that I would give myself a week to process this one before doing any commentary.
So, here I am.
I cannot, by any stretch, say that I "liked" this story. There's so much here that truly sickens me. The whole idea that the victims of Sept. 11 were somehow condemned to not only experience those 10 seconds of falling terror over and over afresh... well, I simply can't get my mind around it. And then on top of it that in remembering the victims we are somehow making it worse?! Almost stopped there.
But after listening to the whole thing, I would say that I have a begrudging respect for it, however. The ultimate idea was that in separating off the part of the eternal soul that experienced the horror of falling, a measure of peace could be afforded to the whole and complete person - who would have no memory of that terrible death. It seemed that the message was that even out of the worst and most despicable of situations, a measure of purpose and hope could still be found.
And that I can get behind.
-
I found the thematic idea interesting, that the suffering of a tragedy is much more a factor for the world left behind than for the ones in the tragedy itself. I thought the story had an intriguing twist on a way to present its premise. (Instead of people learning to let go of the past, the past learns to let go of itself.)
I don't really know why it had to be 9/11. I get that it was inspired by thinking about that event, but I suspect that the hot-button nature of that topic will (and, indeed, already has) overshadow(ed) any discussion of the story qua the story. Every comment thus far has had to say something about the story "using" 9/11, and basically the well is pretty thoroughly poisoned at this juncture. Within the story itself, the need to give "due respect" to the idea of 9/11 meant that the first part of the story was a total drag. For me, it was just a series of, "yes, yes, heard it before, ten years of maudlin television coverage already, for pity's sake ten times more people die in more horrible ways every day, can we get to something else please?"
The story became interesting when the protagonist met up with the fading remnants of previous tragedies. To me, this was really the thematic core and the "important" bit of the story, the part that was trying to get itself told. I think the story may have worked much more smoothly if the protagonist had been the remnant of a non-specific tragedy on a smaller scale. Could still have been in a burning building and jumped and all that, even, and then met these centuries old (and thus safely neutered) tragedy-ghosts and followed more or less the same path to closure. Heck, a big enough small tragedy likely would have a little memorial to it, as well, like those crosses and wreaths people set up at the sites of car accidents. That would have sidestepped the need to belabor the point of 9/11 both in the story and in the comments thread.
I have no idea why everyone is so het up about the idea of victims of a tragedy continuing to suffer because the universe is unjust. Guys, it's a spec-fic story: the author isn't hoping that it was true. Getting angry or upset by that just confuses the heck out of me. Not liking it, sure, go nuts, no one says you have to enjoy it, and frankly I'd be a little freaked out if someone liked the idea that innocent victims got to keep on suffering for no reason, but treating it as though the positing of a what-if is the same as wishing for it just seems weird to me. Some douchebag posts on Facebook about how the tsunami/earthquake in Japan was "revenge for Pearl Harbor," yeah, tell that person how upset you are with them, but this is an author writing a story that basically just says, "Hey, what if the universe wasn't actually fair and you had to make your own meaning in it even in the face of tragedy?" Frankly, I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence that the universe IS just or fair, so I'm not seeing where this is an outre and offensive position.
-
As someone from the area of 9/11 and someone that had been affected deeply by what happened, I couldnt listen. I wasn't offended, but I couldn't listen b/c it brought all the emotions back. Several people i once knew died that day. I know others who had randomly been either late to work or decided to stay home that day. I remember days of driving into work with that huge smoke pillar always on the horizon. I remember in the days that followed standing on the shore looking out with other people... the silence was unnerving. I remember being on the phone late night with friends that had trouble coping. Time has passed and I've healed as much as I'm going to.
Reading the synopsis stopped me cold and brought those memories all back. There was no way I could drive to work with the NYC skyline in front of me and have a good day.
Like I said I'm not offended or angry. Its been 10 years. I think what bothers me most about the story is that if you changed the names of the place around, made the date differnt, I'm fairly certain I would have listened to it and not batted an eye.
-
As someone from the area of 9/11 and someone that had been affected deeply by what happened, I couldnt listen. I wasn't offended, but I couldn't listen b/c it brought all the emotions back. Several people i once knew died that day. I know others who had randomly been either late to work or decided to stay home that day. I remember days of driving into work with that huge smoke pillar always on the horizon. I remember in the days that followed standing on the shore looking out with other people... the silence was unnerving. I remember being on the phone late night with friends that had trouble coping. Time has passed and I've healed as much as I'm going to.
Reading the synopsis stopped me cold and brought those memories all back. There was no way I could drive to work with the NYC skyline in front of me and have a good day.
Like I said I'm not offended or angry. Its been 10 years. I think what bothers me most about the story is that if you changed the names of the place around, made the date differnt, I'm fairly certain I would have listened to it and not batted an eye.
...
-
I found this story extremely upsetting and the posts here I've read even more so.
The Columbine shootings were longer ago, and I would not want to read a story reframing the dead to have torturous afterlives either.
OK, I see what you're saying, but I don't think that's what the story was doing.
The story suggested at the end that in fact it was that moment of terror that had been excised from the memories of the souls who went on to the afterlife. Remember, the protagonist didn't recall anything of who she was, because the protagonist of this story was a ghost of the memory of the death, rather than the person. Would YOU want to go on in the afterlife with the memory of your horrific end? I sure wouldn't...
There was no peace in the end of this story. There was no conclusion or resolution. Just an entire afterlife of pain, relieved only for a confusing few moments between falls. Ghosts trapped in an endless loop of the few minutes before and after their death with no memory of who they are, their lives, anything to give them any sort of relief or explanation of their situation is not a blessing. The ghosts not knowing who they are or anything beyond their own fall and whatever they can glean from their times between falls, makes their plight even more horrific. The concept that the rest of their essence is off someplace else, presumably existing in a better place than the ghosts this story followed is a terrifying and horrific thought to me. Every person is exactly who they are today because of all of the events in their lives that have affected and changed them. One cannot simply get rid of certain aspects of themselves because it is uncomfortable or scary. As a person who has wrestled with self-destructive behavior, depression, and suicide, I have certain memories I would really like to forget and certain aspects to my character I would really like to change. But I cannot forget or discard part of myself, I have had to learn to live with and accept who I am as a whole. I know that acceptance not possible for everyone, but I believe that even your death is a part of you, so to have something that is a part of you, all be it an extremely painful part of you, taken away thoroughly disgusts me.
As far as having to forget about the ghosts to make them disappear, that is also a disturbing thought. Honoring the memory of lost lives and remembering tragic events is a coping mechanism for the living as a means to find closure and help to teach future generations the painful lessons of the past. I cannot get behind a story that actually encourages people to forget about the victims and the tragedy.
I agree with Scattercat, there was no need for it to be 9/11, the story would have been just as horrific without that added bit of information. 9/11 did NOT just affect Manhattan, or New York City.
That being said, I do appreciate the warning at the beginning of the story, but I just could not enjoy this one at all.
And as a current resident of New Orleans, I am terrified for the next podcast.
-
Calculating, I'm going to have to step in here with my moderator hat on and tell you to remember the forums One Rule (http://forum.escapeartists.net/index.php?topic=3289.0). Saying you find the story offensive is fine, attacking the author is not.
-
There was no peace in the end of this story. There was no conclusion or resolution.
The "protagonist" would disagree with you, I think. At least that's how I perceived her thoughts and actions at the end. Also, remember the other ghosts eventually disappeared, when people "forgot" them. And by forgot, the story, to my mind, doesn't mean the person, but the horror of how the person died (since these spectres are really just that, an echo of those awful few moments). My perception of the story was that as the world in general "moved on" as it were, so too would these fragmentary spirits. If looking at it that way helps at all.
-
And by forgot, the story, to my mind, doesn't mean the person, but the horror of how the person died (since these spectres are really just that, an echo of those awful few moments). My perception of the story was that as the world in general "moved on" as it were, so too would these fragmentary spirits. If looking at it that way helps at all.
how do you forget the horror of how a person died and still recall the event? the horror is part of the event, it is what makes the event significant. its doesn't make us comfortable to think about and i'm sure many people would like to forget certain details and aspects, but like i said before, you cannot dissect something (person, event, blog post, etc.) and still have the feelings/results/lessons learned/what have you. life does not work that way, there are no singular events. take the narrator-ghost for example. she didn't know if she was good or bad, but in the end reasoned that her soul was "spared" the memory of her death. what about the parts of her that were bad? what about the good parts of her? are we to assume she retains her good and bad memories, as she retained her memories of the last few moment of her life? in this weird afterlife does every person's soul get split up, evil-memories-you ghost being tortured without knowledge you were ever good, while good-memories-you ghost lives in bliss? and if this ghost world is based on living memory, does evil-memories-you ghost disappear when everyone alive forgets your evils? or good-memories-you ghost go away when all the good you did is forgotten? and what about relative-morally-right-memories-you ghost vs. legally-wrong-memories-you ghost. are you even you after all of that breaking up? and props to anyone else who can follow this line of thought
-
Who can say what else happens in the suggested afterlife? That wasn't really what the story was about IMHO. But it does make for some interesting speculation. By forget I meant more.. moved on, didn't focus on it as much. I would think that for the sake of sanity you'd have to stop focusing on that aspect of the loss eventually. Rather than just erase it from your mind, that's not what I meant.
I'm probably being too vague. Having a bit of trouble putting what I mean into words.
-
i think i understand what you're trying to say, and in reality that's how it works. we grow around the pain accepting or rejecting it, but still moving beyond it. however in the story the other ghosts specifically say "forget", and more than once. and as far as moving on goes, if it were just simply accepting the pain, remembering the victims not just for the specific pain of how they died or focusing on the aspects of their deaths, and eventually moving on, why were the other ghosts around still? the little boy ghost that jumped into the river, he should have disappeared long ago, same with the factory girls. people don't hold vigils for them anymore, their jumps were not recorded and played in the media. any living memory of their jump is long dead and gone, so why are they still there? and why just jumpers? of all of the violent crime that has happened in new york, why do only people falling to their deaths get that painful ghost part of them removed?
or am i just spending way too much time analyzing this story cause i still can't figure out why it bothered me so much?
-
I think its not unreasonable to ask those questions, and its possible I'm inserting my own meaning into the story. I don't know; I found the story moving, not disturbing. Just trying to clarify why I suppose, but it's a bit challenging to do, just as you say its hard for you to say why it upset you so. That's frequently the way of things with extremely emotional subjects.
-
i think i understand what you're trying to say, and in reality that's how it works. we grow around the pain accepting or rejecting it, but still moving beyond it. however in the story the other ghosts specifically say "forget", and more than once. and as far as moving on goes, if it were just simply accepting the pain, remembering the victims not just for the specific pain of how they died or focusing on the aspects of their deaths, and eventually moving on, why were the other ghosts around still? the little boy ghost that jumped into the river, he should have disappeared long ago, same with the factory girls. people don't hold vigils for them anymore, their jumps were not recorded and played in the media. any living memory of their jump is long dead and gone, so why are they still there? and why just jumpers? of all of the violent crime that has happened in new york, why do only people falling to their deaths get that painful ghost part of them removed?
or am i just spending way too much time analyzing this story cause i still can't figure out why it bothered me so much?
A) The other events were still remembered - written down in history books, etc. - just not strongly remembered. The story implied that the "echoes" grew more vivid and more focused on the moment of death when the living were still strongly attached to them, and the more distant that connection, the more freedom the "echoes" had and the less they were tied to the time and place of their deaths.
B) Why only falling people? I suspect that was part of the overall theme of "The universe is unfair and incomprehensible and full of pointless suffering. What will you do about that?" The story posits a protagonist whose eventual answer is, "I will stop caring about myself and try to help others feel better despite the awfulness." Other people may have different answers.
-
Still goes back to the issue of being remembered. Horrific events are remembered throughout history because they have valuable lessons for the living on how to prevent other horrific events from happening in the same manner. If we choose to forget these events in order to spare the victims we loose the significance of the event and their deaths truly are meaningless. If we "move on" while still remembering the event but choosing not to think about the victims death, we're not forgetting the victims allowing them to fade away and the signifigance of their deaths is decreased. If we continue to remember the event, the victims, the lesson, and the horror, the ghosts fall eternally with no reprieve. There is no peace or somewhat happy ending to this story. See the problem?
I can accept the "universe is unfair so just deal with it" response for why only jumpers have ghosts, but it really feels too simplistic to me. It just makes sense that there would be other ghosts besides jumpers. The only thing I can think of is that these ghosts cannot see or communicate with each other if they died in a different way. I had not looked at the story that way as a sacrificial story of personal comfort for the greater good, but even that feeling cannot persist for eternity. Eventually all the people personally affected by the event will pass away and the memorials will be less personal and more educational. And then we return to the issue of being remembered
-
I'm sorry, Ocicat, but in the interests of watching the watchers... how, exactly did Calculating attack the author? I reread it again to see what I missed, but I'm just not seeing it. It seems to be right on track with critiquing the content and context of the story. I see no direct attack on the author.
Thanks!
-Adam
P.S. - or was there a removed comment that I'm no longer seeing...?
P.P.S. - Ah, I see there was an edit on the post. Most likely so. If this is the case, please disregard...
Calculating, I'm going to have to step in here with my moderator hat on and tell you to remember the forums One Rule (http://forum.escapeartists.net/index.php?topic=3289.0). Saying you find the story offensive is fine, attacking the author is not.
-
If we continue to remember the event, the victims, the lesson, and the horror, the ghosts fall eternally with no reprieve. There is no peace or somewhat happy ending to this story. See the problem?
You're being a little too reductionist. This isn't D&D. You can't rules-lawyer the DM by pointing out that the Everflowing Flask is one "vessel" and the "Bless Water" spell specifically targets "one vessel" and not any preset amount of water. In other words, the story posits that victims of a tragedy become ghosts locked into that moment of tragedy, and that the more people think about them, the stronger the bonds holding them to that pain. This is a broader metaphor for the idea of tragedy, suggesting that much of the pain we suffer is the pain we feel ourselves in remembering and thinking about the tragedy, and that this pain is not what our departed friends and family members would want us to feel. You are reading the story and extracting the rules, but then you're applying them as though they were written down in a book and subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court of Tragedy Ghosts, and you're then becoming upset by the nth-iteration conclusions you're drawing.
If you read (listen to) the story closely, it's pretty clear what's going on thematically: the protagonist comes to grips with her suffering and concocts a meaning for herself in the midst of a confusing and patently unfair situation. The specific metaphysical details (only jumpers? personal or impersonal memories?) aren't really relevant, much less clear or unambiguous or written in stone. The protagonist doesn't know that she really is a shard left behind; she's guessing just as much as anyone else. She chooses to believe that because it gives her a frame for dealing with her situation and working for the good of herself and others.
-
You're being a little too reductionist. This isn't D&D. You can't rules-lawyer the DM by pointing out that the Everflowing Flask is one "vessel" and the "Bless Water" spell specifically targets "one vessel" and not any preset amount of water. In other words, the story posits that victims of a tragedy become ghosts locked into that moment of tragedy, and that the more people think about them, the stronger the bonds holding them to that pain. This is a broader metaphor for the idea of tragedy, suggesting that much of the pain we suffer is the pain we feel ourselves in remembering and thinking about the tragedy, and that this pain is not what our departed friends and family members would want us to feel. You are reading the story and extracting the rules, but then you're applying them as though they were written down in a book and subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court of Tragedy Ghosts, and you're then becoming upset by the nth-iteration conclusions you're drawing.
If you read (listen to) the story closely, it's pretty clear what's going on thematically: the protagonist comes to grips with her suffering and concocts a meaning for herself in the midst of a confusing and patently unfair situation. The specific metaphysical details (only jumpers? personal or impersonal memories?) aren't really relevant, much less clear or unambiguous or written in stone. The protagonist doesn't know that she really is a shard left behind; she's guessing just as much as anyone else. She chooses to believe that because it gives her a frame for dealing with her situation and working for the good of herself and others.
You lost me with the D&D reference, but I think I understand your meaning. I guess I'm looking too closely at the rules and possibility. Like I said before, I'm probably over analyzing because I STILL cannot figure out why this story got under my skin so much. I still cannot get around the idea of forgetting the victims or the pain or horror or whatever. I think it's that idea coupled with the eternal suffering of the innocent, which goes back to the idea of "the universe is unjust". I'm making myself dizzy with my own logic.
Acpracht, there was an edit to remove the offending comments. However I was responding to the author's own post on the feedback, and personally I feel that if authors want to be involved inthe comments on their stories they should not be exempt from criticism. That being said I will still abide by the rules and play nice.
-
Calculating, I do appreciate you grappling with this story and posting your thoughts, especially considering it was such a difficult story for you. Thanks! I realize this was a difficult story, and I've been reading through all the feedback and commentary with great interest. Hell, I've already started putting together the feedback segment for this ep. You people are awesome.
Acpracht, there was an edit to remove the offending comments. However I was responding to the author's own post on the feedback, and personally I feel that if authors want to be involved inthe comments on their stories they should not be exempt from criticism. That being said I will still abide by the rules and play nice.
FWIW, it's fine to criticize authors (and readers) in these forums, even when said authors/readers are participating in the conversation. God knows it happens all the time, and our authors (I think) generally appreciate the amount of feedback their stories receive here. That said, there's a difference between criticizing the story the author wrote, and criticizing and/or attacking the author in question. Ocicat mentioned our One Rule (http://forum.escapeartists.net/index.php?topic=3289.0) because it felt like you were doing the latter.
Let's direct further comments about moderation and what's appropriate to metachat (http://forum.escapeartists.net/index.php?board=13.0) (feel free to start a new thread), and talk about the story here. Otherwise, carry on. :)
-
I feel I must point out that I pulled the Decanter of Endless Water (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Decanter_of_Endless_Water)/Bless Water (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Bless_water) trick once. My Str 6 Dex 10 cleric fought off a half-dozen ghouls single-handedly with that maneuver and the judicious application of the "geyser" option.
-
jumping in late on this story, because I only just got round to listening to it. My life has been beyond hectic in the last few weeks.
I must say i wasn't really a fan of this story. I didn't find it offensive, nor did it anger me, I just found is slightly underwhelming. I guess the reason i disliked it can be best explained with reference to this week's story about Hurricane Katrina, so some very minor spoilers are coming up if you've not listened to that yet.
The think about Saints and Sinners (ect) is that it will still be a very effective and meaningful story in ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred years. It won't matter that the disaster has long faded into history, the story will still be tragic and it will still effect the people who read it in a deep and meaningful way. Meanwhile, once 9/11 fades from our collective consciousness (and it will, eventually), this story will lose its effect. It will not be a deep, meaningful tale of tragedy and loss. People wont have long discussion threads about it and no-one will refuse to listen to in because it touches a nerve.
The problem with this story is that it feeds of the fact that 9/11 is still very raw, especially in the USA. As a Brit, i don't have anywhere near the same emotional link with 9/11, so this story really didn't do much for me. It was interesting for a while, but it never really picked up. It made no effort to connect with me and draw me into the story. It seems to be written on the assumption that 9/11 is a sensitive issue for the reader/listener (a pretty safe assumption in the USA atm). By contrast Saints and Sinners drew me in and made me sympathize with people in a disaster to which i have no personal connection. Something actually happened beyond the initial shock of the disaster itself, whereas this story was stuck in that single moment of shock, without ever going past it and trying to draw people into the story for the human element. We never related to the falling girl and no plot to speak of ever happened, so i was left wondering why i should care, beyond the fact that I have great sympathy for everyone effected by 9/11
I guess the best way to summarize my thoughts on both stories is to say that Saints and Sinners would be effective, even if it wasn't about Hurricane Katrina, whereas Ghosts of New York would be far less effective if it were about anything other than 9/11.
-
Mark me down as a fan of this story and of it's author. It's brave material.
One thing I think has been missed in the comments here is the nature of ghost stories. I'm far from an expert, but isn't the major cause of ghosts a violent or unjust death? Don't the ghosts usually have to come to some sort of resolution over this before they can find peace? If that is the case, then events like September 11 and the Triangle Shirt Factory fire would produce a lot of ghosts.
That said, I do think iamafish is right about this story vs. Saints and Sinners which is the better story. I do hope that PodCastle will continue to run stories like these. Not every week, or even every month, but every once-in-a-while.
-
This is the first time that I have bothered to comment. I listened to this story today, after hearing Osama Bin Laden had been killed. So the events of 9/11 have been on my mind since Sunday night. I'm a New Yorker, I guess. I have lived here in Manhattan since 1988, the longest time I have lived at any one location my entire life. I was here in 1993 and had friends that were in the WTC building when it was bombed. I was here on 9/11 at work when my mother called me from the west coast to tell me that a plane had flown into the WTC and sat in a conference room all morning watching it all play out. All my relatives were close calls. My sister-in-law had the sense to evacuate after the first plane hit directly across from her on the opposite building. Information was so scattered, I did not know if my brother who was visiting and flying out that morning was in any of the planes; he wasn't. Near misses all.
This story made me cry. I almost stopped listening, at the beginning. I wasn't offended. It was certainly thought provoking. I certainly appreciated the inclusion of the other disasters from NYC history (100th anniversary 3/25/2011 of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire) to balance the horror of 9/11.
I guess I consider myself lucky. I experience the fear and shock of the event, but not the deep grief of those who actually lost friends and family. If I had, maybe I would feel differently about this story.
-
A very interesting story. I enjoyed it for the most part. I think that the ending went on a bit longer than I needed. At the moment she turned to a fellow "jumper", I was satisfied that the main character had changed enough to satisfy me. But, it was still a good story.
I appreciated the author's willingness to take an old convention: that ghosts are shadows reenacting their lives and/or deaths to its logical conclusion with the 9/11 deaths. Somehow, most ghosts stories don't stop to ask how ghosts feel about reliving their lives over and over. But then, most modern ghosts stories treat the ghost as an unconscious recording of an event, not as an actual sentient being reliving an event.
I also appreciated that she was able to wrestle a "happy" ending out of this story. It was possible that she could have ended with the protagonist merely accepting her fate. Instead, she finds a way to both accept her fate but also help a survivor and a fellow jumper. Good job!
-
I appreciated the author's willingness to take an old convention: that ghosts are shadows reenacting their lives and/or deaths to its logical conclusion with the 9/11 deaths. Somehow, most ghosts stories don't stop to ask how ghosts feel about reliving their lives over and over. But then, most modern ghosts stories treat the ghost as an unconscious recording of an event, not as an actual sentient being reliving an event.
This distinction is one of the prime points in Nigel Kneale's THE STONE TAPE ("does she walk?")
-
This probably won't be one of those stories I listen to over and over. It was rough. I cried. I got some catharis out of it. And I appreciate the bravery of the author for writing the story, and Podcastle for airing it. Thank you. And thank you for the warnings beforehand, also.
I do want to say that the whole bothersome plot point about the ghosts persisting until they are forgotten? That theory was postulated by the ghosts themselves, who clearly didn't know what was going on and were trying to figure it all out. when human beings (perhaps even psychic echoes of human beings) are confronted by something incomprehensible, they make up a story. That's how religions and superstitions can be constructed. So here we have this not-quite-a-community of ghosts, constructing a religion of sorts to explain their situation.
There's blame in the story they created, which makes sense, considering the story was created by these angry, hurting beings - it's the fault of the living people, who won't forget us! Why won't they forget us!
I am a living person, affected by tragedy. I *cannot* necessarily forget the dead, and am not convinced the dead are best served by forgetting. So it's a horribly disturbing explanation they came up with. But in my reading of the story, I did not get the sense, even in story rules, that it was the true explanation.
We never really know why the ghosts are there. We don't even know that our protagonist's comforting theories at the end are right. It's the dead, trying to make sense of the tragedy. As we all must do.
-
Wow, this was a rough one and I appreciated the warning at the front.
On the one hand, I'd like to be able to take a step back and discuss the story for itself, like we'd do if it was set at the scene of a made up tragedy in a made-up world. But I figure the author would have written that story instead, if that was what she wanted. So I'm left with trying to wrap my head and heart around this story, and that's just hard.
I will say that as much as I don't like this version of the afterlife (specifically the torture part, not the waiting to be forgotten part*), I thought it was treated well and personally I wasn't offended by it. I think I'll be mulling this one over for a while.
*I've previously heard a story in which everyone who dies goes into a cafeteria-like holding room and has to sit around and wait until the last time that anyone will ever utter their name. This really sucks for people like Einstein and anyone who gets incorporated into a local legend (think Mrs. O'Leary of the Great Chicago Fire), but in this story they're only bored, not tortured.
-
*I've previously heard a story in which everyone who dies goes into a cafeteria-like holding room and has to sit around and wait until the last time that anyone will ever utter their name. This really sucks for people like Einstein and anyone who gets incorporated into a local legend (think Mrs. O'Leary of the Great Chicago Fire), but in this story they're only bored, not tortured.
The book is called "Sum" by David Eagleman, by the way, and it's excellent.
-
*I've previously heard a story in which everyone who dies goes into a cafeteria-like holding room and has to sit around and wait until the last time that anyone will ever utter their name. This really sucks for people like Einstein and anyone who gets incorporated into a local legend (think Mrs. O'Leary of the Great Chicago Fire), but in this story they're only bored, not tortured.
The book is called "Sum" by David Eagleman, by the way, and it's excellent.
Thank you! I think I originally heard it read on one of my podcasts, but I had no idea when/where, so now I can check out the whole collection :D
-
I think what I found uncomfortable in this story were the implications that could be drawn from the details as presented.
Firstly, all the ghosts were fallers. While this might simply be evidence of the universe being random and uncaring as some of you have suggested, there is a more sinister interpretation. Regardless of the circumstances, deliberately jumping from a tall building is suicide. According to some theologies that's a mortal sin; sin enough to damn the soul to perdition for all eternity.
This may not be at all what Ms. Pelland intended when she wrote the story, but it was the first thing that jumped to my mind and I felt that it overshadowed the deeper meaning of the piece.
I was also slightly disturbed by the idea that ghosts linger in this tortured state until they are forgotten (irrespective of whether the whole ghost lingers or just the echo of the person's death). I think using this concept in combination with a disaster that remains so fresh in the memory of many was... unwise.
Finally, I was dissatisfied with the protagonist's sudden 'realisation' that she was just the echo of her death and that her 'real' self may have gone on to a better afterlife. To me this smacked of wishful thinking that had no effect on her tortured existence, only offered false comfort.
There was no happy ending here.
-
Wow, just listened to Dave's tortured covering of the feedback on this episode, and I had to come and see the thread for myself. It isn't nearly as terrible as I feared it would be, too many people take things too personally.
Terrible things happen all the time. I have known people who died in car crashes, gun shots, wars, accidents, suicides and one person who died on 9/11. The pain of losing someone due to a terrorist act is no greater or lesser than any other way, and if an author wants to use this point of history as a way to draw us into the suffering of one soul, more power to her. If it had been some mentally ill person who was our "protagonist" for this story, it would have felt like a moral condemnation of the main character. Since it was someone forced into a terrible choice, in a way that nearly every American could identify how such a choice could be made (and with our knowledge of the outcome of the choice to not jump) it is instead a haunting story, and a damn fine one.
You have every right to be offended, and go ahead and choose not to follow this author anymore, but realize that life is not here to make you feel warm and comfortable all the time, and being challenged with difficult subject material is part of life.
Editors and Author: Keep making the hard choices when it feels right. You don't need to always find a happy ending, even if it is in the fantasy genre.
-
Hi Atras,. I'm glad you enjoyed the story, I did as well!
I would suggest telling others to "grow up" is not perhaps the most polite way of saying you disagree with their point of view, though. I know if someone told that to me, I'd get defensive/annoyed rather than acknowledge any point you made. I thought you made your point quite clearly in the rest of your post. :)
-
I'd get defensive/annoyed rather than acknowledge any point you made.
This. Due to forum rules, I will not say what I really want to say. But, seriously, have some tact and class.
-
Talia, thanks for the head's up. Gamercow, I edited it so that my feelings don't get in the way of my message. Feel free to PM me what you really want to say, I can handle it.
-
I edited it so that my feelings don't get in the way of my message.
I like it much better now. Thanks for taking the time!
One thing you might consider (if not this occasion, then if you find yourself editing another post in the future) is a short note to indicate the nature of your edit, particularly if you change/excise something that someone refers to downstream.
Also, in case no one has already pointed you in that direction, here's (http://forum.escapeartists.net/index.php?topic=3289.0) a post that says more about tone in posts, though I think Talia did a really good job of getting the idea across.
Edit: Added the link, plus this illustrative example. ;)
-
I'm listening to this story now, but wanted to make my comments while it's still fresh in my mind.
I had the advantage of reading this story first a couple of weeks ago when I bought a copy of Dark Faith, which is a collection of horror and dark fantasy stories exploring the nature of faith. This was the first story in the anthology, and when I read it, I wondered, how is this considered horror?
The extent of my 9/11 experience was living near O'hare Airport and having all the planes grounded. For me, the terror and fear of that day was looking the sky and seeing no planes at all. I remember fearing for my boss, who was traveling overseas. And I remember watching the planes hit the buildings and the towers fall, but through the remove of the TV screen.
In some ways, hearing this brings back those feelings, but putting it in a more meaningful context. While I was reading the story, I still felt a little removed because it's easy to skip over the passages that make you uncomfortable. Not so in audio form. I'm finding it very hard to listen to the story, even though I was fine reading it, even thinking arrogantly, "Well, that was a tame story." (and trust me, compared to some of the other stories in the anthology, it *did* feel quite time. Get Dark Faith if you like to get scared out of your wits. Brr.) There is something about the audio form of a story where you hear the emotion, and its all the more stronger. Two weeks after I read this story, I had a chance to do a reading with K. Tempest Bradford at Wiscon, who read a story of hers that also deals with 9/11. Although the setting isn't in New York, more of an Ethiopian setting, it was so strong and visceral it left me devastated. Devasted. And it was quite the powerful story.
So I'm not surprised that this story brought out a lot of strong emotion. Personally, I thought it was very well done. Oddly, in listening to it, I can't help but now think, "Man, why wasn't this put on Psuedopod?"
-
Oddly, in listening to it, I can't help but now think, "Man, why wasn't this put on Psuedopod?"
And the answer is...ding! ding! "Wasn't submitted to us"!
-
I liked this take on tramatic deaths. It was obviously a story that started with the twin tower attacks and got expanded from there. It was tasteful and ultimately uplifting, even if butal in some areas. I really enjoyed and it will stick with me. It gave me a new perspective on a topic I may have spent a little too much time thinking about.
-
I'm not unhappy that I listened to this story, but I'm not going to share this one with the wife. I'm pretty confident that she would be on the viscerally negative side of the feedback.
Something that I see recurring in the feedback here is folks mistaking that the only ghosts were of jumpers. That's all the protagonist saw at the beginning, but I recall other ghosts from other tragedies (floods and fires) becoming upset because they had almost been forgotten.
-
The other tragedy ghosts explicitly told the protagonist that only people who died of jumping stayed as ghosts. Those ghosts jumped from burning buildings, boats, bridges, etc.
-
The other tragedy ghosts explicitly told the protagonist that only people who died of jumping stayed as ghosts. Those ghosts jumped from burning buildings, boats, bridges, etc.
There's a good chance I misremembered or misinterpreted what I heard. But I'm not engaged enough to relisten to the story to confirm one way or the other.
-
I'm planning on giving this a listen today...