Escape Artists
July 26, 2014, 10:10:40 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
  Print  
Author Topic: EP136: Bright Red Star  (Read 19397 times)
FNH
Matross
****
Posts: 309


F Napoleon H


WWW
« Reply #60 on: December 18, 2007, 02:24:42 PM »

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!

Logged

Swamp
Hipparch
******
Posts: 2217



WWW
« Reply #61 on: December 18, 2007, 02:40:25 PM »

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.
Logged

Facehuggers don't have heads!

Come with me and Journey Into... another fun podcast
Darwinist
Hipparch
******
Posts: 700



« Reply #62 on: December 18, 2007, 02:50:10 PM »

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.
Logged

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.    -  Carl Sagan
Czhorat
Peltast
***
Posts: 135


« Reply #63 on: December 18, 2007, 03:34:17 PM »

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.
Logged

The Word of Nash is the word of Nash and it is Nash's word.
eytanz
Moderator
*****
Posts: 4526



« Reply #64 on: December 18, 2007, 03:46:39 PM »

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.
Logged
Jhite
Palmer
**
Posts: 45



WWW
« Reply #65 on: December 18, 2007, 04:16:40 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 04:37:12 PM by Jhite » Logged

Captain James T. Kirk
I'm sorry I can't here you over the sound of how awesome I am
http://GreatHites.blogspot.com
Russell Nash
Guest
« Reply #66 on: December 18, 2007, 04:30:08 PM »

- 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.

Logged
Czhorat
Peltast
***
Posts: 135


« Reply #67 on: December 18, 2007, 04:34:04 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 04:36:27 PM by Czhorat » Logged

The Word of Nash is the word of Nash and it is Nash's word.
Jhite
Palmer
**
Posts: 45



WWW
« Reply #68 on: December 18, 2007, 04:51:00 PM »

Wow!

Quote
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
Logged

Captain James T. Kirk
I'm sorry I can't here you over the sound of how awesome I am
http://GreatHites.blogspot.com
gelee
Lochage
*****
Posts: 520


It's a missile, boy.


« Reply #69 on: December 18, 2007, 04:54:51 PM »

(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.
Quote
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 Smiley  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.
Logged
Czhorat
Peltast
***
Posts: 135


« Reply #70 on: December 18, 2007, 05:10:24 PM »


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 Smiley  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.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 05:18:16 PM by Russell Nash » Logged

The Word of Nash is the word of Nash and it is Nash's word.
Mr. Tweedy
Lochage
*****
Posts: 497


I am a sloth.


WWW
« Reply #71 on: December 18, 2007, 05:13:25 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 05:15:14 PM by Mr. Tweedy » Logged

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!
eytanz
Moderator
*****
Posts: 4526



« Reply #72 on: December 18, 2007, 05:17:11 PM »

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 Wink (and you've probably been a lot more actively military than I ever was).

Quote
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 Smiley 

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.

Quote from: Czhorat
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Logged
Jhite
Palmer
**
Posts: 45



WWW
« Reply #73 on: December 18, 2007, 05:39:54 PM »

Quote
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.


Quote
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!
« Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 05:46:03 PM by Jhite » Logged

Captain James T. Kirk
I'm sorry I can't here you over the sound of how awesome I am
http://GreatHites.blogspot.com
Czhorat
Peltast
***
Posts: 135


« Reply #74 on: December 18, 2007, 05:44:41 PM »


Quote from: Czhorat
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.
Logged

The Word of Nash is the word of Nash and it is Nash's word.
Swamp
Hipparch
******
Posts: 2217



WWW
« Reply #75 on: December 18, 2007, 05:52:28 PM »

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
Logged

Facehuggers don't have heads!

Come with me and Journey Into... another fun podcast
Jhite
Palmer
**
Posts: 45



WWW
« Reply #76 on: December 18, 2007, 07:41:50 PM »

my quote: no one wants to be a suicide troop.

Quote
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
Logged

Captain James T. Kirk
I'm sorry I can't here you over the sound of how awesome I am
http://GreatHites.blogspot.com
qwints
Peltast
***
Posts: 143


A fine idea, but who bells cat?


« Reply #77 on: December 18, 2007, 07:57:21 PM »

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.
Logged

The lamp flared and crackled . . .
And Nevyrazimov felt better.
Czhorat
Peltast
***
Posts: 135


« Reply #78 on: December 19, 2007, 06:26:53 AM »

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::

Quote
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.
Logged

The Word of Nash is the word of Nash and it is Nash's word.
Jhite
Palmer
**
Posts: 45



WWW
« Reply #79 on: December 19, 2007, 07:17:24 AM »

Quote
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.

Quote
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.   Smiley  Ok bad joke Sad

« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 07:20:01 AM by Jhite » Logged

Captain James T. Kirk
I'm sorry I can't here you over the sound of how awesome I am
http://GreatHites.blogspot.com
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!