Author Topic: EP176: How The World Became Quiet: A Post-Human Creation Myth  (Read 29325 times)

stePH

  • Actually has enough cowbell.
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3906
  • Cool story, bro!
    • Thetatr0n on SoundCloud
Reply #25 on: September 23, 2008, 06:40:14 PM
Just for whatever it's worth to the people who were wondering why I used the word "man" instead of "people" -- it was a reference to translations of indigenous mythologies which I'd been reading at the time, which are about humans coming from races of anthroporphized animals. The editor of Electric Velocipede asked me if I wanted to change it to "humans" or "people" for inclusivity, but I liked the mythological sound of "men" which I felt went with the story's tone, so I declined to make the change. That's just what I intended of course; people are welcome to their own interpretations.

You're only the author -- what do you know?  ;D

"Nerdcore is like playing Halo while getting a blow-job from Hello Kitty."
-- some guy interviewed in Nerdcore Rising


Ocicat

  • Castle Watchcat
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3722
  • Anything for a Weird Life
Reply #26 on: September 23, 2008, 08:12:19 PM
The story had me when it mentioned that there were two apocalypses of "despite certain promises to the contrary" or something to that effect.   That set the tone as silly and irreverent, but smart.  And it would be just like Jehovah to go back on his word about something like that...

It also set it up as not really a Science Fiction story.  Which I'm fine with, of course.  And indeed, the whole thing was as implausible as the millennium is long, but it was good absurdist fun. 



thomasowenm

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 364
  • Servant of The Orator Maleficent
Reply #27 on: September 24, 2008, 10:00:12 PM
Wow I have such a headache from being constantly bludgened with the wickedness of humanity and their agenda of environmental destruction.   On a lighter note however, in order to save humanity,  all tree huggers: Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and others need to be executed as traitors to humanity.  Defoliate now!!!   



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #28 on: September 24, 2008, 11:21:22 PM
Ok, I should start by saying that while I really like Rachel as an editor, what I've seen/heard of her as an author so far convinced me she's not really to my taste. All of her stories I were exposed to so far seem to have overt political messages which feel like over-simplified versions of my own views. Hearing your own views reduced to platitudes is fine when politicians do it, but it's really irritating when it comes from literature.

This story fits the mold, in part. There were a handful of moments that I really felt like groaning loudly, and I probably would have if I were listening to it at home rather than a crowded train. But between those moments? I really loved the imagery, and the mythological tone. And while I would have been happier if the trees, having mastered slow arts of speaking, would have had something better to say than cliches, overall I felt the story was a great success.

Also, awesome reading.



Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #29 on: September 25, 2008, 12:03:38 AM
Quote
overt political messages

Well, this is another one of those moments when being the author is weird. When I was writing the story, an environmentalist or "humans are evil" message was seriously not in the equation (on the other hand, the idea that most "apocalypses" aren't apocalypses at all, but just new beginnings in slightly altered forms, was on my mind... I had intended to make fun of the idea of apocalypses). While there are a lot of good reasons for environmentalism, I would be seriously concerned if this story *did* change anyone's behavior. I really don't believe the trees will persecute anyone. ;)

My intention was to enter a world where weird things were happening and take it on its own terms, not to imply that world was literally our own.

The initial round of reviews and such for this story didn't seem to find a political message, but I wonder whether that's because the original setting in which this story was published was a forum well-known for surrealist stories rather than for science fiction, so people were expecting more playfulness in terms of what was "real?"



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #30 on: September 25, 2008, 12:12:21 AM
This is also one of the moments were familiarity with the author is weird, in the sense that I can't tell what part of my reaction to the story arises from the story itself and what from the outside context where I've read other fiction by you, and more importantly, I've listened to quite a few editorials by you and read quite a lot you've written on the forum. This story does appear to me to fit in a more general pattern, but such a pattern is never indepedent from the vantage point of the person observing it.



slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #31 on: September 25, 2008, 02:43:45 AM
I think it is the well known case of a reader's personal interpretation when given less specific, vivid details. 

Like dreams, when there is a theme, the listener will have their own interpretation, and when listening our brains will grab onto specific words or what words we think should be there (see Rachael's comment about sisters "below"). 
When allie heard ButterflyMan and CockroachMan, etc she saw it as chauvinism. Rachael explained what she was going for (see below "Just for whatever it's worth to the people who were wondering why I used the word "man" instead of "people"...") - and having loved reading ERB's Mars series and other of that time period, my take happened to line up with the author's.
The enviro theme is another example.  I did take it that way a bit, but that's because of, imho, the current and often overwhelming "we must save the enviroment " sense sci-fi/fantasy can have.



CammoBlammo

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 199
Reply #32 on: September 25, 2008, 11:38:06 AM
I enjoyed this piece, and I must say I am a bit surprised at some of the negative comments. I can understand people not liking it---it's not your usual sci-fi fare, after all. I have two reactions to this discussion:

First, I'm normally the one who complains about a misplaced -man in conversation. However, it seemed to fit right into the Stapledon-esque style of the piece, and it didn't jump out at me. As others have said references to the cockroach-people just wouldn't work. Given that Rachel has been accused of being overly feminist around these here parts, I think we can let it go.

Second, I didn't get that the story was overly moralistic. To me it was a frank admission that humans won't always be the dominant species on this planet. Whether we kill ourselves off, evolve (naturally or technologically) into something else or simply leave there will always be something else ready to fill our ecological niche. If it happens to be trees, well, I won't be too upset!



Hatton

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
    • Front Porch Political Talk
Reply #33 on: September 25, 2008, 07:15:25 PM
Wow I have such a headache from being constantly bludgened with the wickedness of humanity and their agenda of environmental destruction.
I don't think it was so much an environmentalist message, rather that it would take less to piss of trees than a mountain.

I liked the story, I LOVED the reading and that makes so much of the story for me.  My favorite part was when the insect-men take over and the trees spoke again: "Well, that didn't take long!"

To be truthful, though, my mind is now going along a tangent of how many volumes of dead trees could be filled with stores of "what happened between now and then."  This is the same problem that we get with a lot of PodCastle episodes, there's a whole world to explore and we only have a 30 minute window into it.  I *love* the idea of the Giants that PodCastle has started with and I hope we get to see them on EP as well!

Normal is just a setting on the washing machine.


Corydon

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Reply #34 on: September 25, 2008, 07:24:05 PM
I have to say, the notion of the story having an "overt political message" is downright silly.  The only judgments that could be called "political" come from the mouths branches of trees.  And it's hardly outrageous to imagine that trees might have a different perspective on human behavior than humans do... exploring those different perspectives is what science fiction is supposed to do.



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #35 on: September 25, 2008, 07:42:27 PM
I have to say, the notion of the story having an "overt political message" is downright silly.  The only judgments that could be called "political" come from the mouths branches of trees.  And it's hardly outrageous to imagine that trees might have a different perspective on human behavior than humans do... exploring those different perspectives is what science fiction is supposed to do.

Ah, but there's the rub. The trees didn't have a "different perspective". They have a perspective I've heard many, many times before. Hell, it's a perspective I myself share to a significant degree. Sure, SF is about exploring different perspective, and it is equally about exploring familair perspectives by placing them in unfamiliar contexts. Making the judges of humanity's nature be trees certainly qualifies. But that doesn't make it any less political.

Real trees might have a different perspective, but unless Rachel and Steve have been lying to us in intros, Rachel isn't a tree. And I don't think she can talk to trees, though I don't have first hand evidence for that. Regardless of the species of her characters, the opinions they express have been thought up by an actual human and worded by the same human.

I should point out that my original comment wasn't intended as a qualitative criticism. As I said, I think this is a very good story. And I think it expresses its political message - intended or not - quite well. And certainly in an SF/fantasy way. But the fact that I can recognize that it's done well doesn't mean it appeals to me.

But saying that it's silly that a story has an overt political message just because that message is expressed in a non-standard way is, it seems to me, a denial of SF's ability to express messages. Which I don't think is what you intended.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2008, 07:45:54 PM by eytanz »



Corydon

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Reply #36 on: September 25, 2008, 09:27:19 PM
You seem to be making the assumption that the author's opinions and those of her characters are identical.  Which isn't necessarily the case (you can easily think of any number of examples of unreliable or biased or just plain different narrators in literature.)  So while the trees have an opinion, it doesn't do justice to the story for us to take it as "overt."  Rather, it's an opinion that's filtered through the experience of the story's characters.

I can think of examples of stories in which the author's political opinions are put into the mouths of characters... those stories are pretty dreary, though.  This one is more subtle, and more interesting.



MacArthurBug

  • Giddy
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 648
  • I can resist anything except temptation
    • undercaffinated
Reply #37 on: September 25, 2008, 09:53:57 PM
Well, I liked it.  This said, there did seem to be lacking a main charactor or even sect of charactors to latch onto. The story wandered a bit far from it's main point in places.  That said, overall, this was a fine piece of fiction.  I also like how we can get reactions and interactions right here with the lady herself. So, thanks Rachel.  This was nice. Keep writing!

Oh, great and mighty Alasdair, Orator Maleficent, He of the Silvered Tongue, guide this humble fangirl past jumping up and down and squeeing upon hearing the greatness of Thy voice.
Oh mighty Mur the Magnificent. I am not worthy.


eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #38 on: September 25, 2008, 10:27:28 PM
You seem to be making the assumption that the author's opinions and those of her characters are identical. 

No, I am making no such assumption. I quite explicitly state (though not in my first post in this thread) that author intentions are not particularly relevant.

I said nothing more and nothing less that, when listening to the story, I percieved an overt political message. That's not a fact about the author or her politics. It's a fact about me, and about the story, and about the interaction between me and the story.

Quote
Which isn't necessarily the case (you can easily think of any number of examples of unreliable or biased or just plain different narrators in literature.)  So while the trees have an opinion, it doesn't do justice to the story for us to take it as "overt."  Rather, it's an opinion that's filtered through the experience of the story's characters.

I don't understand what you mean by this. "Overt" just means "not concealed". The tree's political message was not hidden, they said it out loud. Does the author agree with it? I don't know. Does the story agree with it? I'd say yes, but I certainly am not saying that it's the only valid view.

Let me be entirely clear. I did not mean to say anything like "This story make's the author's opinions overt" (and I don't quite see how what I did say can be construed as meaning that, though maybe that's my failure to communicate). Far from it. What I was trying to say is "this story contains characters spouting their own political agendas in an overt manner that does not appeal to me".

I am certainly able to tell apart a character's actions from the author's. If I responded to a horror story on Psuedopod with "I liked this story, except the overt scenes of torture" I would not be accusing the author of actually being a torturer. Why would my saying "I like this story, except the overt political messages" be taken any differently?
« Last Edit: September 25, 2008, 10:32:31 PM by eytanz »



ajames

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 358
Reply #39 on: September 25, 2008, 10:48:48 PM
Brilliant writing and an interesting story.

Whatever Rachel's intentions when writing it, though, I felt that humanities' wickedness in its mistreatment of the world was being drubbed into me, and it did adversely affect my enjoyment of the story.



Corydon

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Reply #40 on: September 26, 2008, 12:34:30 AM
Let me be entirely clear. I did not mean to say anything like "This story make's the author's opinions overt" (and I don't quite see how what I did say can be construed as meaning that, though maybe that's my failure to communicate). Far from it. What I was trying to say is "this story contains characters spouting their own political agendas in an overt manner that does not appeal to me".

Fair enough.  I misunderstood your comments to mean "this story had a political agenda being pushed by its author", but I see now that that wasn't what you meant.  I certainly agree that the trees have a distinct point of view.  My own feeling is that because that point of view belongs to a character (or set of characters, in this case), there's room for disagreement or reinterpretation.  In other words, it's not lecturing-- something that, for me, would ruin the story.  But that, like your own reaction to the story, falls into the realm of taste.

Also, let me apologize for calling your take on the story "silly."  That was a rude overreaction, and out of line.  I shouldn't have used that language, and I'm sorry I did.



stePH

  • Actually has enough cowbell.
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3906
  • Cool story, bro!
    • Thetatr0n on SoundCloud
Reply #41 on: September 26, 2008, 04:37:05 AM
Real trees might have a different perspective, but unless Rachel and Steve have been lying to us in intros, Rachel isn't a tree. And I don't think she can talk to trees, though I don't have first hand evidence for that.

Stuff and nonsense.  Anybody can talk to trees; King George III of England did it all the time.

Whether the trees actually understand what is said to them, however, is open to debate.  ;D

"Nerdcore is like playing Halo while getting a blow-job from Hello Kitty."
-- some guy interviewed in Nerdcore Rising


Zathras

  • Guest
Reply #42 on: September 26, 2008, 02:33:24 PM
You can talk to yourself.

You can answer yourself.

You can even talk to trees.

It's when the trees start answering that you need to be concerned.



Void Munashii

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 267
  • twitter.com/VOIDMunashii
    • Mallville - A Journal of the Zombie Apocalypse
Reply #43 on: September 26, 2008, 02:58:22 PM
  This was an odd one. I really loved the read, I liked the concept, and a couple of bits of the story itself reminded me of Douglas Adams (although I'm sure the read enhanced that), but I cannot say that this is one of the better stories recently.

  To be fair, I was listening to this one in short chunks during short drives between places while running errands, so maybe it would leave a better impression on me if I listen again all at once, and without someone talking over it every 45 seconds.

"Mallville - A Journal of the Zombie Apocalypse"
http://mallvillestory.blogspot.com


Talia

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2682
  • Muahahahaha
Reply #44 on: September 26, 2008, 04:03:59 PM
unless Rachel and Steve have been lying to us in intros, Rachel isn't a tree.

I should point out its never been specifically said Rachel wasn't a tree.



Dwango

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 166
Reply #45 on: September 26, 2008, 08:10:56 PM
So many big ideas, but no personal interactions.  Its hard to get into a concept piece when you really don't relate to anyone.

I think it could have been more personal if you had someone talking to the trees, asking them why they are doing this destructive action.  Maybe he could be some teacher and... oh, yeah, that was done before.  That didn't work so well for Shyamalan...

Never mind :-)



JoeFitz

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
Reply #46 on: September 27, 2008, 02:49:41 AM
I did enjoy the world-building and the awesome scope of the story, however I thought a few episodes within rung hollow.

The overall trope that humanity is self-destructive seemed heavy-handed and lacked a real discussion of why this was so, or why this human stain was so powerful that it persisted through such enormous expanses of genetic variation. I didn't buy it, but perhaps that was the point (it's a tree telling the story after all). Also seems like a truly bizarre way to end a war. Get your enemy to genetically graft themselves to other species based on the individual characteristics of the person?

Still, it worked.



Rain

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 178
Reply #47 on: September 27, 2008, 12:35:46 PM
unless Rachel and Steve have been lying to us in intros, Rachel isn't a tree.

I should point out its never been specifically said Rachel wasn't a tree.

And so what if she is?  Trees have rights too, i for one dont judge a person by the color of their bark!



Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #48 on: September 27, 2008, 09:39:14 PM
Well, you've all guessed my carefully kept secret.

Excuse me -- my roots are getting dry.



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #49 on: September 29, 2008, 08:00:23 AM
To attack the myth as a factual futuristic condemnation of homo sapiens

Wait, what? I just re-read this entire thread. No-one does that. For one, no one has been attacking the story. Several of us have been criticizing the story, though, but not on the grounds that it is a "factual futuristic condemnation of homo sapiens". It seems to me that everyone who has a problem with the story's "political" side does so because we feel that the story contains a present condemnation of human nature, which is at odds with the futuristic myth setting. In other words, for me at least, the (only) problem with the story is that some of the tree dialogue made it difficult to for to do what you think I should - I found myself pulled out of imagining I was listening to a myth in the distant future.

I should point out that, having spent quite a few posts here clarifying the negative component of my feedback, I've given it undue influence, so let me also restate that I really liked this story, and that I thought that the majority of it worked really well, and was enjoyable, imaginative and overall great.