EP213: A Monkey Will Never Get Rid of Its Black Hands

[Prank Call of Cthulhu]

If by "unnecessary and insulting language" you mean "a complaint about the poor quality of the audio recording equipment Alasdair uses that causes every single 'S' he utters to become a screeching sibilance that shatters my eardrums," then guilty as charged. Alasdair, please, for the love of Dagon, if you can't get a better microphone, try stretching a fabric or loosely elastic membrane in front of the mic. You're a fine speaker, delightful accent, but your recording equipment is absolutely butchering the reading.

MOD: You were guilty of far worse, but we'll leave it at that.  Your rude and insulting language here is being left as an example of the absolute rudest behavior we allow in the forums.  This is not the blogs.  We try to have civilized conversations here.

[Russell Nash]

::Grumble grumble::
[back pedal] OK, I just finished listening to this one and I realize that an SF non-SF discussion is not totally out of line.  I didn't realize that Al was starting the argument in the outro.  If he'd been nice enough to let me know he was doing that, I would have started a thread in the SF discussion board when I put up this thread.  My apologizes for any crushed toes.[/back pedal]

I took a couple of the posts and started the thread here.

Edit: I back pedaled further.  if you haven't read my edit here, please do so before commenting.

[deflective]

the point is, if a subject is brought up in an episode's intro/outro then it's valid to be discussed in that episode's thread.

you split out the posts that point this out but leave in your post telling people to avoid the topic and all posts that actually discuss the topic.  this doesn't really seem like the act of contrition you're making it out to be.

[Russell Nash]

Yes, more discussion not about the episode.  That's what we need.

I didn't claim to make any great act of contrition.  I back pedaled a bit on some of my harsher attitude. 

SF/nonSF arguments get very pointless, very fast and distract from the rest of the discussion about the story.  I only said I would have had a separate thread ready for the discussion if I had been warned about the outro.  My policy, until someone on the editorial staff tells me differently, is that these discussions are not allowed in the episode threads. 

If you forget why that policy started, I recommend looking back at the threads around episodes 90-100 or so.  It is incredibly dull reading.

Edit:  If you haven't read my edit here, please do so before commenting.  This is the last post I needed to edit.  This argument still holds water under normal conditions.  These weren't normal.  Please return to you regularly scheduled commenting on the story.

[Kanasta]

I thought this was well-written and enjoyed the style; also it was an interesting idea. I couldn't really get the internal logic that made the Handless "heroes" - I just couldn't see why that would be. I also found it hard to believe that so many people would cut off their children's hands. The narrator's uncle was a heavy drinker who had been damaged by his experiences in the civil war, which made his actions more believable, but I just couldn't believe that it would spread like that. Also, is it just me, but is the title of the story a little offensive? I get that it's a proverb, but I dunno, a white woman writing about an African getting his hands cut off and naming the story after A Monkey's Black Hands... just seems a little- insensitive?

[600south]

I quite liked this. Although I couldn't really accept that Americans would start cutting off their childrens' hands to support a war effort, there were enough interesting ideas here to keep me riveted.

The editing slips didn't bother me... if anything they helped me appreciate the work that goes into recording an EP episode. Although when I heard the 'starving Americans' line I wondered if the alternate history was about to introduce a new angle.

And while it wasn't necessarily SF, alternate history stories (especially with a supernatural aspect) have been included in the SF genre for a while now, including other episodes of Escape Pod. So it wasn't out of place.

[shtick]

you know, i don't think this thread is actually about whether the story is sf or not. i think this thread is about whether we are aloud to discuss it. i mean, talk about getting away from talking about the story. i am not even really interested in what sf is or isn't. i just like stories, and think that good ones come from here.

after nash laid down his law, i posted: "it was fantasy: the war ended", which post was moded about half an hour later. now, first, this was a joke, obviously, i though, and further, it was a story-content driven joke. i guess that was not how it was read. but, as i am new to this board and thus forming first impressions, the way i read the response to my response is that this is not a place that i should hang, with my flippant ways.

funny, i thought, since the last thing i posted about was not genre hairsplitting, but the ellen jamesians. ironic?

(note, i am NOT accusing board moderators of having a metaphorical connection with son-mutilating patriarchs through some tenuous connection between the act of silencing i feel was perpetrated on me and the characters in Irving's story and, through previous posts on this board, to the fathers in "Monkey", EXCEPT AS A JOKE. i don't even know the guy. i only know his actions)

Mod: Shtick, my apologies.  Wiseass behavior is always welcome.

[shtick]

I thought this was well-written and enjoyed the style; also it was an interesting idea. I couldn't really get the internal logic that made the Handless "heroes" - I just couldn't see why that would be. I also found it hard to believe that so many people would cut off their children's hands. The narrator's uncle was a heavy drinker who had been damaged by his experiences in the civil war, which made his actions more believable, but I just couldn't believe that it would spread like that.

yeah.  the part that i found most interesting about the premise is how wars that are seemingly far away manage to ratchet up the violence everywhere on a micro level. i liked especially the throwaway line about America recruiting the immigrant children of those wars. i thought this made a good point about the international cycle of violence, and how even it can be co-opted. but there is a big difference between war here and war there still. i thought that this fact made the connection between state violence and the personal violence perpetrated by the fathers in this story twisted in a way that i am not sure i could follow.

[Russell Nash]

If you haven't read my edit here, please do so.  I hope everything can get back on track now.

[kibitzer]

btw @shtick -- Welcome!! (as per my title)

[ajames]

Thanks for moving me back to the thread, Russell - I could hear the crickets chirping in that other thread  FWIW, I don't think the moderators of the forums get paid nearly enough.

One of the things I've enjoyed about escapepod stories is that I can almost always enjoy them on two levels. The first level is the "imagine if" level. Imagine if you were in a spaceport talking to a guy named skinhorse after you had fought a war in Mars, imagine if you were sharing a spaceship with someone gradually losing their sanity, imagine if your memories had been erased for your crimes, and so on. The second level is the mirror that reflects back on us. What does the story with Skinhorse have to say about vets from wars, particularly unsuccessful wars, what does the isolation story have to say about our society, our relationships, what does the memory-erasing story have to say about our judicial system, about the way we behave in general, and so on.

The stories I like best are interesting on both levels, but I've also been thoroughly entertained by stories rich on the first level and weak on the second level. To me, the first level of this story was weak. Not because it wasn't speculative, but because the speculation didn't strike me as that much of a stretch from my current reality. So I got a heavy dose of a mirror highlighting the ugly lines of fracture of my society and the ignoble motivations and deeds of villian and victim alike. The growth of the main character at the end of the story was too little, too late. That was my personal reaction to the story, although I'm sure if I came into it with a different frame of mind or at a different time of life, I'd react very differently, as there was some brilliant writing on exhibition here, too. 

[ajames]

And, finally, it occurs to me that the goal of the author with this story may have been primarily to get the reader to think about things the reader may not want to think about. If so, I'd have to say the author was very successful, at least with me.

[MacArthurBug]

The editing WAS awful. Generally I enjoy hearing Al read- but the pauses and the one (though amusing) flub took me a bit out of the story. My initial reaction to this was "good story, wrong cast" But I got to thinking about how it was an alternate reality. About how we get a lot of crossover pieces. Sometimes a story must strike someone (one of those big EP editors in the sky) as so good they must have it for their cast and damn the critics and the consequences. I think that may be the case behind this piece. I thought it was awful, powerful, at moments dull- but the imagery stuck with me. The ideas were decent. I am starting to wonder if Rachel is getting special treatment- we do get to hear a LOT of her stories, but then we get a lot of stories from repeat writers (Kat Rambo, the excellent Union Dues series, etc) so perhaps I'm seeing more there then I should, could just be her writing isn't to my particular taste. However- I'm rambling. Decent story, I still feel it falls a little short on being sci-fi, but that's just my opinion.

[JeremiahTolbert]

Just popping in real quick to address a couple of things. I understand the discussion about whether or not this is science fiction.  I certainly had that debate myself when considering the story, and ultimately, I felt that it reminded me of a lot of the science fiction I read as a kid (I think maybe it was New Wave?), dealing with social issues rather than rockets or ray guns. It reminds me of a lot of Terry Bisson's work.   But I think it's a personal opinion, and one you are free to disagree with.  I definitely understand why Russell moderated things the way he did as well.  Ordinarily, it's a pretty boring discussion, and one that long-time fans have been over and over.

Please bear in mind that Escape Pod may run things not science fiction from time to time.  Next week, you'll hear something that isn't strictly science fiction, read by Steve, but as Steve argues, it's an Escape Pod story. We think you will agree.  We also have a policy of running sequels to stories that ran on Escape Pod on Escape Pod, regardless of their genre.   I just purchased a follow-up to "The Trouble with Death Traps" which is fantasy.

As far as Rachel getting special consideration, not from me (I can't speak for anyone else).  I rejected several of her stories before accepting this one.  I do like Rachel's work, and I did long before I came on board here. 

And as far as the editing goes, all I can say is we'll do better next time. I think you'll find that this week's episode is a marked improvement.  Try to keep in mind that the team working on these right now are relatively new, so we're going to make mistakes from time to time.   We'll do our best to avoid them.  Part of the problem has been a very small lead time (my own fault, for which I take responsibility), but we're working very hard to get ahead of the schedule right now.  Also, our narrators are volunteers.  They are being very generous with their time, and they may not all be professional, but I hope that in many cases they make up for that with their enthusiasm for the genre.  They are my heroes for what they do, and they save you all from having to listen to *my* horrible voice every week.

Anyway, sorry I don't make it in here more often.  I do read your comments when I can, and I appreciate the feedback.

[Listener]

I am starting to wonder if Rachel is getting special treatment- we do get to hear a LOT of her stories, but then we get a lot of stories from repeat writers (Kat Rambo, the excellent Union Dues series, etc) so perhaps I'm seeing more there then I should, could just be her writing isn't to my particular taste. However- I'm rambling. Decent story, I still feel it falls a little short on being sci-fi, but that's just my opinion.

I think we've heard three Swirsky stories in the past year across all three shows (not including Flash). I don't consider that "a lot". I do think we're hearing a LOT of Kat Rambo, either narrating or writing. Her style I don't like. Swirsky's topics generally aren't to my taste, but I don't have a huge problem with her style.

[Wilson Fowlie]

This is somewhat off topic, except that Rachel's website is linked from her name in the original post.  I clicked on it to see what was new, and what's new is that the site looks like it has been hacked.  (The clue is the black page with the word 'HACKED!" in large white letters...)

I'm posting this here in the hopes that Rachel is checking this thread occasionally, or someone who has phone access to her can let her know right away, in case it matters to her.

[kibitzer]

Jeremiah, good to hear from you. Thanks for taking the time to explain stuff.

[MasterThief]

Sorry to make my first forum story comment harsh, but here goes.  Editing issues and SF/notSF discussions aside (I would posit that if you have to spend more than three minutes explaining why a story is SF, it's not SF), this was a weak story.

1.  Good alternate history is plausible alternate history.  I find it highly unlikely that Americans are going to adopt the tactics of the RUF from Sierra Leone in dealing with pacifists and conscientious objectors during wartime.  The RUF were mindless drug-addled teenage thugs that lopped off limbs for sport and boredom.  That part Rachel got right.  But that tribalist cultural context simply could not get transplanted to the pluralist United States.  That kind of casual cruelty is all but taboo here, particularly parents and older relatives attacking children or younger siblings.  I personally believe Fomba would not have lasted five years in prison after mutilating a family member, and there certainly would have been no copycat crimes.  I understand what Swirsky was trying to say with this analogy, but it can't take the load of the story.  Ultimately, it was a distraction.

2.  The characters were a turnoff.  The main character was a static, pessimist a**hole save for the last two minutes of the story, and the supporting characters all stayed static throughout.  (Barry, the supposed foil, did little better by being a static, optimist a**hole.)

3.  I'm not asking for a happy ending to every story, but this story marinates in its own nihilism and cynicism.  The characters don't change, the world doesn't change, wars go on without end and end without meaning, the media are vultures, people who experience tragedy are consumed by it.  But what is the point?  I understand Alasdair saying that this is about chronicling alternate history from the micro end of the scale, but the story is so micro, and the characters so off-putting, that any point or moral is lost.  (The Chris Hedges quote is oddly appropriate, he does this same reductionist thing with journalism - tell carefully-selected micro-tales of static human tragedy in war, and then handwave them into a denunciation of all war and hope no one notices or asks a question.)

Sorry. 

[Terry]

I am sorry to announce that I do not like Swirsky's writing. That is why I stopped listening to Pod Castle.
I am not American and found this story to be a thinly disguised rant about the Iraq/Afganistan wars that seems to be obsessing the American public. I listen to EP for entertainment and, quite frankly, do not welcome this kind of psychoanalysis from Ms Swirsky. "Black hands" for Pete's sake. Am I the only one seeing a metaphor of "blood on our (American) hands"?

[Listener]

1.  Good alternate history is plausible alternate history.  I find it highly unlikely that Americans are going to adopt the tactics of the RUF from Sierra Leone in dealing with pacifists and conscientious objectors during wartime. 

We say that, but here's an example of how certain Americans think:

Recently, a 61-year-old man became frustrated when a woman wouldn't do something about her two-year-old daughter's crying while they shopped in Wal-Mart. The man said something to the effect of "shut that kid up or I will". When the child continued crying, the man gave the child a few slaps. He is now in jail on felony child cruelty charges. Full story: http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=134682&catid=3

Yesterday morning I came across this article in support of what the man did: http://christwire.org/2009/09/older-gentleman-politely-slaps-strangers-crying-baby-at-walmart/

Obviously slapping a child and chopping off a person's hands are vastly different orders of magnitude, but it just goes to show that there are people everywhere -- even if they're just a minority -- who will do something "civilized society" thinks is wrong because the minority believes it's the right thing to do.

The people who turned the handless into the handless were a minority -- I'm fairly certain the average American in the story didn't have his/her hands chopped off for not agreeing to go to war -- and I do think the example was a tad hyperbolic, but Americans can be convinced to believe anything if enough people say it on TV or the internet, regardless of its rightness, truthfulness, or intelligent-ness.

[Russell Nash]

but Americans can be convinced to believe anything if enough people say it on TV or the internet, regardless of its rightness, truthfulness, or intelligent-ness.

Is this really an American trait or is it a human trait.  I sure as hell see my share of Germans believing total horseshit. 

I first started teaching English here in early 2002.  As the only American in the room, I fielded many questions about the States.  One of the most asked questions was if Americans really had unisex restrooms in offices.  Ally McBeal was still on German television then and they thought the bathrooms were real.

[Terry]

It seems to me that Ms Swirsky's style is to make her stories revolve around some contemporary issue. I have no problem with "social relevance" in a story. However, my experience with Ms Swirsky's writing (and, incidentally, her editing of Pod Castle) is that she is so blatantly cramming in "relevance" that the story is somewhat lost, or even non-existent.

That said, other posts have noted that Ms Swirsky has presented a powerful insight into the challenges of amputees, with which I agree. Stop grinding the axe so much Rachel and focus on the story.

I still don't think this is science fiction.

[Praxis]

You've said already that you are not a fan of Rachel Swirsky, which is fair enough if that's how you feel but it's probably better to keep discussions to the story itself rather than making things personal, which is very easy for internet 'board discussions to do.

Like you said (well, sort of  ):

Stop grinding the axe so much [insert name here] and focus on the story.

[kibitzer]

I first started teaching English here in early 2002.  As the only American in the room, I fielded many questions about the States.  One of the most asked questions was if Americans really had unisex restrooms in offices.  Ally McBeal was still on German television then and they thought the bathrooms were real.

Wait. WAIT -- you DON'T have unisex bathrooms?? Shite!!

[Praxis]

I still don't think this is science fiction.

I'd say you're correct (see earlier in thread).  
Personally I'd say this would go on the same point on a 'sf/non-sf' scale as The Handmaids Tale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid%27s_Tale) in that it occurs in a different version of 'our' Earth and looks at the effects of different ways of being in a society.