EP393: Red Card

[eytanz]

EP393: Red Card

By S. L. Gilbow

Read by Heather Bowman-Tomlinson

--

Late one April evening, Linda Jackson pulled a revolver from her purse and shot her husband through a large mustard stain in the center of his T-shirt.  The official after incident survey concluded that almost all of Merry Valley approved of the shooting.  Sixty-four percent of the townspeople even rated her target selection as “excellent.”  A few, however, criticized her, pointing out that shooting your husband is “a little too obvious” and “not very creative.”

Dick Andrews, who had farmed the fertile soil around Merry Valley for over thirty years, believed that Larry Jackson, more than anyone else in town, needed to be killed.  “I never liked him much,” he wrote in the additional comments section of the incident survey.  “He never seemed to have a good word to say about anybody.”

“Excellent use of a bullet,” scrawled Jimmy Blanchard.  Born and raised in Merry Valley, he had known Larry for years and had even graduated from high school with him.  “Most overbearing person I’ve ever met.  He deserved what he got.  I’m just not sure why it took so long.”

Of course, a few people made waves.  Jenny Collins seemed appalled.  “I can hardly believe it,” she wrote.  “We used to be much more discerning about who we killed, and we certainly didn’t go around flaunting it the way Linda does.”  Jenny was the old-fashioned kind.

Linda would never have called her actions “flaunting it.”  Of course she knew what to do after shooting Larry.  She had read The Enforcement Handbook from cover to cover six times, poring over it to see if she had missed anything, scrutinizing every nuance.  She had even committed some of the more important passages to memory:  Call the police immediately after executing an enforcement–Always keep your red card in a safe, dry place–Never reveal to anyone that you have a red card–Be proud; you’re performing an important civic duty.

But flaunting it?  No, Linda blended in better than anyone in town, rarely talked and never called attention to herself.  She spent most of her days at the Merry Valley Public Library, tucked between rows of antique shelves, alone, organizing a modest collection of old books.  In the evening she fixed dinner.  After Larry had eaten, cleaned up and left the house for “some time alone,” Linda would lie in bed reading Jane Austen.  No, Linda never flaunted anything–never had much to flaunt.

Listen to this week’s Escape Pod!

[lyda]

Really liked the story.

Linda just seems to plod along in her life and then in this odd world she's given the power of life and death. Will it make a difference?

It doesn't seem like it will. And her actions at the twist at the end seem to imply she knows that.

It was supposed to be different with the red card she thinks at one point. It wasn't - even when she used it.

--------

The comments at the end by Alasdair(?) were apt for this story. Because it was different for Linda. What she wanted was change for the better; she got change for the worse.

Violence rarely changes things in a positive way. When I go to London I wander past monuments to empire and past battles. They seem to be everywhere. But the news is generally the same here in empire-less Ireland: unemployment, cuts to benefits, hard to pay for basic infrastructure. What was all that violence for then? If the nations that waged violence on a large scale in the past have the same struggles as those that did not, what's the gain for the pain the violence caused?

The story captures that for me. A world where random acts of violence are supposed to make people nicer - and yet it seems not to be the case.

[matweller]

I won't bother you with the details but there were a lot of technical issues with this episode plus I'm still getting used to the pains of switching to DSL after having a cable modem for a decade. All this is just to say, I apologize for getting the episode to you late and I thank you for your patience.

[flintknapper]

The story harkened me back in some ways to when I first read the Lottery as a teenager. Perhaps that was intentional. Overall, I thought the story had a good tone and decent pace. The narration was also good.

I do not like the implications of the Red Card system. It was obvious her husband was a jerk, but did he deserve to die? and killing someone for just speeding on the road? The implied morality of this future world or alternative universe was harsh, but also kind of cool the more I think about it.

So overall, it was a great story.

[baker8680]

I also thought the story was well written and seemed to have the right amount of dull.  what I found interesting was not the meta of empire and violence on a national scale but the implications the author seemed to make on things like stand your ground laws and the gun cultlure that seems to permeate America.  I found it interesting that the author only covered the initial act and that day so that it left us to have the conversation without the author getting embroiled in the argument.  I liked the story a lot.   I also think the idea that she did not have to have a reason to shoot and that they expected the "enforcer's" to snap was a direct relation to how petty most of our grievences often are with others.  Maybe part of the problem the author is trying to bring out is that our real problem is the distance between us and others and how we bridge that gap.  It gives one a lot to think about. 

[matweller]

One of my favorite episodes of Star Trek: TNG is when they land on the planet with no crime and no apparent legal system. Wesley crashes into a garden thingy and destroys it and that's when they find out that the society's only penalty for breaking a law is death. Hilarity ensues. The simplicity plus the potential to control several problems at the same time gives the concept some allure. And then there are moral values...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

My only beef was that getting 2 red cards in a national system would be so unlikely that it would never happen. But I adored the poetry of it.

[baker8680]

I remember that episode quite well.  it is interesting that that is essentially what religous law gets you as well "all sin brings death"  and yet we always seem to equate a well practiced faith with true justice but without moderation all we get is a red card.  Very interesting turn for this story.  I wonder if this society in red card is a religious one?  I wonder what their justification for this system is?

[matweller]

I remember that episode quite well.  it is interesting that that is essentially what religous law gets you as well "all sin brings death"  and yet we always seem to equate a well practiced faith with true justice but without moderation all we get is a red card.  Very interesting turn for this story.  I wonder if this society in red card is a religious one?  I wonder what their justification for this system is?

I'm not sure that's true. Every modern religion I can think of allows for (and encourages) redemption and would shun capital punishment. I mean, there are crazies all over the place, but they occur in all aspects of society.

[Scattercat]

The story harkened me back in some ways to when I first read the Lottery as a teenager.

I would personally be very, very surprised if "The Lottery" was not somewhere in the author's mind when this story got written.  If you went to school in the US, you read that story somewhere along the way.

(Me, with all my switching schools, well, I ended up reading "The Most Dangerous Game" in three completely separate English classes.)

[lisavilisa]

(Me, with all my switching schools, well, I ended up reading "The Most Dangerous Game" in three completely separate English classes.)

It was Island of the Blue Dolphins for me. Looking back maybe that's why I refused to watch castaway.

[matweller]

I had more history redundancy than Literature, although I could have done without Silas Marner altogether. Why do people teach that piece of garbage? 800 pages of nothing.

[benjaminjb]

Can anyone help me remember a forgotten story: In an overpopulated future, if a couple has over the legal limit of children (2?), then that person can be legally killed during a televised event where one chosen executioner tries to off one of the parents--so either a parent dies or the executioner dies, thus freeing up a space for the new, over-the-limit baby?

I was reminded of that story a bit while reading this one; and also of Borges's "Lottery in Babylon," another story where chance and alternative legalities rule. I like these explorations of the carnivalesque--the suspension of law, the overturning of the world.

(Required mention of upcoming movie, The Purge, where law is suspended one day a year.)

And here's an interview with the author.

[Just Jeff]

I didn't recognize the title, but it hit me by the end of the first sentence with a wave of delight. I love this story. Such a perfect ending.

[Max e^{i pi}]

Hmm... dystopian society with the ultimate punishment for "frivolous" crimes. As has been pointed out, we've been here before, bought the T-shirt and viewed the obligatory boring slide show of pictures.
But this one was different. Maybe it was the reading (truly excellent! two thumbs up!), maybe it was the matter-of-fact attitude. Whatever it was, I enjoyed this so much more than Running Man or The Long Walk or even Mad Max 3 (two men enter, one man leaves).
I think maybe that the difference is that in this case I have an inkling of how the system is supposed to work. See, if every person in the country knows that there are a certain amount of licenses to kill floating around, then they are constantly under pressure to behave. Not just follow the letter of the law, but to behave nicely to people. Instead of Big Brother watching everything you do, your friends and neighbors are watching everything you do, and one of them will kill you if you piss them off. What better incentive to be a good person is there?
Mind you, I'm not condoning such a system, just explaining how it should work in theory. It makes sense, but as we see, it doesn't work.
I do like Linda's (failed) approach to having a red card. If people know I have a red card then they will be nice to me, right? Well, apparently not everybody. And if you are such a colossal prick that you can't behave to save your life, then, well...
And that's where we start arguing whether the system works or it doesn't.
I think that we can have a much more efficient system:
What if we just tell people about the red cards. And make them a serious statistical probability. Say that one person in ten has a red card. Crime will instantly become a thing of the past! The media will have to be in on it, since they will have to report the occasional Enforcement, but that's no big deal. Just "mis"report  a gang killing or mugging gone bad. And poof! No random citizens with a license to kill, but an entire society that is so much nicer to people in general.

This post has gone on much farther than I had intended. I just want to finish with two things:
1. Matt, statistical anomalies happen, and that's what makes life interesting. Deal with it.
2. Why is it that EP is posting stories about ultimately punishing frivolous crimes? First Trixie and the Pandas of Dread, now this. Should we be worried?

[Dem]

I wish I liked this more but actually the skilfull writing was its own enemy. Glum, dreary Linda being glum and dreary and resorting to murder because she was too glumly dreary to shake the pair of them into a more positive life. So would the Red Card system work? Well, let's factor in all those people whose rationality takes a hike, who have a smidgen of the psychopath about them, or who use red cards to acquire other red cards for nefarious purposes. The shine comes off it a bit then, I think. So what about just belief in a Red Card system? If you get past the thing about the media having to be in on it, and not say anything, to make sure some Enforcements are reported - and I'm so not getting past that for laughing (we just had Levenson http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ over here) - then there's making sure nobody uses the internet, or plots Enforcement patterns, or understands probability, or heuristics, or gets geeky about numbers and patterns in any way at all. Nah!
Hm. Maybe this story was quite good after all ...

[benjaminjb]

People often used to say that an armed society was a polite society, like--

Instead of Big Brother watching everything you do, your friends and neighbors are watching everything you do, and one of them will kill you if you piss them off. What better incentive to be a good person is there?

--but that should make Mad Max's world the most polite of all.

[matweller]

1. Matt, statistical anomalies happen, and that's what makes life interesting. Deal with it.

I said I liked the poetic justice of it. Who doesn't love Hitchcock? The likelihood was the only thing that gave me a second's pause. 1/60,000,000 is better than lottery odds, but I don't think I've ever heard of the same person winning the Powerball twice.

More than that, I'm fascinated by the way everyone seems to have taken this as a bleak story. I think it's great that she got to bump off the cheating husband, the mistress overplayed her hand and revealed herself because she also underestimated statistical irony, and now the mistress will be legally dispatched to boot. Yeah Linda cries at the end, but I think that's because she was surprised to find out who was betraying her added to the stress of the whole thing. But soon it wouldn't matter: Miracle Madness was coming! The dirt got dumped all over her life, but soon it was going to be permanently wiped away. Redemption, new beginning -- all that stuff. Good times!

[Scattercat]

Given sufficient numbers, it's far from impossible that someone will get two Red Cards.  I remember reading about a Canadian lottery that was supposed to distribute like five or ten things randomly among all Canadians, and one person got two of them, and the reason was that the lottery didn't remove the numbers of a winner from subsequent drawings.  Depending on how the Red Card lottery is structured, it might well be a certainty that someone will get double eventually.  (That is, the odds of any one particular person getting two cards is infinitesimal, but the odds of it happening *somewhere* are much, much higher.  Like the old birthday trick; you need only about 12 people together before the odds of two people having the same exact birthday get close to fifty percent.  If you're at a party of forty or fifty people, you can probably win a fair amount of money betting that two people in the room have the same birthday.  Again, the odds of someone else having, say, YOUR birthday are puny, but when you're cross-matching everyone's birthdays with everyone else's birthdays...)

(BTW, I heartily endorse "The Drunkard's Walk" if you want to read more about how friggin' weird probability and statistics can get.)

[Max e^{i pi}]

1. Matt, statistical anomalies happen, and that's what makes life interesting. Deal with it.

I said I liked the poetic justice of it. Who doesn't love Hitchcock? The likelihood was the only thing that gave me a second's pause. 1/60,000,000 is better than lottery odds, but I don't think I've ever heard of the same person winning the Powerball twice.

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you.

Also, I didn't think that this was a bleak story. I think I actually forgot to give my personal opinion on the story. I got a little carried away...  

Anyway, I liked the story. It was fun. Linda was given incredible power to make the world a better place, and she tried for years to resist abusing that power. Eventually she succumbed, and instead of making the world a better place, she made her world a better place. Good for her.
Bleak? Hardly. More like someone having a life-changing epiphany. The actual content of the life-changing actions were pretty horrid, but it did fix her little world. And since the story was told entirely from her point of view, that's all that's important, that Linda has a happy ending.
Would I like to live in such a world? No. But if I had to, I'd hope that everybody was more like Linda and less like Sara.

[Frungi]

2. Why is it that EP is posting stories about ultimately punishing frivolous crimes? First Trixie and the Pandas of Dread, now this. Should we be worried?

I was going to criticize the author and the reading, but now I'm scared.

Nah, it was all good.

[Windup]

Among other things, I think the story was a rebuttal to the "An armed society is a polite society" trope.  In this world, jerks are clearly gonna be jerks, even with the threat of immediate extinction lurking in every encounter.  I completely agree with Linda's despairing wail -- "It should have made a difference!"  But I suspect in our world, it wouldn't either, once the initial shock effect had worn off.

I loved the use of bureaucratic deadpan for humor -- "We're only gathering this information for statistical purposes, to improve the program." Yup, rest assured that even a program of state-sanctioned murder will be the object of Six Sigma improvement methodologies.  Which brings up this interesting question: When the whole point is to kill someone, what constitutes a "defect?"

And one other question: In this world, how does any politician make it through his or her first year in office?

Loved the story, though... 

[Frungi]

And one other question: In this world, how does any politician make it through his or her first year in office?

Natural selection, I suppose. The only politicians left would be the ones that aren’t what comes to mind when we think of politicians.

Edit: Actually, maybe that’s how voting works in this world. They vote with their red cards. And this has me wanting another story in this universe that explores this aspect. So, seriously, good job, S.L. Gilbow.

[Brynn]

I enjoyed the story and the sort of purposely casual reading.

I wonder what sort of society this was before the story started, and just awful it must have been to prompt the red card system to be used to begin with. And no matter how terrible a place it was, it's clearly a more horrific place now. Suddenly, speeding is seen as something you deserve to die for, but killing someone for speeding is A-okay? I'd be afraid to leave the house. 

Also, if I had a red card, I don't even think I'd use it. That's just another card in circulation that could get ME killed later. I'd just hide that puppy in a drawer and be super-nice to everyone forever.

Unless, of course, someone wore white shoes after Labor Day.

[benjaminjb]

And one other question: In this world, how does any politician make it through his or her first year in office?

Natural selection, I suppose. The only politicians left would be the ones that aren’t what comes to mind when we think of politicians.

Here's my question: let's say you have a red card and you go to assassinate someone--legally. Only I'm that person's bodyguard and when I see you with a gun, I shoot you before you get to show your red card. Am I guilty of murder because you were engaged in a legal action, even though I didn't know it was a legal action?

[Frungi]

Would bodyguards even exist in a world where it’s legal—and encouraged—to kill people?

I’ll say it again: We need another story!

[Windup]

And one other question: In this world, how does any politician make it through his or her first year in office?

Natural selection, I suppose. The only politicians left would be the ones that aren’t what comes to mind when we think of politicians.

Well, politicians are just a special case of a whole group of people who perform functions that are necessary, but that really, really aggravate someone, even when they are done in a just, conscientious and throughly professional manner.  Think about judges, police, prosecutors, building inspectors, people who remove children from abusive homes, etc.  

And I think it's too easy to bash politicians.  Virtually every figure we now consider a "great leader" faced ferocious opposition during their lifetimes -- do I even need to mention Lincoln?  And I suspect that in the late 1700's, there were many Tory sympathizers who would have happily pulled the trigger on Washington.

I agree, I'd love to see a sequel that dealt with that aspect.

[lisavilisa]

And one other question: In this world, how does any politician make it through his or her first year in office?

Natural selection, I suppose. The only politicians left would be the ones that aren’t what comes to mind when we think of politicians.

Here's my question: let's say you have a red card and you go to assassinate someone--legally. Only I'm that person's bodyguard and when I see you with a gun, I shoot you before you get to show your red card. Am I guilty of murder because you were engaged in a legal action, even though I didn't know it was a legal action?

Maybe they have a "Yellow Card"?

[Windup]

Would bodyguards even exist in a world where it’s legal—and encouraged—to kill people?

I would think you'd still have bodyguards to protect you from crazy people, hired assassins, etc.  Presumably most murders in the story world are dealt with the same way they are in our world.

Remember it's not just anyone who is allowed to kill people; it's only a limited group -- the red-card holders.  That keeps the violence down to a manageable level.  (We assume...)

[Max e^{i pi}]

And one other question: In this world, how does any politician make it through his or her first year in office?

Natural selection, I suppose. The only politicians left would be the ones that aren’t what comes to mind when we think of politicians.

Here's my question: let's say you have a red card and you go to assassinate someone--legally. Only I'm that person's bodyguard and when I see you with a gun, I shoot you before you get to show your red card. Am I guilty of murder because you were engaged in a legal action, even though I didn't know it was a legal action?

Maybe they have a "Yellow Card"?

Suddenly everyone's a soccer (football) fan...

[lyda]

Here's my question: let's say you have a red card and you go to assassinate someone--legally. Only I'm that person's bodyguard and when I see you with a gun, I shoot you before you get to show your red card. Am I guilty of murder because you were engaged in a legal action, even though I didn't know it was a legal action?

Why would you need a bodyguard in this world? Isn't the point of shooting people dead for random infractions that people will all be nicer to each other? That there will be less crime.

But your question does highlight the problem of giving individuals the power of judge, jury and executioner. It's very difficult to make the correct judgement in the heat of the moment. Recent events clearly show that getting valid info in a rapidly developing situation isn't easy and is highly error-prone.

If you walk into a shop and see a man with a gun and a man shot on the ground, what should you do if you have a gun yourself?

[TheArchivist]

I wish I liked this more but actually the skilfull writing was its own enemy. Glum, dreary Linda being glum and dreary and resorting to murder because she was too glumly dreary to shake the pair of them into a more positive life.

Unfortunately that was pretty much my reaction too. Yes, it's an interesting premise (though not really SF - and no, Alistair, it's not horror either to my mind) and it's triggered some interesting discussion, but the execution of the story itself, and the reading, left me nonplussed. One sentence of action at the start, two sentences of (rather predictable) twist at the end, and a whole load of dreary in between.

[olivaw]

The bulk of the story is spent on explaining the premise, while also exploring some consequences of the premise, all mixed together. And that's a pretty tough trick to pull off, but I thought it was done well here.

The number of ways this bizarre law could go wrong is colossal, so I think the particular set of problems the author dealt with was both funny and touching.

[Alasdair5000]

I wish I liked this more but actually the skilfull writing was its own enemy. Glum, dreary Linda being glum and dreary and resorting to murder because she was too glumly dreary to shake the pair of them into a more positive life.

Unfortunately that was pretty much my reaction too. Yes, it's an interesting premise (though not really SF - and no, Alistair, it's not horror either to my mind) and it's triggered some interesting discussion, but the execution of the story itself, and the reading, left me nonplussed. One sentence of action at the start, two sentences of (rather predictable) twist at the end, and a whole load of dreary in between.

Fair enough. By the way it's spelt Alasdair.

[benjaminjb]

Here's my question: let's say you have a red card and you go to assassinate someone--legally. Only I'm that person's bodyguard and when I see you with a gun, I shoot you before you get to show your red card. Am I guilty of murder because you were engaged in a legal action, even though I didn't know it was a legal action?

Why would you need a bodyguard in this world? Isn't the point of shooting people dead for random infractions that people will all be nicer to each other? That there will be less crime.

But your question does highlight the problem of giving individuals the power of judge, jury and executioner. It's very difficult to make the correct judgement in the heat of the moment. Recent events clearly show that getting valid info in a rapidly developing situation isn't easy and is highly error-prone.

If you walk into a shop and see a man with a gun and a man shot on the ground, what should you do if you have a gun yourself?

Now what if you walk into a shop, see a guy with a gun, someone dead on the ground, and you have a gun AND a red card--would you use your Red Card to kill some random person? Or would you want to hold onto it for something more meaningful?

[TheArchivist]

By the way it's spelt Alasdair.

Ooops! Sorry. I know too many of your namesakes who spell it differently.

[InfiniteMonkey]

I thought this was a very sad story, though perhaps not for the reasons one might think.

The saddest part for me was her mentioning "dresses she'd only worn once" which just put in mind of the sad detritus of a life half-lived. This sort of detritus might be sad in anybody's life, but here it's of a woman who seems not to have had any fun in her life, and that also seems to be mostly because of her no-good husband. Now, I wouldn't advocate the shooting of a spouse unless your life was really in danger, but Linda is MUCH better off without him. And I think the world might be too.

Sara, OTOH, is simply vile. I feel even less remorse in her imminent red-carding.

[InfiniteMonkey]

And one other question: In this world, how does any politician make it through his or her first year in office?

Law of averages, perhaps. There are more politicians than red cards in circulation.

Maybe they have better security.

Though I suspect they would be even more spineless and craven than they are now.

[InfiniteMonkey]

Why would you need a bodyguard in this world? Isn't the point of shooting people dead for random infractions that people will all be nicer to each other? That there will be less crime.

<snip>
If you walk into a shop and see a man with a gun and a man shot on the ground, what should you do if you have a gun yourself?

Well, our world has plenty of people with bodyguards that are not under imminent threat of death. Besides, we aren't told you can't prevent a red card from being acted on. Even if there was a penalty, I'm sure there would some people rich enough to hire people for the right price and take care of any penalties.

And remember, the gun in question came from the Government with the Red Card. I would suspect that all pre-existing gun laws (easy, Monkey, don't rise to the easy bait!) would still be in effect.

[benjaminjb]

Can someone provide some evidence or insight as to why she married her husband or why she stayed with him? I got the impression (from the make-up discussion) that she wasn't a great looker; and possibly has no career or job skills. But right now I can't remember what the story actually says on this matter. Do you?

[TheArchivist]

Can someone provide some evidence or insight as to why she married her husband or why she stayed with him? I got the impression (from the make-up discussion) that she wasn't a great looker; and possibly has no career or job skills. But right now I can't remember what the story actually says on this matter. Do you?

I don't know that the story said anything on the subject. Is it important? I mean, the simple fact is that an awful lot of people are in marriages an outside observer would be unable to comprehend the origins of. Quite a few are in marriages they, themselves, have difficulty remembering why they got into. Abused partners do stay with the abusive one, for many reasons that seem idiotic under cold, logical scrutiny.
As I recall, the husband sprung a surprise cruise on her for the honeymoon. Without ever having discussed it. Now that's pretty idiotic, but it's not, in itself, abusive or selfish or in any way unpleasant. He probably thought he was being incredibly romantic. As it turned out, Linda reacted badly to the sea, but not being the sort to complain, she tried to handle it gracefully. Larry may even have tried to respond right to that, but within a couple of days it had got too much for him. That's when his true colours began to show - too late for Linda to have avoided the mistake: they were already married.
I can't fault the portrayal of these glum, dreary people.

[matweller]

As I recall, the husband sprung a surprise cruise on her for the honeymoon. Without ever having discussed it. Now that's pretty idiotic, but it's not, in itself, abusive or selfish or in any way unpleasant. He probably thought he was being incredibly romantic. As it turned out, Linda reacted badly to the sea, but not being the sort to complain, she tried to handle it gracefully. Larry may even have tried to respond right to that, but within a couple of days it had got too much for him. That's when his true colours began to show - too late for Linda to have avoided the mistake: they were already married.
I can't fault the portrayal of these glum, dreary people.

Maybe I'm a jerk, but I took the implication of this to be that he "surprised" her with the cruise, but that he wanted to be there because of a mistress he had going as well or because he intended to spend as much time with as many other women as possible -- hence his wife not seeing him the entire time. This led me to think he was abusive from the start and just held his wife as a good doormat. She'd never leave him no matter what, and that left him open to hitting the town with whomever because one night stands can't sue for alimony.

[TheArchivist]

I took the implication of this to be that he "surprised" her with the cruise, but that he wanted to be there because of a mistress he had going as well

That would certainly be reminiscent of what has been alleged regarding a certain heir to the throne...

he intended to spend as much time with as many other women as possible -- hence his wife not seeing him the entire time.

I didn't get that from the story, and I'm still not sure it's actually implied, though it's not ruled out either. It would mean that the marriage was broken well before it even started, but not that Linda knew that at the time. So I think the gist of my answer to benjaminjb still holds.
Linda is definitely portayed as a doormat - she hears Sara dissing her in the police station and utterly fails to react. Now I know adverts for cleaning products are fascinating, but still... 

[Devoted135]

Well, this one provided a lot of food for thought! I agree with the general trend in the thread that the story itself was a bit dreary (probably on purpose, though I'm of the opinion that librarians get a bad rap), but the world itself has room for endless speculation. I am left wondering why Linda never left Larry, statistics on abuse victims notwithstanding. At any rate, we wouldn't have had a story if she left him, so there's that.

For the record, I don't think this one qualifies as horror, either.

I didn't get that from the story, and I'm still not sure it's actually implied, though it's not ruled out either. It would mean that the marriage was broken well before it even started, but not that Linda knew that at the time. So I think the gist of my answer to benjaminjb still holds.
Linda is definitely portayed as a doormat - she hears Sara dissing her in the police station and utterly fails to react. Now I know adverts for cleaning products are fascinating, but still... 

In my mind, she did react. She knew she would be needing the cleaning products after using her second red card on Sara.

[Andy C]

So I enjoyed this story, it had something of a literary feel to it and I liked the slightly sinister and yet mundane feel to it. Well read, great story.
Very heartfelt commments from Alasdair at the end I definitely got "there is no such thing as consequence free violence", definitly got that.

Yes I confess, I did think of this story "is this scifi?" and Alaistair pre-empted this coming up by saying  that issue would come up and saying "could this have been on pseudo-pod"? But then I looked up definitions of sci fi on Wikipedia and found 32 of them, so what can I say? It's scifi.

Anyway, good story, thanks

A

[lyda]

Sara, OTOH, is simply vile. I feel even less remorse in her imminent red-carding.

Is Sara getting an enforcement? Or is she going to shoot herself? ISTR that being mentioned as how some use their red card.

[InfiniteMonkey]

Sara, OTOH, is simply vile. I feel even less remorse in her imminent red-carding.

Is Sara getting an enforcement? Or is she going to shoot herself? ISTR that being mentioned as how some use their red card.

Well, we aren't told/she doesn't take the card out until after we heard Sara trashing Linda.

And given out rare criminality of suicide is these days, I doubt it would be for self-use.

[TheArchivist]

In my mind, she did react. She knew she would be needing the cleaning products after using her second red card on Sara.

Yes, I can see that is a valid interpretation, it just wasn't how it came across to me. Later on she seems to arrive at a... well, I certainly hope it was a decision to "red card" Sara, but I don't seem to be alone in not being sure about it. At the time, though (in the police station), she doesn't react. She may be thinking, plotting, building up to something - although the narrative/reading didn't have that feel at all to my mind - but not reacting. Perhaps she's only acting the doormat while her fury bubbles up - but actually that's fairly characteristic of people who really are doormats. Usually when they finally burst they aren't in possession of a red card, though.

[lisavilisa]

Did the story ever imply that she was an abused wife?

The husband sounds like a mean bastard who ignored and belittled her. He cheated on her. But did he ever hurt or endanger her, make her feel scared?

[JDoug]

*Overthinking it*

As soon as I heard the miracle clean advert, I was certain, certain that Linda was going to shoot Sara. What I wasn't expecting was the second red card. See, I thought this was going to be the story of how your first murder is awful, awful hard and the second one is just soooo easy. And to a certain extent it was - Linda didn't spend four years warning Sara. Or maybe she did. Maybe she was aware that Sara knew she had a card. Perhaps she knew that Sara was her woman her husband was cheating on her with. And maybe she just decided to clean the trash out it one day. I'm not really certain.

But as I said, I wasn't expecting the second red card. It made things surprisingly tidy. One of the things that I thought about during this story is what it would be like to carry around the power to kill anyone, anyone who just pushed it that bit to far for you. With minimum (because as Alisdair says, it's never none) consequences. Then in one day, to lose it. To lost that solution that seemed oh so simple. I'm not sure you'd ever really get over having been a red card holder. Or maybe the best thing to do is to use it as quickly as possible on the first speeder that pisses you off.

This story caused me to think alot. I talked it over with a friend of mine, who doesn't normally listen to the podcast. We both agreed we'd like to hear more stories set in the same world.

[CryptoMe]

I really liked this story, for many of the reasons others have already mentioned.

But, I have a detail problem. If Linda has a second red card, why does she need the cleaning product? We are told that the government takes care of the clean up, and when Linda gets home she even remarks upon what a good job they did with the husband's mess. So, if that is the case, why does she need the cleaning products?  If anyone can help with this, it would be greatly appreciated.

[TheArchivist]

So, if that is the case, why does she need the cleaning products?

There's a repeated echo of the product's slogan - "When 'clean' isn't clean enough". In combination with the product's name - "Miracle Madness" - I think we're looking at something more than just a cleaning product for the house. This is a product aimed squarely at the far end of the OCD spectrum, the Howard Hughes and beyond, only without the money. It's playing to the insanity that has Linda crouching feral on the floor, contemplating sleeping there once it's been "more than clean"d. The need for "Miracle Madness" is purely psychological.

[Max e^{i pi}]

But, I have a detail problem. If Linda has a second red card, why does she need the cleaning product? We are told that the government takes care of the clean up, and when Linda gets home she even remarks upon what a good job they did with the husband's mess. So, if that is the case, why does she need the cleaning products?  If anyone can help with this, it would be greatly appreciated.

Out, damned spot! Out, I say!

[matweller]

I choose to think of the cleaning product simply as a foreshadowing mechanism or a symbol for the second red card or just of those totally kismet moments. Linda sees it at the same time she overhears Sara bragging about being the one Linda's husband was cheating with.

It was like Linda was leaving the police station relieved to be done with that mess, but knowing there was still a loose end out there to tie up that she may never even find, much less get to "clean." Then the commercial. Then Sara's confession. Then "Hey, Miracle Madness [the red card] is on the way!" I think it's significant here that Linda only vaguely knows what the commercial is about until the confession, then it comes quickly into focus. The solution to her problems has just revealed itself:

“I want to place an order,” said Linda.
“Which product?”
“Miracle Madness.”
“Oh, you are going to love it."

Then she gets home and weeps with relief because the end of the "madness" is close at hand. The "cleaning" is coming. Complete resolution.

I agree with Alasdare's well-spoken commentary about violence breeding violence and it never being a solution. But I also believe that there are situations where we realize the consequences are better than continuing a horrific status quo. If someone were attacking one of my family members, I would go to any lengths -- even lethal -- to stop them. I can't kill a fish without guilt. I would be saddened for the rest of my life about killing a person, even a deserving one. But if you asked me from my jail cell 20 tortured years later if I made the right decision, I'd still say 'yes.'

I think that's what Linda is faced with here, and that's why I think this story may be dark, but it is happy in it's way too. She wants to change into a ferret -- some animal that doesn't have to be conscious of the heavy decision being made. But she weeps knowing it's not that simple and sometimes a win still has losing consequences. Yes, I know she's not using the card in a life-saving measure (the first one is debatable, the second is not), but perhaps that's the 'Madness' half of 'Miracle Madness' kicking in.

[eytanz]

This was a masterfully told story. It really let us get to know Linda and her husband - and understand the society they live in and the function of the red cards - by experiencing them. Very little was stated outright or explained, but everything was very clear, except for the somewhat open ended ending - is Linda going to use the second red card? on herself? on Sara? Is she going to keep it so that she can keep on not using it?

I got a somewhat different take on the cleaning product. I thought the cleaning product was not as important as the advertisement was. Linda was clearly someone who let other people lead her through life - her husband, Sara, the Red Card handbook, the cosmetics magazines - and now most of these are gone away. The husband is dead, she just learnt that her friend isn't really her friend, and while she has another red card, she probably doesn't think she'll ever use it (though that might have changed by the end of the story). She's looking for someone to tell her what to do, and the advertisement comes on with instructions, so she follows them.

[Fenrix]

I loved the concept. The threat of mortal enforcement at any moment should make the world a better place, and the analysis of how that system falls down.

However, the drab slice of life just didn't push my buttons. I wouldn't pull a Red Card on the story, but I wouldn't go out of my way to be nice. Live and let live should be just fine.

[Peevester]

The purposely mundane tone grated on me a bit at first, but once I understand what the author was doing, I liked this a lot. Days later, I'm still not sure if it's a dystopia or not.

On the one hand, everyone has an incentive to live by the golden rule, which certainly isn't a bad thing. On the other hand, humans being humans, they're not going to. For every Larry who gets what he deserves for inflicting psychological torment on his wife (and cheating on her), there's going to be plenty more who do the same thing anyway, knowing the odds are in their favor that nobody involved has a card. On the gripping hand, with several cards circulating in just one small town, maybe there's a LOT of them?

I think there has to be a lot of them for the system to have any effect, probably enough that for any person, there's someone in your social connections that has one, so maybe one per hundred people or so? Any less and there's no safety valve effect from them, and much more than that, you have "The day everyone in Springfield killed each other" chain reactions.

I think there's a really interesting paper in this somewhere.

[Fenrix]

I think there's a really interesting paper in this somewhere.

There's a follow-up survey they'd like you to participate in that they use to calibrate the number of red cards in circulation...

[El Barto]

This reminds me of a great (and less violent) idea that a friend of mine once pitched:  Every licensed drivers gets the ability, ONCE A YEAR, to send one other driver back to his driveway. 

[Cutter McKay]

This reminds me of a great (and less violent) idea that a friend of mine once pitched:  Every licensed drivers gets the ability, ONCE A YEAR, to send one other driver back to his driveway. 

I worked for TSA for many years, where management is your typical government bureaucracy B.S., and we used to fantasize about what we called "Beating Tokens" that we as employees could earn as rewards for hard work etc. that we could then turn in to be given the right to punch one lead or supervisor in the face when we just couldn't take it anymore. Of course, the question was then raised about whether we would be allowed to use them on the traveling public, which we realized would then cause us to use our tokens far more frequently and violently than we could feasibly justify, 

[SF.Fangirl]

I didn't really enjoy this story; it had something of a literary feel to it which is not a compliment coming from me.  It is reminiscent of The Lottery which I never found that great despite it's status as a classic.  Not enough happened; it was a dreary story; and I was left wondering if she was going to use the gun on her neighbor or herself. In general I prefer a bit more clarity than this story provided.  But even with clarity, it was so slow and dreary my interest was never engaged and I didn't really enjoy listening.  The main character was so flat (beat down, PTSD from emotional or physical abuse??) and didn't change at all even after using her red card.  I think that was the point. but it wasn't fun for me to get there.

* The Red Card seems to come with a gun and bullets so without the red card she would presumably wouldn't have access to either.

[roboknave]

Let me dig through my wallet and pull out my red card.  Sergeant, don't lock me up.  I've got it right here... 
Why did I do it?  Because I hate it when I can guess where a story like this one is going before it even gets 1/4 of the way through.  Especially when I really like the themes it was using.  It reminds me of how I figure the Old West must have been:  Offend someone and
you're liable to find a bullet in your back.  No law to answer too.

Even though the second red card wasn't a surprise, I was surprised that a lady who's not likely to have killed someone before had enough fortitude to do it twice without being "in the heat of the moment" as it were.

[danthelawyer]

Wow. I guess I had this one totally wrong. I figured Sara and the narrator were lovers, that Sara was only joking in that blustery trying-too-hard way of hers about being the dead husband's lover, and that the narrator was about to use her second card on herself.

I will say this, though: with Trixie, this story, the Ken Liu story, and Robot, I feel like EP is very much back on track after a long spell in which I just didn't much enjoy listening.

[childoftyranny]

This story definetly felt on the horror-side of things to me, it pushed the idea if everyone was armed then we would have less crime idea, and makes it more of a pressure release. People will we wary of those with red-cards and maybe if its alright to take out that ONE person when card holders get pushed they will snap in a more "acceptable" fashion.

Related but still sort of tangential, I've always thought pondering the "it stops with me" response to violence begits violence fascinating. Its so very human to desire revenge, but the way to break that cycle is to not respond to violence. A whole people actually follow this belief in The Wheel of Time!

[Unblinking]

I liked the core idea of this, and that core premise has stayed with me since I listened, coming to mind whenever someone almost kills me on my commute or someone makes a particular jerk statement (just think if the cards came with some kind of capability to track the source of anonymous comments on the Internet).

But the story itself I found pretty lackluster.  It spent all of its time just explaining the premise, and the interesting stuff came before and after.  And I get that that may have been entirely the intent, that the dreary bureaucracy of dealing with the aftermath of a red card activation is indicative of the "business as usual" nature of this killing.

It seems that everyone in the forum says that the point of the red cards is to make people be nicer to each other.  Did the story actually say that?  I thought it was meant to be population control, based on on some government committee meeting:
Politician A:  The population growth needs to be balanced out.
Politican B:  Stop immigration!
Politician A:  No.  That won't work.  People make it into the country one way or the other, and we also need to balance out reproductive growth.
Politican B:  Reproductive licenses!
Politician A:  Do you want to reduce the country to anarchy?  You can't limit people's reproductions without a full-scale country-wide riot on your hands.
Politician B:  If we can't control new citizens moving in, and we can't control reproduction, we need to make sure more people die.  Let's start a war!
Politician A:  No, wars are too messy and unpredictable.
Politician B:  Systematic government killing!
Politician A:  No, no matter how impartial we tried to be, there'd be accusations of favoritism, governmental racism, sexism, religionism, and so on.  You're on the right track though.  We let random citizens decide to kill however and whoever they want to.  People won't hate us for it because they'll be looking for their lottery win.  They can't blame us for any patterns, because those patterns are inherent in the people themselves, not in their government.  It's a win-win!

I shudder to think how this would actually turn out, with religious/ideological extremist groups trying to systematically use their red card opportunities and to sway others to use theirs against their opponent of choice.

[matweller]

Did anyone already mention that a horror movie with a similar premise just came out?
http://blumhouse.com/film/thepurge?c_url=thepurge

[Alasdair5000]

It's good fun too. Plays like early John Carpenter for most of its run. Utterly wastes Lena Headey, aside from the third act but I had a good time watching it. Apparently a sequel's already en route which would make sense given the world's interesting, the thing clearly cost pennies (It's a single set movie) and there's plenty of scope to explore.

[matweller]

I've had a thought brewing in my head for a long time about a similar story where one day a year (or every seven years, or twelve, or whatever) anybody can kill anybody without repercussions, with the twist that there would be sanctuaries people could run to if they thought they were particularly targeted. However, if one chose to enter a sanctuary they would in effect become members of a commune they could never leave. The idea being that, obviously they'd done something bad enough to offend enough people that they could continue only by atoning for their offenses for the rest of their lives.

I'd still like to write that one some day... Anyone want to collaborate?

[InfiniteMonkey]

It's good fun too. Plays like early John Carpenter for most of its run. Utterly wastes Lena Headey, aside from the third act but I had a good time watching it. Apparently a sequel's already en route which would make sense given the world's interesting, the thing clearly cost pennies (It's a single set movie) and there's plenty of scope to explore.

Well, Alasdair, I'm glad you like it, because I can't get past the ad tagline "For the next 12 hours, all crime is legal"

Really? ALL crime. Because, hell, I might WANT to beat someone to death, but if ALL crime is legal, I'm gonna go the non-violent route, hack into a bank, or take advantage of some insider information, and be set for life. Hey, ALL crime is legal, right? You can't touch me! (White collar crime pays more often than not...)

[Alasdair5000]

Oh you're absolutely right and that's one of the criticisms of the thing that's valid. It's also something I'm hopeful the sequel will explore because, as you say, if all crime is legal? I'm packing the drill and heading down to the local bank vault:)

[matweller]

I dare say that in total lawlessness, murder is probably only middle-of-the-road in it's relative offensiveness.

[Jamesthe500]

I've been listening since 2005 & this is the first time I've felt a need to comment on the forums. 

While a good thought experiment, I did take some issue with this story.  I find revenge to be a weak emotion to succumb to & therefore this world in which revenge for such triviality as traffic slights is applauded just disgusted me.  Moreover, the plot-point "he cheated on her & therefore deserved what he had coming" was tiring (Steve Eley clearly didn't buy this one).  Yes, he was emotionally abusive, but perhaps divorce should have been tried before capital punishment.  Now the mistress, who is guilty of even less, will also face the death penalty without trial, yuck.

[Scattercat]

If you think the story is applauding its proposed system, I think you might need to read it a little more closely...

[TheArchivist]

If you think the story is applauding its proposed system, I think you might need to read it a little more closely...

Sadly there are always people who behave as if they cannot get their minds round the concept that an author does not necessarily applaud every single theme s/he writes about. And they persist in behaving that way regardless of how many protest songs and satirical polemics one points them to. One can only hope this is not such a case.

[Jamesthe500]

No, Scattercat, it's not that I thought the author was applauding the system (though some of the comments above would indicate that some listeners would applaud it)... I guess it just didn't sit well with me more so than most stories of dystopian worlds.

[hardware]

This one was pretty good, I'm one who do not mind a little kitchen sink realism mixed in, and I think it worked very well here, the high concept taken apart by the grey everyday of suburban life.