Author Topic: EP112: The Giving Plague  (Read 51567 times)

Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #25 on: July 02, 2007, 06:22:29 PM
But we don't really know the narrator's thoughts [...] The story is in that way a redemption arc, with the twist being that the redeemed man doesn't want to admit it.

That is a fascinating analysis.  Since you're right, we don't really know the narrator's thoughts, just what he wanted to have heard.

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


wherethewild

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
Reply #26 on: July 02, 2007, 07:16:23 PM
I had to log in here just to see when it was written. I was wondering why SARS wasn´t mentioned, but 1988 explains that!

I liked it. I found the science was pretty good -sounded like someone knew about biology (unlike the bloody writers of Matrix "a single celled amino acid", puhlease!) and it didn´t read/sound like an author trying to show off that they´ve done a little bit of research and learnt some new vocab (certain Robin Cook stories spring to mind). I´m with Dex in that science fiction that has real fictionalised science in it is more interesting to me than "just" stuff on other worlds or the nanobot fairy dust (as someone else called it elsewhere on the forums).

I didn´t realise he was talking to me as the virus until halfway through, which was a bit jarring. I´m not sure if it was clarified earlier on, I was doing other stuff while listening so I might have missed it.

Anyway, I liked it a lot!

The Great N-sh whispers in my ear, and he's talking about you.


7by12

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Don't drink and post.
Reply #27 on: July 02, 2007, 07:36:06 PM
I didn´t realise he was talking to me as the virus until halfway through, which was a bit jarring.

Wooah, did I miss something that huge? Guess I better go listen again. I, too, listen while doing other things. The narrator is the virus? Or did I misunderstand the post?



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #28 on: July 02, 2007, 07:46:09 PM
The narrator isn't the virus. He's narrating *to* the virus.



7by12

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Don't drink and post.
Reply #29 on: July 02, 2007, 07:48:32 PM
Doh! One and a half years as a stay at home Dad and my cognitive abilities are slipping... maybe participating here will help.



Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #30 on: July 02, 2007, 07:59:28 PM
That's why I participate here.  I seriously feel smarter since I started posting a reading stuff on this forum.  Workplace conversation is insipid and mediocre.  "Did you see ____ on TV last night?"  Conversation here is a lot more substantive.

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


Simon

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Reply #31 on: July 03, 2007, 10:44:42 PM
Ok, I loved this...  But then that was a given really.

I've loved Brin's writing ever since I first read The Postman, and consider him pretty much my favourite SF writer of the eighties (River Of Time is stompingly good - on mention of which, if he ever offers EP rights to "Thor meets Captain America" please buy it.. Buy it right NOW!).   Card is fantastic, but Brin pips him on sanity grounds.

So when I first guessed that EP was going to get a Brin (I believe there was a hint way back in October that "A major 4 letter name eighties writer is on the cards") I've been looking forward to this.  And finally she comes.

I can immediately see why you bought it.  I mean, this story rocks and its got a good concept that works well.  But it isn't an easy audio experience either.  By EP standards this piece is LONG, and the chapter structure breaks up the arcing in a way that doesn't work too well in a one listen experience.  The exposition scene between the two main characters really drags in audio (on mention of which, as a man who considers The West End my second home and loved all that local regional geography thrown in, please pronounce Leicester Square as Lesster Square) but its fascinating and absolutely essential... Its just a lot of content for audio, where you expect the punch now, rather than a novella which can get away with really going in to some of its themes.  This isn't to say Sullydog didn't do a good job, he really did...  But exposition is so much harder to pull off in audio.


Anyway, enough about that because I think its strengths outweigh its audio weaknesses.  The plot is fantastic, and I spent the whole story trying to spot when he got infected, but I am still unsure whether he was, and I for one enjoyed the conclusion...  But yes, unless you read it as "his life after being deliberately infected by less" its a difficult one to maintain interest with.  I personally like a good anti-hero narrator so I can cope with the other reading too.

But yeah.. Fantastic..  I'll keep throwing enthusiasm at it...

More Brin!



Loz

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 370
    • Blah Flowers
Reply #32 on: July 04, 2007, 06:12:46 PM
I enjoyed the story, but I think it's Sully's narration that does the trick for me, and his English accent wasn't too bad  ;)



BlairHippo

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
    • The Blair Hippo Project
Reply #33 on: July 04, 2007, 07:59:47 PM
I enjoyed it.  I thought the execution was a tad repetitive (okay, okay, the virus is very subtle and sneaky and clever and we've heard that already so could we please move on?), but overall it worked for me.

And I did like how the protagonist seemed at times hell-bent on being a Bad Guy but circumstances kept forcing him to (successfully) play the hero.  He'll wear that white hat, but he doesn't have to like it, goddammitalltohell.   ;)



wakela

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 779
    • Mr. Wake
Reply #34 on: July 04, 2007, 11:33:32 PM
Drat!  Too late to the discussion and not smart enough to come up with anything new.  Still I wanted to throw my vote of "awesome story" onto the heap.

Most of the story discussions on EP are:
 -this was / was not a good story
 -this was / was not real science fiction
 -the science of the story was / was not plausible believable

It's the mark of a good story that the discussion about "Giving Plague" has been about the motivations/state of mind, etc of the narrator.



BSWeichsel

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 36
Reply #35 on: July 05, 2007, 03:03:01 PM
Not much to say as just finishing a course in anatomy as well as just interested about viruses I truly enjoyed the does of reality, and for the most part I think the science was correct.

But another thing I love was they got into the philosophy of science which i think to many people forget about.

Loved it One of the best for this year. I've already listened to it 4 times.

Since it began, who have you killed? You wouldn't be alive now if you hadn't killed somebody.


Djerrid

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Reply #36 on: July 06, 2007, 03:58:39 AM
I thought this was a great story on many different levels. I don't know of any other sci-fi story that takes on Dawkins' concept of "The Selfish Gene" as a philosophical debate on free will. To fight against the determinism of biology in order to be the master of ones own fate, even if you choose to be evil. Then to voluntarily choose to do good even if is against ones evil nature... If he is selfish and evil at heart but not in action, is he still evil and selfish? I was picturing Micheal Douglas in 'Wall Street' preaching "Ambition is good."

The science was also well done and this piece would be a fun introduction to the concept of viral and bacterial symbiosis. The stretch between being "full" of blood and altruism is a bit much (an STD that makes its host tend towards promiscuity is more realistic) and finding a Mars virus perfectly formed to exploit human biology is as far fetched as Jeff Goldbloom uploading a virus into an alien computer system using Windows XP, but I'm just picking his nits.

Actually, there already is a pathogen that alters humans' personality.  It is called Toxoplasmosis and its regular host is cats and rats. When the rodents are infected they become more active, less cautious and less afraid of cat odor, and therefore more likely to be eaten by a cat.  The disease is then passed on through the cats' feses which is then nibbled on by the rodents. Humans then get it from their close contact with their cats which makes woman http://human-infections.suite101.com/article.cfm/toxoplasma_gondii_and_behavior "seem to become more intelligent, outgoing, conscientious, sexually promiscuous, and kind" while having the opposite effect on men. (There's a good Pseudopod submission if I've ever seen one.  ;))

One last thought: I'd have to agree with Dex in that I enjoy the sci-fi that puts more emphasis on the sci. You can go to any other genre to get your character development, flowery descriptions and witty dialog. But only science fiction has the power to test the limits of ones understanding of the observable universe against the boundless reaches of ones imagination.



Zathras

  • Guest
Reply #37 on: July 06, 2007, 06:23:45 PM
My first post.


I thought the story was just OK, but I think 7by12's picture is hilariously disturbing.  I can't stop looking at it.   Meow! 



Dex

  • Guest
Reply #38 on: July 07, 2007, 12:00:03 AM
One last thought: I'd have to agree with Dex in that I enjoy the sci-fi that puts more emphasis on the sci. You can go to any other genre to get your character development, flowery descriptions and witty dialog. But only science fiction has the power to test the limits of ones understanding of the observable universe against the boundless reaches of ones imagination.

First, good insights on the the story.
Second, if we don't ask for quality SF we will not get it.



robertmarkbram

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 75
    • The Blog for Rob
Reply #39 on: July 07, 2007, 09:29:44 AM
I did not enjoy this story.

I have to say that this story didn't work for me.  As opposed to Dex, I don't care so much about the science aspect as long as it's a really good story.  I guess my emphasis would be science fiction.  I almost tuned out after the first chapter of this one.  It seemed like just science speculation without any narrative drive, and I never felt like the story really kicked in.  It just kind of dragged along for too long and didn't really go anywhere.

Schark expressed my feelings best, both about "science fiction" and the direction of the story.

I appreciate the a lot of points made here already, particularly 7by12's point about irony  and Djerrid reminding me of just how twisted virally, bacterially pathogeny things really are - which is well reflected in the story.

I didn't enjoy the Dr. Jonathon Sullivan's narration; it seemed almost monotonous. My attention was drifting during the exposition of just how twisted the virally, bacterially pathogeny things really are, and - all apologies to David Brin - I just couldn't bring myself to care about the narrator. I didn't understand that the you in the story was the ALAS virus until the end of the story, but I am not sure that device added anything to the tale i.e. I don't particularly feel guilty that I personally make everyone act in a more altruistic fashion. :)

One more thing: the ALAS virus was all about affecting behaviour, while the narrator himself was acting in a most peculiar, directed (psychotic?) way. Ever since his announcement that the wanted to murder his colleague, I couldn't help thinking that the narrator must have been under the influence of some anti ALAS!

Rob
:)


Dex

  • Guest
Reply #40 on: July 07, 2007, 09:05:46 PM
I don't where to post this so I'll put it here - Heinlein's birthday today.

I wonder what he would say about today' SF?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein

Robert Anson Heinlein (July 7, 1907 – May 8, 1988) was one of the most popular, influential, and controversial authors of "hard" science fiction. He set a high standard for science and engineering plausibility, and helped to raise the genre's standards of literary quality.



slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #41 on: July 07, 2007, 09:25:36 PM
Hey Dex - thanks for the info.  Usually for a new topic people just got to one of the sub forums and post a new topic.



jahnke

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • Tormenta
Reply #42 on: July 08, 2007, 03:40:14 AM
I really enjoyed this story. One of the big reasons is that it sort of mirrors my take on good deeds in the framework of organized religion. As a lapsed catholic, turned agnostic turned atheist one thing that always runs around in my head when I do good deeds or see others who do good deeds is "why am I or are they doing this?" When I followed the tenants of catholicism the question wasn't really all that important. After all god wants me to do good deeds and in doing them and feeling good about doing them I am going to get into the kingdom of heaven (yea yea yea there is a lot more to it but it was all window dressing, it hard to understand why I am not catholic anymore isn't it.)

Now as an atheist I still do good deeds, when my neighbor needs to get pushed out of a snow bank I still do it. When I find a lost pet I try to contact the owner. When I see an accident I stop to see what I can do to help. If I see someone who needs help I typically stop to help them. I donate to charities (some religious) and I give freely of my time and even my blood to my community. And I still wonder if I am more or less moral than those who are part of a religion which wants people to be good citizens. After all if you help your fellow man knowing each one you help gets you closer to the kingdom of heaven are you better or worse than if you help your fellow man because you feel it is the right thing to do with "extra" reward whatsoever.

Is the reason I help my fellow man even different than those of a follower of an organized religion? Do they perhaps like me do it just because it is the right thing to do? I honestly don't know. It might be that even though I profess no belief in god that deep down I still believe and do the "right" thing because I don't want to reduce my chances of entering heaven. It was nice to hear these thoughts explored by removing the question of religion from them. I did cheer at the end when the narrator told the virus he was doing the right thing because HE was doing the right thing, it really did crystallize my emotions about the topic quite nicely, a firm reliance in the belief that my actions are my actions alone regardless of how good or bad they are. They are my actions and that ultimately is more important to me than what kinds of actions they are.



Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #43 on: July 09, 2007, 08:35:45 PM
And I still wonder if I am more or less moral than those who are part of a religion which wants people to be good citizens. After all if you help your fellow man knowing each one you help gets you closer to the kingdom of heaven are you better or worse than if you help your fellow man because you feel it is the right thing to do with "extra" reward whatsoever.

Is the reason I help my fellow man even different than those of a follower of an organized religion? Do they perhaps like me do it just because it is the right thing to do?

I don't know much about Catholicism, but as a (this area intentionally left bare of qualifiers, denominational affiliations or names of theologians) Christian the idea of "extra" reward is alien.  Christians do what is right because it's what's right: We want to do what's right.  (Or at least we want to want it.)  Ironically, in moving from Catholicism to atheism, you've moved closer to my idea of morality.  Go figure.

I did cheer at the end when the narrator told the virus he was doing the right thing because HE was doing the right thing, it really did crystallize my emotions about the topic quite nicely, a firm reliance in the belief that my actions are my actions alone regardless of how good or bad they are. They are my actions and that ultimately is more important to me than what kinds of actions they are.

That's a good thought.  The narrator wants his actions to be meaningful, and they can only be meaningful if he chooses what to do.  ALAS would strip him of his agency by forcing him to be good, and then he would be just a puppet.

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #44 on: July 09, 2007, 11:25:49 PM
Quote from: Mr. Tweedy
The narrator wants his actions to be meaningful, and they can only be meaningful if he chooses what to do.  ALAS would strip him of his agency by forcing him to be good, and then he would be just a puppet.
I'm not picking on Mr. Tweedy, he was just the last one to leave a comment of the vien I'm planning to argue.  Here goes:

ALAS isn't mind control, any more than the flu making you sneeze is mind control.  People still had to decide what to do.  Remember ALAS made people want to give blood, that made them feel good, and since giving blood was considered altruistic and they liked feeling good they simply made the (incorrect) connection that doing good made them feel that way.

Eating chocolate excites my pleasure centre - so my tastebuds control me?  They force me to eat chocolate (or other junk food)?



jahnke

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • Tormenta
Reply #45 on: July 10, 2007, 03:09:12 AM
ALAS isn't mind control, any more than the flu making you sneeze is mind control.  People still had to decide what to do.  Remember ALAS made people want to give blood, that made them feel good, and since giving blood was considered altruistic and they liked feeling good they simply made the (incorrect) connection that doing good made them feel that way.

Eating chocolate excites my pleasure centre - so my tastebuds control me?  They force me to eat chocolate (or other junk food)?

Pavlov taught his dogs to expect food when the bell rang and when the food didn't come the dogs bodies still wanted food and I expect they were still hungry, there clearly is a strong link between the mind and body. Biological imperatives are important, after all the drive to mate and raise offspring is a biological urge and it seems unlikely that unless we got something from the process of creating AND raising kids that as a species we would not have survived. Soooo who knows, if having sex didn't feel so good, and if looking at your new born baby didn't spark something in us do you think we would "carry on" for the good of mankind? I dunno? Do you? And that to me was the point, he couldn't know unless he didn't have it.

Before he explained the "feels good to give blood" bit I wondered if it was like toxoplasmosis which makes rats suicidal and people fat. Mind control can be really really subtle, after all we are made of biology who can say where biology stops and what makes us "human" begins? It seems to me they didn't actually have time to figure out how ALAS worked, better safe than sorry because it clearly did affect people.



slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #46 on: July 10, 2007, 11:59:30 AM
Biological imperatives are important, after all the drive to mate and raise offspring is a biological urge and it seems unlikely that unless we got something from the process of creating AND raising kids that as a species we would not have survived. ... And that to me was the point, he couldn't know unless he didn't have it.
Biological imperatives - exactly, not biological directives.  I see this arguement as supporting my point - as much as having offspring is a biological urge many, many people don't have children, or wait to do so.  Marathoners have their body screaming at them to stop running, soliders under fire instinctively want to get somewhere safe, and yet people control these strong imperatives. 
My point is along the lines that ALAS certainly was a contributing factor to people becoming more helpful to others, but it wasn't a mind-controlling virus making zombies of us all.  Imperatives can be ignored.



Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #47 on: July 10, 2007, 12:26:09 PM
Biological imperatives are important, after all the drive to mate and raise offspring is a biological urge and it seems unlikely that unless we got something from the process of creating AND raising kids that as a species we would not have survived. ... And that to me was the point, he couldn't know unless he didn't have it.
Biological imperatives - exactly, not biological directives.  I see this arguement as supporting my point - as much as having offspring is a biological urge many, many people don't have children, or wait to do so.  Marathoners have their body screaming at them to stop running, soliders under fire instinctively want to get somewhere safe, and yet people control these strong imperatives. 
My point is along the lines that ALAS certainly was a contributing factor to people becoming more helpful to others, but it wasn't a mind-controlling virus making zombies of us all.  Imperatives can be ignored.

Exactly. 

I'm going to use the chocolate as an example, because it was already brought up.  the ALAS effect is like that craving for the piece of chocolate when we're in a bad mood.  We don't lose control of our bodies until we get the chocolate.  We have this "voice" in our head whispering, "a piece of chocolate would be nice right about now."  After we have the piece pf chocolate we feel a little better or more relaxed.  It's a subtle push.

We all have that warm little feeling after we help someone.  ALAS makes people addicted to this feeling.  The story said giving blood was just one of the things people did.  They were also more likely to help little old ladies cross the street. 



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #48 on: July 10, 2007, 12:39:35 PM

We all have that warm little feeling after we help someone.  ALAS makes people addicted to this feeling.  The story said giving blood was just one of the things people did.  They were also more likely to help little old ladies cross the street. 

Not exactly - the story said quite explicitly that ALAS only made people addicted to giving blood, and that the other helpful things were done as a secondary effect; people didn't understand why they started craving blood donations and mistook it for a general desire to be helpful.

As I think I already said, I found this to be the weakest aspect of the story - it would work a whole lot better if the relationship was reversed, i.e. if there was a general increase in altruistic urges and that blood donations increased as a result of that. The effect would be the same, but it would be more plausible (and here, when it's possible to be more plausible without harming the plot, is the one case where I think plausibility should be taken as a factor). I wonder why Brin chose to do it the way he did - it's a shame he's not on these forums, I'd love to be able to ask him.



capteucalyptus

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Reply #49 on: July 10, 2007, 01:12:56 PM
But (and here my understanding might be weak) the blood itself was the vector.  The person didn't feel "right" until they gave blood.  I suspect that even just being bled a la old school barbers/leeches would have provided the same relief.  After all ALAS doesn't know what the carrier is doing.  So it wouldn't work IMO for ALAS to cause people to be generous as the primary mover.  Viruses aren't clever or intelligent regardless of what the narrator believes.  Maybe this is the way in which he isn't reliable? 

I think that it would have also been a stretch to make ALAS a mind control virus.  The narrator understands/believes that people aren't being controlled per se, but they still (like Pavlov's dogs) are trained by the way they feel immediately after doing something they perceive as altruistic.  If I recall my psychology classes correctly positive reinforcement on a variable schedule (which to a degree the virus would be) is more potent in shaping behavior.  So when they do something altruistic that is not giving blood it still feels good.  Not as good as giving blood does, but still good.  Then after a few weeks they give blood and it's even better and so on.

Overall I really enjoyed this story, especially the narration.  It did run a touch long, but the payoff in what to me was an unexpected ending made it all worth it.