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?
The story harkened me back in some ways to when I first read the Lottery as a teenager.
(Me, with all my switching schools, well, I ended up reading "The Most Dangerous Game" in three completely separate English classes.)
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.
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.
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.
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?
And one other question: In this world, how does any politician make it through his or her first year in office?
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?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.
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?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.
Would bodyguards even exist in a world where it’s legal—and encouraged—to kill people?
Suddenly everyone's a soccer (football) fan...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?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.
Maybe they have a "Yellow Card"?
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?
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.
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.
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?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?
By the way it's spelt Alasdair.
And one other question: In this world, how does any politician make it through his or her first year in office?
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?
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.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.
I can't fault the portrayal of these glum, dreary people.
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 wellThat 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.
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... ;)
Sara, OTOH, is simply vile. I feel even less remorse in her imminent red-carding.
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.
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.
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.
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!
I think there's a really interesting paper in this somewhere.
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.
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.
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.