PC011: Fourteen Experiments In Postal Delivery

[Heradel]

PC011: Fourteen Experiments In Postal Delivery

By John Schoffstall
Read by Heather Lindsley
Introduction by Rachel Swirsky
First appeared in Strange Horizons (full text at link.)

Featured intro Link: Postal Experiments

Christopher:

I received a letter from you today, expressing contrition for your past bad behavior and requesting a reconciliation with me. It was written in blue felt-tip pen, with big blurry spots that I think you intended to be taken as the marks of tears. However, when I burned the letter those spots did not produce the characteristic yellow flame that indicates the presence of sodium. I conclude that you made those stains with water drops, or some other aqueous liquid. Definitely not tears. Therefore, I am unconvinced of your sorrow, but reassured as to your guile, insincerity, and general incompetence.

Still hating you,

Jessica

P.S.: All further tear-stained letters will go directly into the In-Sink-Erator.

Rated R. Contains surrealism and wandering body parts of the naughty variety.

[stePH]

FIRST!

Loved this one.  Particularly when the narrator and her sister entered the Bosch painting and the story got totally psychedelic and fucked up.  The only place it lost me was when I was wondering exactly when she was writing the final letter.

[Listener]

Heather's reading was great.  She sounded like a more earnest Michelle Laurent (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325868/) and played the different emotions of Jessica's letters very, very well.

This story made me laugh out loud, from the word "cooter" to the "no... no no no no no..." thing.  The funniest PC yet, and I think a lot of fantasy lacks humor.  (So does erotica, but that's another story for another time.)

I loved the surrealist aspect, though when they entered the Bosch painting, while interesting, I kind of got lost a little bit.  Not because of the writing or the reading or the imagery, but because it was almost too much of an in-reference.  I've never SEEN that painting.  In the literary and critical references Jessica made, I could follow along because I understood from her voice the context of what she was saying, but when she tried to describe the painting, that fell a little flat for me.

I also was taken out of the story slightly by the reference to Scott McCloud. (MacLeod? I can never remember.)  I know who he is, but that's again too much of an in-reference.  I think more readers would understand the Bosch reference than the McCloud reference, and I only know who he is because of the back-and-forth between him and Jon Rosenberg (goats.com) about micropayments, back in the early 00s.

I got a kick out of Rachel's homage to Steve's intros.  I'm gathering one will be picked soon.  I hope it's mine.  *grin*

Overall, a great selection and a great reader.  I give it four ramparts up.  (out of four)

BOOBIES!

Loved this one.  Particularly when the narrator and her sister entered the Bosch painting and the story got totally psychedelic and fucked up.  The only place it lost me was when I was wondering exactly when she was writing the final letter.

FWIW, I was typing before you started posting *grin*... but hey, all's fair in love and forums.

(You like the little Fark joke I made?)

[stePH]

No fair editing my reply!  (though boobies are always good 

This is one of the extremely rare occasions where I've downloaded and listened to the episode almost as soon as it went up, so I was actually waiting for the thread to appear so I could comment.


I don't think I've ever seen the Bosch painting either, but I can imagine it from the description and from what I've heard about Bosch.  Besides, I really like "psychedelic and fucked up".  (I must get around to finishing Burroughs' Cities of the Red Night one of these days.)

I have no idea what a "Fark" is.

[Heradel]

No fair editing my reply!  (though boobies are always good 

This is one of the extremely rare occasions where I've downloaded and listened to the episode almost as soon as it went up, so I was actually waiting for the thread to appear so I could comment.


I don't think I've ever seen the Bosch painting either, but I can imagine it from the description and from what I've heard about Bosch.  Besides, I really like "psychedelic and fucked up".  (I must get around to finishing Burroughs' Cities of the Red Night one of these days.)

I have no idea what a "Fark" is.

[subtitles]
Fark is a news aggregator with photoshop contests and cliches and... Think Slashdot, minus the tech focus and with a young male's love of beer and the aforementioned body parts. The first post cliche is called a farkism on Fark, and is automatically changed to "boobies" when someone posts it in the comment threads (there are some cliches/farkisms that trigger the same process). 
[/subtitles]

Going back on topic, I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but I'm a fan of epistolary so my lunch hour's reserved.

[hautdesert]

I guess I'm a bit boggled that people haven't seen the Bosch.  I'm betting money you have seen it, or bits of it.

http://www.darkest-destruction.com/Bosch-TrypticGarden.html

eta--I hit post too soon.  It's one of those paintings that's so very famous it gets used a lot, or referred to a lot, and you may well know what it is but not know its name.

[Listener]

I guess I'm a bit boggled that people haven't seen the Bosch.  I'm betting money you have seen it, or bits of it.

http://www.darkest-destruction.com/Bosch-TrypticGarden.html

eta--I hit post too soon.  It's one of those paintings that's so very famous it gets used a lot, or referred to a lot, and you may well know what it is but not know its name.

Alas, it is unfamiliar.

Did you notice that the page misspelled "Earthly" in huge green letters?

[hautdesert]

Alas, it is unfamiliar.

Huh!  I am surprised.  Bits of it often turn up in history textbooks, and my own first introduction to it was when I was quite young--maybe five or six--on the inside of the album cover of Joni Mitchell's Clouds.

Did you notice that the page misspelled "Earthly" in huge green letters?

LOL, I didn't!  I only saw the triptych image nice and big and figured I'd go with that link.

[Void Munashii]

  This story had me laughing out loud most of the way through, and I was ready to declare that it had unseated "Ant King" as my favourite PC right up until the Bosch painting. It's not that I stopped enjoying it there, it just maybe got a little too surreal, or maybe just too serious for a story that had been so fun up until that point.

  I guess it must be that it got too serious, as it seems odd that I should be able to accept the concept of mailing someone a day of the week, their genitals, and the nation of spain, but not be able to accept characters entering a painting. I"m not sure if I've seen the painting before or not, and I dare not follow hautdesert's link since I do not know if it is work safe or not. I'll check it out when I get home.

  The read was absolutely perfect, and captured the character wonderfully.

  My wife kept patting me on the shoulder as the story progressed with comments about a 31 year old playing videogames and reading comic books, as if Christopher was somehow me. I had to point out to her that I had neither slept with nor vomited on her sister, and I am not a famous sculptor, but a completely unknown and unpublished writer.

  I would very much like to see more like this, and found the announcement at the beginning a bit discouraging. I've really been liking how PC has not been week after week of orcs and elves, but has been a wide variety of fantasy stories. I hope this type of variety stays the norm.

[stePH]

Huh!  I am surprised.  Bits of [Bosch's painting] often turn up in history textbooks, and my own first introduction to it was when I was quite young--maybe five or six--on the inside of the album cover of Joni Mitchell's Clouds.

It's not in my copy. 

[eytanz]

I really loved this one. I liked how the surrealism grew as the story progressed. I find stories that thrust me head first into surreal imagery (like many PP flash stories, or to some degree Ant King) don't work for me, but stories like this which gradually distort the world until it is utterly bizzare are great. Unlike some previous commenters, I had no problem with the more serious tone the story took towards the end. I felt that the story needed something to push the narrator out of her comfort zone - it was clear that as long as she continues being the recipient of the strange gifts, as opposed to a participant in them, nothing would change.

 I would very much like to see more like this, and found the announcement at the beginning a bit discouraging. I've really been liking how PC has not been week after week of orcs and elves, but has been a wide variety of fantasy stories. I hope this type of variety stays the norm.

I think you misunderstood the comment. So far, the stories have been ordered according to a specific arc, with similar stories more-or-less grouped together (mythic/fairytale stories to begin with, then more modern stories, then "urban fantasy"). I'm not sure the grouping is the same way I would have done it, but it was overt. What Rachel meant was that from now on, the stories will be more random, just like EP/PP - there will be no expectation that two concurrent weeks will be similar to each other. The pool from which they select will be just as varied.

[hautdesert]

Huh!  I am surprised.  Bits of [Bosch's painting] often turn up in history textbooks, and my own first introduction to it was when I was quite young--maybe five or six--on the inside of the album cover of Joni Mitchell's Clouds.

It's not in my copy. 

My mother's copy was an LP (of course--when I was five or six it was LP, reel-to-reel, or eight track) and had a gatefold cover.  My LP doesn't have the gatefold.  Inside the fold were the lyrics to the songs, and the picture of Adam and Eve, from the left side of the tryptich.  I don't know if it would be in the CD booklet or not.  I should probably get myself a CD copy of the album.

[Void Munashii]

 I would very much like to see more like this, and found the announcement at the beginning a bit discouraging. I've really been liking how PC has not been week after week of orcs and elves, but has been a wide variety of fantasy stories. I hope this type of variety stays the norm.

I think you misunderstood the comment. So far, the stories have been ordered according to a specific arc, with similar stories more-or-less grouped together (mythic/fairytale stories to begin with, then more modern stories, then "urban fantasy"). I'm not sure the grouping is the same way I would have done it, but it was overt. What Rachel meant was that from now on, the stories will be more random, just like EP/PP - there will be no expectation that two concurrent weeks will be similar to each other. The pool from which they select will be just as varied.

  No, I understood that, I am just used to dissapointment. I'm the sort of person that finally starts listening to a podcast that everyone says I should check out just as they stop doing new episodes, or I discover a neat tv show mere days before it gets cancelled, it's just the sort of luck I have.
  I will keep listening in any case, it's a tuesday morning ritual to listen to PC on the way to work (just as Friday mornings are EP, friday afternoons are PP, and monday mornings are Extralife Radio). It's not that I don't like orcs and elves, I just really have enjoyed the wide scope of stories that have been done so far. I do vow to not be one of those people who stops listening just because of a bad week (or indeed a few bad weeks).

[stePH]

I can't believe I've only just now remembered Detachable Penis by King Missile.   

[Ocicat]

I for one have seen the Bosch painting, and could easily picture them in it.  The little narrative descriptions of the painting were perfect, but probably not enough for someone who hasn't seen his work.  Actually, no words would be.  Anyway, I loved this bit of the story, including it being used for the serious conversation between the sisters.

For what it's worth, I also got the Scot McCloud reference, that was specifically to the book Understanding Comics, which has been given to many a significant other who disparaged comics as a less than valid storytelling medium.  :-)

So ya, quite good and fun.  Though was I the only one who thought that in the end the postman was going to deliver him, then take her away to his place?  Actually, I think them missing each other like that would have been a better ending.

[Chivalrybean]

FIRST!!!!! -to not like it so much.

I admit, I liked parts of it. I liked some of the silly things he sent, Spain, a bar, but overall, I'd never listen to this one again, and I don't think I can say that about any other episodes.

It was pretty crude, needlessly. It just made me like the characters less and less.

The Scott McCloud bit was funny. I'm only 24, and I only recently started reading comics and not just because I'm trying to write an issue of Jump Leads, so that was amusing.

I laughed here and there, but I don't really remember any of the jokes, save the one I just mentioned, and one more.

In the end, I didn't like anyone. I really didn't give a flying frog fart that they got back together. Of course, everything else was absurd, why not the characters too, but I dunno. I certainly could not relate.

In the end, the only thing I really care to remember from it is the Scotsman on a horse. That was the best part. It was completely different.

[stePH]

I listened to this one again last night at bedtime.  I've never done that with any other Escape Artists presentation.  The only other one I've listened to a second time was "Merry Christmas from the Heartbreakers" last Christmas, and it had been some months since I'd first listened.

Still loved it.  The reader put me in mind of Mur Lafferty several times, in the way she would inflect or emote a passage. 

I found something particularly noteworthy in her musings/ramblings on the Saturday-in-place-of-Thursday but now I can't remember what.  I might have been dozing.  I'm gonna have to listen to this one again! 

[Brian Deacon]

Solid story, but a GREAT reading by Heather.

I do always enjoy a story where the surrealism keeps growing as the plot progresses.

As to the tag line... My $0.02 is that you should keep trying out new ones organically until you get one that feels good or that gets a great reaction.  My first thought when I heard "It's story time" was "No!  Don't just copy Escape Pod!"

For now, it could just be a silly game where we're all wondering what you'll use for a tag line each week.

Brian

[stePH]

I found something particularly noteworthy in her musings/ramblings on the Saturday-in-place-of-Thursday but now I can't remember what.  I might have been dozing.  I'm gonna have to listen to this one again! 

I remembered it this morning without having to go back to the story.  It was when Jess was having lunch with her girlfriend, who was telling her that she should forgive Christopher and take him back.  I loved her reasoning as to why not; something along the lines of "If I forgive you, what does it cost you?  Nothing!  While I have to tear out a little piece of my heart and give it to you!"

The gradually increasing surrealism was awesome.  One more thing: I was mentally keeping count of the things Christopher was sending, and maybe I miscounted but I'm sure it exceeded fifteen items even before he sent himself.  I think I'll compile a list of the items, and I'll have to decide whether the Motrin counts, and/or the "tear"-stained letter.

[eytanz]

One more thing: I was mentally keeping count of the things Christopher was sending, and maybe I miscounted but I'm sure it exceeded fifteen items even before he sent himself.  I think I'll compile a list of the items, and I'll have to decide whether the Motrin counts, and/or the "tear"-stained letter.

Please post the list when you do.

[Rain]

I liked this story a lot, at first i wondered how it was a Fantasy story, but it soon became apparant, very funny and cute. The reading was especially good. Only problem i had was the ending because it made Jessica seem like she was the one who was to blame for the problems she and Christopher had, but that is a minor detail.

I also have never seen a Bosch painting before

[stePH]

I remembered it this morning without having to go back to the story.  It was when Jess was having lunch with her girlfriend, who was telling her that she should forgive Christopher and take him back.  I loved her reasoning as to why not; something along the lines of "If I forgive you, what does it cost you?  Nothing!  While I have to tear out a little piece of my heart and give it to you!"

Just remembered the text is linked to at the top of the thread.  I have to quote the bit in full because it's just so awesome:

... Then we ate a shiitake risotto with pancetta at the East River Café, and Ruth told me to forgive you.

Suppose I did. What would you have to do in return, Christopher?

Nothing. That's the deal killer, Christopher. All you have to do is make promises, to do better the next time. Promises are nothing, they disappear into the air as soon as they are uttered. Maybe you'll sleep with my sister again, next week, whenever I make you angry about something, or even just when you've had too much to drink. And in return, Ruth says I should forgive you. I have to open my heart and rip out a piece, and hand it to you. No. I won't. It's too much to ask, Christopher, it's not a fair trade.

Forgiveness is difficult in a post-Christian world.

Tonight I'll work up that list.

[eytanz]

Only problem i had was the ending because it made Jessica seem like she was the one who was to blame for the problems she and Christopher had, but that is a minor detail.

You know, that brings up a related niggle I had - the sister's "I won't apologize because you won't forgive" claim was a bit strange. I always thought that apologies are a precursor to forgiveness, not a replacement for them. I could see that sister say "I won't apologize because it won't be enough" - which would be entirely consistent with Jessica's character - but "I won't apologize because you need to forgive me regardless" seems like a rather odd position, and I find it entirely understandable why someone would choose not to forgive when faced with it.

[Ragtime]

The reader was great.

The story was very good, too, but about 2 or 3 Experiments in Postal Delivery too long.  The story peaked with Saturday and Spain, and drifted downward from there.

Also, what the heck was Heather's motivation?  She wants to get Chris and Jessica back together, but I have no idea why.  We know that he has cheated on her at least twice.  But the moral is "nobody's perfect so get over it"?

There's a huuuuge gap between "You're too much of  perfectionist" and "You should forgive the controlling, obsessive freak who has cheated on you twice (that you are aware of) and is still in possession of your stolen ski." 

Ok, maybe Heather herself thinks the gap is smaller that I do, but there should have been enough of an acknowledgment of the gap to hold off on ritual disemboweling until she dumps the guy who is "a little too messy" or "forgot my birthday once."

[SamChupp]

In the end, the only thing I really care to remember from it is the Scotsman on a horse. That was the best part. It was completely different.

That was no Scotsman! That was the Pardoner from Canterbury Tales! (Um, wasn't it?)

[stePH]

The story was very good, too, but about 2 or 3 Experiments in Postal Delivery too long.  The story peaked with Saturday and Spain, and drifted downward from there.

Without the things that follow, the story is a series of vignettes that goes nowhere.

Also, what the heck was Heather's motivation?  She wants to get Chris and Jessica back together, but I have no idea why.  We know that he has cheated on her at least twice.  But the moral is "nobody's perfect so get over it"?

There's a huuuuge gap between "You're too much of  perfectionist" and "You should forgive the controlling, obsessive freak who has cheated on you twice (that you are aware of) and is still in possession of your stolen ski."  

Ok, maybe Heather herself thinks the gap is smaller that I do, but there should have been enough of an acknowledgment of the gap to hold off on ritual disemboweling until she dumps the guy who is "a little too messy" or "forgot my birthday once."

I agree with you here.  From what we're given by Jessica, Christopher is a self-absorbed shit and no woman in her right mind would take him back.  But somehow this story worked for me in spite of it all, and is by far my favorite Podcastle to date.

[Rachel Swirsky]

My first thought when I heard "It's story time" was "No!  Don't just copy Escape Pod!"

It was a joke, like when I said "I have a story for you, and it's made up" in parody of Psuedopod. ;-)

Honestly, I strongly doubt I'll ever have a tag line. I don't like them much. But I figure I'll keep affectionately mocking things until I run out of things to affectionately mock.

[SamChupp]

Also, what the heck was Heather's motivation?  She wants to get Chris and Jessica back together, but I have no idea why.  We know that he has cheated on her at least twice.  But the moral is "nobody's perfect so get over it"?

I have to agree with you here. I think that Chris is not exactly a laudable human being. He sounds like an immature man who can't keep commitments and kind of thinks with his penis.  (Which makes me wonder if he was able to think after he sent it to her? Hrmmm.)

OK, I am all for True Love winning out in the end. Maybe Chris changed and is no longer a lying philanderer - maybe spending time without his penis was a good thing for him (I think, though, it was still attached, so he was still probably testosterone poisoned).

But I think the whole premise of this story - that a person can be bribed, effectively, to forgive someone for being unfaithful....is completely wrong.

Having said that, I really enjoyed the execution of the story and it did make me laugh. I don't have to agree politically / socially with every story I come across to like it.

[DKT]

Very funny story, and Heather Lindsley gave it a fantastic read.  I'd say that's one of the best readings you've had here, but then I'd be discounting Steve Eley reading the Ant King, Maia Whitaker reading Wisteria, and Ben Phillips reading the Osteomancer's Son.  Podcastle's done a great job pairing up readers with stories so far. 

[Listener]

I agree with you here.  From what we're given by Jessica, Christopher is a self-absorbed shit and no woman in her right mind would take him back.  But somehow this story worked for me in spite of it all, and is by far my favorite Podcastle to date.

Jessica was kind of a brat in some ways, though, wasn't she?  Yeah, Chris barfed on her sister (with whom he was cheating on her) but as the story went on she started to grate on me a bit.

[Ragtime]

Without the things that follow, the story is a series of vignettes that goes nowhere.

I certainly don't think the story should end after Spain!  Just that it peaked there, and then we moved into "The rest of the story will now break away into didacticism while we get to the 'point.'"  The last part violated the "show, don't tell" rule, even if the "telling" was going on while gorily disemboweling in a Bosch painting.

And then, a return to form for the final "mailing."  I just felt to me like a page from an entirely different story got mixed in there.

[Ragtime]

But I think the whole premise of this story - that a person can be bribed, effectively, to forgive someone for being unfaithful....is completely wrong.

Having said that, I really enjoyed the execution of the story and it did make me laugh. I don't have to agree politically / socially with every story I come across to like it.

I agree with that, but I'm still left with trying to figure out exactly why they got back together.

If I were writing the story, maybe I would have ended it with a package being delivered, it being very clear (to the reader and Jessica) that it is "him" inside, and leaving it open as to what exactly, she will do with him.

As it is, the happy ending is "and now we will have sex," and I'm not exactly sure why.

[eytanz]

But I think the whole premise of this story - that a person can be bribed, effectively, to forgive someone for being unfaithful....is completely wrong.

Having said that, I really enjoyed the execution of the story and it did make me laugh. I don't have to agree politically / socially with every story I come across to like it.

I agree with that, but I'm still left with trying to figure out exactly why they got back together.

If I were writing the story, maybe I would have ended it with a package being delivered, it being very clear (to the reader and Jessica) that it is "him" inside, and leaving it open as to what exactly, she will do with him.

As it is, the happy ending is "and now we will have sex," and I'm not exactly sure why.

They ended back up together because she clearly never considered them actually broken up. Not a single message she sent him sounded like "our relationship was over". From the get-go, she was quite clearly telling him "try harder", not "stop trying". They got back together at the point where she realized he's tried as hard as he can, and she needs to either accept it or break it off for real.

[DKT]

The last part violated the "show, don't tell" rule, even if the "telling" was going on while gorily disemboweling in a Bosch painting.

I'm all about hanging around to see what other rules John Schoffstall will violate next. 

I know it's called a rule, but really it seems like more of a guide that writers bend all the time.  Especially in the SF/F/Horror genres.

But I think the whole premise of this story - that a person can be bribed, effectively, to forgive someone for being unfaithful....is completely wrong.

Having said that, I really enjoyed the execution of the story and it did make me laugh. I don't have to agree politically / socially with every story I come across to like it.

I agree with that, but I'm still left with trying to figure out exactly why they got back together.

If I were writing the story, maybe I would have ended it with a package being delivered, it being very clear (to the reader and Jessica) that it is "him" inside, and leaving it open as to what exactly, she will do with him.

As it is, the happy ending is "and now we will have sex," and I'm not exactly sure why.

Presumably, because she'd finally been able to forgive him.  And, of course, she was still in love with him.  Honestly, I'm not sure why either one of these people loved the other, they were both kind of idiots -- the kind of idiots that make you groan when your best friend introduces you to his/her new girlfriend/boyfriend.  But I guess they were lovable idiots, at least the way Schoffstall wrote them (and Lindsley played them). 

I do find the meditations on forgiveness interesting, though.  Is it something that is bought back?  Is it something you earn?  Or is it something that's just given? 

[stePH]

They ended back up together because she clearly never considered them actually broken up. Not a single message she sent him sounded like "our relationship was over". From the get-go, she was quite clearly telling him "try harder", not "stop trying".

From the story:

I realize that these are traditional gestures of male romantic affection, and express a desire for forgiveness. They are not nearly enough. You are trying to melt the glacier of my anger with the Bic lighter of your contrition. You are attempting to scale Everest while wearing sling-backs. Give it up, Christopher. Your cause is hopeless.

(emphasis mine)

[eytanz]

From the story:

I realize that these are traditional gestures of male romantic affection, and express a desire for forgiveness. They are not nearly enough. You are trying to melt the glacier of my anger with the Bic lighter of your contrition. You are attempting to scale Everest while wearing sling-backs. Give it up, Christopher. Your cause is hopeless.

(emphasis mine)

Here is way to say "stop sending me stuff":

"Stop sending me stuff"

Here is a way to say "keep sending me stuff":

"I'm writing to tell you that I have received what you sent me. I am detailing what it is (even though you clearly know, since you sent it), and am making sure you are well aware I paid close attention to it. I am detailing my reactions to it, which are generally positive. It is, however, not enough. Something will be enough, but not this. But I'm not going to tell you what. You might as well give up, you're going to fail".

It's always important to realize that "no" means "no". But "don't try because you aren't good enough" is as likely to be a challenge as it is to be a rejection.

[DKT]

If she really wanted to break up, simply telling him to f*ck off and stop sending her crap would have been more effective.

In her defense, I don't think Jess realized this was the way she was feeling.  But yeah, I agree with eytanz.  On some level, she didn't really want the relationship to be over.

[stePH]

In her defense, I don't think Jess realized this was the way she was feeling.  But yeah, I agree with eytanz.  On some level, she didn't really want the relationship to be over.

I agree too, now that I've read eytanz's paraphrasing of the letter that I quoted from the story.  Somehow that got lost on me the two times I listened to the story.  Mostly what stuck with me was the "I have to forgive you while you have to do nothing" bit.

[tazo]

Loved this one, particularly the reading.  Pod Castle seems to really excel at reader to story matching (I've listened to audiobooks that hat absolutely atrocious readers.  Try a first person southern belle as read by a very prim English gentlemen.)

What really attracted me to this one was the quirkiness of it.  Sending Spain, the reference to what is, let's be frank, one of the weirdest paintings to have ever been put down with paint.

It was a bit weird as I listened to this on a car trip with my mother, but she thought it was hilarious, so I suppose it all worked out.

I agree with you here.  From what we're given by Jessica, Christopher is a self-absorbed shit and no woman in her right mind would take him back.  But somehow this story worked for me in spite of it all, and is by far my favorite Podcastle to date.

Well, that actually brings up an interesting point.  The entire story is from Jessica's point of view and we never actually see Christopher.  I'm not saying that Jessica's an unreliable narrator, but she's certainly a biased narrator.   She seemed somewhat unaware of her own feelings towards Christopher (the wording the author used to convey something the narrator wasn't aware of was quite well done).

 I actually wondered exactly how much of the story had happened and how much was conjecture, although I will admit I found Heather's explanation at the end a bit strange.    

[Void Munashii]

I agree with you here.  From what we're given by Jessica, Christopher is a self-absorbed shit and no woman in her right mind would take him back.  But somehow this story worked for me in spite of it all, and is by far my favorite Podcastle to date.

Well, that actually brings up an interesting point.  The entire story is from Jessica's point of view and we never actually see Christopher.  I'm not saying that Jessica's an unreliable narrator, but she's certainly a biased narrator.   She seemed somewhat unaware of her own feelings towards Christopher (the wording the author used to convey something the narrator wasn't aware of was quite well done).
 I actually wondered exactly how much of the story had happened and how much was conjecture, although I will admit I found Heather's explanation at the end a bit strange.    

  I think that Jessica is a bit unreliable. Looking deeper at what she says, it sounds like, for a successful artist, Christopher may be a pretty down to Earth kind of guy. He plays video games, reads comics (and obviously tried to get her to at least understand why), and he gives the woman he loves everything short of the moon, which probably would have been next, just to get her to give him another chance. Yes, he cheated on her while drunk (the vomit being just the icing on the cake), and that is inexcusable, but it is explained by Heather... who may also be a little unreliable.

  Jessica on the other hand seems like she's very self-absorbed herself. She's told by everyone who knows them as a couple to give him another chance because they see something in Christopher that she isn't seeing, but she's too concerned with looking weak, with giving an inch and getting nothing in return (save for roses, booze, one of her skis, a sculpture, a fully staffed bar, male genitalia, Saturday, Spain, etc) to even consider it. The woman is so petty that she burned a "tear" spattered note just to prove that the drops were not tears. She (per Heather) drove Christopher into the arms of her own sister by being too cold and judgmental.

  At the start of the story Christopher seems like the stereotypical philandering jerk, but as the story progresses I think that we see that's he's not the total bastard he at first appears to be, while Jessica is not the totally innocent little victim in all this. At the start it looks like Jessica has been betrayed by a louse, but by the end we see that she is every bit as bad as Christopher may be, just in her own way.

  Now maybe I'm just defending Christopher because I'm a 30 year old who plays video games and reads comics myself, and maybe I'm a self-absorbed shit who is too self-absorbed too notice, but I think there is enough evidence in the story to show that Christopher is not the anti-christ, and that maybe both he and Jessica need to give a little to make their relationship work. Jessica took being right too far, and ended up being in the wrong as well.

  I found Heather to just be odd in general, but I think that may be partly because i kept picturing her as Twist from "Spaced".

[stePH]

  At the start of the story Christopher seems like the stereotypical philandering jerk, but as the story progresses I think that we see that's he's not the total bastard he at first appears to be, while Jessica is not the totally innocent little victim in all this. At the start it looks like Jessica has been betrayed by a louse, but by the end we see that she is every bit as bad as Christopher may be, just in her own way.

There, now my initial impression of the story has been completely turned on its head, and it's a lot deeper than it first appeared.  I love this story! 

[stePH]

Okay, I've just gone through the text at Strange Horizons, and here's the list of things that Christopher sent Jessica over the course of the story.  Apparently I did miscount -- I must have included Jessica's letters that didn't mention receiving any shipments -- because the list comes to exactly fourteen discrete shipments.

In order, Christpher sent:

1: "tear"-stained letter.
2: dozen roses & magnum of Moët.
3: one ski.
4: invitation to gallery showing.
5: Kuro 19 sculpture.
6: blow-up doll.
7: Harold Angel's Bar.
8: Motrin.
9: Saturday.
10: his penis & testicles.
11: Spain.
12: Olde English horseman.
13: Bosch's The Garden of Earthly Delights.
14: himself.

So there we have it.

[Chivalrybean]

12: Olde English horseman.

She started talking in a Scottish accent if I recall... or maybe I'm reading into the story something that isn't there...

[stePH]

12: Olde English horseman.

She started talking in a Scottish accent if I recall... or maybe I'm reading into the story something that isn't there...

I was going by the text that I saw; somebody else here mentioned he/she/it thought the horseman was the Pardoner from The Canterbury Tales, and the text resembled Chaucer's original in my copy.  I've never heard Old English spoken before, so it may well sound Scottish.

[Ragtime]

12: Olde English horseman.

She started talking in a Scottish accent if I recall... or maybe I'm reading into the story something that isn't there...

I was going by the text that I saw; somebody else here mentioned he/she/it thought the horseman was the Pardoner from The Canterbury Tales, and the text resembled Chaucer's original in my copy.  I've never heard Old English spoken before, so it may well sound Scottish.

"Pardoner" makes complete sense for the story.  The accent used by the reader, however, was very clearly Scottish, and appropriate for reading Robert Burns, rather than Chaucer.  I think it's just a case of a really dynamic reader making a choice that ended up confusing the listeners, who assumed the horseman was Scottish based on the reader's accent, rather than the text.

[Heradel]

12: Olde English horseman.

She started talking in a Scottish accent if I recall... or maybe I'm reading into the story something that isn't there...

I was going by the text that I saw; somebody else here mentioned he/she/it thought the horseman was the Pardoner from The Canterbury Tales, and the text resembled Chaucer's original in my copy.  I've never heard Old English spoken before, so it may well sound Scottish.

"Pardoner" makes complete sense for the story.  The accent used by the reader, however, was very clearly Scottish, and appropriate for reading Robert Burns, rather than Chaucer.  I think it's just a case of a really dynamic reader making a choice that ended up confusing the listeners, who assumed the horseman was Scottish based on the reader's accent, rather than the text.

Having spent some time recently listening to stuff in old English, Scottish is much more comprehensible for modern ears. If it had been read in old English I think a good half of this thread would have been "did anyone understand the section with the knight" "I think he said something about a helicopter dog" "No, I thought it was about a viking god" and so on.

[stePH]

"Pardoner" makes complete sense for the story.  The accent used by the reader, however, was very clearly Scottish, and appropriate for reading Robert Burns, rather than Chaucer.  I think it's just a case of a really dynamic reader making a choice that ended up confusing the listeners, who assumed the horseman was Scottish based on the reader's accent, rather than the text.

The reader took liberties elsewhere in the text, I noticed.  In the letter that Jessica wrote while drunk after coming back from the bar, the text is rife with typos.  I don't know how I would have read it differently though.

[Darwinist]

Blech!  I really hated this one.  Initially, it reminded me of Sex in the City (double blech) and it just went downhill for me as I realized that they would end up together again even though the guy had sex with her sister and maybe others while they were dating or whatever.  The letters drove me nuts (I hate you, I hate you, but let me tell you all about his thing.....).   And towards the end when the sister says that he was having sex with her to get to our heroine and that our heroine drove him away with her lofty standards.  Geez.  Oh well, that's why they call it fantasy.   

[Ragtime]

And towards the end when the sister says that he was having sex with her to get to our heroine and that our heroine drove him away with her lofty standards.  Geez.  Oh well, that's why they call it fantasy.   

Speaking of which, Heather says why he was having sex with her, but never quite gets to explaining why SHE was having sex with HIM.  It's sort of written like it was the guy's unitary decision that made it  happen.

I mean, I don't care how much MY sister and her boyfriend aren't getting along . . .

[Chivalrybean]

I think if the characters were likable, and the crudeness was way down, I would have liked this story a lot.

Copying EP on the tagline was amusing, but you really should have copied something useful, like the rating warnings Steve gives.

[hautdesert]

Having spent some time recently listening to stuff in old English, Scottish is much more comprehensible for modern ears. If it had been read in old English I think a good half of this thread would have been "did anyone understand the section with the knight" "I think he said something about a helicopter dog" "No, I thought it was about a viking god" and so on.

Chaucer wrote in Middle English, not Old English.  Middle English is a great deal more comprehensible, with a bit of effort--witness the very charming and readable "Geoffrey Chaucer Hath A Blog."  Which, sadly, Mr. Chaucer has not posted to recently.

As to the pronunciation of Chaucer's brand of Middle English (there are other dialects of it, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which was written by someone whose name we don't know at about the time Chaucer lived, was written in a Northern dialect that actually does require translation for us today)--where was I?  Oh. The pronunciation of Chaucer's dialect of Middle English.  No recordings to tell us, but there are some educated guesses out there.  The wikipedia entry on Chaucer, as it happens, says:

This change in the pronunciation of English, still not fully understood, makes the reading of Chaucer difficult for the modern audience, though it is thought by some that the modern Scottish accent is closely related to the sound of Middle English.

edited to add links.  cause, what was I thinking, not putting in the links? 

[Hatton]

... you really should have copied something useful, like the rating warnings Steve gives.

+1!

This story made me laugh out loud but I'm REALLY glad I had headphones on when I listened!

The reader did a great job of a wounded lover, especially the drunk section and the "still hating you."

[yicheng]

I loved the characters *because* they were crude and idiotic.  Speaking for myself, of course, I think it reflects (in a grown up kinda way) how a lot of people really are in their every day mundane life.  Personally, the fact that Christopher is a philanderer and Jessica an unforgiving perfectionist is exactly why the story works for me.  Real life people and real life relationship aren't perfect.  Real people are often shallow, self-absorbed, and plain stupid.  I know I am all that and more on a daily basis. 

As for why they get back together:

1) Because deep down they truly do love each other.
2) Because they're codependency forces them to stay with the other in a cycle of hellish mutual-torture.

Take your pick. 

[Yossarian's grandson]

Ehm...what?


That about sums up my thoughts about this story.

[Cerebrilith]

I liked this story a lot.  The progression from the mundane to the trippy was a lot of fun.  I wouldn't advise anyone to get back together with someone who cheated on them with their sister, but past that this story was great :-)

[Bunter]

This is my favorite PC story so far, and one of my favorite EP/PP/PC episodes ever.  The reading was the *best evah* in the Escape Artists universe!

What I especially enjoyed about the story is - as others have mentioned - how you gradually came to see  that the narrator still liked Chris even as she was writing that she didn't.  People are often complicated in ways like that, and I think that SF/F too often ignores this facet of human nature.

[Chivalrybean]

What I especially enjoyed about the story is - as others have mentioned - how you gradually came to see  that the narrator still liked Chris even as she was writing that she didn't.  People are often complicated in ways like that, and I think that SF/F too often ignores this facet of human nature.

I might have to disagree that fantasy ignores the problems and failings of humans, but SF can focus a lot on neat gadgets or situations more than character development. The recent Slant of Light story had characters with problems and I really enjoyed that story (eventually).

Narration: Yes, it was very good in this story. So that makes two points good, the reading, and the Scotsman on a horse (I don't care what you say! Don't take away the Scotsman from me! {;0p )

[kathnich]

So ya, quite good and fun.  Though was I the only one who thought that in the end the postman was going to deliver him, then take her away to his place?  Actually, I think them missing each other like that would have been a better ending.

No, you weren't the only one.  I was chortling in anticipation, then had to catch up, wondering why the postmen brought them both inside...

I thought that Heather's reasoning was about as warped as the Bosch painting.  But it was also clear to me that the heroine (interesting that it's her name I've blocked on..) really did still care about Christopher.  You don't spend that much energy telling somebody you hate them if there's not some interest.

[petronivs]

The most profound, deep, gaping hole in this story was the horrible absence of a water buffalo.

Apart from that, it was a fun listen.

[Darwinist]

Ehm...what?


That about sums up my thoughts about this story.

Hopefully they'll both get lost in the mail and disappear.

[ajames]

I don't want to be the guy next to Chris at the urinal when his cock and balls have been mailed away to Jess.

[csrster]

12: Olde English horseman.

She started talking in a Scottish accent if I recall... or maybe I'm reading into the story something that isn't there...

I was going by the text that I saw; somebody else here mentioned he/she/it thought the horseman was the Pardoner from The Canterbury Tales, and the text resembled Chaucer's original in my copy.  I've never heard Old English spoken before, so it may well sound Scottish.

"Pardoner" makes complete sense for the story.  The accent used by the reader, however, was very clearly Scottish, and appropriate for reading Robert Burns, rather than Chaucer.  I think it's just a case of a really dynamic reader making a choice that ended up confusing the listeners, who assumed the horseman was Scottish based on the reader's accent, rather than the text.

Having spent some time recently listening to stuff in old English, Scottish is much more comprehensible for modern ears. If it had been read in old English I think a good half of this thread would have been "did anyone understand the section with the knight" "I think he said something about a helicopter dog" "No, I thought it was about a viking god" and so on.

It didn't sound anything like Scottish to my ears, but then what would I know, I'm only a Scotsman. It wasn't Old English either - in fact it sounded like perfectly straigtforward Chaucerian Middle English.

[Liminal]

Blech!  I really hated this one.  Initially, it reminded me of Sex in the City (double blech) and it just went downhill for me as I realized that they would end up together again even though the guy had sex with her sister and maybe others while they were dating or whatever.  The letters drove me nuts (I hate you, I hate you, but let me tell you all about his thing.....).   And towards the end when the sister says that he was having sex with her to get to our heroine and that our heroine drove him away with her lofty standards.  Geez.  Oh well, that's why they call it fantasy.   

Just wanted to let you know that you aren't alone. I didn't even finish listening to the story because I was utterly bored with the characters and the sense of "hey, look at me aren't I a clever story" that pervaded the piece.

Mark this one "return to sender" for me.

[sirana]

I liked this story, but not the ending. Not the most deep one, but funny and original. I liked the surreal touch, but the ending... I don't know, probably it got to surreal to me, or I stopped listening intently, well somehow it just didn't work for me.

[JoeFitz]

This one was cute in places but overall struck me as just silly. I liked the wrap story (pun intended) but most of the items were just too cryptic. Struck me as a writer trying to be too clever by half. And the sister was just much too interested in getting these two back together. Made me think that she was feeling guilty and also wanting another shot at him.

[Roney]

I've got to love a story where the language can range from "petitio principii"^* to a dismembered... member within a minute.  More importantly, it does it in a way that's true to the characters of both the narrator and her off-stage ex, and that advances the plot.  I thought the cleverness was always in the service of the storytelling.

The reading was great as well.  At times it made me imagine Jaye Tyler of Wonderfalls, grown up a bit and even more cynical.

I've enjoyed a lot of PodCastle's tour of the genre but this was definitely one of my favourites.  I'd love to hear more in this vein.

^*Yay!  Finally my inner pedant doesn't have to complain about misuse of "begging the question" in a story.

[stePH]

^*Yay!  Finally my inner pedant doesn't have to complain about misuse of "begging the question" in a story.

You get your shorts in a bunch over that too?    I usually get a blank stare as a reply when I say, "no, it raises the question; it does not beg it."

[Roney]

^*Yay!  Finally my inner pedant doesn't have to complain about misuse of "begging the question" in a story.

You get your shorts in a bunch over that too?    I usually get a blank stare as a reply when I say, "no, it raises the question; it does not beg it."

I try not to, I really try.  I tell myself that the original meaning is a terribly archaic use of "begging" and that language is always changing etc.  But if we lose begging the question then we'll only have petitio principii to take its place and that's an absurdly technical term that the misusers of beg-the-question are unlikely even to be able to pronounce.  (I know I can't.)

Some language battles need to be conceded so we can save our resources for the ones worth fighting.  I think this one is worth fighting... but I'm not sure.

[stePH]

Some language battles need to be conceded so we can save our resources for the ones worth fighting.  I think this one is worth fighting... but I'm not sure.

Well, I for one will continue to correct abusers of the term, that what they really mean to say is that it raises the question.  Sometimes I even get to explain what begging the question really is.

Fight teh good fight, brother! (sister?)

[Tango Alpha Delta]

FWIW, I think the guy who sent his ghoulies off in the post would be doing more begging than raising for quite some time, but...

Since I was on Southwest Airlines flight 1532 when I listened to this one, and spent the following two weeks away from the forum, it took me a while to catch up.  BUT, I enjoyed the story, and just wanted to add:

*I heard Middle English, too, and guessed at Chaucer, though for some reason I didn't make the jump to the Pardoner... which seems an appropriate reference in retrospect.

*I don't think PC needs a "tagline", but definitely needs more "sense of fun" and less "wikipedia quoting" in the intros/outros. 

Ann Leckie has a warm and friendly speaking voice, but I never feel like I'm hearing Ann Leckie's thoughts as much as I am hearing Ann Leckie's research notes.  Rachel's delivery has become more interesting and engaging as the 'cast has developed, and I think you will all hit your stride when you relax and start telling us what you feel about the stories.

And though we haven't nailed down a "I have a story for you..." or "It's Story Time" moment, PC does have some noticeable "small print" moments that it could probably stand to lose, or at least to smooth over.  Ex.:

1. We know the links to the sites you mention are going to be up on the site, so you don't have to read them to us.

2. "After the story, the feedback..."  and the ending quotation, "____ said..." are very formalized.  Nothing wrong with that, per se, but it adds to that feeling that we are hearing you read your English homework to us.  I think you can trust us that we'll be able to understand what you're talking about without spelling it out each week. 

Also, the quotations frequently relate to other things said in the story, the feedback, or the intro/outro sections.  You could easily fold the quote into your other thoughts without losing us; and link to http://www.quoteland.com/ or www.wikiquote.org in the show notes for those who secretly don't know what you're talking about.

But none of this is intended as nitpicking; things get better each week, and the stories are what really matter at the end of the day, anyway, right?

[Edit: I wrote this before stumbling into the discussion of this same subject in the PC012 thread; apologies for any redundancies in bringing it up again!]

[Myrealana]

This was a riot from beginning to end. I was on a long drive as I listened and this story made the miles fly past.

[koda]

It was totally romantic in a modern way.  Even mentioning poly.  Mistakes will happen. I really enjoyed that it used humor to ease something painful.  I do that - but usually not very well. =(

[Unblinking]

I really like a good piece of magical realism, and this was it.  At least that's what I would call it (that may not be the official definition).

I like that the surrealism was added gradually, as the plot seemed fairly straightforward at first.  I got a little bit lost when the first surreal item arrived (the bar), but caught up quickly once I figured out what was happening.

The low point of the story for me was the painting.  I didn't realize it was a painting, nor have I ever seen the painting that I remember, so I was left listening to the seemingly random things described and saying "huh?" lots of times.  And since it's supposed to be depicting hell in one of the triptych's, shouldn't her sister be feeling excruciating pain by having a corkscrew driven into her?  Else it's not really hell...  Hell isn't so scary if the torture is ignorable.

In the end I didn't want them to get back together, but it wasn't terrible either.  I don't know that I could forgive someone who cheated in that way, but maybe it wasn't as bad as it would seem to me because she's not opposed to polyamory?  Dunno.

My two favorite things about it:
1.  Unreliable narrator.  Despite her words, the very fact that she was writing letters to him at all meant that she didn't consider the relationship a done deal.
2.  Of everything in this surreal story, my favorite element was completely mundane:  the ski.  I love how he gets her on the hook by just sending one, so that her demands to have the ski back continue and escalate so that she no longer pretends she doesn't care.

[Fenrix]

12: Olde English horseman.

She started talking in a Scottish accent if I recall... or maybe I'm reading into the story something that isn't there...

I was going by the text that I saw; somebody else here mentioned he/she/it thought the horseman was the Pardoner from The Canterbury Tales, and the text resembled Chaucer's original in my copy.  I've never heard Old English spoken before, so it may well sound Scottish.

"Pardoner" makes complete sense for the story.  The accent used by the reader, however, was very clearly Scottish, and appropriate for reading Robert Burns, rather than Chaucer.  I think it's just a case of a really dynamic reader making a choice that ended up confusing the listeners, who assumed the horseman was Scottish based on the reader's accent, rather than the text.

I was really enjoying the story and the narration. I was impressed with the narrator effectively conveying the drunk text. But I was blown away when the shift to Chaucerian English was so seamless. Good fun story with a phenomenal reading.

As an aside, I recognized it as Chaucerian Middle English immediately, and had no problems with Bosch, as I was familiar with both. There were other items, like the understanding comic books reference, I did not get but the lack of getting the barb did not diminish my appreciation of the story. The rich details and careful layering really made this one shine.

Ehm...what?

That about sums up my thoughts about this story.

I find it entertaining that a windy sonofabitch like Yossarian's grandson would find a surreal story with bizarre logic leaps an unpleasant challenge. Maybe if the narrator had told the story while she kept crab apples in her cheeks it would have made more sense to him.

[Umbrageofsnow]

As long as we're talking about this old experiment, I want to say that this is one of the stories I use to introduce people to Podcastle.  I listened to it when it first came out and was just blown away, and at this point I think I've forced it on any number of my friends.  The narration is definitely a major part of what makes it so great, although the story itself is great too.  I just love the drunk-text narration though.