EP412: Thirty Seconds From Now

[justinstoned]

Major #UpTwinkles. Worth several listens.

[Unblinking]

I liked the premise of the story.  A much better usage of the idea than the dismal movie Next.  (Poor Phillip K. Dick wrote some phenomenal stories, which have been turned into a few movie gems and a whole lotta  crap)  For me though, the reason that movie sucked is that the way the premise was portrayed there was no tension whatsoever--he dies on screen all the time in his future visions and just undoes it immediately, even to the extent of bullet-dodging.  The only way he would ever be in danger is what the movie puts the second half into (because for the most part he can only see 2 minutes ahead), but then cheapens that by taking it all back.


Anyway, back to this story.  So I liked the premise.  I thought the reveal of the relationship made it feel very real.  I like how his vision is a little different than most I've seen in that trope--I don't remember seeing one that's so cemented in a place rather than following a certain person or something.  It made the character's actions make a lot of sense, why he sits in his dorm room by himself most of the time because that is his safe place that is kept uncluttered by being devoted to his quest of solitude.

It kept on annoying the logic centers of my brain, though, particularly the fact that the love interest is so solid.  I mean, our main character can see branching possibilitiies from the tossing of a bean bag, so clearly what he sees is not only influenced by conscious choices but by random perturbations.  So, is this other guy somehow immune to the powers of chance?  Does the guy never trip, or get sick, or anything else that would skew his actions in any way no matter how momentary?  Does this other guy have no internal thinking that could associate with branching paths?  So for the whole story I was trying to figure out if the guy is also somehow supernatural, made of probablistic adamantium which cannot be affected by the waves of chance all about him and so rigid and robotic in his thinking that in any given circumstance he would always do the exact same thing.  The story didn't seem to have any explanation, except perhaps for the steadfastness of the protagonist's choice, but that is only a partial explanation, to my mind.  This question drove me to distraction and there was never even an answer.

[CryptoMe]

Add me to the camp of people who were dissatisfied that Tony's magical stability powers were never properly explained. It significantly impacted my enjoyment of the story. If I had the ability to see into the future, I would probably have chosen not to bother with this story after all. And that's too bad, because I did like the third-person-future tense it was told in.

[Unblinking]

Add me to the camp of people who were dissatisfied that Tony's magical stability powers were never properly explained. It significantly impacted my enjoyment of the story. If I had the ability to see into the future, I would probably have chosen not to bother with this story after all. And that's too bad, because I did like the third-person-future tense it was told in.

The advantage of being able to see all those possible futures, though, is that you can remember will having read the story, without every actually have to read the story. 

[CryptoMe]

Add me to the camp of people who were dissatisfied that Tony's magical stability powers were never properly explained. It significantly impacted my enjoyment of the story. If I had the ability to see into the future, I would probably have chosen not to bother with this story after all. And that's too bad, because I did like the third-person-future tense it was told in.

The advantage of being able to see all those possible futures, though, is that you can remember will having read the story, without every actually have to read the story. 

Hmmm. So, is this a "Yay, I get to enjoy the third-person-future tense without having to read the story" or a "Crap, even when I don't read the story I still have to remember it!" kind of thing?

[Unblinking]

Hmmm. So, is this a "Yay, I get to enjoy the third-person-future tense without having to read the story" or a "Crap, even when I don't read the story I still have to remember it!" kind of thing?

All a matter of perspective, my friend.  Will the glass have been half empty, or will the glass have been half full?

[Myrealana]

I didn't expect to like this one from the start. Ho-hum, a guy can see possible futures...

But, then I really got drawn into it. I cared about Scott and Tony and I had to know what their future was going to be. I literally held my breath, waiting to see if Scott would close the door.

As others have said, I don't like it when homosexual relationships are used for a story gimmick - a quick "hey, look how hip and now my story is." This relationship never felt that way. It just *was* and I loved that.

[hardware]

I liked this story, like most people. It was a perhaps predictable, but still worthwhile spin on the old theme of how human interactions are necessary and necessarily messy but still worth it. I didn't mind Tony being the constant (to speak Lost), as someone here put it, that was just about temporal tunnel vision, not about Tony himself being anything extraordinary. It kind of goes with all those experiments showing how our decisions are made in our brain a few seconds before we are conscious about it. I imagine this story taking place between those moments. 

[luka datas]

I'm surprised gays don't belt each other more often. Being straight I've only lived with two of my mates for short periods of time and both times included and ended in violence. Males to male relationships must be fraught with beatings if that's anything to go by.  So congrats for the realism.

[eytanz]

I'm surprised gays don't belt each other more often. Being straight I've only lived with two of my mates for short periods of time and both times included and ended in violence. Males to male relationships must be fraught with beatings if that's anything to go by.  So congrats for the realism.

For future reference, it's best to avoid implications that homosexuality is tied to domestic violence, even if the reasoning seems to be a male stereotype rather than homophobia. For that matter, it's best to avoid stereotyping genders, too.

Speaking as a moderator, by the way, I'd prefer it if this doesn't become a topic of debate in this thread.

[dSlacker]

The constant Tony seems to be the a slightly more "real" Gus that's in author's other story that won the Hugo - "The Water That Falls On You From Nowhere" [http://escapepod.org/2014/08/21/ep459-water-falls-nowhere/].

Overall, I had the same unsatisfied feeling at the end. In this story, the best part was the great punch line at the end - he's seen the movie of his life, now he's going to live it.

WRT seeing possible futures, the portrayal is good, however it still leads to the catch-22 of destiny vs free will. - if Tony is a certainty in his future, then he has no free will to close the door.