Pseudopod 217: Sweet Little Memory

[Bdoomed]

Pseudopod 217: Sweet Little Memory

By Antony Mann

Read by Ben Phillips

Left, a carpeted staircase climbed up, and I saw from the ragged pink teddy bear on the bottom step that the entity had begun to colonise downstairs. Which meant that the upper floor was already under its control. I scanned the living room, but there was nothing else of it to see: just a few framed landscapes which gave art a bad name, bits and bobs on the mantle, a television and shelves of videos in the corner.

There were no photos.



Listen to this week's Pseudopod.

[Scattercat]

Cute and definitely not a moment too short.  I got a little antsy when there wasn't any immediate twist showing up, and honestly, it could be even briefer and achieve the same effect; there's really not a lot to go one once the nature of the "manifestation" becomes clear.  (I grokked it as soon as the pink teddy bear got mentioned.)  I liked the little detail that the room used to be their office.  That was my favorite moment.  It went downhill a bit from there, as I had some lingering questions that bothered me.

Why would Random Guy announcing that their daughter isn't actually dead suffice to make them believe strongly enough to kill the grief-demon?  They already don't like him and are disinclined to listen.  What if they'd seen her body and it wasn't a case of maybe-maybe-not, and thus there was no grounds for them to believe Random Man?  What was his backup plan? 

Most pertinently, for me, is this: Why would a delusion be the proper cure for a delusion?  It feels metaphysically wonky for them to escape from their preternatural mourning by imagining their daughter alive; isn't acceptance of the tragedy a more appropriate first step towards healing?

[kibitzer]

An uncomplicated story, short and well told. Nice one.

[Unblinking]

Most pertinently, for me, is this: Why would a delusion be the proper cure for a delusion?  It feels metaphysically wonky for them to escape from their preternatural mourning by imagining their daughter alive; isn't acceptance of the tragedy a more appropriate first step towards healing?

That seemed backwards to me too. 

An interesting idea, but everything just seemed too easy.  Our hero heads into this house with a mission to destroy the entity.  The entity puts up a token resistance, but the first thing our hero tries against him works to banish it and then the story's over.

[Antony Mann]

Hi there. Thanks for listening to the story, and thanks for the comments, it's always good to get feedback.

I think the point for me, as far as the resolution of the story goes, is that the manifestation is an actual psychic being, a parasite or disease which attacks the mind. Cowley is targeting the parasite, not the Gordons, because he has had experience of these creatures before and knows how to kill them.

When Cowley tells the Gordons that their daughter is alive, he is looking for just that initial reaction of hope and joy from them - and that is enough to force the entity to try to bring itself into real life, the effort of which is enough to destroy it - as he knows from his own experience. The Gordons don't actually escape from their mourning at all - it's Cowley who tricks the entity by prompting the Gordons' reaction. 

[Scattercat]

Yeah, I got that.  I'm talking thematically, though; from a meta-narrative perspective, it doesn't really gel for me that the right way to attack a grief-demon is to instill a false belief, however briefly.  Not to mention that, within the story, they have no real reason to believe him when he says it. 

It was a good concept, and I think even the resolution could have worked if there had been more of a struggle beforehand.  Unblinking's feeling that it was "too easy" definitely impacts my reaction to the method.  It makes it feel like this is the "right" or "correct" approach to take when dealing with grief-demons, and that doesn't feel kosher to me, since the way we deal with grief out here in the real world starts with accepting the reality of the event and moves on from there. 

[Marguerite]

Unblinking's feeling that it was "too easy" definitely impacts my reaction to the method.  It makes it feel like this is the "right" or "correct" approach to take when dealing with grief-demons, and that doesn't feel kosher to me, since the way we deal with grief out here in the real world starts with accepting the reality of the event and moves on from there. 

Maybe that was the point, though - to trick the parents into even conceiving of their daughter as being dead because it forced it into reality.  If you're trapped in a frame of mind or experience, it can be impossible to see outside of it unless some external force changes the circumstances and creates an opportunity.

That might be the most insidious part of the grief demon - it forces it's victims to exist in a reality they create and are incapable of escaping because it's so internally consistent.  I imagine if the parents had been questioned about their mourning process they would have acknowledged that some day they'd need to move on, but that they just weren't there yet, the death was too recent.

[Scattercat]

The parents already believed their daughter dead, though; that wasn't the problem.  The problem was them being stuck on her death and unable to move forward from there.  Believing her alive again would be a step backwards into denial, not forwards into healing.

[eytanz]

I really liked this one. It's a contender for my favorite of 2010.

I concede that Scattercat's criticism makes sense if you read this story metaphorically. But I think, in this case, that's a misreading. This story very clearly (and the author post above confirms this, but I would have argued the same without it) was written as a simple ghost/haunting story, designed to be taken at face value. In this, it is perhaps a throwback to simpler times, but I think it's a superior example of a simple ghost/haunting story.

The nature of the entity itself seemed quite ingenious to me, and I, for one, did not see the solution coming, and really appreciated it. I do somewhat agree that this wasn't the most exciting story that could have been told about it - the story of how the narrator figured out the entity's vulnerability would have had more substance to it than the story where he applies a solution he already knows will work. But that didn't bother me while I was listening.

[Scattercat]

I dunno.  I can't not read metaphorically.  It's instinctive for me now.  If it doesn't gel on the meta level, then it bothers me on the base level.  I had this problem even back when I was too young and inexperienced to interpret the thematic underpinnings; I can think of several movies and books that I liked initially but grew more uncomfortable with the longer I thought about them, and it was only when I went back with an adult's understanding that I saw the moral/political/philosophical themes in the stories and realized that I didn't agree with them and that was what made me uncomfortable.

I would agree that it's a very good haunt story, taken only at face value.  I had no issue with the writing, and there were several good creepy touches.  I just can't help but look deeper.

[Unblinking]

I tend to be very unobservant of deeper meanings, and I usually focus on the story during the moment and any reflection on themes comes later, if at all.  But with this one the parallel was so strong that I noticed it right from the first listen, and so when the events conflicted with the apparent themes, I noticed it right away (instead of noticing it days later like I normally would, if at all).

[stePH]

The parents already believed their daughter dead, though; that wasn't the problem.  The problem was them being stuck on her death and unable to move forward from there.  Believing her alive again would be a step backwards into denial, not forwards into healing.

This, and other posts, seem to be missing an important point of the story, which is that there never was a daughter... the "ghost" or whatever was causing them to have false memories of a daughter who died. Hence the buying of new shit and bringing it into the room, where suddenly it's always been once they put it into place. Or did I misunderstand something?

Yeah, I got that.  I'm talking thematically, though; from a meta-narrative perspective, it doesn't really gel for me that the right way to attack a grief-demon is to instill a false belief, however briefly. 

Again, it's a false belief to begin with, that they even had a daughter at all, living or not. Why not counter a false belief with another false belief? Use its own power against it?

[Unblinking]

The parents already believed their daughter dead, though; that wasn't the problem.  The problem was them being stuck on her death and unable to move forward from there.  Believing her alive again would be a step backwards into denial, not forwards into healing.

This, and other posts, seem to be missing an important point of the story, which is that there never was a daughter... the "ghost" or whatever was causing them to have false memories of a daughter who died. Hence the buying of new shit and bringing it into the room, where suddenly it's always been once they put it into place. Or did I misunderstand something?

Yeah, I got that.  I'm talking thematically, though; from a meta-narrative perspective, it doesn't really gel for me that the right way to attack a grief-demon is to instill a false belief, however briefly. 

Again, it's a false belief to begin with, that they even had a daughter at all, living or not. Why not counter a false belief with another false belief? Use its own power against it?

There wasn't a daughter??  I didn't get that at all...  I thought it was feeding on the grief from actual bereaved parents.

[Scattercat]

Yeah, if there never *was* a daughter, then I think more than just one person would have noticed these two going completely wackadoodle.  That's not something you can easily explain away, whereas everyone deals with grief differently and you could easily just believe that they're "having a hard time coping" after losing a child even if it was grief-demon enhanced.

[eytanz]

There definitely was never a daughter. There was a whole conversation in the beginning designed to establish this, where the sister confirmed that they didn't have children.

I never realized that some people here think that there was a real daughter because the story *very clearly* established that the entity works by creating a false dead child and then feeding of the grief. That was what made the story so effective to me.

[Unblinking]

I never realized that some people here think that there was a real daughter because the story *very clearly* established that the entity works by creating a false dead child and then feeding of the grief. That was what made the story so effective to me.

I haven't listened to it in a while, so I'm not sure why I missed that.  My guess is that the firm clues were all at the beginning when I was still trying to establish the setting, premise, speculative element in my mind and lost some important details in the struggle to form a cohesive setting.  That could likely change what I thought of the story, though:
1.  Scattercat's last comment about how it's odd that no one else noticed their grieving of an imaginary child doesn't have an obvious resolution.
2.  And, regardless of whether the child existed or not, I'd still say that there's not much obstacle to the protagonist's progress.  He is confident that the solution will work, and it does, like it has before.  So it still lacks dramatic tension.

[eytanz]

I never realized that some people here think that there was a real daughter because the story *very clearly* established that the entity works by creating a false dead child and then feeding of the grief. That was what made the story so effective to me.

I haven't listened to it in a while, so I'm not sure why I missed that.  My guess is that the firm clues were all at the beginning when I was still trying to establish the setting, premise, speculative element in my mind and lost some important details in the struggle to form a cohesive setting.  That could likely change what I thought of the story, though:
1.  Scattercat's last comment about how it's odd that no one else noticed their grieving of an imaginary child doesn't have an obvious resolution.

I'm not sure about that. The grieving was done at home. I don't think the entity made them feel like they just lost a daughter. It made them feel like they had lost her long enough ago that the grieving had become a private thing. They probably felt "oh, we never talk about our daughter to oursiders, since that's too painful" - and quite possibly, the entity makes them withdraw and avoid contact with society. A lot of their reactions to the narrator - the "we accepted the facts, please don't reopen them" makes it sound like they feel like there is a reason to avoid bringing it up with strangers and most casual acquaintances.

Those who are closer to them and spend more time with them, like the sister, might feel something is amiss, but the more time they spend in the house the more they, too, will fall prey to the entity. My guess is that the victims will either cut off ties with anyone who insists that they had no daughter, or bring them into the fold.

I think that that's the reason the "the daughter is alive" strategy works - the entity is protected against direct attacks. That tactic takes its lies (specifically, the existence of a daughter) and turns them against it.

2.  And, regardless of whether the child existed or not, I'd still say that there's not much obstacle to the protagonist's progress.  He is confident that the solution will work, and it does, like it has before.  So it still lacks dramatic tension.

As I said above, this is a criticism I basically agree with. Not entirely - I wouldn't say that the story completely lacks dramatic tension since we, as readers, don't know it will work. But the dramatic tension is definitely considerably less than it could be.

[Scattercat]

It still doesn't make any sense to me that claiming the daughter was actually alive works at all.  Also, now I add "Why would no one else have noticed this?" to the confusing points.  That isn't just "I think something might be wrong and therefore I will go to this weird dude who was in the newspaper."  That's "I'm staging an intervention because you two are hallucinating and talking nonsense."

ETA:
Seriously, that takes the story from "Pretty good  but I don't like the thematic structure" to "Feh."  I just cannot see that major of a delusion going unremarked by everyone except the one sibling who can't even take it anywhere official but has to go to some skeezy dude that the local paper thinks is crazy.  I actually like the IDEA of a wholly imaginary child better, but the way it's framed here makes it not work at all.  And it still doesn't resolve the "why would you fight a delusion with a bigger delusion?" problem for me.

[eytanz]

Well, at this point I think it's more a matter of subjective reaction to the story - it worked for me, it didn't for you. Not really something particularly interesting to debate.

But going to "why would you fight a delusion with a bigger delusion?" - there's an answer within the world of the story (because the entity's nature was such that it aimed to make its victim's delusions true, and this was an attempt to make it run out of mana). But on the more conceptual level - the truth, as much as we all are fond of it, is not inherently more compelling than falsehood. What a person believes to be the truth is more compelling than what they believe to be false, but that's hardly the same thing.

It's often a lot easier to get a person who holds a false belief to drop it by telling him lies than by telling him the truth (see many political discussions). There is only one truth, and it's often unappealing. A lie can be tailored to hit all the right notes for the person who wants it.

Why fight a delusion with a bigger delusion? Because, above and beyond this story, people believe what they want to believe, not what is true. This isn't a story about fighting falsehood with truth - it's a story about fighting an undesirable lie with a desirable one.

[Scattercat]

Hm.  Yet the question then becomes whether it really is more desirable to have a delusion over the truth.  If the truth is hard and unappealing, is it better to face the truth or to embrace a comforting delusion that lets you carry on?  I find this question fascinating in part because of what I referenced in "The Terrible Ones" thread, where our brains actually alter incoming data from the various senses in order to help us keep our central illusions functioning.  In that context, knowing  - really knowing and understanding, not just having an academic knowledge of - the "truth" would result in clinical depression at absolute best.  Is it better to know that your delusions are delusions, or is it better to have a joyful - if misguided - belief that gives you faith that tomorrow will be better and enables you to pursue your life without distress?

Unfortunately, this discussion would rapidly veer towards questions of religion etc. and end up flame-bait-y.  Also, the story doesn't really address these ideas at all; this is pure extrapolation.  Kind of a pity; it would be an interesting conversation to have.

[Unblinking]

Why fight a delusion with a bigger delusion? Because, above and beyond this story, people believe what they want to believe, not what is true. This isn't a story about fighting falsehood with truth - it's a story about fighting an undesirable lie with a desirable one.

If all it takes is a more desirable illusion, the lie that the child is alive, why haven't the parents own desires forced this to happen already.  The first stage of grief is denial, yes? 

[Mister Freign]

Loved it.  Succinct, authoritative and yet ambiguous; forced me to reflect afterward, and my reflections ultimately upheld the narrative's suggestions.

Grief is a popular spur for horror, and yet this was unique in its approach.

Unblinking; consider that the author may have wanted you to see how the family fed on its tragedy.  "Stages of grief" is a nice template for therapeutic diagnosis, but it is not a law nor even an axiom so much as a way to view one's own progress through difficult emotions and events.  "Sweet Little Memory" story makes an (I think) important point about the reality of grief and human nature that resonated very strongly with me; I was both cut down and uplifted by it.  Consider that a lot of the maps we use to find our way through life are merely popular crutches or plausible attempts at codifying that which can never be satisfactorily nor exhaustively codified; the author shows you a scathing truth that such normative inventions as "stages of grief" can gloss over or conceal.

Loss and sorrow may not make for better people, all by itself.  Finding the way through it - or, sometimes, being kicked out of it - can.

Cheers for the specter of lingering grief.  Truly, a terrible entity!

[Antony Mann]

Yet the question then becomes whether it really is more desirable to have a delusion over the truth.  If the truth is hard and unappealing, is it better to face the truth or to embrace a comforting delusion...?

Thanks for all your comments, it's great to hear what people think of the story.

To me, the above idea is the crux of the ending, though I would maybe replace 'comforting' with 'discomforting'  - the Gordons were a childless couple who, even if she was 'dead', now had a daughter, or at least the 'memory' of one. By killing that memory, Cowley was in effect taking away what to them was a real life - just because they now knew that their daughter had never lived, it doesn't mean that they couldn't still remember her.

There's no indication that the entity is harming the Gordons, it's just living in their psyches. So is it better that they live with their delusion, or without it? Cowley's determination is that they're better off without it - he's seen his brother go through the same thing.

When Cowley says 'I'm sorry for your loss', right at the end, he's talking about their delusion. He knew all along that it would be painful for them to no longer have it - just as it was for his brother - and that they would hate him for taking it away from them, possibly for the rest of their lives.