EP463: Rockwork

[bounceswoosh]

The author chooses what to show us.  The story could have included details that would make such an interpretation more plausible.

[Redhead]

The author chooses what to show us.  The story could have included details that would make such an interpretation more plausible.

The reader chooses what to see. Perhaps the author wants you to interpret the story however you choose.

[ElectricPaladin]

The author chooses what to show us.  The story could have included details that would make such an interpretation more plausible.

The reader chooses what to see. Perhaps the author wants you to interpret the story however you choose.

No, I'm with bouncy. An author needs to be very careful in what she choses to show us and not show us. When you leave room for multiple interpretations, that's great. When those interpretations include those that will take your audience out of the story and leave them hating your characters... you need to do something about it.

For example, I've got a story idea kicking around my head that involves a female character seducing a male friend who is dying of wizard-cancer (it's a fantasy story - I won't go into the details right now) in order to become pregnant with their child so she can kill it and use its life force to save her friend, but without telling him what she's doing because he's expressed that he thinks her (creepy) magic is creepy and doesn't want anything to do with it, even at the cost of his life.

I know. Ugh. What kind of warped imagination would spit out that kind of scenario?

And yes, I know. I have my work cut out for me to make sure this situation doesn't turn into a moral event horizon for her, or for his (understandably upset) reaction to turn into some kind of commentary on the abortion debate.

But I have to do that work when I write those scenes. And if someone gets an idea from those scenes - especially a whole thread full of someones - that's my problem, and it means I screwed up.

[woodenmango]

Granted, we only see a very small cross-section of their lives, but what we do see did not make me root for Dog to win Meg back.  It didn't seem healthy to me that Meg would withhold affection based on how good a drummer Dog was.

Because we see so little, there is room for different interpretations.  I made sense of Meg's behaviour by inferring that she had been pushed beyond her breaking point by Dog promising too often that Rocky would get through the set the next time, and perhaps by Dog appearing more committed to Rocky than to Meg.  The limited back story we get permits the reading that Meg feels it's not Dog holding her back, but Rocky, and perhaps Dog's too intense relationship with Rocky (too intense if you see Rocky as a mere machine).  And I saw Bill as the driving influence in the attack on Rocky, and quite likely in persuading Meg that Rocky and Dog are the problem.  Bill is also the one who wants to see not only Rocky, but also Dog dead.

Would those who dislike the story be less annoyed if they considered this interpretation as plausible?

Even that interpretation makes Meg emotionally immature and abusive in my mind. If your partner disappointing you so much and causes you pain due to feeling neglected, the responsible thing is to simply leave. You don't resort hitting or destroying their stuff.  That's never cool. ever. That is still abuse even if Dog had done mean things to make her upset. And really, is being super passionate about something, even to the point of neglecting your partner, deserving of abuse? And sure maybe Bill planted the idea in Meg's head but she still gave it the Okay. No sadly this interpretation is no better to me.

All that being said, I did like the idea of a musical AI and the relationship between Dog and Rocky but I really wish Dog had realized she could make it on her own...or have been swept off her feet by some lovely person that would treat her right.

[UnfulredJohnson]

This was okay. I liked the angry narration. I found it hard to imagine Dog as a woman though, and I kept on picturing a kind grungy long haired guy for some reason. Also I felt the ending was a bit unsatisfying. I would have like to have seen Meg lynched by the crowd or something, but it's probably more realistic this way.

[ElectricPaladin]

No one's going to convince me that Meg wasn't abusive and horrible. I once advised someone to get his wife into counseling because she threw away a bunch of his tiny plastic spacemen and damaged his airbrush. He took my advice, she refused to go, they got divorced. I'm proud of the role I played. That shit's not cool, man. Boundaries, people. Boundaries.

[Unblinking]

No one's going to convince me that Meg wasn't abusive and horrible. I once advised someone to get his wife into counseling because she threw away a bunch of his tiny plastic spacemen and damaged his airbrush. He took my advice, she refused to go, they got divorced. I'm proud of the role I played. That shit's not cool, man. Boundaries, people. Boundaries.

I'm with you!

And even more so because Rocky felt like a dog to me, and it's even worse if I imagine it as a dog.  And even worser when I consider that Meg had been pushing Dog to spend more and more time to improve Rocky anyway.

[hardware]

Well, I'm completely on board with Meg being a kind of terrible person, and while their reconciliation of sorts is unfortunate though not unrealistic, I think how you come out on this story really depends if you get the impression that this was sold as a happy ending or not.

Up to that point, I kind of liked the story, it captured a lot of the energy and confused idealism that up and coming music often encapsulates. I don't find it unrealistic at all that these kids don't really care about making boatloads of money (yet), they seem to be right on the cusp where they realise that it has become more than a bunch of friends having fun, and can evolve into something bigger - be it a career or art. The way they react to that is really what is driving the conflict here. 

[CryptoMe]

Slowly catching up with backlog, so apologies for the threadomancy.

I just have to say that I was really disappointed by this story. I really wanted to like it: the next punk thing, cool drummer girl, loyal drummer AI-bot. It should have been brilliant! But it wasn't. The music descriptions actually left me kind of flat (so I'm glad to hear that someone on the forums enjoyed that part) and of course the abusive relationship and ambiguity around the ending just did not work for me. 

[Unblinking]

Slowly catching up with backlog, so apologies for the threadomancy.

In email I've started telling people I keep an apology jar, and that they owe me a quarter if they apologize for something that requires no apology. 

I don't think that anyone minds it--one can either read a comment or ignore it, but there's no good reason to be bothered by forum participation--that's what we're all here for!

[bounceswoosh]

I went to a women's avalanche safety class in December. (SAFE AS) All the coaches are female athletes who perform at a high level.

I walked in to the registration area, and there was Sherri McConkey, doing pushups. "Sorry - we have to do pushups if we apologize." I laughed and said, "I guess you're going to have to do ten more!" Honestly, I don't think she even noticed she said it. It's so ingrained.

Recently a friend told me she has to steel herself to not apologize when telling a developer about a business decision not to use the dev's preferred toolkit.

It's hard wired into a lot of people - especially female people.

[Unblinking]

I went to a women's avalanche safety class in December. (SAFE AS) All the coaches are female athletes who perform at a high level.

I walked in to the registration area, and there was Sherri McConkey, doing pushups. "Sorry - we have to do pushups if we apologize." I laughed and said, "I guess you're going to have to do ten more!" Honestly, I don't think she even noticed she said it. It's so ingrained.

Recently a friend told me she has to steel herself to not apologize when telling a developer about a business decision not to use the dev's preferred toolkit.

It's hard wired into a lot of people - especially female people.

I have noticed that, and in particular the gender balance thing.  Culture certainly plays a part too--I don't know how true the stereotype is, but there is a stereotype about the British that they will apologize for you pushing them down.  


Most of the unnecessary apologizing I see comes in through the contact form on my website, where quite a few people seem to use "Sorry to bother you" as a salutation, which is where the apology jar comes from.  It seems to come from a sense that, because I am in charge of this free service, that there is somehow a social hierarchy at play at so one must apologize for intruding upon my valuable time.  This feeling honestly makes me intensely uncomfortable and I hope that the apology jar will encourage people to stop it.  It makes me happy that people value what I do, but it makes me uncomfortable when people seem to defer to me for it.  I prefer to be treated as a peer rather than a superior--respect for a fellow human being, but not deferrence.

I provide the contact form as an obvious conduit for interaction with anyone who has a reason to want to reach me--that's what it's there for.  If you knock on my door uninvited, then you should apologize for that, and then you should go away, but you don't need to apologize if you take the public route of communication which I have myself put in place to make myself reachable.

Maybe it makes people uncomfortable when I ask them not to apologize, but I hope any discomfort is worthwhile in moving toward a place where we can all just talk on equal footing and not feel the need to defer unless that deferrence is somehow necessary.  :/

Anyway, this is all a tangent away from the story topic, obviously.

[SpareInch]

Culture certainly plays a part too--I don't know how true the stereotype is, but there is a stereotype about the British that they will apologize for you pushing them down.  

I'm sorry, but you just made a sweeping generalisation about my culture there.

DAMN!

In hopes of capping this hijack of topic, I have contact from time to time with RNIB, (Royal National Institute for the Blind) GDBA (Guide dogs for the Blind association) and the local charity which handles welfare issues for the blind on behalf of the local council. They all insist that if a blind person and a sighted person collide in the street, the blind person must NEVER apologise. It's so hard to bite down on that. "Sorry," when someone steppes out of a shop doorway and trips over your white cane. 

[CryptoMe]

Being Canadian, I never thought of apologizing as showing deference or heirarchy, but rather as a social convention. I always say, when two people bump into each other, both apologize and then think to themselves "yes, you should be sorry!" That way, the social niceties are observed, but you still have your grouse in private.

[bounceswoosh]

Being Canadian, I never thought of apologizing as showing deference or heirarchy, but rather as a social convention. I always say, when two people bump into each other, both apologize and then think to themselves "yes, you should be sorry!" That way, the social niceties are observed, but you still have your grouse in private.

Yes, but when a certain group of people habitually apologize to another group of people who don't habitually apologize for the same thing, there's something going on.

Extreme example : imagine a slave apologizing to their owner for being in the way. The reverse would probably not occur.

[Unblinking]

Being Canadian, I never thought of apologizing as showing deference or heirarchy, but rather as a social convention. I always say, when two people bump into each other, both apologize and then think to themselves "yes, you should be sorry!" That way, the social niceties are observed, but you still have your grouse in private.

Yes, but when a certain group of people habitually apologize to another group of people who don't habitually apologize for the same thing, there's something going on.

Extreme example : imagine a slave apologizing to their owner for being in the way. The reverse would probably not occur.
[/quote]

Yeah, what CryptoMe said.  My personal experience is of course much less extreme than that one.  But when people reach me via the public way I've provided them to reach me, and then apologize for wasting my time in the same breath, it gets very wearing.  I don't have any apologies to balance theirs, and their apologies are unnecessary, I'd rather they just not or it feels like it builds up a false difference between me and them when I'm happy to just be equals.  I do also take issue if someone tries to do the reverse and put themselves up on a pedestal while they communicate with me so it's not just one-sided--there's no reason every conversation can't start with an assumption of mutual respect until actions dictate otherwise.