WWYCD: Omelas

[nexus]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

The pilot had a gun? And didn't jettison it along with every other non-essential piece of equiptment in an attempt to get the mass down to save the stowaway?

 

He did have a gun. Most stowaways were criminals on the run and types you wouldn't expect to walk passively into airlock on request, I think its implied that he'd spaced that kind of stowaway before. He was stunned that it was just a girl. I don't recall if he jettisoned it with everything else, that's as logical a reason as any and its been a long time since I read the story, but I -think- he still had it or at least should have kept as a last resort. Death my vaccuum as I understand it is very nasty.

 

Edit: Reading a summation of the story there isn't jettisoning mentioned, but there's accounting for the accuracy. I recall they did start tossing things in the Twilight Zone remake

 

Edit2: Here is more accurate synopsis. http://home.tiac.net/~cri_d/cri/1999/coldeq.html#synopsis

Apparently in the original it was known from the beginning that she was doomed. All that could be done was give her an hour to say her goodbyes.

[nexus]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

The problem is not that' date=' Zeropint. I'm not arguing it. You'rce entirely correct, and the story is very powerful. What bugs me is that the situation presented in the story simply doesn't work. Given the near-zero margin for error in any EDB flight, the boat should never have been allowed to launch with the girl's extra mass on board. This isn't about security, it's about making sure the EDB can complete its mission. What would the pilot be expected to do if the mass of the needed medicines was more than listed?[/quote']

 

Simpler than that even. Since stowaways were a known problem why wasn't checking for part of the preflight checks? All it would take would be walking over and opening a door. Or why wasn't access to the EDS bay locked?

[Kristopher]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

Apparently in the original it was known from the beginning that she was doomed. All that could be done was give her an hour to say her goodbyes.

 

Margin so thin he has to space her, but not so thin that he can't give her an hour to say goodbye?

 

Whatever.

[Zeropoint]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

IIRC, she did the goodbyes during a coast phase of the flight.

 

Also, not that it means much, but I'm FROM Omelas. Salem, Oregon, that is. The story was written in response to conditions at the state mental hospital located there.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

It just rings hollow that the whole thing rests on a whole culture of showstrings and zero margins and no reserve or backup or room for error.

 

No extra delta-V, despite all the things that could go wrong, is idiotic in the extreme. It's a culture of idiots, to be blunt.

 

Does the story really need to be stretched to explain 'oh yeah, and this and this and this and that is why these common sense fail safes didn't work'?

 

Because you CAN spot fix any given criticism, but including it in the story would kind of interfere with the idea of a _short_ story.

 

(forex, 'there was extra DV... sadly, normal problems cropped up', or some such... but what does that actually add to the story?)

[Marcus Impudite]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

I think I will amplify a prior statement:

 

I am outright offended and horrified, that the "voluntary sacrifice thread" had more people arguing for attempted intervention than this one.

 

What the hell are you guys doing RPing superheroes??

As I said in my pervious post, my character Devilfire (a quasi-demonic villain no less) would have rescue the kid. Granted, the demonic half of his being wanted to do it just because it effectively screwed the whole rest of the town, but that's neither here nor there.

[nexus]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

Margin so thin he has to space her, but not so thin that he can't give her an hour to say goodbye?

 

Whatever.

 

I'm not trying to defend the story, just relating what it said. The leeway was because the EDS was in a coast phase of its flight. I'd actually forgotten there wasn't even an attempt to drop mass in the original and that it was added for the Twilight Zone teleplay.

[Kristopher]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

Does the story really need to be stretched to explain 'oh yeah, and this and this and this and that is why these common sense fail safes didn't work'?

 

Because you CAN spot fix any given criticism, but including it in the story would kind of interfere with the idea of a _short_ story.

 

(forex, 'there was extra DV... sadly, normal problems cropped up', or some such... but what does that actually add to the story?)

 

It's a morality play dressed up in a spacesuit.

 

Like most morality plays, the story rings hollow, because it falls back on the just-so explanations of that genre. Simply because it has sci-fi trappings doesn't make it a science fiction story.

 

Either that, or it's just poorly written and full of holes the reader is expected to ignore. In this thread alone it's been torn to pieces on point after point, and trying to "spot-fix" the holes would just make it seem more contrived, as failure after failure cropped up to set up the end result the author was trying for, the situation that lets him "tell the moral of the story".

[McCoy]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

It's a morality play dressed up in a spacesuit.

 

Like most morality plays, the story rings hollow, because it falls back on the just-so explanations of that genre. Simply because it has sci-fi trappings doesn't make it a science fiction story.

 

Either that, or it's just poorly written and full of holes the reader is expected to ignore. In this thread alone it's been torn to pieces on point after point, and trying to "spot-fix" the holes would just make it seem more contrived, as failure after failure cropped up to set up the end result the author was trying for, the situation that lets him "tell the moral of the story".

Tell you what, when you write something that is instantly recognizeable by as many people 50 years later, then you can critize. Until then, answer the question or STFU. Stop whining the question is unfair.

[incrdbil]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

Sometimes, thread Necromancy is a charming revisit to the past..and sometimes it reminds you why you were glad the thread died in the first place.

[Lethosos]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

That's why we insituted thread shelf-life measures on the one I moderate...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

Tell you what' date=' when you write something that is instantly recognizeable by as many people 50 years later, then you can critize. Until then, answer the question or STFU. Stop whining the question is unfair.[/quote']

 

Sadly, "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to McCoy again."

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

It's a morality play dressed up in a spacesuit.

 

Like most morality plays, the story rings hollow, because it falls back on the just-so explanations of that genre. Simply because it has sci-fi trappings doesn't make it a science fiction story.

 

Either that, or it's just poorly written and full of holes the reader is expected to ignore. In this thread alone it's been torn to pieces on point after point, and trying to "spot-fix" the holes would just make it seem more contrived, as failure after failure cropped up to set up the end result the author was trying for, the situation that lets him "tell the moral of the story".

 

Actually, the first time I ever heard the story referenced (and I've never read it) was in a panel discussion of the difference between science fiction and fantasy. The commentator identified this as a true "science fiction" story. There was hard physics to space travel and, however much we would love to break the laws of physics to achieve a desired end, the laws of physics are immutable.

 

Contrast with Star Trek's warp drives, transporters and "I don't believe in no-win situations", or Star Wars' apprentice magician, master wizard, pirate, princess, monster with a good heart, evil Emperor, Dark Lord and magic swords and we can see a divison between "Science Fiction" and "Science Fantasy".

 

Personally, I've never liked "hard" science fiction, but science fantasy commonly appeals.

[Robyn]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

Like most morality plays, the story rings hollow, because it falls back on the just-so explanations of that genre. Simply because it has sci-fi trappings doesn't make it a science fiction story.

 

Either that, or it's just poorly written and full of holes the reader is expected to ignore. In this thread alone it's been torn to pieces on point after point,

 

No argument is foolproof.

 

(I don't like the comparisons that this invites about fools, but my first choice would have been "invulnerable", and we've all seen that this means something different than the dictionary definition to most people on these boards. But, anyway, I digress . . . )

 

Given any situation, real or imagined, you can always "tear to pieces" the description of it, no matter how detailed or specific, once it is isolated from the original author; you can invent hypotheticals, and come up with reasons why the story "as is" just doesn't make sense; but, considering that real life often doesn't make sense (as they say, "Truth is stranger than fiction."), how can the made-up stories be criticized for not making sense either?

 

In any real crisis, do we approach the situation as something that, because it just isn't acceptable or convenient or easy, must be reshaped? Do we say "Well, maybe we can't save all those people, but by all that's holy I refuse to accept reality, and will drown myself in delusion until I'm relying on factors that only exist in my imagination to keep this manageable."? No. We grow up and fscking well deal with it.

 

What you and others have, for the most part, presented so far haven't been answers - they've been cop-outs. They've been the moral equivalent of saying "I don't like being in situations that force me to make such unpleasant choices, so I'm going to make little changes here and there until I can say that it's an entirely different situation, one that by that time will be of my making, one that I can handle without facing such a challenging decision."

 

Here's another "situation" that you'll no doubt be able to twist around again until any reader will naturally see that one answer is all right and one answer is all wrong (whether my argument above will convince you to not repeat such actions remains to be seen), you and another crewmember are rising from the depths of the ocean in a lifepod. The submarine is taking on water and long-range communications were destroyed (not just disabled - dead), but before you left, you were able to get the computer started just enough to calculate how many of you could fit onto lifepods, at your depth, and still rise safely to the surface. The answer was two people, but after you are both in the lifepod and have departed the doomed vessel, you receive a short-range communication from the submarine reporting that the computer was more damaged than it thought and may have made a slight error in the previous calculations. The damaged part can be replaced (allowing for accurate calculations), but this will take an hour, and the intact portions of its equations and sensor data indicates that the other answer would be "one person and change" - enough to still enable the lifepod to reach the surface (or, at least, depths at which a normal human can survive), if one of you jettisons within the next 15 minutes. You are now trapped in a rising lifepod with no communications, no way out, and a fellow crewmember who, keep in mind, will also be thinking about what to do. WWYCD?

[teh bunneh]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

I'd feel really bad about it afterwards.

[David Johnston]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

In the original story the problem was fuel' date=' not oxygen. One thing I always wondered was, and forgive me if this is brutal sounding, but why didn't the pilot shoot the girl before spacing her? It would have been a much more merciful death than exposure to vaccuum.[/quote']

 

It's far more emotionally effective as written. Which is the paradox of the Cold Equations given its theme.

 

As far as the original question goes, of course, the "heroic" answer is of course always to find another way. If freeing the child will cause a plague then free the child and send in a medical team. If freeing the child will cause monsters to attack the city, then defeat the monsters. Maybe your new approach won't work as well, but most roleplayers roleplay not merely to be good, but to indulge their fantasies of being protagonists and even heroes. Nobody is recognised as a hero for just sitting on their can and leaving well enough alone even if that's the wisest, most pragmatic course of action. Sitting and doing nothing is no fun. So pretty much every character would act.

 

As for the submarine question, the answer is "Play Rock-Scissors-Paper to find out who jettisons himself."

[Kristopher]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

It's a morality play dressed up in a spacesuit.

 

Like most morality plays, the story rings hollow, because it falls back on the just-so explanations of that genre. Simply because it has sci-fi trappings doesn't make it a science fiction story.

 

Either that, or it's just poorly written and full of holes the reader is expected to ignore. In this thread alone it's been torn to pieces on point after point, and trying to "spot-fix" the holes would just make it seem more contrived, as failure after failure cropped up to set up the end result the author was trying for, the situation that lets him "tell the moral of the story".

 

Tell you what' date=' when you write something that is instantly recognizeable by as many people 50 years later, then you can critize. Until then, answer the question or STFU. Stop whining the question is unfair.[/quote']

 

Hey, look, it's the classic comeback of last resort, "Let's see you do better." This is, of course, why none of us should be criticizing anyone who manages to become POTUS, right?

 

I don't recall saying anything about fair or unfair. I reject the whole thing -- question, story, and all -- because it's contrived and forced, a shallow morality play dressed up in a spacesuit, intended to shove a lesson down the reader's throat.

 

That's OK, though, a lot of "classic science fiction" from 50 years ago that people adore and revere doesn't actually stand up to a critical reading today. Most of what I read is science fiction, but most of the genre is pretty shallow and vapid, just like most of fantasy, and romance, and litfic, and every other genre.

 

Maybe the people who love the story in question and/or think it has some kind of deep and meaningful point should stop whining ( ) when someone expresses a different opinion about it.

[Kristopher]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

No What you and others have' date=' for the most part, presented so far haven't been answers - they've been cop-outs. They've been the moral equivalent of saying "I don't like being in situations that force me to make such unpleasant choices, so I'm going to make little changes here and there until I can say that it's an entirely different situation, one that by that time will be of [b']my[/b] making, one that I can handle without facing such a challenging decision."

 

Or maybe we just think that The Cold Equations is a crappy piece of fiction that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and are sick of people who thought it was something else getting insulting, demeaning, or belittling whenever we point out the holes in it.

 

Seriously, what I did the The Cold Equations on this thread is the same thing I do to any other story I read. It's not that different from what I instictively do to any magic trick I see. Some stand up to the treatment, some don't.

[Robyn]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

and are sick of people who thought it was something else getting insulting' date=' demeaning, or belittling whenever we point out the holes in it.[/quote']

 

You're putting Descarte before the horse, as the old saying goes - you can be sick after people react that way, but presupposing the reaction and using that to justify behavior which incites exactly that same reaction is an aggressive, illogical attitude. Additionally, your argument is circular in that you're using the conclusion as its foundation. I know better than to engage in debates where the other side insists that I accept their points as the "common ground" before discourse even begins. If you can't take a step back and try to see this from the point of view of people who are just as intelligent and rational as you, but don't yet understand why their conclusions should coincide with yours, you'll never be able to actually prove your points to anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

 

Seriously' date=' what I did the [i']The Cold Equations[/i] on this thread is the same thing I do to any other story I read. It's not that different from what I instictively do to any magic trick I see. Some stand up to the treatment, some don't.

 

If only you'd do the same thing to life itself, and not just stories about life. Or is that why you game? Escapism?

 

I notice, BTW, that you haven't answered any of the variations I posted.

[incrdbil]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

Summation: two lame stories do make for one lame thread.

[Kristopher]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

You're putting Descarte before the horse' date=' as the old saying goes - you can be sick [i']after[/i] people react that way, but presupposing the reaction and using that to justify behavior which incites exactly that same reaction is an aggressive, illogical attitude. Additionally, your argument is circular in that you're using the conclusion as its foundation. I know better than to engage in debates where the other side insists that I accept their points as the "common ground" before discourse even begins. If you can't take a step back and try to see this from the point of view of people who are just as intelligent and rational as you, but don't yet understand why their conclusions should coincide with yours, you'll never be able to actually prove your points to anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

 

If only you'd do the same thing to life itself, and not just stories about life. Or is that why you game? Escapism?

 

I notice, BTW, that you haven't answered any of the variations I posted.

 

I do it to everything, real and fictional. No exceptions.

 

And this isn't circular. I'm not saying I poked holes in it because people got upset because I poked holes in it because people got upset because I poked holes in it because... I was only pointing out that people who like the story or the question is asks are getting really defensive and belittling over other people pointing out the holes in it.

 

As for the questions, I'm not interested in the questions, just in pointing out the holes in the contrived stories used to ask them.

 

Well, there is one question I'll answer.

 

I read The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas several years ago when someone on a newsgroup posted a link in response to something I said about the way human societies are put together making me want to reject the whole thing sometimes.

 

So, anyway, any one of my characters would free the child. Hell, Saviel (War Angel) would probably burn Omelas to the ground herself. The people of that city don't deserve one iota of the happiness they buy at the price of a child's suffering.

[Robyn]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

I was only pointing out that people who like the story or the question is asks are getting really defensive and belittling over other people pointing out the holes in it.

 

Sorry about the misunderstanding, then. From the quote you used, and the way you placed that part in the same sentence as the justification of your criticism of the story, every clue of context was pointing towards it as another part of your argument. If you'd put it in a separate paragraph or even just a different sentence (all for itself), I would have assumed you meant it as a stand-alone statement.

 

As for the questions' date=' I'm not interested in the questions, just in pointing out the holes in the contrived stories used to ask them.[/quote']

 

You've also objected to the lessons that they shove down our throats, and I agree that any story which exists to let our philosophy teachers - well, or anyone, for that matter - justify the "answers" we are supposed to memorize by rote, is a contrived story.

 

But there is a more important purpose to these tales, and they enjoy a small following of people who don't think they have any "deeper meaning", or exist to make a point held by the author; the usefulness is in preparing us for life by forcing us to think about such issues before we have to encounter them in real life. If we never encounter any such thing, there is little harm in rehearsal; and if we do, it is advantageous to have had the time to think about such things already, instead of being forced to rapidly make a decision, and quite possibly in error. The whole "point" of the story is not to have an answer, and especially not any single answer, but to make us think about such things. In this day and age, with so much information to absorb and integrate or discard coming in at such a rapid rate, one of the techniques for avoiding information overload is to immediately classify things and file them away, but this can sometimes prevent us from adequately cogitating on the matter.

 

The people of that city don't deserve one iota of the happiness they buy at the price of a child's suffering.

 

The scenario for Omelas is starting to form in my mind . . . no, not the city, the creation of the city. The quest for a perfectly innocent child, and, at the end, the devil laughing at the hero, asking him if he can truly give up after he's come all this way, and it will have all been for nothing . . . when all he needs to do, now, to finally achieve his Quest, is to sacrifice that child.

 

Stories like this exaggerate the scale of the "moral conflict", to try enhancing visibility, but it's also interesting to try them alongside a more commonplace tale, in case people's responses are based more off their own Ideal of themselves (and how they'd like to behave, or to think/believe they'd behave) due to the awareness of how their reputation may be affected by their choices. I think the Vorlons sent JTR to test Sheridan & Delenn this way, once.

 

Such a story, with weak and short-term consequences and benefits both ways, could be; you are stopping by the mini-mart on your way home to pick up some pills for your headache. Spend the last of your money on medicine, or give it to the homeless man sitting outside so he can go buy some food?

[nexus]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

It's far more emotionally effective as written. Which is the paradox of the Cold Equations given its theme.

 

No argument that it is more effective at conveying emotional impact as it is, but I wasn't speaking in terms of art but considering the situation presented as "reality". That seems to be where much of the contention on this thread is coming from, some people are viewing the story and its purpose in which its very effective and other side is looking at it as it where a real situation, where it doesn't quite fly. You have to suspend your disbelief and people have different tolerance levels for it.

[Robyn]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

That seems to be where much of the contention on this thread is coming from' date=' some people are viewing the story and its purpose in which its very effective and other side is looking at it as it where a real situation, where it doesn't quite fly.[/quote']

 

I still think that most of these arguments against "unbelievable elements" are equally as contrived as the elements they so casually dismiss. Even ignoring the age of the story (and, come on, how much did they know back then about how real science would develop?), it's still a stretch to assume that with Technology A "available", Technology B must also have been available. I mean, just look at Microsoft and other companies that are licensing their technology; can we really accept that, in the future, everyone shares hardware freely and doesn't try to make money off of their patents on life-saving devices?

 

You have to suspend your disbelief and people have different tolerance levels for it.

 

I think the problem may not be quite so much "different tolerance levels", as that some of us have already exhausted our "suspension of disbelief" reserves bringing about a change that serves our own convenience more than any "devotion to reality" ideal.

[Kristopher]

Re: WWYCD: Omelas

 

My points about the setup for TCE isn't about what tech is or is not available, but rather that the margins for error are so thin that it rings hollow.