8-25-2014 - Jagabond - That Which Cannot Be Uninvented (L)

[jagabond]

Getting this in early since I might not have time tomorrow morning.

 

Hey folks!

 

Hard to believe how long it's been since my last submission. This piece is very short: 1,100 words just about. It's a flash piece so I don't want to go over 1,500 in the future versions. Trying some new things out. I hope pdf format is alright for everyone.

 

Looking for general impressions, any critique is valuable. If you have title suggestions, throw those in, too, because this one does not work.

 

Cheers and thanks all! You guys are legends.

[Dysphoric Kitten she/her]

I must agree - these guys are legends.

 

 

 

 

 

As for title, I like it. Besides, I have no alternative ideas, so I cannot really tell you that it is bad.

 

 

'76

 

First sentence is a nice shock. I like the way you immediately shout at the top of your lungs: "You're not in Kansas anymore!", and told me to just wrap my head around the fact that this is a brave new world and that birth is not that human a thing. Great start! I just love it when I am directly told that this is not like all the other stories I read, that I am starting something fresh and special.

 

Elevation reminds me of Evangalion (Neon Genesis Evangelion). Later, you remind me of that series.

 

 

'79

 

Okay, definitely secretly sentient. I am starting to think the promise of something completely new is not going to come, but mainly because I am taking notes and analysing the fact that I do know this trope.

 

I did not understand the last paragraph. Take him with you from the ankles down? The turbines eat stuff? I am confused.

 

 

'90 (you jumped four versions. intentional?)

 

So they know about the sentience?

 

You better tell us about the name Icarus later.

 

I absolutely love your adaption of that sentiment, it was well written.

 

 

'07 (this time, I do believe that the skip was intentional)

 

The last sentence is a great comic break, I loved both your use of different voices and the break in logic by giving that opinion so much importance.

 

 

'21 (are we still talking numbers?)

 

Okay, is he fighting or not? I see no reason for him to, but it seems he does and did.

 

I would say "loudspeaker" instead of "mouth", it keeps the character a bit better.

 

 

'29 (so that was an intermediate one? why would there be any?)

 

You suddenly remind me of my favourite flash fiction novelist. You have a similar style to some of the stories in his first book, I believe.

 

 

 

0

 

Interesting... but then I completely lost you. Sorry.

 

 

 

 

Overall, it was a nice story. The end could use a bit of clarification and, perhaps, changing. Besides that... I was not clear on where they stand on the issue of his sentience. And this seems rather close to some stories in "the Lost Paradox", which gives you less of a distinction for yourself. Really, literarily, you started with a roar, turned out to be somewhat of a face in the crowd, and finished by leaving me confused on the side of the road. But with some rewriting, I think this can be vastly improved.

 

Well, maybe I am just more confused because I am taking notes. When just reading, I tend to roll with the punches more. Too much, even.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Tal Spektor

[Robinski he/him]

I'm impressed with the scope of your ambition. This is not a mode of story that I can recall seeing on RE before, very enjoyable therefore to encounter it and to read it. It also presents a challenge in critiquing, because I'm not sure that I understand it, or that I'm meant to, per se. In other words, the problem is with me, not the story. Anyway, here goes...
 
Mark I -- The dates are intriguing, they make me wonder if they are references to actual events, or a fictional trail with no wider significance. I presume the latter, because there are no overt flags to actual events, and the benchmarks in powered flight, jet flight, etc. are earlier. Also, what is 'hypnic'?
 
Mark VI -- seems to be referred to as Mark III in the text. Is that a typo or a deliberate mis-reference?
 
Mark X -- chasse = chassis? Also, in Mark I the narrator says he is flight, and then here, he is not flight. This seems to suggest learning on the part of the narrator.
 
Mark 0 -- the line about the caves being unconcerned bothered me a bit.
 
It's very interesting and engaging writing. The end is particularly thought-provoking but, ultimately, I don't really understand what's happening. The story certain made me think, and its novelty was enjoyable, but I'm not sure how entertained or satisfied I was. I suspect I will continue to think about this for sometime afterwards, which I think is perhaps more to the point.
 
Thank you for sharing - it's good to get more of your work, it has been a while ;-)

[andyk he/him]

I really like both the writing style and the story. For me at least this is an engaging and interesting piece.

 

I had a bit of a problem with the second paragraph of 1976. Because the nature of the story and narrator weren't yet totally clear the long second sentence got confusing. Lots of great imagery, but together hard to follow.

 

Like the others I was left confused by the ending. It feels right thematically, but I wasn't sure what she was trying to achieve or why this was different for the device than the previous flights.

 

I'm not going to suggest an alternative title because I like the one you've got - I find it intriguing and I think it speaks to the theme of the story.

[Dysphoric Kitten she/her]

By the way, I do understand why it is different - every time, Icarus is remade, recast, reworked. It is essentially a different machine with the same mind. However, the last time, it is not remade. It is the same machine with the same mind, discovered after something (extinction?) happened. Pilot was probably trying to fly Icarus. But I have no idea what happened after Pilot got Icarus out. Did they do it? Did they even try? 

[Mandamon he/him]

I feel like I cheated, because I had absolutely no idea how to critique this the first time around (not necessarily a bad thing), so I read the comments first to help me cogitate.  Oh well.

 

I really like this overall.  It reminds me of some other good flash fiction I've read.  I'm not as concerned as the others about the identities of Pilot and of the machine.  It may or may not be sentient; I can suspend disbelief enough to imagine narration by an inanimate object.

 

I would say the two weakest points are 1) Pilot and 2) the ending.

1) I got the feeling they were different pilots each time, as each previous one was killed, but just as the machine kept knowledge of it's "past lives" there seemed to be that connection with Pilot(s) as well.  I can accept that for the machine, but for some reason not as much with the pilot.  It may be as simple as "Pilot" being a name vs. "the pilot" being the current occupant trying to integrate.

2) Like the others, I didn't feel the ending really worked.  Beware: here I go into conjecture and suggestion, so ignore if you want and just note that something is wrong......

It might be because the structure of the story was suddenly different.  All the other tests were about birth and evolution, and the last was about reuse, so it cheated the promise at the beginning.  Your "thesis" of the story is birth, as stated in the first line.  In the last section you name-drop "birth" again, but then you describe how Pilot this time is merely reusing wreckage.  The story isn't about success, it's about striving.  Then you break that promise by explicitly stating "there is no drive."

I don't know what the "correct" resolution would be--maybe something about how the tests will go on forever?  Maybe the machine starts designing itself?  Dunno.

 

So...that was more than I intended to write, and it's mostly rambling.  Still, you got me thinking, which is what I define as a good story, so congratulations on that!

 

Oh yeah...and I like the title as well.  I think it describes the story perfectly.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Mandamon

[jagabond]

Thanks a lot, guys. I'm really impressed because the two biggest issues I'm having with the story are the tonal shifts, and my first round of readers (read: a buddy of mine) also thought the ending kinda jilted the pacing. There's a lot of room to make it clearer, so I'll try to do that.

 

Tal, thanks for all the encouragement. Clarity is a big concern even in my regular length stuff, so flash works.. man, forget it, hah. I like the loudspeaker idea, and yeah, in the second entry, Pilot's ankles are cut off and the rest of him gets eaten by the turbines. I wanted to have the reader envision their own huge, bulky glider.

 

As to your questions, Tal, and for everyone else: I may have made Icarus a bit too telling. I'd thrown it in as a bit of joke symbolism (considering Mark I crashed, but that's not really made clear that they know this). You guys were able to draw more meaning than I'd put in. I mean, uh, yeah, totally intentional! 

 

Robinski, I'm glad I was able to contribute something different. The problem's definitely not with you; I love ambiguity a bit too much for my own good, I've been told. And thanks, I'll try to hog more of the submission slots

 

Andy, you're right. I wasn't sure how early to clarify what is actually going on, so I'll see if I can sharpen that on the rewrite.

 

Mandamon, thanks. I'm a very new hand at flash so I'm still getting my bearings. You're right, it's a different Pilot every time, so "Mark" uses the name to identify that persona as they relate to it.

 

And you're all right about the ending. The images got a bit looser for me in the writing, and my once-over didn't quite polish it, so I'll see what I can do there.

 

The title, well... only the author knows the best title for their work, I believe. I'm sure it will come to me at the most inconvenient time.

Edited August 25, 2014 by jagabond

[CommandanteLemming he/him]

I'm a little late and haven't read all the preceding comments as thoroughly as I could, but I liked this. The POV of the plane is great. The Icarus reference is great and you might even re-use it. 

 

I'm not even going to bother breaking it down chunk by chunk, because for me it was a fast read and flowed together. I did particularly like the one with the female pilot who actually cared - maybe even a bit more of the plane remembering her. I did not particularly like the next pilot, the military man who didn't care - because he was a letdown after the one who did...which is probably your point, but I want to feel that sense of lost love more than I did. That, and my pet peeve is the assumption of a near-future world war...it's used too often in my opinion. But then again I'm writing a near future so I'm really, really biased in that regard so don't pay attention to me there. 

 

I do think the last bit could use a little more work. The plane has emotions now and since we're essentially talking about a suicide I think it needs to be deeper and a lot more sense of loss, futility, and particularly the crushing feeling that he is a death-trap to his pilots. 

 

One last minot point - since your last vignette makes clear that the problem is now the plane's internal emotions, it should not say "pilot-glider integration is zero" again...but rather "glider-pilot integration is zero"...the pilot is fine, and the plane is probably ready to fly, but the problem is now that the plane is depressed and unwilling to integrate.

 

On the whole, great stuff!!!!

[jagabond]

Haha yeah, near-future wars are quite overused, but they're totally a thing.

 

That's an interesting point about integration. I might even use both to show some development; neat idea! And thanks for your kind words