Post by rorschalk on Nov 3, 2022 18:11:40 GMT
MSSG SENT TO ME BY GUEVARA TO BREAK THE TIE THAT''S BEEN LANGUISHING HERE FOR A WHILE:
Theo: This is a tough one. There are things about it I like and things I don't think are that good. I like the general set-up and the ending is a surprise. What it lacks, I think, is the credibility of the backstory. What I mean by this: It seems unlikely that what the government is doing could ever come about. The reasons given by the bureaucrats are too superficial to justify what they do. If you remember 1984, O'Brien lectures Winston Smith on why the government of Oceania does what it does--why it oppresses people, controls everything, and causes such misery. Orwell frightens us because O'Brien's speech is actually somewhat plausible. He builds a good case for totalitarianism and oppression. But the government functionaries in this tale provide only glib, superficial reasons with no philosophical backing. As a reader I am not convinced even they believe their justifications for killing the unproductive. The characters on both sides of the deal seem superficial and poorly drawn; they don't take on real humanity; neither the good guys or the bad guys do. Everything they say is glib, superficial, and does not in any way move me as a reader. I don't care about the issues and conflict the story brings up because they are so pointless and irrelevant. This also makes it unbelievable (in contrast to 1984 where the actions of the government are at least plausibile given their beliefs). For these reasons it fails for me. So I guess I would give the breaking vote as no. The premise of the story is fascinating but the characters and actions are rather dull; there is little true emotion in it (even the bureaucrat's compassion for Wally); characters are flat. A really good idea, I think, but it needs some real emotion, struggle, and conflict.
Theo: This is a tough one. There are things about it I like and things I don't think are that good. I like the general set-up and the ending is a surprise. What it lacks, I think, is the credibility of the backstory. What I mean by this: It seems unlikely that what the government is doing could ever come about. The reasons given by the bureaucrats are too superficial to justify what they do. If you remember 1984, O'Brien lectures Winston Smith on why the government of Oceania does what it does--why it oppresses people, controls everything, and causes such misery. Orwell frightens us because O'Brien's speech is actually somewhat plausible. He builds a good case for totalitarianism and oppression. But the government functionaries in this tale provide only glib, superficial reasons with no philosophical backing. As a reader I am not convinced even they believe their justifications for killing the unproductive. The characters on both sides of the deal seem superficial and poorly drawn; they don't take on real humanity; neither the good guys or the bad guys do. Everything they say is glib, superficial, and does not in any way move me as a reader. I don't care about the issues and conflict the story brings up because they are so pointless and irrelevant. This also makes it unbelievable (in contrast to 1984 where the actions of the government are at least plausibile given their beliefs). For these reasons it fails for me. So I guess I would give the breaking vote as no. The premise of the story is fascinating but the characters and actions are rather dull; there is little true emotion in it (even the bureaucrat's compassion for Wally); characters are flat. A really good idea, I think, but it needs some real emotion, struggle, and conflict.