143: Griefer
- Thread starter whindmarch
- Start date
I think it's a matter of perceived willingness of the person on the other side / mutual respect.CanadianWolverine said:
The pilots of the manned planes were making a choice to put their lives on the line by strapping in. Based on the shock of the narrator when the van was hit, UAV pilots do not operate under that premise.
The closest parallel I can think of off hand was the gentleman's rule of combat during the time of American revolution of not shooting for officers specifically during combat. But that rule was quickly ignored by sharpshooters and other irregular soldiers in the revolutionary army.
I enjoyed it...until the end. It seemed like it just ended too quickly. Griefer has a smashed hand and a broken jaw now. The narrator gets one last word in.
And that's it?
Griefer doesn't learn that it isn't all a game? The narrator just gets some satisfaction from physically harming a cocky griefer?
Maybe I am alone in thinking that there should have been more to it. It could be a story about someone finally getting to do something against cocky 12-year-old Halo players, but with all of the build up throughout the story, the ending left me wanting more. It would be like Ender's Game ending with the destruction of the Buggers, with nothing to indicate what it all meant.
And that's it?
Griefer doesn't learn that it isn't all a game? The narrator just gets some satisfaction from physically harming a cocky griefer?
Maybe I am alone in thinking that there should have been more to it. It could be a story about someone finally getting to do something against cocky 12-year-old Halo players, but with all of the build up throughout the story, the ending left me wanting more. It would be like Ender's Game ending with the destruction of the Buggers, with nothing to indicate what it all meant.
The closest parallel I can think of is the [a href=http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/470?OpenDocument]Geneva Convention[/a] (specifically the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977."):00exmachina said:
"Article 42 - Occupants of aircraft
1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.
2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.
3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article."
Maybe this is just me filling in gaps for my own self-satisfaction (because I agree, if that's all there was, it's not that fulfilling), but my impression was that by smashing the kid's hands, he was probably destroying his small-motor functionality. Scar tissue, etc, (depending on how smashed), despite large amounts of surgery, is going to keep that kid from being as good as he was. Hands are incredibly delicate things. The broken jaw was just for emphasis.GBGames said:
Pretty bad. It doesn't adopt the mature, emotionally disengaged perspective required for serious writing, causing the author's outrage to taint the work. Griefer's portrayal is extremely dehumanized and unrealistic; the story doesn't take into account the things that caused him to be the way he is. Also, the reader is supposed to expect a 12-year-old soldier to understand the consequences of his actions on a battlefield, which is ridiculous. He's obviously meant as a parody of the ubiquitous annoying kids in online games, but his one-dimensionality and lack of believability make him poorly done even in this light.
The narrator, on the other hand, can only be sympathized with on the most base level: taking pleasure in watching Griefer get his comeuppance, which you can only do if you don't see straight through the weak characterization. Beyond that, he is almost nonexistent as a character.
Even the basis for the story can't redeem it, since it's blatantly derivative of Ender's Game. That is, Ender's Game without the moral ambiguity and depth of character.
Overall, this seems to be more wish fulfillment and revenge fantasy on the author's part than real storytelling.
The narrator, on the other hand, can only be sympathized with on the most base level: taking pleasure in watching Griefer get his comeuppance, which you can only do if you don't see straight through the weak characterization. Beyond that, he is almost nonexistent as a character.
Even the basis for the story can't redeem it, since it's blatantly derivative of Ender's Game. That is, Ender's Game without the moral ambiguity and depth of character.
Overall, this seems to be more wish fulfillment and revenge fantasy on the author's part than real storytelling.
I thought that no one was going to mention the story's similarity to Ender's Game. I'm glad that someone brought it up. Still, I liked the story, especially the contrast between the personalities of the narrator and the Griefer. The Escapist's experiment with the Fiction Issue has been an enjoyable change.Geoffrey42 said:
I just had to say that I enjoyed the story, as mentioned previously it does have more than a passing similarity to Enders Game but I really did get into the visuals. You are quite good at description please keep it up.
This to me is what Enders Game would be like in this day and age. I mean all you have to do is look at the army's FPS to see that they are already thinking of using us "console jocks" in the future huh?
Anyway, thanks for the story, two thumbs up for entertainment value alone.
This to me is what Enders Game would be like in this day and age. I mean all you have to do is look at the army's FPS to see that they are already thinking of using us "console jocks" in the future huh?
Anyway, thanks for the story, two thumbs up for entertainment value alone.
Maybe I'm just pointing out the elephant in the forum, but it strike me as strange that amidst all the talk of this story being a revenge fantasy, no one's mentioned the narrator's little revelation at the end of the story:
My two cents, anyway.
Our "old salt" narrator only has four years on Griefer. They're both still in high school. The backbiting, bitching and sudden violence exhibited by our narrator isn't there because the writer wanted to us all to experience a little schaudenfruede, it's there because our narrator is himself immature. He likes to think of himself as mature and war-weary, but the truth is he just takes the game more seriously than Griefer.whindmarch said:
My two cents, anyway.
I'll see your two cents...
1. The narrator's "senior" status is referenced on the first page. Not capitalized, nor juxtaposed with the term "freshmen" in the way it is in the last bit, but it didn't feel like a huge reveal to me.
2. Griefer is twelve, and a freshman. Not exactly standard age/grade correlation to the modern secondary (or higher) education system. If we see that the age/grade correlation has been thrown out the window, why would we still make the assumption that the difference between a freshman and a senior is 3 years of time?
And I'll raise you a penny:
3. The term "freshman" has uses outside of secondary/higher education. It generally just means noob, in multiple contexts (one example off the top of my google search would be "The Freshman Senator from Illinois", meaning a Senator in their first term, ie, Senatorial n00b).
All in all, I'm not trying to say that you're wrong (the author could've intended it to mean exactly what you say, or since all literature is subject to the reader's interpretation, it can be the way you choose to interpret it). I am saying that the elephant isn't nearly as large as you make it out to be. Based on the above, I wouldn't be ready to say that yours is the One True Reading.
1. The narrator's "senior" status is referenced on the first page. Not capitalized, nor juxtaposed with the term "freshmen" in the way it is in the last bit, but it didn't feel like a huge reveal to me.
2. Griefer is twelve, and a freshman. Not exactly standard age/grade correlation to the modern secondary (or higher) education system. If we see that the age/grade correlation has been thrown out the window, why would we still make the assumption that the difference between a freshman and a senior is 3 years of time?
And I'll raise you a penny:
3. The term "freshman" has uses outside of secondary/higher education. It generally just means noob, in multiple contexts (one example off the top of my google search would be "The Freshman Senator from Illinois", meaning a Senator in their first term, ie, Senatorial n00b).
All in all, I'm not trying to say that you're wrong (the author could've intended it to mean exactly what you say, or since all literature is subject to the reader's interpretation, it can be the way you choose to interpret it). I am saying that the elephant isn't nearly as large as you make it out to be. Based on the above, I wouldn't be ready to say that yours is the One True Reading.
Nor would I want it to be. But my reading seemed to indicate the narrator wasn't the most objective person to be passing judgment on Griefer, and I found it odd that his flow from annoyance to startling violence was attributed to an authorial revenge fantasy rather than an unreliable narrator.Geoffrey42 said:
Agreed that he's not very objective. I'm not entirely sure what his position as an unreliable narrator has to do with the flow of annoyance to startling violence, unless you're suggesting that he wasn't being entirely truthful with us about the events leading up to the assault?rumtuggle said:
While thinking about your comment, I came across an analogous situation, that I think places the narrator's actions in perspective. Let's say you've got two teams competitively shooting targets. Your teammate decides "Forget the targets, the easiest way to win is to shoot my opponents," turns to the other team, and opens fire, killing them all. You, in turn, lose it, and assault them. I don't find it hard to put myself in those shoes.
That was a fun read, sort of William Gibson/Bruce Sterling meets Counter Strike. I mean, leave aside all the Ender-esque stuff; as entertainment, this story worked for me. Beyond that I'm still mulling over the layers of significance.
I personally like the way that he theorized that, in future wars, killing wach other will be obsolete. Note that they don't say cartel forces were dwindling, but rather funds. And as for the Freshmen - Senior thing, what if it's an Academy? The age difference between a College Senior and a 12 year old would be huge. And I have to sympathize with the hatred of 12-year old griefers. It's why I don't play online unless I know the people I'm playing against.
"THAT WAS A WIERD ONE!" ten points for whoever gets that one. but anyway that was pretty cool, kind of wierd to think where we are going as gamers, and I totally vote that the NexBox be called XBox infinity!
Erm... How is the griefer correct? It was basically showing the kid that the real world and the game world are different.Gormourn said:
As for death being the whole reason for war. It's not. It's like the saying goes "Someone always has bigger guns than you, unless you're at the top, in which case three other people have the same guns." The point is that whoever has the biggest guns can outman their opponent, and then basically has to do what they want. If there aren't people in the planes, it just makes it come down to money, rather than population.
Besides, it still has to do with death. If one side wins, then if they want, they can kill anyone and everyone in the other country, should they wish.
Oh god, Fighting large scale aerial battles on a console controller? That's a terrible idea.
Great story though, I thoroughly enjoyed the read.
Great story though, I thoroughly enjoyed the read.