Home ยป Forum ยป Story Discussion and Feedback

Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

A Perfect World and Greenies

OilPark ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

I was looking for something new to read, and figured I'd hit the #1 spot on the "Top 50 Classic Long Stories" list, Greenies by Al Steiner. I was looking forward to it, as Al's Aftermath is one of my favourites on this site. I thought I'd start with the first story in the universe, A Perfect World. And boy, was that a massive disappointment!

Full disclaimer, I only read about half of it before dropping it, so the second half of the story might be amazing, I don't know.

What bothered me was how the protagonist's development happened in lightning speed. It was absolutely bizarre how easy and fast he adapted to an entirely alien culture. He accepted everything that was different in this culture from his old one, after giving a half-hearted question or protest, getting an equally half-arsed answer from his guide (who's high on weed more often than not) and then just accept it with barely a second thought. For an example, his guide was getting high early in the morning on a shuttle, and suggested he'd get a drink. He tells her something about people from his time not drinking early in the day. She asks him why not, and he can't think of a reason. No reasons at all. Really? You were a cop 2 days ago, and you can't think of a reason why people shouldn't spend their days drunk? If not a simple reason such as you might want to spend your day clear-headed, as a cop he should know that some people get violent and generally unpleasant when they're drunk. Hell, in the following chapter he's coming along some martian cops and there was something about a drunk battery case.

Nope, can't think of any reason at all why it might not be a great idea for people to get drunk at 8 in the morning..

Other new things in this alien culture is equally accepted by him when there's plenty of things he should at least consider before accepting them.

If his adaption to the new martian culture would've spanned several months or years, the story wouldn't seem as... well, as stupid for lack of a better term (not a native English speaker). The picture I got in my head reading this was that of a very devout muslim, moving to an atheist or christian country. When he gets there, he spends a few hours talking with someone who's high on weed, that gives him some weak reasons why everything the muslim man believes in is wrong. A couple days in the new country and some talks with a intoxicated guy later, and 30+ years of beliefs, morals and values have gone out the window.

That's not how culture adaption works, and A Perfect World failed miserably in this aspect. About 2-3 days in this new world, and he's basically a martian, except a bit more prudish. He even subconsciously talks like they do (Not all the time, but subconsciously use some of their phrases). Yeah... as someone who's moved to a place with a different dialect than where I grew up, and who has a sister who did the same to an other place, you don't subconsciously change the way you speak after spending a day or two with new people.

The rest of the story was great, the setting, the other characters, the conversations etc, but I just couldn't let go of how his stupidly fast adaption could've been fixed by just spanning it out over months or years so it'd actually make some sense. Not to mention that 2 days into his mourning of his dead pregnant wife have had a hand job, a blow job and participated in an orgy. Real classy. Again, the sexual culture is something that should've taken time to adapt to and accept, especially when you have just lost the love of your life.

Right, I think I'm done with that rant. Now, about Greenies. First off, does it have some similarly stupid plots like A Perfect World's culture adaption? If I understood the blurb correctly, it's set on Mars with martian characters so there probably won't be the same scenario, but my faith in Al's writing took a serious blow.

Secondly, as I understand it, it's set before A Perfect World, and as such it won't matter that I didn't finish A Perfect World, will it?

Replies:   Grant  Jim S
jimh67 ๐Ÿšซ

I think it was around "fuckin' aye" number 135 that I couldn't take it anymore.

Grant ๐Ÿšซ

@OilPark

He tells her something about people from his time not drinking early in the day. She asks him why not, and he can't think of a reason. No reasons at all. Really? You were a cop 2 days ago, and you can't think of a reason why people shouldn't spend their days drunk?

Having a drink in the morning, and spending the day drunk aren't necessarily the same thing.
If you're able to start your day with a wine or whatever your choice is, but that's it- just that one, then what's wrong with that? If one leads to another, then another, etc, then it's obviously not such a good idea (Personally i'm a teetotaler, so I don't understand the appeal of even having that first one..).

but I just couldn't let go of how his stupidly fast adaption could've been fixed by just spanning it out over months or years

If you had read further, you would have seen that was the case; it took over 6 months for him to mostly adapt to Martian ways, and even then he didn't adapt nearly as much as you are saying he did.

First off, does it have some similarly stupid plots like A Perfect World's culture adaption? If I understood the blurb correctly, it's set on Mars with martian characters so there probably won't be the same scenario, but my faith in Al's writing took a serious blow.

Given the way you have interpreted parts of A Perfect World, I've got not the slightest inkling of how you might interpret Greenies.

Secondly, as I understand it, it's set before A Perfect World, and as such it won't matter that I didn't finish A Perfect World, will it?

As it precedes A Perfect World in time, it stands completely on it's own.

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Grant

Wine has definite medical benefits in moderation.

Replies:   Grant
Grant ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

Wine has definite medical benefits in moderation.

Often claimed, but given the downsides, any benefits there are, are well and truly offset by those downsides.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2017-08-23/does-one-drink-a-day-damage-your-health/8770438

Professor Chikritzhs said in the last 20 years there had been rapid advances in our understanding of the links between alcohol and cancer, and a growing body of evidence linking increased alcohol consumption and cancer risk.

"For a whole range of cancers, seven or eight of them, we can demonstrate a linear dose response relationship," she said.
This means as the amount you drink each day increases, there's a corresponding increase in your risk of developing cancer. There's no level of alcohol consumption that's completely safe.
If you don't want any increased risk of developing cancer (above what you might have already from genetics or the environment you live in), you'd have to stop drinking altogether.

So what about all those studies we heard about that suggested benefits of a glass or two?

Possible mechanisms by which alcohol could act as a health tonic include it working to boost levels of "good" fats in the blood, increasing the body's sensitivity to the hormone insulin, or decreasing inflammation (which has been linked to a range of illnesses, including heart disease).

There's mixed messages when it comes to whether alcohol can confer health benefits.
Professor Chikritzhs said there were two camps in this area โ€” those who believe low-level drinking confers such benefits, and those who think the studies demonstrating these benefits are flawed.

She put herself firmly in the sceptics camp.
The problem is that studies that appeared to show a drink or two was good for us didn't fully take into account factors other than alcohol that might influence the results.
For instance, some groups of people who didn't drink looked to be in worse health than others who drank a little. But this group included non-drinkers who'd had to give up booze because of problems with their health (and often these very health problems were a result of their former drinking habit).
This created an illusion that those who drink more are healthier, Professor Chikritzhs said.

As for my not drinking booze- Why do something you don't enjoy, if you don't have to? I've tried it, but don't like either the effect is has on me, nor the taste. So I don't do it.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Grant

Chikritzhs has been proven wrong via empirical evidence accumulated over a few hundred years. Every so often someone comes out with something like Chikritzhs does. When the details are shown, the study had been sullied by mixing in people who drank more than just moderately or had other undocumented high risk factors.

Replies:   REP
REP ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

The quoted text Grant posted seems contradictory. At the start of the quote, Chikritzh seems to be stating there is a growing body of evidence showing a link between increased alcohol consumption and cancer risk. At the end of the quote, she is saying the evidence supporting the link was contaminated and thus the evidence is not valid.

Replies:   Grant
Grant ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@REP

The quoted text Grant posted seems contradictory. At the start of the quote, Chikritzh seems to be stating there is a growing body of evidence showing a link between increased alcohol consumption and cancer risk. At the end of the quote, she is saying the evidence supporting the link was contaminated and thus the evidence is not valid.

I suggest you carefully read all that is posted there- in particular this line in between the 2 sections you are talking about;

So what about all those studies we heard about that suggested benefits of a glass or two?

The first part before that line is about the increasing evidence that Alcohol may be a significant risk factor in Cancer development.
The second part after that line is about the increasing evidence that Alcohol doesn't provide any health benefits.

Replies:   Remus2  REP
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Grant

The first part before that line is about the increasing evidence that Alcohol may be a significant risk factor in Cancer development.
The second part after that line is about the increasing evidence that Alcohol doesn't provide any health benefits.

"the increasing evidence"..."may be a significant risk factor"...

There is a lot of academic chicanery in the world these days. Bogus peer reviews, outright fraud, plagiarism, faux pay to publish sites, etcetera. That is long before we get to the sad state of the fifth estate.

You make an assumption that a report by a news agency reported accurately without delving into the background of both the media selling the story and without having reviewed the study in question.

Pick any subject, and you can find a 'study' somewhere that supports your personal world view.

Long standing empirical evidence is not so easily twisted. Cancer and longevity rates and records have been kept for a long time now. Large quantities of empirical raw data are available for anyone to review. That 'evidence' proves Chikritzh is off base at best, or selling an agenda/full of crap at worst. Do try to remember the two basic types of statisticians of such studies as Chikritzhs based that work on. Those two types are liars and damn liars.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

That 'evidence' proves Chikritzh is off base at best, or selling an agenda/full of crap at worst. Do try to remember the two basic types of statisticians of such studies as Chikritzhs based that work on.

Philosophically there's a difference between evidence and proof. Despite Chikritzhs's claim, there's no proof that alcohol causes cancer, and likewise there's no proof that alcohol protects against cancer.

Until scientists determine the exact aetiology of if and how alcohol and cancer are related, this argument will run and run.

AJ

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

Chikritzhs mixes terms. Throwing the C word out in a suggestive manner was likely click bait to start with. As for evidence, a few hours reviewing data from areas prone to heavy usage of wine suggest the exact opposite. Further there is the following.
https://foh.psc.gov/NYCU/antioxidents.asp
Antioxidants have been proven to reduce the risk of cancer. That btw is only one of hundreds of links/reports/studies. Red wine is a good source of them. Therefore there is both evidence and proof.

Heart health is another story and was the primary point. That is quantifiable and qualifiable.

All of that assumes moderate use defined as 1-2 glasses a day. Heavy usage to the point of becoming drunk every day has been proven to do more harm than good.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

Antioxidants have been proven to reduce the risk of cancer.

And yet they can also increase the risk of cancer - as your article shows, the relationship is unclear.

I read an interesting article claiming that perhaps we should be thinking in the other direction - deliberately causing cell damage sends the body's defences into overdrive, in some cases curing cancer.

AJ

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

As I said earlier;

Pick any subject, and you can find a 'study' somewhere that supports your personal world view.

We will need to agree to disagree here.

REP ๐Ÿšซ

@Grant

I didn't read the article you referenced. Shame on me for accepting what you presented as a valid quote.

Today I checked the article and found that your Block Quote is not an accurate representation of the article. The use of the 'Quote' function makes it appear that everything you posted was said by Professor Chikritzhs, but that is not true. You mixed what she said with what the author of the article said and presented it without proper attribution to the passages made by the author. You also reordered passages from the article.

It is the parts that you left out of your quoted article text, reordering of the quoted text, and your failure to attribute portions of what you posted to the writer of the article that changes the meaning of what you provided us.

Replies:   Grant
Grant ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@REP

It is the parts that you left out of your quoted article text, reordering of the quoted text, and your failure to attribute portions of what you posted to the writer of the article that changes the meaning of what you provided us.

Oh for crying out loud.
Since I was quoting the article and it was just that one article, it was in a single block quote, and within the article the professor is quoted & referenced. Why or how that would make you think the entire quote was from Professor Chikritzhs is beyond me.

And if you had actually read the article as you now claim to have done, you would notice that nothing was re-ordered- not a single thing; There are missing carriage returns in the sections I pasted, so the number of paragraphs is different. And there was one part where a label for an image ended up in the text quoted, which was a mistake on my part (which was still in the order it was in the article anyway).
And so the message of the article remains exactly as I presented it, regardless of how you may choose to misinterpret it.

You can either take some deep breaths, settle down, and read the article I referenced in one window, and the quote in this thread in another to compare them to see nothing was posted out of order, that nothing was mis-quoted, and the meaning of the article is as I posted here. Or stay worked up over nothing other than your own misinterpretations.

Given that you have just shown how people can interpret things the way they want to regardless of how they are presented, it gives me an insight as to how the originator of this thread has the view they do. And the struggles authors must have in writing their stories when people read what they want, not what is actually written.

Replies:   REP
REP ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Grant

Why or how that would make you think the entire quote was from Professor Chikritzhs is beyond me.

The way it is worded.

For example, the article has the paragraph:

It depends on your approach to health risks, Professor Chikritzhs said.

Is that a quote from the Professor or the author's comment? There are at least two additional places where it appears the author is quoting the Professor, but no quote marks. Then there are 2 paragraphs with quote marks, but no accreditation. One of which has a misplaced accreditation.

The misplaced accreditation is a paragraph:

Professor Chikritzhs said.

It should have been part of the preceding paragraph. However, positioned as it is, it appears to be an accreditation to the paragraphs that follow it.

The label, a standalone paragraph, is what I thought had been relocated; but a closer look made it apparent what happened.

Replies:   Grant
Grant ๐Ÿšซ

@REP

I can see how the messed up formatting makes ownership of points and attribution of statements very difficult to determine (a common issue with many of the stories here).

While my reading of the article prior to posting the excepts will obviously influence my understanding of what was posted, i still don't understand how you came to take the quote i posted as being from just the professor as the language used is clearly (to me, even with the messed up formatting) that of someone discussing the topic, and referencing & quoting the professor.

Replies:   REP
REP ๐Ÿšซ

@Grant

I generally do not click on links to sites I have not visited. I also avoid certain sites like Yahoo and many of the sites associated with the MSN news page. I've picked up viruses in the past from these sites, which is why I didn't click the link and read the article.

I was not reading your posted quote for specific content, but to gain an overview of its content to understand your position. Therefore, I was not focused on who was making the comments, and the wording led me to believe it was the Professor's comments.

When I did go to the article, it was easier to see that the majority of what you posted was the author's words and not the Professors.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Grant

Personally i'm a teetotaler, so I don't understand the appeal of even having that first one..

Well, even just 200 years ago, it generally wasn't safe to drink the water in relatively densely populated areas. Even the relatively weak alcohol content of wine would kill most bacteria that might be in the water.

Replies:   Grant
Grant ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

Well, even just 200 years ago, it generally wasn't safe to drink the water in relatively densely populated areas. Even the relatively weak alcohol content of wine would kill most bacteria that might be in the water.

200 years ago, or in some less developed parts of the world today there's an argument for some low levels of booze in your water if you haven't got any purification tablets, but not for just having booze straight up.

If you do, it's either because you enjoy the taste, or the effect, or both.
But since I like neither the effect it has on me, nor the taste, I just don't see the appeal. My coffee, chocolate & soft drink habits are expensive enough without adding booze to the list.

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Grant

Personally i'm a teetotaler, so I don't understand the appeal of even having that first one

I would be too, apart from the small amounts occurring naturally in food.

I take the view that alcohol in moderation is not harmful and is probably beneficial: population studies show such consumers have better longevity than teetotalers and heavy drinkers.

Ethanol is a very useful solvent for pharmaceutical products, but it's been eradicated to satisfy religious minorities in favour of sugar alcohols (at best a mild laxative, at worst carcinogenic) and even parabens!

Those flying spaghetti monsters who won't allow their adherents to consume an amount of alcohol commensurate with what they would ingest from a ripe plum!

AJ

Jim S ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@OilPark

Regarding Greenies, I suggest reading all of the reviews that are attached to the story. They nail it pretty well.

My own view is that a really great story, really great, is diminished by some of the dialogue. As jimh67 says below:

I think it was around "fuckin' aye" number 135 that I couldn't take it anymore.

If you read the story (something I recommend you do), you'll see what he means. It doesn't suffer from the unbelievability of A Perfect World (couldn't agree with you more about that). It's still one of my favorites here and one I've read multiple times. I don't want to expose any spoilers but the ending is one of the most gripping of any of the many stories that I've read here.

Grant ๐Ÿšซ

Back to the original post,

The story was set over a couple of years, and a lot occurs during that time.
Much of the early parts of the story were setting up the universe, showing the reader how things were, and how they became that way & why. Ken didn't just accept what he was told, nor change from a 20th century cop to a Martian in a matter of days. As mentioned in the story, he spent months overall checking things out on the Martian internet, and it took him months to eventually (mostly) adapt to his new environment.

Al could have spent a huge amount of time going through Ken's efforts at dealing with and coming to terms with his new environment and all the grief, confusion & pain that would have involved- but those weren't the main part of the story. One of the recurring comments or complaints about stories is when the main character has nothing but angst & drama, people want the writer to get on with the story. Here the complaint is not enough.
They were a part of it, and I thought that Al did well to point them out. Obviously OliPark isn't of that opinion.

What happens in the early chapters weren't the main focus of the story, they just set the stage for the main plot, and give us a base & context for what occurs then.

Back to Top

 

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...

Storiesonline is for adult entertainment only. By accessing this site you declare that you are of legal age and that you agree with our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.


Log In