Relationships 105: A Karmic Wager
Copyright© 2008 by DB_Story
Chapter 3: Reader Response
My Relationships series generates a whole different type of reader response than my other fiction. These are either flagged as True, or Drama, since Romantic seldom seems the best descriptor.
I always enjoy hearing from people who have gained anything helpful in their own lives from any of my writing, and I have often heard it about these stories.
I also learn a lot from my readers. Everyone has wisdom to share and I get more than my share of it because I put my stories out there in the first place.
As I've done in the past, I'm going to share some of the reader responses to this story. As always, I don't reveal identity information. The reason for putting it here is that Lazeez told me that after another writer tried the same thing as I had done of putting reader responses in a separate "story", that it didn't qualify to be posted on SOL. He said something along the lines of: When somebody clicks on a story link they reasonably expect a story, and these reader e-mails, along with my replies, don't meet that qualification.
This chapter, however, should. So without further ado, here's what some of your fellow SOL readers have had to say about Relationships 105. If you like what you've read here, check back occasionally since any future good letters are likely to wind up here as well.
Why make up a word, "karmatic", when the word karmic already exists? Or was it a typo? I didn't actually notice this error the first read through, but then attempted a quick search using the term "karmic" and failed to find your story.
Anyhow, to be quite frank, I don't like this particular story that much. It lacks punch. I think it approaches the point it is trying to make too circumspectly and is missing the powerful ending (i.e. the reader exercise) found in 104. I think the message is more powerful when you tell the reader to recognize it himself, even in the case that the reader doesn't actually really understand the message.
In short, this version of the story makes it the message much clearer than 104, but doesn't do anything to cause the reader to actually process the message once the story is finished.
I'm honestly not sure exactly what makes the approach here so very much less (in my own view) effective than when a similar approach was used in 102. In part I think all that psychic stuff ended up being useless filler that diluted the message. Tolerable in a long story, less ideal in a short, dialogue based story.
I admit that part of the problem is that much of the power in this series is in the messages, which this story is less effective at since I already read the message in 104.
I still feel that 104 is better without the intro, but know that it's uncomfortable for writers to throw out chunks of their work, particularly since (at least in this case) it means removing some of the information the reader could use.
Reading 105 gave me a better understanding of what was going on in 104, but I enjoyed 105 less despite coming away with a stronger feel for what was going on. 104 let me internalize the message as my own.
My reply:
You're right about karmatic, and I may change it. It was intentional the way it was, but not likely correct usage.
If you compare this story to R104, you must realize that they are very different. R105 isn't a retelling of R104. In R104 the man stands up for himself and rather than letting himself get swept into a situation where his hopes and expectations are certain to be badly dashed, he straightens out everything from the beginning while he still holds the power to do so.
In contrast, R105 ends badly for all involved. Even the psychic doesn't get paid for the session. Sometimes things do go badly, and that's why within SOL's limited classification system I've marked this as Drama. So it's quite reasonable that you could like one of these two stories without feeling the same about the other.
I must comment to you that of the four comments I've received so far on R105 including you own, 2 like it and 2 don't. The other one rags on me about do I really believe this stuff? My reply there will be, do I have to in order to write a great story? I will also point out that my most highly regarded story, Far Future Fembot, is premised on exactly this same idea.
As for that "psychic stuff", I feel it's necessary to let the reader know where the psychic is getting her information. She's not just pulling it out of thin air.
And I do feel that there's a different message here than in R104, although you clearly seem to feel that you've gotten the same message twice and therefore no real surprise the second time around.
View it this way: R104 was a message for the man in the man-woman relationship. R105 is a message for the woman.
This reader then replied:
As for that "psychic stuff", I feel it's necessary to let the reader know where the psychic is getting her information. She's not just pulling it out of thin air.
I am fine with setting the story with a psychic and am OK with your reasoning, but the part where the psychic is discussing the protagonist having had this issue in past lives seemed like overkill to me.
And I do feel that there's a different message here than in R104, although you clearly seem to feel that you've gotten the same message twice and therefore no real surprise the second time around.
View it this way: R104 was a message for the man in the man-woman relationship. R105 is a message for the woman.
In truth, I felt I got a different message from each story, but I felt like 105 made the message I got a bit less valid.
My reply:
Thanks for writing back.
Actually the part about the protagonist having this issue from past lives is one of the true elements of this story. It refers an incident that I have personal knowledge of that I felt was important enough to be worth mentioning. It properly sets the stage for what follows.
As to the value of the messages from each story, the message will never be what I put into this story -- or any story -- but instead what you take away from each story. Another reader may well get an entirely different message than you did, and value it less or more in the process.
Another reader writes:
You do this SOOOOOOOO well.
Glad to hear that you like it SOOOOOOOO much!
My reply:
Considering that there are several distinct elements to this story (the psychic angle, the relationship angle, the telling of a whole incident only in conversation, just to name a few), can you say more specifically what you like so much?
This reader then replied:
I have read all 5 of the series and have found myself in more than one of them both as victim and victimzer. The key seems to be the way we so delude ourselves in our relationships. I especially liked 102 and 103. I sent a copy of 103 to my single mother daughter who is just starting a relationship for the first time in about 7 years after her divorce. The statements on power in a relationship in 103 were the kind of wisdom I wish someone had shared with me many years and mistakes ago. The series is a reminder of the times and ways hearts have been broken, mine and others, when I was in a relationship.
The psychic part of 105 would have rung a bell with a russian girlfriend I had, they associate the fortune tellers with the holiday Troitsa, but it didn't resonate for me. The fundamental ideas the FT said could have come from Dr Laura but they would still be true. We all make a wager of sorts when we begin time with another person, will it pay off as we would like or not is the eternal wager. When the reward no longer exceeds the stake we placed most of us begin turning away. Even worse is that some times when we WIN the wager we immediately devalue it. I wish I was smart enough to really understand mysel 100% of the time and others 50+ % of the time.
My reply:
I love having readers like you who can relate my stories so well to their own personal experiences.
As for hearing these stories earlier in our lives, I feel exactly the same. I write them now because I didn't get to hear them any earlier myself. I would have rather learned these lessons from someone else's experiences than my own. All I can say to that situation is that younger readers of these stories do now have them available to consider.
As for Troitsa, I've not heard of that holiday before. I'll have to research it.
Regarding you comment that it could have been Dr. Laura (a renown psychiatrist) discussing these issues instead of Sylvia Browne (a renown psychic), you have to recall that I made exactly that same comment in the story. That people come to both for answers.
Your analysis that we all make a "wager" when we start a new relationship, and we pay into it early on with the hopes of profiting more than our investment down the line is very cogent. If more people viewed their own relationships in that manner then we might manage them more wisely in the process. When the reward is no longer worth the cost is when we "should" turn away, but often don't. Too often we wait until it's far too obvious that any further investment in this relationship is simply good money after bad.
R105 took that idea that you've expressed so well to extend it to a much larger relationship. One that spans your whole existence, rather than just one lifetime. And I turned it into an "All In" wager that calls the other person's hand in a Put Up or Shut Up manner. This is to show everything on a much grander scale.
In the end my readers will will have the final say on how well I managed this since I continue to allow voting on my stories despite some abuses of the SOL voting system. So far the results are completely mixed with the Appeal component of the TPA scores of the first five voters giving it one vote each as: 5-6-7-8-9-10. It's really hard to explain what that vote truly means.
About the psychic elements, I'm adding a third chapter to this story today containing, as I have done with the other Relationships stories, anonymized reader feedback. I'll be discussing the possibilities of the psychic elements having truth to them there in regard to another reader who questions them even more strongly than you have. It should make for a great read.
Another reader writes:
Very well written and interesting, I like things that are different. Thanks.
My reply:
Thanks for the nice words. I'm glad you've found it so intriguing.
Another reader writes:
DB
Don't tell me you believe it that stuff. You say in your description that this is a true story.
If you do believe this, do you see the incongruity of the last line?
Where is luck in such a worldview? Of course, I don't believe in luck either, but from a distinctly Christian perspective. I hope you don't believe in this stuff.
My reply:
You bring up an interesting issue. Are an author's beliefs an essential part of each story, or are they divorced from the story itself? Can a devil worshiper write an outstanding Christian story, or will you refuse to accept a story like that from an author like that regardless of its quality? A story is just a story. Isn't it enough for a story to simply stand on its own? If not, then can you even read stories where you don't know a lot about the author first?
I also note that this very idea is the major theme in one of my most highly regarded stories: Far Future Fembot. Do you not like that story for this reason?
As for "luck", isn't luck something we make for ourselves - in any of several different ways?
I'm not even going to get into the issue of whether God is currently running things the way he (she, it, or they) wants things run, or if it's all out of control. That's far beyond the questions here.
This reader then replied:
Actually, I was reacting to the comment you made about the story being true ... well you sort of made that comment. I believe you said, "I'm calling this fiction, although it isn't really." If it's not fiction, then do you mean it is true? Isn't non-fiction a true story? I like all kinds of stories, and they don't have to reflect my worldview for them to be good. I've written stories outside the box of my worldview, though I don't think an author can ever totally divorce himself or herself from their underlying philosophic presuppositions. Nor can they totally escape the world as it actually is. For this story to be true, then reincarnation would have to be true, psychic phenomenon as described would have to be believed in as reliable. If you had characterized it as someone's perception of a true event, that might have been different, though even that is problematic, because the psychic is depicted as being very specific and completely accurate in the story. The comment about "luck" had to do with the worldview presented in the story, not necessarily your own. I do not believe the concept of "luck" fits with the determinism presented. Of course, even that determinism is inconsistent, since her decision altered what was supposed to have been determined. Frankly, I think the whole worldview of the story collapses into contradiction because it's not the way the world actually is. That's the problem with such fantasies, ultimately they can't be true, if they are contrary to the world as it actually is. That doesn't mean they can't be enjoyed. I always enjoy your writing.
Still, it was a fun read and something to make me think.
My reply:
If it was a fun read that made you think, what more can you really ask of a story? One can say that, "I want to read a story that changes my life," and my reply would be, "Don't we all?" Yet to have a story change your life, you first have to enjoy it enough to read the whole story, and then it has to provoke you into thinking about it. Changing one's life is a journey of many steps, and Kaisen requires that you take the first one first. As such, you already are on a journey that may change your life.
Also worth mentioning is that every new Relationships story boosts the readership of my previous Relationships stories. This week every story in my Relationships series has beat out all of my other stories for readership. That means that this story has also led people to read my other stories with their messages. Even if this story doesn't immediately change your life, one of the others may as a result of this one. A powerful effect indeed!
In answer to your question, nearly all the elements of this story are true. I can point to incidents to back each of them up, which is why it was both fun -- and very easy -- to write. There's an anguish in it, but now it's in the story and no longer in me. Things that demand to be written won't leave me alone until they are.
As to what's true, that depends on your personal worldview. Two people can be standing right next to each other witnessing the exact same event at the exact same moment, yet depending on the "lens" they view it through -- a lens created by all of their own education, upbringing, experiences, and genetics to that point -- view the result in entirely different ways. Now I suspect that you will require an example of this to even consider it possible. Here's one:
A rich man is assaulted on the street by a disadvantaged person. How he got so rich and why the second person is disadvantaged aren't even important. Two witnesses. One may call it a horrible crime, while the other sees it as Social Justice in action. I know people who will see it each way, and cannot be convinced of the other's point of view. This is precisely why Liberals and Conservatives -- two groups with very different thought processes and worldviews -- cannot come together on a single vision for America.
You state that for my story to be "true" by your definition that reincarnation would have to exist and that psychics must operate reliably in the way I say they do. (Have you ever visited a psychic? I have.) So what tells you that this doesn't happen and that they don't?
For most people the answer to that question is their church. More specifically the teachings at their Judeo-Christian Islamic church, synagogue, or mosque. Yet this monotheistic view doesn't come close to encompassing all of the world's Major Religions, and others accept reincarnation as nothing out of the ordinary. Who is right? We all want to say, "I am!", but really are you?
Religion exists in a compact with its followers. The deal -- wager, if you prefer -- is, "Believe in us and follow what we teach you to believe and do, and in return we will explain the true truth of the universe to you." Religion exists to explain the otherwise unexplainable and teach us how to take the best advantage of the opportunities available to us here and now. And to gain followers, and hence power in this realm, each religion insists that they're totally right and everyone else is totally wrong. Religions promote this view so strongly that too many are ready to kill over unbelief or imagined insult. (Can Almighty God really be insulted? Not likely by me.) And few religions take wither humor or outside questioning easily or gracefully.
So, as I've raised this question otherwise in my stories, if we only have one life here and either go to Heaven/Paradise/whatever nice or Hell/Hades/don't want to go there otherwise, how do you explain:
Knowledge people have that they could have only learned in a past existence.
· Psychics, who do have impossible answers.
· Ghosts, which to me seem the best evidence overall of life after death.
· People who simply do know people well that they've never met before in this lifetime.
· Religions all claiming to be completely right, and that all other competing religions are completely wrong.
I know all of the above to be true. I've witnessed it.
The modern religions deny that psychics exist (which is foolish, since psychics all agree on the immortality of the soul and a better place after this lifetime, which support church teachings), although they've accepted "prophets" since Old Testament days. What is a Psychic, but a Prophet by another name?
Until you can answer those questions for me, along with a selected few others, you will not convince me that your beliefs have all the answers. Any belief system I accept must be able to explain what I see happening all around me in the process.
So my story pulls you out of the suspension-of-disbelief necessary to enjoy it because it contradicts the world as you see it. As a result you're insulted that I try to foist the True label for it off on you. That's your worldview through your lens.
My story is completely consistent with my worldview, and hence the "True" label is completely appropriate for it from me.
We are both simply seeing the same world in different ways.
This reader then replied:
DB
Interesting comments and they deserve a reply. I reply in this medium with much trepidation, not because I'm fearful of the exchange, but rather fearful that neither of us will be understood by the other. In these lengthy discourses we tend to talk past each other. Nuances are missed, and what could easily be clarified face to face is lost. But ... having no other opportunity I will jump in, now fully aware that you may post this response as you did my last one on SOL.
I find your thinking interesting, but unconvincing, so I don't expect my "life to be changed" by reading such a story. I give you something that most don't understand, and that is the existence of worldviews that provide the spectacles through which we view life around us. You are absolutely correct about this and I commend you for recognizing this. The problem with your thinking, as I see it from my own set of spectacles, is that you're not thinking either deeply or broadly enough.
Here's the point you make about truth in a nutshell, "What is truth depends on one's worldview." Your illustration is a logical fallacy. It doesn't prove anything. I would grant you that two people might have two entirely different perspectives on an event they witness, and yes, that their perspectives will profoundly affect their interpretation of the event. For the one, he witnessed an injustice (I think you said crime), for the other he witnessed justice (I think you said social justice). You give this illustration to say that truth depends on one's worldview. Thus, truth is relative.
You've not asked the most important question. Was the assault of the rich man by the poor man a just or unjust act? Just because one believes it is just doesn't make it just, nor does the fact that the other believes it to be unjust make it unjust. One or both are mistaken. The problem is with your reference point for epistemology. You begin with man (yourself, me, the two men who view the assault) as if any and all of us, and our philosophical commitments, are sufficient to determine justice.
I'm here to assert that we are not sufficient references. First, just because I think something is just doesn't make it just. Perhaps the one observer didn't know that the rich man had assaulted the poor man earlier in the day and taken what little money he had left. You dismissed the necessity of such evidence when you set up your illustration, which fatally flaws it. But that's just your point. You don't believe in absolutes, so you don't have a definition of justice that is universal. Your view seems to be "to each his own."
Perhaps this illustration can help make my point:
A Christian man confronts his neighbor (in a gentle and loving way) that living with his girlfriend is immoral and sinful before God. He's trying to help his neighbor.
The neighbor replies, "Who are you to tell me how to live?"
The Christian says, "God says you shouldn't live with the woman unless you are married."
The neighbor says, "I don't believe in God. I'll decide for myself what's right and what's wrong."
So the Christian replies, "Okay, then, if you can decide for yourself what's right and what's wrong, then can I decide the same thing for myself from your perspective."
"Indeed you can," the neighbor replies hoping maybe he's won a convert. "And I won't judge you for it."
The next night, there's a terrible thunderstorm drenching the ground in both men's yards. The neighbor awakens to the sound of a four-wheel drive pickup in his yard. He looks out the window and sees the Christian doing figure eights in his yard, tearing it to shreds, whooping and hollering with glee.
"What are you doing!" The angry neighbor shouts as he runs outside to stop the Christian from tearing up his yard.
The Christian replies, "I'm just doing what you are doing. I'm deciding for myself what I think is right and wrong. You've liberated me, and I think it's okay to have fun doing figure eights in your muddy yard.
Does the neighbor have a gripe?
Of course he does. He knows very well that what the Christian is doing is wrong. Everybody knows that, but it's not wrong based upon the neighbor's stated worldview. It is wrong based upon the Christian worldview.
Of course the Christian will have to pay for re-sodding the yard and ask forgiveness of his neighbor, because from his worldview what he's done is wrong. The sixth commandment says, "Thou shalt not steal." By destroying his neighbor's property for his enjoyment, he's stolen from his neighbor.
What's the point. We must have a reference point beyond us ... indeed beyond our collective experience ... beyond the majority opinion at any given time ... beyond man. We need an absolute reference point, and that can only be found in the Creator Himself. Christians not only believe in the Creator, but believe He has spoken, and that revelation provides a sufficient worldview for life, reason, morality, science, mathematics, as well as sin and redemption, justice and righteousness, and yes, even interpreting claims of supernatural or psychic phenomenon.
You ask, "What is the difference between the prophets of the Bible and psychics?" The answer in the Bible is clear. The prophets receive their revelations from God and thus are infallible. Psychics, contrary to the Scriptures, appeal to other mediums ... some may be demonic from the Bible's perspective, some may be illusions (thus Jannes and Jambres' staffs turned into snakes as did Moses' staff, but remember, Moses' snake ate the snakes of Jannes and Jambres. Modern day psychics don't even claim infallibility ... not near it.
DB you have a dilemma if you deny this revelation (and only the Judeo-Christian religion makes this kind of claim as a revelatory religion). Others have their holy books, but not a comprehensive recording of God's revelation in history, including redemption and consummation like Christianity claims. Making the claim doesn't make it true, but then what is truth? For you, if could be true for me, but not for you. I don't believe you believe that. For my truth declares that yours can't be true. If you say mine is true, then it's true in that claim too. If not, then mine's not true. But if mine is not true then how can anything be known? Modern philosophy, since David Hume, the Scottish skeptic, has rightly come to that conclusion. In putting God out of the equation from the beginning, Hume rightly concluded that we can't know anything. However, my contention is that the world makes sense from within the Christian worldview as provided by the Bible that claims to be the revelation of the one who is infinite truth Himself. No other worldview comports with reality at any point.
That's the difference between us. You have already ruled out Christianity as an adequate philosophy for you, because as you stated, "Any belief system I accept must be able to explain what I see happening all around me in the process." You've included the validity of psychic experiences, reincarnation, ghosts and the like as those things you've witnessed first hand. You've never stopped and asked the question, "Could you be wrong in your interpretation of what you've seen."
If you can't, then you'd be God, now wouldn't you. I'm not that smart. I know I don't have all the answers and sure can't find them. Left to myself, I'm a blind man that says an elephant looks like a tree trunk, because that's all I can feel of the elephant from my perspective. I may go to my grave utterly convinced that an elephant looks like a tree, but would I be right? Perhaps my blind friend is right who says an elephant looks like a rope, because he's holding it's tail. God, who knows and sees all, has told me what I need to know in order to see.
David Copperfield made the Empire State Building disappear to thousands of witnesses. Certain televangelists have been tricksters, using hidden earpieces to have information delivered to them about individuals in the audience, under the guise of prophetic utterings. Some phenomenon I have no explanation for, but if I take my stand with the self-attesting Scriptures, they tell me not to consult psychics (as Saul did), so no, I haven't visited a psychic and don't intend to anytime soon.
Now to a really important question. Was Tiger's eagle on hole #13 and his birdie that bounced off of the pole on #17, and then the eagle he just made on #18 to take the lead after the third round of the US Open predestined? Let's get back to things that matter ... the US Open, and I don't even play golf.
Sincerely yours,
My reply:
Please pardon the slow reply. I knew this was going to take a block of time to reply to properly, and as such I waited until I had that block of time, rather than just dash off a quick answer.
As far as the medium goes, I find that the written word can be quite expressive. I CAN SHOUT!!! i can whisper. I can emphasize words as "special usage", or indicate important thoughts boldly. And emphasis can take more than one form. Of course, having html e-mail fully engaged helps with some forms. I can even speak with Passion.
I know I'll never convince everyone, so the fact that you find my story "unconvincing" doesn't really worry me. Yet I know I've affected strongly through it simply by the amount of time you've spent thinking about it and writing me over it, if nothing else. That is evidence that cannot be denied.
If we are going to speak of Logical Fallacies (you introduced that term into our discussion), then I must refer you to the 42 common ones best found, enumerated, explained, and exampled at:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Particularly because you violate a number of them in your reply to me.
You say that I missed the Important Question when I didn't answer whether the assault was a just, or an unjust, act. Yet your question there is subordinate to what defines "just" and what defines "unjust".
Would you say that existing law defines what's just and what isn't? If so, then anything that I do that they haven't yet created a law to prohibit must be, by your definition, just.
