Everything in the show, except the Fantasy Action Sequence, takes place in bed.

Here’s my understanding of how this show came to be: Juliana was working for a startup a couple of years back, and had very little free time. A friend of hers recommended Lord Foul’s Bane, and she started reading it at night, which was the only time she to read. Working ten- and twelve-hour days didn’t leave much concentration for reading, and she would read about four pages a night before falling asleep. Lord Foul’s Bane is a somewhat portentous, involved novel, heavy in both style and subject matter, not really suited to being dipped into and digested in small chunks. So each night Juliana would read four pages, and the next night remember just enough of what was going on to continue.

After about eight or ten months of this, another friend of Juliana’s asked her what she was reading. Juliana said “Lord Foul’s Bane”, and the friend asked what it was about—a question to which Juliana, thinking about it, realized she had no answer…

And from that, somehow, Juliana and Heatherly came up with the idea for a TV show based on the two of them playing ditzy girls who trying to figure out the novel, in bed. They went through with this plan, resulting in the very weird public-access spectacle that startles the unwary every first and third Thursday of the month (and at other unscheduled times) at midnight on SF (AT&T Cable) Channel 29. (To be precise, that’s really midnight every first and third Friday, but everybody thinks of it as part of Thursday night, and that’s how they schedule it. So it airs a few minutes after 23:59, PST, every first and third Thursday of the month.)

It’s difficult to describe how bizarre the whole thing really is… if you’ve read Lord Foul’s Bane, you might understand how it’s really odd to see that book dealt with this way. And you’ll find it truly bizarre how completely off-base their understanding of the book is (as one viewer sent via email: “what are you doing to this great work?”) . On the other hand, if you’ve read the book, you’ll also appreciate how some of their (mis)interpretations border on comic genius. Really. Yes, it’s no-budget, digital-video, friends-as-actors, edited-at-home stuff, but it just rocks.

My involvement began relatively early, as Juliana found out in early 2001 that I’d read the novel a number of times, and insisted that I be an expert on it. When they filmed in August/September they wanted me as the first expert, and so I appear in that role on in the opening show. The brown jacket was something they insisted upon, I must point out.

I had a lot of fun doing it, but it was also tough because I had no idea whatsoever what kind of thing they’d ask me. I didn’t know, at that point, what the atmosphere of the show would be like, or that the two of them would be going for the ditzy approach. I really expected questions more concerned with the plot points of the book…

They brought me back for the fifth, compilation (or prevent-the-victory-of-Skynet), episode. That was a lot easier, because I knew what to expect (although you never really know what to expect from them), and was even more fun to do.

They plan to bring me back again, I hope that works out, I certainly had a good time playing the role of expert.

The official website is www.fantasybedtimehour.com. There are stills from the show there that should help get across some inkling of what it’s like. I hope to have downloadable clips of it (probably just the episodes I’m in) available on this site, but it could be a while before that’s ready to go.

Tags: article, fantasy-bedtime-hour, oldmisc, writing

Related Posts

• Iain M. Banks Interview Fri 28 Feb 1997
• AFBH Wrapup Sun 05 Nov 2006
• AFBH 35: Pages 426-430 Sat 04 Nov 2006
• AFBH 34: Pages 421-426 Fri 03 Nov 2006
• AFBH 33: Pages 417-421 Thu 02 Nov 2006
• AFBH 32: Pages 413-416 Wed 01 Nov 2006
• AFBH 31: Pages 409-412 Tue 31 Oct 2006
• AFBH 30: Pages 403-408 Mon 30 Oct 2006
• AFBH 29: Pages 396-403 Sun 29 Oct 2006
• AFBH 28: Pages 390-396 Sat 28 Oct 2006

What do I mean by “free software”? I’m not referring to price, but to the freedoms possessed by users of the software. I mean software without restrictions that constrain my use of it. I mean “free as in speech” as opposed to “free as in beer”.

The opposite of “free software” is “proprietary software”.

The freedoms required to match this definition of “free” are those defined by the Free Software Foundation.

I’ll paraphrase those requirements:

1. The freedom to use the software however I like. This includes using it on many computers and/or platforms, using it for any purpose that I wish, using it wherever and whenever I wish without restriction, using it to interact with as many other people or programs as I wish, etc. Typical proprietary software licenses tend to restrict some or all of these examples.
2. The freedom to examine how the softare works, and to alter it as I wish. This must include access to the sofware’s source code. (An explanation of “source code” will follow.) This includes everything from changing the software’s default colors to reworking it entirely.
3. The freedom to share the software. This includes the source code. Helping others is a good thing, and I want to share my software without worrying about legal issues (which are becoming more serious and more common).
4. The freedom to modify the software and share those modifications. If I decide that I want to alter something in the software, I should be able to share any such alteration in the same way that I can share the program itself. This is beneficial for all concerned, since anyone else desiring a similar improvement to mine can use mine or modify mine for their own purposes.

There are other points, primarily concerned with closing loopholes in the above definitions, but the general idea should be clear, or clear except for an explanation of “source code”.

Software is often “compiled”, which essentially means translated from a form designed to be human-readable to a form designed to be machine-readable. The former is “source code” and the latter is “executable code”. Executable code is usually tailored to a specific hardware environment (like the Mac architecture, for example). It is possible, with a lot of effort, for some people to read some executable code, but for meaningful access to the workings of the software, source code is required.

The most common analogies for this are the recipe and the car. The source code is the recipe, and the finished meal is the executable code. This gets the general idea across, and perhaps the inherent meanness of someone refusing to share a recipe underscores the point. The only problem is that a recipe is intangible and the finished meal is not, whereas both the source code and the executable are intangible (i.e. recipe, source code and executable code can all be perfectly represented as pure information, whereas the meal cannot).

The other common analogy is the car: free software is a car that you can repair yourself; proprietary software is a car that has had its hood welded shut and that can only be repaired by the manufacturer. This works well as long as you consider that unlike cars, software can be distributed, and redistributed, at no cost.

So, the source code is what you need so that you can figure out how the software works, so that you can alter the software (or have someone else alter it) to suit your needs (or to fix bugs in the software). Without the source code, you are entirely dependent on the software’s author(s) to make the alterations you desire.

I use free software because its benefits are far greater than those of proprietary software. The first reason for this is duplication of effort. If all software were free, then coders would rarely have to reinvent something already made by another coder. This is obviously beneficial to the community at large, since efforts could be redirected to improving available software or writing entirely new software.

The second reason is that free software is more compatible with a philosophy of helping others, of sharing with the community, and of contributing to the general good.

The third reason is that proprietary software manufacturers, in seeking to maximize profits, use the fact that their software is proprietary to lock users and vendors into even less free relationships.

The fourth reason is that I want my data to be freely available to me, forever. Proprietary software tends to use proprietary (i.e. secret) data formats, and also to degrade compatibility between different versions of these formats, in order to push users to buy the latest versions of their packages. Free formats, in contrast, tend to be very well supported, very well documented, and long-lived. In addition, using free software means that if absolutely necessary I can always in the future either write or hire someone to write a module that would interpret the free data format my data is stored in—a far more difficult proposition when using proprietary software and proprietary formats.

Free software is a more participatory model, is better for software development in general, better for communities in general, promotes sharing, and often produces better software.

Relevant Links

The Free Software Definition—the FSF’s definition.

Why Software Should Not Have Owners—some of the reasoning behind the free software model.

Peruvian Congressman’s letter on why the Peruvian government should use free software—long but very very good, outlines many of the reasons why governments should not be using proprietary software.

Tags: article, politics, tech, writing

Related Posts

• Welcome Sat 14 Aug 1999
• Submission to the Points Commission Sat 31 Jan 1998
• First Post With Vim Sun 14 Feb 2010
• Better Word Count in Vim Sun 17 Jan 2010
• Plug Fun Fri 30 Oct 2009
• RTF/Word–reStructuredText Toolchain Thu 24 Sep 2009
• Better Word Count in jEdit Sun 19 Jul 2009
• Moving From Word Processors to reStructuredText Sun 12 Jul 2009
• Some Thoughts on Racism and Science Fiction/Fantasy Fri 13 Mar 2009
• Another Text Editor? Sun 15 Feb 2009

My concern is with replays. Specifically, the ability (currently lacking) to share replays. Sharing replays would immeasurably increase our understanding of the game, a goal which hopefully needs no explanation.

Currently, describing games of MTG is laborious and clumsy. Match reports give overviews and then some detail on what the reporters see as critical points, but they are sketches at best. It’s difficult to accurately report on every event in a game. That’s a major obstacle in our attempts to understand the game better. It should be evident that being able to study games in depth is critical to increased comprehension of how to play well, and that detailed accounts of past games are critical to said deep study.

MTG Online offers us a chance to get past that. Everything that happens in the game is noted by the program itself. And we each have the ability to study our own games. However, the feature as it stands now is completely inadequate, for one main reason: we cannot share our replays with other players. We can’t send them to other players with notes about specific turns and what they think we should have done. We can’t examine other players’ games to see how we should improve our play.

A clear demonstration of how this constraint imposes a low ceiling on dialog about the game is found in Andrew Johnson’s Concepts of Magic: Case Study article. No criticism of Andrew is intended, but the format is awkward, and it’s not easy to follow what’s going on in detail. We get the basic gist of the games, but that’s not really enough for the kind of analysis that Andrew is attempting. Obviously, the fact the that games were played in MTGO help a lot, because he is able to replay them, take notes, take screenshots etc., but it’s still a convoluted process.

How much easier would it be if he could just point to a link and tell the readers to grab that file, open it in MTGO, and then refer to specific turns or events?

How much better would our understanding of the game be if we could all do that, and also see the games that the top players play? A lot better. The leap would be comparable to the leap in deck construction made by the ability to share decks on the Net… although without the issue of people simply copying outright.

The point of all this is that WotC should make the ability to share replays a priority for MTGO. I say this knowing what the other issues (Judgment, bugs, the "13 states", etc.) are, but I still think that in the long run, for MTG as a whole (rather than just MTGO), the replay-sharing is more important. MTGO needs to provide two main things (the others are just frosting) in order to take advantage of this opportunity to increase understanding of the game immeasurably:

1. Replay sharing. Ideally, this should be in the form of downloadable files that players can share, but if game identification numbers that have to be referenced in the game is the only way it can be done, well, that’s not a huge loss.
   LL apparently want to implement this feature at some point, and the following are links to the relevant entries in Bugzilla:
   http://www.lplizard.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16703
   http://www.lplizard.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2628
2. This one isn’t a simple bug, and I doubt that there’s any way this could happen without serious pressure (and money) from WotC: the ability to use the MTGO client as a game notation program for offline matches. That might not sound too exciting, but it would completely revolutionize match coverage, and again reap rewards in terms of being able to analyze high-level play. Essentially, what’s needed is a graphical client that match reporters could use during Top Eight and Featured matches. This eliminates the need for either clumsy notation or extremely high detail when recording the match, and the need to wade through that when reading about it. Instead of that, just download a file from (for example) the SideBoard’s coverage, then play it in MTGO, and that’s it, see the match in full. Really, this would be an amazing, amazing feature.

   This Buzilla entry indicates that the backend ability to script games is already present in the system, as that’s how the tutorial games were created. That functionality is restricted to administrators, and sounds as if the process of creating a game involves scripting. So what would be needed is a simple, drag-and-drop frontend for match reporting. I don’t think that’s an easy thing to just whip together, and I strongly urge WotC to do whatever is necessary to get it into MTGO. The infrastructure is already there, it just needs that last piece. (And as a real pipe-dream thought, how about hooking it up to voice-recognition functionality and being able to notate live games by speaking? It’s not beyond the bounds of possiblity…)

3. Moving backwards and moving to specific points in replays. This would just make everything a lot easier. If you’re trying to analyze a specific situation, it really helps to be able to go back and forth over it, and to be able to step directly to specific point. This Bugzilla entry, and this one, suggest that rewind would be very difficult to implement, which makes the ability to go to a specific point even more important (because people are likely to fast forward to something, and then miss it, and then be unable to rewind). I’m hoping that the MTGO replay code already tags events in some way, in which case it should be relatively simple to tell the program to keep fast-forwarding until a specific event occurs. If not, that’s something that they should really think about putting in…
4. Adding notes to games. Commentary, especially commentary that could be tied to specific events, would be an excellent addition. The Bugzilla comments referenced in point 2 suggest that this is possible on the backend already, but ideally the system would allow anyone to modify a replay file and add commentary.

   Some people have suggested audio commentary, but I don’t think there’s a need to tie that into the client itself; it seems rather easy to synch up an audio player and start a recorded track of commentary at the same time as the replay.

5. Viewing and creating replays offline. This comment from LL indicates that playing replays offline won’t be possible, which is a shame; it’d be great to analyze games on a laptop on your way somewhere. However, that’s a pretty minor need, and the need to be able to record replays (i.e. create replays from live games as per point 2) while offline is much greater. Some Premier Events occasionally have Net access problems, and it would be bad to miss recording a final because of line noise…
6. Playing from the middle of replays. Now, this is something that I can’t see happening, since it seems really difficult to do, even without considering card-ownership issues. I list it here purely because it would be nice to take situations in games and play on from them to see what approaches might work better.

So those are the things MTGO needs. The first two are critical, the others are bonuses. Sharing replays is absolutely crucial to the evolution of the game, and being able to turn offline games into replays as per point two would make that even more useful. For comparison, consider chess and Quake, both games that have benefitted hugely from players being able to examine matches in full detail. Bringing that to MTG would be tremendous for the game. How about it, WotC?

Tadhg (Erisian on MTGO)

(Another version of this article appeared on Star City Games, with alterations by that site’s editor.)

Tags: article, essays, games, MTG, writing

Related Posts

• Irish MTG Nationals 1999—A Big Blue Scrub(Playing Red)’s Report Wed 30 Jun 1999
• Irish MTG Nationals 1998—A Big Blue Scrub's Report Wed 24 Jun 1998
• 2010 Goals Fri 01 Jan 2010
• Writing Better MTG Posts Fri 16 Mar 2007
• 'Flow Episode' Wed 29 Nov 2006
• Credibility and authorial strategies in “The Tell-Tale Heart” and “The Yellow Wallpaper” Wed 10 Oct 2001
• If on a winter's night a traveller: written by aliens, read by fictional constructs Sun 30 May 1999
• Submission to the Points Commission Sat 31 Jan 1998
• The Short Story and the Supernatural Fri 17 Jan 1997
• Friday Fast Game Fri 04 Sep 2009

The concept of credibility as it applies to these stores is divisible as follows: whether we believe that the events occurred as reported by the narrators; that the narrators are telling the truth as they know it; that the narrators (and other characters) are real; and that the ‘realistic’ events in them happened. The last question is the most interesting, as it is layered beneath the text itself. Both stories deal with apparent madness, and in both of them we find it difficult to tease out ‘actual events’ from those that occur only in the wild imaginings of the narrators. The concept of ‘actual events’ is critical because none of the events are actual, but rather all are fictional. The fact that readers will be driven to distinguish between different levels of ‘reality’ is very important to both stories, in particular as a method of making the overall story more plausible.

Of the two, “The Tell-Tale Heart” is more straightforward. It leans heavily towards a reading that the narrator is mad, underscored by his frequent early denials.

How, then, am I mad? Hearken! And observe how healthily—how calmly I can tell you the whole story
(Poe, p92)

Most revealing are his claims of universality.

If you still think me mad, you will think so no longer when I describe the wise precautions I took … I cut off the head and the arms and the legs
(Poe, p95) .

These demonstrations of what he thinks is reasonable show clearly that he is mad. Nevertheless, the story makes you wonder. The character of the narrator is so believable, and his tale so compelling , that the reader is caught up in the telling. At least at first, we believe that he believes, even if the tale itself is dubious, and we then begin to separate his delusions from what ‘really’ occurred.

“The Yellow Wallpaper” takes the form of journal entries rather than an oral tale, and this alters its credibility. In “The Tell-Tale Hear” we are given only hints of how the narrator’s madness came to be, and he is too far gone by then to believe that his feelings are other than reasonable.

One of his eyes resembled that of a vulture—a pale blue eye, with a film over it. Whenever it fell upon me, my blood ran cold;
(Poe, p92)

Gilman slowly develops the obsession of the narrator, beginning with suppressed resentment of her husband.

… I don’t care—there is something strange about the house—I can feel it.
I even said so to John one moonlight evening, but he said that what I felt was a draught, and shut the window.
…
He is very careful and loving, and hardly lets me stir without special direction.
(Gilman, p155)

Gilman weaves this in closely with examination of her surroundings, which always end up focusing on the wallpaper. The first section ends with a six-paragraph long description of it, including this particularly telling passage:

It is dull enough to confuse the eye in following, pronounced enough constantly to irritate and provoke study, and when you follow the lame uncertain curves for a little distance they suddenly commit suicide—plunge off at outrageous angles, destroy themselves in unheard of (sic) contradictions.
(Gilman, p156)

This establishes her fixation early on and effectively foreshadows the course the narrator herself will take.

Both authors concentrate on making plausible the obsessions of the protagonists. Poe, in a much shorter work, succeeds primarily with voice and style.

You should have seen how wisely I proceeded—with what caution—with what foresight—with what dissimulation.
…
And then, when my head was well in the room, I undid the lantern cautiously—oh, so cautiously—cautiously (for the hinges creaked)—I undid it just so much that a single ray fell upon the vulture eye.
(Poe, p92)

Gilman builds her narrator’s disintegration more slowly, showing the obvious sublimation of her frustrations into her unhealthy fascination with the wallpaper.

There’s one comfort, the baby is well and happy, and does not have to occupy this nursery with the horrid wallpaper.
…
I never thought of it before, but it is lucky that John kept me here after all, I can stand it so much easier than a baby, you see.
…
There are things in that paper than nobody knows but me, or ever will.
(Gilman, p161)

Both stories involve sublimation/repression heavily, with Poe’s narrator breaking down and confessing under the weight of suppressed guilt.

The sublimation is in each case critical to the story, and could be argued to be the crux of the story. The authors have taken pains to make it credible that suppression of feeling could have the results described. This enhances plausibility overall, but also creates tension between different aspects of the stories—tension that ultimately reinforces that plausibility.

In both stories, the narrator’s obsession serves to render their subjective credibility (i.e. the degree to which it is credible that they believe what they are saying) more effective while undermining their objective credibility. In addition, they enhance the credibility of the characters’ madness. This disjunction is significant because it is what pushes us to divide the stories into different levels of reality. Convinced by the stories that the narrators are mad, we analyze them to distinguish the imagined from the real. Once we do that, we privilege the parts that we decide are real, and we readily believe that certain of the events in the story really happened—the murder of the old man and the spontaneous confession in Poe, the naked creeping and tearing at the wallpaper in Gilman.

These events are in themselves rather bizarre. By focusing our disbelief on the fact that the narrators cannot be trusted to fully know reality, the authors consolidate our belief in two other pillars of the stories: that the narrators are believable as characters, and that the events which are not clearly madness really did happen. In other words, our dismissal of the beating heart and of the creeping ladies in the wallpaper serve to heighten our credulity regarding the murder and, in both cases, the catastrophic breakdown of the narrators. Similarly, our drive to discern what events are ‘real’, as opposed to entirely in the minds of the narrators, cause us to accept the rest of the story as real. This is no small effect. A man murdering a housemate because of his eye and confessing because he heard the still-beating heart, or a perfectly respectable middle-class woman (married and sister to doctors, no less) going entirely mad because of wallpaper are not particularly believable events in themselves. Convincing readers of the plausibility of these events is a feat in itself, and accomplished so effectively in both of these stories that we take it for granted.

(1158 words)

Bibliography

Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. “The Yellow Wallpaper.” The Oxford Book of American Short Stories. Ed. Joyce Carol Oates. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Poe, Edgar Allan. “The Tell-Tale Heart.” The Oxford Book of American Short Stories. Ed. Joyce Carol Oates. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Tags: article, criticism, essays, gilman, poe, short-story, writing

Related Posts

• The Short Story and the Supernatural Fri 17 Jan 1997
• If on a winter's night a traveller: written by aliens, read by fictional constructs Sun 30 May 1999
• The Scalpel We Need Mon 22 May 2006
• MTGO Needs Replays Thu 08 Aug 2002
• Submission to the Points Commission Sat 31 Jan 1998
• What Star Wars Episodes II and III Should Have Been: Episode III Sat 26 May 2007
• What Star Wars Episodes II and III Should Have Been: Episode II Fri 25 May 2007
• AFBH Wrapup Sun 05 Nov 2006
• AFBH 35: Pages 426-430 Sat 04 Nov 2006
• AFBH 34: Pages 421-426 Fri 03 Nov 2006

Tags: article, poetry, writing

Related Posts

• Untitled Wed 19 Sep 2001
• “Today’s 5K” Thu 03 Sep 2009
• Read More Poetry Thu 11 Jan 2007
• What the Hell is Fantasy Bedtime Hour? Sun 18 Aug 2002
• Why I Use Free Software Tue 13 Aug 2002
• MTGO Needs Replays Thu 08 Aug 2002
• Ashes I Fri 22 Feb 2002
• Credibility and authorial strategies in “The Tell-Tale Heart” and “The Yellow Wallpaper” Wed 10 Oct 2001
• Welcome Sat 14 Aug 1999
• Irish MTG Nationals 1999—A Big Blue Scrub(Playing Red)’s Report Wed 30 Jun 1999

Blood
The blood flows through my veins
It wants expression
It wants a voice
It wants to be heard
It wants to be fire

I ignore it
I bury it under conformity
I muzzle it
I maintain an icy grip
I cut off its flow
I am slowly and deliberately killing myself

Tags: article, poetry, writing

Related Posts

• Everything is fine and then Thu 20 Sep 2001
• “Today’s 5K” Thu 03 Sep 2009
• Read More Poetry Thu 11 Jan 2007
• What the Hell is Fantasy Bedtime Hour? Sun 18 Aug 2002
• Why I Use Free Software Tue 13 Aug 2002
• MTGO Needs Replays Thu 08 Aug 2002
• Ashes I Fri 22 Feb 2002
• Credibility and authorial strategies in “The Tell-Tale Heart” and “The Yellow Wallpaper” Wed 10 Oct 2001
• Welcome Sat 14 Aug 1999
• Irish MTG Nationals 1999—A Big Blue Scrub(Playing Red)’s Report Wed 30 Jun 1999

and we’ll kill anyone who tries to stop us

just to be safe we’ll kill anybody different.

KILL THE DIFFERENT! KILL THE DIFFERENT! THEY’RE DIFFERENT FROM US! KILL THEM!

Welcome to the land of the Superficial. It’s our company policy to take you at face value, because we encourage our customers to be idiots and do the same. So you should look neat. You should look presentable. You should look the same as everyone else. Or our customers will know you’re different. And they wouldn’t like that. Nobody likes that. Be like us. Be like us. Look like us. Think like us. Be like us. "representing all of life as nothing but a series of extremely simple problems each soluble through the immediate application of some very smart commodity or other grossly oversimplifying everything moreover that myth of the advertisers’ total competence of their ability to solve at once your every ‘problem,’ also promotes stupidity by suggesting that there is no worthwhile knowledge other than the knowledge of elite technicians"

Mainline the Greed. Suck on the Conformity. Kill the different. Maim the interesting. It’s all for the good because we’re ONE nation under god one NATION under god one nation UNDER god one nation under GOD and we killed all of those who got in the way principles what are they they’re only for the rich not their prey no-one else has a say
one nation under god one nation under god one nation under god
it’s good for us to think that way also it’s good for us to think that way also it’s good for us to think that way also it’s good for us to think that way also it’s good for us to think that way also
weeatouryoung

Welcome.

Tags: article, politics, writing

Related Posts

• Why I Use Free Software Tue 13 Aug 2002
• Submission to the Points Commission Sat 31 Jan 1998
• Some Thoughts on Racism and Science Fiction/Fantasy Fri 13 Mar 2009
• Any Justification Will Do Mon 26 Mar 2007
• What the Hell is Fantasy Bedtime Hour? Sun 18 Aug 2002
• MTGO Needs Replays Thu 08 Aug 2002
• www.mame.dk Closes Mon 25 Feb 2002
• Credibility and authorial strategies in “The Tell-Tale Heart” and “The Yellow Wallpaper” Wed 10 Oct 2001
• Everything is fine and then Thu 20 Sep 2001
• Untitled Wed 19 Sep 2001

Preparation

This section could really be blank. I haven’t played competitively (or really at all) since the 1998 Irish Nationals, and my current course is simply too demanding to allow any real commitment to the game. This year’s Nationals are conveniently timed to be in the middle of my exams, as well as being on the weekend after the introduction of 6th Edition. Preparation was out. I only definitely decided to go the day before the tournament. I had decided quite a while back that given my inability to prepare a control deck of my usual type. As the title may suggest, I tend to favour Big Blue, or Blue/x very defensive decks. For more details on my big blue scrubbiness, or my scrubby big blueness (but not my scrubby blue bigness—that doesn’t make any sense…) see my report on last year’s Nationals. But this year, I wanted short games and solidity, above all something that required neither extensive tweaking (as control would have) nor extensive playtesting experience (as Living Death would have). I had decided a few months ago that I would play either controllish red (like old Sligh) or White Weenie.

I saw Dave Price’s article on the end of beatdown and decided that I liked the look of the deck he had there. I have no guilt over playing a front page Dojo Deck. Not only because I had no preparation time, but that’s reason enough.

My aim was to make day 2 and have fun. I came 9th in 1997, 15th in 1998, and had no right to expect an improvement on those results considering my lack of practice.

Ciaran Lawler provided me with the bulk of my deck, for which I am extremely grateful. Eoin Brosnan, Greg McRandle (again, apologies if the spelling is wrong), David Kearney and John Cowan lent me additional cards. Thanks guys.

I actually did have expectations for the metagame despite my lack of practice and preparation. I figured there would be a lot of White Weenie, in part because there always is and in part because it’s such a traditional fallback deck whenever the environment changes. I expected a lot of Living Death decks because it’s so strong and loses so little to 6th Ed. I wasn’t expecting traditional Control, but I thought that Tradewind-’Geddon would be a big deck, perhaps as big as Death. I figured there would also be quite a bit of Sligh, although not as much as in previous years, as the loss of Ball Lightning would be seen as too much by many. I thought there would be smatterings of Stompy and Black Weenie.

The Deck

Goblin Masons aren’t yet legal, so I changed a whole four cards from Dave Price’s suggested listing—2 Goblin Raiders and 2 Parch (anti-Tradewind)

Not much to say. Parch was suggested by a whole bunch of people (on my own I wouldn’t have known the card existed). Raider seemed like an obvious if slightly subpar creature. I was tempted to add in some Stone Rains and some Avalanche Riders and make the deck more LD-based, but then decided that without testing time that was just adding a big risk, and that Dave Price probably knew what he was talking about.

The Sideboard:

Not a bad sideboard. I probably should have put in four Lens.

I didn’t play much with this deck, but from what I heard White Weenie apparently wasn’t as much of a problem as I thought it would be, and it could take Death some of the time.

Before the tournament, the decks I knew people were playing were:
John Larkin, Dave Kearney, Ciaran Lawler, Eoin Brosnan, John Rogers: Living Death variants (John Rogers’ deck was, according to him, rather weird in comparison with the others)
Ger Norton: Black Weenie with Hatred
John Cowan: White Weenie

Day One—Standard Constructed

I had a first round bye due to my DCI rating, which I was rather surprised by (again), but didn’t complain…

I didn’t scout too much during this round, but I know that there was a lot of White Weenie out there.

Round 2

Opponent: Ed Moynihan
Deck: White Weenie/x (splash Red and Green, as far as I saw)
Game 1
I never like playing people I know early on, and Ed wasn’t too happy either. Oh well. This game he got badly manascrewed, aided by an early Pillage from me. I Scrolled a Soltari Priest, I think, and beat him down with small stuff. Not very exciting.

Game 2
This game was fairer in mana terms; what decided it was my getting a Thran Lens. I would have won earlier but forgot the Echo for a Goblin Patrol—lack of experience with the Urza block showing up right away. But I got away with it that time.

Analysis
Well, we tried playing some more after that but I kept getting manascrewed—somewhat frustrating for Ed that it happened after the match. I think the decks are 50-50, but it might have actually been slightly in my favour. White Weenie wasn’t as strong as I thought it was, or at least the White Weenie I saw wasn’t, and other people testing said the same thing. The Scroll is a big part of that—as is being able to Pillage Scrolls.

2-0 games, 2-0 matches, 6 pts.

Round 3

Opponent: Finbarr O’Mahony (although I can’t now remember if that was his second name—apologies if I get this wrong Finbarr!)
Deck: Stompy
Game 1
I was a little worried to see Green. This is never a good matchup for Sligh. I hadn’t met Finbarr before—he left the game just before started playing seriously in ‘96, and had only just returned. This was a very friendly match, which was pretty cool. I was able to eliminate early mana sources and take control of this one from the start, and it wasn’t too long a game.

Game 2
I sided in a Parch and a Gnomes. He started off a lot stronger in this game, and I had to fight to clear the board, a bunch of times losing card advantage to his fatter creatures. At a key stage he forgot to pay Echo on Simian Grunts (such a good card!) and I was able to attack unopposed with Jackal Pup and Goblin Patrol. The key point of the game was dependent on a ruling that may be contentious. He was on 4 life, I was on 2. I attack again with my Goblin Patrol and Jackal Pups. He summons Simian Grunts. Before damage dealing I Shock him. Neither of us have anything left to play (in fact he was tapped out). He naturally blocks the Pups with the Grunts. I think we both die, and he agrees, but I decide to call a judge (Ralph Martin) who agrees but isn’t certain. I ask him to make sure, on the off-chance that there is a timing step between assignment and redirection. Ralph says it’s a draw, so we shuffle etc. and start the next game. However, a short while later Ralph comes back and tells us that the decision (after quite a bit of conferring) was that there is a step between the two, and since death is instantaneous under 6th Edition rules, Finbarr dies first. I win! I think that that’s technically the closest game I’ve ever won…

Analysis
I was lucky, very lucky, to win this. Obviously my game 2 escape was quite fortuitous, but also I think I was lucky to even get to such a stage. My deck worked very well in game one and quite well in game two, but I think that his deck would normally win the matchup. The key for me was having the Scroll on my side (he didn’t have any) to allow me not to lose card advantage when killing his fatter creatures. However, even taking that into account I think it’s a 70-30 tilt for Stompy.

4-0 games, 3-0 matches, 9pts.

Round 4

Opponent:David Finucane
Deck: White Weenie/x
Game 1
He had to mulligan, so I had early card advantage. This was a close game, again being decided by 6th Ed. rules. I managed to clear the board after taking a lot of damage from Rancored creatures, and we were both on 1 life. I had something on the board to kill him, I think Pups. I think he had a Scroll on the board—but I had been Pillaging his Plains and the only way he could kill me was by using a City of Brass. If he didn’t he died, and so he did, dying an instantaneous death as soon as the drew the mana for the Scroll. Very close game—if he’d drawn a land that turn he would have won.

Game 2
This was a very close game, but the key was that he was able to get Worship working. In the midgame I played a timely Thran Lens to eliminate a Soltari Priest, but the Lens was Disenchanted and he killed me with a Rancored prot. red Paladin. He was on a Worship-assisted 1 life at game’s end.

Game 3
I got a very quick start and got a lot of land and a Scroll out; he also had a good start with another Rancored Paladin, but had to ‘Geddon under pressure to stop me from using the Scroll. The game essentially hinged on a 50-50 chance: I Scrolled the Paladin with a Hammer and a Pillage in hand. I called Pillage, he chose Pillage. From there I recovered more quickly, getting out a Lightning Dragon to take the match.

Analysis
Again, White Weenie didn’t seem to be the threat for red that I had thought. I got good draws in all the games, but his draws didn’t seem so bad either. I did have to get lucky with the Scroll to win the match, but it felt like we would have split 50-50 if we’d played a whole series of games.

6-1 games, 4-0 matches, 12 pts

Round 5

Opponent: Stewart Shinkins
Deck: MOMa / Grim Monolith / Show and Tell / Prosperity / Stroke combo
Game 1
He killed me on turn 4 or 5.

Game 2
I took out my Hammers and put in 4 Stone Rain. I didn’t have anything much to stop this kind of deck.
In this game he took longer to go off, but got a turn 2 Chill out. I pressured him anyway, and when he tried to go off the combo stalled. I had a turn to kill him, and here I made my second major mistake of the day. Actually it’s composed of two mistakes. The situation is that he is on 1 life. I have 4 mana untapped, a Scroll on the table, and a Scroll, Pillage and some creature in hand. I’ve already attacked. The smart play here is to do nothing and wait for him to use Prosperity, then kill him at instant speed with some DD. I didn’t see this at all, which is a bad but probably forgivable error. I decided to scroll him, and made the entirely unforgivable error of keeping my Scroll in hand, thereby giving myself a 33% instead of 50% chance of killing him. I didn’t kill him, and he used Diminishing Returns to go off and kill me the next turn.

Analysis
His deck was an excellent choice for the environment, correctly seeing the lack of viable control. I certainly didn’t prepare for any combo decks. I should have killed him in game two, but I would have had to hope for a lot of luck in the third game. I think his deck would beat mine 90% of the time.

6-3 games, 4-1 matches, 12 pts.

Round 6

Opponent: John Kearney
Deck: B/w Gnomes / Corpse Dance / Grave Pact
Game 1
My Wastelands proved crucial in this game, as I managed to keep him on low land and kill him with various small creatures.

Game 2
I SBed in 4 Stone Rain and an Ankh of Mishra. I got the Ankh out early, but it didn’t matter as he was able to get to his critical 5 mana and just start dancing Bottle Gnomes. He also got Grave Pact out, which naturally hurt me pretty badly.

Game 3
I thought for a long time about taking out the Ankh, as it didn’t really have much affect, but then decided that it might just add in the extra damage if my landkill came up, so I put another one in. I think I SBed out some small creatures and the 2 Parch.
I got early LD and that really decided the game; I kept him below five the whole time. I got a good start, with two early Pups and a Mogg Fanatic. He did get an Engineered Plague for Hounds or the table, but I got a Scroll out and working, and some more small creatures. He never damaged me this game.

Analysis
I’m not sure. He has stuff (like dancing Bottle Gnomes) that give Sligh no end of trouble, but I think that my deck was simply more consistent. Which, of course, if one of Sligh’s major strengths and why I chose it for that tournament.
Unfortunately I was less consistent than my deck. I managed to avoid big game mistakes in this match, but I was very tired and having real difficulty concentrating; I made a number of really silly mistakes with things like writing score down, and also one attempt to play a Wasteland and a Mountain in the same turn, one immediately after the other (note to self: Wasteland is not a 0cc LD instant).

8-4 games, 5-1 matches, 15 pts.

Wow. After a year of not playing and with no practice whatsoever, I am in the top 8 for Day Two having lost only one match, to Stewart Shinkins’ undefeated combo deck. I’m really surprised and very happy at this, my best ever showing in the Type II part of Nationals (my previous best having been 14 points)

So, the other players and decks that I can think of went:
Stewart Shinkins, MOMa / Grim Monolith / Show and Tell / Prosperity / Stroke: 6-0
David Kearney, Living Death: 5-1 (1 loss to Martin Deery’s Goblin Sligh)
John Larkin, Living Death: 5-1 (1 loss to Ciaran Lawler’s Living Death)
Ciaran Lawler, Living Death: 5-1 (1 loss to Stewart Shinkins’ combo deck)
Ger Norton, Black Weenie with Hatred: 5-1
Martin Deery, Goblin Sligh: 5-1
John Rogers, Living Death variant: 4-2 (I think)
Eoin Brosnan, Living Death: 4-2 (I think)
Justin Walsh, Blue / White Control: 4-2

It was, obviously, a good day for Living Death. I know I’m missing one of the top 8 decks, and I can’t remember what it was, but unless it was White Weenie then that archetype made a bad showing considering how many people were playing it. I didn’t meet any Tradewind-’Geddon, and didn’t hear about any either, surprising since it was supposed to be one of the big decks.

Side Event: Rochester Draft

I hadn’t played Rochester at all in over a year, and I had never actually seen the Urza’s Saga or Urza’s Destiny cards, with the exception of those that I had encountered in my day’s Standard play. So some practice was definitely in order. I won’t go into a lot of detail with this, but I drafted extremely well. On my first ever draft in this environment I got a deck that was really broken: 2 Pestilence, No Mercy, Vampiric Embrace, Phyrexian Reclamation, Looming Shade, Hollow Dogs, Spined Fluke, Expunge, Phyrexian Debaser and Order of Yawgmoth, as well as solid other stuff like Phyrexian Broodlings, Swat, and Skirges. Since this draft included a bunch of good players and players from the top table, I was very happy. However, the draft was very relaxed, and nobody minded my asking questions about cards during it, a big difference from what it would be like on Sunday.

I played John Kearney in my first game, I think (I was really tired and this is very hazy now)
and won easily, but in my second game I played like an absolute idiot, made lots of mistakes including some silly Debaser ones, and lost 2 straight. That was annoying, as my deck was the strongest in that draft and I should have won the side tourney. Oh well. I played some Quake with Dave Kearney and other Trinity Quakeheads, getting slapped around for an hour or so, and then went home to sleep.

Day Two—Urza’s Saga / Urza’s Destiny Rochester Draft

For the second year running I’m on the same table as the strongest drafters, but it made more sense this year as I was on the top table.

The top table was pretty tough. I’ve forgotten a player (sorry!), but the other seven were:
Me
David Kearney
Ger Norton
John Larkin
Ciaran Lawler
Martin Deery
Stewart Shinkins

I don’t know Martin Deery (althuogh I’m certain from how he did that he’s a strong player) but the others are all strong drafters, with one exception: me.

First Draft
or: how to recognize Phyrexian Procesor

I arrived 5 minutes late for this but luckily the draft hadn’t actually started, although everyone was seated. The big story here was that John Larkin, definitely one of the strongest Limited players in the country and a big big favourite for the top 4, didn’t show for the first draft.

This was a tough draft. I wanted to fight for black, given my experience the previous evening, but there was no way I would be able to grab black at this table. It seemed like a couple of people had to jump colours in the mid to late draft. I started okay, nothing strong, getting some good small green creatures and some red DD.
On my first first-pick booster, out came a Phyrexian Processor. There was a reaction from the others at this, but I couldn’t figure out what it was, and having never seen the Processor before I just didn’t focus on it, going for a Heat Ray instead—thus leaving the Processor to Ger and passing up a very very strong Limited card. For the record, it’s a quite nondescript card (being illustrated mainly in browns and some green and yellow…)
I made one other mistake, taking something bad in red over a Dromosaur, but that wasn’t as big a deal. Near the end of the draft I was really desperate for creatures, and managed to grab 2 Simian Grunts, 2 Yavimaya Scions, 2 Viashino Bey and 2 Viashino Cutthroats. I was happy with this, although I probably shouldn’t have taken the second Grunts over Heart of the Forest (the Green enchantment that lets you search your library for 2 creatures if your opponent has more than 3 creatures in play).

I was actually very happy with the deck. It had no flyers and no tricks, but it was very solid with good removal and good fat. I succeeded in doing what I had intended to do, which was to draft solidly. Nothing spectacular, but something that could win me games if I didn’t get unlucky and if I kept my play tight and intelligent. The relevant SB cards were:

Round 7

Opponent:Martin Deery
Deck: U/w
Game 1
He got stuck on 2 land and couldn’t really do anything. I got turn 4 Viashino Cutthroat, as well as smaller earlier stuff, and he died quickly.

Game 2
This time he mulliganed once and started fine on land but didn’t seem to be able to cast much. He got out some 2/2 creature and put the enchantment that turns it into a Tim on it (Hermetic Study), but blocked my Viashino Outrider with it the following turn, thinking that he could tap the creature even though ti was summing sick, like the way you could with Fire Whip. However, it reads “enchanted creature gains…” and so he couldn’t kill my Outrider. I killed him with it soon afterwards.
He told me that his opening hand consisted of land and three creature enchantments, and he only drew one creature after that. Ouch.

Analysis
I think it’s evident that I got very lucky in this match. I have no way of telling how good his deck actually was (apart from remembering what he drafted, which I don’t), but I suspect it had a lot of tricks and a lot of flyers, both of which could have posed problems for me.

10-4 games, 6-1 matches, 18 pts.

I was tied with three other people for 1st place at this point, and feeling good about my chances of going to Worlds!

Round 8

Opponent: Ger Norton
Deck: G/B
Game 1
This went badly, because I got stuck on 2 mana for the first six or so turns. Ger also killed one of my lands with Befoul, which didn’t help at all but which probably didn’t affect the outcome of the match, as it took me too long to get the next land anyway. This one was no contest.

Game 2
I SBed in Weatherseed Elf.
I got an excellent start to this one, beating him down with stuff and eliminating what he had on the board. I got him down to 8 life, where he had a Weatherseed Elf out and I had a Weatherseed Elf and a Cave Tiger. Obviously, this meant I could kill him in 4 turns, right? Well, it wasn’t that obvious to me, in fact I missed this blindingly evident fact completely, and attacked with Elf and Tiger. He naturally blocked with his Elf. He was on 6. I had fat in my hand, but so did he, and he cast his first. He recovered from there, casting lots and lots of fat things and eventually just beating me down.
This was a stunningly incompetent performance from me. I had the good start I needed and just threw it away. I’m not sure why I attacked with the Elf even though I didn’t fully realize its importance; I think I was thinking in old rules some of the time and under the impression that I could kill his Elf if he blocked or something. Ger’s explanation is more plausible: I’m an idiot.

Analysis
Well, I think his deck only had a slight edge, and the match would have been close had he not gotten more help than he needed from manascrew and my suicidal gameplay.

10-6 games, 6-2 matches, 18 pts.

I needed three more wins to go to Worlds. It was certainly doable, I felt, although I was very tense at this stage due to the mistakes I’d made.

Round 9

Opponent: Stewart Shinkins
Deck: W/G
Game 1
I got manascrewed, and he got a very early 3/3 creature with Gaea’s Embrace on it. Smack, smack, smack, dead.

Game 2
He got manascrewed this time, and my deck functioned just fine, bringing out early and midgame threats and beating him down in around 5 turns.

Game 3
I got manascrewed again, and saw no Green mana either, and died in about 7-8 turns.

Analysis
Who knows? With those kind of games, comparing the decks is impossible. Funnily enough, the only other time I’ve played Stewart was also in Limited, at Gaelcon ‘97, and exactly the same thing happened—me manascrewed, him manascrewed, me manascrewed, he won.

11-8 games, 6-3 matches, 18 pts.

I think Dave Kearney won the table.
My deck was a 2-1 deck at least—shame I wasn’t a 2-1 player. Once again, I have do to go 3-0 at the final table to make it.

Second Draft

Other people at my table included John Kearney, Eoin Brosnan, John Rogers and Geoffrey Grey.

This was a very strange draft. It seemed to me that none of the cards were that strong, and people (including myself) were jumping colours all over the place.

I ended up going with Green and Red again, more Green this time. I didn’t get as good removal this time, but there was some other good stuff and some good fat.
The deck:

I wasn’t amazingly happy with the deck, and I was worried about the lack of removal. Again, it was solid, but less so than the previous draft’s deck. On the other hand, the cards at the table looked weaker to me.
I was tired of mana screw, so I went for 18/41 instead of 17/40.

Round 10

Opponent: John Kearney
Deck: U/W
Game 1
I had a good hand, but missed early land drops, sticking on three when he was on 5. Worse, he put down Mishra’s Helix (which I had passed, thinking it not right for my deck) on his 5th turn. Worse again, I failed to draw my fourth land to cast fat (I was holding the islandwalking Bull Hippo) on my next turn, and he was able to deny me all my mana for the rest of the game.

Game 2
I SBed in Hidden Ancients
Once again, I miss early land drops, he gets 5th turn Helix, I don’t get 4th land, and he denies me my land for the rest of the game. The major difference is that I got Cradle Guard out just before he got the Helix, and he has real trouble getting rid of them. He used mana to get out Radiant’s Dragoons early, and I was able to kill them with Cradle Guard and Arc Lightning. That was the only time after he got the Helix that I had mana in my main phase…
He made errors with his creatures, forgetting to animate his blue Mishra land when blocking the Guard, and I ground him down slowly. I kept drawing land after land, so he had to keep most of his land tied up in the Helix. However, he got out creatures that gained him 1 life per turn, and that could prevent 2 damage, so from 5 life I could only do him 1 damage, and it was clear that he would soon be able to kill me somehow. My only hope was to draw Might of Oaks, which would give me enough trample damage to kill him. However, the only time I drew it was after he Stroked me for 12 with 11 cards remaining in my library.
I had Hidden Ancients out from turn 2, and he never played any of his Caryatids or Gargoyles, which helped me a lot.

Analysis
I think my deck was stronger. He was very lucky both games, getting an early Helix before I had enough mana to cast fat, and he was barely able to deal with the Cradle Guard. If I had laid a land a turn, or even four lands in 6 turns, I would have been able to kill him in both games, i’m quite certain. This loss really hurt, and was extremely frustrating.

11-10 games, 6-4 matches, 18 pts.

I went out of contention for top 4 at the same point as I did last year. I could still make top 8, however.

Round 11

Opponent: Geoffrey Grey
Deck: W/G? (White-something, can’t remember it too well)
Game 1
I don’t remember this too well. His deck had lots of damage-prevention tricks in it, and he consistently stopped me from killing his creatures or from getting damage through. We stuck on 17-11 for a long time, then he got out additional creatures and killed me.

Game 2
Pretty much the same story this game, except that I managed to do him 4 points of damage instead of three.

Analysis
I don’t think my deck would ever win this matchup (manascrew excluded). His deck had lots of ways to prevent damage and do various other tricks that my straight-up fat beatdown simply couldn’t handle. This was just a bad matchup, and he didn’t make any mistakes to give me even a glimmer of hope.

11-12 games, 6-5 matches, 18 pts.

Well, now I wasn’t even in contention for top 8. I played on to try to get top 16, which I though I could manage, partly for prizes but mainly for pride.

Round 12

Opponent: John Rogers
Deck: G/? (memory really suffering at this stage)
Game 1
This was decided by another Weatherseed Elf decision, this time on his part. I had a Winding Wurm and something else out, and we were trading damage. I was on 9, he was on 8. He had enough on the table to kill me the next turn. I had a Gorilla Warrior, I think, as well as the Wurm. he had a Weatherseed Elf. I attacked, hoping that he wouldn’t block with the Elf because he would want to ensure that if I cast another creature he could still kill me using forestwalk. That’s what he did, and I was able to Lava Axe him for the win. Whew.

Game 2
I don’t remember this too well, but I know that my deck simply got rolling early on better than his did, and I won it.

Analysis
I tihnk our decks were about even, but John was even more tired and wrecked than I was and really just wanted to leave, whereas I still had some strong desire to win left.

13-12 games, 7-5 matches, 21 pts.

Tags: article, games, MTG, tournament-report, writing

Related Posts

• Irish MTG Nationals 1998—A Big Blue Scrub's Report Wed 24 Jun 1998
• MTGO Needs Replays Thu 08 Aug 2002
• 2010 Goals Fri 01 Jan 2010
• Writing Better MTG Posts Fri 16 Mar 2007
• 'Flow Episode' Wed 29 Nov 2006
• Friday Fast Game Fri 04 Sep 2009
• Solo Set and Mental Exercise Thu 14 May 2009
• Alara Reborn Prerelease Sun 26 Apr 2009
• AI and Games Thu 26 Feb 2009
• Bye-Bye Tournament Packs Fri 09 Jan 2009

The proof of this hypothesis lies in the text itself. The main author character is Silas Flannery, whose status in the text is highlighted by chapter eight, which is an excerpt from his diary. Here he is given the opportunity to present himself as I, something otherwise granted only to the characters in the ‘fictional’ passages (fictional must be placed in quotes because the adjective becomes almost meaningless in this particular text). Although Calvino has claimed that he is most like Ludmilla, it is nonetheless the case that Silas Flannery is the character in the book closest to the ‘author’ role. Also, it is possible that Calvino’s claim to be most like Ludmilla was entirely true when he made it, i.e. when he had finished the book, and so was no longer able to alter it as an author, and therefore was simply another reader. When he was writing it, however, he may have identified much more with Flannery. After all, the basis of Calvino’s claim was that he read like Ludmilla—this says nothing about how he writes.

Flannery’s concerns are similar to Calvino’s also: he worries about fakes and where writing comes from. In addition, he is creatively stuck.

The key point is that Flannery, suffering from a form of writer’s block, encounters a group of UFO cultists, who tell him that they are searching for an author suffering from writer’s block. He undoubtedly realizes that he fits the description, but fobs them off (p145)(in the process ensuring that the Reader is unable to finish In a network of lines that intersect(p154)). They tell him that

The book he will write when he emerges from the crisis is the one that could contain the cosmic communications.
… He wouldn’t even be aware of it. he would believe he is writing as he likes; instead the message coming from space on waves picked up by his brain would infiltrate what he is writing.
(p145)

At the end of the chapter, Flannery gets an idea for a novel, his first of any promise since he entered his crisis. The idea is for a novel that is "composed only of beginnings" (p156) that itself begins with a Reader picking up a book in a bookstore only to find it is defective, and so begins a series of interruptions… This is obviously the plot of If on a winter’s night a traveller. Equally clearly, Flannery’s experience is precisely what the UFO cultists described: he was in a crisis, and he comes up with an idea that he thinks is his own.

Clearly this is a ridiculous hypothesis. However, the reasons why it is ridiculous have nothing to do with literary or critical theory and everything to do with our conceptions regarding alien intelligences and channelling. From an examination of the text, it is a perfectly sustainable argument.

Which is precisely what Calvino (or the aliens, or machines, or whatever is ultimately ‘responsible’ for the text) wants. This episode, like so much else in the book, is designed to force the reader to pay attention to the fact that they are reading a book. More than that, to force the reader to analyze the nature of the medium (the novel) that they are reading. This in itself is a relatively radical move, which influences the analysis the reader is likely to make.

In my view such a ploy is quintessentially postmodern. One of the key components of postmodernism is the foregrounding of the ontological, the drive to make the reader aware of what they are reading and the issues surrounding the relationship between reader and text and author. Such a foregrounding clearly makes ‘escapist’ or ‘readerly’ reading extremely difficult, since the whole point of such reading is to mistake the structure of the text for reality, which cannot be done if the text itself continually stresses its fictional nature.

As well as emphasizing its fictional nature, the text also stresses its structure, in the sense that it causes strain to be placed on that structure. With the Silas Flannery situation, the Flannery writes the text in which he is a character in which he writes a text in which he is a character, and so on, creating a recurring abyss inside the text. The text also seeks to exceed its structural bounds in other ways, such as the second-person narration, which undermines the reader’s sense of strict boundary between real and fictional by deliberately confusing the reader with a fictional construct. The effect here is paradoxical, simultaneously highlighting the fictional and textual nature of the text (particularly by addressing a ‘Reader’) and yet seeking to interact with the reader as if the boundary between textual/fictional and ‘real’ did not exist. This attempt to involve the reader in the text in one of the most direct ways possible (by making the reader the protagonist) combined with constant pointers to the book’s structure and its fictional status (every mention of ‘reader’ brings this to mind) means that the text demonstrates three other typical postmodern qualities: irony, self-referentiality and confusion.

Another way in which If on a winter’s night a traveller seeks to move outside its own bounds is in its identification with other (sub)texts. After all, if the reader never gets to finish the novel that is printed blank after the first chapter, then the rest of that text (also called If on a winter’s night a traveller) is a mystery and must reside somewhere else, presumably somewhere within the universe of the greater text. In other words, the narrative begun in that chapter and in the others extends somewhere, in some direction. These directions are closed to Reader and reader alike, but are nonetheless present, and again serve to draw attention to the text’s somewhat problematic structure.

Calvino’s last major assault on the reader’s attempts to use the text in an escapist way is connected to the alien hypothesis also. Flannery’s aliens also force the reader to think about the author, and the entire concept of authorship. The authors in the text are all undermined by counterfeits, fakes, mistranslations, machines, and aliens. The concept of authorship is one that Calvino deconstructs here, by way of attacking the concept of origin. There are few originals in his works, and since the work itself is made up of a series of unoriginal works, where does that leave it? Where does that leave the idea of origin? The various assaults on Calvino’s authors suggest that the authoring process, rather than the author, is the key to the creation of a text, and also that this process can be separated from the author. The author merely ‘channels’ this process. The implication again is that there is no ‘creation’, merely a filtering of what is already present. The reader, so accustomed to treating books as worlds created by godlike Authors, becomes uncertain about both authenticity and completion/closure, since the lack of a central authorial authority means that defining the end of a text is rather difficult. After all, as stated above the end of If on a winter’s night a traveller is not the end of the first novel in the text, and that may well leave the possibility open for some other writer to write that novel, and it might be difficult to argue that such a novel would have no place in the ‘canonical’ version of the greater If on a winter’s night a traveller.

Tags: article, books, criticism, essays, novel, reviews, writing

Related Posts

• The Short Story and the Supernatural Fri 17 Jan 1997
• The Scalpel We Need Mon 22 May 2006
• Credibility and authorial strategies in “The Tell-Tale Heart” and “The Yellow Wallpaper” Wed 10 Oct 2001
• A Review of The Pale Blue Eye Tue 21 Aug 2007
• The Malazan Book of the Fallen Mon 22 Jan 2007
• A Review of Century Rain Mon 13 Nov 2006
• A Review of God's Playground (Volume 1) Wed 06 Sep 2006
• A Review of The Photograph Tue 05 Sep 2006
• A Review of The Glass Bead Game Tue 15 Aug 2006
• MTGO Needs Replays Thu 08 Aug 2002

Preparation

My preparations for Nationals began about a month ago, and really kicked into high gear about 2 weeks ago. My initial deck options were Suicide Black, Donais, Monoblue Tradewind Stasis, and a Sligh variant that never worked out. I played with the SB a lot but it never had the consistency I wanted. Donais is a really amazing, excellent deck, and totally in line with my own ideas on deck construction, but too vulnerable to Wastelands. The Tradewind Stasis had a lot of potential.

The people I tested with, who make up an informal team, were:
John Larkin (Irish National Champion 1997, 21 at Worlds 97)
Dave Kearney (Irish Nationals no.2 1997, 31 at Worlds 97)
Ger Norton
John Rogers
John Cowan

Eoin Brosnan also tested with us.

My aim was to make top 4. I came 9th last year, and was doing a lot more testing this year, so I figured top 4 was a realistic goal.

I was trying not to play control. I played U/R last year, really an untuned deck that probably deserved no better than 4-2. I also played U/R at Gaelcon, and went something like 1-2 drop. So I was trying to to get away from control, but it seems that my habitual Blueness is not so easy to shake off… I started testing Cuneo Blue, and also Erik Lauer’s CounterPhoenix, both of which I thought were very strong. I didn’t have the Phoenixes though, so figured I wasn’t going to play it. I played Cuneo Blue at a warmup tournament and went 3 wins 2 draws – but then I played against Sligh afterwards and got totally destroyed, like 7-1. I was advised to play Sligh, and decided to take that advice – until I got home and started thinking about how to improve the Cuneo Blue so it could handle Sligh and weenie hordes.

The anticipated metagame for the Irish Nationals was lots of Sligh, lots of Black and White Weenie, and lots of Tradewind. I decided that a good control deck should be able to take those decks, especially since they would be concentrating on beating each other and not worrying about Control.

The Deck

So despite my best intentions to the contrary I ended up spending the week before Nationals tweaking a Big Blue deck… this is what it ended up looking like:

The Suq’Atas were suggested as anti-weenie by Dave Kearney, and he was totally correct. I’ve always been fond of the Firewalkers, they’re a great card. Unlike most Control players these days, I prefer 4 Dissipate 3 Dismiss to the reverse ratio—I’m more concerned with being able to counter early, and to be able to counter twice early, and so on, in the current environment. 4 Dismiss is evidently better against other control, but I didn’t expect to meet much of it.
4 Allures are absolutely necessary. I experimented with Propaganda but decided the Allures were better because they could be useful whenever you drew them. I put in a Gnomes for a Golem because I figured 3 extra life would be extremely valuable.
All in all the deck was extremely well tuned. Looking back on it now I consider it an almost-perfect choice (CounterPhoenix is also almost-perfect, but I was too worried about its consistency, and due to the 4 Chills figured my Big Blue would be stronger against Sligh after SBing).

The Sideboard:

If I’d known what I was going to run into, I probably would have taken out the Realm and maybe a Spike and put in Disrupting Scepters. But I think my pairings were a little unrepresentative in places, so I still think my SB was pretty good.

I played a lot with this deck. Black Weenie and Sligh gave me the most trouble, but maybe that’s because John Larkin played them against me. Bloom was also a big pain. White Weenie and Tradewind weren’t really a big problem.

The others played:
Dave, John Cowan, Eoin: Bloom
John Larkin, Ger: CounterPhoenix (John’s was an altered version; I think Ger’s was standard)
John Rogers: Tradewind Variant

Day One – Standard Constructed

I had a first round bye due to my DCI rating, which I was rather surprised by, but didn’t complain…

John Cowan lost his first round against John Burns’ 3CW, which was to go 6-0.

Eoin Brosnan, who is rated considerably higher than I am but didn’t get a bye for some reason, won his first match.

John Rogers also won as far as I can remember

The field was looking rather like what we expected. John and Dave didn’t have to play until round 3 because the National Team got 2 byes. Ger and I started out in round 2…

Round 2

Opponent: Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what his name was at this point…
Deck: Suicide Black
Game 1
Well, he started off with a ritual and two creatures, so I knew right off what he was playing… I was a little nervous—I knew this could go pretty badly for me. But I was holding 2 Disks so I didn’t panic too much. Essentially I just blew up his stuff with the Disks, and then drew another so didn’t have to worry about countering too much. It was still close—he got me down to one life. But nobody comes back from 20-1 down like I do, and soon I was beating him down, drawing lots of cards with Whispers, and countering anything he did. He conceded at 11 life.

Game 2
I don’t know what he sideboarded; looked like one card. I SBed in 2 Propaganda, another Gnomes, and 1 or 2 Force Spike, taking out high cc stuff like Whispers and Dismiss.
This started off slowly for him, and a lot better for me. I stole a Black Knight from him and got a Gnomes out, and was holding off his creatures okay. I had a counter or two in hand and feltconfident. However, I then made a mistake; I used a Quicksand to kill one of his creatures and he then managed to slip a Dauthi Horror past my counters (I think I had to counter a Scroll). That Dauthi killed me. Doh!

Game 3
I went first and played an Island.
This was his start:
Swamp, Dark Ritual, Dark Ritual, Erg Raiders, Unholy Strength, Bad Moon
That’s game, right? I was holding something like an Island or 2, a Quicksand, an Allure, a Whispers and an Impulse. I paused a long time before taking my turn. Even if I got a Disk out I’d be in serious trouble and probably unable to turn it around. I decided on a plan, cast Whispers and drew something. Then I drew another card, I think a Dissipate. I played Island, Allure.
His turn, he plays Scroll, attacks, I’m at 15.
My turn I put a counter on the Allure, play Island, done.
His turn he plays Swamp, Scroll, attacks, I’m at 10. I cast impulse, grab the Quicksand I’d been looking for over a Disk.
My turn I put a counter on the Allure, play Quicksand, done.
He plays Dauthi Horror, I counter, he attacks, I’m at 5.
I put a counter on the Allure, pray he doesn’t draw Wasteland, done.
He attacks with the Raiders. I sac both Quicksands, bringing his Raiders down to 3 power, and steal them!! He casts something, I counter.
For the next 5 turns I beat him down, countering everything he casts except for a Sewer Rats when he’s on 5 which quickly die to his Raiders…
the scoresheet looked like
Me: 20 15 10 05 05 05 05 05 05
Him:20 20 20 20 15 10 05 05 00
I’m amazingly happy with this turnaround, and couldn’t resist telling it to just about everyone I talked to for the next 2 days…

Analysis
This was a tough matchup, but his style of Suicide Black was the more common low-fat version, with no Horrors or Barrow Ghouls or Necratogs (unless he just didn’t draw any). That style has to kill me in like 7 turns or less, or I’ll just sit there and build up Allure tokens and outdraw it. Given the prevalance of both burn and Allures, I think the version with some fat is currently stronger. I should have won Game 2 but screwed up – but made up for it by playing like a god in game 3. I’d rate the 2 decks at about 50/50, with much of it dependent on how fast a start the Suicide Black gets.

2-1 games, 2-0 matches, 6 pts.

Round 3

Opponent:Con Gregg
Deck: 5CKastle / TradewindGeddon
Game 1
I wasn’t worried here. In testing and at a warmup tournament my deck was 11-0 against Tradewind. Con didn’t want to meet me, having lost to me in that warmup last week. This game went according to plan; I took early beatdown from a Maro, then stole his stuff and Whispered and took control. He conceded on 13 or so.

Game 2
He sideboarded in 15 cards against me. I sideboarded in a Spike and a Hydroblast, taking out a Gnomes and something else.
We both started slow, but I was worried because I started with 1 Island, 2 Quicksand and 1 Stalking Stones. I managed to Sink or Spike something early, but when we were both on 6 land I only had 3 Islands, and didn’t like it. Sure enough, he Lobotomies, I Counterspell, he Pyros. Ouch. My hand was: 2 Dissipate 2 Allure 1 Disk 2 Whispers. Very tough choice for him I thought. Eventually, after a lot of deliberation, he took the Whispers, correctly in my view, since they’re what win the game for me. It hurt to lose them, and I thought he had me. After some toing and froing he got me down to 2 cards in hand, a Capsize and a Dissipate. He knew what they both were from the earlier Lobotomy. The clutch point in the game came in the next three turns:
He casts Living Death, I Dissipate.
I draw Dissipate, say go.
He casts Living Death, I Dissipate.
I draw Counterspell, say go.
He casts Living Death, I Counterspell.
And that was it. He couldn’t believe I countered three in a row when I started off with just one counter. Well, if I have any luck in MTG at all it’s in my ability to always have counters. Tought break for Con but my deck was a very bad matchup for his. After that I took control and got Suq’Atas out.

Analysis
As I said above, my deck is extremely strong against Tradewind; especially his version which didn’t have main deck counters. Fighting a sideboard of 15 is kinda tough, but OTOH he must have really gutted his deck to do that. I don’t think he had WOrbs either, so it always looked like my match.

4-1 games, 3-0 matches, 9pts.

Round 4

Opponent:David Fitzpatrick (Fitz)
Deck: U/r control
Game 1
Oh no! The Fitz! He’s been my personal nemesis in MTG for over a year, always destroying me with outrageous luck and topdecking (on top of the fact that he’s a pretty good player) and as far as I could remember I hadn’t beaten him in competition since mid 1997. Doh!
Still, he’s rusty and his deck was certainly suboptimal. He played 4 Capsize 1 Whispers, instead of the other way around, which should have made this a clear win for my deck.
Gme 1 he snuck out a Rainbow Efreet early, but I got out 3 Allures and grabbed it when he misplayed and attempted to Capsize it back to his hand. I can see some reason in this, but he really shouldn’t have paid the buyback on the Capsize, because I just countered and ended up with his Efreet. Beatdown commenced soon afterwards. I got a Gnomes on the table, and was on 8 life, when Fitz tried to Earthquake for 8. I had 2 counters in hand, but let it go off. Fitz realized his error and tried to alter the Quake to 11, but a judge ruled that it was for 8 and that Fitz took 3 burn… enabling me to kill him next turn.

Game 2
This started out well for me, and I got Fitz low on life with a Golem and something else. However, I couldn’t draw any counters in the midgame (my normally solid ability in that area deserting me whenever Fitz is my opponent) and continually drew land instead, and he eventaully killed my creatures and got out a Rainbow, all backed up by counters. That decided the game. I was pretty annoyed, but that’s the way it goes.

Game 3
This never happened because we had something like 4 minutes left.

Analysis
Based on the decks alone, this should have been my match, with my 4 Whispers to his 1 and my 4 Impulse to his 4 Brainstorm making my deck simply better. On the flip side, given my record against Fitz I should be happy with a draw rather than a loss, since it might mean that the curse is lifting…

5-2 games, 3-0-1 matches, 10 pts

Round 5

Opponent:Brian Mulcahy
Deck: Sligh
Game 1
He didn’t get a quick enough start, I Disked away a lot of stuff (including a second Scroll which I don’t think he should have played), took control and beat him down with Firewalkers and Golem.

Game 2
I sideboarded in 7 I think; 4 Chill 1 Hydro and 1 Propaganda, taking out expensive stuff.
I had to Mulligan away a beautiful hand with Impulse, Whispers, Propaganda and Chill because the only land was 1 Quicksand. Damn.
I never had a chance here. It went something like Pup, Miner, Pup, Ball Lightning, Incinerate, Fireblast, game.

Game 3
We both started out low on mana, which should mean a win for Sligh. I managed to get out an early Firewalker though to slow him down, and just kept begging for my deck to give me a Chill before he got more land. That didn’t happen, but I got one soon after we both drew land, and then got another. That should have simply sealed the game for me, but he had a Scroll out and got rid of my Firewalker, and hit me once, despite having 7 cards in hand. I was getting nervous about it but managed to kill him with Gnomes before the scroll could wreck the game.

Analysis
I’ve done a lot of testing against Sligh; it probably has a 60-40 edge before SBing when played by an expert player. Brian is good, but not expert; his playing the second Scroll early in game one may have decided the match in my favour. After boarding Sligh needs a damn fast start, and has to hope I don’t draw any Chills.

7-3 games, 4-0-1 matches, 13 pts.

Round 6

Opponent:Ger Norton
Deck: U/R Control
Game 1
This was not a good matchup. For one thing, I had planned on meeting a lot less control. For another, Ger and I playtested together. Lastly, I thought his U/R had a (slight) edge over my monoblue. Ger offered me an ID beforehand but I refused, thinking it didn’t make sense for either of us.
I managed to win this one, a long game, in part because Ger forgot to bring back a Phoenix for a long time while I was killing him with a Firewalker.

Game 2
I can’t really remember what decided this, but it was a fairly one-sided affair as far as I remember. I couldn’t deal with the Phoenix or the burn, and died. I almost caught Ger out with an unexpeted SB Rainbow, but I had to bring it out under pressure and he killed it with lots of burn.

Game 3
I started out strong in this game, getting out an early Golem. However, I made a hideous error in the midgame. With the the Golem on the table I had 6 mana free. I thought it was 6 Blue, but it was in fact 5 Island 1 Quicksand. He shatters the Golem, I Dismiss (with 4 Islands!) he Pyros, I try to Counter – and then Ger points out the Quicksand. I couldn’t believe it. I was sure it was an Island! I take burn, lose the Golem, and cannot believe I made such an appalling scrub error. Ger begins to take control after that, but I keep making him recast the Phoenix by stealing it with Allures. Time runs out and we draw. As Ger pointed out, I made us both go through all that for nothing…

Analysis
I’d give Ger’s version of CounterPhoenix about a 55-45 edge against me. The recurring Phoenix is what makes the difference on his side, and possible consistency problems with his deck don’t matter so much against a slow deck like mine. My Suq’Atas can be trouble for him, but he has main deck Quakes if they get out. His SB Shatters hurt against my Golems too. A draw was probably fair, since the errors we made effectively canceled each other out.

8-4 games, 4-0-2 matches, 14 pts.

So I go into Day 2 lying in 9th place; a strong undefeated showing. I was pretty happy. My deck proved to be the good choice I thought it was; I was a little annoyed at meeting 2 Blue/Red decks instead of another weenie deck, but that’s the luck of the draw. I would have liked to meet White Weenie, which of the 3 common weenie decks was weakest against mine in testing.

So, the other players and decks that I can think of went:
John Burns, WW/u/r: 6-0
David Fitzpatrick, U/r: 5-0-1 (!)
John Larkin, CounterPhoenix: 5-1 (1 loss to Ben Gerrard’s SRB)
Ben Gerrard, SRB: 5-1 (1 loss to John Burns’ WW)
Ger Norton, CounterPhoenix: 4-0-2
John Rogers, Tradewind Variant: 4-2 or 4-1-1 (can’t remember)
David Kearney, Bloom: 4-2
Eoin Brosnan, Bloom: 4-2
John Cowan, Bloom: 3-3

It was a good day for control, though I still can’t believe Fitz went 5-0-1 with that deck. Black Weenie did relatively well, as did Sligh, but there were a large number of them out there. There were also many Tradewind decks, the Limerick players brought a lot of those. Bloom did badly; if you take Dave Kearney’s 2 byes away then Bloom only went 9-7 in matches.

Day Two – TE/TE/ST Booster Draft

While I was in a good position, things actually didn’t look so great in the morning, because of the way they were running the Draft: all top 8 players would sit on one table, then 9-16 on the next table, and so on… I’m not sure how much sense that really makes, since it means that placing lower on day one can turn out to be quite an advantage.

The top table wasn’t so bad; the only really strong drafter on that table was John Larkin. On my table, however, there were:
Me
David Kearney (excellent player, very experienced, very good drafter)
Stewart Shinkins (excellent drafter, also outrageously lucky)
Ger Norton (improving very rapidly as a player, pretty good drafter)
John Rogers (about the same as Ger)
Tom McDonnell (sp? – sorry if I get it wrong Tom) (on last year’s National team, excellent player and excellent drafter)

This table was branded the ‘Table of Death’ as soon as the rankings went up…

I prefer Rochester Draft, but I’d done some Booster Draft practice and was trying not to let the Table of Death intimidate me.

First Draft

This was a little disrupted by three players at my table, including me, passing on too few cards at one point due to the cards sticking. That was pretty careless of me, but I didn’t let it put me off too much.

This draft did not go well, and is the reason for the title of this report.
Somehow, I ended up drafting monoblue, probably the weakest mono-colour in this environment. I started off well enough, grabbing Whispers of the Muse, 3 Wind Drakes and 3 Thalakos Mistfolk, but then realized I had no removal and very little from other colours, and also no fat… I tried desperately to get removal or fat but none came my way, unsuprisingly given the strength of the players at my table… I got a Mind Games and had a Puppet Strings but didn’t feel it was enough. I’m not going to list my deck, but its high points were:

It was quick and had good flyers but was crippled by lack of removal and by lack of big gamebreaking threats. I wasn’t happy, but thought that it might sneak out 2 wins somehow.

Round 7

Opponent:Ger Norton
Deck: U/W/B
Game 1
I thought this was a good matchup because Ger was extremely unhappy with his deck and his drafting, and had to go three colours with double-cc cards in each colour. In the first game his lack of consistency showed and I came through for the win. I thought at this point that maybe I had a chance.

Game 2
Ger took out all the Black from his deck for the next two games, and his deck ran a lot smoother.
This was a long game that started well for me but then Ger shut me down with Mawcor, Stinging Licid and Master Decoy which I just couldn’t handle.

Game 3
This game went badly. I countered a turn 3 COP: Blue, but Ger just put out a Mawcor later and got Hero’s Resolve on it; he also got the Stinging Licid / Master Decoy combo going again. This was really a massacre, as I had no chance at all.

Analysis
Once he took out the Black Ger’s deck was simply better than mine. Any removal at all on my side and it might have been very different.

9-6 games, 4-1-2 matches, 14 pts.

Round 8

Opponent:John Kearney
Deck: R/B
Game 1
I had a hand with only 1 Island and kept it for some reason I cannot fathom. Needless to say, I failed to draw land for a few turns and he beat me down. If I had drawn land it might have been close, because I was consistently 1 mana away from being able to deal with his threats in time.

Game 2
I had to mulligan away a good hand with 1 Island again – and this time there were Islands on top of my Library. Doh! He beat me down after that, my creatures proving no match for his. Mind Games and Puppet Strings would have helped a lot, but I never saw them.

Analysis
My deck needed time, and I never got any. Simple as that.

9-8 games, 4-2-2 matches, 14 pts.

From here I’d have to win 4 in a row to get to top 8. I felt I might be able to do that at the next table, but that winning a game with the deck I had was the biggest problem.

Round 9

Opponent:Brian Mulcahy
Deck: W/R
Game 1
I managed to win this, can’t remember exactly what happened but he didn’t seem to be able to do much at all in this game.

Game 2
This started badly; he beat me down to very low life but I got my Puppet Strings and Double-Mind Games working and hit him a lot with Mistfolk. This actually went on for a long long time and was something of an epic, but I managed to scrape out a win

Analysis
I’m not sure; he had 3 Pacifism(!) but seemed lacking in other good stuff. If my deck is given time it’s very strong, since it has Whispers and Mind Games.

11-8 games, 5-2-2 matches, 17 pts.

Stewart Shinkins won the Table of Death 3-0.
Right. Now all I had to do was draft as well as I could and go 3-0.

Second Draft

This was another strong table, with Tom McDonnell, Justin Walsh and John Cowan at it, but nothing like the Table of Death.

I was in desperate need of luck, and I got it. However, I was too stupid to take it.
Opening pack included Overrun, Fireslinger, Soltari Monk, Dauthi Mercenary. I took Fireslinger. This may look alright, as Fireslinger is a first-pick card, but it wasn’t. Overrun is a gamebreaker. I should have taken it.
I got Flowstone Giant and Flowstone Wyvern, and was looking like going for heavy red with splash green, when I started getting passed Spike Colony and Spined Wurm and other Green fat, so I started taking that. Unfortunately, I was too stupid to realize that I had effectively changed to Green/Red, and when we opened the next pack I passed a second Overrun on ground of too many Green in cc… anybody who’s good at draft, and most people who aren’t, will realize what an absolute bonehead play this was… I feel fairly certain now that if I had done the smart thing and taken both Overruns I would have gone 3-0.
My deck highlights:

Round 10

Opponent:Tom McDonnell (sp? Sorry if I’ve gotten it wrong Tom)
Deck: B/R
Game 1
Last year, Tom put me out of contention in a very very tight 2-1 victory in Sealed, a match I remember as a classic. I could have won it had I not made a bad judgement call and played defensively at a critical point.
This year, it was close again in the first game. I was winning the creature war early. Key call: I figured he was holding some form of removal but I put out Fireslinger and Seeker of Skybreak anyway, as I had more creatures in my hand and thought I could force him to use the removal and beat him down.
He used Spontaneous Combustion to kill everything, and then I laid more creatures. It became quite close, but he was beating me with a Bellowing Fiend. I had about three turns to topdeck Goblin Bombardment or Fling, but it didn’t happen, and he killed me on 1 life.

Game 2
This one just wasn’t as close. His removal (especially his 1 Kindle) decided it early and he also Coerced away my Flowstone Wyvern. He beat me down with the Fiend again and that was it for my Worlds chances.

Analysis
Well, Tom’s a very good player and it didn’t bother me too much for him to put me out of contention for the second year in a row. His deck was better than mine, with the removal making all the difference.

11-10 games, 5-3-2 matches, 17 pts.

Round 11

Opponent:John Cowan
Deck: B/R
Game 1
I can’t remember it too well, I eked out a win by overloading his removal ability with lots of fat.

Game 2
My mind went to lunch for this game, completely. I made a bunch of errors, including not realizing that my Barbed Sliver gave his Clot Sliver its ability, enabling it to kill my Raging Sliver and also not realizing that my Raging Sliver had gained regenerate and so burying it… I made another dumb move as well which mercifully has gone from my memory… I deserved to lose this game badly and did.

Game 3
This game was like a replay of the first one, and even his 2 Dark Banishings(! – on his last table he had gotten 4 on his way to a 3-0 sweep) didn’t save him from the onslaught of fat.

Analysis
His deck seemed reasonable but perhaps his creature base wasn’t quite strong enough; he could remove my creatures but not compete with them with his own creatures.

13-10 games, 6-3-2 matches, 20 pts.

Round 12

Opponent:I’ve totally forgotten his name…
Deck: B/R (again!)
Game 1
He had lots of removal also but got destroyed by large Green things. Crude but effective.

Game 2
This turned on an early Servant of Volrath with Sadistic Glee on it. He sat there with small creatures; I sat there with some larger creatures and a Fireslinger but couldn’t kill his smaller ones because then the Servant would be too big to kill. Eventually I was able to Elvish Fury a creature and Fling it at the Servant, and ping the Servant with a Fireslinger, to kill it. It all went downhill for him from there, and I ended up doing him 16 pts of damage in one turn for the kill.

Analysis
Like JC’s deck, this one had removal but the creatures weren’t good enough to cope with mine.

15-10 games, 7-3-2 matches, 23 pts.

So that was it. I finished 15th, 1 win away from the cutoff for the second year in a row. I felt better than last year though – I wasn’t as close, and last year only some mana screw, someone else’s stalling and a single minor misjudgement cost me a place at Worlds. This year my own stupidity and nothing else cost me a top 8 spot (and I had a good chance of beating the other top 8 decks). My type 2 deck was much better than last year, excellently tuned and primed for the metagame, but that doesn’t (and shouldn’t) make up for an awful day’s drafting. In the end, I simply didn’t deserve to go top 8, and so for me at least the tournament system produced a fair result.

Commiserations

To John Larkin, with a 9-2-1 record and #1 ranking after 2 days of Swiss for the second year running, who lost in quarters and deserved to go to Worlds more than anyone else.

To David Kearney and Tom McDonnell, both excellent players who didn’t manage to make it onto the team this year.

To John Rogers, who didn’t go top 8 due to OMP (always hurts)

Props

Justin, Oliver, Fergus and whoever the 4th National Team member is (I left before that quarter was over)

Me, for doing damn well at Standard and improving my rating somewhat.

Ger Norton, for doing excellently in Standard and for improving incredibly on last year’s performance.

John Rogers, for doing really well overall, placing 10th, also improving lots since last year.

Carl, Jared, Barry, Ralph and the other judges for an excellent tournament.

John Larkin, for demonstrating that he is in fact the best player in the country.

Slops

Fitz, for:

1. getting a ‘win’ in Standard after going loss-win-draw and then being told by a judge to play on until someone got to 2 duels won, thereby ‘winning’ that match with loss-win-draw-draw-win…
2. playing 4 Capsize 4 Brainstorm instead of 4 Whispers 4 Impulse (and still getting a draw from me!)
3. going 5-0-1 day one but managing to have an OMP of 51% (!)
4. going 5-0-1 day one and then 1-5 day two, with that one win being a bye! (and thereby screwing John Rogers’ OMP and probably costing him a top 8 spot).

Whatever judge told Fitz and his opponent to keep playing until someone reached 2 duel wins.

Ben Gerrard, for going 5-1 day one and then not bothering to show up day two.

Stewart Shinkins, for calling Ger Norton and John Rogers scrubs, and for saying John Larkin is no good at Draft (!) and then going on to ask/beg John Larkin for an ID before being stomped 2-0 by him in the last round of day two…

And finally, me, for being a Big Blue Scrub.

Tags: article, games, MTG, tournament-report, writing

Related Posts

• Irish MTG Nationals 1999—A Big Blue Scrub(Playing Red)’s Report Wed 30 Jun 1999
• MTGO Needs Replays Thu 08 Aug 2002
• 2010 Goals Fri 01 Jan 2010
• Writing Better MTG Posts Fri 16 Mar 2007
• 'Flow Episode' Wed 29 Nov 2006
• Friday Fast Game Fri 04 Sep 2009
• Solo Set and Mental Exercise Thu 14 May 2009
• Alara Reborn Prerelease Sun 26 Apr 2009
• AI and Games Thu 26 Feb 2009
• Bye-Bye Tournament Packs Fri 09 Jan 2009

Our purpose here is not to detail in depth what we consider to be the problems with the Leaving Certificate/Points System, but rather to suggest constructive ways to eliminate problems. Pure critique is available in our feature film ‘How To Cheat In The Leaving Certificate’.

The problems with the Leaving Certificate are not superficial. They are fundamental. Therefore, radical solutions are necessary—tweaking and nudging will not be sufficient. The education of a society is of paramount importance, and we have no excuse for complacency or the avoidance of difficult changes.

The failing of the Leaving Certificate and the points-based college admissions system which accompanies is not due to limited resources or limited opportunities: the problem is that the Leaving Certificate and the Points System assumes that there is only one type of intelligence, when in fact there are many different types. ‘If you are not intelligent in our way’, the system says to each and every student, ‘you are not intelligent at all’.

While claiming to aid the development of academic intelligence the system in fact doesn’t even do that. It focuses on the ability to do three things only: to read, remember, and regurgitate. This demands a restricted degree of literacy and does not demand critical thinking, understanding, or analysis. Clearly, this discourages personal responsibility and initiative. Students are made simply to listen and accept, or to read and accept. This inevitably has serious ramifications for third-level education, employment and, of course, society as a whole. The system doesn’t even function properly as a selection process; measuring only a narrow bureaucratic skill means that it simply cannot work as a means of determining the suitability of applicants for University courses which is supposed to be its primary role.

This submission presents the following suggestions designed to deal with these various problems. We have divided this submission into three parts: the first deals with changes we believe are necessary in schools themselves, in terms of their educational structure and the role of students within that structure. The second deals with the role of the Government through the medium of the Department of Education: practices we feel should be introduced or abandoned in order to make the Leaving Certificate and points system more equitable and less intimidating for students. The third part deals with what we consider to be the social and theoretical ramifications of the present system, and the benefits which we feel would follow on the implementation of our suggestions.

1.

The development of critical thinking, innovation and creativity is feasible only with increased student participation in the classroom. The prevalent assumption that true learning can only occur when 30 students are working silently at their desks is a false one. Learning is an active activity, not a passive one, and Irish classrooms must reflect this. This is well known-the problem has always been how to implement a dynamic learning system. Two major problems stand in the way. One is the current state of Irish teacher training. This must be altered so that student participation becomes a basic premise of that training. The other problem is class size. It requires a truly gifted, extremely energetic and dedicated teacher to foster participatory learning when the class contains thirty pupils. We are aware that it is simply not possible to hire twice as many teachers to rectify the situation. Our suggestion is this: halve the size of the classes in Irish schools by halving the school day. Teach half of the country’s school population in the morning, and half in the afternoon. The higher quality of education that would result more than makes up for the time lost—and it is quality, not quantity, that matters.

One might argue that this would lead to a chaotic and unproductive environment; we would argue, however, that these qualities are exactly those which are most in evidence in modern working environments. A teaching model based on discussion and participation is the only one which will enable students to develop initiative, articulate expression, creativity and critical thinking. This model reflects the modern business world much more accurately than the traditional classroom. Success in the business world relies on the ability to work well in teams, to come up with creative solutions, to express oneself well, and to show initiative. The participatory classroom model obviously encourages these qualities far more than the traditional one. Not only would students become more confident and focused within the school setting itself, but they would learn also those qualities which will be essential to them in their future lives, such as clear, creative thinking and initiative.

Halving the school day in order to halve class size is obviously a radical proposal, but that is not important. What is important is that its benefits would be enormous. The disadvantages are mainly logistical, and would primarily involve the transition to the new system. Accompanied by new emphasis on participation in teaching methods, the new system would help students become more confident and focused within the school setting, and students would more rapidly learn valuable, essential skills. Given these benefits, any reason for not implementing such a system must be a far better one than unwillingness to change.

(Note that we are not advocating the abandonment of traditional teaching goals such imparting literacy and numeracy to students. Those skills are completely essential. What we are suggesting is a far superior method for giving students those skills as well as many others.)

As well as this overhaul of teaching methods and class structure, we believe that students themselves should have a greater say in the administration of their education. In third-level institutions all over the country the problem of student apathy is acute. Only a small number of students involve themselves in the political aspects of their education, having never in their lives been consulted as to syllabi, course materials or teaching methods. Increasing the interest and participation of students in school can only be a good thing, and so we suggest: that students be given meaningful representation on school boards; instituting staff-student committees; instituting widespread and meaningful liaisons between student bodies and the Department of Education. This development would be most useful at post-primary level, and it is at this point in their educational development that we believe students should be involved in the structure and content of their learning.

2.

The impetus for change in this area is clearly going to have to originate with the Department of Education. We see a number of key aspects of current Departmental policy that should be addressed as a matter of priority:

State examinations, if they are intended to test writing speeds and ability to memorise, should stay exactly as they are. If they are intended to test the degree to which the student has assimilated and understood the course materials, and the student’s ability to apply that understanding under examination circumstances, those who design them should recognise that students’ ability to write quickly and call strings of facts to mind is only one aptitude of many differing aptitudes, and varies hugely as between individuals. Why should a student who understands a course very well and could give an excellent oral presentation of what he/she has learned have to write 20 to 25 pages of essays in three hours—which students often find they must do, for example, in the Higher Level History paper for the Leaving Certificate.

If the ability to understand material, analyse it and criticise it is what is desired here (as it should be: most adults who have passed the Leaving Certificate will have long forgotten most of what they wrote in their examinations), then there is no reason why students should not be permitted to bring certain materials with them into examinations, and why they should not be given as much time as they need. If the ability to understand, analyse and criticise material is what is being examined, then surely open-book examinations would be superior. Also, there is no reason why exams should have three-hour time limits-speed is less important than overall understanding and ability.

The Leaving Certificate marking system should be more accessible. The marking scheme has already been made available to students and teachers, therefore there is no reason why the marking system should not be available also. Also, students should be able to get their papers back. Transparency and accountability should be encouraged at all stages of the Leaving Certificate process.

We believe that the syllabi for the Leaving Certificate are outdated, and do not give students the tools they will need in order to interact with the world in which they will find themselves after school. Successive Governments have decried the huge incidence of school-leavers being unemployed and on the dole very soon after leaving school, but have failed to look at concrete ways of dealing with this situation. One way would be to give students the option following the Junior Certificate to become involved in professions of interest to them, through placement schemes with different professions. While in school, these students could attend courses relative to their interests (business management, media production) etc.) and learn skills relevant to those interests. If thousands of students are sitting Leaving Certificate examinations every year in subjects which are of no use to them in their everyday lives, the Department has to recognise and address this.

We would welcome the establishment of an Ombudsman for Education to deal with problems students encounter in their educational lives, with the same far-reaching influence and reporting obligation of the current office of the Ombudsman.

3.

The points of reference speak of the impact of the points system on the selection of third level courses.

Selection by individual students of courses they would hope to follow at University is characterised to a greater and greater extent by snobbery in respect of different institutions. Many students feel that, rather than decide which third-level institution best caters for their needs or interests, they should first decide which college to attend and then decide what courses to apply for. This is most marked as regards Irish universities, which attract large numbers of applications from students who will take almost any course in respect of which they can secure a place, regardless of their interests or aptitudes. This phenomenon is exacerbated by the points system, which immediately sets students against one another for the highest results, and which also causes students to believe that courses with the highest points requirements are the most prestigious.

Following the publication of the Leaving Certificate results every summer, thousands of parents all over the country speak about their children ‘getting into’ certain courses, such as Law, Medicine, Pharmacy, Actuary, etc. The impression that this gives is that the system is a game: you are on the outside, and the object is to get in. This aim becomes the focus of the student’s efforts, and is often used as a benchmark of his/her performance in the Leaving Certificate. And so students will choose to do courses for which they are ill-prepared, and in which they may have no interest and little aptitude.

This has its most profound effects on students ‘who have experienced significant educational disadvantage’. The effect of treating the university admissions system as a game where the most successful are those with the highest points is to load the dice in favour of certain sectors of Irish society. Supplementary education, usually in the form of ‘grinds’, is now a common feature of second-level education in Ireland. For students sitting the Leaving Certificate, it is not uncommon to attend grinds in almost all of one’s subjects; the question is not often posed, however, of what this tells us about our schools.

Most students attending grinds are not doing so because they are being inadequately educated at school. Rather they are doing so because they, and their parents, believe that any extra advantage which could give them the edge over their fellow candidates on the day of their examination is worth the time and money which they invest.

Students suffering educational and financial disadvantage are thus one step behind such students, in terms of how they well they will contend with the points system, before they even start the Leaving Certificate syllabus in Fifth Year. Firstly, they cannot afford to attend expensive grind schools; secondly, even if they could afford grinds, they are competing with students who would probably do excellent Leaving Certificate exams without grinds.

The reason for grind schools is not to deepen the understanding or appreciation of the student for the subject, but to give them the tools that they need to beat the Leaving Certificate system. These institutions are set up in order for business interests to capitalise on the Irish college admissions system. The way that this is done is that these schools specialise in teachers with an encyclopaedic knowledge of part Leaving Certificate papers and marking practice, who teach exam practice and technique.

Students with financial disadvantage have long been recognised as being systematically excluded from University education in Ireland. It is extremely expensive for a student to attend and complete a full-time University course, and the youth of this country’s students means that it is normally the student’s parents who support him/her financially during this time. Consequently, only a tiny percentage of University students are from families without the resources to support them while in college. There are schools in Dublin where the it is expected that most students in any Leaving Certificate class will attend some third-level institution. There are also schools within a few miles of them where it is a significant event for any student to go on to third -level education. For such students, the Leaving Certificate is totally inadequate and does not prepare for them for what they must contend with once they leave school.

Conclusion

Our argument is that the Leaving Certificate values and examines only one kind of intelligence: academic intelligence, and even that only in a narrow and rigid way, which involves memorisation and the ability to produce what one has memorised with almost mechanical skill. The Leaving Certificate / CAO system focuses on a far too narrow range of aptitudes, and also precludes the expression and development of the individual student’s own conclusions, opinions or ideas. While the Department of Education may wish to encourage students to think for themselves and be innovative, such attempts are doomed to failure in the current system.

The current system is too narrow, too rigid, and has a negative, inhibiting effect not only on the students who pass through it, but also on society as a whole. For these reasons, radical change is absolutely necessary.

Submitted by:

Tadhg O’Higgins
11 Trimleston Gardens,
Booterstown
Co. Dublin.
tadhg at tadhg dot com

Deirdre Ní Fhloinn
205 Barton Road East
Dundrum
Dublin 14.

Graham Jones
17 Windsor Court
Stradbrook Road
Blackrock
Co. Dublin.

graham at jonesy dot com

With thanks to Orla Ní Chuilleanáin.

This document is copyright © Graham Jones, Tadhg O’Higgins, and Deirdre Ní Fhloinn 1998.

Tags: article, education, essays, politics, writing

Related Posts

• Why I Use Free Software Tue 13 Aug 2002
• MTGO Needs Replays Thu 08 Aug 2002
• Credibility and authorial strategies in “The Tell-Tale Heart” and “The Yellow Wallpaper” Wed 10 Oct 2001
• Welcome Sat 14 Aug 1999
• If on a winter's night a traveller: written by aliens, read by fictional constructs Sun 30 May 1999
• The Short Story and the Supernatural Fri 17 Jan 1997
• Rape and “Compulsive Heterosexuality” Mon 18 Jan 2010
• Bullying: Just a Hunch Thu 03 Dec 2009
• Bullying: Institutional Inevitability? Tue 21 Apr 2009
• Some Thoughts on Racism and Science Fiction/Fantasy Fri 13 Mar 2009

Iain M. Banks: Damn, if you’d asked me that on Friday evening, I could’ve said “tomorrow’s hangover”. But in fact, the next book is pretty well finished, the only thing that remains to be done is copy editing. It’s mainstream, short and bitter. Back to grim again. I’m veering wildly across the road of literature, from the cosy sentimentality of The Crow Road and Whit to the deeply unpleasant, gratuitously nasty stuff like Complicity. This one’s not quite as horrible, but it’s still got a very high body count. A friend of mine said that one of the things he liked about the book was that, unlike The Wasp Factory, which appalled everyone, this one will only appall clever people.

SJ: Have you seen your work getting more optimistic or pessimistic in general?

IMB: I go back and forth. It’s like someone having their first driving lesson, they just go all over the place. In a sense the optimism is in the Culture. The Culture is where I can have some faith in the future; they’re a bit like us but nicer, with a good relationship with machines. That’s strategic optimism; I’m a short-term pessimist. But that’s partly a survival mechanism—if you’re a short-term pessimist, then the only surprises you get are nice ones. If you’re a short-term optimist, your life is gonna be about ‘Ah, fuck, man! Bad scene.’

Tadhg A. O’Higgins: The Culture are optimistic, obviously, but the plots, like Consider Phlebas—

IMB: Oh yeah, everyone dies at the end. But the good guys win—it’s just that a lot of people reading the book didn’t realise it. I’m so concerned not to paint the Culture as being totally wonderful, trying to show that they have a nasty side. Because otherwise it gets boring.

TAO: You made that case against them in Excession.

IMB: Yes, that’s a revelation to some about the Culture, that they can be as nasty as anybody else.

TAO: If they want something enough.

IMB: Well, more if they’re presented with something which frightens them. If they had a choice between letting something happen or not happen, they’d be against letting it happen, even though it has such a huge possibility for fun and exploration. They’d still see it as a threat, because they do live in a utopia, and they want to stay rather than threaten that.

SJ: Do you see a strong distinction between your genre and non-genre works, in terms of how you write them?

IMB: No, not in terms of how I write them. It’s very much the case that I write ’space science fiction’—it’s not near future, as the Culture is in a sense very far future. I’m always aware of what kind of book I’m writing, but I certainly hope that I bring the same skills to science fiction as I do to the mainstream. I feel slightly more at home in science fiction because, well, you can make stuff up! It’s not essential to do as much research, you have more control over the variables and can do basically what you like with the society.

SJ: Do you ever write a piece that seems more suitable to the other type of novel?

IMB: Not really, because I’m always aware of what kind of book I’m writing each year. If it ends in an odd number, hey, it’s a mainstream work! I don’t usually write from an idea I had last week, it’s normally an idea that’s been hanging around for years, in some cases decades. Some never see the light of day, others eventually will. I generally know which ideas will fit where, as there’s a relatively small number of ideas that could fit into either science fiction or mainstream. When I’m planning a book, I look through my notes and try to find something that might fit.

TAO: What made you decide to make Walking on Glass non-genre?

IMB: I wanted to write something that wasn’t The Wasp Factory, although that hadn’t been published when Walking on Glass was more or less finished. There was some sort of indication that The Wasp Factory was going to cause a bigger splash than either I or my publishers had expected. That reinforced an I idea I had earlier, that I didn’t want to write upmarket horror stories for the rest of my career. I wanted to do something completely different. I did want to do something a little closer to science fiction, as though to make the transition a little easier, as I knew I wanted to get some genre novels published as well.
Usually when I think about a book, I’m at the stage I am now for my next novel which I’ll begin writing in October. There are lots of competing ideas, and there are a lot of small ideas which kind of stick to the bigger ones, and eventually one of the bigger ideas will ‘go critical’ and I’ll go with that one. Walking on Glass was the only time when three ideas all kept on growing at the same time, and many of the smaller ideas seemed to fit all three, and I decided to write all three together because they went so well together. It was always meant to be a little weird and bizarre but basically mainstream. But that’s taking writers like Borges and Kafka as mainstream. I tried to be credible. Walking on Glass and The Bridge could have been published as science fiction, and The Bridge was reviewed as science fiction in some places. It’s good, because you get people who don’t normally read science fiction picking them up.

SJ: What do you think of the adaptation of The Crow Road?

IMB: I thought it was very good, I was very impressed with it, and it was a big relief that they didn’t make a big mess of it. I’d heard of the people who made it, the writer seemed like a decent cove, but you still worry about your first adaptation. The wisest thing was not getting involved with it. It must be hard enough to adapt someone’s book without some bloody author standing over your shoulder telling you what you can’t do.

TAO: Do you have plans for any more adaptations?

IMB: Well, the same company that did The Crow Road are planning to do The Bridge so I sent off my usual letter telling them that anyone who tries to make that into anything other than a novel is mad. It’ll end in tears. There are plans to do Whit but it’s very similar to The Crow Road in terms of the emphasis the adaptation places on the search for Uncle Ruairi. Whit is also about the search for a relation.

TAO: Do you have any plans for movie adaptations?

IMB: The Wasp Factory saga has lasted twelve or thirteen years now, and it’s currently here in Ireland in the courts. The American production company which took over the Irish company Strongbow Productions (Eat the Peach) got the rights to The Wasp Factory. They claimed they’d started principal photography and we disputed it, so the litigation has been running for months now. There’s a company interested in doing The Player of Games, which would be the easiest to do. The producer is also thinking about Consider Phlebas, which I think could be done with the computer graphics that are available now. I think the problem would be the unwieldy background knowledge required.

TAO: Are you planning to work in any other media?

IMB: No, I’ve been completely spoiled by the fact that writing novels makes you God. The very idea of working where someone else can say “I don’t like this, change it”, which happens even more in television, is something I would hate. I had plans to write games, a long time ago, but I’m just not a team player. I had this plan for a romantic comedy where the hero was a drug dealer, maybe set in the West of Scotland. I wouldn’t mind that much if people mucked around with that. I’ve been talking about this for fifteen years so it’s unlikely ever to get written let alone produced.

SJ: Did you always plan to be a writer?

IMB: Yes, I have a crayon colouring book from Primary Seven, eleven years old, with a picture of what I wanted to be when I grew up. It was an actor because I didn’t know how to draw a writer, and at the top it says ‘AND WRITER’. I still have vague ambitions to write music, but I’ve never got very far in that direction. I wrote five science fiction novels before I wrote The Wasp Factory when I was sixteen, but I was thirty before that was published. So it took me a long time to get started. That was the apprenticeship, not an overnight success but an over-a-decade-and-a-bit-success.

SJ: Are the constructions in Feersum Endjinn really big furniture?

IMB: Yes, I used to have these model soldiers, and I wondered what it would be like to be one of those tiny soldiers in a giant house. I used to have these epic journeys for them. I thought if you had a giant structure, basing it on furniture would be easy. Feersum Endjinn is completely unrelated to the Culture, though I suppose it’s a good a reading as any to think it might be a world left behind by the Culture.

SJ: Whom do you admire in the science fiction world?

IMB: Well, Ken MacLeod, and I still think Dan Simmons is an excellent writer. I think under-rated writers are Mike (M John) Harrison and John Sladek. If I had my library with me I could tell you more people I really like. I’ve never really read graphics novels, but I’ve liked any of the small amount of Neil Gaiman’s work I’ve read. I seem to have something against graphic novels.

SJ: Do you see a time when you’ll stop writing?

IMB: I could afford to stop at the end of this four book deal, including the one that’s coming out in August and three more after that. I’ll probably want to but a yacht or something and then I’ll do another four books. But I’m happy doing a book a year, that’s the way and speed I write. I like to enjoy myself, so work gets shunted into the last, dark, rainy quarter of the year, but I still enjoy writing. I’ll probably keep on going, but I’ll see after this book.

TAO: Are you planning to write any more Culture novels?

IMB: Yes, of the four book deal, two are science fiction, of which one will be a Culture one though I don’t know which. It may be the one I’ll start writing in October or the one in two year’s time. It’ll be idea dependent, see what suggests itself. There’s bits and pieces lying around. There’s one thing that may become the next Culture novel.

TAO: Can you explain the Culture member who gets afflicted with Roman Catholicism in ‘The State of the Art’?

IMB: I didn’t want to make the Culture perfect, although it’s something the human race could achieve. There are people who are misfits in it, and there are many stories about people who leave the Culture. It’s not a coercive society, although at the same time they don’t want people who leave going off to coerce other societies, so they can’t take a heavily-armed spaceship with them. Or they’d send a better-armed spaceship after them. What happens to the character in ‘The State of the Art’ is that he falls in love with the irrationality of Christianity, with the ideas of pain and death, but he feels it’s about having fun, and sex, and more fun, and more sex. When he finds this planet that is so involved with this, and a religion that epitomises the idea of being born evil, he falls in love with it. He’s a hedonist. He dies, because that’s me playing God. If you’re stupid, you die.

Tags: article, books, fiction, Iain-Banks, Iain-M.-Banks, interview, oldmisc, science-fiction, writing

Related Posts

• Some Notes on Editing the Second Draft Mon 10 Dec 2007
• SF Novel Second Draft Done Sun 09 Dec 2007
• SF Novel Second Draft Update C14 Stalled Once More Sat 08 Dec 2007
• SF Novel Second Draft Update C14 Still Stalled Fri 07 Dec 2007
• SF Novel Second Draft Update C14 Stalled Thu 06 Dec 2007
• SF Novel Second Draft Update C14 In Progress Wed 05 Dec 2007
• SF Novel Second Draft Update C13 Tue 04 Dec 2007
• SF Novel Second Draft Update C13 Not Yet Done Mon 03 Dec 2007
• SF Novel Second Draft Update C12 Mon 03 Dec 2007
• Second Draft Not Quite There Sun 02 Dec 2007

Short stories are marginal in part because of their protagonists, which Frank O’Connor asserts are ‘submerged population groups’ (O’Connor p18), are figures on the margins. O’Connor is in general right about the short story. The protagonists are almost always outsiders, from the clerk in Gogol’s “The Overcoat” to almost any protagonist in any Raymond Carver story. O’Connor states: ‘Always in the short story there is this sense of outlawed figures wandering about the fringes of society’ (O’Connor p19). What’s more, there is always a sense of the inexplicable about their exclusion. There are evident reasons for this exclusion, but these seem insufficient, especially to the protagonists themselves. Holly and Duane in Carver’s “Gazebo” are a submerged population group—people whose lives have simply gone wrong and who can’t find their way back. The event responsible for this, Duane’s infidelity with a maid, does not rationally explain the complete collapse they undergo afterwards. Carver’s characters are ideal examples of characters in the modern short story in general: unfocused, vaguely wandering, looking for an escape that will never come, unable to identify solidly why they are where they are. Characters in the modern short story are like Ancient Mariners, cursed to suffer for reasons that are at best oblique. They are adrift, as described by O’Connor, in ‘a society that has no sign posts, a society that offers no goals and no answers.‘ (O’Connor p18) This is very different from the novel, which is mainly concerned with society and what happens in it rather than outside it.

This tendency of the short story is one of the reasons why short stories about the supernatural work well. Characters who experience ‘supernatural’ or inexplicable events are no longer part of the mainstream of society in many respects. They retreat or go mad, or they become doomed to repeat their tales in the hope of being believed by enough people and hence re-accepted. In either case, they become a ‘submerged population group’ because their belief in their own experience cannot be reconciled with the belief system of the society they live in. Normally, this belief system is also the belief system of the reader’s society, and normally some kind of ‘rational explanation’ is given for the events; however, this explanation often come too late to save the poor individual who is victimised by the ‘supernatural event’ in question. This is precisely what happens in Sheridan Le Fanu’s “Green Tea”. The Rev. Jennings is plagued by an imp, and retreats, becoming cut off from society (almost literally, as he flees to ‘a dark street in off Piccadilly, [where] he inhabits a very narrow house’ (Le Fanu p180)). He becomes a ‘submerged population group’ because of his affliction, and also because of his studies of and belief in occult texts. The reader, however, is not asked to believe in the imp, since Hesselius reveals (far too late) that the problem lay in the green tea, and that science could have effected a cure easily enough. This serves to offset the unreality of the story, and take it closer to the reader, who can reconcile the events with his or her own knowledge of the world. Edgar Allan Poe’s ‘The Fall of the House of Usher’ also deals with a ‘submerged population group’—Roderick and Madeline Usher, separated from the world in their excessively Gothic castle. They also suffer a doom that is inadequately explained by the text; in a sense, the point of the text is to indicate that such things can happen for no good reason.

The short story does not have the time that the novel has for setting up a believable world. It must grip the reader with the reality of its events from the very first. This need coincides with the need of ’supernatural’ stories to be believed. There is a well-established tradition of establishing the credentials of the narrator, either by giving him or her a highly respected profession or position, or by having the narrator admit to the fantastic nature of their tale and insist on its truth nonetheless. This is how “The Black Cat” is introduced: ‘Mad indeed would I be to expect it [belief], in a case where my very sense reject their own experience.’ (Poe p476) Other devices are also used. In “The Fall of the House of Usher” the narrator is portrayed as loyal, since he comes immediately at Roderick Usher’s request (Poe p263); noble or well-off, as he attended school with Roderick and also since he claims the type of decor in the House of Usher has surrounded him ‘from infancy’ (Poe p265); educated, as evidenced by the books they pore over, among other things; and accustomed to the environment of the castle—as mentioned above, he claims intimacy since birth with such trappings as adorn the House of Usher, but it is worth mentioning again since this also means that he is unlikely to be rattled by the surroundings in normal circumstances, hence adding weight to the feeling that something out of the ordinary transpired in that house. The narrator of “Green Tea” is set up more blatantly: he is introduced as a doctor, a father figure, a man of means, and a genius (Le Fanu p178-179). The person who introduces him, moreover, is also a trained doctor and surgeon, so there can be no doubt about the respectable nature of the man. These characteristics combine, quite deliberately, to make the reader trust the narrators’ testimony. The ending of “Green Tea” is also highly credible because the situation is that of a doctor finding a dead man and ascertaining the cause of death—an entirely normal situation for a doctor to be in. The climactic ending of “The Fall of the House of Usher”, on the other hand, is made more credible because the narrator prefigures it by telling us about the fissure around the house at the start of the story (Poe p265) and then reminds us that he mentioned it earlier (Poe p277). This prefiguring is essential; it creates the effect that the reader feels as if the event is fated, rather than being merely a whim of the author. The sense of fate adds to the credibility of the story as a whole. Inevitability also features in other ‘Dr. Hesselius’ stories by Le Fanu, though in different ways. In “The Familiar” and “Mr. Justice Harbottle” the main characters both die in ways prefigured by earlier events in the stories, creating again a feeling of fate. This feeling combats the disbelief of the reader.

The short story is a fragmentary form. Unlike the novel, it does not deal in wholes but in small but crucial pieces of some whole. Mary Louise Pratt states that ‘One of the most consistently found narrative structures in the short story is the one called the “moment-of-truth” [which] focus on a single point of crisis in the life of a central character.’ (Pratt p99) Stories concerning the supernatural certainly do this, though without much subtlety: the ‘central point’ is often death, though not necessarily that of the central character. The events related in “The Fall of the House of Usher” must be central in the life of the narrator; they are so Gothically cataclysmic that the reader knows the narrator’s life will never be the same again. The supernatural short story benefits from the fragmentary nature of the form because the reader must supply the surrounding world and history / future; since this will obviously be more tailored for each reader than anything an author could write, it is more credible to each reader. The novel, on the other hand, would have to support a whole structure inside which the fantastic events could take place; this is possible, but the reader is more likely to simply imagine the novel as taking place in another world, whereas the short story is likely to be imagined as part of the reader’s world. The short story can be an invasive fragment, pushing into the reader’s universe with a power that a larger whole would not have. Jorge Luis Borges deals with a similar theme in “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius”, in which a forged encyclopaedia overwhelms the laws of the world, replacing them with the laws of its (fictional) world. Reading this, of course, is profoundly disturbing, and the victory of ‘fiction’ over ‘fact’ in the story makes the reader worry about how far this crossing of boundaries can extend—can the world of Tlön extend more than one level? In my mind, this Borges story epitomises all that is disturbing about short stories: the possibility that whatever is happening in the story can happen in the world of the reader. Novels cannot have the same impact, since they create an entire other world the reader can safely dismiss as a separate, imaginary, realm; the short story, on the other hand, is just a fragment, and is easily assimilated into the reader’s idea of this world. The Borges story accentuates this by bringing the entire structure under scrutiny, and making us question the validity of our map / territory distinctions.

The Borges story also has another advantage from its short-storiness, that of focus. A novel would get bogged down in details, in divergence of plot, and so on; a short story concentrates on one thing, the getting across the full effect of the fantastic event(s) the author writes. The stories of Poe, Le Fanu and other short story writers of course benefit from the same thing: they sustain the effect for only as long as is necessary, then finish. This gives the short story additional force. “The Fall of the House of Usher” illustrates this force: the reader is immediately submerged in the atmosphere Poe creates, and is held there briefly, but long enough, the plot runs on, and the reader is released. This intensity would probably be unsustainable for either reader or writer over novel length, but it only strengthens the grip of the short story on the credulity and attention of the reader. This focus is also used to great effect in Ambrose Bierce’s “Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge”, which moves the reader closer and closer to the thoughts of a man about to be hanged—closer than the reader at first realises. This focus works over a short period, and allows the story to get the full impact of the hallucinatory episode across. “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” is also an excellent example of the techniques used to engage the credulity of the reader. The tone is authoritative from the start—factual, curt, later also paternal: ‘Death is a dignitary who when he comes announced is to be received with formal manifestations of respect, even by those most familiar with him. In the code of military etiquette silence and fixity are forms of deference.’ (Bierce p59) When the narrative fixates on Farquhar’s fantasy as he falls, it is intensely detailed, and there is absolutely no hint given that it is fantasy. Peyton Farquhar is presented as a solid, practical man, not given to flights of fancy. Here Bierce takes advantage of the convention that the reader expects some heroism, expects some fantastic event, and leads the reader along this imaginary path. The snap back to reality represents the reverse of the standard effect of fantastic fiction: instead of pushing a belief (however temporary) in some unreal event, Bierce’s story forcefully tells the reader never to expect miracles, in life or in fiction.

Though in many ways the opposite of “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius”, Bierce’s story uses the same mechanisms. Borges also establishes the credibility of his narrator early: he is erudite, owns an encyclopaedia, is given to discussing ideas for novels with equally erudite friends late at night, and narrates in an even, educated tone. Of course, the fact that the information first comes from an encyclopaedia, a standard ‘repository of fact’ of the Western world, is part of the brilliance of the story. The reader suspects that if it is in an encyclopaedia, even just in a fragment, there must be some truth in it. The introduction of Ashe, whose death provides a crucial link, is perfectly real: “He and my father had entered into one of those close… English friendships that begin by excluding confidences and very soon dispense with dialogue.” (Borges p30) The piecing-together of the puzzle is also a common way of establishing the veracity of an account: the reader, impressed by the logical deduction of the narrator and by the way the pieces fit neatly together, is distracted from the improbability of the whole being constructed. The sheer detail (excerpts from the encyclopaedia on philosophy, language, geography, etc.), as well as the weary, fatalistic tone with which the narrator greets the usurpation of the old order, make it very convincing. Poe used the puzzle-solving and raw detail approach, essentially inventing the modern ‘deductive reasoning detective’ character, in “The Murders in the Rue Morgue”. This works convincingly; the short essay at the start also works well, since it is highly probable that the narrator, after spending any time with so prodigious an analyst as Dupin, would write some kind of treatise on analysis and deduction. The introduction serves the dual functions of that just mentioned and also that of preparing the reader for the somewhat astounding feats of reasoning that follow. The introduction could also serve to give an ‘ordinary’ approach to the story; the early part of the story is not particularly strange, and readers of Poe might have thought that they were reading the beginning of one of his essays. The method of beginning in an ordinary fashion is common in short stories dealing with fantastic themes. Ordinary means ordinary for that genre or author: in J. G. Ballard’s “Report on an Unidentified Space Station” the beginning is completely standard science fiction of the 50s ‘classic sci-fi’ style. The story departs quickly from this mode, but it has already claimed from the reader (who after all thinks he or she knows what to expect) a certain credulity, an expectation that the story will follow the genre. The story also uses a very authoritative voice, that of a log of survey reports. Charles Bukowski does essentially the same thing in “No Wing High”, starting off with a ‘typical Bukowski story’ opening featuring two guys in a bar. The approach to the supernatural element is very down-to-earth:

“Beating them on the field was the only way we could get even. We dreamed about it night and day. It meant everything… We were down 20 to 16 with 30 seconds left and they were on our 12 yard line… they wanted to rub it in. Not bad enough that they were screwing our women, they wanted to score again, on us.” (Bukowski p195)

All of these techniques, all of the things that heighten the short story’s ability to intrude into this reality, make the short story an ideal form for ‘supernatural’ stories. The aim of a ‘supernatural’ story is to grasp the attention and belief of the reader, and force them to accept what is written at face value, at least for a time; the writer must also achieve an effect or effects that takes advantage of this credulity and gets its message across. The aims of a non-supernatural short story are essentially the same. The novel is like a painting of a foreign landscape; the author paints a picture so that the reader can see what the author is imagining. The short story is a bridge from the writer’s consciousness to the reader’s consciousness, a bridge that’s only there for a moment and that must allow its effect to cross. The immediacy of the short story , and its fragmentary nature, as well as its highly-refined, highly-crafted nature, make it an invasive form, as I stated above. Short stories, like those of Poe, or Carver, leave a desolate ringing in the mind where they have passed, an echo that remains and that reflects the entire story, whatever it was; this makes the short story different from the novel, play, long poem, or film, only segments of which will remain carved in memory. The ultimate aim of the short story is to have such an impact; ‘supernatural’ stories are a cruder attempt at doing this, using their strangeness as an attempt to last in the mind of the reader. Early short stories, like those of Le Fanu and Poe, often attempted to dull the impact of such strangeness (thus heightening its credibility) with rational explanations of the goings-on. The modern short story as exemplified by Carver, aims at the same thing but does it more subtly, less forcefully, with subject matter as close to the everyday as possible, but the everyday so closely and carefully examined and laid out that it assumes a strangeness as well, while Borges seeks to break boundaries with paradox, using the short story to push the paradox, subtly enough, into the reader’s mind. I define the ‘supernatural’ as something outside of your world, outside of your experience, your reality, that is trying to ‘get in’, trying to affect you. The short story does that best.

(2895 words)

Bibliography

Bierce, Ambrose. The Complete Short Stories of Ambrose Bierce. New York: Ballantine, 1970.

Borges, Jorge Luis. Labyrinths. London: Penguin, 1981.

Bukowski, Charles. Septuagenarian Stew: Stories & Poems. Santa Rosa: Black Sparrow, 1990.

Carver, Raymond. “On Writing.” The New Short Story Theories. Ed. Charles E. May. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1994.

Carver, Raymond. Where I’m Calling From. London: HarperCollins 1993.

Jarrell, Randall. “Stories.” The New Short Story Theories. Ed. Charles E. May. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1994.

Le Fanu, Sheridan. Best Ghost Stories. London: Constable, 1964.

O’Connor, Frank. The Lonely Voice. London: MacMillan, 1963.

Poe, Edgar Allan. The Complete Poems and Stories of Edgar Allan Poe. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967.

Poe, Edgar Allan. “Poe on Short Fiction.” The New Short Story Theories. Ed. Charles E. May. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1994.

Pratt, Mary Louise. “The Short Story.”The New Short Story Theories. Ed. Charles E. May. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1994.

Semiotext(e) SF. Ed. R. Rucker, P. L. Wilson, R. A. Wilson. Edinburgh: AK Press, 1989.

Tallack, Douglas. The 19th Century American Short Story: Language, Form and Ideology. New York: Routledge, 1993.

Tags: article, books, criticism, essays, reviews, short-story, writing

Related Posts

• If on a winter's night a traveller: written by aliens, read by fictional constructs Sun 30 May 1999
• Credibility and authorial strategies in “The Tell-Tale Heart” and “The Yellow Wallpaper” Wed 10 Oct 2001
• The Scalpel We Need Mon 22 May 2006
• A Review of The Pale Blue Eye Tue 21 Aug 2007
• The Malazan Book of the Fallen Mon 22 Jan 2007
• A Review of Century Rain Mon 13 Nov 2006
• A Review of God's Playground (Volume 1) Wed 06 Sep 2006
• A Review of The Photograph Tue 05 Sep 2006
• A Review of The Glass Bead Game Tue 15 Aug 2006
• MTGO Needs Replays Thu 08 Aug 2002