Eye of the Beholder

[Megatron]

I read it, it wasn't bad. Some of the writing might be a wee bit hokey, but that's alright. When I say hokey I mean that the planet be called dustball, the town be called gunsmoke, the sentence about house training a puppy. But the plotting was pretty solid, the story had grey areas and it was a nice idea. With a little work it'd go along fine with some of the stories from I, Robot.

Some of the problems I have is you do a lot of telling and not a lot of showing. Like, saying the sheriff is a robot is enough to tell us that we are in the future but its a future in which harks back to the wild west due to the use of 'a sheriff'. Also I don't understand these lines at all

"Mornin', Sheriff," Richard Higgins said as that worthy pulled up to the open door of his workshop. It was more of a barn, really, but by dint of the fact Higgins' tools were in there the place was his workshop.

wha? Just say higgins was working on some shit in his barn.

not that im a writer man or anything so, whatever.

[Retlaw83]

Was trying to word it like a narrator from a western movie. Thanks for pointing out some parts don't work that well because of it; I'll streamline the language some.

[Tofu Man]

Anywho, how did that work out?

Check out chapter 1 of the book on Deviantart and you'll see. Your suggestions helped me rework the beginning to flow better.

Also wrote you into the acknowledgments in the manuscript's file, though if you don't want to be identified as Tofu Man I can change that. One of the people in the acknowledgments is listed as "The Scarecrow" so Tofu Man isn't too out of place.

Heeding my previous criticism, rather than following it to the letter, was its own reward, acknowledging me in the manuscript sounds a bit much. But it's my pleasure to be there.

I know it's impossible to make out from the way I asked but I meant if you'd gone forward with it. Showed it to someone, shopped it around, have a copy printed on blurb or something? How did THAT work out?


Anyways, Eye of the Beholder. First off, not sure if you know this (and it's pretty insignificant) but first thing I thought of was this. And then this. Well at least they're both good.

Two things in this I have a problem with.

One is why's the main character a robot? Imagine a man in power armor, and switch the opening scene for one that justifies him having to wear the armor when he otherwise wouldn't. Say the drunkard shot him in the exact same conditions he shot the robot, no chance of injury to the sheriff. Would the story have played out the same? I reckon your answer would be no, but you can't justify that answer based on what happens in EotB, since for all intents and purposes your robot IS a human with metal skin. All of his actions and thoughts throughout are those of humans safe for his lack of sleep and all of the humans around treat him (or it) as one of their own (and it's a shame, since you had (I reckon) the perfect opportunity to go a bit "How to Kill a Mockingbird" during the trial, even considering that this time the defendant is the white guy and the sheriff the "black"). When you justify the robot's behaviour as that of a sum of his 300 or so years of experience (and is that any different from how humans "function"??), then you're "copping out" on (and this is pretty subjective) exploring what might be the centrepiece of the whole story, of how a logical processor functions in relation to a human brain on matters that on paper seem pretty simple (the law that bids a criminal hang for shooting the autorithy for instance) but in reality (when you factor the things you do on your story, like how law =/= justice, or how the machine wasn't at risk or even how to factor inebriation since the machine doesn't know what being drunk feels like) are much more complex. Wouldn't that be a more worthwhile point to make, rather than having (for all intents and purposes) a grown man making a pretty justified choice?

Two is where's the ending? How can the main character's beliefs be challenged when you don't tell us what happened to the defendant? And if the character's beliefs don't change (or in the least, are challenged), then what has changed that makes this story worth telling, then? You want the reader to equate machines in positions of power to humans in the same position, and that's it? The man whose life is at stake here would beg to differ, yet you don't give him two seconds in the stand. You're shying away from confrontation, and it's often that that makes a story worth your while.

Three, and yeah I know I said two things but this isn't really a thing since I've only read 2 of your works and they both do the same thing. It's unfair to say you always do this, but you do know you don't have to start prose with a description unless you're writing a movie script, right? Try opening with something aimed at the balls sometime, a shot, a death, a birth, a break-up, hell, one of your insult posts or something.

There's also two sentences I find confusing:

The maintenance did not need performed on a nightly basis, and on nights when he found his mind particularly absorbed he forewent it.

Typo aside, you see how you're likening the robot to a human with "mind absorbed"?

Like the night he was lying in a guest room in Saddle's justice building.

But didn't you just say he didn't use the bedrooms since he didn't sleep? Ok, given that he might have used one once, you get the reader thinking you're gonna tell him about "that night" and then never do. Why mention it then?

Oh and a typo:

(...)would if be justice(...)

Like last time, take this criticism for what it is, trying to get you to think about what you've written and to ask yourself questions that might impact what you write about and how you write about it, to get you to think more and about different things and angles when you review your own work (no I don't recommend thinking more when writing, but that's just me) and not some attempt to shoot down an honest effort just for the sake of it.

Oh and as a post scriptum of sorts, and so you know where I'm coming from when comparing your robot to a human, try playing this game. If you do, and you pay attention, since it's more akin to a book than a game, (yeah you'll be doing a lot of reading and not enough playing) you'll find it's more than worthwhile, inspirational even.
And yeah I'd also reccomend Ghost in the Shell and Blade Runner but you've probably seen those already. Try asking them the same question I asked you so you know what I'm on about.

[Retlaw83]

Thanks for the extensive feedback. Most of the questions you pose aren't easy ones, and I'm going to need time to internalize the ideas before I can address them.

They say good art doesn't need to be explained, but what I'm about to talk about is how I interpret my own story. I try to write in a way where anyone can interpret what they're reading in their own way and still be right. One of the biggest rewards of writing is seeing the reactions of people, and I learn a lot about myself in the process.

With the sheriff acting extremely human, I wanted to raise the question of what a person is - how much of that is determined by biology, and how much is determined by the mind? And adding into that, when you have various entities that are considered people but have fundamental differences in how they're made, should the law discriminate? If you shoot a robot in a place that would kill a human but not the robot, or an alien in a non-fatal location that would murder a human what should be taken into account, the act itself or the intent of the act? I don't get into intent as much as I should in the story, but giving the shooter time on the stand like you suggest would allow me to do that. It didn't occur to me until now, but this could also explore the ethics behind modern hate crime laws.

The other thing, wrapped up in whether law should discriminate in matters of who does what to who (and thus making justice no longer blind) is where do you draw the line between law and justice. At what point does the law become unjust? Is that quantifiable, or subjective? That's a question I intend to leave hanging.

You say the sheriff's choice was justifiable. I know other people who would find it deplorable, and yet others who would back him 100%; I wanted it to be ambiguous as to whether he made the correct choice, with "correct" itself being completely subjective. Perhaps I wasn't as successful in the execution as I wanted to be and need to work on it more.

[Tofu Man]

They say good art doesn't need to be explained (...)

Dude, that sentence took me back some. A particular part on the History of Art classes I took when the subject wasn't history itself and rather the meaning of art, turning the history class into a philosophy class. I hated it.

Suffice to say that I fancy the whole "what is art?" debate (and its many branches) completely pointless, since half of the time you're just arguing the definition of the word itself (so why not grab a dictionary instead?) and the other half you're jousting pointless arguments that never really go anywhere.

From then on you'd go into "what's good/bad art", "what's a masterpiece", blah blah blah, alas, the spaniards call this "discussing the sex of the angels". As far as I'm concerned, how you end up being graded is out of your hands almost entirely. Almost, because you have the choice on how honest you are with your work. People's reaction towards what comes from within (the soul, if you will) are all the more powerful, and those people that connect are the ones who'll be singing your praises in the aftermath.
What, last sentence seem a little absurd? I know it does to me. But you only have to think back to that speech that got you fired up, that line in the movie that made your eyes water, that song chorus that makes the hair on the back of your neck stand on end. That's what I'm on about, and I reckon, as a "creator" (notice how I avoid the word artist), that's what one should be chasing.

There's a audience for everything as well, so ultimate considerations of worth are pretty meaningless when you have access to a technology that shortens distances like the net does. 90 percent of the world hates your work? Who cares, that still leaves 600 million people that might love it, most of which you have the potential to reach. And that'd be a big fucking success.

To my mind, and safe to say you won't find this in any book, anyone endeavoring in any sort of artistic project should just ignore definitions and just fucking do it, no overthinking, no pretensions, no overanalizing, no discussing with others. Especially in writing (the branch in which I've the most experience and fair to say that my actual experience is quite lacking) I find you create the actual gems (either on purpose or by chance) when you get an idea and then just vomit it out, screw punctuation, spelling and whatnot. Hammer it out if you have to, just get it done. After a good night's rest or a week or whatever, you come back to it and besides the main idea you had you'll recognize the tiny sparkles amongst some (sometimes a lot of) bile and now you'll have the necessary distance to start chiseling away, shedding unnecessary weight and shining the spots on what's of real worth.

Then, I figure you have the right idea. Get some new input, a fresh pair of eyes that'll hopefully give you angles you hadn't considered. From then on, it's a matter justifying your choices, not only to yourself but the audience as well.


Shit, I have to stop posting here from work. Having to stop writing a sentence to do something else then coming back to it makes for some long-winded shit indeed. As if I didn't already have a tendency to rant.

I try to write in a way where anyone can interpret what they're reading in their own way and still be right.

If I'm not misinterpreting that statement, then I guess it could be explained with a pretty bad game analogy. You're trying to give people Fallout instead of a linear corridor shooter, right? Commendable, but don't you feel you're over-reaching? And no, I'm not suggesting you are but shouldn't you hit the heart before aiming at the head?

One of the biggest rewards of writing is seeing the reactions of people, and I learn a lot about myself in the process.

Nothing like it. One could almost say it's better than sex. Almost.



Sorry to break down this next part into sections for the sake of convenience but I shudder to think how I could possibly say everything I want to without making it look extremely convoluted. As if it isn't going to anyway.

With the sheriff acting extremely human, I wanted to raise the question of what a person is - how much of that is determined by biology, and how much is determined by the mind? And adding into that, when you have various entities that are considered people but have fundamental differences in how they're made, should the law discriminate?

So the robot has a mind, then? I thought it'd be a cpu. I jest, but if you want critical questions to be asked regarding whether or not a robot has any place being treated like a human just because he serves a purpose in society you have to have a robot behave like a robot and get to where he is by virtue of the logical decisions he makes as a robot, decisions that might not have been made were he a human (and that's where you strike the difference between a human and a robot - brain =/= cpu) and then get actual human input from both sides, for instance, deputies that empathize with the robot for his unfunny pre-programmed retorts and his ability to play old music inspite of his dead eyes and crushing handshake, while some civilians feel threathened by his superior physique/strength/shooting skills/whatever and dislike his thorough enforcing of the law even though he's part of the reason they're able to sleep sound at night.

If he behaves like a man, if he's treated by others like a man, if as far as the narrator cares (besides the plugging in to recharge) he is a man, then why should the reader relate to him as if he was anything else?

If you shoot a robot in a place that would kill a human but not the robot, or an alien in a non-fatal location that would murder a human what should be taken into account, the act itself or the intent of the act?

I see you came up with another alternative (the alien) yet disregarded the one I suggested, that of the man in impenetrable armor. I suggested that for a reason, which is to show you that what you're really discussing isn't whether or not robots should have the same rights as humans, it's whether shooting someone (given the time and space, a futuristic wild-west with basically the same laws as the old one) with the intent to kill should be treated as an offense punishable by death or not. Isn't it?

I'll suggest another scenario. This time imagine the wild west proper. Same laws as in EotB. Sheriff goes to drunkard. Drunkard shoots, misses sheriff and injures himself. Sheriff fails to draw a shoot in self-defence, rather apprehends the suspect and puts him on trial. Wouldn't that story have ended up the exact same way?

The other thing, wrapped up in whether law should discriminate in matters of who does what to who (and thus making justice no longer blind) is where do you draw the line between law and justice. At what point does the law become unjust? Is that quantifiable, or subjective? That's a question I intend to leave hanging.

"Guy shoots at me, I let him live, yet law says he should die. Why didn't I shoot back? What do I gain from his death? What do others gain from his death? Is it fair on him? Is it fair on his family? Does fairness have any place in a court of law?"
That you successfully do, and kudos for that.

You say the sheriff's choice was justifiable. I know other people who would find it deplorable, and yet others who would back him 100%; I wanted it to be ambiguous as to whether he made the correct choice, with "correct" itself being completely subjective. Perhaps I wasn't as successful in the execution as I wanted to be and need to work on it more.

Ah, but that's just it, my friend. "I" don't. YOU DO. Or at least the characters in your book seem to, the narrator doesn't provide an alternative, and the defendant doesn't get a chance to plead his case. In writing it the way you did, you, through the actions and inactions of characters and narrator, single out this as the only option and don't give the other option much mind, save a fleeting oversight of the robots "thoughts". When both options aren't dispassionately taken into account by not necessarily the narrator, but at least the author, you lose all hope of ambiguity. According to the rules you (the author) set, he made the right choice. Heck, he made the only logical choice.

In fact I'd defend much the contrary, why should a bucket of bolts have -any- say in what future befits a criminal, when all his logic can be faulted on the lack of knowledge or ability of his programmers or worse, corrupted by viral activity? Thing is, your robot isn't a bucket of bolts.
He's just a man called Robot.