Fanlib Retrospective, Part Four

[farla]

I hadn't forgotten my original idea of the contest being a NaNo-like encouragement to write more, nor my still earlier idea of the site being a place to post fic that stretched the concept of "fan" to the breaking point. So when a new contest popped up, after my first impulse to ignore the thing, I reread the entry guidelines.

For 17 year-old Janie Hannagan, getting sucked into other people's dreams is getting old — especially the falling dreams, the naked-but-nobody-notices dreams, and the sex-crazed dreams. She can't tell anybody about her predicament; they'd never believe her or, worse, they'd think she's a freak. So Janie lives on the fringe, cursed with an ability she doesn't want and can't control. Eventually, she learns to control what happens in others' dreams.

Inspired by the just-released book Wake, write a story describing what happens when you find yourself jumping into someone else's dreams or nightmares and how you help change the outcome.

Shorter: Wake has a character help people through dreams. Write about a character who goes into dreams too.

Can I subvert this? I asked myself. Yes. Yes, I can.

I promptly wrote up The Wall Was Still Only Half Covered, then, after perusing the entries and coming across a truly jawdropping example where some spoiled American teen channels the vapid dumbness of her insulated lifestyle to teach the African victim of tragedy that life is great, added Fixing.

And, fresh on the heels of the new stupid unearthed by the Rebels sequence, I wrote up yet another autobiographical thing:

In the Interests of Elevated Debate

"Hi!" Farla called. She was once again sitting in her standard fuzzy blue chair, once again with two other characters standing before her. "For various reasons I've decided to write a bit about different arguments."

"Right after the whole argument about doing this?" asked the one on the left. "Oh, you so totally are attacking people now."

"I'm taking Philosophy!" Farla said defensively. She continued, "So consider this a rant that's been brewing for a while and really, mostly my teacher's fault for sucking so much. Anyway, it's just a discussion on various types of argument. That's a good two steps removed from actual people, so really, it should be fine."

"Oh, so just because it's not obvious it's okay?"

"You aren't voicing a sincerely portrayed criticism of me," Farla said sweetly. "That's not good writing. So we'll have to move on."

"Dammit."

"Finally it works in my favor!" Farla gloated. "Anyway, where was I? Right, arguments."

She pointed at the two characters. "These two characters are here to demonstrate the difference between a strawman argument and the similar but not technically related reducto ad absurdum. They're often confused, which is a shame, because I happen to really like reducto ad absurdum. Metaphorically, the two are examples of convergent evolution. I realize that probably clears things up for a sum total of zero of my readers, but I assure you it totally would if you cared about biology."

"Oh, so I'm a scarecrow, am I? How painfully original."

"Why the hell am I a clown?"

"I haven't even described you yet!"

"You were about to, so it doesn't matter."

"This is true," Farla admitted. She made shooing motions. "Line up, we've wasted enough time. Okay, so let's continue on the biology related. Let's say my argument is:

"We should value life and consider the value of all life is equal. A person's life isn't worth more than that of an ape or cat or mouse."

The scarecrow immediately said, "Oh, so you think animals are worth more than people? Maybe you should go marry that tree you're hugging, human-hater!"

"See how the scarecrow has ignored what I said about them being equal and instead restated the argument as saying they have higher value? That would be a strawman argument, where he's choosing to argue against a false version of my argument rather than addressing what I actually said. Also, that last bit is kind of slipping into ad hominem territory."

"Yeah, and the term strawman doesn't technically refer to a traditional scarecrow!" the scarecrow complained.

"And he's rather rude," Farla added. She gestured to the clown. "Okay, your turn now."

The clown scowled. "Even a scarecrow is more dignified than this. I thought you said you liked this argument!"

"Okay, be a jester. That's probably more fitting, anyway. Better?"

"Better." The jester took a breath, bells jingling a bit, and began. "So, if you think all life is of equal value, then shouldn't you kill off predators and large animals? You can feed a hundred mice on the same grain a horse eats, and if they're all equal, a hundred is more than one. How is that valuing life?"

"Obviously," Farla said, "people who raise the initial argument don't mean we should wipe out everything larger than a mouse, and if you say this they'll almost certainly say that's not what they meant at all. But it's a logical conclusion based on their premises, thus, reducto ad absurdum - reduction to absurdity. This is a good way of saying that you think the premises as they stand lead to bad conclusions, or ones that are contradictory. It's also just a lot more fun trying to think up situations like this, kind of like a rhetorical version of trying to make gamebreakers in a videogame, only with real life! I highly recommend using it."

"It may cause murderous rage in the people you're arguing with," interjected the scarecrow.

"Quiet, you."