The Time Traveler

[AngeloMichael]

Short Story by Dan Simmons of "Hyperion" fame.

This is an extremely provocative piece and also, I must warn, possibly offensive. I'm not saying I believe the message this story puts forward, because I don't, but a popular saying around here is those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it. or something to that effect, what about imagining future consequences? I'm not talking about consequences we can't possibly imagine, but those we can but choose not to because they jar with our current beliefs, or are just too depressing to imagine? Do we ignore warning signs because we are too stubborn to accept all that goes along with that warning?

I don't know what Dan Simmons' personal politics are, he could be writing a "what if?" piece and nothing more, he could be creating a scenario to challenge his own beliefs, or he could actually believe this is where we are headed. What I do know is that this is a thought provoking story by a fine author and worth a read and maybe a discussion.

Again, I don't believe in what this story put forth unless what it was trying to put forth was only food for thought, in that case...mission accomplished.

 

[TheEarl]

Interesting piece, but I do find myself saying, "And what of it?" There's no bite to it, no change, no hook. It's a recitation of a future history and it could be told between any two characters or even without any characters without the story changing.

Our only interest in a story like that, as far as I'm concerned, is in the action and reaction of our narrator and what he does after hearing the news. The actual tale that is told is, frankly, a little dull.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

In addendum, I have to say that I disagree with the central premise. Any outright war at the current time will lead to the West rapidly rediscovering its ruthless edge. The only means of subduing a great power is with atomics and the great powers hold the atomics at the current time. If any nation gains atomic power and dares to attack a great power, then it will be utterly destroyed by the others for fear that they will be next.

The Earl

 

[AngeloMichael]

Interesting piece, but I do find myself saying, "And what of it?" There's no bite to it, no change, no hook. It's a recitation of a future history and it could be told between any two characters or even without any characters without the story changing.

Our only interest in a story like that, as far as I'm concerned, is in the action and reaction of our narrator and what he does after hearing the news. The actual tale that is told is, frankly, a little dull.

In addendum, I have to say that I disagree with the central premise. Any outright war at the current time will lead to the West rapidly rediscovering its ruthless edge. The only means of subduing a great power is with atomics and the great powers hold the atomics at the current time. If any nation gains atomic power and dares to attack a great power, then it will be utterly destroyed by the others for fear that they will be next.

The Earl

I quite agree with you for the most part, all except for the story being dull. I found it riveting, but I've always been a sucker for time travel stories and "What if?" stories. I thought it was very well written.

 

[TheEarl]

I quite agree with you for the most part, all except for the story being dull. I found it riveting, but I've always been a sucker for time travel stories and "What if?" stories. I thought it was very well written.

Oh, I love What If stories and counterfactual history too. Fatherland, SS-GB, and every Jasper Fforde book sit on my bookshelf.

However, I wasn't impressed with that one, because I counldn't find the story. There was no real description of the future events and nothing much happened to the narrator except him being convinced of a war in the future. There was no action, no movement, no change. Nothing happened, nobody came, nobody went; it was awful (who wants to miss an opportunity to paraphrase Samuel Beckett?).

The Earl

 

[3113]

I quite agree with you for the most part, all except for the story being dull. I found it riveting, but I've always been a sucker for time travel stories and "What if?" stories. I thought it was very well written.

I didn't fine it riviting at all. I found it dull, too. Primarily because I've read dozens like it. I remember one from...my gosh, it was back right after the hostage situation in Iran!--and there was a short story predicting a dystopia where America is run by radical Islam and everyone who steals gets their hands cut off.

Everytime we have a run-in with the Middle-East, one of these dystopias pops up.

Whoop-tee-fuckin'-do. The only thing that makes this "riviting" is that it's written by someone who can write, not because it was in anyway original. And I agree with the Earl. There was nothing to the characters. It was all "Mystery, scary mystery, frightening mystery" from the time traveler, and "You're crazy! Crazy! You must be Crazy! Please be crazy!" from the protagonist.

 

[R. Richard]

You have all missed the final three words that the time traveller said. Those three words make the story. If you don't see the three words, you don't see the story.

JMNTHO.

 

[TheEarl]

You have all missed the final three words that the time traveller said. Those three words make the story. If you don't see the three words, you don't see the story.

JMNTHO.

What were they?

The Earl

 

[3113]

You have all missed the final three words that the time traveller said. Those three words make the story. If you don't see the three words, you don't see the story.

Here's the last few paragraphs. Why don't you explain what it is we're all missing Richard. Because I sure as fuck can't see anything that changes my opinion of the story:

“ Enjoy these last days and months and years of your slumber, Grandfather,” said the scarred old man. “Your wake-up call is coming soon.”

The Time Traveler said three last words and was gone.

I put the pistol away – realizing too late that it had never been loaded – and sat down to write this. I could not. I waited these three months to try again.

Oh, Lord, I wish that some person on business from Porlock would wake me from this dream.

It was not the horrors of his revelations about my grandchildren that had shaken me the most deeply, shaken me to the core of my core, but rather the the Time Traveler’s last three words. Three words that any Replayer or time traveler visiting here from a century or more from now would react to first and most emotionally – three words I will not share here in this piece nor ever plan to share, at least until everyone on Earth knows them – three words that will keep me awake nights for months and years to come.

Three words.

 

[R. Richard]

Since Dan Simmons wanted to keep it a secret, I am trying to contact him before letting the cat out of the bag.

However, did you consider this. The Time Traveler is described as heavily scarred and with an eye patch. The way he is described would make it fairly difficult for him to be recognized, even if he were, say, a famous person. Under the stress of a surprise visitor, the protagonist might not recognize even a very familiar face.

If I am correct, the Time Traveler's face should be easily recognizable by the protagonist. Who might the Time Traveler be?

 

[3113]

If I am correct, the Time Traveler's face should be easily recognizable by the protagonist. Who might the Time Traveler be?

*Sigh* Is this going anywhere? Or are we going to fuck around for a few more posts? If the revelation isn't as profound at that I got on reading Siddhartha at age 13, then it's hardly worth all this jerking around.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

How did y'all read this? It was like pulling teeth for me.

 

[TheEarl]

Since Dan Simmons wanted to keep it a secret, I am trying to contact him before letting the cat out of the bag.

However, did you consider this. The Time Traveler is described as heavily scarred and with an eye patch. The way he is described would make it fairly difficult for him to be recognized, even if he were, say, a famous person. Under the stress of a surprise visitor, the protagonist might not recognize even a very familiar face.

If I am correct, the Time Traveler's face should be easily recognizable by the protagonist. Who might the Time Traveler be?

Wasn't the Time Traveller the surviving grandson of the author?

Hidden features I like. But if you cannot understand the story without spotting a hidden detail that only 1 in 10 can see, then that's a bad story.

The Earl

 

[Guest]

 

[R. Richard]

Since Dan Simmons wanted to keep it a secret, I am trying to contact him before letting the cat out of the bag.

However, did you consider this. The Time Traveler is described as heavily scarred and with an eye patch. The way he is described would make it fairly difficult for him to be recognized, even if he were, say, a famous person. Under the stress of a surprise visitor, the protagonist might not recognize even a very familiar face.

If I am correct, the Time Traveler's face should be easily recognizable by the protagonist. Who might the Time Traveler be?

OK, I still have not heard from Dan Simmons.

Consider, the Time Traveler apparently can't change previous time. No one can realistically make major changes in physical configurations of the world. However, the bit about the Athenians indicates that mental changes are possible, mental changes that can affect the process of history. Obviously, the Time Traveler is trying to effect such mental change(s).

 

[TheEarl]

OK, I still have not heard from Dan Simmons.

Consider, the Time Traveler apparently can't change previous time. No one can realistically make major changes in physical configurations of the world. However, the bit about the Athenians indicates that mental changes are possible, mental changes that can affect the process of history. Obviously, the Time Traveler is trying to effect such mental change(s).

If you tell me that the three words were "Think about it," then I may just scream. To be honest, the tale has not grabbed me sufficiently for me to want to work it out for myself. I'm just here from sheer dull curiousity.

The Earl

 

[Kev H]

It reads like a racist's wet dream. "See? We were right all along! You're doomed! And your little dog, too!"

How distressing that some normally open-minded people are so ready to judge harshly, or poo-poo the idea. Has anyone here actually read the Koran? Or the religious rulings (I forget their Islamic name)? Please, do not form assumptions until you have.

I have found it a fascinating aspect of human behavior that one escapes from bigotry by being overly judgemental - what an amusing paradox.

Don't hate me because I point out an interesting observation; rather, meditate on it and on the nature of your instant revultion. Simmons unarguably tackles a sensitive and loaded issue in an entertaining (arguable, obviously) format.

I respect Dan as an author, and as a person with a valuable (read:educated, well-thought-out) opinion. If he does not agree with my opinion, I do not automatically leap to the conclusion that he must be a bigot or doing anything other than writing from his personal conviction.

I happen to agree with the poster who pointed out that we have most of the destructive power in our hands, and I cannot possibly see this scenario happening (Islam banding together against the infidels and winning, or coming close to it), but will that stop them from trying? I could not possibly know that, so I will not form anything more than a "what-if" in my head.

If they do fight back as a whole, I will not be entirely surprised. Islam does not mean peace-by-coexistence, Islam means peace from lack of opposition. Painting a flowery, liberal meaning on the word Islam is to miss the fact that not everyone on this planet thinks like you - not bigotry, undeniable fact (undeniable for those with their heads above the sand, that is).

Sorry if I offend, but your "gut" reactions sicken and sadden me. Why not keep an open mind and not be so afraid of the potential answers? Pretending the reality is craftable by your desire/set of beliefs is setting yourself up for the fall.

I wish each and everyone of you the peace that comes from understanding, not from misunderstanding.

 

[TheEarl]

How distressing that some normally open-minded people are so ready to judge harshly, or poo-poo the idea. Has anyone here actually read the Koran? Or the religious rulings (I forget their Islamic name)? Please, do not form assumptions until you have.

I have found it a fascinating aspect of human behavior that one escapes from bigotry by being overly judgemental - what an amusing paradox.

Don't hate me because I point out an interesting observation; rather, meditate on it and on the nature of your instant revultion. Simmons unarguably tackles a sensitive and loaded issue in an entertaining (arguable, obviously) format.

I respect Dan as an author, and as a person with a valuable (read:educated, well-thought-out) opinion. If he does not agree with my opinion, I do not automatically leap to the conclusion that he must be a bigot or doing anything other than writing from his personal conviction.

I happen to agree with the poster who pointed out that we have most of the destructive power in our hands, and I cannot possibly see this scenario happening (Islam banding together against the infidels and winning, or coming close to it), but will that stop them from trying? I could not possibly know that, so I will not form anything more than a "what-if" in my head.

If they do fight back as a whole, I will not be entirely surprised. Islam does not mean peace-by-coexistence, Islam means peace from lack of opposition. Painting a flowery, liberal meaning on the word Islam is to miss the fact that not everyone on this planet thinks like you - not bigotry, undeniable fact (undeniable for those with their heads above the sand, that is).

Sorry if I offend, but your "gut" reactions sicken and sadden me. Why not keep an open mind and not be so afraid of the potential answers? Pretending the reality is craftable by your desire/set of beliefs is setting yourself up for the fall.

I wish each and everyone of you the peace that comes from understanding, not from misunderstanding.

I'm not particularly opposed to the subject matter, although I do personally disagree with it. I'm opposed to the skill of the presentation. That wasn't a story so much as an oration.

If the author was looking to provoke debate, then he failed to my mind.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

In addendum: I find it interesting that you use the word 'liberal' in an insulting context when imploring us to be open-minded and think about things. That's what the term means outside of American politics.

The Earl

 

[Kev H]

I'm not particularly opposed to the subject matter, although I do personally disagree with it. I'm opposed to the skill of the presentation. That wasn't a story so much as an oration.

If the author was looking to provoke debate, then he failed to my mind.

The Earl

I must admit you truly have me baffled, bud. I'd love to hear your explanation of these comments, as I see exactly the opposite (as identified by my very need to ask this vs. being my normal quiet self). What is it that truly has you against Simmons and his presentation (no lying here, be brutally honest with us and yourself)? I mean this in all sincerety because understanding where you are coming from is to understand something very alien to my thought process (and always a chance to reflect upon both).

To shed some light upon my interest: to me, the world has once again reached a boiling point between incompatible ideals. Those of freedom and those of control. Make no mistake: Islam is not a religion of freedom, and no matter how much you personally desire freedom, it always takes both sides - one to want freedom and one to allow freedom - they, at the fundamental heart of Islam, do not want to allow you your freedoms.

And to me, protecting a religion of bigotry and opression is to support their tenants.

 

[Kev H]

In addendum: I find it interesting that you use the word 'liberal' in an insulting context when imploring us to be open-minded and think about things. That's what the term means outside of American politics.

The Earl

I sincerely apologize for my lack of education of that word outside my context (American); here, I see and talk to liberals who actually think less clearly (or just less) than the average person. This, of course, is my own environmental upbringing, and it is tough oftentimes to look past that.

Bah! Here I am hating labels, and you have me using them. Shame on me. Just scratch that term from my response, please.

 

[3113]

Make no mistake: Islam is not a religion of freedom, and no matter how much you personally desire freedom, it always takes both sides - one to want freedom and one to allow freedom - they, at the fundamental heart of Islam, do not want to allow you your freedoms.

Nor do the Evangelical Christians. Christians have long history of forcing folk to convert and taking away freedoms--and it's an Evangelical Christian that we have in the White House. So what's your point?

Being brutally honest about how I view this story and Simmons' presentation: I've read it too many times. Iran hostage--sci-fi mag prints story about an Islamic Distopia. Women veiled, other religions oppressed, yadda, yadda, yadda. Gulf War--Oh, look! Another sci-fi dystopia story! Radical Islamics have taken away all our rights and freedoms! How shocking. Iraq....Why, whadda ya know? Dan Simmons has written a "provocative" story about an Islamic dystopia!

Now I'm going to give Simmons the benefit of the doubt and assume he was going for a larger point than just to present an Islamic Dystopia--like, perhaps, trying to point out that the only way to escape such dystopias is to irradicate religion (like aviation), because, one way or another, religion (any religion, not just Islam) will lead us to such dystopias.

That doesn't change the fact that I found this story less than thought provoking. To me it's dull as dishwater. And tired. I can't tell you how tired. Believe it or not, I IMAGINE all this shit on my own. I can think up this dystopia in the blink of an eye on an off day. I can see it from a glance at the newspaper. Come to that, I can think up a dozen different dystopias. Shall I give you the one where America is taken over by Evangelicals? Oh, wait, that's already happened. Pollution? Ice Age? Over-population? Maybe that's the message of the story? Dystopia is inevitable? Reading a story like this, all I end up saying is "DUH!" Been there. Thought of that.

As for the debatable "Be ruthless or we're lost" message--if that's the message--I thought of that during the Iran hostage situation. I said it during the first Gulf War. And I said it with Iraq. I look back on Israel and the Six-day war and say it. Do it and be ruthless...or don't do it. I suppose, if I'm going to give this story any credit than I will for capturing this truism: No one ever listens to Cassandra.

But does this story provoke discussion? On how it's written and what it's message is, perhaps. On what's going on in the middle east...no. Not with me. For me, it's long past time to discuss it. Which, again, may be the message of the story.

But you wouldn't want to discuss it with me anyway. I'm a liberal and we don't think clearly.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm not particularly opposed to the subject matter, although I do personally disagree with it. I'm opposed to the skill of the presentation. That wasn't a story so much as an oration.

If the author was looking to provoke debate, then he failed to my mind.

The Earl

That was my problem. It was so obtuse I couldn't make myself read it. Not even with the motivation of posting on it and joining the discussion.

 

[Kev H]

But you wouldn't want to discuss it with me anyway. I'm a liberal and we don't think clearly.

If you are happy with your label, I suppose I should be happy for you, but your parting jab does your intelligence no favors. It shows you completely missed or ignored the spirit of my apology/explanation in favor of a petty barb (not like you from my experience). I'd hope you and others could discuss this without "being that way."

As for your "been there, done that" - haven't we all? Part of the reason the fictional scenario resonated with me was because I could and have pictured the scenario, or some variety of it. I've sat down over tea in the wonderous freedom we enjoy to discuss interesting points with my friends and even my parents. Why that should make me contemptuous of Simmons is still eluding me...do I need to proscribe an arrogant aire about myself to feel this? Do I need to ignore the fact that not everyone has "been there, done that" and that this provides a decent opener for some to ponder it?

It is as bad to ignore anything good in favor of strict criticism as it is to be a "fanboi" (as the younguns say) - why not take a more balanced approach or not add your solely-negative comments to this? Felt like sharing your contempt? How about instead sharing where your many previous thoughts led you? I'd be very interested to hear that, as would many others.

Nor do the Evangelical Christians. Christians have long history of forcing folk to convert and taking away freedoms--and it's an Evangelical Christian that we have in the White House. So what's your point?

This point has also been beaten to death, as you may have noticed, and is silly as a default argument to any other discussion of <insert religion here>. Of course the Islamics do not have a monopoly on the religious nutbags, but the comparisons are strained and argumentative. And along with your clearly-shown contempt, not very condusive to discussion. (As is your right, but why go there?)

 

[Kev H]

So, how many people actually Googled the term "dhimmi"? Did anyone else find the link about the beauty contestant stepping down poignant? Along with the Wiki definition/history, it highlights how very isolated we are from this type of madness. And Simmons' point (one of, at least) is by the time we are fully exposed to this, it may be too late. If nothing else, it is disturbingly fascinating to try and get a grasp on the societal/religious mentality that spawns these concepts. To me, that is similar to reading about a psychotic patient to see what makes him tick.