[FFML] [ORIG] Honeypot

[Adrian Tymes]

--- On Wed, 8/5/09, Henry Cobb <henry.cobb at gmail.com> wrote:
> My original take on a very common theme in Anime.

And a well-done attempt it is.

> Oh, she had seen the movie before, or at least she had
> now.  I'm such a
> loser.

At first it read as if he'd given away the details - but
after the reveal, you're implying that she accessed the
movie and watched it so as to be familiar with something
the narrator has expressed interest in, yes?

> Mr. Linkman's lecture was on the lifecycle of honeybees and
> the way he
> droned on matched the subject.

One almost wonders if he might be a prototype honey.  Except
for the being a guy and all, unless that's not an issue.

> "Just like the honeys!"
> 
> "Mr. Phillips!  We do not use that sort of language in
> this classroom."
> 
> "Ah, the honeys don't mind," Chuck Phillips swept his hand
> past the
> students.  He was right of course, none of the honeys
> had even raised an
> eyebrow at his comment.

Given the casual way "honeys" is used, and the need for some
kind of specifier for said people, one wonders if only the
teacher here thinks it is objectionable.  If there is a
"more polite" designator, you might want to have it mentioned.

> The next class was Math and Mr. Jones didn't call on any of
> the honeys of
> course.  What was the point?

This gets to one of the problems with the concept: what's the
point of the honeys?  You have girls who die, fine.  Why
replace them with robots who take the deceased's name and
image, especially if so many of their families will
essentially despise them?  "Crazy social policy imposed by a
government (probably just one official) that's trying to
'help with the grief' while getting socialized robots
introduced to society, and doesn't pay attention to the
actual results" is the only justification that comes to mind,
and even that seems flimsy.

It might work better if the afflicted children technically
survived, but were altered (say, so much of their insides had
to be replaced with machinery and/or essentially became
robot-like that one winds up with the same result - except,
no grave, and there is a technical continuity of existence so
there are birthdays et al).

> Some
> of them talked with the boys who chose to sit with them,
> but none of the
> honeys talked with each other.  Well that wasn't true,
> they were always
> talking with each other, but not in a way we could hear.

There's no meaner gossip than that which flows over an
uninterceptable, completely secure channel.

> "Then don't use anybody who's commented on this poem. 
> Look for other
> matches to the concepts as used in other works and combine
> them together
> for this poem."
> 
> "Wouldn't that just be a composition of the work of
> others?"
> 
> "It's what we do, but we forget were we learned the bits we
> use.  Just try
> it, okay?"

This is what suggested the "socialization of robots" angle:
the honeys are not there to learn from the adults, so much
as to learn from the children.  (One almost wonders if the
teachers might be learning from the honeys in turn,
completing the cycle - except, the honeys are supposed to
graduate with the children, right?)

> She had retreated back in her shell.  All the honeys
> were so damn afraid of
> sticking their necks out and actually admitting to feeling
> anything.  But
> Linda was special and I knew I could gently guide her out
> to being herself
> again, but it would take a while.

And this is what suggested the "altered children" angle:
possibly, the honeys might be theoretically able to recover,
psychologically if not physically.

> After lunch we had P.E.  The girls went off to do yoga
> in the shade, with
> Ada tagging along with Nadia.  The rest of us split
> into two Soccer teams.
> The other side chose first, so they had six boys to our
> five, but that gave
> us 4 honeys to their three.  I picked Linda as our
> first honey.

This definitely seems unusual.  If the honeys are
supposed to identify as girls, why mix them with boys in
the few times where they are officially split by gender?
"Not as 'fragile'" or "no need for girl-specific things"
don't seem to hold up against "get them to socialize as
the girls they're replacing".

> On the first play Linda got the ball and moved forwards,
> but Chuck ran up
> and deliberately kicked at her.  She jumped forwards
> to avoid him while
> kicking the ball back to me.  Because Chuck and Larry
> were both in front of
> me it was a fair pass.  I took the kick, but Greg
> blocked it.

Do you mean, "Because Chuck and Linda"?  Larry isn't
otherwise mentioned in this paragraph - in fact, this is
the first mention of Larry in the entire story - so
there's no apparent reason why Larry's position matters.

> Chuck ran at them and Erna was forced to
> evade him first so
> Linda passed to me before getting out of his way.

Might want to add a comma or two to this sentence.

> He ran into the goal, forcing Grace to jump out of his
> way.
> 
> Coach Winters called a foul for the reckless charging,
> canceling the goal.

Seems like an odd thing to have a foul for - unless the
charge shoved the goal net out of its proper position or
something, in which case you might want to mention that.
Field sports in general feature reckless charging all
the time.

> At the end of the period the score was tied zero to
> zero.  The boys where
> winded and sweating, but not as bad as the honeys, who were
> panting.

This definitely seems off.  In general, fictional robots have
more stamina than human beings - although there is certainly
plenty of real world justification for the reverse: endurance
is one of the main problems with real world machines designed
to approximate human performance.  (The machines have a higher
peak output, but also tend to have a higher minimum non-idle
output - and to exert more power uses more power.  The amount
of time that substantial power levels, such as might be used
in a soccer game, can be sustained is much less for machines
that are staying roughly within human mass and volume limits.)
Panting, in this case, could be gulping down air for their
internal generators to refill their batteries.

If you do depart from standard fictional conventions like
this, though, it's usually best to say so.  A brief
exposition on the reasons behind it (to confirm that, yes,
reality is like this in this universe, and there are reasons
for it) is usually all it takes.

> First it
> would cause her social programming to freak out and second
> she'd be worried
> about the tiny chance she'd have a hydraulic leak she
> wasn't aware of yet.

Might want to have a comma before "and", and possibly after
"First" and "second".

> Prior to her last moult she would have been almost this bad
> from just a
> little more emergency speed than she'd used earlier. 
> I couldn't decide if it
> was technological improvement or just her increased body
> mass.

This reads like it is a decrease in performance, not
improvement: a little more speed would have left her a
little less exhausted, previously.  Increased body mass
could explain it, but why would the narrator think it
might be "technological improvement"?

> I could
> have asked her, but treating her like a machine wouldn't
> make her any
> better.

Also, would she likely know?  If she's in school in the first
place, it seems quite possible that she's not pre-programmed
with the higher level engineering knowledge needed to fully
understand her inner workings.  Possibly she could look it
up (like she did with the movie) - but then, couldn't he
(albeit more slowly and later)?

> "While for most people the Rajasthan Flu is little worse
> than any other
> cold, for unknown reasons it is especially hard on infant
> girls.  Causing
> in most cases death and in a few cases severe damage to the
> nervous
> system."
> 
> He had to look away from Nadia at that point.  I can
> only imagine what kind
> of look she was giving him.

...for?  He's merely stating what happened in broad terms.
Even if Nadia was one of the few cases, there doesn't seem
to be anything for Nadia to take offense to.  (Unless she
gets generally riled up when people bring up the subject -
which, given the obviousness of her condition, would seem
likely to be done in a more offensive manner often enough
to give her thicker skin than this.  Kids can be cruel.)

> After school I walked silently with Linda and then at her
> house I asked,
> "Next Saturday?"

Might want to break this into two sentences - replace "and
then" with a period and capitalize "at".

> "So humans can remember a few things?"

This comes as a surprise to Linda?  Unless she's making an
attempt at humor - which is off enough, given her
characterization, that the narrator would have taken notice
(especially given as getting her to have such emotions is
his apparent goal).

> "Yes Linda Burks was born on May 14th, but she died exactly
> one year
> later.  My parents and my brothers do not celebrate
> that day.  Instead we
> visit her grave."

Period after "Yes".  Also, shouldn't she use some specifier
(such as "the other", "the real", or "the human") when
referring to the other entity that also uses the name, "Linda
Burks"?  Otherwise, it sounds like she is talking about
herself, yet she is clearly not.