Driver - a new story!

[DesDownunder]

You do? Hmm. Upon research I think that maybe, just maybe, you're a Bonobo in disguise

I think you have found my next boyfriends.

At the very least I think that you have found an evolutionary link for all the monkeying around that I do.

The Bonobo is obviously the source of, if not the gay gene, then at least the propensity for its development.

Also I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that they were the ancestors of Bono-Wan Kenobo, who unlike his famous cousin, Obi-Wan Kenobi, was the fore-runner of the Ken-doll, which was a great force of amusement for when they said, "Look," as they learned to go hands solo.

Their other cousin was the infamous nymphomaniac, Barba-ella, who was commonly called Barbie-Wan It All, and eventually became known as Barbie-Doll who was a favourite of Princess Lay-on-her.

Chew-Bono was a different line of evolution altogether however, but had a great effect on cuddling and getting ahead.

[Cole Parker]

Guys? Plural?

All right, Camy. You're excused from the diatribe. I expected it to be apparent I was only scolding those who needed it, not everyone. But if you felt the sting of my wrath, slight as it was, then you may flay me at your will the next time we meet.

And as for Des, dear Des, I wish I had half his wit. He actually could stand to lose half his wit, because he has twice what he needs and others of us could use more. What I'm saying, I guess, is that I'd still appreciate a half-witted Des.

Wait. Did that come out right?

C

[Tanuki Racoon]

And as for Des, dear Des, I wish I had half his wit.

You do, though. Everyone happily calls you a half-wit.

[The Pecman]

Trab commented:

You've established that it has completely destroyed any chance of this story providing you pleasure. Just stop reading it, and go on with life, and let others enjoy it.

Well, "destroyed" is a tough word. There's a difference between disappointed and destroyed.

Let's just say that it's unfortunate when I see a story that's pretty decent, and then the author up and does something wacky like this. One small rewrite would fix it.

But I see this happen in films sometimes, too. It's enough to make me shut off the player and turn to the news...

I could tell you a story about standing on the set of Batman Returns in 1992 and noticing a plot problem -- actually, I saw it at a screening, and got into a long argument with the cameraman on the picture, who was (and still is) a pretty good friend of mine. The bottom line is that the storyline has to be believable, and the moment you break that bond with the audience, it's over with.

Please enjoy the story if you want. It'd be a very boring world if everybody agreed 100% of the time about everything. We're just arguing opinion, not fact.

[Cole Parker]

I'm going to say something here that kind of goes against the grain of my sentiments. I'm going to speculate about this story, and I don't normally do that. I don't much like people speculating about where my storeis are going while they're still going. I like people to figure out the story themselves. So for me to do this is atypical, but necessary to address the concern already mentioned in this thread.

In my opinion, one of the purposes of this story is to show the effects of having and not having money. It's also to show the relative value and worth of money. Driver is a very careful craftsman; his writing has always been excellent, his plots well thought out, his logic unimpeachable. If he's throwing an absurd amount of money for a ransom demand into this story, I think it's because it's part of the story's purpose, to show that no matter how much money is involved, it's far less important than a human life. Also, that a huge amount of money for the rest of us is not the same if it's small change for it's owner.

Both these ways of looking at that ransom demand and Paul's reactions to them make sense in that context. Yes, it shocks us, because that amount is just ridiculous in our world. It isn't in Paul's, and I think that's one of the points of the story. So by showing that, Driver is making a statement.

I might be all wrong about this. I frequently misinterpret a story till I have enough to work on, and I don't know if I have than amount of information here or not. But if I take it for granted that Driver knows what he's doing, and I think it's safe to do that, then I think it's appropriate to figure out why that vast sum of money is being mentioned. I don't think the answer to that is that the author simply was careless or made a silly blunder.

C

[Camy]

one of the purposes of this story is to show the effects of having and not having money. It's also to show the relative value and worth of money.

Absolutely.

I have a great book written in the 1930's called 'The ?1000 House'. Similar houses nowadays go for around ?400,000 - ?500,000. When I was a kid the idea of being a millionaire was ... well, a dream. There weren't that many of them. Now:

There are now 425,000 millionaires in the UK, up from 230,000 in 2001, according to the Centre for Economics & Business Research (CEBR).

100 Million is an awful lot, but consider this from Forbes in 2005:

In just the last two years, we have added an astonishing 215 new names to the ranks of the world's billionaires. In 2003 we found 476 billionaires. Today it's a record 691. Their aggregate net worth has grown from $1.4 trillion to $2.2 trillion. The average net worth has also jumped, from $2.9 billion to $3.2 billion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3598878.stm

http://www.forbes.com/2005/03/10/cz_lk_lg_...ary_bill05.html

[DesDownunder]

Cole makes a reasonable and logical argument that is frequently overlooked.

Taking things to extreme for a purpose in a story, is quite as valid as understatement.

In any well written story I think even the ludicrous can serve the author in whatever point he wishes to make.

Sometimes that point is not obvious even if it is staring you in the face. Nice analysis, Cole.

[Trab]

From this location: http://www.piu.org/applications/Epic_050106.pdf

Corporate and personal security has improved dramatically. However, the use of

kidnapping or extortion to gain access to industrial secrets, to make socio-political

statements, or for monetary purposes, continues to rise.

Contingency Problems Are Increasing:

• 70% of companies located in Russia have faced extortion demands in the last five years.

• Kidnap demands of up to $100 million have been made in recent years in Mexico, Argentina and Costa Rica.

• Between 1991 and 1996, kidnapping incidents involving a demand for ransom have almost doubled around the

world. In 1996, over 1,354 incidents involving a ransom demand were reported.

From: http://incomemultiplier.blogspot.com/2007/...ur-balance.html

Liquid- Asset- to- Net- Worth ratio indicates the proportion of an individual net worth that is backed by liquid asset. This ratio works as a useful supplement to the basic liquidity ratio. Just by dividing cash/cash equivalent and net worth. This ratio shows the extent of price risk that you are taking. It is prudent to have at least 15% of individual’s net worth in cash/cash equivalent.

Based on this information, and the supposed net worth of $3B, there should be $450M in liquid assets (cash), lying around to more than easily pay that ransom.

Just because most of us don't have that kind of money, and probably even have a hard time dreaming of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, right now, and there are people dealing in those figures daily.

[Cole Parker]

In any well written story I think even the ludicrous can serve the author in whatever point he wishes to make.

Sometimes that point is not obvious even if it is staring you in the face. Nice analysis, Cole.

Thanks, Des, but remember, this was pure speculation on my part. I'm probably still in need of a towel.

C

[DesDownunder]

Trust Trab to come up with the vital statistics.

And Cole/ I didn't say you analysis was right, I was just admiring it as making sense and for its rationale.

[Tanuki Racoon]

In any well written story I think even the ludicrous can serve the author in whatever point he wishes to make.

I agree. Is my story even remotely plausible? Really? An entire world hidden under London? Not likely. Ludicrous? Probably.

Lord of the Rings? Palusible? Not at all. Good? No. Awesome? Yeah. Elves, Dwarves, Barogs? Ludicrous by any standard.

Star Wars? You get the point. I could go on. Was the ransom demand unreasonable? Sure it was. Does it matter in the course of this story? Not one iota. (Iota is a good word.) Did it ruin the story for anyone? Just his Pec-ness...

[The Pecman]

I agree. Is my story even remotely plausible? Really? An entire world hidden under London? Not likely. Ludicrous? Probably.

No, I totally disagree. If a fantasy or SF story can establish its own internal rules of logic and stick to them, that works fine to me. I've said many, many times on this site that the Harry Potter novels, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings all work fine as stories. (OK, the last three Star Wars movies sucked, but the stories at least made sense, to a point.) But if Luke Skywalker had suddenly sprouted bird wings and flown away at a key moment, we wouldn't have believed it. Even fantasy and science fiction has rules.

I simply thought the $100 million figure was out of line. I think the story would be more realistic with a much lower figure. As to the 10% net worth deal, I'm worth (technically) over a million bucks, and there's no bloody way I could ever raise a hundred grand in a day, not even in a week -- not in the current housing market. I'd be lucky to raise a grand in a day, if that.

I think making the father character in this story a billionaire just is a little unbelievable to me. I can point back to our old friend Nick Archer's list of "Gay Story Cliches," one of which was to have a gay teenager with very wealthy parents. (I commited that sin myself in one of my stories, but I established some very realistic boundries -- the kid drives a BMW, but it's a $40,000 car, not a $100,000 car, and when he gets blackmailed, the best he can do is to steal his father's watch and pawn it for $5000. To me, that's reasonable. The real world is a lot less ritzy than people think.)

Speaking of which, there's a movie that came out in the last six months where an ordinary 9-to-5 working guy gets a phone call from somebody who says, "I've just kidnapped your wife and I'm going to kill her unless you give me [huge amount of money, like $100K]." The entire movie shows the extraordinary lengths the guy goes to beg, borrow, and steal the money in time to stop the kidnappers. Never saw it, but it's a very intriguing premise: a non-rich guy is forced to commit a crime in order to save someone he loves. That, I can see as a totally valid story.

[Trab]

Thank-you everyone for your comments. Unfortunately, the discussion seems to be continually re-directed back to the same concern by one poster. It is pointless continuing, as it seems nobody is going to change positions, therefore I am going to close the discussions.