Don't Worry Be Happy [Worm AU One-Shot]

[Larekko12]

It was written to show up the contrast between a happy ending, and how it was achieved.

Click to shrink...

But it's a bad end of the Stepford Smiler sort. It might not have the body counts of canon which you were wrong to compare due to inequivalent circumstances and lack of same external modifiers.
It's still a bad end and the rest of the Dallons having their agency knifed in the back and buried it quietly.

And it's something that could easily end up worse than canon by and order of magnitude if the wrong thinker is in the right place and she gets made as Heartbreaker redux.

But she's happy. Just ask her

Click to shrink...

This is what I'm talking about. This is the kind of talk that gets you on watch list Ack. I mean I'm going to have to do the nuclear option but Panacea quest for when I read it did this better than you.

You are literally saying that Stockholm is perfectly okay to build relationship because at the end of the day they're both happy. You are saying that amortentia and the Gaunts are okay so long as the Girl keeps the man dosed and takes care of him.

In P quest Amy makes as girl as lesbian. This girl asks for it repeatedly. Amy protests to make very very sure she's doing it because she wants it.
Then she does it.
Besides lines crossed later that was A okay and can't be called rape. It's voluntary surgery.

Mark was bad becuase she didn't ask him about before even if it would have been perfectly fine.

Carol was mindrape that she actively protested and got pissed at and then because of the way she was changed and combined with Marks change she's getting raped and Mark is because they're no longer in the positions to actually consent of their own free will.

 

[Ack]

But it's a bad end of the Stepford Smiler sort. It might not have the body counts of canon which you were wrong to compare due to inequivalent circumstances and lack of same external modifiers.
It's still a bad end and the rest of the Dallons having their agency knifed in the back and buried it quietly.

And it's something that could easily end up worse than canon by and order of magnitude if the wrong thinker is in the right place and she gets made as Heartbreaker redux.

This is what I'm talking about. This is the kind of talk that gets you on watch list Ack. I mean I'm going to have to do the nuclear option but Panacea quest for when I read it did this better than you.

You are literally saying that Stockholm is perfectly okay to build relationship because at the end of the day they're both happy. You are saying that amortentia and the Gaunts are okay so long as the Girl keeps the man dosed and takes care of him.

In P quest Amy makes as girl as lesbian. This girl asks for it repeatedly. Amy protests to make very very sure she's doing it because she wants it.
Then she does it.
Besides lines crossed later that was A okay and can't be called rape. It's voluntary surgery.

Mark was bad becuase she didn't ask him about before even if it would have been perfectly fine.

Carol was mindrape that she actively protested and got pissed at and then because of the way she was changed and combined with Marks change she's getting raped and Mark is because they're no longer in the positions to actually consent of their own free will.

Click to shrink...

Wow, chill.
I'm not saying that it's right what she did. I'm saying that at the end of the story, everyone's happy. And that the story's about the dichotomy between the methods used and how the people involved feel at the end.

Yes, it's a bad end.

But it's a happy bad end.

Now, we've already had the morality debate. Please do not open it again.

 

[Grosstoad]

But she's happy. Just ask her

Click to shrink...

Now, this is the position that I can't quite place, Ack.

If it is just baiting moralfags, well, it is working.

If it is truly your stance on such things, well, on the norm, it is not really the socially acceptable opinion.

As it is, you are telling us to receive the statement of the mind-edited victim about the very specific instance of their mind-editing.

 

[volantredx]

But it's a happy bad end.

Click to shrink...

Then why have you argued like it's supposed to be a good thing.

 

[Ack]

Now, this is the position that I can't quite place, Ack.

If it is just baiting moralfags, well, it is working.

If it is truly your stance on such things, well, on the norm, it is not really the socially acceptable opinion.

As it is, you are telling us to receive the statement of the mind-edited victim about the very specific instance of their mind-editing.

Click to shrink...

That particular comment is basically very much tongue in cheek. As should be obvious by the emoticon.

I do not hold that stance. This should be obvious from my other stories.

It's just a story I decided to write, and it came out that way. In that specific story, Amy holds that stance, because it works for her.

Everyone's happy.

If she hadn't done it, she wouldn't be happy, Mark wouldn't be happy, and Carol wouldn't be happy.

It's perfectly clear to her.

 

[Grosstoad]

That's the point of the others' objections, Ack. I believe most of them felt disturbed in general, but accept it as a disturbing fiction to the genre of Handshake. Some of the more vocal ones voiced their horror, to which you tongue-in-cheeks reply just inflame their horror.

So... Kind of moralfag bait that went out of control?

Well, if you do not hold that particular stance, I suppose you should have realized that the story, and further posts in that trend will provoke morality debates and arguments?

Uh, mission accomplished?


Of course, as an aside, Amy's rather surprising idea to do so is a bit Out of Character to me, considering how very morally-stricken (not morally-upright) was Amy in canon. But that might be the What If portion of this particular scenario.

Again, as it stands though, this particular snip would only work for so long as others that view them don't react unfavorably, so that epilogue part (the thing about the marriage and Dylan, not the one about waking up) is kind of iffy. Of course, if the mind-editing only happens within the Dallon family (and nothing involving the Panacea Inc.), perhaps there is very little chance of that being uncovered.


(Tattletale, Simurgh, and Contessa notwithstanding, cause they are the plot-powered/powering Thinkers.)


. . . Rambling again.

 

[Beyogi]

That particular comment is basically very much tongue in cheek. As should be obvious by the emoticon.

I do not hold that stance. This should be obvious from my other stories.

It's just a story I decided to write, and it came out that way. In that specific story, Amy holds that stance, because it works for her.

Everyone's happy.

If she hadn't done it, she wouldn't be happy, Mark wouldn't be happy, and Carol wouldn't be happy.

It's perfectly clear to her.

Click to shrink...

I seriously love this story. I mean on one hand it's kinda a horror story, but on the other hand you can't help to ask yourself wether it really is one. Especially considering how canon turned out.

 

[NavigatorNobilis]

This is a story that forces you to think; to decide which is more important to you - freedom or happiness. This is a good thing. Introspection is good for the (mental) health.

 

[theonebutcher]

I would be Okay with this... if it was Start Of Canon!Amy who does this. This is some girl that got powers and immediately mind controls her problems away.

 

[Ack]

I would be Okay with this... if it was Start Of Canon!Amy who does this. This is some girl that got powers and immediately mind controls her problems away.

Click to shrink...

And if you've got mind control, why not?

 

[theonebutcher]

I've written half a Harry Potter fic about that, but never had any motivation to finish it. Most of the ideas I had for it have in the mean time found their way into various Infinite Time Loop Snippets.

 

[macdjord]

Hrm. Okay:

• I'm pretty much okay with what happened to Carol. See, there are two interpretations of her: either she really hates Amy and blames her for her father's actions, in which case she got what she deserved and I have no sympathy for the fact that the raging bitch got mindraped into being a better person to the betterment of everyone involved; or she genuinely wants to love and care for Amy like a mother should, but is unable to set aside the feelings for Amy's father which she knows she is undeservedly transferring to Amy, in which case she got what she wanted.
• I'm okay with her fixing Mark's depression - it is a mental disease, and if someone has the power to magically fix it, I'm all for that - though she really ought to have asked his permission first. I'd be a lot more comfortable if she had asked him 'Are you okay with this?' without touching him, though.
• Victoria got mindraped. Dammit, Panacea.

 

[rooster]

Wow this brings back memories.

Back when I was in junior high, or middle school or whatever we were talking about Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".

The teacher presented us with a setting that from the start mind controlled people to be happy with the work they were grown for (as far as I remember they were grown in tubes for various tasks).

She started telling us about how bad this was, and so on, but there were two brats that argued against it.

Those brats were me and another classmate of mine. We argued that since the people are happy with what they do, that it was fine. The people weren't being mistreated, they weren't miserable, on the contrary they were happy to do their social roles.

Eventually we talked the teacher into a corner trying to explain why this was bad, and she couldn't. She said that that's what she's being paid for to teach us.

The feeling of out-arguing a teacher at 12 years old? Amazing.

Anyway, yeah back then I held happiness above freedom and I still do. I don't want to fuel the moral debate, I just want to state "Wow, it's increadible. I never thought that my way of thinking could be regarded by other people as wrong so strongly." Now that I think about it though, it makes sense for people to not want to be mind controlled under any circumstances. I'm not one of those people, mind, but it's interesting to see the other side of the argument.

 

[Tranquil Zebra]

Wow this brings back memories.

Back when I was in junior high, or middle school or whatever we were talking about Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".

The teacher presented us with a setting that from the start mind controlled people to be happy with the work they were grown for (as far as I remember they were grown in tubes for various tasks).

She started telling us about how bad this was, and so on, but there were two brats that argued against it.

Those brats were me and another classmate of mine. We argued that since the people are happy with what they do, that it was fine. The people weren't being mistreated, they weren't miserable, on the contrary they were happy to do their social roles.

Eventually we talked the teacher into a corner trying to explain why this was bad, and she couldn't. She said that that's what she's being paid for to teach us.

The feeling of out-arguing a teacher at 12 years old? Amazing.

Anyway, yeah back then I held happiness above freedom and I still do. I don't want to fuel the moral debate, I just want to state "Wow, it's increadible. I never thought that my way of thinking could be regarded by other people as wrong so strongly." Now that I think about it though, it makes sense for people to not want to be mind controlled under any circumstances. I'm not one of those people, mind, but it's interesting to see the other side of the argument.

Click to shrink...

Four or so years ago, I too read Brave New World for English class, and I did a report on it. This was English class in a Norwegian school, mind you, so the teacher was less concerned with shoveling morals and "good christian values" or whatever down our throats, and more concerned with reading comprehension and us grasping the nuances of the language.

I came to the conclusion that while the life in that world seemed very tempting, I would personally find it somewhat stifling in the longer term. Consider also that the alphas, and to a lesser extent betas, were all living it up, while the gammas, deltas and almost subhuman epsilon 'semi-morons' were mutilated in the brainmeats so as to not even have the intellectual capasity for ambition, curiosity or any drive beyond doing their jobs. Switch out gammas and down with robotics, and suddenly it's all better.

Still, I will not claim some moral superiority, or try making an unassailable argument by claiming that OBVIOUSLY true thinkers and intellectuals (and TRUE Scotsmen) would abhor the world as Huxley described it. Many people would think it an optimal existence, while others would think like me, be neutral on the subject, or reject it due to some other reason. In the end, however, it is a difficult question, and there will never be universal agreement.

The story in this thread is similarly difficult to discuss, as we come back to the value and sanctity of free will, the existence of the same, what constitutes immoral persuasion, and which sets of morals should be used. I will not offer any answers directly, but I do feel the need to make some points on free will and persuasion.

Firstly, whether we have free will or not is an interesting conondrum to philisophize upon, but ultimately it doesn't matter, as a lack of it can't effect our actions further, and either way the complacency inherent in not believing yourself responsible for your actions can be dangerous to yourself and society at large. We should act as if though we have it, and otherwise not agonize over it.

Secondly, persuasion and manipulation is not necessarily bad, just as seduction is not always sleazy. DO NOT attach an ugly word such as rape to every instance where the instigator is proactive instead of standing around like a lemon, waiting for nature to take its course. Rape is a sexual act where liberties are taken with a lack of explicit or implicit consent. Extending the term to cover every action where one part feels, or "should feel", regret in the aftermath is meaningless, and seems to trivialize actual rape.

This is not to say that I agree with the decision to "fix" Victoria, but if I had parents like hers I would fix them in a heartbeat, as their brains were, objectively speaking, defective. The idea that physical scars can and should be healed, except for when they are on the brain, is something I can't quite get behind. If I want to get poetic, I could say that every second I live, I die, and every time i die I am born anew. The brain is not static, and altering a personality in the process of fixing problems is okay, in my opinion. They are no longer the same people as they were, but the people they were kind of sucked. Tomorrow they might be new people once more.

Now, for some thoughts on manipulation the good old fashioned way:
Interpersonal interaction is all about manipulation, be it overt or subtle. Manipulation is by it's very definition to make something happen, or not happen, as the case may be. To go against the natural inclinations of a system, and try to impose your will on something. The natural inclination of the world, if you do not manipulate any aspect of it, is to go on as if you are not there. If you are an objectively good person, however that is decided, you will manipulate the world into an objectively better place, if only by your presence alone.

If I ask my father to pass me the salt by the dinnertable, I am trying to manipulate him by either appealing to ingrained and reflexive responses to such a question, to his conditioning as a part of polite society, to his expectations that I might be more inclined to offer a favour in return in the future, or I'm ruthlessly taking advantage of his altruistic temdencies and love for me as his son. I'm an utter bastard, right? My appeal to all of you is to kindly divorce the word 'manipulation' from 'bad', 'immoral' etc.

Amy's manipulations are at the very least questionable, however, and they are also a case where the slippery slope fallacy argument might be valid.

If you've slogged through this whole wall of text, I hope you've found something worthwhile, and I would greatly appreciate thoughts and impressions.

 

[rooster]

If you've slogged through this whole wall of text, I hope you've found something worthwhile, and I would greatly appreciate thoughts and impressions.

Click to shrink...

I wouldn't say it was a slog. In fact it was a better read than the hack of an anecdote I posted.

I also agree completely in most things. We don't know the nature of free will or maybe it's lack, but it's better to act like we do have it just in case.

The rape thing however I would say is getting out of control real fast. I'm one of those people that looks at this issue and think 'well I don't want to be accused of rape in my life. Clearly I should let women be proactive, but I should never be the one to initiate things with a woman. What if she decides it's rape or something?' and that kind of thinking later leads to women complaining 'where have the men gone?' because if some men remove themselves from the dating pool like that (because let's face it, I haven't seen a woman that would actually go out and hit on a guy) there will come a time when enough men start doing this and even governments start noticing. Look at japan: not only is there a strong otaku culture, with a lot of men prefering fantasy life to real life, but there's a lot of men like me that are called "herbivore men" that are completely, willingly clueless. Note for example how taking advantage of a drunk woman is considered wrong (and it doesn't matter if the man was drunk at the time), but taking advantage of a drunk man is A-OK. That's why I'm confused by the scenes where there's a drunk woman throwing herself at a guy, the guy doesn't take advantage of her and then she thanks him for being decent. On the inside I'm thinking "Well, isn't that just common self-preservation? I wouldn't have taken advantage of a drunk woman either, but not because I'm a gentleman, but because I know what the consequences might be. I could write entire articles on this issue, and many people have, in fact.

I also agree on the manipulation, but I would also add a bit of a "might makes right" sprinkled on top of it. It doesn't really matter whether we think Amy did wrong or not, because ultimately only she could've made that choice, only she had the power to change her family like that. She could've consulted someone about it, sure. She could've asked Mark if he wants to change first. In the end she didn't and she must accept the consequences of her actions. If we set aside the morality of what she did, then the consequences are still plain to see. By commiting this thing she invited the authorities to punish her, as they should, for what she did if they find out. Every time we do something, there are consequences, both good and bad of the things we do. For example, if I was stealing, then I'd fully expect to be arrested and wouldn't really hold any resentment over that. If I hurt somebody I would also expect to be punished. However by choosing not to do these things I also fully expect not having to be punished because I didn't do these things. However if the authority of the government and the stability was gone from the world, by some random whim of fate, then my cost analysis on my actions would change, as would anyone else's. I dunno, maybe she thought she could get away with it or something, but that's a long shot in the first place.

 

[Ack]

Okay, this is a dilemma that arose in a tabletop RPG I was playing (Amber, as it happens).

My character was a member of a (more or less) pantheon that had some pretty way-out abilities (If you've ever read the books or played the game, you'll know what I mean). He had a loving wife to whom he was totally devoted. She was kidnapped, tortured and raped over a period of weeks, specifically to get at him. When he got her back, she was mentally shattered (as well as pretty banged up physically, but that was relatively easy to fix). My character was given the choices of a) letting her 'heal naturally' from her mental trauma, b) letting her recall what had happened, but only vaguely, with the chance of the memories coming back in full (repression is only so good) or c) totally blanking her on all that had happened to her, giving her good memories to replace the bad ones. Essentially, using powers to rebuild her personality to what she'd been before that had happened to her.

She couldn't decide for herself; at that point, she was almost catatonic.

I made the decision to pull the switch altogether, for option c). Fix her totally, with no memory of what had happened, no chance of any memories recurring, because they were all erased, flat, gone. Not giving her an option in the matter, but doing what I thought was best.

Was I wrong?

 

[pepperjack]

Was I wrong?

Click to shrink...

I doubt anyone here is qualified to answer that question. That's between your character and his wife.

 

[macdjord]

Was I wrong?

Click to shrink...

I can't say if you were right in what choice to make, but you were definitely right in making the choice. That's what 'next of kin' means.

 

[Tranquil Zebra]

Was I wrong?

Click to shrink...

I think not. As I have tried to express earlier, damage to the brainmeats should not be considered right, natural and not to be meddled with.

The brain is a complex mechanism, with an amazing operative system. Amazing, that is, in that it works in spite of all the flaws, biases, bugs and failure points, and that it still works well. There are, however, still fuckups in the works, arguments against an intelligent creator if you will. Akin to a script or function on a computer fucking with global variables, some processes in the brain have effects beyond their "intended" purpose. Trauma and PTSD are some of those. The brain obviously cannot remember everything with perfect clarity, so therefore it tends to rember abnormalities and negatives before others, thusly creating a certain bias in our recollection.

Trauma is when you experience something so truly awful that the brain goes: "Priority order: avoid ALL SIMILAR situations in the future!" The memory of the situation is then burned into the part of the brain rembering muscle memory and reflexive movements (the amygdala?). Instead of simply recalling that a thing happened, you now relive said thing, at least in part, if the now reflexive memory is triggered by any factor similar to the memory itself. That's how vets find themselves back in 'Nam, for an example. The brain tries to tell you that a similar situation in the past was bad, so GTFO, but instead you relive the trauma. This is the basic gist of PTSD, as I understand it.

Now, direct treatment of PTSD is difficult as all hell, because the memory can reinforce itself with every forced recollection. The treatment is basically called 'deprogramming', and consists of various ways of trying to brainwash it out. The memory, and the trauma, is not an intrinsic part of the person, and in removng the memory, basically excising the necrotic tissue, the person is not lessened, but rather their burdens are. Using magic is not worse than letting it heal 'naturally', because it never really heals unless you go through extensive deprogramming or memory loss anyways. The whole "it's part of her" argument doesn't really hold up, because so are an inflamed appendix and a cancerous tumor as well.

Magic and taking the easy way to the optimal outcome is not something I've personally got any problems with, and as long as it's understood that an injury of the mind needs treatment just as much or more as one of the flesh, it's never really an issue. Some people might find scars sexy, but they are almost entirely superfluous in function. If they becoma an issue, they should be mitigated or removed altogether.

 

[Addlcove]

I assume she was told it had happened and why the action was taken?

If not, then I would disagree with your choice.

 

[MadGreenSon]

Was I wrong?

Click to shrink...

You were likely either a Prince of Amber or a Lord of Chaos, which is as close as you can get to being God without actual omnipotence... Then again, Amber is a weird setting and characters may actually be omnipotent for some value of the word. (strange that omnipotence is ambiguous, but that's Amber for you!).

Either way, by definition, anything you do is the right thing to do.

For a less megalomaniacal answer, I'd say you likely did the most merciful thing you could do. In a similar position, if someone wiped my mind of a crippling trauma, I'd thank them.