SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

It would depend on the context. I wouldn't mind talking to someone I couldn't see (I talk to myself half the time anyway I might as well spend the other half talking to someone nobody could see).
Having said that, much as I would like to know whether or not ghosts exist (actually I'm a total sceptic) I'm also a coward so I wouldn't really want to directly witness the evidence; I'd rather read or write about it.

I have a VERY weak stomach.

I think I'd get frustrated if I could see them but not interact with them, so I'm going to go for interact with them but not see them.

Speak with them. Then I open my private investigation company and solve murders/find lost treasures.

Phillip wrote: "Speak with them. Then I open my private investigation company and solve murders/find lost treasures."

Step 3: Profit!

Yeah, and if you could see them, you'd have to wonder: Who killed them? and it would be soo annoying!

Sounds like a story prompt. I too say I'd rather be able to interact with them... so frustrating to see them and forever after suspect I had a hallucinogenic seizure or something.

(assuming they're not all over the place and seen or talkative regularly... that would be a bad thing either way)

Not sure what’s worse, hallucinogenic delusions or hearing voices. But I think I’d rather be able to communicate with them. That might make me, if no one else, feel I’m less crazy.

To interact with them, but not see them

My first reaction was that I would like to interact with them, but then I realized I was assuming they were friendly ghosts who’d want to have a nice chat and maybe help out with the housework.

If I had an evil ghost that wanted to kill me or my cat, then our ability to interact would mean they could hurt me. They could make a nuisance of themselves even in visual-only mode, but then I could hire Ghostbusters or move or something. If I can't see them and they kill me before I know they're there, it’s too late for me to do anything.

So, while I regret the lost opportunity to chat with ghosts and get them to help out around the house, please sign me up for the “seeing” option.

Good point. I refuse to believe that ghosts would be evil though, so I'm not changing my vote.

Well, if you think about it, there would be a lot of ghosts everywhere, (in hypothesis, I'm still a Christian!) and more than a few of them would be evil. although, there is no proof that they would be able to hurt you. they, most likely, would be see-through, and not able to influence anything on earth.
Therefore, if i am correct in this hypothesis, you would be able to see ghosts drifting around with a bored look in their eyes, waiting for someone to talk to them.

There have been something like 100 billion people die in the history of mankind. Maybe ghosts (if you believe they exist) are so thick they're like fog and you can't pick out one from another.

Either way, it would all depend on the mechanics of their manifestation. Ghosts that you can't perceive or interact with are functionally no different from no ghosts. If you can perceive or interact with them, what is the nature of the perception or interaction? There's so wide a range of theoretical possibilities that it's difficult to speculate.

Interact, absolutely. Having confirmation that there is another side from their existence, I'd want to know what it was like!

Oh, sure, knowing there is another side is one thing. Knowing the other side is good or bad seems like critical information as well.

Yes, but I mean, it's not like this needs much thinking: Do you want to see horrifying, undead monsters? Or do you want to speak with them and figure out how many people died in your high school?

I think I'd rather see them - at least you wouldn't have them getting close to you and yelling BOO at the top of their lungs

I’m getting a lot of amusement from this one about ghosts.

Yes, I'm quite pleased this one got so much conversation! :D

Hannah wrote: "...Do you want to see horrifying, undead monsters?..."

How do you know they would be horrifying?

I tend to always side with the option where we get more information, so I'd prefer communication, but even if they can't interact with us in any way, I think undead anthropology would be pretty fascinating.

"undead anthropology"
Love it!

Would you rather only read books without any prior knowledge of the story (e.g unknown author, no recommendations). You can't read a new book until finishing the randomly assigned novel in your queue. The books are in a genre that you enjoy, but the selection will have you always going in blind on plot and author skill.

OR

You are only able to read the stories of a single author. It is an author you love, who is also very prolific (e.g. Isaac Asimov or any author you adore with hundreds of books). You may read these stories in any order, but you can't deviate to anything written by another person.

Would your decision change if the requirement was only for one year?

lol the first one is basically how I read books, with a few exceptions! So I think I'd do that. I would be suuuuuuuper cranky if I had to read one writing style forever or a year.

neither, but if i had to choose, it would be the first option as I'm a speed reader and unless the author was Barbara Cartland or Georges Simenon, I'd soon run out of books to read.

It would depend on if I am the one who adds the books to the queue, and what information I'd have to base that on? If I got a random SFF book out of the pool of all the SFF books in the universe every time I started reading something new, I don't think I'd want that even for a year! But I'd run out of books to read really quickly if I only had one author to read, so I don't want that either.

I usually feel like these are super easy, but you've managed to baffle me, Phillip! :D

So if I can add the books to the queue myself, based on author, title and cover, I'll go for that! And I'd like to at least read series in order!

Phillip wrote: "Would you rather relive 2018 exactly as it happened or skip to 2020 with memories of 2019 implanted in your brain?"

Now that 2019 is behind us, does anyone want to change his/her answer?

Would you rather have a cybernetic device in your brain that allowed you internal access to the internet and regulated your biometrics or have another consciousness in your head with its own personality, agenda, knowledge and preferences?

I guess the implant. Sucks for the rest of you when I'm hacked and forced into a killing spree, but thems the breaks.

Phillip wrote: "I guess the implant. Sucks for the rest of you when I'm hacked and forced into a killing spree, but thems the breaks."

I preemptively forgive you and/or promise to try to be on the side hacking you, if that's any consolation haha

Allison wrote: "Would you rather have a cybernetic device in your brain that allowed you internal access to the internet and regulated your biometrics or have another consciousness in your head with its own person..."

That would depend on if the consciousness had any physical control of my body, or if it was just a voice.
because while the whole internal internet access seems great, it also sounds like a easy way for hackers to take over people and control or even brainwash them, or imagine a computer virus when the computer is in your brain.

I'm gonna go for for the cybernetic device and hope that is has really good security.

I already have enough voices in my head arguing with each other, I don't need an actual other presence...

Both sound terrible. Having internal access to the internet would be so distracting on top of all the security related issues.

Having another consciousness in my mind is my nightmare. If I go to a party I generally need to spend the next day alone as much as possible to recoup.

I would have to risk the cybernetic device.

I'd be scared of people taking control or manipulating my direct input with the device, so I'd choose to share a consciousness with someone who had a lot of stuff in their head that I wanted, like Sense8 but idk, with a super lawyer or someone who was really good at fixing cars and computers. Then if we go all Jeckyll and Hyde, at least I'd know what they intended to do with their time in control of our actions.

Allison wrote: "I'd be scared of people taking control or manipulating my direct input with the device, so I'd choose to share a consciousness with someone who had a lot of stuff in their head that I wanted, like ..."


I'd sort of assumed we wouldn't get a choice in who was sharing our consciousness... but if we had a choice?

Hmmm...

Nah, still pass. I need my alone time.

That's my favorite part of these what if's, the assumptions and caveats people make :)

The cybernetic device. With the biometric regulation, maybe I wouldn't have to take my medication anymore...? Also, if I do something stupid I could just blame it on being hacked.

LOL Alex! I love the blame shifting...brain security failure: bug or feature?

And yes, it could mean no more remembering meds, which would be pretty great. I'd love to tell my brain that the air is not as dangerous as it thinks so could we please stop already with the allergies?

It's not a choice, but I choose neither one. The first made me thing of Simon's chip from the Vorkosigan books. As he put it, his chip turned into snot. The second option is just too darned creepy!

Yeah, judging by the source of inspiration for this question, I choose neither. Although maybe if I could totally disconnect from the other 'presence' and also choose what competencies it had, could be ok.

I think the device is already pretty darn close to existing, the way some people can't seem to put down their smart phones and love the 'conveniences' that are enabled by using it. I'll stick to my old flip phone thank you.

Allison wrote: "I preemptively forgive you and/or promise to try to be on the side hacking you, if that's any consolation haha."

You say that now, but . . . so many bodies.
*runs off crying*

Phillip wrote: "Allison wrote: "I preemptively forgive you and/or promise to try to be on the side hacking you, if that's any consolation haha."

You say that now, but . . . so many bodies.
*runs off crying*"

(view spoiler)[



(hide spoiler)]

Elowen wrote: "Another consciousness. This is going to sound a bit nuts, but I'm one of those adults (I read an article about this recently so I know I'm not the only one ;-) ) who has imaginary friends, in my ca..."

I've always wanted imaginary friends. I envy you.

Would you rather have a rendez-vous with a character who is charming and respected but dangerous, or one with a character who is a jerk and a joke but ultimately harmless?

Charming and dangerous. I'm an adrenaline junkie. However, I'd only want to do it once.

Charming but potentially dangerous every time for me. Life is too short to spend it with people who annoy me, especially if I go around hanging out with dangerous people.

Charming and dangerous.

I feel like all of us did a bad job listening to our mothers growing up...

Respectability in this world is too often an ill sought out status. Charming and respected is how people like Cosby, Epstein, and Prince Andrew were described. Whereas many of my offline friends are jerks. They're just not jerks about people or things that I value highly.

I'm going for the harmless jerk. Charm doesn't do anything for me. I'm told certain people are charming but I just can't see it.
Harmless jerks usually aren't too bright so I can have fun insulting them without them realising it. (Perhaps I am more of a jerk than a charmer.)

While Ryan has a point, I’m afraid I’m still going to go with Prince Charming McDangerous. The alternative makes me think that dangerous actually means harm my come to me though, but what kind?!?