Strong Survive revision

[fluke]

Hey, there.

Reading over the reviews and comments on "The Strong Survive" I noticed one scene that the readers were split on. In the story, Granish finds an abandoned infant in the forest. He can find no obvious reason that the infant was abandoned. He concludes, correctly, that the infant was exposed out of convenience.

Two commenters said that child should have some weakness, that finding a strong child was a different story.

Two said that finding the strong child helped Granish in shifting his worldview, seeing the problems inherent in the Sachalin way.

What are your comments, suggestions, ideas? Which makes the story "stronger"?

Thank you,
Frank Luke

[Edit: I will be reading this thread but not commenting until the voting ends, 8 days from the posting time.]

[Bainespal]

It would be harder to bring about Granish's change of heart (to whatever degree that actually happens by the end of the story) if the child had a visible deformity. If that were the case, maybe Granish could see that the child was actually physically capable despite having a deformity, which may bring him to conclude that whoever cast the child out to exposure was mistaken in the overall evaluation of the child's weakness. Then, Granish's anger would perhaps be better explained than the way it currently is with a perfectly healthy child; Granish would be angered that society could decide what constitutes weakness, or what amount of weakness is too great for the individual to have any worth. Then maybe Raymond could help Granish see that we all have weaknesses, and we all have strengths, and that everyone deserves a chance to overcome their weaknesses.

What I don't think would work is for the child to be deformed in any way more serious than something superficial or aesthetic. I would think (but I obviously don't know, since I didn't create the character) that Granish would shun any emotions he may have felt at seeing a poor pathetic infant in a helpless condition as shameful weakness. Therefore, he would be unlikely to be won over without believing that wrong had been done by his own society's standards.

However, I think the normal child has an advantage of making a strong case against abortion. I had been assuming that this story carries an anti-abortion social message. Raymond explains that as long as exposure is accepted in Sachalin society, irresponsible parents will wrongly use exposure to get rid of healthy offspring that they find inconvenient. This parallels the modern political compromise lingo of allowing abortion only for the sake of the mother's well-being. The social/political statement, at least to me, is that as long as abortion is allowed at all, people who find their pregnancy inconvenient can always make an excuse to get an abortion.

If the child in the basket is to have a deformity, it should be a minor one, outweighed by its physical strengths. Otherwise, I think the scene is effective as it is.

[Heather Titus]

I agree with Bainespal. If the child was weak or deformed, Granish would be more easily to justify its exposure, especially if that's his culture's norm.

[fluke]

Thanks for your well-expressed thoughts. I will be leaving the scene as it is. There is purposefully an anti-abortion message in the story, and I want to leave it that way.

Frank