*smiles... eyes gleaming... and moves a pawn forward...

loved it Kit... really... it was very good.

V.

Wow, kinda surprised anyone read this given how late it is.

Glad you liked it.

Heavy. Touching. Abstract. Very strong, very emotional and with a message, Very imaginitive little tale, this made me to ponder. Great little piece, I enjoyed reading this.

Glad you like it. One of my references was actually a book called Raising Cain that talks about the way boys are shaped during their development.

A very strong story, that though the game forces emotion away, your story brings it to the front and we feel for this boy gone man who's only focus is now the game. thankyou for writing

Heh, I didn't expect to get another comment on this so long after I wrote it (even though I did post it in the prompt as a joke). Glad you like it.

And thanks for the watch.

Don't knock it, you did good.

Hmm wow.

This is actually a social commentary as well as a slice of life. I really don't care for your metaphors describing the opression of male feelings in general, its too altruistic and brutal as compared to how it actually is or how it might be for some. Not everyone finds a defined game, some find drugs, some find crime/trouble, some find hobbies etc, some give up and die. The line very much blurs between society itself and the boy/man himself in the middle there...

Uhm, basically what I'm saying (while I love your ideas) you probably should seperate the social commentary on the Game and what it does to people from the example of its effect on the boy, or at least make them a first person view (thats how he feels, or the pattern he recognizes in his life). The game, I'm saying, is different for everyone. The crossover from chess to war, was also a strange and even more thought provoking turn. It really adds to the depth of perspective of the faceless characters life.

All in all, an extremely thought provoking open ended piece.

The game is not necessarily Chess, that was merely the version of the game the character was taught. It could have just as easily been Risk. Or Checkers. Or Warhammer 40K for that matter. The exact game itself doesn't matter but rather the ideas it teaches do: Taking on an opponent in which you attempt to 'kill' his guys. Abstracting violence but still introducing the ideas. Abstraction is the first step to making something acceptable.

The social commentary is importaint because it is actually a part of the game as well. When a little boy is frightened by a thunder storm his father looks down and says "That didn't scare you, did it?" This implicitly suggests that being afraid of the thunder is wrong. Therefore fear is an emotion that a boy should not have. More over you should deal with it on your own. By contrast if a little girl is frightened her father looks down and says "Are you alright? Why don't you come over here." This implicitly suggests that being afraid is nothing to be ashamed of and that it is perfectly acceptable to get help. Boy cries during a sad movie and he is called a wimp. Girl cries during a sad movie and nothing much happens.

The game is not just playing things that abstract away the idea of causing violence but also the fact that in day to day life boys are subjected to conditions that lead to only one rational conclusion: feelings are not OK. Being unable to deal with things on your own is not OK. It doesn't require you look very far to see this, just check the Heros that boys idolize. Super Man and his Fortress of Solitude. Batman and his Bat Cave. So to do boys build walls around themselves - theirs putting up barriers against recognizing emotion. And any time they take a risk to show some sort of emotion? Society, in large part their own peers, descend without mercy and punish them brutally with bullying and teasing until they fall back in line, build higher walls still, and learn the lesson that boys do not feel.

And so we raise a whole society of boys that wall off their feelings and are taught abstract violence. Indeed as they get older we give them better violence simulators which gradually remove the abstraction. Perhaps they start out playing checkers, but then they move up to something with toy soldiers, then they play Half Life. Desensitize them from their own feelings and then desensitize them to the idea of being able to commit violent acts. And we have very well balanced it as well because most of the time things don't go wrong.

But there is a price that is paid. Sometimes it does go wrong. Boys grow up and feel isolated, unable to handle their problems and unable to even identify the emotional trauma they have suffered over the years because they have learned to hide it so well. So we get them lashing out in various ways. Suicide attempts are more common among boys than among girls, but even more frightening is that boys are more likely to succeed. Boys are more likely to rape. Boys are more likely to rob. Boys are more likely to murder. Boys are more likely to go out and shoot at the 'other' people we don't like.

Of course the issue is more complex than simply that. Boys are the ones who usually rape, but they are also the ones walking down a dark alley in response to cries for help. Boys are not only throwing the grenades but also the ones jumping upon them. Boys are the ones who run out and rob and they are the ones who try to chase down the robbers.

But true as that may be there is a cost. A heavy psychological cost every boy must pay by the time he is fully grown - society demands it so that he will conform. And there is a definite toll that society itself pays every time the system goes wrong, and it is amazing that it doesn't do so more often.

I suppose I am saying that it is not as cut and dried as that. Its a profound idea, but does it really "help" for someone to respond to emotions in a nurturing way? The reason why society bends as it does is because "boys" are needed to make tough decisions like your general does. A person lacking emotion and a driven pattern Some people respond to the notion well, others shy away from it. When someone like your charachter responds to the pressures in a certain way, they become like your charachter. What I am trying to say to you is not every body responds like that. For instance, I am very good at chess. It comes naturally, and I can plan about 4-5 moves ahead with little effort. which is plenty to beat most other people. But do I take great comfort in it? No! It makes me sick to my stomach with anxiety.

Not everyone responds to the pressures the same. Yourself, you are questioning the norms, and taking their literal indications to the extreme. I myself like to satyrize them, to take "manliness" to comedic extremes to prove that it means nothing. Thats why I indicated that you should make the language of the social commentary more specific to the charachter at hand (if perhaps you do an edit) because not every one responds to society in a cookie cutter way. Some are strong and agressive, some dont care etc. I personally found it uncomfortable to be grouped as such. I played violent games, but my familily didn't care what my emotions were to anything. My emotions could be outragoeus and they didn't care. What kind of a person has that made me? It has made me responsive to others emotions and my own, to express, to discuss. I enjoy the games but the emotions are just as important. It takes a stronger, harder thinking kind of person to truly break the molds, perhaps, like yourself.

Maybe I'm being picky or something BUT i did fave your story for a reason good sir!

I wasn't arguing, I was actually just explaining it a bit more. And yeah, I do appreciate the fav.

And actually there is quite a bit of evidence that not only does teaching boys to bottle up emotions cause harm but that it isn't necessary at all. That is partly where I got the idea for the story, a few papers we had read during my psychology classes. And for the record no I did not major in psychology, but it seemed like a reasonable field to learn a bit about so I had 12 credits of classes in it (I think).