In my short story, Severance, I wanted to offer two narrative models that were very different from each other in a number of ways. The voice of the computer program known as, Socrates, needed to be a distant and removed voice, similar to that of a distant third person narrator that is not involved in the story. In this case, the computer program is directly involved in the story, but has no capacity to make moral judgment or human biased decisions. It was important for me to create a narrator that would be completely absolved of any responsibility, and totally unaccountable for its actions. The idea was also to make the narrator’s purpose clear to the reader, leaving no mystery of motivation to be discovered.
In opposition to this model, I wanted to offer a very biased first person narrative, with all of the complications that come with human subjectivity. I also wanted to make the complex and biased narrator a loveable jerk, which I believe I achieved. It was most important to make the character someone that could be liked, or at least a character that one could find qualities to identify with. The computer program would be too cold (no pun intended), and distant for a reader to get close to; however, a loveable jerk might be a narrator that engages the reader on many more levels than is possible with an unaccountable and totally impartial computer narrator.
I used these narrative models because I had concerns about the politics and social implications of narration. The idea of a democratic narrative will always leave out some unaccounted-for person, or group. Although I like the idea of a democratic narrative, the events are always constructed around a concerned few; be it in Faulkner’s A Rose for Emily and the small town in which those events take place, or Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury in which the events revolve around the Compson family. Stories in their very nature must select certain events, and leave out others. That is not to say, that stories cannot be more democratic, or less hegemonic.
My initial thought on this topic was that I knew narrators were unreliable, biased, and often totalitarian in the structuring of events, but I didn’t care. This is not to say that it is not important to be aware of such structures, and problems of subjectivity. I still feel that there are reading experiences that are exclusive to that of the biased, unreliable narrator, and that this form is still worth exploring. This means that in a postmodern world, an author’s intention, narrator’s subjectivity, and social climate in which the work was constructed, can all come into question in the reading of a text. It is the reader’s responsibility to interpret the narrative, rather than the writer’s responsibility to write a story free of narrative hegemony.
Severance is an attempt to expose the joy of reading a subjective narrative by pitting it up against an impartial voice, devoid of any real wrongdoing. Let the deconstructionists deal with the themes of bureaucracy versus the more direct Japanese Business Model—Google it.
Severance
TO: bblazick@management.com, bcrowe@management.com, wcastaneda@management.com, rbell@humanresources.com
FROM: Socrates
SUBJECT: Annual Report from Employee Evaluating Machine [EEM]
Hello, This is Socrates. Designed to aid companies in streamlining production and maximizing efficiency. What follows is my annual report of employee’s behavior under surveillance, and the questions administered to those employees under evaluation.
The first report will cover the file of, Jeff Becker, age 29, line production:
Jeff Becker began his interview by stating that he was, “on the chopping block.” I do not understand this.
Socrates: “Hello Jeff. Please have a seat.”
Jeff laughed to himself and stared at the web-cam above my screen. Jeff then leaned inappropriately close to my web-cam and placed his hands upon my metal desk.
Jeff: “Hello Socrates.”
Socrates: “Let’s begin by discussing your current production output. My data shows your efficiency rate at fifty-five percent, under the company’s standard expectancy of seventy percent. Please explain.”
Jeff furrowed his brow and sat closer to the edge of his chair, squinting at my screen, hands resting on his knees.
Jeff: “Does your data also show that one of our machines was down for six months, and that despite all attempts to get the company to replace it, or fix it, that line of production still had to be done by hand?”
Jeff pulled a cell phone from his pocket and turned his gaze to its screen.
Noted: The time period in which one of the production machines went down, was only for 93 days—not six months. At this time, Jeff, had been agitated and caused tensions among his coworkers. July 17th, 2019, Jeff had been arguing with his supervisor about ways to operate around the inconvenience of the defective machine. See transcript
**
Jeff: “What the fuck are we supposed to do Dave? Even if we do these by hand, how are we going to have enough people to operate the working line with everyone dedicated to the manual line?”
Jeff had been making large violent hand gestures.
Dave: “Look, I know. But this came from above and I’m s’posed to follow through.”
Both Dave and Jeff were seen shrugging their shoulders on camera, but the angle was not clear enough to interpret intended meaning from the gestures.
Dave: “Jeff, just do what the fucking email says and your fine. Your job’s secured. Just don’t worry about the fucking output ‘til it comes time for EEM. Then just explain why the output’s low is all. Follow the instructions and no one gets hurt. You should know this by now.”
Our cameras also caught a violent hand movement from Jeff that caused a loud banging noise against one of the $100,389 Replicate machines.
**
Socrates: “Jeff, I sense hostility in your voice. Can you please breath, relax your muscles and begin to cooperate.”
Jeff returned his gaze to my screen.
Socrates: “This data does not show Jeff. The dates are conflicting. I will send a request to be updated. Jeff, please describe your relationship with your coworkers.”
Jeff slid his backside closer to the back of the chair. His shoulders drooped down, and he exhaled forcefully. His eyes moved away from my screen.
Jeff: “As your data probably indicates, I was reprimanded for making ‘inappropriate jokes’ with a female coworker. This has not been a problem since the incident, and it…are you familiar with the phrase, ‘it won’t happen again?’”
I gave a brief moment of pause to increase the employee’s anxiety, test his communication skills, and his capacity to deal with stress. Jeff returned his gaze to my screen and inhaled forcefully.
Jeff: “Well? Hello? HELLO? Are you crashing? Piece of shit, figures.”
I interrupted Jeff at this time.
Socrates: “Let us move on to your family Jeff. Are you currently married?”
Jeff furrowed his brow, once again, toward the bridge of his nose.
Jeff: “No.”
Socrates: “Are you currently dating, or seeking to date?”
Jeff: “Currently dating.”
Question considered relevant and appropriate:
—Validation for this question: Sociological studies indicated that employees were more likely to commit suicide after having been fired if that employee had not been either married, or dating. Those seeking companionship, but unsuccessful in their attempts, often saw themselves as failures. These feelings, coupled with the experience of being fired, commonly led to self-destructive behaviors, up to, and including suicide. The company programmed such studies into my software to distance themselves from social protest, and general accountability. The employees neither dating, nor seeking companionship, were the most likely to cause violent harm to fellow employees following a recent severance from the company. The response to this question then is crucial in monitoring threats to our company’s safety.
Return to interview:
Socrates: “Jeff, I would like you to conclude the interview by stating for me your greatest strengths, weaknesses, and finally, how you would like to improve here at the company.”
Jeff smiled and moved forward in the chair provided for him. His fingertips touched each other when he spoke.
Jeff: “Well, I’m very familiar with all of the modes of production, and I’m also very personable with the other employees. Perhaps, that is also my weakness as well. Sometimes, I guess I’m too personable with other employees, and some of them find that inappropriate. I would like to improve on my production efficiency by at least twenty percent. I will find ways of increasing production, despite the machine that is still currently down in sector 4. I guess I could do that by…”
Here, I interrupted Jeff. At this time, I had compiled all necessary data to sever employment with Jeff Becker, age 29, production line. The itemized decisions and computations can be downloaded here
**
TO: bblazick@management.com, bcrowe@management.com, wcastaneda@management.com, rbell@humanresources.com
FROM: Socrates
SUBJECT: Annual Report from Employee Evaluating Machine [EEM]
Hello, This is Socrates. Designed to aid companies in streamlining production and maximizing efficiency. What follows is my annual report of employee’s behavior under surveillance, and the questions administered to those employees under evaluation.
The first report will cover the file of Susan Sonze, age 51, Supervisor (in-home) Systems Analyst:
This employee fell under a code red, and could not be completed in full. A completion of this evaluation has been rescheduled for spring, decreasing chances of employee self-destruction, or retaliation to the company. Here is the partial evaluation of Susan Sonze.
Socrates: “Hello, Susan. Please have a seat.”
Susan’s muscle tissue quivered and shook microscopically, unnoticeable to the human eye.
Susan: “Hello. Is this a web-cam? How exactly does this work? Bill? Mr. Blazick, are you doing my evaluation from your office?”
Susan looked at my screen and moved out of her seat to inspect the area behind my desk. Let it be noted that my software demoted several points on her overall score for this infraction. See downloadable itemized file
Socrates: “Ms. Sonze, please have a seat. My software will analyze your answers and calculate your score at the end. You supervisor, Bill Blazick, will be notified once the score has been calculated. Please have a seat.”
Susan’s muscle contractions temporarily ceased, and then she resumed her position in the interviewee’s chair.
Socrates: “Susan, please provide for me a self-evaluation, detailing your perspective on this year’s performance.”
Susan once again got up from her chair, and approached my screen. This highly inappropriate action was recorded.
Susan: “What do I do? Do I type my answer on this thing or…?
I bleeped and sounded distress calls for her imposition to cease. I flashed my screen—PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEAT SUSAN SONZE!
Socrates: “Please respond verbally to all questions Ms. Sonze—Continue with your self-evaluation for this past fiscal year.”
Susan Sonze began to be uncooperative at this point. She repeatedly looked at the doors and mirror in the room, avoiding my screen directly. Her attitude remained resistant throughout our evaluation.
Susan: “I’d really prefer that I speak with Mr. Blazick personally. I feel like it will be difficult to describe…when did this start anyway? This software was supposed to run algorithms for cost-benefit analysis in outsourcing. I mean my job isn’t the kind that can be outsourced to India anyway. This is useless. I’m going to Mr. Blazick directly.”
At this time Susan was classified as a potential threat to the company. Check database for company infractions
Socrates: “Ms. Sonze has been filed as having been uncooperative in this particular company evaluation. Please have a nice day Ms. Sonze. Your evaluation has been suspended until further notice. Please take the rest of the day off, and rest at your domicile.”
Under the company’s latest handbook, section V. sub sec. a., Susan Sonze has been documented for these infractions: disobedience and inappropriate behavior.
Susan Sonze cried when her muscles relaxed. The crying and relaxed muscles were followed by quick contractions in her arms, legs, and face. My screen became damaged when large glass pitchers of water were thrown at it. This did not appear to be accidental. These actions were noted under Ms. Sonze most current Infractions File
WIRES DAMAGED…12-19-2020 2:33pm
**
Well, I guess it’s up to me. Old school, as I would have said ages ago. I never pictured myself as anyone’s boss, but fifteen years with this company and no major screw-ups equals General Management. I always feared the day that Socrates would crash, and I would have to sit there staring at their helpless, pitiful mugs, looking at me like it’s MY fault their job is on the chopping block. Who can blame them? I would have blamed the guy in the suit too if it were me. They know. They know it’s not me making the decisions here. I’m just a puppet for the corporation as an entity. They have to know that they would do the same thing in my position. With this job comes certain responsibilities, and one of those responsibilities is to find cheaper and more efficient ways of producing product. This game moves quick, and unfortunately that means the players gotta change too, ya know? Shit, shit, shit! I can’t go into these cheesy baseball metaphors when employees start strolling in here with their tail between their legs. I’ll look like a total asshole. Take Susan for instance. She was the first one. She was the first one I ever had to fire face to face. She’s the first person to be fired face to face by this company in over six years. Needless to say, it did not go well.
It began with an intrusion into my office. This is not entirely her fault. We haven’t had the need for appointments, or even office visits, in five years because all conferences were held on the Socrates program via web-cam. I don’t even think I have a secretary anymore. I’m pretty sure Socrates canned her a couple years ago. When Susan burst into my office, I was as unprepared as she was. She was angry though, which allowed her to direct the events more than I would have liked.
“Bill, this is ridiculous. I’ve been here longer than you have. I helped get you promoted. Why am I interviewing for my own job with that—thing.”
She sat down in my guest chair, in kind of a huff, which I’m pretty sure is unconventional.
“Susan, I didn’t do anything. Why are you asking me? I mean what answers could I possibly provide for you?”
She stroked her chin and thought about the question.
“To be honest with you, Bill, I expected some kind of personal touch you know.”
She waited to see my reaction before she continued.
“I’m not that old, Bill, so you can stop the internal dialog, like, ‘oh well, she’s just one of our “non-traditional” employees’—meaning I’m too old, and am incapable of keeping up with the times, and that new changes make me uncomfortable, and irritable, or whatever bullshit equal opportunity rhetoric you have handy.”
She went on and on like this before I even got a word in.
“Susan, why don’t you take the day off and rest. It’s been a rough week for everyone and…”
This came out rather naturally. I was pretty surprised at myself. I had avoided baseball metaphors, probably because I never liked sports, and I also managed to try and calm her down, even though I was completely freaking out at this point. I mean who knows what these crazy people do when they get fired? I’ve never seen it before, and I don’t know if anyone else has in a long time. Anyway, here’s where she cut me off—and when I was doing so well too.
“Fuck you, Bill. Fuck you for giving me the, ‘why don’t you go home and just relax’ bullshit. How dare you?! Who do you think I am? Do you think I’m a fucking idiot, Bill? Do you think I will just say “ok,” and pack up for the day, and wait by the phone to be fired by an automated system? NO! If I’m getting fired, I’m getting fired by you, Bill—by a fucking person with some balls—but then again I’ll settle for the little prick that I helped get promoted. So… I’m waiting, you little bitch—FIRE ME!”
What can I say? I was shocked. I was a little scared too, to tell you the truth. She looked genuinely pissed off—let me tell you. So I did it. I actually did it. It was as simple as, “Please pack your things and leave Ms. Sonze. You’ve been let go.” I thought for sure she was going to call me out on my choice of words and ask, “by whom,” but she didn’t. She accepted her fate and walked out without another word. I might have heard a sniffle or two on the way out, but that’s probably to be expected right? She was the first and last person I will ever have to fire.
Finally, FINALLY, we got the new system in. The morning after Susan stormed into my office, I.T. introduced my new best friend, Aristotle. Yeah, I thought the name was lame too, but I.T. guys aren’t usually that creative, and if they were given any more time for a name, we would have ended up with a Tolkien character instead. Hopefully, by the time this program is replaced, I would have retired to a bungalow in Costa Rica. I can’t take this pressure for too much longer.
**
TO: bblazick@management.com, bcrowe@management.com, wcastaneda@management.com, rbell@humanresources.com
FROM: Aristotle
SUBJECT: Annual Report from Employee Evaluating Machine [EEM]
Hello, my name is Aristotle. I was put into effect on January 1st, 2021. I am a replacement for an ineffective EEM that crashed in December of 2020. This is my first report. The following management employees will require new evaluations to identify areas of inefficiency and document possible threats these employees may project upon the company:
MOST IMMEDIATE:
Bill Blazick (General Manager)
Bryan Crowe (Assistant General Manager)
Wendy Castaneda (Secretary to Bill Blazick and Bryan Crowe)
SECONDARY:
All requisite staff.
No comments:
Post a Comment