The Dowager Of Bees and In The Slopes

[Traveller]

Thread for discussion of the 2 separate stories, The Dowager Of Bees -and- In The Slopes

[Magdelanye]

The dowager of Bees sounds promising, but I would have done something different with her. seeing as I don't play cards or have any knowledge of card tricks, I failed I'm sure to comprehend the subtleties of this story.
in the slopes was another story altogether.
it forces the reader to stretch the imagination to cover the gaps in background information and action, but even so, the action is compelling and the narrative flow is clean.
its deceptively free of fabulism, with its references to technological and scientific evidence. Of course, the idea we have to wrap our minds around is hollow and the refrain pretty darn sobering.

[Saski]

The Dowager of Bees grabbed me instantly, which was a relief because so far I wasn't having as much fun as I expected with this book. So even though I haven't played in a long time, don't do card tricks, lack any ability to cheat with finesse, I loved this, for the story but also for the intro into different card types -- the Baraja, the Ganjifa (both of which I found pictures of in Wikipedia) and the Rouennaise (whatever that is).

[Derek, Miéville fan-boi]

By Rouennaise, he means essentially what has become the standard playing card deck. Originating in Rouen, France. The original Rouen deck became the English and French decks, which these days vary very little.

I loved this story. My initial reaction when he took the Four of Chimneys was the same as Sugarface's at the end—"oh no, Kid, oh no, no…". Did I mention how many of Miéville's narrators are jerks? I was sure I knew where this was going, just as Sugarface did. I should know better. I suspect China might just give up when he gets that predictable.

Of course, one reason I loved this one is that I think I understood it!

(view spoiler)[The forfeit for cheating with one of the hidden suits has got to be something truly terrible, but Belinda—who almost certainly didn't have the Eight of Chains!—both saved him from it, and possibly doomed him to a worse (in his eyes) fate.

In poker, you only have to show your winning hand if the remaining players match your bet. If you're bluffing and everybody folds, you just turn your hand down. Belinda claimed to have the Eight of Chains, but it's pointedly never shown. We don't know that Belinda knows he palmed the Four of Chimneys at that earlier game (I think), but I don't think she'd be the player she is, and be with him as long as she was, and not know. Equally, she doesn't know that he did cheat in this last game (but he says "She could always read me", so I think it's safe to say she is near-certain). But her actions allow her to win her own hidden card legitimately and, if he did cheat, her solution both saves the Kid and puts him eternally in her debt (the possibly worse fate I mentioned!). Not to mention, it's the biggest bluff ever! With this one bluff, she's proved that she's a better poker player than he can ever be. (hide spoiler)]

[Saski]

Thank you, Derek! I knew someone here would know what Rouennaise is. I guessed that but wanted to know why standard decks were called that, which you also answered.

Thank you also for the extra info on poker and (not) showing. As I said, don't know nothin' about that aspect of the game. :)

[Saski]

Here's something one doesn't see often in CM's work. Or maybe he did it on purpose? "There was a track between trees, and where it ended there were three big tents pitched by two cars."

Being it is CM, I suppose cars can pitch tents ... ;)

[Derek, Miéville fan-boi]

but they have a hard time driving in the tent pegs.

"In the slopes" was interesting, but it didn't go anywhere. It seems almost like a pitch for a novel.

[Cecily]

I think you have to have some knowledge of (and preferably fondness for) poker to enjoy The Dowager of Bees. It may be excellent, but I missed its point. I'm sure it's more than something karmic.

[Cecily]

I thought In the Slopes had more potential, though for a short story, there was rather more in-fighting between archaeologists than I wanted. The ending was interesting. But that was it. It didn't do anything with it!

[Derek, Miéville fan-boi]

I'm sure some knowledge of poker helps enormously with "The Dowager of Bees". If you don't know the difference between bluffing and cheating, you lose any comprehension of the ending, but I wouldn't say I have any fondness for it—I'm in, anytime anybody invites me to play, but that's just because I'm a gambler by nature, not because I have any attraction to poker (and it must be thirty years since I've played poker, pretty much since the dawn of Texas Hold'em—which was another joke you had to have some familiarity with poker for).

Yeah, "In the Slopes" left me wanting. You might not want the archeological in-fighting, but that's been the whole history of the field! And it's clearly still going on—you just have to read the background pieces about Homo floresiensis and Homo naledi to see it.

[Saski]

Or fights over who owns which bones in South Dakota, etc.

[Cecily]

Ruth wrote: "Or fights over who owns which bones in South Dakota, etc."

Probably doesn't matter, does it? Weren't they all planted there by God as a test in our faith of a young earth?!

[Saski]

Oh, right! I had forgotten, forgive me ;)

[Cecily]

Only God can forgive you, Ruth, and I have no messiah complex.
;)

[Derek, Miéville fan-boi]

LOL. My religious past wouldn't let me say that, but I was thinking it!

[Cecily]

My past was religious too, but I guess I've become more of a heathen than you!
;)

[Joey247]

I've just read the Dowager of Bees and I'm wondering if anyone can clarify something. I'm trying to understand the forfeits.

In the first scene, Joy wins with a hidden suit and people owe her a favor, so that seems like they're forfeiting to her for losing.

In the second scene, Belinda wins with the hidden suit, but then it seems she owes the other player a forfeit. Maybe I'm just misreading it, but it talks about how tense she seems and she says stuff like "that's not that bad".

These two contradicting one another don't make sense to me, and it makes interpreting the ending tough. The ending again makes it seem like the loser owes the winner a forfeit, since the protagonist keeps asking "what's the forfeit", but it's unclear because of the phrasing. It's referred to as a "winner's forfeit" by the judge, which makes it sound like the winner has to forfeit

Does anyone have any insight?

[Derek, Miéville fan-boi]

Iirc, Everytime the hidden suit comes up, someone has to consult the rule book, and the forfeit always changes. The person with the hidden suit always wins the poker hands, but the forfeit could be good or bad for the winner

[Alison]

Does anyone have some clarity to add to the ending of "In the Slopes"? (view spoiler)[ When the narrator mentions that Gilroy never turned up again after she disappeared, and everyone gasped when they saw rival digger Paddick uncover the face of the final figure, I was convinced that somehow, the final figure was Gilroy -- that Gilroy had somehow communed with the aliens in a way that took her back to their time, where she died and became part of the dig site. That interpretation is somewhat bolstered by the idea that she might not have been talking to herself when she talked to the ground, but somehow communicating with the aliens. But I feel like I'm missing something about what that final figure was reaching for, that makes me doubt my interpretation. Did anyone else have this same interpretation? Or another interesting interpretation to share? (hide spoiler)]

[Derek, Miéville fan-boi]

I was hoping somebody else could remember better than me...

I'm pretty sure you're right. I think the "reaching" is just trying to reach back to safety.