News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf] by keiferski on Monday March 11, 2024 @09:39AM (#39668092)
It's interesting to compare this story to the movie Limitless, which has a fairly similar premise, but ends on a positive note. Algernon seems to have more influence, probably because of it is fundamentally a kind of morality tale, but I actually kind of prefer Limitless, [0] as limited as its plot is.

There is something motivational about it, which is probably why there are so many YouTube productivity videos with the soundtrack. [1] I get the same feeling from The Last Samurai a book (unrelated to the Tom Cruise movie) by Helen DeWitt, which is about raising a genius child.

I don't know what the psychological effect is called, but there does seem to be something significant to the idea that it's inspiring to read about/watch extremely intelligent people flexing their intelligence.

0. The film is based on a book, The Dark Fields, which doesn't seem quite so positive, although I haven't read it.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7BRQ9neSrw

Re:Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf] by trylfthsk on Monday March 11, 2024 @09:54AM (#39668257)
Can also recommend the Ted Chiang story Understand [1], which adds in a dash of The Most Dangerous Game.

[1] https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?40835

Re:Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf] by javajosh on Monday March 11, 2024 @12:20PM (#39670091)
I love Ted Chiang and that story is a banger. The movies like Limitless, Lucy or Phenomenon don't really take the concept to its conclusions. Limitless posits day trading, or politics, as the highest goal. Lucy goes post human in a silly, fantasy way. Phenomenon was pretty cool except for the telekinesis. But Understand sort of hits all the bases and I really like the thesis that there is an irreducible, existential struggle between Utilitarianism and Aesthetics. And of course, the realization that the protag is actually the bad guy. Not a huge fan of the idea of "programming" another person with engrams and random stuff in the environment, to like, die, but it's more plausible than telekinesis!

He also wrote the best, IMHO, time-travel story ever written: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Merchant_and_the_Alchemist.... A gorgeous little tale.

Re:Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf] by keiferski on Monday March 11, 2024 @09:54AM (#39668267)
Ah yes I read that one too and it's another good example.
Re:Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf] by markdog12 on Monday March 11, 2024 @03:02PM (#39672091)
Incredible story. Would love if anyone has any similar recommendations.
Re:Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf] by UncleSlacky on Monday March 11, 2024 @04:18PM (#39672789)
Re:Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf] by dreamcompiler on Tuesday March 12, 2024 @12:40AM (#39676258)
Awakenings is still fiction, but it's based on real events. Which makes it even more poignant to me.
Re:Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf] by darkwizard42 on Monday March 11, 2024 @06:45PM (#39674077)
I actually found this story from a previous HN thread and was absolutely blown away. Such an excellent short story.
Re:Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf] by havblue on Monday March 11, 2024 @11:17AM (#39669280)
There's also a great Star Trek episode, the Nth Degree, where Barclay becomes the smartest man alive. The cast is typically annoyed with him so it's great to see the looks of admiration in their faces as he's suddenly able to solve engineering problems faster than Data, brings Beverly to tears in an acting scene they perform together and is confident enough to "make a pass" at Troi.
Re:Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf] by markdog12 on Monday March 11, 2024 @03:04PM (#39672104)
By far the best episode, IMO.
Re:Flowers for Algernon (1965) [pdf] by krick on Tuesday March 12, 2024 @02:45AM (#39676785)
Limitless the book was much better than Limitless the movie. And, yes, it doesn't have a Hollywood-style happy ending at all.

I just finished reading "Flowers for Algernon" the short story and I never read the novel. It also immediately reminded me of "Limitless". (The book, I wouldn't compare it to the movie, again, at least because of that silly "happy end", which seems to be obligatory in the Hollywood.) If you want somebody's (i.e. mine) take on it: well, "Limitless" was much, much better of a read. I was a lot younger when I read it, so I don't how I would react now, but I remember it to be pleasantly realistic, unlike the vast majority of [English] sci-fi. Unlike in the movie, though, there was a lot less "magic" to MDT. There was no silly stuff like being suddenly able to multiply 10-digit numbers in the head and similar Hollywood representations of "being incredibly intelligent" which are just annoyingly stupid, if you ask me. In the book it felt very real, it was very easy to "feel" what is that effect. It's basically just an exceptionally potent nootropic drug, think "amphetamine, but better". And, yes, that was motivational. This is the main reason I remembered it, actually: there I very much felt how the protagonist was "improved". In the "Flowers for Argernon", on the other hand, it just feels like author is trying to explore some idea he isn't mentally equipped to explore. I.e., he has no idea what he is trying to describe. It's childish and unrealistic.

All I can say about "Flowers for Algernon" the short story — I was thinking that the novel must be much better for this to be considered worthwhile. But then there is an addendum at the end of this:

> The novel, published as a mainstream work by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, is not as effective as the story version, which is much tighter and written from a very successfully executed first-person point of view.

Soo… yeah. I'm not gonna try it right now. But then, again, I must admit that anybody who mostly likes sci-fi shouldn't even listen to me, because I can say only bad things about vast majority of famous sci-fi books, with only just a couple exceptions. Mostly it's literally just pulp fiction, comic books without pictures. Not what I expect when somebody talks about "literature".