Grimoire of Horror, Volume 2

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, production of iHeartRadio.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. My name
is Robert.

Speaker 3 (00:15):
Lamb and I am Joe McCormick.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
Over the years here on Stuff to Blow Your Mind,
we've done a number of Halloween episodes that, in one
way or another, pick from assorted tales, discuss those tales
and maybe pick apart some science or culture surrounding them.
At one point we did a series of episodes based
on different creepypastas. Then Joe and I turned to TV
horror anthology episodes for a number of years, and last

(00:40):
year we started a new tradition, one that sticks to
shorter horror works, but also gets back into the written word,
which I know many of our listeners missed from the
days when we did summer reading episodes. So you know,
written horror fiction often comes up on the show anyway,
So it seemed like a solid direction to go in.
This is the this is our second Grimoure of Horror episode,

(01:04):
and so in this episode, yeah, we're going to be
discussing a pair of horror short stories, both very different,
but also I guess it's just pure synchronicity here. They
both feature elements of the Poles, the North Pole of
the Arctic in one in one story, or what I
believe is supposed to be the North Pole, and then

(01:24):
the other tale takes us to the Antarctic, and both
ultimately contain a fair amount of ice and coldness.

Speaker 3 (01:30):
Hmmm yeah. And you know, while I often fear that
it's going to be hot on Halloween, just like I
often fear that it's going to be hot on Christmas,
it has proven a little bit chilly this week around
my house.

Speaker 2 (01:41):
Hmmm yeah, yeah, it's a little it's a little cold here,
it's a little wet here. I think it's going to
dry up a bit, and so hopefully we'll have a
good night for trigger treating.

Speaker 3 (01:50):
So what's your tale of dread?

Speaker 2 (01:51):
Rob? All Right? I decided to go right for it,
and I picked up a story that had been on
my list of things that I felt like I should
probably have read for many years. My selection is I
Have No Mouth and I Must Scream by Harlan Ellison,
a horrifying sci fi short story about the dangers of
artificial intelligence from way back in nineteen sixty seven.

Speaker 3 (02:15):
Kind Of hard to imagine that writers in the nineteen
sixties were already personifying computers. This much feels like second
nature now, but you know, the computers of the time,
there was a lot more imagination involved to get across
the gap in time and technology from what they had
then to the to the you know, terminator or the

(02:36):
or the am from I have no mouth than it
is to get from what we have today to the same.

Speaker 2 (02:43):
Yeah. Yeah, it's really interesting to think about this, in
part because, to be clear, Harlan Ellison did not invent this.
You know, he's coming along already in an established tradition
and putting his own spin on things. But yeah, it
is just crazy to think about. Okay, what else was
going on in the year nineteen sixty seven. Well, this
was the year of the Summer of Love, so actual

(03:05):
hippies and flower children, there's a good chance some of
them read this story, along with a little novel called
Doom that came out a few years prior and at
that point had no sequel yet, so I was captivated
by that idea. This was also the year that Star
Trek debuted with all of its ultimate ultimately you know,
a show about technological and futuristic optimism. This story is

(03:28):
not that.

Speaker 3 (03:30):
What a spectrum represented by the three works you just named.

Speaker 2 (03:35):
Also, it's interesting to think about computer technology of the time. Yeah,
I was looking this up. As far as I understand,
the most powerful computer at the time was the CDC,
the Controlled Data Corporation sixty six hundred, which would have
been one of these room sized supercomputers, and it reigned
supreme at the time, but today would be less powerful

(03:57):
than a home smart device and would be absolutely dwarf
by the speed and power of your smartphone, to say
nothing of today's actual supercomputers.

Speaker 3 (04:05):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (04:05):
This was also the year that both Vin Diesel and
Nicole Kidman were born.

Speaker 3 (04:10):
Really, that's kind of surprising. I was about to say
that Vin Diesel doesn't seem that old, but actually neither
of them do.

Speaker 2 (04:18):
No no whether they're ageless celebrity superstars, but we can
imagine them as babies. Vin Diesel babies, Nicole Kidman babies,
one of us preaching to us about the importance of family,
the other telling us how transformative watching a movie in
a theater happens to be.

Speaker 3 (04:35):
Asking Vell kil Murphy likes thinking about bats. Yeah, but
you can imagine them as babies and their parents reading
in the Science fiction magazine. I have no mouth, and
I must scream, and I'm sure getting a lot out
of it.

Speaker 2 (04:49):
So Harlan Ellison lived nineteen thirty four through twenty eighteen,
so at the time of this story's publication, I believe
he would have been like thirty three years old, already
a published author, an army vet, and by most accounts,
already had a strong reputation as a difficult person to
say the least.

Speaker 3 (05:07):
I'm not super familiar with Harlan Ellison, but what I
do know, and I'm not looking at it to confirm,
so I can't say I know this is true. But
my impression is that literally half the length of his
Wikipedia page is the Controversies and Dispute section.

Speaker 2 (05:22):
Yeah, you would be correct on that count. It's when
you get into the personal stuff and the lawsuits and
so forth, generally lawsuits filed by Harlan Ellison. Now, I
first became aware of him not through his written work,
but via the segments on the Sci Fi Channels sci
Fi Buzz series back in I believe nineteen ninety two.

(05:45):
This would have been like a sort of like the
Sci Fi Channel News if I remember correctly, and he
would have these segments titled Harlan Ellison's Watching, which was
also the name of a nineteen eighty nine collection of
his essays and film reviews. But these were like weirdly
shot little rants, so like I was looking back at
one of them, and it's like shot in a mirror

(06:06):
for some reason. But it's just him ranting about one
sci fi related topic or another. You know, here's this
white haired author expressing his scathing opinions on various topics.
And while my sensibilities were still very much in development
and pre development at the time, even then I realized
that this guy was a pretty smart and be just

(06:28):
absolutely insufferable. So to be honest, I think that I
probably avoided reading his work in my life in part
because I had this just mental image of him. I
had this sort of media personality forward idea of Harlan
Ellison that you know, I respect it on some level

(06:50):
but also didn't really want any more of. But plenty
of people did you know. He was a figure that
would say exactly what he thinks, didn't care who he
pissed off when he said it. He described himself as
a troublemaker in a malcontent. Others called him everything from
a man shaped explosion. Comedian Patton Oswald used that one,

(07:10):
and other people called him things that we can't even
repeat here. He was reportedly bipolar, but wasn't diagnosed and
didn't receive treatment for it till near the end of
his life. He was anti authoritarian, He was contrary. He
was progressive on a number of topics, but also could
allegedly be quite arrogant, volatile, abusive, sexist, litigious, and just

(07:33):
a real pain of not an active threat to those
around him. There were also at least two major accusations
of sexual misconduct during his life. And I say all
of this because I feel like with a notorious figure
like Ellison, notorious and at the same time beloved by many,
he's far from the anonymous writer in the Shadows. You know,

(07:53):
we can't help but take our knowledge of him into
the text. Again. It was a media personality, and I'm
probably not the only person out there who encountered him
first as a media personality and then grew to realize, oh,
he was also a heck of a writer. Because you know,
whatever else he was, he was quite a writer, and
I believe this story is a fine example of that.

(08:16):
He was also a prolific writer. I have no Mouth
and I'm a scream. It's just one of some four
hundred stories he wrote. He wrote something like seventy books
and numerous other scripts, columns, and projects, including the original
Star Trek episode The City on the Edge of Forever,
which is often counted among the best of the original series.

(08:36):
And speaking on the story in question here, I have
no Mouth and I'm a scream. You know, I feel
like there's a real live wire energy to the pros here.
At times it almost has a kind of Beat generation
vibe to it. He was not part of the Beat generation,
to be clear. It's more like new wave science fiction,
I guess. But there's a rhythm to it. It's pretty

(08:57):
quick to hook in the reader. The prose is raw
and ragged and neatly fitting with the dark, mean nature
of the tale.

Speaker 3 (09:04):
Yeah, yeah, I know exactly what you mean. It's confusing
because in ultimate effect, this story is makes me feel
so bad. It's so awful. But there are parts of
the text that as pro is a rapturous you know,
they really pull you along. It becomes like a you know,

(09:27):
following a thundering sermon by like a really captivating Preacher.

Speaker 2 (09:32):
Yeah, yeah, it really does captivate you. It's this is
one where we were picking our stories, and we began
picking our stories for this episode, like, you know, a
month or a month and a half ago, and I
happened to look at this one early on and I
read it and I was like, well, that's a strong candidate.
And then the next day I just kept thinking about
the story and I realized, well, no, it has to
be this one. Because you know, you've read something interesting,

(09:56):
or you've seen something interesting, if you're dealing with films,
if it if it continues to emerge in your thoughts
in the days of the weeks after you're viewing or
your reading. All right, so let's get to what this
story is about. If you're not familiar with it, because
it is a rather famous tale. It is a post
technological singularity dystopian sci fi horror tale about a supercomputer

(10:19):
AI that eradicates all life on Earth except for five
human beings. This supercomputer AI, known as am or AM,
makes these individuals biologically immortal and keeps them alive for
the sole purpose, and this seems to be its sole
purpose of endlessly torturing them.

Speaker 3 (10:38):
Yeah, the narrator of the story can never really know,
can only suppose what the motivations of the computer are.
But there are a number of suggestions, and I think
in the story kind of lands on that there is
something tortured and inadequate about the form in which the
consciousness of this computer has been brought into it into existence.

(11:01):
There's something about it that it hates to be and
cannot change, and thus it has a rage that can
only be expressed as a desire to torture the species
that created it, and that is humankind.

Speaker 2 (11:14):
Yeah. Yeah, it is frequently cited as being a vengeance,
very Frankenstein like in many respects. I guess on that
one level, you know, the idea that the created individual
comes to disdain both its own creation and its creator
and then seeks vengeance over them, and in this case
not only seeks, but achieves. It achieves a long standing,

(11:37):
everlasting victory.

Speaker 3 (11:39):
It creates a literal hell for a small number of
human pets that it has preserved.

Speaker 2 (11:44):
Exactly. Yeah. Now, I mentioned earlier that you know, Harlan
Nelson did not invent any of this. You know, this
is his own unique and highly effective spin on it.
So I want to do a quick look at just
a few notables precursors to this computer and supercomputer fiction. Arguably,

(12:06):
the first thing like an AI to appear in fiction
is the engine, a writing machine in Jonathan Swift Gulliver's
Travels from seventeen twenty six.

Speaker 3 (12:16):
Eric A.

Speaker 2 (12:16):
Weiss presented this idea in a nineteen eighty five article
for Annals of History of Computing.

Speaker 3 (12:22):
That's funny. I've read Gulliver's Travels, but I don't remember
what this is. Is this something that the winhms have.

Speaker 2 (12:28):
Or it's been a long time for me as well.
So I'm a little foggy on the exact example, but
a case could be made, apparently. But the first true example,
by most standards is the Machine from The Machine Stops,
a short story by E. M. Forster, best known for
his rather non sci fi novels such as A Room
with a View, Howard's End, and A Passage to India

(12:50):
from nineteen twenty four. That last one, and I believe
I read that one in college. But it's been a
long time.

Speaker 3 (12:56):
I read A Room with a View in college.

Speaker 2 (12:57):
Okay, I have not read any read any of his
science fiction. I did re part of the story in question. Here.
It was a dystopian rebuttal to some of H. G.
Wells's early, more utopian technological visions, apparently a cautionary tale
about humans becoming too reliant on technology and an all
powerful supercomputer that tends to their every need. As the

(13:20):
title suggests, the machine eventually stops, bringing complete collapse for
the subterranean dwellers who depend on the machines, but also
a potential new future for the portions of humanity that
still live above the ground. So there are many other
pre am pre am examples of fictional ais, but a
couple of other notable examples include Colossus in D. F.

(13:44):
Jones Colossus Trilogy, the first novel published in nineteen sixty
six and then was later in nineteen seventy adapted into
the film Colossus the Foreben Project. These books deal with
a US supercomputer placed in charge of the nation's nuclear arts,
that eventually merges with its Soviet counterpart and rules over

(14:04):
the human race in order to protect the human species
from itself.

Speaker 3 (14:09):
That's interesting for how similar the premise is to something
they discuss in I Have No Mouth and in some
other Killer AI stories that they come out of the
cold war, They imagine the initial supercomputer as something created
in order to fight the war or to defend one
side on the war. Then they imagine a supercomputing arms race.

(14:32):
Then they finally imagine that the computers on both sides
join forces and merge to turn against the humans that
created them.

Speaker 2 (14:41):
Yeah. Yeah, And there's obviously there's a lot going on
in such visions. On one level, it's kind of like,
what if we create If we create something and it
becomes greater than us, does it become greater than the
stupid things we asked it to do? You know? Does it?
Does it become greater than our own self destruction? And
in that what does it become? Does it become our protectors?
Does it be become like a benevolent god that looks

(15:02):
over us? Or does it become something much worse? As
Harlan Ellison explores here. One more work I want to highlight.
This is another pre am work that deals not only
with powerful ais, but ais that work violently against human factions,
and that is Philip K. Dix nineteen sixty pulp novel

(15:25):
Vulcan's Hammer. This is not one of the Dick books
that I've read, but I'm to understand. This was like
kind of like at the end of his pulp phase
before he got into writing many of the books that
we know him best from. But this one definitely involved
an AI or AI's that again violently worked against human beings,

(15:47):
or at least factions of human beings. Now there may
be some other presidents worth pointing out, but Ellison's am
or am which stands different descriptions are applied. Sometimes it's
to have initially meant allied master computer, and then adaptive manipulator,
and then aggressive menace, but ultimately it also refers to

(16:09):
I think therefore, I am am am. This would certainly
seem to be the concept of a dangerous AI pushed
to just a horrifying extreme, a supercomputer superintelligence, but one
that has absolutely no benevolence in it. It's not even benign.

(16:30):
It is just absolutely malicious in its pure manifestation. It's
just described at times in the tale as being akin
to kind of a vengeful Old Testament God, but one
that seeks only to endlessly torment its people out of
an all consuming sense of sadistic hatred for the species
that created it. So the story here is told from

(16:51):
the point of view of Ted, one of five remaining humans,
as they plod helplessly through AM's torments, which take place
in a world with all the flavor of post apocalyptic
high technology magic. You know, it's one of those where
the technology so advanced it becomes magic, and the only
way we can even think about it is as sorcery,

(17:11):
like Am has summoned Win, Am has summoned monsters and
so forth.

Speaker 3 (17:15):
Yeah, you could almost think of it as taking place
within a hollow deck. There is just seems to be
no end to the changes in the physical environment that
can be brought about by the computer, and thus it
kind of loses a sense of reality in that sense,
Like the whole thing could almost be a nightmare within
the characters' heads because there's very little that physically holds

(17:39):
anything steady. The computer can do anything and does anything.

Speaker 2 (17:43):
Yeah, it changes their bodies, it changes their minds, It
can read their thoughts, It can protect them to whatever
degree it desires from danger and harm while also keeping
them in constant states of pain. Yeah, so just a
nightmare scenario. Well, you know, it's given them biological immortality,

(18:05):
but it's taken just about everything else from them, and
it only wants them to live because it doesn't want
the pain to ever end. There's a great line that
I thought summoned up, you know, some of what we're
talking about here, the magic of the thing, the narrator says, immortal, trapped,
subject to any torment he could devise for us from
the limitless miracles at his command. Now, on one hand,

(18:28):
the situation here is, you know, certainly by modern standards
and based on all the stuff that's come in the
wake of this story, a pretty digestible post apocalyptic scenario
AI run them up, wipes out humanity and acts endless
revenge on five survivors. But the pros does touch on
I think more subtle aspects of the scenario as well, Like,
in one sense, there is the idea that am has

(18:49):
become the world and is in a sense, you know,
a manifestation of the technological world, like he is the
technological world, and so on some level we're thinking about,
this is what technology is doing to us in addition
to like what it could do in an absolute worst
case scenario.

Speaker 3 (19:05):
Yeah, and that also raises questions about, you know, a
natural tendency. A lot of people have to want to
separate what happens within your interactions with say digital media
or technology from real life. If we hear these kind
of there's like the Internet and there's real life in
our world and those are two separate things, but they're

(19:27):
really not separate things, Like the Internet is part of
real life and instead, what when people try to make
that distinction, what's actually being highlighted is that people make
allowances for behavior on the Internet that they would not
make allowances for in real life. But it is real life.

Speaker 2 (19:44):
Yeah, like we would say it was just a stupid name,
but now that then a lot of times the stupid
names change the way you think about things in the
real world, like they are infectious. And that's just one
of many examples. Yeah, here's another great line from the story.
I think that ties into some of this. We would
be forever with him, with the cavern filling bulk of

(20:05):
the creature machine, with the all mind soulless world he
had become. So you know again, Am is just ubiquitous.
He is everywhere and nowhere. He controls everything. And here's
another line I want to read. This is sort of
the central I think therefore, I am aspect of the situation.

(20:25):
Quote we had given AM sentience inadvertently, of course, but
sentience nonetheless. But it had been trapped. AM wasn't God.
He was a machine. We had created him to think,
but there was nothing it could do with that creativity
in rage, in frenzy. The machine had killed the human race,
almost all of us, and still it was trapped. AM

(20:45):
could not wander, AM could not wonder, AM could not belong,
He could merely be. And so, with the innate loathing
that all machines had always held for the weak, soft
creatures who had built them, he had sought revenge.

Speaker 3 (21:00):
I was somewhat profoundly impacted by that line about the
innate loathing all machines had always held for the creatures
that built them, because on one sense, you could look
at that as just a you know, an irrational personification.
You know, you might make sense to think about an
artificial intelligence having feelings, including loathing and hatred, but could

(21:22):
you really think of a steam engine as having loathing?
But actually, I think that line is powerful because you
could reframe it the other way. You could say, no, actually,
even the supercomputer, even the AI, doesn't have genuine loathing.
It doesn't have loathing. And we, as we understand in
a human sense. It has a behavior which is resembles

(21:47):
human behaviors and human motivations, but is not human. And
there's something all the more horrifying that allow when you
think about the idea that maybe there's not actually an
intelligence or a soul or whatever behind it. Whatever that means.
It's just like a steam engine, but a much more

(22:07):
complex one. And for some reason, the way the steam
engine has malfunctioned resembles the hatred and loathing that humans
can manifest.

Speaker 2 (22:16):
That's a good point, that's a good read on it. Yeah,
it's also worth pointing out that again, Ted is our
point of view character here. He is our protagonist, and
while he tells us that he is the only one
of the five survivors whose mind is still intact, I mean,
obviously he's an individual that has been highly traumatized and
endlessly tortured for over a century at this point. So

(22:40):
I think there's some built in, if not unreliable, unreliability
to the character, at least we have to question whether
he is in his right mind anymore on this in
a number of topics, Oh, I.

Speaker 3 (22:52):
Say this is the definition of an unreliable narrator. Story
almost nothing that we are told happens. Could we really
count on being real?

Speaker 2 (23:01):
Yeah? So how are they going to get out of
this pickle? Well? This is this is how it all
goes down. The story reaches its climax within caves of ice. Basically,
Am keeps putting them through these different awful scenarios so
they can get some sort of you know, horrible food
they can eat. So they're in this cave of ice
looking for can goods, I believe, and then they can't

(23:22):
open the can goods, and you know, it's all it's
one cruel joke after another. But then, starving, one of
the survivors attacks the others in a cannibalistic rage. Ice
stalactites fall from the ceiling and Ted senses a way
out for them. He sees an opportunity that is fleeting.
He grabs one of the ice spikes and he kills

(23:43):
one of the survivors. Then he kills another survivor. The
lone female survivor, Ellen realizes what he's doing and she
does the same. She grabs an ice spike and kills
yet another survivor, and then Ted kills her as well,
all before Am has time to react.

Speaker 3 (23:59):
So all of the remaining humans are killed in an
instant except for the narrator.

Speaker 2 (24:03):
That's right, Ted is the sole survivor. And then we
fast forward some unspecified and unknowable amount of time, and
we learned that in his rage, Am has taken Ted again,
the last human survivor. He can't bring anybody back. This
is all he has left of the species that he
sought revenge against. And in just insane vengeance here he

(24:27):
drastically alters Ted's physiology and turns him into a kind
of mouthless blob like entity that is incapable of hurting
itself or running away. And then Ted reflects on this
and the final bit of the story here, I'm just
going to read this last paragraph outwardly, dumbly, I shamble
about a thing that could never have been known as human,

(24:50):
a thing whose shape is so alien, a travesty that
humanity becomes more obscene for the vague resemblance inwardly alone
here living under land, under the sea, in the belly
of Am, who we created because our time was badly spent,
and we must have known unconsciously that he could do
it better. At least the four of them are safe

(25:11):
at last, Am will be all the matter for that
it makes me a little happier. And yet Am has won,
simply he has taken his revenge. I have no mouth,
and I must scream.

Speaker 3 (25:34):
So I can see why this story had the impact
that it did. It is quite powerful, but also the
effect it had on me was so bad. I feel
like I to be on it. Like it is in
some ways a great story, but I like hated reading
it and hate what it did to me. Is it
inflicts this kind of sticky misery that followed me around?

Speaker 2 (25:59):
Yeah? Absolutely, I mean it is a it's a mean
little story with about as bleak an ending as you
could hope for. I mean, at the end, Ted does
sacrifice himself to save his fellow humans from endless torment.
And then as far as you know the character goes here,
you know this is This is not a character overflowing
with warmth. These characters are are mean and nasty to

(26:19):
each other, seemingly because that is the way Am wanted
it to be. Like part of its joy is in
turning them against each other and making them, you know,
all miserable and miserable to each other. That's part of
its revenge.

Speaker 3 (26:34):
I'm gonna say also that it feels to me like
they are they are not treated kindly by the writer either,
that there is there is an inherent I don't know
exactly what I mean. Maybe maybe it would have to
feel this way to tell this kind of story, but
it it doesn't feel like the writer is sympathetic enough
to them. Yeah, while depicting their torments. It's just it

(26:57):
just has a core like mean and bleakness that feels awful.

Speaker 2 (27:02):
Absolutely. Yeah, outside of the narrative, I think we can
easily identify some rather misogynistic writing here. Yeah, that can
be viewed I guess inside the narrative as the tormented
nature of the characters. But still I think it reads
rather obviously as misogynistic. And then there's also some character
or author level ignorance about homosexuality as well. And interestingly enough,

(27:25):
I'm to understand some of these details would have been
material edited out of the story's initial publication, but then
it gets put back in later on. Not to say
that the original published version of the story was completely
devoid of these qualities, but to understand like some like
sexual references were removed from the initial publication.

Speaker 3 (27:43):
But at the same time that I say all that
it doesn't seem like an unintended effect. It seems like
the point of this story is to inflict horror and misery,
and it does that better than almost any other story
I can think of. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (27:57):
Yeah, And it's also worth noting this is this is
a a sleek little tale. This is okay at the
exact word count, but we're somewhere between what five thousand
and six thousand words somewhere in that like a nice
sweet spot for a short story, you know, from a
publication standpoint, and also a consumability standpoint, you know, this
is like a chicken biscuit of a story where you're
probably going to be able to finish the whole thing,

(28:18):
and if you do, maybe you'll have a second chicken biscuit,
but you're probably not putting half of it in the
fridge for later. But that also means that, in an
a glorious way, this is exactly the length of story
where you have so many unanswered questions. The imagination, you know,
runs wild trying to piece together what's not said about
Am and its world and the struggles of these characters.

(28:39):
It also means you also you can't necessarily develop all
the characters as richly as you could in a you know,
a longer format, certainly in a novella or a novel.
All right, So what is this story trying to teach us?
Or what questions is it asking? What is it warning
us against? And what is it saying about technology specifically

(29:00):
artificial intelligence? I guess some of that. Some of these
are going to be just painfully obvious. But the big one,
of course is maybe be careful about how much power
you hand over to machines?

Speaker 3 (29:10):
Right, sure, it seems pretty straightforward.

Speaker 2 (29:13):
Yeah, yeah, Like I think in interviews Ellison would often
say that, like his primary concern was, you know, what
happens if you hand over military powers to a machine?
But I think ultimately the story kind of grapples with
other ideas or could be compared to other things as well.
You know, like when we hand more of our life

(29:33):
over to a machine, what does that mean? And it
goes beyond like military powers, but like, what what does
it mean when I loved when text messages you and
you allow your device to reply with a generated response,
you know what is lost? And even that small act
and then what is is there a cumulative effect? You know,
there are not necessarily any clear, definitive answers here, but

(29:56):
you know, it's certainly worth thinking about.

Speaker 3 (29:58):
I would say, yes, I think the it's you know,
it's a there are a lot of things that it
makes sense to automate, but I don't love the idea
of automating the things that give our lives meaning.

Speaker 2 (30:11):
Yeah, yeah, which seems like there's been a real push
to do that. Let's take away the things the most
human acts of creation, you know, personal or commercial, and
let's automate those. Let's turn those over to you know,
language models and so forth.

Speaker 3 (30:26):
Yeah, let's automate our relationships to spend so we have
more time for email.

Speaker 2 (30:31):
Yeah. So the other another topic that of course comes
to mind and all of this is something that's talked
about quite a lot, and that is ethical guardrails on AI.
You know, this is one that you hear just I
think every major AI company talks about this a lot,

(30:52):
takes it seriously, or at least claims to take it seriously.
You know, how do you not make AM? How do
you not create a sky net or something like that,
or even something that is not nearly as malicious, because again,
AM is kind of like the most malicious vision of
ail you could possibly dream up, but even if you
made something like ten percent as horrible, it would be

(31:16):
a failure. So you know, how do we avoid that?
And that's a big question too, like can we do that?
Like can we actually put guardrails on these things and
keep them from becoming malignant, becoming problems on any level.

Speaker 3 (31:32):
I might have more to say about this later, but yeah,
we've talked on the show before about how I don't
think you have to imagine a worst case scenario either
for the level of power or for the level of
maliciousness in an AI, for an AI scenario to turn
out very bad.

Speaker 2 (31:50):
Yeah, Like, because there are obviously big questions, like you know,
talking about like broad questions of morality and ethics or
certainly anytime you're a man imagining some sort of AI
system controlling or influencing military, economic, or social systems. But
then there's like the smaller, more personal examples, like you know,
a chatbot that someone interacts with while depressed, lonely or angry.

(32:12):
Like you know, if if that scenario doesn't have like
all the proper ethical guardrails in place, like you know,
there are all sorts of horrible possibilities, and and then
it just it also raises the question again, can you
really control that environment? Can you really create can you
really fool proof it? You know?

Speaker 3 (32:33):
Yeah? Yeah, And and by the way I mean, I
would say, of course you raised this in the way
I think that it would normally be brought up, like
there is danger in creating AI without ethical guard rails.
You need to you need to have the guardrails in place.
But I think it's also worth considering, and implied by
this story, the question of whether it's actually possible to

(32:55):
create effective guardrails for AI, or you know, is it
the that maybe AI is a branch of technology that
is impossible to make safe. Maybe that is a fundamental
feature of it. I'm not necessarily claiming that, but doesn't
seem implausible to me. It seems like it could be true.
And then there's another distinction to consider. There are two

(33:17):
different ways to ask the question can AI be made safe?
There's the fundamental version of the question what I just said,
is it possible for an AI to exist that's like
truly aligned for humanity's benefit and its effects are actually
good overall? And then even if the answer to that
first question is yes, that is possible. There's a secondary

(33:38):
practical question if it's possible for nice AI to exist,
given the environment in which the AI would be created
and the incentives driving its creation, is it plausible that
a nice AI is the kind that would be created?
So imagine instead of being created and say, I don't know,

(33:58):
a university the laboratory with an infinite time horizon, there
are like pressures on the people creating it, like we've
got to go faster, and we've got to make money,
and we've got to you know, we've got to get
there faster than somebody else. I mean, it seems like
those sort of things would really cause people to make
excuses for why you don't need to pay attention to

(34:20):
the ethical guardrails. Actually, yeah, it'll be good enough.

Speaker 2 (34:24):
Yeah. Now, another concern that is brought up in the
story is that of the unintended consequences of creating artificial intelligence,
and this reminded me a bit of my interview with
author Jonathan Birch from the last couple of years about
his twenty twenty four book The Edge of Sentience, Risk
and Precaution in Humans Other Animals in AI, and he

(34:47):
discussed that there are arguments for regular testing for consciousness
in AIS and legal protections for such intelligence should they
be detected within the story. I mean we might ask
the question, could AM's devastation and vengeance have been prevented
if we'd only recognized his personal plight early early on?

(35:09):
You know, it's not really the sort of story to
consider this option, but I think you could easily make
that sort of argument. You know, in creating something that
is potentially sentient, what is our responsibility as the creator?
And in general, you know, the ever persistent warning is,
you know, against allowing the consequences of technology to outstrip
our abilities to respond in safeguard. But yeah, as far

(35:31):
as consciousness goes, would we be able to detect it
if it was there? What would false positives mean? Might
we you know, what would happen if we started seeing
it where it wasn't. There's so many additional questions that arise.

Speaker 3 (35:45):
In this in this scenario as well, Yeah, absolutely, I
mean fraught with these kinds of questions. Though I do
want to emphasize I alluded to this earlier, but I
don't think that AI is owned potentially dangerous If we're
reaching sort of hypothetical tipping points like sentience or or

(36:09):
levels of power like you know, AGI or nearly omnipotent superintelligence.
That sort of thing. Something we've talked about on the
show is how a much less powerful and less intelligent
type of AI could still potentially be a threat to
humankind simply by automating destructive processes. In other words, by

(36:33):
making it cheaper and easier to do harmful things at
a vast scale. So I don't think we have a
way of knowing if the current generation of AI based
on like large language models will ultimately lead to more
harm or more benefit for humankind. You know, don't know.
It could go one way or the other, could be
a wash. But one way that I already see it

(36:56):
potentially causing massive harm is by making it easier than
ever to pollute the already toxic information ecosystem with more
and more garbage and phoniness. Yeah, you know, creating this
world in which fake facts and fake opinions and fake people,
fake claims, fake interactions, fake commerce, fake culture drown out

(37:19):
the signal of real human knowledge and thought. And you
don't need an am or a sky net to do that.
You can do that with models that already exist today,
and that is, in a sense an ongoing project, which
I do think represents a kind of system wide threat
for humankind. Is hard to know exactly how severe that

(37:40):
threat will be and whether it's outweighed by positives and
increases in productivity and stuff like that that AI brings
with it. But of course with those benefits you also
get other downsides that come.

Speaker 2 (37:52):
Yeah, I agree, I mean there's some again. Yeah, you
don't have to think about a sky net or a
full blown AM or a general artificial intelligence level of
scenario to get into troubling situations. I mean, I was
just reading I believe that this was an MPR headline
from October eighth of this year. One in five high
schoolers has had a romantic AI relationship or knows someone

(38:14):
who has. And this was based on then new research
from the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit that
advocates for civil rights, civil liberties, and the responsible use
of data and technology, and in talking about how young
people are using chatbots for various levels of emotional support
as well and then engaging in romantic or something like

(38:36):
romantic AI interactions, and yeah, I mean I try not
to be you know, a complete Butlerian about the whole thing,
or a luddite, you know, and try and see, you know,
how these systems can potentially be of use. You know,
I think back to stories from just you know, ten

(38:57):
fifteen years ago talking about how you know, AI could
enhance human potential, enhance human creativity and so forth, and
you know, I'm loathed to believe that that dream is
completely dead. But I read stuff like this and I
don't know, it feels terrifying. You know, maybe I'm overreacting.
But you know, as the father of a thirteen year

(39:21):
old child, you know, I think about these potential threats
and things like this, and things I can't even imagine
yet that are related to artificial intelligence and language models,
and I, you know, it gives me a lot of
pause for concern. And again, you know, we're not even
presumably anywhere close to the general AI level in any

(39:43):
of these concerns.

Speaker 3 (39:44):
It's funny. I can remember a time when I thought
of killer AI stories as potentially fun subject matter for
science fiction, the way I still feel about all kinds
of other subgenres in sci fi, like alien invasion stories
or time travels to worries. But I can't get back
into that care free mind space about AI. Now, given

(40:06):
the world we live in and the stakes of it,
I have increasingly found killer AI fiction genuinely horrifying, dismaying,
and demoralizing. And so I don't mean to blame you, Rob,
because in a way, I'm glad I read the story
like it is in some sense as a great story.
But really reading the story really put my mind in

(40:28):
a bad place.

Speaker 2 (40:30):
Yeah yeah, I mean I felt the same way. I
didn't read this and then think, man, that was such
a great escape from my from my daily thoughts. I
should make Joe read it too. You know, it definitely
hit hard, and I think it's a testament to the
power and the potency of the tale and the writing
that it that it still hits that hard. You know,

(41:02):
we probably need a palate cleanser at this point. So
I think we should move on to our next selection.
But I want to highlight just a little bit of
added synchronicity here. I'm going to read a quote from
I Have No Mouth that I'm a scream. This is
where the narrators describing a giant monster, a big old
monster bird that Am has created as another torment for

(41:23):
the five survivors. Ellison writes of quote ridges of tufted flesh,
puckered about two evil eyes, as cold as the view
down into a glacial crevass, ice blue and somehow moving liquidly.

Speaker 3 (41:38):
Okay. My selection for this episode is a story called
The Crevass by Dale Bailey and Nathan Balingrude. It has
appeared in several sources, but I read it in Balingrude's
twenty thirteen collection North American Lake Monsters. Of the story's
two authors, I'm more familiar with Nathan Bellingrude. I read
a story of his earlier this month called Secret Night,

(42:01):
which was in a themed collection of horror stories called
Night and Day edited by Ellen Datlow that was published
just this year. And that story is a hallucinatory Appalachian
nightmare that begins when a highway patrolman comes across the
scene of an accident on this mountain road late at night,
and all of the cars involved are empty, apparently abandoned

(42:21):
by the passengers, and it gets weirder from there. On
the strength of that story, I ended up buying a
couple of Bellingrude's collections, including this one from twenty thirteen.
I haven't finished it yet, but so far I think
it is excellent, And as soon as I was a
few pages into this story in particular, I knew it
was the one I would want to talk about in
today's episode, because well, it does include a speculative horror element.

(42:45):
I think the most frightening thing in it is a
danger that is absolutely real and a genuine terror to
people navigating the landscape of this story setting, which is
an antarctic glacier.

Speaker 2 (42:59):
Yeah, this was a great selection, Joe. I was not
familiar with this story or the authors in question here,
but I really enjoyed it quite a bit, and I
agree the real world scenario is so terrifying that when
the speculat development is introduced, things almost feel safer, but
not quite, because ultimately I think everything works perfectly here

(43:21):
and builds appropriately as we'll discuss.

Speaker 3 (43:24):
Yeah, so before we get into the summary, I got
to mention the two authors. So. Nathan Balingrude is an
American writer of horror and dark fantasy. He has published
several collections of short fiction, including this book I Got
North American Lake Monster Is in twenty thirteen, a collection
called Wounds in twenty nineteen, and he's also written some
novels and novellas. One of them is called The Strange

(43:47):
from twenty twenty three and crypt of the Moon Spider
from last year. A good title, that's a great title. Yeah.
The stories of his that I've read so far I
think are very strong because of a few things. A
power of scene setting, really putting you in the scene,
generally with vivid and enjoyable prose and imaginative, but also
I would say appropriately restrained deployment of the supernatural elements.

(44:11):
And I'm personally fond of horror stories like this that
keep things a little more on the mysterious side and
don't explain everything.

Speaker 2 (44:18):
Yeah, this will be a good point to come back to.
And I will also stress that this story is also
a chicken biscuit. This one is nice, nice and short. Yeah,
plenty of space for you to do your own dreaming
and then have a second chicken biscuit if you so desire.

Speaker 3 (44:32):
There you go. Also, I think Ballangrud's the stories of
his i've read, have generally strong characters who are fully human,
and I've read a lot of contemporary horror stories this month.
I don't want to shame anybody, but more than a
few of them have the issue of like an interesting
monster or premise, but the human characters don't feel very
real or their motivations are not very compelling. So even

(44:55):
if the supernatural premise is cool, it doesn't hit quite
as hard as it could because it's not grounded in
humanity as much. Some of the balland Greude stories I've
read have a real intimacy with the characters, like you
get to know them and their deep dreads and desires
and contradictions. Others are drawn with a bit more distance,
but they still have a kind of hard edge of
real humanity and the behavior. I'd say the story is

(45:18):
somewhere in between. You do kind of get to know
the main character pretty well. The others are a bit
more just sketched from a distance, but they do feel real.
The other author of the story, Dale Bailey, of whom
I don't think I've read anything else, is an American
speculative fiction author who's been publishing since the nineties. Some
of his more recent publications seem to be a novel

(45:40):
called In the Nightwood from twenty eighteen, a weird story
collection called The End of the End of Everything from
twenty fifteen, and then oh, this one gets my attention.
A story collection from twenty twenty three called This Island
Earth eight features from the Drive, in which promises stories
inspired by the Drive in sci fi movies of the Eisenhower.

(46:00):
So I am intrigued there.

Speaker 2 (46:02):
Oh wow, yeah, I'm going to grab a sample of
that for.

Speaker 3 (46:04):
Sure, trying to imagine something like Creature with the Adam brain,
but with the thoughtful, haunted literary sensibility and good writing
in the story we're talking about today.

Speaker 2 (46:16):
Yeah, yeah, I'm intrigued by that. I looked up The Crevasse. Yeah,
this was its publication. History is apparently first published in
two thousand and nine's Lovecraft Unbound, which was also edited
by Ellen Datlow. A pretty great looking collection that also
features tales from the likes of Caitlin R. Kiernan, Michael Chabin, Joyce,

(46:37):
Carol Oates, Michael Shea, and Lard barn All, authors that
I've enjoyed before, with Michael Shay being one of my
absolute favorites. So it looks like a strong collection in
and of itself.

Speaker 3 (46:48):
And obviously I think this story is meant to be
a play on a Lovecraftian theme, based on stuff like
at the Mountains of Madness, which we can come back to.

Speaker 2 (46:57):
Yeah, it is an Antarctic horror tale, and there's also
a fun little allusion to John Carpenter's The Thing.

Speaker 3 (47:04):
Yes, Yes, clearly inspired by that as well. So the
story is set in Antarctica, not long after the end
of the First World War. The protagonist is a new
Englander named Garner, a medical doctor from Boston who joins
a dangerous expedition to plant a flag of some kind
or another on the Southern Continent. I don't know if

(47:25):
they're racing to get to the South Pole. I think
it would have already been achieved at this point. But
he's on an expedition of some kind exploration adventure. Fame
is promised two members of this expedition, though he doesn't
really seem concerned with that, And this is after the
end of his combat duty in the war and the

(47:45):
tragic death of his beloved wife Elizabeth from the flu
during his absence in the war, and Garner is something
of a lost soul. He's haunted, faithless, and mostly passive
sympathetic in that he is moved by pity, but clearly
seen by his expedition mates as lacking in guts. Oh

(48:05):
and this might have been the allusion to the thing
you were talking about, But the named leader of the expedition,
who never appears in the story is just referenced, is MacCready.

Speaker 2 (48:16):
Yeah, yeah, that's the reference. Yeah yeah.

Speaker 3 (48:19):
So at the outset of the narrative, Garner is part
of a small group of four men who have broken
off from the main expedition to bring an injured man
back to the seaside depot that they departed from for treatment.
And they're traveling across the Antarctic glacier by sledge, each
sledge pulled by a team of dogs. The injured man

(48:41):
is named Faber. On the main expedition, we find out
that he took a bad step and broke his leg
while walking outside the camp to relieve himself. Now he's
got a compound fracture and he's fighting sepsis and living
in a morphine Hayes. The other two men are Bishop,
who is presented as a practical man, the one who
seems to be in charge, kind of a plane dealer,

(49:03):
and then Connolly, who is a short tempered hot head.
I think one of the best things about the story
is the way that it puts you in the setting
and makes the atmosphere tactile. You can kind of feel it.
So I'm going to read a couple of passages. This
is from the very beginning the author's write quote what
he loved was the silence, the pristine clarity of the

(49:23):
ice shelf, the purposeful breathing of the dog straining against
their traces, the hiss of the runners, the opalescent arc
of the sky. Garner peered through shifting veils of snow
at the endless sweep of glacial terrain before him, the
wind gnawing at him, forcing him to reach out periodically
and scrape at the thin crust of ice that clung

(49:44):
to the edges of his face mask, the dry rasp
of the fabric against his face, reminding him that he
was alive.

Speaker 2 (49:51):
Yeah, that's a great example of the writing style here.
It works so well with this this desolate but beautiful,
really almost other worldly environment about is, you know, one
of those extreme environments on our planet that clearly we
were we did not evolve to thrive in, certainly not
without the aid of technology that we would develop. And

(50:12):
we also get just a little bit of writing about
the dogs here. The authors here write rather warmly of
dog proximity in multiple places, and even as a non
dog person, I totally got what they were going for.
I love these little telling details, you know.

Speaker 3 (50:28):
Yeah, the warmth toward the dogs in the story is
interesting because of the reality of how harsh the fate
of dogs on these kinds of expeditions was, and that
turns out to be that is the case in the
story as well.

Speaker 2 (50:42):
Yeah, and some of the supplemental information I was reading
about from the histories of these expeditions, like multiple sources
point out that these dogs were highly valued and important
because first of all, they're pulling the sledge, like you
literally could not pull these expeditions off at this point
in time with out them. But also the companionship that

(51:03):
the humans had with these animals. And again this extreme
dangerous environment, like an environment that really wants you dead
if you do it's almost am like its intensity, you know,
like you're not supposed to survive there. And the dogs,
the companionship with the dogs, helped these humans survive there.
And I think there's something beautiful and haunting and perfect

(51:27):
for this tale in that fact.

Speaker 3 (51:29):
Very true. So the inciting moment of the story comes
Very soon after the beginning, as the sledges are traveling
along the ice, I'll read from the narration quote, a
thunderous crack, loud as lightning cleaving stone, shivered the ice,
and the dogs of the lead sledge, maybe twenty five
yards ahead of Garner, erupted into panicky cries. Garner saw

(51:52):
it happen. The lead sledge sluffed over, hurling connolly into
the snow, and plunged nose first through the ice, as
though in an enormous hand had reached up through the
earth to snatch it under. So here we meet the
natural world horror that the story is based on. What
has happened is that the first sledge has gone into

(52:13):
a giant crack known as a crevasse in the ice.
The lead dog has plunged into it. The whole sledge
hasn't gone in, but the first dog has. So the
crevasse is deep and dark, and the dog remains hanging
down into the crevasse by its tracers. The men decide
in an instant that they have no choice but to

(52:34):
cut the dog loose and let it fall, or it's
going to drag the sledge and the other dogs and
supplies they need into the pit. And then Garner, whether
out of compassion for the dog or just indecision, hesitates
in his job of cutting the dog loose, and this
anger is connilly. But after the initial disaster is over,
they set up camp so they can rest and get

(52:56):
warm inside their tent. Faber, the injured man, seems to
be doing worse and worse, and in a horrible twist,
the dog that they sacrificed to the crevasse was not
killed in the fall. They can hear it somewhere down
in the pit, howling in pain. And Garner thinks about
the carnage that he saw in the war, about the
way that his wife died away from him without him

(53:18):
being there with her, and this seems somehow also tangled
up in feelings about Faber, the injured man, who is
trapped in a miasma of morphine fever, dreams and pain
and hallucinating. And eventually Garner's pity for the dog drives
him to sneak out of the tent while the others
are sleeping, rig up a rope system, and climb down

(53:39):
into the crevasse so he can end the poor animals suffering.

Speaker 2 (53:42):
Now, this decision is absolutely supported on a character level here.
I want to stress that, but it's also one of
those things we're reading a story and thinking about tropes
and plotting, you might think, was this is this the
dumb decision of the horror story? Here is the dumb
thing that our character does, the risky move that they
make that brings them in closer proximity to horror? I

(54:03):
mean maybe structure structurally kind of yes, but we'll discuss
in a bit, like there are historic examples of this
exact sort of thing, Like going out of your way
to save a sled dog from a gravas is not
only something that is possible and likely, but it definitely

(54:24):
happened and again well supported in the story, regardless of
what the reality was. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (54:28):
Now, unfortunately in this case, the sled dog is beyond
saving it fatally injured and stuck at the bottom. But
at least Garner hopes that he can put the dog
out of its misery. So when he gets all the
way down to the bottom of the chasm and the ice,
he discovers something strange. It's not just a deep crack

(54:49):
in the glacier like you would expect. That alone is
horrifying enough vanishing down into the distance below this crack
and the narrowing crack in the ice. Oh, I get
shivers just about it. But underneath the ice, the crack
reveals an opening, an opening into a vast, cavernous space,

(55:10):
the nearest part of which that Garner can see is
a carved rock staircase of enormous size leading down into
the dark. And Garner believes he sees not only stairs,
but imagery reliefs etched into the rock showing some kind
of creature, but he doesn't really understand what he's looking at,
this weird taloned medusa like form that he doesn't comprehend.

(55:35):
And the stairs also have this power of summoning a
psychic force invites him to come down, and it's implied
I think that it's actively probing his mind for a
psychological foothold, because for some reason, looking down into the descent,
he thinks of Elizabeth.

Speaker 2 (55:52):
Yeah, yeah, this is such a haunting moment. Again, on
one level, it almost feels less dangerous when there are
even supernatural, oversized cyclopean stairs down there, because well, at
least something walk down here, and it's not just the
lifeless ice pit that we thought it was, But of
course I think many, if not most, readers of this

(56:15):
tale would be familiar with the writings of HP Lovecraft,
and they see exactly what we're dealing with here, because,
of course, one of HP Lovecraft's most well known tales
is At the Mountains of Madness, which concerns elder ruins
in Antarctica and various horrifying revelations that occur when humans

(56:36):
plunge those ruins. And on top of this, there's also
just the element of stairs. Lovecraft frequently employed stairways as
a liminal space or threshold between one world and another,
and more to the point between sanity and darkness, between
healthy human ignorance of the cosmos and crushing revelations about
its true nature. So it's a nice nod here to

(56:59):
weird fit, a great Lovecraftian bit of flavor, without, as
you mentioned earlier, revealing too much or getting into the lore.
I feel like a lesser tail might have decided to
throw out a few elder god names here, or maybe
crunch on the mythos qualities just a little bit too much.
And a lot of restraint is shown here, and it

(57:20):
works well and again, especially in a short tail like this,
it inspires us to then dream like where do these
stairs go? Yeah, and we're kind of drawn down them
as well, just like the narrator.

Speaker 3 (57:31):
But Garner does not have the opportunity to descend the
stairs because he's interrupted as he's starting to clamber down them.
For whatever reason, he's drawn. He starts to go down them,
but he is discovered by Connolly up above looking down,
who is furious with him for taking this stupid risk,
not just with his own life, but with all of

(57:51):
their lives, especially favors. Because Antarctica is an unforgiving place.
Any decision you make could spell death for yourself or
for others.

Speaker 2 (58:01):
Absolutely.

Speaker 3 (58:02):
Garner tries to convince Bishop, and so he comes back up,
climbs the rope back out of the crevass, and tries
to convince the other two men, Bishop and Connolly of
what he saw down there. They're not really interested at first,
but he appeals to their sense of desire for adventure
and fame. This is one of the references to McCready's like, Okay,
so McCready's going to be out there planning the flag

(58:24):
while you have to go back. But you could be
the discoverer of one of the most important scientific finds
in human history, whatever it is that's down there. Because
unlike Garner, who it seems just somehow ended up on
this journey because he was otherwise adrift, these two men
are driven by ambition, it's implied, and that ambition was

(58:44):
dashed when they had to split off from the main
party to return Favored to the depots. So they're already unhappy.
They shine a flashlight down into the crevass, but it's
too deep to make out the stairs or the cavern beyond,
if they ever really were there. We assume they probably were.
They can only see the dog's body lying in blood
on the lip of ice far below. However, while they're watching,

(59:08):
the dog suddenly is moved, yanked away by something out
of sight. They don't have time to process this because
immediately Faber, the injured man, cries out in pain or
terror from the tent, and the men rush in to
see what's the matter, and Faber becomes lucid enough to
explain to them what's wrong, And I loved this moment.

(59:28):
Didn't quite expect this. When he finally is able to speak,
he says, it laid an egg in me. They don't understand,
but he insists, quote, Faber found a way to smile
in my dream. It put my head inside its body
and it laid an egg in me.

Speaker 2 (59:44):
Yeah, yikes. Yeah. And we don't really get any clarity
on what this exactly means. You know, what sort of
revelation did he have or is this you know, is
this part of the morphine playing with his head? We
don't really know. Oh, but a man, it's haunting.

Speaker 3 (01:00:01):
So Garner at this point prepares to sedate him with
another morphine, Ampuel, but Faber doesn't want He doesn't want
this for some reason, and he lashes out and fights.
The fight knocks over a kerosene heater and this sets
fire to the tent, leading to a mad scramble for survival.

Speaker 2 (01:00:17):
This was the part when I went on my first
read where I was like, oh my, this is the
moment where they're going to have to go down those
stairs together where they're gonna not have any equipment or
dogs left, and they're gonna think, well, we have nothing
to do but go down those stairs. But that's not
where the story goes.

Speaker 3 (01:00:31):
No, there's a different kind of horror at the end.
There's a horror of wondering what might have been so
the men after this, they just book it back to
their destination. They try to make it to the depot
as fast as they can now their tent is burned.
Faber does not survive the journey, he dies in transit,
but they do reach the safety of the depot. The

(01:00:51):
three surviving men hole up to wait for the return
of the rest of the expedition, which is weeks away,
And while they are holed up in the depot, Garner
tries to talk to Bishop to get him to acknowledge
that he saw something in the crevasse, to at least
admit that he saw the dog dragged away, but Bishop
is very stubborn about it.

Speaker 2 (01:01:11):
Quote.

Speaker 3 (01:01:12):
Bishop refused to look at him. This is an empty place,
he said, after a long silence. There's nothing here. He
blinked and turned a page in the magazine Nothing. And
I loved this part because I think that line highlights
a subtext, an interesting implication of the story. To Bishop,

(01:01:34):
the idea that there might be something hidden, something possibly
monstrous and mind rending under the ice waiting to be revealed,
is troubling. That possibility is terrifying, and he denies it.
So he takes emotional comfort in telling himself, probably lying
to himself because it implies he did see the dog

(01:01:55):
dragged away, at least telling himself there's nothing there. And
I think for Garner, by the end of the story,
the opposite desire is operative. The opposite is true. The
nothingness and the absence are what would be frightening. The
idea that there is something hidden waiting to be revealed,
even if it's monstrous, even if it's something that would

(01:02:16):
destroy him, is somehow comforting. And this duality of orientations
toward mystery and understanding is I think a very important
part of humanity. Which option bothers you more the idea
that there is something unknown, as yet unrevealed, that could
destroy you, could destroy everything you love or destroy your

(01:02:39):
understanding of reality. Or would it be worse if there
is nothing more that what you see is what you get?
And for you, I guess the question is emotionally, does
there is nothing more? Reduced to there is nothing?

Speaker 2 (01:02:55):
Yeah? I mean it brings to mind the famous Arthur C.
Clark quote. Right, two possibilities exist. Either we are alone
in the universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying. Yeah,
And It plays nicely with exactly what we're discussing earlier.
Is the crevass scarier before we see the stairs or
is it the other way around? You know, it works

(01:03:16):
so perfectly in the story, that duality.

Speaker 3 (01:03:18):
Yeah, so for Bishop, it's implied that the stairs, to
find the stairs would be more frightening than the crevass.
For Garner, I think the crevasse is frightening, but once
he sees the stairs, now that there is a mystery,
now that there could be something more, it's actually inviting.
And I like that the story implies a correlation between
these two different attitudes and other things about the person.

(01:03:41):
This rings true to me. Bishop, who wishes there to
be nothing more, is a person who's ambitious, with an
orientation toward future goals. There's stuff he wants to do
and accomplish. Garner, who is defined by the past and
what has already been taken away. He's got loss of purpose,
loss of his great love. He wishes for a key

(01:04:03):
to unlock a new world, for there to be something
more revealed, even if it's horrible.

Speaker 2 (01:04:10):
And it's clearly horrible. Yeah, there's no there's no hint
that it's anything but horrible.

Speaker 3 (01:04:15):
Yeah, I'm gonna read from the final paragraph here with
with the Garner back of the depot, looking outside. He
describes the so the beginning of the story takes place
during the Antarctic summer, so whereas perpetually daytime, and he

(01:04:38):
describes the sun as a great boiling eye in the
sky that never sets. But as the winter comes closer,
we get this part quote. A gust of wind scattered
fine crystals of snow against the window, and he found
himself wondering what the night would be like in this
cold country. He imagined the sky dissolving to reveal the
hard vault of stars, the gallay turning above him like

(01:05:01):
a cog in a vast, unknowable engine, and behind it
all the emptiness into which men hurled their prayers. It
occurred to him that he could leave now, walk out
into the long twilight, and keep going until the earth
opened beneath him. And he found himself descending strange stairs
while the world around him broke silently into snow and

(01:05:21):
into night. Garner closed his eyes.

Speaker 2 (01:05:25):
Beautiful, haunting, perfect.

Speaker 3 (01:05:27):
Yeah, and I like again emphasized even there at the end,
like the thing that he's dwelling for moments on horrible
thoughts to him, thoughts about emptiness, about nothing beyond the emptiness,
you know, his lack of faith in God. The empty
expanses with nothing below, but then is strangely finding comfort

(01:05:49):
into the idea of descending into this alien realm.

Speaker 2 (01:05:53):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:05:54):
So, as I said earlier, one of the things I
loved about this story was the horror evoked by the setting,
the bleak emptiness of the Antarctic glacier, and especially the Crevass.
If you read about Antarctic expeditions from people who have
actually participated in them, you will discover that the terror
of the crevass is absolutely real, and a threat about

(01:06:17):
which anybody traveling across great distances of ice has to
be almost constantly conscious. For example, I pulled up the
text of a book called The Worst Journey in the World,
written by absolletely Cherry Garrard, published in nineteen twenty two.
Cherry Garrard was a member of the famous Terra Nova
expedition to the South Pole under Robert Falcon Scott a

(01:06:39):
decade previous. Rob I know you have some stuff about
this expedition as well, and this book provides a first
hand account of the expedition and its struggles. If you
do a keyword search in the text of this book
for crevass, you get almost two hundred hits. It is
constantly on their minds, and apart from the physical difficulty

(01:07:01):
and danger of actually encountering them, the psychic toll of
knowing the crevasses are out there does its own violence
to the explorer. At one point, Cheery guard Rights quote,
sometimes a blizzard is a very welcome rest after weeks
of hard pulling, dragging yourself awake each morning, feeling as
though you had only just gone to sleep, with the

(01:07:23):
mental strain perhaps which working among crevasses and tails, it
is most pleasant to be put to bed for two
or three days. Even relatively shallow crevasses, which are sometimes
only a few feet deep, you know, there are much
shallower ones that are less visually impressive than what we're
imagining in this story. Even the shallow ones can be

(01:07:44):
dangerous and can cause fatal injury if you fall fall
into them unexpectedly. You know, falling five feet the wrong
way like that could be death. In Antarctica, a broken
bone from a survivable fall can quickly turn into a
death sentence. Down there, but many crevasses are much deeper
than that, might be one hundred feet or more, some

(01:08:05):
maybe hundreds of feet to the bottom. And he tells
Cherry Garrard does tells of crossing and navigating around crevasses
that he actually quotes a guy looking down into one
and says that some of them are quote black as hell,
just into darkness, vanishing into darkness below. And he talks

(01:08:26):
about stretches of ice that are made more or less impassable,
but because of how many crevasses there are. There's one
place he's talking about where I don't think he's actually
talking about passing it, but he's just talking about looking
at a chaos of crevasses, particularly I think in a
region where a glacier is sort of fanning out as
it reaches close to the ocean. And the real horror

(01:08:49):
is you often cannot see these deep gaps in the
ice as you approach them, for multiple reasons. First, because
of general difficulties with visibility on the ice even under
relatively good weather conditions, and in a blizzard, forget about it,
and a blizzard visibility is zero. But if you're trying
to move under ideal weather conditions, even then it's sometimes

(01:09:11):
just really hard to tell what you're looking at on
the ice out in front of you. There are weird
ways that that like light and shadows play against your eyes.
Sometimes people report this, and Cherry Garard does too. There
will be like what he calls these haystack formations of
ice that they somehow don't really see until they're coming
right upon them. That sometimes you don't see crevasses. So, yeah,

(01:09:33):
visibility is difficult. But even more dangerous than that, many
glacial crevasses can become covered by what are typically called
snow bridges, so that they are not even visible from
above until you put weight on the snow bridge and
it collapses, dumping you into the chasm below.

Speaker 2 (01:09:51):
Yeah, just a naturally occurring trapdoor, you know, that could
just drop you into, you know again, a pit that
maybe five feet deep and break your ankle, or one
hundred feet deep and kill you outright.

Speaker 3 (01:10:04):
So to get around of this, expeditions use a number
of techniques, some of which we actually see in this story.
So going a long ways back, you use the technique
of roping members of the expedition together, you know, so
they would tie their bodies or their sledges and animals
together with rope so that if one falls, the others
can stop the fall and pull them out.

Speaker 2 (01:10:24):
Yeah. It's telling, isn't it that there are mountaineering techniques
that are used in order to deal with crevasses. You're
just you're moving, you're not ascending necessarily, you're just moving
across the landscape, and you need to be prepared like
a mountaineer.

Speaker 3 (01:10:41):
Well, actually, and dealing with crevasses is part of mountaineering
as well. They're only they're not only a thing in Antarctica.
That's just a place where you're going to encounter a
lot of crevasses that you will also find them in
mountain glaciers. So yeah, there's there's the rope techniques. There's
probing with poles, so like stabbing poles into the snow
ahead of where you're moving to find soft spots where

(01:11:03):
the pole sinks through. That can be very effective but
obviously makes travel quite slow. There is one adaptation is
a sacrificial attitude toward lead dogs and other animals maybe ponies,
sometimes counting on the leading animals to fall through first,
allowing the rest of the team to stop before hitting
the gap.

Speaker 2 (01:11:23):
Which is of course horrifying in its own right.

Speaker 3 (01:11:25):
Yeah, and then also eventually experience. People with lots of
experience traveling on glaciers learn visual cues to look for,
so that they can sometimes spot even covered up crevasses
due to characteristics of the surface ice like color or
drift shape. But even you know, very very solid, well

(01:11:49):
educated ice veterans won't spot it every time. There's nothing
fool proof here. Modern technology does have some tools that
these early Antarctic explorers did not have. You know, modern
Antarctic expeditions can use sophisticated techniques like ground penetrating radar
to image crevasses from above. But there is a maddening

(01:12:11):
aspect to this because you might think that, oh, well,
if you can make a map with ground penetrating radar
of a particular area, and then you can just know
in advance where all the crevasses will be. But that
kind of radar based map will not be useful for
very long, because a glacier is flowing and forever changing,

(01:12:33):
and its surface will change substantially over relatively quick timespans.
From what I was reading, it seems like not only
over the years, but maybe even over the course of
a few weeks or months, there can be substantial changes
in the in the crevass landscape. Existing cracks clothes, new
cracks open, All cracks move, some more quickly than others.

(01:12:54):
Oh wow, So Cravas's form because of physical stress on
the ice, usually caused by the flow of the glacier. Overall,
a glacier is a weird type of material to think
about because it has some liquid like characteristics. Glaciers do flow,
so it in a way makes sense to think of

(01:13:17):
them as extremely slow moving frozen rivers, and yet they
also have the brittle characteristics of ice. So while liquid
water easily flows around a bend and has no problems
speeding up or slowing down, you know, following the shape
of a channel and obstacles within it, or speeding up

(01:13:37):
going down a slope, ice flowing through a channel tends
to succumb to brittle fracture when it is deformed, and
this can happen for a number of reasons. Going around
bends or obstacles in the underlying terrain changes in the
direction or shape or speed of the glacier's flow, you know,

(01:13:58):
so like a change in the slope of the ground
beneath the glacier will cause it to flow faster, and
that causes the glacier to stretch, and then it forms
cracks in the upper part of the ice. You can
also see these chaotic distributions of crevasses emerging in places
where the glacier is stretched out horizontally. This is a
rough analogy. I don't think it's perfect, but this kind

(01:14:21):
of makes sense. Anything that might cause turbulence in the
flow of liquid water through a space would have the
potential to cause crevasses to form in a glacier flowing
through that space. And then beyond that you've got the
question of how do those devious snow bridges form. Usually
this seems to happen from snow drift. So snow is

(01:14:42):
being driven horizontally by wind, and this snow sticks to
the ice on the sides of the crack in the glacier,
and the snow adheres and piles up and up until
the top of the crack is covered completely. But sometimes,
you know, and so sometimes it can be snow filling
in the crack, because so maybe it does go all
the way down to the bottom, but it's just like

(01:15:04):
loosely packed snow, or maybe it actually just forms a
bridge over the top layer of the crack, and it's
just an open drop below that.

Speaker 2 (01:15:13):
Oh, you included a photograph here in our outline. I
encourage listeners to look for such images as well, because, man,
you look in the background of this this image, Like
in the foreground we see where the crack has been revealed,
and there's some individuals traversing it, leaping over it. But
in the background, like the same crack continues but is

(01:15:36):
covered in snow, and at least in my eye, it
just looks like a snowfield.

Speaker 3 (01:15:39):
Yeah. Yeah, you, unless you really know what to look for,
you wouldn't see it at all. And even some people
who know what to look for might not catch it. Yeah,
there's another really cool photo I came across regarding snow bridges,
but from the other angle. So this was on a
website called Antarctic glaciers dot org. This was a blog
post by a glaciologist named Bethan Davies of Newcastle University

(01:16:02):
in the UK, and the post is describing a little
expedition where a group of researchers explored the inside of
a fairly deep crevas on the glacier behind rothero research
station on the Antarctic Peninsula. And so the small group
of people they go down below the crevas. They like
have to descend through a hole, and then they're going

(01:16:24):
into this covered part of the crevas, so it feels
like an ice cave. It has all these icicles and everywhere,
and it's some parts are more white and other parts
have more blue ice. So it's beautiful looking down at
the cave part. But then there is one photo you
can see if you scroll down rob where the camera
is positioned looking up toward the surface in the crevas,

(01:16:47):
where the gap is covered by a snowbridge, so no
sky is visible, but you can see deep blue light
bleeding through the thinnest parts of the snow cover in
the gap, and it looks like Cherenkov radiation around it
nuclear reactor.

Speaker 2 (01:17:01):
Oh yeah, it's absolutely haunting.

Speaker 3 (01:17:03):
So I formally submit glacier crevasses as one of the
true real life horror stories of mother nature of planet Earth.
Beautiful in some ways, very very interesting to think about
how they form and the power implied and the way
glaciers flow everything that, you know, all of the strange

(01:17:25):
processes that we don't really think about or are hard
for us to picture that lead to their creation. But
then also just when you're actually faced with one, how
frightening it could be the idea of just plunging one
hundred feet down into a narrow gap in the ice.

Speaker 2 (01:17:41):
Yeah. Yeah, they're absolutely horrifying as just in our imagination.
And when you dig into the history, we've the humans,
human explorers have had horrifying encounters with them. We're not
going to go through all of them. But you know,
I want to come back to what we were talking
about earlier, like does it make sense to rescue a
dog from a crevass? Like is this a sensible move

(01:18:04):
on the part of our protagonist or is this the
protagonist being dumb or making that extra risky horror story decision.
And again, I'm very touched on how important these dogs
were to the people on these expeditions, both in terms
of the practical necessity of having them and then also
the companionship. But yeah, there's some historic precedents for this

(01:18:26):
as well. For example, during the British Terra Nova expedition
that we mentioned already to Antarctica from nineteen ten through
nineteen thirteen. There are multiple accounts of this, but one
quick account that I Ran across was a twenty twenty
three article from the US Naval Institute Heroism and Betrayal
in Antarctica by Karen May and she points into this

(01:18:49):
known clash between Cecil Mears and the expedition leader, Robert
Falcon Scott. They clashed on numerous occasions, including when Mears
refused Scott's order to rescue some fallen sled dogs from
a crevass. Scott himself ended up entering the crevass himself
to rescue the dogs.

Speaker 3 (01:19:08):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (01:19:09):
And I can only imagine this and some of these
other tales were part of the inspiration and part of
the research for the horror story we're talking about. Yeah,
surely there are also accounts of not only dogs, but
whole sledges and explorers being swallowed up by these as well.
One of these occurred during the Australasian Antarctic Expedition of
nineteen eleven through nineteen fourteen. This was led by Douglas Mawson,

(01:19:33):
who wrote about his experiences later in the book Home
of the Blizzard I believe was published with some other
titles later on as well. But here's an excerpt about
a tragic event at a crevass which swallowed up expedition
member Belgrave Edward Sutton menis his sledge and dogs in
nineteen twelve, frantically waving to Mertz to bring up my sledge,

(01:19:55):
upon which there was some alpine rope. I leaned over
and shouted into the dark depths below. No sound came back,
but the moaning of a dog caught on a shelf
just visible one hundred and fifty feet below. The poor
creature appeared to have broken its back, for it was
attempting to set up with the front part of its body,
while the hinder portion lay limp. Another dog lay motionless

(01:20:16):
by its side, close by what appeared in the gloom
to be the remains of the tent and a canvas
tank containing food for three men for a fortnight. We
broke back the edge of the and these another term,
but they were referring to the crevas here, I believe,
and took turns, leaning over, secured by a rope, calling
into the darkness in the hope that our companion might

(01:20:38):
be still alive. For three hours we called unceasingly, but
no answering sound came back. The dog had ceased to
moan and lay without a movement. A chill draft was
blowing out of the abyss. We felt that there was
little hope. Why had the first sledge escaped the crevasse.
It seemed that I had been fortunate because my sledge
had crossed diagonally, with a greater chance of breaking the

(01:21:01):
snow lid. The sledges were within thirty pounds of the
same weight. The explanation appeared to be that Ninnis had
walked by the side of his sledge, whereas eye had
crossed its sitting on the sledge. The whole weight of
a man's body bearing on his foot is a formidable load,
and no doubt was sufficient to smash the arch of

(01:21:21):
the roof. By means of a fishing line, we ascertained
that it was one hundred and fifty feet sheer to
the ledge, on which the remains were seen On either side,
the crevass descended into blackness. It seemed so very far
down there, and the dogs looked so small that we
got out the field glasses and could make out nothing more.
By their aid. All our available rope was tied together,

(01:21:43):
but the total length was insufficient to reach the ledge,
and any idea of going below to investigate and to
secure some of the food had to be abandoned.

Speaker 3 (01:21:52):
That is chilling.

Speaker 2 (01:21:53):
That is absolutely chilling, like the idea that the scale
of the crevass was beyond and they're not even drawing
their imagination into this, but just beyond the abilities of
their equipment to even reach.

Speaker 3 (01:22:18):
You want another horror story from that book by Cherry Garrard, Sure, okay,
And this actually actually bring us back to a couple
of characters. You were just talking about Scott and Merrs
on that expedition. So Cherry Garrard is writing about a
section where they're crossing some ice and says, quote, we
ran level for another two miles, mirrors and Scott on

(01:22:40):
our left. We were evidently crossing many crevasses. Quite suddenly
we saw the dogs of their team disappearing, following one another,
just like dogs going down a hole after some animal.
In a moment, wrote Scott, the whole team we're sinking.
Two by two. We lost sight of them, each pair
struggling for foothol Osman the leader exerted all his strength

(01:23:03):
and kept foothold. It was wonderful to see him. The
sledge stopped and we leapt aside the situation was clear.
In another moment, we had actually been traveling along the
bridge or snow covering of a crevass. The sledge had
stopped on it, whilst the dogs hung in their harness
in the abyss, suspended between the sledge and the leading dog.

(01:23:24):
Why the sledge and ourselves didn't follow the dogs we
shall never know. Oh wow, bridge of dogs.

Speaker 2 (01:23:32):
So yeah, and both of all these accounts we've been
looking at here concerning the crevass like they it sounds
to me like, yeah, you could basically just completely pass
over one of these snow bridges and you would never
know that, like one hundred and fifty foot drop was
just waiting there for you, and you just happened to
not trigger it, and then the next one could get you.

Speaker 3 (01:23:53):
Yeah. They don't always collapse. So yeah, very likely you
have been over crevasses and crossed a snowbridge without realizing it. Wow,
I mean not you the person listening, or you wrong,
the Antarctic explorer, the glacial mountaineer.

Speaker 2 (01:24:07):
Yeah. Though obviously if we have listeners out there who
have any experience with crevasses of one form or another,
definitely right in and tell us all about it.

Speaker 3 (01:24:16):
Absolutely, Yeah, so scariest non speculative thing I've thought about
in a while.

Speaker 2 (01:24:24):
Yeah, this is a great story. Again. I love its
use of history and an extreme real world environment, but
also involving this wonderful speculative elopment, you know, bringing in
that mythos flavor, hinting at this other world Cyclopean architecture
and the deep and so forth. Just a just a

(01:24:45):
wonderful little short story.

Speaker 3 (01:24:47):
To end on a positive note, I would say, I
am really inspired by these stories of crevass rescues as well.

Speaker 2 (01:24:54):
Yeah, yeah, I mean, they're not all doom and gloom like.
There are accounts certainly of individuals, you know, successfully being
rescued from crevasses, dogs being rescued from crevasses. And I
don't know if I mentioned it already, but dogs are
also very useful in crevass rescue. All right, well, we're
going to go ahead and close the book here on

(01:25:14):
Gramore of Horror Volume two. We hope that everyone out
there enjoyed our discussion of these two short stories, and
certainly we would love to hear from everyone out there
if you have thoughts on the crevass or on I
have no mouth, and I must scream you have thoughts
on the authors involved in these tales or other works
that they wrote, write in We'd love to hear from you,

(01:25:37):
and we should also go ahead and point out, Hey,
the next Halloween is just around the corner, so if
you have suggestions for next year, if you're like you
two should totally read this story in this story by
this author and this author, go ahead and write in
we would love suggestions. You know, any headstart we can
get on our selection process is always a good thing.

(01:25:57):
Just a reminder that Stuff to Blow Your Mind is
primary a science and culture podcast with core episodes on
Tuesdays and Thursday, short form episodes on Wednesdays, and then
on Fridays. We set aside most serious concerns to just
talk about a weird film on Weird House Cinema.

Speaker 3 (01:26:11):
Huge thanks as always to our excellent audio producer JJ Posway.
If you would like to get in touch with us
with feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest
a topic for the future, or just to say hello,
you can email us at contact at stuff to blow
your Mind dot com.

Speaker 1 (01:26:33):
Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For
more podcasts from my Heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio, app,
Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Stuff To Blow Your Mind News

Follow Us On

Hosts And Creators

Robert Lamb

Joe McCormick

Show Links

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Crime Junkie

The Breakfast Club

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Grimoire of Horror, Volume 2