User:NorwegianBlue/refdesk/art and literature

Please identify this science-fiction short story (Art and literature)

When I was a child I read a short story that has affected me greatly. I'd like to reread the story now that I'm an adult, but can't locate it. Here's a plot synopsis...

The planet has been entirely overrun by humans. The society measure it's progress in kilograms of brain mass, and everyone lives in very dense cities. Human waste is shipped out to sea, and kelp is harvested to eat. As a hobby, a man keeps alive the last remaining patch of grass, a bird or other small animal, maybe a lizard or something, in his apartment. One day he receives a notice form the government that his building will be torn down to construct an even larger housing complex, and he is order to vacate. He can't take his pets with him, so he destroys everything and then commits suicide.

I read this story about 25 years ago, but I think it was in an anthology of science-fiction short stories from the mid-1960s. I thought it was by Heinlein, but after searching through many of his works, I'm not so sure anymore.

Thanks for your help, Andy 216.98.254.8 19:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's by Isaac Asimov -- if memory serves, it was one of a pair of stories dealing with the "last living non-human thing", one glorifying and the other lamenting the concept. However, I don't recall the titles. — Lomn Talk 19:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm Asimov. Political Mind 20:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It actually sounds rather un-Asimov-like to me, and I've read many (but not all) of his short stories. But if others confirm, disregard this. :-) zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think maybe I found it: 2430 AD? Didn't get a very good review at this website, though. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much for everyone's help! I'll check out the Asimov stories... Andy216.98.255.107

A shadow detaching from its owner, and turning into an evil being

I remember as a child hearing a radio theatre story about a person whose shadow somehow got detached from its owner. The shadow transformed into an evil being, that turned against its former master. Recently, I read Las luces de septiembre by Carlos Ruíz Zafón, in which this theme is an important part of the plot. Now, Zafón wasn't even born at the time I listened to this, so the theme is certainly older. My question is, in which previous legends/stories/novels has this theme been used, and can someone point to an original version of the story? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 00:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The idea turns up in Peter Pan, as I recall, but I have no idea if that's the original occurrence (I don't think Pan's shadow was particularly evil, just mischievous). --Tango (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Check out Living Shadow at tvtropes.org. The oldest example they have seems to be The Shadow (fairy tale), but it's hard not to believe that it's much much older. -- BenRG (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In David Eddings Belgariad and Mallorean series, sorcerors could send their shadows away from themselves but they'd stay under their control for the most part. Eddings tends to use the standard story forms from medieval romance, taking various elements, themes and archetypes from them and writing his own stories so he probably borrowed the idea from earlier writings. Exxolon (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I also recall in the Fighting Fantasy gamebook Midnight Rogue at one point you walk through a magical torch's light and your shadow detaches from you and attacks you. You could fight it or try other methods of dealing with the problem. Exxolon (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! After reading the synopsis of The Shadow (fairy tale), I'm pretty sure that's the one I heard. The article mentions the story Peter Schlemihl by Adelbert von Chamisso as a precedent. However, in that story, the main character sells his shadow to the devil, and it is the lack of a shadow that leads to misery; the shadow itself doesn't come back to haunt its former master. Zafón explicitly references the Doppelgänger motif in his novel, although Doppelgängers are generally thought of as separate beings, not detached shadows. Another related motif that comes to mind is vampires' lack of a shadow and reflection. I agree that the detached shadow theme is probably lot older than the 1800's. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 12:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In Lord Dunsany's Charwoman's Shadow the detached shadow is not evil as such, but a person who has consented to having his shadow detached can be condemned to hell... AnonMoos (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Who am I to blow against the wind?

Re title of question. It is a line from a Paul Simon song from the Graceland album. My question is whether it itself is a quote, or if it is the original well-known context in which this phrase first appeared, prepending "who am I?" to the concept of "blowing against the wind". Googling the exact phrase turns up nothing but the Paul Simon lyrics. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

G00gling "Blow against the Wind" also turns up references to a song of that title apparently by an artist called The Pedestrian, aka James Brandon Best (not the band Pedestrian), but this usage probably post-dates, and may ultimately derive from, Simon's <=1986 lyric. In the context of Simon's song ("I Know What I Know"), the line overtly (and humorously) carries a similar meaning to the traditional phrase "to blow/piss/spit into the wind", i.e. a futile defiance of inevitability or fate, and is probably a poetic variation of it. However - good poetry often being ambiguous and/or multi-levelled, and Simon being a good poet - he may well have intended also to evoke both Dylan's "Blowin' in the Wind", and the lines "Everybody sees/feels the wind blow" that occur in the album's immediately preceding titular song "Graceland". 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was helpful. We have the same expression in Norwegian ("pisse i motvind"), but it was hardly suitable in the context where I'd like to use it. I wasn't aware that the idiomatic expression in English used the preposition "into" instead of "against", and hadn't thought of the other associations either. The idea I want to convey is the futility of fighting the ever increasing bureaucracy, when you are a professional who is trying to approach challenges in a rational way. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 11:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's another variation on the image, by William Blake:

Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau,

Mock on, mock on, 'tis all in vain:

You but throw sand against the wind,

And the wind throws it back again.

Rhinoracer (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

In the specific context of the difficulty of struggling against bureaucracy, there is of course the well-known American aphorism, "You can't fight City Hall." 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both! --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bob Hoover anecdote

An anecdote is cited in a newspaper article about Dale Carnegie's book How to win friends and influence people: (in Norwegian)

Rough translation:

The famous test pilot and show pilot Bob Hoover was once mid-air air between Los Angeles and San Diego, when both engines suddenly stopped. He managed to make an emergency landing. Both Hoover and his crew survived, but the aircraft was destroyed. The first thing he did after landing was to examine the fuel tank, and sure enough: his plane had been filled with the wrong fuel.

When Hoover returned to the airport, he promptly requested to speak to the mechanic who had had filled his tank. The young mechanic was filled with grief and anxiety over the blunder that had destroyed an aircraft and almost cost three people their lives. Tears were running down his face when Hoover approached him. Then Hoover held his big arm around the young mechanic's shoulder, and said: "To prove that I am absolutely confident that you have learned from this, I want you to prepare my F-51 plane for tomorrow."

The accident is mentioned here in the article, but it appears Hoover was seriously injured, and thus would not be in a position to speak to the technician, and also states that the discovery of the wrong fuel having been used was a result of an investigation, not of a casual inspection by Hoover. From the context of the article I linked to, the anecdote probably appears in the book. This smells of bogus/urban legend to me. Does anyone here have more information? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 13:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right. I can't find any information on the incident from Snopes or The Straight Dope. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I found the book (edit: Dale Carnegie's book) in full-text online. Lots of sites. Not sure about the copyright status and won't link directly, but googling "Bob Hoover, a famous test pilot and frequent per-former" [sic] will locate it. The anecdote is in the book, and claims that everyone aboard was unhurt in the crash, and that Hoover personally inspected the tank. It mentions a source for the accident (the magazine "Flight Operations"), none for what happened afterwards. The moral of the story, of course, is "never criticize anybody". The story struck me as too good to be true. Maybe Carnegie was practicing his own philosophy, "When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion...", and adapted the facts? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If Hoover's aircraft was refuelled with inappropriate fuel, how would he have made it to somewhere between LA and SD? A much more credible version of the accident is to be found at Bob Hoover#Hoover Nozzle and Hoover Ring where it explains that the aircraft crashed on take-off.Dolphin (t) 11:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Assuming it's true, how would Hoover have been able to tell (without using a lab) whether the "wrong" fuel was used? --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not that improbable that they smell differently, and that Hoover would have been able to tell them apart. Our article cites his book "Forever flying" as source about the accident, so if anyone happens to have a copy: how badly was he hurt, and does he describe the talk with the mechanic? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

According to page 276 of Forever Flying, the accident occurred shortly after take off from Brown Field in San Diego. The instrument panel of the Shrike Commander was torn out of its mounts and fell on Hoover's shins. Apparently, he was not injured as he was able to walk around the aircraft, open the drain valve, and identify the jet fuel by its smell. The two passengers were not hurt. Hoover's talk with the line boy who serviced the Shrike is described on page 277 and references a newspaper article that quoted him as saying: There isn't a man alive who hasn't made a mistake. But I'm positive you'll never make this mistake again. That's why I want to make sure that you're the only one to refuel my plane tomorrow. I won't let anyone else on the field touch it. Skeet Shooter (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a million! --NorwegianBlue ^talk 07:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved