I think you got it now. 
Wow! This zombie’s got legs…
In the OP **Skald **says
so we’ve given our opinions, some in favour, some against.
colander, you think the story is shit and a total fail because the situation is inconceivable, some of us don’t. I doubt that any of us who actually enjoyed the story think it is great literature or fail to recognise that the situation is contrived, we just think the story makes its point about there sometimes being no technical solution to a human situation.
Yes, there are plot holes, and yes, the characters are pretty wooden but in this it was no better and no worse than much of 1950s short SF. The stories were almost always idea or situation led and literary style was low on the list of priorities. The reason it is considered a classic (and still remembered nearly 60 years later when most stories from the time are not) is not because it is stunningly well written but because it challenged the prevailing norm in the bastion of positive, hard, SF, Astounding.
Yes, Campbell pulled a little trick on his readers. Doesn’t make the story good.
The fact that there had been stowaways before is what bothers me. I can accept that people aren’t always predictable. But usually after something terrible happens, or a terrible accident nearly happens, the procedure is changed to prevent it from happening again. The fact that there had been stowaways before, and it’s known that the consequences for if there is a stowaway could be dire, but not much is done to prevent it, that’s what bothers me.
Right, I don’t think the story is a total fail or needs to be radically changed. But just a few sentences could be added to make things clearer. Something about how the pilot is so surprised to find her since there have never been any stowaways before. Or how there are warning signs or something that warn of death if the weight limit is exceeded, but she doesn’t see them for some reason.
Once again: the fundamental problem with the story is not that it could never happen. It’s that if it did happen, it would be totally the crew’s fault, and the story’s placing the blame on indifferent physics or on the stowaway’s ignorance is a total non-starter.
Man, you’re really worked up about this story.
That’s because it’s awful and it makes science fiction look awful when people recommend it to new readers. My only crime is that I care too much. 
That’s not a plot hole. It’s explicitly stated in the story that Barton will be staying with the Wotan crew for a few weeks or months, and that their margins of food and water are not so slim that they won’t be able to support him. The surface of an inhabitable planet is not the same as a tiny spacecraft
Ahhh, the ever-persuasive “u mad bro?” gambit.
I don’t think that’s the point of the story.
Then your opinion is in the minority among the story’s defenders in this thread.
I don’t think it’s the point of the story either, if you’re taking a poll.
Not trying to brag or anything but how do we know anything about the civil liability situation of the society in the story? I mean hell different countries on earth have different levels of this in practice, shit I know a pedestrian bridge that has no rail and looks like a death trap, so everyone is assuming the society in the story is identical to 2013 USA standards.
Plus, he is delivering vital medical supplies. It is very probable that whatever disease these supplies are meant to cure, someone has died of already, so he can just take their place.
Uh, no, the girl bears some fault for disobeying a sign that she clearly saw, read, and understood. She knew stowing away was wrong, she took steps not to be discovered. Now apportioning the blame is something we can quibble over, but she is guilty and she does bear some blame for her actions.
There’s a reason the girl is a teenager and not a child of, say, 10. She needs to be old enough to understand right and wrong and that disobeying instructions carries consequences. Too young, and she’s not morally responsible for her actions, she’s a child that should have been supervised. The physics is the same, but the moral isn’t.
But she is young and female to play on 50s sensibilities and the “helpless female must be spaced” rather than a tough, macho man that is expected to sacrifice when push comes to shove.
Where people are disagreeing over the story seems to be in how culpable the girl is vs the crew. Is a vague warning sign to not do something sufficient deterrent for the crew’s culpability, or is their lack of any real control on a civilian vessel with underage passengers criminal negligence? The people who are most rejecting the story side with criminal negligence, and thus the moral is flawed because the girl is not really responsible for her predicament. The people accepting the point of the story are willing to concede that the security was lax but accept the girl was the most culpable agent because she is the one who violated the rules.
I see the point of the story. I think many stories have made the point much better. I recall Heinlein saying similar things with regards to space being hostile, like a lunar colony and the colonists training space suit care as a reflex because the risk of damage to their pressurized habitats was not negligible.
I think the writing is weak, the characters wooden, the vehicle descriptions inconsistent and thus the engineering flawed, and the social expectations outdated. But I see the point. And knowing the timing and placement of original publication helps understand the value of the story in its time.
Apollo 13 is an interesting parallel. They accidentally had more redundancy than expected, with a separate second spacecraft along. My understanding is that the decision to use the Apollo lander as a lifeboat was not a pre-thought idea, but something conceived on the fly. The driver for separate spacecraft was trying to make the most efficient use of fuel, the single biggest weight penalty. The lunar rendezvous scenario, as it was called, was devised to minimize the vehicle size making lunar landing and take off, so they eventually decided to make a separate vehicle for that phase of the mission from the phases of the mission from Earth orbit to lunar orbit and lunar orbit to Earth orbit. That decision accidentally gave them a spare separate vehicle (closed pressure system, power, propulsion, etc).
And even that redundancy was not as redundant as it could have been. They almost died because of the well-known issue of the incompatible carbon dioxide scrubbers, as just one example.
So Apollo 13 is a counter-example to The Cold Equations, but only by virtue of some fortuitous choices made in the design phase that provided unexpected margin.
But none of those decisions were as cold-bloodedly negligent of decisions shown that allow The Cold Equations to occur.
To say it is the point of the story is perhaps over-stating it, and I’m aware that is what I’ve been arguing. To me, the essence of the story is that there are some circumstances where once you are in the predicament, physics dictates harsh consequences independent of any moral judgement. From that perspective, the culpability of the crew vs the girl is not really relevant, as the Cold Equations dictate the same answer regardless of whose fault. Like stepping off a building, doesn’t matter if you chose to or were pushed, gravity still pulls the same. And people who see that as the moral don’t care how flawed the crew’s security, because the result is the same.
But to me, part of the story is that the girl is not merely an innocent victim. If she were a pure innocent victim, then we can apportion all blame to the crew, and thus her actions are merely noble sacrifice in the face of an accident. “Oops, a car is out of control and going to slam into this stroller with a baby in it, I can let it hit the stroller, or I can shove the stroller out of the way and risk not getting clear of the car myself.” That’s a tragedy, but misses something in the meaning of the story.
Campbell’s original preface for the story:
To me, that suggests that part of the importance is the “no admittance” sign, that therefore a key element to the moral of the story is the girl taking an action because she assumed the consequences were trivial and recoverable rather than knowing that the frontier is dangerous. It is her actions that place her in jeopardy, not mere accident. That’s what I get from the story, what makes the otherwise crap story have any merit.
I suppose someone can point to the line where the pilot says
One can argue from that line that her culpability isn’t really an issue, that the girl could have been 8 instead of 17 and it is the same story. To me, though, it isn’t.
One other previous question that may have not been answered: someone asked why anyone would ever stow away? The story describes the typical (once in a lifetime of a pilot) stowaway as a dangerous, desparate man. Typically a criminal, someone on the run. They likely either expect to kill the pilot and land themselves, or are (like the girl in this story) not aware that the EDS ship doesn’t carry enough fuel margin to succeed if they are along. Or they’re risking that the calculations are sloppy enough they can squeeze by. The key is they are either desperate or insane. Not merely uninformed and whimsical.
grude, I point you to the original comment I quote above. The point Campbell was making is the line between “civilized society” and “the frontier”. In civilized society, people are kept safe and protected from their own ignorance, but the frontier is a dangerous place where you have to be alert and on your toes. The girl expects civilized society, where violating a “no trespassing” sign is a fine, maybe a short incarceration, whereas something actually dangerous would have a barricade and locked doors and a security guard and maybe flashing lights and an alarm. But the frontier doesn’t provide those things naturally.
I think it is an important part of the story that the girl did something deliberately wrong. The crew may have been careless, but they weren’t deliberately doing something against the rules.
And I think complaining about the crew’s negligence is interpolating too much modern day OSHA values into the story universe. I think, “girl snuck onto an EDS, security must not be very good on this universe’s motherships, oh well”. Complaining that security should have been better is like complaining that the EDS should be a computer-controlled pilotless drone if tolerances are going to be so tight. This is simply a universe where people are expected to have more self-discipline than they do on a cruise ship, and computers that are powerful enough to pilot an EDS are too big and heavy to be placed aboard one.
Frankly, this story strikes me as a very persuasive argument that the hard-boiled pioneer, up-here-in-space-we-expect-everyone-to-be-super-competent-Heinleinian-ubermenschen attitudes expressed by so many characters and authors in so many works of that era are fatally unworkable.
Change the title of the story to “Life Is Shit Without OSHA Guidelines” and I no longer have any problem with it.
Indeed, if there is any blame the story (and I recent re-read it) puts on the kid. And there have been a couple of literary reviewer who have dissected the story, pointed out that it’s the kid who is blamed fr being foolish, and that the real blame falls upon the company.
Except it isn’t. She thought the same thing about that “no admittance” sign that any of us would have thought. The problem is just that the yahoos who put up the sign didn’t think about what they were doing. If you put up a sign that just says “no admittance to unauthorized personnel”, then you shouldn’t expect anyone who sees that sign to think it means anything different than any of the hundreds of other similar signs they see.
Who gives a shit if she bears some blame? If I put a delicious apple pie on top of my forest pit trap, and you were trying to go grab it when you fall in and die, is it then your fault for trying to steal my pie?
No! It is my fault! Even in fucking 1950, it would still be my fault! And anyone who blames it on you is, at best, dangerously retarded, and at worst, murderously deranged. Kind of like this story, in fact.