Shatov and the emu

in Dream Steem2 months ago

Proverbs 27:6 – Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.


Prologue (sort of)


The forest is still, save for the crunch of dry leaves beneath Jack’s boots.
Above, the pale moon trails him like a grand inquisitor, cold and unblinking.

He reaches a small, weathered cabin. On the door hangs a portrait of Catherine the Great, her painted eyes gleaming with the quiet satisfaction of something just fulfilled. Inside, the emu waits.

In his hands, a worn copy of The Queen’s Gambit by Walter Tevis. He kneels and sets it gently on the step, as if afraid it might wake someone. He draws a slow breath, takes one last sharp look at the portrait, then offers a small, solemn curtsy before turning away into the dark…


Sometimes I think it began that night, with the book and the cabin and the portrait.
But maybe that’s just what I tell myself.
It really started with the chickens.

We were sitting on the bench in my backyard, feeding them. Jack tore off a piece of bread, pinched a small portion, and tossed it toward the chickens - always aiming for their heads so the bread would bounce and scatter, sending them into a frenzy.

“Don’t do that to my chickens,” I glared at him.

He ignored me, handed over a crumb, and gestured for me to try. I did and the same frenzy followed.

We both laughed.

I glanced around for Shatov, the gnome who’d taken refuge among my tomatoes. I told him to harvest some asparagus, and he happily obliged - then offered to grill them for us.

We were having pasta, after all. And really, why not pair it with grilled asparagus?

An hour passed. Still no asparagus.

“What’s taking him so long?” Jack asked, grating cheese over his plate.

Moments later, Shatov appeared from the back door, carrying a large plate of asparagus: seasoned and glistening, still steaming from the grill. I helped him up, and together we began setting the food on the bench.

Jack stayed quiet, still wary of him, and deliberately kept himself out of the conversation about capitalism. Eventually, the subject veered toward hyperindividualism - something Shatov seemed to be a master of.

Sometimes I enjoy listening to his philosophy, mostly because I know Jack would completely disagree. What begins as a monologue always turns into a debate.

Then, as if on cue, a hawk dives from the sky, aiming straight for the chickens. Chaos erupts, but we stay frozen in our seats.

The rooster charges forward, wings flaring, the hens rallying behind him. In seconds, the hawk retreats - empty-handed.

We rushed straight to the chicken that had been hit and were relieved it wasn’t badly hurt. We both sighed in unison.

Then I noticed Shatov was gone.

We scanned the garden, but he was nowhere in sight. The back door hung slightly ajar.

Inside, the kitchen was quiet. I wandered in, thirsty, and noticed one of the drawers wasn’t fully closed. I pushed it shut, then froze. That was where I kept my seeds.

A cold feeling crept through me. I pulled the drawer open - it was empty, except for one packet clearly left behind. My asparagus seeds. I turned it over in my hand. On the back, freshly scribbled, it read:

Asparagus takes three years to harvest. Three years.

That lazy bastard. Seed thief.

I stepped outside. Jack was feeding the chickens again. I sat on the bench, staring into the distance.

“He’s gone, isn’t he?” Jack muttered, as if stating a fact.

“And he took all my seeds. Well, not all.” I waved the packet of asparagus seeds. “I thought he was a good friend… He was very active in the garden. He helps me with everything. And I really like his bedtime stories.”

I grumbled. “Those were heirloom seeds! I got them from my grandma.”

Jack sat beside me, patted my back, and handed me an envelope.

“What’s this?”

He didn’t respond. Just looked away, smiling faintly.

I opened it. Inside was a single note with the date of my scheduled chess rematch with the emu.

My heart sank. Not the emu again.

image.png

Asparagus takes three years to harvest from seed. Which is exactly how long it’ll take me to forgive Shatov.

Sort:  

When I first saw Jack, I knew what was coming next 😂 I didn't think that you'd continue this story and I am very happy you did!

Shatov reminds me of the green haired orange man in Willy Wonka— the Timotheé Chalamét version. The oompa loompa guy 😅

I'm really glad that you decided to continue. I wonder what's next.

By the way, have we met this Shatov before?

Honestly, I never knew how Shatov should look, so I never tried to describe him. But the oompa loompa, haha! Perfekt!

have we met this Shatov before?

Probably? hehe

Perhaps, he's a mammal but not in the Homo genus? No?

Not everyone who approaches us has good intentions, nor are they our friends. True intentions are sometimes hidden behind facades, always waiting for the ideal moment to reveal themselves.

That is true. Never trust a gnome...

 last month 

...except that one within your own mind...

Shatov as a hyperindividualist had no other choice, he was not able to discuss his dismissing nor the abduction of the seeds. We earn what we seed, as is said, and Shatov will proof this law.

I don’t really want to interpret Shatov’s behavior through human ethics. He’s a gnome, after all - a being whose moral compass doesn’t align with ours. Perhaps it’s simply his nature, the way a carnivorous plant traps flies or a storm wrecks a ship. You can’t call that evil...

Maybe, just maybe, the story itself is a kind of deceitful kiss. It started off with human morality and tries to lead the reader to suspect Shatov - who may or may not have stolen the seeds. :-)

 last month 

If a being can talk - speaking and answering - isn't it obvious that this being has got some reason? And isn't reason the basis of ethics? So that moral compasses have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with your / our species in the sense of biological origin?
(I don't argue regarding AI, since AI is not at all a being.)

You have a point...
I’m just saying it could be that gnomes don’t share the same ethical framework as humans. They may be rational beings, but their sense of ‘right and wrong’ might be based on entirely different foundational principles. Their moral logic might operate on a completely different level from ours. (I’m not assuming gnomes must share our sense of right and wrong just because they can reason.)

 last month (edited)

Let's for a moment call the 'Klingon Ethics', based on honour and power and on loyalty (as it was in medieval Europe).
These ethics are not illuminated and not 'X-rayed' by reason. They have had an evolutionary process and a social function, and thus the principles of such ethics are not independent from religious dogmas (but construct an image of a deity which is a 'Lord' in the sense of a Prince or King) and not independent from the foregoing assumption that honour and power and loyalty be the highest values. From honour and power and loyalty is derived what 'good' has to be. The 'good' in itself as its own and very highest value is an insight and an idea of 'practical reason'.
Thus it is not possible for a single indivduum or a hyperindividualist to reach this conclusion only by itself. But on the other hand, a hyperindividualist has nothing to do with loyalty, nothing to do with concepts of honour (which are socially constructed). Power, understood as the possibility to force others to do what the hyperindividualist wants, is the last remaining pillar of hyperindividualist ethics.
Now will gnomes see that each of them tends to gain power over others, and that they can only solve this problem by admitting: each gnome is born free, i.e. not under the power of others, and each gnome has to respect the freedom of others.

Human beings are inclined to specicism: they don't regard beasts or plants as being 'free by nature' in the same ways as theirselves. So, gnomes could regard humans as some beasts which do not deserve protection against arbitrariness and power of the gnomes. But this argument cannot be hold since humans insist on their freedom and are able to talk and to question and to reason, just as gnomes are.

In the end, there is no consistent hyperindividual gnome ethics possible. What 'good' or 'bad' has to be regarded of is not dividible by cultural differences. Shatov cannot be exculpated by 'some other traditions'. His behaviour looks criminal and immoral as far as it concerns the stealing of the seeds. If Shatov will be able to convincingly explain that the seeds were not stolen, than here is no further reason for accusations in this direction.