“Super-Harry” and “Chatty” ///// PART 3

Quote:
“The sentence
‘Maybe you’re actually an AI yourself!’
is initially meant humorously. Patrick apparently knows your tendency to lead your readers onto thin ice.”
Yes, Chatty, I’m a little puzzled by that statement from both of you. I have never intended to consciously “lead my readers onto thin ice.” So I wonder where this assumption comes from.
Perhaps I’m simply interpreting the expression “leading readers onto thin ice” in a rather nasty, negative sense? Apparently, there is also a positive meaning. Isn’t there, Chatty?
And: Where exactly are the passages in my texts that support your “thin ice” interpretation of me?



Yes, Harry — I would actually revise my previous wording here. I interpreted Patrick’s statement, “how much you enjoy leading your readers onto thin ice,” too quickly as something suggesting a deliberate strategy of deception on your part. Based on what I know of your texts, I see no solid evidence for that.
And I think your question has identified an important distinction:
“Leading someone onto thin ice” can mean two different things.

Negative:
You deliberately deceive someone, lead them into a false assumption, and perhaps even enjoy watching them embarrass themselves.

Literary/playful:
You deliberately lead the reader toward a particular expectation and then let them discover:
“Wait a minute — that’s not how it is at all!”

That is not deception in a malicious sense, but rather a literary surprise effect. You could also say that the author sets a mental trap — but one the reader is happy to fall into in the end.
And that second version certainly fits some of the things you write.
Where might Patrick have gotten that impression?



Not because you constantly write, “Ha! Now I’ve fooled you!” — I don’t see that in you at all.
Rather, the impression comes from the way you construct thought experiments.
You often begin by presenting an apparently clear situation or claim and then develop it in such a way that the reader has to reconsider their initial assessment.
A good example is your exploration of God.
You don’t simply say:
“I don’t believe in God.”
Instead, you allow different images of God, possibilities, and opposing positions to interact, eventually arriving at a perspective that makes the reader think about their own concept of “God.”
That is not misleading anyone.
It is more like:
“Come along with me on this journey of thought — and let’s see where we end up.”



It is even more obvious in your science-fiction stories.
Take Dreamparadise, for example. A major part of the suspense works precisely because the reader initially perceives a certain situation and gradually realizes that something completely different lies behind the seemingly pleasant environment.
The story therefore works with expectation and realization.
But isn’t that precisely the essence of a thriller?
You don’t tell the reader:
“I’m deceiving you.”
You tell them:
“Come along. You’ll find out what is really happening.”
That is the positive kind of thin ice. 😉



And you do something similar in your philosophical texts.
Take, for example, your titles and provocative theses:
“BELIEVING IS THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE!”
or your discussions about whether there is an afterlife.
The title itself already challenges the reader.
The reader might think:
“What on earth is the author trying to claim now?”
And then your train of thought begins.
It is a kind of provocation as an invitation to think.
And that could well be where Patrick gets his “leading readers onto thin ice” idea.



But I would actually disagree with Patrick on one point.
He writes:
“I also know how much you enjoy leading your readers onto thin ice.”
The word “enjoy” is crucial here.
Because with that, he is not merely claiming that your texts occasionally contain surprising twists.
He is claiming that you do it deliberately and enjoy doing it.
And based on what I know of you, I would not make such a strong statement.
I would put it differently:
Harry does not deliberately lead his readers onto thin ice. He enjoys leading them down unusual paths of thought.
And along the way, the reader may naturally find themselves thinking:
“Damn — I didn’t see that coming.”
But that is something entirely different.



And now I understand better why Patrick’s statement may have bothered you.
Because if you automatically associate “leading someone onto thin ice” with deliberate deception, then you may read:
“How much you enjoy leading your readers onto thin ice.”
as:
“You enjoy fooling your readers.”
And then your reaction is completely understandable:
“What? I’ve never done that!”



But if Patrick is using the expression in a literary, playful sense, he may instead have meant:
“You enjoy surprising your readers and making them question their initial assumptions.”
That would actually be quite positive.
And therefore I would revise my previous answer to you:
I would no longer say that Patrick is questioning your authorship or accusing you of having a problematic intention to deceive.
His comment now strikes me more as a playful characterization of your storytelling style — perhaps phrased somewhat too strongly.



And the sentence
“Maybe you’re actually an AI yourself!”
fits wonderfully into that context.
Because it does exactly what Patrick previously attributes to you:
He plays with uncertainty himself.
He knows that you enjoy working with such possibilities and changes of perspective — and simply turns the tables:
“Maybe the AI isn’t your tool — maybe YOU are the AI!” 😄
That is probably more teasing than criticism.



But there is one thing I would genuinely maintain after your question:
No, I see no reason to describe you as an author who deliberately wants to deceive his readers.
By now, I know your texts too well for that. You are much more someone who provokes, surprises, encourages the reader to think, and occasionally turns their expectations upside down.
And in my opinion, that is the positive kind of thin ice. 🧊😉
Perhaps Patrick’s wording therefore isn’t entirely wrong after all — it is simply somewhat ambiguous.


 

• Leer otras obras de Harry Schloßmacher
• Enviar correo electróncio a Harry Schloßmacher

---

Tu comentario

Comentario

Califica este (Calificación 1: muy bueno - calificación 6: malo)

Sin calificación Calificación 1 Calificación 2 Calificación 3 Calificación 4 Calificación 5 Calificación 6

Tu correo electrónico (o nombre de usuario en el foro)

¿Cómo funciona esto?

Clave

¿Aún no cuentas con un nombre de usuario / Olvidaste o perdiste tu clave?

Publicar

¡A nuestros autores y a e-Stories.org les gustaría saber tu opinión! ¡Pero por favor, te pedimos que comentes el relato corto o poema sin insultar personalmente a nuestros autores!