To me this seems to be a story of addiction. The "three" people that are "Jeff" include 1) the actual Jeff, a shy introvert with way too much on his plate, 2) an intoxicated Jeff that is outgoing and highly functional, 3) a Jeff that is unrecognizably intoxicated (Michelle).
The part where I have a hard time reconciling the story is towards the end;
> I tell her it’s likely not that and then call Michelle. It isn’t difficult to track her down — she has a robust web presence. She says that she is no longer working with Jeff and has no idea where he is.
I'm thinking that the author calls "Michelle" (aka: super intoxicated Jeff) who is hitting "jackpots" all over the news who basically tells the author off completely, indicating that he is never coming back / losing his battle with addiction. Or perhaps "Michelle" has moved on because "Jeff" has moved on to harder substances in harsher circumstances.
I agree. This is definitely about addiction and its bedfellow codependence.
I read the writing style as bizzaro, perhaps to soften difficult topics and to add intrigue. So to that end Michelle isn't actually puppeting Jeff. She's just a controlling girlfriend.
I believe Michelle represents amphetamines, which something like a quarter of university students take[1]. The upbeat and outgoing attitude shift and confidence. The drive and ambition to found your own company. The total rejection by conservative parents who don’t understand how positively life-changing it can be. This story has hit so eerily close to home.
The fact that the sister doesn’t like Michelle, but she likes her brother when Michelle is inside him. It feels like a little betrayal to learn that the person you like to talk to might only act that way when they’re using amphetamines. To me it makes no difference if the person has altered the dopamine and serotonin levels in their brain with diet and exercise or if they did it with a pill. If they’re a happy, successful and well adjusted human then why would it matter?
Honest question--is Michelle a real person the author is recounting events about or is this some kind of literary device? Maybe my brain isn't working today but I gave up halfway through this without getting it.
> Honest question–is Michelle a real person the author is recounting events about or is this some kind of literary device? Maybe my brain isn’t working today but I gave up halfway through this without getting it.
Its explicitly fiction, so “real” is…perhaps not the right word. I think the story is intended to be read literally as fiction; its a fictional world where “puppeteers” that can somehow temporarily exist within you and direct your actions, and also pop out of you and leave you on your own are a real kind of personal service you can hire, and where also VR headset that let you relive past experiences are real things you can get (by the end of the story, at least.)
On the other hand, I think the puppeteer element intentionally can serve as allegory for one or more things in the real world; both gender transition and mental health care via professionals and drugs seem like they could fit, more or less. I don’t know if one thing in particular was intended, though.
If it were a gender transition story, it reads more like a previous generation where therapists were more inclined to tell people to try to bury themselves in living the life of a person they’re not. And it plays out predictably in that case, in that the person not becoming who they truly are appear to be better than before, until it all comes falling apart.
But I don’t think that’s the intent of the story — I think the author did intend for this to be taken literally as a fictional tale, and it’s quite good.
A ridiculous presumption, you ARE always. If anything its how you want to be seen by others. Which is fine, we all seek attention, or certain treatment.
Strange you came to say this unprovoked to a stranger on the internet, but I’m going to rely on the body of medical evidence, psychological evaluations, quality of life improvements, etc. over your insistence to the contrary.
I read it as the story of someone whose brother (Jeff) has multiple personality disorder, where Jeff's personality split to build a Michelle personality that was capable of standing up to and meeting not only his parents' expectations, but his sister's (the narrator's), as she also approves of who Jeff is as his Michelle personality. The bit about Michelle being a puppeteer is how Jeff self-reconciles having a separate personality "in control"; the bit about rich children being able to afford puppeteers is how Jeff reconciles how effortlessly the rich children at Stanford seem to be able to achieve success. The bits about Michelle stepping outside, about being contactable directly after Jeff disappears, are literary devices.
Jeff disappears from his parents', sister's, and wife's life, because none of them accept Jeff + Michelle as an integrated person, someone whose anxiety and depression is unacceptable to them (unacceptable to any of them) but neither is his attempt to pull himself together and become happy and well-adjusted (acceptable to his wife, unacceptable to his parents, acceptable to his sister but only on the condition that he make amends with his parents). Danny is Jeff's true biological son, and when the narrator thinks that she sees Jeff "pulling Danny's strings," what the narrator is really claiming to understand in the end is that she isn't capable of trusting that anyone can be genuinely happy in-and-of themselves, that the projection of happiness must be a front, intended to meet roles and expectations, and not from a genuine inner source.
The story is a tragedy, but not about Jeff. It's a tragedy about the unrealistic expectations often fostered in immigrant families (including the narrator's failure to land a rich husband or build a life outside her parents' conflict management issues and control), and how these expectations can wreck family life.
It reminds me of Greg Egan’s sci-fi short stories. I read it as such, i.e. what could happen if there were really puppeteers as described. No hidden metaphor.
The reasonable interpretation at first is that Michelle is trans Jeff, post-transition.
But then it goes off the rails. We quickly learn Michelle is somebody entirely other, whom we learn practically nothing about despite that she authored an extremely likeable Jeff. We learn that the other, peevish, Jeff is just Jeff from before college, before he was scripted up. We also learn practically nothing about him. The only character we learn anything about is fake Jeff, and then only a variety of impressions of him.
It has elements of a good story, but omits the good parts.
The best allegories are the ones that go completely off the rails, and only make the author's original point if you squint. (Even better if they're still good allegories, but for things their authors didn't know about.)
I imagine the author giggling manically at seeing different people fully convinced of and vehemently agruing about their contradicting interpretation of what the story is an allegory for.
For most of the story I was assuming Michelle was an allegory for drugs (particularly with the reference to Jane's Addiction).
But by the end I was getting a distinctly "inter-generational trauma" read.
Michelle is the coping strategy personality that doesn't always work, and when Jeff's sister (the narrator) becomes part of the problem - and when 'Michelle' has to become a parent himself - Jeff's last option is to disappear completely.
This is science fiction. Good science fiction uses alternate reality to explore the human condition: "Given how human beings' experience, and how they behave in our current world, how would they behave differently if this new technology / capability were available? What are the philisophical / moral / social ramifications of that?"
So, there are immigrant Asian parents. Such parents often have high expectations for their kids. These kids feel the pressure to meet them, but often can't (or feel they can't), leaving a problem to be solved. Also, parents often try to live vicariously through their children.
In the Real World, people might turn to drugs: Alcohol to numb the pain, amphetamines to increase performance, etc; they also put their kids in expensive schools and coach them in everything they wish they'd been taught growing up. In the story world presented here, some people turn to "puppeteers": One particular second generation child first relies on a puppeteer to be a "success", and then becomes one himself to live out a "success" through his child.
The fact that people do have this problem, but don't have the solution, and turn to other solutions, is why so many of the "allegory" attempts here are close but ultimately fail: Yes, drugs are a different way people sometimes deal with these problems; no, drugs are not the same as puppeteering, which is why it's not a 1-1 match.
Jeff does shrooms and listens to Jane’s addiction. Jeff’s parents put him in a psychological vice to make their American tale worthwhile. They’re unhappy people and the only solution given to Jeff to end their collective unhappiness and fighting is Stamford. Jeff makes it, but Stamford and startups won’t work with depressed Jeff, shrooms and Jane’s addiction so he adapts and creates “Michelle”, the face of a successful happy well-adjusted person Jeff couldn’t really be. It works too well, he succeeds, grows closer to his family, but Jeff is still Jeff. When his father is sick, he can’t manage to put on the happy well-composed face. He gets angry that who people think he is isn’t who he is, so he reveals Michelle, which is revealing that teenaged unhappy Jeff is still inside, and he never wanted to be Michelle but his parents forced his hand. It gets worse, he gets a family but again it’s a relationship based on Michelle and not the Jeff of Jane’s addiction and shrooms. He knows that he can’t keep up the hiding, but he’s damaged, so he just leaves.
This reads like a torture scene in an Iain M. Banks Culture novel, where people are plugged into godawful simulations that last a lifetime. Please, just make it stop...
Since we're all chiming in here, I thought the story was about coping with pressures and life, and uses the puppeteer as a stand-in for multiple, nebulous "whats" or "whos".
I think most of us can relate to somebody in our life who leaves either for school, or work, or for some reason is out of our lives for an extended period. I think it's also reasonably common when those same people come back and are changed, for lack of a better phrase. It may be that you, the reader, are that person who came back changed.
For whatever reason, the person is now different in a positive, or at least socially-acceptable, way; however, the other shoe is bound to drop. In this case, it was Michelle and the concept in their world of Puppets and Puppeteers.
But really, you can insert anything you want into Michelle's spot. Drugs, relationships, and religion are often the most common factors in these stories. Just as common is loss of one of those three (parent passes, kicked the meth habit, etc). It can also be something like an aggressive alternative medicine group with strong pressure to conform to the in-group. It could also be something more openly malicious, such as getting into a racial superiority group, a cult, or a conspiracy theory group.
In the end, it is something, or someone, or some group, that allows the changed person to be themselves, or express some other part or their personality. It may even be that this is a change the person wanted, such as being less violent or having more patience.
It also brings up an interesting question, in this framing. How are the outcomes different between using mind altering drugs, joining a cult, and letting a manipulative person guide ones actions? One could argue intent, where manipulation is putting the person in a place to go back to the manipulator, but one could argue the same about drugs, or the alt-medicine group, or any of the other types of things listed above.
When it's all said and done, I thought it was about how people outside of the changed person react to learning about the source of the change. Sometimes it's a positive reaction, but sometimes all anyone wants is the status quo.
Since there's obviously different interpretations, and most of the fun of the story is sharing them, I read parts of it as a plurality and fronting story.
The social pressure to not talk about plurality, and the pushback folks get when sharing their identity with people close to them[family] resemble the interactions the main character has with others. Questions of "who are they really?" and "who am I talking with right now?" present themselves in the story and I'd imagine in systems that don't have the best supportive environment.
Interesting read, but did not understand the author's message or what was going on. Was it about addiction, MPD, trans discovery? Unclear, to me at least. Poor writing I think, unless the ambiguity was the intent.
Great writing leaves gaps for the reader to fill with elements and interpretations from their own life. This comment thread makes it clear it worked -- amphetamine users see it as a story about amphetamines. People who care about gender thought it was a gender story. People with social anxiety see it as a story about masking.
I watch and read too much sci-fi so interpreted it more literally, thinking about how the puppeteer thing could actually work.
> This comment thread makes it clear it worked -- amphetamine users see it as a story about amphetamines. People who care about gender thought it was a gender story. People with social anxiety see it as a story about masking.
You're making a lot of assumptions there. Just because people make a guess doesn't mean that guess is based on their own life.
And reaching as far as you need to find an interpretation is also something that happens with bad writing all the time.
I have a sibling who moved away and comes back from time to time and I miss them. So this resonates for me. Plus the whole dysfunctional asian family with culturally assimilated kids dynamic.
If you know more than others, that's great, but please either (1) share some of what you know, so the rest of us can learn; or (2) don't post. Supercilious putdowns only make things worse.
Treating it like a matter-of-fact account seems best. Imagine there really are hired puppeteers.
At first I thought this was about a trans sibling, and Michelle was the post-transition, Jeff the public male she had acted and down abandoned. The not now closeted Michelle's (?) peevishness was confusing. Then it became clear there were three people, Michelle, crabbed Jeff, and invented public Jeff. We don't know anything about Michelle except that she scripted a good public Jeff.
We each script our own public Jeff that resembles our inner Jeff to the degree that we are satisfied with the latter's (our own) place in society, and his (our) willingness to put in the work maintaining the other.
Are you implying there is a single correct interpretation? Is that an opinion, or something based on a specific knowledge of the piece/author? More than anything, what is the purpose of addressing people like this?
Any particular reason why? I will admit, though, that I did not realize this was non-fiction when first skimming it and assumed puppeteer was a real job cooked up by stanford grads.
Here's ChatGPT answering what the word "puppeteer" means in this article:
The metaphor of the "puppeteer" in the story could be interpreted in a variety of ways. The author doesn't explicitly state what the puppeteer represents, but given the context of the story and the themes it explores, there are a few possibilities.
One interpretation is that the puppeteer represents societal and cultural expectations that dictate how a person is expected to present themselves. The story touches on themes of family dynamics, pressure to conform and the negative consequences of living a fabricated life, which aligns with the experiences of many people who may feel compelled to hide their true selves in order to fit in.
Another possible interpretation is that the puppeteer represents addiction or substance abuse, the story mentions Jeff's use of magic mushrooms and the narrator talks about the family's history with alcoholism and the pressure to conform. In this interpretation, the puppeteer could be seen as the addiction controlling Jeff's actions and behavior and the way he presents himself to others.
It is worth to mention that the author could have also intended for the metaphor to be interpreted in a more open-ended way, allowing readers to draw their own interpretations based on their own experiences and perspectives.
I have not quite stayed tuned in to all the chatGPT comings-and-goings. But examples like this are just stunning. This is just the most incredible cognition "act" ever. It's impressive not just because it's convincing but mainly because the answer is far superior to the answer I'd provide given the same prompt.
I am so impressed and so terrified of what will happen when the ne'er-do-wells start using this for whatever nefarious purpose they conjure.
it could make it much easier for a bad actor to use social engineering to pretend to be someone in a certain role that requires a certain amount of domain-specific knowledge and/or lingo
I suspect that's simply a stock regurgitated PR-speak answer saying nothing with <insert keyword here> replaced by "puppeteer".
I've seen a zillion reponses like this from lazy students (although, to be fair, the grammar is quite a bit better). It should get a "D", but honestly I'd have a hard time throwing that down given the coherence of the grammar. I'd probably have to give it a "C" by comparison to the rest of the class.
This why I really don't understand the fuss about GPT. It's just not that great.
A couple of nights ago my wife and I used ChatGPT to generate a bunch of various report card comments. The results were fairly good as a starting point but, what was really interesting is that ChatGPT corrected terminology errors I had made in the prompts.
For example, I wrote "ppositional defiance," and in the response, ChatGPT corrected the term to "Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD)" along with a brief description of the disorder.
And, in response to my jokingly using the term "little monster" to describe a disruptive student, ChatGPT chided me for using the expression, calling it "utterly inappropriate."
It makes one wonder, do students need to learn how to write? The question has been asked before in a 'simpler' context. Do students need to learn long division? Seems like if not now, soon, the answer is no.
Except in the narrowest sense of "writing" meaning to put words on a page in grammatical order, it can't really be compared to learning to perform a mechanical chore like long division. It's more comparable to learning numeracy. To learn to write is to learn how to structure thoughts in human language, just as to learn math is to learn to structure thoughts in a universal framework built on logic.
One could make the question more explicit: If machines can think, is there a need for students to learn how to think? If not, is there a need to teach anything at all?
Just my personal view: The presence of reasoning machines makes it all the more urgent for our species to learn reasoning skills. The passing on of knowledge has perhaps been our key evolutionary advantage. Without the ability to write (and to structure thoughts), future humans would be defenseless against whoever or whatever could do so.
Sure, basic writing is probably still important, but more nuanced things, for instance, do students really now need to learn the form of an argumentative essay? That is/was a good skill to have. But now or in the future one could say i want an argument essay for why we should build this feature. i'd just get ChatGPT to do it.
eh, learning form in argument is exactly the same thing as learning to order one's thoughts. Would you do away with a lawyer's need to parse the law, or an engineer's need to learn control structures because a computer could write a paper they wouldn't understand? We need to be teaching people to spot the flaws in AI arguments and to spot when other people have used AI to write those arguments. There's no way to do that unless the students are competent in writing excellent arguments themselves.
My mother-in-law has ranted many times about how they don’t teach cursive anymore. She doesn’t know how to use a computer.
I think you raise a very interesting (and likely very controversial) thought to explore.
My quick opinion is that we can only teach so much. And the list of things that could be taught is forever growing. We need to be pragmatic about priority.
I just hate we optimize putting info into computer (typing vs cursive), but now computers can just read writing, so why are we so focused on typing? Just make computers adapt to humans, not train humans to accommodate machines.
Print and cursive are about the same amount of effort, and that amount is a lot more than hitting keys. The average person can type 40 words per minute, or handwrite 40 letters per minute.
I agree — but then, I teach & remediate handwriting. Nowadays, more and more of my work is to teach humans to do what computers have learned to do: namely, to read, cursive, whether or not they write that way too.
I just tried a quiz of 15 multiple choice questions on New Zealand history, and I asked it to indicate the correct answer. It made a couple of glaring errors, which was disappointing.
I find chatgpt throws out multiple options for almost every response and they become formulaic, as in this example of 3 options. Sometimes the options are even numbered.
The part where I have a hard time reconciling the story is towards the end;
> I tell her it’s likely not that and then call Michelle. It isn’t difficult to track her down — she has a robust web presence. She says that she is no longer working with Jeff and has no idea where he is.
I'm thinking that the author calls "Michelle" (aka: super intoxicated Jeff) who is hitting "jackpots" all over the news who basically tells the author off completely, indicating that he is never coming back / losing his battle with addiction. Or perhaps "Michelle" has moved on because "Jeff" has moved on to harder substances in harsher circumstances.