tlb wrote:Storm from the Shadows, Chapter 20 wrote:
But some of those "hedonistic sybarites" were anything but useless drones, and Bardasano was a prime example. In fact, she was the prime example. The Bardasano genotype had been notable for at least half a dozen generations for its intelligence and ruthless determination. There'd been a few unfortunate and unintended traits, as well, unhappily, and at one point there'd been serious consideration of simply culling the line's last several iterations and starting over again from a significantly earlier point. The positive traits had been so strong, however, that a remedial program had been instituted, instead, and Isabel was the current example of how successful it had been. It had been necessary to eliminate two of her immediate predecessors when their inherent ruthlessness had made them just a bit too ambitious for anyone else's good, but intelligent ambition, properly tempered, was always a useful thing, as Bardasano herself demonstrated. And if there was still a slight tendency towards sexual disorders and mildly sociopathic behaviors, neither of those posed any serious handicap, especially for someone whose area of expertise was covert operations. Of course, they'd have to be dealt with in the next generation or two if the Bardasano line was going to earn back permanent alpha status within the Alignment, which Isabel understood.
In the meantime, however, she was quite possibly the best covert ops specialist the Alignment had produced in at least the last T-century. It amused Detweiler that those outside the Alignment's innermost circle often cherished doubts about Bardasano's sanity, particularly when it came to her attitude towards him. The fact that it was well known within Mesa's star lines that the Bardasanos had almost been culled meant that her apparent insouciance with him only added to her reputation for . . . oddness, and provided a valuable extra level of protection when he or one of his sons called upon her services. As he gazed at her across the desk, he toyed once more with the notion of telling her that a cross between the Bardasano and Detweiler genotypes was even then being evaluated, but decided against it. For now, at least.
It helps when the original text is included in a discussion. The main problems the Planning Board had with the Bardasona genome have already been dealt with; all that remains are the possibilities of mild sociopathy and sexual deviance.
The problem with Marinescu is that she enjoys the killing. Isabel is fearless and remorseless, but looks on killing as just business, nothing personal.
cthia wrote:Thanks for the additional textev. But I doubt the stubbornness gene in the forum is going to acknowledge that the two women are
both Bardasanos.
Do allow me to point out that the problem in the Bardasano line
has not been dealt with as I digest it. Simply a band-aid has been placed on the wound with the "remedial treatment." Of course I personally wonder exactly what that "remedial treatment" entails. The aforementioned date with a Gaul dishing out shock therapies that I previously suggested, maybe? LOL
It is interesting that the textev you supplied brings up sociopathy. My niece had already sent me an interesting email that I wasn't going to post because it was after I threw in the towel. But, what the heck. I've noticed resentment of previous posts of my niece's thoughts but I can't take credit for what ain't mine. Though I'd like to in most cases. So you'll just have to get over it.
niece wrote:Interesting pile of stinky conundrum you've gotten yourself into again. Whenever I'm bored I know exactly where to find entertainment. Although it's ever costly in popped corn. lols
"So far as Chernyshev was aware, on the other hand, there was no known history of instability in Marinescu’s genome."
It appears to me that everyone is misinterpreting this quote because of a very profound subtlety found in its possessive nature.
It says there was no known history of stability in Marinescu's personal genome and not The Marinescu genome itself as it does with Bardasano. Which if it did, it would clear the path for their counter argument. Along the same corridor, the quote does not say Bardasano's genome but THE Bardasano genome. There is an ocean of difference.
It appears the passage does not specifically refer to "The Marinescu genome" as it does "The Bardasano genome" because the passage assumes its free flowing nature implies the subject of the genome.
Perhaps they do not realize playing with genetic code is like baking cookies. Sometimes you get a bad batch. Sometimes they are okay but there is just a little too much of one ingredient, obviously nutmeg in this case, which leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
This contains the entire logic of why Cherneyshev brings up psychopathy. Marinescu, up to that point hadn't FU and let the psychopathic cat out of the bag that she does suffer from the same power outage.
In addition, it seems to be a moot point since they all agree that Marinescu is psychopathic. Which means she shares the same instability of the Bardasano genome exposed by the author. Do they think that is a coincidence? This is where your birds of a feather flock together.
Discussing it with mother, it should be mentioned there are varying levels of psychopathy. Bardasano could somehow exhibit less severe forms of the disorder bordering more on sociopathy which mother identifies as psychopathy with a conscience.
It is interesting they all acknowledge Marinescu shares the same instability that is found in the Bardasano genome, but cannot take the next obvious step.
Contrast:
Marinescu's genome with The Marinescu genome.
Bardasano's genome with The Bardasano genome.
That should clear things up. Well, it should.
I made a couple of errors in composing my niece's post. Small errors. Misplacing a quotation mark. And substituting gene where it should be genome. It has been corrected in
this post. I left the original untouched for sake of comparison.
Absorbing her post, I think she hits the nail on the head in identifying what has tripped many up. She was flawless in pointing out that everyone inside a particular line may not necessarily suffer from the line's flaws. Which is the logic behind Cherneyshev's musings because Marinescu had not, up to that point, showed the shortcomings of her line, the Bardasano line.
Coming off of the same assembly line, Marinescu is subject to the possibility of the same instability of the Bardasano line, although she personally may not have actually fallen prey to it. She did of course, and in a big way.
Bardasano also didn't necessarily have to fall prey either. She could have developed without suffering from the flaws that are
inherent of the line. EXCEPT, that she is automatically exempted from that possible luxury since the line is named after her. Sort of a catch 22.
It reminds me of a company where I was once employed for a short time. It was an injections molding company. They made all sorts of small plastic parts that were used in a number of products throughout the world ranging from toasters, to refrigerators, to cars, to planes, to engines, etc. Every once in a while one of my jobs (Quality Control/Programmer) featured taking random samples of the parts coming off of the assembly line. The actual mold in the injection mold process would oftentimes develop pits which would scratch or damage the parts, called scoring. Some of the parts would turn out free of the inherent defect in the mold. Others wouldn't be so lucky. It is the same with genetic tampering.