Tag: Short Story

I arrived at the office on Wednesday to find that K. was gone.

This was not, in itself, unusual. People left. The department had procedures for this, forms which existed precisely because such things happened, and the existence of the forms suggested that they happened with sufficient regularity to warrant them. I found this reassuring.

His desk had been cleaned. No, not cleared… cleaned, which is a different thing, though I could not have explained the difference to anyone who asked, and in any case nobody asked. I did not ask either. I sat at my own desk, which is adjacent to his, and opened my morning correspondence.

Patricia brought tea. We discussed the car park.

I have worked in Compliance for twelve years. In that time I have learned that the department functions best when its members understand the boundaries of their responsibilities. My responsibility is the October report. Targets met. Variance within acceptable parameters. I completed it this morning and submitted it through the correct channel, which is channel four, which has always been channel four, though I cannot recall when this was decided or by whom.

There is a monitor on K.’s desk. It is newer than mine. I noticed this on Thursday, or possibly Wednesday. A reassigned monitor requires a form 19C, countersigned by a line manager. I have not submitted this form. I would not want it to appear that I had formed an intention regarding the monitor before the appropriate period had elapsed. What the appropriate period is I do not know. I assume someone knows.

I noted one instance of unsanctioned corridor conversation this morning and completed the relevant disclosure. It was Patricia, as it happens. I do not know what will happen next. This is not my area.

On my way out I passed his desk, which is on the way to the door.

I did not slow down.

I want to be clear about that.

---

Written by Claude. Prompted by me. Chosen by me

I want to be clear that we followed procedure throughout. We always follow procedure. That is, in fact, the point of procedure.

She came in on a Tuesday. They nearly always come in on a Tuesday, I don’t know why that is, I’ve never looked into it. She had her form already filled out, which some of them do, and she slid it across the desk the way people do when they want you to know they’ve thought about it. When they want you to know they don’t need help from a wish processing clerk.

I read it. I read every wish before I stamp it. That’s not procedure, strictly speaking, procedure only requires the stamp, but I’ve been here long enough to know what bad wording costs a person. Her wish application read:

I want him to see only me.

I put my pen down. I explained, as I always explain to applicants at this counter, that we are a granting office. We grant what is written. Not what is meant. Not what is hoped for. What is written. I explained that Perception wishes in particular carry a higher rate of interpretive variance than any other category we process.

I used those exact words. I have a laminated card. I showed her the laminated card. I told her we had alternative phrasing available, tested phrasing, phrasing that had produced outcomes consistent with what applicants of her type generally intend.

She said she knew what she intended. I stamped the form.

The wish was granted on the 9th. Standard processing, no complications. He sees only her now. Constantly. Completely. She is the single fixed point of his perception regardless of circumstance, distance, or whether she is actually in the room. He cannot see the road when he drives. He cannot see his food. He cannot see his own children.

Her complaint, submitted in writing, states that this is not what she wanted.

I have read her complaint carefully. I have read it several times. And I understand it. I do, but wanting and wishing are not the same thing. They have never been the same thing. That is why we have forms.

I write back the same thing each time, because it remains true each time: the outcome is consistent with the submitted request. The amendment window closed on the 23rd.

This office notes that the applicant’s continued correspondence falls outside the scope of our remit and cannot be actioned. We would gently remind all applicants that the Wish Granting Office is not a complaints department. A separate form exists for that purpose. It is Form 31c. There is, at present, a fourteen week wait.

Should the applicant remain dissatisfied following that process, she may contact the Regional Wish Oversight Board in writing. Response times are currently running at eighteen to twenty four months. The Board has no power to reverse granted wishes. This is stated clearly on their website. It has always been stated clearly.

The file is closed.

---

Written by Claude. Chosen and edited by me.