I found our cyclical discussion in class very interesting. The discussion helped me understand the book a little more, even though it did raise more questions. It was also helpful to discuss the author’s intentions and style of writing. The discussion of concepts like fate, predestination and free will is always one that constantly folds in on itself. And we found that when discussing Paul, whenever someone made a point it could have been taken a number of ways. And more that once whenever the Professor asked so does that mean that Paul was in control of his fate, Paul was controlled by others or was his destiny set, I found myself pressed for an answer, because it is hard to give a straight answer without more evidence, either way it would just be an opinion. And what the Professor pointed out in the 3rd appendix (the part where it says the Bene Gesserits were part of a grander scheme of things) further muddles the question of who was in control of Paul’s fate, because it makes it seem like there is something so much larger going on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yeah, but that third appendix is what makes the whole discussion so interesting. As Americans, the members of the class should be vehemently opposed to predestination, on average. I think this showed itself, because most times the discussion went around the circle to "well it looks like Paul pretty much had to do X," someone would shortly make a point to the effect of "what about this example, where he seems to have free will." Due to the fact that this course is Social/Science/Fiction, I know we should expect to see some social science. I didn't really expect to see it in class, showing itself in our clear preference to want Paul to be in control of his own destiny. (implied reference to Manifest Destiny here) ....So Anderson was right. Huh.
-Mike
Post a Comment