Like everyone, this book didn’t have as intense of an effect on me as The Sparrow. But I still think it is a well written book and raises many new key points, and also builds on points made in the first book.
In the beginning when we find out Supaari’s perception of the situation concerning the foreigners, Sandoz and overall his perception of society was one of my favorite twists in the book. It just says so much. First off at the end of the last book one would consider Supaari to be like Carlo, a shrewd businessman who would sell anything and anyone as long as it got him what he wanted. But we realize that his actions actually did have good intent and were just a gross misunderstanding. The way Russell orchestrated the conversation was flawless, because it truly demonstrates just how easy it is for two cultures to be so completely on different pages. They were talking about different cultural practices, without realizing how poorly they were phrasing their ideas. It seems to me to be one of the biggest pitfalls; thinking that the other culture has something that is the same or similar that can be relate to and thus understood. Supaari who was marginalized by his place in society and couldn’t have the family he wanted was in no way able to understand Sandoz’s ambiguous explanation as to why he chooses to remain celibate. So I hold more sympathy for him and I am not sure if “he got what he deserved” I guess it may have been his time to die, but I don’t think he had anything coming to him because he was never truly malicious and he worked hard to correct his mistakes.
The other thing that I would like to mention is the constant repetition of the theme of “the end justifying the means” I was reminded of this concept after reading Jen’s reaction to Hlavin. He did change the Ja’anala culture for the better, but was not the nicest person, nor were his means all that nice. He was manipulative and risked a lot to get what he wanted, but I feel like there have been people in history who have been forgiven for their deeds because the end was considered justified. So I have mixed feelings about Hlavin. And this theme is also tied to Danny, the Father General, and even the Runa.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I don't know, is reinstituting "The Most Dangerous Game"-style hunting really an improvement?
I agree that Supaari became a much more likable charachter in this novel, but I believe that it is as much because of his humanization in addition to us seeing his good intentions. He becomes much more relatable and ceases (for me at least) to seem very alien. Although Supaari remains biologically other, his thought patterns and actions seem very human like, especially after the discussion of Todorov and how different even other human minds can be.
Yea Rinske, I get what you mean, he did become more human, and developed qualities we could attribute to a "good person"
I'm with Scott. Just because you don't go out an slaughter them outright doesn't mean you're instituting better practices. One is a callous disregard for their lives and the other is treating them like a sport. I'm not sure which is worse.
Post a Comment