Reflection, Class 13

Well, unlike most of the class it seems, I still don't have the same complaints about the writing. Perhaps I suspended some disbelief.
I wanted to comment on the discussion we had about alienness and whether the Jana'ata and Runa qualified as significantly "other" enough aliens. I still think it is next to impossible to truly depict absolute otherness. We simply wouldn't have a frame of reference to describe them much less interact. We'd probably blame the author for poor characterization or scoff at the descriptions. Therefore, the aliens in The Sparrow and Children of God I think were alien enough for the purposes of the books. God's other children would theoretically share resemblances to his known children. Each species had differences from each other and those on Rakhat shared some similarities that would come from evolving on the same planet. They had tails, different facial features, different body features, and different dominant senses. The cultures were different as well, though they did share common aspects with Earth history or societies. But again, I don't think that's necessarily bad. Depiction of an other that has no basis of comparison would make for a rather complicated first contact, don't you think? With absolutely no common points how would it be attempted? Luckily for the first Jesuit mission they had Emilio to pick up on the language parts quickly and act as a communicator.
I still don't really like Sofia in Children of God. Yes, she had a rather amazing life but she had some rather pointed blinders that affected her whole life and the life of her son. Perhaps he still would have gone off and she couldn't have prevented it even if they were closer, only two of their kind on the planet after all, but I think a lot of the excess violence against the Jana'ata that didn't want to fight anymore could have been avoided.

Les enfants de Dieu, apres-classe

Bonsoir tout le monde:

I have to say that I felt much better about the book having sat through the discussion. I really enjoyed Chris' points about the literary issues in several areas (that kind of helped me assign "blame" for some of my dislike for the book) - even though I might not dislike it as strongly as he did. On the other hand, I rather enjoyed some of the upsets in the book (not too many because of the foreshadowing, but still): the Carlos kidnapping of Emilio made me unhappy, but was still well played through and through; I may have even tipped my proverbial hat at the author when I got to that point.

Now, there was a seeming consensus about Emilio getting a really rough deal and not too much in return; if you'll allow me to play Devil's advocate for a moment, I might disagree. I feel that although Emilio had an extremely difficult time, it is almost exclusively the dealing with and/or finding meaning in these more difficult times in life that truly allow a person to grow, and defines their character. By no means am I saying that this level of difficulty is needed by any person in order to show strength of character; however, based on both the explicit reactions of DW and other Jesuits about the probability of Emilio's status as a saint, and then taking his actions and thoughts in the aggregate, I would argue that he does in fact make some meaning out of his suffering. The music as a consolation prize is one of the things we spoke about today that I didn't find myself agreeing with; rather, his saving of the Jana'ata child and later reunion with his own daughter strike me as divine intervention into a soul marred and tarnished by so much death, through the very personal circumstances of bringing about and saving the lives of children (also the soothing factor, given the fate of Askama). I also think that both Issac and Nico played roles in this rehabilitation of Emilio's humanity [again, given his removal from his to-be-wife]. Overall, I still liked the Sparrow much more, thats for sure.


En francais, parce que je peux

-Mike

Children of God: Pre-class Reaction

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.

The Conquest of America: Post-Class Reaction

One of the main thoughts that lingered in my mind after class, was how does knowledge affect human interaction? We discussed at length the different ways Cortez and Columbus used information, and the book talked about the different ways cultures processed information. So my question is what type of culture is better prepared for cross-cultural interaction, a primitive one or an advanced one, or does that have no effect? Is a culture that values superstitions over science a better or worse communicator? First world countries claim to be very worldly and understanding, but does their broad knowledge actually hinder them because it makes them view themselves as superior and thus act condescending?

I also wondered about how does learning about another culture change you. Because one can’t simply be a removed observer, by interacting with an “other” you are bound to undergo at least a slight change. I guess over all our classes discussion once again really made me think about what communication should be like, what is the right way to interact with others.

Children of God

I'm in agreement with Jen that I have no orderly reaction to this book. Throughout the reading I continually bounced back and forth between feeling for the characters and thinking that they got what they deserved.

Ditto with the belief that The Sparrow could have stood alone. I did appreciate how this work did show the results but I actually thought that it detracted from the original storyline. Mostly because we all had such strong reactions to Sandoz's story I feel like we almost know too much now.

I believe this would be a great book if it was written independently. I loved the interactions between the various races especially their interbreeding and seeing the later generations grow up. However, by making it all a spin-off of the original book I brought all of my biases created by the first to this one. If it was different characters I think it would be great, it just doesn't work for me as a sequel.

I know this isn't much but I just don't have enough thoughts on this to say much else.

I'm really looking forward to what everybody else thought about it tomorrow.

Visions of the Future, Courtesy of Russell, Part 2

It seems to me that the very essence of tragedy is some happiness that is then ripped away with a kind of unfeeling coldness. There's quite a bit of tragedy in Children of God, just like in The Sparrow. My thoughts about the sequel weren't as pointed or coherent as for the first book, they sort of jumped all over the place, much like the different times, which I agree were important to try to follow. I still connect more with Emilio as a character, I really felt for him when stupid Carlo kidnapped him just when he was about to get some real peace with Gina. I felt horrid for her too and I wonder if she ever found out it was her ex that kidnapped Emilio. But Emilio got some peace in the end, a happy ending, which I think he more than deserved. After the roller coaster of the first book, he settled into a nice hatred of God for a while then got turned around again, finding his way back. I feel like he was sort of like Ripley from Aliens in much of this book. He didn't want anything to do with the mission, then was sort of forced into it, and was a consistent voice for caution. Of course, Ripley was right and the aliens weren't to be trusted on any sort of level and Emilio found that well, not all of the Jana'ata were so insensitive to his otherness and to the equality of the Runa.
Equality in which Sofia played a large role. I went back and forth on her a lot in this book. I understand her fierce opposition to the Jana'ata that ruled her life but at the same time, her son Isaac only works as a hostage if you make some kind of demands, which the Jana'ata did not do. Her lack of understanding Isaac led her to believe that he was a hostage and couldn't really conceive of him staying of his own free will. I agree with Mike that both Isaac and Sofia were kind of frustrating and each could have used a bit of love in their relationship to the other.
Hlavin and Supaari seemed to get the ends they deserved. Yes, my understanding of Supaari has deepened and thus my sympathy but I can't really sympathize with Hlavin. He's still the megalomanic that he always was but I suppose he did help Jana'ata society by breaking down the rigid social structure. Hunting Runa for sport isn't much better than just killing them though.
So, although The Sparrow could have stood alone I think it was helped by Children of God, just so that the fallout from the first mission could be seen in its entirety, not just for Emilio but for the Jana'ata and Runa on Rakhati.

Interspecies-DNA: My favorite genre of music

Sipaj everyone:

Having finished the sequel, I am surprised to say that I don't know how I feel about it. Having felt so strongly about the first book, and actually still feeling strongly about it, I am oddly in the position of feeling ambivalent about this one. I am not sure if it is the change in temporal narration, or perhaps the characters are not as easy for me to identify with; I am not sure, and I hope to take some meaning out of these characters come class on Tuesday.

Regardless of my aggregate opinion on the book, I have to say that the unexpected method by which Emilio was taken to Rakhat again was something I did not foresee, even with the Camorra ties constantly being thrown in my face as the reader. I was expecting some sort of miraculous event to change his mind, and that never happened until he heard the music discovered by Isaac. On this subject, I would have to say that Isaac was one of my least favorite characters, mostly due to the narrative always having him insist on his mother coming to him. Something about the repetitive use of that demand wore on me after a while, due to its infernal screaming that Sofia would in fact move, thanks for the heavy-handed foreshadowing... On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoyed Nico's character above and beyond any other in either book, probably because of his combination of love for opera and his expert use of salami to redeem a destroyed man's humanity. In seriousness, the way the author used this character seemed to me as one of the anchors for the title of the book (the conversation amongst Hana'la and her family aside), because for all intents and purposes Nico was a child, and being D'angeli, perhaps was a bit of a reference to this by the author. He took people at their word, tried to do the right thing, always honestly apologized for what he had done wrong, and in the end was arguably the most morally upright of anyone on the second mission. I feel as though his presence on the mission was the most important of any of the others, yet again for reasons that are currently not clear to me (perhaps some of this "sleep" would do me some good....).

In any event, have a good evening, and I feel like "Interspecies-DNA" could go places as a band name...

-Mike