Mercury Theatre

Looking To Windward: Pre-Class Reaction

2008-05-04T19:58:00.001-04:00

Reading this book was different from others the world was so different from our reality: all the various alien cultures, the complex technologies and social practices, soul storing, etc. all these things combined created a very alien world. And I must admit in the begging it was hard to keep track of it all, because the usual presence of things we are used to was a lot less than in other works of fiction we have read. For example the names, titles and terms were hard to keep track of and conceptualize, but eventually I was able to sort things out and get used to Bank’s created world. Despite the initial confusion, I enjoyed what came out of Bank’s imagination, the different species and the interactions between their cultures were a curious read.

The idea that really stuck in my mind and I want to discuss in my post is the idea of 2 minds sharing one body. Huyler and Quil were able to hold conversations and influence each other’ decisions and were both contributors to the acts of one “physical’ being. They are obviously different personalities in the same body, so the idea that struck me the most is the pros and cons of having two personalities affecting the same act. The two act sometimes like a system of checks and balances. For example Quil often kept in check Huyler’s tendency to say heated things, but he also didn’t completely disregard Huyler and used some of his ideas. So the question that struck me is what would be more effective/efficient: just one person acting on their own, or in some cases is it better to have two (or more) personalities in one body so they can have instant interaction and use each other as recourses? And further, would two people working together, each in their own body be just as effective?

And to finish this post like others, I would like to thank all of you for the fun conversations and sharing your ideas. It’s been fun, and I do agree with Jen, we should keep in touch via this and the facebook group. Good luck and hope you all have a fun summer.

Look to Windward

2008-05-03T22:15:00.002-04:00

This is one of my favorite books on the semester.

I believe this has probably the best writing of all of the books we read. I really felt like I was right there with the characters. I really think that this has potential to become a really good movie, notice I said potential, not a guarantee.

I also saw the original book cover and I feel like this one truly represents the sort of unknowing that this book really pushes.

One of the most interesting things in this was the whole idea of downloading the memories of a ships computer and saving it to create a clone so that the memories will continue. The narrative about the General Service Vehicle Lasting Damage that fought an entire enemy fleet and then when it was destroyed managed to save itself so that when it finally repaired itself there was the original and a clone which had a respect for eachother and in the end merged their memories so that each could continue. There is no other way I can think to describe that as COOL!

I don't really know what to say about this, I legitimately enjoyed reading this and I didn't really see a whole lot to criticize. Maybe I was just so happy to be reading a good novel after the last one I glossed over the problems but that will remain to be seen until Tuesday when we discuss it.

Well, it has been one heck of ride. As we close out this era of our sci-fi geekdom I wish you all well. Live long and prosper. I'll see you all in the Facebook group. This is Mercury Theatre signing off.

Class 4/22

2008-05-03T21:29:00.002-04:00

I was glad to hear that I was not the only one who felt that the writing was far below the first book.

I also liked how several people brought up the fact that it seemed like Russell did not quite know how to explain certain events so she seemed to put forth a story that did not really fit with the information provided in the first book or even within the second.

To me I feel like the most prominent thing I took from the discussion was that the book was not quite as bad as I thought but I still don't like it. Granted I don't like the other book either but this at least makes the whole thing tolerable.

The whole discussion about the nature of the otherness in the alien societies was very interesting especially having watched Contact on Thursday. The nature of the difficulties of communication between one species and another is one of the most challenge to tackle in Sci-Fi.

We couldn't really agree on whether or not Russell managed to pull it off but I think we were able to establish that this was one of the lesser concerns within this book considering nobody has really gotten a solution that is failsafe.

Visions of the Future, Courtesy of Banks

2008-05-03T13:22:00.003-04:00

I want to begin with a comment on Kabe and Ziller's discussion on 72-73. Particularly the discussion about humans and aliens, "We help to define them. They like that."
"Define them? Is that all?"
"...But we give them an alien standard to calibrate themselves against."
I think this speaks to this latter part of our class rather well (sly move, Professor Jackson). We've used other humans to define and refine humanity in the first part and now we've looked at aliens to continue this refinement. The entire set up of the Culture (what an odd name for an empire, by the way) sort of mirrors Star Trek in that it seems to be a conglomeration of different species and ways of life mashed together in a kind of utopia. I'm not quite sure how to describe it yet, though Quilan sort of does (82-83).
The preponderance of technology is also interesting in this book. Being used to Universal Translators (Star Trek) or sentient machines (the TARDIS, Doctor Who) the technology at first threw me for a loop, so to speak. Communication devices as jewelry (Kabe's nose ring), that can be activated with a mere word seems to make sure no one is ever really alone. Machines having personalities when they aren't made to look like a human, so non-androids like the Contact drone, is also new to our discussion. The drone seems to show emotions through color changes and has a name. Granted, R2-D2 has a name and he and C-3PO have personalities but they aren't common in the Star Wars universe whereas Tersono seems to be, in that Luke's decision not to have his droids' minds wiped isn't a common practice. The ship Minds were also different and seemed akin to the TARDIS, in a way, because they are sentient. However, in contrast to the TARDIS, they also seem to be able to do things on their own and Ziller talks about them being able to compose. A ship that can write music. Not your average machine, is it?
The whole soul thing was also new and different. Brings the mind-body problem in philosophy to a whole new level, really. Your personality and memories can be downloaded and transfered into anything it seems that has the right storage space or connection. Unless you really like your body, death doesn't seem to matter as much any more because if your personality and mind is stored then you can live forever. Disposables, like Feli, don't follow this practice, however, and are seen as strange by the Culture inhabitants. I'm not sure what I would do if given the opportunity to have the process done. I've got a healthy, in my own opinion, fear of death but I'm not sure I'd want to be detached from my body in that way. Then again, it has been done in sci-fi before. Doctor Who and Star Trek Deep Space Nine's Dax seem to be okay with it, though it takes on new dimensions in Star Trek. Not just one person in multiple forms like Doctor Who but one person saddled with about nine other people's memories thanks to, essentially, a worm-like parasite.
I suppose this will have to do for my points on the book, there's just too much in it, as usual. Again, though, the Prime Directive looks like a really good idea and a general respect for the sovereignty of a civilization could have helped matters a bit. Though, I too found the Hub to be interesting, Mike.
This class has been a blast and thanks to the syllabus I have reading material for months. :) Perhaps we could keep this blog going, making contributions when we come across something particularly good novel or film-wise or something comes up that related to the class. Thank you all for enhancing the experience.

Looking to the ward side of the wind

2008-05-02T10:32:00.008-04:00

Good morning everyone:

There were two parts in the book that I wanted to bring up, and see what other people thought. The first part that really struck me was around page 200 or so, when the process by which Subliming was explored is described by a narrator of some sort. The specific part I refer to is near the bottom of page 200 itself, where sporting events are lumped in with religious sites, and then further delineated with a parenthetical. The fact that the bank of dead Chelgarians would interfere in multiple different ways to the get the attention of the living seems like it could be the case, but I find the methods they use to do so fascinating. I feel as though "personality" isn't the right word for a large electronic bank of amalgamated souls of the deceased, but for the sake of writing here, I find the personality of Chel-Puen to be highlighted here in a way that foreshadows the rest of the plot (except for the very last turnaround, which I didn't see coming). If these/this being(s) interfered and interacted with people at religious sites, in government, to find artifacts, and apparently at sporting events (...) in order to get the people to streamline the process of admitting souls into the Chel-Puen, they probably mean business. In fact, this level of work and preparation they put into making the souls able to enter almost seems to be their own guiding bit of "morality" (as much as such a being can have morality), and this is how it foreshadows the rest of the story. Not really caring who or what they influence, as long as the souls keep coming in.... its almost like Walmart, really (doesn't matter how many mom and pop stores shut down, doesn't matter how poorly they treat their suppliers, as long as they keep profiting).

And, the other part of the book that stood out at me was the speech by the avatar of Hub to Ziller, around page 376 (both before and after that page, as well) - the portion where Hub talks about its role in the massive killing of Idirian civilians during the war. The entire book, I'm picturing this nice computer that watches over everyone and makes everything run smoothly (something like Mike, actually), and then it turns out the computer is like the combination of Rambo and the Terminator, with a bit of housekeeping subroutines programmed in. Thats a fairly noticeable change in perceived character, and I was surprised at the mostly calm reaction of Ziller. And then at the end of the book, it commits suicide and takes Quilian with it, which also surprised me a whole bunch - how many computers commit suicide? I say this acknowledging the fact that this specific bit of AI recorded the deaths of all the people it killed individually, and then studied them all the time, and felt kind of bad, but still - thats some level of programming that implies "this isn't science fiction AI, this is thematic point/a disguised difficult-to-grapple-with question as a computer." I'm curious to hear what other people thought of the Hub.

It has been a pleasure taking this course with all of you; to thee I say Adieu

-Mike

Children of God: Post-class Reaction

2008-05-01T11:01:00.000-04:00

I think the topic that was most interesting to me in our class discussion is how one tends to impose their own concepts on the other: one tend to view them as something from history (past) or something else that is current and one is familiar with. We saw this in Russell’s second book, especially in Sofia’s character who, in agreement with Jen, I didn’t like much. Over all like most, I preferred The Sparrow, and in large part that is due to the characters there. I thought The Sparrow had more interesting characters and better humor. Also in agreement with a number of people in class I believe her attempting to resolve the religious dilemma she left us with in the first book was unnecessary. I enjoyed reading about the other side of the story for example Supaari’s point of view in his interaction with the foreigners during the first mission, but the turn her theme took with religion left me unhappy. I had a few moments of “you got to be kidding me” in this book…especially when Isaac sounded like God’s messenger bringing God’s music and Emilio’s reaction. I don’t know why but I have developed something that I can almost call aversion to organized religion in the past few years, so reading about people who blindly give themselves to faith is a little disturbing to me, so Emilio again starting to lean towards that mindset really disturbed me (I am not saying he embraced God again, but there was still some small references to him coming to terms with religion and God). I guess the most I took away from this book is the cultural interaction aspect of it, and the damage something foreign can do to a system. We see this in Sparrow with radical change in Runa behavior due to the foreigners and in large part Sofia. And we see this in Todorov with the arrival of the Spaniards. This makes me wonder if it is possible for someone to arrive into a different cultural setting and be strictly an observer and not impact that culture, or be a catalyst for radical change. Personally, I think it is impossible, so then the question is what can one do to minimize the affect they have on society because as we have seen, more often than not many latent and negative affects arise even if the intentions are good. So I guess the big question that was in my mind at the end of the class was what is it that makes a foreign entity such a big catalyst? And does anyone have the right to impose their own values on another culture and try and change it, and if yes in which cases is it ok and in which cases is it not?

Reflection, Class 13

2008-04-24T23:20:00.002-04:00

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

2008-04-22T22:15:00.008-04:00

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

2008-04-21T22:21:00.000-04:00

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

2008-04-21T21:55:00.000-04:00

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

2008-04-21T20:55:00.002-04:00

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

2008-04-21T09:44:00.004-04:00

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

2008-04-20T01:18:00.003-04:00

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

Reflection, Class 12

2008-04-17T14:25:00.002-04:00

I agree with Tim and Mike that we did bash Columbus a bit, but I don't think that was a bad thing. For me, I feel like knowing more about him solidified my opinion that he was a little short on the marbles, so to speak.
At the same time, I think we can sort of parallel Columbus and Cortes to the folks in The Sparrow. Columbus didn't understand and still managed to start the destruction while Cortes did understand, which helped him destroy their civilization. Perhaps, had they understood more, the group in The Sparrow would still have made the same choices, in order to change the society they were in.
I found our discussion on understanding and sympathy to be pretty interesting. I'm still conflicted as to whether greater understanding does in fact lead to sympathy because I'm still hung up on the idea of people who study criminals and mass murderers having sympathy for those they study. I suppose it's possible but we don't want them to have sympathy really. Perhaps they understand how a person does something like that, not the why, because we did make that distinction. Understanding also takes time, so sympathy would be a developing thing.
Good point about the Freemasons, Mike. Not very well liked, were they? Until National Treasure brought them back into "cool" I suppose.

Class 4/15

2008-04-15T23:15:00.004-04:00

I don't know if I have ever heard a collected group of people bash Columbus quite as much as we did today. Normally Columbus is regarded as a hero being the man who discovered America and made possible the world as we know it today.

I thought it was very interesting how we established that Columbus was in some way unaware of the the world around him and yet most people believed his position was more favorable than Cortes. Yes Cortes was more in touch with reality than Columbus but we seemed to decide that because Cortes realized what he was doing he must have been unhappy. Of course PTJ brought to our attention that the book never said Cortes felt guilty but that the feeling of guilt is what we all believed he would have felt. Columbus saved himself from this by creating his own utopia and refusing to accept anything that would challenge that state.

It has just occurred to me that I believe I said the account of The Conquest of New Spain was written by Bartoleme de las Casas, correction that was written by Bernal Diaz.

After all of the set-up I can't wait to read Children of God, I certainly hope it lives up to all of the hype by PTJ.

I will leave you all with a glimpse of the Conquest of America with this clip from the film 1492.

America Conquered

2008-04-15T21:22:00.002-04:00

Good evening:

One of the things about today's class that stuck with me was our fairly strong consensus that Columbus was crazy. The comment about how we have Columbus Day and not Cortes Day got me to thinking about other holidays or times we commemorate, without really considering the full implications of celebrating that person. Lincoln is someone who is always celebrated as a genuinely good person, with few flaws (if any). But Lincoln also simply cut all civil liberties in the border states such as Maryland, removing habeus corpus, and having "Federally-supervised" voting booths - and then the whole "Emancipation Proclamation" was an afterthought to preserving the Union. That said, he is generally regarded as one of the best US presidents - and taken in the aggregate with the benefit of hindsight, I totally agree with that prognosis. I suppose I just find it odd that I do agree with that, because there is no sort of criteria for what mix of doing bad and good (in terms of long or short term) yields a famous figure worth commemorating. In the same manner, Cortes strikes me as perpetrating much more evil (even without knowing all of the specifics), and therefore it seems to me that no holiday commemorating him makes any sense.

So to take this post in an entirely different direction, what about that elusive set of people and groups who did mostly good and then either get no recognition whatsoever, or even only negative recognition? The group that comes to mind is the Freemasons, whose philosophy is the [unprecedented] basis for much of American government and political philosophy. These crazy ideas like spreading a vote out to each member (albeit only white land-owning men at first), and the ideas of freedom of speech and religion, all emanate directly from Masonic principles. Yet, not too long after the country was founded, the Anti-Masonic political party sprang into existence. I guess that today's class got me to thinking, overall, about how the constant fickleness of people affects even our "heroes" and how we remember them - people are weird.

Hoping that you aren't insulated in some sort of fake reality

-Mike

The Conquest of America

2008-04-14T21:51:00.002-04:00

Bartlet for America!

Sorry, I just got back from watching Martin Sheen in Bender.

In reading this book I couldn't help but thinking about The Conquest of New Spain which I read last semester. Essentially the differences I saw was that the one by Bartoleme de las Casas was a more straightforward account of the events whereas this one was a commentary on the events.

Since we had the whole moment of shock last week about the Brad Pitt version of The Sparrow I thought it would be funny to think of a movie version of this. Then I remembered, there was a movie version, it starred Colin Farrell, it was called Brave New World (I think), it was horrible!

I always like to think about the movie we are watching for the week. Close Encounters of the Third Kind being quite in line with Columbus and company's encounter with the native populations of America. The lack of communication, the different customs, all of the concerns about making the proper sorts of contact. Not to mention that we're watching Contact next week.

As we commence the beginning of the end of our journey together I would have to say that this has opened my eyes to a whole different way of looking at the world around me.

Take care, see you later.

The Conquest of America: Pre-Class Reaction

2008-04-14T12:34:00.000-04:00

I say that one of the best lines (well at least most amusing) is something along the lines of: so the important thing was the parrots. Although it is said with humor I think it relates to an important point. As Jen pointed out, Columbus’s perception of the world makes one want to scream in frustration. But then again he was to an extent a product of his society, so he wasn’t the only one with a faulty personality. I found the concept that black people and parrots signify gold nearby to be a hilarious idea. To us that sounds completely ridiculous but it is funny to find out what “signs” and “facts” people relied on at the time. I too was surprised by this insight into Columbus’s motivation and perception. For one thing I forgot that people at the time still believed in things like sirens and monsters. And it is fascinating to find out just hypocritical, biased and to an extent naïve Columbus was. As Mike pointed out, the author provides several sources as evidence, so I find the picture he painted of Columbus very believable. To me cultures are valuable, so Columbus’s careless and disrespectful treatment of the native cultures is something that frustrates me. As Jen pointed out he just went around renaming things and disregarding what the natives said, unless it was convenient for him to listen to them (if he “understood” them in the first place). That is another interesting concept to his character, his interpretation of language…any language he encountered he viewed through a bias of his own language: he tried to apply their words to European concepts and practices. That is a distinct difference between him and Emilio. Emilio tried to use the language in order to understand how the culture functions, of course he had to do that in reference to what he knows about human interaction, but he recognized that there was a fundamental difference between the languages of Earth that he knows and this new alien language. And through these differenced he was able to understand some of the cultural differences. Columbus on the other hand saw the natives simply as potential Christians or as savages to be killed or exploited. His opinion of them seemed to change overtime, but he always twisted facts to support his theories or ideas. For example, on page 40 he talks about how they are cowardly and not a threat, and so chooses to leave some of his men behind, and then comes back to find them murdered…so he makes up some theory about how they are easily scared but also vile creatures who kill when someone gets separated from the group. Reading that just made me laugh. He is so hypocritical and engrossed in his own views that he is truly blind to the reality around him.

Cortes on the other hand seems to be more aware and observant of things, even though he is just as manipulative. Like Columbus he too manipulates facts and “signs” in order to achieve his goals, but he still seems more aware of reality. Also, the whole concept of “signs” as presented in this book was a fascinating idea to me. People have always tied symbolism to things; even the common action of naming an object creates a function or explanation for it. And it was interesting to read how differently cultures can use signs and symbolism. It is interesting to think that, as Todorov says, the Spaniards were able to defeat the natives using signs. Looking at the big picture it does make sense that the Spanish were able to come out on top because unlike the Aztecs they were able to (to an extent) learn about the other culture and then use what they found out about it to manipulate and destroy it. (Goes back to the idea in Card’s book that you must understand your enemy in order to eliminate them). Mike raises this point in his post as well: the fact that Cortez needed to know something about the culture in order to manipulate it to his own benefit.

In the end such cultural interacts are basically frustrating to me, because it is not respectful of cultures.

The Sparrow: Post-class Reaction

2008-04-14T10:13:00.000-04:00

This book is so complex and raises such intricate issues that we obviously weren’t able to exhaust discussion about it. I agree with Tim, it was interesting to focus on who would be qualified for such a mission and try to make a list out of it. I think our discussion concerning that got most interesting when people started raising the issue of what would be the goal of the mission: making contact or gathering information? Which led to the whole idea of a series of missions and what kind of mission should go first. I think we established as a class that the Jesuit mission didn’t think things entirely through, but then again what can you expect, they seemed to have expected God to take care of the things they overlooked.

The other part of discussion that I think was very important originated with Phil saying that the people on the mission got too comfortable. And that led to the question of how scientific were they actually acting and at which point did they make their mistake(s). I am also interested to see how the second book will flip things around. I think that it will be able to tell us more about the mistakes of the first expedition.

Lastly I want to mention a thought that crossed my mind during discussion. While we were discussing Supaari and debating how they should have interacted with him and viewed him, the thing that I thought is: despite his appearance, claws and carnivorous nature, he exhibits very human qualities. He desires to have a family and although he is marginalized by society he does his best to figure out a way to achieve his goals. We may find him selling Emilio as a means of getting what he wants as “inhumane” but if we look at our own history, humans have used other humans to reach their own goals on numerous occasions. And if you think about it when people have created aliens (in various forms of fiction) the aliens always to some extent exhibit human characteristics and desires; that is because that is the only way we can perceive things, I don’t know if anyone can actually create a truly “non-human” alien.

Conquest: an All-American pursuit

2008-04-14T01:45:00.005-04:00

Good evening everyone:

Having just finished the book, let me begin by saying that every bit of knowledge I have ever picked up or been taught before reading this book was not particularly fair; this book attempts to present things as they occurred, without a preference or bias for either. Since objectively looking at anything is impossible, the book still comes close via interesting methodology: the author examines both the conquistadors' and Indians' side of things, and goes further into detail by trying to present all contemporary points of view.

Near the end of the book, one of the author's points struck me as extraordinary for its level of insight into the ridiculousness that is humanity. The author explains on page 248 that the extraordinarily high level of success in Westernizing the previous colonies is paradoxically due to the European ability to identify with the other. This is one theme whose passage through the book I can easily follow, because each successive conqueror and/or priest came with their own specific take on one or two bits of Aztec and other Indian culture, which allowed them to make so much progress in their endeavors. Whether it was Cortes and his very clear understanding of the necessity to constantly evoke fear and awe in the Indians (causing his godliness in their eyes to take deeper root for a time) or Duran's insistence on learning the Aztec religion in order to erase it, each of these individuals highlight this paradoxical tendency to use one's ability to understand the other towards the end of converting/subjugating/conquering that same other.

A few pages later, on page 252, the author makes a point that made me think of The Sparrow, when he is talking about sacrifice versus massacre societies. I was thinking that the Jana'ata would be a sacrifice society, because their theology sets up the original twins for duogeniture and the allowance of the Runa to breed more frequently. The people of Earth, taken as an aggregate people (which isn't really doable, but for the sake of this comparison:) are much more of a "massacrifice" society as the author coins it; they both claim membership in religion and therefore have acceptable sacrifice of life, yet at the same time are capable of killing large numbers of each other off without any religious backing. This sort of fluidity to the concepts laid out in the Conquest of America seems to be a fairly accurate look at the mindset of the Western nations, and especially as additional back-history to Stephanson's Manifest Destiny: even before the North American continent was settled, the certain type of European that enjoyed pushing their values to the exclusion of everything [but gold] were already testing out procedures in South America; these types of operating methods later worked in the North, with a lesser loss of life, but still genocidal in nature. I cannot say that I am pleased to be subjected to more of why the history of the Americas was terrible, but I am glad to have heard such a balanced account of it (something I don't usually feel when reading accounts of North American subjugation of the Indians).

your fellow conqueror

-Mike

Visions of the Past, Courtesy of Todorov

2008-04-13T20:55:00.002-04:00

Once again, I'm horribly early with the post comparatively but I found something interesting and figured I should go ahead and post about it.
First, who knew Columbus was so keen on Jerusalem? All we really learned is how he was backed for the trip and the basic details, he went, mistook what he saw, actually found (not discovered) a new continent not Asia like he wanted, and started the ruin of the native peoples. And the "In 1492, Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue...". I found Todorov's assertions that Columbus really wanted the gold to fund another Crusade really interesting and his evidence very compelling. Speaking of evidence, I found it rather amusing Columbus was so dead set on everything he saw indicating he was right. A strange mixture of faith playing into conviction and events this time around. Columbus seems to have fallen into the trap that The Sparrow folks did except he seems to have wanted it more than they did. He "knew" that gold was in the Indies, he "found" the Indies, so gold was around somewhere. As Todorov said "no longer consists in seeking the truth but in finding confirmations of a truth known in advance" (19). A river looks like another river that has gold, it has gold too. Except, oops, the other river really didn't have gold! I'm not sure whether to bang my head against a wall at Columbus' thinking or feel sorry for the guy, or perhaps impressed he had such firm, unceasing belief.
Second, in light of all the linguist discussion in The Sparrow, I wanted to mention Todorov's discussion of Columbus' obsession with names. He has a blatant disregard for the inhabitants of the islands he runs into, renaming the islands based on his own hierarchy of important elements of life. Instead of exploring, Todorov explains how he immediately planted a flag and renamed the island he first set foot on (28). He's more interested in classifying and categorizing things via names than exploring or trying to explain what he sees, thus his interest in names. Columbus also seems to have pulled a Prince and gone to a symbol for his name, a rather complex and precise one at that (28).

It seems to me that after Todorov's book, Columbus was still guilty of not understanding what he'd quite literally run into based on his own very narrow view of the world. At least the group in The Sparrow was trying to take in everything and then failed. Columbus didn't even attempt the trying.

Class 4/8

2008-04-10T23:54:00.002-04:00

I liked what Mike said about how all of the people we consider saints were good people who had to deal with horrible things. I mean this book presents pretty much everything necessary to meet those qualifications.

I'm also quite interested to see how much things change once we read the next book in the series.

To me the most interesting part of the discussion was the lists we made about who we would send on this mission. I think this is the most fascinating part.

Within each of the groups certain positions all seemed to be pretty much unanimous. People like a doctor, biologist, pilot, and survivalist were agreed on within the groups and also at the larger class level. People had slightly different ideas about the specifics of these roles but agreed that the roles were necessary. However, in order to fill the other half, it became quite difficult to come to a consensus on what the other positions should be filled with.

Of course the most disturbing news of the whole day, Brad Pitt is going to play a Jesuit Space Missionary. AHHH!!!!!!!!

Reflection on the Sparrow

2008-04-10T22:19:00.004-04:00

Hello everyone:

Oddly enough, my favorite part of the entire discussion in class was Professor Jackson explaining that "Devil's advocate" is a Jesuit expression, as part of their [close to] all-inclusive attack on their own beliefs during their training. That said, I wanted to comment on the issue of Emilio being a saint (at least according to his fellow Jesuits on the mission). One of the messages this story does a shockingly thorough job of conveying is that really, REALLY bad things happen to pretty good people. On one level, this sort of idea bothers me a lot, and I tried to convey that in class. Then again, I thought about other people in history who have been popularly labeled "saintly" or something similar: people like Ghandi or Mother Theresa. They did in fact do great things for many people; such are the criteria for being saintly. But then, consider how much hardship and suffering they actually went through while doing good, I might have to agree with DW's diagnosis of Emilio being a saint. He displayed an extraordinary amount of holiness and calling for his current situation, and then acted on it. I hate to say it, but the message of the book that terrible things happen to good people, is almost a criterion for being a saint as well; the person must exhibit holiness, especially in the face of extreme adversity.

Then, I remember what Professor Jackson was saying about how the next book turns all sorts of things upside down - this comment might not even be valid in about two weeks. I am quite curious and intrigued to see where the next book goes.

Have a saintly evening

-Mike

Reflection, Class 11

2008-04-09T10:13:00.004-04:00

I wanted to start by making a few comments on Tim's post. Just about his discussion of the Jesuits and missionaries. Did the Jesuits really try to force their beliefs on the Runa? Perhaps their worldview or cultural biases, as we discussed in class, but there was no mention of evangelization or trying to teach them about God or Catholicism. They seemed to just do their thing, i.e. say Mass, and if the Runa came, great if not, that's fine too. I think the story comes off as more tragic because all of the changes that the group brought in the lives of the Runa were by accident, they were something the Runa picked up, like the garden. Granted, we also discussed the nature of the mistakes made by the group, and perhaps the whole revolution idea was more deliberate but again, it spread without their help in the end as most of them were dead.
Also, with regards to Sofia's actions that ended up getting most of the group killed. I don't think it would be believable if she did nothing in that situation. She'd clearly developed as a character, she'd lost much of her detachment both with her contact with the other group members and her marriage to Jimmy (which, okay, might have been a little forced but it sort of comes down to a last man on Earth sort of thing). If Sofia hadn't done anything I think other group members might have, just based on their characterization. Jimmy certainly seemed a caring about others kind of guy and I think he would have done something, maybe tried to protect some of the babies or something along those lines. They might not have called for an uprising but I doubt they could have stood by and done nothing.
Finally, our discussion of who to bring on the trip. I do think that the group wasn't outfitted properly for the kind of mission they were on, they had somewhat less of a full group but they had a good starting point at least. Here's Mel's and my "fun" list for our sci-fi character crew:
1. Han Solo- pilot/con man/skepic, can also fix stuff
2. Emilio Sandoz- still useful as a linguist and could do some comparative religion in a pinch
3. EMH Mark 1 (ST:Voyager)- doctor/comparative culture analyst/biologist, doesn't need to eat so food would last longer too
4. Jayne, with Vera- security guy, knows how to deal with alien worlds already
5. Daniel Jackson (Stargate SG-1)- anthropologist (any other ideas for a better fit here would be welcome, he's all we could think of)
6. Data- general knowledge/engineer, sort of a walking authority on anything and everything
7. Counselor Troi- empath/diplomat, she also has training in reading the emotions of aliens
8. Maguyver- survivalist, not exactly sci-fi but again, we had a lack of insight as to who else would be useful here

The Sparrow: Pre-class Reaction

2008-04-08T00:29:00.001-04:00

The issue I had with this book, is that I loved the humor and the characters and the relationships they were starting to build (although the marriage between Sofia and Jimmy seemed to convenient and strained to me). But I loved Emilio’s personality and humor, and Anne and George are amazing in their interactions and in how they interacted with others, plus I enjoyed Sofia’s growth and how the rest of the characters all became a family. The problem I had is that early in the book I knew all but one would die, and Emilio ends up mentally and physically damaged. It was in a way depressing, but I guess it serves the book’s purpose.

First, I want to comment on the nature of the deaths, they were mostly accidents or a situation getting out of hand. The thing that gets to me is the point this makes. These people went in good nature with good intentions…and the thing that got most of them was taking a walk and being unaware of danger and planting a garden. It made me think just how powerful some latent effects can be. They were all smart and took a lot of time planning, obviously they didn’t (nor could have) account for everything. I am big on cross cultural communications and understanding, which was exactly their goal. So the lesson I take away from this is how important it is to be careful in such an alien (no pun intended) setting. Their mistake was that they let their guard down and didn’t pay attention to the warnings and they viewed this world too much through their own biased lenses, and it is very hard to get out of that view, or to gain enough knowledge to gain an objectified view on things. But they brought in elements into this alien society without thinking too far down the line (the gardens), I find it ironic that such a seemingly small detailed led to such chaos.

Second, I would like to briefly mention the questioning of faith. As I mentioned in my response to Tim’s post for some reason some religions especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam (Buddhism doesn’t have this affect on me) very easily call up a negative response in me…they just rub me the wrong way. The fact that hopeless devotion seems to have let Emilio and his friends to this end (he even says he was blinded by his love for God and he trusted God so much he let his guard down…he uses the metaphor of nakedness) is “amusing” to me, in a sad ironic kind of way. I don’t find pleasure from their end (as I said I liked these characters) but I find blind devotion scary just for that reason, people become narrow minded and seem to miss so much and just focus on pleasing God. I like what Anne said at one point…I live a good life for myself not because I fear or want to please God. I find that better motivation for good values and actions rather than some belief in an all powerful being directing me in my life. And I also agree with the point she raises…people always make excuses for God, at some point people stop questioning: “It must be God’s will.” And I found it scary that in the end the Father General said that Emilio was closer to God after this experience, the only thing I can do is groan in frustration. Bad things happen in life, and some don’t have a reason or an explanation, the same for good things…and people always try to attribute it to luck or fate or destiny or God…things happen and pitting your life on some unseen force to me seems like a life that can easily be wasted. One shouldn’t try to justify death or suffering as some supreme beings will, it is a part of life, and something everyone needs to learn to cope with. I don’t mean to come across as negative, I am not sure in my views of life, I am 20 years old, there is no way I can be, and I know that there are things that are bigger than me and that I can never grasp or understand, because I am human, but I REALLY can’t understand blind devotion to some “GOD.”

The Sparrow: Terribly close to home

2008-04-07T22:40:00.006-04:00

Hello everyone:

I just wanted to start my post in a fairly unique way: all of the Ohioan locations in this book are within 20 minutes of my house. I have been up around John Carrol, and the Jesuits there are friendly, and not even exclusively Jesuit for that matter - I know Lutherans and Methodists who work there and fit right in. That said, I feel like fact checking a secretive trip on an asteroid probably wouldn't go down at John Carrol, at least not very easily. East Cleveland is not in fact a very nice place at all; that hasn't changed from the writing of this book 12 years ago. Cleveland Heights does have an odd array of brightly colored young people that array themselves in coffee shops (by color it seems sometimes) and then take root there for 4-6 hours. That said, I know a bunch of people from there: many of them are great cooks, a fair amount are doctors, and a few even own a piano. I just needed to get my personal connection to the book out there, because it was odd reading a Science Fiction book partially set in locations right near my house; it made me connect with this book in a different way than I usually connect with any book. How many supposed trips to visit alien life have originated in YOUR part of town?

I also want to build upon what Jen said about Jesuits - having been accepted into Fordham, I went to visit that school and was amazed at the odd dichotomy of most professors and administrative staff being priests but only as a slight spice to their personality, rather than an upfront article of clothing (of course, names like Father Reinert were a give away). They were in fact able to mingle about the crowds of prospective students

All of that said, there was a point in the book that really bothered me a whole hell of a lot, much more than most books ever have (and probably ever will). On page 285, Sandoz bitterly poses to Behr that "Have you ever wondered about Cain, Ed? He made his sacrifice in good faith. Why did God refuse it?" This line haunted me for the rest of the book; I was bothered by many of the subsequent (all-too-human) atrocities that occurred, be it the murder of the children, or the forcing of Sandoz into sexual slavery, or the violence that was stirred up between the Runa and the Jana'ata because of the gardens. It was that one line that bothered me throughout, and bothers me still. The story of Cain and Abel centers around Cain's offering of the average fruits of his labor being held in lower regard by God than Abel's offering of the prime of his flock - this angers Cain, and he murders Abel out in the fields. In the context of the story itself, I detect at least two implied meanings: in the specific conversation, I believe Sandoz is referring to his willingness to be celibate and not fall more deeply in love with Sophia, and then is subsequently raped by the Jana'ata repeatedly. More generally, the sad reference here seems to be referring to Sandoz's entire life, spent doing the right thing in a veritable sea of bad things (based on his upbringing and later improvement of the part of Puerto Rico he comes from), only to have this all be apparently seemingly rejected by God. Now, a slew of images assaults me - this sentiment reminds me of every zombie movie I have ever seen, when one IDIOT in the party of survivors lets their guard down for a moment and as a result dooms several/all of the others to death: the viewer can see it coming, and it is infuriating (at least to me). Or, perhaps to reference the book itself again, the utter frustration that Sandoz experiences in the dichotomy of the starving children in Africa and then the empty-headed, self-centered and essentially inconsequential people in the coffee shops in Cleveland Heights (but you could substitute any rich suburb or urban area here) - I will end my comment alluding to a quote from the book (the page now forgotten): the effects of trying to do good and then having it not be enough and/or being surrounded by those who do not try the same is like vomiting poison. This story tires me out, almost makes me want to shake my fists in despair... but for some reason I do not.

I am looking forward to two things: tomorrow's discussion, and then reading the sequel to this wonderful, yet haunting, novel

-Mike

The Sparrow

2008-04-07T20:35:00.002-04:00

Having read Jen's post I am very interested for our discussion tomorrow to see if other people had the same reaction to the book as she did. The reason I am so interested is because the book had very little impact on me.

Now before you all think I'm some sort of evil monster please remember that it is just a book, not the real thing.

I see how most people could be affected by the events that occurred in the book. However, the one thing that would make most people be even more astonished at the events is the one thing that serves to detach me even more.

Most of you, I assume, will feel that since the work was being done in order to "help" all of the alien bodies that it is even more offensive that Santos was abused in this way. I believe that in many ways missionaries do bring this sort of thing on themselves. I feel that it is abusive to try to force your beliefs on another society like the Jesuits did in the book. Now this by no way justifies what was done but it does lead to motive. This is not some new thing. Missionaries throughout history have had horrible things done to them because if you go to a society and begin saying that everything they have ever believed is wrong and you start trying to make them change, they are likely to respond negatively.

The fact that this occurred with an alien population reinforces the point even more. Not only was it someone with a different set of beliefs that was trying to change their way of life, it was a completely alien creature that had no way to properly understand each other.

To me the most touching part of the narrative is when he actually began to question his beliefs. I know most people would think that is a tragedy that he lost his faith. I think that questioning is the best thing he could possibly have done. It is horrible that he had to undergo those experiences to cause him to question but it is good that he stopped to seriously consider what it is he believed.

I know most of you are probably going to give me looks of sheer horror when I see you all tomorrow but I'm just fine with that.

Visions of the Future, Courtesy of Russell

2008-04-05T02:38:00.003-04:00

Wow. Okay, so I just stayed up an extra 2 and a half hours to finish the book and I'm not sure where to start on this post but I felt I should write it while I had it all in my head, undisturbed by sleep or papers.
First, I read a lot. I do. Constantly. I'm fascinated by the written word and have been known to absorb books like water. I'm drawn into the worlds books create and find myself ruminating on them after I'm done with the book, unconsciously drawing it out, thinking up extensions. Despite this, I think I maintain some kind of detachment to what I read, I'm rarely really moved to tears by something I've read. Books can be beautiful, conclusions satisfying and joyous and I can cheer for the characters, but tears? Not really my thing. However, I have to admit, around 388, I teared up and I'm not going to wave it away as being tired or allergies; I'm pretty sure I was moved. Perhaps it is the intersection of such a degradation that is bad enough on Earth with the removal to a world that far away, with such an alien race and a lack of complete understanding of the language and culture, having lost all of your friends, some you've loved for decades. And for it to happen to such a religious man, although he doubted he'd changed and reached true belief, is much worse because we hold them in such high esteem and they make such sacrifices for a purpose beyond our mortal coil, so to speak. Perhaps it is worse that you (the reader) felt like things were building up to such a betrayal by Supaari, what with the unease I felt when in Supaari's point of view and the knowledge that something had happened to Emilio, though details were hazy.
Second, as a Roman Catholic this book was doubly fascinating to me due to the idea of Jesuits in space. Kind of funny, all things considered, but they've always been the academic, pioneering sort so I suppose I could see it happening. By the way, pg. 16, for all the non-Catholics, we totally call some priests "Father What-A-Waste", and there's a seminarian at my church at home who really is one. Normal conceptions of monks, men in religious orders, fall under the Friar Tuck image or the closed off, all attention paid to God type. Jesuits however, are a touch different. They are encouraged to be in the world, they are discouraged from wearing robes of the order (habits) or sometimes even a collar outside of Mass, thus wearing what everyone else in their parish or community wears, breaking that barrier to communication that a habit would necessarily have. Russell does a very good job with the Jesuits, both in describing the people and the order itself. It would be a very different book had she chosen Dominicans or Franciscans or Benedictines, the other three most well known Catholic male religious orders. So religion is inherently intertwined in any sort of discussion about the book. The Sparrow is as much about going to another world to see if there's other life out there as it is about Emilio Sandoz's journey of faith, both to it and from it. He got to question it all in a radically different environment whereas the rest of us have to endure it here on Earth, with everybody else.
Third, I suppose I should get around to the science fiction part, Rakhat itself. I seem to recall another book I've read where there's a dominant race, like the Jana'ata, who use the other, more peaceful and vegetarian like the Runa, as food...hmm, what was that? Oh! Right. The Time Machine. Which bounced around between now and then a bit too. Ah, parallels. Anyway, it was interesting to read about the complete world (no, I'm not poking at that argument again, just pointing it out) and the vast differences between how the Jana'ata live and how the Runa live. Brings up an interesting ethical discussion too. Is our way of getting meat more acceptable because the animals we use don't talk/we can't understand it if they do? I feel that it is because the Jana'ata interact with the Runa on a daily basis and yet they can shrug their shoulders and use them as food or a plaything at the drop of a hat. Terrible place. Ignorance can be bliss, can't it?
To close, because I feel I've bounced around a bit and no one should be expected to be this coherent past 3 in the morning, I'd like to note the discussion of politics and Texans on 119 at the bottom, especially about not blaming Texas for producing George Bush (the first, due to the publication date). Funny how a book set in the future can be slightly dated, isn't it?

The Concept of the Political: Post-Class Reactions

2008-04-03T13:07:00.001-04:00

I feel like this class discussion was one of the most interesting we have had. In the end it really made me think about the future possibilities of humanity. Ultimately we came to the conclusion that Schmitt thinks that enemies are necessary for a state to function properly. So the question that came to my mind towards the end of class was: is it always going to be just about conflict? To me that just seems depressing. Especially since now conflicts do seem to take that “we are fighting for humanity and you are against humanity if you are against us” theme, which Schmitt says is a bad idea. And as we have seen it creates very intense and hateful conflict, plus to me it seems like that type of conflict can easily be taken to the “ultimate conflict” level, especially with the damage modern weapons can do. In my other class where I have been reading about Dalai Lama and similar peaceful leader, and those readings presented me with an insight to people who believe that if people try then the world can be more peaceful, and societies would live in harmony and understanding. So in the end I was contrasting these two views and trying to see which is more likely, or will it be something in between or something else. Can humanity ever come to a point where it won’t be so quick to label the “other” as an enemy, and try to understand before destroy. Can people become better at cross cultural communications? Or will it be like Schmitt says, always about friends and enemies.

Class 4/1

2008-04-02T20:56:00.003-04:00

Before I begin. Did anybody else attempt to go to the Tavern tonight. My God I hate Greek Life on Campus.

Remember when PTJ asked if we could become a political actor against the Greeks. My answer is 100% yes. PTJ, tell us what to do, we are Borg. Resistance is futile, they will be assimiliated to the honors side.

Now back to the discussion.

The idea that a group must be willing to fight as the primary determinate as to whether they can be considered a political entity and thus a state is very interesting. The whole problem of the Palestinians is given whole new life when this is the sort of qualifications that are placed into the context.

I also really liked the distinction made between an enemy and a foe. I would have never thought to create such a distinction but now it seems so clear.

I would end with a found farewell to Heir Schmitt but I came across something as I was looking around that I feel demands some attention.

While I was looking for some other things to bring in I came across this page from the University of Oklahoma. This is an academic site which has copied an entire page directly from Wikipedia. Maybe our blogs and Wikipages will carry more respect than we initially thought.

Reflection on Class 10

2008-04-02T04:31:00.005-04:00

Good morning:

I would like to do this reflective post based on the entirety of our conversation yesterday, but I would like to tie it in to a quote from one of my favorite books ever: Grendel, by John Gardener. This is the modern-era book, written from the perspective of Grendel - the antagonist in the ancient epic Beowulf. The quote goes as follows:

"What is the state in a time of domestic or foreign crisis? What is the state when the chips are down? The answer is obvious and clear! Oh yes! If a few men quit work, the police move in. If the borders are threatened, the army rolls out. Public force is the life and soul of every state: not merely army and police but prisons, judges, tax collectors, every conceivable trick of coercive repression. The state is an organization of violence, a monopoly in what it is pleased to call 'legitimized' violence. Revolution, my dear prince, is not the substitution of immoral for moral, or of illegitimate for legitimate violence; it is simply the pitting of power against power, where the issue is freedom for the winners and enslavement of the rest."

-The old peasant to Hrothulf

In this instance, Grendel, with his monstrous inhuman appearance, has not yet been detected by the human guards, and so he overhears this conversation in their camp. Both within the content of this speech, and more generally the entire tale of Grendel's persecution based on his inhumanness, the book follows what Schmitt predicts fairly closely. The various bands of human warriors are all tied together by blood in some way or another, hence Beowulf being greeted as cousin, albeit very carefully when he approaches the camp of Hrothgar. These groups are all loosely tied then by blood, but still consider each other Schmittian enemies, in that they push at each other's borders time and again and then relent; yet also Schmittian friends, in that they have some things in common and can see each other as friends. Grendel, once identified, clearly becomes the foe of Hrothgar - he cannot face him alone, so requests Beowulf (the strongest in the land) to come to his aid. He arrives, and eventually bests Grendel in one-to-one combat (which is where Grendel the novel ends up at) - but as can be gleamed from reading the poem Beowulf, Grendel the inhuman, existential threat of a monster is cut down: at this the Danes all celebrate his destruction. Although I did not read much of the [epically long] poem beyond the Grendel and his mother portion, my teacher at the time mentioned the various problems the Danes later encountered amongst themselves, when there was no other enemy such as Grendel to unite against. All in all, a story that fits well into Schmitt's ideas. It is uncanny how well that quote I picked out of Grendel fits into Schmitt's haunting vision of the future (I am not sure if Gardener actually meant to allude to it or not, but I feel like he did).

I do actually suggest that ye who read this post also pick up a copy of Grendel and read it - I could even loan it to you, so just ask me

I also request that you do not ever go to see that epic failure of a movie they attempted to make out of this..... "The American Movie Business: Ruining Good Stories from as early as 1100 AD"

-Mike

Reflection, Class 10

2008-04-01T23:12:00.003-04:00

Well. Down with the Weimars...and universals. Oh, and liberalism and pluralism. Yay National Socialist Party? Maybe. For all his political faults (sort of ironic...), I do think Schmitt has interesting things to say. I particularly wanted to touch on that last paragraph that we closed class with. In my Politics in the TV Age class we talked about how everything is sensationalized and turned into an enemy, sort of akin to what Schmitt was talking about when war was changed to keeping the peace. Everything can be justified in that context, covers all manner of sins, if you will. Someone's disturbing class? Kick 'em out, they're disturbing the peace. Causing a ruckus in a public place? Arrest 'em, they're disturbing the peace. Don't know what to do with someone because they don't seem to fit in? Put them away somewhere, they're disturbing the peace.
At the same time, some of that seems necessary, doesn't it? Stability and order in governing and in the citizenry make for a stable country. Governing stability certainly is important, given the lesson of the Weimar Republic. And it seems like, until we do a 180, or at least a 90 on how society approaches the different/non-status quo, those who cause trouble and disrupt the stability need to be dealt with, either through teaching them not to cause trouble (rehabilitation or simple education) or need to be put away (imprisonment). I'm not quite sure how to fix all that. Utopia, I guess. Maybe lots of soma, that seems to work.

The Concept of the Political: Pre-Class Reactions

2008-03-31T13:45:00.001-04:00

Originally, when I first read the part on pages 26-28 I couldn’t help but disagree to an extent, I just didn’t see the political as something that belongs in a different category from economics or other social forces. But to me the term political and state applies to governments of various forms and nation states, since nation states are the ones considered as the sole actors in the world and the only ones that can officially wage war by international relations standards (since the time Schmitt writing this globalization has changed the playing field a lot, even though IR still claims states as sole actors in international relations). On page 35 I started to truly see that he was using the words differently from what I am used to when he says that a religious community that persecutes the other side is then acting politically, by current international standards that isn’t the case, at least not with the terms he uses, since only states have the “legitimate” rights to violence and a large part of nation states have separated government from religion. So the main issue I have with this paper is I see political in the same category with for example economical or religious because it is just another aspect of society and affects a particular part of people’s lives. His use of political is a whole different thing because it doesn’t apply solely to governments.

And his point about the enemy vs. friend made me realize just how much this mentality affects our world. Since the “other” is often labeled as enemy, that automatically decrease the chances for peaceful or useful interaction. On page 35 he says that a world without war is a world where the distinction between friend and foe can’t be made and since the opposing side is often just labeled as the enemy it seems unlikely that true peace and understand can exist. People often see different as bad or negative: they don’t live like we do or they don’t act like we do or their moral values are not like ours. And often that is said with a bias, as in: our way of life and morals are correct or superior, they are wrong or bad. So it is easy to see why violent conflict is so prevalent in humanities history. I hope people will eventually learn to first try to learn about and understand the other side and only then make decisions. Humanity tends to have difficulties with “agreeing to disagree” people always want to convert or destroy the other side. I hope peaceful coexistence is something we as race can better adapt. Of course there are some opposing views that need to be stood up against. If one morning I wake up and decide to start randomly killing people I believe deserve to die, I would hope someone would try and stop me. The difference I guess is that when someone chooses to lead a malicious life style then others should try and change that.

Finally I would like to point out the begging of the last paragraph on page 95. What he says there is so true and just powerful. People always justify themselves and often they do commit horrible things thinking they are doing good, and in other cases people use the cover of good ideals to do bad things for other reasons. This hypocrisy seems to be humanities curse that it can’t seem to escape.

The Concept of the Political

2008-03-31T12:21:00.002-04:00

I agree that this was not the most thrilling work to read, but then again it is an essay and not a novel so you cannot fault Schmitt for that.

I did think it was really interesting how his beliefs and allegiances were justified and how they interwove with his arguments for political states.

The main thing I saw in this was how close recent history, since he published this, his theories are. He at one point discussed how the world could never actually adopt a completely peaceful stance without enemies. We got close after World War Two with the United Nations but it was quickly apparent that there was a strong mistrust between East and West.

Looking ahead to Thursday I thought it was interesting that since Schmitt said a world could never exist without enemies so long as it was alone, the Federation does exist on Earth peacefully seemingly without any conflict, except of course for the Bugs from space.

I'm afraid that if I were to do too much analysis on the book I would find myself twisting Schmitt's intentions into alignment with history and Starship Troopers, which I kept thinking about as I was reading the book.

See you all on Tuesday.

Visions of the Past, Courtesy of Schmitt

2008-03-30T19:19:00.004-04:00

Probably more like Visions of the Present, but again, that darn theme. So, Schmitt. It was kind of hard to get into this one, maybe because of all the preface stuff in the foreword and the introduction and maybe because of the style of the writing. I thought it was interesting how much time was devoted to explaining Schmitt's allegiance to the Nazis. Sort of plays into his friends and enemies discussion though of course the Nazis were horrid and no sane person could follow them.
Okay, so I think I'll focus on the friends and enemies discussion, since it seems to be pretty important. Especially the line on 28: "rationally speaking, it cannot be denied that nations continue to group themselves according to the friend and enemy antithesis, that the distinction still remains actual today, and that this is an ever present possibility for every people existing in the political sphere." Hmm. Let's see...we do that in wars, Allies vs. Axis, US and other freedom loving countries vs. the Communists, and currently, us vs. the Axis of Evil or the Terrorists. It is also interesting that he notes that "all political concepts, images, and terms have a polemical meaning...focused on a specific conflict and are bound to a concrete situation; the result is a friend-enemy grouping and they turn into empty and ghostlike abstractions when this situation disappears" (30). This too makes sense, even in social situations. We often classify people as enemies based on event alone and when it's done, we can't quite account for why we dislike someone, "we just do".
His point on pg. 32 about party politics being seen as equal to the political is also interesting, because every country with a party system seems to do that to some extent. We do it worse than all the others, of course. Independents are weird for us, we don't quite know what to do with them except have candidates appeal to some basic detail of their lives which would connect them to a party. Once that is done we consider them part of the party, as if they could be anything but. Campaigns are snipe attacks against the other party instead of serious discussion on different ways of looking at issues and working to make the country better.
Anyway, that's it for me this time. I'm sure I'll have more to talk about in my reflection, but these are my points for right now. I do wonder though if we should try to get out of this system that Schmitt is talking about. There's a quote from West Wing discussing how partisan politics is a good thing: "And I don't think Americans are tired of partisan politics; I think they're tired of hearing career politicians diss partisan politics to get a gig. I've tried it before. They ain't buying it. That's okay, though; that's okay, though, 'cause partisan politics is good. Partisan politics is what the founders had in mind. It guarantees that the minority opinion is heard, and as a lifelong possessor of minority opinions, I appreciate it. " (4x05, 'Game On'). So, perhaps party politics is good, just not the way we formulate it.

Schmitt's Concept of the Political

2008-03-29T22:07:00.007-04:00

Hello everyone:

I enjoyed reading this piece, because it is the first time I have read something from Germany during the Weimar Republic period. The first important point I noticed was the interesting use of semantics by the author - he examines the linguistic background for public versus private enemies, by looking at both Plato's Republic and the books of Matthew and Luke. I suppose I implicitly understood the difference between the two, but he explains them in such a manner as to make it perfectly clear how the state deals with the two - that is to say, as the same entities (pg. 28-29). In fact, he goes on to point out the vital differences in word use regarding the German reparations following WWI. He explains that the nations being paid held it aloft as tribute from a defeated nation - this inflamed the German people, who wanted it called reparations or a pension. I have always been taught that WWI was generally one of the larger causes of WWII, and that the reparations didn't help, but it really interests me to learn that one of the major points of contention was over a bit of language.

From this one point, I started considering how this work applies to today. What is striking to me is Schmitt's argument revolves around the inherent importance of the state as the least common denominator of the political (politics being something he doesn't acknowledge unless a state is highly weakened), and how much that is no longer the case in today's world. The modern-day example that comes to mind is the dynamic between Islamic terrorist groups and the United States. In addition to actual skirmishes being fought around the world, this is both a battle of words and ideas. Bin Laden wrote extremely eloquent pieces decrying the decadence, inherent sloth, and other problems he saw within the American people. George W. Bush responded with equally polemic words, decrying the [Islamic] terrorists as extremists, enemies of freedom [the core of America], and so forth. Similar to the situation in Europe following the first world war, there are fairly large differences of opinion, but these could have been solved. The problem is (in an extremely simplified analysis for the sake of this post], leaders on both sides were unwilling to compromise or back down, and things deteriorated with such aggressive uses of language. This falls right back into a later passage of the work, on page 33: "war is the existential negation of the enemy." This holds true today - both sides are in the business of utterly eliminating "the Great Satan" and the Islamic fundamentalists, respectively. This is not a perfect match, because the soldiers on both sides are no longer clearly marked, and even more importantly, both sides are no longer states. It is just interesting to consider many of ideas by Schmitt on state-to-state interactions, in terms of recent events.

Have a good evening, England prevails, etc

-Mike

Ender's Game: Post-class Reaction

2008-03-28T16:36:00.001-04:00

Our class discussion about Ender’s Game was in large part a topic that is really important to me: communication (or lack of it) between two different sides. I agree with Mike that lack of communication has been responsible for a lot of destruction and violence in our history. And I truly believe that if people tried harder to communicate and understand “the other” whoever that other may be then a lot of problems could be resolved and the situation would not turn to violence. I see a lot of conflicts around the world where both sides just try to make the other side look more monstrous and just want to destroy or suppress them. Such violence, hate and narrow-mindedness can never lead to good. But I also agree with Jen’s point where she says that well sometimes the other side really does mean you harm for whatever reason. So I guess when it comes to matters of life and death and a situation of hostility it is important to try and fix things by trying to communicate and understand but one also can’t just stand by and let themselves be destroyed.

In one of my classes we are currently looking at the issue in Tibet and I just read one of the Dalai Lama’s books. The things he advocates are truly beautiful. He talks of peace and a symbiotic relationship between China and Tibet (he is not even demanding Tibet independence, he is just asking for just treatment of his people), he also wants to make Tibet a land of “Ahimsa” which means a place of peace and non-violence, and he advocates caring for the Earth and nature. One key point he makes is “Universal Responsibility” and he says that all of humanity needs to realize that they are responsible for this world and that one can’t just live separate from issues that happen in it, because we are all connected. I mention the issue between Tibet and China because it is the perfect example of a clash of two cultures...China has been basically raping Tibet for half a century, but a lot of the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama are still pushing for understanding, communication and peace, now the younger generations are getting restless and are starting to consider more violent ways to fight back. So this is the perfect example of the issue we faced in class…what to do with an aggressive “Other” because that is what China is. Plus the Tibetan people are fighting for their survival (China is basically slowly committing cultural and religious genocide). And there is a great communication gap between the two. I just learned more about his issue, so it is fresh in my mind and something that really frustrates me because I just can’t understand why things like this keep happening. Which goes back to the point I made in the first part of this post: if only people made an effort to communicate and understand then maybe interactions with “the Others” won’t be as negative and violent.

And finally I would like to say that I also agree with Tim, this book really is one of the best we have read and it made me really think about important ideas.

Reflection, Class 9

2008-03-21T09:36:00.002-04:00

I couldn't help but think about Mars Attacks while we were talking about Ender's Game. In that movie, they try to communicate, sort of succeed but it turns out they were wrong and the aliens were hostile. It was using logic and reasoning, as opposed to gut instinct, that led them down the wrong path and got everybody killed. Except for the guy and his grandmother with that terrible country music who saved the day. And in Aliens last night, thinking that they weren't as bad as Ripley said they were got Burke into trouble, besides him being a jerk in the first place. So sometimes, thinking the aliens mean you no harm is kind of stupid.
At the same time, thinking the aliens, or other groups, are always out to get you is equally stupid. I watched this movie, Fail-Safe, for my capstone that dealt with Cold War era mentality that forced these pilots to ignore voice commands from the commanders, even the president, because voices could be faked. The problem was that they'd gotten orders to go and attack Russia based on a computer glitch and Russian jamming of transmissions meant that they couldn't receive nullifying orders in the proper time frame. These pilots didn't even question their orders, never mind that they'd never gotten a go ahead order (which also speaks to the success of their training) and figured that the country had been attacked and they had to go in. At the moment I can't think of examples where the aliens meant no harm the entire time, because we established in Ender's Game the aliens were hostile for a while, but I'm sure they are out there. Probably in Star Trek.

Class 3/18

2008-03-19T15:45:00.002-04:00

I personally think asking the class to put themselves in the position to decide how to handle the buggers was a bad idea. I know that the intention was to foster a debate about the morals and factors that went into such a situation. However, it quickly devolved into a few people saying the IF were absolutely right and a few saying they were absolutely wrong. I don't think there was any real development of an argument other than the two sides becoming so entrenched that they were not able to see the others perspective.

As far as the discussions of a possible movie. I am probably one of the few that believe a movie could work for this book. However, I think Card would have to be removed from the project. If a movie version let the audience know that Ender was not just playing a game then the entire point of the story would be missing. The story works because not only is Ender shocked but the reader is too. If the viewer knew in the beginning, where would the shock be?

I think this is one of the best books we have read yet. I just wish we were watching Starship Troopers this week because I can see alot of parallels with that, not so many with Aliens.

Reflection on Ender's Game

2008-03-18T23:47:00.003-04:00

Hello everyone:

The thing that kind of bothered me about today's class was how many people (but not all) decided that they would make the same choice as the IF, if they were in charge of the situation. I am not attacking them for their decision, but I am afraid that my understanding of the circumstances forces me to still disagree. I definitely heard where people were coming from by saying that the human-to-human conflicts are different than the human-to-bugger issue, but I must stick with the points I made in class - the underlying points remain the same. If we agree to attack some sort of other based merely on two facts - we cannot communicate with them, and they seem to be hostile - then the world will continue to not be a friendly place. I brought up the example of how the colonists treated the Native Americans (which Lena later echoed in relation to another point), so I thought I would try and bring up some additional anecdotal evidence here.

The other biggest example that comes to mind is the manner in which the Roman empire worked- this isn't a perfect fit, but some of the ideas here apply. The Romans made it their policy to allow nations to either surrender and assimilate into Rome, or be destroyed utterly. This led to the destruction of some "barbarian" tribes in Germania, because they wouldn't comply (barbarian being a Greek word taken by the Romans and later civilizations to: the original meaning comes from "barbar" being used to describe the (seemingly) nonsense language of the outsiders). These specific instances are similar to what the IF did to the buggers. The buggers (Germanic tribes, specifically the Illyrians) attacked Earth (Rome), and did not communicate at once or in understood ways, and as a result they were crushed. As a result, the military prowess of these people (the Romans lost three full legions to them before crushing them) as a learnable skill was gone - similar to all the possible gains lost through the destruction of the buggers.
reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_empire

To support my ideas from a different direction, lets look at a similar phenomena that occurred twice, in completely different circumstances. During the American Civil War, brother fought brother over the issue of slavery - or to restate the problem, they could no longer communicate about the issue and one viewpoint had to be destroyed in favor of the other. Many soldiers died fighting in setpiece battles, and due to lack of medical attention or supplies. That said, General Lee eventually surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Courthouse - while this was happening, the former enemies, both Union and Confederate soldiers, played baseball together in order to pass the time. This is only one example from that war, but think about the parallels to the buggers - both sides in the Civil War definitely has avenues of communication, but they did not pursue them, and chose to fight instead.
reference: http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/aubrecht2004b.shtml

The other example that comes to mind is during the Christmas of 1914. during the Christmas Truce between the German and British soldiers. The common soldiers merely stopped fighting for several days, and exchanged presents and made friends with each other. There was a clear disagreement between the two sides, and they killed each other mercilessly both before and after this Truce, but when they both pursued communication, things improved. Neither side was completely fluent in the other's language, but they still shared a sense of similarity. I feel that the bugger/human conflict has a parallel: when the queen has the model of the giant's corpse built, it is an attempt to talk to a human in a way they understand (the Truce having soldiers exchange gifts and throwing snowballs, areas where they could comprehend each other).
reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce

Something to think about, I suppose.

Have a good evening.

-Mike

Ender's Game

2008-03-17T21:50:00.002-04:00

Well, I have just completed Monday having spent the whole night attempting to sleep on a 13 hour train trip and I have already made the Wikipage for this. Therefore I am not totally coherent in order to properly comment on the book.

I do remember one of the things that struck me the most was that I have read something very similar to this. I have no idea what the name of the book was, what the names of the characters were, or really any details about it whatsoever, I just know that this book gave me serious deja vu.
Another work I also thought alot about while reading this was the film, I haven't read the book, Starship Troopers. I guess its kind of superficial because in each the humans were fighting the bugs in space.

I also wonder what everybody else thinks about the way they didn't tell Ender that what he was doing was real. I mean, I understand that it would have made him stop but come on. A little kid has just wiped out an entire civilization and nobody bothered to at least give him a hint.

I really thought it was quite moving that the buggers knew that they were going to be defeated and gave their future into the hands of the boy that wiped them out.

Ender's Game: Pre-class Reaction

2008-03-17T11:55:00.002-04:00

The big theme that really resonated with me is the idea of failure to communicate. In science fiction the interaction with “the other” is obviously taken to a new level, with the interaction with a completely different alien species. But like all good science fiction, usually one can tie that to the contemporary world. Cultural interaction is about interaction with an “other” they may look like “buggers” but some cultures can seem alien to us too. The twist at the end was alluded to (Ender asks, well what if it’s just a mistake, and the reply he gets is survive first ask questions later), and I am glad the author did it that way; because it shows that the “other” is not monstrous, just misunderstood. The phrase that comes to mind is “to err is human” in the end we find that the aliens are not some malicious monsters bent on galactic domination, but just a society so different from ours that they realized their mistake too late. This theme of understanding and communication can also be seen in other fiction works, in Ursula Le Guin’s Left Hand of Darkness (I did a wiki on this in case you want to know more about it). There is also an interaction between two alien races, and even though they have the physical means to communicate (something the buggers did not), the two main characters still miscommunicate at first, in large due to bias and not bothering to truly understand. That’s another issue with communication, often one regards his culture (or race) as superior or they believe their way is the right way. Something new or different or unknown is feared, it’s too dangerous to just embrace something like that and people tend to become very cautious and build walls to protect themselves, or fear (which can lead to anger or hatred) consumes them. True communication and understanding is a delicate balance. One can’t simply disregard their own background and nature and embrace the other, but one can’t also completely reject the other. I look forward to seeing what other authors do with the theme of “the other.”

Another issue in the book that I found interesting was the tactics used with the kids, the sheer manipulation for the ultimate goal. And I agree with Jen’s point, one kind of needs to accept the fact that at some parts of the book the characters are about 6 years old, just get used to the fact that they are super children and move on with the story. But how the kids acted is not too farfetched, because games are still what is used to teach them. That’s why they had to keep it as games: if it didn’t have that title it would be completely different. It’s not like the children believe at the time of the games they have an impact on the world, they believe they are just being trained for things later in the future, and in the first school it was indeed just training games. In a way lots of children’s games even in real life are meant to “train” the child for life. It’s just that in the book the children were trained for a different type of life and more intensely. But the human mind is designed to try and solve problems, and games train the mind to think that way. Every game has a goal and the player needs to figure out how to reach it. In the case of Ender and the kids, their goal was to win against the other team. By putting things into such simple terms for them they made it easy for the kids. In the case of games; when their team won, the other team was still ok in the end, not dead. It would be different and would have had a whole different weight if they were taught using battles to the death. That would have produced completely different people. I also found the fact that the adults kept the truth from Ender the only way it would have worked with him. By making him think he is still playing games, the rules of a game still applied, real life holds more consequence, and they let him make real life decisions without having to worry about those consequences (since he didn’t know they existed). In the end his actions still lie heavy on his shoulders, but the situation in which the decisions were made matters.

All in all I found that this book really made me think about a lot of things, and it indeed raises a lot of issues and interesting ideas.

Ender's Game: a look into attitude

2008-03-17T10:15:00.003-04:00

This past week is the second time I have read this book, and I caught something entirely different this time: the foreshadowing near the beginning, with the Giant game and Fairyland (pg. 60-65). At this point, Ender makes the comment that this terrible game only ever gives him the chance to kill or be killed, by drinking those shot glasses of poison, or apparently by killing the giant. This is very interesting, and I call it foreshadowing for a specific reason - I am not referring to the progression of the Giant's decay or the game throughout the book, but rather the theme of doing anything will lead to someone's pain eventually.

The other point in the book where this sentiment struck me and began to come into focus was when Graff asks Valentine to write Ender a letter (pg. 143-151). At this point, Valentine defends Ender as being nothing like Peter at all, because he was always so nice and would never do anything to hurt anybody (although his history shows otherwise). Peter is a terrible person, who enjoys playing on other's fears (and is therefore representative of people who always assume the worst case is the reality of a situation). When Graff explains that Ender feeding the squirrels would only make them easier for Peter to terrorize, this portion of the book clicked with me very well. This line of arguments follows the real world in terms of giving aid to refugees. It can seem like helping people in war-torn regions is a waste, because there will only be more refugees again when some other marauding force comes through and lays waste to their lands. Take this line of reasoning back even further, and you end up with the Myth of Sisyphus - basically, this man was sentenced to the eternal punishment of rolling a boulder up a series of progressively higher hills. If there is nothing to life but a series of more difficult tasks, what makes people keep going? Why do we keep rolling these damned stones up stupid hills and mountains? From this general viewpoint, I can relate this back to Ender's education at the Battle School - he keeps dealing with everything the teachers and Graff can throw at him, and he does so at cost to himself.

I am not despairing over this human situation (I have my own personal set of motivations that move me past the wonderful problems in life), but I thought that the book is an interesting look into the manner in which life seems to work for people. I am equally curious to hear what motivates other people in life.

-Mike

Visions of the Future, Courtesy of Card

2008-03-17T10:09:00.003-04:00

Ender's Game...so much to talk about. I liked it. The end threw me a bit but it was supposed to, so no hard feelings Mr. Card. I hope everyone had a relaxing Spring Break, I mostly did.
First off, I thought the planning and work done to ensure Ender was the person the IF wanted was very interesting. Peter was rejected for the cruel streak he displayed so well with Ender, Valentine was too gentle, but Ender somehow was in the middle. From what I know about child-raising and psychological development, that's not something you can usually plan for. Parents may correct their tactics if they see one child is doing something out of the norm the parents wanted to create, but Peter was careful to keep his work away from the adults and they couldn't have known about it by the time Ender was born. So I think it is with a bit of luck that Ender came out with the personality he did. Shaped by an aversion to the cruelty displayed by Peter and nurtured by the love of his sister, he just happened to be what the fleet needed.
Second, I found the shaping of Ender by the Battle School instructors to be interesting as well. They let him cultivate friendships and gain skills then sought to separate him and make him compete with others. Necessary, perhaps, for the commander they wanted him to be. However, Ender was what, six when he entered the school? They were trusting him to display an emotional and mental maturity that not many children his age have as he went through the school. In fact, all the children in this book are sort of 'wise beyond their years' so to speak. I suppose we really are getting older younger, in that experiences that used to happen later are happening earlier. So in the future, we'll all be geniuses, or at least those luck ones, by the age of 6 and able to strategize for major military operations by the time we're in our early teens. Excellent.
Last, as Professor Jackson said last class, this is our first book with actual aliens. Insectoid ones at that. Eww. Creepy. Or at least that's what everyone down on Earth, or above it, or near-ish it, is supposed to think. They're weird, they aren't human, they'd probably eat people if given the chance. Which of course, our brave fleet soldiers won't let happen. It's interesting what the combination propaganda and fear towards the unknown can produce. As Colbert says, there's fear out there and someone has to monger it, but the fears being played on are quite real and not exactly contrived. Not exactly contrived as in blown up from a small discomfort, but capitalized on as being a response to a perceived threat. A perceived threat as in one coming in great big ships and since we can't understand them we naturally have to be proactive and figure they're out to get us. Oh, for a Universal Translator! Or at least the Babel Fish. Or C-3PO. It's an interesting mixture of fear of something new and utterly different from what is known to you and the jumping to the wrong conclusions because of it.
Happy St. Patrick's Day!

Star Wars Episode 4

2008-03-05T17:17:00.003-05:00

So I stumbled upon this and I figured this would be a nice final post for all of you to enjoy as we approach spring break:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBM854BTGL0

V for Vendetta: Post-Class Reaction

2008-03-05T01:30:00.001-05:00

Towards the end of class a concept struck me. Humans as individuals or in groups need to feel safe or in control, and often those two overlap. This came to me because in this novel and in other cases we have seen that when a disaster happens there is always someone who pulls everything together and tries to keep it together. In the case of Moore’s graphic novel the Leader pulled everything in too tight and the level of control he thought was necessary, was actually ultimately too much and detrimental. But think about it, even on a personal level, when things are going on that are distressing to you or feel bigger than you, don’t you wish that you were able to have full control of the situation or maybe that someone else took control of the situation? When things get overwhelming and there are tons of reading for school, tests, internships and whatever other things that tend to pile up become too much, then one becomes edgy, uncertain and stressed. The chance for a negative outcome is too distressing of a thought, one wants to know that it will all be alright in the end. Or maybe if some accident happens or things are a mess, like maybe you just suffered a bad car accident and you are panicking; some people would want for another person to handle the mess because it is too much for them in their state of panic. This is on the micro level of what happened to Britain due to the disaster of war and destruction around the world; some people wanted someone to fix it for them and others wanted to take control and do the fixing their way, which is what Leader must have done. And later V took control, and transformed Evey from a meek sheep that wanted someone to keep her safe (and control and make sure that everything in her life is ok) to someone who was able to assume that control. I just found that an interesting idea, because there seems to be need for that control on one level or another, and of course everyone wants different levels of control. But I can say that everyone (except maybe for a very small number) want to live in a controlled situation either by their own hand or by the hand they trust to keep things under control. Because very few people would say they want to live in chaos where nothing is certain, and the risks and dangers are high, because that’s like living your whole life with the ground ripped out from under your feet, always falling and twisting and not knowing what to do or what is coming at them next. People need a certain level of certainty in their life in order to stay sane, and control they accept (no matter who wields it) lets them live more at peace.

Class 3/4

2008-03-04T22:57:00.002-05:00

England Prevails.

In what way, I do not know. One of the main things I took from class today was that we are really not sure what happens next. In most books you are given at least a hint as to what happens.

All we know is that Evey becomes the new V and takes on Dominic as her apprentice. One would assume that they are going to continue the original V's work but to what end. We agreed that he wanted an overthrow to at least the Fascist Regime but our analysis began to break down in determining whether he was just anti-fascist or anti-government in general.

I am very glad that pretty much everybody else, with the exception of he whom shall not be named, agreed that in comparison to the novel the movie is a complete piece of junk. The eliminated some of the best parts for the movie and turned the entire story into a criticism of Bush instead of the overarching criticism on fascist states that Moore was going for.

I am quite pleased with the discussion we had. Now it is off to prepare the Wikipage before Spring Break.

Reflection on Class 8

2008-03-04T21:28:00.002-05:00

The part of today's discussion that made me think the most was the interplay between a math teacher and V's method of opening a person up to reality. In both situations, the teacher is explaining something that most of the students are certain they don't want to learn. In both cases as well, however, the student ends up valuing what they learned (if not through verbal acknowledgment, then through their constant use of it). I feel as though there are many people who could currently use a refresher course in freedom and liberty, albeit not as harsh as V's lessons. People seem to have this annoying trait called "fickleness" - it has this annoying side effect where they forget whats actually good and not so good for them soon after learning. Its getting kind of old - "never again shall we have war." Look how that turned out. "Never again shall there be genocide." Failure. "Never again shall there be slaves." In name, this is technically true - but what about sex slaves, and child laborers and so forth? I feel like Americans, comfortably clothed and well-off, have no need to consider what our state of life really means liberty-wise. "Yeah, so theres starving people and oppressed people - but since I am doing well, its probably their fault that they're in that situation." Not even all Americans realize the extent of the problems in the world, much less in their own communities. Ignorance is no excuse - in fact, it merely reflects poorly on our nation. Land of the brave, home of the free? I feel like we've lost the meaning behind that maxim some years ago. This is unacceptable to me - I for one am not willing to let this wonderful nation with its outstanding potential to do good in the world fail and lapse into hedonistic destruction - it happened to Rome, and I will not let it happen to us. Enough complaining, enough excuses - change spending around to feed and clothe everyone. Educate all people on how to be truly free, and then only let them graduate when they clearly demonstrate understanding of the necessity to be self-responsible as well as part of the community. I am certainly not yelling at anyone in class; I am merely frustrated with the way the world is, and specifically the way our nation is poised to continue in coming years. Vote Ron Paul - all joking aside, he brings a third dimension to the political scene, whereas Democrats and Republicans argue really loud but are actually pretty similar in most ways. If not vote for him, at least go look into what he has to say - consider what politicians do from day to day, and compare that to what the Constitution sets out as their powers. Its ridiculous.

America can Prevail Again, if people started trying again (that doesn't have the same ring to it, but I stand by it)

-Mike

Reflection, Class 8

2008-03-04T17:35:00.002-05:00

I like our discussion today, especially how we focused on whether V was justified in what he did to Evey because it was something I wrestled with while reading. I'm still not sure if he was, just due to personal morals and the horror she went through but at the same time, she was stronger afterwards. As Lena said, she was kind of annoying at the beginning. There's the quote, "Ask not why the bell tolls, it tolls for thee" well, she did at lot of asking and protesting a bit too much. I think I'm more convinced now that he was in fact justified in doing what he did based on our discussion.
As for Rosemary, I hadn't before seen V as manipulating her actions just because I felt that the men in her life who died were "bad guys" anyway and she just had bad luck. But with V's access to Fate and his impressive planning skills, it's makes sense that he would have gently bumped her in the direction she took. She got fed up enough that she was able to find the strength to kill the Leader when V needed her to.
I also liked our discussion of whether everyone is guilty. A knee-jerk reaction would be that no, not everyone is guilty and should be punished but the party members and certainly the ones in charge would be guilty. I'd have to side with V's levels of guilt but then again, I'm not inclined to look favorably on those who stood by and did nothing during the Nazi regime so why should I in this case? For practicality's sake we can't punish everyone because then we become them, and it's sort of hard to do numbers-wise. It is a matter of responsibility, as V says. If they take responsibility, and sort of repent I guess, then maybe we can let them off. Those who see nothing wrong with all of it certainly should have their heads examined or something. The winners/majority enforcing their beliefs over the minority again, which of course never goes wrong. Interesting, perplexing questions, all of it.

V For Vendetta

2008-03-03T22:41:00.002-05:00

Let me begin by saying how much Alan Moore is a genius, not to mention he has an awesome last name. Just kidding, but I absolutely loved the novel and all of the subtle details he included.

This is the first time I have read the novel but I have seen the movie several times. When I saw the movie I thought it was excellent, now I know that the movie was good but it cannot even hold a candle to the original. The way they changed the characters and events in the movie do make for good screen time but it takes away some of the key factors in the original story.

For example, in the movie the Houses of Parliament are the last thing destroyed while V is receiving his Viking funeral. This, I believe, was done so that the most recognizable symbol of London was the finale. However, this completely changes the story. Since in the novel that is the thing he destroys on that first night, rather than building up to the finale of destroying the symbol of London at the end, it is destroyed at the beginning. Therefore, it is not some kind of progression to anarchy, but a clear pronouncement right from the start that institutions have failed England.

Another thing that was changed for the sake of movie audiences was Evey's backstory. In the movie she is out after curfew to try to meet up with her friend the TV personality and her crime is simply that she was out too late. In reality, she was prostituting herself when caught by the fingerman. Therefore she is not really the sweet innocent girl the movie makes her out to be.

The next part with the TV guy in the movie is also when Evey is captured by the fingermen that is actually V. Since the TV personality was a completely manufactured character it clearly does not line up with the fact that she was in fact captured by V again while in trouble on the streets.

In addition, the movie virtually ignored almost all of the other party characters. Their involvement seldom went beyond: here is an important person to the plotline, now their dead. Whereas in the book substantial development was done on them before they met their untimely ends, including entire stories of their wives which was not even mentioned in the movie.

I also believe that the movie did a very poor job at conveying the details of V's plans while at the same time leaving a marked sense of confusion throughout. The novel did this superbly but the movie failed miserably at it.

I realize the majority of this has been a rant against the movie but I have two reasons for doing this. Number One: I have seen the movie and was shocked at just how much they changed from the novel. Number Two: I know that whatever I write actually about the novel will by no means come close to being at the level that it should be talked about.

I the immortal words of the movie that I cannot remember: I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy!

V for Vendetta: Pre-Class Reaction

2008-03-03T19:07:00.000-05:00

As Mike talked about this book really does make you think about the society you live in and how plausible it is that could happen in our world. There is something really creepy about the way these people have come to live. And personally the hypocrisy of the government is another thing that really irks me; hypocrisy in any case is a pet peeve of mine. In this book characters like the pedophile clergymen (as Jen mentioned) the other corrupt government officials who see the other citizens as a joke and beneath them (like Lewis Prothero, and the other men working with him, or Creedy who on page 198 hires basically a thug to do the violence for him and promises him power). All these things would repulse anyone with a sense of justice.

But I want to talk a little about the characters. In the beginning I really disliked Evey and became indifferent to her in the end. I understand the growth of her character was important to show what V did for her and she symbolizes the sheep the people have become, but I guess I just didn’t like what she stood for. V was of course an interesting character that also quiet controversial. First of I feel like he is meant to represent a Godlike figure: he is manipulating peoples’ lives, watches everyone and knows what they are doing and he passes judgment on people. His past and cryptic talk makes him a mysterious although sometimes frustrating character (much like Evey finds him). This raises the ever complex question: did he have a right to do what he did? Just like in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress and in Dune the main characters shape the world how they see it should be for others and their society (often resorting to violence). A concept that ties to this is where V discusses anarchy, chaos and fascism; he tells Evey on page 195 that anarchy is voluntary order, compared to fascism which he earlier calls falls forced order and a society that is on thin ice. I found this one of the key points in the book. Also when looking back on this page I noticed that he called her Eve not Evey. But this raises the question: what will happen to society? Will people who were used to strict control and who just now tasted chaos be able to settle down and live in voluntary order?

The last concept that I found interesting is the concept of 2 faces of anarchy…the creator and the destroyer. This once again goes back to the theme of balance (for examples Zorg’s speech on chaos in the 5th Element). It is interesting that the authors presented this balance in 2 people, V and Evey. He is ruthless and methodical in his goals while she more than once expresses the fact that she doesn’t want to kill (on page 177 she says let it grow). I found that a very nice way to tie the story together and hint as to what will happen with her, and her role in society past the point where the book ends.

Visions of the Future, Courtesy of Moore and Lloyd

2008-03-02T23:27:00.003-05:00

Well, I liked this one. And, frankly, I didn't find it as different from the movie version as Professor Jackson made it seem. Yes, of course the movie didn't do it justice, but at least they kept some things. People died the same, for instance. And the domino thing. :) Anyway, what can I talk about? I did the wiki this week, so I feel like it's coming out my ears. But I'll touch on some of the themes I found.
First, it's interesting to see how religion is used in the novel. The state motto is "Strength Through Purity. Purity Through Faith." so they obviously have faith as a core element. How much of this is the party and how much was influenced by Adam Susan is hard to tell, but his...interesting discussions with his "god" certainly played a role, I am sure. The clergymen support the state in homilies but behind closed doors, the one clergyman we see isn't very pure. He has a taste for the younger sort, but I suppose you can give him credit for keeping it heterosexual, at least doctrinally speaking. He uses a religious text as a seduction tool, hardly a man you'd want to be in the upper levels of church hierarchy. Religion has been corrupted the same way the state has, which is an interesting spin on it.
Second, protection for the citizenry by the state. Surveillance is the way of life in this alternate London. Cameras are on every street and in every home. Whole branches of government are dedicated to spying on the citizens, the Eye and the Ears. Invading the privacy of citizens has become a small price to pay for security and the retention of control. As I said on the wiki, and something Mike might have included in his own post, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin. Civil liberties have become essential these days and something we take for granted all too often.
Lastly, I'd like to touch on the dichotomy between insanity and sanity. The novel played around with the concept a lot. Was V insane? I'm not sure he was. I think he was coldly, extremely rationally sane. He planned everything out precisely and seemed to plan for everything. Can we call him insane just because we can't fathom the rationale behind his plan? Yes, V killed people. But that makes him a murderer and following the old "eye for an eye" moral code. He certainly was pushed to it. We don't know why he was at Larkhill, just that he was and ended up in room five. I think that anyone could be driven mad going through what he did. Maybe his plan for breaking out and revenge later was enough to hold him together and shake off whatever signs of mental breakdown the doctors saw. They also could have misdiagnosed. I thought it was interesting how the novel played around with sanity and freedom. Whatever freedom V seems to have achieved came after his bout of insanity. Evey reached it after being pushed to the breaking point. Finch seems to have gotten there with LSD. V finds all the normal people to be in prison, perhaps sanity is a prison then? It seems plausible considering reports of the effects of insanity and highs: losing inhibitions, feeling different, etc. And all of this is turning into one of those cyclical philosophical questions.
So I'll end for now and leave you with my own set of freedom quotes:
...everything can be taken from a man[or woman], but one thing: the last of the human freedom's--to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to chooes one's own way. ~ from Man's Search for Meaning, by Viktor Frankl (much like Valerie's one inch)

I know but one freedom and that is the mind. ~ Antoine DeSaint Exupery

There is not liberation without labor, and there is no freedom which is free. ~ The Siri Singh Sahib

Freedom is not the right to do as you please, but the liberty to do as you ought.

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. ~ Soren Kierkegaard

When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny. ~ Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826) (A bit like V's governments should be afraid of the people, yes?)

Liberty with a side of Insanity

2008-03-02T17:33:00.008-05:00

Hello everyone:

Having read the whole novel, I wanted to write about my favorite part of the entire thing - the scene from page 39-41. This is the point in the book where V goes to the top of the old Bailey and is talking to the statue of Justice, and filling in both parts of the conversation. Here, he is speaking to her about how he used to love her from afar, but then she cheated on him with a uniformed man in jackboots [the new facist government], so he has found another: anarchy. He then proceeds to place the heart-shaped box at the feet of the statue, and walks away. The bomb then blows up and destroys the statue and the building.

The reason this resonates with me is partially the dark humor in the situation, but also the scary parallel to the real world of today. Specifically, I am thinking of post 9/11 America, one where the average citizen meekly submits to the various things the Federal government took as "necessary changes" after that fated day. For example, every time I go into an airport, I am forced to take off my shoes and all the metal out of my pockets. I then must make sure all of the fluids, gels, etc must be beneath a certain size and stored in a ziploc bag; if they aren't, I am required by law to throw them away. Then theres the odd dynamic of the TSA video they play on loop - the bit where once you begin the process, you must continue and by law are not allowed to leave. Thats really, REALLY scary - queuing up to use the private plane ticket we paid for, and then forced to submit to Federal security (that drains tax dollars substantially) because they have outlawed private security forces from working airports? This is not the same US government I have been taught about throughout the course of my education. I would argue that many people feel the same way that I do (listen to the grumbling in line next time you fly), but what confounds me is that people aren't motivated to fight for their freedoms, one of the things that IS worth fighting for in life.

Let me focus more narrowly on the topic at hand in the scene I presented: justice. The US has never been perfect; neither has any other country. I just find it very peculiar that the way our justice system works is changing the way it is. "Innocent until proven guilty" used to be a bastion of the American legal system: now it is "guilty until proven innocent if we think you might have thought the word 'terrorist' in your life, and we won't let you have legal counsel." I am not sure about anyone else in the course, but this REALLY CONCERNS ME. These sorts of reasonings are what were used in the novel, when the Leader convinces people that giving up freedoms in order to also be free from hunger and war is worthwhile. The problem with curtailing civil liberties in wartime (even though we aren't in a conventional war) is that they aren't so easily reclaimed from the Federal government after the fact.

The specifics of this War on Terror are what confound me - we are fighting against hungry, angry peoples who the US' foreign policy has not treated fairly or even consistently, yet we wonder why they hate us? Perhaps if we didn't supply both sides in almost every armed conflict since WWII, the issues at hand wouldn't be as bad. We supplied Iraq and Saddam against Iran. We trained bin Laden against the Soviets. We supply weapons to the Israelis, and money to the Palestinians, and then wonder why they don't get along and don't like us. Perhaps if we pursued an agenda of sustainable long term aid to all people, and stopped selling weapons as often as we can, maybe there would be less wars. This current schizophrenic series of foreign policy choices certainly isn't working. In fact, this exact sentiment was expressed (albeit in different words) by a certain diety in the American pantheon, a Mr. Washington: "The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations." What a great idea - too bad in this century of American policing of the world, we cannot quite fathom why this is a good idea. I want to defend myself from those who might call me isolationist - I love to travel, I enjoy other nations and cultures, and I am firmly in favor of free/fair trade (depending on the specific situation) - I just don't see why we need to get ourselves tangled into millenia-old conflicts. Thats pretty arrogant of us to assume that after the Arabs and Jews have been mutually of distrustful of each other (and sometimes outright hostile) for many, many years, that we could support both sides and then make peace.

I feel as though these quotes, plus the preceding quote from Washington, cover my feelings on this matter:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
-Thomas Jefferson

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
-Thomas Paine

Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.
-9/11 Commission Report

"Justice is meaningless without Freedom"
-V, page 41

-Mike

Reflection upon Class 7

2008-02-28T23:59:00.004-05:00

I must agree with the basic sentiment I have seen in other reactions: I enjoyed the discussion from class this week very much so. I feel that the topic of gender, as with many others, is much more easily approached in the medium of science fiction, and this book does a good job of doing so. I need to display my support for Jack's point about agency: the fact of the matter is, Joseph was in fact magically tied to the location he was created in order to protect. When he attempted to walk across the bridge without orders to do so, his constituent parts began to dissemble. Yod was created for the purpose of protecting the town of Tivka: mind you, Malkah changed that with her additional programming, but focus on the point at hand. With this original purpose in mind, he directly disobeyed his primary directives by accompanying Shira to rescue her child - this move in fact put Tivka in much, much more danger. I have to agree with Jack then, that Yod has an entirely different level of agency than Joseph, which I would argue places them in separate categories: Joseph in the category of magical non-human/non-person creation with a few twists, whereas the level of autonomy Yod displays throughout the book (culminating in his decision to prevent anything else like him from being created) as well as scope of action shows a strong sense of humanness/person-ness.

That said, the gender stuff in the book was interesting. I am not sure I read it quite the same as Scott, but I did in fact find parts offensive or at least of questionable fairness. They were not always up front, but they were there. In the middle of one of Shira's outpourings of emotions, you could find small phrases about Gadi's innate immaturity as a man (in addition to his specific personality), and the description of Avram was never particularly friendly either. I'm curious what other people thought about this and are willing to post here (and not discuss in class).

-Mike

Reflection, Class 7

2008-02-28T16:32:00.002-05:00

I thought it was interesting that some of our class really didn't like the book or found it uncomfortable to read. I didn't make much of the female perspective, though I do see that it is unusual for science fiction. Maybe because I am also an avid Jane Austen reader as well as science fiction I didn't mind the discussion of feelings or the inner monologue of Malkah and Shira wasn't weird for me. But we all approach things differently so I enjoyed hearing how some of the guys found the book uncomfortable. I get uncomfortable when women get bashed so the reverse must be true for men. Maybe I'm just used to it more.
I wanted to touch on our discussion of why the book focused on a Jewish community beyond the link between the golem and Yod as a robot. I think the type of faith the Jews have is what makes the story so interesting to focus on a Jewish community. There are often rigidly defined gender roles and there are stark differences between the different forms of the religion, between conservative and reform Judaism. The practice of a minyon and how Yod's personhood fits into that is very interesting and provides a level of discussion that would not be found in a Christian faith group. Their faith also brings the community together in a way a Christian group might not-they have consistently faced prejudice throughout history in a way that has given them strong bonds to each other, something Christians only get by standing in opposition to other Christian groups and claiming one group or another as their own.

Class 2/26

2008-02-27T20:09:00.002-05:00

To begin with I just have to say that this was, I believe, one of the more interesting thus far. In the discussion we covered more of our previous works than we have yet to refer back to. We mentioned how we could change the conversation with a time machine in reference to Wells, we compared Yod to Mike from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, we discussed the Borg from Star Trek, we compared the civilizations with the Duniverse, Akira was mentioned, as was The Fifth Element, and we even alluded to the stories we are going to encounter with Blade Runner and V for Vendetta.
In our discussion of Heinlein, we debated whether Mike could be held morally responsible for his actions. Here we have taken the next step in debating whether or not he is actually human. The fact that this was the primary discussion point and that there are characters in this book that are our peers is needless to say a little unnerving.
As far as the administrative stuff we talked about I agree that the Wiki does appear to be faltering but once all of the outside posts are up I feel like it will start to come around.
Most importantly it is time to read V for Vendetta which I have been looking forward to all semester, yeah!

He, She and It: Post-class Reaction

2008-02-27T00:31:00.000-05:00

I feel like an important part that we didn’t get to in our discussion is the nature of Yod’s creation. More than once it was said that both Joseph and Yod were not “born” like children from a mother. I find Yod’s coming to consciousness very interesting. He was just bombarded with sensation and knowledge, and his initial reaction was to retreat. And Shira even makes a comment that he came into the world just like all children: protesting and angry (page119). This coming into consciousness with all knowledge makes me think of Paul’s sister Alia in Dune. She too was born in such a way that basically skipped over childhood and made her more knowledgeable than the average human.
Another concept that that should be taken into consideration concerning the human vs. non-human argument is the hypocrisy of human, who believe they have the right to define who deserves human rights. As mentioned in class, humans more than once considered someone of different background as less than them and not really human, the obvious example being blacks. So humans (and in some cases specific groups of them) consider themselves the sole deserving organisms of the right to call themselves persons and deserving the natural rights given to humans (like the right to be in control of one’s life).

He, She and It: Pre-class Reaction

2008-02-25T22:44:00.000-05:00

Our society seems to fear of tight control, many sci-fi movies and novels that I have encountered (mostly American or Western) depict the world after some type of catastrophe where everything has become insanely regulated and individuality has been destroyed. It almost seems like individuality led to the bad event so everyone had to be reined in. When reading or viewing such sci-fi stories the rigid control seems cruel and/or unnatural to us, but that is because we are used to our values. So in which case would the world be better as a whole…is it better to live in a more chaotic but more free world, or in a regulated one that keeps things under control at the expense of personal choice? On page 36 Shira notes how in her Y-S life she has used her senses less, which has a less human connotation. And later she speaks of how their emotions are a lot more controlled and not allowed to come out to their fullest.

I also found Yod’s self awareness and development an interesting commentary on humans, and their own search for identity. For example on page 117 when he says how can I know if what I label with a word is the same thing you feel. And also later he says how do I know what I feel is the same what a man would feel or you would feel and Shira says well even men and women perceive things differently. Which leads to the question what does it mean to act human. How does consciousness and self-awareness play in, and who is to say who or what is “human,” since it can be said that a person can be acting “inhumane.” On page 150 another related question is raised how does purpose play into this? Purpose set or chosen by oneself rather than Yod’s case in which he was created to defend…but this topic has gray areas, because society and social constructs shape a person and often their road and purpose in life, especially in some societies more than others. And on that same page the topic of hypocrisy slightly comes into play. Humans in this world (and to another extent in ours) have altered and improved themselves, especially in their where they have computer implants. So who decides what is ok and what is not? Or what can be defined as living or human? In a way it is all social construct, affected by culture and norms and deeply rooted believes (ex. Religion).

Another concept that this book raises is the aversion to something different or unknown. People seemed to be more defensive or aggressive rather than open with someone or something they don’t understand. Like some of the characters initial reaction to Yod or Nili.
On page 222 another interesting comment stuck me when Shira says that Nili seems more artificial than Yod. And I can see why she said that. Since Nili comes from a different culture and doesn’t have the slightest interest of changing or blending in. While Yod is trying his best to become more “human”. But even that label is a social construct of our society.
But I did notice how Yod’s mind is structured differently. For example on page 167 when we see the thought stream of Shira and Yod side by side, on 117 he expresses his inability to enjoy music the same way, on page 247 when they are dancing and he says it’s easier for him to perform human work related activities rather than letting lose (he is in large a computer and thus very logic oriented), or a few pages earlier where he states he doesn’t understand the concept of sexy. He seems to replicate and create new patterns, but he can’t just randomly create, he needs to analyze and test first

And the final idea I will mention is this societies’ need/addiction to virtual reality (talked about on 244). This addiction to the virtual and ephemeral seems to fit Gadi’s personality perfectly because it is about instant gratification. And I find it interesting that he is the character that represents our societies’ use of drugs, substances, excessive luxuries etc. because the book talks about how he knows what the adolescents want and he also speaks about using a spike, which is an illegal, altering “thing”. So it is just like drugs in our society but in virtual form.

Ok I think that is enough for now.

Certain gestures

2008-02-25T17:26:00.003-05:00

I simply must post again: when the book is at the point where Gadi is holding a festival in the Commons, this is what came to mind:

Yod as being fake on the inside (in terms of human biological components) yet being more human on the outside than Gadi. To complicate things, Gadi had all sorts of artificial enhancements about him in this scene, like the metallic eyelids and so forth.

When I finished thinking that through (albeit in a more extended fashion), my mind produced an excellent visual of Professor Jackson doing that thing he does when comparing two seemingly different things; where he holds up both arms, each containing one of the entities in the comparison, and then poses the thought I just wrote out as a question, while tilting his head in consideration of the quandary he just outlined for the class. I hope my description here is accurate, but my point is serious - what do people think about the fiddling that the author is doing throughout with what is "really" human as opposed to somewhat human as compared with only seemingly human (ad nauseum). Any thoughts on this?

-Mike

The insights of Shira

2008-02-25T13:51:00.004-05:00

There is a line in the book that I cannot pass until I have posted about it, and exclusively it. On page 239, Shira thinks to herself "Most of life was bizarre when she stopped to examine it." When I got to this line, something like 75 different tangents, themes, ideas, and other bits of thought jumped my brain and took it over for a moment. I was thinking everything from "Socrates was right; we STILL don't know what the good is, or anything for that matter" to "this is why I dislike Macs" - needless to say, a large array of things occurred to me. I suppose that the reason this passage resonates so strongly with me is that I am and have always been an individual who enjoys tinkering and taking things apart to see how they work. This is not everyone, which I understand, but I feel like many people lack the capacity to appreciate something because they don't understand its inner workings. For example, people who prefer Macs to PCs sometimes list as their reasoning "because it always works." Thats great, if you like things to work without you understanding anything. I would argue that OF COURSE their overly expensive computers work seemingly perfectly, because all the components are manufactured by the same company, and their software is designed to work on their hardware. I prefer the ability to fix my own computer and know why things work the way they do, as I can and have done with my custom desktop computer. And, for the record, Macs do break, and there are viruses they can get. Just know that my partiality does not lie with Windows. Anyways, this is a fairly small example. On a larger (and more important) scale, people suffer from not stopping to examine life: racial hatred, where people fail to stop and realize that all parties involved are imperfect humans, so everyone's race has committed a wrong at some time or other. This is a good way to get back into the text, where about a quarter of the story revolves around the parallelism between Yod the cyborg and Joseph the clay-being, and how racism against Jews in the 1600's/racism of sorts against the free cities in the future are similar. In fact, the entire setting for the book is an ecologically-destroyed world, the result of almost everyone not examining the costs of strip mining, and dumping trash in the ocean. More specifically, it is showcasing the effects of removing oil from the picture, a la bombing the Middle East totally into a wasteland. Unfortunately, as seems to be the intention of all people, short-sighted concerns rules everyone after the pseudo-Apocalypse as well: the different corporations control much of the land that is worth having, there are massive slums in between them, and then there are a few free cities on the dangerous coastlines. The slums are left as they stand (in abject poverty), and then the multis fight each other for resources and the short term advantage, while the free towns pander to different multis to stay alive. Forgive my idealism, but one might think that after the world goes down/up in flames and there are much fewer people who know have near instant access to information, they might work together to improve things? Apparently not. Nevertheless, this one line in the book seems like it might have tempered the actions of enough people who heeded its wisdom to change history as presented in this book, but instead you got Eliot's 'The Wasteland' on steroids. With lasers and more-human-than-robot cyborgs. Great.

I suppose this blog is not the best medium to plead for more critical thinking on everyone's part, but thats what happens when books (or in this case, single lines) are thought-provoking, I guess.

-Mike

He, She and It

2008-02-24T21:04:00.002-05:00

So I probably did not read this work as closely as I should have and at times I felt rather lost in it. Of course it did not help that every three or four pages it felt the story caused me to conjure up images of a number of different movies I have seen.
Primarily I was thinking about I, Robot and Bicentennial Man. The theme that impacted me the most was the robots ability to begin to learn and feel. As the characters in the book slowly began to realize that robots around them were indeed more than just one task machines but appeared to be becoming more and more human. In Bicentennial Man Andrew Martin, a robot, began to become aware of himself and actually made the decision to become more human by active change. He worked with scientists to create human-like organs so that he would be less robot and much more human. Probably the most touching thing was that man finally voted to declare him a human just as he is dying.
In I, Robot Sonny is created by a scientist who wishes to create a greater robot while at the same time fears what his new creation could do if it fell into the wrong hands. Sonny also develops feelings and emotions similar to the book.
I know none of this is really mind-expanding but at the moment this is all that I can actually coherently present.

Visions of the Future, Courtesy of Piercy

2008-02-24T17:13:00.003-05:00

I guess I'll start this off by saying I liked He, She and It. Once again, there's a lot to talk about but I'll stick to my practice of three and find a few things.
First off, I liked the inclusion of the morality of Yod's purpose and creation. Not only that others argued about it but that he (yes, I'm going to regard him as a person and give him the gender of male) also thought about it. Whether it is morally acceptable to create a weapon that can think and feel and expect it to carry out it's purpose without being able to decide for itself whether it wants to complete it's mission, to grow beyond it's programming or follow it. Of course there is also the question if they do follow their programming if that is their choice or their conditioning via the programming told them it was their choice. Which is a whole other pickle. The morality is further complicated by the religious aspect, whether Yod was a golem or just a cyborg. It could be argued that he was a golem by the standards of his time and a golem is just a man-made creature, though I'm not sure Avram was really going for the kabbalism angle so much as the robotic.
Second, I also really liked the weaving of the story of Joseph in with the action of the book. Not only was it a good parallel for Yod to consider but it was also a good parallel for the reader. Yod's interest in a human woman was returned by Shira while Joseph's was not by Chava. Yod had the tempering influences of Malkah and Shira while Joseph only had Chava, the Maharal being useful for instructions but he didn't consider all the possibilities that Joseph would face, Malkah did and Avram contributed, in a way, by his experience with the other cyborgs. Joseph was created to defend the ghetto, Yod the town of Tikva and each did their job well. Chava gave up her son for her freedom from the family, Shira saved her son with Yod's help. Yod sacrificed himself for the good of the town and his family, Joseph wasn't given the chance however and was, in essence, killed by the Maharal. One of my favorite authors, Terry Pratchett, wrote a book about a golem joining a night watch called Feet of Clay where the whole life through the words thing played a big role. It was very interesting and, of course being Pratchett, funny.
Last, I want to touch on the struggle between individual freedoms and the authority of the state in the book as I've pretty much decided to write my paper about that topic. Of course in this case, there is no state only a multinational corporation, which could be a whole other subject. Each multi controls the social standards for it's enclave and pretty much buys people after they go to school. The multi is able to move people around at the drop of a hat and status depends on your worth to the multi which in turn controls dress, housing options, everything. Tikva's trying to stay independent by exporting chimeras and other technology and is constantly under threat from the multis. Shira and her son were pushed around just because YS wanted to steal Tikva's technology and Base. YS thought that they could just dangle Ari in front of Shira and she'd jump to come back. Underestimated her, I think.
There's more that I could talk about and I could likely talk about this stuff more but I think that's enough for now. Until Tuesday.

Reflection on Class 6

2008-02-23T16:12:00.001-05:00

Hello everyone:

After discussing the book in class and hearing Phil's take on what Weber was shooting for, I decided to go back and read the introduction portion, followed by Science as a Vocation, and then look at the end of Politics to see if my take on the lecture changed. Needless to say, it did - finding the same thematic undertones in the Science lecture shed some light on the Politics lecture. Weber discusses that in terms of how far science has "advanced" us, the savage still knows more about how to build a cart than an enlightened person knows about how his car works (pg. 12-13). This is an interesting comparison to make, and he carries on to mention that all the political economists in the world put into one room would each give you a different answer as to why your money buys X goods today and Y goods tomorrow - the savage, meanwhile, knows how to procure his own food and other goods through practical applications. This is Weber's pushing for specialization in science, which is similar to pushing for "specialization" in any career; by having it be one's vocation. One who is called to be a scholar will be far better disposed to make good his career than one who enters it in order to make money. The same holds true for a politician.

Similarly, Weber then goes through and tears science apart as a vocation, citing the example of doctors: they mindlessly preserve the lives of their patients even if those patients would prefer release from their suffering. The doctors base their work on the presupposition that all life is worth saving all the time (pg. 18). He does this in order to attack people who believe in science without any presuppositions, which he finds hypocritical that many of these people attack religious presuppositions in the same manner - that taking something on faith is ludicrous (pg. 17-18). Weber later goes on to explain the actual benefits of scholarship as a vocation (in his opinion), but only after bringing his audience back down to Earth. In the same manner, addressing the blindly hopeful in the aftermath of Germany’s defeat in WWI, Weber is attempting to ground his listeners. In this atmosphere, Weber explains that no one leader or politician will be able to magically pull Germany out of its financial and other economic situation – long term investment and commitment is needed. Allowing the ethics of conviction to guide one of his audience would (and in many cases, probably did) lead them to make leadership decisions that ended quite poorly, yet they took no responsibility in the matter. He instead pushes for the ethics of responsibility.

The similarity between the two that I find the most compelling is on the last page (pg. 32) of the Science Lecture, and near the end (page 92) of the Politics Lecture. Weber takes all of what he has said in each, where he splits science from morality/religion, and ethics of responsibility from ethics of conviction, and explains that a vocation in either field is only present in the person who manages a synthesis of the two attributes. For the scholar, there is the preferred mixture of taking the presuppositions of science in stride but also pursuing change in the world as a moral agent (pg. 32). This dichotomy is not made as clear as that of the politician, however: Weber is taken aback whenever he meets a mature person who manages to not only pursue political ends because he believes they are the right path to take, but is completely aware that he must take responsibility if his endeavor fails or causes evil in some manner.

I really got more out of reading this in order, with the introductions as part of my reading. I suggest the same to anyone else who has the time.

-Mike

Reflection, Class 6

2008-02-21T09:19:00.004-05:00

I too liked our discussion on messiahs and vocations. I think it's okay that we couldn't come up with one definition of a messiah because in this case, a bit of relativity is okay I think. Messiahs can be different things, just as revolutionaries can. Maybe messiahs are just revolutionaries with a religious aura around them. I do think that though messiahs who die can be called martyrs not every martyr is a possible messiah. The number of saints alone in the Roman Catholic canon who are martyrs would mean that the second coming was a lot sooner than it apparently will be, or something like that. Maybe Count Fenring could be called a martyr (sorta), in that he was a possibility but couldn't quite get there, whereas Paul did. For my part, I think that Paul was the Fremen's messiah and that mystic feeling about him obviously spread, given Irulan's commentaries. Though she could have tempered her writing based on those around her and the fear of retribution...hmm...I don't think we've considered that yet.
As for Weber, I think he was looking to impress upon the students the importance of history and keeping one's eyes open-to be pragmatic and reasonable. Learn from the past, be slightly optimistic but very practical about the future, and try not to screw up the present. Oh, and guess what? Weber's thing about politics being "a slow, powerful drilling through hard boards" (93) was totally quoted and explained in an episode of West Wing, "Privateers" as a matter of fact. So he gets around.

Politics as a Vocation: Post-class Reaction

2008-02-20T14:14:00.001-05:00

It was indeed and interesting discussion. I find that questions like the ones we attempted to answer impossible to answer for a variety of reasons. One being that it all depends on how one defies the word or the term. For example in our discussion we didn’t have a concrete idea of what a messiah is, like who gives the messiah authority: is it the people who decide, something that is self-proclaimed, or is I granted by a great force that is at work in the universe? Since we do not know the answer or the answer can only be based on personal belief, it is impossible to come up with a unified answer. Another issue is from whose perspective? We ran into the issue well how does a concept travel across culture or religion. And can’t someone be a savior for one group but a pain in the butt to those who the people are being saved from? So can there be a THE Messiah that is the savior of all people, what would he/she be saving the people from? So since everything is subjective and each culture has its own sets of symbols and norm, I think it impossible to come to an all encompassing truth.

Class 2/19

2008-02-19T21:14:00.003-05:00

So I think its safe to say that today was one of the more unusual discussions we have had. I believe we talked more about messiahs than it was mentioned in all of my other classes ever combined.
I love how we spent an entire class talking about whether or not Paul could be called the messiah which then led to the question of what it takes to be the messiah leading to the differences between messiahs and martyrs and the difference between a messiah and the messiah. Granted it seems like the only thing we were actually able to come with was that if you die, you are a martyr unless you rise from the dead, ie Jesus, then you might be able to be called a messiah.
Granted, then we came to the question of politics as a vocation. On this one I am still a little up in the air as to what to think about it. I am hoping that over the next week or so in reading the next book I will get a little clearer impression.
So what did everybody else think about the change-up of turning the chairs into a circle. It felt a lot more like my other seminar classes, I liked it. On the other hand, I am a little concerned with this new notion of note summarizers. I mean I guess I can see the benefit of it, but I just do not see it working out very well.

Politics as a Vocation: Pre-class Reaction

2008-02-19T11:57:00.000-05:00

The concept that struck me the most from this essay is first mentioned on the 2nd page. And that is where Weber states that every state is based on force, and it has always been that way, the only way that would not be the case is when states did not exist and there was anarchy. I found it interesting that when “anarchy” is said many people assume total chaos , people going crazy, violence, and insanity. However, if one looks at the definition, anarchy is just when everyone is able to govern themselves, there is no higher authority that has a “legitimate” right to force. And anarchy doesn’t mean total absence of rules, people can agree on rules the difference is no higher authority is imposing them on the population. Which is why anarchy can’t exist in this world, in theory it sounds nice, but humanity is nowhere near that responsible. Which goes back to Weber and the constant theme of power in his essay, as I was reading it that fact sank into my mind more and more. Humanity is in large pushed by a desire for power; most humans want that prestigious status and that ability to control others. It is hard to imagine a world where someone wouldn’t try to gain power and control, whether that’s just for personal satisfaction or to further a cause. And many people do need to be lead or guided; they would be lost on their own, and nothing would get done, there would be little progress.

I would also love to hear what Weber would have to say about current status of politics with the pressing forces of globalization. In IR many scholars talk about how the state is dying and how globalization and international actors undermine the state. And that is true, but the state is still the only one that has a legitimate right to violence. So then in a world where “international” is becoming more and more important how will power and politics have to shift to accommodate for this international situation.

Politics as a Vocation

2008-02-18T13:14:00.004-05:00

That in itself says a great deal about where this lecture would take us. Politics is supposed to be the action of running a government, not a job. But that is what Weber is advocating. He talks about politicians who become so entrenched in the battlefield of politics that they often forget that they are supposed to be working for the good of the whole and tend to work for the good of themselves and their friends.
This sort of observation is expressed on page 90, "Anyone who wishes to engage in politics at all, and particularly anyone who wishes to practice it as a profession, must become conscious of these ethical paradoxes and of his own responsibility for what may become of him under the pressure they exert." Now this particular quote is actually talking more about the adverse effects politics as a vocation can have on them but this is often used to justify their corruption. They side with particular factions in order to try to protect themselves from these paradoxes. They believe that these factions can in some way save them. In their minds it is normally justified, to those they hurt in the process, not so much.

Weber - taking a vocation from life

2008-02-18T13:03:00.006-05:00

Hello everyone:

Still thinking about Dune, the second page of this essay paints Dune as politics through and through, as it is an exercise in the exchange of power from some parties to other parties within a given territory. Religious tone aside, it actually should be read more as THE case study in effective politics - can Muad'Dib's army be any closer to the definition of legitimized violence?

Continuing this look at Dune based on Weber's essay, I feel that Paul Atriedes does in fact have his calling, or vocation, in politics, but "in politics" rather than "from politics." By this I mean that Paul's entire meaning in life is derived from his various actions towards changing the galactic balance of power (and more specifically, on Arrakis) towards his favor. He is not seeking to gain power in order to become rich (although his new position as Emperor ought to be extremely lucrative); instead he seeks to right the wrongs done to his father as well as improving the lot of the Fremen. Speaking of the Fremen, they are not quite bureaucrats in the normal sense of the word, but they fulfill Weber's discussion of them - the lieutenants and other commanders are highly trained individuals who have parallel authority to Paul, but their authority is not religiously derived; Paul himself handed it out to these independent agents of his will.

I think this example of Paul Atreides follows Weber's essay fairly neatly, although not perfectly.

-Mike

Visions of the Past, Courtesy of Weber

2008-02-18T10:56:00.004-05:00

This should probably be "Contemplating the Past, Courtesy of Weber" but again, I'm working off a theme and might as well go with it. I liked this lecture, I'm not sure I'd want to sit through it, but it's not a bad read. There's a lot in here to talk about but I'll limit to three interesting bits.
I liked how Weber used examples from other countries. He was very much aware of history, citing examples from the US, Britain, France, Germany, and Russia, among others. It was as if he was looking at history up to when he was speaking and advocating a certain forward path based on the lessons he learned from the histories of other countries. As if, hey that worked there, but this didn't do so well over here so let's avoid that and stick to the good stuff. He got to the boss politics of the US but didn't live to see the Depression era movements and the effects of World War 2, much less all the effects of World War 1 on his own country. I wonder what he would have made of the rest of the 20th century.
I also found the distinction between living "for" politics or "from" politics (40-41) very interesting. There is a real danger in each, of course, but we have successfully cultivated a portion of the professional world that does both, and are often the source of the negative stereotypes about politics and politicians. It is interesting that those who live "for" politics have to be economically independent, for Weber, because this certainly applied to the Founding Fathers. Most had farms or businesses that could be left to their own devices or the care of a wife or steward. These days most politicians live "from" and "for" politics, their position's income perhaps supplemented by book sales or lecturing, more likely the latter. I wonder which makes for a better politician, those who live "from", as they have an invested personal interest, or those who live "for", as they would be less swayed by bribes or power dealing.
Lastly, I found his focus on the journalist as an important figure (begins on 55) very interesting. "He belongs to a kind of pariah caste that in the eyes of 'society' is always judged socially by its lowest representatives from the point of view of morality. Hence, the strangest ideas are prevalent about journalists and their work. Not everyone realizes that to write a really good piece of journalism is at least as demanding intellectually as the achievement of any scholar." (55) He really defends journalists and stresses the importance and power they can have. I also found it interesting that he called journalists paid professional politicians and the newspapers "a continuous form of political organization" (60) in British history when "politics came to life only at election time" (60). I hadn't really thought of journalists that way, but it does make sense. They are both seen as pariahs, and certainly some of them are-particularly the recent rise of the paparazzi, and yet do weld certain political power by how and what they report.

Class 2/12

2008-02-17T21:51:00.002-05:00

Hello again.
So I thought that our discussion of Dune was one of our more interesting ones thus far. Generally anytime we can get PTJ to talk about something that gets him angry, ie the sequels, is a good day.
I thought that our focus on the question of who the main character really was, Paul Atreides or Muad'Dib, was particularly interesting. If you think about it you can see that this can easily be two books. If you read it with the interpretation that he is acting as Paul Atreides, you would see his actions as that of a royal heir working to ensure that he would be able to claim his planet and rule in a way that would make his father proud. On the other hand, if you read it as the main character accepting himself as Muad'Dib, his actions are truly meant for the betterment of the Fremen and wishes to rule Arrakis so that he can protect them from the evil forces of the universe.
I'll leave you with this, if Irulan is really nothing more than a symbol of Paul's royal claim, then why does she write such an idealized history of Him?
...And yes I did mean to capitalize that.

Reflection on Dune

2008-02-16T18:21:00.003-05:00

Hello everyone:

I am surprised at the amount of the book we covered in class the other day - we actually took a good sampling of many different themes and ideas from the book as a whole. I really enjoyed talking about the *crazy* Appendix about the Bene Gesserit, where all of our comments about the veracity/falsehood of the story as presented were kind of unraveled. There were several people in the class who felt the book was more of a historical/academic document (myself included), and people who felt it was more of a mythical-ized version of the truth, but then we talked about who the implied author actually might be. I mean, pretty much all of our notions fell apart when we spoke of parts like Dr. Yueh's happenstance confession of his crimes, both aloud and internally (which we as the readers could somehow hear) to Paul's thoughts and Jessica's thoughts at the same time. This odd sort of dynamic was kind of flopping about without direction in the discussion, and then we read the whole Appendix. And we got to the part about the higher plans being fulfilled, at which point several people either looked REALLY introspective, or made some sort of verbal acknowledgment of the sudden possibilities made by considering this statement - not things that usually happen in a 2-hour long book discussion near the end. Certainly, I was surprised by this, even though I have read the book a few times - somehow this seemingly little (but actually REALLY IMPORTANT) things slipped past me.

Overall, I think its a great book, one of my favorites; even more so having discussed it with 20 other people.

Dune: Post-class Reaction

2008-02-15T16:44:00.000-05:00

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.

Reflection, Class 5

2008-02-15T15:34:00.003-05:00

So, what to say about Dune? Well, I wouldn't want to live there, that much is certain.
But to be serious, I thought our discussion of who Paul really wanted to be, duke or Muad'Dib very interesting. I find myself agreeing with those who argue that Muad'Dib was something he stepped into for expediency and the Duke was something he was, or at least was born to be and thus is. Leto was a huge figure in Paul's life, as evidenced by their relationship and the shrine Paul erected for his father's skull. I think being the Duke helps Paul to honor his father. Of course, being the Duke also helps him connect to the Emperor and thus make himself non-writeoff-able. They have to deal with him on reasonable terms because he is the Duke, not just some tribal Prophet. In the old civilization-savage conflict, they have to deal with him on a civilized level.
I also liked our discussion on who the implied author and reader were. I still think it's someone outside of the "Arrakis Affair" that the implied reader is, which I think we all agreed on, but there is something to the idea that Dune is a compiled history of the issue, as Tim I think said, it is as if Irulan wrote all this stuff and someone just put it all together with her quotes to tie it together, adding the appendixes for some context. Or it's all silly to be even wondering and Herbert was just trying to be like Tolkien but didn't quite get there because he didn't invent, what was it, three new languages. Nice try, but no cigar, as my fifth grade teacher used to say.
I suppose we'll have to wait to see what we talk about on Tuesday to finish up Dune. Have a great weekend everyone.

Dune

2008-02-12T20:49:00.001-05:00

Well, clearly I am extremely late in this post but as they say better late than never. OK, I'm going to be brief in this one. Dune is of course one of the standards in the Sci-Fi genre and thus there is no way I would be able to really do it justice so I'm just going to bring up a few of the more interesting things I found in it.
First, the fact that Frank Herbert was able to create this entire space of existence and not, as far as I could tell, make any continuity mistakes is absolutely amazing. This is of course in contrast to the best known of this type the certain SRAW RATS that shall remain nameless. With all of the different groups from the Fremen to the Atreides, Harkonnen, the Emporer, the Sardaukers, the Guild it is astonishing the degree to which he was able to write in a back story without actually stopping to have to spell out every groups history.
Next is the freaky religious aspects of the book. So we have the Bene Gesserit making up all of these religious stories as a mass cover-up for their "weirding ways" and yet the prophecies come true on Arrakis.
Finally I have to note the combination of an old western feel within the Sci-fi. You have the Fremen who use knives against the others with Lasguns, 'thopters, shields and all the other gadgets they have and yet the knives win in the end. That's quite simply awesome.
I know this is late and by no means comprehensive but then again the book really speaks for itself.

Dune: Pre-class Reaction

2008-02-12T11:41:00.000-05:00

Among many things I want to discuss is the cultural aspect of this book, as usual. Obviously here we see a clash of ways of life as well as idea. And what stood out to me is how all the various powers just brushed of the “concept of Fremen”: to them it was just a few scattered, desert beaten people, with nothing to learn from. That is a trap many cultures in our world have fallen. The book shows how such narrow-minded-ness can lead to a lot of violence and misunderstandings. Obviously here the fact that the Fremen were overlooked for years was beneficial for them and allowed them to grow and do what they wanted almost unhindered. But not thinking about the plot, I can’t help but image how things would have been if the Duke (Leto) was quicker to learn from and befriend the Fremen.
Another concept that stood out to me is how the Fremen lived a life of great refrain and respect for their resources and environment. It’s a harsh existence, but they were smart enough to adapt to it and use it to their best advantage. Which makes me think of our current environment situation and how people take so much for granted and just waste and consume. On page 275 there is a part where they say that there comes a point where you can’t keep stealing from the plan without thinking what else is to follow. And that quality in the Fremen of thinking ahead and being smart about their environment and doing something for a far tomorrow is admirable. Concerning resources the book makes a point I have learned in my human geography class. And that is the concept of surplus and the relationship between control of the resources /means of production and power. We see this concept on Dune. Whoever controlled the surplus of Spice or even water had the power. In this case surplus means anything that people don’t need for their own survival and that can be sold as a commodity. And without surplus a society can’t develop, it needs the surplus to make money or other gains from trade, and later it can use that money to develop its society (Paul keeps talking about how once they gain control they will have money and then they will finally be able to do what is needed for the planet). This struggle for control over resources or land can be seen in a large number of cases, past and present on our world.
Finally, I want to comment on the OC Bible quote on page 40 (the one that Paul reads out loud to the doctor and turns out to be Wanna’s favorite). It is one of my favorite from the book and it is a concept I myself have thought about a few times. It is just mind blowing to me whenever I try to grasp the concept of all the “things” I may not be “seeing” (well experiencing in general) just because I don’t know how or don’t have the capacity to.

Visions of the Future, Courtesy of Herbert

2008-02-11T09:19:00.001-05:00

There's so much to talk about with Dune. The obvious parallels to our own world already mentioned by Professor Jackson, the differences between the Fremen and the rest of the population of the empire, the religion. But I'm not going to talk about that. Instead, I've found a few other things.
First off, the Bene Gesserit. I've always thought they were pretty cool. This group with it's claws in just about everything. Semi-mystic, so they took the cloak of religion when they went out into the empire, laying the groundwork on Arrakis that Paul took advantage of, though Jessica used it first. This groundwork was put in place for the sole purpose of exploiting the 'ignorant natives' in case a Bene Gesserit needed protection. Then you have the selective breeding program that Jessica was part of. Complex machinations just to produce the "Kwisatz Haderach" a super computer in human form with an inner eye focused on the future. The planning that went into this is astounding, as the appendix recounts Jessica's gene-markers had been cultivated for 2,000 years. And taboo for us, such close in-breeding, was just waved away by hiding Jessica's parentage. Jessica messed everything up for them though, by having Paul instead of a daughter to join to the Harkonnens and then produce the KH, Paul was just a generation early. Also, their human test is pretty interesting. I suppose they are simply testing the measure of the person by seeing how they stand up to pain, I'm sure there's an adage out there about that. There is about everything else.
Next, the aristocracy and social structure, the Great Houses and Emperor. More complex than England, and they beat out everyone else here on Earth. Then again, they've got planets to stretch across instead of just one island. In Dune, dukes are at the top of the food chain, besides the Emperor, of course, and his children as princesses and princes. Dukes, counts, barons, ladies, and princesses. Oh, noble hierarchy. Houses control planets until they are moved around. The Atreides family controlled Caladan before being moved to Arrakis, a supposed honor. Familial ties to other houses were often worth their weight in gold, or spice I suppose, and marriage played as much of a role in power plays as it has on Earth. Leto couldn't marry Jessica because he had to be kept free in case a deal required marriage with another house. Paul married Irulan for the link to the throne while Chani had to stay a concubine, though she won in the power game with Irulan, in this book at least. And any relation counts, even distaff ones, which I'm guessing are on a maternal rather than paternal line of relation. As the appendix describes, major houses get planets and interplanetary business while minor ones just get planetary business without possibility of branching out like the major houses can (520). Very interesting arrangements, though perhaps less complex in a single family than Heinlein.
Last, let's discuss spice. A drug that helps you see the future and navigate through the universe? Cool! Well, except for the blue eyes thing...could be kind of creepy. And the whole Navigator deal of turning into something other than human. Okay, fine, not so cool. But still interesting. The Guild formed the other piece of the square between the Emperor, Great Houses, and Bene Gesserit. It controlled space travel and transport, as well as the banks. Tick them off and you're stuck on your miserable planet, unable to go anywhere and probably broke too. The universe is dependent on them for travel and they are dependent on a substance found on one planet that is fraught with contention, a radically religious local population, and meddling by the houses. Fun. Oh, and there's these giant worms that make extracting the spice, from sand mind you, very difficult and dangerous. Double fun. You'd think they'd try to synthesize it or something. Or demand to control the planet themselves, the Guild that is. It just doesn't make much sense, putting all of their eggs in one basket like that. Again with the parallels to our own circumstances.
If anyone wants to borrow the movie version of Dune, I've got that too. And it's pretty close to the book, which is unusual. Well, "the spice must flow".

Dune: Thank the Maker

2008-02-10T15:05:00.001-05:00

Having finished rereading the book, I noticed many things this time that I had not noticed before. First and foremost, I was struck by the ending. The whole book is an exploration of this messianic figure, and yet the last 7 pages bring peace and new balance to the galaxy, and are ended by the words of Jessica to Chiani: "...we who carry the name of concubine - history will call us wives."
This is a very interesting choice to end the book with (even though one must read the appendices to truly get the full picture of the events as portrayed), given the various possible meanings throughout. I wanted to discuss my take on a few of these strands of meaning, and see if this might shed some light on this ending.

A theme that becomes more clear as the book progresses is the sheer discipline of the Fremen, in many regards. They always hold true to their rules regarding water, with many underlying motives. First off is the sheer value of preserving water on a desert planet. But, while they will almost always lend water to a member of their tribe in order to survive a journey, they require that the water be paid back 10-1 upon returning home. This strikes me as an odd rule, but one of extreme fairness whats worth some now is worth infinitely more in the future. This sense of justice is generalized with their hoarding of water for the terraforming of their planet - they always put the goals of the future ahead of their present needs, once again exploring this theme of placing the value of the future ahead of the lesser needs of now. This is part of the genius of Herbert's work - how seamlessly he blends fiction with history and religion. And, going back to my first question, this seems to fit what Jessica says: the current state of being a concubine will be seen so much differently in the future.

The other theme that I was interested by was interesting issue of who is really the force of good in this book. Duke Leto seemed like a fairly moral character, but he had his clear flaws (my memory is drawn to the awkward toast he performs at dinner on Arrakis). Jessica is never the most moral of characters, always being drawn between her B.G. loyalties, her love for the Duke, and her own, inexplicable motivations. Many of the Duke's men seem to be fairly good, but they each have their flaws as well. The Harkonnens don't quite have any possibility of being seen as good. That leaves Count Fenring, and Paul. The Count is the errand boy of the Emperor, and as such performs less than moral deeds. On the other hand, his hand is stayed at the end of the book upon realizing he has found a kindred spirit in Paul - this bears further discussion. And then Paul, which could be the subject of many posts. He seems to be one of the good forces throughout the book, but how good is he, in reality? His actions as Muad'dib are not the usual actions of a good character (taking the skins of one's enemies for his drums comes to mind). This also might shed some light on the end: with morality being a bunch of progressively darker shades of gray, Jessica can make such a statement and have it conclude the story as presented? I am not sure - I am curious what others think.

-Mike

"Sic Semper Tyrannis"

2008-02-09T02:38:00.000-05:00

Derailed again, the plans of mice and men
A noble cause, destroyed by tax and fines.
Issues contained? Not five, but now times ten:
This one for all did not return in kind.

And he, aghast by all it crashing down
He hoped "the Good would count for some at all."
Appalled, his lips then formed a bitter frown:
as many said - Pride left before the fall.

And yet, amid the embers of this wreck,
a ray of hope, and then a beam of light;
Not due to him, from head upon his neck -
kind hearted people: brilliance in the night.

Emboldened now, he confronted Hubris
"As to your peers: 'Sic Semper Tyrannis'"

_____________________________

I would really enjoy constructive ideas for where to go with this (or if it sounds finished). I cannot say it was written because of Dune, but it certainly seems to fit the bill.

-Mike

A Note

2008-02-07T10:24:00.000-05:00

Happy Birthday Mike!

Reflection upon Class 4

2008-02-06T01:48:00.000-05:00

I must say that I also enjoyed the religion discussion as part of today's class. If I might venture that the majority of class opinion seems derisive of religion in general, I feel like that affected/affects all discussions we have about religion. Assuming that being true, I wanted to talk about something pertaining to the discussion completely, but remains outside of it. The fact of the matter is that Americans have totally supported "freedom and liberty" for everyone since the inception of this nation. This follows the author's line, and so does the fact that the popularly held definition of just who "everyone" includes has also changed, quite a bit. This is all elementary, but it poses the interesting issue: our discussion centered around the implicit assumption that we know so much better now. On the outside, this seems reasonable enough. Then, take into account that fact that this campus is at least somewhat athiest/anti-theist in nature. Then recall that the freedom of religion protects both those with and without religion, equally. Even further, this campus prides itself on being the most tolerant and accepting of all opposing views. Isn't it interesting, then, that "we" still seem (read as Americans, or our campus) still manages to find a way to pick who is in the group of protected rights, and who is out? I mean, Heaven (word-choice intended) forbid that anyone on this campus makes fun or attacks the background of someone who is a minority, whether by race, gender, sexuality, or most other criteria.... except religion. It is somehow alright to throw around the ideas presented by religion with little to no respect. No, thats not quite right - it is acceptable to take parts of religion, and villify them, and make them appear to be representative of religion as a whole. That sounds similar..... kind of like something else we have discussed.... OH. Its kind of like attacking the Native Americans for being in the "not liberty and freedom for all" category. Its kind of like denying rights to women for years. Not in and off itself, but it is wrong because a group that prides itself on tolerance and acceptance, it appears as though that has a limit... And for added irony, this is a Methodist school, whose Board of Trustees always includes the Methodist Bishop of Washington DC.

I am not directing this at any one person (nor am I saying that I am always fair or equal in my opinions); I am merely pointing out the inherent flaw in an assumption seemingly made at the beginning of class - that we today clearly know better and would never do anything of the sort as described in the book.

I look forward to dissent, to start some sort of discussion.

-Mike

Links Section

2008-02-05T22:11:00.000-05:00

During class today, I added the links section to the side of the blog to post the videos we found in case anyone wanted to watch them later. I figured we could just keep it up and anything anybody likes can go there. I'm also considering adding a section of links for people to post sites dedicated to various sci-fi shows or movies that they feel are fairly iconic and others should enjoy as much as they do. If you guys want this, that is. So, if I can get a straight up or down in comments, that'd be great. Basically 2 links sections: academic-ish, and fun.

Reflection, Class 4

2008-02-05T21:43:00.000-05:00

The laptops were fun to play with, I completely agree, and the program was interesting if a little slow. I suppose my feelings toward the book are still the same. If anything I want to talk a bit more about religion. I've taken a few classes in it and as I've stated previously, if you consider being a religious person one who regularly attends services, then I'm religious.
Roman Catholic, actually, so the whole anti-Catholic thing has always been funny to me, but only because we're past it...mostly. I'm not sure what gets Protestants freaked out more, our doctrine or the pope. I'm thinking the latter, based on comments made during Kennedy's campaign and the fears about the pope dictating things, well Kennedy did a nice job in stamping that out, too bad Al Smith couldn't come up with it when he ran. Probably too soon. Anyway, religion.
Not to be ironic, but it can be used to cover all manner of sins, can't it? That depends on whether you consider nationalism a sin, which granted it can be or can't be. We used religion to "civilize" the Native Americans because we wanted their land and one way to do it was turn them around to our point of view through educating them and converting them. In my Sex, Gender and Culture class last semester we read an article about the Montagnais Indians in Canada that were converted by the Jesuits (yes, a Catholic example!). This priest had a four fold plan: permanent settlement and establishment of a central chief, the introduction of corporeal punishment, the education of children, and the introduction of a European family structure. These elements would stop nomadic tendencies, the basis for civilization, once you have punishment you can introduce the idea of suffering, educating the children to European standards would bring them out of their parents' backward ways, and a European family structure would place the man at the head instead of their traditional woman, which would help them to respect a central chief. Once you have a centralized system that has an element of suffering you can show them how it's like the church and how through suffering they can get to heaven.
My point? Religious rhetoric can turn an entire tribe's way of life on it's head used with the right pressure and it's historical welders were very good at using it. So the idea of America is inherently tied to religious language. Could we really expect differently based on our history? I mean we were founded by people who wanted to do things their own way, but mainly the religion thing, they still liked most of England's system just not their decadence in religion. So my point, if I even have a point at this juncture, is that maybe we need to accept that we'll be using religious language for better or worse and as long as we don't shove it down people's throats, we can live with it. And part and parcel of religion is making yours better than the other guy's...so it follows that whatever you're supporting has to be better than anything else. The words simply demand it.

Manifest Destiny: Post-Class Response

2008-02-05T21:12:00.000-05:00

I agree with Tim today’s class was a very useful approach to this book, but I don’t know how it would work with other novels. I did like that we were able to list all our points on the projector screen and that way we were able to tie them together and refer to them again better. Post class my feelings towards the book and its ideas are the same, but they are now more organized and the class let me organize them better. There is still something about the concept that every empire creates a sense of uniqueness and a special role in the world for itself, usually for some reason at the expense of others; and justifies this by giving itself a special high role and placement in the hierarchy of the world. Humanity does seem to be of parasitical nature and either needs to live at the expense of others or its environment.

Class 2/5

2008-02-05T18:40:00.000-05:00

Yeah, toys in class. So not only are we in sort of a rebel class we were experimenting with a new program. I enjoyed having the laptops so we could do all of that simultaneous research but the Tiffany system for displaying was absolutely pathetic. I talked with PTJ after class and he said that he had warned the university not to buy that system but instead get some sort of Apple program. He mentioned that the Model Classroom was designed to accommodate Mac equipment, not windows. As the guinea pigs, I believe we may have proved to AU that they need to listen to people who know what they're talking about when buying new programs. I think that our approach today was pretty effective in increasing our discussion. I don't know if it will work for the other books we're reading though. This one was at least vaguely historical so the examples were easy to find. In the more remote reaches of our subject this may lose some of its effect but overall I feel its a good idea.

Manifest Destiny: Pre-Class Response

2008-02-05T05:13:00.000-05:00

This was kind of painful for me to read. For many reasons: A.) it made me realize that I had forgotten many details I learned about US History in APUSH (AP US History) and it made me remember why US history isn’t one of my favorite to study B.) Once again made me frustrated with humanity and its tendency to hypocrisy and I saw many examples of how people can twist many things (especially religion) to justify their actions (if you recall my post for the Moon is a Harsh Mistress, I was frustrated for similar reasons concerning colonization) C.) It further frustrates me because it seems that we still haven’t learned. Now I know US isn’t the only country to act this way, but since the book focused America, and it is indeed powerful enough that its actions have a great affect on humanity as a whole, I will now focus on US actions past and present. Mike’s comment concerning “racial purity and ethnic cleansing” is similar to how I felt as I was reading this. And some of the examples Jen highlighted are a good example of instances in which US’s actions just seem unjust despite the fact that they were justified by the American people, like the example she gave on page 36 concerning the incident in Mexico. This book has just reaffirmed my opinion that America has long been a master of manipulation and of covering up dirty or self-interested actions with virtuous words and pretty ideas. And the scary thing is that thousands of people whole heartedly believed this whole concept of manifest destiny and over time it kept morphing but ultimately it was still used to justify aggression or domination towards people who are different or in some cases weaker. As a person who whole heartedly believes in trying to keep an open mind, the importance of studying and finding out about other cultures, communication, understanding, and just in general being more open to peaceful interaction, collaboration and communication among societies that are culturally different, America’s attitude as described in this book and their past (and present) actions towards “others” greatly frustrates me to the point that I had to force myself to finish this book. This book presented in an organized manner information I have encountered before, and provided me with more in depth details and examples. But it just reaffirmed my frustration with how America has acted and how it sometimes still views itself today. Don’t get me wrong, there are many great things about this country and in no way are Americans the only ones who have done this, but there are still people in this country that are just as narrow minded and will proudly proclaim to anyone why US is #1 and is so great for the world. And current world events show that America is still taking the wrong approach and that it is further hurting its reputation. Currently the world and international relations involve sooooo many complex and ever changing factors plus the subjects brought up in this book are not black and white. So I will sum up my rant by saying that in general it aggravates and discourages me that humans can rationalize and justify unjust and horrible actions in some cases and point the finger and accuse another group (or person) of committing atrocities, even though in principle they were doing the same thing.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress: Post-class reaction

2008-02-04T22:12:00.001-05:00

Sorry for another late reflection, half the school got sick and I was one of the unlucky, and have been battling illness the past few days. But concerning our class discussion on The Moon is a Harsh Mistress I think our discussion went in an interesting direction. The whole issue of morality is a delicate question, when you throw in artificial intelligence it gets even more muddled. I still believe that an important part of any discussion concerning morality is the situation, because the ways humans have constructed society it’s ok in some cases to do some things or it’s ok for one group but not for another, and often when looking at morality one can see many cases of hypocrisy. So I found it hard to make up my mind completely concerning Mike’s morality especially since we only got one perspective in the book and we don’t know what happened exactly. And I can see that all of you have contemplated on the morality question as well. And I feel like with humanity morality will never be black and white, for example in any conflict the winner writes the history and their actions are justified by the morals and standards of their society. And I think in the future with all new technologies and inventions (cloning, artificial intelligence, etc.) The morality issue is going to get even more confusing, it’s already changing and it doesn’t seem like that will change any time soon.

Manifest Destiny

2008-02-04T19:32:00.000-05:00

I would like to be able to talk primarily about Stephanson's work, but since we watched those few episodes of Star Trek, all I can focus on when I try to think about the book is the examples in the show.
I feel the need to place a disclaimer here: I have not watched much Star Trek, really none other than those three episodes on Sunday, so the points I make here are based upon analysis of these individual episodes only and not on larger themes throughout the series.

I'll begin with "I, Borg." In this episode we see the Federation happening upon a crashed Borg ship and they find one survivor on board. The Borg have no concept of self, they identify themselves as numbers and always as "we". The crew bring the Borg on board the Enterprise and they decide to use the Borg to destroy the entire Borg civilization because the Borg war with the Federation and are thus evil. This mirrors the concepts in Manifest Destiny in which two conflicting cultures make war on each other due to the lack of cultural understanding. Later, when the Borg becomes more human-like taking on the name of Hugh, standing up for his friend, and identifying himself as an individual the crew feels that they must take him in to protect him from the harsh savages of Borg life. The same is true in history where Indians that conformed to American customs typically were viewed as civilized whereas those continuing in the traditional customs were seen as savages.

Next we have "Ensign Ro." Here the Federation believes that they can use a Bajorian who is loyal to the Federation to catch a group of Bajorian terrorists. Again, Americans often used Indians who had become Americanized to assist them in their conquest over the Indians.

Finally, "First Contact." This is the best example from our selection. In this episode the Enterprise is conducting a program of making contact with the Arkonians, a comparatively primitive society that is only now about to develop warp capabilities. The Federation normally takes these developing planets and guides them as they eventually join the Federation. Chancellor Durken believes that the Federation will attempt to seize control over his planet and lead them down a path that they do not wish to go. Minister Krola thinks that the Federation will simply attack them. These are exactly the sorts of things that the Americans did to the Indians.

Granted this was based mostly on Star Trek, but these episodes were heavily influenced by the sorts of concepts Stephanson outlined in Manifest Destiny.

American Empire: Fun for the Whole World

2008-02-04T13:56:00.000-05:00

First and foremost, this book makes the following point quite clearly: regardless of how we learned American history, Americans had the ideas of racial purity and ethnic cleansing down to a science centuries before the Nazis were even an idea, much less a reality. This is oversimplification, perhaps, but the book goes through and catalogs the crimes committed in the expansion of America, but merely as facts and not as condemnation. I feel like this history, as laid out in the book, of America being the hope for the world; the Other, free from the Old Ways of corruption and despotism, and so forth - only we as Americans can save the world, either by being the example for all or by direct intervention. This trend is clearly still an active force in our national psyche today: we are always going in to liberate people, implicitly stating that their government and leadership are inferior to ours and need to be corrected. While this is something we have done for most of our history, I feel like it is short-sighted and arrogant of us to continue in this manner. Even in seemingly simple cases, like giving aid to poor nations - we should not see it as we are helping them since they cannot help themselves because of implicit inferiority - instead, we as a nation should refocus our aid domestically and internationally to work towards development in a sustained fashion: feeding a family for 6 months is good, but helping that same family start producing their own food (thereby adding to the local economy) is far better. I am by no means saying that giving aid is a bad thing - I just feel as though our motives (when drawn out to their final conclusions) should reflect a desire to help other human beings of equal worth, something that has historically (and in many cases, currently) tarnishes the aid this nation provides to others.

Secondly, I wanted to speak to the author's discussion of religion playing a role in manifest destiny. While throughout the book he mentions the importance of Christian religion (which was the dominant religion of this nation for quite some time), he misses a vital point. The religious wars in England and Europe (which he does discuss) spawned the huge chasm between Catholics and Protestants, and later between the individual denominations therein. Many of the religious intellectuals of Europe disliked this intensely, and made speculative Masonry, or the Freemasons (something he does not discuss) in order to combat this religious hatred. Many of these individuals came to America, being against the status quo of Europe. Many of these same immigrants played vital roles in the foundation of this nation, and their aims have forever guided the path America has taken. Masonry, being an institution of civil religion, aimed to make religiously-grounded, pro-America, pro-fellow-man citizens. Therefore, many individual Christian denominations were swept up by this idea of America's importance in offering aid to other nations, there was also the more generalized religious Masons who forwarded this aim as well. This is not speaking to the rampant pro-Anglo-Saxon thoughts that prevailed, merely a statement that the author may have missed some important evidence in the cohesive, American motives of "helping" other nations and people (whatever that meant in a given time period).

Fare thee well

-Mike

Visions of the Past, Courtesy of Stephanson

2008-02-03T19:52:00.000-05:00

I had to change my usual title this week, because we aren't exactly dealing with science fiction or the future, but our history. So maybe I should have called it America: Reinterpreted, or something. Or something witty from the Complete History of America (abridged) that Tim and I went to (albeit coincidentally at the same time). But I didn't.
Instead of focusing on themes this time around, I think I'll point out some things I found interesting. Or maybe just one theme.
Religion. I've thought a bit about it, being person who goes to church on a weekly basis and is fairly active in my community, but I didn't really make all the connections Stephanson did. I mean, I caught the bit about the Puritans using religion as a reason for doing stuff and the whole city on a hill thing, but I'm not sure I connected Manifest Destiny itself to religion. I just connected it to "hey, we're here and no one else is so all of this should be ours anyway and not yours. Or yours. Or that guy's over there. So back off." Oops. But I see it now, and I think Stephanson makes a lot of sense.
Okay, now to interesting bits.
Pg. 17-18: Pointing to Madison for turning the vastness quandary around to a good thing and the Jackson era for making expansion a necessity. I bet the European powers used this same argument a bit later on/around the same time for the whole imperialism/colonialism thing with adding the idea that they've done pretty well so far so everyone should follow their model of doing things and the best way to do that is by becoming part of them. Eventually this turned from exerting real control into an umbrella or spheres of influence once they got over the whole control thing. But we beat them to that too: the Monroe Doctrine.
Pg. 23: The Louisiana Purchase and buying the land becoming the proper way of expanding. I liked the part about how we'd insist on paying something even when we'd gotten it fair and square in a war, like most other countries do it. Aren't we nice? Also, we seem to have dropped the ball on the whole Cuba thing very early in the game and have yet to recover from it.
Pg. 36-37: The whole Santa Anna/setting up the Mexican American War. I didn't know that about that war, that Polk sort of made it happen. Not something we covered in AP US History...I think. No, I'm pretty sure. Anyway, this is why you don't try to trick the country into going along with something by using members of foreign governments, they usually try to renege on the deal to do better for themselves like Santa Anna rallying his country. You'd think he'd be in such awe of the power of America he wouldn't dare cross it. Go figure.
Pg. 55: Phrenology and blacks "fading away" as a race. First off, let me say I've always found phrenology hilarious. That respectable (although an argument could be made that by believing in this they could hardly be so) scientists believed that measuring the skull and interpreting the bumps led to insights into character. Not exactly an exact science, like astrology. Second, the idea that a race could fade away just by wishing or deciding it would happen is ludicrous. Look at the Native Americans, they tried pretty hard to wipe them out and it didn't work then either. Nor should it. Diversity is good. Like Stephanson said earlier on in the book, a multitude of groups prevents one from taking over and keeps people on their toes.
Pg. 65: Civil War revitalizing confidence in the American mission. In my American Philosophy class we discussed how James, Peirce, and Dewey (nicely mentioned on pg. 83) likened America to an experiment, with the Civil War proving that America was nice and strong idea-wise, it just got shaken up a bit by the whole slavery/North-South debacle. Since none of them were really gung-ho on religion, though they accepted it, we didn't talk about the religious context but it certainly makes sense for Northern ministers to spin the war as a divine thing and those pesky Southerners were trying to ruin the chosen land. If a war's not about religion in the first place, it'll certainly come in as being on our side and not their's, no matter the side.
Pg. 82: Social-Darwinism and how it's not really Darwinian. True. Darwin was hardly the first evolutionary theorist (and I should know, this philosophy class had us research ideas prior to Darwin to give context to the pragmatists and how evolutionary theory influenced their thinking, turns out it did- a lot) and he sort of cobbled everything together without the whole religion thing that people like Comte de Buffon had to deal with. But Darwin did have the natural selection thing and anything open-ended tends to scare people so Darwin gets the blame. At least we know who he was, the other guys weren't so lucky, or were depending on how you look at it. But who wants to call it Social-Spencerism? The alliteration's a bit much.
Pg. 115-117: Wilson and the League of Nations. I feel sort of bad for Wilson. He put all that effort into the League only to have America let him down and thus let down the rest of the world. Now, if America had been as responsive as Wilson would have liked to the idea would World War 2 still have happened? Good question but most likely. The mistakes made regarding Germany would still have happened, especially since Germany didn't qualify for the League.

Altogether I liked this book and look forward to our discussion on Tuesday. And yes, I was feeling a bit snarky as I wrote this.

Reflection, Class 3

2008-02-01T12:53:00.000-05:00

I know what you mean, Mike, about the whole morality question being relevant. When I read the book I didn't even blink at Mike's actions (the computer, not our group member). Perhaps this says more about what I've read or studied but I didn't question the morality of it. Yes, crashing a ship that surrendered is bad but they don't seem to abide by any sort of rules of war. And Luna is full of convicts or their descendants so skirting a few Earth customs isn't that much of a stretch, they didn't exactly abide by them in the first place, did they?
Now that I've thought about it more I'm impressed by the rational thinking the Loonies display. Yes, they have their passions, but by and large they operate a pretty rational society. In a place where death is all to easy to occur, a credit system would pose problems especially when so many came with absolutely nothing. The resources that are absolutely essential, air, water, women, are protected and shared if someone else is in dire need, at least air is and women aren't hoarded either. Mike's actions were the prudent thing and the revolutionaries did what needed to be done.

Reflection on 1/29 Class

2008-01-31T10:14:00.000-05:00

Good morning everyone:

Let me just say that I spent some time going back through parts of the book, because some of the things we took as true in our discussion yesterday ended up not quite being accurate - I am going to go add those changes to the wiki after this post.

In class, I liked the fact that we were split into two groups that were able to manage our ideas better. I feel like the quality of the discussion overall was much better, since each subgroup had time to focus in its own direction. For the group I was in, I enjoyed the emphasis put on the fact that morality might not be the right term for a computer; perhaps ethics is more accurate? I am not sure I totally agreed with that line of thought, but its reasoning was well done.

I also enjoyed the comments made part of the way into our discussion that even if morality was the correct way to define the question of mike's actions, did it really matter in time of war/revolution (when morality is shifted across many people anyways)? Having thought about the discussion we had over that point, I have come to a conclusion of my own. In reality, if the morality prevailing over a system needs to be suspended to get rid of that system, then the morality was also flawed in the first place and needs to be educated out of the people (as we discussed in class). In terms of the book, the morality of Earth was strongly against capital punishment (as they say), yet they are perfectly willing to send convicts to the moon, where there is approximately a 50% survival rate in the first few weeks. This is fairly indicative of the morality being skewed, which seems to match the fact that the Loonies eventually prevailed. I am not sure if thats entirely fair, but it seems somewhat accurate to me.

-Mike

Class 1/29

2008-01-29T20:27:00.000-05:00

Well one thing is for sure, PTJ was right in that we did not have time to cover a huge number of the things in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. But hey, what can you do?
This is a book that I would actually be quite interested to see somebody try to make a film version of. Clearly, the book would be far superior, but since there is no way you could make it all into a film it would be interesting to see the choices made as to what would be cut.
There is one thing about today's discussion that I am not really sure was properly done. We all went with the assumption that Mike chose to shut himself down, at least his "human" aspects. We essentially ignored the possibility that he may have actually "died" in the sense that he may have been damaged and unable to reproduce his humanesque elements anymore.
I'm also still a little ambiguous on what combinations of factors actually led to the situation presented in the book. Yes, we talked about it for quite some time, but our answers were by no means exhaustive.
Oh and my answer to the question: would men be valued if Luna had AU's population? Ah, no.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress: Pre-class reaction

2008-01-29T11:02:00.000-05:00

Yea…too many things in this book to be able to address all of them in a blog. But I will mention some key issues that stood out the most to me. One of the main ones being that this whole incident to me was a big parallel to all many cases of colonization in human history. First the Europeans colonized North and South America and eventually the exploited colonies revolted. Later US and again European powers colonized Africa, India and South America. Again this led to exploitation and ultimately to many outcries for independence. And once again in this book we see the super powers of Earth exploiting yet another colony and then they are affronted by their desire for self rule and believe it to be a silly notion. Basically, it made me frustrated with humanity. Even considering modern neocolonialism it frustrates me how hypocritical US and other world powers be. Especially US who is “the champion” of freedom and rights. Not to mention US was exploited as a colony and claims to have all these grand principles and yet justifies exploiting many 3rd world counties with the excuse of “well it’s a free market.” This issue especially rang true for me in Chapter 27 when the people of Earth were outraged that the Loonies actually retaliated and were actually fighting for their freedom: how dare those “convicts” actually bomb us and kill thousands (who were idiots in the first place not to listen). It just made me frustrated with humanity because the reaction of the people of Earth seems very plausible to me: narrow minded and attached to old ways. “Well the moon has always been OUR colony and that has been convenient for us so how dare those lowly convicts with their disgusting ways (polygamy and lawless ways) try and claim that they deserve rights and ruin our monopoly on their resources.” I saw this attitude in the Earth peoples reaction to Lunar married life (Mannie’s arrest was organized by Stu and the Prof, but the peoples reaction was still genuine, some were understanding but many were typically narrow minded, but the fact that it could be made an issue is what upsets me). Also in Chapter 19 when the Authority claimed that they decided that they need to civilize the Lunar colonies, but of course in a very “fair and just way” and the citizens do “have the option” of returning to their original countries, and it is “for their own good”. The people of Earth weren’t the ones to disappoint I was also frustrated with how the Loonies were acting shortly post their revolt. In the second half of chapter 14 Heinlein describes what people of the moon do post revolution and many basically complain and demand but don’t want to do the work without pay. And many had suggestion and thought themselves to be perfect for a job of power, but few were actually willing to put in the labor, and had to be organized, coaxed, and manipulated into actually doing something. And what the Prof says on page 205 concerning how people always want to stop others “for their own good” is a very powerful point. Because that is what the people of Earth wanted to do to the Loonies, and what some of the Loonies wanted to do to other Loonies. And all of these issues can be seen in modern society.

The Time Machine: post-class response

2008-01-29T08:27:00.001-05:00

My reflection for class is also a bit late. Although like Jen I still want more from the book, post class discussion I appreciate more how Wells conveyed his message concerning humanity. Although, like the professor said, our perception of science and where humanity is headed is greatly changed, for his time period I think Wells story was successful at least in the way it made people think about humanity and where it was headed. It made all of us think about it too, we just disagreed more with him.
One thing we didn’t talk about a lot is the remakes of the book into movies. Concerning the recent movie version I don’t remember most of it but I do remember that I liked one thing about it. In it the time traveler first goes into the not so distant future, there he goes to a museum where the tour guide is a hologram. Later in the movie when the time traveler is in the time of the Eloi and Morloks, he stumbles upon a place and the hologram again activates and talks to him. I don’t know why exactly but I really like that they did that because I like the idea that even though the people don’t remember creating it a technology they created still exists many years later and still functions, its kind of eerie if you think about it. But to go back to a point previously made I think that that part of the movie makes more sense with our time today. Because today humanity is inventing all sorts of technology that is mind blowing and if anything and the human race was to die out I can’t help but feel that some technology would continue functioning and performing its job even when no one is there to appreciate it.

The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress

2008-01-28T19:47:00.000-05:00

Well where does one begin in a reflection on this work. I guess I must begin with a warning:
Danger Intrepid Blogger, Danger!
I am a historian, and thus I always tend to view sci-fi as a theoretical progression from the world the author is writing in. In this case, the height of the Cold War.
Heinlein is using this future situation as a example of what he feels is likely to happen if the world were to continue on its policies of the mid-1960s. There are several themes throughout the book that leads me to this claim.
First there is the colonization of the moon. Heinlein published this in 1966, that is a full three years before "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Heinlein lived in a world where the two world superpowers, the USA and the USSR, in the midst of the Space Race whose ultimate goal was in controlling the moon. At the time that was not simply in being the first to land a man on the moon but also both nations thought that they could colonize the moon.
The next issue is that of the mingling cultures. In the '60s there were generally two powers with several others being influential. The Loonies are clearly pretty American as the Professor shows by constantly referencing American History. In addition, they are also quite Russian as their language suggests. If you are unclear about this read it with a Russian accent and you will see what I mean. Also the Hindus and the Chinese have a substantial role, these were the other two big groups that people believed would play a larger role in the future.
Another significant commentary is Mike. In the '60s computer technology was making leaps and bounds in development and many feared that one day technology would wind-up controlling the humans. The more practical fear at the time was that by entrusting Nuclear Missile Firing Control to computers an accidental apocalypse would ensue.
Finally, my favorite is that of the Federated Nations. This is obviously a reference to the United Nations with the Grand Assembly referring to the General Assembly. Several times their predecessors are mentioned meaning that the Federated Nations is some sort of a reincarnation of the United Nations. This makes sense when considering that the United Nations was not the first such organization but really just a new and improved League of Nations just as the Federated Nations is a new and improved United Nations. Also the fact that the soldiers sent to Luna are called the Peace Dragoons is clearly a commentary on the new concept of UN Peacekeepers.
There is one thing that bothers me about the military tactics of the Loonies. Why are catapults the most effective weapon? With all of the knowledge of missiles why is the most dangerous weapon one of history's oldest weapons?
In the end, there is really only one thing that can sum up Heinlein's work. They named a Martian Crater after him! How can you top that?!

Substantive Post 2, on The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

2008-01-28T18:42:00.000-05:00

I must say, I really enjoyed the book - my favorite part was the use of language. The fact that everything is interspersed with Russian makes me feel like this is a commentary on the Soviet Union, because of the obvious other factors - russian language and names, revolution against an unfair Authority, a professor (symbol of intelligence) who is basically as individualistic as humanly possible, and so forth. I am also amused that the person that is "opted" into the leadership position of the first cell of the Revolution has the moon's version of Skynet (ie Mike/Michelle) as his best friend, and that he is polygamus.... and stable. What an interesting character he is - I am curious about what people will make of him in class this week.

My other favorite excerpt from the book is when the Professor is describing his political views and says he is a rational anarchist. He goes on to say that it means he knows he is in an imperfect world, but wants to live a perfect life - by which he means he is trying to lie to himself that he is imperfect too. I don't know why, but something about his explanation struck a chord with me. I also enjoyed his discussion of the fact that if there are H-missiles (which there are), its still one person in control of whether to use them or not, reducing all concepts of blame and guilt to individual decisions. Now, what he would say to problems that are the cause of many people making the same poor choice collectively at the same time? Maybe he'd say chance, but I might be inclined to disagree...

-Mike

Reflection, Class 2

2008-01-28T18:22:00.000-05:00

This is a bit late, but I do have something regarding the class discussion that stuck with me this whole week. In the midst of the conversation, when I brought up capitalism and communism as having roles in the book (incorrectly as it were), a whole bunch of people had a point to make all of a sudden. I then sat back and listened to where the conversation was going, and I was surprised by one of the eventual comments: "its like the perfect working class - people who only want to eat and work." While this was a joking comment about the apparent previous state of the Morlocks, I think I took something more from it. For most of history, the majority of the Earth's population has lived at a subsistence level - meaning they worked in order to survive, and then slept, and then repeated the process each and every day. Although not all of them enjoyed it, there is something to be said for manual labor as a wholly, lastingly satisfying endeavor. To use an outside source, as Morgan Freeman playing God put it in Bruce Almighty:

"

Just like your father.
He didn’t mind rolling up his sleeves either, son.
People underestimate the benefits of
good old manual labor.                 
Just think a minute.           
Some of the happiest people in the world,
go home smelling to high heaven at the end of the day.

"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315327/

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/b/bruce-almighty-script-transcript-carrey.html

There is more to that quote than many people DO realize - I can attest to it personally. That said, the Morlocks have appeared to have moved beyond their supposed work/eat/smile phase, and this may be a moot point. I still wanted to say something about it, however.

Visions of the Future, Courtesy of Heinlein

2008-01-28T10:15:00.000-05:00

It's hard to know what to talk about in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress because there's so much good stuff in it. From the organization of the resistance to TANSTAAFL the whole book is full of topics that could fill this blog, so I'll just touch on a few.
First, I was fascinated by the description of family life Heinlein provided. From Wyoming's triad to Mannie's line marriage. It made a lot of sense, I thought. In a place where women are scarce, naturally they'd be protected more than they would on Earth in this time or ours. Everyone is taught at a young age the value of everyone else so jealousies within the multiple couple groupings would be minimized. Women are valued so that rape isn't a problem, and only is an issue when the off-worlders, so to speak, don't abide by the rules of Luna. It is the rape and murder of a woman that sets the revolution in motion and unites the fractured people of Luna.
Second, how could I not touch on Mike? A super computer that achieves sentience and without whom the "Loonies" would have gotten nowhere. We never do figure out why Mike is willing to help out, perhaps due to loyalty to Mannie and to the people Mannie introduces to him. Perhaps he was interested to see how the Loonies would accomplish their goals, maybe it was just a joke to him, like inflating the check at the beginning of the book (13). It must have been fun for him, in any case. From creating the look of Adam Selene to participating in the resistance through managing the phones. I also wonder what happened to him at the end. Is he hiding somewhere within his programming? Or was the shock of the attack too much for his system, like he's in a coma?
Third, it wasn't until near the end that I truly understood that the book was written from Mannie's point of view in that he himself was writing it, as a proper history of the time before, during, and after the revolution. I had wondered at the narrative style, with the dropped words, at the beginning of the book but figured it was just to match up with Mannie's speaking style. But no, Mannie is the author of the book, which makes sense. So I suppose this comment is about Mannie's style. Words like "dinkum thinkum" (12) and in the inclusion of Russian words like "nyet" (171) and "gospazha" (111), blending like the cultures and ethnicities did on the moon after they were basically dropped there. It makes sense that the ethnic groups blended together until only a Loonie culture emerged, since they could never get back to Earth due to body changes there would be no reason to stick to loyalty to the mother country.
Lastly, for this post, I was very impressed by the skill of the Professor. Between coordination with Mike and his use of history to tailor their revolution to America's and using the American Revolution blueprint to win sympathy with North America he was as important as Mike in the revolution. Also having Mannie play different countries off against each other in constructing a catapult was diplomatic genius, in my opinion.
I did like this book better than last week's, perhaps because there was so much more to it, more of a world to explore. A more complete picture of a possibility than Wells could provide.

Reflection, Class 2

2008-01-23T17:20:00.001-05:00

Wow, we really went all over the place during class, didn't we? I agree with you Tim, I think we're all at a consensus about not wanting to end up like the Eloi. I still haven't changed my mind about the shortcomings of the book and I think other people wanted more of the world too, but c'est la vie, tis not to be.
I did want to comment further on the gender roles in the book, something I'd glossed over before. Maybe it wasn't a big point for Wells, but he does relegate Weena to be a pet, a creature comfort for the Time Traveler, something Victorian women were-just a possession. The Time Traveler expresses a tiny bit of loss but doesn't seem to try to go back and save her, just moves on after the loss of his companion, as if he'd lost his tie. I think we now expect women to be a bit more, which is why in movie versions, however bad they may be, Weena becomes more fleshed out and a love interest. Untrue to the book, perhaps, but closer to a better version of the female lead.
Also I couldn't help but think of the movie Serenity (for those who don't know it, it was a movie that tacked on to the Joss Whedon series Firefly, which was cancelled prematurely by Fox, a recurring dilemma for that network) and the planet Miranda. On that planet, a centralized dictator-ish government introduced a chemical into the air (it was a terraformed planet) called the "pax" meant to weed out aggression and calm the population. However, it worked a bit too well as most of the population (sorry if I'm spoiling the movie for some of you) simply gave up the will to live, having lost so much due to the pax they went to the ultimate calm, simply not breathing. However, for a small percentage the pax served to rev up their natural aggression to new heights until they became (Well's favorite) cannibals. So, the Eloi I paralleled to the ones who simply died and the Morlocks to the cannibals, called Reavers.
And thus, I conclude my thoughts for this week. See you all next week on the moon!

Links:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0379786/