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.
Showing posts with label Substantive. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Substantive. Show all posts
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Look to Windward
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.
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.
Visions of the Future, Courtesy of Banks
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.
"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.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Looking to the ward side of the wind
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
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
Monday, April 21, 2008
Children of God: Pre-class Reaction
Like everyone, this book didn’t have as intense of an effect on me as The Sparrow. But I still think it is a well written book and raises many new key points, and also builds on points made in the first book.
In the beginning when we find out Supaari’s perception of the situation concerning the foreigners, Sandoz and overall his perception of society was one of my favorite twists in the book. It just says so much. First off at the end of the last book one would consider Supaari to be like Carlo, a shrewd businessman who would sell anything and anyone as long as it got him what he wanted. But we realize that his actions actually did have good intent and were just a gross misunderstanding. The way Russell orchestrated the conversation was flawless, because it truly demonstrates just how easy it is for two cultures to be so completely on different pages. They were talking about different cultural practices, without realizing how poorly they were phrasing their ideas. It seems to me to be one of the biggest pitfalls; thinking that the other culture has something that is the same or similar that can be relate to and thus understood. Supaari who was marginalized by his place in society and couldn’t have the family he wanted was in no way able to understand Sandoz’s ambiguous explanation as to why he chooses to remain celibate. So I hold more sympathy for him and I am not sure if “he got what he deserved” I guess it may have been his time to die, but I don’t think he had anything coming to him because he was never truly malicious and he worked hard to correct his mistakes.
The other thing that I would like to mention is the constant repetition of the theme of “the end justifying the means” I was reminded of this concept after reading Jen’s reaction to Hlavin. He did change the Ja’anala culture for the better, but was not the nicest person, nor were his means all that nice. He was manipulative and risked a lot to get what he wanted, but I feel like there have been people in history who have been forgiven for their deeds because the end was considered justified. So I have mixed feelings about Hlavin. And this theme is also tied to Danny, the Father General, and even the Runa.
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.
Children of God
I'm in agreement with Jen that I have no orderly reaction to this book. Throughout the reading I continually bounced back and forth between feeling for the characters and thinking that they got what they deserved.
Ditto with the belief that The Sparrow could have stood alone. I did appreciate how this work did show the results but I actually thought that it detracted from the original storyline. Mostly because we all had such strong reactions to Sandoz's story I feel like we almost know too much now.
I believe this would be a great book if it was written independently. I loved the interactions between the various races especially their interbreeding and seeing the later generations grow up. However, by making it all a spin-off of the original book I brought all of my biases created by the first to this one. If it was different characters I think it would be great, it just doesn't work for me as a sequel.
I know this isn't much but I just don't have enough thoughts on this to say much else.
I'm really looking forward to what everybody else thought about it tomorrow.
Ditto with the belief that The Sparrow could have stood alone. I did appreciate how this work did show the results but I actually thought that it detracted from the original storyline. Mostly because we all had such strong reactions to Sandoz's story I feel like we almost know too much now.
I believe this would be a great book if it was written independently. I loved the interactions between the various races especially their interbreeding and seeing the later generations grow up. However, by making it all a spin-off of the original book I brought all of my biases created by the first to this one. If it was different characters I think it would be great, it just doesn't work for me as a sequel.
I know this isn't much but I just don't have enough thoughts on this to say much else.
I'm really looking forward to what everybody else thought about it tomorrow.
Visions of the Future, Courtesy of Russell, Part 2
It seems to me that the very essence of tragedy is some happiness that is then ripped away with a kind of unfeeling coldness. There's quite a bit of tragedy in Children of God, just like in The Sparrow. My thoughts about the sequel weren't as pointed or coherent as for the first book, they sort of jumped all over the place, much like the different times, which I agree were important to try to follow. I still connect more with Emilio as a character, I really felt for him when stupid Carlo kidnapped him just when he was about to get some real peace with Gina. I felt horrid for her too and I wonder if she ever found out it was her ex that kidnapped Emilio. But Emilio got some peace in the end, a happy ending, which I think he more than deserved. After the roller coaster of the first book, he settled into a nice hatred of God for a while then got turned around again, finding his way back. I feel like he was sort of like Ripley from Aliens in much of this book. He didn't want anything to do with the mission, then was sort of forced into it, and was a consistent voice for caution. Of course, Ripley was right and the aliens weren't to be trusted on any sort of level and Emilio found that well, not all of the Jana'ata were so insensitive to his otherness and to the equality of the Runa.
Equality in which Sofia played a large role. I went back and forth on her a lot in this book. I understand her fierce opposition to the Jana'ata that ruled her life but at the same time, her son Isaac only works as a hostage if you make some kind of demands, which the Jana'ata did not do. Her lack of understanding Isaac led her to believe that he was a hostage and couldn't really conceive of him staying of his own free will. I agree with Mike that both Isaac and Sofia were kind of frustrating and each could have used a bit of love in their relationship to the other.
Hlavin and Supaari seemed to get the ends they deserved. Yes, my understanding of Supaari has deepened and thus my sympathy but I can't really sympathize with Hlavin. He's still the megalomanic that he always was but I suppose he did help Jana'ata society by breaking down the rigid social structure. Hunting Runa for sport isn't much better than just killing them though.
So, although The Sparrow could have stood alone I think it was helped by Children of God, just so that the fallout from the first mission could be seen in its entirety, not just for Emilio but for the Jana'ata and Runa on Rakhati.
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.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Interspecies-DNA: My favorite genre of music
Sipaj everyone:
Having finished the sequel, I am surprised to say that I don't know how I feel about it. Having felt so strongly about the first book, and actually still feeling strongly about it, I am oddly in the position of feeling ambivalent about this one. I am not sure if it is the change in temporal narration, or perhaps the characters are not as easy for me to identify with; I am not sure, and I hope to take some meaning out of these characters come class on Tuesday.
Regardless of my aggregate opinion on the book, I have to say that the unexpected method by which Emilio was taken to Rakhat again was something I did not foresee, even with the Camorra ties constantly being thrown in my face as the reader. I was expecting some sort of miraculous event to change his mind, and that never happened until he heard the music discovered by Isaac. On this subject, I would have to say that Isaac was one of my least favorite characters, mostly due to the narrative always having him insist on his mother coming to him. Something about the repetitive use of that demand wore on me after a while, due to its infernal screaming that Sofia would in fact move, thanks for the heavy-handed foreshadowing... On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoyed Nico's character above and beyond any other in either book, probably because of his combination of love for opera and his expert use of salami to redeem a destroyed man's humanity. In seriousness, the way the author used this character seemed to me as one of the anchors for the title of the book (the conversation amongst Hana'la and her family aside), because for all intents and purposes Nico was a child, and being D'angeli, perhaps was a bit of a reference to this by the author. He took people at their word, tried to do the right thing, always honestly apologized for what he had done wrong, and in the end was arguably the most morally upright of anyone on the second mission. I feel as though his presence on the mission was the most important of any of the others, yet again for reasons that are currently not clear to me (perhaps some of this "sleep" would do me some good....).
In any event, have a good evening, and I feel like "Interspecies-DNA" could go places as a band name...
-Mike
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
Monday, April 14, 2008
The Conquest of America
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.
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
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.
Conquest: an All-American pursuit
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
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
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Visions of the Past, Courtesy of Todorov
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
The Sparrow: Pre-class Reaction
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.”
Monday, April 7, 2008
The Sparrow: Terribly close to home
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
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
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.
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.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Visions of the Future, Courtesy of Russell
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?
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?
Monday, March 31, 2008
The Concept of the Political: Pre-Class Reactions
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.
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
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.
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.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Visions of the Past, Courtesy of Schmitt
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.
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.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Schmitt's Concept of the Political
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
