I think the classroom needs an upgrade
http://www.nikkoamerica.com/nhe/
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Children of God Reflective
Apologies for the late post, my capstone temporarily ate all of my time.
Going along with Liz's and Phil's posts, I agree that the revolution would not have happened without outside influence, but I think it was Sophia's assimilation into Runa society which kept the revolt going. In class, I mentioned the connection I saw between Sophia and liberation theologists in Latin America, and on reflection, I think that it is a relatively apt comparison. One of the most basic reasons that liberation theology took such a strong hold in places like El Salvador was because it introduced leftist ideas as a part of the pre-established Catholic culture. This is not to say that leftist ideals about class equality and labor equity would not have caught on eventually, but by couching it in theological terms it became much easier to make liberation ideas a part of every day existence. Likewise, I believe that Sophia's shout of "we are many they are one" might have eventually sunk in for a few Runa and maybe someday there would have been a revolution. However, the fact that Sophia became stranded with the Runa, and learned their cultural ways, meant that she was able to adapt her idea of justice to fit within their cultural framework. I believe it was because Sophia became an accepted member of the Runa culture that she was able to become an effective proselytizer for justice. I think this goes along with what we discussed in relation to the Spanish in Mesoamerica. It was not the priests and conquistadors who viewed the indigenous populations as essentially Spanish in nature who were successful at converting and conquering, but rather the one who took the time to understand the culture which they were trying to interact with. Granted, Sophia's efforts were ostensibly more moral, but the principle behind them, I believe, was the same.
Going along with Liz's and Phil's posts, I agree that the revolution would not have happened without outside influence, but I think it was Sophia's assimilation into Runa society which kept the revolt going. In class, I mentioned the connection I saw between Sophia and liberation theologists in Latin America, and on reflection, I think that it is a relatively apt comparison. One of the most basic reasons that liberation theology took such a strong hold in places like El Salvador was because it introduced leftist ideas as a part of the pre-established Catholic culture. This is not to say that leftist ideals about class equality and labor equity would not have caught on eventually, but by couching it in theological terms it became much easier to make liberation ideas a part of every day existence. Likewise, I believe that Sophia's shout of "we are many they are one" might have eventually sunk in for a few Runa and maybe someday there would have been a revolution. However, the fact that Sophia became stranded with the Runa, and learned their cultural ways, meant that she was able to adapt her idea of justice to fit within their cultural framework. I believe it was because Sophia became an accepted member of the Runa culture that she was able to become an effective proselytizer for justice. I think this goes along with what we discussed in relation to the Spanish in Mesoamerica. It was not the priests and conquistadors who viewed the indigenous populations as essentially Spanish in nature who were successful at converting and conquering, but rather the one who took the time to understand the culture which they were trying to interact with. Granted, Sophia's efforts were ostensibly more moral, but the principle behind them, I believe, was the same.
Look to Windward Substantive
Before reading the book I was really interested with the cover, so when Kabe, Tersono, and Quilan were introduced I tried to find them on the cover. Turns out that I could only find the Hub's avatar. While reading, I couldn't shake this feeling that this book was different from the others we've read. Like Lindsay said, Banks did just drop us in the middle of this book--actually he left us hundreds of years after the Iridian War. But it's not a new feeling or entirely exclusive to science fiction. Throughout the book, the story is told through the points of view of non-humans. It's not as though Banks left out humans-- there are 50 million humans on Masaq'. But here we're looking through the eyes of a Chelgrian or Homomdan at the humans and Culture. I thought it was interesting how the contact in this instance is a non-human reaching out to humans, which we almost get at the end of Children of God. That being said, I really liked Banks' novel as an ending to this course. It was a pleasure reading these books (mostly the science fiction) and having class with everyone.
Children of God Reflection
Sorry this is last minute. I didn't have any complaints about the writing or parallel ways of Russell's book, but I guess I'm in the minority on that one. Going off what others have posted, I think that the Sofia brought the revolution to Rakhat. I don't believe that it would have happened without her. She was the one so insistent on bringing "justice" to Rakhat. If she had actually died during the uprising, like we all thought in The Sparrow, a revolution still would have occurred, thanks to the Runa mimicry, but it would not have reached the same level. But could any of the other members of the Stella Maris caused a revolution like this, or would Sofia, given her background, have been the only one to start the uprising? Had she lived, would Anne have done the same thing? I'm not sure, but I think Anne would have acted differently than Sofia. In Sparrow, Sandoz relates Sofia's action to a Hebrew phrase meaning woman of valor, somehow linking it back to religion. I'd like to think Anne would act differently causing a whole new chain of events, maybe preventing Sandoz from suffering. I can't help feeling sorry for him.
I relate Sofia living among the Runa with vegetarianism, kind of. She began to empathize with them, without understanding the social structure among Runa and Jana'ata. We sort of discussed what separates pets from breakfast. PTJ posed the question "does talking mean they are no longer prey?" My answer would be yes but only if the talking prey tells me to stop eating them. In the case of the Runa, some would still offer themselves up to the Jana'ata.
I relate Sofia living among the Runa with vegetarianism, kind of. She began to empathize with them, without understanding the social structure among Runa and Jana'ata. We sort of discussed what separates pets from breakfast. PTJ posed the question "does talking mean they are no longer prey?" My answer would be yes but only if the talking prey tells me to stop eating them. In the case of the Runa, some would still offer themselves up to the Jana'ata.
Windward Substinative
Natural vs. Unnatural
Unlike Tim I was not a huge fan of look to windward. I can't place my finger on anything specific--I just felt like the weapons pornesque descriptions of people things places (people that are places and things occasionally) could go on forever--and I tend to forget those parts of books pretty quickly anyway.
Back to my post. I hinted at this idea in my last post (below), but there is a certain unnatural assumption made about humanity--we, for some reason or another, view our selves as supernatural, able to manipulate and destroy that as it should be. This is a trait we seem to uniquely identify with ourselves and tend to remove from the other (even, often, when the other is human). Look to Windward had, to me, the most reasonable others because his others seemed capable of this same act of a supernatural nature. Yes, they are also unique in both their culture and physiological makeup (I will admit a giant living aware plant dirigible is pretty unique other), but unlike so many other examples of alien species we have explored the species of the Culture's universe are uniquely unnatural--they manipulate the world around them, ostracize members of their society, and have a knack for being destructive towards one another.
Again, I will grant that it was still the humans role to interfere in everything (as we love to do when serving as a hegemonic power), and the culture seemed (in a very human way) to suggest that they were solely responsible for the problems caused by this interference (you can read my previous post to see where I lay the blame for civil wars and revolutions supposedly caused by outside forces). This self as the only truly aware peoples is something we do even with other humans though, so I would not read much into it (Columbus describing the aboriginal americans along with the plants and birds--although after reading this novel you never know maybe the plants had names).
No, Bank's others are so oddly believable because they are so...well human...in that we use human to describe that odd woman folly we love to praise. They are human--disconnected with their environment, manipulative of the afterlife, destructive towards each other in a way the aliens of Alien, The Sparrow, Enders Game, and Just about anything else we covered this semester were not.
Unlike Tim I was not a huge fan of look to windward. I can't place my finger on anything specific--I just felt like the weapons pornesque descriptions of people things places (people that are places and things occasionally) could go on forever--and I tend to forget those parts of books pretty quickly anyway.
Back to my post. I hinted at this idea in my last post (below), but there is a certain unnatural assumption made about humanity--we, for some reason or another, view our selves as supernatural, able to manipulate and destroy that as it should be. This is a trait we seem to uniquely identify with ourselves and tend to remove from the other (even, often, when the other is human). Look to Windward had, to me, the most reasonable others because his others seemed capable of this same act of a supernatural nature. Yes, they are also unique in both their culture and physiological makeup (I will admit a giant living aware plant dirigible is pretty unique other), but unlike so many other examples of alien species we have explored the species of the Culture's universe are uniquely unnatural--they manipulate the world around them, ostracize members of their society, and have a knack for being destructive towards one another.
Again, I will grant that it was still the humans role to interfere in everything (as we love to do when serving as a hegemonic power), and the culture seemed (in a very human way) to suggest that they were solely responsible for the problems caused by this interference (you can read my previous post to see where I lay the blame for civil wars and revolutions supposedly caused by outside forces). This self as the only truly aware peoples is something we do even with other humans though, so I would not read much into it (Columbus describing the aboriginal americans along with the plants and birds--although after reading this novel you never know maybe the plants had names).
No, Bank's others are so oddly believable because they are so...well human...in that we use human to describe that odd woman folly we love to praise. They are human--disconnected with their environment, manipulative of the afterlife, destructive towards each other in a way the aliens of Alien, The Sparrow, Enders Game, and Just about anything else we covered this semester were not.
Reflection on God's Children
I seem to have a knack for doing these things at the last possible moment. This time I have a pretty good excuse though; I just had no clue what to blog about--reading Windward however, I came to reconsider a point that was brought up in class and reiterated by Kristen. This is the idea of outside influence as the cause of social turmoil/civil war/revolution/etc. In class I went along with the suggestion that ultimately without Sophia the Runa would have not revolted. While, as I will explore below, this may have been the case on Rakaht I am not sure this is the rule. The outside influence and or superior leader concept is one that is cited rather frequently to explain large shifts in civilizations and societies. I am becoming less convince (especially after thinking about this while reading banks) that these outside influences can ever be considered the cause of societal shakeups (I explain my reasoning with regard to the Runa in a moment), instead, I would argue that while the sudden presence of the other may serve as a catalyst to a specific reaction the actual cause of this reaction was already present in the society. I am not sure that the mere introduction of someone with a different perspective is enough to completely transform a society.
Admiral Perry/ the forced introduction of the west is largely credited with the shakeup of the traditional feudal system in Japan. Suddenly the Japanese realized just how "backwards" they were and felt the need to completely reinvent themselves. If we look more closely, however, the makings of an unstable society were already there--misapportioned wealth, a largely superfluous military class, and an emergent and increasingly powerful merchant class are all things that are also associated with the French Revolution and the slow demise of feudalism in Great Britain. Neither of these societies saw the sudden introduction of an outside force, yet both transformed (one rather quickly and violently) there is nothing to indicate that without Perry presence the Japanese would not have been set on a similar course.
A more extreme example is that of the overthrow of the Aztecs by Cortez. I will go so far as to suggest it was not Cortez's doing, but the internal characteristics of an unstable empire. The Romans, without the assistance of a funny looking god-like ruthless Spaniard managed to fall apart because of some of the same issues that were beginning to plague the Aztecs--Overreaching in conquest, a large number of seditious conquered peoples, and a system of ruler selection which was not designed to pick the best individual for the job (sound like any empires you can think of now). I again argue that if Cortez/Columbus/stupid spanish had not appeared the Aztec Empire may have fallen apart (either quickly or slowly) of it's own volition.
I realized that over the course of simply writing this post I have once again switched positions on my view of the Runa revolt I once again do not believe that it would have been possible without the Jesuit presence, but I believe this is because the situation was designed to mimic the ideal--the outside influence concept was taken to the extreme in this circumstance. The civilization created by Russel was so perfect for the scenario that it could have played out no other way. The VaRakaht civilization was so perfectly constructed as a ecologically feudal society that there seems to be no way of destroying it internally. It reminds me of the mistake so often made in assuming that the actions of Humans are "not natural" we assume we are somehow capable of destroying the balance of the planet because of our Moral ability to folly or something of the sort. In the same way she seems to suggest the runa and Janata are inhuman---truly other--in that they do not share this quality. Only humans were able to step in an disrupt this balance previously the society was perfect (exactly opposite of what things should really be or even how Banks portrays the Chel civil war). Not only that, but the society was also perfectly set up to be formerly balanced yet completely susceptible to outside influence. The social mimicry of the Runa makes the whole thing spread like wildfire. Yet in most earthly examples of the outside influence the civilization is already messed up enough that the slightest little disturbance from the other is enough to bring it down. THIS IS NOT THE CASE ON RAKAHT. THE SOCIETY GOES FROM PERFECTLY STABLE TO COMPLETELY INSTABLE IN JUST A FEW YEARS.
Admiral Perry/ the forced introduction of the west is largely credited with the shakeup of the traditional feudal system in Japan. Suddenly the Japanese realized just how "backwards" they were and felt the need to completely reinvent themselves. If we look more closely, however, the makings of an unstable society were already there--misapportioned wealth, a largely superfluous military class, and an emergent and increasingly powerful merchant class are all things that are also associated with the French Revolution and the slow demise of feudalism in Great Britain. Neither of these societies saw the sudden introduction of an outside force, yet both transformed (one rather quickly and violently) there is nothing to indicate that without Perry presence the Japanese would not have been set on a similar course.
A more extreme example is that of the overthrow of the Aztecs by Cortez. I will go so far as to suggest it was not Cortez's doing, but the internal characteristics of an unstable empire. The Romans, without the assistance of a funny looking god-like ruthless Spaniard managed to fall apart because of some of the same issues that were beginning to plague the Aztecs--Overreaching in conquest, a large number of seditious conquered peoples, and a system of ruler selection which was not designed to pick the best individual for the job (sound like any empires you can think of now). I again argue that if Cortez/Columbus/stupid spanish had not appeared the Aztec Empire may have fallen apart (either quickly or slowly) of it's own volition.
I realized that over the course of simply writing this post I have once again switched positions on my view of the Runa revolt I once again do not believe that it would have been possible without the Jesuit presence, but I believe this is because the situation was designed to mimic the ideal--the outside influence concept was taken to the extreme in this circumstance. The civilization created by Russel was so perfect for the scenario that it could have played out no other way. The VaRakaht civilization was so perfectly constructed as a ecologically feudal society that there seems to be no way of destroying it internally. It reminds me of the mistake so often made in assuming that the actions of Humans are "not natural" we assume we are somehow capable of destroying the balance of the planet because of our Moral ability to folly or something of the sort. In the same way she seems to suggest the runa and Janata are inhuman---truly other--in that they do not share this quality. Only humans were able to step in an disrupt this balance previously the society was perfect (exactly opposite of what things should really be or even how Banks portrays the Chel civil war). Not only that, but the society was also perfectly set up to be formerly balanced yet completely susceptible to outside influence. The social mimicry of the Runa makes the whole thing spread like wildfire. Yet in most earthly examples of the outside influence the civilization is already messed up enough that the slightest little disturbance from the other is enough to bring it down. THIS IS NOT THE CASE ON RAKAHT. THE SOCIETY GOES FROM PERFECTLY STABLE TO COMPLETELY INSTABLE IN JUST A FEW YEARS.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Look to Windward Substantive
I found similar things interesting as Jen. I'd like to add to the downloading memories a bit, call me obsessive, but Data from TNG downloaded all the diary entries from the colony he was in before it was destroyed. We kind of have a similar thing going on if things like Live Journal and other websites continue. Although it isn't at the point of downloading people's memories, yet. There is technology to move things with implants in your head on a computer screen, so maybe that is the next step. Although hopefully it won't be like the Borg hive mind with all the different voices. Good ol' white noise.
We have the Borg and the Culture, I wonder what's next?
We have the Borg and the Culture, I wonder what's next?
Oh Great...
Mel and I stopped at Fantom Comics today and this is what we found at the cash register:
I think this comic book could possibly be worse than a movie.
I think this comic book could possibly be worse than a movie.
Friday, April 25, 2008
I need a life
I just wanted to share with the rest of the class that don't live in Hughes Hall what I've been up to.
It is cutoff in this picture, but under the RD tag it says "Burninator: TROGDOR!!" After a week, we changed it to say "Resident Dragon: TROGDOR!!"
This is what my boss asked for, and he fell in love with the fireball, as well as the rest of the building.
I did this for the preview days with Clawed. Then someone erased Mario, so I drew 4 Yoshis.
And yes, I know I need a life and I'm a Geek. But this is my release since I'm on the all female floor.
It is cutoff in this picture, but under the RD tag it says "Burninator: TROGDOR!!" After a week, we changed it to say "Resident Dragon: TROGDOR!!"
This is what my boss asked for, and he fell in love with the fireball, as well as the rest of the building.
I did this for the preview days with Clawed. Then someone erased Mario, so I drew 4 Yoshis.And yes, I know I need a life and I'm a Geek. But this is my release since I'm on the all female floor.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
4/22 Reflective
Just as Rinske mentioned in class, I feel that Sofia is responsible for the Runa uprising. Although, maybe it isn't really Sofia to blame, but humanity. Take your pick from the previous social science books we have read throughout the semester, and possibly dig up some Hobbs and Locke. One thing that humanity can't stand is "injustice." Sofia struggles with the Runa when she is
trying to explain why they should rise up by mentioning what they have on their side, but there isn't a word for "justice" in the Runa language. I think it would have eventually occurred, with the intervention of humans, and Sofia was just there at the right time, with a strong sense of justice.
Right now it mainly looks like this course, and readings, have posed the same question time and again, who are we to judge?
And remember, there may be a day in the future when the chickens rise up.
trying to explain why they should rise up by mentioning what they have on their side, but there isn't a word for "justice" in the Runa language. I think it would have eventually occurred, with the intervention of humans, and Sofia was just there at the right time, with a strong sense of justice.
Right now it mainly looks like this course, and readings, have posed the same question time and again, who are we to judge?
And remember, there may be a day in the future when the chickens rise up.
Substinative
I wonder how history might have been different if after a few years with Columbus missing some other explorer sets out to the west and finds him alone as a prostitute? I also wonder if he would have had similar difficulties overcoming the only conclusion that he could possibly have reached which is GOD wanted him to be raped? I propose that, instead, Columbus would easily have seen that it and little to do with God and much more to do with Godless barbarians.
I say this, hoping to turn it around as well, what would Sandoz have done in Columbus' situation. Would he have presumed the perfect equality of everyone he came in contact with, and assumed that he could quickly understand not only their language, but their society and culture as well? Would he have found himself prey to some hungry cannibal tribe?
Both The Sparrow and Todorov seemed to express to opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to dealing with the other. In Children of God, Russel makes a distinct effort to convey and ideal of something in the middle. Not the same, but not unequal. Equal but different. Somehow both Columbus and Sandoz are closedminded explorers. Where both expeditions went wrong where they could have improved their crew lists would have been to be willing to accept something not expected, or to have brought someone along with the capacity to beleive that not all societies not all peoples are exactly the same.
I wonder if, given a sense of post modernism, Columbus would have been able to handle his interactions with aboriginal americans in a positive manner.
I say this, hoping to turn it around as well, what would Sandoz have done in Columbus' situation. Would he have presumed the perfect equality of everyone he came in contact with, and assumed that he could quickly understand not only their language, but their society and culture as well? Would he have found himself prey to some hungry cannibal tribe?
Both The Sparrow and Todorov seemed to express to opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to dealing with the other. In Children of God, Russel makes a distinct effort to convey and ideal of something in the middle. Not the same, but not unequal. Equal but different. Somehow both Columbus and Sandoz are closedminded explorers. Where both expeditions went wrong where they could have improved their crew lists would have been to be willing to accept something not expected, or to have brought someone along with the capacity to beleive that not all societies not all peoples are exactly the same.
I wonder if, given a sense of post modernism, Columbus would have been able to handle his interactions with aboriginal americans in a positive manner.
Children of God
First off, while I agree with several of the other posts that this seemed to resolve everything a bit too neatly, I enjoyed the fact that Russel allowed the readers to be as misguided as her characters. She intentionally didn't reveal all of the information, and really demonstrated exactly how easy it is to be completely wrong about a person or their motivations when working with incomplete information and poor communication. While it wasn't completely unexpected after PTJ's preview, it still was well done by Russel.
That said, I did feel like she stretched things a bit thin in this book. There were so many characters that I felt like a lot of them were left half-developed, which was disappointing, because most of them were people who seemed worth description. Also, while I still appreciated the literary device of jumping around in time, it felt much more haphazard in this book. I suppose that has something to do with the decreased role of determinism in this book as opposed to the last one, but the jumps felt a bit more awkward in this book. At first it does make sense when moving in relative time and actual space between Sandoz and Sophia, but the few jumps she makes to the time after Sandoz left felt forced, as though she had to fit in more exposition and foreshadowing, and this was the fastest way to do it.
I agree with the others who were left a bit disoriented by this book, but over all it was enjoyable. I felt as though its ending did detract a bit from the last book, but the bulk of the two were very complementary. I'm looking forward to our discussion, and to hearing other people's opinions.
That said, I did feel like she stretched things a bit thin in this book. There were so many characters that I felt like a lot of them were left half-developed, which was disappointing, because most of them were people who seemed worth description. Also, while I still appreciated the literary device of jumping around in time, it felt much more haphazard in this book. I suppose that has something to do with the decreased role of determinism in this book as opposed to the last one, but the jumps felt a bit more awkward in this book. At first it does make sense when moving in relative time and actual space between Sandoz and Sophia, but the few jumps she makes to the time after Sandoz left felt forced, as though she had to fit in more exposition and foreshadowing, and this was the fastest way to do it.
I agree with the others who were left a bit disoriented by this book, but over all it was enjoyable. I felt as though its ending did detract a bit from the last book, but the bulk of the two were very complementary. I'm looking forward to our discussion, and to hearing other people's opinions.
Children of God Substantive
I had hoped there would be a big shocker like Professor Jackson had alluded to in class. I actually wasn't all that impressed, and felt the book had a more uplifting ending than the first. Granted, Sandoz had good things in life and then is sent back to Rakhat. But I kind of had the idea that would happen from the beginning.
I enjoyed how the book skipped back and forth between the three sides. Call me scatter-brained but by the time I was bored with one chapter about Sandoz the next normally had nothing to do with him.
Maybe this has to do with just my twisted logic or something, but I actually started to feel bad for Supaari.
I guess in the end I'm like Jen and Tim in that I don't really know what to say about the book.
I enjoyed how the book skipped back and forth between the three sides. Call me scatter-brained but by the time I was bored with one chapter about Sandoz the next normally had nothing to do with him.
Maybe this has to do with just my twisted logic or something, but I actually started to feel bad for Supaari.
I guess in the end I'm like Jen and Tim in that I don't really know what to say about the book.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Reflection
Sorry for taking so long to get these up folks, I don't know what my problem is.
There was a point in class before the break where we had established a lack of individual culpability for actions of this nature. There instead seemed to be an agreed upon satisfaction with the idea that what we and todorov could do was analyze and blame the conditions and mentality created by society. And while I essentially propose that society may be the cause for many Macro events in my post the Jeans of Society , I do not beleive that this can eliminate the ultimate culpability of the individual. I find myself in a bad episode of Voyager about temporal loops because of the various deterministic paradoxes. I believe, however, that if we take Columbus, for example, that we have no evidence to suggest he acted in the way he did because society set him up to act that way, instead, his actions and comments are entirely his own, for this reason his actions can be evaluated on their own merit without assuming a societal determinism. We could make the argument that it would have happened eventually, but it was entirely on Columbus' shoulders that it played out in that exact manner and involving him. Without this I think would could run the table to arguing that everything is societally pre-determined (although I am a physical or perhaps quantum determinism myself). I will contend, at the very least, that we have a sense of free will.
There was a point in class before the break where we had established a lack of individual culpability for actions of this nature. There instead seemed to be an agreed upon satisfaction with the idea that what we and todorov could do was analyze and blame the conditions and mentality created by society. And while I essentially propose that society may be the cause for many Macro events in my post the Jeans of Society , I do not beleive that this can eliminate the ultimate culpability of the individual. I find myself in a bad episode of Voyager about temporal loops because of the various deterministic paradoxes. I believe, however, that if we take Columbus, for example, that we have no evidence to suggest he acted in the way he did because society set him up to act that way, instead, his actions and comments are entirely his own, for this reason his actions can be evaluated on their own merit without assuming a societal determinism. We could make the argument that it would have happened eventually, but it was entirely on Columbus' shoulders that it played out in that exact manner and involving him. Without this I think would could run the table to arguing that everything is societally pre-determined (although I am a physical or perhaps quantum determinism myself). I will contend, at the very least, that we have a sense of free will.
Children of God
I was glad to return to Children of God after Todorov more so than the other science fiction books we read because there was a sense of familiarity with the characters. PTJ said we'd be shocked early on and I'll admit I was. So when Russell revealed that Sofia was still alive, my jaw dropped. I wouldn't say the miscommunication between Supaari and Sandoz on 51 was shocking as in "never saw that coming". In The Sparrow Supaari is seen as different from the other Jana'ata and part of me refused to believe that he would just sell Sandoz away to Hlavin Kitheri. The line that got me was Supaari leaving Galatna Palace "believing that he had done right by Sandoz" (52). That scene reveals that Sandoz unknowingly brought it upon himself. Related to that, on page 290, John wonders what would happen if it was Emilio's fault.
"Listen, John prayed, I'm not telling You what to do, but if Emilio brought the rapes on himself somehow, and then Askama died because of that, it's bettter if he never understands, okay? In my opinion. You know what people can take, but I think You're cutting it pretty close here. Or maybe--help him make it mean something. Help him."
At that point, "oh no, what is Russell going to do? She's going to break Emilio again". Fortunately, that wasn't the case and things turned out relatively okay for Emilio in the end, which I think he deserved.
The Emilio from the end of The Sparrow, the one who didn't know whether to hate God or believe that this was all bad luck, is still present at the end of Children of God. On page 414, Emilio and Sofia say "I was done with God" "But He wasn't done with you" "Evidently not, either that, or this has been a run of bad luck of historic proportions". He is still not sure which it is, but is more accepting of the choice.
I was reading this book of 6 word memoirs called Not Quite What I was Planning. Found one that I swear Emilio could have written over the course of these two books: "I lost god. I found myself".
Todorov Reflection
A few things with regards to our discussion of Todorov. First, I think we were absolutely right in our apparent consensus that understanding does not have to lead to sympathy and certainly not to empathy. If you fundamentally disagree with someone's actions and their reasoning for their actions, it stands to reason the more you understand about them the more there is to dislike. However, I'm not convinced that this completely covers the case of Cortez. In the course of the discussion there was an excellent point made that while Cortez understood the how of Aztec society he didn't understand the why. I'm not entirely convinced that this completely explains the actions of Cortez, however. While I agree that Cortez didn't necessarily understand the motivations behind the rituals and customs of the Aztecs, I'm also not convinced that it would have mattered if he did. I really don't think that he viewed the Aztecs as humans, but rather as some other species, who weren't really capable of reasoning. Had he had any interest in the whys of the Aztecs, I think he and the other Spaniards would have, like Columbus, recorded them as naturalists' observations, instead of ethnographic observations (a concept which didn't exist at the time), and that these would not have elicited any sense of sympathy from them.
Todorov reflection
Columbus or Cortes? Tricky question. Some chose Columbus for the ignorance is bliss angle. Doing what you felt was right as opposed to doing something you knew was wrong. But couldn't Cortes have felt he was right? I can't remember there being a point in the text where Cortes admits he knew he was wrong. How can someone cause the death of 24 million people (according to Todorov's estimate p133) and not know it was wrong? And for this reason, people chose to be Columbus because he'd be able to sleep better at night. I would choose to be Cortes a) so I wouldn't be crazy like Columbus and b) to understand the Aztecs better (though that didn't stop him from conquering them). All this talk of killing "a great many" reminds me of Eddie Izzard, a stand-up comedian who said:
In his post, Mike brings up why there is no such thing as a Cortes day, but we celebrate Columbus day (as a federal holiday). I looked Columbus day up quickly on Wikipedia and found that Latin America has similar holidays like DÃa de la Raza (Day of the Race), DÃa de las Culturas (Day of the Cultures), Discovery Day, DÃa de la Hispanidad, and DÃa de la Resistencia IndÃgena (Day of Indigenous Resistance). Also did you know that Hawaii doesn't celebrate Columbus day but Discoverers' Day (which commemmorates Columbus and Cook)? It's interesting how the United States celebrates the day in the name of Columbus while other countries mention race, culture, and the indigenous people.
Also in class, Mike's example of the mugger in NYC reminded me of the Jesuits on Rakhat inviting Suupari to dinner after he nearly killed Sandoz.
I leave with another Eddie Izzard quote:
"You killed a hundred thousand people? You must get up very early in theI'm sure if Cortes kept a diary it would look like this. Even here, death is seen as an ordinary task like lunch or a shower, not something causing many sleepless nights. My point: I don't think Cortes regretted what he did because he didn't see it as wrong. Setting up the memorial at the Aztec temple on 109 wasn't an act of regret for Cortes. As Todorov says he saw the Aztecs as curiosities.
morning! I can't even get down the gym. Your diary must look odd: 'Get
up in the morning, Death, Death, Death, Death, Death, Death, Lunch,
Death, Death, Death, Afternoon Tea, Death, Death, Death, Quick shower…'"
In his post, Mike brings up why there is no such thing as a Cortes day, but we celebrate Columbus day (as a federal holiday). I looked Columbus day up quickly on Wikipedia and found that Latin America has similar holidays like DÃa de la Raza (Day of the Race), DÃa de las Culturas (Day of the Cultures), Discovery Day, DÃa de la Hispanidad, and DÃa de la Resistencia IndÃgena (Day of Indigenous Resistance). Also did you know that Hawaii doesn't celebrate Columbus day but Discoverers' Day (which commemmorates Columbus and Cook)? It's interesting how the United States celebrates the day in the name of Columbus while other countries mention race, culture, and the indigenous people.
Also in class, Mike's example of the mugger in NYC reminded me of the Jesuits on Rakhat inviting Suupari to dinner after he nearly killed Sandoz.
I leave with another Eddie Izzard quote:
We stole countries with the cunning use of flags. Just sail around the
world and stick a flag in. "I claim India for Britain!" And they're
going "You can't claim us, we live here! There's five hundred million of
us!" -"Do you have a flag?" -"We don't need a bloody flag, this is our
country, you bastard!" -"No flag, no country. You can't have one That's
the rule, that... I've just made up."
This is similar to Columbus naming the islands. Are there rules for taking over other civilizations? Todorov showed us how the Spaniards conquered using signs and language. They probably had a flag too.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Reflective 4/15
I feel the idea that we are all aliens, even to our own country, was overlooked. Maybe I'm saying this because that statement is more evident in my case than the rest of the class. First off, I'm blessed to have lived at AU for a whopping 3 years (well three years in Fall 2008). That might not be calls for celebration for the rest of you, but for me it is. I'm not trying to sound like I broken record, but I'm lucky to be in one location for 2 years. Yes, I am an American citizen, but I find myself an outsider everywhere I go, even at AU. I've lived in Europe for 6 1/2 years and the rest has been stateside. I don't have a "home," the closest thing for me is my grandparents' farm where we spend 1 or 2 months visiting every summer. I don't have a home state, I had to think long and hard to figure out where I register to vote. For those who don't understand why: I was born in Las Vegas (valid reason to register there), until Spring Break my driver's license was from Utah where I also graduated high school (another valid reason), and my permanent Address is in Virginia (yet again another valid reason). In the end I picked Virginia, mainly because I changed my license over the Break. I apologize for not saying this in class, but I felt I wouldn't add to the conversation. This is something that is very close to my heart, mainly because I have yet to feel like I "fit in" on my floor, in my classes, and with my peers. Even the old saying of "home is where the heart is" is hard for me. I have yet to discover where my heart is. Is it in Germany, Italy, or the US? Virginia, Kansas, Nevada, or Utah? I hope I can find an answer, and maybe I'll be happier if/when I get this answered. There are times that I despise my upbringing, but I have witnessed so much that many people only dream of. I have been exposed to cultures and countries outside of my comfort zone. At the same time my thoughts will sometimes wander to my Dad, asking myself if he is alright, if he misses me. Call me over dramatic, maybe I'm not this worked up for my Dad's current assignment, but he has served in conflict zones before in more danger than he is now. I envy everyone else, having a home they can go to, friends they can go back to, having a familiar place they can go to. That is the downside of my experiences, I can go home; but Alexandria is not my home. I will always have a loving family to go to, but nothing else in Alexandria. No friends to see, no place to just go to.
I don't expect anyone to try and understand me. I feel I can offer a different side than most people have seen, I've just learned to be the quiet kid in the back of the classroom. I don't care if you think I'm crazy or if this has been meaningless, I just wanted to get it out there.
What happened on Columbus' and Cortez's missions are sad. Conquering/exterminating another race is not "moral" but at the same time progress was made. Life is just a double-edged sword, both sides will get hurt. I would do just as Scott said, I'd rather be Columbus because ignorance is bliss. I'd rather do something I felt was right instead of doing something I knew was wrong. Wait a minute, I did the Columbus thing (doing what I feel is right) with the AUCC. I'm even hated for it, but one person can only do so much. Like the saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink."
Are we all aliens in America? Aren't the only true "Americans" the descendants of the Native American tribes?
I don't expect anyone to try and understand me. I feel I can offer a different side than most people have seen, I've just learned to be the quiet kid in the back of the classroom. I don't care if you think I'm crazy or if this has been meaningless, I just wanted to get it out there.
What happened on Columbus' and Cortez's missions are sad. Conquering/exterminating another race is not "moral" but at the same time progress was made. Life is just a double-edged sword, both sides will get hurt. I would do just as Scott said, I'd rather be Columbus because ignorance is bliss. I'd rather do something I felt was right instead of doing something I knew was wrong. Wait a minute, I did the Columbus thing (doing what I feel is right) with the AUCC. I'm even hated for it, but one person can only do so much. Like the saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink."
Are we all aliens in America? Aren't the only true "Americans" the descendants of the Native American tribes?
Todorov
I find myself kind of surprised by some of the other posts with regard to this as a strictly historical text. I was also surprised by the presentation of the presentation of the "discoverers" of America, but at the level of understanding afforded to the Spanish invaders and Todorov's restraint from completely demonizing the Spaniards. Of course part of my European history class in high school was taught using Howard Zinn, I suppose that's no great shock. I had always reduced the motives for conquest down to "gold, God, and glory," but I feel like this presented a slightly more balanced view. I appreciated his attempt to avoid the pitfalls of the dichotomies usually applied to this period, although I don't think that he can by any means be viewed as unbiased. I have a hard time accepting his extensive use of quotations as exclusively"letting the authors speak" as he terms it, and I would have at times appreciated more of his argument and less of him cutting and pasting theirs. That said, this was a really fascinating read, and his quotations gave great access to documents most of us would never have access to, or at the very least inclination to seek out.
With relation to science fiction, if you enjoyed this, pick up Card's Pastwatch at some point. Card notes his use of Todorov, but really it's an almost exact (fictionalized) version of Todorov's ideas. It strikes me how important for both Todorov and science fiction writers how important the idea of communication is. It's interesting to compare communication in Todorov to that in the Sparrow. Todorov notes that the conquistadors were interested only in finding the Spanish equivalents to words (when they bothered at all); Sandoz moved beyond that (he notes how careful he was to find out exactly what their words meant) but he still didn't bother with all of the signs and cultural symbols. Doesn't seem like a whole lot of progress to me. Ender's Game shows the same thing, we don't understand them, so lets eliminate them (which is much easier to deal with because, as Phil's discussion of the Sparrow alludes to, they're ugly). I suppose that most sci-fi is dystopian, but its still sad to see how little we have progressed, and how little authors envision us progressing.
With relation to science fiction, if you enjoyed this, pick up Card's Pastwatch at some point. Card notes his use of Todorov, but really it's an almost exact (fictionalized) version of Todorov's ideas. It strikes me how important for both Todorov and science fiction writers how important the idea of communication is. It's interesting to compare communication in Todorov to that in the Sparrow. Todorov notes that the conquistadors were interested only in finding the Spanish equivalents to words (when they bothered at all); Sandoz moved beyond that (he notes how careful he was to find out exactly what their words meant) but he still didn't bother with all of the signs and cultural symbols. Doesn't seem like a whole lot of progress to me. Ender's Game shows the same thing, we don't understand them, so lets eliminate them (which is much easier to deal with because, as Phil's discussion of the Sparrow alludes to, they're ugly). I suppose that most sci-fi is dystopian, but its still sad to see how little we have progressed, and how little authors envision us progressing.
Substanitive Conquest
Let me preface this by saying that I do not like discourse analysis (sorry Professor) also, I have not slept in a while, and that you should probably not read this if you have not read Children of God because I make no guarantees that I will not mention it in my post. Also, I am going to start with a rant about how Cortez knew what he was doing unlike the mission, and then try to move on to comparisons between the mindsets of Columbus and the two missions to Rakat. Finally, I hope to have another little rant about aesthetics.
To begin I look to the chapter Cortez and signs. Over and over again it reiterates how Cortez was constantly looking for more information and not trusting anyone. Why did our group not do this. Granted, they had a more peaceful intent than did Cortez, but at least he knew not to be a fool about things. We have, on a number of occasions and a number of blog posts suggested that they cannot be blamed for something we can spot as an error in hindsight. I argue, however, that Cortez's desire to learn and understand Montezuma and the Aztecs is essentially the same idea and if he thought to do it Emilio Sandoz and Company could have been able to do it as well.
Before moving on to columbus I also feel the need to mention Cortez's position in overthrowing the Aztecs as not being all that different from the position of Sofia as she lead the Runa against the Ja'anata. The book notes how Cortez's army is essentially some spanish Cavalry and a lot of native foot soldiers who had been oppressed by the Aztecs. We even see some aspects of Aztec determinism in Ja'anata life with regards to birth essentially serving as destiny.
If one puts the two Sandoz missions to Rakat together you total the misc. reasons for which Cristobal wanted to discover as well. The second mission covers wealth while the first one looks as beauty, learning, and the glorification of God. Columbus and the Jesuits share a certain presumptive success/fatalistic outlook on the mission. Both seem to believe God is leading them exactly where they want to go. If I did not know better I would say the Russell has read this piece.
To begin I look to the chapter Cortez and signs. Over and over again it reiterates how Cortez was constantly looking for more information and not trusting anyone. Why did our group not do this. Granted, they had a more peaceful intent than did Cortez, but at least he knew not to be a fool about things. We have, on a number of occasions and a number of blog posts suggested that they cannot be blamed for something we can spot as an error in hindsight. I argue, however, that Cortez's desire to learn and understand Montezuma and the Aztecs is essentially the same idea and if he thought to do it Emilio Sandoz and Company could have been able to do it as well.
Before moving on to columbus I also feel the need to mention Cortez's position in overthrowing the Aztecs as not being all that different from the position of Sofia as she lead the Runa against the Ja'anata. The book notes how Cortez's army is essentially some spanish Cavalry and a lot of native foot soldiers who had been oppressed by the Aztecs. We even see some aspects of Aztec determinism in Ja'anata life with regards to birth essentially serving as destiny.
If one puts the two Sandoz missions to Rakat together you total the misc. reasons for which Cristobal wanted to discover as well. The second mission covers wealth while the first one looks as beauty, learning, and the glorification of God. Columbus and the Jesuits share a certain presumptive success/fatalistic outlook on the mission. Both seem to believe God is leading them exactly where they want to go. If I did not know better I would say the Russell has read this piece.
The Conquest of America
High school history class programmed me to immediately think "God, gold, and glory" after hearing conquistador. And it doesn't seem that far off after reading Todorov, who went into greater detail than any high school history class. At times, it was painstakingly difficult to read quotation after quotation after quotation. I know he was trying to present an unbiased narrative of what happened through primary sources that I would never have read before, but halfway through I wished for more from Todorov, less Columbus/Cortes/Las Casas/etc.
That being said, it was interesting to read after The Sparrow, which kept popping up in my mind, but how couldn't it with all the talk of Columbus and divine intervention? He saw a lot of turtles on fenceposts, or the equivalent of such back in those days (mermaids, perhaps?). But reading about Cortes and the myth of Quetzalcoatl reminded me of Paul in Dune. During that class, a long long time ago, we brought up whether Paul manipulated the Fremen's belief in a messiah. It's a little fuzzy right now, but I thought I'd bring up that.
In preparation for PTJ's question about whether the Spaniards should have and/or could have done something different, in the text Todorov says "I do not want to suggest, by accumulating such quotations, that Las Casas or the other defenders of the Indians should, or even could, have behaved differently." (172). Interestingly, he doesn't mention Columbus or Cortes and instead focuses on defenders of the Indians or those that tried to learn about their culture. However, Cortes did learn the signs, but manipulated them against the Indians, leading to death and destruction. I don't know if Columbus or Cortes could have behaved differently because we're looking at it in hindsight.
That being said, it was interesting to read after The Sparrow, which kept popping up in my mind, but how couldn't it with all the talk of Columbus and divine intervention? He saw a lot of turtles on fenceposts, or the equivalent of such back in those days (mermaids, perhaps?). But reading about Cortes and the myth of Quetzalcoatl reminded me of Paul in Dune. During that class, a long long time ago, we brought up whether Paul manipulated the Fremen's belief in a messiah. It's a little fuzzy right now, but I thought I'd bring up that.
In preparation for PTJ's question about whether the Spaniards should have and/or could have done something different, in the text Todorov says "I do not want to suggest, by accumulating such quotations, that Las Casas or the other defenders of the Indians should, or even could, have behaved differently." (172). Interestingly, he doesn't mention Columbus or Cortes and instead focuses on defenders of the Indians or those that tried to learn about their culture. However, Cortes did learn the signs, but manipulated them against the Indians, leading to death and destruction. I don't know if Columbus or Cortes could have behaved differently because we're looking at it in hindsight.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Deus vult
As PTJ posed in class "Did the Jesuit party make a mistake or screw up along the way that we could expect them to do something else?" Our discussion brought up some good examples like Sofia rising up at the end against the military Jana'ata or the Jesuit party being too quickly satisfied with what was happening. I think that even though everyone involved became practically like family, there was still a lack of communication between them, especially on D.W.'s part. After Alan's death, D.W. planned how to use the fuel reserves, concluding that there was only enough fuel for 5 round trips to the asteroid. However, he never lets anyone else know and also smuggles the Winchester down beause "he didn't want any big damn discussion about it" (216). I don't know what the Jesuit party could have done differently, but I think that the beginning of their troubles involve the lander and the fuel problem, which eventually strands them on Rakhat. Had they the option to leave Rakhat, things might have turned out differently? They might not have planted gardens, which ultimately lead to the military Jana'ata slaughtering Runa and humans alike. But there are instances where it's implied that the mistake was earlier, perhaps in the design of the mission. Was it doomed from the beginning? On page 334 mentions that Alan Pace might have been helpful had he been alive. It is interesting when the narrator pops up, all omnipresent and god-like.
We made a good attempt to list 8 individuals to send on this alien mission. The picks were primarily practical because we read/saw what happened on Rakhat and mentally swore to not let that happen on this space adventure. During the exercise, I couldn't shake the thought about Gilligan's Island. If the space lander breaks, I'd want a Professor-like character who could build a radio out of a coconut and try to get the group off the planet (though maybe MacGyver would be a better choice since it took forever for The Minnow's passengers to get off that island). But maybe the Professor is not to blame. Was it bad luck that kept them stranded on the island or was is deus vult? No character seems to go through a crisis like Sandoz, doubting his faith. In fact, the show seems to lay blame on Gilligan and his clumsiness for each failed attempt to escape.
On the topic of Gilligan's Island, I found out, thanks to Wikipedia, that there was a cartoon spin-off in the 80s called Gilligan's Planet. They go from stranded on an unknown island to a far-off planet. I'd call that a very large turtle on a fence post. I think you can only take responsibility for the failed escapes so many times before adopting a policy of deus vult. That being said, casting Brad Pitt as Emilio Sandoz-- not a good idea; deciding to make Gilligan's Planet-- very bad idea for a tv show. I can handle only so many attempts to escape an island/planet. However, according to Mary Doria Russell in the reading guide at the back of the book, "Emilio Sandoz goes back to Rakhat, but only because he has no choice. God is not done with him yet." Dun dun dun. I can't wait to read Children of God and find out what happened on Rakhat since Emilio left.
We made a good attempt to list 8 individuals to send on this alien mission. The picks were primarily practical because we read/saw what happened on Rakhat and mentally swore to not let that happen on this space adventure. During the exercise, I couldn't shake the thought about Gilligan's Island. If the space lander breaks, I'd want a Professor-like character who could build a radio out of a coconut and try to get the group off the planet (though maybe MacGyver would be a better choice since it took forever for The Minnow's passengers to get off that island). But maybe the Professor is not to blame. Was it bad luck that kept them stranded on the island or was is deus vult? No character seems to go through a crisis like Sandoz, doubting his faith. In fact, the show seems to lay blame on Gilligan and his clumsiness for each failed attempt to escape.
On the topic of Gilligan's Island, I found out, thanks to Wikipedia, that there was a cartoon spin-off in the 80s called Gilligan's Planet. They go from stranded on an unknown island to a far-off planet. I'd call that a very large turtle on a fence post. I think you can only take responsibility for the failed escapes so many times before adopting a policy of deus vult. That being said, casting Brad Pitt as Emilio Sandoz-- not a good idea; deciding to make Gilligan's Planet-- very bad idea for a tv show. I can handle only so many attempts to escape an island/planet. However, according to Mary Doria Russell in the reading guide at the back of the book, "Emilio Sandoz goes back to Rakhat, but only because he has no choice. God is not done with him yet." Dun dun dun. I can't wait to read Children of God and find out what happened on Rakhat since Emilio left.
Beauty and the Other
I want to return to return to the idea of beauty in defining and understanding the other Schmitt notes "The political enemy need not be Morally evil or aesthetically ugly," but I am beginning to question if, for all practical applications, this is actually true. We only briefly touched on this in class last week, but I suspect we will spend at least some time on it tomorrow (given it's apparent importance to Columbus), but I believe it is nearly impossible for humans to separate the two. Exhibit A: the propaganda poster above--what sort of message would it have conveyed if the soldier looked like the upstanding young man who was more likely to be wearing that uniform than a large ugly Gorilla? In the same sense, what would have been the reaction of the people of earth if the Reshtar's music had sounded a little less beautiful and a little more like rape. The prince is never really a prince when he looks like a frog, and the Wicked Witch can always trick the hero if she disguises her ugly worts. We keep using biblical allusions (specifically Job) see Sarah below. I think a story with even more ties is the Odyssey--Odysseus who, during the Trojan war is watched over and guided by Athena, is finally led astray by the Gods, left to roam for years before getting home. Specific to my point in this post is his encounter with the Sirens who's beautiful song is meant only as a lure. someone needed to lash Emilio Sandoz to his mast.
Refection on the Sparrow
I had two general thoughts after reading some of the other posts and our discussion in class. First: while there were several references made in class and on the blogs to the blind devotion of the priests on the mission, and while that seemed true in the case of Sandoz, his training had been for a critical, informed, academic faith, not the stereotypical uniformed devotion. However, he seemed to lose all academic aspects of his faith about thirty seconds after hearing the transmission. Both while reading and during our discussion it struck me that one of Sandoz's primary flaws was that he became so wrapped up in his own personal pentecost that he seemed to completely forget his (presumably) extensive knowledge of both biblical and church history. While many posts and much of discussion make the assumption that the god in the book (assuming there is one) is the god of the deists who created and left, rather than one who leaves turtles on fenceposts, I don't think that this is a necessary assumption. If Sandoz's education was anything like what I'd imagine it to be, he would be well aware that the path of god, even a biblical interventionist god, often didn't lead to good places for the followers. The obvious case of this is the story of Job where a god who intervened in peoples lives on a regular basis deliberately allowed Job's faith to be tested. While this is the almost obligatory reference with regards to this novel, there are other examples of an intervening, turtle-leaving god allowing bad things to happen. John the Baptist, the "voice in the wilderness," had his severed head given to Herodias on a silver platter after having baptized Jesus; he was following the spoken will of god-on-earth and I'd argue that he had it at least as bad as Sandoz. That said, I'm pretty sure that all (there might have been an exception) of the twelve apostles were martyred, and the will of god in people's lives doesn't get much clearer than in their case. So I don't think that we can say with certainty that, in the context of the book, Sandoz's error lied in assuming that the turtles on fenceposts had been left deliberately, but rather that he made the assumption that the turtles were leading to someplace he wanted to go. Even with a complete belief in a biblical interventionist god, he should have been aware of the implicit dangers attached to "god's will."
This leads to my second (briefer) thought, which is that the church would have had a much easier time dealing with Sandoz had he been victimized in a more sanitized way. Mike talks in his post about the saintliness of Sandoz, and it seems to me that the church would have had a much easier time viewing him as good (or even saintly) if he'd simply had the good graces to be martyred like all of the others. In thinking about all of the examples of people being punished for following "the will of god" it occurred to me that while its relatively easy to glorify someone who dies in the name of god, you don't get too much press on people who were raped in the name of god. I guess death makes for better PR. Anyway it just makes me wonder how many cases like Sandoz there are out there. People who almost died for god, but didn't quite get there, and because of that were viewed with suspicion and became outcasts rather than getting their own feast days. Maybe not many, but somehow I doubt it. Either way I find myself looking forward to Russel's further portrayals of faith in the next book.
This leads to my second (briefer) thought, which is that the church would have had a much easier time dealing with Sandoz had he been victimized in a more sanitized way. Mike talks in his post about the saintliness of Sandoz, and it seems to me that the church would have had a much easier time viewing him as good (or even saintly) if he'd simply had the good graces to be martyred like all of the others. In thinking about all of the examples of people being punished for following "the will of god" it occurred to me that while its relatively easy to glorify someone who dies in the name of god, you don't get too much press on people who were raped in the name of god. I guess death makes for better PR. Anyway it just makes me wonder how many cases like Sandoz there are out there. People who almost died for god, but didn't quite get there, and because of that were viewed with suspicion and became outcasts rather than getting their own feast days. Maybe not many, but somehow I doubt it. Either way I find myself looking forward to Russel's further portrayals of faith in the next book.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Greed is Good :)
Just like the speech from the movie Wall Street, "Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind."
But maybe it doesn't always mark the "upward surge of mankind." Todorov paints a different picture of Columbus than most Americans, or myself, learn about. Basic history classes just go over how Columbus sailed to the New World, and that's it. Not that his main motivation was gold, like Todorov proves through journal entries from the man himself.
Another great line from the same movie is "Greed captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit." Columbus' expedition definitely benefited Europe, but what about the Native Americans? They didn't really go upward, they went down very violently, with the affects still manifesting to this day.
I found this a very interesting read. It most likely has to do with me being a history nut, but Todorov brings up ideas, and facts that challenge the popularly accept "history" about Columbus.
Columbus' mission was to find a route to Asia from the West, and Todorov points out how Columbus negated any argument, mainly by the natives, that challenges this. Renaming everything when it already has a name by the locals will just make things a bit worse. For those in the class that study foreign languages, you probably understand this. Most of you might think that Munich and Muechen are practically the same thing, and just because the Germans will know what city you are talking about when you say Munich doesn't mean that it is the proper name to use.
I thought Jen did a really good job pointing out somethings between Todorov and The Sparrow.
But maybe it doesn't always mark the "upward surge of mankind." Todorov paints a different picture of Columbus than most Americans, or myself, learn about. Basic history classes just go over how Columbus sailed to the New World, and that's it. Not that his main motivation was gold, like Todorov proves through journal entries from the man himself.
Another great line from the same movie is "Greed captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit." Columbus' expedition definitely benefited Europe, but what about the Native Americans? They didn't really go upward, they went down very violently, with the affects still manifesting to this day.
I found this a very interesting read. It most likely has to do with me being a history nut, but Todorov brings up ideas, and facts that challenge the popularly accept "history" about Columbus.
Columbus' mission was to find a route to Asia from the West, and Todorov points out how Columbus negated any argument, mainly by the natives, that challenges this. Renaming everything when it already has a name by the locals will just make things a bit worse. For those in the class that study foreign languages, you probably understand this. Most of you might think that Munich and Muechen are practically the same thing, and just because the Germans will know what city you are talking about when you say Munich doesn't mean that it is the proper name to use.
I thought Jen did a really good job pointing out somethings between Todorov and The Sparrow.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Reflective 4/8
Drake Equation for all those who want to see it.
I stand by my "monospecieism" being the reason that the mission failed. As we discussed in class, even the The Time Machine it is acknowledged that there are two species. Perhaps we have a leaning towards the first find? I've moved over 10 times in my life, and each time I was in a similar situation. I didn't want to do anything wrong in the "alien" planet I was on. And when someone would extend a hand or acknowledge my existence, I would stay close to them until I had established myself in the new area. Similar to what the expedition did. And in both cases, the first was "boring" and the other, physically, screams "danger" to humans. When was the last time you snuggled up with your stuffed Aye-Aye? Probably never, we tend to lean towards teddy bears, or in my case F-16s.
In the end, hindsight is 20/20. When was the last time you did something perfectly, and when you look back there is nothing you could have done better/differently? To be honest, I would take the route the military has been making since the dawn of UAVs, send them in first so there is no loss of life. How were they suppose to know the air was not toxic? Just like I said in class, just because a planet/asteroid has life, doesn't mean the environment is safe for humans.
I stand by my "monospecieism" being the reason that the mission failed. As we discussed in class, even the The Time Machine it is acknowledged that there are two species. Perhaps we have a leaning towards the first find? I've moved over 10 times in my life, and each time I was in a similar situation. I didn't want to do anything wrong in the "alien" planet I was on. And when someone would extend a hand or acknowledge my existence, I would stay close to them until I had established myself in the new area. Similar to what the expedition did. And in both cases, the first was "boring" and the other, physically, screams "danger" to humans. When was the last time you snuggled up with your stuffed Aye-Aye? Probably never, we tend to lean towards teddy bears, or in my case F-16s.
In the end, hindsight is 20/20. When was the last time you did something perfectly, and when you look back there is nothing you could have done better/differently? To be honest, I would take the route the military has been making since the dawn of UAVs, send them in first so there is no loss of life. How were they suppose to know the air was not toxic? Just like I said in class, just because a planet/asteroid has life, doesn't mean the environment is safe for humans.
The Sparrow
Well, like Jen said, Sandoz's interrogation was very moving and almost heart-breaking to read. From the beginning, we the readers know that something bad is going to happen. The prologue begins with "It was predictable, in hindsight" and ends with "They meant no harm" (3). Cue dramatic music. I'm not too sure who Russell means by "they". It could be the Jesuits who wanted to visit Rakhat as soon as possible, which causes the mental and physical destruction of Sandoz. Or it could be the Jesuit party that unknowingly upset the ecological balance between Runa and Jana'ata by planting gardens. This made me wonder whether the Runa/Jana'ata meant any harm, which I have no clue. Maybe it will be resolved in the sequel. But back to the point (if I have one), Russell set up the story, letting the readers know that only Sandoz lives and a very basic understanding of how he was rescued. So we knew that he was found in a brothel and he killed a child, but actually reading his explanation of it was shocking, especially Askama's death.
Isn't it reassuring that we'll still be quoting movies like Young Frankenstein and The Prince Bride in 2059?
"'Not one sparrow can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it'"This was the only reference to the title I found in the book. It is obvious that Emilio represents the sparrow that falls and questions God after what happens to him. I looked up Matthew 10 verse 29 to see what followed and this is what I found:
"But the sparrow still falls" (401)
29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall toVerse 31 "So don't be afraid" just jumps out for me. It's like saying "Bad things are going to happen. It's inevitable," and then all of a sudden "You have value. Don't worry". Right now my thoughts are much like Felipe Reyes' "but the sparrow still falls".
the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30And even the very hairs of
your head are all numbered. 31So don't be afraid; you are worth more than
many sparrows.
Isn't it reassuring that we'll still be quoting movies like Young Frankenstein and The Prince Bride in 2059?
The Sparrow
I'm not real sure what to write, as Tim and Scott kind of covered what I was thinking. I might even be saying this as I just rewatched the anime Trinity Blood that has similar themes, except no alien species. Just good old Vatican against the "vampires," who are actually the descendants of a failed mission to Mars where they caught a local virus that made them drink human blood when they came back to the Earth. Feel free to wikipedia the anime, or I'll gladly let people borrow it or read some of the manga.
Just like Tim mentioned, I don't really understand why missionaries try to help people/species that don't want to be helped. Maybe I've just become fed up with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door. You'd think after having a conversation with the Mormons, who apparently graduated from the same high school, telling them how we lived in Utah and are not interested that they would stop coming to my house. I feel that is kind of the same with the mission to Rakhat. The alien species was more concerned about everything but spirituality.
Just like Tim mentioned, I don't really understand why missionaries try to help people/species that don't want to be helped. Maybe I've just become fed up with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door. You'd think after having a conversation with the Mormons, who apparently graduated from the same high school, telling them how we lived in Utah and are not interested that they would stop coming to my house. I feel that is kind of the same with the mission to Rakhat. The alien species was more concerned about everything but spirituality.
Monday, April 7, 2008
The Sparrow
This will be the third time today I have tried to write this (sorry it's a little late). Last time it was about 5:00 and almost as soon as I had the text box open I leaned back and feel asleep. That reminds me of the first time I read the book, I was about 3/4 of the way through (maybe even a little farther--just when Emilio finds out nothing he sent back was published) when midnight brought with it the close of my favorite coffee shop--where I happened to be reading. I was, however, so involved in the book that I had to walk across the street to Village Inn (a classy version of Dennys) and finally finished around 2:00 in the morning (just in case you were interested).
What kept me involved then, and many of you have commented on, is the religious/spiritual journey of Emilio, Job, or, the man who God gave everything to and then took that plus interest. I too found this especially moving--being an atheist who was raised Catholic. My second reading through--for this class--however, forced me to pay attention to something Scott touches on briefly in his post and that is the question of the other. Schmitt makes an interesting note that the friend enemy distinction is not a question of beauty, and it seems Russel almost directly confronts the idea of how beauty impacts our perception of the other. There are numerous times on earth, before they leave where it is pointed out that a race which creates such beautiful music must be good. I wonder what Sandoz thinks now. Once they are on the planet again, there is an alomst deliberate deception by Russel to lul her characters into a false sense of security because of the beauty of the VaRakahti--particularly the Runa.
I believe Schmitt would find the book especially pleasing, not because Sandoz is hirribly raped, but because the order/the mission seemed to confuse astetics (beauty v. ugly according to Schmitt) with the political. And while I don't believe the book was intended in this manner it could be easily read as a Science Fiction play on the follies of liberalsim.
If we take the idea we expressed early in class about science fiction being a means with which to critique society without doing so directly, yet more explicitly, drawing parallels between some alien or futuristic story and the problems of the world today. One could not outwardly criticize the ideals of modern liberal pacifism where friend and enemy becomes confused with civilized and uncivilized, democratic and undemocratic, good and bad. But if you create an alien world and have a group of explorers confuse Beauty and Ugly with Friend and Enemy then the situation becomes far enough detached that those criticisms are possible. They explicitly make the mistake of confusing the two and are explicitly rebuked for it. Again, I don't think that was the point, but it's a pretty intersting line of thought anyway.
What kept me involved then, and many of you have commented on, is the religious/spiritual journey of Emilio, Job, or, the man who God gave everything to and then took that plus interest. I too found this especially moving--being an atheist who was raised Catholic. My second reading through--for this class--however, forced me to pay attention to something Scott touches on briefly in his post and that is the question of the other. Schmitt makes an interesting note that the friend enemy distinction is not a question of beauty, and it seems Russel almost directly confronts the idea of how beauty impacts our perception of the other. There are numerous times on earth, before they leave where it is pointed out that a race which creates such beautiful music must be good. I wonder what Sandoz thinks now. Once they are on the planet again, there is an alomst deliberate deception by Russel to lul her characters into a false sense of security because of the beauty of the VaRakahti--particularly the Runa.
I believe Schmitt would find the book especially pleasing, not because Sandoz is hirribly raped, but because the order/the mission seemed to confuse astetics (beauty v. ugly according to Schmitt) with the political. And while I don't believe the book was intended in this manner it could be easily read as a Science Fiction play on the follies of liberalsim.
If we take the idea we expressed early in class about science fiction being a means with which to critique society without doing so directly, yet more explicitly, drawing parallels between some alien or futuristic story and the problems of the world today. One could not outwardly criticize the ideals of modern liberal pacifism where friend and enemy becomes confused with civilized and uncivilized, democratic and undemocratic, good and bad. But if you create an alien world and have a group of explorers confuse Beauty and Ugly with Friend and Enemy then the situation becomes far enough detached that those criticisms are possible. They explicitly make the mistake of confusing the two and are explicitly rebuked for it. Again, I don't think that was the point, but it's a pretty intersting line of thought anyway.
Reflection of the political
I want to start by noting that at the end of class, as Professor Jackson alludes to, I was not suggesting Schmitt somehow embraces Wilsonian liberalism. I simply thought it was unfair that we left the class on the rather disheartening quote which seems to admit defeat quote "A war waged to protect or expand economic power economic power must, with the aid of propaganda, turn into a crusade and into the last war of humanity." When, in fact, the piece ends with a statement of certain victory (victory for the author and the concept of the political). While I will allow that it could be an intellectual tip o' the hat to Nietzsche I think it must also be read as an admission that the ideal he outlines in the piece (and elsewhere) is simple a personal preference in the name of efficiency as opposed to some sort of philosophical law. I am especially appreciative of this comment as it gives an out to people like myself who agree with his definitions of the concept of the political, but who do not aspire to the totalitarian/fascist conclusions he reached as a result.
Sarah points to another rather brilliant remark. On 79 Schmitt seems to perfectly predict the shifting language of US war propaganda. I wonder, however, if Schmitt would be more critical of leadership that places war on the friend foe terms or if he would be more critical of a society and a people who refuse to accept War on traditional terms--So much so that if we discover the initially established friend v. foe terms were falsified (No WMDs in Iraq for example) we quickly lose our patience for any violence. I think there is another interesting storyline in our continued love of the Death Penalty, Schmitt points out executions are permitted within his understanding of how liberalism works, but many liberal societies (including many liberal states) do not permit executions. This calls me to question Schimmit's conclusions that liberalism can not bring an end to war. I contend that true liberalism goes one step further, and that the Friend Foe we are currently fighting is actually a result of the half-committed portion of society that still likes fighting foes and executing criminals.
Sarah points to another rather brilliant remark. On 79 Schmitt seems to perfectly predict the shifting language of US war propaganda. I wonder, however, if Schmitt would be more critical of leadership that places war on the friend foe terms or if he would be more critical of a society and a people who refuse to accept War on traditional terms--So much so that if we discover the initially established friend v. foe terms were falsified (No WMDs in Iraq for example) we quickly lose our patience for any violence. I think there is another interesting storyline in our continued love of the Death Penalty, Schmitt points out executions are permitted within his understanding of how liberalism works, but many liberal societies (including many liberal states) do not permit executions. This calls me to question Schimmit's conclusions that liberalism can not bring an end to war. I contend that true liberalism goes one step further, and that the Friend Foe we are currently fighting is actually a result of the half-committed portion of society that still likes fighting foes and executing criminals.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Schmitt Reflection
It struck me during our discussion that the War on Terror is a combines Schmitt's idea of the foe and of the increasing pacification of political dialog on 79. Instead of declaring war on an enemy (which would be violent and go against the aversion that society has developed towards war) war has been declared against an idea. The only people who are actively vilified are those who criminally violate peaceful order. This is much easier for (in Schmitt's definition) a relatively pacifist society to stomach. It seems that Schmitt is right and we prefer to have as few enemies as possible, so while there are a few terrorists who we demonize, the rest of the people are our friends who welcome our peace and freedom with open arms. Of course, this has little effect on reality, since our "friends" are nearly as or more likely than our enemies to be killed as we try to enforce peace and freedom. However, the new forms of pacifist propaganda, which Schmitt alludes to makes the "collateral damage" of wars for peace and freedom much easier for a post world war society to deal with.
Reflection
In class and blog posts, the discussion seemed to focus around the question: "How do we determine who is an enemy?" and this post is no exception. The friend-enemy distinction seems completely arbitrary like A pointing at B and saying "You are a threat to my existence. You are my enemy." As we pointed out in class, there is no physical characteristic to distinguish friend from enemy ["the morally evil, aesthetically ugly or economically damaging need not necessarily be the enemy" (27)]. Lindsay brings up that the enemy is determined because "he held the opposite belief from you so strongly that it threatened your way of life". I think it goes a little farther than this. It's not simply that the friend and enemy have opposite beliefs, but that they think their belief should replace the other. Simply holding opposite beliefs doesn't necessarily mean there is a threat to either's existence. Also Mel points out that despite being primarily alien and different, friend and enemy share a similarity ["An enemy only exists when, at least potentially, one fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity” (28)]. I think this is the recognition that separates enemies from foes, which is another distiction Schmitt writes about. Enemies are recognized as human and it is only necessary to push them back to their borders while foes are seen as inhuman and the only course of action is to annihilate them.
That being said, I did more thinking about Ender's Game. In the first two invasions, I would say the buggers are recognized as the enemy that threatens Earth's existence. But for the Third Invasion, the buggers are foes that the IF hunts down and annihilates. The conflict turned from political to personal.
That being said, I did more thinking about Ender's Game. In the first two invasions, I would say the buggers are recognized as the enemy that threatens Earth's existence. But for the Third Invasion, the buggers are foes that the IF hunts down and annihilates. The conflict turned from political to personal.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Reflective 4/1
I'll play devil's advocate again. How cares if Schmitt became a Nazi. Hell, my landlords in Germany were Nazis because they were young kids and all kids had to be in the Hitler Jungen. Time's change, and oh by the way, the Germans were looking for someone to blame about WWI and Hitler gave them that.
Ok, now that my rant is over I can continue. I really don't know what to write this time because I'm beginning to feel this class is rehashing the same topics class after class. That's the main reason I don't say alot in class, I know I've said what I've said a few times and the point of a discussion is for new ideas to come out. I'd rather be quiet and not talk instead of rehashing the same points everyday, it kind of makes the class a bit boring.
Schmitt still makes a pretty powerful point that everything can be seen as part of the political. The EU and Microsoft is a good example. The EU is consistently pursuing the suits against Microsoft in order to make an example out of Microsoft. The EU doesn't care that if Microsoft releases its source code to the public then hackers can get into your computer no problem. That's the main reason Linux isn't a popular Operating System, because its an open source OS (in other words you can google the source code and see the actual code that makes up the OS).
Ok, now that my rant is over I can continue. I really don't know what to write this time because I'm beginning to feel this class is rehashing the same topics class after class. That's the main reason I don't say alot in class, I know I've said what I've said a few times and the point of a discussion is for new ideas to come out. I'd rather be quiet and not talk instead of rehashing the same points everyday, it kind of makes the class a bit boring.
Schmitt still makes a pretty powerful point that everything can be seen as part of the political. The EU and Microsoft is a good example. The EU is consistently pursuing the suits against Microsoft in order to make an example out of Microsoft. The EU doesn't care that if Microsoft releases its source code to the public then hackers can get into your computer no problem. That's the main reason Linux isn't a popular Operating System, because its an open source OS (in other words you can google the source code and see the actual code that makes up the OS).
Schmitt
Two thoughts I had on Schmitt, first (and I'm sure this is intentional) it is possible to engage his writing with almost every novel we have read this semester. I realize that we've avoided utopian visions of the future because, lets face it, dystopias engage with our historical and political contexts in far more interesting and relevant ways. It seems though, that every author we've read agrees with Schmitt's assertion that in most cases other=enemy. While most of the protagonists we've read about don't necessarily occupy the moral high ground, it doesn't really matter, conflicts are possible because he is a stranger (Schmitt, 27). Like Liz mentioned, this goes straight to the heart of the human bugger conflict, but in this case not only are the buggers alien and strangers they are also (to the humans) morally evil and aesthetically ugly, giving humans all the more reason to exterminate them. Also, I found Schmitt's discussion on 54 very interesting in relation to not just science fiction in general, but specifically Card. Schmitt almost seems to imply that an enemy outside the planet could end friend-enemy dichotomies among humans, Card seems to agree with this in the form of the IF bringing universal stability to the world while the threat of the buggers was still present. However, literally as soon as the buggers were destroy, the friend-enemy paradigm switched back to earth as the various political groups began battling among themselves over the future of earth.
On a probably slightly less fruitful note, the historian part of my brain wouldn't let go of the fact that Schmitt ended up being a Nazi. I realize that circumstances and moments in history sometimes sweep people along with them, but it was really disturbing to me that someone who could so clearly visualize the dangerous shape that politics could take when the enemy became "an outlaw of humanity" (79) would be a party to the atrocities of the Nazi party.
On a probably slightly less fruitful note, the historian part of my brain wouldn't let go of the fact that Schmitt ended up being a Nazi. I realize that circumstances and moments in history sometimes sweep people along with them, but it was really disturbing to me that someone who could so clearly visualize the dangerous shape that politics could take when the enemy became "an outlaw of humanity" (79) would be a party to the atrocities of the Nazi party.
Political?
In contrast to what Sara suggested right below me I happen to like the fun philosophical way of defining terms endlessly. I did find myself a little bored by the section that defined everything political had previously falsely been identified with. The overarching concept of what it is to be political is something I had never thought of in such explicit terms before and something that made perfect since once I read it. The idea of political being the realm of defining friend and foe is an absolutely perfect description. I just wish my political science education was more directly focused on this specific issue. Seems to me political science should be more focused on defining political and means of understanding friend and foe as opposed to all the boring (ok, so I like it) voting behavior stuff we do study.
The Concept of the Political
Reading Schmitt's essay was less than exciting for me. He spent much of the essay trying to differentiate terms and at points I felt like knowing German or philosophy wouldn't have hurt. As Tim pointed out, reading novels can be more interesting than essays because of the format. Which is why I'm glad we read Ender's Game before The Concept of the Political because it helped applying the humans vs. bugger situation to the friend-enemy concept.
The buggers are the perfect example of the other (or enemy when compared to humans) because they are "existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with [them] are possible" (27). In Ender's Game, the IF saw the situation as us versus them, friend versus enemy, kill them before they kill all of humanity. However, I think Schmitt doesn't see it as black and white. On page 27 he says "the morally evil, aesthetically ugly or economically damaging need not necessarily be the enemy". Being classified as the enemy doesn't mean all the negative aspects of other antitheses apply. Especially since on the other side of the fence the roles are reversed. Schmitt goes on to say that the friend-enemy antithesis is not fixed and "in no way implies that one particular nation must forever be the friend or enemy of another specific nation" (34). Here's where I think the IF made a mistake in assuming that the buggers would only ever be their enemy and set out to negate their existence, as Schmitt would say.
And along with the bugger wars, Ender's Game looks into Earthside relations with the hegemony and Warsaw Pact. But I'll save that for after class, where I hope to understand Schmitt's concept a little better.
The buggers are the perfect example of the other (or enemy when compared to humans) because they are "existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with [them] are possible" (27). In Ender's Game, the IF saw the situation as us versus them, friend versus enemy, kill them before they kill all of humanity. However, I think Schmitt doesn't see it as black and white. On page 27 he says "the morally evil, aesthetically ugly or economically damaging need not necessarily be the enemy". Being classified as the enemy doesn't mean all the negative aspects of other antitheses apply. Especially since on the other side of the fence the roles are reversed. Schmitt goes on to say that the friend-enemy antithesis is not fixed and "in no way implies that one particular nation must forever be the friend or enemy of another specific nation" (34). Here's where I think the IF made a mistake in assuming that the buggers would only ever be their enemy and set out to negate their existence, as Schmitt would say.
And along with the bugger wars, Ender's Game looks into Earthside relations with the hegemony and Warsaw Pact. But I'll save that for after class, where I hope to understand Schmitt's concept a little better.
Monday, March 31, 2008
The Concept of the Political
Just like I said back with Weber, I feel like I've heard everything here before. Granted, I took Modernist Explosion here where the entire course looks at the Wiemar Republik, and I'm taking German as a language. Germany after WWI wanted to figure out why they lost, they were the best professionally trained army in the world and they lost without the fight ever being on German soil. Everyone who was anyone came up with theories, some more popular than others - see Nazis. I found it quite funny that Schmitt decided to piratically make everything an "antithesis of political."
And I totally agree with Schmitt saying that confusion arises from the concepts of Justice and Freedom being used to legitimize political ambitions or demoralize the enemy. These concepts are loosely defined, one man's justice and freedom might not be another's. Just look at Shari'a law, that's justice and freedom for some Muslim countries, but to the West it is repression. You can even look at authoritarian states if you want to stay away from religious issues, North Korea doesn't have its laws revolved around the tenets of a religion, unless Kim-Jon-Il-ism counts.
And to be the "devil's advocate" here for some of the numerous discussions we've had on morality and the like. Its all our faults for not taking the time to truly understand our "enemies"
and "allies." Everyone has blame, but one side or factor will make a choice and live with it. Hindsight is 20/20 after all, and I'm sure everyone has regrets about mistakes they've made with people, or the lack of understand of the "enemy."
And I totally agree with Schmitt saying that confusion arises from the concepts of Justice and Freedom being used to legitimize political ambitions or demoralize the enemy. These concepts are loosely defined, one man's justice and freedom might not be another's. Just look at Shari'a law, that's justice and freedom for some Muslim countries, but to the West it is repression. You can even look at authoritarian states if you want to stay away from religious issues, North Korea doesn't have its laws revolved around the tenets of a religion, unless Kim-Jon-Il-ism counts.
And to be the "devil's advocate" here for some of the numerous discussions we've had on morality and the like. Its all our faults for not taking the time to truly understand our "enemies"
and "allies." Everyone has blame, but one side or factor will make a choice and live with it. Hindsight is 20/20 after all, and I'm sure everyone has regrets about mistakes they've made with people, or the lack of understand of the "enemy."
Ender's Game
I have to agree with Mike and admit that I found our discussion last week a bit disturbing. The idea that the only option was to destroy the buggers since no one knew how to communicate them seems a bit anachronistic to me. Granted, many wars are still fought at least in part because people are unable to communicate, but the idea that we should fight primarily because we can't communicate is rather disturbing.
Over spring break I read one of Card's other books, Pastwatch, in which Card explores the first interactions between Columbus and the natives on Haiti. In that book it becomes apparent that Card blamed the failed communication between Columbus and the native people for many of the wrongs of our society and the future society he was envisioning. However he also envisioned a past in which the natives of Central America had developed the technology to fight back, and the results were as disastrous as the encounter in our time line. However, in both of these cases Card presented the conflict as a problem of the past, one which the people of the future acknowledged and were actively working to correct. I'm not sure how much of that has to do with viewing conflicts retroactively, unfortunately that is the position we're all put in whether reading history or novels. It's also difficult to put ourselves in the position of truly not being able to communicate or understand another civilization. However, that being said, I find it very hard to accept that the complete destruction of an entire species was the only option for the IL. Of course I'm not sure that I could have done anything better than the IL did with the information they had, but it seems like there should have been a better way.
Also for anyone familiar with Babylon 5, I couldn't help but compare this encounter to the initial encounters of the humans with the Minbari. Due to a miscommunication, they entered into a war which almost destroyed humanity. I guess this is a fairly common theme for science fiction. It seems that in 500 years would would have a better way of doing things, but baring a way to communicate I have to admit I'm really unsure what that is.
Over spring break I read one of Card's other books, Pastwatch, in which Card explores the first interactions between Columbus and the natives on Haiti. In that book it becomes apparent that Card blamed the failed communication between Columbus and the native people for many of the wrongs of our society and the future society he was envisioning. However he also envisioned a past in which the natives of Central America had developed the technology to fight back, and the results were as disastrous as the encounter in our time line. However, in both of these cases Card presented the conflict as a problem of the past, one which the people of the future acknowledged and were actively working to correct. I'm not sure how much of that has to do with viewing conflicts retroactively, unfortunately that is the position we're all put in whether reading history or novels. It's also difficult to put ourselves in the position of truly not being able to communicate or understand another civilization. However, that being said, I find it very hard to accept that the complete destruction of an entire species was the only option for the IL. Of course I'm not sure that I could have done anything better than the IL did with the information they had, but it seems like there should have been a better way.
Also for anyone familiar with Babylon 5, I couldn't help but compare this encounter to the initial encounters of the humans with the Minbari. Due to a miscommunication, they entered into a war which almost destroyed humanity. I guess this is a fairly common theme for science fiction. It seems that in 500 years would would have a better way of doing things, but baring a way to communicate I have to admit I'm really unsure what that is.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Ender's Game Reflection
Going off my last comment, I still believe that the I.F. could have done more. And as practically all posts have said, it came down to a lack of communication. In a time where the ansible is possible and super-intelligent children can be "requistioned" I think the IF could have had communication side project. While Scott pointed out for the Enderverse were to remain internally consistent (one of our criteria for science fiction) the ansible could not contact the buggers, it proves that humans were able to communicate similiar to the buggers. In chapter 15 the bugger queen relays to Ender how they found him through the ansible (320). Perhaps this could have worked with another child if the IF had tried.
Does survival mean needing to exterminate the "other"? I'm all for building up defense to ensure humanity's survival, but I don't think the IF had to go hunt down the buggers and eliminate an entire race. It's as if the IF said "You know what, it's been long enough. They have nothing to offer us. Let's show them who the superior race is and destroy them". Again in chapter 15, the bugger queen says they never returned because they realized humans were sentient beings. However, the IF never acknowledge the bugger race as sentient. The closest they get is when Mazer says " In all the bugger wars so far, they've killed thousands and thousands of living, thinking beings. And in all those wars, we've killed only one" (270). Only the queen is recognized as a sentient being, and yet that doesn't deter them from attacking as it did with the buggers.
Overall, I don't believe that the IF was justified in its actions. It had acted as if attacking was its only option, refusing to acknowledge other possibilities. If I had to make this decision, I would've felt better knowing that I did everything I could before turning to ultimate destruction. Or maybe I'm being too sympathetic to the buggers. I would not have made it through Battle school.
Does survival mean needing to exterminate the "other"? I'm all for building up defense to ensure humanity's survival, but I don't think the IF had to go hunt down the buggers and eliminate an entire race. It's as if the IF said "You know what, it's been long enough. They have nothing to offer us. Let's show them who the superior race is and destroy them". Again in chapter 15, the bugger queen says they never returned because they realized humans were sentient beings. However, the IF never acknowledge the bugger race as sentient. The closest they get is when Mazer says " In all the bugger wars so far, they've killed thousands and thousands of living, thinking beings. And in all those wars, we've killed only one" (270). Only the queen is recognized as a sentient being, and yet that doesn't deter them from attacking as it did with the buggers.
Overall, I don't believe that the IF was justified in its actions. It had acted as if attacking was its only option, refusing to acknowledge other possibilities. If I had to make this decision, I would've felt better knowing that I did everything I could before turning to ultimate destruction. Or maybe I'm being too sympathetic to the buggers. I would not have made it through Battle school.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The Genes (Jeans?) of Society
Scott makes an interesting case for why the offensive posture taken by the I.F. and in a moment I want to try (just for the hell of it) to make the opposite case. First, however, I would like to make a modification to the initial idea proposed by Gaff about survival being in our genes to suggest instead the idea of societal genes--that essentially describe the nature of our society. It would be these genes Gaff is actually talking about. The strongest traits in cultures survive while the weaker ones die off. The mistake, of course, in Gaff reasoning with biological or social genes is the fact that he assumes our genes are the stronger ones--This is not always true.
I also believe a good argument can be made against the decision of the I.F. First, there is no reason to assume that we could beat the buggers at their homeworld--given this case we could have simply provoked another attack. Second, this left us totally defenseless should our ships have passed in space or something, while we had no idea about the overall strength of the bugger civilization. Third, it must be assumed that any commander capable of defeating the buggers in their turf would also be able to defend out turf--Ender, our weapon of choice, could perceivably serve either an offensive or defensive role. If, we assume that we must prepare for what is essentially the worst possible scenario in which it is possible to survive then leaving the fleet home would have been the best (if not the only) option. The only reason to send a fleet to attack if we assume that they are going to attack us soon would be one of vengeance, since without communication the deterrence idea of "if you kill us we will kill you" does not work.
I also believe a good argument can be made against the decision of the I.F. First, there is no reason to assume that we could beat the buggers at their homeworld--given this case we could have simply provoked another attack. Second, this left us totally defenseless should our ships have passed in space or something, while we had no idea about the overall strength of the bugger civilization. Third, it must be assumed that any commander capable of defeating the buggers in their turf would also be able to defend out turf--Ender, our weapon of choice, could perceivably serve either an offensive or defensive role. If, we assume that we must prepare for what is essentially the worst possible scenario in which it is possible to survive then leaving the fleet home would have been the best (if not the only) option. The only reason to send a fleet to attack if we assume that they are going to attack us soon would be one of vengeance, since without communication the deterrence idea of "if you kill us we will kill you" does not work.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Reflections on Class Discussion 3/18
I feel that the quote from Mazer on 270 is really important. It has application to modern day, look at Pearl Harbor and 9/11. The US was attacked, people died, and the US declared war to seek vengeance. We didn't kill all the Japanese, but we took it to the next level with atomic weapons. This can all go back to the gold rule, "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." Even when we try the diplomatic route on earth between people, that hardly ever works. I doubt if the buggers and humans had the ability to communicate at all that it would change everything. After all, we are very egocentric and I just don't think the governments of the earth would agree to allow a race to exist with better technology than us for long. The buggers did in fact fire the first shot from the information the bugger queen gives to Ender. Just like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 we attacked the group that made the first shot.
Maybe the buggers never deliberately attacked a civilian area, but humans have in the past to their own. Does that make us a lesser species?
Maybe the buggers never deliberately attacked a civilian area, but humans have in the past to their own. Does that make us a lesser species?
Monday, March 17, 2008
Ender's Game Reflection
I had forgotten exactly how much I enjoy this book, and it was really interesting to read it now that I'm a bit older. Also I thought that some of the letters included in the introduction were wonderful to read, it seems like there's something in this book that many people can relate to. In terms of the class though, when I read this I couldn't help but compare Ender to Yod. Yod said at one point that a weapon shouldn't be self aware, and largely because of that he decided to destroy himself. It struck me that the teachers and commanders were trying to turn Ender into a self-aware weapon just like Yod. They knew that they might destroy his life, but as long he fulfilled the purpose he was bred for it didn't really matter. Granted , Graff felt some sympathy for Ender, but that didn't stop his treatment of him. Once Ender had fulfilled his purpose he had apparently outlived his usefulness on Earth, his return would have certainly given one of the warring countries an advantage and that would not have been acceptable to anyone. He was still young, but I couldn't help but wonder what would have happened had he not been able to escape all of the pressures from earth by leaving for the new colonies. I can't imagine he could have held up indefinitely trapped in the outpost, and I don't think he would have willingly submitted to Peter's plans for the world.
I also read this at the same time as I was reading Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus, also by Card. When looked at together it really struck me how much easier it is to deal with an other who is an alien rather than an other who is human. The people of Earth have absolutely no doubt that the Buggers are evil and should be eradicated. Ender points out during the trial of Graff that people called him a cold blooded killer for the murders of Stilson and Bonzo, but that no one saw killing billions of Buggers as a crime. It wasn't until Ender became Speaker for the Dead that there was any indication that people saw the Buggers as anything but a deadly pest to be eradicated. It was much harder for Card to deal with human others however; he couldn't have easily looked at the native peoples from Columbus's perspective, it would make most modern readers incredibly uncomfortable to be expected to sympathize with a main character who saw other people as subhuman pests to be eradicated or exploited. Instead, that book had to be set from the perspective of enlightened historians from the future who could see the errors of Columbus's ways. Had Columbus encounter aliens rather than people however, the book could have been written from his perspective, rather than by people observing him. Condoning genocide of something that looks completely different from us is much easier for most readers to swallow. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that Card had other reasons for writing Pastwatch as he did, but even if this wasn't in his mind, I think it's relevant to themes we've been discussing.
I also read this at the same time as I was reading Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus, also by Card. When looked at together it really struck me how much easier it is to deal with an other who is an alien rather than an other who is human. The people of Earth have absolutely no doubt that the Buggers are evil and should be eradicated. Ender points out during the trial of Graff that people called him a cold blooded killer for the murders of Stilson and Bonzo, but that no one saw killing billions of Buggers as a crime. It wasn't until Ender became Speaker for the Dead that there was any indication that people saw the Buggers as anything but a deadly pest to be eradicated. It was much harder for Card to deal with human others however; he couldn't have easily looked at the native peoples from Columbus's perspective, it would make most modern readers incredibly uncomfortable to be expected to sympathize with a main character who saw other people as subhuman pests to be eradicated or exploited. Instead, that book had to be set from the perspective of enlightened historians from the future who could see the errors of Columbus's ways. Had Columbus encounter aliens rather than people however, the book could have been written from his perspective, rather than by people observing him. Condoning genocide of something that looks completely different from us is much easier for most readers to swallow. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that Card had other reasons for writing Pastwatch as he did, but even if this wasn't in his mind, I think it's relevant to themes we've been discussing.
Ender's Game and Shadow of the Hegemon
Since I read one of the sequels to Ender's Game I can't help but draw some things from both. First off, I wasn't surprised when I found out Mrs. Wiggins "was" Mormon. From the conversation she has with Bean in Shadow of the Hegemon, it made sense as to why having more than two children was important. After all, it takes 4 kids to get an ancestor out of hell.
I also wasn't that surprised that the "games" were real. I actually expected it before I even picked up the book when Professor Jackson mentioned that there would be a big shocker in the story. Maybe I'm just jaded from my military upbringing, that in war everything is possible. I haven't seen the tactics used in the novel in real life, but we do have simulations like Red Flag in Nevada that are pretty darn real. As my Dad has told me combat is the best training possible. Both really interested me. I loved the tactics and strategy I could easily see in Shadow, as it was countries fighting each other not humans vs buggers.
The whole Battle School concept isn't that far off to me. We have military academies at West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy in Colorado. There are War Colleges in Kansas and Virginia, for example, where military officers from the US and abroad come to study tactics and battle strategies. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen my Dad writing papers on past conflicts, some as currently as the Kosovo Campaign of 1998. We even have auxiliaries of all the branches for young kids to get involved with. Taking kids at 6 is extreme, but you can join one of the auxiliaries when you're 10.
I also wasn't that surprised that the "games" were real. I actually expected it before I even picked up the book when Professor Jackson mentioned that there would be a big shocker in the story. Maybe I'm just jaded from my military upbringing, that in war everything is possible. I haven't seen the tactics used in the novel in real life, but we do have simulations like Red Flag in Nevada that are pretty darn real. As my Dad has told me combat is the best training possible. Both really interested me. I loved the tactics and strategy I could easily see in Shadow, as it was countries fighting each other not humans vs buggers.
The whole Battle School concept isn't that far off to me. We have military academies at West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy in Colorado. There are War Colleges in Kansas and Virginia, for example, where military officers from the US and abroad come to study tactics and battle strategies. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen my Dad writing papers on past conflicts, some as currently as the Kosovo Campaign of 1998. We even have auxiliaries of all the branches for young kids to get involved with. Taking kids at 6 is extreme, but you can join one of the auxiliaries when you're 10.
Substinative, Ender's Game
This was a fun reread. I especially enjoy the (albeit brief) discussions about the internet based government Ender's siblings decide to take over. The internet seems to have the ability to allow for a far more direct democracy than we currently enjoy--the entire country, or even the entire world could debate, discuss, and decide upon issues both large and small. I'm not sure how practical the whole idea would be (not to mention, without representatives to elect I would be out of a job), but it sure would be fund.
Another major theme within the novel is the idea of a balance of empathy and ruthlessness. Peter is seen as too violent and closed to have the empathy necessary to understand the bugs in order to defeat them. Valentine is too understanding, she is unwilling to kill, and Ender, of course, is the perfect balance between the twain--Violent when necessary, but capable of understanding his opponent. Interestingly, the book also seems to suggest that humanity fall more in line with Peter--more interested in destroying the bugs outright than understanding them in the slightest. I find this especially interesting since one must assume that humanity contains a mixed cast of characters, some like peter, some like ender, and some like valentine. Yet the result Card portrays is not a balanced society like ender, but an extraordinarily violent one more like peter.
Another major theme within the novel is the idea of a balance of empathy and ruthlessness. Peter is seen as too violent and closed to have the empathy necessary to understand the bugs in order to defeat them. Valentine is too understanding, she is unwilling to kill, and Ender, of course, is the perfect balance between the twain--Violent when necessary, but capable of understanding his opponent. Interestingly, the book also seems to suggest that humanity fall more in line with Peter--more interested in destroying the bugs outright than understanding them in the slightest. I find this especially interesting since one must assume that humanity contains a mixed cast of characters, some like peter, some like ender, and some like valentine. Yet the result Card portrays is not a balanced society like ender, but an extraordinarily violent one more like peter.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Ender's Game
At first, I wanted to be like one of the Wiggin children with their superior intelligence at such a young age. They are the poster children for "Knowledge is power". We see Ender as a commander and Peter and Valentine stirring up trouble as Locke and Demosthenes. But thinking over it, it's not like they have superior intelligence and are throwing mud at each other. Peter and Valentine look for challenges (aka world domination through Locke and Demosthenes). Not only have the Wiggin children lost any chance at a normal childhood (especially in Ender's case), the fate of the humanity rests on their shoulders. Intense. Then on top of that Ender has to cope with killing another race. Poor Ender.
Which brings up genocide. It became clear that wiping out the entire race of buggers was genocide, but no human ever said "this might not be right" until Ender had already killed them and was acting as Speaker for the Dead. Humanity's excuse for genocide was self-defense, us or them, the best defense is a good offense attitude. Why rush into exterminating an entire race? Aside from the timing of the ships arriving near the bugger homeworld, could it be related to Ender's age? Would it have been harder to lie to Ender about the simulators if he had been a year or two older? If he had killed the buggers sooner, would it have not affected him as much?
Which brings up genocide. It became clear that wiping out the entire race of buggers was genocide, but no human ever said "this might not be right" until Ender had already killed them and was acting as Speaker for the Dead. Humanity's excuse for genocide was self-defense, us or them, the best defense is a good offense attitude. Why rush into exterminating an entire race? Aside from the timing of the ships arriving near the bugger homeworld, could it be related to Ender's age? Would it have been harder to lie to Ender about the simulators if he had been a year or two older? If he had killed the buggers sooner, would it have not affected him as much?
Friday, March 7, 2008
V reflection
I am still not quite sure where to go with this, but I want to discuss V's motivations. I still can't figure out if V favored anarchy, or if he simply felt anarchy allowed him to do as much damage to those who had hurt him as possible. You can kill whoever you want in the land of do as you please. I think it's telling when V offers to avenge Gordon's life despite the fact that this would lend no assistance to his cause. If he were really interested in anarchy I think he would have kept his focus there.
I also continue to wonder just how much control V had over the situation. We bounced around this question a couple of times in class with regards to moral issues, but I wonder if planned out every single thing, knew how people would react and worked to create the "environment" that would cause that reaction, or if there was actually some element of chance or free will. Yes, V just put Evey in the right environment, but if he knew what would happen then he made the decision for her. It's especially telling that he controlled fate--he had the power to manipulate destiny, to predetermine how things would occur. In a sense, this is even greater power than Paul's as he could only see the future, while V writes the future.
I also continue to wonder just how much control V had over the situation. We bounced around this question a couple of times in class with regards to moral issues, but I wonder if planned out every single thing, knew how people would react and worked to create the "environment" that would cause that reaction, or if there was actually some element of chance or free will. Yes, V just put Evey in the right environment, but if he knew what would happen then he made the decision for her. It's especially telling that he controlled fate--he had the power to manipulate destiny, to predetermine how things would occur. In a sense, this is even greater power than Paul's as he could only see the future, while V writes the future.
V for Vendetta Reflection
Abraham Lincoln, Adam Susan, and V. All did what they believed was necessary. Lincoln became essentially a dictator during the Civil War, suspending habeas corpus. As we pointed out in class, on page 37 Adam Susan did what he thought was the only way, that way being fascism. V killed prominent figures in the Norsefire party, held Evey captive, blew up multiple buildings, and temporarily suspended the state's surveillance all because it was necessary. I don't recall him specifically saying that this was the only way, though during his broadcast he issues an ultimatum that the people have to get their act together or action will be taken against them.
Lincoln is one of our most notable presidents and idolize him because he kept the country together in a time of crisis. The American public doesn't care what he did to ensure unity; only the end result matters. V is not as idolized as Lincoln. In class, we weren't able to come up with an answer whether V was good or bad? His goal to end fascism in England is admirable, no matter what his intentions might be. Machiavelli's "the ends justify the means" rules the exceptional circumstances. However, Adam Susan comes off differently compared to Lincoln and V. Fascism is the means for Adam Susan. But what are his ends? Is it purity? He's pretty much obsessed with purity. We don't see how he rose to power so we don't know what was necessary for him to do. To us, the fascism isn't justifiable. Add to that, Moore makes him look crazy by falling in love with Fate and it's even harder for us to understand him.
Lincoln is one of our most notable presidents and idolize him because he kept the country together in a time of crisis. The American public doesn't care what he did to ensure unity; only the end result matters. V is not as idolized as Lincoln. In class, we weren't able to come up with an answer whether V was good or bad? His goal to end fascism in England is admirable, no matter what his intentions might be. Machiavelli's "the ends justify the means" rules the exceptional circumstances. However, Adam Susan comes off differently compared to Lincoln and V. Fascism is the means for Adam Susan. But what are his ends? Is it purity? He's pretty much obsessed with purity. We don't see how he rose to power so we don't know what was necessary for him to do. To us, the fascism isn't justifiable. Add to that, Moore makes him look crazy by falling in love with Fate and it's even harder for us to understand him.
Reflection on V for Vendetta
I think the one thing that struck me most in class was the discussion of destruction versus creation. I couldn't help but consider the gender roles in V for Vendetta when we were discussing V's inability or at least lack of attempt at creation. Instead the role of creator was left to Evey. This falls much more into traditional (comfortable?) gender roles than did Avram's creation of Yod. I also find myself wondering how much the dynamics of the book would have changed if Evey had been a male character. Since, as Professor Jackson pointed out, Evey had no role as a love interest in the novel, would it have worked just as well with an "Adam" character? Or would we be left feeling as though a man wouldn't be ready to create a new order after V finished with his destruction? I'm really not sure.
Also, with regard to whether or not V is a "good guy" I would argue that he is not. I'm not even entirely convinced that he is the protagonist of the novel, I found myself feeling far more interested in Evey's character, if only because she was much more three dimensional. I believe someone mentioned that while V is represented as the antithesis of Norsefire, which is decidedly evil, being the antithesis of something evil doesn't automatically make him good. That said, I'm not sure that V is as antithetical to Noresfire as he would like to be. Like Norsefire, it seems as though he has decided that he alone gets to determine who is human enough to be worth saving. For the government, that was people of the 'Nordic race,' and for V it was anyone who hadn't been too contaminated by the government, and even then he may have set those who might be worth saving on a path to destruction, unless they could find a way 'free' themselves after he created mass chaos. Also, in his treatment of Evey, it seemed that he was trying to mold her in his image by subjecting her to the same treatment (minus Batch 5) that he and Valerie had been subjected to. While he may have felt justified in do this, he did to her exactly what the scientists at Larkhill had done to him, which really puts them on the same level in my opinion. I'm sure that those scientists felt just as justified as he did in performing their experiments, and equally sure that V wouldn't have hesitated to kill Evey had she not passed his test. While there is the chance that V's actions produced more positive results than the actions of those in power, I don't believe he occupies the moral high ground in any way.
Also, with regard to whether or not V is a "good guy" I would argue that he is not. I'm not even entirely convinced that he is the protagonist of the novel, I found myself feeling far more interested in Evey's character, if only because she was much more three dimensional. I believe someone mentioned that while V is represented as the antithesis of Norsefire, which is decidedly evil, being the antithesis of something evil doesn't automatically make him good. That said, I'm not sure that V is as antithetical to Noresfire as he would like to be. Like Norsefire, it seems as though he has decided that he alone gets to determine who is human enough to be worth saving. For the government, that was people of the 'Nordic race,' and for V it was anyone who hadn't been too contaminated by the government, and even then he may have set those who might be worth saving on a path to destruction, unless they could find a way 'free' themselves after he created mass chaos. Also, in his treatment of Evey, it seemed that he was trying to mold her in his image by subjecting her to the same treatment (minus Batch 5) that he and Valerie had been subjected to. While he may have felt justified in do this, he did to her exactly what the scientists at Larkhill had done to him, which really puts them on the same level in my opinion. I'm sure that those scientists felt just as justified as he did in performing their experiments, and equally sure that V wouldn't have hesitated to kill Evey had she not passed his test. While there is the chance that V's actions produced more positive results than the actions of those in power, I don't believe he occupies the moral high ground in any way.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
V for Vendetta
I'm doing both my posts at once so please bear with me.
I found V for Vendetta quite good, and better than the movie like the Professor mentioned. I enjoyed the part where V blew up the Justice statue as well. Just like Philip pointed out, I don’t feel the graphic novel is about anarchy. It was more chaos than anything else to me. I might be bias when I say I like the graphic novel format better. There are just some little details you can’t get with a normal novel that you get in V for Vendetta. I found it quite easy to follow along from the numerous manga I have read before.
On a random note, I was so thinking about Captain Planet when I noticed that V’s epiphany was true fire, Evey’s through water and Mr. Finch through LSD (let’s just call that “heart”).
I can’t remember what page it was one but I remember Mr. Finch saying that the Leader did not heal the wounds from the war. After the Leader was dead, the country went to chaos. Sounds like the Balkans to me. Tito was a fierce dictator and kept everyone in line until he died. Now look at all the wars in the Balkans.
Now for my reflection, It seems the question of why V gets to do as he pleases is a common thread amongst all the reflective posts. I think he is allowed because the citizens were upset with their current situation and were powerless to do anything. Then V came along, blowing up buildings, giving them 3 days of no government surveillance, and giving them a choice of what to do. I had to sit in a chair watching the wall for 2 hours during a polygraph test today and it sure felt better getting out than when I was answering questions. When the interviewer asked me the questions without the equipment attached I was fine, but once everything was hooked up I was a bit scared. Perhaps the citizens felt the same.
I think the bottom line is you see what you want to see in the story. In my book V is neither a good guy nor a bad guy.
What really strikes this as a power graphic novel in my mind, is the idea of this fascist state is not far out there. It happened before in Nazi Germany, whats to say it won't happen again?Tuesday, March 4, 2008
V for Vendetta
So, some fairly disjointed thoughts on V for Vendetta: while I enjoyed the story line and some of the commentary in V for Vendetta, I found some of the plot nuances difficult to follow because of the format. This may be entirely due to the fact that I had never read a graphic novel before, but many of the characters, especially the minor ones, looked similar enough that I had a difficult time distinguishing them. That said, I really enjoyed reading this, the movie didn't even come close.
I thought one of the more interesting devices in this book was the use of all of the varied cultural references and the use of music. V quoting Shakespeare (11-12) and the Rolling Stones (54) with equal conviction and I am Legend sitting on V's bookshelf next to Dante (18) made an interesting point about the importance of any culture, not just "high" culture. Also the set up of Book 2 with a song was an interesting way to give an overview. I also really appreciated the Les Miserables reference on 255, especially after seeing the way Finch's obsession with V played out. There are definite parallels to Lean Valjean and Javert, but I didn't think of them until seeing the graphic.
I found pieces of the premise somewhat hard to believe, but that may have been because of the time the novel was written at. While I can accept the idea of Britain becoming a dictatorship, the idea of it being religiously based is pretty hard to believe. Beyond that this book was decidedly a product of the Cold War, which doesn't diminish the value of its commentary, but should be taken into account, and does take away slightly from its verisimilitude.
On the other hand, the idea of a big brother society is still alive and well long after the Cold War. There are already cameras in almost every city in Britain (which look identical to the ones on page 9) which constantly monitor looking for criminal activity. Some even have live operators which inform people when they have been spotted littering or engaging in "anti-social behavior" (check out the BBC's article). I found the concept a bit creepy while I was living there, but almost everyone took them for granted, and seemed completely oblivious to being monitored. While it's probably not a slippery slope, the possibility seems to exist, and keeps this novel very relavant.
I thought one of the more interesting devices in this book was the use of all of the varied cultural references and the use of music. V quoting Shakespeare (11-12) and the Rolling Stones (54) with equal conviction and I am Legend sitting on V's bookshelf next to Dante (18) made an interesting point about the importance of any culture, not just "high" culture. Also the set up of Book 2 with a song was an interesting way to give an overview. I also really appreciated the Les Miserables reference on 255, especially after seeing the way Finch's obsession with V played out. There are definite parallels to Lean Valjean and Javert, but I didn't think of them until seeing the graphic.
I found pieces of the premise somewhat hard to believe, but that may have been because of the time the novel was written at. While I can accept the idea of Britain becoming a dictatorship, the idea of it being religiously based is pretty hard to believe. Beyond that this book was decidedly a product of the Cold War, which doesn't diminish the value of its commentary, but should be taken into account, and does take away slightly from its verisimilitude.
On the other hand, the idea of a big brother society is still alive and well long after the Cold War. There are already cameras in almost every city in Britain (which look identical to the ones on page 9) which constantly monitor looking for criminal activity. Some even have live operators which inform people when they have been spotted littering or engaging in "anti-social behavior" (check out the BBC's article). I found the concept a bit creepy while I was living there, but almost everyone took them for granted, and seemed completely oblivious to being monitored. While it's probably not a slippery slope, the possibility seems to exist, and keeps this novel very relavant.
V for Vendetta
This being my first time reading the graphic novel, I couldn't help returning back to the movie. When I first saw the movie, I liked it. Even after reading the graphic novel, I still like the movie but not in the same way as before. I'm a strong believer in judging movies-based-on-books separate from the books (i.e. the Harry Potter films).
But while reading V for Vendetta, I was looking for the differences, kind of like those spot the differences cartoons. The overall picture is similar, but there are 10 or however many minor differences. I'm not going to name all of the differences, but one visual difference I saw was Norsefire's slogan. In the graphic novel, it was "Strength through Purity. Purity through Faith", whereas in the movie it was changed to "Strength through Unity. Unity through Faith". (See the pictures below)
But while reading V for Vendetta, I was looking for the differences, kind of like those spot the differences cartoons. The overall picture is similar, but there are 10 or however many minor differences. I'm not going to name all of the differences, but one visual difference I saw was Norsefire's slogan. In the graphic novel, it was "Strength through Purity. Purity through Faith", whereas in the movie it was changed to "Strength through Unity. Unity through Faith". (See the pictures below)
One different word and the meaning of Norsefire seems to change. Purity demonstrates the fascist nature of Norsefire while the word unity doesn't have quite the same effect. Unity doesn't come off as severe purity. Maybe this is because unity is something we strive for, but not in the sense of exterminating everyone who sticks out. Unity also reminds me of the commune, which leads to a communism/authoritarian vs freedom nature to the film instead of fascism vs. anarchism as Moore and Lloyd intended.
The film tried to slim down this complex graphic novel and in that attempt left out certain details and failed to acknowledge secondary characters. It's not that the film left out everyone, though the wives are missing in the film, but it passed by them so quickly I couldn't catch their names so I never thought they were as important. I think there will be enough ranting about the movie vs. graphic novel in class.
The film tried to slim down this complex graphic novel and in that attempt left out certain details and failed to acknowledge secondary characters. It's not that the film left out everyone, though the wives are missing in the film, but it passed by them so quickly I couldn't catch their names so I never thought they were as important. I think there will be enough ranting about the movie vs. graphic novel in class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)