Reflection/Dune/Destiny/Social Science

It occurred to me that our class discussion was a little odd. Somehow we seemed to center in on what could be called literary themes as opposed to social science ones. I have come to wonder if Dune really falls into the definition of "science fiction" we outlined at the beginning of class. Dune, much like Star Wars, seems to be a myth, more a story of a Messiah than a a story about how we deal/interact with aliens, robots, the future, etc. I believe we could have told the same story if we set it in the middle ages or a twisted version of ancient Rome. Sure there are laseguns, spaceships, and atomics, but there is nothing particular about these devices that propels the story. The Bene Gisserit are just a strange group of nuns or drudis, the mentat well schooled generals, and the Guild a well organized merchant marine union. Perhaps it's this timelessness about the scenario that makes the story so good. We can all see how this galactic political scenario might come to pass, so that frees up the author to tell a good story about the boy who would break the whole thing down. Perhaps a better element in the book to discuss is whether or not we find it plausible for a single individual to tear down a political system or if it can only be done with special powers.

Reflections on Class Discussion 2/12

Fate and destiny are major players in Dune. However, we didn't really cover to what extent the two can be changed, and what the differences between the two are. I still believe that Paul fought the jihad and after the death of someone he thought of the same as his father, he gave up. I know I wouldn't, it would be a waste of time and energy in my mind. If you knew something wasn't going to change would you keep fighting? I'll also stick to the point I have been making for quiet some time, Paul used the Fremen in order to get his revenge. He was aware of the similarities between himself and the prophet the Fremen were waiting for. Paul even knew he wasn't the one who was to make Dune into a paradise for the Fremen. At the same time, he knew in order to live after being chased out that he needed the Fremen. We briefly touched on what Paul could have done. He had the option of dying in the initial attack, died in the desert, or joined the Fremen and just lay low. He could have made himself seem weaker to bid his time, but instead decided to use the Fremen as a tool to get his revenge.

Going to the point about Paul having three sides: the Duke, Usul, and Muad'Dib. I think that's the only way he was able to cope with the jihad that he continued to see. The Duke portrays his duty to his heritage, and the lust for revenge on the Harkonnens. Usul becomes more of his soft-side, that cares for human life. Last but not least, Muad'Dib is the prophet that will kill you where you stand. The three are used and put to the side until needed. I would believe it would only be a matter of time before Paul begins to breakdown, which he kind of did. He looses what made him an Atriedes, the value of human life.

In regards to the Appendices, I will mention something my Mother said while watching Lord of the Rings the first time "If it weren't for that map in the beginning I would have been totally lost." Dune is a complex story, to put it simply, and the Appendices, and dictionary, add more information as well at critiquing characters and organizations in the story.

Dune

First, I thought that this was an amazing book, and I agree that it was really easy to get lost in and fly though. With so much to focus on, the thing which I thought of most in reflecting was the genre of the book. Looking back at our first discussion, it seems to me that Dune contains almost as many elements of fantasy as it does science. While the technology to change the planet from desert into something more habitable is essential to the book, it seems that the elements of the fantastic are just as essential. One of the major things that stood out to me was Paul's ability to see the future, which is never really explained. While there may have been a scientific explanation for this ability, it isn't addressed. Also, the mystic elements of the Bene Gesserit seem much more like magic than like science. There is absolutely no explanation for things like the voice of power. I still think that there are elements of science fiction, but that Dune really does cross genres and enter at least somewhat into the fantasy realm.

That being said, this book is incredibly applicable to current society, not just in terms of social science, but also in terms of its scientific elements. With climate change being one of the most visible environmental issues today, the thought of trying to reclaim a desert planet seems incredibly viable. I also have to admit a curiosity about how Arakis became a desert planet in the first place. I look forward to seeing what elements stood out to everyone else in relation to social science issues.

Reflection on Manifest Destiny

I feel like I don't know how to go about this reflection since the format of class was radically different from our other classes. In addition, this was the first piece of social science that we read. It wasn't about time travel to the end of the world or colonizing the Moon. Stephanson presented us with some of the basic U.S. history we learned in high school and then some. In Prof PTJ's reflection, he noted how none of the groups took on the entire claim, instead focusing on specific parts. I'm still not sure whether I think Stephanson's claim was right, but I do believe that it does conform to the way we think. Manifest destiny has become common sense as Kristen mentioned in her reflection. I think it has sunk into the American mindset to the point that we are unaware of it today until an outsider (like Stephanson) brings it to our attention. Also I think the average American won't challenge history, since America has typically been on the side of writing history.

As to why the class didn't disprove Stephanson's claim, I blame the Macbooks. By the end of class I was certain that a Mac was never meant for me. How do you play Minesweeper without a right-click?

Dune

At first I was intimidated by the size of Dune, but I later found that it was a relatively quick read. With a book of this size, there is a lot of substance, but I wanted to focus on the Sardaukar, "the dread Imperial troops, the killers without mercy, the soldier-fanatics of the Padishah Emperor" (20). On first mention of the Sardaukar, we're supposed to fear and despise them as many other characters do in Dune. They are ruthless in their killing and come across as inhuman (I think the Bene Gesserit would agree since their definition of humans putting your hand in a painful box to override nerves). In my mind, I pictured them as Reavers from Firefly/Serenty, once human then turned "savage" only meant to kill. But the Sardaukar are constantly compared to the Fremen, especially concerning their environments and discipline. However, the Fremen are cast in a more positive light despite being even more brutal on the battlefield. Is this because of the Sardaukar's alignment with the "evil" Emperor and the Fremen on the side of our/their "hero" Paul? Both display immense loyalty to their leaders. I was particularly struck by the scene at the end with the Emperor, Alia, and the Baron as a Sardaukar officer yelled "Save yourself Sire" (464). During the attack on the hutment, I felt like the roles had been reversed. The Sardaukar came off as civilized and loyal much like Gurney Halleck and Duncan Idaho while in the previous paragraph we see "Alia darting out to find a knife and, as befitted her Fremen training, to kill Harkonnen and Sardaukar" (464). I'm not sure what to make of this right now but I can't wait to find out which of the numerous topics are brought up during class.
Also did anyone else become extremely thirsty while reading Dune or was it just me?

Too many possiblities

I have had a hard time deciding what to write in this blog post. Not because I can't think of anything, but because I can't seem to pick one of the hundreds of potential topics to discuss. I have, however, always been struck by the idea of the Missionaria Protectiva. The concept reminds me of Cortes' welcome as a God when he first came to the Americas. While their was no conceived plot to plant the idea of a religious prophet within the Aztec religious beliefs so that it could later be used to destroy the empire, the impact of the Aztecs' belief that Cortez was their long awaited prophet is undeniable.
The next interesting question, of course, is whether or not establishing within religious beliefs within a society is, in fact, within the realm of possibility in the "real world". Christianity already awaits the return of a messianic character but is it actually reasonable to try and be the second coming. What would it take to live up to any mythology. Would you have to be as foreign to a people as Cortes was to the Aztecs, funny colored with strange clothes, and wielding unkown weapons. Or is it possible to fulfill a prophecy--even a prophecy that was laid out for you to fulfill seems like an almost impossible task.

Reflection on Manifest Destiny

In thinking about last week's discussion, I kept coming back to the idea of the religious mandate for manifest destiny that we kept coming back to. It strikes me that a religious motivation for expansion really is not at all unique to the US. Granted, the puritan idea, and City on a Hill and all that wraps the religious mandate in a distinctly American packaging, but it is still not all that different from other nations with territorial ambition. The Spanish went to South and Central America seeking what a history teacher of mine referred to "God, Gold, and Glory," which really are the same motivations (glory possibly excepted on occasion) that sent Americans westward. It is the same with the English, and the "white man's burden," which had its roots in the concept of Christianizing the native populations.
So, rather than being uniquely religious mandated, I think that manifest destiny has a certain uniqueness because manifest destiny (along with the American ideals which are tied to it) has taken on certain elements of being a religion. At one point Stephanson refers to the religious character of American nationalism. (108) Here, he is not referring to the fact that the US is a protestant based society, although that is certainly part of is argument, but rather pointing out that in many cases, nationalism itself became the unifying religion of the country. While that is not the central argument he is making, I think it is an important one, and one that sets the American concept of manifest destiny as being distinct from other expansionist powers.

The War on Terror on Dune

I was a bit worried about the book with the e-mail Professor Jackson sent over winter break suggesting us to read it first. I found the book a really good, and fast read. I had heard from my other friends that it would take some time, and when my Mom saw it she thought she had gotten the wrong edition.

The parallels to today's situation are large. It is a fairly prescient novel, with the rare mineral only found on Dune. Sounds like oil in the Middle-East to me. Along with the desert planet with the original denizens of the planet not being in control. There's also that jihad thing. The story would just be another social science novel if it didn't take place over numerous planets. Everything that has been dubbed part of the "War on Terror" is in Dune. However, instead of being on the side of the "good guys" in our minds, we follow Paul. Paul becomes the leader and prophet of the Fremen. Granted, he can see into the future, something I think everyone wishes they could do. However, looking at this book from the War on Terror side of things, the Emperor is the "good guy" and Paul is the "bad guy." As I read Dune I constantly asked myself who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. This novel leaves it up to the reader, even though the story is mostly told from the perspective of Paul.

I even question who is the real terrorists in the book. Yes the Fremen had their surprise attacks, but didn't the Empire do just as awful deeds? The Baron had an agent within the Atriedes Household and it would have killed them all if Doctor Yueh didn't have a soft spot for the Lady Jessica.

Reflection on 2/5

I have been pondering this post for a while now, and I am sad to admit I still have not come up with anything especially insightful to say. I think the format of Tuesday's class threw me off a little. For some reason I had a hard time getting my head around evaluating Stephanson's claims, at least not in the improvisational internet manner. It would be one thing to study speeches, opinion pieces, and articles in search of a trend supporting or disputing his claim, but the brief internet searching bothered me a little. Especially given the ease with which I could alter Wikipedia (My little chunk is now gone, so someone did fix the page). I do think Stephanson's piece has opened my eyes to just how disturbing our rhetoric must seem to other countries. It's hard to reason with people who believe themselves predestined to Global Congquest (or, at least Global Conquest light). Especially if we consider just how much the claims of Manifest Destiny mirror the claims of the Borg, again, the ideas we spread may be different, but our methods and rhetoric are exactly the same as the Borg.