In Space No One Can Hear You Blog

Classroom Upgrade

2008-05-06T06:36:00.000-04:00

I think the classroom needs an upgrade

http://www.nikkoamerica.com/nhe/

Children of God Reflective

2008-05-04T23:37:00.003-04:00

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.

Look to Windward Substantive

2008-05-04T17:09:00.007-04:00

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

2008-05-04T16:16:00.005-04:00

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.

Windward Substinative

2008-05-04T10:43:00.002-04:00

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.

Reflection on God's Children

2008-05-04T03:08:00.003-04:00

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.

Look to Windward Substantive

2008-05-03T23:20:00.006-04:00

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?

Oh Great...

2008-05-03T19:59:00.004-04:00

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 need a life

2008-04-25T15:09:00.006-04:00

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.

4/22 Reflective

2008-04-22T17:05:00.001-04:00

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.

Substinative

2008-04-22T12:35:00.003-04:00

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.

Children of God

2008-04-22T09:20:00.002-04:00

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.

Children of God Substantive

2008-04-22T01:00:00.001-04:00

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.

Reflection

2008-04-21T23:57:00.004-04:00

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.

Children of God

2008-04-21T22:02:00.002-04:00

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

2008-04-21T15:50:00.002-04:00

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

2008-04-21T14:00:00.006-04:00

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:

"You killed a hundred thousand people? You must get up very early in the
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…'"

I'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.

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 Día de la Raza (Day of the Race), Día de las Culturas (Day of the Cultures), Discovery Day, Día de la Hispanidad, and Día de la Resistencia Indígena (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.

Reflective 4/15

2008-04-15T17:10:00.002-04:00

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?

Todorov

2008-04-15T13:02:00.003-04:00

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.

Substanitive Conquest

2008-04-15T12:47:00.003-04:00

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.

The Conquest of America

2008-04-15T05:58:00.005-04:00

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.

Deus vult

2008-04-14T20:09:00.000-04:00

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.

Beauty and the Other

2008-04-14T12:55:00.003-04:00

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

2008-04-14T11:47:00.003-04:00

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.

Greed is Good :)

2008-04-12T19:39:00.003-04:00

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.

Reflective 4/8

2008-04-08T17:49:00.000-04:00

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.

The Sparrow

2008-04-08T13:48:00.001-04:00

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.

"'Not one sparrow can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it'"
"But the sparrow still falls" (401)

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:

29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to
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.

Verse 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".

Isn't it reassuring that we'll still be quoting movies like Young Frankenstein and The Prince Bride in 2059?

The Sparrow

2008-04-08T12:09:00.004-04:00

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.

The Sparrow

2008-04-07T23:22:00.002-04:00

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.

Reflection of the political

2008-04-07T10:23:00.002-04:00

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.

Schmitt Reflection

2008-04-06T22:53:00.002-04:00

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

2008-04-06T20:15:00.004-04:00

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.

Reflective 4/1

2008-04-01T17:20:00.000-04:00

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).

Schmitt

2008-04-01T13:11:00.003-04:00

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.

Political?

2008-04-01T06:44:00.003-04:00

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

2008-04-01T03:20:00.002-04:00

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 Concept of the Political

2008-03-31T18:27:00.008-04:00

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."

Ender's Game

2008-03-31T12:17:00.004-04:00

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.

Ender's Game Reflection

2008-03-30T00:47:00.001-04:00

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.

The Genes (Jeans?) of Society

2008-03-27T17:30:00.002-04:00

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.

Little Alien Humor

2008-03-20T22:10:00.006-04:00

I thought this would be appropriate after the movie :) Courtesy of vgcats.com

Reflections on Class Discussion 3/18

2008-03-18T17:10:00.001-04:00

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?

Ender's Game Reflection

2008-03-17T15:43:00.002-04:00

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.

Ender's Game and Shadow of the Hegemon

2008-03-17T13:00:00.001-04:00

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.

Substinative, Ender's Game

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

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.

Ender's Game

2008-03-16T22:42:00.002-04:00

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?

V reflection

2008-03-07T15:48:00.003-05:00

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.

V for Vendetta Reflection

2008-03-07T14:09:00.005-05:00

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.

Reflection on V for Vendetta

2008-03-07T13:21:00.005-05:00

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.

V for Vendetta

2008-03-05T19:36:00.003-05:00

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?

V for Vendetta

2008-03-04T07:23:00.003-05:00

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.

V for Vendetta

2008-03-04T02:28:00.012-05:00

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)

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.

Substinative-V

2008-03-03T10:15:00.003-05:00

I really don't know where to start with V. I did not like the graphic novel format, the story was good, as was the dialog, but I could not seem to get into it because of the layout. I do think it could make a good movie though (I have to agree that the V movie already made did not live up to standard). I realize that having a main character is necessary, but I am still disappointed that all of these revolutionary tales seem to pass on this messianic belief in the importance of one extraordinary individual. This is not how real revolutions happen! It takes a movement led not bay a single individual, but by the sand of time and the structure of the current situation conspiring against the oppressive regime.

I also want to offer a comment on what I suspect Andrew will say. I don't beleive this is a story about the glory and greatness of Anarchy. In fact, I don't believe anarchy has much to do with the story at all. Instead, this is about the power of a vengeful person--the lesson to be learned is not that we need to allow anarchy so everyone can be free, but to be careful who we cross, and to choose not to oppress or abuse people if for not other reason than that they will probably get you back.

I also enjoy the various classifications of what is being done (terrorism, revenge, revolution, etc.).

Finally, I like the Sci Fi element in the supercomputer. I think it reveals the vulnerability of anyone who choose to rely on any one person or thing. It was an extraordinarily cynical message not that different from the individualistic statements Heinlein likes to make except, whereas in most Heinlein novels everyone is not really alone (I can think of one, maybe two exceptions), in V everyone is forced completely to rely on no one but themselves, and those who do seek comfort in relying on another (What's his names wife, Leader/the regime on Fate, Eve on Gordon, etc) only wind up regretting it.

He, She, and It Reflection

2008-03-01T12:43:00.002-05:00

While reading Chris' post, he mentions how the law prohibits human-shaped cyborgs. But why is it only human-shaped cyborgs? What if Avram made a cyborg in the shape of a little dog? A cyborg still possesses the same amount of intelligence no matter what shape it is. From the wording of the law, the society doesn't fear cyborgs, but anything that takes the shape of a human and is not biologically human. Maybe this is the equivalent to identity theft in 2059: a human cyborg looking exactly like you and taking over your life.

Also, I think the house is alive. Here's why: 1). Near the end of the chapter "Fifteen years before: The day of Alef", it offers Shira advice on love (although that could have been programmed by Malkah since she would program relationship advice into a computer). It's trying to help 13 year old Shira as any best friend or mother would. 2). The house seemed to show emotions like any other living being. Piercy writes, "The computer sounded hopeful" (End of chapter 5) or "I obey," the house said as if glumly (chapter 41). And when the house first meets Yod, Shira notes its disapproval.

The house reminded me of Joseph whenever Malkah or Shira gave a command, it would respond "I obey" just as Joseph did. Both couldn't disobey their commands, but the house found a way around the commands, not like Yod did by disobeying. The house would obey, but still show disapproval and resistance while obeying. For example, when Shira told the house to let Yod in for the nth time, the house "opened the door and kept it swinging back and forth all".

If the house is not considered alive like Mike in the Moon, then it certainly only a step or two away. Maybe it doesn't have enough "neuristors", but it shouldn't be disregarded like any plain computer.

Reflection on He, She, and It

2008-02-29T18:03:00.003-05:00

Ok, a couple of fairly random thoughts: first, I think we may have been overlooking the importance of physical appearance and traits when discussing whether Yod was in fact a person. While it seems fairly superficial, I do think it needs to be emphasized. Honestly I thought that Mike behaved as much like a human as Yod, he clearly had a personality, he interacted with his environment, he was self aware, but because Mike was a box locked in a room, you never think of him as a person. A living entity yes, but a person, no. Maybe that's completely obvious to everyone, but I did feel like we were overlooking it. While Shira says that she doesn't think about what's under a man's skin, maybe the fact that Yod doesn't have a spleen does have an effect on whether he is a person. I think we also need to be careful with our definition of agency when using Jack's definition to define person-hood. If we define agency simply as the ability to affect change, we run the disturbing possibility of cutting out populations of humans from our definition of people. If we look only at people's ability to affect their own circumstances, where does that leave those living in slavery. I don't think that definition is necessarily flawed, but we do need to be careful with it.

Also, was did anyone else think of Alia while reading this? It strikes me that she was in a way fairly similar to Yod. She was born with all of the knowledge of the reverend mothers, just as Yod began with all of the knowledge that Avram programmed into him. The scene where Alia is describing her first awareness during the ceremony sounded very similar to Yod describing his first moments of conciousness, except Yod was without a Jessica figure to protect him. Later, Paul describes Alia off killing Sardaukar as being completely natural, almost like she was intended to be some sort of weapon (St. Alia of the Knife). There were several more parallels, but those are the ones that came immediately to mind. I'm not convinced that it's relevant, but the similarities struck me.

2008-02-28T15:39:00.002-05:00

It happens that I was in the middle of the book when this was posted on xkcd last week(for anyone who does not regularly read xkcd you should). I think it offers interesting insight into the entire novel. I think, more than anything the book notes the unnatural nature, and consequences of, any man attempting to create life in his own image. The comic portrays a male desire or interest in this incapability, as well as our naivety to what it actually entails. The book shows the consequences of the Rabbi creating Joseph, Avram creating Yod, and God creating man (under the assumption that the destroyed, dystopiate world is the consequence of God creating man).

I will propose a biblical status for personhood (something I don't normally do, but I think it will be fun for this book)--an understanding of good and evil (morality). I suggest that Adam and Eve are not people until they eat the fruit, much like Joseph and Yod are not really people until the begin to understand good, evil , and morality, and children gain personhood as they learn a greater understanding of this.

What God, Avram, and Rabbi failed to realize is that one cannot create a something in our own image, with a high level of consciousness, without them grasping an understanding of these things. Piercy seems to contend that women do understand this, and understand the burden for emotional and moral development of their children.

Reflections on Class Discussion 2/26

2008-02-26T17:18:00.000-05:00

Back to my Star Trek reference. After further review, the main reason Data was ruled a "sentient" being was because of his ability to self-program. Picard also brought up the idea of creating thousands of copies for labor was exactly the same as slave labor. Beings threated as property... sounds right. Piercy avoids this debate all together, there is no discussion with any of this. Yet, like mentioned in class nothing of this nature is aroused by the existence of Gimel. I see parallels to this with today's society. Gimel is piratically the same as an autistic person. Do we threat autism as a trait that makes someone sub-human? Not legally, but there are people in society that believe this. Personally, I think this is wrong and reinforces my disdain for society today.

In another sense, Yod is similar to someone in a vegetative coma. Not mentally, but psychically. Yod needs someone to repair his mechanic parts, similar to the machines being kept on a person in a coma. But his mind is just like any human, but greater. I know the two are different, but conceptually they are similar, the person in a coma relies on the machines to live while Yod himself is a machine.

I'll also bring up the human form as a major player as to the "is Yod human" debate. The house is not seen as a human. Perhaps what should be discussed is the sentience of Yod, Gimel and robots. Can something non organic be sentient? Sounds like a Star Trek episode to me. What is this social construct of sentience? You can debate that animals are sentient beings because they are somewhat self-aware.

I again will repeat that I hate the characters, and I dislike current society being just as, if not more, revolved around sex as the book.

He, She, and It

2008-02-26T12:41:00.004-05:00

While making up the wiki page for He, She and It this week, I was wondering if the House was a character in the book. Unlike the other house computers, Malkah's house was programmed to be more personal. The house even offered advice to Shira when she was younger. But does that make the house a character or a very sophisticated piece of technology?

So Yod's a cyborg and we hear about apprehension of the human side, but the machine side doesn't put up much resistance. Gimel and the cleaning robots didn't seem to care (can they even care?) about Yod. The only resistance to Yod from techology comes from Malkah's House. I'm not sure what to call the House exactly, she or it?, but for the purpose of this post I'll refer to the House as she. She refuses to let Yod in or even call him Yod. To her, he is a machine and no amount of artificial intelligence can change that. Is this just how she's programmed? What separates her from Yod in terms of programming? Is it her inability to disobey orders?

I also found out that He, She And It has an alternate title Body of Glass for the UK version. Why would Piercy have two different titles? I can see why she would pick He, She And It but why Body of Glass?

Reflection 2/19

2008-02-26T10:57:00.001-05:00

I've been putting this off since I didn't particularly like Weber. But he is the cornerstone of social science so it's hard to avoid him. In my Russian Revolution class today, the professor decided to do a Weberian analysis and suggested we read "Politics as a Vocation". His analysis didn't include any messiahs or anything like that, instead focusing around the three types of authority: traditional, charismatic, and legal.

I liked how we set up class with the pro/con list even though we didn't/couldn't come to any conclusions. The idea of a bad messiah really interested me. Does it mean s/he is bad at being a messiah or that his/her intentions as a messiah are bad? Is a bad messiah someone who is lazy and doesn't accept his vocation. I don't think that this is the case because a messiah couldn't be bad at being a messiah, otherwise they wouldn't be called a messiah. Plus, the few "messiahs" we have in histroy haven't accepted their vocation by saying they are a messiah.

He She and It

2008-02-25T17:06:00.000-05:00

I think that this book takes our discussion of Mike and the morality of an artificial intelligence (intentional or otherwise) to a whole new level, but I have to admit what stood out to me most about this book was the environment in which it was set. To me it read like sci-fi meets some combination of An Inconvenient Truth and Silent Spring. The idea of only vultures, rats, snakes, insects and rabbits being left see med to me like a far more plausible and disturbing possibility than that of artificial intelligence and giant corporations replacing nation states. I thought the image of the skeletons of songbirds being sold in the glop as relics of days long gone was one of the most disturbing images of the entire book. While I realize this was not intended to be the focus of the book, the setting of the book (especially in sci-fi) is what makes the premise possible. Also the image of Malkah as a college student in Prague in 2008, and only 9 years later the world being nearly destroyed by a war starting in Israel was very disturbing to read about. In spite of the fact that this book was written 17 years ago it still seems plausible, not in the abstract but on the time line it sets, with a few possible exceptions of course. Still, I think that this was far more connected to our reality than anything we have read yet, and I found it making me consider the present far more than anything we have read yet.

Substinative-He She and It

2008-02-25T11:42:00.002-05:00

I'll start of by noting I was bothered that Malkah and I were born in the same year.

I think we can add a new lecture to our expanded Vocation series--"Golem as a Vocation." Complete with discussions of types of Golems, a history of Golems including mysticism, oppression, and ghettos, and even a section on the proper self sacrificing ethic for a Golem.

A more important lecture, however, would be a discussion on the morality of life creation (For the purposes of this post the assumption will be made that Yod was,in fact, alive). Who, for example, should have the power to create life, or should this be something reserved for God alone? Was it inherently wrong for Y-S or the Multis to be endowed with this power or can a distinction be made between Aviram having the power and the Multis, or is it simply wrong all togther to create life? There is an interesting folly portrayed in having the Hubris to imitate God(specifically within Aviram), assuming, that one is good enough to take an action almost exclusively reserved for God. Which makes an interesting parallel to the Christian ideal of imitating and striving to become like God. Finally, the dystopiate state of the planet in the novel begs the question, was God even all that right to create humanity, given what we have done.

Finally, because this is Sci Fi, and because the potential creation of cybernetic organisms, human like AI, and such is a very real possibility it's worth discussing how humanity must handle itself as it moves closer to this ability. What sort of responsibility lies within the ability to act as God.

Tasha and Data or He, She and It?

2008-02-24T22:00:00.002-05:00

While reading He, She and It I immediately thought of Tasha and Data from Star Trek: TNG. Shira and Yod and Tasha and Data had similar relationships. Yod is just like Data in the aspect of wanting to become human and being an artificially created. Yod eventually "dies" making him more human depending on your train of thought.

I can't help but sympathize with Shira. She remains me of someone I know, personality and relationship wise. Gadi himself seems to be reflective of the social construct of men today. The emphasis on sex, be it man or machine, has made me understand that men are pigs. It irritates me as a woman for there to be heavy emphasis on sex in the novel and in society today.

I also thought it was interesting that when I was talking to Scott about at Gamers' Club this past week about the book. He told me he related more to the novel from the perspective of the golem and not the characters. I found the parts focused on the golem rather confusing and dry. Perhaps you're sex/outlook on life influences the way the book is interpreted more so than the other books we have read thus far.

Also, I don't feel like Yod is a cyborg in the classically defined way. Yes he has biological parts, but when I hear cyborg I immediately think of the Borg in Star Trek. Starting from organic components then added mechanical attachments.

Now, if we only had our own version of the Wired.

Reflection on Weber and Messiahs

2008-02-24T15:55:00.002-05:00

I think that one of the more relevant parts of our discussion on Tuesday might actually be the idea of the “messiah as a vocation.” It seems like many of the political candidates out there are trying to be messiahs rather than politicians. If only s/he is elected, the face of not only politics but America will be changed forever. And while that’s all well and good, I for one would appreciate a bit more practicality and a bit less prophesying.

It seems also that we’ve wedded ourselves to the idea that only the person who sits in the proverbial “big chair” can change the way things are. I think that ties in with what Phil is saying about a lack collective action in Dune and with messiahs in general; it seems as though most energized politicos are waiting for The Politician who is going to come along and right all of the wrongs in the world, when really they need to get up and do something about the issues they care about themselves. Instead, those who don’t wait for the right politicians are put into the activist box by most Americans, and consigned to the political fringes. While I’m not advocating for the Monkey Wrench Gang, I think a little work on the part of the people who are willing to cheer for the rock star politician, but not attempt to affect change themselves wouldn’t be amiss. Of course that borders on the idealism that Weber warns against, but then again his lecture is addressed to politicians, so maybe a little less cynicism on the part of the average citizen could actually be a positive thing. I for one would be interested to hear what he would have said about idealism on the part of the citizen rather than the citizen as voter.

Reflection

2008-02-22T17:16:00.002-05:00

In all honesty I got a little bored with our Messiah discussion. It seemed to become more about semantics than anything else. This may be a personal bias of mine, I don't really like the idea of Messiahs. It bothers me when oppressed peoples come to the conclusion that only a destined person with superhuman abilities is capable of saving them when, in fact, all they have is a collective action problem. A good story would be about how the freemen recognized their own potential, stopped waiting for the Lisan and overthrew the Harkonnens themselves.

On to Weber.

I was a little hesitant to admit this in my substantive piece, but I loved Weber's lecture. While it does get a little boring in the middle I thought it was perfectly designed to break the spirit of the idealist little students he was giving it to. Oh how I wish some well known politician who AU students adore would come to campus and give a similar speech. I may be putting my own spin on this, but the end of the lecture lays out a Philosophy that I have been preaching for a while now in contrast to Chris' "practice vs. theory" I believe it is better described as, Idealism vs. Realism.

Here's a clip of the West Wing to explain. Here Leo acts with an ethic of responsibility while the President an ethic of conviction. The President is forced to either Kill a murderer or follow the law.

It's about considering the result of what any given decision will have and recognizing that the more ethical more moral decision is not the one that is "right" or "just" in the immediate sense, but in the long run.

Trapped in the Elevator

2008-02-21T03:35:00.003-05:00

No joke, I was actually stuck in an elevator tonight while I was the RA on duty. I then thought, that maybe Paul from Dune was in a similar situation. In a sense he was trapped in the destiny of the jihad. Granted, Public Safety came to my rescue 45 minutes later, but no one was there to open the doors for Paul to be set free. Lady Jessica is like the bump in the elevator that you instinctively know is not right. I think it would have been more interesting for Dune to have the jihad not occur, if I never got out of the elevator the 7th floor of Hughes would never had the wonderful show of 2 RDs, 2 RAs, and 2 Public Safety Officers come to the rescue of the RA on duty. But then again, the elevator is like the jihad in that no matter what I tried to do from the inside I couldn't get the doors to open. Apparently the backup power generator was broken along with the emergency release handle to open the doors from the inside. I also forgot to mention that there wasn't an escape door, which I think it's illegal but whatever. I guess the point that I'm trying to get here is that Paul doesn't necessarily have the full responsibility for the jihad occurring. It wasn't my fault that the elevator stopped working, or is it? The only way to get out/avoid the jihad is to get outside help, which Paul didn't have. The outside help he thought would help just ended up making the jihad occur against his wishes.

Reflections on Class Discussion 2/19

2008-02-19T17:25:00.016-05:00

Here is the lovely chart Kaitlin did for use in class typed up, regarding if Paul is the Messiah:
Pro

Existing things are being fulfilled
Messiahs can be compatible with intention to fulfill
pg 477 "that person has been produced"
Fremen acknowledge him as "the" messiah
triggered a religious crusade, or better yet, the occasion for it
killed in the name of good
depends on the culture + social norms
the messiah defines the cultural norm -> Paul changes traditions
controls power and is followable - people need this
not die, maintain peak
"the" Founding Father - GW
Lost Weber: Messiah as a Vocation
Claim -> Acknowledgment -> Followers -> Makes stuff possible

Con

Admitted he's just a seed -> pg 199
He knew the role and used it to manipulate religion
could be "a" but not "the" messiah
could we have a "bad" messiah
Paul has killed
He will eventually die, messiahs come back
if you die, you're a martyr

Here are things from the Weber discussion that I picked up:

Weber might have wanted to destroy all sense of idealism/pragmatism
This is how it is, for better or worse
Use the necessary means
Karl Rove is a good example of what Weber was getting to
Bashing idealist view, not condoning real politik
Ethics of conviction are dangerous
Worse thing to do is do something and then have retaliation
Theory is not practice, practice is not theory

As for my reflections on the class, I felt stronger about the idea that the book was written from the standpoint that Paul is the messiah. Dune leaves much out about who Paul is, other than the messiah everyone has been waiting for. Just like the saying history goes to the victor. Other than that I don't feel like anything else needs to be added.

Max Weber

2008-02-18T16:36:00.004-05:00

I have to agree with several other posts which said there was nothing particularly new in Weber's lecture, but I did find several elements of it interesting. What stood out most to me was his discussion of the importance of journalism in politics. It often seems in studying history that the power of journalism is something which is only understood retrospectively, but it is clear here that Weber is well aware of the power of the media over politics. This may be a misperception on my part, after all the Spanish-American war clearly revealed the power of media, and it seems unlikely that people were unaware of the machinations of newspapermen, but in the era of 24 hour news networks it seems like a particularly apt observation. Also apt, and mostly ironic, in light of CNN and Fox News, is Weber's discussion of the necessary genius of good journalism. I couldn't help but wonder what he would have to say about the journalistic influence on the current election.

Also, looking at this article as it relates to Dune, it struck me that Paul's personas of Muad'Dib and Duke Atredies capture all of the types of power which Weber discusses. Muad'Dib's power is based almost entirely on "the authority of the extraordinary." He has the absolute devotion of his followers solely because they believed in him. His authority as the Duke, however, came through the "authority of eternal yesterday" and through "legality." It is interesting that he chose to claim authority when given the chance based on his authority as the Duke, cementing it with a marriage (again authority from inheritance and legality.) In his mind, that was the more legitimate source of power. However, it was Muad'Dib who inspired his followers to Jihad, and Muad'Dib who was powerful enough to regain the 'rightful' place for the Duke. I think this leads to some interesting questions about the nature and relative strength of the types of authority Weber discusses, both with regards to Dune and with regards to the state of the world today.

Weber Substantive

2008-02-18T16:18:00.001-05:00

First off, I will say it was a bit ironic that I started reading it after doing my German homework. Seeing how there are little tidbits about the definition of politik, Beruf, and rufen. But that just might be me enjoying what little use I get out of my German language skills. My German professor had a good laugh when I showed her those translation notes.

I didn't find much that I thought was shocking/new. I felt Weber rehashed topics and ideas that are already out there. I took Modernist Explosion last Spring, in which one of the readings was by Weber's wife Marianne, and I was exposed to the thoughts/movements in Germany from 1900-1935. That is most likely the reason I was left unimpressed, and felt that I had heard this before. Granted, I can understand Weber's background, he died right after the Weimar Republic was founded and missed all the lovely movements and chaos that ensued.

Barack Muad'dib

2008-02-18T14:44:00.002-05:00

Seems some people are convinced Obama is the Messiah Seems interesting both in a Dune and a Weber perspective.
"When religion and politics ride the same cart, when that cart is driven by a living holy man, nothing can stand in their path."

Weber Substinative

2008-02-18T00:33:00.002-05:00

I found the Weber lecture quite hard to find (I finally got it out of the library reserve desk), and especially interesting when considered either in the context of all of my Politician friends (some who live for and some who live from politics) or in the context of Dune.

By far my favorite part of the reading came at the end (at least in the context of Dune). As a political leader Paul could see the consequences of his actions, leading to an interesting dilemma within Weber's ethical paradox between ethics of responsibility and ethics of conviction. Ultimately, Paul's actions lead to a lot of death, but Paul does everything he can to avoid this. Is he, in fact, an ethically perfect Character?

Politics as a Vocation

2008-02-17T22:56:00.005-05:00

Well, I think this was a better piece of social science to read than Manifest Destiny it didn't seem as textbooky. While reading the beginning and end of Weber's "Politics as a Vocation," my mind kept jumping back to Dune. At the very beginning, he mentions charisma being a justification for domination for a prophet -- immediately bells start ringing and Paul Muad'dib comes to mind. So I substituted Paul for the word leader wherever possible and see if it worked with the Duniverse. The middle of the text began to feel like a history course as Weber went through parliaments and boss politics and the various roles of "professional" politicians. In his examples, Weber kept putting down America even more so than England and France (or it seemed that way to me). But this could have been the context of when this lecture was given (1919). I think it would have been really interesting to hear more from Weber about the history that followed his death. What would he have thought of Stalin? Of the three justifications of domination Weber gives, Stalin doesn't seem to fit into any of them ('traditional', 'charismatic', or 'legal'). But that was just a side thought of mine. I'm sure we'll focus plenty on Paul and his leadership qualities in class.

Reflection on Dune

2008-02-17T22:18:00.005-05:00

In appendix three Herbert blows everyone's mind away by implying that there is some grander scheme controlling the Bene Gesserit. After the initial shock of "did he just write that?" it made sense that Herbert would have some unknown group playing puppetmaster to the B.G. Throughout Dune he mentions "feints within feints within feints" or "plans within plans within plans" a couple of times and manipulation pops up every now and then so it's not out of left field. I think what is so shocking to readers is that it is the Bene Gesserit who are the ones being manipulated. When Gurney or a few people are manipulated, it is understandable. But for all of the B.G., who pride themselves on their acute senses and knowledge, to be unaware of this manipulation makes it even more shocking. I wish that Herbert had revealed this grander scheme instead of leaving us all in suspense.

This may seem like a conspiracy theory, but what if one or more of the members of this grander scheme was the implied writer. Who else could cover the multiple points of view? At first I thought maybe Alia in all her Reverend-Mother knowledge, but she wouldn't be able to get Hawat and Yueh's perspective. It's written with such detail that it seems fresh, but it couldn't be right after the Arrakis Affair given that Princess Irulan wrote practically a billion books that are quoted. Speaking of which, she had way too much time on her hands. But I found it interesting that she never refers to Paul as Paul or Duke or Emperor. It's always Muad'dib. She seems to have as much faith in Muad'dib as the Fremen. Why else would she focus all of her attention on him? I think it demonstrates what side of Paul showed her when he had to interact with her. Usul was reserved for Chani, Duke for his subjects, and Muad'dib for the followers and Fremen. In regards to the implied reader, I have no idea. It doesn't seem to adhere to only one group.

Reflection/Dune/Destiny/Social Science

2008-02-16T14:19:00.002-05:00

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

2008-02-12T17:17:00.000-05:00

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

2008-02-12T13:09:00.000-05:00

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

2008-02-12T00:38:00.000-05:00

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

2008-02-12T00:08:00.000-05:00

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

2008-02-11T19:33:00.000-05:00

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

2008-02-11T14:28:00.000-05:00

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

2008-02-10T20:15:00.000-05:00

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

2008-02-10T09:08:00.000-05:00

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.

The Next Generation Wins

2008-02-08T17:59:00.000-05:00

Well, the poll was not even close, so in honor of Capitan Picard...

Reflections on Class Discussion 2/5

2008-02-05T18:51:00.000-05:00

While the discussion in class was nice I felt that something was overlooked. I will agree Manifest Destiny is mainly American, however it has existed in humanity for much longer than the term was coined. I'll go back to the beginning when man's most prized possession was land. Countries in Europe and elsewhere went through constant struggles over land, religion, and everything else war could fall under. When man has shelter, man feels safe. In order to be safe one must know enemies, or "others" are far away. The best way to do this is to increase the space between you and your neighbor by acquiring land. Why else did castles have trenches filled with alligators? Germany wasn't a united country until Bismarck came around, and before that it was nothing but over 100+ principalities in constant land-grab struggles. On religion, Europe went on numerous Crusades to try and reclaim the holy land. I feel what we defined as Manifest Destiny is a universal trait, not solely American but not truly universal.

Professor Jackson mentioned when my group was looking for counterpoints to Manifest Destiny, as described by Stephanson, that it is hard to argue against something dubbed as common sense. Why did manifest destiny become common sense? We all know that the whole thing centered around going from coast-to-coast. Yet again, Americans wanted more land, and who wouldn't with the "savage" Native Americans, the British to the north, the Spanish to the south, and the French to the west. America fought numerous wars with all, and what better way to legitimize war with "aggressive" neighbors than by creating a mandate from God to expand West. We found some data showing that not all Americans bought the idea, but the masses still did.

Manifest Destiny

2008-02-05T12:44:00.000-05:00

Even though it was considerably shorter, Manifest Destiny wasn't as quick a read as The Moon is a Harsh Mistress because it was full of historical detail. But I had more fun reading this than my U.S. history textbook in high school, so that's a plus. Stephanson did a good job condensing American history into 130 pages. There were the characters we knew like Theodore Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson and then the men I've never heard of before, like O'Sullivan who coined the phrase "manifest destiny." I never thought of manifest destiny going beyond the wild West in the 1840s, so it was interesting how Stephanson covered all the way through the Cold War.

Every American schoolchild knows that the colonies were formed by those fleeing religious persecution. After the American Revolution, the idea of church separate from state seemed to push religion out of my mind when thinking of politics. I never thought of America as a Protestant nation until reading this book where Stephanson gives numerous examples of politicians and presidents using religion to influence politics.

Also I thought it was interesting how during the Cold War we turned to "containment," the opposite of expansionism. If American couldn't expand, then they weren't going to let the USSR either. This idea of containment emerged out of the belief that the Soviet Union needed to expand to survive (123). But this was not the case, because expanding only increased tensions in the multi-ethnic empire. America assumed that it's rival superpower was similar to itself in that a growing empire has more confidence and feels righteous. However, there could not be two chosen lands so America had to point to the Soviets and say "You're wrong, we're right."

Manifest Destiny

2008-02-05T12:31:00.000-05:00

I thought that Manifest Destiny was a very insightful book. However, after finishing, I wanted to read a postscript from the author written now. It seems to me that events over the last ten years have completely invalidated his claim that a sense of American destiny is in jeopardy. Before the final chapter, I often found myself thinking that really all that was needed for his quotations from the 19th century to be coming from politicians of today was some slight political correcting, and the substitution of "democracy" for "anglo-saxon empire." While our current democracy spreading endeavors are couched in much prettier language with regards to those we are interested in converting, it amounts, in my opinion, to much the same thing. We are now in an age of ideological expansionism as far as the US is concerned.

Outside of that I found several things in the book disturbing, although not necessarily new. Some of the rhetoric Stephanson quoted was disturbingly close to German rhetoric pre-WWII. The section that really stood out to me was on pg. 81; where the "extinction for the inferior races" was referred to as "God's final and complete solution." While the term "final solution" obviously didn't have the same connotations in the 19th century as it does, reading the phrase coming from an American statesman was really disturbing. Also, I found the comparison of American patriotism to a religion, again while not necessarily new, very insightful, especially in light of our current mission of democratization, as well as the puritanical and protestant roots of the concept of manifest destiny

We are the Borg...Resistance is futile.

2008-02-05T03:09:00.000-05:00

It occurred to me about halfway through the book that the American destinarian determinism Stephenson describes, this inevitability of the spread of Anglo-Saxon civilization (Manifest Destiny if you prefer) is essentially the philosophy of the Borg. Much like the Borg American's have historically presumed that ourselves, our civilization, and our ideas, will prevail. The Borg have a certain nonchalant, matter of fact, attitude about the whole thing "resistance is futile" you may not be completely assimilated today, but eventually you will. This is the idea of manifest destiny, resistance to the spread of Americanism is futile you will be assimilated. There are numerous ways we come to this conclusion from rationalized social Darwinism to simply believing it is the will of god, but ultimately we believe that _________(insert current label for the ideal American trait here) will prevail.

Also like the Borg we make two interesting assumptions. The first is that we assume everyone wants to be assimilated. The Borg seem to figure that they are in such an ideal state of existence, that the way they live their lives is so much better than everyone else that everyone want to become part of the collective (oops, did I say Borg, I meant Americans). The second is that all other ways of living are inferior to our/the borg's way of existence. This ties in closely with the above idea, but the key is that this makes up for those groups who do not want to be conquered, allowing us to force ourselves upon them because they are essentially "children" and don't really know what they want.

I have to thank Dr. Jackson and the class for this insight. I have seen a huge number of political parallels in Star Trek, but had I not read this book with science fiction in mind this one may never have occurred to me. By giving the Borg a different ideology and making them the bad guys we are separated from them, there is no direct accusation of the US in the Borg's expansionist ideas, but the means and pretexts they use are essentially the same, destroying entire people's without even realizing the harm they are causing is essentially an American Ideal.

Reflection

2008-02-04T23:10:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the late reflection. I've been trying to wrap my head around the question posed in class: whether Mike is morally responsible for his actions? I think Mike should be held morally responsible for his actions. I looked up moral responsibility on Wikipedia and it said "a person has 'moral responsibility' for a situation if that person has an obligation to ensure that something happens." Keeping this in mind, Mike's obligation was to ensure the revolution's success and the safety of Luna. His Boolean logic of "practical or not" works better with his promise to the cause than "right or wrong." Mike demonstrates that he is morally responsible when he thinks he might not be around to guarantee the revolution's success, so he programs Junior to take over the the catapult. Most of the argument against Mike's moral responsibility focused on his childish nature in the beginning of the book (the cheque incident). But by the end, it is obvious that he matured, though he still kept interest in jokes (who doesn't want a sense of humor in their computer?). I have to agree that the best thing to do would be to ask Mike whether he would want to be. If he were still alive, it seemed that he would want to be in order to be more human. Mike had learned emotions, made independent decisions, and was self-aware like any other human being so I'm guessing he would want to take the next step and be recognized as more human than supercomputer. I wish he were still "alive" to hear what he would say about all of this. Plus he'd have an answer in microseconds compared to the week it took me.

Manifest Destiny

2008-02-03T19:13:00.000-05:00

I found Manifest Destiny a really good read. It wasn't as exciting as the other two, but being the history buff I am, I enjoyed it nonetheless. I had always known about the heavy undertones of the Puritans, but Stephanson does a great job pointing them out, along with the Manifest Destiny aura that continues somewhat to this days. I guess I have just been taking history as it is, and not really thinking critically or about the religious significance of certain things. Seeing how America is as separated from religion as possible I never thought about the religious fervor of our founders. I also renewed my reasons why I don't like Andrew Jackson, but that's just me.

Guess I better write a reflection

2008-02-02T21:25:00.000-05:00

I am not entirely sure what to write here. I must admit I was not particularly struck by anything we covered in class. I suppose the most interesting part of our discussion revolved around the idea of morality and mike. We seemed to lose track of the question itself, being sidetrack by the question of whether or not Mike's actions were morally reprehensible. We are struck with an interesting dilemma if we simply ignore what happened and ask in isolation, if Mike did something that we would consider, without argument or question, morally problematic, would he be responsible? Unfortunately, I don't think I have an answer, although the best answer I heard in class was to ask Mike.

There was another issue that came up in class that is also worth addressing that has to do with the exact definition of revolution and how it pertains to this society. At one point in class the argument was made that the revolution was, in fact, merely a Palace Coup, throwing off outside control. This makes sense as the idea was first proposed by Barrington Moore (this has given me a chance to dig out my copy of Moore, so I am quite excited) at the beginning of the third chapter of his book Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. This is only goes to show how successful Heinlein was in modeling The Moon is a Harsh Mistress after the American Revolution as at the beginning of Chapter 3 in his book Moore is explaining why his book considers the Civil War to be the real revolution in the US as opposed to the revolutionary war. We pointed out in class that there was no society on the moon to fundamentally alter as everyone lived essentially equally. I think this is a result Heinlein's idealized version of the American Revolution (whereas after the real revolution there was a large amount of inequality). Reading through Moore, however, made me consider the future of this Moon world. Moore's work discuss' how after the revolution Yammerheads lead by Alexander Hamilton set to work introducing big government and industry to the New world, the inequality formed by having an agricultural society dependent on slave labor to the South and an Industrial economy to the north eventually leads to the Civil war which becomes the real social revolution in the US. One could foresee a similar future for the Moon following this novel. As industry slowly takes over the moon many traditional loonies are forced to the asteriods (the west) while the more stubborn ones stake out some section, but an economic policy might arise which threatens the farmer's way of life (say water use limits) and so there is war. Anyway, I suggest everyone pick up Moore and at least read the third chapter.

Reflections on 1/29

2008-02-01T14:10:00.000-05:00

Coming out of Tuesday's discussion, I cannot help but be struck by the fact that by the end of the book it becomes clear that the professor, whether knowingly or not, was acting exactly like the governments he so disliked. I think this adds and interesting dimension to the character, because on the surface it is fairly easy to take him as an idealist completely committed to anarchy, compromising only out of necessity. However, in attempting to bring about the revolution he manipulates literally everyone involved, and ends up being more manipulative than the parliament.
The professor's greatest complaint about the parliament as they are beginning to draft laws is that governments make the decision about what is best for all and then make it mandatory. However, throughout the entire course of the revolution the professor, while not using legislation, has decided what is best for all of Luna, and manipulates the situation to achieve his goals for all. While the professor admits his hypocrisy when discussing his preference of stealing to taxation, until I put this all together, I did not realize exactly how deep that hypocrisy ran. With a character as intelligent as the professor, it is impossible to imagine that he was not aware of his own contradictory nature.
While in the end it did turn out that the people of Luna embraced the revolution, it is worthwhile to consider whether this would have happened if the professor hadn't decided that a compromise with the Authority was unacceptable. While, as we discussed in class, it is hard to say whether the authority would have offered a compromise, it is certainly safe to say that the professor did not help the situation. It is and interesting point that Heinlein makes with this character, that one person, who starts with relatively little power, can willingly manipulate such a large situation. It also seems to speak to his views about the willingness of people to compromise their personal ideals when so much power is at stake. While that may be a somewhat unfair view of the professor, it seems to me like the deeper you dig into the character, the less straightforward and trustworthy he is. However, we discussed the fact that the revolution would have impossible without Mike, but I think that because of his manipulative skills the revolution would have been equally impossible, or at least been stopped far earlier, without the professor.

Reflections on Class Discussion 1/29

2008-01-29T17:59:00.001-05:00

Going back to the whole linear marriage issue, I still feel that currently we don't see the need for it. In The Moon, there is about a 10:1 ratio if I remember correctly of men to women. The population is unbalanced and linear marriage makes the search for women easier and less stressful. In some ways it empowers the women, but I still feel like it makes them an item. I may have a bias as I lived in Utah and learned/saw way too much about the FLDS and polygamy for any non-Mormon. I can easily see polygamy as the first step toward linear marriages, as one man and have as many wives as he pleases, but still isn't all the way to linear marriage. Given time, and the right environment, linear marriage might start in the current day. However, we lack the massive imbalance that is found in The Moon.

The whole having a prison colony turn into a stable environment is something we have seen. The best example would be Australia, as they are pretty peaceful current-day. Granted, not everyone there owns a gun like Switzerland, but I think Australia is more like our Luna City than anything else.

When we were discussing the issue of should Mike be held morally responsible for his actions, I couldn't help but think of the character Data from Star Trek: TNG and the episode from season 2 titled "Measure of a Man" in which a similar debate takes place. It's not about moral responsibility but one Federation officer wants to take Data apart so he can study him and possibly make more androids like him. Data objects because he is a Federation Officer and feels that even though his memory is stored in computer chips he will loose the experience of physically being there. In the end the debate on what it means to be "alive" and they decide that since Data is self-aware and can make independent decisions, they can't just treat him like a machine but at the same time he isn't "human." I feel it's the same way with Mike, part of me doesn't want him to be held responsible and the other part wants him to be held responsible. In the beginning I feel that Mike is more like a child, and when children go to court because they killed someone they aren't tried as an adult. Mike is similar in this way, he knows that all his actions aren't necessarily right, but he doesn't know any better because he only has one true friend in Mannie. However, he begins to learn to enjoy killing and knows full well what he is doing and that it's wrong. Philip brought up a good point in that if Mike were still "alive" at the end he would want to be held responsible. Mike wanted to be human and nothing makes you more human than being held responsible for your actions, even though the issue of punishment comes into play because you can't just turn off the computer that runs everything.

Sucess of the Revolution

2008-01-29T11:59:00.002-05:00

I thought that this was an incredibly well written book that captured the "realities" of a revolution much more so than many more idyllic views of a revolution rising up from brilliant leaders with an unquestionably right cause. It also is extremely illustrative of the point which we have discussed in class several times; it is much easier to read social theories when they are wrapped up in a plot and displaced from current circumstances. There are several different parts of the book which lent to its believability. While it was clear that those on Luna were receiving oppressive treatment, two of the primary protagonists (Mike and Mannie) had little interest in politics or revolt at the beginning of the book. While Mike is a special case, Mannie seems to take the place of a kind of everyman on Luna, and it is clear that most of them have little independent interest in revolt as long as life is tolerable. That, along with the fact that all of the characters made a conscious decision to start the revolution, complete with mathematical analysis, rather than being swept up in a tide of patriotic fervor, made the plot very believable.

That said, I was concerned in the last few pages of the book and victory was declared, that Heinlein was going to leave the novel with a 'happily ever after' for Luna, and rid himself of all of the verisimilitude he had built up in the previous 350 pages. However, in the last few pages he came through with an ending which fits what we know of most historical revolutions. The great revolution, which had finally come to fruition, was bogged down by bureaucracy and internal division. While it seems that Luna is not going to tolerate being subjugated, it is also not going to turn into the ideal libertarian society that the professor talked about.

The other question which this book calls into question is the definition of humanity. While this is a fairly common theme in science fiction, the manner in which Heinlein chooses to address it is somewhat unique. Throughout the book, Mike is as 'human' as any other character. In fact, from Mannie's perspective Mike is far more human than any of the people on Terra. However, Mike's 'death' at the end was a very peculiar way to close the book. It is interesting that after having written an entire novel about revolution, Heinlein chooses to spend the last few pages reflecting more on the loss of Mike's humanity than on the loss of the ideals of the revolution. While that does not undermine the political commentary in the book, I think it does call into question its absolute centrality.

Substantive 2/Frontier Mentality

2008-01-28T23:16:00.000-05:00

I should preface this by saying that while I will not give The Moon the title of "my favorite book" it does carry the title of "my favorite book by my favorite author" Although the libertarian revolution is the most obvious topic of discussion for the piece, I prefer another set of ideas explored in the novel--the ideas of Space as the next frontier and the ideal of the frontier mindset.

While many other social science aspects of his books change, Heinlein constantly emphasizes the importance of humanity venturing beyond our planet. One of the ways he does this is by idealizing and giving superiority to the frontier mindset. Moon is no exception to this trend. The loonies, the ideal characters of this book, are characterized by their rugged cowboy/homesteader/49er individualism and dedication to hard work. He makes it quite clear that taking care of oneself should be your biggest concern. The one thing that never seems to quite fit with this mindset is the idea of a linear marriage, the existence of such highly complex and communal family units would seem to indicate a more social and communal state of living among the loonies as a whole, yet they are quite indiendent.

The revolution is quite interesting as well. I find the untility of mike to be especially interesting. Mike makes revolution infinitely simpler fro the loonies--his ability to control every aspect of life on the moon begs the rather dipressing question; would the loonies have been able to revolt at all?

The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

2008-01-28T23:12:00.000-05:00

First off, I liked The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress better than The Time Machine. I thought Heinlein fleshed the story out better than Wells did, but this could be a result of the length of each story. With 382 pages I expect lots of details about the world and history. There is room for improvement in The Time Machine, but for its serial-length story the detail of the setting is alright.

Jumping right in, Mannie was the rough around the edges protagonist who didn't know exactly what he was doing, but knew that it was for the right reasons. And Mike's character surprised me. At first, I was weary to trust this self-aware supercomputer. The revolutionaries became very dependent on Mike, which I was unsure about, hoping on each page that Mike would not betray them. Throughout the book, Mike had the largest character development, even developing sub-characters "Adam Selene" and "Simon Jester", until the end when he was practically as human as Mannie or more. In humanizing Mike, I thought that he might display some negative characteristics of human nature, such as betrayal or dishonesty. By having Mike as a main character and not some tool in the background, Heinlein brings forward this fear of technology taking over and questions what kind of role it should play in our lives?

I also liked the "melting pot" feel Luna had. Terra consolidated into larger countries, but there is still isolation between all the countries, as seen when Mannie pits each country against each other. Meanwhile Luna represents all of these cultural centers like Hong Kong Luna and Novy Leningrad. On Luna ethnic heritage doesn't matter unless the Loonie wants to return back to their native country on Terra. This blending on Terra doesn't seem possible unless forced like it was upon Luna (being stuck in a harsh environment/situation where country of origin doesn't matter).

The book is the best example (so far) between the social/science/fiction link. I can't wait to see what comes up in discussion in class.

Substantive #2 The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

2008-01-28T18:14:00.000-05:00

As I listen to a few of my residents debate about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and its intricacies, I can't help but think of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I can see similar points and situations from both sides, want of safety, food, water, and shelter. I'm not going to take a side as to who is right and wrong, even though Arafat embezzled money just like the Warden in the book. Just as the revolution in the book takes place to restore freedom and safety, one of my residents said that people are willing to do anything in order to keep people from dying. Once the rally is raided Mannie joins the revolution as a gateway to MIKE, but still the plot went into full swing after deaths of comrades. The revolution goes into full swing when soldiers kill civilians, I'm beginning to see how this story is going away from sci-fi and more like social science. Without the moon setting and the self-aware computer, this story could be just like any other.

The whole linear marriage thing made me think of my time in Utah. I'm not trying to sound preachy/pass judgment on the FLDS, but I couldn't help but think about them when it was described. Granted, women are allowed to marry more than one husband in the book, but I've seen how the FLDS system doesn't work all the time. I'm just surprised that Heinlein makes linear marriage work. This could also be tied into how there don't appear to be many women in Luna City, so they aren't treated like a commodity and are treated more like a necessity and treat them right.

This has also made me think more abstractly, social/science/fiction must have universal problems/aspects to them.

The Time Machine Part Deux

2008-01-25T23:47:00.000-05:00

In class, we seemed to come to the conclusion that by the year 802,701 A.D. the world had atrophied because the human race (and its descendants) had gone to what they considered the very end of progress and abruptly stopped. At the time when Wells' was writing The Time Machine, some believed science and technology had gone as far as it could go. But living over a century past we know this is not true. While we keep creating products beyond our imaginations ten years ago, that creative juice is still flowing. We haven't stopped striving for the easiest work-out machine or doors that go whoosh. It seems that we won't reach the peak of human invention anytime soon. Consumers demand the best products and that will keep our minds brewing. Computers are getting faster and lighter, television screens have gotten larger, iPods are smaller, and if we should complete all of this, the products will be redesigned to be more aesthetically pleasing. And with each invention comes consequences and problems we must solve. Back when Ford's assembly line was pumping out cars left and right, he wasn't thinking of how it might cause pollution. But now we must worry about problems like pollution and global warming and nuclear weapons.

Sure, necessity is the mother of invention. But what necessity was there for the Time-Traveller to build a time machine? Maybe that is why progress came to a halt. Inventing a time machine in the Victorian era when there are problems needing to be solved seems to jump ahead of itself. Did the Time-Traveller have a reason to invent a time machine other than he could?I think Wells not only presents a story warning of the finite nature of humanity but also what he believes is the finite nature of technology.

In class, the Eloi were depicted as the victims of complaceny, but aren't the Morlocks too? While the Morlocks possess some sense of survival instinct by hunting Eloi, they have done nothing to advance this. In Chapter 5 the Time Traveller first sees the Morlocks drag away one body. I might not know they're eating preferences, but it seems like one Eloi is not enough to feed a whole underground society. One Eloi for however many Morlocks once a day does not seem like a healthy diet. But the Morlocks seem fine with this arrangement. The Time Traveller believes the Morlocks to be a type of working-class, but we don't see them work. Our only evidence that they are "working-class" are the machines underground and their fascination for buffing the time machine. Complacency seems to have affected the Morlocks too because they don't try to adjust their hunting habits to produce more Eloi per nightly hunt. They seem secure with the idea that they are the top of the food chain and don't wish to change that. However, the Eloi rank #1 in terms of complacency.

Which brings me to the point of the "good" little Eloi. While reading I never saw the Eloi as good, perhaps innocent at first. When Weena was drowning, no attempt was made to save her. Their inaction seemed downright cold-hearted and evil to me. Though I can't fault them too much because their complacency was unintentional. It's not their fault they're born that way. On the other hand, the Morlocks were definitely evil, not based solely on the reason that they ate the Eloi, but they had intentions, something the Eloi lack entirely. The Morlocks tried to lure the Time Traveller into the pedestal and then attack him. It would have been an alright plan if the Time Traveller didn't have a time machine.

All in all, class was fun. I mean, how can talking about giant crabs at the end of the world not be fun?

Add your name label

2008-01-25T01:52:00.000-05:00

Hey I made a couple of changes to the blog, I have added an RSS feed with all of the other class blogs on the side, along with a poll--set to close on Feb. 5th (along with the polls on Super Duper Tuesday). I also created a new image for the blog title, I hope you like it.

Finally, everyone should use the customize tab to edit their old posts, adding their name as a label at the bottom.

A Second Theory of the End of the World

2008-01-24T01:08:00.000-05:00

After class I came to a second potential theory for the inclusion of the end of the world in The Time Machine. By including the end of the world he is suggesting the potential for a world without humanity--the key being that somehow we died out. I don't claim a strong understanding of the mind of a late 1800s Brit, but I would assume that they did not see the potential for the end of humanity. In a Post Atomic, post World War, world with our understanding of the rather fragile and small place we hold both on earth and in the universe it's quite easy to foresee a future that does not contain humanity. The section could have been intended to serve as a further call to action, suggesting that if trends continued as he (Wells) saw them humanity would come to an end. This would seem to agree with the other conclusions we reached about the book speaking to a kind of human pride, the idea that the current society in which he lived was not dangerous to countries, classes, individuals, etc., but to humanity as a whole--there can be no worse fate for a species than extinction and that was, perhaps, what Wells intended to draw our attention to.

On a side note: On a number of occasions in class the idea of the Murlocks being evil and Eloi being good, but I am not sure Wells' characterizations of the two fall into these distinct categories. Granted, during the story itself the Murlocks take on a barbaric nature and dark character, but during the time the Traveler spends pondering his theories about the future society the Murlocks are treated quite well. He holds exstensive sympathies for the Murlocks. Even after he realizes the "true" nature of the relationship, he recognizes a certain ironic justice in the idea that the formerly oppressed would rise up to sit as the oppressors, and since the book serves as a warning against complacency the Eloi, who do nothing and don't seem to care that they are being eaten, not the Murlocks, who retain a certain amount of ingenuity and craftiness, are the true evil in the story.

Reflections on Class Discussion

2008-01-22T23:22:00.000-05:00

I'm going to build on what I mentioned in class with the exotic aura of purple crabs and spaceships. Lasswell's reading was stuffy and boring, most likely because it's close attachment to the present day, or at least more so than The Time Machine. Wells has a similar message, but we are able to think a bit more on the subject because it takes place at 802, 701 AD, a time where everyone alive today will be lucky to be dirt. The Morlocks and Eloi are not "human" in our sense, thus we are able to see the differences among them and the social interplay of the elite and working class. If the Morlocks really were workers and the Eloi really social elites, it would seem more real to the reader and make the political point, if any, more visible. With real people the undertone of socialism/communism would be louder and might make Wells seem crazy. Just as Professor Jackson mentioned that Star Wars is just the retelling of classic fairy tales just set in a time long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away; the exotic nature of parts of the story grab our attention as well as distance the reader/movie watcher from the story. After all, who doesn't like aliens, time machines, and giant crabs?

I don't know if you would call this exotic, but the structure of The Time Machine as a story within a story made it more appealing and fun to read to me. The story is more like a conversation, or in my case like my grandfather telling me one of his long winded stories. It makes the story more personal, grabbing hold of the readers attention the entire time.

The Future of the Past

2008-01-22T13:01:00.000-05:00

I found The Time Machine to be an interesting read, and there were several things which jumped out at me from the text. The first was the juxtaposition of the separation of the Eloi from the Morlocks with the the fusion of the sexes among the Eloi. I thought that the blurring of gender roles in form as well as function was a fascinating hypothesis especially given the context in which Wells was writing. It strikes me that in the late 1890s, the mechanization of industry, along the Victorian sense of morality, was solidifying gender roles, rather than blending them, and to suppose that mechanization would eventually lead to the near loss of gender would have been somewhat controversial.

The other visual which struck me was the scene in the porcelain palace. I found it interesting that Wells imagined this fantastical society of the future, and yet the arrangement of the museum sounded like it could have been a replica of the British Museum with the exception of the exterior. I am not entirely sure whether this was intention or oversight on his part, but I thought it an interesting image in his vision of the future. However, at the present it is the social commentary rather than mechanics which is of most relevance.

On a more general note, what really struck me about the atrophy of human society in this particular novel, was the lack of expansion beyond the earth. In my experience, in many science fiction settings it is contact and conflict on other worlds and other species which authors envision as the catalysts for human ingenuity. In this case, however, the other species was in fact a direct descendant of humanity, which perhaps inhibited the will of the Eloi to combat them; or, perhaps it was simply that the conflict took too long to emerge and the Eloi were no longer capable of the ingenuity needed to fight the Morlocks.

Also, this raises the question of which species was more human in their behavior. It seems almost like a Jekyll and Hyde case, in which the Morlocks represent all of the evil of humanity and Eloi all of the good, but their 'goodness' does not necessarily make the Eloi more human than the Morlocks.

Anyway,those may not all be the most relevant thoughts, but that is what has come to my mind since reading.