Look to Windward Substantive

Before reading the book I was really interested with the cover, so when Kabe, Tersono, and Quilan were introduced I tried to find them on the cover. Turns out that I could only find the Hub's avatar. While reading, I couldn't shake this feeling that this book was different from the others we've read. Like Lindsay said, Banks did just drop us in the middle of this book--actually he left us hundreds of years after the Iridian War. But it's not a new feeling or entirely exclusive to science fiction. Throughout the book, the story is told through the points of view of non-humans. It's not as though Banks left out humans-- there are 50 million humans on Masaq'. But here we're looking through the eyes of a Chelgrian or Homomdan at the humans and Culture. I thought it was interesting how the contact in this instance is a non-human reaching out to humans, which we almost get at the end of Children of God. That being said, I really liked Banks' novel as an ending to this course. It was a pleasure reading these books (mostly the science fiction) and having class with everyone.

Children of God Reflection

Sorry this is last minute. I didn't have any complaints about the writing or parallel ways of Russell's book, but I guess I'm in the minority on that one. Going off what others have posted, I think that the Sofia brought the revolution to Rakhat. I don't believe that it would have happened without her. She was the one so insistent on bringing "justice" to Rakhat. If she had actually died during the uprising, like we all thought in The Sparrow, a revolution still would have occurred, thanks to the Runa mimicry, but it would not have reached the same level. But could any of the other members of the Stella Maris caused a revolution like this, or would Sofia, given her background, have been the only one to start the uprising? Had she lived, would Anne have done the same thing? I'm not sure, but I think Anne would have acted differently than Sofia. In Sparrow, Sandoz relates Sofia's action to a Hebrew phrase meaning woman of valor, somehow linking it back to religion. I'd like to think Anne would act differently causing a whole new chain of events, maybe preventing Sandoz from suffering. I can't help feeling sorry for him.

I relate Sofia living among the Runa with vegetarianism, kind of. She began to empathize with them, without understanding the social structure among Runa and Jana'ata. We sort of discussed what separates pets from breakfast. PTJ posed the question "does talking mean they are no longer prey?" My answer would be yes but only if the talking prey tells me to stop eating them. In the case of the Runa, some would still offer themselves up to the Jana'ata.

Children of God

I was glad to return to Children of God after Todorov more so than the other science fiction books we read because there was a sense of familiarity with the characters. PTJ said we'd be shocked early on and I'll admit I was. So when Russell revealed that Sofia was still alive, my jaw dropped. I wouldn't say the miscommunication between Supaari and Sandoz on 51 was shocking as in "never saw that coming". In The Sparrow Supaari is seen as different from the other Jana'ata and part of me refused to believe that he would just sell Sandoz away to Hlavin Kitheri. The line that got me was Supaari leaving Galatna Palace "believing that he had done right by Sandoz" (52). That scene reveals that Sandoz unknowingly brought it upon himself. Related to that, on page 290, John wonders what would happen if it was Emilio's fault.

"Listen, John prayed, I'm not telling You what to do, but if Emilio brought the rapes on himself somehow, and then Askama died because of that, it's bettter if he never understands, okay? In my opinion. You know what people can take, but I think You're cutting it pretty close here. Or maybe--help him make it mean something. Help him."

At that point, "oh no, what is Russell going to do? She's going to break Emilio again". Fortunately, that wasn't the case and things turned out relatively okay for Emilio in the end, which I think he deserved.

The Emilio from the end of The Sparrow, the one who didn't know whether to hate God or believe that this was all bad luck, is still present at the end of Children of God. On page 414, Emilio and Sofia say "I was done with God" "But He wasn't done with you" "Evidently not, either that, or this has been a run of bad luck of historic proportions". He is still not sure which it is, but is more accepting of the choice.

I was reading this book of 6 word memoirs called Not Quite What I was Planning. Found one that I swear Emilio could have written over the course of these two books: "I lost god. I found myself".

Todorov reflection

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.

The Conquest of America

High school history class programmed me to immediately think "God, gold, and glory" after hearing conquistador. And it doesn't seem that far off after reading Todorov, who went into greater detail than any high school history class. At times, it was painstakingly difficult to read quotation after quotation after quotation. I know he was trying to present an unbiased narrative of what happened through primary sources that I would never have read before, but halfway through I wished for more from Todorov, less Columbus/Cortes/Las Casas/etc.

That being said, it was interesting to read after The Sparrow, which kept popping up in my mind, but how couldn't it with all the talk of Columbus and divine intervention? He saw a lot of turtles on fenceposts, or the equivalent of such back in those days (mermaids, perhaps?). But reading about Cortes and the myth of Quetzalcoatl reminded me of Paul in Dune. During that class, a long long time ago, we brought up whether Paul manipulated the Fremen's belief in a messiah. It's a little fuzzy right now, but I thought I'd bring up that.

In preparation for PTJ's question about whether the Spaniards should have and/or could have done something different, in the text Todorov says "I do not want to suggest, by accumulating such quotations, that Las Casas or the other defenders of the Indians should, or even could, have behaved differently." (172). Interestingly, he doesn't mention Columbus or Cortes and instead focuses on defenders of the Indians or those that tried to learn about their culture. However, Cortes did learn the signs, but manipulated them against the Indians, leading to death and destruction. I don't know if Columbus or Cortes could have behaved differently because we're looking at it in hindsight.

Deus vult

As PTJ posed in class "Did the Jesuit party make a mistake or screw up along the way that we could expect them to do something else?" Our discussion brought up some good examples like Sofia rising up at the end against the military Jana'ata or the Jesuit party being too quickly satisfied with what was happening. I think that even though everyone involved became practically like family, there was still a lack of communication between them, especially on D.W.'s part. After Alan's death, D.W. planned how to use the fuel reserves, concluding that there was only enough fuel for 5 round trips to the asteroid. However, he never lets anyone else know and also smuggles the Winchester down beause "he didn't want any big damn discussion about it" (216). I don't know what the Jesuit party could have done differently, but I think that the beginning of their troubles involve the lander and the fuel problem, which eventually strands them on Rakhat. Had they the option to leave Rakhat, things might have turned out differently? They might not have planted gardens, which ultimately lead to the military Jana'ata slaughtering Runa and humans alike. But there are instances where it's implied that the mistake was earlier, perhaps in the design of the mission. Was it doomed from the beginning? On page 334 mentions that Alan Pace might have been helpful had he been alive. It is interesting when the narrator pops up, all omnipresent and god-like.

We made a good attempt to list 8 individuals to send on this alien mission. The picks were primarily practical because we read/saw what happened on Rakhat and mentally swore to not let that happen on this space adventure. During the exercise, I couldn't shake the thought about Gilligan's Island. If the space lander breaks, I'd want a Professor-like character who could build a radio out of a coconut and try to get the group off the planet (though maybe MacGyver would be a better choice since it took forever for The Minnow's passengers to get off that island). But maybe the Professor is not to blame. Was it bad luck that kept them stranded on the island or was is deus vult? No character seems to go through a crisis like Sandoz, doubting his faith. In fact, the show seems to lay blame on Gilligan and his clumsiness for each failed attempt to escape.

On the topic of Gilligan's Island, I found out, thanks to Wikipedia, that there was a cartoon spin-off in the 80s called Gilligan's Planet. They go from stranded on an unknown island to a far-off planet. I'd call that a very large turtle on a fence post. I think you can only take responsibility for the failed escapes so many times before adopting a policy of deus vult. That being said, casting Brad Pitt as Emilio Sandoz-- not a good idea; deciding to make Gilligan's Planet-- very bad idea for a tv show. I can handle only so many attempts to escape an island/planet. However, according to Mary Doria Russell in the reading guide at the back of the book, "Emilio Sandoz goes back to Rakhat, but only because he has no choice. God is not done with him yet." Dun dun dun. I can't wait to read Children of God and find out what happened on Rakhat since Emilio left.

The Sparrow

Well, like Jen said, Sandoz's interrogation was very moving and almost heart-breaking to read. From the beginning, we the readers know that something bad is going to happen. The prologue begins with "It was predictable, in hindsight" and ends with "They meant no harm" (3). Cue dramatic music. I'm not too sure who Russell means by "they". It could be the Jesuits who wanted to visit Rakhat as soon as possible, which causes the mental and physical destruction of Sandoz. Or it could be the Jesuit party that unknowingly upset the ecological balance between Runa and Jana'ata by planting gardens. This made me wonder whether the Runa/Jana'ata meant any harm, which I have no clue. Maybe it will be resolved in the sequel. But back to the point (if I have one), Russell set up the story, letting the readers know that only Sandoz lives and a very basic understanding of how he was rescued. So we knew that he was found in a brothel and he killed a child, but actually reading his explanation of it was shocking, especially Askama's death.

"'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?

Reflection

In class and blog posts, the discussion seemed to focus around the question: "How do we determine who is an enemy?" and this post is no exception. The friend-enemy distinction seems completely arbitrary like A pointing at B and saying "You are a threat to my existence. You are my enemy." As we pointed out in class, there is no physical characteristic to distinguish friend from enemy ["the morally evil, aesthetically ugly or economically damaging need not necessarily be the enemy" (27)]. Lindsay brings up that the enemy is determined because "he held the opposite belief from you so strongly that it threatened your way of life". I think it goes a little farther than this. It's not simply that the friend and enemy have opposite beliefs, but that they think their belief should replace the other. Simply holding opposite beliefs doesn't necessarily mean there is a threat to either's existence. Also Mel points out that despite being primarily alien and different, friend and enemy share a similarity ["An enemy only exists when, at least potentially, one fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity” (28)]. I think this is the recognition that separates enemies from foes, which is another distiction Schmitt writes about. Enemies are recognized as human and it is only necessary to push them back to their borders while foes are seen as inhuman and the only course of action is to annihilate them.

That being said, I did more thinking about Ender's Game. In the first two invasions, I would say the buggers are recognized as the enemy that threatens Earth's existence. But for the Third Invasion, the buggers are foes that the IF hunts down and annihilates. The conflict turned from political to personal.

The Concept of the Political

Reading Schmitt's essay was less than exciting for me. He spent much of the essay trying to differentiate terms and at points I felt like knowing German or philosophy wouldn't have hurt. As Tim pointed out, reading novels can be more interesting than essays because of the format. Which is why I'm glad we read Ender's Game before The Concept of the Political because it helped applying the humans vs. bugger situation to the friend-enemy concept.

The buggers are the perfect example of the other (or enemy when compared to humans) because they are "existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with [them] are possible" (27). In Ender's Game, the IF saw the situation as us versus them, friend versus enemy, kill them before they kill all of humanity. However, I think Schmitt doesn't see it as black and white. On page 27 he says "the morally evil, aesthetically ugly or economically damaging need not necessarily be the enemy". Being classified as the enemy doesn't mean all the negative aspects of other antitheses apply. Especially since on the other side of the fence the roles are reversed. Schmitt goes on to say that the friend-enemy antithesis is not fixed and "in no way implies that one particular nation must forever be the friend or enemy of another specific nation" (34). Here's where I think the IF made a mistake in assuming that the buggers would only ever be their enemy and set out to negate their existence, as Schmitt would say.

And along with the bugger wars, Ender's Game looks into Earthside relations with the hegemony and Warsaw Pact. But I'll save that for after class, where I hope to understand Schmitt's concept a little better.

Ender's Game Reflection

Going off my last comment, I still believe that the I.F. could have done more. And as practically all posts have said, it came down to a lack of communication. In a time where the ansible is possible and super-intelligent children can be "requistioned" I think the IF could have had communication side project. While Scott pointed out for the Enderverse were to remain internally consistent (one of our criteria for science fiction) the ansible could not contact the buggers, it proves that humans were able to communicate similiar to the buggers. In chapter 15 the bugger queen relays to Ender how they found him through the ansible (320). Perhaps this could have worked with another child if the IF had tried.

Does survival mean needing to exterminate the "other"? I'm all for building up defense to ensure humanity's survival, but I don't think the IF had to go hunt down the buggers and eliminate an entire race. It's as if the IF said "You know what, it's been long enough. They have nothing to offer us. Let's show them who the superior race is and destroy them". Again in chapter 15, the bugger queen says they never returned because they realized humans were sentient beings. However, the IF never acknowledge the bugger race as sentient. The closest they get is when Mazer says " In all the bugger wars so far, they've killed thousands and thousands of living, thinking beings. And in all those wars, we've killed only one" (270). Only the queen is recognized as a sentient being, and yet that doesn't deter them from attacking as it did with the buggers.

Overall, I don't believe that the IF was justified in its actions. It had acted as if attacking was its only option, refusing to acknowledge other possibilities. If I had to make this decision, I would've felt better knowing that I did everything I could before turning to ultimate destruction. Or maybe I'm being too sympathetic to the buggers. I would not have made it through Battle school.

Ender's Game

At first, I wanted to be like one of the Wiggin children with their superior intelligence at such a young age. They are the poster children for "Knowledge is power". We see Ender as a commander and Peter and Valentine stirring up trouble as Locke and Demosthenes. But thinking over it, it's not like they have superior intelligence and are throwing mud at each other. Peter and Valentine look for challenges (aka world domination through Locke and Demosthenes). Not only have the Wiggin children lost any chance at a normal childhood (especially in Ender's case), the fate of the humanity rests on their shoulders. Intense. Then on top of that Ender has to cope with killing another race. Poor Ender.

Which brings up genocide. It became clear that wiping out the entire race of buggers was genocide, but no human ever said "this might not be right" until Ender had already killed them and was acting as Speaker for the Dead. Humanity's excuse for genocide was self-defense, us or them, the best defense is a good offense attitude. Why rush into exterminating an entire race? Aside from the timing of the ships arriving near the bugger homeworld, could it be related to Ender's age? Would it have been harder to lie to Ender about the simulators if he had been a year or two older? If he had killed the buggers sooner, would it have not affected him as much?

V for Vendetta Reflection

Abraham Lincoln, Adam Susan, and V. All did what they believed was necessary. Lincoln became essentially a dictator during the Civil War, suspending habeas corpus. As we pointed out in class, on page 37 Adam Susan did what he thought was the only way, that way being fascism. V killed prominent figures in the Norsefire party, held Evey captive, blew up multiple buildings, and temporarily suspended the state's surveillance all because it was necessary. I don't recall him specifically saying that this was the only way, though during his broadcast he issues an ultimatum that the people have to get their act together or action will be taken against them.

Lincoln is one of our most notable presidents and idolize him because he kept the country together in a time of crisis. The American public doesn't care what he did to ensure unity; only the end result matters. V is not as idolized as Lincoln. In class, we weren't able to come up with an answer whether V was good or bad? His goal to end fascism in England is admirable, no matter what his intentions might be. Machiavelli's "the ends justify the means" rules the exceptional circumstances. However, Adam Susan comes off differently compared to Lincoln and V. Fascism is the means for Adam Susan. But what are his ends? Is it purity? He's pretty much obsessed with purity. We don't see how he rose to power so we don't know what was necessary for him to do. To us, the fascism isn't justifiable. Add to that, Moore makes him look crazy by falling in love with Fate and it's even harder for us to understand him.

V for Vendetta

This being my first time reading the graphic novel, I couldn't help returning back to the movie. When I first saw the movie, I liked it. Even after reading the graphic novel, I still like the movie but not in the same way as before. I'm a strong believer in judging movies-based-on-books separate from the books (i.e. the Harry Potter films).

But while reading V for Vendetta, I was looking for the differences, kind of like those spot the differences cartoons. The overall picture is similar, but there are 10 or however many minor differences. I'm not going to name all of the differences, but one visual difference I saw was Norsefire's slogan. In the graphic novel, it was "Strength through Purity. Purity through Faith", whereas in the movie it was changed to "Strength through Unity. Unity through Faith". (See the pictures below)

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.

He, She, and It Reflection

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.

He, She, and It

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

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.

Politics as a Vocation

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

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 on Manifest Destiny

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

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

Dune

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