Children of God, Reflection post

I am probably one of the few people in class yesterday who did not have a very passionate dislike of this book. I will agree that I thought The Sparrow was better, I do not believe that the specific failings of Children of God have anything to do with Russell's literary abilities. Maybe I was just able to appreciate the fact that this book, while clearly science fiction, was not as hardcore into the genre as some of the others we have read. I slightly disagree with the notion that the theme of the book is “God is there is you believe in him and he’s not if you don’t”. I think Russell was aiming for a slightly more ambiguous message: No one knows if he is there at all. Jut because you believe, as Emilio did through most of the first mission, doesn’t mean that God will be there for you, and just because you don’t believe, as Emilio does after the first mission goes to pieces, doesn’t mean he still won’t give you something beautiful, i.e. the music. I think that Russell’s point with the music was not to wrap things up neatly and have Emilio believe in God again, because I don’t think he ever gets back to that place.
I agree with the conclusion that Russell was instead saying, “Be careful what you wish for”. They went all the way to Rakhat because of the music and they all had to endure so much death, suffering, and pain and in the end what do they get? Music. Its kind of a cynical way of saying, well you asked God for this and here it is, whether you like it or not. I would have liked to have Russell made Emilio’s character a little more disappointed with the music at the end, that yes it’s beautiful but was it really worth it? What, if anything did it change? I don’t think she explored that as much as she could have. Sequels usually aren’t as good as the first one was and, while I enjoyed Children of God, I feel The Sparrow did a better job at fully exploring its themes and really making the reader think about things even after they were done reading. Children of God leaves you wondering, but not in the same way. I agree that perhaps it could have ended with a bigger bang or a bigger twist, but I think Russell’s intention was to have the ending be as plain and simple as the whole thing started: with a beautiful piece of music and a question about what it means.

Reflective post, The Conquest of America

I think that the conversation we had in class today regarding whether understanding automatically leads to sympathy is an interesting one that clearly has ties to numerous other books that we have read. Emilio and the others in The Sparrow felt sympathy for the Runa, and even the other species at one point, but it is clear in the end that they didn't really understand them at all. So if it is the case that one doesn't need to truly understand to feel sympathy, it only makes sense that it can go the other way: one can understand another person or another culture and still not feel sympathy. I still agree with the point that Phil made about the difference between understanding how and understanding why and the effect that has on sympathy. There is a difference in those two types of understanding and I think the understanding how is a lot easier to accomplish. However, understanding why on a deeper, more psychological level is essential to the element of sympathy.

I definitely also agree with the point that just because you understand someone doesn't mean that you sympathize with them or even like them. I can think of a few people that I know pretty well and still absolutely dislike. In fact, understanding your enemy is perhaps the best way to beat them. The more you understand about how someone does something, the easier it becomes to destroy them in the end. I also think that it is possible to sympathize with someone and still dislike them. Empathizing with ones enemy is one way to get and to keep the upper hand. Perhaps this is why Cortez seemed to understand, and even sympathize in the end, with those that he encountered? Was he doing this because he knew that this was an easy way to get what he wanted in the end? Maybe Cortez is proof that it is possible to understand, sympathize, and even feel sorry for someone, but still destroy them in the end.

Substantive post, The Conquest of America

I think that it is commonplace in American culture to place Columbus, and other explorers, on a pedestal of sorts. After all, they "discovered" America and opened the doors for the beginning of what our country is today: a place founded by foreign explorers. This being said, I would think that the majority of us in this class would disagree and follow the another thread of the story: that the explorers conquered a land that was not theirs and perpetrated a genocide against the native people. In the first part of The Conquest, Todorov attempts to explain the initial discovery of the Caribbean islands by Columbus and his crew and one thing struck me as very interesting: The seemingly arbitrary way that Columbus decided whether the natives were "good" or "bad". Todorov shows evidence to support that claim that Columbus is so distracted by the beauty of nature and the physical appearance of the islands, that he neglects to consider the native peoples in any serious way. Todorov shows several experts from different texts that show Columbus's obsession with the physical beauty with the islands. Todorov claims that due to the fact that Columbus focuses on nature first and people second, his communication and interaction with the natives suffers. Columbus makes assumptions about their communication skills, or lack thereof in his opinion, and seems to be fixated on the fact that they wear no clothes. I also thought it was interesting that Todorov links this point to Columbus's decision that the natives have no religion. There is a line the Todorov uses to justify this leap of logic: Columbus would have assumed that any human being wore clothes upon the expulsion from paradise, thus these people cannot possible be civilized human beings. This link between religion, nature, and the natives is one that shows Columbus is clearly evaluating them based upon his own cultural standards, a practice which seems the only logical thing to do in his eyes. This made me think of a moment in The Sparrow, when the riot was started after the Runa children were being taken away: they were acting based upon their own cultural standards, which seemed logical to them, but eventually lead to their downfall.

Another point that I found particularly interesting in The conquest, mostly because it is something I had never considered before, occurred in the epilogue. Todorov states that "This extraordinary success (Western European colonization) is chiefly due to one specific feature of Western civilization...among Europeans thereby becoming proof of their natural suoeriorty: it is, paradoxically, Europeans' capacity to understand the other" What I gathered from the statement is that Todorov is basically saying that the Europeans conquered the natives and not the other way around because they understood the natives better in the end. I am not sure if I believe that this is the case, but it is something that made me stop and think as I was reading. Is it really that Europeans were better communicators? Was it really nothing to do with technological might and infecting the natives with disease, i.e. smallpox? OR is it a combination of these factors that caused history to play out the way it did. Like I said, I don't know the answer or even my own opinion about it but it is a point that I found very interesting to contemplate.

Reflection Post, The Sparrow

I thought it was an interesting question that Professor Jackson brought up during class: what mistakes did the mission make and could they have avoided them? I think the answer is only so clear to us because we have hindsight to guide us. Of course they should have been more logical, more rational, and less trusting in what they did. We know that would have probably saved them in the end. However, I think it is also important to remember that, from the very beginning, this was believed to be "God's mission". God wanted them to do this and would protect them from harm, so they didn't need to worry about logic or rational thinking: they had God on their side. It is plausible to speculate on what they could have done differently, and I agree that there are many things that fall into that category. However, in the context of the book I don't believe that any of the characters could have acted differently and still stayed true to what Russell made them to be. They landed on this alien planet with their own cultural and religious bias and stereotypes which made the characters more believable, at least in my opinion. I think that, for me, the theme or main message of this book is that: just because you believe doesn't mean that God will save you in the end. And in order for this to be the thought that the reader comes away with, Russell had to make it seem like what they did and the actions they took, while in hindsight could have been avoided, were the best step to take at the time.

Substantive post, The Sparrow

I will admit that this is the first book in this class that I actually managed to get through the whole book and end up enjoying it in the end. Russell is clearly a talented writer and her use of language and character development helped to make this book seem not too science fiction for a person like me. Often times there are elements of the the novels we read that I just do not understand but I honestly did not have to go to wikipedia once during this one. What I found most interesting about this novel, and what I feel separates it from others in the sci fi genre, was the overt use of religion throughout. For most of the novels that I have read in this class, my impression was that religious undertones were usually present in some fashion but they were subtle and not ones recognized immediately by the reader. In The Sparrow, the entire plot is based on the fact that God has chosen these people for this mission. It is stated several times, by the majority of the characters even ones who are apparently not religious, such as Anne and George Edwards. It seems that non believers end up believing in the end and those who put their whole life into following God end up losing him somehow, such as Emilio Sandoz. Theer are several passages that I marked as I was reading that all basically allude to the same thought: If God choose them for this mission, how could anything possibly go wrong? This novel questions the role of God in the world and I was surprised not to find more of an outrage of the initial discovery of life on other planets. I would have thought that the religious institutions in the world would be the last people to be accepting of this because it means that we, as humans, were not created special in God's eyes, that there are others out there as well. Anne even makes the comment at one point that perhaps God liked the Runa better because their planet was so much more beautiful and they themselves were more attractive as well. This question of God, his intentions, and the reasons why he sent this group of people to Rakhat are all interesting questions that the author grapples with and, I feel, leaves it up to the reader to decide for themselves at the end.

Reflection post, The Concept of the Political

During class Professor Jackson asked the question, according to Carl Schmitt, how do we know someone is the enemy? I felt, as I was reading the essay, that the answer was very simple: The enemy doe snot have to be physically ugly or morally evil, they are just the person or people who have the opposite belief that you do. Simply by the fact that they have just as strong a belief as you, except not about the same thing, they are a danger to your way of life and can be considered the enemy. I got the impression that Schmitt felt that this simple explanation was was constituted the enemy on a larger level as well, such as the enemy of a state. The enemy of the liberal is the conservation, the democracy, communism, etc. This is why i didn't matter what the moral standing of your enemy was or what he looked like. It simply mattered that he held the opposite belief from you so strongly that it threatened your way of life.

Ender's Game, substantive post

The one thing I noticed while reading Ender's Game is the thin line between the adults and the children in the book. Ender and the others at Battle School are supposedly these brilliant children who, we learn at the end, are the only way that the human race can win against the buggers. Yet the author still gives them very human and very childlike emotions throughout the book. The love and compassion that Ender feels for Valentine has a very childish spin to it, it is very much a younger brothers love for an older sister. Ender feels confused about what he is doing and unsure about himself, who he is, and who is becoming which are all very angsty, teenager appropriate emotions and thoughts. He wants to be rid of this "duty" to eliminate the buggers and doesn't seem to want to except the adult responsibility for what he is doing.

Reflective post, V for Vendetta

In class, we posed the question of whether V is a good guy. My first thought was something from another class that I am in: In the movie Fog of War, Robert McNamara, when asked if the bombing of Hiroshima during WWII was justified, he responded that, sometimes in order to do good, one must do evil. This seems to be applicable to V in the novel. In his eyes, the ends justifies the means. He is attempting to "do good" or to achieve something better than the Party. In order to do this, he must do evil by killing those who turned him into what he is today. Does this make the killings justified? This depends on whether you really think that V is ultimately trying to do good or if you believe he is simply out for revenge for his past. The same argument could be made to justify the Party's actions: in order to make society good for London, they have to do some bad or evil things first. This is anything but a black and white issue and it all depends on where you personally draw the line. Is killing only bad in certain situations and justified in others? Is it ok if the desired outcome is good? If the person's intentions are good? I don't think it is possible to answer any of these questions, which is why I don't think anyone can say for certain whether V is good or bad. Every person in the room will have a different viewpoint.

Time Machine reflection

If the Time Machine was suppossed to carry some sort of warning or prediction for the future of the human race, it was very difficult for me as the reader to pinpoint exactly what that was. As I was reading I kept being reminded of a comment made during our first class when we discussed what made science fiction true science fiction and differentiated it from other genres. Science fiction has to be unbelievable but believable at the same time. It cannot be so "out there" that the reader can no longer identify with it because then whatever social message the author wants to get across is lost in translation. This, I feel, holds true to some extent with the Time Machine. The future world of the Eloi and the Morlocks and the way the world is described by the Time Traveler is too unbelievable, to improbable to the reader that Well's message about society can be somewhat hard to relate too. It seemed that the human race had not only reached perfection but had started to devolve into a lesser species. While it seems that Wells is warning us against that fate, it is unclear what he wants us to do about it. It is too unrelatable to the reader. On the other hand Lasswells, "The Garrison State" serves as a much better warning to a reader because, as you read it, you can see evidence of what he is talking about in modern day society. It is not a far fetched as humans devolving into crabs, evidence and elements of the "garrison state" can be identifyed, which helps it to serve as a better and more realistic warning to the reader.