skygiants | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

A few weeks back, I decided not to read Mary Doria Russel's The Sparrow just yet because the day was too sunny and pretty to fill with angst.

Well, this weekend it is back to being sunny and pretty, but I just finished The Sparrow anyways and am on my way to the library after writing this up to go pick up the sequel. Yes, it does pile the angst and pain on its main character, possibly to the point of excess (not that I can complain about that, really, being a fellow-acolyte of the Dorothy Dunnett school where Russel learned her angst-causing technique) - but it does so specifically in order to look at a number of extremely interesting questions, and so I can't really call most of it gratuitous.

(Admittedly, I'm biased too; I read a great academic article on this book before ever reading the novel itself. Academia spoils me in so many ways!)

The book takes place in two timelines. In one, a Jesuit priest, the last surviving member of his order's expedition to another planet, returns home utterly destroyed in a number of ways to general calumny (see above, re: angst and pain) and refuses to explain what happened, while the other tracks the expedition from the beginning as sentient life is discovered in another planet. Central issues: God, religion, the ethics of celibacy, the ethics of interplanetary exploration and interference (which the article I read focused on), the purpose of art.

I have to say, first off, that the idea that the first expedition to another planet would be piloted by, specifically, a religious group (in total secrecy, no less) makes me profoundly uncomfortable, and while I don't argue with the premise that the Jesuits would want to undertake this, I wish that the nonreligious characters who made up part of that expedition had expressed any of that discomfort instead of just going 'yay field trip!' I mean, I don't blame them for the feelings of 'yay field trip!' because, dude, other planets, but . . . it comes across to me as a significant ethical question, and as they're all presented as very ethical people I feel that the point should at least have been brought up.

On the other hand, one thing I really did like was the swiftness and unexpectedness with which the end of the book took place. I can see how people wouldn't like that, after all the build-up, and the pacing was definitely slow at the beginning, but for me it really drove home the point that you can't know how you're going to affect things, and you might cause damage without knowing what you do. And I liked the unexpectedness of death; too often in novels all deaths are Terribly and Hugely Significant and Could Have Been Avoided. (Also, I was screaming at the characters throughout the novel to be more careful about what they were altering - clearly none of them had read that much sci-fi - so it was nice to be vindicated.)

Also I found Supaari the most interesting character.

One little nitpicky thing that made me roll my eyes in a tolerant sort of way. Does it seem weird to anyone else that someone would automatically assume a modern-day Sephardic Jew would have an ancestral grudge against Spaniards for being kicked out of Spain in the 1400s? Admittedly, my family and most of the people I know are of Ashkenazi descent, not Sephardic, but . . . come on, Jews have been kicked out of everywhere. If you're going for grudges, why look that far back?

Anyways, the book definitely has flaws, but it's also very thought-provoking and packs a huge punch; as always, if any of you have read, I would love to hear what you think. And now, to counter the angst: moar sunshine! I think I may be getting a tiny sunburn and I DON'T CARE. *smug*

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

It's been aaaaages since I read those books, but I remember really enjoying them. And Mendes! Mendes is a badass.

Can't wait to hear what you think about Children of God! The ending of that story has stayed with me much longer than any of the other details.

Mendes is totally a badass. So hardcore!

Oh really. *grins* I am extremely interested to see what she does in that one - for the longest time, actually, our library only had Children of God, and I was like 'gah! Why do you do this to me!' But now it has both and so I do not need to wait in order to get my grubby hands on it!

Does it seem weird to anyone else that someone would automatically assume a modern-day Sephardic Jew would have an ancestral grudge against Spaniards for being kicked out of Spain in the 1400s?

In my experience, again, primarily with Ashkenazic Jews, we Jews hold ancestral grudges going back at least four thousand years, so I don't think this is weird!

To the point of not being able to work comfortably with a random Spanish dude, though?

I don't know, my mom agrees with you, so maybe I just grew up in an unusually laid-back community of Jews!

Is this the part where you hate me forever because I was not a fan of Children of God?

I mean. I am kind of really happy pretending the end of The Sparrow is the end of any writing in that universe.

But then I am fundamentally strange.

Nah, I don't feel quite that strongly about it. But the sort of -- climactic image? The unifying thingy? I don't know how else to put it without just saying it -- I always thought was an incredibly neat construct.

I will not, however, disagree with you about the fundamentally strange part.

I haven't read Children of God, because I loved The Sparrow SO much. I was warned. So for me, it is the end!

that the nonreligious characters who made up part of that expedition had expressed any of that discomfort instead of just going 'yay field trip!'

Suppose it depends on how comfortable they would be doing so, or possible consequences of speaking up? I mean, nonreligious sentiment isn't exactly always WELCOMED. Just as a thought.

Does it seem weird to anyone else that someone would automatically assume a modern-day Sephardic Jew would have an ancestral grudge against Spaniards for being kicked out of Spain in the 1400s?

Yes. But, I'm an atheist raised by atheist. Also, if we objected to people who had killed, tortured and otherwise been rather unpleasant to atheists in the past, we'd, um. *thinks*

Only hang out with ourselves? The idea of holding grudges that long is very, very strange to me.

I have to say, first off, that the idea that the first expedition to another planet would be piloted by, specifically, a religious group (in total secrecy, no less) makes me profoundly uncomfortable.

You know, I had thought of this, too, when I first read it, because the Jesuits (or the Black Robes, as my mom, who most definitely left the church of her youth calls them)are not known for their loving and compassionate encounters with indigenous tribes. However, I think why it was not an issue for the crew in the novel (and therefore not for me as I read) was because they trusted Sandoz and not the order as a whole, necessarily. It was less a "church expedition" and more an "expedition we're going on with Sandoz who trust to do the right thing". That's how I thought of it, anyway, along with the 'yay field trip!' aspect.

I've often wondered what would happen if we found alien races with as strong (or stronger) religious beliefs as our own (or they found us). I don't think it would be pretty.

I have to say, first off, that the idea that the first expedition to another planet would be piloted by, specifically, a religious group (in total secrecy, no less) makes me profoundly uncomfortable.

I think the author talks about this in the intro, if there's an intro, or somewhere else, if there isn't. IIRC, what she says will not necessarily de-qualm you, although I don't remember it well enough to be specifical. Although she is probably right about missionary groups being likely to go early on. P. S. Does your uncomfortableness relate at all to the books themselves coming from a religious (Christian? at least Abrahamic, I don't remember) place? / There is the fact that, well, the point is they fuck it up amazingly. But I guess the flip side of that point is the point is also that they fuck it up despite doing everything mostly right, which means you can only read so much unethic into the expedition itself before the book falls apart as a book, so ... I need more caffeine.

I should reread The Sparrow; I was young enough when I read it initially to take everything for granted as perfectly normal. Which ... I feel there are better books to take for granted as perfectly normal.

Am I speaking English? 9/10 dentists say, "Very possibly not." The other says, "Non. Et pourquoi est-ce que tu ask un dentist?"

I read both books when they were first published, so I'm fuzzy on many details, but I found them both engrossing ('enjoyed' isn't quite the word, I'd say) and very worthwhile. And more than one harrowing image from them have stuck with me ever since. I'm pleased to see how many people in this thread have read them, because I rarely get the chance to recommend them--they aren't for every fan of SF. (Though I do get a kick out of it when I do get the chance, because they're the last thing people who know me well in RL would expect me to recommend.)

Back during my days in the book trade, I was one of a small group of people who had the chance to have dinner with the author twice (when both books came out). She's just as thoughtful a person as her work suggests. The two books were her way to work through her Catholic heritage at a time when she was seriously thinking about embracing Judaism (which she eventually did). Her third book, A Thread of Grace, was one she had wanted to write from the start, but felt she needed experience as a writer to do well. So Sparrow and Children were also, in a way, projects she worked on while she was researching and laying out Thread.

As for the arguments people have been bringing to bear about both books, I think good points are made. For what it's worth, the bearing of a grudge against Spaniards I took as a reflection of the immense weight of history ever-present as a backdrop to the book--something I think every religious figure in the story is aware of to some degree and is reacting to in some way or another.

As for the question of a religious group leading the first expedition, I would say two things:

1) The notion that the secular governments would still be quarreling over details while the Vatican simply picked an expedition and sent them on their way is not completely impossible, but is more importantly, quite, quite funny. I've always believed we're supposed to accept that as what actually happens, but also appreciate it as a bit of an affectionate joke about representative governments by comparison to authoritarian hierarchies.

2) As we see very clearly from the appearance of the Pope early in Children, the Church of Russell's books is very different from the one we know in many respects. I suspect the lack of concern by secular scientists in agreeing to join the expedition is a reflection of that fact.

Well - there are some large portions of the book that are from the perspective of one of the most secular members of the expedition, is why I say that, and while she expresses what she feels about religion, in specific, and she spends a lot of time thinking about whether or not she wants to go for other reasons, the author never even has her consider that ethical aspect. If it had only been from the perspective of the Jesuit characters, I wouldn't have noticed it so much.

*grins* Well, I'm not saying that Jews don't hold ancestral grudges at all, because . . . well, as Rym said, we do; it's part of it being a long-standing culture as well as a religion. But (in my experience, and I don't speak for everyone) the longstanding grudges tend to mostly come out in those areas where problems have have continued - for example, I can't imagine anyone I know saying, "I can't work with that Russian guy because of the pogroms!"

...right. That's really bloody weird, then.

On-going I can understand. History, I...can't.

*nods* Yes - and the Jesuits in the book are definitely portrayed as meaning well, and as trustworthy. So I get that. Like I said, I don't have a problem with the fact of it happening in the book. But it's still just such a huge thing that the fact that nobody has qualms about doing it on their own without the sanction of any government and without representation from large portions of the world, throws me a little - especially when we do see Anne's worries about the mission for other reasons. (However, I am also a touchy-feely liberal who for fairness' sake would want a representative from EVERY NATION, which . . . is probably not practicable. *giggles*)

And meeee neither. *rueful* Interesting certainly! Pretty, probably not so much.

If there is an intro I did not see it! :O Perhaps it is in a later edition. For the record - I don't mean that my uncomfortableness comes from a . . . textual place? I don't know if I'm saying that right. Like, while the concept makes me uncomfortable, I don't consider that a problem with the book itself, because it makes sense from the religious viewpoint of lots of the characters. But I found it slightly - not necessarily unrealistic, but - well, maybe unrealistic, actually - words, why do you not obey me! - that none of the explicitly non-religious characters would have a similar uncomfortableness to mine. Because clearly the world always works according to my reactions to things.

P.S. responsething: I do not have a problem with the books coming from a Christian place, really. And I do not have a problem with them doing everything mostly right (to a certain extent), either; like, I get that these are supposed to be Good People who also happen to be religious, the story is about their crisis of faith, I do not take issue with that. But! I do want the question of . . . potential/past fuckuppery to be addressed a little more.

You should reread it! I would be very interested to see what you thought nowadays.

Also, I understand what you are saying, but whether that is because you are speaking English or because I am well trained in Shatiese, you will have to refer back to the dentists. O

'Engrossing' rather than 'enjoyable' is definitely the word. (And I know! I'm so excited, there's, like, actual discussion going on here! That I'm not necessarily involved in even!)

- oh, seriously? That's very cool - I am kind of jealous! I had read that she eventually converted to Judaism, which I found very interesting; I could see her interest in it in the book (and was kind of proud of myself for being able to translate some of the Hebrew). And the presence of history is an excellent point - and that's actually, now that I think about it, one of the few points in the novel where they actually acknowledge the damage that religion can and has done, so perhaps I appreciate it more now.

Oh, I totally believe that this expedition would occur. *grins* I have no doubts about the plausibility of it (and it is very funny in that way, too!) but I still feel that as a fairly secular person I would be uncomfortable with a group that was aligned with any particular religion - whether it was Judaism, Buddhism or Taoism - being the first delegation to a planet, just because it seems . . . unfair? . . . not to let a wider group be represented. But again, that's just me.

Ah, it sounds like we do not have the same edition (I have Shati's, which does not have an introduction [sorry, tongzhi!] but DOES have "A Conversation with Mary Doria Russell"). I can transcribe it for you if you like; topics include her desire to write a "first contact" novel in a world that has 'exhausted' (I can't keep the '' off!) "first contact", her conversion to Judaism, and "the moral of the story". If this is what your edition lacks!

I don't hold the mindset personally. But I do comprehend it in some respects.

(About half of the Jewish holidays center around stories of escaping from people who have tried to kill us. So there are fairly constant reminders! *grins*)

That is indeed what my edition lacks. :O Damn you, school library, you are supposed to be helping out my education!

Oh thank you! *beams* However, I suspect such a thing may be available online so I would not ask you to go through the trouble without hunting for it first - aha! Is this the conversation of which you speak?

*nods* Again, I really honestly can't.

Ah-heh. Yeah, that'd do it.

I think you are right to question that the book does not question the right-ness of the expedition being secret (as well as/more than religious). I mean, the characters can -- whatever the characters do, but this bit about how "The United Nations required years to come to a decision that the Society of Jesus reached in ten days" -- this long & cumbersome process of MULTILATERAL ACTION is what it is for reasons with which, I think, characters in the book would sympathize. Or at least for reasons of which they would be aware.

That's what I meant!! Pah, words. More accurately: pah, memory.

Yes, that is it!

It is somewhat a troubling interview to me ... and some of the things you picked up on, like the issue between Mendes & Emilio, are also things that troubled me reading the book (but then I thought, well, perhaps I just Don't Know). I think it is partly an issue of characterization (for me). For me, all the characters (except, to some extent, Emilio) feel very -- like, "here is so and so, you will like her because she is sensible and funny and big-hearted". "Here is so and so, these are their character traits you will like. These are their character traits you will not like." This is not my favorite.

I would also like to say, while I am whining, that the proposal that Emilio would not be able to understand spoken French is the biggest bullshit I've ever heard in my life ...

Tongzhi in-barges! What is this proposal?

There, there ...

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 3