e221 Week 16
Response to Post 56
E221 Official Response: This is a response to Misty Dillow's #56 post. I find her views and the fact that she approached the topic of drugs in science fiction interesting, but I have to disagree with her theories here. I personally feel that the reasoning behind the use of marijuana in certain novels is a great deal easier. Realistically, the fact of the matter is that these authors just "get high"- yes as harsh as that sounds. My theory is that certain science fiction authors partake of drugs and express their views and the mildness of drugs in their work as a kind of statement and reality of their own life. Truthfully many grown adults with high ranking positions in society use marijuana- whether that be business officials, teachers, authors, or just fill in the blanks. --Jason Durbin
Response to Post 60
In response to Deidra's post regarding The Dispossessed (#60), I personally don't see the world of Anarres as even a remote possibility; that's to say, at least not involving humans. I sincerely feel (be it right or not) that ownership and power are indelible human traits. I had a professor once that always quoted a certain historian (of who's name I have forgotten) on the matter of power: "Power is like a hundred dollar bill on a sidewalk" (invariably, somebody is going to grab it). I firmly believe this. I have not finished the book, but I think the author is trying to show that even the "utopia" of Anarres has people wielding power under a different name. As for ownership, most people's lives are based on obtaining things; to see how much "stuff" they can get before they die. I don't think these are healthy human traits, but they are our traits, nonetheless. --Erick Hubbard
Response to Post 50
I am responding to Post 50. I totally agree with Eric. Just this week friends of mine had there house broke into for the second time. Nothing was taken because the neighbors scared the guy off, but now my friends feel violated. The nightmares they had four years ago ( the first break in) are now haunting them again. Plus, my mom just bought a gun. She really had no real reason to buy the gun except that you never can tell what might happen. I never pictured my mother being the type to get a gun for protection. My family has never had any problems with robberies so that makes you feel safe, but to be honest no one is safe. Horrible things happen all the time, though reports might say crime is down, I can't really believe it. I think things will get worse in the future unless severe measures are taken to get rid of weapons. --Michelle Snoke
Response to Post 56
In response to post 56 which talks about the inlusion of drugs or particularly "marijuana" in some of the science fiction novels we have read, (Forever War, and Man in the HIgh Castle). In post 56, the idea stated seems to be pointing that the inclusion of marijuana is written into these novels for two reasons, one being that the authors think that in the future it will be legal because of the "it being a harmless crime" attitude or that it is included to ease/or raise tension in the novels, depending on how one views the situations. I see valid points raised in the two statements or ideas concerned with this in post 56, but I believe it is much easier to look at or explain in another fashion. We must not forget that Science Fiction literature in general is a critique of culture, and more specifically a critique of popular culture in the time that the author was writing the novel. So the inclusion of things like drugs (marijuana) is just the truth of the times in relation to the authors expierence of popular culture. For instance Joe Haldeman author of the Forever War, lived and expierenced the time of the Vietnam War, which is strongly reflected in the book. In this time things like marijuana were regarded lightly by large portions of the population, not really thought about as a big deal. Drugs are not the only thing that appears and reflects our culture in Science Fiction, but to begin to see why things exist in Science Fiction novels one must always remember to look at the current society that either surrounds us now or one that has in the past, at the time the novel was written. --Tony Calzaretta
Response to Post 54
Response 5 to post 54 Over Dick's Discussion of Ethnicity in The Man in the High Castle.
Dear Deidra, I thought that your post on the ethnic divisions in The Man in the High Castle was very interesting. I thought that you brought up a very good point. I too thought that the ethnic divisions in the novel were very telling. I think that the way in which Dick set up the novel as the Nazis and Japanese wining made for an interesting discussion of discrimination. I think t that Dick did a good job of showing how oppressive this nation throughout the examples of the non-Aryan and non- Japanese characters. I think the frustration the shop owner had understanding the Japanese couple was a great part of the book where ethnicity became a status of power or wisdom. Certainly the Japanese characters and the Aryan ones had benefits. I thought that the Aryans were perhaps even better off, as they were allowed to leave the planet also. I thought it was interesting that while the Japanese had such status over the normal white man that the Aryans (also white) still dominated the Japanese. I think through the reversal of power between the Japanese and the common white man in this novel that Dick was able to bring up some of the racial issues that lingered after WWII in a very effective and tasteful way. I thought the part when the one Japanese man was discriminated against in the bar while in the parallel universe was a great example of how Dick engages the reader to examine these relationships. I think you were right on Deirdra when you pointed out the ethnic divisions. --Joshua Primm
Post 71
This particular post is categorized as the Star Trek post and will focus in on the theme of the outsider or alien. In the Star Trek episode the class viewed in class, the outsider was not always the outsider. In actuality, the outsider was one of Kirk's very good friends until the incident in the energy wave. Once this happened the character became less and less the friend Kirk knew and more alien. The process he was going through adventually led him into being hostile with a terrible god complex. This contradicts the usual alien in science fiction who comes with no intentions of harm but is responded to harshly by humans. It therefore becomes easier for prejudices to be set against an alien that little or nothing is known about- it is human tendency to be afraid of what we don't understand. Yet, on the contrary, the tables were altered slightly with the Star Trek episode were the outsider became alien over time. I personally enjoyed this episode a great deal more than the typical "Alien! Lets blast'em" episode. A perfect example of that theme was the molten rock alien in an early episode of Star Trek the class viewed. Anyway, back to my enjoyment of the episode, well I could empathize more so with Kirk and the gradual loss of a friend. The overall turmoil was far more interesting. --Jason Durbin
Post 72
On page 167, Bedap tells Shevek, "We've betrayed that one hope (anarchy). We've let cooperation become obedience. On Urras they have government by the minority. Here we have government by the majority. But it is government! The social conscience isn't a living thing any more, but a machine, power machine, controlled by bureaucrats!" I think this a valuable point about the novel, that many of the commentators that I read (my term paper included this book) often missed or declined to discuss. Annarres, the Utopia, the "perfect" planet has, at times, become very totalitarian in its attitudes. Shevek has to fight to discuss his theories with the Urras' scientists. The government divvies up work; during an emergency Shevek and Takver are separated for several years. Ideas aren't discussed because they are "propertarian." Their planet has mail censoring. Annarres doesn't have free speech or many of the freedoms that we take for granted. It is important to acknowledge that many of the things that they do are for the good of their society. True freedom often exacts its toll in human suffering, yet I don't think that we can so freely dismiss freedom as the Annarians have. Their world has many advantages, but it often seem like they have given up too much (note that Urras, the planet so despised is considered a Paradise). --Jennie Cisna
Response to Post 54
Response to Post 54: I agree that Dick did a good job of portraying the racial problems in The Man in the High Castle. I think it is also good that he captured the Japanese society so well. Everyone in the Japanese territories were concerned with losing face and being the right status. This is something that, while we dislike being embarrassed, does not concern Americans nearly as much. I think it is interesting to see Americans who have probably been taught all of their previous lives to be "independent" try to act Japanese in that manner. --Jennie Cisna
Post 73
The Star Trek Episode shown April 21 played on a familiar theme (as outlined by Dr. O'Conner before the rolling of the tape): the fear of those who are (or in this case suddenly become) different. Very different, as the episode would have it. There seems to be a human urge to, well, kill things different, things we don't understand or find repulsive. I don't understand waterbugs. They are big, fat, and black, with antennae and six creepy little legs. I'm not sure, but I think they have huge fangs tucked away somewhere, too, not to mention beady little bug eyes. But, worst of all, and this is bad, they FLY! An unfair advantage, to be sure. I find one of these buggers in my house, on average, once or twice a year, always in mid to late summer. When I see one, I invariably go into the most primal attack mode. It's me or him. No. ME OR IT! Quiet as a corpse, I find anything that can be used as a weapon (magazine, newspaper, chair, etc.) and, upon assuming the optimum strategic stance, splat. Why? The obvious answer would be that I'm deranged. But lots of humans do this. And not just to poor waterbugs. All kinds of creatures get offed as a result of this human disposition. Anyway, back to the Star Trek Episode. Kirk, et al., found Lt. Gary Something-or-Other very threatening. Spock, bless his pointed ears, wanted to him dead. Eventually, Kirk agreed, and, subsequently killed him. Lesson? I'm not sure. I, too, thought he needed killing. Maybe I missed the point. The guy was literally playing God (even going so far as to make the Capt. bow down before him). It became apparent that he would stop at nothing to control everything. Something had to be done. Maybe the point was that we are human; and in a crisis situation, killing the source of the crisis is the most certain solution. Not very flattering, is it? --Erick Hubbard
[Prof's note: or Erick, in the 60s were we still trying to kill off our God or gods with science??? Hmmm....]
[Index][Week1/5]
[Week6]
[Week7]
[Week8]
[Week9]
[Week10]
[Week11]
[Week12]
[Week13]
[Week14]
[Week15]
[Week16]
