In the Dispossessed, the world of Anarres is portrayed as the idealistic world, a kind of utopia. Because there is no government and no money there is supposed to be no greed or poverty. This theory seems to work on Anarres while the people of Anarres look down upon the people of Urras because they are greedy. The struggle of power that is evident on Urras is not supposed to exist on Anarres. But this is not the case. In the portion of the novel where Sadik is explaining to her parents that the children are mean to her at school, one starts to understand that many elements of Anarres are not the utopia of which the people are so proud. The children are calling her and her family traitors. This shows the kind of alienation that can happen if one does not conform to the social norm on Anarres. This by itself could be taken as mere interaction between children, but it is further emphasized by the way that Takver is treated by her fellow co-workers.
"What is it that you run up against?"
"Hatred. Real hatred. The director of my project won't speak to me anymore*"
In this society I think that LeGiun made a profound point when she depicted this utopia and included its faults. This only outlined further what a real utopia should contain. Through this depiction I think that LeGuin strengthened her point about the United States and the problems that we are facing. It made the reader take a good look at some of the things around him that seem like the social norm that really have no basis in a functional society. What aspects of this utopia are still comparable to the United States? How does LeGuin use both the planets to contrast wrong ways of living? --Deidra Dame
Response to Post 72
In Post 72, Jenny Cisna is discussing a quote in which Bedap and Shevek are talking about the government that is present on Annares. But, this quote alone shows us that the anarchy that they claim to strive for is not truly an anarchy. She discusses in her post the many freedoms that they have given up by moving to Anarres from Urras. This is very true, but I also believe that the points that Jenny made can be used to explain the reasons for which an anarchy does not work. They do have government, but as the quote explains it is simply government by the minority. Also, the fact that they are separated, they are being given orders, which is definately a form of hierarchy. All the points that she gave are also reasons as to why an anarchy cannot work as well as why they gave up very many freedoms. --Misty Dillow
Response to Post 55
In response to Post 55, I think that Jenny is right is saying that the world in which they lived was so wrong that the inhabitants were starting to realize it. After meditating on the jewelry, Mr. Tagnomi was transported to an alternate universe, our universe. This was to show that things can be drastically different with only a few changes in history. Also, at the end of the book, the fact that they all realize that Japan and Germany did lose the war and they were living in an alternate reality was very gripping and a great way to end the book. --Deidra Dame
Post 75
In our class, several times we have discussed how the authors of the books we have read in class ended their books. We have debated on whether a happy ending was needed or not needed, or whether the author should have pulled things together better in the end. Well, in the book Dispossed, Ursula K. LeGuin does an excellent job of leaving the ending to the discression of the of the reader. I like the way the book ends, because it does not leave the feeling that the author tried to force a happy ending, but it also does not end on a sad note. Shevek says, "I will lie down to sleep on Anarres tonight," he thought. "I will lie down beside Takver. I wish I'd brought the picture, the baby sheep, to give Pilun." By ending the novel in this manner, she leaves us with several questions such as: Does he ever find Takver? Is she waiting for him when he lands? How are his children? Does he get killed? While she does leave us with these questions, I think that she hints that everything will be OK. Therefore, for these reasons, she does not force a happy ending, but instead leaves the decision to the reader. I personally believed that he is not killed, finds Takver and his children, and continues his ideals on Anarres. Yet, since readers each read in a different manner, someone else may read the ending totally differently and believe something else is going to happen. In this way, I believe that Ursula K. LeGuin makes the novel even more interesting! --Misty Dillow
Post 76
On page 384 a sentence reads "Freedom is never very safe." Shevek is explaining to Ketho that on Anarres foreigners are not exactly welcomed. Ketho is coming with Shevek and will be given the same options as all the others on the planet but those options will not be entirely safe because Ketho is from another world. Ketho is an outsider who has lived a totally different life than the people on Anarres. The things Ketho thinks as rights may be forbidden on Anarres and the other way around. Also, this quote reminds me of the wars we have been through. The United States has helped poorer countries fight for their right to live. Minority groups have fought for equal rights and both of these things did not just happen over night. There was opposition. People that disagreed held rallies and marches in protest of the rallies and marches that were being held to fight for freedom. In the struggle for freedom, people have lost their lives, lost family, lost possessions. When someone moves against the flow of society, things will happen. That is why freedom is not safe. To me, it does not make sense to not give up something for freedom. That is the way the world works. Eventually, things turn out right but not without conflict. When people stand up for their rights, they become open to humiliation and ridicule from others that disagree with them. Sometimes the simplest things, like a march, can turn into blood bath. Freedom is not safe, but it is worth the sacrifice. --Michelle Snoke
Post 77
The Star Trek's we have seen in class share a similar theme. This theme is to kill the unknown. In the video's, the aliens are shot and destroyed before there is communication. It was not until the end of the video that the alien or unknown phenomenon was explained and understood by the crew members. It seemed to be too much of a bother for them to sit down and figure out what to do with the unknown object. It was so much easier to kill the thing and ask questions later. This seems to be the common theme in anything and everything we do. If we do not understand a word in our reading, we just skip it and forget it. We do not have time to look it up. If an alien species came to Earth we would probably destroy them first, dissect them second and finally find out their weaknesses so we could be better prepared for the next time. We do not like to be inconvienced by things we do not comprehend. We also tend to think that we are the superior beings of the universe and everyone else must do what we say. America is the land of freedom and opportunity, but when refugees come here to be protected and to start a new life we tend to say that they are not welcomed and that we have no room for them here. An outsider has no chance of making it here. If we don't understand something or if it is different than the way we know it then it is wrong and harmful. We are too trapped in our comfort shells. --Michelle Snoke
Post 78
This post is to deal with the episode of Star Trek that we viewed in class on Tuesday. As we all know the show dealt with the entrance of a stranger or a man that is not like the rest and the reaction of the majority to him/her. We have seen this theme develop throughout the semester in other videos, like the episode of THE OUTER LIMITS and The DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL. We see this theme develop in the novels we have read, Stranger in a Strange Land, the newcomer, the different one Micheal Valentine Smith. Even in Ender's Game, Ender was constantly manipulated and singled out in every environment he was put into. This example of the life and times of Ender Wiggin will serve me to lead into the real, question of the post. What happened to Ender in these environments as with Micheal Valentine Smith, The guy in Star Trek and so forth. They were all feared by the majority, and ultimately that fear of the majority if they cannot manipulate it and control it for the betterment of themselves, will come to the decision that the "different" one, the "newcomer", the stranger must be destroyed. So that the constant, so that the comfort, so that the control of the majority will remain. The bottom line is that these themes of the stranger in science fiction, reflect how we today and in the past as a society have felt about it, and reacted to it. The mass population is afraid of the new, of change, of something they cannot understand. If instantaneous understanding of a person cannot be had then the conclusion becomes, "the new one is out to hurt/destroy the majority, the new one is the enemy, the evil in our society.". As for the Star Trek episode in particular, I do however think it represented and dealt with more than the stranger against the majority scenario. I thought the man with the high level of esp ability that was effected had been receiving powers, powers to great to be handled by mans greed. So in a sense this episode was very double sided and explored as far as I am concerned two major points. --Tony Calzaretta
Post 79
In the novel by Ursula K LeGuin the Dispossessed, I was really impressed with the philosophical break down of our culture in the last third of the novel. More specifically the book seemed to turn into a book about what true freedom is, in relation to what society perceives as true freedom. In the novel Shevek says "We let Sabul choose for us. Our own internalized Sabul-convention, moralism, fear of social ostracism, fear of being different, and fear of being free!..." This to me sums up how we live not only now more than ever but throughout history in general. I really just see that true freedom can be reached only through the individual, but yet we can see all around us people that believe we are a free people, ( I am not saying we should be) but people believe today that this is a free country (in comparison to others, yes) but in relation to the ideal of true freedom, no our country is not, our people are not. I believe in general if you give people true freedom they would not want it, they would not know what to do with it. They reasons why individuals do not want it, is because it is not this get happiness, this great joy that exists. Freedom is what Shevek stated above in the quote, it is being able to accept the fear of being different , which brings social ostracism, which brings majorities fearing you because they can not control you and do not understand you. So ultimately if you want freedom, you (the individual) may have to sacrifice every comfort in the world, give up all you have in order to maybe, just maybe receive something, or give something much more beneficial than synthetic-comfort-life. We see that this is what exactly happened in the novel Shevek had to give up everything, his family, his world, his comfort. In order to give the worlds, space, the big picture something that will forever change civilizations across space forever, yet at the same time no one supported him, but a few that could not always be there for him. Shevek experienced true individual freedom, the ultimate pain and sorrow of our world. --Tony Calzaretta
Response to Post 62
Response to post 62: I never thought of the wall in the book as being that way. I totally agree though. I think that it is stil a problem we have and it stills remains a problem at the end of the book too. Hopefully this is not saying that there will never be an end to this problem. The whole point of the story was to try to bring the two planets together and that never happened. I hope that in our future there wil be nothing that seperates people. Maybe to wall will disappear and people will live better. I really agree with the anology made in your post. It really made me think about society and how it still needs to change and break down the wall that is still there. Hopefully with the help of children the adults will get past there differences. --Wendy Walton
Post 80
'"Afraid I do not care for modern art,' Mr. Baynes said. 'I like the old prewar cubists and abstractionists. I like a picture to mean something, not merely to represent the ideal.' He turned away.
'But that's the task of art, over the sensual. Your abstract art represented a period of spiritual decadence, of spiritual chaos, due to the disintegration of society, the old plutocracy. The Jewish and capitalist millionaires, the international set that supported the decadent art. Those times are over; art has to go on--it can't stay still."'
(Dick MitHC 38)
I thought that this section in Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle was rather telling. As an art major I have enjoyed all the sections in the novels that we have read in class that dealt with art. I think that the future of art is always in question and that it is interesting to see how science fiction writers think art will develop. I have noticed that Philip K. Dick uses art frequently in his novels, and I think that it is rather obvious that he enjoys art himself. In his other novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep Dick uses Edward Munch's painting the Scream as a metaphor with which to discuss the Isolation of both the human experience and that of Androids. In The Man in the High Castle he uses art to represent an element of the elite and that of decadence. In this instance he also foreshadows the development of the commentary jewelry that plays a major role in the novel latter as the is shown in the quote ""Those times are over; art has to go on--it can't stay still."' I think that art really plays a major role in the novel and for the shop keeper and the couple that makes the jewelry it becomes a way not only to express contemporary thought, but it represents the Tao. Art also in as in the jewelry becomes a way in which to transcend the reality of the novel into our universe. I really liked the discussion of art that Dick develops in the novel, and yet still I am not sure that I fully understand all the sublets of what Dick is really trying to say. I would really like some sort of feed back on this one from everyone, but in particular I would like to hear what the art majors in the class have to say about this. Particularly if they feel that art is a way in which one can transcend the here and now. --Joshua Primm
Post 81
How Similar The Star Trek Episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and Stranger in a Strange Land were Similar as well as Other Novels from Eng 221
I thought that the episode of Star Trek that we saw on Tuesday called "Where No Man has Gone Before" had a lot of common aspects with some of the other novels that we have read this semester. In particular I thought that there was a great deal in common between Stranger in Strange Land and this Star Trek episode. The person who gained super ESP abilities in the episode had a great deal in common with Michael Valentine simply because they both manifested the same sort of powers. But also I think that there was an underlying theme in the episode of the notion that absolute power corrupts absolutely. In Stranger in Strange Land I often found myself rooting for Michael, but I also think that he could have solved some of his problems in a more constructive way than killing them. I think that part of this may have been the fact that Michele was caught off guard or that he was treated so differently that he had some underlying rage that drove him to do it. I think that same was true with the charter with the God like powers in the Trek episode. At first he seemed rather content, but he was treated so differently after his powers manifested themselves that I think he might have felt isolated from humanity. In turn I think that this built up into a superiority complex. Also the idea that both these characters could read and learn so fast made its appearance in both. Also the notion that Michael latter became a sort of God like Christ figure was similar to the episode. However Michael manifested himself as a sort of martyr figure rather than a vengeful force.
I think that Ender's Game the similarity came in a different way the notion of absolute power was never know to Ender, but because of his skills he too became a sort of unwilling destroyer. Who spent the rest of his life trying to undo what he did. The ESP thing also came up in the Forever War, and in a Canticle for Liebowits. And I think in every novel that we read you can trace the notion that absolute power corrupts. --Joshua Primm
