In the second section of Asimov's The Gods Themselves, the explanation of the three members of a triad and their place in life is very interesting. The Rational, as Asmov explains 'had the pleasure of learning, of what he called intellectual development.' (p91) For the Parental of the triad 'there was only melting and the children.' (p92) The Emotional contributed to the nutrients needed to create the 'babies' of the triad. Each had a distinct role in social system that was set for them. It is interesting that while the Parental had the children on which to focus, and the Rational had development of the mind, while the Emotional had only the social interaction of the other Emotionals in the sunshine on which to focus. This leaves the question of what symbolic connection does this social system have to our own. Before the early 1950s the social roles of men and women were well-defined. Since then, these clearly defined lines have changed radically and when this book was published in 1972, the roles on men and women had changed not only in the family unit, but also in the workplace. We have learned that science fiction reflects our own history and culture, and in analyzing this, what can we see about our own social system through Asmov's interpretation of this fictional society? --Deidra Dame
Nine
Dua, after finding out about the ruinuous effects of the Positron/Electron Pump in *The Gods Themselves*, thinks "no, they wouldn't stop, those other people [humans]; for they had been persuaded to start and they would be persuaded to keep going until they were destroyed - and then they would be needed no longer by the Rationals, Hard or Soft - just as she, Dua, would have to pass on (be destroyed) now that she was needed no longer" (150). This passage from the text says something about humankind's consistent ignoring of facts they don't like to face. The humans in the novel see the Electron pump as the coming of Paradise. This energy comes for "free" and seems to have no deleterious effects. However, some scientists believe that the continued use of the Pump will cause our sun to explode. This is exactly what the people in the para-Universe want; their star is dying. If our sun explodes, they will have a limitless supply of energy forever. Currrently, we use sources of energy that we know are harmful to the planet. We use nuclear energy, which creates waste that we can't get rid of. We drain other countries of their oil (which pollutes) so that we can have energy. We have even started wars so that our supply of oil won't be cut off (the Persian Gulf war was started for that reason, among others). America uses a vast amount of power; something like 60% of the World's total. If other countries used power at our rate, the world would quickly be a foul, polluted wasteland. We are always looking for a "quick fix" to our energy problems. Asimov seems to be saying, and I agree, that there will never be a quick fix. Every source will have some inherent problems. We should instead focus on tightening our belts, and reducing our energy consumption. It's painful, but better in the long run. --Jennie Cisna
Response to Posting Five
Misty Dillow writes "While it is easy to think of competition as evil and that we would rather live in a society such as Mike's I believe that competition is necessary. Competition drives a person to acheive more and strive to do their best. These characteristics are then passed down to the offspring, which further their ancestor's drive to succeed." I am a competetive person myself. I strive to do well in classes and and in my future career. I do not shrink from a fight. Yet, does competition really help our society? Is acheivement of material goods something that we *must* have, or is it merely something that is beat into us by our culture. You know, "I have to keep up with the Jones family across the street, or they'll get ahead of us." Is that a mentality that we should be comfortable with? Yes, competition does help us to get ahead in our society, but is our society a healthy one? --Jennie Cisna
Response to Number 4 Post:
When reading this post I completely understand her views on the ways women and sex were handled in the novel. I can sympathize with the opinion that the book was hindered with these subject matters and context. Yet at the same time you have to realize when this book was written and the way society viewed women and their role in society at this time. Women were in no way viewed the way they are today in 1998. Also science fiction literature was predominantly for a male audience with consideration of what men like. It is to bad the novel was written in this way, but come on this novel is a reflection of a piece of history. --Jason Durbin
Ten
In this post I'm going to bring to light my opinion involving the break in the book-the change from Earth as the setting to the para-planet. I personally love this change in the setting, mood, characters, and themes very much. I have a short attention span and find myself getting bored with a book no matter how well written or appealing it is to me. So this break in the book put me in a check and I felt as if I started another book - maybe even a better one. Also this change reminded me of the cut-up style many of the beat writers in the 50's were experimenting with. This style of writing is very interesting to me and forces me to keep reading with a keen interest and focusing more on what is written. Many felt that the break was weird or put them in a loop, but I actually loved it very much and kept me on the right track. --Jason Durbin
Eleven
Historical (?) Parallel of Stranger in a Strange Land
The correlation I'm going to attempt to draw here may be somewhat
of a fishing expedition. Most of the time I tend to shy away from
reading too much into things. This is not one of those times (end of
disclaimer) .
In Stranger in a Strange Land, astrologer Mde. Alexandra Vesant
appears (p.75) as an "spiritual" adviser to the wife of General
Secretary Douglas. Through Mrs. Douglas, Vesant exercises a healthy
sphere of power over affairs of government. In light of the fact that
Heinlein was very familiar with Russia, I somehow got the wild notion of
a correlation between Vesant and Gregory Rasputin, the "holy man" that
had similar power over the wife of Nicholas II, last Czar of Russia.
Vesant is portrayed as bit of a scam artist, but she seems to get
results from her predictions, thus making her valuable to Mrs. Douglas.
Likewise, Rasputin was a well documented drunk, womanizer, extortionist,
and all around creepy guy, yet he repeatedly "healed" the hemophiliac
(Heinlein makes a reference to hemophilia on p.184) heir to the throne,
Alexis, on a number of his near fatal internal bleeding episodes. The
Czar's wife, Alexandra (same first name as Mde. Vesant) wielded much
power over the weak minded Czar and Rasputin wielded much power over
Alexandra. Confused? It gets worse.
In the second half of the book, Valentine Michael Smith becomes a
sort of Rasputin figure himself. Like Smith, Rasputin engaged in
"spiritual" orgies (a-la hippie free love) with many of his followers.
Additionally, like Smith, Rasputin was widely despised and denounced.
Finally, like Smith, they had one hell of a time killing Rasputin. A
plot involving a number of nobles climaxed with Rasputin being first fed
enough poison cakes "to kill several men instantly" (Massie p. 376),
shot several times, bludgeoned, and thrown into an ice covered river.
His body was found clinging to an underwater bridge support. Water in
his lungs revealed that he drowned. Months later, his body was dug up
and, like Smith, burned. (Additional Source = Massie, Robert K.
Nicholas and Alexandra. New York: Atheneum, 1967.)
- E. Hubbard
