I am responding to Post Ten. I agree with Jason that the section differences are interesting in The Gods Themselves. It takes me awhile to really get into a book and I felt that the break dealing with the two universes was a good decision. Bringing in these new characters made the book very fascinating to read. I kept trying to picture these new characters. I wonder what Asimov had in mind when he developed these characters. Did he picture the Soft Ones as liquid or gas as we discussed in class, or did he have something completely different in mind? To me, this break brought about a completely new approach to the book which I enjoyed immensely. --Jenny Hakes
Post 13
In the self titled middle section of "The Gods Themselves," the three members of the triad seem to compose three major aspects of the human personality. Odeen, representing the rational side of man, is always looking at things from a truly factual perspective. His goal is to attain as much knowledge (defined by the Hard Ones) as possible. Tritt, on the other hand, seems to be ruled by instincts-notably melting and child rearing. He is more simple minded than the other two types of Soft Ones. Finally, Dua, who has both aspects of a Rational and an Emotional, is intelligent and curious, yet overwhelmed with feeling. Her sensitivity causes a conflict in her mind between her desire to rise above the stereotype she is placed in and the supressed need we all feel to fit in with those similar to us. These three parts can be seen as the ingredients that make up a lot of our human personalities. Differences come about when differnt amounts of each component come into play. Perhaps this is what Asimov had in mind when Odeen tries to expalin rationally to the emotional Dua that when the triad passes on, it siply is bonded into one being- a Hard One. --Leigh Pyle
Response to 12:
Misty Dillow makes a pertinent point in her post when she says that "if a scientist does not take the time to find out the problems with what they call their invention. . . then they should not be held as an esteemed and brilliant scientist in the eyes of the public.'' I'm a science major myself (experimental psychology); to have a scientist break the public trust as Hallam does is inexcusable. First his "invention" fell into his lap, he doesn't know where it comes from, doesn't really know why it is happening, or the consequences of his actions, and yet he presents it to the public. One thing that came to mind, however, when I read this is how the public often asks for new drugs to kill diseases without really knowing the side effects of the new drug. For example, the new drug cocktail for AIDS - we know how it works, but will it perhaps cause the virus to mutate? What are the side effects ten years down the road. We should always be conscious of new scientific advances, and what they might do? --Jennie Cisna
Response to Nine
In response to Post #9 (J. Cisna): I agree that humans, particularly we here in this country, need to curb our reckless expenditure of energy. Generally, people waste an enormous amount of energy by simply leaving lights on in their houses, continually running air conditioners, etc. However, this is a chronically careless society, and will probably remain that way. We are far too used to and comfortable with our standard of living to sacrifice any part of it in the name of conservation. Plenty of people are able to speak of preserving resources; however, precious few are practicing what they preach. Myself included. --Erick Hubbard
Post 14
As The Gods Themselves progressed, the plot thickened in an interesting, unique way. Then (BOOM) it ended. Anti-climactic as it could be. My knee-jerk reaction was that Asimov ran out of steam and, tying up a loose end or two, simply stopped writing. I felt cheated. I felt like a chump. I felt like a drink. Later on, starring at my drink, it hit me (I've never been accused of being sharp as a whip): when, at the end, Ben says to Selene, "...there are no happy endings in history, only crisis points that pass." (p. 292), I suddenly realized (or thought in my twisted head) that Asimov played a brilliant hand by not having a grand production ending. Life has no grand production endings. There is always an after. Always more problems. Always more resolutions. For example, if you put the Civil War into cheesy book form, the war started, was fought, then ended. Slaves were freed. Soldiers came home. The end? What about 130+ years of racial tension? Years of economic depression in the south? Not to mention Lincoln taking a bullet in the back of the head over the whole deal. By ending the book in this manner, Asimov seems not so much to tell a story from beginning to end, but to (realistically) portray a series of events that are interconnected with both the past and future. --Erick Hubbard
Post 15
Dua writes the "real" universe and says, "PUMP BAD." While we all probably applauded her decision, was what she did ethical or right? Their sun was going to die, all of her people were going to die, her *children* were going to die. Does she have the right to decide for her people their fate? What she did was, at that point in the novel, genocide for her own species. It is easy to condemn people who commit genocide on a race outside of themselves. We can all look at Hitler and realize that what he did was an awful, horrible thing. I don't think it is so easy to look at Dua and understand how we should judge her. After all, she was trying to save our world. Still she has condemned her own people to die of a slow starvation. Is that any better? We look at the para- universe and wonder how they could want our sun to die. All they were trying to do was to save themselves - I don't think that Hallam would have been any more righteous than they were. Another thing that I think should be looked at is whether our shutting the pump off was ethical. In the end, I'd have to say yes. It's a fact of human nature that we will always put ourselves and our kind above others. However this is a decision I would not like to make. I remember reading 7-8 years ago about how scientists were fighting over whether they should destroy the two remaining samples of small pox. Do we have the right to eradicate anything, even a deadly disease? --Jennie Cisna
Response to 12
I will be responding to Post #12 given by Misty Dillow. I have to admit that I became slightly confused with what she was completely saying. Sorry Misty. But at the same time it brought some issues up in my mind concerning the creation of technology and anything for that matter. When innocent children are massacred in a drive-by shooting- do we blame the inventor of the gun, no we don't. We put the blame on the person using the gun or society as a whole. I personally feel that all technology or human creations can serve as either a blessing or a hindrance. It all comes down to the eye of the beholder- as it is sometimes stated. Also inventors have this burning desire to complete the journey they are on, the inventive process, and it can remain next to impossible to stop- no matter what the consequences. Basically what I am stating is that we shouldn't try to turn Hallam into a worthless slime ball but merely a person caught up in the pursuit of personal gratification- no matter how carnivorous it is portrayed. --Jason Durbin
Response to Post Ten :
In response to Jason Durbin's opinion of section two of The Gods Themselves, I agree that the second section adds interest and appeal where needed most. In the first section, the novel starts as a normal science fiction book, excluding chapter 6, and progresses nicely. But, in the second section, we are brought to a new world with different cultures, social stratification, and mating techniques. Most of the second section is allowing the reader to become aquatinted with the para-universe and the entities that live there. I found the second section of the book brilliant and interesting. The third section retained some of this interest because the lunarites were also discussed and the new culture of the moon was brought to the forefront of the novel. These aspects make this book more interesting that some that we have read, and I agree with the statement in class that the second section could be hailed as a great piece of science fiction. --Deidra Dame
Post 16
In the second section of The Gods Themselves, I found the social stratification of the Soft Ones to be somewhat symbolic of the struggle for women's rights in the workplace. This novel was written in 1972, in the midst of the women's movement. In the second section Dua expresses her desire to learn: "Besides, you shouldn't ask questions ." "Because I'm an Emotional? Because other Emotionals don't ask questions?-I can't stand other Emotionals, if you want to know and I do ask questions." (91) In the social stratification of the para-universe, The Emotionals and the Parentals are discouraged from learning. The only reason that Dua is indulged by Odeen and the Hard Ones is because they will soon form one of the most important Hard Ones of them all. I feel that this is somehow parallel to the era when women were breaking away from the home and trying to join the workforce. They were discouraged from doing 'man's work' and encouraged to socialize with other housewives and take care of the children. The Emotionals in this section are also discouraged from any 'rational' thinking and the culture has even instilled in the Emotionals the desire to tease and ridicule those who do wish to think and learn. Weren't the same values instilled in women before the women's movement. Did other housewives not ridicule women for 'abandoning their home and children for a job. I feel that the movement of the era influenced Asimov greatly that he built in part of the human stratification of the sexes and family into the second section and the stratification for the Soft Ones. --Deidra Dame
Post 17
I found the relationship between Keepiru and Toshio to be very interesting in "The Startide Rising." Keepiru always makes fun of Toshio, yet when Toshio is in trouble, Keepiru is the first dolphin there to help. In addition, Toshio also helps Keepiru later in the book. I was wondering if Brin is trying to show that even though they are not best friends, they still care for each other. Also, maybe that even though they are different, they will still pull through in a tough situation. I found this relationship to be interesting, since each seems to not like each other yet is the first to help in an emergency. What do the rest of you think that Brin is trying to convey with these two characters? --Misty Dillow
Respose to Eight
The point that Deidra makes in her post about the triad is very interesting. I believe that yes, Asimov probably was trying to relate this to our society and the symbolism is definately difficult to unravel. The three roles could tie in with our roles, in that each part of the triad has specific duties. When these duties are not followed appropriately, they are called names such as Left-Em. This is similar to our society in that women should act like women, and men should act like men. If their roles differ, they too are called names that are hurtful. Maybe Asimov is trying to show the distinctiveness with which roles are placed on members in a society. --Misty Dillow
