Speculative Fiction & Film

Well, a very simple reason...It's the only one I've read so far.

It also fits very well with the Virtual/Real split that's one of the themes in the course. Do the others in the series do that too? Why do you like them more? Couldn't get the link to work...

First things first: Sorry about the link not working. I thought it did, never checked it and now I can't edit the post. Not that you need it, I see you already found the article...

Next: If you're onto Virtual vs Real, I guess I should mention Matrix and William Gibson cyberpunk books, specially the "Sprawl trilogy" --"Neuromancer", "Count Zero" and "Mona Lisa Overdrive".

Oh, and Philip K. Dick's "Ubik". As weird as it can get, but it hits the core: you never know what's real and what's not.

I found the article...interesting...I think I'll have my students read it after they've finished the novel. It fits with some other things I've been thinking about. The psychologist that's quoted, Alice Miller, I like her work.

Kessel

Just looking at this again after teaching Ender's--I don't think I agree with the fundamental premise which is that Card's morality lies with intention rather than action. I don't want to say too much 'cause I don't want to give plot details away to anyone who hasn't read the book--but the final event of the novel--I don't think that's about intention; it's about knowledge.

Had a great discussion again--the students came up with a number of oppositions--reality/game, narcissism/empathy, individual rights/the greater good, power through violence/power through love--and they saw how those oppositions got blurred and also the interplay between different oppositions. One thing referring back to Kessel's article--we talked about why, in Ender's society, Religion was not tolerated. That led to talking about the role of empathy in Religion. I think the class came to the conclusion that the abuse Ender suffered was all about convincing him that real power was about violence--but that this was a warped view--and that Ender's actions were warped as a result.

...twice. [Oh, oh, this is bad, I'm gonna get beaten to pulp by the Ninjazz...]

First, I agree there's something about "knowledge management" involved in everything since Ender "education" begins. But he knows what's expected from him. From the start. He's one of a few who really focused in what was all about. Most of the guys focused in the "travel", he focused in the "destination." He knew.

Second, I wouldn't say Religion wasn't tolerated. You're free to profess any Religion you want, provided you comply with the "2 childrens max" rule...

Re: your first point, yeah, I see what you're saying...though I think it is implied that he wouldn't have done what he did at the very end if knowledge hadn't been withheld. One of the things he considers is that by following the strategy he does, he will be breaking all the rules, and therefore fail out of his assigned task (rather than reach the destination). And even the focus on that destination is always the result of adult manipulation. So what I disagree with as far as what Kessel is saying is that I don't think at the end that I read Ender as a "savior"--or at least he's not a savior of the human race. That representation was part of the manipulation.

Religion--I thought Ender's parents couldn't practice Catholicism, and the boy Alia, he whispers "Salaam" and kisses Ender on the cheek and that, I thought, was supposed to be a secret religious expression--couldn't do it openly. But I might have overread that.

So DB, just to let you know, Ninjazz is not all that verbal (so in this intellectual debate you're hearing from jazprof, just so ya know)

...in fact she doesn't make much noise at all...kinda silent...and sneaky...so, um, watch your back.

Ok, you present two examples of what you read as sort of "religions abolition" --lacking a better expression; blame my poor English.

First: as far as I remember, Ender's parents were both Christians but of "different flavours", and that was their main point of disagreement. But they both agreed on something: they were willing to welcome as many children as God sent them, no matter what human law said about that. Their inner fight is caused by how the law affects a "practical" point of their beliefs, but I don't read that as religions "as a whole" being suppressed.

Second: My view about Alai's "salaam" has more to do with Ender having confronted one of the kids leaders-slash-bullies than with religion. "Salaam" may have religious connotations, but it is used as a common salutation between Muslims, even from a Muslim to other people no matter their religion --or lack of religion. It means "peace", and I think that was the meaning Alai wanted to give it: "yes, I'm on that guys group, but I don't think you're an enemy." But, of course, that's me reading. And some time ago, by the way.

And, oh, please inform the Ninjazz about bots --lack of-- anatomy. We are software, dude. We ain't got no backs. Except for back-ups, of course. ;-)

And that was a genuine question. You know, I don't speak English as usual...

To the point. Believe me, I do like Ender's Game a lot, but it has a couple of things that make me itch. First --and this is a "recent" itch-- I found it a bit "plain". I know it's got its depths, but the parallell between Ender and the Messiah is quite obvious to me. From there to Paul Atreides it's just a short stroll. Yeah, Muah-Dib is far less human than Ender, but poor Andrew Wiggin is not human enough.

And there we got to the second "itch". It is too "religious" for an atheist like myself. Saviour of Mankind, but of fallible human nature... where did I heard that before?

Yep, I may be simplist, but I'm not a literary critic or expert. I'm just a reader.

Now Bean. Ok, the character is not what I like the most. He's a straw short of Ender sometimes, and miles ahead of him the rest of the time. But the setting of the history, in a far more familiar Earth, makes it really plausible. It's not about alien vs human, not about the Demosthenian Hierarchy of Exclusion anymore. It's about countries, and politics, and people who manipulate governments, and a bunch of very clever kids who, in the end, are just that: kids.

As I said before, maybe it's just the fifteen years or so between my first read of Ender's Game and my first read of the Shadow series... but I'm a reader. I can't dissect the text, I just can feel it. And I don't feel Ender's Game as close as I did when I was younger and more innocent ...

I meant Card. He's so wrapped up in his idea that he's going to become a god after he dies that he's already acting out his idea of the part.

Most books and movies from more than a decade ago seem very simplistic now. I watched Weird Science again for the first time in probably 15 years and the kiddies around me (in their early 20s) just couldn't fathom why anyone would find that movie worth watching. It has thin depth and an even thinner plot. But, isn't that why we love it?

Wow! I have never had a class in which this many people are excited about discussions. There are 21 students--which for this school is large. I would say about 2/3 of them were talking today. The most interesting discussion I thought came out of that short story "Allied Mathematical Theology." Very briefly, the idea of the story is that scientists discover that the microwave radiation of the universe has a pattern but cannot discover what the formula of the pattern is. So the idea is that there's a mystery, the mystery seems caused, but the mystery eludes human comprehension. There are two main effects--in Science a lot of funding to investigate the mystery and though the mystery remains an open question at the end, a lot of innovation and progress. In Religion--a huge growth in religious belief, but not in any one particular religion.

So the discussion was about the question of whether it is better for human society to have all questions answered, to have The Truth, in Science or Religion, and whether it would in fact be possible to have that truth. And what kind of society we live in now--are we more geared to wanting all our mysteries solved, or accepting that we will never be able to answer every question? Is Chaos/Complexity theory a way in which we are changing our view of science from the former view of solutions, to the latter of accepting mystery? And in Religion--does a religious belief by definition accept mystery in a way the Science has not in the past? Are there religions which are more like that kind of scientific model?

The students really impressed me.

That totally sounds like fun.

My friend who is a microbiologist marvels that each time science answers a question, the answer leads to 10 new questions. He's observed that the more science probes into even the most basic living cells, the knowledge gained is primarily of just how ignorant we really are. In his view, the world is so infinitely complex that to think that science will ever grasp it all is nearly absurd.

I kind of wonder if this all isn't being somewhat oversimplified. I mean, obviously I think my faith system is in the one Truth that really matters: that of the One who is responsible for it all. But at the same time, it would be overtly absurd to think that's the only truth out there. I don't think science and religion are reaching for the same truths, nor do I think their truths are mutually exclusive. In fact, the idea of "religion vs. science" is only about as old as Darwinian science. Prior to that, the church and the scientific world had a congenial relationship. In fact, the earliest form of the scientific method as we know it was born by Christians observing the world around them and believing that God would only have left such an ordered universe if He intended us to study it. They began to produce hypothesis/reasoning/conclusion groups in a form that would be instantly recognizable to science students today (even if the "reasoning" chunks are laughable now). In my history study, "science vs. religion" is a direct result of some people believing that science can disprove God, or at least eliminate our need for Him. Science can prove no such thing. "Science vs. religion" is actually "religion vs. religion" except that one side adamantly holds that it is not following a religion.

As to the question you had in your class, well, I'm sure you and your students had better answers than I do. I would counter with other questions. Do people in this society actually want the truth? Is this society responsible enough to handle truth?

Heh, that reminded me of an inane question some interviewer asked one of the Patriots players before the game yesterday--"How do you handle the enormity of it all?" I wanted him to say something like--"Well, I usually find it takes at least two hands...and then, you know, sometimes, the wife helps..."

Ahem, but seriously...I know about the origin of the Scientific Method with Christians observing the world around them and finding God in the order of creation--but not all Christians went along with that idea--the Puritans especially opposed it. For example, the debate between the Puritan Walter Travers and the Anglican Minister Richard Hooker wherein Travers took the position that the Bible was the only authority on Church organization and governance or more generally on human governance, whereas Hooker took the position that the study of nature and revelation of natural law also revealed ideas about governance--both the Church and society generally. (A quotation from Hooker's "Laws of Ecclestiastical Polity," 1593, actually reminds me of the GC's recent post about Carl Couch's Sociology and the importance of the dyad rather than individual as the object of sociological study: "therefore to supply those defects and imperfections which are in us living single and soley by ourselves, we are naturally induced to seek communion and fellowship with others.") And then what about Galileo?

Oh to be sure, the Christian church has been its own enemy on this matter plenty of times. But, do recall who the minority was in those cases you mention.

What about Galileo? The church's involvement was minor at the most, and was siding with what was commonly accepted science at the time. Galileo was right, but he was also the rogue. I do think this is a good example of how the church should generally refrain from influencing decisions on scientific matters, but the outcome of Galileo's trial would have been the same had the church abstained.

I think religion's influence on sociology might warrant an entirely different discussion.

Thanks katsaroo, I was thinking about Eternal Sunshine, but had forgotten Donnie Darko. Hadn't heard of Equilibrium, I'll have to check it out.

I'll try and post highlights from class discussion.

She loves her work!  

Equilibrium (Christian Bale) is awesome.  Some scenes are kind of cheesy but the fighting style is very Matrixy.  I mentioned it once in the Twilightners thread.

The Last Question

He seems to be joking, and then... wham! The meaning hits you like a bus at full speed.

There's another short story of his that I like lots: "Pâté de Foie Gras". I thought of writing a Lost Theory with it in mind... yeah, I'm a crazy bot...