The Finite Canvas (spoilers)

This is absolutely my favorite story that we've read so far. There is so much beauty and emotion in it, unlike much of the others. Do you think it should qualify as science fiction though? To me the only thing science fiction about it is the fact that it is in the future in India when the Earth has acid rain that blisters the skin, and that they originally come from stations (in space, I'm assuming).

Other than that, there isn't much science fiction. The process in the story is a form of scarification. The characters are a mafia assassin and an exiled doctor. It's a story of lost love (not that common, at least not looking at the emotion of it) and surviving.

If you were in Jada's place, would you choose your pseudo-family or the traitorous lover? In my opinion it would be a hard choice to make. Either way Jada looses something important to her, and even if she would have chosen her life with Eten the syndicate would have come after both of them.

Do you think that Jada was giving implied messages to Molly about killing her, or was it just an interpretation that would allow Molly to gain what she wanted without feeling much regret?

I loved the story. How it ended seems poetic in a way, with a tribute to Jada.

Opinions? Did everyone else enjoy it as much as me, or did you find it less appealing?

Holmes Sherlock

            Holmes Sherlock was interesting to me on two levels. First, it was interesting in regards to how different classic works were perceived by these aliens. The description of Madame Bovary was especially interesting to me because these characters could not understand why it was so intriguing to humans, especially the part about heterosexual partners. They blamed all of the problems on these heterosexual relationships, and when it is looked at through that lens of homosexual relationships being the norm, it makes sense. The relationships in these novels seem to always be the main issue, and the practical solution to these aliens is to not have heterosexual relationships at all. I think that the author may be trying to point out through this short story the issue of social justice regarding homosexual relationships versus heterosexual and showing how homosexuality actually may be more practical. This could be just how I perceived the reading. What did you all think?

My problem with aliens/sushi/hwarhath/etc.

I spent a good amount of the time while I was reading the stories trying to figure out what these various creatures actually looked like instead of focusing on the stories and meanings. For example, due to the fact I have no idea what a Hwarhath is, other than some large hairy thing, I didn't like "Holmes Sherlock" - at all. My favorites story was "Nightfall on the Peak of Eternal Light," but that may have something to do with the fact it is somewhat imaginable as a real occurrence as opposed to the other stories I couldn't connect to at all.

Does anyone else thing that the distance between the plausible reality in the stories and the undescribed form of many of the main characters take away a certain attachment to the story?

It may be where I don't necessarily love science fiction so I get stuck on the aesthetics, but I just can't get my head around the idea of an octopus working in space enough to enjoy the story...

Social Media of the Future

When I first started reading “The Memcordist” I was not really a fan, but as I got deeper into the story I really started to enjoy the concept of a part human, part robot created to explore and record his/her life, and send out their experiences for millions to follow.  The narrative of Pym was no unexceptional story, but I thought it was interesting that the one constant thought through out the majority of his life was this one encounter with a girl he met on Polyphemus Port, Titan, year seventeen of his life. The nonlinear fashion of the story made it a little confusing at first, but as I read I connected this notion of Pym being a memcordist to one being famous on different social media outlets today. Everything Pym went through, all his memories, were recorded for anyone and everyone to access, and this is exactly like social media today. Today, you can follow peoples’ lives on these social media outlets and once something is published on the Internet it is there forever, sort of like Pym’s life. I thought Tidhar’s story was a play on a farfuture concept of what Twitter or Facebook could potentially be like in the future, thoughts?

Masculinity and Femininity in Weep for Day

In Weep for Day, there are a lot of interesting dichotomies, most notably the one of dark and light.  The story also has an interesting approach when it comes to the relative “civilization” of the world they live in; for example, they have electricity and trains, but also still have plate armor-wearing knight-errants. Because of the juxtaposition of the old and the new, there is also an interesting expression of gender roles explored in the story.

You see throughout the first few pages that Velag clearly idolizes their father for his bravery and strength (traditionally masculine traits) in capturing and killing a Nightmare. When Val suggests that their father was scared of seeing a Nightmare again, Velag reacts violently, and Val specifically remarks that she acted of her sex saying, “I was too shocked to scream. My ingrained submission to his power as an elder male authority figure took over. I gave no resistance.”

And yet, as the two characters grow, it seems more and more that Velag’s quest to kill Nightmares is a response to fear and not bravery, and that Val is perhaps the better of the two because of her compassion for the Nightmares. The story seems to present traditional ideas of masculinity and femininity, only to flip them on their head; Val’s kindness and empathy (more commonly female behaviors) lead her to live longer and a more happy life, whereas Velag was killed in battle because of his need to prove himself a man.

"Holmes Sherlock" and My Disappointment Severe

I didn't read these stories in order. Normally I would have, but I saved Holmes Sherlock for last. I'm a huge Sherlock Holmes fan, and lately there's been something of a resurgence in the character in pop culture (if you haven't seen BBC's "Sherlock" stop what you're doing right now and go watch it. Seriously). I was hoping that this story would play off the nature of his name being backwards and have some sort of bizarro Sherlock in some crazy world and I figured I would be enthralled by it.

You can imagine my disappointment.

"Holmes Sherlock" was EASILY my least favorite work this week, likely because of the hype I'd given it. The story was boring and predictable and there didn't seem to be a point to it at all, other than some weak attempts at satire in a few places.

The only thing I can say about it is that in a way, it was a bizarro-Sherlock: an uninteresting detective who solves uninteresting cases about uninteresting people with very little intrigue, adventure, or mystery.

Even bizarro-Watson bored me.

Here's hoping there's some deeper meaning that's gone right over my head which can validate this story somehow, because otherwise it took me 30 minutes to read that story and write this post, and I'll never get that time back.

The Stars do Not Lie & Real World Parallels

While reading "The Starts do Not Lie" I initially had difficulty envisioning the setting until about halfway into the story. At this point I began to see the world as a analogue to the late 1800s or early 1900s thus giving myself a better frame of reference to understand some elements of the story. I started to connect the Thalassojustity to the secret societies that were common in Victorian England and which many felt truly ran the empire. Of these societies I specifically thought of the Free Masons and the various stories of their secret influence over world events. (I especially thought of the recent Sherlock Holmes movies)

Many of these elements such as secret societies collecting forbidden knowledge are well worn troupes, however: did setting these 'real world' plot devices into a fictional setting make them more refreshing or novel?

Humanity in Science Fiction

After this weeks readings, I began to realize most good works of science fiction carry a moral message. The two stories that stood out to me were Weep for Day and The Man. Both of these stories are very much science fiction and do not relate to our world nearly as much as stories like Little Brother and Homeland. In Weep for Day, Valyzia begins to feel compassion for the Nightmares. Seeing Shadow chained up and helpless even induced her to vomit. She is adamant about Velag not joining the military to fight the scared Nightmares and eventually devotes her life to the research of Night. She claims that if they die, it is not because Nightmares but because they have a want for knowledge. In The Man, Ziyi treats the copy of the man as a real person because it seems like a real person. The thought of him being vivisected by Sergey was too much and she shot the man to spare him the agony. Are the moral dilemmas proposed in these stories meant to make people respect nonhumans more? Did you agree with Valyzia and Ziyi or did you view the Nightmares or man as a subhuman, worthless creature? Why is it important to not be biased against other species?

My take on "The Stars Do Not Lie"

“Privacy is just a special case of truth, or its withholding” Out of the readings this week, the one that stood out to me the most was "The Stars Do Not Lie", by Jay Lake. Overall, the story discusses the debate on whether the Earth goes around the sun, or the other way around. The main character is Doctor Morgan Abutti, who has been studying the same part of the sky for many years. He knows that he has found something, but isn't sure what it is yet. He decides to bring his new findings to the Planetary Society, a group more traditional in ideology. Seeing how his society is ruled by religion, this information shocks his peers and he is immediately brought before a treason judge, and could be incarcerated or thrown in prison at any moment. While being overly vague to avoid spoilers, the story then jumps back and forth between Morgan and a high priest who leaves his safe home and undergoes a mission. By the end, both men find themselves having to decide whether they want to enter the dark abyss and gain ultimate truth, but never be able to tell anyone, or remain on the horizon of truth without ever entering it. Lake is definitely not the first author to play with this theme of the suppression of knowledge on society, but his writing style put it in a new perspective to me. So that made me wonder, if we were all forced to choose between truth and comfort, what would we choose? I think it depends on each of our preferences and desire to become fully self actualized, but I'm interested to see how this discussion goes in class. One last thing, what did everyone think about the racism displayed in this society?

Moral Science Fiction?

One of the things that I noticed about this week's readings is that while most of the stories were highly enjoyable, they also seemed to convey messages or lessons from the author to the reader, some clearly delivering a moral, and others merely suggesting it. I don't really mind this, but it's kind of odd that so many of them involved a moral when most of the science fiction books I read on my own seemed aimed more at pure entertainment for the reader. Weep for Day and Holmes Sherlock contain messages on tolerance, Nightfall on the Peak of Eternal Light is about the nature of family and second chances, and the Stars Do Not Lie talks about faith and science. Ted Chiang and Cory Doctorow also had a sort of moral in their works, so now I'm wondering whether it's just pure coincidence that Chiang, Doctorow, and now so many of these other authors include a message, or if it's maybe considered a hallmark of a great science fiction writer since I think most of the authors we've read so far won awards for their work. Any thoughts?

Thoughts on Holmes Sherlock

I have to confess, I was slightly disappointed by the trajectory of the story as it differed from the expectations I had in mind when reading the first paragraph. However, it worked well as a science fiction short story depicting the perspective of an alien society trying to understand humanity through literature. It's interesting that despite many aspects of the hwarhath people being opposite of humanity, in general, like homosexuality vs. heterosexuality and the reversal of some key gender roles, there are many similarities between them in attitude and judgement and in their aversion to change. For example, the hwarhath's disgust concerning heterosexuality and the initial routes proposed so logically to deal with Nam's situation, namely suicide, were shocking to me and reminiscent on attitudes we had (or still have in some places) concerning homosexuality.

As far as how this story fits into the realm of science fiction, aside from the obvious alien perspective, it seems to fit the definition of science fiction being a means to observe and comment on humanity from an outsider's perspective. In this case, the hwarhath were more like humanity than they realized and there is something to be learned from them. I think Doctor Mel says something to this effect near the end:

"These are humans, and they're imaginary!"
"We can still learn from them. We can always learn from other people."

Other thoughts? Ideas?

On a side note, I don't think Nam covered up her tracks terribly well. Everything she did seemed to draw attention to the fact that there was something suspicious about her disappearance, from the trail of photographs that she had given to basically everyone in town to the wiped hard drive and suspicious missing body at the place where she supposedly died. But, I suppose that wasn't really the point of the story. I think what I found lacking in the story was more intellectual detective work on Kla's part. I expected a more difficult path to uncovering the mystery.

Science Fiction and Dense Explanation

So I remember in class over the past few weeks, we expressed some confusion and discussion about the Cory Doctorow novels as science fiction. They take place almost completely within our own world, at least in the areas of technological advancement, which is normally how we differentiate science fiction from traditional fiction. If it's in the future and they have technology that we don't, it's sci-fi. One comment that Mr. Duncan made in class is that what really sets the works apart for him is the dense explanation. Where in a work that was defined as "fantasy," there would be a magical spell or object that could make the citizens of San Francisco look suspicious, in Little Brother, there is an arphid jammer that works this way, and much detail goes into explaining to the reader why this works the way that it does.

I wanted to take this viewpoint into account when reading the stories in the anthology. The first one "Weep for Day," as well as "The Man," take place in a world where one side of the planet is in eternal night, the other in a never-ending day. Now, in a setting that would be considered fantasy, this would be simply stated and accepted as a facet of life, such as in the Game of Thrones series, where seasons last for many years at a time. That's just how the world is and we don't need to understand beyond that. Traditionally, "Weep for Day" might fall into that same category. It takes place in a different world, there are knights and foul beasts of shadow. It all sounds very fantastical.

However, the descriptions alter that perception of the setting, at least for me. The world isn't magically day on one side and night on the other. The story says that the planet is tidally locked and, whether or not it revolves around the sun, it doesn't rotate on an axis causing partial day and night. The setting is explained. Similarly, the shadow-creatures that serve as a kind of subverted antagonist for the story are explained away through evolutionary science and biology. Are there still fantasy elements to the story? Certainly! There's the "sun wyrm," which one can only envision as some manner of solar dragon. There's a Shadow King creature with a sword that matches many a fantasy archetype, and (SPOILERS) the story itself ends with the narrator going deeper into the Night to find something that IS unknown and unexplainable. But by spelling out the astronomy and biology of this world, it takes on a different feel that can only be science fiction.

How does this factor in to your perceptions of the works? I know that some of the Ted Chiang stories felt decidedly not science fiction-y, but under this criterion, they do to me more than they did before. Anyone else feel that way?

The Evolutionary Biology of Weep for Day makes no sense.

I doubt that anyone is as bothered as I am by the world building in that story, but really it just made no sense. So let's accept that this story takes place on a planet with no rotation. One side is always really hot, the other is always really cold. The boundary between those sides is going to be almost habitable, theoretically. I'll suspend my disbelief for a minute and accept that this species the protagonist belongs to lives in this linear habitable zone. Geographically, this would make it very difficult to develop a civilization such as that shown in the story, but it's possible.

But the nightmares just make no sense. They live in perpetually dark forests. First of all, how on earth can there be a forest where there is no light? Even if this forest isn't comprised of trees as we're familiar with them, it's pretty obvious that these are still large multicellular organisms. On Earth, chemosynthesis is only observed in single celled organisms. It's so inefficient that it only works with single celled organisms. So these trees aren't getting energy through light or inorganic molecules and they're certainly not getting energy from heat. So unless they filter feed on microorganisms like sponges do, these trees can't exist. Second, why are the nightmares black? They live in constant darkness. On Earth, animals which live in isolated cave habitats are white. They have no need for pigmentation as they have no need to block UV radiation. They save energy by not synthesizing it. So why are the nightmares so heavily pigmented? Valyzia mentions that they probably evolved on the dark side of the planet, and if that's so, there was never an evolutionary need for pigmentation. Why are they even able to sense light? We've all seen blind cave fish and crawdads before. They don't need eyes so they lost them. Why did the nightmares ever evolve eyes in the first place? I could understand if they had sensory organs with were able to detect wavelengths outside of our visual spectrum (similar to how pit vipers sense infrared thermal radiation), but it's made pretty clear by Valyzia's description of Shadow that it's able to see light in our visual spectrum despite the fact that this spectrum isn't present in its habitat.

Edit: Ok so I just reread the story and it's mentioned that the trees exhibit phototropism which implies that they perform photosynthesis, despite living in constant darkness.

Marcus Growing Up

        After discussing in class, I really started to put together Marcus' actions throughout the novel and I think that he definitely matured and grew into more of an adult. First off, the end of the book left lots of cliff hangers, such as what happened to Marcus' parents, did Joe win the campaign, and what was the end relationship between Marcus and Carrie Johnstone? The fact that none of these questions were answered suggested that Marcus was uninterested in the outcome, possibly because he has grown up in the sense that he is ready to move on and live an ordinary life where these are not issues anymore. By the end of the book, Marcus is extremely interested in his 3D printer, suggesting that he is no longer interested in what he has been facing the past two novels. Furthermore, his friends, such as Jolu, are growing up and maturing, which is making him aware of his situation and the fact that he needs to grow up too. When Ange and Marcus break up, he is evaluating their relationship, which is the first time he has ever done that or really ever given much thought to the future. Therefore, I liked the ending of the novel because it demonstrates Marcus leaving this part of his life and focusing on the more important aspects to him for the future. So we therefore know that Marcus makes it out ok, and has not been forever influenced by the events of the past two novels.

What can we do?

As others have already suggested, the greater message of both Little Brother and Homeland is the idea that we, the reader, should do something about it. We should, in some way, fight "the man" and try to hold our government more accountable for how our activity is monitored online and in our every day lives.

The most obvious solution (and perhaps most difficult) is to approach these issues through legislature. We could of course, vote to elect those who represent our interests in these matters. But this is a lengthy process, and the effects are not immediate, nor are they always guaranteed. So, then, what can we do? Should we become hackers like Marcus and try to keep the government out of our computers and subvert the system? Should we sign petitions asking for a change in law? Are there any practical solutions we can apply that can help us keep our right to privacy?

Need for a relatable Protagonist?

Keeping in line with the numerous posts about Marcus, I would like to ask the simple question: does a story's protagonist need to be relatable?

I feel that Marcus is the appropriate protagonist for this story. He is savvy with computers, a bit (perhaps quite) geeky, and is given cause to take the actions he does. While some would simply wish to get on with their lives after being detained by the DHS, others would want some form of justice whether personal or for their friend (ie Darryl). There seems to be a preoccupation with whether or not the reader would behave the same in similar circumstances. While an interesting question, I feel it is a bit irrelevant. The better issue is whether or not Marcus' actions make sense for the character as established by Doctorow.

I do not know how I would react if put in Marcus' situation. I assume I would be angry and quite paranoid. I think the more relevant question is: After seeing what Marcus has been through, what will you do? Not 'what would you do'.

Similarity to Marcus

Marcus is close to our age and lives in a setting that is close to our time. The activities he enjoys are similar to the activities and games we play. The government closely monitors his movements and actions, similar to how our government does. He begins to feel like he is being watched and becomes paranoid. If our government directly affected your life like they affected Marcus', you would become a bit fearful yourself. Some of his actions are a bit out of order but he faces similar problems that we may have to face soon. Do you agree? Do you think you would resemble Marcus more if DHS agents tortured you?

Real Technology in Homeland

What I found really interesting and enjoyable about Homeland was that many of the things Doctorow mentions in the book actually exist in real life. If Little Brother was more about a projection of possible future technologies, Homeland is more rooted in the things that are going on today.

• Persona management software: as Aaron Swartz mentions in his afterword, persona management software exists and is being used by companies and corporate lobbyists to sway or misrepresent public opinion by amplifying one opinion into many voices. To what degree it is being used, I don't know, but it's something that I hadn't really thought about. 
• Student loans: student loans aren't erased or mitigated by declaring bankruptcy. 
• SDR & HERF: Software-defined radio and high energy radio frequency or directed energy weapons are also real tools in use today. 
• Burning Man: an annual festival in Nevada's Black Rock Desert
• People's Mic: an absolutely ingenious idea which was used in Occupy Wall Street when NYC required permits to use amplification equipment
• Darknet:  an anonymizing network where connections are made only between trusted peers using non-standard protocols and ports
• Faraday pouch: also known as an antistatic bag, usually made out of PET, which shields electronics from electrostatic discharge

Although Homeland was more based on present day technologies and events, I still really enjoyed the science fiction aspect of lengthy explanations of exactly how everything worked even though some of it was well beyond my understanding.

Scienfic Fiction to Nonfiction

Both of Doctorow's novels, considered science fiction, are unnervingly closely related to our society today. Technology continues to change our world everyday, some for the benefit of the people, some for the benefit of the government. In Homeland, Doctorow advocates methods to ensure personal online securities, such as proper file storage. With government having increased access to files with more and more information on people, how should the citizens react? People want to feel safe from other nations but even more importantly need to feel safe from their own government. Access to technologies like the World Wide Web allow for instant uploading of stories to the public before the government can censor them. What should a society look like that has a government with a scary amount of information on every citizen? Do you believe the government should be allowed to monitor people as closely as the Patriot Act and other laws allow?

Doctorow's True Intent

Unfortunately, I am sick and will not be able to make it to class today. However, I wanted to add my two cents to into the group discussion regardless. I enjoyed reading "Homeland", although it took me a while to get through it. The most interesting aspect of the book for me was the intricate break down of the computers and the other technological aspects, and how he went through and explained the hackers every move. As I was reading it, I couldn't help but realize that the story has nothing to do about Marcus or Ange, or even any of the other characters. It seemed to me that Doctorow's real intent writing this sequel was to inform the reader about the "big brother" aspect of the government, and foreshadow a society similar to this fictional setting in the future. Does anyone else also see it this way? And if so, why did he feel the need to string us along with the story line for so long? One possibility I thought about is that Doctorow didn't simply want us to discuss the plot in the book, but instead wanted us to discuss the things we learned from it. Overall, his writing is in a style of it's own, and I enjoyed reading both "Little Brother" & the sequel.

Is Marcus a relatable protagonist?

Throughout both of these books, I found myself just totally unable to relate to Marcus. I just felt like every decision he made, I would have made the opposite. If I was accused of being a terrorist, I would have kept my head down and tried to stay out of trouble. But no, Marcus had to organize people and try to take down the Department of Homeland Security.

At the same time, though, I sort of find Marcus's character necessary. Realistically if the DHS came into a major city and started imposing all these ridiculous regulations on people, someone would do something about it. I think it's maybe just that it's hard for me to picture myself caring so passionately for a social cause that I would risk everything I had to start a revolution and become its martyr. I guess that's why Marcus comes off so extreme to me. I know these types of people exist, I'm just not one of them.

So are you able to relate to Marcus? Do you think that he takes the logical route in his situation? What would you have done differently?

the X-netters, Edward Snowden, and the US today

I think it's fairly easy to guess how Marcus, Ange and the other Xnetters would feel about Edward Snowden. To them, he would be a hero and a comrade in the fight against an overly intrusive government. The question is, to what extent does the US feel the same? Do Americans (and others) believe that surveillance is OK...and why?
First of all, one of the major issues in the debate over Snowden's actions is the same question at the core of Little Brother: is it OK to curtail individual freedoms as long as it makes our nation more "secure?" To Marcus, the answer would be unequivocally, no. According to a Pew survey in July, about 50% of Americans agree with government surveillance despite the fact that 70% believe the government is using the data they collect for purposes other than fighting terrorism, and despite believing that the government is not adequately limited in what info they can collect from you. (Another interesting tidbit from the survey: more Democrats support government surveillance than Republicans). The survey interesting enough showed that the younger you are (the closer in age to the fictitious Xnetters), the more likely you are to think that the government has encroached too far on individual civil liberties (60% of 18-29 year olds vs. 48% of 30-49 year-olds). [For more info, see http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/26/few-see-adequate-limits-on-nsa-surveillance-program/]
On Friday, the executive chair of Google advocated for greater government transparency but that this "spying" is not exactly a novel idea and has occurred for years.
What do you think of Snowden and the revelation of government surveillance? Are you for or against the principle?

PS. For the article on Google's chair see: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/13/eric-schmidt-google-nsa-surveillance
On feeling more secure and private see: http://howto.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-57596008-285/internet-privacy-in-an-age-of-surveillance/
For an interesting Q-and-A with Snowden himself: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower

Marcus as an Adult

Not to sound like a broken record, but it seemed like the biggest talking point that we were able to settle on for Little Brother was Marcus, the protagonist. One of the bigger vices AND virtues that he possessed seemed to be just that he was a 17 year old and that was either too convincing or not convincing enough.

So has Marcus aged well?

Admittedly, it's only been two years, but I feel like Marcus has grown up a bit between books. He graduated high school, left college, and is becoming a young adult. He's pretty much in the same stage of life as we are as readers, except for some of the harder economic circumstances that he's in now. Is he easier to relate to now?

I personally think so. I'm not done with the book yet, admittedly, only a little over one hundred pages in, but from what I've gathered, he seems to have developed as a character nicely. I feel like he's still excitable, still prone to spontaneity to the extent that he reminds me of a household pet, but I feel like a lot of that is just the book still being aimed towards a teenage audience and Marcus needing to sound cool.

Specifically, and warning, SPOILERS START HERE:

I thought that going to Burning Man was an admirable "college kid" type action. I last got to the point where he started working on the campaign. He has the flash drive with Masha's information on it, but he doesn't want to stir up trouble again, because he promised the politician he represents not to.

Admittedly, I know that he IS going to get involved and that then I probably won't respect his self-constraint, but I have a fair amount of hope that he's going try and play it smarter from here on out.

But what are y'alls thoughts? Y'all have probably read further than me, and that's totally fine, since I'm finishing the book before checking the comments. But how do you feel that Marcus has aged?

My Issue with Marcus

     In class the discussion we had about whether we liked Marcus or not really sparked my interest. Some people admired that he always took the blame and really was interested in helping people, but my issue with him is that he never thought of the consequences. For example, the protests that he organized ended up hurting more people than helping, in my opinion. True, he did end up helping the situation, but in my opinion he did more damage than help. After any threat to our country, it is only natural to assume that security will be at a high point and everyone will be suspicious. Therefore, I think it is was a little ridiculous that Marcus took his independence and freedom to such an extreme. If he had only cooperated in the first place, there would have been no tabs on him. So I think his attitude was a little excessive, especially since he was just a teenager. Furthermore, by creating the Xnet I believe that his intentions were good, but once again he did not think of the consequences. He did not know the influence that the Xnet would have and he was therefore not prepared for what would happen because of his actions.

Little Brother/1984

Can I just mention how mad I am at myself that I didn't notice that "w1n5t0n" was an allusion to 1984? For those of you that have read 1984, what parallels can you think of other than these:

Ange and Winston's fling in 1984 - probably why we all thought that Ange would've been a spy.

The forms of communication to hide under the system

Government security - tracking arphids and the giant window screen (its been a while since I've read it)

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

This isn't directly about Little Brother, but I stumbled across the TPPA a little while ago, and was reminded of it by Jessica's mention of SOPA and internet regulation. It's a trade agreement still in the works analogous to NAFTA but on a much larger scale and has been kept very, very quiet. One of many disturbing aspects of the TPPA is all of the digital monitoring that has been slipped in, many provisions taken from SOPA.

A breakdown of some of the nastier aspects of TPPA is here and here.
And if you want to wade through it, one of the documents that was leaked is here.

Has anyone else heard or seen anything about this?

Little Brother, the Internet, and the Wild West

As our world (ie society, economies, etc) grow increasingly connected, everything seems to be shrinking. That is to say, there seems to be fewer blank spots on the map these days. Areas of mystery and adventure where societal norms are less applicable and order is a foreign concept (okay, this is a bit dramatic but I think it conveys my point). There have been comparisons of the Internet to the Wild West as a generally lawless area of anonymity. I read Little Brother partly as a fight to keep this concept of freedom alive. Not a legal or constitutional conception of the word (though that was certainly also theme) but a broader social concept of anonymity. Trying to leave some empty spaces on the map.

This concept of empty spaces also seems to appear in fantasy quite often: areas filled with barbarians etc. I viewed this commonality as a link between this form of Science Fiction and Fantasy. I think this link is merely coincidental but still compelling and interesting, possibly demonstrating a human desire for freedom.

I was interested in seeing if anyone else had this type of interpretation of the book?

Personal Rights vs Public Safety

When I started to read Little Brother I did not think I would like it, but it turned out to be an interesting read. It is science fiction but is set in the near future and contains realistic characters, which I thought was interesting. A major theme in this story is the infringement on personal rights. The Department of Homeland Security infringes on Marcus' personal rights by arresting and torturing him. They justify the reasoning of this maltreatment by claiming his hacker abilities and proximity to the attack and say they are protecting the public. When, if ever, should personal rights take a back seat to public safety? Should the government be able to restrict personal rights to protect public safety during times of tragedy, like the one in this book?

Internet Regulation

As many of you have already mentioned, the technology used and created in this story isn't far off from what we have available today. In terms of government monitored use of the internet, that day is sort of already here. With new laws like CISPA and SOPA targeted at preventing online piracy that have been so publicly fought and still passed (or variations of them have passed, essentially allowing ISPs to monitor downloaded content), the internet feels a little bit smaller.

If I'm being totally honest, I used to download quite a bit of music and movies in high school. Once I got to college and began taking courses in my major (film), I understood from a media creator's perspective why downloading was harmful. Then laws like SOPA became known and extremely controversial and I felt further justified in withdrawing from the world of illegal downloading.

Similarly, Marcus finds early on that his computer use is being monitored and must adapt to this as well. I'm curious, how did you guys react to these new laws? Did you acknowledge that the government could take a closer look at your personal browsing habits and adapt? How has your experience online changed (or has it)?

Abrupt

Anybody else really glad there's a sequel to this book?

I almost felt like there were pages missing at the end, after the main storyline finished. Why didn't we get more info on Darryl post-incarceration? Why didn't we find out more about the Van-Darryl-Ange-Marcus love quadrilateral? I was legitimately upset that I wasn't going to find out... until I saw that the next book was the sequel.

Little Brother

I really enjoyed this story and thought it was an interesting read. It was easy to relate Little Brother back to issues we face today like the recent government scandals that occurred this summer and illegal invasion of the right to privacy. I think Doctorow uses this story to criticize America’s actions in dealing with terrorists and unknown enemies, and how an overbearing government security can get out of control. In Little Brother it gets to the point where the security becomes oppressive and it is the peoples turn to keep the government in line, and that is where Marcus plays a crucial role. Do you think the way Marcus and his friends reacted after being tortured was appropriate? What would you have done? Would you have fought back?

How would you respond?

I was thinking of a question similar to Lauren's when I was reading the book. The question I thought about was, what if DHS had responded like it did in the book to the actual events in the United States after 9/11? I know our security on planes became stricter, but what about tracking every movement and taking people up for questioning when a slight change occurred in your travel patterns.

Would you go along with it like Marcus's dad did at first, or would you think that it was an invasion and overall unnecessary?

Little Brother questions

As I was reading the story for this week, I completely forgot that it was technically science fiction. Everything seemed like this could easily happen in our country today. Just like Maureen's post, I feel like our current day world is technologically up to the same sophistication as this fictional setting. Especially with all the recent news stories about the government tracking our cell phones and internet history... It's scary to think about how much goes on that we will never know about. Does anyone agree that this would make a great movie? (I googled this idea to make sure there wasn't already one out, and apparently it's a work in progress and someone's making it!) Also, I thought it was really interesting to watch Marcus transform throughout the story. At the beginning, I couldn't help but compare him to Zuckerberg's character in "The Social Network". He seemed quick and witty, and for some reason all the technology discussion made me relate the two. But then that changed, and he seemed to be maturing and took more of the hero character. I really enjoyed Doctorow's writing style- I know the story was long, but it was so easy to read that it was really enjoyable and moved quickly. I'm excited to hear the class discussion and see what everyone's take on this was.

Ethics with Digient Copies

So last week we discussed a little the ethics of the digient sex industry and whether we would allow our digients to participate. But I think one important thing we left out of our discussion is that these are only copies of their digients that Derek and Ana have to worry about. Jax, Marco, and Polo wouldn't actually be doing anything, their copies would. So my question is, does that make the proposition from the digient sex industry any more appealing? If you don't have to see the effects of your decision and you got to make money, would you do it? If you wouldn't do it, is it the sex industry that deters you or the possibility of those copies being used for digient torture in the future?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

One of Marcus's main points was that the point of terrorism was to instill terror, to make everyone suspicious of everyone else, to incite chaos, which it does quite well. But where does one draw the line between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Marcus himself (as M1k3y, as the creator and leader of Xnet) was viewed as a terrorist (or at least, as aiding the terrorists) by the government and the DHS, but to the people of San Francisco, particularly the younger population, he was a freedom fighter.

I particularly like this bit at the end when Ange and Marcus are talking about Carrie Johnstone:

"If they sent her to my town, I'd probably become a terrorist." (M)
"You did become a terrorist when they sent her to your town." (A)
"So I did." (M)

I think this is an incredibly relevant subject in light of current events, and I'm curious to see what people think. Personally, I believe that the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is quite subjective and simply depends on the viewpoint from which one looks.

Doctorow, Cory. Little Brother. New York: Tom Doherty Associates, 2008. 364. Print.

How do you think the DHS measures would go over here in Alabama?

As I was reading Little Brother what kept coming to mind was, what if this happened in my backyard? What if terrorists bombed Bryant-Denny on Game Day? Other than everyone being sent home, how do you think the university would react? How do you think people in Alabama would react? Would it be the same as what happened in San Francisco? Would everyone you know agree with whatever the government was willing to do, or would they run to Academy and buy all the guns and ammo they could and secede from the Union? Would the protests, if their were protests, be peaceful? What would the people our age and younger think?

Knowing my family, we'd probably secede from the Union with a very large arsenal of guns and declare our 20 acres of land Cordorland. My dad is a computer engineer, my mom is an international accounts receivable manager, and I would bet a large sum of money that that's what we'd do. What about you guys?

Little Brother as a Prediction for the future

Admittedly, this post isn't as portentous as the blog title makes it sound, it's just that as I was reading Little Brother I kept wondering how accurate it was technology-wise, or how long future developments will take to bring us to that point. Generally speaking, the technology is already much more accurate than similar predictions in, let's say, 2001: A Space Odyssey (it's 2013 and we still don't have moon colonies), although this isn't so surprising since 2008 wasn't that long ago. On the other, lighter hand, one glaring misstep in the book was the author's reference to Borders, which is now extinct. My post was also partially inspired by a conversation with Evan on Monday when we discussed the fact that Fast Passes are a real thing (there's also a version used at the Canadian border crossing). Other gadgets I recognized as reality (or near reality):

• Arphids (Radio Frequency ID tags or "RFIDs") in library books- this is what lets you do self-checkout at some libraries now, including the Tuscaloosa library and Gorgas (just, you know, in case you've never actually realized that's what those kiosks are for). They also have them in some books at bookstores  as anti-theft devices (those little sticker things)
• SchoolBooks- companies are not quite handing them out free to everyone just yet but there is a company that makes very basic laptops and sells them for $100 on an initiative familiar to people who buy TOMS- for every laptop they sell, they donate one to a child in a developing country. Bonus: they can create their own local network, kind of like the Xnet used in the story. (see the website here: http://one.laptop.org/)
• Gait recognition technology- people are working on this as a way to promote national security and recognize potential terrorists by associating particular patterns of movement with criminal activities. It's pretty cool and there are a number of articles on it, including this one from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/09/something-in-the-way-you-move-cameras-may-soon-recognize-criminals-by-their-gait.html

In general, people are already much more tech-savvy and connected than they were when we were young and I have no doubt that given another ten or twenty years, most of the technology and know-how used by the characters will be commonplace.

Little Brother (spoilers if you haven't read over half of it yet)

I haven't finished Little Brother yet, but I do love the book so far.

What's interesting to me is during the 13th (ish) chapter the discussion between the teacher (Mrs. Andersen) replaced Ms. Galvez and Marcus have concerning the Constitution and it's guarantees and freedoms.

Specifically, I was wondering what everyone's views were on this part of the novel which is dialogue from Mrs. Andersen - "The role of government is to secure for citizens the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In that order. It's like a filter. If the government wants to do something that makes us a little unhappy, or takes away some of our liberty, it's okay, provided they're doing it to save our lives. That's why the cops can lock you up if they think you're a danger to yourself or others. You lose liberty and happiness to protect life." -- pg 209 in the printed edition.


It seems to be this highlights the main difference between those under 25, and those above (generally speaking). I, personally, think this section alone describes basically the entire conflict within the book. Adults that see freedoms as optional for the government to protect and the under 25 crowd see the Constitution as absolute.

Do you all think this is difference due to age or experience? Do adults grow so comfortable with their freedoms, they think their safety is more important, or do their experiences with past wars and tragedy give a reason for their mindset?

Determinism in Lifecycle of Software Objects

        Having been assigned The Lifecycle of Software Objects in class last week, it was interesting to think about the story in regards to determinism since Chiang is so adamant about including that factor in almost all of his stories. The way I saw determinism fitting into this story was with the digients. It almost seemed like the digients represented humans and the humans represented free will, or the absence of it. The digients were created to perform various but specific tasks, and if they started to act in ways that the humans did not like, they could erase whatever led up to that behavior and re-train them. This was an interesting idea to me, because the digients were given no choice in the matter, almost like in Chiang's The Story of Us, where even though the woman knew her child would die at an early age, she could not change her actions to change the future. It seems as if, in Chiang's stories, that there is a force that makes decisions for humans, or in this case, digients. It gives off the impression that there is no free will and that a higher power has already made every decision for you. This is also interesting because Chiang is an atheist, but there seems to almost be a God-like figure in every story that dictates the actions of those less powerful, like humans or digients.

Little Brother as Young Adult Fiction

I'm about halfway through Little Brother and there's one thing that's been standing out to me most strongly. This is admittedly mostly unrelated to science fiction, but just as a literary tool, I think it's important and needs to be discussed.

How does everyone else feel about young adult fiction?

For anyone unfamiliar, young adult fiction is fiction written for and aimed towards adolescents and teenagers. I think most people can admit that the intention there doesn't always translate directly towards the actual market base, since over half of YA novels are purchased and read by adults over the age of 18, but you get the point.

My question about YA novels is one of perspective. Naturally, a publishing base composed entirely of adolescents aged 14 to 18 writing the entirety of this genre just isn't a reality. It's largely written by older adults. The first exposure that I had to this was James Patterson's "Maximum Ride" series. It's about these kids, ranging from (I think) ages seven to seventeen, who were genetically modified at a young age to have great feathery wings attached to their backs, with a hodgepodge of other gifts and abilities. The only problem that I really had with the series is that I was acutely aware of the fact that Max, the main character, was a fifteen year old girl that was really being written by a fifty year old man.

And that's kind of where I am with Marcus. While I've only heard EXCELLENT things about Cory Doctorow and this is in no way a slight to his writing, I think Marcus might be TOO convincing of a teenager. He does all of the things teenagers do, to be certain, what with being a computer whiz, listening to music, etc. But in spite of all this, I think he still comes across as unbelievable with his knowledge about the seedier parts of this city, how often he mentions his love for coffee, his unrelenting snark, etc.

Admittedly, there are all different kinds of teenagers and maybe there is just a suspension of disbelief that I'm not making here. Maybe it's because I am the most computer-illiterate person I know and all of this seems like too much for a teenager to wrap his head around. Maybe all of this is just a side-effect of the setting being in the not-too-distant future. What are everyone else's thought?

Understanding "Understand"

We'll obviously be moving on to Chiang's other works in class today, but before we do I want to say one final thing about "Understand."

We talked in class about the differences between Greco and Reynolds and which one we sided with - and whoever you feel was "right," it's interesting to put yourself in their shoes. I think it's pretty much clear that the key difference between the two lies in the reasons that the two accumulate knowledge: For Reynolds, knowledge is the key to power - a tool he will use as he betters the world (whether they like it or not). For Greco, knowledge is to be pursued for knowledge's sake - he intends not necessarily to use his knowledge for anything other than the pursuit of more knowledge. In other words, knowledge is the means to an end for Reynolds and the end result itself for Greco.

So which is nobler?

We're all Honors students at this University, and as such we receive certain perks: early registration for classes, scholarships, etc. We also know that graduating with an Honors designation will improve our resume and help us land the jobs we want in the future. So is that the reason we're doing this? Is the Honors program beneficial as a tool only, or do we appreciate it the way Greco appreciates his knowledge, for its beauty? If all those perks were taken away and we were left with the option to simply take harder classes and do more work and "gain more knowledge," for its own sake, would we?

Would you?

Predictors predict...nothing?

In reading Chiang's What's Expected of Us, I had a really hard time with the idea presented that something as simple as a blinking LED light could lead to "akinetic mutism." I understand that the predictor was perfect in its mechanism to blink just before users pressed it, but I have difficulty believing that this caused a major psychotic break within the populace, leading them to believe there was no such thing as free will. It would certainly pose some questions, I think, but I don't know too many people who would so affected by the knowledge that something can predict their actions that they would go into a near paralytic state.

I think to me, the story felt too unfinished, too unexplained. I think the idea that something so small could affect so much is an interesting concept, but I really found the world needed more fleshing out for me to connect with the idea more fully. What do you think? Would you be worried about your free will if predictors existed?

How we divvied up Chiang this week

Nearly forgot to post this! Apologies for my absentmindedness. According to my notes, the volunteers who will start us talking about the various Ted Chiang stories at today's class meeting are:

• Chelsea Ellis, "What's Expected of Us"
• Maureen Fitz-Gerald, "The Merchant and the Alchemist's Gate"
• Lauren Cordor, "Exhalation"
• Ellie Ott, "The Lifecycle of Software Objects"

Thanks, all.

Predictors

In Ted Chiang's What's Expected of Us, he describes a device he calls a Predictor that has a negative time delay, namely it sends the signal back  in time. No matter how hard the user tries, it can never fool the predictor. Chiang warns his audience that predictors demonstrate that there is no such thing as free will. His message to us is to pretend to have free will because believing to have free will is the most important thing. He tells of how people are then predetermined to fall into akinetic mutism, having no personal choice. Obviously predictors do not exist, but if they did, do you believe they demonstrate there is no free will? Chiang goes on to say civilization depends on self-deception. Do agree that society would depend on self-deception according to this story?

Following the Rules

            As we discussed in class last week many of Chiang’s stories establish an alternate understanding of the world such as in Tower of Babylon and 72 letters. These stories use world views and scientific understandings that differ from our own. While not correct by our knowledge, Chiang follows the rules of the worlds he creates. In 72 letters especially we see this in his use of 19^th century understandings of the reproductive process.

            I think Chiang has demonstrated an interesting (though I doubt uncommon) method for crafting settings for stories. All the various former world views and understandings of natural processes harbor enormous potential. Often times I would venture to say that this practice is done in a fantastical or supernatural manner by employing gods, demons, etc; however, Chiang explorers old scientific concepts creating a different form of science fiction.

            Are there any disproven scientific theories or even common beliefs you would like to see explored in a scientific manner? Personally I would be fascinated by an exploration of Nordic Mythology through scientific means. For example: suppose the world is indeed held up by a giant ash tree; the protagonists could venture to discover what is supporting the tree.

            A final question I have is whether or not it is okay to break the rules of the world you have established? To be more specific I will give an example of something I am trying to resolve in my own writing: The ability to use magic is a genetic mutation. Those with the ability to use magic are sterile and cannot reproduce. Despite this, character A is the daughter of someone who could use magic.

             If explained properly, is a contradiction to established norms acceptable? Or does this simply constitute that the 'rule' is actually just a belief held by characters and not an actual guiding principle for maintaining narrative cohesion?

Calliagnosia

“Liking What You See” was based on the technical manipulation of humans’ visual perception of other people and the evaluation of gender and sexuality. I think this story is extremely relevant in our society today, which has such a strong focus on your own personal image, and society telling you how you should look a certain way. Chiang’s whole storyline on having a documentary about turning your calli on or off I thought was quite insightful and also humorous. Your calli is basically a neural pathway in your brain that evaluates features that you can turn on and it will allow you to stop judging people by their features or you can keep off. Throughout the story Chiang has “interiews” various different people to hear what they have to say on the debate to have everyone have their calli turned on. The entire time I was reading I kept chaning my mind to whether or not I would choose to have mine on or off, and I was just wondering what everyone else would do…. Turn it on or keep it off?

Would you raise your digient?

Personally, I don't think that I could stick with the digient for multiple years. Despite the fact that they remind me very heavily of the Digimon franchise by Bandai. Also which caregiver could you relate to more, David, Ana, or one of the other more minor characters? I would probably be more like Robyn. After having my own kids I would look at my digient and say, "Wow that was fun!" I would then suspend the digient and walk away to go prepare my nursery. But that's me, what about you guys?

Determinism

This week is my discussion of Chiang's "What's Expected of Us". Before we get to class on Wednesday, I was just wondering what everyone thought about the theory of Determinism. The first time I read the story, I thought it was a short, simple piece about a new futuristic toy, but after reading it again, the immense consequences really started to get to me. Wouldn't society fall apart? If every event is caused, or determined, by what happened leading up to it, then what would happen regarding blame? If every event is already predetermined wouldn't the idea of blame cease to exist? Which would mean hypothetically punishement would also disappear. Wouldn't our legal system completely fall apart? This idea seemed extremely powerful to me, since I've always planned on going to law school. Therefore, if technology and society ever did mature to this level, I think I would be in the category of people that fall into Akinetic mutism. Then again, I would have no control over this. Overall, this is another example of how brillant Ted Chiang's writings are. The seriousness of the consequences on society are almost too mind blowing to wrap my head around, but I'm looking forward to hearing what everyone else's opinions are.