Big Brother....

Boneshaker/Dreadnought

I have rather mixed feelings about Boneshaker. On one hand, even though alternate histories/parallel worlds are nothing new, I quite enjoyed the steampunk aesthetic and the world building. It was a lot darker than I had imagined, but I thought Priest did a fantastic job with the history of the city and building up to the actual beginning of the plotline. The zombie concept was well integrated into both stories. On the other hand, the main characters were sort of detached for me, and I never really cared about what happened to them. Zeke was incredibly annoying and reminded me of a much less capable and slightly more whiny Marcus. The side characters were actually more interesting and likeable characters (e.g., Lucy, Cly, Jeremiah, Angeline).I enjoyed Dreadnought more than Boneshaker, I think because the world building was equally good, but Mercy, although still a trope, was a much more likeable protagonist.

That said, I was pleasantly surprised by the steampunk genre, but I probably won't seek out more steampunk books to read.

Z is for Zombie

As some of you may or may not know, I'm currently producing a zombie television show through the university. So needless to say, if I hear the word "zombie" one more time, I might scream. I was a little apprehensive in reading these, because, as Ashley said, I was worried they would be ALL about zombies.

I was actually pleasantly surprised. The books are fun and campy, yes, and there are definitely zombies, but they differ enough from other works of pop culture that I don't want to tear my hair out. I think the "Blight" backstory was an interesting take on the zombie virus trope, and I was glad they weren't the main focus of the story.

How do you think the zombies in Priest's novels compare to zombies in other popular works?

Priest's Alternate History

Was anyone else fascinated by Priest's take on an extended Civil War?

A quick summary in case this looks like long boring history babble: I think that in Priest's alternate history the Confederacy won the battle of Gettysburg and thus won over British support.

Priest gives just enough details about how the conflict differs from the actual historical one to lead me to several conclusions as to how the Confederacy has survived as long as it has in her timeline. The two key bits of information I'm most drawn to are that: 1. Stonewall Jackson survived the battle of Chancellorsville (as mentioned in Boneshaker) and 2. The British are providing aid to the Confederacy (mentioned in both books I believe).
These two points are actually linked in my interpretation of Priest's history because of how they are linked in actual history. Stonewall Jackson was one of the Confederacy's best generals and often trusted with the most vital tasks in an engagement by General Lee. Jackson was accidentally killed by his own troops after scouting at the battle of Chancellorsville (an otherwise resounding victory for the South). The next summer the Army of Northern Virginia marched through Maryland and into Pennsylvania where the battle of Gettysburg was fought. On the second day of the battle, Lee ordered his troops to take an elevated position called 'Little Round-top' which would have given his artillery a clear line of fire along the entire Norther line. This attack, however, was repulsed by a last minute bayonet charge.
There have been numerous 'what if' scenarios stating that if Jackson had survived Chancellorsville and been at Gettysburg, he would have taken Little Round-top, thus allowing the Confederates to win the battle (or at the very least, not lose) The battle, however, ended in a Union victory and the South never launched an offensive of this scale again. Additionally, this battle contributed greatly to the British's decision to refrain from involving themselves in the war.
I suspect that (unless its mentioned otherwise and I'm oblivious) in Priest's history Gettysburg was a Confederate victory thus assuring the British that supporting the South would not be a waste of resources which in turn caused the war to drag on into the 1870s.

Boneshaker Question

Overall, I enjoyed the novel and thought it was one of the coolest settings I've read in a while and agree that it should be adapted into a movie. I did have one question though: the story hinted early on that living within the city walls is near suicidal (and even life in the outskirts is pretty illogical), yet no compelling reason is ever provided for why the residents stay. It's apparently not too difficult for humans to leave the city. Yet many citizens have spent a decade or more running for their lives from the zombies while being manipulated by a mad professor. I know the setting is an alternate history where the civil war rages on, but America is a big and open country in the late 19th century. People set out for the plains and southwest on a regular basis. Yet cleaning contaminated water all day or relying on filter masks to step outside is the best existence these people can imagine? Maybe it's just their desire to cling to their homeland and that they're too stubborn to leave. Can anyone else see this more clearly? I might have skipped over it, but it did get me thinking for a while. See everyone in class!

THANKFULLY, it wasn't all about zombies.

I'm beyond tired of the recent zombie movement. Yes, I've seen zombie horror movies, but the recent pop culture movement is overwhelmingly stupid 95% of the time.

I really liked how Cherie Priest managed to incorporate zombies, but didn't make them the main focus of her plot. For most of Dreadnought, they were just a phenomenon present, and Boneshaker held them at a daily occurrence, not the apocalyptic "zombies are taking over the world" crap that everyone is focused on now. Yes, Seattle was basically quarantined, but not because of zombies.

I honestly loved these books, and I'm more than likely going to buy the rest of the series to read over Christmas break. The altered history timeline adds so much context to the story. I have very few complaints with the series.

But I do have complaints. Do you think that Priest concentrates too much on the "feminist widow on a mission" archetype? There are many male characters in her novels, however she doesn't spend much time on anyone OTHER than Zeke, who at 15 years old is only used as the "helpless/stupid child" archetype. It's a bit old, but, I like the characters nonetheless. I would've given Briar more credit if she would've owned up to killing Levi sooner, but then again there wouldn't have been the big Dr. Minnericht/Zeke deceit.

Does anyone else have complaints about the story?

The Endings (Contains Spoilers- you have been warned)

So, is it just me, or did the rather nebulous endings frustrate anyone else? Boneshaker leaves us to try and figure out whether or not Briar and Zeke will actually leave Seattle. From character cameos in Dreadnought, we do find out they stayed, which is a little insane to me, but Priest basically does the same thing in Dreadnought. Mercy has this long, crazy journey across the U.S., and then all of it sudden it just ends, with everyone going their separate ways, a brief glimpse of Seattle, and her greeting her biological father. That's it. I really wanted to find out what happened to Mercy after that, and what she did with her life, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned in any of the future books. The other 4 books in the series deal with Zeke, the pirates, and new characters, but their doesn't seem to be any mention of her, which is kind of disappointing because I liked her better than Briar. Anyway, what did you think about the endings? Did you think they were abrupt? Did it even matter to you that the series constantly switches the main character?

These books are super campy and they know it

So I'll be honest and say that I'm not really into steampunk, and I was kind of hesitant when getting into Priest's books this week. I feel like a lot of material in the genre tries too hard to take itself seriously but I didn't find Boneshaker and Dreadnought that way at all. The writing style seemed pretty melodramatic but in a good way, like, "ok guys, I know this is silly, but it's pretty cool, right?" Overall it kind of felt like fan fiction dedicated to the 1800s. So I'd say I definitely enjoyed them more than I expected to but I'm not dying to go out and find more steampunk books to read.

Briar and Mercy

After reading Boneshaker and Dreadnought, you can obviously see similarities between Priest's two books. Both are steampunk stories set around the Civil War. The two characters, Briar and Mercy, are very unique in their own right.  They are both very strong yet average women who know what it takes to get things done. Neither of the women are strikingly pretty who attract a lot of men like some main female characters. Personally, I did not see very much romance at all in either story. What characteristics of Mercy and Briar do you find the most similar? What other similarities between Dreadnought and Boneshaker did you find interesting?

Boneshaker: The Movie

I just finished Boneshaker and to my surprise, found it pretty interesting. The zombie and the sort of apocalypse elements seen in this book are very common today. Personally I am not too big a fan of zombies but seemed to manage the ones in this book pretty well. Hit shows like Walking Dead and other zombie/apocalypse films are gaining huge popularity. However, the steampunk elements of the American West give this novel a different feel throughout the story than the usual space traveling aliens most people thing of when thinking about sci fi. Throughout the book, I kept imagining the visual elements and thought that it would make a decent movie. I think the popular zombie and apocalypse aspects combined with the unusual steampunk elements would grasp the public's attention in movie theaters. Did you guys ever think this book could make a good movie? Do you think people without any sci fi experience would enjoy watching this movie?

Steampunk Revisited

Hey team!

So, I wanted to talk about the general steampunk aesthetic and how we're feeling it in the books this week. I'm about to finish Boneshaker and honestly, I've really enjoyed it artistically, which surprised me, because I wasn't in love with "Steamgothic." I think the main distinction for me is that these books are specifically a part of the steampunk movement, but "Steamgothic" was about people are are fans of the movement, if that makes any sense.

One thing that has surprised me most is that no single aspect of the books are terribly original. Creating an alternate version of a trendy American city? That's happened. Zombies? SO happened. Charming airship captains? Practically a staple in this genre. But Priest seems to take these tropes and own them. There's no pretense that it's the most original concept in the world, all it's supposed to do is feel epic and create an aesthetic that I've been really enjoying all through the books. Particularly with Lucy. Just cause.

What is everyone else's thoughts on Boneshaker as it compares to "Steamgothic?" Has this changed anyone's thoughts on steampunk in general? I feel personally, I understand the concept a lot more and am interested to read more about it.

back home...kinda

 I really enjoyed reading Boneshaker and I am making my way through Dreadnought now.

It is nice to read stories that are based in the U.S. and that are from the past. It is always interesting to read science fiction stories set in the past simply because I think of science fiction as having a future or near future setting. Also, having the story set in the U.S. doesn't give it that exotic appeal that other stories we have read had. However the underground setting is very unique and does add some other-worldly vibe in addition to the "steampunk" elements.

In our past reading we have seen some depictions of family, but I think Boneshaker has the best variety of families in one story: mother and son, father and daughter, father and son, husband and wife, and a family time community of sorts. I enjoyed watching these relationships develop over the course of the story.

Where are the Thais?

During Windup Girl, we're introduced to an American, a yellow-card, Chinese man, a sex slave, and Jaidee. While Jaidee is actually Thai, he is a great exception to the typical Thai described within the text. Do you think it is advantageous to the story line to show the point of view of so many people that are disadvantaged/unwanted? I personally think it would have been an interesting addition to include a native Thai, not like Kanya or Jaidee who have power, but an everyday person who is dealing with so many outside forces.

The Windup Girl

Stay with me here.

If you take away the rampant sexism (and I'm not sure many will want to, since it's a large part of the book) this story made me think of 1984. It's set in a dystopian society and we follow characters whose thought processes we cannot fully comprehend. We do see enough humanity in them to empathize with them, though, and the dystopian nature of the world is based on things that are already happening in our world right now. Climate change, the growing power of corporations, genetic modification and engineering - the book spoke to me most about the these issues; our solutions to the problems they cause are going to change the way our world looks in the 23rd century.

I've lost you all, haven't I.

Exploitation and SciFi tropes

I’m going to be honest here, guys. I haven’t finished reading the book yet.

Because I like knowing what I’m getting into (and because I hate surprises) I read the Wikipedia plot synopsis before ever even picking up the title.  I was intrigued by the premise and the world building, so I started reading. And lo and behold, Emiko, one of the main characters, is not quite human and is forced into sexual slavery and abused in return for her chance at “life.” The kicker is that she has been genetically engineered to obey. This sounds like the wet fantasy of every teenage science fiction fanboy if I’ve ever heard one.

I’m just so tired of these tropes and the constant exploitation of women in a lot of science fiction and fantasy. There have got to be better stories out there than ones for women with a “magical fairy vagina” or an equivalent of that. You see this trope played out in so many different kinds of stories, and sadly, they are some of the most popular tv programs, movies, and books in the media right now. Take Bella from Twilight (shut up, I know you all read it before it was taboo, or you’ve at least made fun of the extraordinarily bad movies). Something about her blood makes her irresistible, not just to her boyfriend, but to ~every~ supernatural being that comes along. Something about her is so precious that she must be endlessly used and abused by everyone around her and she has next to no agency of her own.

I’m tired of it and it needs to stop. The fact that Emiko’s sex object status was used as the jumping-off point for her character made me not want to finish the book at all. I don’t like stories that use rape and abuse as plot devices and I don’t like the way it was used here.

Greed vs Self-Preservation

One of the things I noticed keeps popping up throughout the novel is that there's a fine line between characters motivated by greed and by self-preservation. For example, is Hock Seng embezzling Anderson's bribe money because he needs it or because he wants it or because he thinks he needs it? Obviously everyone in the novel is looking for a better life and they're all willing to use different means to attain that life, but when the characters start doing things that we see as immoral, can they be justified by saying that they just live in a shitty world and they're doing what they can to survive? Why are there so few people who seem to be acting in the best interest of society as a whole? Even today people are outspoken about human rights and environmental problems, but the people in The Wind-up Girl just seem so complacent and only seem to worry about themselves and their families. At best, they only tolerate other people and are willing to screw them over in a heartbeat if it betters their own situation. This is of course influenced by their political climate, economics, and history, but everyone in the story still just seems so selfish. Did anyone else feel this way while reading? I found it hard to like anyone because most of the characters seemed so selfish.

The Tigers of Bangkok

I was initially caught off guard by the transition from Jaidee to Kanya but loved the contrast between the two characters, especially given Kanya's ulterior motives.

Jaidee was unwilling to let go of the past and his more 'traditional' perceptions of foreigners and led the fight against the sense of complacency that was setting in. Despite his opposition to Trade, he knowingly keeps Kanya close and ignores her warnings against pursuing his agenda. Perhaps he felt it was wiser to keep an enemy close and unaware. Thoughts?

As for Kanya: I liked her character, her back story. I liked that she stood with the White Shirts during the coup and tried to forge peace between the two sides. Her decision to kill the AgriGen representative, however, took me completely by surprise. I don't disapprove, but I'm not sure what to think of it. In the epilogue we learn that the White Shirts, under her leadership, helped evacuate the city. She is refered to as a "new Tiger" to lead the White Shirts. I'm unsure if the nickname is used the same as with Jaidee, but in your opinion is she worthy of this informal title?

Small side note: I think the interactions between Kanya and Jaidee in the second half of the book made me more okay with everything that is revealed about her.

Sexism in Windup Girl

I think it will be interesting to hear during the class discussion if anyone felt as if the story was sexist. This might be biased, since I'm currently in the process of writing a paper on feminism for another class, so I immediately related the two works. Also, whenever rape is discussed so openly in a story, there is sure to be debate regarding sexism. Anyways.. To me, there are many other ways (besides unwilling prostitution and rape) that authors can use to illustrate female debasement, slavery, and oppression. It seemed that Bacigalupi chose to use the most cliche ways to show the debasement of Emiko. In contrast, the men portrayed in the story are described as being seen as slaves in a different way. For example, the Chinese man that escaped genocide was robbed of his money, job, fame, etc. This implied to me that you can humiliate a man by taking away his money and fame, but not by using rape to humiliate him in front of a crowd. Why couldn't any of these aspects be taken from the women in the story? This seems unfair. Also, it seemed that Emiko was created to be viewed as the ultimate male fantasy. She's cute, tiny, submissive, vulnerable, in constant peril, needing rescue, sexually bio-engineered, she has super-human powers, and she's ready to be eternally grateful to the first man who treats her kindly. Does anyone see the viewpoint that women are inferior to men in any other parts of the story? I'm interested to hear, from both sexes, what everyone's take on this issue is.

Humanity in Windup Girl

   One thing that has struck me so far in Windup Girl is the loss of humanity that seems to accompany this futuristic world lost in destruction. It would seem that, naturally, if the world was in despair that it would be natural to redeem yourself in order to better humanity. But this novel demonstrates the integrity of humanity diminishing in more ways than one. For example, the creation of Emiko and other windups seems to be an exceptional invention and accomplishment, but the use of the windups for pleasure at their expense is wrong and diminishes the accomplishment of creating them. Furthermore, the use of animals to power machines seems to resort back in time, as if the farther humanity pushed forward, the farther they go back. Also, the prejudice among ethnicities seems to also be a problem, even more so than earlier in history. Therefore, it seems that there is a loss of humanity as the world tries to keep pushing forward.

Windup Girl...and cover art

This book is a lot different then how I was expecting it to be. The science fiction aspects of the story are twisted in this battle between people and it all seems very heavy. The focus is on the interactions and consequences and not so much on the actual science. I am not done with the book yet, but I'm looking forward to seeing how it ends.

I also wanted to mention something we talked about last class briefly, which was book covers and how misleading they can be. I am a graphic design major and I love looking at book covers, cd cover art, posters. I looked at the hard cover art for the Ted Chiang book we read, and I'll be honest I would never read that book if that was the cover I first saw...it is a little awkward 

Climate Change and Human Nature

I was really intrigued by Bacigalupi’s world building and his incredibly pessimistic depiction of the future of energy sources, climate change, and genetic engineering. All the petroleum stores have been completely consumed, and everything is once again powered by coal and animal labor (mainly the megadonts), or kink springs, energy wound very tightly into springs, with no green energy in sight. There’s an evolutionary arms race going on between disease-resistant gene-rip and blister rust and cibiscosis not unlike our current battle with microbes and antimicrobials. Sea levels have risen dramatically, swallowing up city after city, and only the high sea walls keep Thailand from flooding. All in all, it seems like a depressing yet plausible future if we continue along the same trajectory of energy consumption. 

Something else that stuck out to me while I was re-reading the book was something that Hock Seng says along the lines of humans never change. Nothing, especially human prejudice, ever changes. Take, for example, Emiko, a windup, who is treated and viewed as being less than human because she was genetically engineered. It's reminiscent of Under the Eaves with the robot boy or Frankenstein’s monster. There always seems to be a line where we say that someone is too different to be considered human. 

That said, the character depth was quite astonishing, and it was a very satisfying dystopian novel, probably my favorite of everything we've read.

The Setting of The Wind-Up Girl

Hey team,

So I've noticed while reading The Wind-Up Girl that I've been heavily relying on my ANT 417: Peoples of Southeast Asia class to understand a lot of the nuances of the setting. Because most people didn't take it, I thought I would give a brief explication of the setting, particularly with how it relates to Hock Seng.

Hock Seng frequently references Malaya, which is the term for mainland Malaysia. The Malaysian population is made up of three main groups: the Malay, the Chinese, and the Indians. The Malay make up about half of the population (ethnic Malaysians, also called bumiputera, or "princes of the soil." Like, do you know King Bumi from Avatar: The Last Airbender? "Bumi" is Malay for "earth" or "soil."). The Chinese make up about a fourth of the population. The Indian population makes up about ten percent of the total.

Now, the bumiputera are ethnically Malaysian, but anyone can become Malay. All you have to do is learn the Malay language, convert to Islam, and follow the traditional Malay way of life, adat. Many of the Chinese citizens have done this. However, bumiputera status allows citizens to hold the higher government offices and generally allows for all of the upward mobility in Malaysian society. This is important in understanding Hock Seng. He was ethnically Chinese and doing very well for himself, which would have caused a lot of resentment on the part of the poorer Malay.

The uprising that Hock Seng refers to by the green headbands hasn't actually happened, as far as I know, but there is a lot of precedent for it. Green is a traditional color of Islam, the official religion of Malaysia, and there have been increasingly more Islamic influences in the government as Malaysia strives to become the Saudi Arabia of Southeast Asia.

I just thought this was interested and vaguely warranted in understanding Hock Seng as a character.

Windup Girl vs. Little Brother

 For all that Little Brother directly references 1984, I feel that The Windup Girl  actually feels more Orwellian than the Doctorow novels. Both presented dystopian versions of the world based on alarming trends in modern society, but Doctorow lacks some essential quality in what I believe is a true dystopian book. Little Brother shows horrible things (or well, theoretically, I guess it depends on how you feel about government surveillance), but it misses that gut-wrenching, terrifying sense of inevitability present in 1984 and  The Windup Girl, even though it sticks to the theme of government control present in Orwell's novel. It has hope and an overall message (at least in the first book) that things can change, that the events of the book can be avoided, and it even gives all of those helpful "how-tos." The Windup Girl doesn't. There is no hero, and no clear good or evil. Anderson needs the seeds, partially for commercial motives, but also because they're necessary to ensure continuing survival in what remains of the U.S. Everyone lives in fear of something or someone, and there's an omnipresent aura of danger. Life seems so horrible that several people mention that the dead cannot move on because they do not deserve to be reincarnated into what is basically a living hell. The two characters with the purest motives, Emiko and Jaidee, still grapple with internal problems as the former struggles against her training, and the latter against his own hot-headed nature. Just as in 1984, there is no easy solution. Rather, the author presents this terrifying vision of a world that could exist if we do not change our ways, yet does not answer what needs to be done, perhaps because no clear answer exists. To me, The Windup Girl was a much more satisfying dystopian novel, for all its unsettling nature. Any thoughts?

Ship's Brother

One of my favorite parts of this story was how unexplained so many things were. The story makes references many times to parts of the given universe's culture or accepted ways of life, and many authors would want to go into detail about the political spectrum to give that perspective, or to describe the concept of birthing a ship or having a person live as a ship or the concept of two people creating one "Mind," as it is called.

No such explanation is given in the story. Most things are easy enough to guess from the context, but I think one of the great things about the story is that it does force the reader to make those guesses. There's lots of room for different people to have different takes.

The one thing I would have liked to see was the meeting between brother and sister/ship after the parents were gone, but since the story was told from the mother's point of view it makes sense to not be able to see that scene.

Invisible Millie

Having been a fan of the original H.G. Wells story for some time now, I loved "Invisible Men" this week. Wells' version tells much of the same tale: a scientist develops a chemical process to make himself invisible and holes up in a turn-of-the-century English inn to continue his experiments.

I loved the change in point of view in this story. Recounting the classic narrative from the perspective of Millie, a sixteen year old employee at the Coach and Horses, definitely made the story feel fresh and relevant.

In particular, I love the ideas of different kinds of invisibility explored throughout the story. Millie, a clever girl in her own right, insists that she is already invisible, saying "I don't see nothing sir. And nothing sees me." She feels that as a poor servant girl, no one pays any attention to her, when she actually overlooks the advantages offered to her by that position. She can observe everything and everyone, and still go mostly unnoticed. This seems to be what the Invisible Man himself is striving for, but just can't quite achieve.

What other kinds of invisibility does the story discuss? How does each character take the notion of invisibility for themselves?

Invisible men

About a week before I read this my roommate and I watched the 1933 horror movie The Invisible Man. The movie was a dark look into the madness that took over a scientist who created a way to become invisible via experiments. Comparing the two stories: in the movie the invisible man murdered and caused mayhem among a town because he could and felt superior to the townspeople. He did want to find a cure initially, but realized this new found power was too good to resist.

Organic Mechanics

I was intrigued by the use of 'organic' spaceships in "The Wreck of the 'Charles Dexter Ward'". It reminded me of a particularly frightening movie on the Sci Fi channel (pre-Sharknado, etc) where several people stumble upon a mysterious ship that is actually alive.
I feel that this branch of scientific development offers numerous interesting possibilities in real life and in literature. Why must things be constructed with nuts and bolts when it could be grown? This vaguely reminds me of an inverted version of "The Matrix": instead of the machines growing humans as a power source, we grow the machines ... just in a more literal manner.
How would you feel about using 'living' technology or traveling in a vessel that is certifiably alive?
I would be neat ... and a bit creepy. Definitely something that I'd have to adjust to.

Tyche and the Ants

This story was extremely fantastical, embedded with words that have little to no value meaning or vary completely from what they are assumed to me.

Personally, this story felt like "James and the Giant Peach" meets "Alice in Wonderland" on the moon. All of these stories deal with a child, most of the time orphaned/left/unsupervised who encounters a different world which they make their own. James has his mutant bugs, Alice has Wonderland, Tyche has the Moon People.

Even some of the antagonists within the story are extremely similar, especially between Tyche and James. In Tyche's situation, her parents are taken by space sharks, she encounters (what seems to be) mini robot "ants", and the world has a giant metal sandworm. Now, compare that to James. His parents are eaten by a giant metal Rhino from the sky and he has to deal with various creatures like the shark/submarine/garbage disposal thing.

Is there something to say about stories which include the situation of kids being left to fend for themselves against these fantastical creatures?

Ship's Brother

I thought this story was beautifully sad and quite heartbreaking. The way it was told in second person made it more personable and relatable. It reminded me of the way Story of Your Life was told. I liked that the story wasn't built on sibling rivalry or jealousy, but a deeper resentment on the brother's part about the nature of his sister's being and the harm she caused to their mother, whom he quite evidently loved tremendously. Ultimately, I think he was wrong to let resentment and anger to drive him to leave his family, and we can see that he eventually regrets his decision as well from his underlying unhappiness evident in his messages. I am glad, though, that even though his father is dead and his mother will also have died long before he decides to return, when he does return, his sister will still be there to welcome him.

I think it's rather sad how easily families portrayed in many works of science fiction can be torn apart simply due to the vastness of the accessible universe, and how far out one can travel to distance oneself from one's family.

All in all, I think this was one of my favorite stories in this anthology. It was simple and beautiful and rather melancholy.

Fireborn

   I enjoyed this story, almost reading it as if it were a fairy tale or moral lesson rather than a science fiction story. The author seemed to suggest that the fireborn were a temptation to Onyx and Jasper's humanity by the way the two characters were tempted into different lifestyles. The temptation seemed to lead to the more science fiction aspect, but the characters both chose to leave it behind, making me feel like this was more of a moral lesson than a science fiction story. When I think of science fiction, I usually think of something unavoidable that changes humanity. In this story, though, they disregarded the technology of the fireborn and therefore showed the worth and value of humanity over a higher technology.

Taking siblings for granted

Ship's Brother tells a story of a boy, who not unlike many brothers initially dislikes his sister. However, his sister is not a normal human but a "Mind" that his mother gave birth to directly. A "Mind" lives longer than a human and is adapted to further explore and examine space. I liked how the story was told in the 2nd person with the mother being the speaker and the character being the reader. This 2nd person tone almost reminds me of my own mother talking to me. The boy vocally resents his sister and proceeds to run away from his home to board a hibernation ship. In the end, he admits to missing ALL of his family but his mother knows that he will see his sister again. Having 2 mean older sisters that loved to outshine me allowed me to understand where this boy was coming from. However, being separated from my sisters for years has allowed me to appreciate them more, like in this story. Did any of you feel a personal connection to the boy's relationship to his sister? Do you think most people take siblings for granted? What were your opinions on the 2nd person narration of this story? Did the narrator speaking to the reader remind you of your own mother?

Temptations of invisibility

Invisible Men was hard to get started but ended up to be a good read. I really enjoyed the fact that the man discovered how to become invisible through a series of chemical experiments. Also the country accents of the characters kept the reader entertained. The man used his invisibility to "get what you deserve and more". The last line of the story says "We must be content with what we have". Do you think being invisible would tempt you to do some immoral things like the man? Do you think being invisible would allow people to be content with what they have, even if they can have much more? Could people be held responsible for their actions if their actions cannot be seen?

Confusing Tyche

Tyche and the Ants was perhaps one of the strangest stories I have read in this class. The first sentence establishes the obscure setting of the story and it just gets weirder after that. The story begins with "The ants arrived on the Moon on the same day Tyche went through the Secret Door to give a ruby to the Magician". Tyche even grows the ruby she gives to the musician and also grows her extremely advanced space suit. At the end of the story, the Moon People end up inside of Tyche. Did you also feel that this story had strange yet brillant elements? Also, Tyche is torn between many lies in this story. Her parents tell her to listen to "the Brain" but the ants tell her that her parents are alive. Do you think the decisions Tyche make are harder due to her inconsistent knowledge? How would you respond to a world when you are not 100% certain of "facts"?

No bet

Fireborn was a pretty interesting story to me. I thought it was pretty cool how there were beings that could live up to 12 lives, not to mention they got to hang out on the moon after they used all their lives. Throughout the story, Onyx and Jasper seem to have different viewpoints on life and tend to be very competetive. Onyx even bets Jasper that the skydancer he fell in love with is using him, which Jasper finally finds out is true. At the end of the story, Jasper and Onyx head to the Atlantic Coast after sabotaging the sky dance. Onyx bets Jasper that the sky dancers will not catch them and Jasper replied "No bet". Why do you think Onyx is so confident the sky dancers will not find them even though they sabotaged the sacred dance? Why is Jasper not confident? Did Jasper perhaps learn something from the sky dancers that Onyx does not know?

Role of faith in "Fireborn"

The most obvious difference between Onyx and Jasper in "Fireborn" is that Oynx tends to rely on experience when making decisions and Jasper relies on faith. This is the kind of thing I've seen in science fiction before and the author usually presents the two characters with some problem at which one succeeds and one fails either because of their faith or lack of faith. So with Onyx and Jasper's little exchange on p. 492:
"'Someday you'll die of not believing.'
'Someday you'll die of dreaming!'"
I definitely expected one of them to come out worse than the other. I was honestly surprised at the end when they end up together and relatively unharmed. They still have different goals and ambitions but each of them dealt with the fireborn a different way according to their personal philosophies and both made it out just fine.

The Little Things in "The Wreck of the 'Charles Dexter Ward'"

I really enjoyed this story, although I liked Elizabeth Bear's earlier story (House of Aryaman) better. One of the reasons I liked this story so much was the inclusion of all the little academic and literary details. I'm fond of Alice in Wonderland, so the fact that the authors named some of the alien races after Wonderland creatures (cheshires and bandersnatches) really tickled me, as did the nods to other scifi/fantasy authors including T.H. White (a classic fantasy writer) and the contemporary Caitlin R. Kiernan. The name of the wrecked ship, Charles Dexter Ward is itself a reference to a novel by H.P. Lovecraft.  To be honest, the inclusion of these Easter eggs made me enjoy the story more than I might have otherwise. Did you find any other literary references I didn't list? Did the references make you enjoy the story more or less, or did you even notice?

Tyche and the Ants

I just read "Tyche and the Ants" and it's sticking with me for some reason. It's sweet and it's sad and I really loved it. I have a niece who is four years old and she's kind of my best friend, so I really loved Tyche, who acts around that age.

I really like how it ties in that magical thinking, imaginative mentality that children are known for and puts it in the future amidst all of the technology. She lives on the moon, but she still has her imaginary friends and still plays outside and does everything that children do on earth today.

One thing that I'm left curious about was just the nature of Tyche. A physical description is never really given, and all we really know is that she isn't purely human, so I wonder what she is. Is she by all appearances human, just with the genetic enhancements to make her live so much longer. Or is she an early AI robot? I'm mostly curious because a biologically human child running around on the moon by herself would be really dangerous.

I'm also super sick, so I hope that there were coherent thoughts in here for you.