THE SPARROW

[taraswizard]

I believe that I misread Morgan's review, often times because her criticism always to me seems so nitpicky it's often times hard to tell when she actually likes something. (In Morgan's case, that does not apply to John Harrison or Grimwood since she gushes about their awesomeness constantly).

[Fist and Faith]

bumped for u.

[ussusimiel]

Belated thanks for bumping this, Fist! I had a look at the thread a while back and I meant to get around to it again sooner.

I consider The Sparrow an excellent stand-alone SF novel. It has a great plot and is excellently written. There are more than a few memorable characters and the suspense-filled lead-up to the ending of the book is really well maintained. I read the follow-up The Children of God but couldn't get as excited about it as the first book. I think a lot of The Sparrow's attraction for me came from the pacing and the powerful impact of events as they happened. Each new event led to some new understanding and knowledge that made me go 'Ahhh!'. IMO, there was no way that the second book could do this with the same force because we basically knew it all already.

There are some fairly huge holes in the plot, to be honest. (As was noted up-thread, the universe that the story takes place in must definitely be lacking a program like Star Trek.) The thrown-together nature of the expedition is almost funny. The way the mission is gone about on Rakhat, from the time spent in observation, to the way the landing and contact are handled, can only be justified by plot necessities. Still the writing is so good that I had no problem suspending disbelief and enjoying a great story.

I have done a few re-reads of The Sparrow and it continues to be one of my favourites.

u.

[aliantha]

An interesting story about the author in the Washington Post this week. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog ... -novelist/

[Shaun das Schaf]

Interesting, and sadly true re : 'blockbuster or be gone' approach.
Glad it has a happy ending for her.

Also if HBO and AMC series take off, and have the usual flow on effect for book sales, someone at Random House is getting the sack! (Although, they'd still benefit through back list sales I guess.)

[Fist and Faith]

Well, I'm always terrified of adaptations - big or small screen. But if anything deserves it...

[Avatar]

Sheesh man, you know they'll destroy it. They'll try and make it more action-like.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Ya think??? Heh. I doubt I'd bother to watch it.

[Avatar]

Me neither...I get too annoyed.

--A

[Dragonlily]

I might not watch the western series, but I wouldn't miss giving the sci fi series a try.

[Avatar]

Wait...what western series?

--A

[Dragonlily]

DOC and the sequel.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Sheesh man, you know they'll destroy it. They'll try and make it more action-like.

--A

But that's what "The Sparrow" desperately needs - some action.

A great deal of this novel is just conversations between people that serve as filler. Yes it's realistic in the sense that people really talk this way, but discussing trivia that has nothing to do with the novel slows things down.

The slow pace of this novel never really changes. For example, this is as interesting as it gets on the space journey itself:

"Dude, I haven't had sex in like 2 months!"
"Then go jack off into the space head."
"Roger!"

(That's not a precise quote from the novel, of course, or else it might actually be an interesting book and I wouldn't be here discussing it.)

The doldrums never end. But at last we discover the moral of the story: never make assumptions, especially about a race of space aliens.

The Wiki article on "The Sparrow" indicates a remote similarity to a James Blish novel called "A Case of Conscience." The only things they have in common are the space alien plot and the Catholic theme. While I haven't read this book, only the Wiki summary, it sounds much better than "The Sparrow," not because it is more exciting, but because it delves into moral issues. "The Sparrow" discusses no moral issues per se, it is thoroughly unphilosophical. All it really accomplishes is dashing humanity's hope that there is, somewhere out there, a morally advanced alien civilization that we can learn from.

The same story could have been told without leaving the Earth at all, let's say, if a 17th- or 18th-century explorer shipwrecked on an island full of natives. But even that could suffice as the template for a morality tale. "The Sparrow," alas, falls flat even on the simplest level of entertainment.

[Dragonlily]

"The Sparrow" discusses no moral issues per se, it is thoroughly unphilosophical. All it really accomplishes is dashing humanity's hope that there is, somewhere out there, a morally advanced alien civilization that we can learn from.

..."The Sparrow," alas, falls flat even on the simplest level of entertainment.

I couldn't agree less.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

"The Sparrow" discusses no moral issues per se, it is thoroughly unphilosophical. All it really accomplishes is dashing humanity's hope that there is, somewhere out there, a morally advanced alien civilization that we can learn from.

..."The Sparrow," alas, falls flat even on the simplest level of entertainment.

I couldn't agree less.

Please then, start with the moral side of The Sparrow. (Even the original Star Trek had more moral fiber.)

[thewormoftheworld'send]

You apparently need help finding the moral tale in The Sparrow, so I did a little research and found this:
"Two of Russell's novels — The Sparrow and its sequel Children of God — have as their subject first contact with aliens. Within the two works, she explores how one can reconcile the idea of a benevolent deity in a universe filled with pain and evil."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Doria_Russell

Er, uh, hmmmm.

Wasn't this topic already discussed in the OT? And anyway, where is it even brought up in The Sparrow?

[ussusimiel]

"The Sparrow" discusses no moral issues per se, it is thoroughly unphilosophical. All it really accomplishes is dashing humanity's hope that there is, somewhere out there, a morally advanced alien civilization that we can learn from.

That wasn't my experience at all. I found that there were moral, ethical and philosophical themes interweaved throughout the book. It is not a space-opera or a space-action novel (which is one of the reasons that I like it so much ) like those of Chris Bunch, Joe Haldeman, John Scalzi or Iain Banks (all of whom I also like).

From the same Wiki article that you quoted I found this:

Nancy Pearl, a reviewer at Library Journal, felt that this book was mistakenly categorized as science fiction, and that it is really "a philosophical novel about the nature of good and evil and what happens when a man tries to do the right thing, for the right reasons and ends up causing incalculable harm".

(Without getting into the argument about why a science fiction novel can't be "a philosophical novel about the nature of good and evil...") this reflects some of my experience of reading the book. The two main issues for me in the book were:

• - the morality of one culture intruding on another culture (especially with regard to religion). This is a lesson that should have been learned from history by the Jesuits (and is the basis for the Prime Directive in Star Trek, as you mentioned).
  
  - the rightness or wrongness of a higher authority (the Jesuits, God) to deliberately 'form' an individual. Emilio is being shaped and moulded from very early on by his order and even though he chooses to submit to it, the price he eventually pays for it is horrendous and thus calls the morality of the practice into question.

Those are the two main ones but there are many, many other moral and philosophical issues raised, like slavery, artificial intelligence, democracy, population control, existentialism, and celibacy. It's not your run-of-the-mill science fiction novel and may not be to everyones' taste, but then some of the all-out action/hero books (Bunch's Sten Chronicles, for example) are not to other peoples' taste.

u.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

(Without getting into the argument about why a science fiction novel can't be "a philosophical novel about the nature of good and evil...") this reflects some of my experience of reading the book. The two main issues for me in the book were:

• - the morality of one culture intruding on another culture (especially with regard to religion). This is a lesson that should have been learned from history by the Jesuits (and is the basis for the Prime Directive in Star Trek, as you mentioned).
  
  - the rightness or wrongness of a higher authority (the Jesuits, God) to deliberately 'form' an individual. Emilio is being shaped and moulded from very early on by his order and even though he chooses to submit to it, the price he eventually pays for it is horrendous and thus calls the morality of the practice into question.

u.

I'm not seeing where the explorers in the novel did anything morally wrong. They were victims of their own assumptions. But where was the moral error? Nobody was trying to convert the aliens to Catholicism.

I don't see where the Jesuits did anything morally wrong if, as you say, Emilio chose to submit.

[ussusimiel]

I'm not seeing where the explorers in the novel did anything morally wrong. They were victims of their own assumptions. But where was the moral error? Nobody was trying to convert the aliens to Catholicism.

I don't see where the Jesuits did anything morally wrong if, as you say, Emilio chose to submit.

Good points. Maybe I am looking at it from a wider perspective. They blundered into a new culture without any regard for how their very presence might destabilise (or destroy) the culture. You are correct that there was no motive to or attempt made to convert the Runa, but the very fact that many of the group were priests would mean that the matter of Catholicism/christianity would eventually arise (with whatever consquences that resulted (usually very bad, if human history is anything to go by )).

As regards the Jesuits, again you are correct that once Emilio submitted to their will there was no moral wrongdoing. However, when I look at it in a wider perspective, I see that the very idea of choosing to form someone this way as possibly immoral. It is obviously based on religious beliefs, but I think that one of the things that the novel investigates most deeply in the nature of belief and the awful human price that can stem from it. In Emilio's case he not only passes up on the opportunity to be with a woman he loves, but it's as if the intensity of his spirituality is matched by the intensity of his suffering.

I am beginning to see your point though. The moral questions being asked in the book are less at the individual level and more at the philosophical/metaphysical level. That may make the book seem flat to some, but that kind of stuff is meat and drink to me

u.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I've given your response some thought. The meat of your response states that "They blundered into a new culture without any regard for how their very presence might destabilise (or destroy) the culture."

So the theme of The Sparrow is culture worship? Or is it simple consequentialism, as in "if you ride your bicycle without a helmet you might get hurt"?

In asking this, I am forced to put aside the ridiculous premise of the book: that in the year 2065, non-astronauts can hop aboard an asteroid and go for a joyride across an arm of our galaxy. I did however appreciate the attention paid to SR, and the way it actually plays a role in the book.

In another sense, the same point could have been made simply by having the aliens attack and kill the explorers soon after they landed.

I'm not seeing where the explorers in the novel did anything morally wrong. They were victims of their own assumptions. But where was the moral error? Nobody was trying to convert the aliens to Catholicism.

I don't see where the Jesuits did anything morally wrong if, as you say, Emilio chose to submit.

Good points. Maybe I am looking at it from a wider perspective. They blundered into a new culture without any regard for how their very presence might destabilise (or destroy) the culture. You are correct that there was no motive to or attempt made to convert the Runa, but the very fact that many of the group were priests would mean that the matter of Catholicism/christianity would eventually arise (with whatever consquences that resulted (usually very bad, if human history is anything to go by )).

As regards the Jesuits, again you are correct that once Emilio submitted to their will there was no moral wrongdoing. However, when I look at it in a wider perspective, I see that the very idea of choosing to form someone this way as possibly immoral. It is obviously based on religious beliefs, but I think that one of the things that the novel investigates most deeply in the nature of belief and the awful human price that can stem from it. In Emilio's case he not only passes up on the opportunity to be with a woman he loves, but it's as if the intensity of his spirituality is matched by the intensity of his suffering.

I am beginning to see your point though. The moral questions being asked in the book are less at the individual level and more at the philosophical/metaphysical level. That may make the book seem flat to some, but that kind of stuff is meat and drink to me

u.