THE SPARROW

[ussusimiel]

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"?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by culture worship. When I talk of irresponsibilty in relation to how the mission made contact, it is to make the more general point that cultures can be very fragile. (Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart is the example I usually use in a case like this.) Regardless of the good intentions of the people attempting to make contact with the Singers they clearly went ahead before they had anything like enough information. That they ended up suffering because of that was not inevitable. They could just as easily have gotten in with the Jana'ata and damaged the culture in a wholly different way without any consequences to themselves.

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 don't get this at all. As I see it, the point of the book is not that the aliens are dangerous and savage, but that if you interfere without properly considering what it is you are actually doing, regardless of your intentions, things can go horribly wrong. At one level the beings on Rakhat are of no threat to humanity at all. They do not have the level of technology to cross space. So, the fact that most people on the the mission end up dead is by the way (and mostly due to meeting a scheming Jana'ata who desperately wants to move up in the world, rather than any natural savagery).

A lot of the people on the mission think that they are destined (by God) to be where they are, as a result they rush things, cut corners and take risks that are really foolish. A simple precaution that any serious mission like this would take would be to leave at least two people aboard the orbiting space craft. Much of what happen results from that error. Now maybe in plot terms that was a necessity but in practical terms it could only happen to people who are taking excessive risks (for whatever reason).

u.

P.S. I didn't recognise you without your avatar. I thought for a while that you were the new guy: WormOfTheWorldsEnd

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I'm trying to determine if there is a moral point to The Sparrow. I agree that the crew didn't put a lot of thought into how those from another culture would react to their presence. In fact, I can't find anything disagreeable with your analysis. But does the author have any moral point to make with any of this?

It doesn't matter to my question if the aliens are savage or not. If I wrote about someone who drives drunk and dies in a car accident, the moral of the story would be the same: "Don't be irresponsible."

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"?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by culture worship. When I talk of irresponsibilty in relation to how the mission made contact, it is to make the more general point that cultures can be very fragile. (Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart is the example I usually use in a case like this.) Regardless of the good intentions of the people attempting to make contact with the Singers they clearly went ahead before they had anything like enough information. That they ended up suffering because of that was not inevitable. They could just as easily have gotten in with the Jana'ata and damaged the culture in a wholly different way without any consequences to themselves.

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 don't get this at all. As I see it, the point of the book is not that the aliens are dangerous and savage, but that if you interfere without properly considering what it is you are actually doing, regardless of your intentions, things can go horribly wrong. At one level the beings on Rakhat are of no threat to humanity at all. They do not have the level of technology to cross space. So, the fact that most people on the the mission end up dead is by the way (and mostly due to meeting a scheming Jana'ata who desperately wants to move up in the world, rather than any natural savagery).

A lot of the people on the mission think that they are destined (by God) to be where they are, as a result they rush things, cut corners and take risks that are really foolish. A simple precaution that any serious mission like this would take would be to leave at least two people aboard the orbiting space craft. Much of what happen results from that error. Now maybe in plot terms that was a necessity but in practical terms it could only happen to people who are taking excessive risks (for whatever reason).

u.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

"Suppose that you are an astronaut whose spaceship gets out of control and crashes on an unknown planet. When you regain consciousness and find that you are not hurt badly, the first three questions in your mind would be: Where am I? How can I discover it? What should I do?

You see unfamiliar vegetation outside, and there is air to breathe; the sunlight seems paler than you remember it and colder. You turn to look at the sky, but stop. You are struck by a sudden feeling: if you don't look, you won't have to know that you are, perhaps, too far from the earth and no return is possible; so long as you don't know it, you are free to believe what you wish—and you experience a foggy, pleasant, but somehow guilty, kind of hope.

You turn to your instruments: they may be damaged, you don't know how seriously. But you stop, struck by a sudden fear: how can you trust these instruments? How can you be sure that they won't mislead you? How can you know whether they will work in a different world? You turn away from the instruments.

Now you begin to wonder why you have no desire to do anything. It seems so much safer just to wait for something to turn up somehow; it is better, you tell yourself, not to rock the spaceship. Far in the distance, you see some sort of living creatures approaching; you don't know whether they are human, but they walk on two feet. They, you decide, will tell you what to do.

You are never heard from again."

Same moral, only from a different perspective.

[Fist and Faith]

I never considered whether or not there was a moral to the story, and, thinking about it now, I don't care whether or not there is. Some extraordinary things happen. Some glorious; some horrifying; some intentional; some accidental. Some victories; some defeats. It's a fantastic story.

[ussusimiel]

"Suppose that you are an astronaut whose spaceship gets out of control and crashes on an unknown planet. When you regain consciousness and find that you are not hurt badly, the first three questions in your mind would be: Where am I? How can I discover it? What should I do?

You see unfamiliar vegetation outside, and there is air to breathe; the sunlight seems paler than you remember it and colder. You turn to look at the sky, but stop. You are struck by a sudden feeling: if you don't look, you won't have to know that you are, perhaps, too far from the earth and no return is possible; so long as you don't know it, you are free to believe what you wish—and you experience a foggy, pleasant, but somehow guilty, kind of hope.

You turn to your instruments: they may be damaged, you don't know how seriously. But you stop, struck by a sudden fear: how can you trust these instruments? How can you be sure that they won't mislead you? How can you know whether they will work in a different world? You turn away from the instruments.

Now you begin to wonder why you have no desire to do anything. It seems so much safer just to wait for something to turn up somehow; it is better, you tell yourself, not to rock the spaceship. Far in the distance, you see some sort of living creatures approaching; you don't know whether they are human, but they walk on two feet. They, you decide, will tell you what to do.

You are never heard from again."

Same moral, only from a different perspective.

Okay, you've convinced me. What you're saying seems to be true, there seems to be no moral attached to the mission's interactions with the aliens or the alien world (apart from maybe a more general abstract one).

That leaves Emilio's story then, which actually frames the whole thing. I suppose the question then is, is his story about morality or something else?

u.

[Avatar]

I never considered whether or not there was a moral to the story, and, thinking about it now, I don't care whether or not there is. Some extraordinary things happen. Some glorious; some horrifying; some intentional; some accidental. Some victories; some defeats. It's a fantastic story.

I'm with Fist. I'm not interested in any underlying message or theme or anything, because I don't care. I just liked the story.

--A

[ussusimiel]

TWoTWE has got me thinking and it occurred to me that the relationship that the Jana'ata have with the Runa could be interpreted as an analogy of the relationship between God (and indirectly the Jesuits) and Emilio; the controlling powerful being's relationship with the weaker innocent being. There is a savagery in the Jana'ata/Runa relationship that resonates with the way Emilio's innocence is treated by the universe. You could look at this as a secular critique of religion or in more neutral terms as an exploration of the existential condition.

u.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

TWoTWE has got me thinking and it occurred to me that the relationship that the Jana'ata have with the Runa could be interpreted as an analogy of the relationship between God (and indirectly the Jesuits) and Emilio; the controlling powerful being's relationship with the weaker innocent being. There is a savagery in the Jana'ata/Runa relationship that resonates with the way Emilio's innocence is treated by the universe. You could look at this as a secular critique of religion or in more neutral terms as an exploration of the existential condition.

u.

I see Emilio's story as this: his spiritual dependence upon the church has been reduced to simplest terms as a physically degrading dependence upon a being from another planet. The hands symbolize independence, our pets (who only have paws) are dependent upon us for their very existence (as long as they don't exist in a wilder context), but Emilio's belief in dependence upon a higher authority has reduced him to the human version of animal-like dependence through the mutilation of his hands. The physical comes to resemble the spiritual, and he can now see in reality what he has become.

Emilio's willful renunciation of individuality to the Jesuit priesthood has come to fruition.

[ussusimiel]

I see Emilio's story as this: his spiritual dependence upon the church has been reduced to simplest terms as a physically degrading dependence upon a being from another planet. The hands symbolize independence, our pets (who only have paws) are dependent upon us for their very existence (as long as they don't exist in a wilder context), but Emilio's belief in dependence upon a higher authority has reduced him to the human version of animal-like dependence through the mutilation of his hands. The physical comes to resemble the spiritual, and he can now see in reality what he has become.

Emilio's willful renunciation of individuality to the Jesuit priesthood has come to fruition.

That is what I would call the existential way to look at it. If there is no God then this view is correct. However, one of the essences of spirituality (not just as part of religion) is the giving up of individuality, not necessarily to a higher power as such, but through the acknowledgement that at the level of the real what we experience as our 'individuality' essentially does not exist, or is unimportant.

Emilio's story is following this path during all the years leading up to his time with the Runa. It feels heartless and insensitive to say this (even about a fictional character), but in one way what happens to Emilio can be seen as an extreme test of his faith.

u.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I see Emilio's story as this: his spiritual dependence upon the church has been reduced to simplest terms as a physically degrading dependence upon a being from another planet. The hands symbolize independence, our pets (who only have paws) are dependent upon us for their very existence (as long as they don't exist in a wilder context), but Emilio's belief in dependence upon a higher authority has reduced him to the human version of animal-like dependence through the mutilation of his hands. The physical comes to resemble the spiritual, and he can now see in reality what he has become.

Emilio's willful renunciation of individuality to the Jesuit priesthood has come to fruition.

That is what I would call the existential way to look at it. If there is no God then this view is correct. However, one of the essences of spirituality (not just as part of religion) is the giving up of individuality, not necessarily to a higher power as such, but through the acknowledgement that at the level of the real what we experience as our 'individuality' essentially does not exist, or is unimportant.

Emilio's story is following this path during all the years leading up to his time with the Runa. It feels heartless and insensitive to say this (even about a fictional character), but in one way what happens to Emilio can be seen as an extreme test of his faith.

u.

How is it a test of his faith?

[ussusimiel]

How is it a test of his faith?

Either Emilio believes in God or he doesn't. When things were going well everyone seemed to think that it was fate, destiny, God's plan. If that were the case then it is also God's plan when things go horribly. If it isn't then God does not exist as the omnipotent being that is the definition of 'God' (or else is a non-interventionist God, in which case shouldn't be credited with stuff that is either good or bad.). The test of people's faith generally comes when things go wrong. True faith is a support during those times and faith that is less than true either crumbles or is strengthened by the trial.*

In a more general spiritual sense, giving up your individuality is not a partial thing; it is either all or nothing. If you are still attached to yourself in any way then you have not really given up yourself. No matter how close Emilio may have come to sainthood (as I see it, the Catholic version of enlightenment) he did not go all the way. It is apparent to me that he never relinquished his anger, as he goes through most of the part of the story after his return from Rakhat (for obvious reasons) in a blinding rage. It is clear in the book that, unless he gives up on it, Emilio's spiritual journey is not over.

u.

* (Again, just to note that I feel clinical and heartless speaking in this way about a character who has experienced what Emilio has gone through and who I really like.)

[thewormoftheworld'send]

In a more general spiritual sense, giving up your individuality is not a partial thing; it is either all or nothing. If you are still attached to yourself in any way then you have not really given up yourself. No matter how close Emilio may have come to sainthood (as I see it, the Catholic version of enlightenment) he did not go all the way. It is apparent to me that he never relinquished his anger, as he goes through most of the part of the story after his return from Rakhat (for obvious reasons) in a blinding rage. It is clear in the book that, unless he gives up on it, Emilio's spiritual journey is not over.

Exactly why was he in a blinding rage?

[ussusimiel]

In a more general spiritual sense, giving up your individuality is not a partial thing; it is either all or nothing. If you are still attached to yourself in any way then you have not really given up yourself. No matter how close Emilio may have come to sainthood (as I see it, the Catholic version of enlightenment) he did not go all the way. It is apparent to me that he never relinquished his anger, as he goes through most of the part of the story after his return from Rakhat (for obvious reasons) in a blinding rage. It is clear in the book that, unless he gives up on it, Emilio's spiritual journey is not over.

Exactly why was he in a blinding rage?

Obviously because he was raped and tortured by the Jana'ata and all his friends on the mission and among the Runa were slaughtered. He has every reason to be blindingly angry with the Jana'ata. But most of his anger seems to be directed against God and the Jesuits. He has a right to be angry with the Jesuits for misjudging him (there is something like an eighteen year gap before they get to hear his side of the story). However, he has no right to be angry with God nor with the Jesuits for sending him (in good faith) to do God's work.

My point is a more general spiritual one rather than one directed towards Emilio as a person. If he had reached sainthood, as is said in the book, then he would not be angry with even the Jana'ata. Obviously he had not achieved that state, but may still, if he continues on his spiritual journey.

u.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

In a more general spiritual sense, giving up your individuality is not a partial thing; it is either all or nothing. If you are still attached to yourself in any way then you have not really given up yourself. No matter how close Emilio may have come to sainthood (as I see it, the Catholic version of enlightenment) he did not go all the way. It is apparent to me that he never relinquished his anger, as he goes through most of the part of the story after his return from Rakhat (for obvious reasons) in a blinding rage. It is clear in the book that, unless he gives up on it, Emilio's spiritual journey is not over.

Exactly why was he in a blinding rage?

Obviously because he was raped and tortured by the Jana'ata and all his friends on the mission and among the Runa were slaughtered. He has every reason to be blindingly angry with the Jana'ata. But most of his anger seems to be directed against God and the Jesuits. He has a right to be angry with the Jesuits for misjudging him (there is something like an eighteen year gap before they get to hear his side of the story). However, he has no right to be angry with God nor with the Jesuits for sending him (in good faith) to do God's work.

My point is a more general spiritual one rather than one directed towards Emilio as a person. If he had reached sainthood, as is said in the book, then he would not be angry with even the Jana'ata. Obviously he had not achieved that state, but may still, if he continues on his spiritual journey.
u.

But if you'll notice, you did direct your spiritual point at Emilio as a person who had not reached sainthood. Also, it sounds like he's in a blinding rage based on a feeling of betrayal. But in fact, his own belief in a benevolent God betrayed him.

[ussusimiel]

Obviously because he was raped and tortured by the Jana'ata and all his friends on the mission and among the Runa were slaughtered. He has every reason to be blindingly angry with the Jana'ata. But most of his anger seems to be directed against God and the Jesuits. He has a right to be angry with the Jesuits for misjudging him (there is something like an eighteen year gap before they get to hear his side of the story). However, he has no right to be angry with God nor with the Jesuits for sending him (in good faith) to do God's work.

My point is a more general spiritual one rather than one directed towards Emilio as a person. If he had reached sainthood, as is said in the book, then he would not be angry with even the Jana'ata. Obviously he had not achieved that state, but may still, if he continues on his spiritual journey.
u.

But if you'll notice, you did direct your spiritual point at Emilio as a person who had not reached sainthood. Also, it sounds like he's in a blinding rage based on a feeling of betrayal. But in fact, his own belief in a benevolent God betrayed him.

Not quite (beginning to feel like the 'Tank in here ). The claims for sainthood never came from Emilio himself (a saint never would) so my general point is directed at the others on the mission who claimed it on his behalf.

As for his feelings of betrayal, while understandable at one level, they are unjustified at another. As I said above:

Either Emilio believes in God or he doesn't. When things were going well everyone seemed to think that it was fate, destiny, God's plan. If that were the case then it is also God's plan when things go horribly. If it isn't then God does not exist as the omnipotent being that is the definition of 'God' (or else is a non-interventionist God, in which case shouldn't be credited with stuff that is either good or bad.).

There can be no betrayal if you believe that God has a plan for you. Similarly with the Jesuits, so long as they are, in good faith, attempting to facilitate God's plan. Believing in a benevolent God is no guarantee that horrible stuff isn't going to happen along the way to eventual bliss (look at all the martyrs in the Church's history). If Emilio is angry at God then he is angry at his own idea of God rather than God his/her/itself.

u.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Obviously because he was raped and tortured by the Jana'ata and all his friends on the mission and among the Runa were slaughtered. He has every reason to be blindingly angry with the Jana'ata. But most of his anger seems to be directed against God and the Jesuits. He has a right to be angry with the Jesuits for misjudging him (there is something like an eighteen year gap before they get to hear his side of the story). However, he has no right to be angry with God nor with the Jesuits for sending him (in good faith) to do God's work.

My point is a more general spiritual one rather than one directed towards Emilio as a person. If he had reached sainthood, as is said in the book, then he would not be angry with even the Jana'ata. Obviously he had not achieved that state, but may still, if he continues on his spiritual journey.
u.

But if you'll notice, you did direct your spiritual point at Emilio as a person who had not reached sainthood. Also, it sounds like he's in a blinding rage based on a feeling of betrayal. But in fact, his own belief in a benevolent God betrayed him.

Not quite (beginning to feel like the 'Tank in here ). The claims for sainthood never came from Emilio himself (a saint never would) so my general point is directed at the others on the mission who claimed it on his behalf.

As for his feelings of betrayal, while understandable at one level, they are unjustified at another. As I said above:

Either Emilio believes in God or he doesn't. When things were going well everyone seemed to think that it was fate, destiny, God's plan. If that were the case then it is also God's plan when things go horribly. If it isn't then God does not exist as the omnipotent being that is the definition of 'God' (or else is a non-interventionist God, in which case shouldn't be credited with stuff that is either good or bad.).

There can be no betrayal if you believe that God has a plan for you. Similarly with the Jesuits, so long as they are, in good faith, attempting to facilitate God's plan. Believing in a benevolent God is no guarantee that horrible stuff isn't going to happen along the way to eventual bliss (look at all the martyrs in the Church's history). If Emilio is angry at God then he is angry at his own idea of God rather than God his/her/itself.

u.

Ok, so the story of Emilio is of one person searching for God on another planet, because he heard some pretty music, and found torture instead. I don't think he was in a blinding rage after that, in the first chapter of the book he appears more embittered.

[Edit, I also read that he was "wallowing in self-pity," to which Emilio replied, "self-pity would be an improvement."]

The journey to Rakhat was not about God, it was about Emilio. The theme of the book may concern the manner in which the Church has lost its way on the journey, lost God, and been taken over by the egos of the priesthood. Not that the ship became lost, but seeking God this way is not the answer.