|
ENGL 3840 Science Fiction |
Sample Student Writing |
"Men are from Mars, Women are from . . . Whileaway?!?"
Why have women passion, intellect, moral activity-these three- and a place in society where no one of these three can be exercised?
--Florence Nightingale, "Cassandra"
the principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes--the legal subordination of one sex to the other--is wrong itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other.
--John Stuart Mill, "The Subjection of Women"
The empowerment of women is a hotly debated topic in American culture today. Many people in our society believe that a hierarchy of male domination unjustly suppresses women. Joanna Russ’s story "A Few Things I Know About Whileaway" adheres to the viewpoint that women are suppressed by men and always will be. Whileaway, a utopian society run for and by only women (men were killed by a plague), is a place made possible by great females who make incredible scientific advances. The adult women need not work much and are, for the most part, genetically perfect. Though a world without men is really unfeasible, the author uses the science fiction genre as a forum to show a predominantly male audience her thoughts on the suppression of women. She is harsh in her criticism of males at times, but she effectively conveys her point. "A Few Things I Know About Whileaway" is an attempt by Joanna Russ to illustrate her thoughts on the inequality between men and women.
The author carefully selects her language in the story. The opening line of the story ["Humanity is unnatural!" (337)] is basically the whole point of her argument. She believes that, due to natural forces such as physiological and sociological makeup, men and women cannot be equal. The only way for women to achieve superiority is for men to be eliminated; this provides the only context in which women can be observed without the influence of men interfering. Without the presence of men, women from Whileaway achieve a high level of society. Another "unnatural" aspect of humanity (or at least American culture) is the tendency in our society to prescribe behavior through popular culture. Television, movies, books, and other methods of popular culture dictate to men and women how they should act. Often the stereotypes presented place women in a subservient role, and it is this convention that the author is lashing out against. She wants a relationship to come from within, with no outside influence: "Now, the moral of this story is that all images, ideals, pictures, and fanciful representations tend to vanish sooner or later unless they have the great good luck to be exuded from within, like bodily secretions or the bloom on the grape." (348). The "fanciful representation" of women holding power in society will never be realized until a total effort toward equality is begun by men.
The author’s rant against the male-dominated society of modern times is further shown in the various animal metaphors that are used. The story of the girl who grows up among the bears, which is told to the narrator by her Whileawayan host, is an excellent example of this. The large, physically aggressive bear is used in this instance to represent men. The girl in the story is raised by bears, and by all accounts should be accepted in the bear society, but she cannot fit in. A contrast with today's society shows that women (represented by the girl in the story) do grow up in a society dominated by the traditionally aggressive male. Many women try to fit into the world of men, but it is difficult for them to live in the male world and the female world simultaneously: "Anyone who lives in two worlds at once is bound to lead a complicated life." (347). Another animal metaphor can be found in the very last two paragraphs of the story. A society like Whileaway will never exist: "And the way into Whileaway is barred not by time, distance, or an angel with a flaming pen, but by a large cloud or crowd of gnats. Two-legged, talking gnats." (349). Like the bears before them, the "gnats" also symbolize men. By reducing males to such a trifling level of bugdom, the author is saying that men serve no purpose but to act as pests to the advancement of the female gender. This is another of extreme criticism of males by the author, but there is some truth to men impeding the progress of women.
All of the females living in Whileaway are extremely independent. If the children of Whileaway are asked to adhere to a "good girl" standard, their independence (and their rudeness) shows: "If you are so foolhardy as to ask a Whileawayan child to ‘be a good girl’ and do something for you . . . (the answers you receive are) . . . ’Why can’t you run your own errands?’ [and] ‘Are you crippled?’ (344). These young Whileawayan females refuse to be subordinate to anyone. When Whileawayan women reach the age of twenty-two, they achieve "Full Dignity." This name is suggestive of the level of achievement that women can reach in Whileaway at such a young age. It is significant that when women reach this age, they are capable of performing any job on the planet (341). Such a level of independence and self-reliance is unheard of in American society. At twenty-two years of age in today’s culture, women are still struggling to find their place in a "man’s world." Women in Whileaway control their own destiny; in America, the case is not necessarily so.
Joanna Russ is a very outspoken
feminist; she sees the subservient role of women and chooses not to accept
this role. She wants to bring the subjugation of women into the public
eye by using the science fiction genre to appeal to a largely male audience;
"A Few Things I Know About Whileaway" effectively does this. The utopian
society of Whileaway is illustrative of the level of achievement women
can achieve if left unhindered by sexual stereotypes. By ubiquitously juxtaposing
their society with the society of today, a moral lesson is learned. Men
should not continue to subject women to prejudices; rather, they should
embrace women as equals in all aspects.
Harlan Ellison's "Strange Wine" and Damon Knight's "The Handler" offer various insights into the human condition through afflicted characters who long for something they cannot have. Harry the handler and Willis the non-human have similar predicaments. Both characters are living a life that is not completely their own, and both feel as though they are being robbed of a better life, being forced into a social construct and role that they have no choice but to play out. Willis, much like a human, takes the beauty in his life for granted, and in turn suffers a greater loss than he could have imagined. Harry is never given this chance.
Willis Kaw is having a rough time. His daughter is smeared across the Pacific Coast Highway. His son is crippled for life. His marriage is loveless and fleeting. He is short, less than handsome, and prone to physical ailments. He doesn't understand what is happening to him, why his life is becoming such a terrible strain, and yet he does know that he is "not from here" (Ellison 350), that he is "not one of them" (Ellison 350). Kaw struggles with the knowledge that he is not human, though he appears to be. He even tries to "reveal the shape of alien bones" (Ellison 351) by holding his hand in front of a snowy television station for hours. His persistent feeling of misplacement torments him, forcing him into a constant state of longing, of desire to be someone else, to be somewhere else.
Ellison tackles the question of reality when Kaw's wife convinces him(Kaw) to see a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist raises the question of whether Kaw's reality "is compatible with straight folks' reality" (Ellison 353). At first, the psychiatrist seems to be rather open minded on the subject, but this appearance quickly disintegrates whenhe makes a snap judgment on Kaw's sanity, as he abruptly concludes that Willis is in serious need of institutional help. It is ironic that the psychiatrist initially explains that Kaw's view of reality would be perfectly acceptable unless it gets him put into a "madhouse or a prison" (Ellison 353), and then he proceeds to dismiss Kaw with a quick diagnosis which would condemn Kaw to a "madhouse". In Plydo's (Kaw's true self's) world, the psychiatrist would be the one considered crazy, for he would be the one failing to recognize the reality of Kaw's situation. Kaw looks at his human body as a prison in which he is forced to atone for some crime he is unaware of committing. He dreams of "better places, other worlds where the torture of being a human being doesn't exist!" (Ellison 354).
Willis Kaw lives a double life, parading as a human husband and father with normal concerns, struggles, and problems, while constantly struggling to deal with the knowledge that he is not who he appears to be at all, but rather something very different from a very different world. Kaw sees a reality that people around him are oblivious to. Even his own wife does not know the nature of his true self. Herein lies the torment that Kaw suffers on a daily basis, trapped, isolated and miserable. Only when he returns to his life as Plydo does he realize what he was missing.
Harry the handler doesn't have it any· easier than Willis Kaw. His life is virtually nonexistent. Though Kaw has a life of sorts as a human, Harry is completely sealed off and detached from existence itself. He lives a thankless life of passivity that is similar to that of Kaw's because of the obliviousness of the people around him. No one knows or even suspects that Kaw is living a life that is not his own, nor does anyone seem to know or much less care that Harry has a life of his own-- outside of Pete. People pay attention to Pete. The room comes alive the second he walks in the door. Women flock to him as much as men obviously envy and admire him, but the second Pete introduces Harry, silence envelopes a once enthusiastic crowd. Girls move away and Harry is greeted politely with a marked lack of enthusiasm.
Like Ellison, Knight turns the reader's impressions of reality upside down when Harry unzips the back of Pete's jacket and pops out. This is a most unexpected occurrence for the reader, of course, though the crowd at the party seem less surprised than disgusted. Unlike Kaw's world, in which others have no idea of his true life as an alien being, the other people in Harry's world are perfectly aware of the fact that he exists inside Pete, functioning merely as a puppet-master to the true 'person' that everyone is really interested in; the fact that they couldn't care less about Harry's existence makes them just as inconsequential to his life as are the people in Kaw's life who have no idea what his truth really is. None of the characters in either story are making an effort to really understand Kaw or Harry, and this indifference serves to alienate each of them even further.Though, like Kaw, Harry lives a double life, constantly pretending to be someone he isn't, Kaw doesn't suffer the same types of torments that Harry does. Kaw does endure many painful accidents and a seriously depressing life, but at least he is recognized as a person, though not as his true self. Harry is treated with about as much forced amiability as a well-dressed talking snake would receive in similar circumstances. All he wishes to do is take a rest and introduce himself, for he is the real person here, not Pete. Unfortunately for Harry, the people at the party couldn't care less. All they are interested in is the talented, handsome and entertaining Pete.
Almost as soon as Harry reveals himself, he is asked to go back into Pete, to basically just disappear and turn the show back on. Harry obviously feels completely rejected and alone when "with sad hound-dog eyes," he "ducked his head, embarrassed" (Knight 47). After this outright humiliation, Harry must bear the brunt of Pete's insulting sense of humor as well. Harry and Willis are trapped in their lives which are theatrical and false, and both characters feel as though they are imprisoned in a life that is not as appealing or as thoroughly real and rewardingly rich as the lives that they could possibly lead: Kaw on his home planet, and Harry as himself, being appreciated for who he really is. Both characters are doomed to suffer a life of denial, victims of social constructs and painful, alienating circumstances. What makes Kaw stand out is his opportunity for enlightenment, or his point of realization. Only when Kaw has died and risen again on his home planet as his true self, does he realize what he was missing. He is reminded that all lives outside of life as a human being are wrought with suffering and hardships, and that his brief stint as a human was a gift, a time to be cherished and remembered always.
In a characteristically human fashion, Kaw completely missed the beauty in his life and chose to dwell on the tragedies. He missed the beauty in his life, taking himself and others for granted, thereby losing more than he thought possible. Harry the handler is never given such an option.
Scientists as Tools of Destruction
Scientists perform a vital function for society--they improve our understanding of the universe in which we live. The work of scientists may improve life, as with the development of new medicines, worsen or even destroy life, as with the development of new weapons, or have no direct affect on life except to increase our understanding of it. Some of the short stories in the Norton Book of Science Fiction that involve scientists indicate that regardless of the their motivation, all scientists ultimately cause varying degrees of destruction, often in the form of death. Whether the scientists purposefully and amorally create tools of destruction, as in “Schrodinger’s Plague,” simply try to learn, as in “…the World as We Know’t,” or actually try to improve the quality of life, as in “Half-Life,” they ultimately effect death and destruction. In all of these stories, the destructive effects of the scientists’ experiments far outweigh the positive effects (if any); erroneously implying that scientific work is harmful and should not be allowed to continue.
Not all of the scientists portrayed in Greg Bear’s “Schrodinger’s Plague” are amoral instruments of destruction, but Oscar Bernard and Martin Goa are enough to wreak havoc upon the world. Oscar Bernard is a biologist who develops a deadly mutant rhinovirus for use as a biological weapon. However, “[i]t has a very long gestation period—about 330 days. Much too long for military uses,” so “[i]ts of no use to anybody!” (p. 480). This scientist created a virus that kills “ninety-eight percent of those who have contracted it” and “can be spread by simple contact, by breathing the air around a contaminated subject” (pp. 480-481) specifically to be used by the military against fellow human beings. Then, he comments that the virus is “useless to everybody” (p. 481) because it doesn’t kill quickly enough! These actions plainly illustrate Oscar’s lack of respect for human life.
Martin Goa, a physicist, apparently shares Oscar’s disregard for the value of life. Although his work does not involve developing weapons, he potentially exposes himself, his colleagues, and countless others to Oscar’s lethal virus. Martin is frustrated with quantum mechanics and the theory of Schrodinger’s cat, and he holds the entire human race responsible: “Because if the best mankind can do is come up with an infuriating theory like this to explain the universe, then we should be willing to live or die by our belief in the theory” (p. 481). Martin mistakenly attributes the work of a man, or a discipline, to mankind. Most members of mankind have never even heard of Schrodinger’s cat, and they might not agree with the theory if they did know anything about it. Also, the theory is just that--a theory--not a law to “explain the universe.” Martin melodramatically and ignorantly places monumental importance onto the validity of a theory of perception—a thought experiment-- and gambles the lives of “everyone on Earth” (p. 481) on its truth or untruth. These displays of heartless disdain for life by both Oscar and Martin intentionally result in murders, suicides, and the possible destruction of a large portion of the human race.
Unlike Oscar Bernard and Martin Goa, Sir Robert Athole of Howard
Waldrop’s “…the World, as we Know’t” simply wants to learn more
about the world around him—to prove once and for all a long-held theory.
He isn’t trying to cause anyone harm, and he doesn’t knowingly
perform experiments that could cause harm.
Most scientists of Sir Robert’s post-Revolutionary War time believe
that fire results from the presence of phlogiston (the essence of fire).
Phlogiston is believed to be “present to some extent in all matter,
and indivisible” (p. 488). However,
Sir Robert seems to believe that phlogiston is not a phantom essence, but an
element that can be isolated with the right apparatus:
“These phlogiston-rich gases and liquids will rush together.
They should produce the essence of fire…phlogiston itself.
A clockwork will then be put in motion…This should fix the phlogiston
itself much as common air becomes fixed” (p. 495). Sir Robert has no concept of the nature of fixed phlogiston
or the danger it could pose, he simply wants to prove the phlogiston principle
and therefore increase chemical knowledge.
Despite his innocent intentions, his experiment does result in the
burning up of the entire world. Sir
Robert’s purely scientific endeavors result in “the end of…the world as
we know’t” (pp. 500, 485).
Madame Curie in Paul Preuss’s “Half-Life” does, like Sir Robert, wish to learn for the sake of learning, but she also wishes to improve the lives of others. She and her husband and colleagues discover and define the nature of radioactive elements. She certainly works for “discoveries of fundamental importance” (p. 782) because she wants to contribute to a better understanding of physics and chemistry. However, she also comments several times, in her memories, that she wishes to help people: “this intense radiation penetrates deep into the body, and…dense tumors absorb more…than ordinary healthy tissue. These discoveries, we are delighted to learn, suggest new treatments for disease” (p. 785) and “This form of radiation [X rays] too will save lives. I will see to it” (p. 787). However, with all her love for science and good intentions for humanity, Madame Curie’s discoveries also lead to destruction. As she drifts in and out of consciousness on her deathbed, she sees the future results of her life’s work—atomic bombs ravaging Japan, the ocean, and a “frozen steppe” (p. 792). As these visions come to her, she thinks “Surely these are terrible natural disasters” (p. 792). She still cannot comprehend that her discoveries led to awesomely destructive weapons used to ravage the Earth and destroy whole populations of people because she meant to improve the state of humankind, not degrade it. Nevertheless, she did enable the creation of weapons far more destructive than anyone of her time could have ever imagined.
Taken together, these three stories imply that no matter what the intentions, scientists ultimately cause destruction. These stories represent a biased interpretation of science as harmful. Science does result in the production of incredibly disastrous weapons, mechanical, chemical, and biological. However, the great majority of scientific research doesn’t harm society, but helps it. Many studies simply increase our understanding of our world or our universe; some even directly improve the lives of humans or other organisms. These stories do, however, present an interesting question that even the most dedicated scientists might find difficulty in answering. If scientific discoveries can potentially destroy all life (and they can), are the positive discoveries worth risking that possibility?