I want to begin by admitting that I had no idea what I was signing up for when I registered for this class. I was looking for classes that would fulfill my German minor requirements and Cold War Science Fiction seemed the most interesting (or least dry sounding) option. I had previously read Science Fiction works but had no especially strong interest in the genre. If asked at the beginning of the semester to explain the difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy, I’m not sure if I would have been able to come up with an answer I would be confident in. When reviewing my blog posts written throughout the duration of this course, I think the most striking thing was how my perspective noticeably shifts as I learned more about the Cold War period and its relation to the genre of Science Fiction. My intention in this portfolio is to highlight the growth I had in terms of analyzing and interpreting Science Fiction texts and how I was able to state my thoughts and opinions in what I think is a more cohesive and understandable way.

The first post that I was able to confidently select for this portfolio was our first blog post for the semester, due on August 31st. I chose to write about Delany’s “About 5,750 Words.” Looking back, my writing was extremely rough. I focused way too much on the sentence where Delany explains that each individual word alters a reader’s mental image as he goes through a text. This assertion is just one of Delany’s main points, but because of how strongly I disagreed with the literal interpretation of his message, it was all I could focus on in my blog post. In retrospect, I was too hung up on his wording because while reading his essay, I was constantly questioning whether or not he was being literal in that each word changes the mental image or whether it was just an exaggeration for the sake of argument. I had no problems with the latter but the former felt like he was going too far. After ruminating on why I felt so strongly about this issue, I tried to put into words why I thought Delany’s definition of Science Fiction was suspect to me. I don’t think I did a really good job. I ended up having to cut off a few things that I had been considering but that I wasn’t able to write down in a way that was satisfactory. One of the things I had to cut off was how I realized that Delany was not entirely wrong when it came to word choice. For example, choosing between using the articles “a” or “the” before a noun can entirely alter what the speaker intends to convey. I had conceded this point in my first draft of the blog post but eventually discarded it when I couldn’t find a way to mention it naturally. As a result, I was disappointed in myself when I read the instructor feedback for my post which brought up that exact rebuttal to my argument. Honestly, reading that feedback made me feel a bit frustrated that I wasn’t able to communicate what I had meant and it was especially frustrating that I couldn’t blame anyone except myself for that.

For the three guest posts on my portfolio, I’ve chosen 3 other posts from the same day and with the same prompt as the one I had chosen. When rechecking HCommons to find the instructor feedback, I also started reading through everyone else’s blog posts. Initially, I had the idea that it was better to go into writing my blog posts blind without reading through what everyone else thought. I was worried about involuntarily plagiarizing other posts in my own work if I read through them before summarizing my own thoughts. When I first went through them, I was struck by the amount of analysis and thought going into everyone else’s posts.  I was impressed by the various analyses and interpretations of the different texts; many of them brought up concepts and questions that I had not previously considered when going through the readings myself. Unlike my posts, the others were able to summarize the reading they focused on while also speaking broadly of the main points of the writer. Although many of the blog posts from that day were impressive in my eyes, I finally chose 3 people who had also written about Delany’s text in order to give the best contrast between my writing versus others.  These blog posts of those 3 stood out to me the most, first because they were about the same topic that I had focused on and second because they seemed to be better versions of mine, in my opinion. Their overall themes and opinions aligned with my own, but they were better able to express what they meant and convey their interpretation of Delany’s work compared to my blog post. I think that it was because of this gap in writing quality that I really started to put more effort into the blog posts and polish my own writing abilities.

The second blog post I chose was the prompt on September 14th. This prompt was more open ended and allowed us to choose our own quote in the book for detailed analysis and reflection. I remember enjoying this prompt because I felt the freedom to choose my own quote also allowed me greater freedom to express my thoughts. The previous prompts to me felt like structured posts where I had to go down a checklist to make sure I had included everything. I think that the writing in this post is still a bit rough and a lot of it was still surface level analysis; if I still had the text available to me, I would have wanted to see if any other incidents similar to the one I was describing occurred in the novel and tried to relate those scenes. As it is now, ending the blog post by simply stating that Rosen treated Rachael better than a simple android seems a bit lacking in content. But I would say that this blog post was a definite improvement over my first post and I see how I started to look at the text more holistically instead of focusing too much on one aspect.

The third post was one of the most important turning points for me in this course. Previous to this semester, I had little knowledge of the Cold War from a non-U.S. perspective. What I had been taught of the Cold War was mostly limited to the Cuban Missile Crisis and other events that were pertinent to America. Things like the opinions and lives of the people living in the U.S.S.R. or East Germany were never brought up in the class. Going through the readings on Perusall for that week made me realize how ignorant I was to the history of the Cold War. I had never heard of the connection between the birth of Science Fiction and its popularity in socialist countries and had never considered the viewpoints of people living in such areas. How could I expect to accurately analyze and interpret the writings of Communist SF writers if I was ignorant of the social and political conditions of their surroundings? The way that some of these texts related the political and social tension in these periods to modern times made me realize how I needed to consider SF works from that time period from a different perspective.

Now that I’m finally finished with the course, I can finally conclude that Roadside Picnic is by far my favorite text of this class. I’m not sure what it was that made Roadside Picnic so enjoyable but I thoroughly enjoyed every aspect of the book. As such, my blog post for that week was one of the easiest ones to write. Summarizing the plot points of Roadside Picnic was simple and contrasting the aliens in Roadside Picnic and the one in Solaris was an interesting task. I had not previously considered the difference between the two novels and the contrast between the effects of alien life on society in both books was definitely fun to think about. I think it was from this point that the prompts for the blog posts felt less like constrictions and more like questions that allowed me to think and analyze the readings in ways that I had not done on my initial read through.

The 5th blog post I’ve chosen is one where I write about Shevek’s culture shock on A-Io. Although not on the same level as Roadside Picnic, the Dispossessed was also a novel that I enjoyed reading and which also provoked a lot of personal thinking. Initially, the way that Le Guin alternates the time period between chapters made piecing together Shevek’s motivations slightly confusing. For this blog post, I think I was able to accurately and cohesively explain Shevek’s intense reaction to being locked in his own room and delve into why that was so troubling to him. I believe this is when I really started using more quotations and references to exact scenes rather than speaking broadly about certain themes or aspects of the readings.

Finally, the 6th blog post I chose was the final blog post I had for this course. Looking back at my work through this semester, I realized that these blog posts became easier for me as we progressed through the syllabus. While going through the readings, I was better able to focus on and remember scenes or details that caught my interest. I have to admit that when I am first going through a book, contrasting that book to one I previously read is difficult for me. It’s my personal opinion that I should treat my first time reading a book as it’s own experience rather than trying to compare it to similar works I’ve read before. That said, the first page of Trouble on Triton was enough to make me directly compare it to the Dispossessed. The difference between humanity and societies in the two novels was particularly striking and was something that was always on my mind when I read through Trouble on Triton. For my final blog post, I think that I was able to accurately process and write down my thoughts on the differences between the two novels and why they were so different. I think my writing always has room for improvement, but this last blog post is one of the best ones I have written this semester. 

Selecting 6 blog posts for this portfolio out of 12 that I had written turned out to be much more difficult than I had originally expected. Without this limit, I might have chosen to edit and rewrite all 12 of my posts to highlight the improvement of my writing and analysis of the readings. The 6 posts that I finally ended up selecting though are the ones that I believe best showcase my personal growth in the class. In the beginning, I was ignorant to much of the history of the Cold War and did not think much of the genre, which is reflected in my very first blog post. But as time went on and I learned more about the genre of Science Fiction, I was able to better understand what the author’s of these SF works wanted to convey and form my own interpretation of their message. Although there is always room for improvement, I hope that this portfolio captures how far I was able to progress through this course.

What I believe is one of the main points of Delaney’s writings is that a book paints an image in the mind of the reader that is altered with every new word read. A 60,000 page book is an image that is formed by the first word of the book that is then changed 59,999 times by the end. He emphasizes how changing the order of/ removing words could be completely inconsequential or entirely transformative to the final image in a reader’s head. Delaney argues that words in a novel do more than just convey information; they also set a tone that influences the reader’s thinking because it molds their impression of the narrator and consider why those particular words are used.

Delaney has more to his definition of science fiction, but his idea that a literary work is something that is changed with each individual word is something I found hard to agree with. While going through the text, I was unsure if he was being literal in that each individual word changes the reader’s perception, every word surely and immediately altering the mental image in the reader’s head, or if that was just hyperbole to state a point. In the end, I decided he was being literal and I vehemently disagree with such an assessment. One of the things that I had the hardest time believing was when he used the sentence “The red sun is high, the blue low” to illustrate his point. The first word “The” was enough to evoke an image of a “grayish ellipsoid about four feet high that balances on the floor perhaps a yard away” for the author. Personally, I found this example to be a little ridiculous and over the top. I considered his explanation to be very literal, that the word “the” was enough to invoke the image of a “grayish ellipsoid about four feet high that balances on the floor perhaps a yard away.” My largest problem with this idea is the importance that is placed on “words.” For Delaney, the 3 word phrase “the red sun” should create 3 separate and distinct images in a reader’s mind. But why are individual words considered more important than pairs of words or word phrases? If a reader was to read a compound word, such as football or microwave, is there only 1 image in their head or 2 for each word in the compound word? It was because of this that I found it difficult to accept Delaney’s point. Such a way of reading seems exhausting and I doubt that this is the method that every reader uses to analyze and interpret a text.

Tony’s post was interesting to me for a number of reasons. While reading through it, I found myself agreeing with his overall point but disagreed with some of the minor ones. For example, Tony suggested that Delaney’s definition of Science Fiction can be advantageous due to the reader’s freedom to interpret and recreate the story in their own way while disadvantageous to the authors who would have little control on how readers view their stories as a result. Personally, I agree with how Delaney’s definition allowed greater reader freedom and creativity, but disagreed with how such an idea would limit authors. I consider a situation like this to be the norm when enjoying someone else’s work. A large part of art includes the perception of the viewer as well as the creator’s intent. When people view a work of art or readers finish a novel, they should have their own opinions of the work which should be distinct and original. Some opinions may overlap but overall, people’s perceptions should be based on a mix of the creator’s intentions and the viewer’s own personal views. If work of art is viewed by thousands of people, and yet these thousands of people all have the exact same interpretation of the artwork, I question whether or not that could really be considered art. I would have similar disagreements with other points that Tony makes throughout the passage, but I did enjoy how these differences encouraged me to reconsider my position and what I found disagreeable about these points.

Tony Lukin 8/31:

I believe that Delany makes a very interesting statement here that can be seen being argued throughout the work. Delany states, “ A story is not a replacement of one set of words by another– plot-synopsis, detailed recounting, or analysis. The story is what happens in the reader’s mind as his eyes move from the first word to the second, the second to the third, and so on to the end of the tale” (4). Through this statement, Delany tries to portray that there is no difference between writing style and context in science fiction because just only a single word or statement can completely impact the reader’s experience reading the work. As the reader shifts his eyes from word to word, the reader is meant to create their own image of the descriptions and plot within the fiction to create their own perception of the story in their mind.

Using this same knowledge, Delany defines Science Fiction as a type of work that is meant to force the reader to understand and examine the author’s words to recreate these words into their own perceived images of the world that the author has created beyond normal reality. Each word is meant to trigger a process inside one’s head and produces some sort of information that they themselves have to put together. However, there are advantages and disadvantages to this definition.

One advantage I can see is the amount of freedom that the reader has in interpreting the author’s story. Throughout their reading experience, the reader is able to constantly use the author’s work to shape their own perceived images of the alternate reality, advanced society, or utopia/dystopia that the author is trying to create. To an extent, I also feel that the author is given the freedom to create whatever story that they so desire within the vast realm of Science Fiction, but I do not believe that the author has as much freedom as the reader in this scenario.

The disadvantage of this definition, I believe, is that it creates a reliance on the reader and gives the author little control over the story that they wrote. If the meaning of the fiction is determined in how the reader’s mind perceives it, then it seems to me that the author’s intended meanings for the story or certain statements do not have any meaning unless the reader recognizes it which is strange to me. People read at varying degrees of speed and understanding. Someone who reads an SF author’s work might read very slowly and give themselves the time to analyze and reproduce the intended images that the author created in their minds. However, someone who reads quickly and does not take the time to fully comprehend what they are reading has a completely different experience when recreating the author’s intended story inside of their minds. Due to this, a lot of the author’s careful phrasing and diction that they worked to write gets lost in translation and so does the story to the reader’s subconscious mind. Also, if every word or every phrase is meant to have a supposed impact to create an imagery trigger in the minds of the reader, then it seems fruitless to carefully pick out every word that is meant to have an impact is most or even all of the readers are going to either overlook it without processing it because of the difference in reading styles.

Vinh’s post was one of the first I read when I first revisited HCommons to read the instructor feedback and the effort that he put into his writing stood out to me. That isn’t to say that the other blog posts had no effort put into them, but that Vinh’s was, from my perspective, particularly well written. I’m able to admit now that my fixation on one particular aspect of Delany’s writings made me lose focus on his overall message, so Vinh’s summary of the text brought Delaney’s other points more into focus for me. It gave me a fresh perspective on the text and helped me better understand Delaney’s main points. I also thought his writing style was very succinct; he was able to convey his main points with a minimum amount of words. I always had trouble trying to condense my rambling thoughts into only the significant parts, so this really stood out to me.

Vinh Nguyen 8/31:

1: Delaney

The most interesting point of Delany’s “About 5,750 Words” is the idea that a written work is an image that is constantly being reworked by every progressive word. In science fiction, the writer is allowed a broader image to create because science fiction is a world of “has not happened,” in which the reader is forced to accept every possible reality that the author presents them. Delany explains that there are three levels of subjunctivity: naturalistic, fantasy, and science fiction. Naturalistic fiction “must be made in accordance with what we know of the personally observable” (11). These works are supposed to be possible in our world. Fantasy is more lenient in its scope, however there are usually reasonable explanations for any deviations from our experiences. Science fiction is the least restrictive of all the levels. It moves beyond our experiences and “make[s] our corrective process in accord with what we know of the physically explainable universe” (12). This freedom allows authors to “produce the most violent leaps of imagery” (12). Science fiction is a type of writing that forces the reader to examine the images created by the author with a perspective beyond what we have experienced personally. Delany explains that in a science fiction work, we must consider if a ‘winged dog’ has forelegs or not, if the dog has working wings, if the rest of the body has modifications to support these wings, and more (12). Mysticism is a core part of great works of science fiction.

The advantage of Delany’s definition of science fiction is the raw freedom that it provides the author. The open mind that the reader is forced to have lets the author create outrageous worlds and realities that few other types of fiction can compare to. The very extremes of humanity can be explored, such as utopian and dystopian societies. These worlds can deal with how humanity deals with very different settings and technologies, or it could explore radically different human societies and behaviors.

A disadvantage of the focus on the images created through words is how easy it is to be exhausting in the author’s prose. While these mystical realities are being created, long winded explanations are detrimental to the experience. Delany uses the example of the translation of a work Leonardo. The long and detailed Trench translation costs the reader six to seven times the mental energy for the same sentence compared to the shorter Gurney translation (10). The author’s ability to be concise improves the reading experience.

The reason I chose Bradley’s post was because I believed his post was just a superior version of mine in every way. While reading through his post, I found myself nodding at nearly every sentence and thinking to myself “that is exactly what I was thinking.” This was especially so when he describes the disadvantage of Delaney’s definition of Science/Speculative Fiction. I believe his explanation paints a much clearer picture of my apprehension towards Delaney’s definition while my explanation focused too much on being a literal analysis of Delaney’s words. I think this post was a catalyst in how I started thinking more about how to write down my thoughts and condense them into cohesive arguments.

Bradley Cisternino 8/31:

At first, I was a little confused by Delany’s terminology, as he uses the term “Speculative Fiction,” however I believe that term is either synonymous with or encompasses science fiction. He outlines Speculative Fiction in a number of ways. The key points are (to me) as follows: Speculative Fiction deals with things that have not happened (with accompanying subcategories.) It is not the style or the content which makes SF, but the information itself and how it is presented as an image to the reader. Content as a concept is misunderstood: the words do not create content necessarily, it is the meaning of words when strung together which create the image and story for the reader. I found the following quote to be incredibly striking: “A sixty-thousand word novel is one picture corrected fifty-nine thousand, nine-hundred and ninety-nine times.” I consider this, together with the earlier point, to be Delany’s definition of Science/Speculative Fiction. He goes on to explain this point by constructing a sentence word-by-word, noting the large difference between the image of the sentence as each word is added. He also notes differences between styles and how they can entirely change the meaning/effect of a sentence when referencing the Gurney/Trench translations. Each is a translation of the same text and each sentence should theoretically be about the same thing. However, in practice, they appear entirely different and one is far more effective than the other.

The advantage of this approach (to me) is that it forces one to look both holistically and engage deeply with a given text simultaneously. While you still get the broad image and concepts of the story effectively, you can trace back individual images and points to specific individual WORDS rather than paragraphs or chapters. I can’t say I’m an avid SF reader, however I have read my fair share of it as well as other fiction types, and I’ve never even thought about or tried doing that. With Delany’s approach, it seems not only possible, but easy. Something I disagree with, though, is the narrowness of a story that Delany creates. Does a sixty-thousand word novel really have to be just one picture continuously updated? I can agree that each word has a significant contribution to a larger image, however I’m not sure it’s all the same image they’re contributing to. Instead, I think it would be better presented as a series of different images (or a collage, if you will) that are interconnected in sequence, each building off of the image before it. I think it may narrow the story down too much if it is constrained to a single individual image, as it may cut out or confuse other concepts or themes that are in the novel. This is especially important because most novels, including Science Fiction, will almost always have multiple themes, settings, and overarching concepts.

Blog Post 2: 9/14

“He walked to the girl, put his hand comfortingly on her shoulder; at the touch the girl flinched.” (pg.38 in my book)

The context of this line is when Rick Deckard meets Eldon Rosen and his niece, Rachael Rosen. Deckard realizes that Rachael is an android and that the Rosens were attempting to trick him into believing that his test was faulty. Their goal was to coerce Deckard into taking a bribe (a “real” biological owl, which turns out to also be an automaton). Prior to this test, “Rachael” herself was not aware that she was an android with the memories from the real Rachael planted in her. She is incredibly shaken by the revelation and is comforted by Eldon Rosen, who reassures her by telling her she is not a fugitive android like the ones that Deckard is hunting, but one created by the Rosen Association to promote sales. When he reaches out to touch his shoulder, she flinches away. Although just a small detail in the book, this scene demonstrates the uncanny humanness of androids while also highlighting the unique relationship between human and androids. Rachel becomes pale and flinches away from Eldon when she realizes that her life was a lie and that she is actually an android. Although she was implanted with false memories, most likely those of a real Rachael Rosen, her reactions are identical to that of a human. To identify her as a non-human, Deckard had to use specialized equipment to measure the minuscule difference in reaction time between androids and humans to certain ethical scenarios. This sentence highlights how similar to humans these androids are and makes the readers question the line dividing them.

Another aspect of this scene is Eldon Rosen’s action of trying to reassure Rachael. This was the part that I found most interesting. Deckard’s first hint that something is off about the situation is when Rachael repeatedly refers to the own being offered as “it.” Throughout the book, the characters make sure to refer to androids and non-living animals as “it” and not with gendered words. These non-biological constructs are used as replacements for the real things on a surface level, but the people in the book make sure to draw a distinction between the two. But Eldon’s action appears contradictory to this belief. Why comfort an object? He tries to reassure her, first verbally and then physically. These are not actions you would do to an object, something that is only to be owned or possessed. His actions suggest that the line between the robot and the real may not be so clear when it comes to humans and androids or that Rachael the android may be something more than just an object to Eldon and that it is possible for androids to receive love from the humans around them, just like a real living human being.

Blog Post 3: 9/21

The readings for this week really opened my eyes to the effects of the Cold War and how they are still present to this day. Most of what I have learned about the Cold War was from an AP U.S. History class I took in my junior year of high school, in which we spent around a month on the Cold War and half of that time on the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The focus of the class was mostly on the United States; how the Cold War affected other nations was never something we discussed in the class. It’s because of this that these readings had such a huge impact on my perspective of the events. In particular, Steele’s and Rana’s papers, which connected the effects of the Cold War to modern day politics are very relevant, especially now that we are in an election year with every politician attempting to win more support for their “side.” I think my key takeaway from these readings is how much I still don’t know about the Cold War despite the amount of time I’ve spent learning about it in various classes. This is particularly disturbing to me, because I had believed my U.S. History class to be particularly informative and factual, compared to previous history classes I had taken before which only taught sanitized “right vs. wrong, good vs. evil” history.

To connect the readings back to science fiction, one thought I had was how the political climate in the U.S. during the Cold War would have definitely influenced the idea of what society in the future would look like, which in turn influenced science fiction writing which featured such societies. At the time, people who were suspected of being Communists or Communist sympathizers were considered suspicious and persecuted. People with ties to the communists were usually socially ostracized and sometimes lost their jobs for their connections. It was ironic that a country founded on the idea of personal freedom and expression was willing to suppress that in the name of national security. With the government ignoring the 1st and 5th Amendment rights of Communist supporters and suspected Communists, these people may have turned to science fiction as a creative outlet for their beliefs. By setting stories in the far off future, people would have been able to safely criticize the government and their hypocritical actions with plausible deniability. These stories may not explicitly feature pro-communist protagonists or communist societies but would be able to portray a tyrannical government that ignored its own laws to persecute its citizens. Others may have used science fiction as a form of escapism and created what they imagined was the ideal  future society. The Cold War created a feeling of permanent unease and enemy sympathizers lurking among the people; reading science fiction stories about futuristic societies free of those problems may have been a distraction from current events which would then increase demand for more stories about futuristic utopias. The growth of science fiction itself as a genre may stem from the unease created from the Cold War and how people hoped for a more stable and prosperous future. I believe that the USSR may have had a point when they were censoring science fiction and stories set in the far off future. The popularity of such stories over those set in more modern times may suggest that people are discontent with their current situation and do not find it believable that conditions will improve in the near future, which then requires that any dreams or hopes of a perfect society is far off in time and perhaps space, in the far future on a planet light years away. 

Blog Post 4: 10/26

3. The Zone & Contact

The Zones refer to a number of areas on Earth in which aliens visited and left behind objects. These objects are incredibly advanced technology to the human (items included perpetual motion machines and infinite batteries) but baffle scientists in terms of their composition and original purpose. The Zones have become areas perilous to life on Earth; early opportunists and human scavengers were killed by the strange conditions of the area and the unknown alien technology that could trap objects in an area or cause heart attacks. These areas were initially cordoned off and regarded with hostility and fear. Illegal scavengers, called “stalkers”, would sneak past the guards to pilfer objects from the area to sell for astronomical prices to interested buyers. As people began to find uses for the objects left behind by the aliens, the Zones became regarded as a “treasure trove” filled with riches and objects to be taken and exploited. Roadside Picnic is similar to Solaris in that both stories involve alien “contact” that leaves humanity completely baffled. Although there is “contact,” there is no communication despite the effort of the humans. In Solaris, humans are unable to understand the movements of Solaris and are unable to communicate with the ocean in a way that they can comprehend. In Roadside Picnic, aliens have undoubtedly visited planet Earth and the humans have physical evidence of this. But nothing about the visit makes sense to humanity, from the purpose of the “visit” to the objects they left behind to the effects that the Zone has on human beings. Both stories posit humans as lesser beings that are unable to comprehend the aliens. They don’t understand what they are, they don’t understand their motives, they don’t understand the slightest thing about these extraterrestrials. Despite their best efforts, the humans in both of these stories eventually hit roadblocks and are unable to figure out anything conclusive about their off-planet visitors. The difference between the two stories lies in how the study of alien life was approached. The discovery of Solaris in Solaris was met with excitement and curiosity. People broadly supported the research of Solaris and the attempts to communicate with the ocean. An entire branch of science was dedicated to Solaris. It was only years later, when the Solaricists still had no results despite the expensive cost of research, both in terms of money and human life, that people became disillusioned with Solaris and wanted to abandon the Planet. Despite the effort spent on research, Solaris had no effect on humanity or society on Earth. The history of the Zones in Roadside Picnic is almost the complete opposite story. The initial creation of the Zones devastated the land and killed many. Areas were rendered inhabitable and strangle afflictions affected those who survived whatever it was that killed everyone else. The Zones remained areas perilous to all life and were regarded with fear. It was only after items began to be smuggled out that humanity was able to realize the potential of the Zones and the artifacts they contained. After the initial period of fear and suspicion, the Zones became a fascination for anyone who held power or who wanted power. In the end, it is undeniable that the Zones had an impact on humans on Earth. Initially, it devastated society but it was also able to introduce humans to new technology and items that they would not have been able to create themselves in the time period. In Roadside Picnic, the alien visit and the Zones are as incomprehensible as the ocean in Solaris, but are able to cause positive and negative effects on human society unlike Solaris, which ultimately was seen as a pointless venture with no impact on human life.

Blog Post 5: 11/2

4. Anarres/A-Io culture shock

When Shevek arrives in A-Io, there are a number of moments in which he is unable to contain his surprise or reacts in an unexpected way. One scene that perfectly encapsulates this, in my opinion,is when Shevek discovered that his door is locked when he attempts to leave his quarters (Chapter 1, page 23 of my epub). His reaction is “rage, a kind of rage, a blind will to violence which he had never felt before in his life.” He violently attempts to open the door and smashes every button on the intercom panel in his anger. Later, in Chapter 4, he describes the living accommodations on Anarres, which gives context to his actions. People on Anarres live in dormitories and share their space with others. Couples could requisition a couples room for sexual purposes, but the vast majority of residents lived in shared living spaces with multiple others. Shevek recalls how the only real exception to this rule was children who didn’t get along with others in the dormitory and were then ostracized. Here, we see that a person having their own living space on Anarres was seen as a mark of shame, a sign that they were unable to be around others. A punishment or workaround, rather than something that they earned or merited. The idea of a person having their own room also went against both the Anarres ideals of non-wastefulness and non-ownership. The quote “Excess is excrement, excrement retained in the body is a poison” perfectly describes their attitudes towards non-necessary expenditures such as “the building, maintenance, heating, lighting of individual houses and apartments (170).” In an earlier scene, Shevek is astounded by the idea of his clothes being disposable. When he is told that it was cheaper to just burn his pajamas rather than burn them, he finds the idea near incomprehensible. Society on Anarres values utilizing things to their maximum potential; the idea of money or ownership doesn’t even exist so to destroy something rather than reusing it is a completely foreign idea to Shevek. But going back to the idea of having a private room ,Shevek is shown to be able to grow comfortable with having a private room. In chapter 4, he is initially uncomfortable with the moral implications but is able to see the benefits to having his own workspace. But having a lock on his door, one which traps him in his room, is something that is unable to bear and he regards as going too far. To the people of Anarres, who had difficulty understanding the concept of a prison, the idea of not having complete freedom is something strange and simply wrong on a fundamental level. Privacy is not a necessity to people on Anarres, so the idea of doors being locked is a travesty. To go even further, the idea of freedom is considered integral to life on Anarres. To Shevek, a locked door in his own quarters is a gross violation of his rights, something that is deserving of such a violent and intense reaction.  It is just from these scenes that we can see a major difference between the perspectives of the Shevek, a person from Anarres, and the people in A-Io.

Blog Post 6: 11/10

Prompt 1: Differences Between Trouble on Triton and the Dispossessed

What stood out to me the most when I was reading this novel was how interconnected the different societies and planets were compared to the societies on Anarres and Urras. In the Dispossessed, Anarres and Urras were two moons that were distant, in multiple senses, from each other and had little contact besides the ships used for trading. This separation between them served to highlight their differences in ideology, from the socialist ideals of Anarres to the capitalistic society on Urras. The planets of Terra and Hain are also distant from each other as well as the two moons. Their relationships, or lack thereof, establishes 4 different and distinct systems or viewpoints in which the reader can view the story or situation through 4 different perspectives. In contrast, the world in Trouble in Triton is extremely connected and societies across space are intertwined. Rather than having all of his knowledge based on propaganda, like the citizens on Anarres or Urras, the protagonist, Bron Helstrom, is an experienced galactic traveler who has spent time on multiple different planets/moons. The reader’s introduction to Bron begins with him contrasting the difference in timekeeping between Triton and the Earth/Mars. “Thirty-seventh day of the fifteenth paramouth of the second year, announced the lights around the Plaza — on Earth and Mars both they’d be calling it some day or other in Spring, 2112” (pg.1). This casual reference to standards on other planets is a large contrast to the Dispossessed in which the societies on both Anarres and Urras know little true information about each other and rely on stereotypes or misconceptions. This small detail is never brought up again in the book, but highlights how insignificant knowledge of other planets/moons is in Trouble on Triton. Later on in the novel, we see other characters who grew up on different planets/moons and who’ve emigrated to Triton as well scenarios where characters discuss the events occurring in different areas of the galaxy. A war is ongoing which Triton, currently neutral, finds itself being slowly drawn into. The world of Trouble on Triton is undeniably interconnected. The societies of the planets and moons in Trouble on Triton are not monoliths or realizations of certain ideals like the societies of the Dispossessed but more organic. Rather than clean lines and separations between planets and ideologies, society in Trouble on Triton is messy and scattered. Despite these differences, people are able to quickly accept and process viewpoints and customs different from their own. Rules regarding prostitution, for example, differ from planet to planet. But when Bron discusses these differences with the Spike (pg. 68-69), these differences are simply discussed and accepted. To the Spike, Bron’s stories elicit curiosity but aren’t inconceivable despite how it differs from her current reality. In the Dispossessed, the differences between Anarres and Urras were usually incredible discoveries for Shevek which would cause him to freeze up in shock or wonder and question every aspect of the difference. People on Triton, and presumably other planets, seem to be much more open minded and accepting of things that are different to which they are accustomed. A large part of the difference in reaction would be how the planets in the Dispossessed have little communication with one another, especially compared to how people are able to freely immigrate between satellites in Trouble on Triton. I would argue that this lack of communication is what causes the difference between societies in the two books. Without interplanetary communication, life on Triton and the other planet/moons would mirror that of Anarres or Urras. The Dispossessed and Trouble on Triton both paint very different stories involving different societies across different planets/moons, but I believe that the most important difference is how the people in Trouble on Triton were freely able to communicate and emigrate to other planets, which created multiple societies with their own distinct values and ideologies within themselves.