SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet
Group Reads Discussions 2016
>
"The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet" Final Thoughts *Spoilers*
Ron wrote: "Having the issues show up at all can let the questions percolate unconsciously. "This is an interesting point. I do know I've thought about and discussed this book and the issues raised (as opposed to solved) in this book much more than I have most over books I've read recently...
message 103:
by
colleen the convivial curmudgeon
(last edited Oct 25, 2016 10:09AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
MrsJoseph wrote: "Did you considered Data from Star Trek a slave? "Interesting comparison, because this discussion did remind me of the episode of TNG where Starfleet wanted to basically experiment on Data because he was Starfleet's property, and Picard had to argue/fight for his autonomy.
The Measure of a Man it was called: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mea...
ETA: Unique-ish. There was also Lore and Lal.
But, in the Star Trek world Data was unique, much as Lovey was unique.
***NOTE: I did not say LOVELACE was unique. This is an important distinction.
colleen the fabulous fabulaphile wrote: "***NOTE: I did not say LOVELACE was unique. This is an important distinction. "YES!
Lovelace is a program. Lovey is the combined experience of time, exposure and Jenk's tinkering.
From the text we have no clue how autonomous and/or sentient Lovelace is. Thus we can't extrapolate "thousands of programs" to "thousands of slaves."
(BTW, I do not see them as even possible slaves, so...there's that, too.)
The relationship between Jenks and Lovey reminded me a lot of Hideki and and Chi from the Clamp manga and anime Chobits. That series explored a lot of different aspects about the relationships of the AI or persocoms and humans with often sad outcomes.
MrsJoseph wrote: "So, not getting the slavery part at all. Did you considered Data from Star Trek a slave?"I'm still not sure we have enough information to consider this properly, but I think slavery has at least some relevance here because Lovey is confined to a ship, she is not free to download herself into a body and leave (legally). And I doubt she is free to have the crew disembark and then fly herself around the universe interacting with people. She is bound to the ship, which is bought and sold, or with the software, also bought and sold.
On a more social level, I think there is a conflict that they think of her as part of the crew, but don't petition her opinions like she is part of the crew. For example, the captain makes the decisions about jobs and destinations, but the non-A.I. crew has some input into that, and also to their choice of R&R, etc. They went to Sissix' homeworld so she could see her family, and to a market they all wanted to shop at, and Ashby was able to make connections with his lover during his stop. Did anyone ask Lovey what she wanted to do? Any place that might be important for growth as an individual or to connect with other A.I. entities to discover her place in the world? She was just a means of transportation, and a pleasant character to make their travel more enjoyable.
Both of these scenarios are a contrast with Data. He was invited to decisive meetings and was part of team missions and was given time off just like any member of the crew. He was free to leave the ship and pursue his own interests. He even decided to leave Starfleet at one point, which I thought was quite amazing because in an alternate universe the military arm of the Federation would have said no way you are a valuable asset and we are keeping you under our thumb. I thought the Star Trek universe strongly implied that restricting any of those freedoms would have been tantamount to treating him like property.
Michael wrote: "I thought this was an interesting thought. Although Jenks was also totally dependent on Lovelace (isn't she in charge of life support?)."Haha! Yes, I can't believe none of us thought of that! That does make it a much more equal relationship. It would have been a very different book if that had been made relevant. I don't think people would've enjoyed it for the same reasons.
MrsJoseph wrote: "From the text we have no clue how autonomous and/or sentient Lovelace is. Thus we can't extrapolate "thousands of programs" to "thousands of slaves."I think Michael's anaylsis of Lovey's place on the ship compared to Data is spot on.
With regard to Lovelace, on page 172 (43%) Jenks and Lovey are talking about replacing her and they discuss whether to do it with a sentient or non-sentient model, which suggests that it's pretty clear tht the standard program is clearly labelled as sentient or not, so Lovelace is always sentient at installation.
Michael wrote: "Both of these scenarios are a contrast with Data. He was invited to decisive meetings and was part of team missions and was given time off just like any member of the crew. He was free to leave the ship and pursue his own interests. He even decided to leave Starfleet at one point, which I thought was quite amazing because in an alternate universe the military arm of the Federation would have said no way you are a valuable asset and we are keeping you under our thumb. I thought the Star Trek universe strongly implied that restricting any of those freedoms would have been tantamount to treating him like property.."But that happened over the course of several seasons. Several.
Data's programming improved over the course of time - as he learned. He did not start that way and in fact made specific effort for more "human" behavior.
What we know about Lovelace is that it is a program. We also know that Lovelace is installed in other places. After that, everything else is speculation.
We do know that AI's are not allowed to have bodies at the current moment. I don't even remember if there was any discussion as to the ways that bodies weren't allowed - just that it was illegal.
But so was Corbin. Corbin was illegal and they planned to kill him. He has none of the rights that anyone else has because he's a clone.
But I guess everyone is ok with the clone being considered property but the computer is a major issue.
I'm going to bow out of this slavery conversation. I guess I have too much of the USA human idea of slavery to consider a computer being enslaved. You know, the whole beating, rape, murder, lynching , destruction of families thing we had going on here.I don't see it [slavery here] and I don't agree with it being seen that way so I'm going to let y'all have at it.
MrsJoseph wrote: "But so was Corbin. Corbin was illegal and they planned to kill him. He has none of the rights that anyone else has because he's a clone. But I guess everyone is ok with the clone being considered property but the computer is a major issue. "
I think this goes back to the idea, though, that the book raises issues and lets people think about them. It's not a utopia. It doesn't have all the answers.
But both cloning and AI are things that we, as people, might potentially have to deal with in the future. And they're tricky issues, and there aren't any easy answers...
And most people will treat AI like a computer, because that's what it is. And some people might think of them more as people. And that's something that we might have to deal with in a potential future...
And that's kinda the whole point.
And if she dealt with everything hear there would be no material for a second book :)
Sarah Anne wrote: "And if she dealt with everything hear there would be no material for a second book :)"That, too. :)
Gah! I spelled "here" wrong! I don't think I can even blame autocorrect!
If it's any consolation, I didn't even notice. ;)
MrsJoseph wrote: "I'm going to bow out of this slavery conversation."Thank you for your part. I guess I just really read the book differently than a lot of other people and I'm grateful for you explaining why you saw it differently. Understanding other people's interpretations is honestly one of the most interesting parts of reading for me!
I've really enjoyed all the great discussion and view points this book has inspired. A lot of food for thought.
I opine that the rich discussion y'all are having points directly to the quality and value of the book. And to the *lack* of preachiness.The book is thought-provoking. And we're not always sure whose side to be on. That's enough "drama" and "plot" for me. It was also a mostly happy read, with a lot of optimism and hope, and most of the characters were interesting and honorable and kind. I like that.
I also believe it to reflect reality more than so much grimdark and backstabbing intrigue that we see in too much other popular fiction... there's enough of that in the real world I don't need my novels to be trying to convince me that hostility, dishonesty, etc. are the norm. I mean to say, the negative exists, both in the book and irl. In, I believe, comparable proportions. Thank you Becky Chambers.
So, thank you, group, for encouraging me to buy & read this. I actually couldn't resist giving it five stars. The other three members of my family will most likely enjoy it, too.
So, who wants a pixel plant? Fire shrimp snacks? A pin-up poster of Bear, or Pei? What else seemed cool?
Cheryl wrote: "I opine that the rich discussion y'all are having points directly to the quality and value of the book. And to the *lack* of preachiness.The book is thought-provoking. And we're not always sure w..."
*like*
Cheryl wrote: "I opine that the rich discussion y'all are having points directly to the quality and value of the book. And to the *lack* of preachiness.The book is thought-provoking. And we're not always sure w..."
Your post is even more upbeat than the book. I love it! Count me in for some fire shrimp!
Cheryl wrote: "I opine that the rich discussion y'all are having points directly to the quality and value of the book. And to the *lack* of preachiness.The book is thought-provoking. And we're not always sure w..."
Very good points.
I'm staying far away from the fire shrimp, but I'm down for a pixel plant.
you're right Colleen, the best ones get "it" across with out preachy! Louis L'Amour extolled the virtues of manly male-ness without being tedious.
says what exactly is being opined?
Um, are you asking me a question, Don?
The different ways in which the different species treated family life was quite interesting. I did find the tone of tolerance unevenly distributed when it came to this topic (among many others). When discussing Jenks' upbringing on Earth (his mom was one of those return-to-nature types), a few of the characters mock the people who lived on Earth because of the possibility of the child or mother dying during birth (something along the lines of "Can you believe that still happens?") But when discussing the high mortality rate among hatchlings of Sissix's species, Rosemarie is like "well, I guess that's just their culture." I found that a bit odd.
Jerrod, that's a good point! I really wanted to know why the Andrisk had such high mortality. You'd think that a spacefaring species would have dealt with anythign that could cause infant mortality.
Huh. Never thought about it. I just assumed the high mortality rate was associated with the fact that they are not mammals. Clutches - from what I remember - are massive so it reminded me of the amphibians and their large egg clutches (and how most of those die).I wouldn't think the Aandrisks would look into infant mortality, though. That would be a little contrary to their culture. Sissix once said that if all from every clutch survived they would overrun the planet. They don't think of children as people.
I think they would look into parental death during clutch-laying because they would mourn that loss.
MrsJoseph wrote: "Huh. Never thought about it. I just assumed the high mortality rate was associated with the fact that they are not mammals. Clutches - from what I remember - are massive so it reminded me of the am..."But I think that's why the issue is interesting. It is their cultural attitude towards the hatchlings that keeps them from pursuing any type of remedy (not necessarily that they are not mammals). Presumably, as mentioned above, a society that has developed interstellar travel would have the requisite scientific skill to reduce child mortality. But by not viewing hatchlings as "people", their culture takes away any incentive to remedy the issue. I would imagine if they solved the hatchling mortality issue, they would just have fewer clutches (just like human fertility rates drop when child mortality rates decrease).
This topic was discussed earlier in the thread, with a surprising lack of concern. I'm not saying you have to gush over babies or think they are the end all be all, but a culture of not bothering to try to save a child/hatchling would generally rub people the wrong way. Again, to highlight anyone's biases, just consider how you would feel towards Aandrisks if instead of being lizard like aliens, they had all the same characteristics they have in the novel (societal structure, advanced technology, etc.) and the only difference is that they were human.
To take it one step further: the ostensible reason for the lack of concern for children is that they had not added to society and that potential was valued much less than demonstrated impact on society. Instead of applying this to the hatchlings, apply it instead to adults. Adults differ greatly in their demonstrated impact on society. In order to give the thought experiment some context, think about the decisions to give medical care (which is very analogous to the hatchling scenario). Let's say there is an adult who has only lived a life of crime (certainly not what you would call a model citizen). This person gets into a car accident and without medical treatment, this person will die. We see that he has a negative impact on society and decide to let him die.
And keep in mind that the man in my example is a criminal, making him a relatively clear cut case. But where should a society draw the line if the decision to provide medical care is based on the a person's demonstrated benefit to society? That is a radical way of organizing society.
Jerrod, there is a big difference between not being fully attached emotionally and withholding resources needed to live. If memory serves, the Aandrisks gave hatchlings everything they needed, including enough love for them to grow up into emotionally healthy adults. Not every reproducing adult has the temperament to be a good parent, so the Aandrisks separate biological reproduction and child care.To have such an arrangement among humans would be tricky, if not inevitably inferior to the status quo. The evidence we have suggests that biological relatedness is a strong predictor of the quality of care a child receives. That's not to deny that there are many, many awesome adoptive parents and many, many abusive biological parents, but the overall stats favor keeping children with relatives if possible.
I will save this post for later, as I don't want to read it yet. I've been on the waiting list since March...and still not top of the list. This has been the longest I ever waited for a book, hope it's worth it ;-)
Chris wrote: "Jerrod, there is a big difference between not being fully attached emotionally and withholding resources needed to live. If memory serves, the Aandrisks gave hatchlings everything they needed, incl..."No doubt that there is a big difference, but don't you think it odd that a society has the ability of interstellar travel but not the ability to keep their young from dying at what most humans would consider astonishing rates? Aandrisks make the decision not to steer resources to their young (e.g. there probably isn't an Institute to Reduce Hatchling Mortality on the home planet) and instead use resources elsewhere. Death is just something that happens to hatchlings. And why would they go to extraordinary (or even ordinary) lengths to keep them alive when they don't view them as "people"?
Obviously, I am extrapolating about how Aandrisks take care of their young (as there is only so much info to go on), but there is nothing in the book to suggest that much thought is given to providing life-saving medical care to hatchlings. It would not seem inconsistent (from the Aandrisk perspective) to see a hatchling with a fever or infection and say (in what I imagine is an Ivan Drago voice), "If he dies, he dies."
I'm not sure I understand the point of your second paragraph. My original statement was to consider (hypothetically) a human society with the Aandrisk family structure (and high infant mortality rate) and ask yourself, "How would I view that culture?" I was suggesting this in order to push people to think about where we draw the lines between cultures so as to make it appropriate to criticize that culture (or is ever appropriate to criticize a culture separate from our own).
Jerrod wrote: "don't you think it odd that a society has the ability of interstellar travel but not the ability to keep their young from dying at what most humans would consider astonishing rates?"I really agree with this. Especially because there's a chapter where they go with Sissix to visit her home and she greets two kids and gives them a cuddle and they talk to her. So it's pretty clear from the book that the Aandrisk young are very much like humna young: immature but thinking, feeling and communicating. So I'm not sure that Chris can be right to say: 'Aandrisks gave hatchlings everything they needed, including enough love for them to grow up into emotionally healthy adults'. How can you give a child enough love to grow up into an emotionally healthy adult and love them so little that you let them die in droves?
I wish there was some way to solve the riddle of what is killing the Aandrisk young? We know that its not genetic because Sissix talks about how they have charts to avoid incest. So disease or neglect I guess? But that seems so at odds with the kindness that Sissix showed to the kids, and also they seem to grow up to be fairly loving and peaceful as adults? How do you get well-adjusted adults from neglected kids?
Nick wrote: "How can you give a child enough love to grow up into an emotionally healthy adult and love them so little that you let them die in droves?"I was talking about the social interactions between Aandrisk adults and children. Everything we see in the book suggests that children are not abused or neglected. They seem to get plenty of food, hugs, instruction, discipline, etc.
Children in the Third World have a high mortality rate. Do their parents not love them enough? What does love have to do with child mortality?
When I came across the parts about the relative importance of adults vs. children, I thought about abortion. Does "love" require that every pregnancy come to term, regardless of what effect such a policy would have on society, the world, and the lives of those involved?
I think this goes back to being unable to understand their nature in relation to what they consider non-persons. Ashby told her at one point that the whole idea of how they interact with children basically disgusts almost every human on a deep level.Humans are biologically built to take care of infants, to find them attractive, to want to protect them - to want to have them. Therefore we consider any who feel differently to be an aberration.
But the point isn't always to understand them and agree - its to accept regardless, right?
I think this is an interesting point being raised about the Aandrisk clutch mortalities. I agree with Jerrod’s interpretation that ”[Aandrisks] would have the requisite scientific skill to reduce child mortality. But… their culture takes away any incentive to remedy the issue .” And also MrsJoseph's last statement about acceptance.One of the things I liked about this book was how it raised the question again and again: how do we honor the traditions/behaviors of different cultures when they seem to us to be self-destructive and silly?
Ohan and their virus seems a lot like the clutch thing. Ohan’s species clearly have the technology to expand their lifetimes multiple times by just killing this virus. But they are adamant that it is part of their culture/identity/religious prerogative, and choose an early, painful death instead. In the face of this, when the crew took it upon themselves to bring the antivirus on board, and later administer it, they were showing love and concern the way their own cultures would, while showing a complete lack of respect for Ohan and his wishes and the long cultural history of his species. It was quite disturbing to me. (And complicated by the fact that some members of Ohan’s species agreed with this.)
The cloning situation could also be interpreted in a similar way. In many ways cloning makes a lot more sense than other reproductive techniques because the development would be better safeguarded, and probably with lower mortality, and you could clone for certain skills that are needed by the workforce, and the parent of a clone would not have to be present for the process, and could be off building space tunnels instead of losing sick days and maternity days at work, etc. etc. But the cultural taboo of nearly every species prevents this from even being considered. And maybe this makes sense to us because we still think of cloning as a little bit spooky.
So even if we knew enough about the cultural taboos/history of Aandrisks to make an assessment, I think the book is making the argument that we are not them, and we do not have the right to impose our own culture’s values on another species who is very different from us. (Or even the same species, as I think the author is making an analogy to other types of imperial erasing of culture that happens among humans in our history and even our present.)
Technical question: do we know when the mortality happens? I had in my mind a million eggs, and then the mother would pass on the 3 or 4 that survived to the child-raising families. I didn’t get the impression that it was the walking/talking children that were dying off in droves, but the eggs/newborns. Any confirmation of that from the book?
Michael wrote: "Technical question: do we know when the mortality happens? I had in my mind a million eggs, and then the mother would pass on the 3 or 4 that survived to the child-raising families. I didn’t get th..."I had a similar impression, but that it was a few dozen eggs, more like turtles and alligators than frogs.
Michael wrote: "Technical question: do we know when the mortality happens? I had in my mind a million eggs, and then the mother would pass on the 3 or 4 that survived to the child-raising families. I didn’t get th..."I got the sense that it was a new born issue (though it wouldn't seem out of the question for it to also include "toddlers"). Sissix talks about how she only one of three or four that survived out of her clutch (a couple of dozen hatchlings) and that Rosemary was taken aback at this. I find it hard to understand her reaction if we are just talking about some eggs not hatching. And I think I remember her saying the mortality is with hatchlings (which implies the Aandrisk has come out of the shell). I've already returned my copy to the library so can't double check.
But this brings up the question of where does that high mortality rate start to matter and where does obligation to treat these beings as Kantian persons begin (much like the issue raised by Chris's comment on abortion).
Jerrod wrote: "But this brings up the question of where does that high mortality rate start to matter and where does obligation to treat these beings as Kantian persons begin (much like the issue raised by Chris's comment on abortion). "But does it? Bring up the question of where does the high mortality rate start to matter, I mean.
We see it as important but the reality is that the Aandrisks managed to do really, really well as far as technology and influence. They certainly reached space travel and exploration before humans. They are the ones who found and sponsored humans, IIRC.
It's really only important if the species was in danger [of extinction] or they found the deaths to be unacceptable [culturally]. But they have no problem with it, we have a problem with it.
It seems that the real question is how do we deal with a society which doesn't view children in the same ways we do? In any shape or manner.
I think the Aandrisks would only care about the death of the biological mother during the laying of hatches.
Michael wrote: "I think this is an interesting point being raised about the Aandrisk clutch mortalities. I agree with Jerrod’s interpretation that ”[Aandrisks] would have the requisite scientific skill to reduce c..."I think your comment (along with MrsJoseph's comment: "But the point isn't always to understand them and agree - its to accept regardless, right?") continue with an important but potentially problematic idea: acceptance.
I wonder if anyone is ever truly consistent with this principle. The law allows Jehovah's Witness to refuse medical treatment for their children (risking death). How many people truly agree with/accept that? Why is it that snake handling rituals used in some Christian denominations is banned? What if you neighbor was part of a culture that required brutal/potentially lethal coming-of-age rites which their children must endure?
If you think it's okay for the Aandrisk or some indigenous tribe to engage in a certain practice, where do you draw the line of not allowing your neighbors to have freedom to practice whatever he/she wants (such as doing a boatload of opium)? Does the action have to have some cultural significance? If so, where do you draw the line of something being culturally significant? And what if you are from Minnesota and your neighbor is from Arkansas? Are those included in the same culture? What about Minnesota and Ontario, Canada?
My sense is that most people, myself included, draw arbitrary lines on when one thinks practices should just be accepted and that each person will reach a point at which something is not acceptable.
I agree with Mrs. Joseph. The Aandrisks's system 1. works for them, and 2. is not inherently any more 'cruel' than so many institutions that humans have devised - so what business of it is ours?
Jerrod wrote: "I wonder if anyone is ever truly consistent with this principle. The law allows Jehovah's Witness to refuse medical treatment for their children (risking death). How many people truly agree with/accept that? Why is it that snake handling rituals used in some Christian denominations is banned? What if you neighbor was part of a culture that required brutal/potentially lethal coming-of-age rites which their children must endure? "Maybe I'm being slow but this has nothing to do with any kind of religion. That's a whole different kettle of fish.
And I am NOT opening the religious freedoms conversation - which is very politically charged - to try to compare it to an Alien culture that has beings that are not reproductive-ly compatible with ours.
This is about realizing that sometimes there will be things that ...just aren't for you. They are not for you to understand. They are not for you to agree with. They are. Period. I think that when you get to a culture that has NOTHING in common with yours...you get the opportunity to stop judging and just accept sometimes. And clearly we humans have a major problem with that.
MrsJoseph wrote: "Jerrod wrote: "I wonder if anyone is ever truly consistent with this principle. The law allows Jehovah's Witness to refuse medical treatment for their children (risking death). How many people trul..."Here's what my thought process was: I thought it was a bit odd Aandrisks had a high infant mortality rate because they have such advanced technology. This seems to be driven by their attitude towards children. I found Rosemary's mocking of the people on Earth (like Jenks' mom) inconsistent with her acceptance mantra (e.g. "Oh, the Aandrisk have a high infant mortality rate. I guess I'll just accept that."). I thought this seemingly inconsistent attitude was interesting, and the question popped into my mind, "Why does Rosemary feel justified (or at least not hesitant) in judging the culture of people like Jenks' mom for their practices while feeling unjustified in judging Aandrisk culture?"
To my mind, given how hugely important religion is to various cultural groups, restrictions on religious practices serve as a natural topic to explore the issue, but you don't have to go into that. Just think about some practice that you observe in another culture that most likely would/should be banned in your own (female genital mutilation of east Africa, the whipping battle of the Fula, the land diving of the Vanuatu)? Then ask, "Why is it okay for a certain culture to do things that I would support banning in mine?" This gets at the question of where we draw the line between cultures, which highlights the limits to the principle of acceptance.
Now, in your reply, you have given two criteria for drawing these lines: 1) compatibility of sexual reproduction and 2) non-commonality of cultures (I guess that means no cultural overlap whatsoever). Regarding criterion 1: I think sci-fi is interesting because of how it highlights human issues by using the unfamiliar. Chambers' book is interesting to me because it raises the issues of cultural exchange and the complications that arise from that exchange, so I interpreted the multiple species as different cultures and did not give much importance to their biological differences. I (and probably most people) would find this book (and the genre, in general) much less interesting if I was supposed to take it literally. I don't get much out of a book demonstrating how to interact with an actual alien.
Regarding criterion 2: I don't think this is what we see in Chambers' book. Aandrisk are a different species, but they have human emotions (fear, love, etc.) and communal bonding (especially over shared meals). If there is literally nothing two cultures have in common, I wonder how much fruitful interaction there can be between them in the first place. In this case, the interaction would be more akin to humans interacting with dolphins or lizards (see what I did there?).
I didn't mean to upset anybody by raising these questions. I just thought these were the issues that were raised in the book, and I thought this would be a good forum to debate the topic.
Also, if you want a book where humans encounter an alien with which they have nothing in common, Stanisław Lem's Solaris is pretty good and raising interesting philosophical questions relating to humankind's drive for discovery and what happens when face a being (God, maybe?) that just ignores us.
Cheryl wrote: "I agree with Mrs. Joseph. The Aandrisks's system 1. works for them, and 2. is not inherently any more 'cruel' than so many institutions that humans have devised - so what business of it is ours?"
It may be "none of our business", but do you approach, say, labor practices in Bangladesh or the potential heroine usage of your neighbor with such a libertarian attitude?
The problem I have with the entire process you are describing is it all has been filtered through the human ideal process. And it was re-filtered through the 21st century Western human ideal process.But the entire point is that they are not human.
So to answer as you question would be to submerge into the human ideal and ignore the fact that they did not develop the way humans developed.
And to even use the phrase "...but they have human emotions (fear, love, etc.) and communal bonding (especially over shared meals)." means that you have already ONLY attributed those activities to humans.
But they are not humans. And in Chambers universe, the human species is the one being side-eyed. It's quite possible that someone in Chamber's universe is looking askance at the humans saying, "...but they have Aandrisk emotions (fear, love, etc.) and communal bonding. So why do they do that odd thing with the children?"
MrsJoseph wrote: "The problem I have with the entire process you are describing is it all has been filtered through the human ideal process. And it was re-filtered through the 21st century Western human ideal proces..."That's a fine perspective. I just think viewing the book that way makes it much less interesting and much less thought-provoking, but that's just a matter of taste.
Jerrod wrote: "That's a fine perspective. I just think viewing the book that way makes it much less interesting and much less thought-provoking, but that's just a matter of taste. "I guess. Except that to me - looking at it in any other way forces me into a rather narrow box.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
A Closed and Common Orbit (other topics)The Sparrow (other topics)
Solaris (other topics)
The Outsiders (other topics)
That Was Then, This Is Now (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
James A. Michener (other topics)Stanisław Lem (other topics)
Joe Abercrombie (other topics)
She was a functioning member of the crew - whether Ashby introduced her or not. And the text clearly states that Ashby - along with the rest of the crew - were upset when she died.
So, not getting the slavery part at all. Did you considered Data from Star Trek a slave?