21st Century Literature discussion
2017 Book Discussions
>
The Just City - Whole Book Discussion, Spoilers Allowed (April 2017)
date
newest »
newest »
I think the whole idea of building Plato's Republic with real people was insanity -- "those whom the gods would destroy they first give hubris" (But who gives hubris to the gods?) I think Walton took a very optimistic view of the results, and she had it going pretty far off the rails. Me, I think even with Athene there it would have turned out a train wreck of epic proportions.
Mod
Overall, I found Athena's experiment compelling. Two areas captivated my interest. First, Just City provided the milieu for the characters to pursue personal excellence. They were not in the city totally voluntarily, though the masters did pray to Athena for an opportunity to pursue what they were most capable of. Justice, as symbolized by the Scales of Justice, requires balance. Plato argues three aspects of the soul (Reason, Spirit, Appetite) must be in proper balance in order for an individual to pursue their personal excellence. This reminds me of tertiary brain theory and Freud's psyche structure. Second, I found Walton's treatment of Women's Issues engaging. Main characters Simmea and Maia are female. The different time periods and cultures of other characters offered fuel for the discussion of the question - What is the proper role of women in the Just City? Time travel, love story, psychology......I'm in!
Looking at the experiment objectively, and while fed on our current myths of upward mobility, it doesn't look great. But it's easy to see why the three main characters believed in it. It would have been interesting if Walton had incorporated one of the 'Iron' workers POV, perhaps. Surely with the education they were all given, those people would still have an articulate perspective on what was going on? She almost seems to write them off as much as the rest of the city does. I did think it ended a bit abruptly! Athene wasn't portrayed fairly as an intellectual in the final debate. I bet she would have held her own--and her temper--more convincingly than that.
But I enjoyed the book, the philosophical discussions, and would definitely like to read Plato's Apology and Symposium now.
The thing about Athene, I think, is she is a god. Consider the famous quote by John Dalberg-Acton: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men,..." and consider how it might apply to gods. They are the ultimate aristocrats and not used to being wrong-footed by their "inferiors". The real question is why are not all gods completely corrupt. Why do they sometimes act better than they could? Apollo is this story's best example, really, and he starts out rather appalling in some ways.
Mod
Nastasya, I definitely agree that the "iron" class POV was missing in this book. It made me wonder whether every society ultimately depends on either a form of slavery or a class of workers more exploited than most. This book almost begins to address that as the debate over the robots comes to light, but it never really deals with who would do the labor. Is it feasible to think any society can work by supposedly funneling individuals toward their strengths? I mean, is anybody's "strength" cleaning toilets or handling trash? Do we value great teachers like Socrates so much that they can just walk around asking questions all day?
Were there any aspects of this experiment that readers thought the characters would have liked or objected to more than they actually did?
Did readers find the characters well developed? Believable?
Marc, that is exactly what I've contemplated before, even in my own writing--is it possible, for an individual or a society, to ascend without stepping on someone else? I'm not sure it is. And it certainly relates to Peter's thoughts on whether someone in power can keep that power without being corrupted.I think that the protagonists might have been unbelievable anywhere else, but that in this setting their reactions, their tolerance for certain practices, were justified by Walton. The dialogues would have felt contrived anywhere else, but of course in the Just City she could get away with these philosophical discussions.
Mod
Plato was one of the first philosophers to argue for the logical treatment of women as equals to men. As one of our astute members pointed out (in a post I can't seem to track down just now), Walton makes this a central part of the work (from menstrual sponges and shared nursing to athletic competitions and rigorous education). Does it work and/or would you characterize the genders as being treated equally?
What did readers make of the relationship between Simmea and Apollo? Could it be characterized as a mix between eros and agape?
Marc wrote: "What did readers make of the relationship between Simmea and Apollo? Could it be characterized as a mix between eros and agape? "I think so. I think it is entirely possible to combine them, except, perhaps for the very young where eros tends to submerge agape. I do think Simmea is very wise for her age, but she is clearly an extraordinary individual.
I just returned from a tour of Greece. One of the topics raised by the tour leader was why Greek mythology is such a canon in education when the gods did such despicable things! It lead to an interesting discussion that helped make a long bus ride tolerable!
Would "success" or longevity of things been possible with a few changes or concessions?
Did Walton add anything to Plato's original work by treating it in novel form this way?
How did you react to the setup of this idealized world (the metal classes, the breeding tradition, the robots/slavery, etc.)?
As always, feel free to post your own comments and questions. The above are just some potential starters.