Science Fiction Aficionados discussion
This topic is about
Dawn
Series Read: Women Authors
>
Xenogenesis 1: Dawn by Octavia Butler
date
newest »
newest »
This will also be my second book that I have read by Butler.The first one was "Wild Seed", it was different but an excellent read.
Mod
A straight-forward story dealing with a very awkward premise...the good Samaritan with its own agenda....
I read this one last year for a women authors reading challenge. I think it would be a stronger book if there was a human character who thought that "trading" with the Oankali is a great idea. If everybody in the book hates the thought of it, it winds up being less of an exploration of the idea and more of a rant.Still, I enjoyed it quite a bit. I thought Adulthood Rites was a bit better, although I never finished off the series. I guess I'll have to read Imago when it comes up in a couple of months.
I think the questions this book asks are interesting! Are the Oankali captors or saviors? I keep changing my mind.
I've read one other book by this author, Wild Seed, which I enjoyed but thought it was quite dark and needed to be in the mood to start this one. I think a group read is a good way to read her. I know that others are being equally scared. :)
Outis wrote: "They're simply both."I think that's true. It has been a few years since I read Dawn and I had to go read a few reviews to trigger a recollection.
Outside of Kindred, I think Butler uses alien species as a way to get us to think about how we humans treat each other. The worlds and creatures she imagines are so creative and different but then she has things happen that mimic human behavior, especially human behavior motivated by fear of things and people different from them. Butler is one of the all time great sci fi writers.
I very much enjoyed this book but haven't read the other books in the series so I don't yet know how much the 'saving' of the human race by the Oankali is altruistic and how is for their own benefit to enrich their own genetic diversity. Is it really a fair two-way trade?I felt a bit uncomfortable that the Oankali treated humans in the same way we treat endangered species, expecting them to all get on and mate with whatever individuals were available.
It is hard to determine the alien motives, but I think they were equally at a loss to understand the humans as well. The concept of "trade" seems to be innate to the alien worldview.
message 11:
by
Maggie, space cruisin' for a bruisin'
(last edited Aug 23, 2014 05:08PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
edit: ok-that said 'breeding' when I originally wrote it....(sigh)
A deeply depressing look at humanity and modern liberal society. I have to say it was hard to read and even harder to understand how Lilith didn't chop all the humans she woke up down a block. (view spoiler)
Since you seem to be able to make sense of the book's politics (I couldn't), do you think I misunderstood the author when I picked up a conservative vibe from the book (heteronormativity, anti-social behaviour and so on)? Or is she coming from a different angle?I didn't realize it was an attack on liberalism as such, much less a deliberate one. It seemed to me more like some things betrayed the outlook of the author.
I love politics and debates about political viewpoints. But somehow, I just do not see politics in Butler's writing. Rather, I perceive her purpose to show, using alien species, how humans in general react to difference, be it culture, race, ethnicity, mental status, etc.
Oankali were a family based socially driven society, while human's were portrayed as self interested individuals, even paranoid sociopaths, unable to to adapt to new realities or trust any type of authoritative structure that is different then their own preconceptions. There is a lot going on in this book philosophically and politically. Patriarchy is taken head on, on more than one occasion, fear based politics and loaded ideas and words are used by some humans to demonize Lilith. Democracy is addressed as well with the Oankali, who seem to need some sort of consensus or majority to decide how to proceed within there own decision structures. But I suppose one of it's strongest messages resonated with how derisive our visual perspective affects our judgements and actions towards others.@Outis, and Linda. When I use the word liberalism I meant more in a classical philosophical sense. Not the politically derisive usages in the U.S. I also noticed that homosexuality was demonized in one instance when a women refused to pair with another male. There was a discussion between Oankali and Lilith on the subject. One that they seemed to be neutral. I don't remember any homosexual Oankali, but they did have a third sex who controlled all procreation. And threesomes are in to stay it seems with this third sex, since they are crucial to gene manipulation. Perhaps we will learn more in the next books.
I wouldn't know about these "politically derisive usages" except as jokes (like in the B5 ep in which a screw living is in a fascist state still manages to be concerned about liberals).Linda wrote: "Rather, I perceive her purpose to show, using alien species, how humans in general react to difference, be it culture, race, ethnicity, mental status, etc."
Right, and that is political even though I guess she didn't intend it that way. Because of course that's not how humans in general react. Yet it looks like she believed that, and lots besides. Ideology.
In the same way, when Rion says "our" he's not talking about me or about humans in general.
Humanity did seem to be on trial in this book. In this particular case, Butler decided to show how human social interactions lead to fear and then violence in stressful captivity situations. Comparatively to Stanford prison experiment, Butler seems to be making a social psychological attribution argument. As for her choice to wake up North Americans, it was perhaps a nod to her intended audience, or maybe she thought they were a good example of what went wrong or is wrong with "modern western liberal society". I'm unaware if she's elaborated on this. Yet another stance that is taken is the view that it's in humanities nature to be violent and self destructive, because it's in our DNA. With this argument it appears that it doesn't matter which culture or people you chose to wake, eventually fear driven, violent behaviors will occur. I'm not sure if I completely agree with this conclusion. I'm still wanting to be an idealist of course and hope that among the people they saved, there are a few humans that are not so quick to violence like Lilith. But the verdict was already decided considering the Oankali were trying to domesticate our DNA and breed out the more violent characteristics, as if we were their example of wolves they wanted tame. Or is the plan to just absorb humanity and add it to their collection. Basically at this point in the series humans are done. Another stance is that space fairing intelligent life is civilized and non violent apparently. And yet another within the Fermi paradox is the nature of some intelligent life to destroy itself. In this instance the Oankali were compelled to intervene and save certain aspects of our species, but not the species itself. This compulsion was driven by the other view that Humans are unique. (view spoiler) There is a lot going on, and just writing this feels convoluted, but Butler did a superb job of including a dynamic argument and story for many of these ideas.
I don't claim I understand Butler but the most telling fiction I read about her outlook is The Book of Martha. And the perspective she writes from in that one isn't so much that some kind of regrettable "nature to be violent and self-destructive" is at play but that such behaviors are necessary for individual survival and that any alternative to individualism would basically be a Road to Serfdom. Of course that's my choice of text and my interpretation...The thing that's provocative about the Fermi paradox is that "some" doesn't cut it. It basically takes "all" to resolve the paradox.
Mod
something Rion mentions above really resonates with me:
I'm not sure if I completely agree with this conclusion. I'm still want to be an idealist of course and hope that among the people they saved, there are a few humans that are not so quick to violence like Lilith
other thoughts:
- I think as also noted above in another post, I grew really frustrated with the survivors' lack of acknowledgement that their own race was the cause of their troubles. that the small few of them left did not realize on some level that they actually owed their future to the Oankali, and that that was a huge debt.
- the alien traits were fascinating. and repulsive. but mainly fascinating. truly alien rather than human-in-alien guise.
- unlike other folks, I did not get a conservative vibe at all from the novel. I didn't necessarily get a liberal vibe either. but for me, a conservative outlook would have demonized the Oankali and portrayed them as a threat, and would have been much more supportive of the human tendency toward maverick behavior, humanity's ability to survive on its own. I thought the book was quite critical of that outlook. it portrayed many (most?) of its humans as idiots who could not be trusted to come to the 'correct' conclusion about their surroundings or to view the Oankali without suspicion or disgust or an urge to violence. but then my perspective is coming from the feeling that Butler views the Oankali plans for humanity from a completely sympathetic perspective - she's biased towards them, not towards humanity. and then there's the whole 'world destroyed by power-hungry governments messing around with nuclear weapons', which is a classic critique of war-mongering governments that goes against the conservative idea that governments need to be able to protect their people against outside threats. I see Butler criticizing that whole mentality.
It seems some of you want to see this story in black and white terms.It would be strange if Butler of all people was trying to paint rape-happy colonialists in a sympathetic light. The notion that the way the humans are treated can somehow be justified by some kind of collective responsibility is reminiscent of the arguments according to which slavery was an African problem and so on. As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.
The "idea that governments need to be able to protect their people against outside threats" isn't especially conservative. It's pretty obvious there has long been a broad consensus about the principle.
I'm not completely sure where you are going with the national security issue Otis. I think in the case of this book, Butler doesn't seem to look to highly at any hierarchical structure that would allow fear politics to help facilitate the annihilation of humanity and it's ecosystem. As for the slavery argument, are you making the comment towards the relationship between Oankali and humans? I'd thought of this correlation, but there are some differences and I guess some compelling similarities. Did humanity loose all its rights as a species when it destroyed itself? This becomes a moral issue, one that the Oankali have different societal ideas on. To them gene manipulation is part of their morality. In fact I'd argue that it might be immoral not to genetically change humans so that they don't destroy themselves again, in their consciousness. Lilith does continue to struggle and attempt to hold on to her moral ethic system, and she does continually talk about conform until there is another option then run. In that aspect it is clear that the Oankali feel justified and morally superior, perhaps in much the same way Humans look down on Chimpanzees. But once again Outis you pointed more ideas that Butlter uses effectively.
This is getting into spoiler territory for the sequels so I'll only say your are relying on a few assumptions...
Mod
it seems as if you need to work on your discussion skills. speak for yourself and your own opinions; respond to mine if you see fit. but don't take my comments and dismiss them as wanting to see the story in black and white terms. that is not the case for me and I do not appreciate you saying so.
Mod
I disagree. I think that has been a hallmark of conservative ideology (of which I am making no judgments), in both the U.S. and Europe.
Mod
I agree with all of your post's points, except perhaps for the chimp part! I see the Oankali as looking at the humans as an undeveloped and problematic species, but still one that they hold in very high regard. certainly high enough to mate with them. er, I mean mate with 'us'.
"Apparently", her views will become clearer in the next books then. But Outis, I wasn't making baseless assumptions, I was drawing conclusions on the information that was given thus far. It seems a bit unfair indeed if you've read the entire series and are drawing conclusions in a forum for "Dawn" based upon information not yet available to readers following along with the club. Of course we can't judge the work on anything other than what's in the first work thus far. I didn't want to say anything about the black and white commentary, because I couldn't believe it'd be directed at what I said or for that matter what mark said either. The book was anything but two dimensional and I've mentioned on more than one occasion how dynamic Butlers writing and ideas are and tried to sew enough skeptical words to make sure that other reading me understand that I'm making conclusions based upon the information we've gotten from this book only.
I'm telling you I won't comment further because the sequels are relevant and you conclude I've been posting stuff based on the sequels???I plainly told you what works of Bulter I based what I stated on (besides Dawn): The Book of Martha. Which has of course nothing to do with the plot of the series.
Hopefully the "your body wants it" spiel (for instance) ought be sufficient to make decent folks less than sympathetic towards the Oankali.
Believe me, there's been lots of stuff posted here I can't believe either. :-)
If you care, the black and white thing was mainly in reference to "captor or savior" thing way upthread and to the notion that the author must have been "completely sympathetic" to an obviously unsavory bunch seeing that she portrayed a different group unfavorably. Kind of like the "there are cannibals somewhere in Africa therefore we're actually being helpful when we abuse Africans" reasoning.
Mod
here is my original comment:
my perspective is coming from the feeling that Butler views the Oankali plans for humanity from a completely sympathetic perspective - she's biased towards them, not towards humanity
here is how you are characterizing my comment:
Kind of like the "there are cannibals somewhere in Africa therefore we're actually being helpful when we abuse Africans" reasoning.
this is a forum for discussion. we don't have to agree. we can make points and counterpoints. differences of opinion are the spice of life!
what is not tolerated here is the demeaning of other people's comments that you don't agree with. do not demean my comments by characterizing them as black or white. do not demean my comments by coming up with some ludicrous and offensive analogy about abusing Africans. you can feel free to demean my perspective in the comfort of your own head and your own home. or in your own book review. but that kind of bullshit is not welcome in this group. get this through your head, Outis.
this is your first and last warning. I will not hesitate to delete the membership of any member who is unwilling to abide by basic rules of respectful engagement. I have done it before and I have no problem with doing it again.
I was just now able to get around to this. Having just started it I didn't read through the previous comments yet, which appear to have too many spoilers for my comfort this early on for me. My initial reaction is that I find it quite interesting how Butler can create this absolutely compelling plot, yet tell her story in what I find to be such a matter-of-fact almost "flat" style.
Mod
I agree with your assessment. it is interesting to me how intriguing and even multi-leveled the narrative is while the prose is very straightforward, even dry. at first I was reminded of Bujold, that no frills style. but there is often a soulfulness and sense of longing to Bujold that Butler's chillier style here lacks. perhaps that lack gives the reader more room for contemplation of her themes. and Bujold constructs exciting narratives that are clearly hurtling forward while Butler tells a story that creates a sense of distance between the reader and story, as well as between the characters within the story.
Yes, I think fundamentally Bujold writes "romance" in both senses of the word, while Butler tells us dystopian fables born of her pessimistic sense of humanity. As if she's hoping, and then her better sense stomps on her hope.
Mod
now I am going to be comparing this to Bujold all day!
Yes, kind of like someone who's deeply grieving or traumatized and therefore resorts to a "just-the-facts" recitation of their tale.
Mod
I’m going to tentatively stick a toe into the previous conversation. I’m a little wary, but this is just such an intriguing novel that I simply need to talk about it. This is a seriously grim tale. Butler seems to a have a gift for taking almost any situation and always seeing the most negative aspects. She chooses to focus on the horror of solitary confinement, of lack of bodily integrity and lack of self-determination – where many, many other science fiction writers would have their characters drooling over the alien tech and culture and being thankful for being rescued. I guess that reinforces others’ claims that Butler was far more interested in the human condition than she was in potential aliens.And she has such a grim view of the human condition! She seems to believe that humans will inevitably attempt to destroy themselves both in the large-scale and the small-scale. This belief, that humans are fundamentally selfish, violent and short-sighted has been defined by some as the defining difference between the left and the right. (The idea being that the right believes that humans are mostly “bad” and we need police and government to control them – “law and order” – while the left believes that humans are mostly “good” and we need government to give them a helping hand – “the welfare state.”) This also seems blended with a Libertarian/Objectivist philosophy. She seems to be saying, “Yes, most of us humans are selfish, but selfishness is the only way to achieve anything for ourselves, so leave us alone to selfishly fend for ourselves, and the handful of us who are capable enough (the supermen and superwomen) will rise above the stupid mass of the majority and carry on.” I think perhaps this meshes with the statement that the defining flaw of humanity is its tendency towards hierarchy. Some might see a belief in hierarchy as the foundation of conservatism, yet I think that the case can also be made that hierarchy is directly opposed to Objectivism, since it places representatives of the stupid masses in positions of control over the “supermen.”
Mod
the one thing that I'm not sure I agree with is:
She seems to be saying, “Yes, most of us humans are selfish, but selfishness is the only way to achieve anything for ourselves, so leave us alone to selfishly fend for ourselves, and the handful of us who are capable enough (the supermen and superwomen) will rise above the stupid mass of the majority and carry on
I think that her characters think that, but I'm not so sure Butler herself thinks that. if anything I see her as being critical of that perspective, even when that perspective comes from her protagonist. I see her as taking the point of view of the aliens - that this is a fundamental flaw within human nature.
Yes, you're right, I was conflating Lilith's views with Butler's views. That's where it gets tricky, trying to figure out exactly what an author believes and what she is presenting to us as food for thought!
Alexa wrote: "And she has such a grim view of the human condition! She seems to believe that humans will inevitably attempt to destroy themselves both in the large-scale and the small-scale. This belief, that humans are fundamentally selfish, violent and short-sighted has been defined by some as the defining difference between the left and the right."That is how I see the human race :)
Dawn is the first book in Octavia Butler's Xenogenesis trilogy (alternately known a the Lilith's Brood trilogy). it was nominated for the Locus Science Fiction Award in 1987.
this will be my second book by Butler. I was quite enthusiastic about the first book I've read by the author, so I'm really looking forward to this one.
and very sorry for the delay in getting this thread up! thank you Maggie for your reminder. what would I do without you?