"To Be Taught, If Fortunate" by Becky Chambers (BR)

[Oleksandr]

Ariana wrote: "Once again, this text based medium fails to capture facetiousness. 🙂"

:) that's why I use /sarcasm or /joke at the end sometimes

[Lesley]

I finally got this from my library and finished it over the weekend so I can scratch the itch and click on all the spoilers. I agree with everything Ariana said above in post 11. (view spoiler)[ I had a hard time getting into the story at first because of all of the science-y details. Once it became more about the characters, I was hooked. I loved the moral and ethical questions they grapple with. Chambers has a way of making those quandaries seem to honest and real through the eyes of her crew. (hide spoiler)]

Re the end (view spoiler)[ Ultimately I think it fits with the overall theme that to be human is to be an individual, but more importantly to be part of a whole and that we have to decide together to survive and work towards a common good because everyone acting in their own self interest is what caused earth’s downfall. (hide spoiler)]

[Phrynne]

Just finished. I found it addictive and read it in one sitting. The ending came as a huge surprise and definitely not what I would have chosen to do! (view spoiler)[ By the end were they maybe just totally burnt out and sleep seemed the easiest option even though they knew they may never wake up? (hide spoiler)]

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

I just finished the part at Mirabilis and found it a bit (view spoiler)[gut wrenching. (hide spoiler)] Ugh.

Avoiding all the stuff about the ending. :-/

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Ariana wrote: "I thought that [spoilers removed]"


I believe it's monthly, but, otherwise, this is also how I took it.

I assumed there had to be time between Aecor and Mirabilis because of (view spoiler)[the changes the bodies had gone through. And it mentioned the need for additional grooming after waking. I wasn't sure how much time - I thought a few months as opposed to years - but it made it clear in the beginning that the somaforming thingie that changes their bodies isn't permanent and that it takes time. (hide spoiler)]

[Jordan]

Okay, finally finished this last night!

I feel like the more I think about the ending, the more I like it. (view spoiler)[ They don't feel like they can carry on with their exploration without the need of all of Earth behind them, since they'd then be doing potential harm just for their own personal curiosity. They also don't feel like they should go back if all they're going to find is a hopeless dead Earth. And they also don't have the resources to just stay awake and finish out their lives. So sleeping until there's a factor (the response from Earth) that tips the scale one way or another seems like a reasonable response. At worst they die peacefully with their last waking thoughts being about hope and the future. In the best case they either get word from Earth and return to help or they continue exploration knowing that Earth needs them. (hide spoiler)]

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Finished this last night, and, like others, I'm a bit torn about the ending.

Right now I gave it a 3-stars, partially for the ending. I think I could've edged into 4-stars otherwise. I really loved the descriptions of the planets and their reactions to everything.

I liked the characters and their interactions and relationships. I liked how well Chambers was able to convey their different personalities and the way they deal with things without sort of dwelling on it overly.

I also liked the diversity and representation of the story, and how it was just part of their characters - a part of the story, but not the point of the story.

As to the ending, I see both sides. I both get how (view spoiler)[it fits with their ethos of causing the least amount of harm, but I also just can't fathom it. Like, at that point, I would be like, "Ok, Earth seems dead so let's go find somewhere we can live out the rest of the our lives."

Like, I get the "we're not just doing this for us and it would be selfish" thing, but, at the end of the day, the world they're doing it for might not even be there anymore, so, like... just be selfish? It's ok to want to live your lives.

Guess I'm just not evolved enough. ;) (hide spoiler)]

[Kaa]

colleen, your comment about not being "evolved enough" made me realize that it's not necessarily the choice of the ending that bothered me so much as the way Chambers presented it. (view spoiler)[Mechanical concerns aside, I don't necessarily disagree with their decision to go into stasis. But I really don't think that it's somehow the only "moral" option, and I disagree with some of the spoken and unspoken value assumptions being made.

First of all, I have a problem with the idea of morality by popular vote. On the one hand, communal consultation can be valuable and powerful. On the other, this doesn't absolve the individual of responsibility for their own actions and decisions, and in my opinion, real consultation isn't possible in this case. There's no way for the people on earth to have any sort of direct dialogue with the crew, so the choice becomes a directive that the crew don't have input into other than their initial report. Scientists are part of society, too, and the idea that they don't have a responsibility to participate in societal decisions about science is frightening and part of the dangerous construction of scientist as "objective outside observer".

Secondly, I have a problem with the idea that science should be a utilitarian venture only engaged in for the direct benefit of society. I think it's essential to consider the benefits and harms of scientific inquiry, but some of the most interesting and useful things we've ever learned have been discovered because a few scientists thought, "hey, that's really cool" at a time when no one else thought the topic was worth studying. It's not "selfish" for a scientist to explore something only because they want to know more about it - or if it is, that's not inherently a bad thing.

Thirdly, it was weird to see the argument that choosing not to do anything was inherently less harmful when that is exactly the choice that got earth into trouble. Stasis may have been the least harmful option in this case, but it would have been nice to see more consideration of what they were loosing by this choice.

Uh, sorry, that turned out longer than I was expecting. But there's just so much more underneath the ideas that Chambers presents in this story. I didn't feel like she did more than scratch the surface, which was disappointing because this story was about ideas far more than characters or plot. (hide spoiler)]

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Kaa wrote: "colleen, your comment about not being "evolved enough" made me realize that it's not necessarily the choice of the ending that bothered me so much as the way Chambers presented it. Mechanical conce..."


I agree with a lot of your comments. This bit especially jumped out at me:

(view spoiler)[Thirdly, it was weird to see the argument that choosing not to do anything was inherently less harmful when that is exactly the choice that got earth into trouble. Stasis may have been the least harmful option in this case, but it would have been nice to see more consideration of what they were loosing by this choice.

Since there's so much about that at the end of the book - the cost of procrastination and putting off dealing with issues - and it does seem like they're just continuing that trend.

I mean, maybe that's the point? Maybe there's some sort of "we never learn" kind of lesson meant to be woven into that? (hide spoiler)]

[Kaa]

colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "I agree with a lot of your comments. This bit especially jumped out at me: [spoiler removed]"

Oh, hmm, yeah. (view spoiler)[I'd been reading the narrator's viewpoint as closely reflecting the author's viewpoint, but maybe that's not the intention and there's meant to be a lesson in there. (hide spoiler)]

[Trike]

Kaa wrote: "Secondly, I have a problem with the idea that science should be a utilitarian venture only engaged in for the direct benefit of society. I think it's essential to consider the benefits and harms of scientific inquiry, but some of the most interesting and useful things we've ever learned have been discovered because a few scientists thought, "hey, that's really cool" at a time when no one else thought the topic was worth studying. It's not "selfish" for a scientist to explore something only because they want to know more about it - or if it is, that's not inherently a bad thing."

Yes. Acquiring knowledge just to do so may seem pointless in the moment, but you never know when said knowledge might come in handy.

Real-world case in point: about 25 years ago the US government funded a study about canine saliva. It was widely derided as an example of government waste. Last year scientists announced they have potentially found a way to permanently reverse Type I diabetes... a line of inquiry that started with studying dog spit.

Maybe you won’t find anything, but maybe you might cure a disease affecting a third of a billion people.

[Raucous]

Kaa wrote: "colleen, your comment about not being "evolved enough" ..."

Wow. What a great summary. What really resonated with me was (view spoiler)["Scientists are part of society, too, and the idea that they don't have a responsibility to participate in societal decisions about science is frightening and part of the dangerous construction of scientist as "objective outside observer"."

I had so many arguments about this with "objective scientists" back before I defected to the dark/commercial side. I see it today in, for example, a few prominent climate scientists who are trying so hard to be "objective" that they're going to deny reality and their responsibility to explain it in favor of ironclad proof until it's far too late. It's just another example of deciding not to do anything. (hide spoiler)]

[Jill]

I’m listening to this on audio and am about 80% finished. I’m enjoying it, but I’ve managed to talk myself into being super confused about how the passage of time is referenced.

When someone far away from Earth says something like, “We’ll check it again tomorrow,” what does “tomorrow” (or any reference to time passage like “4 months” for example) mean in an environment where gravity is dilating time? Is this just a general sci-fi convention where we’re supposed to think in terms of Earth time for ease of telling the story? If so, that’s cool with me and I can deal with it, but obviously I’ve been thinking too hard about this and now my brain is stuck.

[Oleksandr]

Jill wrote: "what does “tomorrow” (or any reference to time passage like “4 months” for example) mean in an environment where gravity is dilating time?"

I maybe misunderstood the bit about "gravity is dilating time", but they are on ship's clock (i.e. Earth days, hours, etc., assume synced to GMT or any other, not that important) and in normal time/space. Time dilation happens during traveling at relativistic speeds (and is not directly related to the gravity). In-system travel most likely done at speeds where dilation is unimportant

[Jill]

Thanks for your helpful response, Oleksandr. I definitely seem to have talked myself into a space-time fog, but I think I have it sorted now. The book’s description of the water planet (I forget its name) reminded me of the water planet in the movie Interstellar, and how time passed so differently there as opposed to on Earth, and then I spiraled from there.

[Dawn F]

Both “gravitational time dilation” and “relative velocity time dilation” are phenomenons that affect time, one slows it down, the other speids it up, sort of, but yes, we can assume that they’ll have a constant time measure set to Earth time to go by when they say “tomorrow”. Everything else would be relative :P