lora kaganovsky

Something that consistently blows my mind every time I take a class on a subject I have never considered too deeply is just how broad the field of study for any given topic is. Of course, this class was not the first time I had been exposed to science fiction and my favorite author of many years is actually a science fiction writer as well. However I had never really considered any of the higher-level study about the genre itself. Our first assignment was to read a selection of articles that talked about science fiction and how to define the genre and I can still remember my first thought being that I hadn’t expected the definition of the genre to be a highly debated topic. It was never something I thought deeply about but the image of science fiction I had in my head was one of spaceships and time travel. After reading the various articles and the works of all the authors we studied this semester, I now realize that science fiction provides some of the most powerful and radical critiques of humanity. Unlike other genres, science fiction allows authors to create worlds that serve as mirrors to our own and allow us to step outside of our limited capitalist perspectives.

In this class we focused specifically on science fiction during the Cold War period from both the United States and the Soviet Union. Prior to this class I honestly knew nothing about the Cold War so it was very much a new lens for me to analyze literature. The Cold War came about after an extremely unstable time of war and introduced a new type of fear in the hearts of the world: the fear of nuclear annihilation. Science fiction flourished during this time period of tension and speculated on what kind of future would be born from this nuclear era that was full of political and social change. Interestingly enough, the Cold War seemed to influence science fiction from the Soviet Union more heavily as there were extremely harsh guidelines about what could get published. Novels that alluded to the evil of the United States and the moral superiority of a socialist society had a much higher chance of being published and writing something that criticized the government was an invitation to get jailed or killed. In the United States, science fiction was often created for entertainment purposes but the conflict between capitalism and socialism/communism definitely makes an appearance in many highly-regarded science fiction works (like the ones we read in class this semester).

I enjoyed each of the novels we read this semester and my favorite part was definitely close reading in order to understand things about the world that was being presented to us. I find world-building to be the most challenging aspect of writing and I’m more interested in trying to decipher the commentary an author is making about the current status quo. I decided to showcase the following blog posts because I think they are good examples of close analysis of excerpts that are saying a lot more implicitly. I think that attentive close-reading is one of the most important parts of reading science fiction because there is always so much to dissect in normal dialogue or seemingly offhand descriptions.

The first blog post focuses on Samuel Delany’s article “About 5,570 Words” which seeks to define science fiction and dissect the language author’s use in their work. This article really shaped my understanding of science fiction throughout the semester and highlighted the importance of close reading in a science fiction contect. This blog post serves as a good introduction to the others as it is the article that heavily influenced the way I approached the novels we read these past few months. I will get into the specifics of Delany’s argument later on in the post but one of his central claims was about the level of subjunctivity of science fiction and how that separates it from all other genres. The level of subjunctivity for science fiction is “has not happened yet” which can be attributed to all the events that happen in a science fiction novel. 

The second blog post I chose focuses on an excerpt from the 1957 novel The Glass Bees by Ernst Junger. Junger was a German veteran who wrote a book that spans two days in the life of veteran Captain Richard, an unemployed ex-cavalryman who feels ostracized in a world that has become increasingly impersonal and technologically advanced. The Glass Bees was a very interesting read as it primarily focused on the inner thoughts of Richard and spent pages upon pages recounting his memories of being in the war. The Glass Bees provides an interesting perspective on society from the point of view of a jaded veteran. The reader is able to put on a new pair of shoes and look at technology from the eyes of someone who has lived a very different life than most people. The excerpt I analyzed was full of Richard’s emotions and this character-heavy writing can still tell the readers a lot about the world that has made Richard feel the way he does. 

The third blog post I chose was a close reading of two lines of dialogue from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Phillip K. Dick. This novel, inspiration for the classic movie Blade Runner, follows bounty hunter Rick Decker whose job is hunting and killing androids on Earth. This novel heavily deals with the concept of humanity and the purpose of this blog post is to show how just two lines of dialogue can add so much to a novel and be representative of a much bigger issue. This blog post is a perfect example of why I consider close reading to be such an important part of reading science fiction as there can be so much detail packed into so little words.

The fourth blog post I chose was an analysis from The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia by Ursula Le Guin. This novel follows the journey of a physicist by the name of Shevek who lives in an anarchist society on a moon called Anarres. Shevek is the first person from Anarres to ever come to Urras, the main planet, which is highly profiterian and capitalist. Shevek has outgrown Anarres intellectually and comes to Urras to continue his work with other scientists. However, as Shevek spends more time on Urras he realizes there are many problems that both worlds have and that he does not feel like he truly fits into either of them. Once again, this excerpt shows a very interesting relationship between the society as well as the character, whose lens we are viewing the world through. By making Shevek the narrator, Le Guin is able to portray Urras through a very unique perspective. 

The fifth blog post I chose was an analysis of the first eight pages of Samuel Delany’s novel Trouble on Triton: An Ambiguous Heterotopia. This was my favorite novel this semester and even though Delany himself has said he starts with characters and then builds his world around it, the society and world-building is what really stuck with me from this novel. This novel follows the main character, Bron, who lives on Triton which is a libertarian society where there is limited government (one that barely ever appears in the novel) and unlimited freedom for the people living there. This blog post focuses on the first few pages and deciphers what information does the reader get about this world from the very beginning. Delany certainly throws the reader in headfirst and leaves nearly everything up to interpretation. I consider him to be the most difficult author to read out of the bunch we were exposed to this semester as his writing style is very unique and it takes some getting used to. Aside from syntax, though, Delany is also one of the rare authors that acknowledges how different social relations and structures (specifically gender and sexuality) can change in a future world – a topic that many authors tend to shy away from. I thought his attempt to cross the boundaries of race, gender, and sexuality was very commendable and something a lot of the other authors we analyzed did not do. The last blog post I chose was also about Trouble on Triton and I analyzed the difference between Bron’s home Triton and Earth. Delany is very vague when it comes to the specifics of politics so it takes a lot of inferring and close-reading to make assumptions about the differences of the two societies. I chose this post because it is a perfect example of having to analyze small details in order to understand the social and political structures of both Triton and Earth. 

Overall this class really influenced the way I read science fiction and I am excited to use this new knowledge in the future. I really enjoyed reading about the gender critiques of science fiction and I am planning on reading a lot more work done by women authors specifically to see how they tackle the challenge of gender and sexuality in different worlds. I definitely now see science fiction as radical literature that can change the course of humanity. 

In Samuel Delany’s “About 5,750 Words,” he defines science fiction in a very specific way that focuses heavily on context and language. A claim that stood out to me instantly was “content is not real” (Delany 1). On its own, this sentence barely makes any sense and requires a lot more explanation to understand what Delany is getting at (this actually relates to his general argument, funnily enough). Content on its own is meaningless and requires context for someone to fully understand it. Delany uses the word “red” to show an example of how a word on its own can mean completely different things in different scenarios. Delany then goes on to say that the word “content” is implying that something is being “contained,” which, according to Delany, is a “misleading visualization” (2) and real ‘meanings (content or information) are the formal relations between sounds and images of the objective world” (2). To truly understand information that is being presented to you, it must be contextualized. Delany provides a potent example of different ways to write a sentence about a person setting down some books onto a table. Although the action in each sentence is the same, the meaning and implications of each one creates a completely different experience. A person who would refer to books as “things” probably does not value them too much and treats them like any other household item whereas a character who diligently refers to each title and author of each book probably regards them highly and cares for them. 

When defining science fiction, Delany states there is a “level of subjunctivity that informs all the words in an SF story at a level that is different from that which informs naturalistic fiction, fantasy, or reportage” (10). When something is “subjunctive,” it means it is “relating to or denoting a mood of verbs expressing what is imagined or wished or possible” (Oxford Languages). In terms of SF, Delany explains that the level of subjuncitivity boils down to events that “have not happened.” Events that “have not happened” are very different from events that “could have happened” (realistic fiction) or events that “could not happen” (fantasy). This is the defining feature of SF in Delany’s eyes.

Many people question the “real” difference between fantasy and science fiction and Delany’s levels of subjunctivity offer a very distinct explanation. When writing SF, the author must take into account the “how” of everything that happens. If there is a winged dog in a fantasy novel, the reader can just shrug and accept that the genre is fantasy and some sort of magic like that can exist; however, when it comes to SF, one must consider what events caused a winged dog to exist. Is it bioengineering? A parallel universe where dogs underwent a different evolutionary track?

Personally, I really like Delany’s way of defining SF. I think SF is an extremely broad genre that, in general, is very hard to define but the focus on events that “have not happened” instead of events that “could not happen” really outlines the goal of SF (as I see it). SF provides a critique of society, politics, humanity etc. and I think that approaching SF from Delany’s perspective can make the experience a lot more meaningful for a reader. One disadvantage I would maybe address is that Delany wants readers to “atomize” the works they read, meaning break them down into small distinct units. There are many readers who may not have this kind of patience or just want to read to relax and not as if they’re in a college class. This is totally valid and understandable, but I can also see how an SF novel requires intense close reading and analysis as SF is commonly used to provide criticism and send a message. Not paying enough attention seems to me as an act of disservice to the novel, the author, and yourself.

I included Karaleigh’s post on my blog because I thought it would be interesting to showcase a post talking about the definition of SF from a different author’s perspective and I think Karaleigh did a really good job summarizing Suvin’s article as well as offering her own thoughts. 

Karaleigh Saar 8/31

In his piece “On the Poetics of the Science Fiction Genre,” Darko Suvin emphasizes an aspect of science fiction that we had discussed in class this past Wednesday. Notably, this would be the role of works of science fiction as mirrors of our society, our values, and ourselves as well. Suvin, himself, speaks of the ways in which science fiction works are created with new frameworks of time and space within that, though they differ greatly from the real world and its possibilities, help the reader look back at themselves and the world they live in with a more critical eye. Suvin says, “The aliens– utopians, monsters or simply differing strangers–are a mirror to man just as the differing country is a mirror for his world. But the mirror is not only a reflecting one, it is also a transforming one, virgin womb and alchemical dynamo: the mirror is a crucible” (pp. 117). This idea that science fiction is not only a distorted and dramatic reflection of our society, but instead a tool which is utilized by the author to encourage deeper thought–a challenge of the mind for the reader interests me. My interest was especially peaked with the use of the word ‘crucible’ to describe the ‘mirror’ that is the science fiction genre, in this case. A crucible is a severe trial of the mind or an intense challenge, and being given that the first thing most people think of when thinking of science fiction is a more light-hearted film experience like Star Wars or Star Trek, I would say that a reader or a viewer really does have to take in science fiction with open eyes to get the deeper sense of the genre. Suvin describes this concept of the mirror of science fiction more in the following paragraph, saying that, “this genre has always been wedded to a hope of finding in the unknown the ideal environment, tribe, state, intelligence or other aspect of the Supreme Good” (117). As a reader, I’m encouraged by the ability or perhaps, the purpose as according to Suvin, of reading science fiction and thus envisioning the ideal world or ideal societal standards. I think that this outlook of science fiction as a genre that can absolutely be light-hearted yet that it also has a significant role in framing our view of the world is a very positive one and might even make reading science fiction seem more accessible to readers who might find the genre inherently daunting or severe in nature.

Group 5: pp 73-74

The narrator, Richard, is clearly very critical of the current society and its attitude towards work culture and ethic. This passage reads as a very “stream of consciousness” in my opinion and comes off as having a very frustrated and indignant attitude, seeming more like a rant than anything else. Richard laments that “the old way of life had disappeared. Now the slogan was: Do or die” (73). Obviously, Richard does not like a society that just constantly churns out new technology that (in Richard’s opinion) undermines human purpose, but additionally, he is particularly angry about the fact that he has no choice but to subscribe to the status quo. The language of the passage contributes to this grievance. Richard often uses the words “forced” and “had”; for example, Richard says “I myself was forced to take the same turn” (referring to giving up the “old way of life”) as well as “Everyone had to become resigned to this” (73). On a quick side note, considering Richard is a vet, it is hard for me to read this and not look for signs of trauma, PTSD etc., meaning that I don’t really consider him to be a reliable narrator. It’s important to remember that the perspective of a veteran may be very different from our own.

This passage addresses technological change, historical change, and social change, and, most importantly, clearly shows how all are completely interconnected. Richard talks about how as times changed and progressed, the way of life he had become accustomed to was erased. Richard seems to heavily emphasize here on the fact that the world had weaponized science like never before. After having to give up their horses, Richard says, “we arrived with tanks to ‘smoke them out’; whereupon they treated us with a new surprise” (73). From what I understand, the “new surprise” was that their tanks were useless. The dynamic had changed so that “the struggle for power … was fought with scientific formulas” (73). The physical weaponry “vanished in the abyss like fleeting images” and “new ones were produced in protean succession” (73). The advancements in technology directly affected the way their society was structured. The “do or die” attitude towards work came from the way technology affected the workers. This passage offers a lot of commentary on the effect of technological advancements on societal norms which is an important part of science fiction. The whole time I am reading this novel, I am constantly comparing Richard’s alternate reality to my own world and there are many comparisons to be made. SF is very commonly used as a cautionary tale and/or criticism of the real world.

I had to look up who Tubalcain was and I learned that in the Jewish narrative Tubalcain was known as Cain’s descendant who improved the work of Cain, meaning he created weapons that could kill more efficiently and was generally quite murderous and full of bloodlust. However, in the Christian narrative, it seems he is just known as the first blacksmith.

“‘You know how people are about not taking care of an animal; they consider it immoral and anti-empathic’” (7).

When Barbour, Rick’s neighbor, says this the readers get introduced to another aspect of their society: the importance of empathy. Based on the implications of Barbour’s words, one can assume their society values empathy highly and has strict rules about it. Just the simple fact of now owning an animal, something that is normal in our world but definitely not a given, can cause other people to look down on you. Additionally, it appears that public perception and approval is very important to people (which isn’t that surprising) but this novel presents an interesting additional layer where not only does societal pressure exist, but so does the desire to prove your humanity. This line gets said quite early in the novel, but the ideas it introduces are seen for the rest of the story. The reader learns that Rick’s job is hunting down androids that are posing and living as humans. The way that Rick and other bounty hunters determine whether someone is a human or an android is by a test that measures empathy. It is believed that the one behavioral difference between humans and androids is that androids cannot show the physical signs of empathy. After learning about this, the importance of empathy in their society becomes even clearer. In order to not feel guilt over the killing of androids, humans must believe themselves to be morally superior because of their empathy, whereas androids are something subhuman, something that can be killed with no mercy. At one point of the novel, one of the androids said that androids are considered even lower than animals which is an important hierarchy to remember. Even though animals also don’t show empathy, the fact that androids resemble humans is what makes them so terrifying to people. I think the androids are a really good example of the “defamiliarization” Jameson brings up in the article we read about utopias. The androids look like humans and can even blend into society but their existence is seen as a threat to people. 

Another interesting thing I noticed about this sentence is the use of the word “anti.” Anti does not mean “not” but means to be directly opposed to. That means by not owning an animal, you would not be seen as just not empathetic; you are seen as a threat to empathy. In a way, this society seems to have (ironically) weaponized empathy into a tool that can ostracize and even kill.

A scene in The Dispossessed that particularly stood out to me in the novel was when Shevek thinks back to the time that Saio Paie had taken him “shopping.” I use “shopping” in quotations here because this is a concept that is totally new to Shevek and his connotations with the concept are completely different from anyone living on Urras or anyone reading the novel for that matter. Considering that Le Guin is an American author, it is safe to assume that her own life more closely mirrored the values of Urras, since the United States is so driven by capitalism. By choosing to have the main character originate from another world, one where money and hierarchy does not exist, allows Le Guin to interact with society in a new way. Shevek offers a perspective that is unattainable for anyone reading this novel. None of us are truly unfamiliar with capitalism and it’s nearly impossible to look at Urras through an anarchist lens on our own. Shevek serves as a sort of literary device in this sense. He is the connecting piece between the reader and the message of the novel. This type of perspective – one that is so limitless – is something that cannot really be found in realist literature.

What I found most interesting about the shopping description was that while many things on Urras echo the values of the United States, they are often extremified. However this description of Saemtenevia Prospect which “was two miles long, and it was a solid mass of people, traffic, and things: things to buy, things for sale” (131). Nothing about this setting is widely different from what any of us are used to. Unlike many of the other features of Urras, we don’t interpret this scenario as anything weird or uncomfortable, but Le Guin is able to convey that emotion to the readers anyway because of Shevek’s perspective. The clothes that Shevek lists as being available for purchase is honestly quite satirical and, even though these categories exist in our world, when they are all listed out like this they do seem quite repetitive and unnecessary – perhaps even quite overwhelming hence the nickname “nightmare street.”

Another interesting observation Shevek makes is that “all the people in all the shops were either buyers or sellers” and the craftsmen were all “out of sight, somewhere else. Behind walls” (132). This is another truth (most of the time) that exists within our reality, but another one that we don’t really think about often. I’ve never found the concept weird while I was out shopping but when Shevek says “they had no relation to the things but that of possessions,” it really made me think about what sort of culture has been ingrained in us from day one. This idea of “possession” and the importance placed on it is something completely foreign to Shevek and it’s hard to imagine anyone who has been surrounded by it their whole lives being able to live in a world like Anarres and not go crazy. 

I selected this blog post to highlight because Megan and I actually chose the same scene to analyze from The Dispossessed and I really love hearing her perspective. I’m not sure if I totally agree with the sentiment that Urras is representative of the United States and Anarres was representative of the Soviet Union (I think these worlds were definitely influenced by the Cold War but I don’t see the direct parallel in a lot of American novels as opposed to ones from the USSR which I find a lot more explicit) but I love the way Megan analyzed “nightmare street” through Shevek’s character and also drew comparisons to our own society. 

Megan Barber 11/9

The term “cognitive estrangement” comes from Darko Suvin’s book, Metamorphoses of Science Fiction, where Suvin describes it as the idea of taking a familiar concept to the reader and placing it in a science fiction world which makes the concept appear completely alien at first glance. The goal is usually to provoke introspection in the reader, either about themselves or their society, as the unique setting defamiliarizes the familiar and provides a fresh perspective. Suvin states, “ As used here, this term does not imply only a reflecting of but also on reality. It implies a creative approach tending toward a dynamic transformation rather than toward a static mirroring of the author’s environment” (Suvin 120).

In Ursula Le Guin’s novel, The Dispossessed, the setting is immensely important as Urras and Anarres are clearly meant to reflect the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War era. The two planets are opposites in every sense of the word, Urras is primarily a capitalist planet with a rigid social hierarchy while Anarres is an anarchistic/socialist state where everyone is considered equal. The main character Shevek is a physicist from Anarres who travels to Urras in order to publish a new theory he has been working on. The events of the story are shown through Shevek’s eyes, which provides the reader with an interesting perspective on Urrsatsi culture. When Shevek comes to Urras he lives in a country known as A-Io, a place that would seem very familiar to American audiences with its capitalist economy, division of social classes, and obsession with material items. However, Le Guin introduces this world through an Anarresetsi lens, which makes these deeply ingrained facets of Urrsatsi/American society seem strange and even scary at times. During his second week in A-Io, Shevek is taken to a shopping district in Nio Esseia where he becomes extremely overwhelmed, even disgusted, by the concept of buying and selling goods. HE states, “And the strangest thing about the nightmare street was that none of the millions of things for sale were made there. They were only sold there. Where were the workshops, the factories, where were the farmers, the craftsmen, the miners, the weavers, the chemists, the carvers, the dyers, the designers, the machinists, where were the hands, the people who made? Out of sight, somewhere else. All the people in the shops were either buyers or sellers. They had no relation to the things but that of possession” (Le Guin 132). As Americans living in a society with a capitalist economy, this is not a strange concept to us. The expectation is that any goods you purchase were likely mass produced in a factory somewhere. When something is actually handmade it’s a pleasant surprise. Looking at this through Shevek’s eyes it’s horrifying how these goods only came to be as the result of a massive amount of work from various craftsmen, people who don’t receive any recognition for their work. By describing the shopping district through Shevek’s eyes, it defamiliarizes an everyday experience in the life of a person living under a capitalist economy. When you grow up in a world where this is a normal occurrence, it becomes incredibly difficult for you to think beyond the surface, about the greedy desire to own expensive objects just for the sake of owning them, to buy goods that were created by individuals who will get no credit for their craftsmanship, or to buy these items instead of using that money to help others. At one point Shevek remarks that an 8,400 unit coat is equal to 4 times the amount of money that constitutes a living wage. This critique on capitalism, and as individuals our need to display our status through material objects, is shown by providing a foreign perspective on familiar concepts.

Delany is definitely an author who does not waste any time coddling the reader who was lucky enough to pick up his book. Right from the beginning of the novel, Delany flings the reader into a complex world that is vastly different from the one we live in. In the first sentence, the narrator, Bron, mentions going home to the “Serpent’s House” which is a men’s co-op. Already the reader has learned two important things about the story: 1) there are men’s co-ops (implying there are women’s co-ops as well) and 2) the main character lives in one. Additionally, Delany uses complicated syntax full of parentheses that is pretty confusing and hard to follow – especially when you consider the fact that most of the names and places being given still mean nothing to the reader as they have not been contextualized.

 In the first paragraph, Bron references “Earth and Mars” meaning that the solar system is familiar to us. This is what first gives me a hint that this may be an alternate history or a possible future novel versus a story that takes place on made-up planets, like The Dispossessed. In this sentence, Bron also establishes that there are people living on both Earth and Mars and it appears that the calendar system they use is quite different from the one we are used to. Later on, Bron also mentions “Earth’s Second World War” (5) which implies the historical timeline is probably the same as ours (or at least very similar), but also shows that there have been changes that have affected people’s perception of the past. We are used to hearing “World War 2” more than any other name but “Earth’s Second World War” implies that now there are more planets with their own wars and the name “World War 2” just doesn’t cut it anymore. 

Similar to Le Guin, Delany very much uses Bron as the main source of information for the reader. Everything we find out about the society from this initial introduction is through Bron’s own personal thinking. Because of this technique, it almost seems like we are often getting half of a full explanation about what’s going on. It’s possible to make some inferences from what Bron is thinking, but obviously he does not explain the things that are already common knowledge to him. Although this technique does remind me of Le Guin, the settings are so different that experience the reader has is completely unique for each novel. In Le Guin’s novel, Shevek is new to Urras and therefore the reader gets very in-depth descriptions and explanations of the world as Shevek learns about it. Bron, on the other hand, is an assimilated citizen of Triton and his inner thinking is focused on his own life and issues, not the world around him that is already so familiar. 

Bron’s visit to Earth was a very stark juxtaposition to his life on Triton. On Triton, we have gotten used to the fluidity of sex and gender as well as the freedom people possess. On many occasions, we have read about people walking around naked or barely dressed in professional settings, as well as other weird facts that seem out of place – for example, the two twelve year olds who acted as managers for a corporation. Everything we got used to on Triton is completely reversed on Earth. Bron instantly notices that there are only three distinct clothing styles – all of which are dull and conservative – and then further realizes the clothes are separated mainly by gender (with the third option designated for children). Clearly the equality of gender that is usually experienced on Triton (or at least supposed equality – there is a lot we don’t know about Triton and its politics) is not the same on Earth and there is a stark separation between genders. This separation is highlighted by small details; for example, when Bron is held captive, the first two guards to visit him are both women whereas the second two are both men. However, even though they are separated, the guards largely act in the same way (i.e punching Bron in the side before they leave).

Another detail that stuck out to me was the constant use of nicknames by the Earthmen. I don’t know the severity of these nicknames (as in I don’t know if I can say “moonie” is a slur) but they appear to be condescending at best. The guards refer to Bron as a “moonie” and people from Mars as “marsies.” The terms don’t necessarily seem like they are offending anyone, but, regardless, show the superiority ingrained into residents of Earth. Joined with these terms is also a common use of the n-word, something we saw even on Triton. Interestingly enough, the n-word seems very normalized and we don’t see anyone, including Sam, even bat an eye when they hear someone say it. I find this fact to be pretty realistic as certain issues die out the language surrounding it will change meaning. Although we don’t know for certain since there’s so much we don’t know about the state of the world, there are no instances of racism the way we know it today. Although we have not really seen any examples of racism directed at black people, it is very clear that prejudice itself still exists, even if it has evolved to be directed at different groups.

Another conversation in the novel I found to be very interesting was the conversation at the archaeological site about welfare and taxes. In general, I feel like the reader has not had an immense experience with the politics or the government of Triton. The government feels like it’s very background to their lives and no one on the streets even pays attention to the constant flyers that pop up in the novel. On Earth, however, the government is a very tangible force considering Bron is instantly taken into custody, interrogated, and abused. In a similar fashion, Sam’s conversation with some of the Earthmen about taxes and welfare show the difference between their two cultures. On Earth, welfare STILL has a clearly negative stigma around it, but the sentiment on Triton is very different. Like Sam says, “practically everyone spends some time on it” and that there are no “economic ghettos” to divide people (152). In a way, it seems like a lot of things on Earth have not changed (and whatever did seems even worse than what we have now) and I found that pretty frightening to read about. I’d honestly love to live on Triton. 

 chose Megan’s post to feature on my blog because we answered the same question but in two very different ways. I think Megan provided a lot of good insight about Earth based off Bron’s character whereas I focused more so on the random clues Delany included and didn’t really analyze bron’s character on Earth. Even though we approached the question differently, there are many things that we both noticed and addressed. 

Megan Barber 11/30

One of the more interesting aspects of Trouble on Triton is how it addresses the differences in Earth society as opposed to the Martian and Tritonian societies that Bron has grown accustomed to. In this novel, Earth appears to be a very prejudiced, materialistic, and thoroughly traditional society, where gender roles hold greater importance and individual expression is discouraged. When Bron first arrives on Earth he is tortured at length by guards who refer to him and Sam as “moonies” and make wild generalizations about people who aren’t from worlds. “”It’s funny,” one of the guards said to nobody in particular. “The moonies always sit in the corner soon as you leave ’em alone. Marsies and Earthmen always sit at the center of the wall. I’ve always wondered why” (Delany 137). A few paragraphs later another guard makes a similar remark about how “moonies” always sit in the middle of the wall once you leave them alone while “Marsies and Earthmen” sit in the corner of the wall. This is clearly an absurd generalization created by the guards to distance themselves from the Tritonians so they can continue with their horrible behavior. This scene was likely included to show the absurdity of racism and how racists justify their hatred by inventing new sources of division between themselves and who they view as “the other.” Bron also describes the use of physical money on Earth, something that is virtually unheard of throughout the rest of the solar system. When he takes the Spike out on their date, he becomes extremely preoccupied with appearing wealthy and sophisticated. He asks for one of the most expensive wines the transport carries, insists on the finest table in the restaurant, and orders an obscene amount of food and liquor. One of the most important things to notice in this scene however is how the footmen act when Bron makes them do embarrassing things to earn relatively small amounts of cash. The women promptly obey each of Bron’s orders and even begin attacking each other when instructed to do so. Bron tells the Spike, “I spent a spell as a footman myself, once,” Bron said…”It gets to you” (Delany 170). This is far different from the culture we have been exposed to on Triton where material goods and money in general are not prized as highly. In fact, Sam even tells some Earthmen that almost every Tritionian is put on welfare at some point in their life so it isn’t seen as shameful in their society. Another fascinating difference is according to Bron, women and men are seen as almost completely equal in Tritonian society. However, on Earth women are more likely to be seen in servile roles like being waitresses or footmen. These three differences together create an image of Earth that is somewhat primitive and extremely flawed, providing an interesting juxtaposition to the Tritonian society we have been exposed to throughout the novel thus far.