July Book Club - The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell
TurquoiseTastic
Kerygmania Host
in Heaven
This week a book that has been on my shelf for many years - a story of a Catholic mission to an extraterrestrial world. Here is a link to World of Books...
And of course you could also get it you-know-where....
I will post some questions for discussion in a couple of weeks. You can post below if you plan to join in, but feel free to chip in at any time. Happy reading!
And of course you could also get it you-know-where....
I will post some questions for discussion in a couple of weeks. You can post below if you plan to join in, but feel free to chip in at any time. Happy reading!
Comments
It's physical and sexual abuse.
In trying to refresh my memory I came across a review by someone who had just reread it after 50 years. Realizing it had also been about 50 years for me too I thought, why not? I was surprised how much I didn't recall but by and large I could see why I liked it in my late teens but also why I thought it ho-hum now.
That's one where I'd personally strongly recommend not reading it. It sort of broke the first book for me. I can't say much more without spoilers and I understand sensible minds can differ but if (like me) you aren't a big sequels person, this is one to skip.
I found it a hard read, just as I did on my first attempt nearly thirty years ago, mainly because the structure of the book makes it clear that something terrible has happened / will happen and one is constantly waiting for this to occur. And this is postponed until very late in the book so the apprehension continually builds and it becomes more and more difficult to read on. I think I would not have completed it this time either had I not volunteered to lead this discussion!
So anyway. Some questions.
1. The story is written as two alternating parallel "before and after" streams. I've mentioned one effect this structure had on me - what do others think about it?
2. What do you think of the strictly "science fiction" elements, particularly the alien world and culture?
3. Language and languages are featured prominently - what does this add to the book?
4. Most of the book is set on Earth - there is a lot of build-up and character background - more than half the book elapses before they even get to Rakhat. Why?
5. As mentioned upthread, the ending (or, chronologically, the middle) is intentionally extremely shocking and disturbing. Is this justified - is it effective (not necessarily the same question)?
6. How strong is the parallel between the mission to Rakhat and European missions such as that of Francis Xavier?
7. The central theme of the book - I think pretty explicitly - is the will of God and whether and how the existence of intense evil and suffering can be reconciled with this. Does the book imply that God did indeed lead the crew to Rakhat? Does Sandoz's effort to find meaning in it all have any hope?
That's enough to be going on with perhaps! I have some more thoughts of my own but will wait a day or two to post them.
I really enjoyed it. It helped to build the tension. It’s an oft used device and I think the author pulled it off quite well. It can often bomb.
2. What do you think of the strictly "science fiction" elements, particularly the alien world and culture?
I am a big science fiction fan. The sci fi elements were fine although there was not a hard sci fi aspect to the story. The technological elements were more fantastic than not. The story could just have easily been on a futuristic earth. Putting it on another planet somehow allowed the reader to distance themselves from the cultures to a degree.
3. Language and languages are featured prominently - what does this add to the book?
It helped to reinforce just exactly the extent to which language is culture-bound.
4. Most of the book is set on Earth - there is a lot of build-up and character background - more than half the book elapses before they even get to Rakhat. Why?
It helps to provide suspense and introduce us to the characters in their native habitat.
5. As mentioned upthread, the ending (or, chronologically, the middle) is intentionally extremely shocking and disturbing. Is this justified - is it effective (not necessarily the same question)?
The whole story was perceived and the arc moved towards the ending. If there was a different ending it would require story leading up to it.
6. How strong is the parallel between the mission to Rakhat and European missions such as that of Francis Xavier?
I do not know enough about this topic to make an informed opinion.
7. The central theme of the book - I think pretty explicitly - is the will of God and whether and how the existence of intense evil and suffering can be reconciled with this. Does the book imply that God did indeed lead the crew to Rakhat? Does Sandoz's effort to find meaning in it all have any hope?
I think the book leaves open the question of whether or not G-d lead the crew to Rakhut. We always try to find meaning in our circumstances; whether we find it in every set of circumstances is another matter. I wonder what Viktor Frankl might have said?
I think the sci-fi "mechanisms" are the weakest part of the book. I cannot believe in the asteroid technology; and if it were possible, surely unmanned missions would have been undertaken with or without the radio messages. It's incredible that Rakhat has plants and animals they can eat and yet there seems to be no problem with alien bacteria etc. etc. etc. - you just have to suspend your disbelief. Fortunately it is reasonably easy to do so since the plot is gripping. I think as you say @Caissa it is more like a futuristic earth - it has, of course, something in common with "The Time Machine"... - and what you say about "distancing" is very salient. Both the reader and the Jesuit superiors are "distant" from Rakhat and attempt to interpret from that distance. But of course Sandoz and his friends are removing that distance, becoming "immanent" on Rakhat if you will. In this way they increase their understanding and make themselves vulnerable.
Also unlike most interstellar sci-fi special relativity is acknowledged - not absolutely correcly, but quite close. I think this must be a deliberate choice, since usually sci-fi just ignores relativity and the author is clearly prepared to ignore other constraints for plot reasons. I think it is in order that Sandoz gets to see some of the long-term consequences of his life and ministry as they have played out on Earth during his absence, in particular his direct and indirect effects on Felipe Reyes.
On the other hand I very much like the alien cultures and language. Perhaps the author's specialisms in anthropology and linguistics enable her to make these more convincing. In fact I wish there were more of it. I feel we are just beginning to get excited about Rakhat and how it works when the catastrophe begins to rapidly unfold. That I think is intentional - the reader and characters both experience this painful destruction of wonder - but it does mean that our enjoyment of the author's worldbuilding is brief.
I think the extensive backstory is not only to attach us to the characters but also connects to the theme. We see examples of meaning coming out of experience and suffering. So both Emilio and Sofia have previously undergone a number of forms of deprivation and abuse on Earth, in many ways foreshadowing what will ultimately happen on Rakhat. Perhaps the intention is to give some hope that Sandoz could plausibly have resources in his past life to attempt to give some meaning to his terrible ordeals.
One interesting thing is that the humans don't really do anything wrong. This is not a tale punishing human arrogance or cupidity. (I mean, you could say they should have done their research better and been more cautious, but that's about it). And it is the most innocent things that lead to disaster, in particular the gardening and the babies. So it's slightly puzzling that the "inquest" concentrates almost entirely on what Sandoz's moral responsibility is or is not, and does not really discuss the moral responsibility of the aliens at all. Surely pretty much all the structural and personal blame should be borne by the alien society and individuals.
I am now reading Shusako Endo's "Silence" and the parallels seem extremely strong so far. We have Jesuit missionaries going to Japan - the contrast between the happy, positive experience of "first contact" and the later horrible persecutions - the difficulty in judging those who have undergone torture - the central character feeling that God should have protected them more, but that without God the suffering and failure become simply absurd and meaningless - we even have a two-tier society: the peasants are like the Runa and the samurai are like the Jana'ata! And that's just in the first four chapters. At least the samurai aren't going to be eating the peasants.... probably? Russell acknowledges a whole load of influences at the end of the book - but not Endo! Surely there must be some connection?