The Sword and Laser discussion

OMW is the first military science fiction that I have read in a long time. Recently I have been more into the PKD side of things when it comes to sci-fi.

Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed the book, it being the first that I have actually read along with the community.

However, there was one thing that really stood out to me: the lack of engagement with the idea of the alien as other. I mean, obviously, they are foreign, but several times Scalzi comes close to letting us seem the conflict/s from their perspective. In fact Perry seems to be more empathetic and interested in these questions than many of his peers.

But Scalzi never seals the deal. I am going to be interested to see if he does so in the other books in the series.

I had a film studies professor in college who made the point that how we perceive "aliens" in sci-fi (and in this case popular film) said a lot about how we perceived "the other" in society. We often see them either as a threat (Alien, Independence Day) or as a benign mystery (ET, Close Encounters).

If we assume the premise, what is Scalizi telling us about the "other?" Perhaps that they are more complex than we assume? That we do ourselves a serious disservice if we assume motives similar to ours drive the "other."

Anyway, just some preliminary thoughts. Interested in what y'all have to say about it.

I think you're right - the aliens aren't Other in OMW and the rest of the series, but they're different. There's certainly a humanity-centric viewpoint but that's natural - the protagonists are human after all and they want themselves and humanity in general to survive. But the Obin (see later in the series) are an interesting take on what a species can be - they're alien, but not threatening Other even though they are highly capable. Species like the Consu are other, but in a very different way and there are suggestions that they see the universe in a very different way from us that puts their concerns on a different plane.

One thing I think was insufficiently explored in the series is the possibility of collaboration and accommodation. Every species without exception seems to view colonization as a zero-sum game and seems to need to gain new worlds at a very rapid pace. The Human Division seems like it might tweak this formula.

The thing is, even if colony worlds only hold a fraction of what Earth holds, each world should hold several hundred million to several billion beings... so it feels like species don't really need to expand incredibly rapidly (presuming they have roughly the net birth rate we do).

There are two separate issues here. First, the whole concept of "the other", or "outsiders". I agree with you both with the way Scalzi explores this topic.

This is a very interesting issue, whatever way you look at it. Be it from the Orwellian 1984 point of view (an outside enemy is needed), or any other point of view. However, as a rule of thumb, most author will anthropomorphise(?) the aliens. Scalzi at least calls attention of judging aliens by the way they look but, in most cases, the aliens still have human-like motives.

I remember one author (I think it was Carl Sagan) saying something akin to there being very little chance of communication with an alien race, because their whole thinking process would also be alien.

So we have two issues, or a two-fold issue. Turning races and populations (alien or otherwise) in "the other", and also the aliens not being "other" enough.

But Scalzi never seals the deal. I am going to be interested to see if he does so in the other books in the series.

... If we assume the premise, what is Scalizi telling us about the "other?"


The text itself does not really say much as aliens as the other, or provide much in ways of thinking about this or anything else of substance beyond the plot, because, as you point out the author never seals the deal.

OMW is about Plot uberalis, plot above all, character development (I have not seen so many flat characters since I last made Mickey Mouse pancakes for my kids), deeper discussion of issues, and just about anything else is driven under by the need to keep the plot going (and it is a good, page turning plot).

Anything gained from OMW in discussion of the "Other" is from the reader, not the author, because he has nothing to say about these issues in this work. Perhps a more charitable (and I don't feel particularly charitable about this book, but here it goes) way to put it is that the author merely creates scenes that touch on the other, but leaves it to the reader fill in any deeper thought on the issue.

I think the other is covered in Ghost Brigades. The first chapter really taught me a lesson in assumptions we make when reading a narrative, and that, I think, is part of experiencing/understanding the other.

Carter wrote: "But Scalzi never seals the deal. I am going to be interested to see if he does so in the other books in the series."

He does get into it later, especially in Last Colony/Zoe's Tale. Maybe not as deeply as other SF authors, but it was pretty satisfying.

(So there are some spoilery things here, but as I am new to Goodreads, I am not sure how to bracket them. All I can do is warn and beg forgiveness)

So I have been thinking about this a lot (because I am a nerd and this is what I do. Also, I don't own a TV).

Anyway, on further reflection I was struck by the fact that this book was published at least, in 2005. I am not sure when it was written, but I guess we can assume that at least some major work was done on it post 9/11. I bring this up because of the seeming religious aspect/motivation of the Consu. The CDF party line is that the Consu fight for "fun" yet what sets Perry apart is that he is willing to imagine them in a more complex fashion; he is the one willing to, literally, ask the question, "Why?"

Now I am not saying that Scalzi intended for this to be the case, but I think that it is important to look at the cultural context of the writing (sorry, there goes my theological education, showing itself again) to get a fuller picture of it. And, as opposed to Nathan, I am not all that interested in authorial intent. I frankly find the question "did the author intend this or that) to be, well boring. I am much more concerned about the places where I am left to "fill in" some of the "deeper thoughts." I'm a big kid, I can handle it (although MM pancakes sound awesome. I assume chocolate chips were involved! and don't tell me different! I want the dream!)

Anyway, while Scalzi hasn't made these things explicit in OMW (though perhaps in later books), I still think that the texts makes the case for seeing the Other complexly, from trying to put them into neat boxes of our own making. After all "the Consu were a race with whom we should clearly not mess." (348)

Carter wrote: "(So there are some spoilery things here, but as I am new to Goodreads, I am not sure how to bracket them. All I can do is warn and beg forgiveness)"

Just above the reply box, on the right-hand side is a link to a popup saying (some html is ok). It explains how to do some simple formatting of posts, including spoilers.

LOL.

thanks. I guess I should, like, read or something. I shall endeavor to do better in the future!

Carter wrote: And, as opposed to Nathan, I am not all that interested in authorial intent. I frankly find the question "did the author intend this or that) to be, well boring."

As a sight defense, the original question was on authorial intent.

" . . . what is Scalizi telling us about the "other?"

I tend to be courteous enough to actually answer the question being posed in the thread. The thread asked us to comment on Scalizi's intent, not on the text, not on a personal reading, and I did so.

On the Consu, I would argue that John did not read them in a complex way at all. He merely took them at face value, so when they seemed to present a ritualized, religious-type reason for action, he actually believed them.

Nathan wrote: "But Scalzi never seals the deal. I am going to be interested to see if he does so in the other books in the series.

... If we assume the premise, what is Scalizi telling us about the "other?"


T..."

Yeah, it's your basic made for Hollywood formula. There will be ample scenes which will make for great special effects, but you'll know the minimum about the characters, because in these kinds of books, characterization is what gets edited out so the plot can fit into the right amount of words required by the publisher.

That said, I liked the book, but I wasn't particularly in the mood for anything deep at the time. Had I been in a different mood, I might have judged it more harshly. I mean, the writing's certainly not ursula Leguin smooth, and the character's don't think much beyond what's right in front of them. But it was fun to read.

Nathan, I am sorry. You are totally right. My original question was poorly framed/worded in a way that begged for answers of authorial intent.

Let me reframe: What is the text (apart from authorial intent) telling us about the "other?" If you are freed of what Scalzi was intending, do you have different thoughts?

Also, couldn't the argument be made that (view spoiler)[at least engaging the Consu on the question, asking them the question, and then taking their answer seriously, important steps to more fully understanding them? (hide spoiler)]

Again, I put this in the context in which this novel was written when lots of ink was spilled about "why they hate us" and very few people took (or have taken the time) to really engage with what radical Islamist terrorist say about why they are attacking us. We get comments about our "freedom" but this isn't used in recruitment propaganda for these groups. (I am thinking about Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror here as well as Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama Bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America)

Again, not claiming intent on the part of Scalzi, but these were questions that were super dominant at the time the book came out at least (again, I don't know when he actually wrote the book).

Just some thoughts.