A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

Recent Posts

Friday October 3rd
One Cannot Beat Up Too Much On Naomi Klein . . . (0 comments)
Hey, I Feel Better Now! (Part Deux) (0 comments)
Hey, I Feel Better Now! (0 comments)
Mea Culpa (1 comments)
The Vice Presidential Debate (1 comments)
Thursday October 2nd
More On "Libertarian Paternalism" (0 comments)
"Everyman"? (0 comments)
I Hope This Gets Circulation All Across The State Of Colorado (0 comments)
Brilliant (0 comments)
Tuesday September 30th
Gone Fishin'? (0 comments)
Older Stories...

Incomprehensible Aliens

Posted by sammler on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:14:27 PM EST

[Contains spoilers for Old Man's War, and maybe some David Brin novels.]

I finally got around to reading John Scalzi's Old Man's War, of which this is not a review.  It illustrated what I think is a pattern of intellectual laziness and inconsistency in the science-fictional treatment of religion.  This is not a particular failing of Mr. Scalzi's, but he provides a ready example.

In Old Man's War, as in David Brin's sequence of space operas beginning with Startide Rising, humanity attains interstellar travel only to find itself in a universe crowded with largely hostile aliens. 

A version of King Kong in which the monster collapsed under his own weight and slowly died of a punctured lung would not make a gripping story.  Similarly the aliens' behavior must be, shall we say, game-theoretically suboptimal, lest we end up with a novel about Pareto optimality and Nash equilibria.  The novelist must decide how to make this suboptimality plausible to the reader.

Mr. Brin produced what appears to be the canonical solution to this dilemma:  the aliens are irrational because they're all crazy religious freaks!  This implausible solution has been adopted wholesale by Mr. Scalzi.  At least he does not follow Mr. Brin, who makes it doubly bizarre by also silently assuming that humanity will "outgrow" religion as a matter of course during its own progress to the stars.

Aliens might be incomprehensible -- like the insectile, monadic robots of Stanislaw Lem's The Invincible -- without invoking the unconvincing mantra of religion. Conversely, religious humans might appear comprehensible, or even logical, to one willing to take seriously the tenets of faith.  It might be worth doing.

< The Shooting | A Policy Wishlist For People Like Me >
Display: Sort:
Religious? Yes. Crazy Freaks? Not So Much (none / 0) (#1)
by Scalzi on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 12:35:53 PM EST

You wrote:

"The aliens are irrational because they're all crazy religious freaks!  This implausible solution has been adopted wholesale by Mr. Scalzi. "

Hmmm... I see where you are coming from, although I don't know that I agree with it.

Primarily, I would disagree that the aliens seen as religious are either crazy or freaks (or irrational). Two alien races are seen as being influenced by religion in the book: The Consu and the Rraey. The Consu are definitely not crazy nor are they freaks -- they are somewhat incomprehensible, but that's a factor of being so much more advanced (technologically and otherwise) that their motives are difficult for humans to parse. I would say their religion is incomprehensible to the humans, but I think that's in large part because the humans have not gone out of their way to try to understand it (for example, the humans see the opening battle prayer as something akin to the national anthem -- i.e., a per forma ritual -- when it's rather more significant than that).

Remember that as a matter of narration, we're seeing things from the point of view of John Perry, who is not an omniscient narrator; he's seeing the Consu initially as the human government in the story sees them. I tried to make it clear Perry recognizes that the Consu attach a deeper symbolism to battles than CDF intelligence does. The Consu certainly are guided by religion, but despite the humans' inability to figure out the teleology, there's not a suggestion that the religion itself is irrational or freakish.

The second race seen motivated by religious factors is the Rraey, who launch the attack on Coral in order to obtain resources important to their religious practices. Certainly from the human point of view this is not a good reason, and the humans themselves are dismissive of the Rraey, and the technological constraints they see Rraey religion placing on technological/social development. But again, the POV is from John Perry, who is not in a position to know all the details of the Rraey religion, and who gets his information from the human database of information, which may or may not be entirely reliable.

I don't think it's inappropriate to show alien cultures influenced by their religions, as among other things our cultures so clearly are. I also don't think it's inappropriate to show humans having biases or misunderstandings of the religions and cultures of those they fight, since (again) that's something that's not unknown here in reality. I do agree that in the narration the aliens are seen as incomprehensible and irrational, but the question to ask is: Is that because they are (and, additionally, that it is due to their religion), or because the humans in the story are working from bad premises?  Are the humans in the book taking seriously the tenets of faith of those whom they fight against?

I have my own personal opinion on the matter, of course. Yours may (or may not) vary from this. There's a lot that's left ambiguous in the text partly so I could expand on it in future books (and partly because the book has to end sometime) but also because I think it has the potential to engender discussion and debate (like this).

I will say this: There's a character in the OMW sequel The Ghost Brigades who is both alien and religious; I also think he's the most morally-engaged person in the story, and his moral point of view ends up being -- in my opinion -- the heart of the story.

-- John Scalzi 

 



Display: Sort:

Our Sponsor

Search

Login

Make a new account

Our Sponsor:

Donate

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

Our Sponsor: