On deaths, Emilio and suffering

I definitely agree about how dreary and depressing both of these books have been with the massive amount of deaths, especially of innocents -- or worse, the deaths of innocents contrasted directly with the thriving of the guilty.

I think you can certainly pick out a "story of Job" like theme with regards to Emilio and the trials he endures in the name of his own faith. Emilio is (arguably, of course) one of the most pious and sinless characters in the series, up until all of the rage and humiliation of being raped repeatedly and constantly leads him to murder an innocent. We can imagine God, watching Emilio, his most steadfast servant, testing his faith and his ability to persevere, torturing him and punishing him at every turn, either for God's own sick satisfaction, to settle a bet with the devil about the nature of piousness, or to prove a point about the greater good.

I don't know, I guess this is a grandiose idea, almost bigger than the themes of the book itself, but it's what kept occuring to me.. I kept putting Emilio's story (or his backstory) into this Jobian framework, and it kept fitting.

A Few More Deaths Please...

May I just note here, that I do not think enough people were needlessly killed or maimed in this novel. I think we needed a few more depressed people in need of a world of help. I think in this book, may of the themes regarding God and our relationship to others were drown in the constant misery and destruction that took place over and over and over again. Not only was there too much destruction, Emilio was always given chances to recover and then fell apart soon thereafter. It was too predictable, even more so than the first book. Even though we were not told the ending to the story in the beginning of the novel as we did in The Sparrow, it was almost impossible to miss the implications of what would come in the second book. If Emilio did not return to Ratchet, Chidlren of God wouldnt have been written. As soon as Gina was introduced it was obvious that they would fall in love, make love, and then he would disappear off to outerspace. Beyond the basic simlicity of the plot line, it was still a compelling story to read, it simply wore me out the farther I delved into the novel.

Perhaps that is the point of the book, to take the reader on a path of emotional upheavle in an attempt to convey how difficult it is to question one's own faith in God and relationship to other beings created by that God. By knowing ahead of time "Gods" plan, perhaps then the reader should understand from a Gods perspective that while we want the best for Emilio and his friends, creation has been created, we know what will happen, but now we must simply wait it out and watch. I for one, am glad I do not normally have a godlike perspective, I would be a very depressed God.

On God's Will

After the end of The Sparrow, Emilio Sandoz seems broken and abandoned by God. We might hold out a hope that God works in mysterious ways... but mostly, it seems like he is a cruel comedian, making every well-intentioned action into a horrible joke.

Children of God starts out with much the same message. Emilio backs away from God and religion. He immerses himself in his linguistic work, leaves the Jesuit order, and abandons celibacy for love. We see Emilio becoming happier and more whole as he secularizes his life.

But then Giuliani and Carlo interfere - or is it really God interfering? Giuliani wants to send Emilio back to Rakhat for the good of Catholicism as a whole, to heal the breach between the Pope and the Jesuit organization, but also because he still believes it is the best thing to do for Emilio himself. The involvement of both Giuliani as Father General and the Pope, as God's representatives, seem to imply God wills Emilio go go back to Rakhat. As for Carlo? Well, God uses all as tools and works in mysterious ways...

And Emilio does seem to have a purpose in Rakhat. Sofia is still alive and, with Supaari, has been a driving force behind the Runa rebellion (ironic, isn't it, that two non-Runa should play such pivotal roles...) But Emilio's role seems to be to heal the breach that's formed - between Jana'ata and Runa, and between mother and child. He is the bridge that allows the reform Jana'ata and the triumphant Runa to open negotiations; it is to Emilio that Isaac gives his music of God, the harmonies of Jana'ata and Runa and human DNA. As Isaac says to Emilio, "It's God's music. you came here so I would find it" (page 427).

So perhaps all of Emilio's sufferings and trials were all a part of God's plan for revealing to his children their unity.

Language and Metaphores

Thinking back to our conversation in class, I was wondering about the function of language and metaphores that were laced purposefully throughout The Sparrow and in general the role that language played in The Conquest Of America. When The Jesuits arrive on their allien plannet they are prepared and in fact anticipating finding new languages. I think it is interesting to note that they spend most of the book looking to understand how language works as a window into what the plannet and the native inhabitants have to offer. On the other side of this was Columbus who went searching for something he knew to exist, found something entirely different, and yet imposed what little knowledge he had about those people and their culture to take advantage of them for personal gains (even if he said it were in the name of god and for gods glory, some of that glory goes to himself for being gods intrument...). He assumes that they do not even have a langage, that they are so primative that they cannot even communicate with the Spanish explorers.

Not only does Columus assume that they have no language, but if they are able to communicate that their societal structure is exactly the same as it would be in Europe. Everything is similar in some fashion or another, and he draws connections between words that sound familiar. For the Jesuits, they impliment biblical metaphors without even attempting to use them to understand the Runa. For example (and the most overused one in the book) was the garden. The downfall and slaughter of the Runa comes from the garden which foreigners introduce. Though this isnt exactly the use of language that the Jesuits use to encounter the Runa, they still draw connections to God and his interplay with all of his children.

Overal, I simply think it is interesting to think about how one being could encounter another that looks so similar to the self and has all the same manerisms and assume that it has no language. The Jesuits went looking for language, knew that it would be there. Language is what enticed them to travel so far away. For Columbus there was no drive for language, only the drive for money. Speculating on the money issue, perhaps that is the reason Sandoz will go back in the second book. I have not read it yet, but there would be no second book if he didnt go back..

How to define the other

We define the other in opposition to ourselves: the other is what is not me. That is, everything that is not self is other. Since there are degrees of not-self - ranging from your very close friends on one end of the spectrum, to foreigners with wildly different customs or aliens on the other end - there must also be a range of other.

Sometimes, we're willing to give those towards the far end of the spectrum - let's call them the extreme other - a break when it comes to moral relativity. We say they're different, so we can't hold them to our standards.

But where does that line of permissible difference stop? For some people, even the slightest not-other (i.e., anyone who's not you) can't be held to the same standards as oneself. For example, Emilio (before and after he leaves the priesthood) holds no one to the same celibacy standards he holds himself to.

But for others, anyone who's a close other should be held to their own standards. For example, Voelker has a pretty strict idea about what all Jesuits should do.

I guess I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this, except that the whole idea of "other" is a pretty relative concept.