Reading Group: THE SPARROW Discussion

Discussion in 'Science Fiction' started by vortexreader, Apr 15, 2002.

  1. vortexreader

    vortexreader Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Welcome to the second Reading Group discussion. This month we're looking at The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell - a personal favourite. The novel was published to near unanimous critical acclaim and should make for an interesting discussion.

    Please remember, it's never too late to join us in this discussion! If you're new to this forum don't hesitate to contribute.

    Below are a few starter questions / statements. These are only my attempt at getting the discussion started...don't feel as though you have to respond to them! Ignore them if you want to!

    (1) The Sparrow was originally marketed as a non-genre novel - why do you think this was the case?

    (2) Russell uses a complex structure in her novel - switching time frames and character points of view. Does she successfully utilise this technique?

    (3) Emilio '...had discovered the outermost limit of faith and, in doing so, had located the exact boundary of despair. It was at that moment that he learned, truly, to fear God.' Is this an adequate summary of the path the character of Emilio takes?

    (4) Why were Emilio's hands cut? Is there a metaphor to be found in this act?

    (5) Russell is a trained, multi-disciplined scientist and uses areas of knowledge in The Sparrow that aren't normally considered the domain of SF (such as anthropology, geology, economics etc). Has this changed your opinion of what the Science in 'Science Fiction' can mean?

    (6) The Sparrow is, in many ways, a traditional First Contact novel. In what ways does it differ to other similiar books?

    (7) Personally, I find the characters in The Sparrow incredibly believable and endearing. Do you agree that without her obvious skill at characterisation, Russell's novel would have been less successful?

    (8) Does the blunt language and portrayal of violence and sexuality jar with the more philosophical and spiritual aspects of the novel?

    (9) Can a non-religious person fully appreciate the novel?

    (10) Score the book out of 10!
     
  2. estranghero

    estranghero Lord Deceiver

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2001
    Messages:
    1,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay, was feeling guilty for not being able to participate in last month's discussion of EG so here's my two cents for this month.

    Because it was more like a philosophical/ theological take on the possiblity of alien life rather than science-fiction. If you've noticed, the science of their ship was not taken up as much as other sf books.

    Yes. There's an idea in the story that I really liked, that the Church gives a view of God as a "kind and loving deity". But Emilio, after going through such harrowing experiences, supposes that maybe God isn't such deity. That maybe God isn't really listening. Considering I have a Roman Catholic background, that's powerful stuff.


    That's an easy one. It's a ironic take on the Crucifixion.

    Yes. The book isn't really about First Contact, it's about how humans react, whether theists or atheists, when confronted with the inconceivable. For the atheists, it may be indescribable aliens that could drive men mad. For theists, it could be the idea that God is out to get them.

    Actually, stylistically, I think it works to its advantage because it gives both sides fairly well so it kinda bounces off the two motifs against each other. You know, spiritual vs. physical side of the story.

    That depends. Whether a person or not is non-religious or atheistic, it's whether the person can understand the moralistic and philosophical undertones of the story that they can appreciate the novel.

    A 8 or 9. This is one of the few books I read that integrated philosophy/ theology into SF/F very well and made it easily understandable.

    Whew! Sorry I couldn't be more controversial in my answers. Mebbe if someone comes up with a statement that I can play devil's advocate, I'll jump in... [​IMG]


    [This message has been edited by estranghero (edited April 16, 2002).]
     
  3. Rob B

    Rob B \m/ BEER \m/ Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2000
    Messages:
    10,061
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    173
    DISCLAIMER-It has been a few years since reading the book...

    1) C'mon, you know many folks look down their nose at Science Fiction! They wanted a wider audience.

    2) I think she absolutely is successful at using this technique. The tension between what the preist goes through on Rukhat (Sp?) and back on Earth play of each other pretty well.

    4.) I think his hands were cut to symbolize Christ's wounds from being nailed to the cross.

    5.) Not really, but I'm not much of a stickler for that anyway.

    6.) It differs in that Religion is such a strong issue. (though I haven't read Blish's A Case for Conscience, I think the first contact there involved a priest). The only other 'first contact' novel I've read that touches upon religion is Sagan's thought provoking Contact.

    7.) From what I remember the characters were believable.

    8.) The language, violence and sexuality didn't jar too much with me. It was a strong aspect paralleling the strong aspect of faith and religion.

    9.) Yes, I enjoyed it and I don't consider myself religious.

    10.) 8 out of 10
     
  4. Kamakhya

    Kamakhya Seeker of Stuff

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2002
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok, my turn.

    Under what genre was it marketed??? This is clearly a Sci-Fi novel, so I go with FitzFlagg's response. It was a ploy to make it more palatable to non-sci-fi fans. [​IMG]

    More or less. I have to say that at first it kind of bothered me. However, by the end, I thought the use was brilliant. It enabled the book to (a) add a lot of suspence (what made this wreck of a man?) and (b) emphasize the fall of Emilio.

    This is a tough question. On the one hand, it seemed as if Emilio was pushed so hard that he lost his faith. On the other hand, the last two pages make clear that he was a sort of Job character (which Russell mentions in the text) and that he would eventually find his faith again.

    I really enjoyed the explanation given in the book. The beautiful, yet useless vines. Emilio became a pretty, but useless entity. What an intense, yet understandable explanation. This is akin to the foot binding of Chinese women or the corseting on Victorian women. In a way, this was the emasculating of Emilio.

    The use of his hands emulates the crucifiction too, but I think the limiting of his abilities far more important.

    No. LeGuin uses her knowledge of anthropolgy and physical science in her novels too. I have a B.A. in Anthropology and one in Sociology. This is my favorite kind of story! [​IMG] All too often, Sci-Fi authors have no idea of how to present culture from a completely different context. This story was just so cool from an anthropologist's point of view. A culture where the eaten were sentient. Wow. By having the team meet the food first really sunk the point home when it was finally brought to light at the end of the book. Brilliant.

    Often, first contacts are with the dominate species, or even more commonly, the dominant species is the only sentient species on the planet. This book broke those boundaries.

    Her creation of the culture of Rakhat is stunning. I was disappointed not to see more. I think the ideas could have carried the book, but, you are right, her choice of characters and the development of them was superb.

    Oh no. They were essential to the story. Emilio took a fall and to do that it necessitated the most extreme of measures. This was a study in the endurance of faith. How far could Emilio be pushed? From the extacy of love to the depths of hell. To be raped by God was a powerful image.

    I am not particularly religious and certainly not Christian, though I am into the study of religion and mysticism. The use of Jesuits was perfect. Jesuits are a world apart from traditional Christians like the Qabalasists are from Judaic.

    Job is an interesting Christian tale and this story explores it in a whole new way.

    When I first read this question, I was sure you got it wrong...you must have meant, Can a religious person fully appreciate the novel. But upon thinking about it, I see this point of view. Emilio is shown that God is cruel and He will test you to the limits. He overcomes the test and begins to rebuild himself.

    This book displayed a culture much like our own, but with one small difference...that their food is sentient.

    What does this mean to a religion that exalts sentience? Supposedly Man has control over all species on Earth. But what if our food could talk back to us? Would we do the same thing? Would we force our food into servitude and humiliation? Is their culture really that much different than our own? These are the kind of questions that would perplex a Christian as much as an atheist.

    I give it a 9. It is close to perfect, but not quite there. Some of the passages bored me and seemed drawn out.

    All in all, this was one of the most exciting and thought provoking books I have read in a long time. The characters were believable and heartfelt, the plot was engaging and the ending blew me away. It is a far cry from A Case of Conscience, which I was not too thrilled with.

    Thank you Vortex for sharing it.

    [This message has been edited by Kamakhya (edited April 17, 2002).]
     
  5. vortexreader

    vortexreader Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't have time to add my thoughts at the moment but I just want to thank the three of you who have responded so far. Your opinions are exceptionally well thought out and have added another dimension to my appreciation of this book...and given me a lot to think about. Thank you!
     
  6. vortexreader

    vortexreader Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I really wish I could say that it was because the publisher wanted to take SF to a broader audience but I doubt that was the case. More likely, because of the absence of 'hardware' I think the publishers were worried that the book wouldn't appeal to the normal SF readership.

    I think this is a very difficult technique to employ successfully...but Russell does so remarkably well. I read a lot outside of SF as well and this technique is used quite often but rarely so well.

    I've found the answers to this question that suggest this act can be seen as a metaphor for the crucifixion intriguing. I hadn't come to that conclusion myself. Perhaps simplistically, I'd only seen the mutiliation of Emilio as a dehumanising act. What sort of 'man' is a man that can't use his own hands? So much of what makes mankind a success is related to that opposable thumb of ours...without this refinement aren't we, in some way, nothing more than animals?
     
  7. vortexreader

    vortexreader Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, it hasn't changed my perception of what can be called SF but it does remind me of how limited traditional SF can be. It doesn't have to be all spaceships and nanomachines...there are many other areas of science that writers could explore. The lack of detail regarding the ship in The Sparrow didn't bother me...the hardware was never meant to be the focus. Actually, I thought Russell covered the relativistic effects of near speed of light travel very succinctly...you didn't need a degree to be able to comprehend it.
     
  8. vortexreader

    vortexreader Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Sparrow would be nothing, a non-event, if it wasn't for the characters Russell has created. I think good characterisation is often lacking in SF and makes otherwise interesting premises uninteresting. This isn't the case here. The only other character in SF that I can think of that is created with so much detail, depth and compassion is Paul Atreides.
     
  9. vortexreader

    vortexreader Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not only non-religious, I'm anti-religion but that didn't stop me from enjoying this aspect of the novel. In fact, I found Emilio's faith (and subsequent questioning of that faith) very moving...the novel would be nothing without this.

    A definite 9/10 for me (I don't believe there's such thing as a 10/10). I enjoyed it as much the second time around as the first...repeat enjoyment has to mean something!



    [This message has been edited by vortexreader (edited May 02, 2002).]
     
  10. Kamakhya

    Kamakhya Seeker of Stuff

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2002
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Vortexreader said:

    Whew...for a while I thought I was going to offend you. People can get rather touchy about religion.

    I enjoyed Anne's perpetual arguments with Emilio over the nature of faith and God. In particular, how they dealt with the horrors one can face in life. I loved how Mary Russell took on both sides of the religious argument and made both seem reasonable and highly personal. I loved how she pointed out the fallibility of priests, it made them so much more human than they are often portrayed.

    I am somewhat anti-religious, but this book portrayed christianity in a very realistic manner. Russell made Emilio a lovable character and she worked hard to make the reader understand his faith. It was not preachy like some authors, but it also was not antagonistic like Morrow's works. I am still trying to decide if Russell's underlying philosophy is pro or anti christianity. On the one hand, she seems to work through Emilio's trauma and maintain his faith (at the end) and on the other, she created a situation that is about as shocking as possible for a christian.

    All in all, The Sparrow is one of the best books I have ever read. It was incredibly thought provoking. I will have to track down the sequel. Interestingly enough, this is also one book I would absolutely have never picked up on my own.
     
  11. sueVee

    sueVee Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi

    I am new to this. I have enjoyed reading all the comments on The Sparrow. They have given me much to think about but I am not ready to comment yet. I was given this book and its sequel by a friend. It was not a book I would have picked up myself. Then I found I could not put it down. However, when I read the sequel I was a little disappointed as I felt it did not live up to the first. This book really didn't need a sequel. IMHO, it is much better as a stand alone because it leaves the reader seeking answers instead of tying everything up in nice neat packages.
     
  12. clong

    clong Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I finally finished this book. This is what I thought:

     
  13. FicusFan

    FicusFan Anitaverse Refugee

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2002
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I didn't realize there was a discussion thread for this book. I have also read it and thought it was pretty close to sublime.

    I read it and its sequel 3 or 4 years ago, and just recently suggested it to my fiction group. We have read SF and Fantasy before when I suggested it, so they are flexible, but may not read it on their own. Anyway they all loved it and several were asking about the sequel (which I agree is not as good, but perhaps nothing could be).

    I thought the characterization was what made this book. It was so real, so humane, so touching that I just wanted to roll in it. :) I knew those people and felt I could find them living somewhere. Just amazing.

    I really liked the way she portrayed Emillio as being a fully rounded person, who chose to be a priest. Too often these characters are dead inside so there is nothing for them to sacrifice in terms of human contact (sex, family), or they make excuses and have both. Emillio made the tough choice every day, because he really believed, and yet he had strong feelings and would have been happy to fully express his humanity.

    I thought the intertwining and backwards storytelling was very well done. At first it annoyed me, but once I accepted it, I was sucked into the story.

    I really liked all the character development better than the actual trip and actions on the planet. I thought it was a different pace, and was too rushed. I also thought the characters on the trip were woefully under-fleshed out compared to those before. I really didn't care when bad things started to happen to them. Which may have been a deliberate act on MDR's part, to show that those we know and care about seem more important than those we don't - when we are all the same in the eyes of god, and supposedly the government.

    I had a very different take on the food on the planet. I don't think MDR was talking about some other type of people, I think she was talking about us. We have decided that animals are not sentient in any way that counts, and don't really have emotions, or in some cases feel pain, and of course that they don't have a soul. If we are willing to torture (medical research), Kill and eat other living beings because they are different than us, and we feel inferior in some way, what hope do we have with anyone else we meet who is not exactly like us ?

    What claim to humanity can we really have if our life and happiness is built on the suffering of others ? How can we claim to love, serve or belong to god if we don't think his/her benefits, care and concern can extend to all others ?

    I think the whole thing was about how from the love of god on down we make allowances for those we know and care about, and refuse to for those who are strangers, different, or totally apart from us.

    I thought it was a magnificent book, and would give it a 9 or 10.

    By the way she has written another book since these, for those who want to read more of her writing. It is called A Thread of Grace, and is not genre, its about the story of how Italians sheltered and saved thousands of Jews during WWII. It is based on true events and took her about 7 years to research and write. This was the first book my fiction group read and they wanted more MDR.

    She is now working on a book about Lawrence of Arabia and the conference that defined the boundaries of the countries in the Middle East. Hopefully it won't take 7 years.
     
  14. Raule

    Raule Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    53
    Interesting that she is working on a book about Lawrence of Arabia. When I read The Sparrow, I remember thinking at the time how Emilio reminded me somewhat of what I'd read about Lawrence. Lawrence was short and slight in stature from I remember of his physical description, and there was something about him that remained asexual and untouchable. I have always wondered if the author intended to strike a parallel between Emilio and his struggle with God and sexuality in the same way that Lawrence struggled. I'm probably far off the mark on this, but it was just something that struck me at the time of my reading. At the time, I chalked it up to my overreaching imagination.
     
  15. Beleg

    Beleg Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    101
    I am reading The Sparrow at the moment and Russell is a bit too slick for her own good.
     
  16. kged

    kged Gloriam Imperator

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Off the top of my head, I'd struggle to think of a better SF novel, and damn few mainstream novels come close either. It's nice to discover this thread - I actually did a search to see if anyone else was aware of the fact that Brad Pitt (!) is going to play Fr Sandoz in a movie adaption. He isn't the first name I would have thought of to play him, but given the right material he is a fine actor. This could be a real landmark of SF film, if they get it right...
     
  17. Hereford Eye

    Hereford Eye Just Another Philistine

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Messages:
    4,520
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Seems to me MDR makes plain the hands were cut to demonstrate to Emilio and to the world his utter dependence on his patron; he became Supaari's property. Sandoz says "...he evidently decided to ransom us and brought us to his home and took responsibility for us. He made us part of his household."
    John Candotti then explains the significance of viewing the ivy.
    Which is what Sandoz would say about his life as a priest; it ought to be a complete and utter dependence on his god. Living that belief ruined his hands and led him to even more debasement through the actions of Hlavin Kitheri, events that eradicated his faith. The book is the story of how he got from that despair to "Do you suppose anyone was listening?" which isn't a reaffirmation of faith but an openness to such a reaffirmation.
    I can see no crucifixion metaphor here. He does not undergo this torture for the good of others; he undergoes this torture because he is who he is and how he acts because of who he is brings him to this point. He is so conditioned to believing that god 'let' this happen he fails to see that he made this happen. MDR is very explicit about the parallel to European colonization of the Americas, the tragedies that happened even with the best of intentions simply because the newcomers could not understand the indigenous peoples could be as human as they considered themselves. Emilio and his band saw what they wanted to see because they didn't know any other way to see things.
    Until we can drop our preconceptions of what is 'right', there isn't going to be any understanding.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2006
  18. LordBalthazar

    LordBalthazar Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    51
    While I liked this book, I certainly didn't love it. The notion of a missionary expedition being dispatched to another planet is an interesting one, obviously paralleling the Jesuit expeditions of the past, but I had a hard time buying the fact that some fifty or so years in the future, a religious order would possess the ability to put together such a trip. More to the point, what of the secular governments or the military-industrial complex? Wouldn't they be more likely to play a part in this? Granted, you could argue that this story takes place in an alternate universe but, even so, I'd argue the road that got them to this point would have been radically different to the one we're familiar with. It would have taken much more than the U.S. losing a couple of trade wars to Japan (Russell's argument).

    Loved the characters. Very well drawn, very believable. But, at times, I found the writing a little silly. Not so much the dialogue as the description of the bonding scenes in which characters bond by sharing uproarious laughter over marginally humorous situations. Also, her constant referencing of pop culture kept drawing me out of the story. Beau Bridges. Caesar Romero.

    Loved the characters, loved the journey and would have liked the book a lot more if not for the end which, quite frankly, reminded me of Spielberg's mistep in Schindler's List. In the movie, Spielberg tells an effective story and then has to hit the audience members over the head with the maudlin and unecessary scene in which Schindler breaks down and the people he has helped crowd around him and give him a communical group hug. In the Sparrow, it would have been enough to have Emilio's faith shattered by what befalls his friends not to mention the utter disaster of their mission. But just to drive home the point, Russell has him sold into slavery. Then has his hands mutilated (Yes, symbolic of Christ's crucifixion for any stragglers who may have missed the painfully obvious parallels). Then he's is raped. Repeatedly. By his new owner. By his owner's friends. By the guards. At this point, why not make him eat a daily excrement sandwich? Finally, to top things off, just to make certain we understand that Emilio has hit rock bottom, Russel sets up an incredibly unlikely bit of staging that allows him to murder an innocent without even realizing what he is doing until it's too late. I mean come on. We get it! We get it!

    Thoughtful and interesting but, in the end, incredibly patronizing, I give The Sparrow a solid 6.5
     
  19. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Greybeard

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I read it some years ago, but I can remember two things about it: it was an impressive piece of writing - but I didn't like it much. I'm not now quite sure why, possibly because it is too downbeat. I have had the sequel for many moons, but haven't read it and possibly never will.
     
  20. kimmarc

    kimmarc New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    some thoughts

    I read The Sparrow a number of years ago and tore right through the book. I really did feel like I knew the characters especially Emilio. I immediately read the sequel and was sorely disappointed.
    I have just reread the book for my book club (my choice) and still thought it was wonderful. It was interesting to read it again as I am more informed about Sephardim and Judaism so Mendes really spoked to me.

    I also read the sequel again and I have to say that I don't think I could truly appreciate it the first time round because I was so jazzed about The Sparrow.

    In some ways, I thought it was better than the first book now, I think because it delves that much deeper and explanations are to be had.

    I also didn't really think of the destruction of Meelo's hands a crucifiction parallel. That never crossed my mind. I thought of it as a grand and serious misunderstanding because no one would agree to something like that.

    I'm looking forward to hearing what my book club thinks.