Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 09:46:51 -0400 From: Misha Bernard Subject: [*FSF-L*] FSFFU-LIT: BDG: Brain Plague To: feministsf-lit@UIC.EDU Hi! This month our book discussion group selection is Joan Slonczewski's _Brain Plague_ (2000) To start the discussion, I wanted to throw out some different ideas I thought of I'd be interested in discussing, and then mention my particular topic (which we can all ignore =) ) 1) How do you all feel about Chrys' changed art? She uses a new tag- Azetidine- after the micros' 'drug'. Does this include them in the artmaking process? Is it 'fair', is it collaborative? 2) When the carrier group Chrys is introduced into campaign for micro rights (at least some of them- Selenite seems to come around some toward the end, but probably doesn't support micro rights, just carriers' rights to have them), what sorts of rights can they be asking to implement while the 'bad' micros are still kidnapping hosts? How will justice be implemented for the kidnapping and/or death of host bodies by micros? Will carriers' losses be subsumed under whether 'they asked for it' by having micros willingly? Could anyone ever prove otherwise? OK, those are my first two discussion starters- feel free, as always, to suggest anything you want =) My last comment is on what I found particularly fascinating in _Brain Plague_ after I read it last March for the first time. I had read and reread some works about the pro-choice/'life' debates about the same time and noticed that some of the same cautions given to pregnant women were given to carriers; that the whole discussion of brain 'plague' vs. 'enhancers' seemed to change (as did 'fetal rights' vs abortion rights debates in the 1980s) with the circulation of images; and that 'carriers' is a relational term like 'mother' that when appended to a person presupposes the outcome of the relation. These are the areas I am hoping to write a paper and present on at ICFA23 next March, so of course I'm very interested- however, I'm not sure whether I'm interested in discussing them or not =) But, since I threw it out there, I won't stop it, but I did want folks to know where I'm going with it. Misha Bernard Cultural Studies PhD student mbernar1@gmu.edu George Mason University ------------------------- -mmmm! tastes like a scratch world! butt it's Bishop Berkeley's Cosmo Mix!- Ursula K. Le Guin "World Making" (1981) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 18:08:04 +0200 From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: [*FSF-L*] AW: [*FSF-L*] FSFFU-LIT: BDG: Brain Plague To: feministsf-lit@UIC.EDU I enjoyed this book, I was immediately drawn into the story and nearly read it in one day. I especially like the biological basis in Slonczewski's books in general. My knowledge of biology is limited but her explorations appear well-founded to me. Some things, however, seem too facile in this book, e.g. Plan 10 for your health. Have a perfect body and muscles as much as you want without any effort! I wish. Of course, this was introduced to stress the differences to Plan 1 which does not even cover life-threatening diseases. Nonetheless, it creates this unrealistic Schlaraffenland-feeling (Shangrila?, land of milk and honey? my dictionary cannot help me this time, people lying around while their food flies by itself into their mouth?). Too facile for my taste was also how the symbiosis between the humans and the micros was presented. IMHO the psychological effects were not explored enough. There was no melting of personalities here (compare for example to the Trills in Star Trek, Jadzia Dax). There was the danger of being taken over but what about the fact that intelligent beings reside in your brain and know everything about you, you're never alone (of course, that can also have its advantages). I think I'd have serious problems in that case. In many instances the micros were presented as too cute (e.g. the god(dess) worship). Rose's independent thinking was a welcome variation! And Daeren is just too perfect to be true! Misha Bernard wrote: > 1) How do you all feel about Chrys' changed art? She uses a new tag- > Azetidine- after the micros' 'drug'. Does this include them in the > artmaking process? Is it 'fair', is it collaborative? The micros are involved in the creative process, however, in all instances I remember right now their contribution was restricted to suggestions and advice. But what would be wrong if the art were the result of a closer cooperation? In modern art collaborative creation is not unusual (although I suppose later-born art historians will try to figure out what the contributions of the individual members of these groups are, we are so used to the concept that art is created by individual geniuses). > 2) When the carrier group Chrys is introduced into campaign for micro > rights (at least some of them- Selenite seems to come around some toward > the end, but probably doesn't support micro rights, just carriers' rights > to have them), what sorts of rights can they be asking to implement while > the 'bad' micros are still kidnapping hosts? How will justice be > implemented for the kidnapping and/or death of host bodies by > micros? Will carriers' losses be subsumed under whether 'they asked for > it' by having micros willingly? Could anyone ever prove otherwise? A Magna Charta for micros? No one can be sentenced to death without a jury of one's peers? That might be tough for the carrier that provides the environment. If we turn it around and apply it to ourselves: Earth or the planetary ecosystems have no say when we "hurt" it. Imagine, Earth would kill people off for minor offenses to make a point (like Selenite)! > I had read and reread some works about the > pro-choice/'life' debates about the same time and noticed that some of the > same cautions given to pregnant women were given to carriers; that the > whole discussion of brain 'plague' vs. 'enhancers' seemed to change (as > did 'fetal rights' vs abortion rights debates in the 1980s) with the > circulation of images; and that 'carriers' is a relational term like > 'mother' that when appended to a person presupposes the outcome of the > relation. That's an interesting idea but I do not quite follow at the moment. What circulation of images do you mean? And what do you mean with 'appended to a person presupposes the outcome of the relation'? Petra -- Petra Mayerhofer p.mayerhofer@web.de Website of Book Discussion Group on feminist sf www.geocities.com/bdg_volunteers/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:56:28 +0800 From: Carol & Phil Ryles Subject: [*FSF-L*] Brain Plague To: feministsf-lit@UIC.EDU Hi, I'm new to this list and would like to say I thought Brain plague was a great choice for the month. I really enjoy the worlds Joan S creates, combined with her brilliant ideas on the future of technology. I could write pages about this book -- and may even try -- Let me know if I start babbling :) Petra said: >Some things, however, seem too facile in this book, e.g. >Plan 10 for your health. >Have a perfect body and muscles as much as you want >without any effort! I wish. Of course, this was introduced >to stress the differences to Plan 1 which does not even >cover life-threatening diseases. Nonetheless, it >creates this unrealistic Schlaraffenland-feeling >(Shangrila?, land of milk and honey? my >dictionary cannot help me this time, people lying >around while their food flies by itself into their mouth?). I agree that it does seem unrealistic to have such an effortless way to stay healthy. However, if nanomedicine takes off, it could be possible. The websites below are worth a look: Joan takes the process just a wee step further -- trim off a few fat cells, add a few extra muscles. http://www.foresight.org/Nanomedicine/#NMFAQ http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/nanotechAndMedicine.html The difference between plan 1 and plan 10 does raise some important questions, however. It is predicted that life preserving nanomachines can be manufactured cheaply, conveniently, and in vast numbers (see above URL's). Therefore, after a few generations there would be plenty for all -- everyone should be able to be free of life threatening diseases regardless of their wealth. Yet, in Brain Plague, this level of protection is heavily restricted -- a more believable scenario, I think. On a lighter note: I also found a URL for a nanorobot 'art gallery', where you can download images of specialized 'bots such as respirocytes, endotheliocytes etc. They are reminiscent of Chrys' microbe pictures :) http://www.foresight.org/Nanomedicine/Gallery/index.html Cheers, Carol Ryles. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 14:12:51 -0400 From: Misha Bernard Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] Brain Plague To: feministsf-lit@UIC.EDU On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Carol & Phil Ryles wrote: > Petra said: > > >Some things, however, seem too facile in this book, e.g. > >Plan 10 for your health. > >Have a perfect body and muscles as much as you want > >without any effort! I wish. Of course, this was introduced > >to stress the differences to Plan 1 which does not even > >cover life-threatening diseases. Nonetheless, it > >creates this unrealistic Schlaraffenland-feeling > >(Shangrila?, land of milk and honey? my > >dictionary cannot help me this time, people lying > >around while their food flies by itself into their mouth?). Petra- I think a word in English that covers that is 'Cockaigne' which was a Medieval idea about the same. yes, it is unrealistic, but I think that it's also just the unfamiliarity that's created by the future created; some of her other books had that aspect, too, and I just left it because I didn't know how accurate the bio-medicine would be. > I agree that it does seem unrealistic to have such an effortless way to stay > healthy. However, if nanomedicine takes off, it could be possible. The > websites below are worth a look: Joan takes the process just a wee step > further -- trim off a few fat cells, add a few extra muscles. [snip websites] > The difference between plan 1 and plan 10 does raise some important > questions, however. It is predicted that life preserving nanomachines can > be manufactured cheaply, conveniently, and in vast numbers (see above > URL's). Therefore, after a few generations there would be plenty for > all -- everyone should be able to be free of life threatening diseases > regardless of their wealth. Yet, in Brain Plague, this level of protection > is heavily restricted -- a more believable scenario, I think. BUT, as Carol says, the issue of nanomachines 'for all' and 'cheaply' is something I expect Joan Slonczewski to take up soon. Both in her other books and this one, the reason given why nanotech was excluded by size from being paid was their ubiquity: everyone would have to pay a LOT of mony in salary or for services. Now, in _Brain Plague_ we see that many folks can't afford nanotech through their medical plans, but I think beyond the costs of having them/using them- the additional cost of paying them would place them even farther out of reach for most, but would also cut out some of the 'richness' of their users to stay young, etc. > On a lighter note: I also found a URL for a nanorobot 'art gallery', where > you can download images of specialized 'bots such as respirocytes, > endotheliocytes etc. They are reminiscent of Chrys' microbe pictures :) > > http://www.foresight.org/Nanomedicine/Gallery/index.html Oh, and thanks for the URLS! I'll have to go see them =) Misha Bernard Cultural Studies PhD student mbernar1@gmu.edu George Mason University ------------------------- -mmmm! tastes like a scratch world! butt it's Bishop Berkeley's Cosmo Mix!- Ursula K. Le Guin "World Making" (1981) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:50:16 -0500 From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Brain Plague To: feministsf-lit@UIC.EDU I was surprised at how light and fun *Brain Plague* turned out to be, particularly in contrast to *A Door Into Ocean*, the only other Slonczewski I have read. The micros were delightful and I kept laughing out loud at unexpected humor. I do wonder, though, if the overall plot and world- building suffered in comparison. Things that didn't make sense to me: ------------------------------------ Chrys does not act like a starving artist. She is poor enough that she can't pay her rent, even in an unsavory neighborhood, yet she doesn't appear to have considered getting a job to pay the bills (apart from a few idle speculations about becoming someone's mistress). She also doesn't seem to have thought about artistically portraying anything apart from erupting volcanoes. Might that have something to do with her slow sales? Hm. It takes the Eleutheria colony to clue her in that maybe she should try something else. Her subsequent rise to fame and fortune is gob-smackingly quick, yet she hardly seems to notice, apart from all the extra work she has to do. She's either incorruptible or kind of dense, I'm not sure which. The brain plague is a public health disaster, yet no one seems to be doing much about it. A few clinics and bleeding hearts like Daeren to cover an entire city. Where is the infrastructure? Endless Light is more organized than is plausible. Given the difference in scale between human and micro response time, life time and size it makes no sense that populations of billions and billions (as Carl Sagan would say), living in separate hosts worlds apart could coordinate their agendas as well as they do. The Master micro lets Daeren and Chrys go in exchange for her portrait. That is just silly. It reminds me of a list that was compiled on Usenet: What Not to Do if You Ever Become the Evil Overlord. How are the carriers' "people" reconciled to the deaths of all the master refugees at the end of the book? They are upset enough to drive Daeren to Endless Light, but they suddenly calm down for the happy ending. Things that were just plain annoying: ------------------------------------- Chrys tripping on uneven ground while running away from danger. The random insertion of the word "like" into Chrys' sentences. As soon as the Chrys/Daeren romance is consummated, Chrys' breasts and hair come to the forefront and her artificially acquired muscles are no longer mentioned. And she suddenly decides she wants to have children. Things that I liked very much: ------------------------------ The concern with the less fortunate. Chrys takes up volunteer work in a soup kitchen, and Eleutheria's upcoming architectural marvel will be a housing complex in the Underworld. The economic thinking is simplistic, but well meant. The fluidity of sex and gender. Sex changes are common. And people whose romantic tastes are confined to a single sex are thought of as primitive! I would have liked a little more background on this cultural phenomenon. The diversity of the micros. Every population has its malcontents. Not even Chrys, the "God of Mercy", is immune. The humor. Early on, Pearl's window port comes loose and starts floating around in her eyeball. The timing of it is hilarious somehow. And the trend continues. At the end of chapter one, we learn that Chrys, who we already know is obsessed with volcanoes, has a volcano alarm clock, which she sets to explode at seven in the morning. It's the punch line to the entire chapter. The micros, when they are introduced, are charming. Their arguments, the cranky opposition of Rose, the perversions of Jonquil, the immortalization of Fern in the first micro portrait, all are wonderful, imaginative fun. And I loved the fact that Zircon, unknowingly colonized, is not infected with the dreaded brain plague, but with a host of accountants: "They keep asking me to let them manage my money, which would be great if I had any. Then they tell me I'm the lord of creation." Great stuff. ---------- In sum, I thought *Brain Plague* wasn't particularly deep, but it sure kept me amused. I am happy to have read it and will recommend it to friends. Can anyone tell me how Slonczewski's other books in this universe (*Daughter of Elysium*, *The Children Star*) compare? ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Massive Attack -- Mezzanine "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:32:39 -0500 From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Brain Plague To: feministsf-lit@UIC.EDU Misha Bernard asked: >When the carrier group Chrys is introduced into campaign for micro rights >(at least some of them- Selenite seems to come around some toward the end, >but probably doesn't support micro rights, just carriers' rights to have >them), what sorts of rights can they be asking to implement while the >'bad' micros are still kidnapping hosts? How will justice be implemented >for the kidnapping and/or death of host bodies by micros? Will carriers' >losses be subsumed under whether 'they asked for it' by having micros >willingly? Could anyone ever prove otherwise? And Petra Mayerhofer replied: >A Magna Charta for micros? No one can be sentenced to death without a jury >of one's peers? That might be tough for the carrier that provides the >environment. If we turn it around and apply it to ourselves: Earth or the >planetary ecosystems have no say when we "hurt" it. Imagine, Earth would >kill people off for minor offenses to make a point (like Selenite)! I wonder about this, too. It seems to me that any micro rights movement will have to be a collaboration between humans and micros. It is impossible for a human to keep tabs on the micro activity in her own head without representatives like Fern, Aster, or Fireweed to inform her. And humans and micros are so different in their perceptions of time that no human could ever police her own micro population -- she MUST rely on the ability of the micros to police themselves. Though, of course, she has the power to execute her entire population of "people" within a few minutes. This scenario reminds me of one of Octavia Butler's favorite themes -- the subjugation of one intelligent species to another's biological imperatives. In "Bloodchild", the Tlic need to lay their eggs in human hosts; in the Xenogenesis series, the Oankali need the genetic material of humans to continue to evolve. In both cases, humans are controlled like precious natural resources while at the same time being recognized as the intellectual peers of their captors; a darkly ambivalent mutual exploitation results. Slonczewski's approach is lighthearted in comparison, but the power dynamic between humans and micros is similarly problematic. Micros absolutely need humans (and arsenic) to survive, and have the means to subjugate their hosts if they think it necessary. But humans can commit genocide at any time. It's an explosive situation that doesn't seem to be taken very seriously by most humans in the book. Nor, indeed, by the author. Chrys' work "Mourners at an Execution" and her micros' dubbing of Selenite as "The Deathlord" and Dr. Sartorius as "The Terminator" are more like black jokes than serious commentary. Yet the issues are there. Perhaps there is another book in the works? I'd be interested to see Slonczewski explore "micro rights" in more depth. By the way, I found a great web page that provides links to background material for *Brain Plague*. It's at: http://www2.kenyon.edu/depts/biology/slonc/bio3/bp-links.htm ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Massive Attack -- Mezzanine "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas