Give Me Children, Or Else I Die

Why Biological Children Are Important in A World with Infertility

Introduction

As Ursula K Le Guin said in the introduction to her novel The Left Hand of Darkness “The science fiction writer is supposed to take a trend or phenomenon of the here-and-now, purify and intensify it for dramatic effect, and extend it into the future” (Le Guin I). Infertility is something that affects not just the here and now but the lives of almost anyone who has ever lived. Offspring is a necessity to all life and many animals are willing to die in order to procreate, for example, male preying mantises risk being cannibalised by the females during the mating ritual (Lawrence 569-583). To paraphrase the film Lucy (Lucy), life has only one purpose, gaining time. When the habitat is favourable, the human race as well as many other animals, choose to reproduce. This allows knowledge and essential information to continue on through generations. Children provide a vital way to continue the progress of the species even after death; it is this reason that causes infertility, particularly mass fertility, to be a large presence, not just in speculative fiction but in all genres of literature.

Although it is clear why infertility as a whole is an issue that is addressed in culture and particularly in speculative works, one element of this that seems to reoccur frequently in works of science fiction is the idea that children, alone, are not fully satisfactory in a world where infertility is a problem; the children must be biological descendants or, at least in some way, belong to the parents genetically. In the works touched on later, in looking for a cure to infertility, a trend towards “natural” methods and away from artificial cures such as IVF is seen. The reasoning behind this desire to keep things “within the family” could have multiple different explanations, such as genetics, faith, and power, these motives can be seen in the novels The Handmaid’s Tale by Margret Atwood, The Children of Men by P.D.James, Seveneves by Neil Stephenson and Prototype by M.D. Waters.

Children as a Way to Spread Genetic Material

The primary reasoning for most animals to reproduce is to spread their genetic material. In the case of humanity, it is important to pass down their genes, knowledge and family name. As humans we generally want to leave something behind of ourselves and often parents look for their own traits in their children, they look to have children who are like them or their partners in some way. This idea of wanting to leave something behind for the next generation in the form of offspring is used heavily in the early chapters of Seveneves by Neal Stephenson. In these chapters, the world has just learned that the earth will be destroyed within two years and the only hope for humanity is to send a small contingent into space orbit in order to later colonise other planets and asteroids. To placate the people of earth “frozen sperm, eggs, and embryos would be sent up there too, so that even those who were left behind to die on the Earth’s surface could enjoy some hope their offspring would one day grow to maturity in orbiting space colonies “(Stephenson 44). This form of pacification makes sense since those on earth would begin to feel as though there was nothing left to live for without the prospect of children (this listlessness and lack of purpose can be seen throughout Children of Men in which there is almost no hope of a child being born); giving the people hope ensures that they will not only have something to live for but that they will also support the mission to take people into space. Allowing the general population to give something of themselves to the new colony, removes some of the distance that could easily be created between those on Earth and those who are fortunate enough to survive in the contingent.

This preserving of genetic material also seems to provide some comfort to those that are chosen to survive in the orbiting colony. Through the preservation, they can, in some small way, keep a part of their home planet; their home countries and even, in Doc Dubois’ case, a part of their family, alive. When the scientist, Doc Dubois, realizes that he is likely to be called up to the colony, without his fiancée, “they got busy making an embryo for him to carry up into space for implantation in some other, unknown woman’s womb” (Stevenson 47). Because there are many women set to be aboard the colony ships it is likely that Doc Dubois could one day be the adoptive or even biological father to one or many children; however, he chooses to create his “child” in his own way with his partner who he knows will die. This is done in order to preserve some part of the family he may have had, had the tragedy not occurred.

In Seveneves, the characters are looking to create children who are biologically theirs. However, in a speculative fiction world where infertility is rife, it is reasonable to assume that the idea and meaning of a child belonging to someone would change; this occurs in both The Handmaid’s Tale and The Children of Men. In both novels, the readers see society as a whole eliminate a certain set of people from their efforts to repopulate.

In The Handmaid’s Tale, the idea of excluding certain people is not shown throughout the majority of the novel, however, it becomes clearer in the “Historical Notes” section. In this section, we see a symposium held at the University of Denay, Nunavit by the Department of Caucasian Anthropology in 2195. It is explained that the rest of the novel is a memoir from the Gileadean society, written in the late twentieth century. From the name of the department that the symposium is held at, it can be inferred that the majority (if not all) of the Caucasian population has been eradicated by the infertility crisis since the symposium is held by the Department of Caucasian Anthropology. This is further backed up by the fact that the names and places that are mentioned in the notes are not traditionally Caucasian in nature. For example, the speakers that are mentioned have names such as Cresent Moon, Pieixoto and Running Dog (Atwood 311). Although it is not clear, these names seem likely to be of Native American origin. This is an interesting development because there is little mention of race throughout the memoir section of the novel and it seems that the majority of those that are powerful in the Gileadean society are Caucasian and the named Commanders are called Waterford and Judd, which are more traditionally Caucasian surnames. This seems to imply, as a whole section, that the infertility mainly, if not wholly, affected Caucasian people and it is explicitly stated that the plummeting birth rate was “a phenomenon observable not only in Gilead but in most northern Caucasian societies of the time” (Atwood 316). Seeing as Caucasians are now few in the later part of The Handmaid’s Tale, those in power must have either not noticed that those of other races were not affected or must have ignored it, showing a singlemindedness to protect “their” genes and exclude those of others when breeding. If the Caucasians had bred with other races it is likely that the infertility would not have been so vast for them. Because the Gileadean government runs mostly on sanctions and restrictions and has shown other kinds of exclusion throughout the novel, by shipping the Jewish to Israel and the old to the “colonies”, so it is not unreasonable to consider that they would have furthered this exclusion when breeding.

In The Children of Men, once the infertility has been realized, the government passed laws which ensure that every able person will submit themselves to fertility testing. In particular, the males are required to do this because the males are the ones that are infertile. However, males with physical or mental disabilities or criminal records are not required to be tested. Similar prejudice is put upon women meaning “no one who was in any way physically deformed, or mentally or physically unhealthy, was on the list of women from whom the new race would be bred…. [they were] saved from the six-monthly … re-examinations. “(James 38). This prejudice against people, some of whom may not even have hereditary problems, seems to be somewhat foolish since, in the world of the novel, there have been no births for 25 years. As expected, this prejudice does turn out to be great error when it is discovered that a woman with physical disability is pregnant with the child of a man with history of a neuro-disability.

Although it is not outright stated in The Handmaid’s Tale, it is clear in The Children of Men that the reason behind this discrimination is to avoid “undesirable” traits in the possible offspring. Speaking about those with disabilities, the Warden of England, Xan says “if they can breed, good luck to them, but while there are limited facilities for the testing, let’s keep it for the physically and morally fit …. No one with a criminal record or a family record of offending ought to be allowed to breed, if we have a choice” (James 101). This statement from the head of the government makes it clear that they wish to preserve their own “good” genes rather than those they deem to be unfit.

These examples show that there is a strong bias towards personal genetics and traits, even if they are not directly biological, when tackling infertility. There is a primal desire to spread one’s own traits and to exclude those that are different, even when the choice is somewhat restricted.

Children as a Way to Practice Our Religion

Many religions teach that family is a vital component in life. For example, family is one of the central values in Islam and the Qur’an states that a free individual is a part of two different entities, the community and the family (Blyth and Landau 26). Connected to this, many religions encourage their followers to have children and in some cases it is specifically encouraged to have many children. In the Jewish faith, the first commandment of the Torah states that follows should ‘be fruitful and multiply’ (Blyth and Landau 30). Because of this religious pressure to have children, it seems natural that those of faith would want to claim children as their own. Through this they can be seen to be better observing their faith.  It is also natural that during a time of hardship such as an inability to bear children, those of faith would turn to their god to help them and so by proclaiming their faith they are likely hoping to appeal to their god for help.

In The Handmaid’s Tale we see a world with mass infertility and a governmental structure which is almost entirely based on religious views. In this society, more powerful families who are no longer able to produce children are given handmaids whose job it is to bear their children. The handmaids are trained for their position in re-education centres where they are taught the Gileadean belief that women should be subservient to men. Once in their positions they are responsible for very little in the household other than grocery shopping and producing children. The majority of the rules within the society seem to be based within the religious beliefs of the Sons of Jacob which is a sect of the Christian religion and the Bible is used as their holy book. In order to battle the widespread infertility, the Sons of Jacob have turned to the story of Rachel and Jacob, in which Rachel is unable to bare children for Jacob and so she “[says], behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her” (The Holy Bible, Genesis, 30:1-3). This story allows for children to be conceived and birthed by an outsider to the family unit, yet the child is still thought to be mothered by the wife of the family unit.

In the society of Gilead, the women go through many rituals in order to make the child part of the original family and detach them from the actual mother. The two most prominent of these rituals occur at the two most important times in the child’s creation, the conception and the birth. For the conception of the child, the Handmaid and the man of the house have sex while the Wife is not only present, but a true part of the whole process. In the novel, the narrator Offred recounts the process as follows: “Above me, towards the head of the bed, [the wife] is arranged, outspread. Her legs are apart, I lie between them, my head on her stomach, her pubic bone under the base of my skull, her thighs on either side of me… [she] grips my hands as if it is she, not I, who’s being fucked” (Atwood, 104). It is clear from this description that the Wife is fully involved in the conception process, in order to make it seem as though, throughout the whole gestation, that the child is truly hers. The whole affair is described as being fairly formal and unemotional with the participants being mostly clothed. This procedure seems to be almost mechanical or clinical and Offred is used only as an instrument to the couple’s procreation. Similarly, at the birth of the child, it is treated as though the Wife is the mother of the child and the handmaid is cast aside soon after the birth. What is interesting about this whole interaction is that the society of Gilead has banned reproductive technologies such as artificial insemination yet has fully embraced a form of surrogacy.  Artificial Insemination and other forms of reproductive technology are rebuked by many modern Christian faiths due to the fact that they “infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 509) and it is deemed to be a “depersonalisation of sex extracting procreation from relationship, and adultery for both women and semen donor”( Blyth and Landau 64) , so it makes sense for them to not approve of these methods .These arguments also apply to surrogacy and certainly to what we see in The Handmaid’s Tale , yet surrogacy is the chosen method used to increase birth rates in a Christian society. It seems clear that the reasoning behind this choice is that it is the most personal of the options available. It allows the husband and wife to be fully integrated into the conception, and uses a human intermediate rather than a medical or scientific method. By making it as though the child is truly that of the husband and wife, the couple are able to fulfil their religious duty to create a family in their married life and their societal duty to provide children.

As an addition to the faith elements present in the reasoning behind these ceremonies that assure the child’s belonging to a family, there is also an element of power play involved.

Children as a Tool of Power

Religious beliefs as well as other social standards regarding fertility can cause a hierarchy where women who are less fertile are not valued in the same way as those that are easily able to have many children, even without the presence of an infertile society.

In the society of Gilead, there is a lot of power play and the whole family benefit a power lift from the birth of a child so makes sense for those in the household, the Commander and his Wife, to want to make the child theirs and not someone else’s. For the commander, a child will bring a rise is power in the government structure and an assurance of his manhood, his virility and his ability to provide for the society. For the handmaid, a child means that she has a secure future, after another handmaid’s child has been born, Ofglen says of the handmaid “she’ll never be sent to the Colonies, she’ll never be declared Unwoman. That is her reward.” (Atwood 137). For the Wife, it gives this more power within her group of other Wives as they have little else to do except to hope for a child. Hence, it is important or all those in the family to follow the rules and to pretend that the child truly “belongs” to the Commander and Wife of the family.

We also see children used as a way to increase someone’s power in The Children of Men. When it is discovered after 25 years of infertility that a child is going to be born, both the Warden of England, Xan, and the mother’s husband, Rolf, seem to want to use the child in order to gain power for themselves. Xan’s motives are fairly transparent, as the Warden of England he is clearly used to power and is comfortable with it. To display his power, he even wears the royal coronation ring to proclaim his title. Xan’s plan to use the child for purposes of power and to possibly claim them as his own are also fairly transparent. Theo says of Xan “Once the child was born he had only to kill Theo and Julian and it would be possible to claim the baby as his own.” (James 232) and Xan even confesses his own motives directly to Theo saying “I’ll probably marry her…good god, Theo, do you realise what power is in our hands?” (James 235). It is clear from this that his only reasoning behind caring for the child at all is to use it and it is also apparent that he plans to make it appear as though the child is his own. Being able to claim the child as his own will lead the people he rules over to be in awe of him as he is the one who has given them hope of new life, “Once he gets possession of the child his power will be immensely increased, not just in Britain, all over the world.” (James 164)

In the earlier parts of the novel Rolf, also focuses on the idea of her child being a tool of power rather a miracle of life, he says “I’m not worried for [the mother, Julian’s] safety, the council won’t harm her…But it will be me … who presents my child to the world, and then we’ll see who’s Warden of England” (James 164). It seems clear from this statement that Rolf hardly cares about his family when compared to the power that they could provide him. This is further shown when, after learning that the child is not actually his, he leaves almost immediately in order to inform the Council of the child. This is a futile attempt to gain some power from the situation once he realises that his original plan of using the child is no longer valid.

Although it is less apparent than in the earlier examples, our main character, Theo, can also be seen to have power on his mind. From shortly after meeting Julian, he becomes attracted to her and says of her “I was seized with a ludicrous urge to dash to the flower- stall… It was a romantic impulse” (James 129). Once he is on the run from the authorities with her, he begins using affectionate terms to refer to her such as “dear” and towards of the novel he proclaims his love, saying “Nothing and no one will separate us, not life nor death, nor principalities, nor powers, nor anything that is of the heavens nor that is of the earth.” (James 234). It seems that his love for her is what drives him to wish, “with a sudden surge of anguish and envy, that it was his child which with such an agony of effort they were bringing into the world.” (James 225), but there is also an underlying element of power to this want. This want for power seems to be completely incongruous with Theo’s character throughout the novel as he has previous denied a place among the council who are the main body of government for the country. Yet, once the child is born and he realises that Xan will try to claim it for himself, Theo kills Xan and in order to claim Xan’s power, “He took the ring from Xan’s finger…Theo held up the ring, then deliberately placed it on his finger” (James 237). This instant claim for the power symbol seems to show that although he may be mainly looking out for his love, Julian, he is also somewhat attracted to power. It could even be said that part of his love, although likely not all, was due to her pregnancy and the power that she could give him if he were in some way able to call the child his own. This is made somewhat more likely by the fact that Theo accidentally killed his own child before the infertility outbreak, so he is in some part probably trying to make up for that with the love of this new child.

Although these men use Julian to their advantage once she is pregnant, they do not directly try to hurt or manipulate her. In Archetype by M.D.Waters we see Declan control Emma throughout and manipulate her in order to use her fertility.  In the world of this novel, there is mass infertility, few women and the main character Emma, begins the novel with almost no memories and even has trouble comprehending the world around her. It is shown early on that Declan is her “husband” and it is when she is learning this that he begins to show his controlling tendencies towards her. When she struggles to comprehend the meaning of the word wife, Declan says to her “One day you will say it and believe it.” (Waters 4). That this is one of the first things that he teaches her emphasises how important it is to him that she believes this and knows her place. Although he seems to be a loving husband, there are moments when his controlling nature shines through the façade. One instance of this is when Emma refuses to restrict her activities and she protests saying “you cannot do this to me” and he replies with “I can and I will” (Waters 51). This shows that even though she feels that she has some freedom, Declan is willing to take it away from her at any time he pleases. As time progresses it becomes more and more apparent that even though Declan appears to be giving Emma more freedom he is still heavily controlling of her actions. When he presents her with the gift of a painting studio, she realises that there is only one way out which is a teleport that Declan can easily monitor. Later, Emma is told that she is a clone and that Declan took her “soul” from her original’s dying body so that he could have her for himself. He does this because when they were originally married, they were both forced into it and Declan’s father paid for her to wed him. The resistance saves her from the woman’s camp that forced her into the marriage and so Declan feels he has been conned out of his chance to have a wife in this world where women are scarce. His possessiveness comes out more and more throughout the later part of the novel, he says that “I never would have let my father force me into this marriage if I didn’t want you the moment I saw you… I’m not giving you up. You’re Mine.” (Waters 275-276) and “You [can’t] run from me forever; I always get what I pay for” (Waters 334). These statements show not only that he is possessive of her but that he enjoys the power he has over her. Controlling Emma is not just a way to show his power over her but by keeping her and cloning her to make her fertile he is also striving to gain the power within the society that comes from having a wife and children. As part of his controlling nature, he also almost forces her to bear his children and does not allow her to use any sort of protection. This could be seen as normal in this world as it is illegal to use protection yet he does not seem to have any respect for the law in other areas of his life and if he truly cared about her and wanted the best for her, he would allow her to have this freedom. Rather than helping her to avoid conception, he subjects her to regular testing and it is clear to Emma that he is displeased with the lack of progress as he “comes home with the usual glum expression after hearing the news that [Emma is] not carrying his child yet.” (Waters 255). As there are not enough women for the men of the world, having one that is fertile is a huge show of power and influence in the community. However, as a rich and powerful man, it seems that he would be easily able to buy another wife if he wished yet he is fixed upon Emma and as we see in the sequel Prototype he is willing to chase after her when she leaves him for a second time. This single mindedness to have her as his wife and as the mother of his children is likely his need to exert his power over her and to show his power to the resistance.

Declan is not alone in his controlling nature over women and he facilitates the cloning and murders of other women so that their husbands can erase their memories and make them more fertile in one operation. This is seen when Charles and his wife Ruby are introduced. Although Ruby is only in the beginning stages of the recovery from the cloning operation, Charles still takes her away from the recovery centre and conceives a child with her. It is clear from this as well as some other aspects of the society as a whole that controlling women is much more normal than it is in our society and so it makes sense that Declan would feel that it is his right to have a marriage and a child with the woman he chooses and has paid for.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the examples from these four novels show that in a number of science fiction worlds where fertility or lack of children is a problem, the characters still move away from options such as adoption and strive to have children that are in some way their own. As Ursula Le Guin said in her introduction (Le Guin), science fiction is often an extrapolation of things that we see in the real world. This is certainly true in this case as biological children have often been preferred to others even in times of trouble. A historical example of this phenomenon is Henry VIII’s insistence that he could have a male child at the expense of other people so that his heir would not be female and so that he could exhibit his personal virility to his subjects. Only time will tell if this trend of “biology is best” will continue into the real future.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Le Guin, Ursula K. The Left Hand of Darkness. New York: Ace Books, 2000. Print.

Lawrence, S.E. “Sexual Cannibalism in The Praying Mantid, Mantis Religiosa: A Field Study”. Animal Behaviour 43.4 (1992): 569-583. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.

Lucy. Hollywood: Luc Besson, 2014. film.

Stephenson, Neal. Seveneves. New York: William Morrow, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 2015. Print.

Atwood, Margaret. The Handmaid’s Tale. London: Vintage, 1996. Print.

James, P. D. The Children of Men. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1993. Print.

Blyth, Eric and Ruth Landau. Faith and Fertility. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2009. Print.

Catechism of the Catholic Church. London: Burns Oats, 2002. Print.

Waters, M.D. Archetype. New York: Penguin Group, 2013. Print.

Waters, M.D. Prototype. Turtleback Books, 2014. Print.

I recently finished season 2 of The Leftovers and an interesting concept with the show that occurred to me is the topic of whether or not the departure was a good thing for those that have departed or a bad thing.

 

The first season seems to start off with the idea that the departed have gone to a “better place” and from the first episode the characters discuss this. Counter to this argument, Matt Jameson vehemently tries to show that those who departed were not all good people. He spends his days preaching about how some of the departed where child abusers or gamblers and he scatters posters throughout the town to further publicize this. He is so forceful on this issue because a number of people have accepted that the departure was a form of rapture and that those taken were taken because they were good people. This seems to some extent to also be the belief of The Guilty Remnant as even their name suggests that by being left behind, they are the guilty ones. Further to this discussion, at one point in the pilot episode we see another towns person question the targeting of the “rapture” stating that it makes sense for the Pope to be taken but not for Gary Busey to be taken, especially when so many other people were left behind.

In the second season there is a strong anchoring in the idea that the departure was a bad thing because the whole Town of Miracle constantly celebrates their status of not having had a single person taken therefore it can be assumed that the town believes that it was a good thing that they were spared and it was a bad thing that others were taken. At every church meeting we see the choir sing about how “God had spared [their] town”. This is a complete turnaround from the belief of The Guilty Remnant and is interesting because both parties involve God in their belief. In addition, Matt Jameson’s opinions on God’s involvement can be seen to be contrary to both of these standings as although he does not believe that God caused the rapture (or if He did, it was random) he also does not seem to believe that God could choose to save certain people (although this is somewhat uncertain), as his wife Mary was left in a coma like state after the departure. As God is chiefly seen to be an benevolent figure the discussion of his involvement is very central to the nature of the departure.

Throughout the series, I think that almost all the characters have to deal with the question of the nature of the disappearance, but in particular, Nora has to deal with it the most. For her, it is an important question because, since her whole family is gone, she is left to wonder why she was left behind and whether that says anything about her character or about the characters of her children and husband. Throughout the second season she is directly confronted by others about her hand in her family’s disappearance. When a theory emerges that non-departed could have caused people near to them to depart (called “lensing”), some people suggest that it is not only her fault that her family disappeared but also that her new neighbor in Miracle disappeared as well.

There are two major sections in the series that focused in on her struggle with this question. The first is when we learn that, while administering the questionnaire to the families of the departed, she always receives a positive answer to the question of whether the interviewee thinks the departed have gone to a “better” place. This is particularly interesting as Nora receives her first no to this question shortly after being “healed” of her pain by Wayne, which seems to suggest in some way that she was affecting the answer that she got by her actions or demeanor and that she herself is conflicted on this question.

Second, at two points in the series, at a conference of the departure and when she arrives in Jarden/Miracle, we see the presence of the orange stickers. At the conference, she is supposed to be given three stickers (although she is not at the time) because she lost three family members in the departure. When she isn’t given the stickers, she seems to be somewhat upset by this but later is able to make connections with people who would likely not have talked to her otherwise (they discuss their dislike for “legacies”). This episode shows a decision between whether or not to air her grief as it is usually known to everyone that she has lost her family but when it is not, she is able to enjoy herself in a different and anonymous way. I think in some part; it is this experience that leads her to want to move to Jarden where she can choose whether to tell her story. However, she does not fully lose her previous life in the new town. Later, the orange stickers reappear when Nora and her family move and they find that their house, along with many others, has an orange sticker. Contrary to their earlier use, this sticker states that no persons were departed from that particular house. They were used when the government were verifying that no one had left the entire town. Although this usage of the stickers is not made overtly apparent to Nora at the time, I feel that the fact that she has had this symbol used to describe her (or her family) twice in two completely different circumstances could only add to her confusion and most likely would cause some discomfort for her as she had moved to the new home in order to feel safe and to escape her status.

As it seems that we will likely never know the true cause of the departure or the fates of those who left, it is still difficult to say whether it is a truly good or bad thing. However, we can see clearly that both the disappearances and the questions they have left behind are effecting the so called “leftovers” in a negative light.

I recently read Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton and one thing that cannot escape the notice of anyone who reads this novel, or watches the films for that matter, is that although the majority of the characters are scientists and businessmen, they aren’t really that smart.

From the very beginning, before we even know of the park’s existence (although the title is a bit of a giveaway) we see scientists and doctors blatantly ignoring the reality in front of them and making careless assumptions and decisions. One of the most noticeable instances of this is when Guitierrez (a doctor who finds a half-eaten unusual lizard on a beach in Costa Rica) sends off the lizard remains to be analysed. Both he and the scientists at the lab make mistakes that lead to the find being greatly misunderstood. When he gets the report back “Guitierrez made two assumptions based on the memo”, he assumes that they have confirmed that the animal found was a Basilisk, when in fact this had not been stated and in fact the scientists had not yet even attempted to identify the lizard, and he assumes that the animal does not carry any communicable diseases. Although from the scientists’ tests this seems to be true, the lab technician did not mention the bloods relation to cobra venom which seems reckless considering that he is aware that the lizard has been biting children. This is once again evidence of carelessness in the scientific world. Throughout the whole of the first novel and into the second we see the scientists making rash decisions about the strange lizards and making assumptions based on what they expect to see, rather than realizing the truth.

Once we reach Isla Nublar we see that it is not just the outside scientists who suffer from this carelessness. Hammond, Wu and Nedry all seem to greatly suffer from overconfidence in their plans and yet, within minutes of arriving at the island, the outside experts immediately recognize the problems with the island. For instance, Ellie Sattler, a plant expert, notices that deadly ferns have been placed by the poolside, not with the intention of poisoning guests to the park but rather for their attractive appearance. This shows that even at the level closest to the guests, the creators of the island have been incredibly careless and uneducated. Dr. Wu also does not seem to quite understand the dangers of the animals he has helped to create and as Ian Malcolm states “… Doctor Wu does not even know the names of the things he is creating. He cannot be bothered with such details as what the thing is called, let alone what it is.”. This lack of knowledge is one of the main influences of the errors that occur at the park because the doctor is not aware that splicing the DNA of an amphibian with the DNA of a dinosaur could allow them to breed and even when a palaeontologist makes this connection clear, he still does not seem to realise how that could happen, exposing his ignorance on the subject. The doctor’s refusal to believe the truth is also shown when he is confronted with the reality that some of the animals have escaped the island. He believes that the problems of the island can be “Nothing as basic, or as serious, as the possibility of an animal escaping. Wu found it offensive to think that anyone would believe him capable of contributing to a system where such a thing could happen.”

Lastly, the carelessness and ignorance of the scientists throughout the novel manifests itself in a sexist view of the opinions of women. From the very beginning we see a doctor refuse to believe the young child Tina’s description and the lab technicians refuse to believe their colleague Alice when she correctly identifies the lizard as a dinosaur. Later we also see Ellie’s views being casually dismissed and at one point, entirely unrelated to the subject of conversation, Ian Malcolm says “”You’re extremely pretty, Dr. Sattler,” he said. “I could look at your legs all day…”. This emphasises that although Ian Malcolm seems to one of the more sensible of the group, he still dismisses a woman’s opinion and immediately focuses in on her appearance instead.

The book and movie franchise as a whole has an interesting gender balance because, although there are very few main female characters, those present are often scientists and businesswomen and can often be seen to have more common sense than some of the main male characters. In the first novel we have Ellie Sattler who seems to be a rather accomplished study of Jurassic plant life and as already mentioned, she is often dismissed even though she seems to have a better grasp of the danger than the creator of the island and Dr. Wu. In the newest film, one of the main characters, Claire, is seen to be an important figure head at the park. This is interesting because, although it is changing now, woman in action films are often not portrayed to be smart or powerful, if they are featured prominently at all and as the novel was written in 1990, this is of particular note. Further to this, in the movie adaptation of the first book, they somewhat switched the children’s characters and the young girl Lex, takes on the boy, Tim’s, role of computer whiz and saves the day by getting the computer system online.

In conclusion, we see that Jurassic Park goes against the idea that scientists can be all knowing and that science is always for the greater good. It exposes the flaws in scientific thinking, and particularly in the carelessness that is sometimes present in new discovery. In some part it also deals with this is in reference to gender bias.

In Children of Men by P. D. James we see the author tackle the idea that even when children are scarce society (in particular, the government) is still prejudiced against certain groups of people. In the book we see this represented when the Warden does not require those with disabilities, or even those who were previously disabled, to be tested for fertility. His reasoning behind not testing the disabled for fertility is the “limited facilities for the testing”, therefore, he believes that limiting testing to the “physically and morally fit” will prevent the facilities from breaching capacity. This turns out to be an error; as it is one of those not required to be tested who fathers the miracle child in the novel. It seems that rather than using the infertility as a way to bring people together, the Warden uses it as an excuse to discriminate against those who are already oppressed.

In addition to restricting fertility testing, they limit immigration into the country and use those who immigrate as labourers in the country before forcing them back home. This is a particularly interesting move because it goes against the Warden’s principle values of “freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom from boredom”; the immigrants have plenty to fear. They could easily be sent home without warning, and it seems that in a lot of cases other countries are in a deeper state of upheaval than Britain. As with the discrimination of disabilities, the Warden and his council use the prosperity of their own people as an excuse for their actions, saying

“[they] have plans that will ensure that the last generation fortunate enough to live in the multiracial boarding house we call Britain will have stored food, necessary medicines, light, water and power. Besides these achievements, does the country greatly care that some Sojourners are discontented ….”.

Although the novel was written in 1992, the issue of refugees has been an important recent political topic in Britain and throughout the world. Perhaps it is this usage of the topic in popular discussion that caused the issue to be more predominantly represented in the 2006 film based upon the novel. In the film, those who have previously immigrated to the country are rounded up and imprisoned and the one who mothers the child is fugitive from the law because of her immigration status. This once again shows that although the problems could have caused the remaining people to work together, it has driven them apart. This is not altogether different from the real life situations that occur in times of war and trouble. As we have seen many times in history, mistrust and uncertainty can lead people to blame their neighbours rather than to turn to each other for help.

We just finished reading The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood: one thing that I noticed about this book and the previous two books we’ve read, The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin and Kindred by Octavia E. Butler, is that the characters all experienced the sensation of integrating into a new society. This is interesting because the characters find themselves becoming used to these new circumstances rather quickly which leaves all of our three main characters caught between two places.

In The Left Hand of Darkness, Genly Ai is an envoy who integrates himself into the foreign society of Karhide on the planet of Gethen. The physiology of the Gethenian people is the most difficult  part of the new surrounding culture for him to get accustomed to: this is because the citizens of Gethen are all gender fluid and for the majority of the time are completely genderless. Throughout most of the book, we see Genly try to fit this new society into his pre-decided ideas without much luck “My landlady, a voluble man…” and although he seems to get better and accepts Estraven’s lack of gender he never fully integrates himself into the new world. Yet, when his fellow envoys join him at the end of the novel, he is overwhelmed by their gendered properties which make them seem ” like a troupe of great, strange animals” and when he sees a Getherian afterwards he is relieved to see “…not a man’s face and not a woman’s, a human face, these were a relief to [him], familiar, right…”.After his experience Genly is torn between the two worlds in which he has lived. This is echoed in Kindred, where Dana not only finds herself unsure of what is real but she is literally stuck between two time periods when she travels home for the last time, losing half of her arm in the process.

In Kindred, Dana travels back in time to the antebellum south and both her and her husband Kevin, who ends up spending 5 years in the past, find it more and more difficult to integrate back into their normal lives after each time they time travel. Dana, however, finds it easier than she had imagined to become accustomed to the ways of the past: she never realized  “how easily people could be trained to accept slavery” because after her time travel ventures she finds herself thinking in the way of a slave instead of a free citizen. She finds that the past seems to be more real to her, more like home than her actual home . Being stuck between two time frames leaves Dana questioning her sanity because of the unfathomable situation she is in and as she cannot control when she travels: she is always anticipating the next transition. Although not physically, Offred of The Handmaid’s Tale, is also stuck between her present life and the one she lived before the new theo-political system came into power.

With a new government rigidly controlling almost everything that women do in Gilead, Offred faces a lot of changes in a very short period of time and even loses her job and control of her money on the same day without any prior knowledge. Although, it is initially very difficult for her to live with these changes, by the time we meet her in the novel she has become accustomed to her new life and  even looks down on some of the things  she used to do. She finds herself changed by the constant control and states that “It has taken so little to change [her mind], about things like this” yet she is constantly drawn back to the past. She longs for many lost facets, such as her family, reading, and even cigarettes. Yet it is strange to her when she is given, in small part, a taste of what used to be by the commander

“He wanted me to play Scrabble with him, and kiss him as if I meant it.

This is one of the most bizarre things that’s happened to me, ever.

Context is all.”

She finds that even small things such as a dish towel “…come at [her] from the side, like ambushes.”

This concept of being stuck between two worlds is an interesting topic that often occurs in science fiction as well as in real life.

Recently, we read The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula Le Guin, one concept that she touched on in this novel is the idea that knowing your future is useless because knowing your future can cause it to happen. This comes up in the chapters related to “foretelling”, the ceremony practiced by the Handdara. The story, in particular,r that I feel best illustrates this is the story of the kemmer pair between Lord Berosty and Herbor. In this story, Berosty asks “what day shall I die?”, only to be told, rather vaguely, that he will die on Odstreth (the nineteenth day of the month). This sends him into paranoia. In order to try and help him, his partner, Herbor, goes to ask “How long will [Berstoy] live?” only to be told “longer than Herbor of Geganner!”. This prophesy fulfils itself because Berosty kills his kemmer in anger over not getting the desired answer.  Berosty is left in despair at what he has done and later commits suicide on Odstreth. The interesting part of this story is that if the original question had not been asked by Berosty then he would likely not have died so soon. This can also be said of Herbor. I think part of the point of this chapter is to illustrate that knowing the future does not help stop it and if anything, only aids it. In fact, the Handdara believe that ignorance should be prized and that “ignorance is the ground of thought…The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty”. Knowing the future just stops us from living in the moment and in some cases stops us from realizing the many possibilities available to us. In The Left hand of Darkness, once Meshe becomes “the center of time”, he is plagued by his knowledge and weeps when he tells the poor man of Sheney of the future and past, which emphasizes how knowledge is more difficult to live with than ignorance.

Another science fiction novel I enjoyed that deals with the idea of knowing the future is The Time Traveler’s Wife by Audrey Niffenegger. In this novel, the protagonist, Henry, often knows what is going to happen to him when he travels into his own time line; he even has to watch his mother’s car crash a large number of times, unable to stop it from happening. Knowing his future does not help him change it and, in a lot of instances, the fact that he knows the future aids its fulfillment. He only meets his (future) wife, Claire, because he travels to her garden when she is young and then she seeks him out when she is older. This begs the question “where does the event start”? He first meets her when he is 28 and she is 20 because she has known him since she was six. She has been seeing him at various ages for most of the intervening time. It is also suggested that he only travels back to her when she was young because she is an important part of his life. Claire gets quite frustrated with the idea that her future has already been decided for her in some parts and feels that she has no choice. Knowing the future is both a blessing and a curse for Henry. Although knowing the future can sometimes save Henry  a lot of trouble he still chooses to not tell his younger self much about future, so  he can live like a normal person.

Both of these novels discuss whether or not it is wise to look for knowledge of the future. Genly Ai does not understand why people who possess the ability to foresee would not want to use it, but the people of Gethen (in particular the Handdara) see the knowledge as a burden. Similarly, Claire constantly wants to know more about the future but Henry is hesitant to tell her or even to learn it for himself. The next novel, Kindred, also deals with time travel so I hope that this theme will be further explored.