All posts by Kara Chamberlain

The Amazing Children of “Chosen One” Novels

Harry Potter, Ender Wiggin, Ursula Todd, Jonas of The Giver. Each of these characters from books and movies have two main traits in common: they are the Chosen One, the character that the entire plot surrounds, the owner of some unique quality that allows them to succeed in the story’s biggest problem and they are all also children. The reason for the “Chosen One” concept is not too difficult to figure out: the story has to have a hero, someone to talk about. The question I would like to focus on is if, hypothetically speaking, these “Chosen Ones” have a choice in their destiny and how their decisions made as children contributes to that choice or lack thereof. I will mainly be focusing on Ender Wiggins from Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game and Ursula Todd from Kate Atkinson’s Life After Life. Both of these novels portray the main character as a child for a large portion, if not the entirety, of the story. This is because each character was actually “chosen” before his or her birth. Therefore, due to the outside forces controlling each character’s destiny before they were even able to make a choice, their position as the “Chosen One” is involuntary however it is vital for the story that each character believes he or she is making the choice to accept his or her fate.

Ender Wiggin is the child protagonist of Ender’s Game. From the very first chapter the reader is aware that Ender is special, as the unknown narrator says within the first sentence of the novel, “I tell you he’s the one.”[1]At the time of the conversation and the beginning of the novel Ender is only six years old. Later, Ender is given a choice whether to go to the training school that will be his home for years to come in order to train to become the world’s savior. The conversation between young Ender and Colonel Graff of the school is interesting, as Graff states, “But for Ender, the choice has not been made at all,” indicating that Ender truly has a choice in his destiny.[2] However, it is revealed that Ender was “commissioned” as a hope for the perfect tempered person to command the attack fleet against the incoming alien enemies.[3] This concept in the future setting of Ender’s Game is that no family can have more than two children unless commissioned by the government. Therefore, Ender was created for a purpose, that purpose hopefully being to destroy the incoming aliens.

Likewise, Ursula Todd’s purpose, though not realized until nearly the end of her novel, is decided arguably before her birth. Since Ursula’s “power” is the power to be reborn an unknown amount of times, it is difficult to say when her destiny was decided. Additionally, unlike Ender’s Game, we are unaware of the powers who rule over Ursula’s destiny. We do not know why or how she was given this ability, or if others possess the same ability. Given this information, can we really say Ursula has a specific destiny at all? She decides that she is a witness[4], but is that truly her destiny, or just her perspective of it? In this case, it would appear that Ursula does have a choice in her destiny, as she decides she is a witness. Additionally, throughout her many lives she makes different decisions that may or may not lead her to the outcome of killing Hitler. The perspective of the “Chosen One” may be exactly what is needed for them to make the right decisions. Are they really chosen or special if they are not given the freedom to make the decisions that in turn make them that one special individual who can accomplish the task at hand?

When given the choice of whether he wishes to go with Colonel Graff or not, Ender gives three different answers, with Graff only accepting the last: “I’m afraid but I’ll go with you,” “It’s what I was born for, isn’t it? If I don’t go, why am I alive?” and finally, “I don’t want to go, but I will.”[5] The novel depicts children that are above normal intelligence, which accounts for Ender’s reasonable and well thought out responses even as a six year old. The first response is nearly identical to the last one that Graff actually accepts, so why does he not accept this first response that acknowledges Ender’s fear at going to battle school? Even in children fear is not enough reason to justify actions and decisions. As the “Chosen One,” Graff could not accept Ender’s agreement to join the battle school if it was out of fear, because that would mean that Ender felt like he did not have a choice lest he be seen as a coward. He needed to make the decision truly because it was the right thing to do. Ender’s second response relates directly to the idea that Ender’s existence is not under his own control. This too is rejected by Graff, because Ender does have control. He was brought into existence for a purpose, but no one can make him fulfill that purpose. The final response is the only one Graff accepts because Ender acknowledges that although it is something he does not want to do, he knows he must in order to follow his destiny. So in this case, it appears as though the child Ender though born for a specific purpose has chosen to stay within the path that was laid out for him. However, as he is a child, albeit an incredibly intelligent one, is it possible that he has been manipulated into believing he has chosen this path?

Ursula is a child throughout quite a bit of Life After Life and throughout many of her lifetimes she decides slightly different actions based on a feeling she gets when something bad might be in the realm of happening. Again, she feels as though she is following the right path at the time, as those negative feelings of darkness keep her from straying into the “wrong” paths. However, this too could be a manipulation. While no one other than Ursula is truly aware of her ability, it is possible that her future and past adult mind is manipulating her child mind into following a particular path. This is supported by the fact that the “right” path cannot be determined solely on her not dying, because even in the lifetime that she achieves her goal of killing Hitler she still dies in the end. There is no definitive way to say that her life’s goal is to kill Hitler, because regardless she apparently is reborn even when she does that. Therefore, the children are choosing the path but not entirely of their own will, but rather through the manipulation of adults.

Why is it that in so many of these novels the “Chosen One” is a child? Especially as these books are not exactly children’s novels or even young adult novels. In Orson Scott Card’s added introduction to Ender’s Game, he recalls many adult readers not only struggling to relate to Ender, but actually opposing the concept that a child could think and act the way the children in Ender’s game behave. True, in both Ender’s Game and Life After Life children commit extremely violent acts that confront our typical innocent view of young ones. However, the behavior of these “Chosen Ones” is necessary as part of who they are. Ender is not extraordinarily different from his peers when it comes to violence, as all of them understand the necessity of it in war. However, everyone, even his “jackal” of a brother Peter is surprised by Ender’s outbursts of violence. Ursula also commits violent acts, as everyone is shocked by her pushing Bridget down the stairs. These acts were necessary as chosen ones and also important for it to occur by the hands of children. It shows that even as children these characters are important, unique, rational, and above all else in the right position as “Chosen One.” By making these children commit acts of violence it gives the reader reason to question the child’s maturity and abilities.

Ender and Ursula both exceed expectations in their ability to rationalize. Yes, Ender not only injures other children, but also accidentally kills them. However, his reasoning is exactly why Graff allowed him to continue on into the Battle School and it is the exact reason why we as readers forgive Ender. By hurting the other children beyond their ability to ever hurt him, Ender created a logical path for us as readers to not only forgive him but agree with his side of the story. If he were an adult and knew that he was actually killing his peers, no amount of reasoning would allow forgiveness. It is his adult reasoning in the innocent child mind that allows his violent behavior. Likewise Ursula’s act of shoving Bridget down the stairs, though she cannot reason why she did it at the time, is forgivable because of the innocence behind the act. An adult could not get away with pushing someone down the stairs “because they had a feeling,” but for Ursula, we understand that her feeling is her power leading her down the path of what she believes is her destiny. The ability of Ursula and Ender to reason logically as children sets them apart and allows them to commit acts of violence that otherwise would not be forgiven. However, in these cases it simply emphasizes their “otherness” that makes them “chosen.”

Concerning any outside manipulation of Ender’s destiny is a slew of people. All the government that allowed for his conception as a third child paved the way for his existence and set him up to be different from the beginning. However, there is an unspoken and unwritten suggestion that eggs, sperm, zygotes or something of the type are able to be manipulated. Graff states that the government suggested that Ender’s parents choose a boy this round. This combined with the fact that Peter, Valentine and Ender are all incredibly intelligent, even by their parents’ standards suggests that humans can be created in particular ways at that point in the future. So if the government essentially created Ender, they must have had a particular fate in mind for Ender: to be the next Mazer Rackham, the next war hero against the aliens. So pre-birth Ender already had a set fate. However, it appears as though Ender has options throughout the novel. He could attend the battle school or not, he could become a leader or not, he could accept the positions offered to him by the military or not. These choices make it appear as though Ender has the option whether to follow through on the “Chosen One” path or not. However, seeing as how Ender was created specifically for that task, the mental abilities, temperament and reactions within him were also engineered and manipulated. Therefore, Ender really had no control over his destiny other than to behave the way he was created to behave.

Likewise, Ursula could have been created similarly. Since she appears to have the rebirthing ability throughout time, it can be assumed that she was engineered to retain some memory of her past lives in order to guide herself down a particular path. However, why was her path decidedly leading to the death of Hitler? The lifetime after she killed Hitler, it does not give any indication whether she gets her feeling of dread leading up to shooting him, even though her assassination of him directly causes her own death and those feelings typically occur in order to sway her from death’s clutches. In this case, Ursula’s real destiny is simply as “a witness.” However, she decides this herself and as she is the only one who can control her actions and in theory is the one who creates her feelings of dread from past lives, it seems that Ursula truly is in control of her destiny. However, in reality no matter what she does or how she ends her life she will constantly be reborn. There is no indication if killing Hitler is her destiny, if simply being a witness is her destiny, or if she has no real determined destiny what so ever. Regardless, it is beyond her control to be reborn and that power is what really makes her a “Chosen One.”

The chosen children of novels are important not just for the story they create but for the message they send. It is not just about someone who is just chosen in adulthood, such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Genly Ai. The importance of the child creates a feeling of lifelong purpose. It creates the feeling that one is born special, rather than just falling into that role. When reading Ender’s Game for the first time at age twelve I felt I was in Ender’s role. Because of that I felt all the shock and disgust Ender felt when he realized the battle simulations were not just a game, but that he had truly just destroyed an entire alien race. The Harry Potter series created the same sense of lifelong purpose. Ursula Todd was born over and over again into a role that created a unique kind of feeling towards her. By making their main characters children it allows the reader to feel related to the character, because everyone has been in that position in life, but it also creates a sort of otherness feeling towards them. The idea that you are not just born into a role, but that an entire set of events was put in motion simply because you exist is a feeling that all of us try to create but do not typically really feel. That is the captivating part of these novels in which the main character is chosen at or before birth. That strange notion of “I relate to their emotions and thoughts,” while simultaneously wishing to have that sense of purpose in the world. For me that is a deeper meaning in than the novels in which someone leads a “normal” life up until some event that is put in motion regardless of their existence. For Ender, his reactions were seemingly of his own devices, but when you realize that he was created for the sole purpose of destroying an entire species it seems to question if his reactions really are is own or if they are just the product of what the government had created him to be. For Ursula there was the complicated emotion of knowing why she was doing what she was doing, even if she did not fully realize it, but still somehow feeling like she was not in complete control of her situation. She described it best when talking to Dr. Kellet: “Time isn’t circular. It’s like a…palimpsest.”[6] She was able to control little changes in her life, but overall her life would end and begin again. That seems like utter lack of control in all honesty, as no matter what she does she will inevitably, as far as we know as readers, be born into the same world. However, I got the same feeling from Ursula reading Life After Life for the first time as I did from Ender the first time. I understood her thinking, I was in her shoes, confused at the déjà vu and shocked when things did not work out. But there was the overwhelming sense of no relation. I could not relate in any way to her reliving life since, as far as I am aware, I have not been reborn into my exact life. Ursula has a sense of duty and purpose, even if she is creating it herself. The other important aspect as chosen children of novels is that their minds are not restrained in any way. This is something you can get a better sense of in Life After Life, as we can clearly see that when she is a child, she has no concept of where she might go in life but later when she is an adult she seems set in her path. There are less decisions made as an adult than there are as a child. As children it appears that their path is a bit more malleable. For Ursula it seemed that past age twenty or so her life had been decided which way she went: she was either in Germany on the path that would lead her to death or Hitler’s assassination, or she was still in the UK. The idea that the choices we make as children, children who are typically not near as intelligent and understanding as Ender or as supernaturally gifted as Ursula, are the decisions that create the rest of our lives is terrifying, but seemingly not false.

Children in “Chosen One” novels are special, not just to me but in general. They portray seemingly innocent individuals who can commit serious acts of violence but still maintain to loyalty of the reader. They also bring to question whether they have a choice in their destiny or not. In the case of Ender Wiggin and Ursula Todd I believe the answer is no. They were born into their role with the intent to set a series of events in motion just by existing. They also were given the tools to react just as they are “supposed” to by who created them. In Ender’s case he responded to actions in exactly the way the government wanted him to, but with the notion that it was all his idea. With Ursula, she followed in the path her adult self set up for her by creating negative boundaries in directions that would lead her astray from what she felt was her true purpose. Therefore, neither of these characters had true control over their position in their respective stories. I absolutely adored both of these novels and I do not think it was a coincidence that the narrator of both of them was a child, at least for most of the novel. The feeling of possibilities that a child’s mind creates is unique to their young age and innocence towards the world. At the same time, the idea that their seemingly infinitesimal decisions alter not just the path that their own lives take but potentially the very reality that they live in is amazing and terrifying at the same time, and it makes me wonder what decisions I may have made as a six year old that could have led me to the very spot I am sitting in right now.

[1] Orson Scott Card, Ender’s Game, pg 1.

[2] Card, Ender’s Game, pg 20.

[3] Card, Ender’s Game, pg 24.

[4] Kate Atkinson, Life After Life, pg 509.

[5] Card, Ender’s Game, pg 26.

[6] Atkinson, Life After Life.

Foxes and Wolves and Bears….Oh my?

Life after Life is full of animals, as we have discussed in class on several occasions. I have tried to figure out what the meaning of all this animal symbolism could mean, past the chance that Kate Atkinson is a total dog person. First and foremost are the Todds. A family of foxes. Foxes are actually incredibly closely related to dogs, another animal prominent in the book. However, foxes and dogs have important differences as far as Life after Life is concerned. Foxes in the wild typically have a lifespan of up to three years, with lucky ones able to survive much longer. To me I saw this as a direct reflection of Ursula’s situation. Sometimes her life is cut short by a tangled umbilical cord, a nonchalant cat, the tight grasp of the ocean…Other times she lives a fairly long life, making it to her ultimate “goal” of killing Hitler. Additionally, foxes are hunted creatures. Throughout the novel the reader begins to be acutely aware of the situations Ursula finds herself in, waiting for another death scene. Death hunts Ursula relentlessly through all her lives.

As previously stated, dogs are extremely common in the novel as well. The interesting thing here is that dogs, especially in the UK, were used for fox hunting. However, the dogs in Ursula’s lives typically seem to be guiding her rather than cornering her. However, the dogs themselves also seem to be representative of Ursula’s ever changing lives. The Todd family continuously obtains new dogs, and each dog is different from its predecessor, just as Ursula is different in each of her reincarnations. While the dogs are important to Ursula’s character, she seems to view them just as dogs: a pet, nothing more and nothing to be envious of. We see this when Ursula comically compares Eva Braun to a dog waiting for her master (page 357-58). There is no dignity is being a dog in this novel, although they are important figures, they are just passing footnotes.

The real characters in the novel are marked by wild beasts. Foxes, bears, and wolves. These are the characters to be aware of. The Todds, obviously, are all fairly intelligent and cunning individuals throughout the novel. Even Maurice, though vicious, is a smart young man. The only exception seems to be when Roland, Izzie’s bastard son is incorporated into the picture. The rest of the family sees him more as a dog, even allowing a bond between him and Bosun. Bears of course relates to Ursula– “Little Bear”– and Teddy. These two characters are generally calm and collected and seem to have unchanging demeanors. They love each other unconditionally, a bond that is reflected in their related names. Bears can be depicted as sweet, loving, cuddly things, such as the Teddy bear or Winnie the Pooh, but they can also be fearsome creatures, an aspect revealed when Ursula has her young daughter. Wolves are a different set of creature. These characters such as Adolf Hitler himself seem to irritate Ursula. They are strong-willed, but also close minded, doing what they feel will benefit themselves.

Overall I really enjoyed the animal symbolism in the novel. I know my analysis has probably only scraped the surface, but with time and rereading this novel I expect new realizations to occur to me about each animal and how it relates to Ursula’s ever-changing story.

Hailsham: a Failed Experiment

I really enjoyed Never Let Me Go simply because as far as I could tell the plot was not directly inspired by something else. It seemed original and, like many of the other novels we have read, layered in a way that allows for it to be read by a variety of audiences that differ in age and maturity. The novel was fairly easy to read and if you just wanted an entertaining novel to read it would be fine. However, the deeper one reads into this novel the more clearly it falls into a dystopian genre rather than simply science fiction.

Throughout the entire novel I kept feeling an uncomfortable sort of squeamish feeling. Not quite disgust, but something related. After I had finished the book and thought it over, I realized what it was I was feeling towards Kathy, Ruth, Tommy and the entire Hailsham “experiment:” I was horrified. It wasn’t the fact that these children were clones or that they were created and cultured to give their organs up, it was the fact that even with this knowledge, they accepted their fate and felt no need to deny it, let alone fight it.

The purpose of the Hailsham experiment was to determine if clones had souls. They thought the way to do this was to determine if their artistic abilities provided any glimpse into the soul. However, is it really artistic talent or any sort of ability at all that proves the existence of a soul? I think what is important in proving if something has a soul, what shows the difference between sentient beings and nonsentient beings is their desire to live. Humans, dogs, and rabbits alike will struggle to survive even in the face of sure death. However, if you hold a laptop or a rock over a cliff’s edge, it won’t beg for its life. Even Siri on your iPhone won’t ask for a second chance. The fact that the Hailsham students were outright told that they were going to undergo a series of painful surgeries until their body gave out, none of them tried to escape that fate. None of them thought about running away or fighting against whatever government officials had allowed their existence to be for one purpose.

In class when I brought up this idea I was reminded about the slave children in Kindred. They were brought up being informed about what their purpose in life was, so they were ok with it. But that isn’t true. When they were children, yes they played slave trade games and behaved as though it were normal that they were treated as less than human. But as adults, every slave resented their position in life. Every slave knew that they were people and as soon as they were given a real chance to escape, they did their best to do so. But Kathy, Ruth and Tommy accepted it. They became carers and then doners. Not once even questioning the authority that told them what to do. It is that reason that horrified me while reading. That these creatures who look and talk like people could be so careless about their lives. So yes, the Hailsham experiment did fail because there is no possible way the clone children in Never Let Me Go have souls as they obviously did not think to preserve them.

I for Immediacy

V for Vendetta was by far the most thought provoking piece we have read in this class for me. Personally, I struggle with understanding a lot of political situations and terminology (it just isn’t my forte, unfortunately). But I favored the graphic novel because of its use of terms and references for deeper meanings. Immediacy is an important concept for me personally, and I love that it is pushed so hard through V for Vendetta. Immediacy was first introduced to me wholly through the “10 Principles of Burning Man,” and while the “hippie festival” may seem like a skeptical situation to cite, the principles are actually incredibly useful guidelines on how to live your life no matter your personal beliefs or situation. Burning Man defines immediacy (the 10th principle) as:

Immediacy
Immediate experience is, in many ways, the most important touchstone of value in our culture. We seek to overcome barriers that stand between us and a recognition of our inner selves, the reality of those around us, participation in society, and contact with a natural world exceeding human powers. No idea can substitute for this experience.

The importance of physical experience and immediacy in the world around us was emphasized through V’s personal trauma, and later his forced trauma upon Evey in order to make her see things clearly.

Meanwhile, the governmental leaders and workers are incredibly out of touch with the world around them. For instance, the fact that “Leader” (Adam Susan) was referred in the governmental body system as “the Head” but he consequently went insane and obviously was not running a desirable government. To me this signified that being stuck in one’s head (as we pretty much only saw him when he was hanging out in that office “talking” to Fate) causes a disconnect with the rest of the world, with their needs, and with an understanding of basic humanity.

Contrastingly, V and later Evey undergo intense physical trauma that leads to their “vendetta” kind of mentality and their greater understanding of the world and its faults.  It is this immediacy to the world around them that ironically makes them better suited to recreate their government than the “body” that represents the current government in the U.K. during the novel. Additionally, the fact that the different “Big Brother” aspects of the government are referred to as body parts (the head, the fingers, the eyes, the nose, the mouth, etc.) shows that the people involved in the system are lacking such empathy, such humanitythat they only barely make up a function single human being when put together. One has to be completely in touch with their own mental thoughts, feelings, and environment in order to make a positive difference in the world.

Women in Dystopias

So I saw a strange concept happening in regards to both Dana in Kindred and Offred in The Handmaid’s Tale. To me, it seemed that both these characters were extremely static in their lack of development. It was something that frustrated me in Kindred, because how could none of those characters change? To go through a horrific incident like that and come out essentially the same kind of person you were before experiencing slavery first hand seemed like a stretch. However, after reading Offred’s perspective of her own dystopian experience I am beginning to see how the two women did not change. First of all, it isn’t like either of them were “bad” people to begin with. Neither of them necessarily needed a life altering epiphany to become a “better person.” However, it is also interesting to note that both of these women are actually fully grown WOMEN. They are not girls. It seems that because they were adults, the authors felt as though none of these events could alter the women’s outlook or beliefs about life as they were already engrained in them. Had a 10 year old black girl gone back to the antebellum South, she would have been altered greatly. Most likely, the girl would have grown up to be insanely active in black rights during her own time of 1976. Or, on the dark side, she may have been forever scarred and ended up as a submissive person due to her young age during the traumatic experience. For Offred, she had already been married and had a child in a “real” marriage before the overthrow of the American government. She had not grown up with the strange Gilead government, so she was able to see its faults but also understand her limits within that government. A young girl during this would have potentially fought back vehemently, not fully understanding the powers a government holds against its people, especially a totalitarian one or she would have been completely submissive to it and not been interested in the escape and rebellion that Offred got herself caught into. Something else that was interesting to me was the fact that both the authors of these novels were women. Do the authors feel so confident in their own beliefs as women that they feel they no longer need to change or grow? I was not a huge fan of either of the main characters, and I think it is because they both were so static throughout the course of their respective novels.

Feminism in LHoD?

Upon finishing the novel I did a little research on the book, just to help clear up some of the muddle parts for me. While doing so, I found that the novel is considered to be an important “feminist” work for science fiction. This was really interesting to me because I found that the novel was riddled with strange sexist references, such as Genly Ai’s tendency to describe the Gethenians in feminine terms almost exclusively when he was irritated with them. The only way I was able to look at the novel and almost accept how it could be seen as feminist was because the complete gender neutrality. However, neutrality is not the same as equality to me. In some ways the novel seemed sexist against both genders in that Genly criticized characters for seeming feminine in some ways, and yet the lack of war was contributed in part to the lack of “men,” in the way Genly thought of men and the madness that apparently comes along with sex (page 102). In essence, I found it difficult to view this novel as feminist, mainly because it suggests being neutral of gender is the same as having equality between genders.