When Death is Among Us — A comparison of The Leftovers and The Children of Men

            One of the many common themes found in the dystopian and science fiction genres is the threat of civilization ending. From aliens coming to exterminate the human race, to incurable diseases sweeping the planet, this concept of humans becoming extinct is one that has always interested the public. Two books, one turned into a television show, explore this plot in a unique way. The novel The Children of Men by PD James approaches the problem of humans dying out by making humans infertile whereas the book, by Tom Perrotta, turned show, The Leftovers, is about 2% of the world’s population disappearing due to an unknown cause. What is intriguing about these two, though, is how they focus on the human response towards annihilation instead of the actual problem.  The Leftovers will be the main focus of this analyzation, using The Children of Men as a point of reference to compare how people use religion, cults, and show a disinterest in life when faced with their own expiration.

            In order to dissect these two stories, one must first understand that the characters are dealing with different futures so their responses are slightly different. The Children of Men offers a more common motif in the genre of human extinction, thus why it will be the point of reference. It is the theme of people knowing their species is coming to an end and grappling with the fact that they are the last generation. Even though the human race is saved in the end of the novel, the characters are living with a mindset of their known demise. Unlike The Children of Men, the characters in The Leftovers have no knowledge about what happened with the Sudden Departure, if it will happen again, or what it means about their future. This ambiguity the characters face in The Leftovers is what drastically sets it apart from The Children of Men, and in turn, causes them to react differently. It is also how Perrrotta and season two creator, Damon Lindelof, have decided to focus on how the characters continue their lives after the Sudden Departure, instead of giving any answers about what happened, that makes this show an interesting case study.

Starting with The Leftovers and the use of religion, it is important to note we are only afforded the point of view from the small town the main character, Kevin Garvey, lives in, Mapleton, New York, and from Kevin’s son, Tommy, in season one. It is revealed in the pilot episode how a portion of the population has reacted to the Sudden Departure, with there being a cult called the Guilty Remnant and a following of a man called Holy Wayne. Interestingly, it is revealed in season 1, episode 3, “Two Boats and a Helicopter,” that the popularity of Christianity has drastically decreased. This is seen due to Matt Jamison, a reverend, losing so much attendance at his church that the bank forecloses his church. The lack of attendance at his church could be due to his offensive “gospel,” which is him posting posters of the Departed and their sins around town to explain that it could not have been the Christian rapture. Perhaps, though, Christianity does thrive in other parts around the world but Matt has simply lost popularity due to his abrasiveness. Another theory of why Mapleton citizens do not turn to traditional religion could be due to the fact that they believe God is punishing them. What just God would rapture only 2% of the population while leaving many devout believers behind?

In season two of The Leftovers, we are given the story from the point of view of Jarden, Texas, a town untouched by the Sudden Departure. Interestingly enough, Christianity is seen to thrive here with the main family, the Murphies, being active in the church. Perrotta is making a fascinating statement by making popular monotheistic religion not a solace for the people affected by this tragedy but an explanation for people who were “saved.”

James in The Children of Men also alludes to a slight disinterest in Christianity. This is seen when Theo meets the Five Fishes for the first time in a church. It is seen that masses and other gatherings are still held but they allude to a decline in believers. This is illustrated when Miriam says to Theo on page 56, “We meet in churches because they’re available, they’re open, they’re free and they’re usually empty, at least the ones we choose.” Two of the members, including Julia, are Christian but Theo does not share this faith. The end, though, does make an allusion to the birth of Christ when describing the scene of Julian giving birth. The members of Council even come in like the Three Wise Kings in the story. An excerpt from the scene follows as,

“It seemed to him that they came tentatively, reluctantly, first the two women, then Woolvington and Carol…The two women knelt, less, Theo thought, in homage than from a need to be close to the child…Murmuring, weeping, shaken with tears an d laughter, they put out their hands and touched his head, his cheeks his waving arms (241).”

This, along with Julian and Theo being the only ones present for the child’s birth in an empty shed, implicitly suggests the child is like the Messiah. James seems to be making the statement that when it comes to drastic miracles, religion is no longer improbable, which is very similar to Lindelof making Jarden “miracle town.”

It is also seen in both societies a turn to extreme religions and beliefs. In The Leftovers, Kevin’s wife, Laurie, leaves her family for the Guilty Remnant and Tommy drops out of college and starts working for Holy Wayne. The Guilty Remnant is an extremely intriguing cult and its practices are revealed in bits and pieces throughout the two seasons. The Guilty Remnant is most recognizable by the white jump suits the members wear, their vow to not speaking, and their constant chain smoking – all of these attributes contributing to their belief that they are meant to be a living reminder of the Departure and that God left them behind. They do not traditionally resort to violence but this changes in season two and adds to their extremist quality. The Guilty Remnant is a perfect example of how people must go to extremes to cope with the illogical. It is seen in season 1, episode 9, “The Garveys at Their Best,” why Laurie decides to join the cult and leave her family behind. It is discovered that she was a psychiatrist before the Sudden Departure and the current leader of the Guilty Remnant in Mapleton, Patti Levin, was one of her patients who predicted something bad was going to happen the week of the Sudden Departure. That along with her watching her baby suddenly depart from her womb during an ultrasound probably caused Laurie to lose faith in the logical, current way the world worked and caused her to take an extremist view on the world.

Furthermore, Holy Wayne, adds another layer to how people will react to devastating and illogical events. Wayne’s purpose is not that clear but it is known that he can hug the pain out of people and believes he will father the next messiah. His practices are troublesome, from impregnating his young female followers to threatening Tommy for befriending one of the girls. Wayne must also pose some threat as a cult since his base is brutally raided by the American government. Like the Guilty Remnant, Holy Wayne, is able to attract followers even if his ideologies are extreme. It is seen in the pilot episode a congressman visiting Wayne and leaving with the belief that Wayne did hug out his pain and grief. These two cults show that people will put their faith in anything to process and cope with events that they cannot understand.

A Huffington Post article broke down the components of a religious extremist and among these are that they have a sense of righteousness, they belief they know the ultimate meaning, and they will dehumanize people who do not fit their view. Looking at Holy Wayne and then Megan Abbott, in season two, these traits are explicitly clear. Megan Abbott was a Guilty Remnant recruit in season one, who struggled with drugs and the sudden death of her mom around the time of the Sudden Departure. It is evident from these two characters’ actions that they turned into religious extremists.  From Wayne believing his son will save humanity and impregnating multiple young women, to Megan throwing grenades on school buses filled with children and threatening to light Tommy on fire, these two characters symbolize how far humans can swing in their beliefs when what we know to be true is no longer so.

There are religious extremists in our society today, though, so what makes the Guilty Remnant and Holy Wayne different from the Branch Davidians or ISIS? What separates these groups are the circumstances. The world in The Leftovers is one that no longer follows the scientific laws of nature; what we once thought was definite no longer is. This dissociation from what we once knew and now know allows one to call into question everything and makes things that were once illogical the possibility of being logical. Two percent of the world’s population vanished before people’s eyes so why cannot a guy have the power to remove someone’s pain or this be God punishing them. A News Republic article praised The Leftovers for being the first television show for successfully exploring religion and compared the Guilty Remnant to Jesus and his disciples. In talking about the scene in which a member of the Guilty Remnant is tied to a tree and stoned by citizens of Mapleton the article says, “The image reminds us of Biblical punishments and martyrdoms, and it is these religious resonances which make it so powerful. As we know from the history of religion, when everything is at stake, no act of violence seems excessive.” This quote perfectly illustrates the intriguing problem at hand in The Leftovers, in a time of turmoil who says the beliefs the Guilty Remnant and Holy Wayne embody are not right, and Perrotta and Lindelof successfully make the viewer question this.

Before the subject of religion and cults is left, though, it is imperative to analyze Laurie’s new life in season two. In season two, she abandons the Guilty Remnant and begins to write an exposé on the cult. She holds group meetings with ex-members of the cult and has Tommy go undercover into the cult to help members out of it. Laurie is an interesting character because we watch a woman who once believed in the scientific and logical as a psychiatrist turn her view on life into a radical one and then, back to her original, logical self. The Laurie in season two understands that the Guilty Remnant is preying on the weak and brainwashing them. The viewer is able to see a few key words in her exposé, them being “manipulation”, “abandonment”, and “handhold.” Laurie is portrayed just as her former self and is applying what she knew as a psychiatrist to helping people escape. Lindelof is making an imperative statement, though, when he has Laurie tell Tommy to be the next “Holy Wayne” and has Tommy to tell people that that power was passed on to him and he too can remove people’s pain. Her rationale being that their method of exposing the persuasiveness of the Guilty Remnant is not what people want to hear so she is giving them what they want, which is something to believe in. This action, again, showcases the depth and complexity of people’s reactions to religion and catastrophic events.

The Children of Men shows the same tendency towards radical views, which is seen in the gang, the Painted Faces. The Painted Faces are comprised of the Omega generation and they are not religious extremists. They do, however, display extreme violence and rituals. It is seen when the characters’ car gets taken over by the Painted faces the ritualistic nature of the gang. Theo describes them when the Five Fishes are captured as, “holding their torches high in their left hands, their clubs in their right, stood for a second regarding them, and then began again their ritual dance with their captive sin the center. But this time their movements were at first slower, more ceremonial, the chanting deeper, no longer a celebration but a dirge (182).” Theo then describes the scene of Luke’s death on page 184 and says, “And now the killing looked less like a frenzy of blood-lust than a calculated murder. Five or size of the Omegas were holding their torches aloft in a circle within which, silently now, the dark shapes of the half-naked bodies, arms wielding their clubs, rose and fell in a ritual ballet of deaths.” Unlike the Guilty Remnant or Holy Wayne, the Painted Faces are not promoting a belief or do not have an ulterior motive. They simply kill and torture in a cult-like nature because they can, while disregarding any societal and ethical laws. Thus, where Perrotta is making a comment on how people are more likely to gravitate toward radical views after a tragedy, James seems to be saying that people can and will lose their humanity when tragedy is inevitable.

Aside from religion and cults, Perrotta and James also portray societies whose members struggle internally, disregard the expectations society has of them, or lose interest in life. Looking at The Leftovers, there are several characters that will be analyzed because they provide interesting examples of how people will react to a struggling society.

The first character that perfectly demonstrates this is Kevin Garvey and the turmoil he is facing personally and within his family. Throughout the two sessions, Kevin has abducted a woman (Patti) while sleepwalking, been haunted by Patti’s ghost, and struggled to keep his daughter, Jill, from joining the Guilty Remnant. The cover photo of season 1 of the show (Figure 1), explicitly exhibits this turmoil. Kevin’s body and face shows anguish and frustration with the situation of his life and the world he lives in as he hits the wall. The key interest of Kevin, though, is his questionable mental health. It is known that his father suffers from mental illness and as the show progresses Kevin’s own mental state gets called into question. Perrotta is raising interesting questions by doing this. What one has to wonder is if Kevin would have developed this instability regardless of the Sudden Departure. It is also an interesting combination of Kevin being the chief police of the town and suffering from mental illness. With the juxtaposition of Kevin being a masculine man in a position of power who is powerless to his own mind, Perrotta seems to be commenting on mental illness in general and how even powerful people are weakened by unexplained tragedy.

Another character from The Leftovers that allows one to questions the unpredictable nature of humans is Evie. Introduced in season 2, the teenager’s town was not affected by the Sudden Departure and has caused it to become a National Park in Jarden, Texas. Evie, along with two of her friends, disappears one night and the town fears they could have departed even though no one else departed that night. It is discovered later, though, that the three girls joined the Guilty Remnant and plan on helping Meg pull off an unknown plan. What is so intriguing about Evie is her good girl gone bad personality. A once choir singing girl is now a part of the Guilty Remnant and leaves the viewers questioning everything we know about the characters. Lindelof shows, though, that Evie had inner conflicts long before the Sudden Departure and that she did not turn ruthless due to the Departure but it had simply allowed her to unleash her inner demons.

Perrotta and Lindelof have not created a society that is adjusting well to the Sudden Departure but instead, a society that is struggling with turmoil on the inside. They raise the question of how does one adjust to such a tragedy in creating the characters with instability and try to answer this throughout the two seasons by showing the ways the characters interact and react with each other.

Like Perrotta, James also creates characters that are struggling in a society that is facing an impending demise. Theo is a unique character and unlike most protagonists. He can be hard to empathize with and his reactions seem diluted. James is doing this on purpose, though. Theo is not a dull character who has no depth but the opposite. He is an excellent illustration of how humans may react if they know they are the last humans. Unlike Kevin Garvey, Theo shows a slight disinterest in life because Theo knows there is no hope for humans. Kevin can be upset with the world in The Leftovers but since the future of the humans is ambiguous there is no need for Kevin to lose all interest in life. Theo even addresses this apathy seen in him and society when he says on page 112,

“If there had be no Omega, these were aims which a man might be prepared to fight for, even to suffer for. …It was reasonable to struggle, to suffer, perhaps even to die, for a more just, a more compassionate society, but not in a world with no future where, all too soon, the very words “justice,” “compassion,” society,” “struggle,” “evil,” would be unheard echoes on an empty air.”

And as one would expect, Theo’s view towards life does change once he knows there is hope for the human race. The final scene that was discussed previously shows Theo having hope and newfound interest for the future. Before that, though, Theo showed a detached view on life that was to be expected.

Overall, it can be seen by analyzing the characters in The Leftovers in comparison with the characters in The Children of Men, that Perrotta and Lindelof have created a story that successfully reveals the psychology of humans when they face the possible end of human kind. Perrotta and Lindelof focus heavily on religion and cults, exploring how humans interact with them as a form of escape and answers. It is interesting to compare this to James’s method of using religion and cults in The Children of Men and how disinterest in traditional religions and extremist views/actions are present in both. The Leftovers also analyzes human reactions to one’s possible death in depth with various characters whereas The Children of Men only insinuates to how the characters are handling their eradication. Where The Children of Men does explore the consequences of knowing human kind’s future, The Leftovers takes this to a deeper and more complex level in order to study the intriguing ways of human nature when faced with tragedy, the illogical, and the ambiguous.

 

Illustrations

Figure 1

Works Cited

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

Kirsch, Adam. “Finally, a TV Show That Truly Takes Religion Seriously.” New Republic. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.

Lindelof, Damon, and Tom Perrotta. “The Leftovers.” HBO. 4 Oct. 2015. Television.

Rad, Michelle Roya. “What Turns Ordinary People Into Religious Extremists?” The Huffington   Post.   TheHuffingtonPost.com. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.

While reading Part 1 of Never Let Me Go, I couldn’t put the book down. I enjoyed Ishiguro’s prose, the sense of mystery, and the relationship Kathy was developing with Tommy. I only expected my love for the book to grow as I got further along. This was not the case. I enjoyed Part 2, probably as much as Part 1, since there was still a sense of mystery surrounding the purpose of the students at Hailsham and the relationships between Tommy, Ruth, and Kathy were really escalating. Part three, though, was simply anticlimactic and the reasons for this let down are analyzed below.

The main reason I found the last section of the book anticlimactic was due to the lack of a “big reveal.” Ishiguro’s climax was Tommy and Ruth getting the full story from Miss Emily after they visited Madame to ask for more time together. Yes, it was interesting to find out the back story of the school and their purpose but it still left me unsatisfied. It felt like a watered down version of what the reveal could have been. This sounds morbid and strange, but I was hoping for a graphic climax; one that dealt with the disturbing details of them being an organ donor four times! Not once, not twice, but four times! They could only be taking one organ during each donation but I assumed they were taking more than one. Like a liver and a kidney the first time. Maybe part of a lung the second time. And then I really expected their eyes to be donated the third time, since I think you could still  live. I was just waiting for Tommy or Ruth to be blind the next time Kathy saw them and be utterly shocked. But no, that wasn’t the case. Morbid and disturbing, yes, but that would be the true reality of what was happening. Instead Ishiguro, kept the whole subject at arm’s length, which left me disappointed with the book.

I also found the book not living up to its potential due to the characters’ reactions. I struggle with how Ishiguro created his characters. Ishiguro made the students of Hailsham in a way that almost makes them appear indifferent to the whole situation. Kathy and Tommy are disappointed when they cannot get their time extended but not destroyed. In fact, Kathy said she expected that much, for it all to be a rumor. The students also are not furious for the reason they are alive and don’t try to escape or fight back; they just shrug their shoulders and accept their fate. What frustrates me, though, is that their reactions are realistic due to how Ishiguro fashioned the characters. It’s mentioned multiple times that the students were told all along what their purpose was, which means the characters grew up learning that there is nothing wrong with being an organ donor. In fact, it makes them “special.” When you’re taught this as a child I guess you would not grow up and create a resistance because you see nothing wrong with your purpose of living. And that’s annoying and kind of boring to me. I wish Part 3 had instead included Kathy, Tommy, and Ruth having a revelation of the system being evil and escaping, but that was not the case.

Overall, for a book I thought I was going to thoroughly enjoy I was dissatisfied in the end. I think Ishiguro created an interesting and thoughtful story but I believe it lacked a climatic and worthy ending.

We recently watched the “White Bear” episode of Black Mirror in class and I’m still digesting what I saw weeks later. From total disgust and discomfort, to a deep appreciation for what the writer Charlie Brooker accomplished in this episode, I am going to try and unpack my thoughts toward the show below.  

Let me begin by saying I am an extremely empathetic person, which means watching any form of torture makes me very uncomfortable. Something like the execution scene in “The Green Mile,” when the guy is electrocuted to death, disturbs me and is something I will not seek out and watch again. This means that the whole idea of the “White Bear” episode is one that does not sit well with me. I was already on edge with the main character Victoria being hunted but with the final knowledge that this was her daily punishment made me feel sick. Yes, there were reasons for her punishment which will be discussed later but the basic idea of torturing another human being is something I struggle with.

 

But, like “The Green Mile,” the show saved itself by hooking me. After the initial disgust and dislike for the torture scenes, I realized what the writer had done and my appreciation and almost like for the show grew. I find capital punishment a very conflicting issue and one without a clear cut solution. Sometimes I believe the crime fits the punishment and other times I align with the famous words of Gandhi, “An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.” What Black Mirror did, though, was cause the viewer to empathize with Victoria before realizing she aided in the murder of a child, which was a very wise thing for Brooker to do. By giving the viewer the same amount of information that Victoria had throughout the show, the viewer is truly able to identify with her, from the fear and confusion of being hunted to the unforgiving realization of allowing the death of a child to take place. Thus, leaving the viewer with questions – does the crime fit the punishment, aren’t the participants in the White Bear Park committing the same crime as Victoria on some level, etc.? And personally, I only have more questions than answers weeks later.

Consequently, it is due to these questions that have caused me to appreciate the show. Yes, it’s frustrating I don’t know the answers and knowing there is not a correct answer. But I appreciate thought experiments that cause me to really analyze a problem deeply and from all angles, which this episode does. Some of the conclusions I have come to is that I believe the crime does not fit the punishment. Yes, Victoria did not save the child’s life but she did not torture and kill this child daily. It sounds callous to say, but the child only died once where Victoria will experience daily torture probably until the day she dies. Secondly, I think the actors and daily visitors at the park are committing the same crime as Victoria. Even though they are not killing her in the end, she believes she will actually die, which causes her to have the same amount of fear as the child. Also, Brooker is saying something about the human psyche since he portrays the White Bear Park as an amusement park.

Overall, I think I have finally realized that I actually like Black Mirror. I could not wait for the show to end when I watched it but now I want to watch it again and cannot stop thinking about it. Brooker made me uncomfortable, scared, and angry but he also left me with an interesting scenario that really causes one to think about human interactions, compassion, and justice.

 

The fall semester of my freshman year I decided to take a first year seminar on the philosophy of death where we discussed and explored the various aspects of life and death and how different scenarios like immortality affect our perception of life and death. One of the areas we examined was how one’s perception of life changes after knowing they are the last generation of humans. In learning about the various responses society would have to this we watched the film The Children of Men. Several things happen to one’s view of life when they know humanity will die out and each of these reactions are seen in PD James’s novel, The Children of Men. There is a switch in how the majority of society lives with a loss of interest in the betterment of society and the planet, loss of law and order, and a loss to the appeal of life.

First, there is no longer a need to better society since there will be no future to experience its results. A common example of this response that we discussed in the course is the ceasing of cancer research. Why spend money, resources, and time on cancer research when the results will have no effect on society? When human life has an imminent ending, a majority of societal and environmental projects will cease since their efforts are now futile. Movements for civil rights and equality are no longer necessary because there is no future generation to experience the newly won rights. PD James alludes to this expected response on page 112 when Theo talks about the Five Fishes demands. Theo wonders,

“If there had be no Omega, these were aims which a man might be prepared to fight for, even to suffer for. …It was reasonable to struggle, to suffer, perhaps even to die, for a more just, a more compassionate society, but not in a world with no future where, all too soon, the very words “justice,” “compassion,” society,” “struggle,” “evil,” would be unheard echoes on an empty air.”

This quote perfectly illustrates the concept of giving up on making progress and how PD James is aware of the philosophical implications a dying society imposes.

Another common reaction to the knowledge of humans ceasing to exist is the gradual decline to chaos. The majority of humans may not respond with a complete disregard to the law but a few will since life for them has lost its meaning. This is seen in the novel with the murderous Omegas called the Painted Faces. The Painted Faces are a gang that appears to only kill for the fun of it and steal people’s cars. Their killing is not done out of revenge, political terrorism, or defense but simply for the act of it. This is seen when Theo describes the scene of Luke’s death on page 184. “And now the killing looked less like a frenzy of blood-lust than a calculated murder. Five or size of the Omegas were holding their torches aloft in a circle within which, silently now, the dark shapes of the half-naked bodies, arms wielding their clubs, rose and fell in a ritual ballet of deaths.” PD James describes the murder of Luke as a ritual, displaying the complete decay of humanity and this neglect of law and order.

Lastly, one usually experiences a loss of interest in life or things they once found pleasurable. One will only think life no longer has a meaning, though, if their definition of the meaning of life is intertwined with the future, which for most it is. PD James explores this idea in the story when Theo discusses the lack of sexual drive humans now experience. On page 116 Theo says, “One might have imagined that with the fear of pregnancy permanently removed, and the unerotic paraphernalia of pills, rubber, and ovulation arithmetic no longer necessary, sex would be freed for new and imaginative delights. The opposite has happened.” But not only has sex lost its charm but so has love. This is seen when Theo says, “People still fall in love, or say that they are in love…But we read the love poem of previous ages with a kind of wonder” also on page 116. Even if one is able to live a full life span, the knowledge of their generation being the last one still causes the meaning of life to become pointless.

With these three concepts, the loss of societal betterment, the law, and the appeal of life in general, in mind, one can see in PD James’s novel that James is grappling with in depth philosophical ideas, just hidden in a captivating plot.

 

 

Reading “The Handmaid’s Tale” one would like to think the society Margaret Atwood is portraying is far from the reality of our society today. At least in America, rights regarding equality for sexuality and gender are finally being acknowledged like legalizing gay marriage, push for the Equal Rights Amendment, etc. but with a closer look Atwood’s Gilead is actually not a stretch.

The terrifying and familiar aspect of Gilead’s ideologies is suspending women’s rights with the justification of religion, which is never fully disclosed but can be assumed to be protestant based since they use the Bible. The Aunts drill into the Handmaids’ heads that they are fulfilling God’s will by being fruitful and multiplying. That being submissive is their duty and their body is purely for men’s use.
Now, the terrifying part of this rational is that with the reasoning of objectification of women’s body (in the form of porn, prostitution, rape, etc.) being outlawed, the Handmaids are actually being saved by the system. This is seen when the Aunts show the Handmaids the extremely graphic and violent pornographic films on page 118 and Aunt Lydia says “Consider the alternatives. You see what things used to be like? That was what they thought of women, then.” This idea of saving women from men’s horrible ways is seen again on page 55 when Aunt Lydia says “The spectacle women used to make of themselves. Oiling themselves like roast meat on a spit, and bare backs and shoulders, wonder those things used to happen.” Here, not only are the Aunts’ rationale that they have created the best society for these women to live in but that women are at the heart of the issue for making themselves a victim. And to make matters worse, let us add religion to the equation to validate all of this.
Also, isn’t declaring a women only fit to be a vessel for procreation the essence of objectification? That these women are only valuable to society due to their ability to be a container, an object, instead of as a meaningful human who can contribute to society in other ways than what their organs can do.

Now how is this familiar to America’s society? A blog post in the past few years took over the internet titled “Why I Choose To No Longer Wear Leggings” by Veronica Partridge. (It seems to be no longer available online.) If you are not familiar with this blog post, it is about this wife’s reasoning for no longer wearing legging in public, which is to keep other men from staring lustfully at her body and thus sinning. In simple terms, women should act a certain way due to men and ultimately with the justification of religion. Sound familiar? And sadly, this blog post is not alone with its mindset. Many women and men today are told that women are supposed to be pious and chaste and if they aren’t their salvation is in jeopardy.

Yes, Atwood took this concept to an extreme but it is frightening to see how Gilead’s ideologies are silently living in our society and that women are at the root of the problem. Victim blaming at its finest? I would say so.

Side note: If you would like to read more on the blog post by Partridge, I wrote my own Op-ed on this piece last year for Women’s studies 101 and would be happy to share it with you.

 

Ursula K. Le Guin has created an interesting society in her book, “The Left Hand of Darkness” by trying to escape gender roles, or so it appears. On the planet Winter, the inhabitants are androgynous unless during the mating cycle called kemmering. In designing a world where the people have no gender, one would think Guin would have successfully created a utopia (at least for a women’s studies minor) since the gender binaries would be destroyed. Surprisingly, though, Guin or at least her narrator, Genly Ai, fails at escaping gender stereotypes.

The most obvious example of this is the usage of the pronoun he throughout the novel. The English language lacks a neutral pronoun, creating a problem for individuals who are transgender or prefer not to be labeled by he/she. In “The Left Hand of Darkness,” the characters, except Genly, are genderless but are only ever referred to in male pronouns. Guin could be doing this for several reasons. The most straightforward one being the lack of a neutral pronoun thus, Guin using the default, he. If this is the case, then this is a topic right up a post-structural feminist’s alley. Another reason could be due to Guin writing in Genly’s voice and since Genly is a male from Earth his default pronoun would mostly be he.

The latter reason seems the most probable due to several reasons. First of all, it would be unreasonable that Guin, who has created a genderless society, would then go and accidentally introduce gender binaries. I was once told that an author never writes anything (a word, sentence, scene, etc.) without a reason and I believe that to this day. Thus, Guin is making a statement by her or per say Genly’s choice of pronouns. Perhaps, Guin is using Genly as a vessel to point out the flaws of our society and the box we have put ourselves in by loving our binaries.

Genly also projects gender roles on other characters in the novel, giving more evidence to the usage of the pronoun he being due to Genly’s mindset regarding gender. In meeting new people on the planet Winter, Genly has a habit of referring to their physical and behavioral traits either in a masculine or feminine way. For example, on page 60, Genly refers to Goss as “graceful as a girl.” Again, is this because Genly is experiencing a society without gender and is in the habit of classifying things through a gendered lens or is Guin unknowingly reinforcing gender roles?

Genly, though, does show an interesting and more developed side of himself on pages 252 and 253 when explaining women to Estravan. When asked if women and men are different species, Genly struggles with the answer and finally replies with a no but explains that the difference between the two sexes is one of importance. He does describe women with common stereotypes but proceeds to say one of my favorite lines in the book — “It’s extremely hard to separate the innate differences from the learned ones.” This is a perfect line since it speaks truth to our society but also shows that even though Genly can appear to have a mindset built around gender binaries he is able to question the origin of these ideas.

One can never know Guin’s true intentions but one can speculate. At a glance, I believed Guin was accidentally reinforcing gender roles but with a deeper analysis it appears that Guin was reinforcing gender roles through Genly to illustrate the mindset we humans have regarding gender and how it limits us. Well, at least the feminist in me does.