Entry 4-Bloodchild

        The whole procedure was wrong, alien. I wouldn't have thought anything about her could seem alien to me.          pg 17

       The word "alien" in this passage takes on a meaning that mocks the meaning that our society has given it. In the world that we live in, something that is alien can be defined by a creature with "three meters of body", at least "six or seven limbs" and the ability to sting narcotic fluid into humans. However, in the scientifically fictional world created by Octavia Butler, all of these features are typical of the most successful creatures on the planet. And, in an ironic twist, the very idea of this alien being "alien", or in other words shockingly unfamiliar, is an idea that is itself alien to the main character of this story, a human adolescent named Gan. And in a way, the new meaning given to this word is only the tip of the iceberg. There are more redefined social conventions in this story than in any other context I have seen. Notions of race are questioned by this entirely new species, the Tlic, now dominating the Terrans who we recognize as all of humanity, suddenly "not much more than convenient, big, warm-blooded animals" (9). The notions of gender that are considered prominent in our culture are now redefined by the opinions that the Tlic (as the dominant species) have regarding the importance of each gender to their own needs. Even the socially constructed unit of "family" has been tampered with, as the Tlic create a new dynamic in order to integrate themselves into units that combine their reproductive needs with the familial notions necessary for the humans to accept them. Finally, the entire process of birth that humans consider normal and natural, and is indeed necessary to our continued existence, is juxtaposed in this story with a different process of birth. All of the new social conventions that the Tlic have adapted, in some way or another, revolved around this somewhat parasitic relationship that is necessary to the survival of the Tlic race.
     There are so many ways to approach each of these redefinitions of our very cultural understanding. But in the interest of keeping the big picture in mind, the question that all of these adaptations bring to my mind is twofold. What is necessary to completely redefine the outlook of a civilization, in the way that the above quote shows a shift in the perception of what is normal? I believe that this text suggests that the power base defines the culture, just as one might say the winners write history. The second question that arises is why social norms and notions of common sense exist in the first place? In this case, the familial relationship between the Tlic and their human families is created in order to put the needs of the Tlic in terms that humans understand. As we see, this relationship causes an emotional connection to emerge between these couples, which makes the acceptance of this painful and unwarranted process possible. But the question remains, is this emotional response something that has been designed in order to facilitate the essential process of reproduction? And even if these emotions are fabricated, does it matter?
       Are social conventions in general necessary to our existence? Probably not. But they serve an important function in our culture, nonetheless. They give us structure, an understood purpose, that leads to our happiness and fulfillment. So maybe social problems don't emerge because of our need for structure, but rather when our society becomes too rigid to accept change and adaptation to circumstances that create tension. Because if some day we're going to be invaded by aliens who can easily choose to dominate us and turn us into "little more than convenient, big animals", I believe that adaptation is favorable to suppression. Survival of the fittest, baby.

Entry 3-The Essays of Anne Fausto-Sterling

I would argue further that sex is a vast, infinitely malleable continuum that defies the constraints of even five categories --"The Five Sexes"

Only if we conceptualize sexuality as part of a developmental system which reaches from our cultural and social history to the cells in our bodies can we learn how we move from outside to inside and back out again, without ever lifting our feet from the [Mobius] strip's surface. --"Sexing the Body"

        Choosing a passage, or in this case passages, for this entry was more difficult than it has been for any reading to this point in the course. Going back through the article and trying to pick out the pieces that intrigued me the most I recognized for the first time the unique difference between these readings and other readings from this class--I have almost literally never thought about any of this before. The question of "What is a sex?", which I tried to embody the essence of in my chosen passages, is simply not something I had previously gotten around to asking myself, or at least not so openly. Naturally, then, I find myself a bit overwhelmed by the implications of this question, one so imperative to understanding the complexity of society. Even more overwhelming is the realization that this woman, Anne Fausto-Sterling, has dedicated her professional life to this question. It seems that I'm just breaking the surface of the implications involved. 
         Luckily for me, Fausto-Sterling has compiled an excellent introduction, and I feel that now I can at least begin to question this social construct that I believe to be more complex than any other. More complex because, when you think about it, there's really nothing else out there like gender. It is at once anatomical, personal, socially held, individually known (and often questioned), emotional, instinctual and-- now I learning-- all-together constructed. And even after learning more about this concept than I had in my first 18 years, I'm still considering the most fundamental question of all: Does it even exist?

Entry 2-Aye, And Gomorroah

'What will you give me? I want something,' I said. 'That's why I came. I'm lonely. Maybe I want to find out how far it goes. I don't know yet.'

        I think this story is so unique, and groundbreaking, because it feels different from anything I've ever read. I can best understand it is as a hybrid. The story combines the most outlandish science-fiction-y, surreal portrayal of the future with a writing style, tone and theme most comparable in my mind with Hemingway's work. There is something distinctly modernist about the loneliness of these characters (and something distinctly Hemingway in the writing style). It wasn't actually until I started writing this post that I recognized just how true this is.
        The above line in particular, chosen because it exemplifies, in my mind, the central struggle of the protagonist, could be in any "normal" work of American modern fiction--while I see it more specifically in a narrative of McCarthy or Hemingway. When I read the quote, I myself feel confused. The first reason is that I don't understand the meaning of the line "how far it goes". It could be an ambiguous vocalization of this nameless character's desire to desire, wanting to know what that feels like, or it could be something less figurative that I completely missed the meaning of in the first reading (and second skimming) of this piece.
        But for my purposes it doesn't really matter.
       The other aspect of confusion that I feel is less literal. The entire line of dialogue is confused, exudes confusion, because of the tragic confusion at the center of this person's perspective. The person (he/she/it) wants to know what desire feels like, and maybe can't even desire this completely. He/she/it feels empty, feels like a part of him/her is missing because of this emptiness--this thing that everyone else gets, but he/she cannot. The girl that he/she talks with, the frelk, equates her "complex" to necrophilia, and calls the protagonist a "corpse in free fall!", unabashedly associating this person in front of her with a dead body. The protagonist's lack of desire, of sex, of identity means to the society, or to this girl at least, that he/she is without life. There is a serious complex, then, involved in both of their states. Both are the outsiders of the society, neither seem to really understand the nature of that they want, and both feel isolated by the society for being who they are, or trying to.
       If this isn't modernism, than I don't know what is. And if it's not also something more, by the very nature of it's new and create perspective, then I suppose I fundamentally am misunderstanding the genre of science fiction. Because this is what the genre has to offer, at it's best. Recurring, timeless themes, ideas and attitudes from a point of view that takes one out of the existing social norms and the extent of "realistic" perspective and into a point of view from which these ideas can be seen through fresh eyes, through new eyes. Through much cooler eyes.

Entry 1-The Lathe of Heaven

           Orr stood up, but didn’t head for the door. “Did you ever happen to think, Dr. Haber,” he said, quietly enough but stuttering a little, “that there, there might be other people who dream the way I do? That reality’s being changed out from under us, replaced, renewed, all the time—only we don’t know it? Only the dreamer knows it, and those who know his dream. If that’s true, I guess we’re lucky not knowing it. This is confusing enough.”                                                                                  pg 71

            Reading this passage it became clear to me that, while George Orr personally struggles with issues that are unique to his anomalous situation, his perspective reflects, in many ways, the same efforts that all of humanity undergoes at one point or another to try and explain the abstract concepts that make up our reality. Marked next to the above passage in my book is a quick scrawl of a few words, barely intelligible, which express what I was thinking with the initial impact of this speech. “Rethinks the nature of reality,” I had commented. I have no doubt, looking back, that the understood subject I had in mind was Orr, but these words actually reflect the thoughts that ran through my head at the time. I was rethinking, along with Orr, the nature of our collective reality. What does it mean to live in a world where the very essence of your life is defined by this abstract thing we call “time”?  This is often enough to think about without the variables to the accepted scheme that are presented in this story. And yet, by looking at the world through the perspective of Orr’s ethereal blue-gray eyes, we have the opportunity to think about our human condition in a different light. Does it really matter how my reality is created? Do the means define then end, or is reality defined purely by what I believe to be true? All of these essentially human suspicions arise in my consciousness as I ponder Orr’s situation, but this time they are presented with a new twist—the perspective of someone who is intrinsically connected to the process of creating reality. Would any of these questions have answers if I knew that there was a man or woman with George Orr’s ability in existence? Probably not. But, as my mind floods with new possibilities that will likely never amount to any resolution, I cannot help settling on Orr’s final words, “I guess we’re lucky not knowing…this is confusing enough.”