Mansfield Park by Jane Austen

Jane Austen ‘s Mansfield Park is a novel that still drives a lot of differing opinions. Some love the book. Others find it to be disappointing. I found it to be superb. In some ways, it resembles other Austen books. It other ways, it is very different from the author’s other novels.

 This is the story of Fanny Price. Born to a relatively poor family, the novel’s heroine goes to live with the wealthy Bertram family while in her early teens. Fanny’s social and romantic interactions, as well as those of her adopted family, are the topic of the story. There are several subplots, and many of the novel’s characters are interesting and complex.

Fanny is atypical for an Austen heroine. She is exceedingly shy and unassuming. The word humble may be an understatement to describe her. Other characters sometimes bully, underappreciate and emotionally neglect her.

Early on, it becomes apparent that many of the Bertrams and their friends are narcissistic, unintellectual or seriously flawed in some major way. One exception is Fanny’s cousin, Edmund. It becomes clear that Fanny and he have an affinity for one another, though Edmund does not initially recognize the romantic aspects of it. Complicating matters is Edmund’s attraction for the sometimes kind but opportunistic, cynical and shallow Mary Crawford. Mary’s brother, Henry, though in many ways, narcissistic and manipulative himself, eventually becomes genuinely enamored with Fanny.

I have previously read Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, Emma and Persuasion. I found this novel to be funnier than the Austen works that I have read. I also found many of the characters to be darker and less ethical. To be sure, all of the Austen books that I have read contain immoral characters who conduct themselves in questionable ways. However, this book contains a core of characters who consistently engage in extremely selfish, petty and narcissistic behavior. This includes Fanny’s cousins, Julia, Maria and Tom, as well as her Aunt Norris.

So much has been written about this book and about Fanny in particular. A Google search will show that for well over a century, professional critics as well as amateurs have produced a steady stream of essays, articles and books dedicated to this novel. One could spend years just reading books that analyze and dissect this work. Opinions vary on Fanny. Some see her as a paragon of virtue, and others see her a stiff and stifling person. Critic Nina Auerbach famously compared her to Marry Shelly’s monster of Frankenstein fame.  Since so much has already been written, I will, as I often do, just share some thoughts on one particular aspect of this book.

I think that it is clear that Austen intended to make Fanny sympathetic but also complex and flawed. The book’s heroine is, at times, inwardly judgmental in an unpleasant way. However, she is mostly sympathetic, but in an unusual way. There is a lot to her character. As noted above, Fanny is abnormally shy and unassuming. So much so that she is often browbeaten by the other characters. In particular, Mrs. Norris continually subjects her to criticism that comes close to being verbally abusive. On the other hand, her uncle, Sir Thomas Bertram, though a stern man, usually shows Fanny particular kindness. This changes when Fanny refuses Crawford’s marriage proposal.  Bertram is vehement in his desire that the match go forward. He launches a tirade on the subject aimed at Fanny,

“”But you have now shewn me that you can be wilful and perverse; that you can and will decide for yourself, without any consideration or deference for those who have surely some right to guide you, without even asking their advice. You have shewn yourself very, very different from anything that I had imagined. The advantage or disadvantage of your family, of your parents, your brothers and sisters, never seems to have had a moment’s share in your thoughts on this occasion. How they might be benefited, how they must rejoice in such an establishment for you, is nothing to you. You think only of yourself, and because you do not feel for Mr. Crawford exactly what a young heated fancy imagines to be necessary for happiness, you resolve to refuse him at once, without wishing even for a little time consider of it, a little more time for cool consideration, and for really examining your own inclinations; and are, in a wild fit of folly, throwing away from you such an opportunity of being settled in life, eligibly, honourably, nobly settled, as will, probably, never occur to you again. Here is a young man of sense, of character, of temper, of manners, and of fortune, exceedingly attached to you, and seeking your hand in the most handsome and disinterested way; and let me tell you, Fanny, that you may live eighteen years longer in the world without being addressed by a man of half Mr. Crawford’s estate, or a tenth part of his merits…You do not owe me the duty of a child. But, Fanny, if your heart can acquit you of ingratitude””

The above is tyrannical, petty and unfair. The “wild fit of folly” as well as the references to selfishness are particularly unjust given Fanny’s calm temperament, seriousness and selflessness. Yet the best that Fanny can do here is to shrink back, cry and do nothing to defend herself. This is consistent with her behavior throughout the narrative.

However, there is another aspect to Fanny’s character. Despite this timidity, she is unwavering when applying her principles. Despite her shrinking in response to the above diatribe, she never once considers giving in and accepting Crawford’s proposal. She maintains this stance despite enormous pressure from her family, friends and Crawford himself. She does not love the man and has serious questions about his integrity. She not only refuses to give in, but she never even considers accepting his proposal. Fanny is not even tempted.

Fanny shows a similar combination of timidity and unyielding backbone when she refuses to act in a play being put on by her family and friends that she has moral objections to. What adds to the complexity of the book is that at times, as in the case of the play, these moral objections may seem questionable. There is a lot going on with Fanny. This seems to be the source of some readers’ dislike of this book and her character.

Austen has fashioned in Fanny a young woman who is often meek, but who is capable of putting up wall of granite when her morals are challenged. Hence, the paradox that I refer to above. This is only one of several angles that makes Fanny fascinating and multidimensional. In order to explore them all, I would need several blog posts.

The above is also only one of many aspects that also makes this book appealing. The novel has other complex and fascinating characters. The story is interesting. There is a lot going on thematically. As always, Austen’s prose is brilliant and witty. The book is also very funny in a cynical and biting way.   Despite varying opinion among critics and general readers, I thought that this was another complex masterpiece by Austen.

The Gate to Women's Country by Sheri S. Tepper

This post contains spoilers.

The Gate to Women's Country by Sheri S. Tepper is science fiction story that takes place hundreds of years after the collapse of modern civilization due to a catastrophic event known as “The Convulsion.” The book delves deeply into the issues of gender and violence. As is typical with any fictional exploration on gender, this novel still prompts a lot of Internet discussion despite being first published in 1988. 

Tepper has created a fictional society where the genders are separated. In the cities, which are ecologically self - sustaining but relatively low technology, the majority of the population is comprised of women. All the political and social power is, at least on the surface, in control of women. At the age of five boys are sent outside of the city walls. There, an all male, warrior culture exists. At periodic times during the year there is a “Carnival” where the warriors mingle with the women of the city. During this time sexual encounters are frequent. Thus people supposedly procreate.

At the age of fifteen the boys are given a choice: remain outside the city walls, and engage in the occasional brutal wars between the “garrisons” that surround each city, or reenter the city and live their lives as a “servitor”. The servitors live lives of relative comfort and are seemingly well treated, but are second - class citizens. It is a testament to the nuance of Tepper’s skills in crafting this fictional society that the servitors’ relationship to the women of the cities is complex and nuanced. These men are often, but not always, shown respect and are sometimes treated as equals within family units. It is eventually revealed that some servitors wield power behind scenes and have a great stake in preserving the cities of Women’s Country. It is also revealed that the leadership of Women’s Country are engaged in a selective breeding plan aimed at making future generations of men less prone to violence. 

There are other groups that live outside the city walls that follow more egalitarian gender and traditional family roles. Characters who are members of this group provide an important perspective on the cultures of the male garrisons as well as Women’s Country.

The main character in the book is Stavia, a citizen of the city of Marthatown. Stavia is interesting and nuanced. She is a strong and intelligent but also capable of showing weakness. The narrative spans a large percentage of her life from the time she is twelve years old through her late thirties. Other characters include members of Stavia’s family, as well as Joshoa, a servitor who has impressive physical and psychic powers. 

Chernon is a young warrior who is Stavia’s love interest.  Over time he shows himself to be malevolent and vicious. Like several women in the book, Stevia is attracted to a man despite knowing that such attraction is not in her self - interest. This plot development ties into the novel’s themes. 

The story comes to a climax when Stavia and Chernon strike off on a exploration of uncharted lands. They are captured by a group of religious fanatics who treat women as property. This plot development allows Tepper to explore even more angles relating to gender.

The novel has much to say about gender and violence. Throughout the cities of Women’s Country a play called Iphigenia is immensely popular. This work is a modified version of Euripides’s The Trojan Woman. Large parts of the play’s dialogue are included in the text. Iphigenia ties into the novel’s themes in several ways. One of the main messages conveyed in the performance is that violence and war perpetuated by men has devastating consequences for women, children, and for society in general. The play is indictment of violence that is mostly perpetuated by men. 

Tepper’s fictional society has found a way to channel violence. The women of the cities, the warriors of the garrisons and the servitors all live by a strict code of laws. The garrisons only war among themselves. Combat is ritualized, takes place as the garrisons face each other in fields, and cannot involve any weapons that have ranges beyond a couple of feet. Only soldiers die or suffer. The remainder of society is not affected in any way. No man is forced to be soldier, as they can choose to be servitors instead. 

At one point Stevia’s mother, explains the arrangement to Stevia, 

“War is dreadful, daughter. It always has been. Comfort yourself with the knowledge that in preconvulsion times it was worse! More died, and most of them were women, children, and old people. Also, wars were allowed to create devastations. Under our ordinances, no children are slain.  No women are slain. Only men who choose to be warriors go to battle. There is no devastation.”  

Tepper is pointing out that a percentage of men are violent. She seems to view this kind of men as irredeemable. The men of the garrisons are in the end, all depicted as untrustworthy and prone to dominate and harm others. The breeding program is indication that Tepper believes that a propensity for violence is genetic. Of course the factors that drive violence or complicated, but I agree that there is strong genetic component.

In the book, some men, as represented by the servitors, though capable of violence for self - defense and to protect others, are mostly peaceful, ethical and moral. This also seems to be reflective of the author’s view of men. 

In the story it is emphasized that some women, maybe most, are often attracted to destructive and dangerous men. This happens despite the fact that on an intellectual level they know it is not wise to do so. This is a stereotype that we often hear in popular culture. It is common to hear people say that that many women are attracted to dangerous and abusive men. I would like to see data and studies, if this is possible, to determine if there is a propensity for women to do this. My own, extremely biased observations about people, is that a percentage of both woman and men are attracted to destructive people. I have not noticed a difference between genders. 

Tepper’s ethical characters end up in terrible dilemma. In order to stop the garrisons from overrunning the cities and enslaving women, from time to time the cities’ leadership, consisting a small number of women and servitors working behind the scenes, manipulate and goad the garrisons into wars that lead to mass slaughters of men. The moral quandary that this raises is expressed at several points in the text.

Tepper offers no easy solution to this dilemma. Though the root of the conundrum is violent men, no one in the know has clean hands. 

In some ways this book is a cry of despair in response to human violence. At one point both Stavia and Joshoa are brought to tears over it. Tepper seems see as the best the solution a matriarchal society that treats non - violent men benevolently. Longer term, in order to eliminate violence in the world, she has created a fantastical breeding program. 

My take is that it is easy to become negative about violence in the world. Unimaginable brutality happens. Often non - combatants trapped in proximity to such brutality suffer immeasurably. History and current events show that a small percentage of men are responsible for this violence.  Despite these horrors, there are things that reduce violence short of playing with human genetics. I once again I point readers to Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature for practical, evidence based solutions. 

I have also recently read Pamela Sargent’s The Shore of Women. My commentary on that book is here. Tepper’s novel was published two years after Sargent’s. There are obvious similarities between the two stories. Both center on matriarchal societies that segregate men and women. Both involve a violent male society living outside the cities. They even both include a plot development that involves the main characters visiting a small misogynist group plagued by inbreeding. One has to wonder if Tepper read the Shore of Women before writing this. However, there are a lot of differences between the works, particularly in the philosophy conveyed. This novel has a lot of unique things to say about gender and violence that are different from Sargent’s views.  This book was more intellectual and focused more on themes and symbolism then did Shore of Women. Sargent’s book was more action driven. I like Tepper’s prose better then Sergent’s. Sergent's prose is flatter.  

If I am reading Tepper correctly, I think she is actually advocating for a matriarchal system in order to stem violence. In contrast, Sargent’s philosophy seems egalitarian and advocates for equality. 

This book has some flaws. The male characters fit too neatly into categories. The men who choose to stay in the garrisons are depicted as hopelessly violent and untrustworthy. In contrast the servitors are portrayed as almost saint - like. As stated above, this book is also a little too derivative of Pamela Sargeant’s novel.

Despite its flaws this work is a fascinating foray into the issues of gender and violence. As I noted in regards to Sargent’s book, one does not need to agree with all or most of Tepper’s philosophy and world - view in order to enjoy these ruminations. Stavia is also a very interesting, nuanced character. The world that Tepper has created here is also fascinating and well thought out.

I would recommend this book to anyone interested in fanciful explorations of gender or violence. It makes an interesting comparison to Sargent’s work. It also will appeal to readers who are interested in fictional societies and cultures. Certain readers will find this book very enjoyable and very thought provoking. 

From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds by Daniel C. Dennett

Daniel C. Dennett’s From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds is an attempt to explain how human minds and the concept of consciousness came to be. This book is a hybrid of natural science, social science and philosophy. Dennett is both a philosopher and a cognitive scientist. I have also read his Consciousness Explained. That work was written in 1991. In many ways, this recent book builds on the earlier work.

This book consists of Dennett laying out and interpreting how he believes minds, both human and animal, evolved. The author covers the origins of life, the evolution of life, brains and cognition. Eventually, Dennett moves on and explores the theory of memes. For those unfamiliar with the theory behind memes, it postulates that human ideas and culture can be broken down into small ideas. Such ideas spawn new ideas, compete with one another, sometimes thrive, sometimes die out, etc. Memes evolve in a way that are similar to genes. Thus, human culture and ideas evolve in a Darwinian fashion. Dennett contends that much of what we consider the human mind and consciousness can be attributed to memes.

This book is very technical in some parts. I found some of it to be difficult to comprehend. The author presupposes a basic understanding of such concepts as evolution, basic biology and other aspects of basic science. I found that most of the science and other technical aspects of the book to be understandable. However, occasionally, the science and technical parts of the book became obtuse. For instance, at one point in the text the author delves into concepts related to Bayesian Probability. I went into this book knowing what Bayesian probability is, and I had a very basic understanding of the concept. However, this rudimentary knowledge turned out to be insufficient for me to fully follow all of Dennett’s arguments. With that, I understood the majority of the science presented in this work.

Where I was most challenged was in my ability to follow all of Dennett’s philosophy and reasoning. A reader more versed in modern philosophy would likely have done better here. With that, even when I had difficulty comprehending particular points, I was usually able understand the main arguments being made and compartmentalize the arguments that I could not understand.

It is important to note that this book comprises a lot of opinion. Dennett has all sorts of ideas on scientific and technical subjects that are not settled. To his credit, in an effort to refute arguments and theories that he does not agree with, the author often presents beliefs that counter his own with some detail. For instance, though many scientists and philosophers embrace the theory of memes, many do not. Dennett is a strong believer in the theory. Despite this, the author elaborates detailed augments against memes.   

Towards the end of the work, Dennett lays out his theory of the mind and consciousness. Dennett's approach is Materialist. He believes that most of what goes on in our brains are automated processes that we have neither access to nor control over. What we consider consciousness is but one “system” that came about though evolution of genes and memes. This conscious system exists primarily to communicate with others. Dennett reasons that we must be able to analyze our own inner mental processes in order to convince, cooperate, compete and interact with other individuals Dennett goes further and speculates that what we call consciousness is mostly illusionary and mainly consists of false explanations of our actions and hidden thought processes.

Dennett acknowledges that his ultimate theory seems difficult to accept. I agree that it is difficult to accept. With that, I think it is important to note certain things about Dennett’s argument. First, the idea that consciousness might be illusionary is somewhat popular with some, but not with all scientists and philosophers who are exploring the human mind. Second, Dennett has a scientific mind, and he admits that he has not fully proven his hypotheses and is making educated guesses based on evidence. He spends the bulk of the work building both evidence and arguments for his beliefs.  Finally, he spells out why, assuming that his model is valid, people would reject it based upon human bias. He writes,

“You might be a zombie, unwittingly taking yourself to have real consciousness with real qualia, but I know that I am not a zombie! No, you don’t. The only support for that conviction is the vehemence of the conviction itself, and as soon as you allow the theoretical possibility that there could be zombies, you have to give up your papal authority about your own nonzombiehood.”

“Zombie” is a term used commonly by scientists and others who explore consciousness. It more or less describes people, animals or machines that are not conscious. The above quote is referring to the fact that people might argue that they have free will and consciousness, but have minds that really only consist of automated process.

Though I am far from convinced that Dennett’s ultimate conclusions are valid, I acknowledge that he has built a compelling case. In addition, the book is filled with lots of real science and intriguing philosophy and insights that are worth exploring.

I have read several books and a lot of articles on the human mind and consciousness, and I think that it is important to keep in mind that there are many views and theories that relate to these issues. Many views are similar to Dennett’s, but many are different. For some alternate theories on the these subjects, I recommend David Chalmers's The Conscious Mind. Chalmers believes that there is something very special about consciousness that is embedded in the Universe itself. This approach is known as Dualism. His book is fascinating but difficult. 

I recommend this book to readers who are not afraid of challenging books. In my opinion, it works best as part of a broader reading plan dedicated to consciousness. At this point, it cannot be considered the final word on this topic. With all of this, in the right context, this is a fascinating read on one of the most intriguing and important of scientific and philosophical topics.

Phineas Finn by Anthony Trollope

Anthony Trollope’s Phineas Finn is the second book in his Palliser series. My commentary on the first book, Can You Forgive Her? is here. This novel centers on Phineas Finn, a young Irishman elected to the British House of Commons. The book is steeped in British politics and society. 

In the course of the novel, Phineas befriends and interacts with various characters, many of whom are politicians or connected to politics in some way. Many of these characters are interesting in their own right, and the narrative involves several interwoven plot threads.

Early on, Phineas becomes enamored with Lady Laura Standish. Though she begins to fall in love with Phineas, Lady Laura decides to marry the wealthy politician, Robert Kennedy, instead. Later, Phineas turns his romantic sites on her friend, Violet Effingham. 

Lord Chiltern is Lady Laura’s wildly dangerous but amusing brother. Lady Glencora and Plantagenet Palliser, are back from the previous book. There are additional interesting characters. 

The book’s themes involve politics and political philosophy, as well as the plight of women in Victorian society. Characters in this book are complex, as are the novel’s themes. Phineas himself is likable, but flawed. At 640 pages, Trollope uses plenty of words to develop these angles. Thus, I could devote multiple blog posts to individual characters and themes.

A particularly interesting character is Lady Laura. I want to write a few words about her. As is typical with Trollope, her complexity is reflective of a real human being. 

Lady Laura is a woman who wields great political power and influence behind the scenes and who has sophisticated and nuanced opinions regarding politics and the world at large.  

She is thus described,

“It was her ambition to be brought as near to political action as was possible for a woman without surrendering any of the privileges of feminine inaction. That women should even wish to have votes at parliamentary elections was to her abominable, and the cause of the Rights of Women generally was odious to her; but, nevertheless, for herself, she delighted in hoping that she too might be useful,— in thinking that she too was perhaps, in some degree, politically powerful”

However, Lady Laura makes a terrible mistake. She decides to marry the dull and repressive Robert Kennedy. He is no brute. He is just quietly oppressive. Lady Laura describes him to her brother as thus,

"He does not beat me  …He never said a word in his life either to me or, as I believe, to any other human being, that he would think himself bound to regret…He simply chooses to have his own way, and his way cannot be my way. He is hard, and dry, and just, and dispassionate, and he wishes me to be the same.”

For several months, Lady Laura  allows Mr. Kennedy to stifle her socially and politically. She eventually rebels, however. Conflict erupts between her and her husband. She manages to assert some independence, but she remains subdued in some ways. As they quietly fight each other to a draw, both husband and wife descend into a state of misery. 

The inflexibility and sexism manifested by Mr. Kennedy is illustrated in the below passage. 

“His married life had been unhappy. His wife had not submitted either to his will or to his ways. He had that great desire to enjoy his full rights, so strong in the minds of weak, ambitious men, and he had told himself that a wife's obedience was one of those rights which he could not abandon without injury to his self-esteem. He had thought about the matter, slowly, as was his wont, and had resolved that he would assert himself.”

Trollope is so complex. Though the reader’s sympathy naturally falls towards Lady Laura, as in real life, sometimes decent people do questionable things when under stress and in the midst of conflict. At one point, Lady Laura inappropriately employs the tactic of overpraising Phineas, who she still has feelings for, as a weapon against her husband. At this stage, the reader actually begins to sympathize with Mr. Kennedy. 

All of this adds up to a very nuanced portrait of Lady Laura. It is a picture of a woman who is politically ambitious yet has morals and integrity. She also has flaws that lead her to make an irrevocable mistake. She marries Mr. Kennedy mainly to improve her social and political position. She tries to act honestly and ethically, but sometimes fails to do so. She is often at war with her own emotions.

In his portrait of Lady Laura, Trollope seems to be highlighting the unfairness that women face. In politics, she cannot assert herself as a man would. In terms of marriage, though her and her husband both make mistakes in marrying, she is the one at a disadvantage. In addition, in the portrayal her disastrous marriage, Trollope highlights the pitfalls of placing political gain over what is right. Instead of choosing Phineas whom she loved, Lady Laura chooses Mr. Kennedy for political advantage. 

Lady Laura is only one of many complex characters contained in this book. The above is only one of several interesting subplots to this novel. There are entire interesting plot threads that I have not even mentioned. One could write many words on the political philosophy expounded within the pages of this novel, and much of it is still relevant today. 

As this is the second of the Palliser novels, I recommend that one reads Can You Forgive Her first. With that, this book works well as a standalone. Either way, this is another brilliant exploration of character and themes by Anthony Trollope.

Ringworld by Larry Niven

Larry Niven’s Ringworld is a reread for me. This novel, originally published in 1970, tells the story of four adventurers who explore a mysterious alien mega-structure. Set in the far future, humankind has begun colonizing the galaxy. Humans have also encountered and interacted with several sentient alien species.

This is a very character-driven book. The list of protagonists consist of: Louis Wu, a playboy who is also intelligent, philosophical and enlightened; Teela Brown, a young woman who has a strange, possibly psychically-based, tendency to experience nothing but good luck; Speaker to Animals, a member of an alien race of feline-like warriors called the Kzin; and Nessus is a member of an alien species called Pierson's Puppeteers.

The Puppeteers are key to the plot. They are two-headed Tripods. Their extreme caution is manifested in enormous cowardice. They are also an extremely advanced civilization that is capable of moving entire planets over vast distances.

The story hinges on the fact that The Puppeteers have discovered a massive, artificial ring structure orbiting around a remote star. Its surface is so big that its landmass would encapsulate a million Earths. Its origin, as well as the origin of those who built it, is unknown. The Puppeteers are afraid to mount their own expedition, thus the book’s protagonists are recruited to explore the Ringworld. The narrative details their wanderings on the object. Upon reaching the Ringworld, they discover that the once advanced civilization that occupied the mega-structure has collapsed into near barbarism.  The expedition proceeds to have encounters with all sorts of amazing aliens and phenomena.

Though it is considered, and does loosely fit into the category of hard science fiction, this book is, above all else, fun. The characters are entertaining, and their interactions between each other are as interesting as they are amusing. The adventure that they partake in is grand. The description of both the Ringworld as well as the various planets and technology encountered by the expedition is chocked full of wonder and is imaginative. In addition to all of this, the book is funny. Niven has a dry but active sense of humor, and all of the characters are all amusing.

An idea of the playful/serious/imaginative mix of the book is illustrated in the below passage which describes Louis Wu being attacked by an individual, the “hairy man,” followed by a mob,

“The blow was light, for the hairy man was slight and his hands were fragile. But it hurt. Louis was not used to pain. Most people of his century had never felt pain more severe than that of a stubbed toe. Anaesthetics were too prevalent, medical help was too easily available. The pain of a skier's broken leg usually lasted seconds, not minutes, and the memory was often suppressed as an intolerable trauma. Knowledge of the fighting disciplines, karate, judo, jujitsu, and boxing, had been illegal since long before Louis Wu was born. Louis Wu was a lousy warrior. He could face death, but not pain. The blow hurt. Louis screamed and dropped his flashlight-laser. The audience converged. Two hundred infuriated hairy men became a thousand demons; and things weren't nearly as funny as they had been a minute ago. “

Though the novel brings the reader into contact with incredible things and Niven has put a lot of thought into the science, the physics, biology, astronomy, psychology, etc., is described in enough detail to be interesting but never so much detail to be boring. The author makes many of these fanciful events and objects plausible. There is also a lot of monumental things going on in the universe, such as the existence of the humongous Ringworld itself, the movements of entire planets, galactic explosions, genetic breeding programs that can alter the course of civilizations, etc. Big issues are addressed, such as human evolution, free will, the fate of civilizations, the nature of human suffering, etc. All of this is presented in fascinating and imaginative ways that are never pretensions.

There are philosophical themes floating around. The issue of control is present throughout the narrative. Individuals are constantly trying to control each other, and entire species are often attempting to control other species. As the tale progresses, Teela Brown becomes more central to the book’s themes. Her tendency to be “lucky” has a profound effect on those around her.   Everything just falls into place in ways that benefit her.   This may be impinging on the free will of those around her. This is not always portrayed as a good thing. There is a libertarian tendency and a strong message championing individual freedom here.  Having read a few of Niven’s works, I can say that in the 1980s his books displayed a more traditionally Conservative view, which seems to have evolved from this earlier stage.

Many people consider this novel a science fiction classic. This book, along with Niven’s entire Known Space series, of which Ringworld is a part, has achieved cult status.  A Google search reveals dozens of websites, some very extensive, devoted to the technology, aliens, characters and philosophy of the books that make up the Known Space series. This series includes many books, including several direct sequels to the Ringworld, of which I have read a few. I may read or reread a few more books in the series.

The book is far from perfect.  Niven’s prose never rises above the mediocre. While the author does philosophize a lot, the philosophy tends to be simplistic and does not show a lot of complexity or nuance. In the end, however, this book’s virtues rise above its flaws.

This is an intelligent and fun work of science fiction. It is populated by lively and amusing characters and ideas. It tackles a lot of big issues in unpretentious ways.  I highly recommend this novel to anyone who likes well thought out but entertaining stories of wonder.

The Fidget by Anton Chekhov

I read the Larissa Volokhonsky and Richard Pevear translation of this story.

This Post contains spoilers.

As I observed here, one common aspect of Anton Chekhov’s stories is that they champion the voiceless. In the story Anyuta, the tale’s namesake is exploited by her boyfriend, Stepan Klochkov. In response, Anyuta suffers silently. Furthermore, Stepan shows no redeeming qualities.  Having read a fairly large number of Chekhov’s stories, I can say that this type of unhealthy relationship is very common in the great Russian writer’s tales. 

The Fidget is another of the tales of the voiceless as well as their exploitive counterparts. Newlywed Olga Ivanovna neglects her husband, Dymov, and cheats on him with her artist friend, Ryabovsky. The entire story concerns her ill treatment of him. Though Dymov comes to realize what is going on, he never confronts his wife. 

When she decides to cheat on Dymov, Olga Ivanovna ponders, 

“She wanted to think of her husband, but the whole of her past, with the wedding, with Dymov, with her soirées, seemed small to her, worthless, faded, unnecessary, and far, far away… What Dymov, indeed? Why Dymov? What did she care about Dymov? Did he really exist in nature, or was he merely a dream? “For him, a simple and ordinary man, the happiness he has already received is enough,” she thought, covering her face with her hands. “Let them condemn me there, let them curse me, and I’ll just up and ruin myself, ruin myself to spite them all… One must experience everything in life. Oh, God, how scary and how good!””

As cruel as the above is, there is a tinge of regret in Olga Ivanovna’s mind, despite the fact that she rationalizes her actions with, “For him, a simple and ordinary man, the happiness he has already received is enough” she realizes that what she is doing is wrong.

  

This is unusual for Chekhov. In most of his other stories, like Anyuta, those that exploit the good and the silent do so without any regret. Furthermore, the malicious person usually gets away scot-free and ends up self-satisfied. However, something unusual happens in The Fidget.

Upon Dymov’s death, Olga Ivanovna is wracked with guilt and regret, 

“Olga Ivanovna recalled her whole life with him, from beginning to end, in all its details, and suddenly understood that he was indeed an extraordinary, rare man and, compared with those she knew, a great man...The walls, the ceiling, the lamp, and the rug on the floor winked at her mockingly, as if wishing to say: “You missed it! You missed it!”” 

Olga pays a price for her horrible treatment of Dymov. Her punishment is self-reproach. The story ends on this note. This reader is left to wonder what becomes of her. Will she go on, full of regrets as broken person, or will she use this tragedy and create something better for herself and for the world?

I think that there is at least some hope in the fact that Olga Ivanovna realizes what she has done. It gives her humanity. This is rare, as Chekhov’s oppressors do not usually show much compassion. Checkhov often wrote stories filled with darkness. Often the humanity he illuminates is only present in the downtrodden. In this tale, however, we see some light even in one who is culpable.