Avatar. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who made the connection. Of course, it's not that Avatar ripped off Lingua Franca, or vice versa. There are quite a few parallels, and it seems that the idea of the anti-conquest is applicable to to both the real world and pop culture. I know, the idea of the anti conquest is "sooo last week," but it's still an interesting concept, and I feel like there was more to be discussed.

It was never really made clear why the "Earthers" had come to the Aqueduct's world. One of the women that passed Mist signed "These Earthers are not like the other off-worlders...Not content with fixing our 'problem,' now they say they're 'fixing' our air." I don't think "fixing" the air was the primary objective, but what was that original "problem" that the Earthers came to fix? The fact that the Aqueducts couldn't speak or hear? That sounds a little like anti conquest to me. And keep trying to make parallels to Avatar. I thought the close relation was interesting, although unintended.

Let's put it this way:

"You guys need help. Let us give you the ability to speak and hear, while we slowly establish small but ever growing colonies and indoctrinate your people with our ways. Sound good?"

Well, that's a little more clear. At least it clarifies what the current situation is on the Aqueduct's home planet. We still don't know about the original motivation for coming to that planet. Maybe just for pure exploration. Either way, I don't believe that the author intended for it to be important.

So I suppose my first question is; does this short story put the Earthers in the position of the "Anti conquesters?" And how so?

Let's also check out the relationship between Mist and her daughter, Flower-in-the-Sun (that's a mouthful, let's call her FITS). FITS wanted to jump onto the speak/hear bandwagon, against her mother's wishes. Again, in Avatar, Neytiri mated with Sully, against her clans wishes.

There seems to be a lot of tension between the older, more traditional Aqueducts and the younger, progressive ones. The older generation is worried that their ancient culture will be lost/destroyed, and all because the newer generation is becoming more prosperous, thanks to the Earthers. FITS is immediately starting to become more popular with her cousins after her operation.

So my second question would be; which path do you think is more advantageous for the Aqueduct people? To remain traditional, or to be progressive and open to the Earthers? Should they chose to be more prosperous and risk losing their culture, or stick with the status quo? Why?

Where do you draw the line?

Ok, well during discussion about the anti-conquest idea of Pratt's article and the gun slinging conquest style of the characters in The Lost World, I started thinking; what are some good examples of these ideas throughout history. All I could come up with were examples of the latter, as in Cortes and the the conquistadors, Columbus and his treatment of the natives, etc. I couldn't come up with any anti-conquest examples. What do you guys think classifies something as anti-conquest? And what examples throughout history would classify as an example of anti-conquest? Where do you draw the line between good and harsh treatment of natives of the colonized land?

PS: By the way, I'm sorry for such the short post. I'm terrible at writing these things...

"There are heroisms all around us"

One of the passages I have highlighted in the book is in the very first chapter when Malone is talking to Gladys.

"But chances are all around you. It is the mark of the kind of man I mean that he makes his own chances. You can't hold him back... There are heroisms all around us waiting to be done.... ... ...But you shouldn't do it merely to please me. You should do it because you can't help it, because it's natural to you - because the man in you is crying out for heroic expression." (pg. 5-6)

I found this passage really interesting when I first read it because it encompasses such an "antique" view of what and why men, in particular, should do things. I thought about how it's now "okay" or accepted for women to be the heroes too. However, as the story continues to develop, I see how Gladys' trivial statements at the beginning are actually developing into truly meaningful things for Malone. During the beginning of the book, I was honestly annoyed with Malone because it didn't seem like he had any kind of direction or passion for himself. It was only to please others (Gladys in particular). But as the story is unfolding, I think that he's finding that thing inside him that "can't help it." Like his persistence in convincing Challenger to not only tell him about his expedition but also following and how comfortable he feels about going. I think that he's developing passion from curiosity and this parallels with how he's transforming from a boy into a man (as discussed in class).

In the end will Malone find that a part of him was always "crying out for heroic expression" and will end up being the kind of man that Gladys has envisioned? Will he discover a passion for adventure and the unknown? Will he regret not being more skeptical about Challenger's claims? Or will he continue to be "gullible" even after his trip to the lost world because in all reality, he did simply believe what he was told about there not being a lost world without question until he met Challenger. Will this cause him to question other "norms"?