Behemoth- How Many Lives?

Behemoth, by Scott Westerfeld, has some political powers moving the plot along. Then again, that makes sense considering the fact that the book is an alternate version of World War I. The difference between Behemoth’s war and ours is when Darwin has discovered evolution and DNA as well. Europe has become divided between the Clankers (Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire) and the Darwinists (England, France and Russia). The war has mostly to do with power, and whose ideas are better. Throughout the book, the question is asked, how many individual lives are worth the welfare of a nation?  

What the major countries in Europe did was unacceptable. There was no justice in it. The war can be brought to an end, but how will that make it right with the families who lost members to the war? There is no comfort in, your child died because the Ottomans can’t decide whether they like England. The rulers of many of the countries involved didn’t even think about the people they were killing. They were fighting to win a game. It was like chess. If one pawn is captured it’s not the end of the world, they are just one of eight, a number. They are pieces to move around. If there is a strategy and if that involves sacrificing a pawn to capture a bishop, then so be it. What’s worse is that they are playing for TV privileges and bragging rights, things that no one besides those in power really care about. There is no justice in playing a game with peoples lives.

There are also smaller situations in the book where people die but the reason is more sincere. When Alek and Deryn help a rebellion in the Ottoman Empire, soldiers on both sides are killed as well as people who had nothing to do with it. The Ottomans are ridding themselves of a terrible sultan as well as saving the crew of the Leviathan, an airship. On the other hand, they are taking lives from real people. The rebels, of course, believe that is okay. Their deaths are for a just cause. But is a revolution really worth these people’s lives? That is a question more difficult to answer.

This particular situation made me think of the bombing of Hiroshima, during World War II. The United States dropped an atom bomb on Japan in order to end a war they feared would drag on. They killed huge numbers of people. They resulted in radiation and caused diseases for years to come. At the same time, if the United States had allowed the war to continue, no one knows how many more lives could have been lost. This is a “what if” situation where no one really knows what the “right” answer is.

In a perfect world the answer to the question how many lives are worth the welfare of a nation would have the simple answer of none. In some cases, like the general war in Behemoth this is the answer. But in some cases there is more of a moral grey area. Either way a life is never expendable. 

Leviathan: Personal Identity vs. Predetermined Destiny

In the book Leviathan by Scott Westerfeld, Deryn Sharp, one of the two main characters, is a girl who leaves her life behind to masquerades as a boy and joins the English air force. Alek, the other main character, begins the book as the son of an archduke who will not inherit his father’s title due to his mother’s common blood. His world is turned upside down when his father is killed. He is taken away to Switzerland and then discovers that the his lack of title, the only thing that defined him, is actually inaccurate and that he is the heir to the Austro-Hungarian empire These characters are very different but are both controlled by extreme aspects of their lives.

I think the main theme of this book is about personal identity verses a predetermined destiny. Deryn leaves the life expected of her, the life of a girl, behind. Alek is obsessed with his political destiny. They both change though the book as Deryn begins to have feelings for Alek, and Alek starts to develop a personality, outside of politics when he helps the stranded crew of the Leviathan, Deryn’s ship.

            Neither character needs to completely shun their destinies or their identities. Deryn can be a girl and a pilot. The same goes for Alek. He can be a ruler and have be his own person outside of politics. This is something that by the end of the book the characters were beginning to realize. (It’s a series.) Deryn starts the book being defined by who she is. She doesn’t care that she is a girl. Alek enters the book in the opposite situation. His life is defined by his rank, or lack of rank. Both characters need to find a middle ground where they can accept who they are, while hold onto what they are.

Finding out who we are is important. This doesn’t mean we need to throw out what we are. We should be able to embrace both. Choosing one or the other is like trying to live using only one half of the body. While it is possible, to truly prosper, we need both.

           

Conformity- Is it Right or Wrong?

In a Wrinkle in Time I noticed conformity is a huge issue. In the beginning of the book Meg wants more then anything for people to like her, and to fit in. At the same time she is incredibly stubborn, refusing to do her work the same way as everyone else. After Meg’s trip to Camazots, a world where everyone does exactly the same thing all of the time and doesn’t think for themselves, and her encounter with IT, a deformed brain that attempts to control all people’s lives, Meg realizes that she doesn’t want to be like everyone else because she is happy just being Meg.

The end of the book seems to say that conforming to the system is bad no matter what form it is in. ITs brain washing control over everyone represented this conformity. In the very beginning of the book it was also shown when Meg’s teachers forced her to relearn math she could already do, but instead of using a short cut they forced her to do it the long way around. What Ms. Whatsit briefly mentions, but is never fully explained is that not all conformity is bad. Meg never seems to understand that. Her teachers probably had a reason for forcing her to do it the long way around.  Through her stubbornness she ends up getting in her own way. We need to follow laws and do our work. We can do that though without changing who we are. Mrs. Whatsit explains this concept very well. She compares life to a sonnet. For a sonnet to be a sonnet it must follow a strict form and rhythm. However within that form the poet can write what ever he or she wants. In the words of Mrs. Whatsit “‘You are given the form but you have to write the sonnet yourself, what you say is completely up to you.’“

 Even though this book was written 40 years ago, it still applies to today. The pulsing rhythm of IT is sort of like a group mentality, trying to make you listen to the same music wear the same clothes and go to the same movies. Everyone wants to give in to this at some point or another. But you can never allow yourself to be lost in the group. You can never loose yourself. Charles Wallace fell into IT and it took the one thing that IT didn’t have to save him, love. Meg was able to provide IT with the one thing it could never give Charles Wallace, a real emotion.

 We can dress the way others do and speak the way others do, but we can never sacrifice our minds. We can never let others control our opinions, thoughts or feelings. Those are the things that make us who we are. By taking away that, we would take away our identities.