I’ve noticed that a couple of interesting points have been touched upon already in the earlier posts, but I want to try to link them together in a different way. First of all, for a number of classes, a lot of time has been devoted to inspecting and trying to understand a common theme within the novel: the prominence of contradictions and opposites.
In the very first chapter, we are faced with a number of opposing characters- Tim Hamner versus Harvey Randall, Maureen versus Loretta, and the field of scientific exploration versus entertaining the masses. Furthermore, when we look deeply at the novel in and of itself (an entertaining sci-fi from the 1970’s) and what it represents (the end of our civilization as we know it, social commentary on our dependence on consumer behavior that has only grown in the thirty years since this novel was published, and political commentary that had rarely been seen before) it’s quite clear that the most obvious example of opposing forces lies within the pages that we turn.
Additionally, I have to say that there’s one thing that I’m starting to notice, and I’m really surprised that it has not been mentioned before in class. What I’m realizing as I continue to read is that, while our class focuses a lot of attention on Maureen and the gender statement that her character makes, Dr. Malik is a lot more logical, pragmatic, and distanced than Maureen is. She’s not interested in anything besides exploring space and healing the sick. She’s not yet described as being a sexual being, she’s not seen as showing any sort of emotion whatsoever, and she’s certainly not on close terms with any of the men in space. Her survival in space, to be frank, is a mystery to the American astronauts. They can’t even understand how she can relieve her bladder in space! Why do we not pick up on the gender statement that Dr. Malik makes as acutely as we notice the purpose of Maureen’s character? Perhaps it’s a reflection on the self-centeredness of Americans. Are Maureen and Dr. Malik that different?