Well, nobody died (Ch 23-End)

 Well, nobody died. Is a book really dystopian if the protagonist survives the end? I suppose, but retrospectively Parable doesn't seem to match up with many other dystopian books. Sure, it featured the individual-verses-society narrative that we saw in both Brave New World and 1984, but in those two (and most other dystopian books I'm aware of), "society" is represented by a controlling, all-encompassing governmental system. In Parable, though, "society" is simply the hoards of people who are contributing to the chaos Lauren and her group had to deal with throughout the book. If BNW and 1984 are a warning about the dangers of totalitarianism, then Parable is a warning about the dangers of anarchy. For whatever reason, that seems like a really important distinction to me, one that makes this book feel less dystopian and more post-apocalyptic. I generally think of dystopias as places where the society (in the form of the government) tries to assert control over the individual, and that didn't really happen here. Maybe my perceptions about what makes a dystopia need revising. 

Or maybe it's Lauren's ideology that makes this book dystopic and not apocalyptic. That's a common thread amongst all the dystopian "heroes" we've read about: Lauren, Winston, and John all harbored a feeling that something about the way society was going was wrong, and something had to be done about it. Lauren's religion gives her an ideological objection to society, and perhaps that strengthens the idea that the individual-vs-society narrative is what's important to a dystopian novel, regardless of the power structure of the society that's being resisted. 

Do Dystopias require Cataclysms? (Ch. 20-23)

 This isn't really related to what's in these chapters, but it's what we've been talking about in class: can you have dystopian literature that isn't post-apocalyptic? In my opinion, cataclysmic events aren't necessary for historical or nonfiction dystopias, but they are vital when the dystopia is set in the future and is meant to represent a society that we're familiar with. Simply put, this is because we don't live in a dystopia. Our world is actually doing pretty well, especially when contrasted with the societies of Sower, Brave New World, and 1984. When dystopian books are trying to represent our society in some twisted future, they need to include some reason as to why our institutions have dissolved and the world has descended into chaos. Thus, a cataclysmic event is required for a dystopian society like we've read about this semester to take hold. And isn't that the whole point of dystopian literature? All three books that we've read this year see themselves as a warning about what could happen in society if we let technology rule our moods, if we let technology rule our lives, or if we let climate change continue to destroy. I think powerful dystopian literature has to be centered around our own society, or else readers won't be particularly moved - and because our society isn't currently a dystopian hellscape, these books need a cataclysmic event to explain how it becomes one. 

Off to a good start (Ch. 17-20)

It seems to have been a good couple of days for Lauren and Earthseed. A few chapters ago, I thought it was very possible that Lauren and the other two remaining community members wouldn't survive the end of the book, because they were often narrowly escaping death and making some serious mistakes. Now, though, I think we can probably assume that the group is going to make it to the north, because they've swelled in size and ability. They were even able to fend off an attack by a large group of people after they rescued the two sisters from the collapsed building. The group seems like it's in a good place moving forward, with many capable and trustworthy people who will protect each other (and also are starting to believe in Earthseed). 

On a completely unrelated note, Laruen is an interesting religious leader. Like most people who found religions, she seems to have a mystical ability, her hyperempathy. Usually, this mystical ability is related to the religion (like, for example, it's granted by God), but I'm having trouble connecting Lauren's empathy to Earthseed. Maybe she can feel the change in other people's feelings? Please comment something if you can think of a better connection haha. Anyway, her hyperempathy seems like it's not that useful to her anyway, so maybe it's not as big a deal as it seems (though as she says, if everybody in society had it, the violence that plagues them would go away). 

Whoever has ears, let them hear (Ch. 10-14 (I think...))

 Lauren had to leave her community if she wanted to survive the fires, but she also would've had to leave if she wanted to successfully spread her Earthseed religion. The Parable of the Sower (in the Bible) goes something like this: there's a farmer who's spreading seed on the ground, and some of the seed lands on rocks, some on weeds, and some in good soil. The seeds on the rocks don't grow, and the seeds near the weeds are choked out, but the seeds in the good soil grow into strong plants. The moral of the story is that people are like soil, and they need to be receptive of the teachings (seeds) of the farmer (Jesus). However, we can also turn that parable around: the farmer needs to sow seeds on good soil if they're going to take root. The community was like the rocky soil in the parable - they wouldn't have been receptive to Lauren's religion, because they were resistant to change, and resistant to the idea that everything in society was falling apart. To sow her Earthseed, Lauren needed to leave the community and find the good soil: people who have seen society unraveling, and recognize the need for change. She hasn't found those people yet, but maybe she will! Or maybe she'll die first, we'll see I guess... 

Everyone's dead! (Chapters 9-13)

 Well that changed quickly. It took about four months for the community to slide from (the illusion of) security to the mess it's in now, with a large number of inhabitants dead or left homeless, and thieves ransacking the place. At the end of chapter 13, Wardell Parish complains that "everybody's dead," and though he's talking about his family, his statement reflects the state of affairs in the community and also the country. Parable doesn't seem as prescient as 1984 did - sure, it's entirely possible that technology companies are constantly watching us like Big Brother, but at least people aren't just randomly shooting others in the streets so often that nobody bats an eye anymore. I'm still wondering, though, how did this happen? Butler hasn't really given us any explanation about why society disintegrated to anarchy. I honestly can't imagine what sort of apocalyptic event could lead to this, yet still leave the government intact. I suppose that we outperformed Butler's society, because the book starts in 2024 and whatever happened to unravel society probably took more than three years, but I'd still like to know why Lauren's world is such a mess that, in four months, everybody dies. 

Past Morality (Ch. 5-8)

 After the thieves come into Laura's community, her father begins a neighborhood watch. Corey is uncomfortable with the idea - she doesn't want anybody to be shot, even thieves, and argues that "thou shalt not kill" means that the watch is sinful because they may have to kill invaders. Laura's father responds to this by citing a bible verse that discusses fighting to protect your homes and families. I thought this scene was somewhat strange - isn't their society a little beyond morally justifying your actions? I think the world of Sower, as far as we can tell, is so anarchic that there's a kill-or-be-killed feeling that permeates the book. Since the dawn of living things, trees or wolves or people all have had to fight others for scarce resources, and the more powerful one wins the right to survive. It's a testament to human society (and I suppose to other society-forming animals as well) that this isn't ok anymore, and that we've been able to create moral codes to live by, but in Parable of the Sower I think that Laura's society has fallen apart to the point where it's so dangerous that they have to return to the eat-or-be-eaten lifestyles of every other animal, moral codes or no. 

Back to the Future??

Parable of the Sower is set 30 years after it was first written in the 1990s, and sometime in those thirty years something happened in the US that changed society from what we know today to a society where the economy has fallen apart and people have to arm themselves to protect against looting and violence. This is strange, but the one parallel that I can draw to this is Back to the Future part 2. 

*spoilers, sorry* 

Because of what Marty and Biff do in the 1950s, once Marty returns to his home 30 years later in the '80s, he finds his society has completely fallen apart after Biff became the most powerful person in the country. Because of Biff's mismanagement, Hill Valley is full of violence and crime. The only way to make money is through Biff's casino, and Marty's old neighborhood is boarded up, his school is burned down, and his principal carries an automatic weapon. 

This is a lot like what we see in Sower - I have no deep thoughts on this, because we aren't far into the book yet so we don't know exactly what happened to Lauren's town and country, but I thought that it was a fun parallel. Maybe Butler expected some sort of powerful Biff-like character to take power and run the country to the ground? Or maybe some cataclysmic event ground the economy to a stop and chaos descended on the country? I found an article that says that Butler wrote her dystopian books as a warning about what could happen "if this goes on." What "this" is, though, is for now unclear.