Sure, Children of God doesn't feature cool space wars, but it does have one thing in great abundance: an Old Testament God. Perhaps it's once aspect of the author's own personality, but the God featured prominently in Children of God is not an infinitely loving God. Russell, while hinting at Emilio as a Jesus figure in The Sparrow, seemingly drops this pretense in her sequel; Emilio may have been resurrected, but he has assumed a more human form rather than a divine form. Emilio's suffering is no longer obviously akin to Jesus either - the battery and drugging he endures on the Bruno seem almost excessive, into the territory of a truly vengeful God.
And if we are dealing with a vengeful God, than what of Sophia? If we do take her name to be the embodiment of the wisdom of God, then her crusade against the Jana'ata could be pictured as a righteous crusade. She even imparts much of her own religion and language upon the Runa (using "Hebrew for prayer"). So, is she right to do this?
Russell makes Sophia's character very ambiguous. On one hand, Russell has purposely given her a Biblical name, and put religious power in her hands. At the same time, Russell makes Sophia a catalyst for war. A war which costs the lives of an entire species. At the end of the book, I feel quite alone in thinking that what Sophia led the Runa to do was theoretically wrong.
I made this point in my original The Sparrow reflection post - that Sophia's actions lead the resistance of the Runa against the Jana'ata was fundamentally wrong. Personally, I find the actions of Sophia in Children of God vindicating my position. Although at the time of writing my blog post I had no idea Sophia survived, it seems appropriate that Russell continued Sophia's campaign. In the end, her radical views about the Runa flipped the situation completely, and went "beyond an eye for an eye".
I agree with Andrew's view that what Sophia did was inherently wrong. It shocked me to some degree what she becomes after she is left alone on the planet. I find it very difficult to understand how someone so intelligent could turn a justified rebellion into a genocide, especially when she is so deeply enmeshed in Jewish history and she has close relationships with a few Jana'ata (Ha'anala and Supaari). Her desire to wipe out the race is shocking when you consider how much she cared for Supaari. In this light, I disliked how extreme Sophia's character becomes. As Andrew points out, her campaign is presented as righteous, particularly considering the meaning of her name, but it becomes something completely unethical. I think the book makes a very important point when Emilio, who has suffered the most at the hands of the Jana'ata, does not support Sophia's drive to wipe out the species. It really puts things into perspective.
ReplyDeleteI agree, but for a different reason. Sofia imparted far too much of a fundamentalist aspect into her crusade. This is evidenced by her actions towards the Va'Njarri ambassadors. She quickly has them killed, without even asking their intentions. For her, the Jana'ata have become, as a whole, guilty of muder, and must all be executed. I feel that no human should be allowed to make that kind of a judgment call about a race, tribe, or species, especially on a planet that is not even their own. There is simply too much baggage in the dusty annals of cultural and religious memory weighing Sofia's mind down.
ReplyDelete