"Door Into Ocean" group discussion

Share your thoughts on Joan Slonczewski's Door Into Ocean, the current SF group read.

My library managed to get "Door into Ocean" today, and I've gotten through the first section. Interesting, but somewhat dense - a glossary would have been of some assistance here.

I finished this today. I found the beginning to be a little dense as well, but that it picked up greatly once they got the action onto Shora proper, and greatly further still once insert spoilers I won't actually spoil yet.

I enjoyed this book a great deal, although it didn't fit, for me, my usual 'character-heavy' qualifications. Instead, I really enjoyed the world-building, and the culture-building.

It sounds like most people may still be in the early stages yet, so I won't talk much about the details, but a few things I found interesting that I'd like to hear other people's take on:

- I hadn't read the description or visited LT's work page before I got the book, so when I did upon finishing it, I was surprised to see lots of 'feminist' tags, and the word pop up in description. Without this, I would never have labeled this a 'feminist' book on my own. What do others think?

- The other descriptor that surprised me was 'hard science' science fiction. I don't typically love hard science fiction - and this didn't strike me as one, although I can see edges of an argument there I suppose. What do you guys think? Does this qualify as 'hard' science fiction?

This is the first that I've heard about A Door Int Ocean group read. I read it last for the very first time and throughly enjoyed it. How exactly is the term "hard" science fiction defined? What makes a story either "hard" science fiction or not? Would something like A Stranger In A Strange Land or The Time Machine be termed "hard" science fiction?

What Authors are considered to write "hard" science fiction? Ray Bradbury? Marion Zimmer Bradley? Robert A. Heinlein? Nicola Griffith? Octavia Butler? Greg Bear? Connie Willis?

Beatles1964

Well I am not reading the book, I only read it a year ago.

Feminist. Well it struck me as a fairly feminist book although a not a beat you over the head with message book which some feminist SF authors seem to write. Virtually everything in the book is a dichotomy with male one side, and female the other. However Slonczewski doesn't take the easy route of declaring that one side is superior to the other.

Hard SF. Difficult one. Yes, the science is there, however the genetic engineering of the Sharer's isn't explored in any detail and exists as deep background. So for me it isn't really hard SF.

#4

I pretty much agree with Wikipedia when it states "The heart of the "hard SF" designation is the relationship of the science content and attitude to the rest of the narrative, and (for some readers, at least) the "hardness" or rigor of the science itself." however I disagree with quite a few of the representative works they list. For me hard SF is typified by Greg Egan and Kim Stanley Robinson (both attacking it from opposite ends). Some of Greg Bear's works are hard SF.

Virtually everything in the book is a dichotomy with male one side, and female the other.

I'm less than a third in, but so far I don't see it that way. The contrast between Sharers and Valans is between an environmentally highly conscious and another environmentally "unconscious", rapacious, destructive group, not between women and men. The Sharers aren't women, they are biologically female-based. I see Valans as us (Earthlings), today; and Sharers (in their ecological philosophy and environmental awareness) as an alternative and ideal to aspire to.

As for the hard science label--does this depend on the amount (of talk about) or quality of science in the book? It's true that Slonczewski doesn't explicate in detail her scientific scheme, but it's so well conceived and assured it's a pleasure to imagine. Like the old David Jones' Dedalus column in Nature, pure speculation, but rooted in actual knowledge.

I'm slowly into the second section. I didn't expect Joan's expertise in biology to be presented so subtly in this book (so far).

I will continue to tag this book as "Feminism" and "Feminist SF" due to the examination of a culture absent of patriarchal foundations.

#4 & #5 Re: Hard SF

Quintessentially hard science fiction: The Black Cloud by Fred Hoyle, Flight of the Dragonfly by Robert L. Forward and Mission of Gravity by Hal Clement.

Alastair Reynolds and Steven Baxter are commonly thought of as hard science fiction authors. And I like them :)

#3 Funny. I was describing the plot to my wife, and when I finished she said "Typical feminist viewpoint" (or something like that). And I stopped, and realized she was correct to a large degree. But I had read about 3/5 of the book by then and the thought had never even occurred to me.

The matriarchal utopia conceit is a bit shelf worn by this time, but, as andyl said above, Slonczewski doesn't quite let it go there. If she was "sharing" feminism with the reader she did a masterful job of getting past the 'blatant political message' detectors, at least with me. But I understand how someone coming into the book with a heightened awareness of feminism could read it one way or the other.

I've been able to get hold of a copy of the book yet, but I don't understand why the feminism is seen as a problem. Or even why you feel it needs to be disguised.

I ddin't have any probelms with the feminism in this book however, I did feel sorry sorry for Spinel that the Sharers of Shora looked down on him and treated him as some kind of a mutant freak for being male.

As I originally mentioned awhile ago in the Someone explain it to me group if I had been Spinel I would've asked them to make me female and a Sharer just like them so I would fit in with everyone else there. I think it would've been worth it to me at least to have gonr through whatever had been necessary in order to make me female and a Sharer.

Beatles1964

Although I can see the 'this is a feminist work' argument to some extent, I really feel like it's a stretch.

I always felt the Sharers to be too overall alien to be a stand-in for 'women', and I noticed several times the presence of strong not-Sharer female presences (Nisi, in her fall, as well as a number of less-important but still noticable military figures who were female), which for me makes it clear that it's not a strict male/female dynamic. I think it's notable that Nisi's struggles and Spinel's are not all that different, and that in fact we're told (and shown) that Spinel grasps some of the nuances and effects of Sharer society more quickly than had Nisi, who lived her whole life with them.

I read the book much more as a discussion of a completely different mindset than as something gender-related.

I can see some glimmers of where it comes from - clearly, the fact that one society is all female, and the use of the word 'Patriarch' as all-knowing, all-controlling father-authority figure. But for me today, these work better as metaphors of /types/ of people than as /genders/ of people. I wonder how much, given the age of this book, this reaction is context-and-time-period driven.

I also read in reviews that Slonczewski was influenced by the Vietnam war, which seems to me to be to be a more apt comparison. I wonder if the author herself has said anything about the book - I'm interested to see where she was coming from.

There is a A Door Into Ocean Study Guide which is on her website.

my old copy was too moldy for me to delve too deeply into the ocean w/out triggering an asthma attack. But i was having too many problems w/ Slonczewski's style (in the little i was able to read) which left me indisposed towards buying a newer copy. So i'll sit this one out - although "biology based" sf is often a sub-genre i often enjoy a good deal. Sorry all and I know it's often VERY unfair to judge a book on the first 25 pages or so. Maybe in penance i'll try again to read The Wall Around Eden - i think my copy is still in the state of being physically readable.

> 12

Thanks for that link! There is a lot of information there - almost too much, maybe. It's interesting that I can find my enjoyment of a book I rather liked decreasing with every step as I read more and more of the author's intent - which appears to in fact be as pointedly feminist (and pacifist) as some saw it to be. Her explanation here is far more heavy-handed than her actual fiction was, which I suppose is as it should be, but I can't help but wish I hadn't seen that side of it.

One interesting quote, though, is this:

It's hard to recall the constricted American vision of 1980, impoverished by bloated military spending and lack of attention to the needs of ordinary citizens. My aim in writing A Door into Ocean was to give students a window into a hopeful future. Ironically, it gives today's post-Cold War students a look back at our dark past; and a reminder that the struggle to defend our planet goes on.

Being a post-Cold War student, I wonder whether those of you who are a bit older agree with this, or view the text differently?

#12 Yes, Aerrin99. I was a young student in 1980. Nuclear proliferation (the MX missile) and "star wars" missile defense systems and reaganomics pretty much caused enough daily fear and anxiety that it was hard to imagine living to be 24 and still around come 1990, let alone 2009. It would have been interesting to have found a copy of "A Door into Ocean" since during that year I read Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land which I recall being significantly influential.

Having finished "Door" my feeling is that it may have succeeded in providing me a "window into a hopeful future" just as reading about Gandhi or King did, but whether the ending of this or any other fiction novel is happy or horrendous probably would not have given my morose, adolescent being any real hope during that time.

Who else has read the book and wishes to contribute to the thread?

I have a real beef with the ending, but expressing this would include spoilers, so I've been waiting for others to chime in too.

I got distracted but I definitely want to finish it. I find myself thinking of such life in the sea (a personal obsession, sea), although I set the book aside for a while.

Yipes, it's been ages and I've been busy with other stuff. I've been away from both this website and the novel. It's time to pick the book back up. When I began reading it shortly after its selection, I immediately liked the writing style. The link mentioned sounds potentially interesting, but I'll wait until I finish the book.

This was a hugely interesting read for me, a feast of ideas. I'd call it timely--think of the next year being "The Biodiversity Year"--except that its concerns don't have an expiration date. Random remarks and thought-associations (I'll get my own copy eventually, but I had to return the library's weeks ago):

How do we view the world and our place in it and that of every living species in it? I think the biological view (or discovery of, or scheme) of things is finally seeping into public consciousness--it is increasingly popularly recognised that we exist within such a web as depicted by Slonczewski; we are beginning to know what her Shorans knew.

Language and thought: the difference between languages where "you know who's doing what to whom" and languages that reflect the mentality of balance, of action and reaction, of the knowledge of interdependence of every "who" and every "what". Slonczewski's Sharer language struck me at first a bit naff, but I came to greatly appreciate the idea behind it--in fact, it made me understand something that I wouldn't have realised if she had merely put that idea in "our" language! That was a brilliant moment. You can glimpse the greater philosophy of the Sharers through their language (well, clearly, because the writer intended so), both the why and how of their existence. People have questioned how language conditions what we think--and observe. This book offers a fantastic thought experiment, subtler than its surface simplicity indicates.

How do others interpret self-naming? I'd say the idea is to choose a name embodying a trait, weakness or a defect one has to constantly strive against. The act of self-naming itself is clearly a symbol of attaining self-knowledge and thus... becoming.

The juxtaposition of the mineral world of the Valans et al. and the "organic" Shorans. Miners vs. fisherfolk. The struggle between the idea that the two are starkly different and opposed, and the idea of belonging to the same species.

The story of Rilwen who gets addicted to the stones brought by the Valan traders reminded me of the British pushing opium onto Chinese... Trade brought and secured by armies, you'll do business with us or we'll kill you.

Then the non-violent resistance that breaks the Valans. I rushed the end--can someone interpret Realgar's attitude and actions for me?

#20
Re: Realgar's attitude and action at the end of the book.
I tried several times to find any logical, linear reasoning for Realgar's (and his superior's) final actions to no avail. It seemed to me a page was missing. It truly is the only criticism I have for the book, which was exciting and thought-provoking from about page 60 on...

Do I have leave to go back and pick up the book and post the passages in question here? I would really like to understand.

I don't mind, if you don't mind about copying so much... As I said, I rushed the last pages so it's a bit vague...

We have the soldiers rebelling here and there against the treatment of the Shorans... Generally speaking, Realgar is afraid of assimilation into Shoran mentality instead of imposing and maintaining control strictly from the outside, right? No "going native". He refuses to let a wounded soldier be healed by Shorans although their methods may be better.

This just to add, I came across Slonczewski's study guide to the book--I think it was linked above--I'll try to look over it before further discussion.

Link again:

http://biology.kenyon.edu/slonc/books/adoor_art/adoor_study.htm

***********************
***** HUGE SPOILERS *****
***********************

Here is where I believe the confusion lies regarding the Valan commanders' attitude and actions near the end of the book...after several readings it is hard to understand why they discontinued the planned destruction of the Sharers.

In Part 4 - Chapter 14 of The Door Into Ocean, following the destruction of the Valan's headquarters by seaswallower (an innocent force of nature), Realgar (the Valan military commander in charge of the war against the Sharers) and many of his troops are rescued onto a large raft by Sharers (who also live on the raft). Moments later a young Sharer offers to establish communications between the rescued and other Valans. However the current Valan martial law is to kill any Sharer who acts "forward." No weapons are available and the sharer is instead left to live. Realgar, "tensed with fury, every tendon stretched to breaking. He would rather face torture, interrogation, even a shot in the back--anything rather than the appalling sight of that girl the Sharer. He hated every inch of her and her web-fingered kind who dared to fish his troops from the sea. Even if he were to strangle them, their faces would show only pity as they died.

"Then his hatred subsided, leaving a headache and a weariness that would not vanish even when a helicopter appeared at last in the sky, and he snapped out commands to gather the survivors into some semblance of order. The campaign would be won despite this setback..."

The last sentence of this chapter reads, "What a hollow triumph it would be to destroy all the rafts just because Sharers could not be ruled." In context, this statement also implies that Realgar is still resigned to destroy the enemy.

In the next chapter (and the last chapter where Realgar appears), Realgar is speaking with his superior and under threat of being dismissed from duty for ineptitude, and he replies, "My lord, I swear to you, in the name of whatever honor I possess, that I never have and never will intend anything but full obedience to the High Protector of Valedon.

"With a businesslike air Talion the supervising officer sat up, saying, 'In that case, I'll give you one more chance. You shall activate the satellites to burn out the entire native population of the Ocean Moon. To the last mother and child--do I make myself clear?"

All that is described that even remotely explains Realgar's change of mind following this order, is in the next paragraph, first sentence. "The turnabout wrenched him off balance." And Realgar says, "'Every last one?'".

Additional confusion comes a couple of paragraphs later in Chapter 15, because now Realgar offers to resign yet there is still every indication that the Sharers will be wiped out, for he muses, "...the order would still go out, under his own name." Instead, this never happens; neither Realgar or Talion resume war with the Sharers. The only evidence given that both of them have a complete change of mind is from a loosely-described threat spoken from Realgar to Talion that, "'Siderite the geneticist embedded with the Sharers believes we are all hostage to lifeshaped pathogens, already 'living dead' contaminated with the seeds of our own destruction--which only Sharers can cure.'

"'And if they die, we die, is that it?' Talion clenched his fists. 'I saw no such report. You'd damn well better back this up.'

"'Of course, my lord; Siderite was mindprobed. Surely you heard from your spies.'" The chapter continues and ends with no further allusions to a change of heart or change of plan, and Realgar and Talion are not heard from again. A stalemate that resembles peace is assumed through the remaining two chapters.

The author fails to provide any substantial reason for the full change of character by the Valan command: throughout they are confident, rash, dismissive of Sharer technology and culture and reasoning, and barely give even lip service to Siderite. I can only speculate that Slonczewski expects the reader to believe that the rest of the book gives evidence to the change of character and action: 1) Merwin the Sharer's last communication with Realgar in Chapter 10 is so subtlely influential (Though Spinel betrayed me, you shall not) that Realgar decides he no longer wants to destroy the Sharers; and 2) the oft-mentioned, primary Valan weakness being fear of the unknown is brought to bear upon Talion and the rest of the Valan military and so even though they have no evidence of Siderite's claims, they must abandon the war to fear.

If anyone has any other ideas, I'd love to hear them.

(edited for formatting)

... Long time that I read this, but while there may be other subtle clues, I thought that it was also just part of an intentional ambiguity in some part -- if you're on Side A, you may never fully understand why Side B does what it does. Sort of a narrative voice perspective.