So my friend Jen tagged me for this award. Thanks, Jen!
If you get this award, you are supposed to:
1) Save the image above so you can upload it on your own blog without direct linking.
2) List 5 things you absolutely love to do
3) List 5 friendly bloggers, and comment on their blogs to let them know they've received an award!
Now, I find that awards can be somewhat like memes, so I'm mentioning my 5 friendly bloggers with the caveat that they shouldn't do this award if they don't feel like it!
First, five things that I love to do:
1. Anything with John. Seriously, anything (except fighting) is more fun if it's with him. Particularly driving off into the middle of nowhere with no idea where we're going (he always knows) and ending up at beautiful parks, ice cream stands, or beaches. Also, hanging out with friends so I can listen to him talk. That guy has a lot of interesting things to say, and when we're with friends I can hear him tell stories he's told me before. He doesn't like to repeat himself to the same person, but I like to hear the same stories again and again.
2. Being with my baby. Playing with him is nice, but so is watching him sleep or cuddling him. He is just so perfect and precious and wonderful I'm going to make you all get a cavity just listening to my gushy sweetness if I keep talking about it.
3. Reading. I will always love reading. I just read a Timothy Zahn book the past couple days. (Unfortunately, I am a very fast reader and get through good books way too fast ... so I need a constant supply.)
4. Singing. With a choir particularly, especially a polyphonic choir, especially Victoria or Palestrina. I am not that good at it, but I enjoy it enough to try to get it right. It is one of the downsides to leaving Philly that I am not in a choir anymore.
5. Being outside. There isn't a climate or terrain that I don't like in its natural state. My favorites are mountains, forests, and ocean, but I like the desert too. I am not an "outdoorsy type," mainly because I'm not very physical, unfortunately, but I still like short hikes and I love taking pictures of what I see.
Five bloggers:
1. Seraphic, though Jen nominated her already so I assume she's not going to do it again for me, even if she does it once for Jen (she hasn't yet). But I enjoy both her blogs immensely.
2. Meredith. Update already, Meredith! Ah well, I know she is busy these days. But I love her blog anyway, because when she does post, it's inevitably something really good. Meredith also is one of the reasons I blog -- she was a member of the first blog I wrote for (which I admittedly joined only because I liked John).
3. Ibid always has some interesting things to say at the Freaking Awesome Blog.
4. Dr. Thursday is one of my closest blog friends, and is also Mark's godfather! Couldn't ask for a better one.
5. Enbrethiel, whom I've never met in real life, but who always says such interesting things in the comments.
My apologies for not posting much lately, and I'm afraid it won't get any better soon. Unfortunately I'm not very well at the moment ... I've been pushing things a little too hard since the birth (moving is a bit of a stressor as it turns out) and had a bit of a setback. I promised John I'd use baby's naptimes to rest, and since that's my main blogging time, there goes that, for the present. In fact, I'd better go lie down now. *sigh*
Timothy Zahn! I haven't read him in forever--what novel was it? Star Wars? The other alien trilogy, whose name escapes me? I really liked the later, except I realized log after reading it that . . . a huge part of it was an analogy/apology for assisted suicide. Not so good.
ReplyDeleteIt was The Icarus Hunt. Very good! I haven't read the Star Wars ones.
ReplyDeleteThe one you're thinking of is the Conquerors trilogy. I really don't think assisted suicide is what was meant -- simply a decision made by a people who had the option of living forever, not to. Who knows, maybe he did mean it that way, but I sure don't read it that way.
+JMJ+
ReplyDeleteThanks for the award, Sheila! =) I admit that I haven't been commenting lately because I had a short streak in which I was usually the first one to leave you a comment, and I didn't want to come off as a stalker! =P But I still regularly read everything you write, so I hope you keep the updates coming.
I'm glad people are reading and enjoying! Sometimes I wonder. I know this blog is nowhere near as popular as Enchiridion was at its height. I don't need popularity, really, but I do like an audience so I don't feel like I'm blogging to an empty room!
ReplyDeleteJames, I lay awake for some time last night pondering the assisted-suicide question, and I think I can safely say I'm quite sure that doesn't come into play in the book. My proof is that no one kills any "Elders," or even suggests it. Instead, the mother wants to destroy the organ that would *allow* her to be an Elder -- willfully passing up that chance, but not "killing" herself in any sense. But, after all, their species originally didn't have this ability anyway -- according to nature, they should have those organs left in in the first place.
Gee, I sure hope you come back to read this. ;)
Thanks, Sheila! I did not know that Jen nominated me! So thanks to Jen also. Let me see what I can do. Guests coming, etc!
ReplyDeleteSheila,
ReplyDeleteI remember enjoying the Icarus Hunt . . . although not as much as the Conquerer's trilogy. Probably because there were fewer large-scale battles in it; and because the mistaken-attack premise of the Conquerers is really just delightful.
Your analysis of the ethics of the question seems likely to be accurate, inasmuch as according to nature they don't have that ability. So the desire to destroy the whatever-they-were-called might be legitimate in their possible universe.
But, taking the issue as an analogy rather than in itself: the mother's reasoning is that, as an elder, she won't be able to enjoy all the sensible pleasures of the world; it is that life would just be too dull, too boring to live without them. This is similar to the argument made by many arguing for assisted suicide on quality-of-life concerns. Furthermore, when the rulers of the alien government are speaking with each other (titles escape me at the moment) one argues that you can't allow people to destroy willfully their whatever-you-call-them, because this will lead to people destroying the whatever-you-call-them of others; this is a substantially similar argument to one that is given against assisted suicide. It is also cast, within the context of the story, as a Bad Thing--or so I seem to recall.
So I don't know. I suppose I would have to reread the books to really determine it--as is obvious, I read them rather long ago . . .
I'm rereading them now, thanks to you, James. ;) The "whatever-you-call-it" is called a fsss organ ... not surprising it was hard to remember!
ReplyDeleteI do think there's a difference between saying "life in a hospital room is dull" and "life without 99% of one's body isn't exactly life as we know it." The reason, though, that I consider destroying one's fsss organ to be moral is that it is basically refusing extraordinary means of prolonging life -- which is always allowed. Perhaps the arguments do overlap -- I will have to ponder as I reread them whether this might have been intentional -- but there is a clear moral difference between that and assisted suicide.
Great. Now that I supposedly have "something interesting to say," I guess I have to blog something. Maybe I'll get to it this summer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ReplyDelete