Opener
Let's take a run at analyzing the first two books of SHOCKWAVE RIDER. Review your
notes and thoughts about the novel, and identify a paradigmatic scene in each book
(see assignment). Then as others' paradigma appear, comment and discuss their findings
and your own.
Jenn Lindberg:
In book one, one of the most striking scenes for me is that which is quoted on the
first page. In this scene, Nickie asks who gave them the right to torture him, and
they respond that they can because he is a nobody. This feeling of isolation and
remoteness seems to resonate throughout the book. This seems to parallel the 'big brother'
motif of the federal core. With one keystroke, his access was erased, and he didn't
exist to the computers. The image of the 'big bad group' seems to resonate throughout
the book with the government -- in all their actions, and what we are told they do.
Marc Petersen:
Nickie's encounter with Miranda seems paradigmatic to me. Miranda, and the other
physically deformed but mentally enhanced "students" of Tarnover and its sister institutions,
embody the idea (presented early on) of "the brain race." In a search for wisdom, the Tarnover "teachers" mistakenly strive to enhance intelligence, which, as Nickie/Sandy
points out to Kate when they reach Lap-of-the-Gods, are not the same things.
Nickie himself constantly struggles with this wise<>smart opposition. He can continually
outwit his pursuers, but seems to lack the insight, even the common sense, associated
with 'wisdom' to truly succeed at his goal of undermining and destroying Tarnover and its siblings. Kate, on the other hand, appears quite wise--she does things
Sandy/Nickie would not have (such as going to Lap-of-the-Gods) because her instincts
are better. She has insight, whereas Nickie/Sandy (while not entirely lacking in
insight) is more prone to intelligence. We might even say that Nickie is so hyperintelligent
that he outwits himself.
Joyce Smaragdis:
Well, Nickie's (Lazarus', Sandy's, etc) constant identity changes stand out in my
mind as being a recurring motif in book one. In book two, the scenes in which Freeman
questions Sandy seem to define the tone of the chapter. Chapter two is aplty named:
the reader follows Sandy on his journey to self-knowledge.
Nick Haflinger:
Curiously enough, the paradigmatic scene for me is the whole interrogation which situates
the narratives of Bk 1 and 2: Haflinger in total control of the Tarnover operative,
Freeman. N's emotions and memories are called forth, repressed or moved back, at
the touch of buttons; his 'interrogation' sometimes feels like an argument, sometimes
like a therapy session, sometimes like a more traditional torture-for-information
session. Yet increasingly, N seems to be allowed to present his history and theories
in a normal waking state; and increasingly, the power relationship between Haflinger
and Freeman seems to tip in N's favor. This is subtle and complex, but suggestive
of the relationship of independent groups to the gov't as a whole.
Stacey Dittmar:
I would consider the scene in which Nick/Sandy helps Kate to paint her apartment a
paradigmatic scene. Nick and his inability to trust others is understandable - his
only interaction right now is with Freeman. Through Sandy and with his ability to
suppress the past (although not near entirely) he is able to have a relationship with Kate.
Perhaps its better developed in the second book (or maybe its the third) when Kate
suggests that Sandy begin to place some trust in people, mainly the people of Precipice. It is his initial faith in her that allows him to learn that trusting people with
the knowledge of his situation could proove to help him rather than harm him.
Nick Haflinger:
Jenn: yes, but then what? What happens to this sense of monolithic 'evil' as the
novel progresses?
Marc C. Hutcheson:
I can't really think of a particular scene, but there is a theme that seems to
manifest itself throughout the book: that of wisdom. What is wrong with it, if anything?
Tarnover has attempted to eschew it as if it is harmful to the world in which they are trying to create. Look on page 53, middle paragraph: "the lot of you are afraid
that by taking thought spmeone else may already have added a cubit to his wisdom
while you're still fiddling around on the foolishness level". What can we make of
this? Throughout the book, Nick (Lazarus, Sandy) is always admiring Kate's wisdom. Is
Tarnover trying to do away with wisdom because they feel threatened?
Jenn Lindberg:
I think for Book two I would have to look at the entire interrogation process. We
as readers gain more insight into Sandy's different personalities, and become more
acutely aware of the intellect / common - sense (wisdom) arguement. The power play
that seems to be occuring at Freeman's fingertips seems to be a resonating theme. As Kate
so often points out, he is on the run, not in control.
Marc Petersen:
Jenn:
What I think is most important about the scene you mention is not that Nickie gets
tortured because he is nobody, but Nickie gets tortured because he made it so that
he was nobody. Remember, Freeman says, "You are nobody. And you chose to be so
by your own free will" (Brunner 87). Nickie gave Tarnover the power to treat him in the fashion
they did. In a similar way, it is always the people who allow governments to seize
too much power, to compromise citizens' so-called rights as an individual.
Amanda Kathleen Pedersen:
I would consider a paragdigmatic scene to be the appearance of Miranda (and her descendants.)
The initial scene is very important to the structure of the novel - since Nick's
reaction to Miranda was a "contributing factor" to his desertion from Tarnover, since he called Hearing Aid and talked for an hour about what hapenned, and there
is another reference in the third book. The incident is referred to several times
in the book (once in conversation with Freeman). I think that the agonizing description
of the initial Miranda scene is significant because every time Brunner writes of Tarnover,
I think of Miranda. In that sense, the feeling I felt when I read that initial description
of Miranda resonates through the book.
Nick Haflinger:
But Petersen: if the wise<>smart divide is based solely on instinct, then what hope
does the novel offer? Isn't there a suggestion that wisdom might be learned? If
so, then what?
Nick Haflinger:
Amanda: yeah! Now, how does that fit with other motifs/scenes in bks 1 and 2?
Joyce Smaragdis:
Well, I was about to respond to Nick Haflinger....and I am going to respond to him
anyway, although I feel funny about it. The questioning scenes do seem to define
the tone of the entire novel. I was remininded of a Platonic dialogue when reading
Book Two. The end goal of dialogue to was enlighten the kind-hearted but benighted Freeman.
The method was very dialectic.
Stacey Dittmar:
I agree that the effects Miranda had on Nick were quite long-lasting. The scene alone,
as he explains it to us, makes my skin crawl. The idea that the people at Tarnover
can construct these sort of electronical mutations in order to gain some insight
or knowledge or wisdom or whatever is so disturbing to Nick that the image sticks in
his mind, and he is often reminded of it. I think that he evn has a debate about
it with Freeman - doesn't he?
Jenn Lindberg:
Nick:
I don't know if I can answer that question. I know how I *feel* about certain parts
of the book versus others. Even though I inherently knew Nick would b captured, Precipe
still gave a momentary respite from this monolithic 'evil' feeling. And yet, that
feeling was torn apart with the attack. Freeman becomes more human as we progress through
book two, becoming less 'The Evil Man." For example, Freeman can be pushed to anger.
I had viewed that scene as more of a power play argument than evil... Hmmmmmm..
Kate Grierson:
Marc:
I think Tarnover's whole purpose is trying to manufacture wisdom, not do away with
it. They decided that wisdom was the key to the brain race, the route to victory.
They're right. The problem is that in their search for wisdom, they seem to have
forgotten what it is, and they've fallen into the trap of equating wisdom with intellect.
Think of this as an example. Remember "All in the Family"? Remember Edith Bunker?
Not an intelligent woman. But wise as all hell. Tarnover is moving in the opposite
direction.
Lauren Moore:
Book 1: image: the girl running like crazy
highlights the major problems of the society whether the society is able to realize
it (sub)/consciously or not: desires to enact, act, emotion or turmoil instead of
being silenced or suppressed; the lack of place to enact this excepting a controlled "scientific" environment while under drugs; the manipulation and exploitation of
people with these desires by this society; the obvious of youth growing up too fast
and therefore greater possibility of overload with the mass of stimulus and reactions;
the fact that there is only one group who would care whatsoever (Hearing Aid) about
listening, and then, no response is allowed, which stresses nicely the one way exchange
that goes on everywhere and throughout the society, based on computers.
Joyce Smaragdis:
I also agree with Stacy that the Miranda scene was pivotal. I think that it perdectly
exemplifies the priorities of Nick's community and makes his later cavalier actions
understandable.
Nick Haflinger:
Jenn: okay, so like why do you *feel* that way? what parts of the text tell you--lead
you to infer--that N will be captured, that P provides respite, etc. Yeah: Freeman's
changes are part of that evidence...what/where else??
Stacey Dittmar:
I don't know if its so much that Nick doesn't have insight as it is that he doesn't
have any kind of faith. It is easy to say that Kate is insightful - she's had the
all the advantages Nick hasn't. She grew up with parents, she has had the opportunity
to exist in a collegiate community that sounds similiar to ours. Nick, on the other
hand, has been trained to not let his guard down - at least emotionally. He has
been schooled in using his "intelligence" in order to comply with the people at Tarnover.
It is only when he's sick of the inhumanity of it all that he leaves - I think that's
pretty insightful in itself.
Ash Downs:
Book 1: the scene: Freeman's continuing to interrogate Haflinger and Haflinger says,
"This was the most precious of all freedoms, the plug-in lifestyle raised to the
nth power: freedom to become the person you choose to be instead of the person remembered by the computers" How's it paradigmatic? Well, the freedom that Haflinger feels
resonates throughout the book in terms of his former ability to reinvent himself.
Along the lines of speculative fiction, this raises questions not only about the
constancy of our individual personas, but also about the possibility of technologies in
the future. As I've been reading Shockwave Rider, I've observed some parallels to
a book I just read for another class entitled Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,
the basis for Blade Runner. Notably, both question the parameters of what makes us human.
Haflinger along the lines of the Garden of Forking Paths, gets to choose several
possibilities in terms of his future instead of travelling a linear path of idiosyncratic
existence, yet does he lose out on having a seemingly coherent existence (along the
lines of a linear story) or does his ability to become a "new man" so to speak allow
him the opportunity to experience a broader and richer array of possibilities?
Jason Booth:
"I'm closer to her than her legal kinfolk. I work for Anti-Trauma Inc., you see.
Very sensibly, the moment Gaila's parents detected signs of deviant behavior in
her, they signed her up for a full course of treatment. Last year we cured her sibling
rivalry--classic penis-envy directed against her younger brother--and right now she's
working into her Electra complex. WIth luck we'll progress her to Poppaea level
this coming fall. . . ." (19) This is a quote from Shad Fluckner when he comes to
pick up Gaila in the first book. Now I would like to draw your attention to another quote taken
from later in the novel, "There are two kinds of fool. One says, 'This is old, and
therefore good.' And one says, 'This is new and therefore better.'" (70). What
strikes me about the Gaila incident is that it seems to echo throughout the novel, the
position of the individual within the system. Fluckner says, "I'm closer to her
than her kinfolk." A fairly frightening concept, no? And what's worse is that Gaila
has apparently been treated with respect to an established pattern of behaviour, Fluckner
understands Gaila's growth in terms of this pattern. What I find interesting, however,
is that no room has been made for Gaila to be anything else. Has Gaila actually
grown through these stages or has she been raised to be these stages? This seems to
be similar to Nick's own disatisfaction with Tarnover and it's system as well. As
the quote from 70 suggests, Tarnover, in seeking wisdom, believes the old system
is bad and ignores it for the magical carrot of wisdom which it seeks to make. The converse
is that Anti-Trauma pays homeage to the old wisdom of behaviour study without acknowledging
the possibility of change. I see Nick's actions in the novel as an attempt to navigate a course between the two oppositions setup by the quote.
Marc C. Hutcheson:
Kate:
I see your point. I can think of many people who have no balnce of wisdom/intellect.
There are those who are book smart and those who are street smart.
Nick Haflinger:
Lauren: good! but notice the way that "society" is also not monolithic but fragmented,
victimized and victimizing, multiple; so that the opposition of "govt<>society" seems
not quite to account for what's going on in the novel, yes?
Kate Grierson:
Nick: In defense of (the likely misguided but well-meaning) Petersen--Perhaps "instinct"
was an inappropriate term. Yes, wisdom can be learned, as Sand-Nick-y does from
Kate. The gist of Pete's comment was that Tarnover tried to construct wisdom. Nickie, as a product of Tarnover, doesn't yet have the tools to learn wisdom until he meets
Kate. Up to that point, he has vast intellect, but only glimmerings of wisdom.
Ash Downs:
Marc: In relation, is it perhaps best, or at least a matter of survival that we aren't
hyperintelligent and consequently outwit ourselves?
Jenn Lindberg:
Stacey : He does in fact have a debate with Freeman, which ties into the wisdom versus
intellect discussion. The whole concept of trying to genetically create highly intellegent
children seems to me...unwise, and there by in opposition to their philosophy.
Amanda Kathleen Pedersen:
Nick,
It seems to me, that when Nick first encounters Miranda, he identifies with her.
He, in a sense, is being manipulated, used and constructed as Miranda was. He claims
that the laboratory-gestated children cannot be capable of doing things that have
never been done before. Similarly, as Nick was being conditioned at Tarnover, he could
not achieve wisdom. Did I flail any closer to what you were looking for?
Lauren Moore:
Marc H: Tarnover is trying to gain wisdom but paradoxically b/c they are threatened
by it, are doing away with it. They don't realize their paradox b/c they are so
wrapped in the experimentation, and that is their biggest mistake (besides the obvious
or not obvious one of expt'n).
Nick Haflinger:
Jason: solid focus; but does this resonate solely with the "one<>many" problem of
the individ in society? what does it suggest about social orders? It's obviously
a critique, but what's the core of the critique and what, by implication, is offered
as a counter-proposal--long before we actually get to Precipice?
Joyce Smaragdis:
I think that humor is also a motif in this book that I think is worth mentioning.
The scene in which Kate and Sandy first meet Natty Bumppo and all of their subsequent
meetings with Bagheeras are rather amusing to me. What I thought to be especially
funny was the smelling of Sandy's crotch to insure that he was telling the truth about
the Feds and the tape worm in their system.
Jason Booth:
Peterson, wub purchaser extraordinaire, what about at the end of the novel when Kate
leans over and whispers to Nick, "Wise man!"? If indeed Kate represents a kind of
wisdom, isn't this admission at the end a validation of Nick's actions as wise?
Nick Haflinger:
Amanda: yeah, excellent flailage! and then? What else about Miranda--and why is
she called that I wonder?--resonates with other scenes, motifs, images in the novel?
which ones??
Nick Haflinger:
Kate: um 'doesn't have the tools'??
Kate Grierson:
Ash--I think the freedom Nickie feels at his ability to change identities is an illusion,
as he finds out himself. Sure, being able to change who you are and, in fact, change
your entire past allows for a great deal of personal freedom, but Nickie is really in a very large cage. He can move around a fair amount, but it's a cage nonetheless.
He's running. A fugitive. Hence, none of his new personae is truly liberating
because any slip-up on his part could bring the Tarnover goons crashing down on him
(as it does eventually). I don't think Nickie experiences a broad array of possibilities
because he cannot escape the fence he's built around himself.
Yes, fences and fencing constitute more important paradigma in this novel.
Marc C. Hutcheson:
Ash,
I can only imagine what the world would be like if we were all hyperintelligent.
I think they very fact that we aren't is a key to our survival. If we were all
able to outwit ourselves then we would all be thoroughly confused and go mad, just
as Nick was confused.
Nick Haflinger:
Ash: but whoa! the novel doesn't seem to present us a world of hyperintelligent folk;
instead, most people are suffering severely...but from what??
Lauren Moore:
Ash: depends on how you define "coherent" existence; having to chg ids b/c of danger
isn't coherence, at least one that could be ideal, however there would seem to be
coherence at ability to change id b/c of progress towards some thing that may not
be accomplished with society's limits on a singular body
Bagheera:
All: did you notice yourself attending to names in an odd way in the novel? Why??
what aspects of the novel tend to reinforce such attention?
Jenn Lindberg:
Nick: I can't seem to see the bouy ring to flail towards. In answer to your question,
I think a fundamental cynicism on my part, as well as the acceptance that the narratives
were actual, and not some dream. (See I am the Cheese). When reading about P, I just felt a type of wonder. Here is a community that escaped through cunning the desensitization
of the core, and have survived barely known! Not only that, but they end up being
the hub of one of the more pivital things that happened to Nick. When reading about P, I inwardly said, "Ah. Here is the place for Nick to move the world." Nick
himself starts changing. He trusts Kate, which is unusual. He tries to settle in
a position more towards his tastes. (G2S) I think the almost radical changes that
he begins wreaking on his life shot up a warning sign that he would be captured. That, and the
inserted interviews.
Kate Grierson:
Jason--Sure, Nick becomes wise, thus validating our own Nick's (the one in this here
InterChange with us) comment that wisdom can be learned. Nickie isn't wise when
we meet him. He learns wisdom as he is exposed to it.
Ash Downs:
Did anyone else notice the difficulty in attempting to visualize this book. With
most fictional works, a mental pictorial supplement adds to the experience of reading,
but I can't seem to see what's going on in this. Perhaps this is a comment on how
rooted we are as readers in relating texts to what we know (or think we know) as real
or plausible.
Lauren Moore:
Nick: there is not that much opposite about govt and society b/c of the power that
soc imposes on people
Kate Grierson:
Ah, Miranda. In Shakespeare's Tempest, the daughter of the magician/sage Prospero.
Utters the phrase, "What brave new world that has such creatures in it!" (or something
along those lines).
Joyce Smaragdis:
Jason:
It seems to me that Nickie is trying to destroy all aspects of his present-day overloaded
life. More on this later.
Amanda Kathleen Pedersen:
O.K. She's called Miranda because it means "to be wondered at." So, what else in
the novel is wondered at? Wisdom. Nick finds Kate to be wise (like Edith Bunker,
I read.) Oh my, time's up. I'll have to leave in mid-flail.
Jason Booth:
To Nick, Sandy, Lazarus, etc., etc. The scene I focus on seems to resonate the idea
of social orders having a inherent desire for preservation. That is, systems become
in such a way that they resist and even deter change while at the same time generating the prospect that they are progressive.