(no subject)
Feb. 9th, 2007 09:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
molly_obook finished: Matriarch, by Karen Traviss. I'm still enjoying this series, but certain characters are less appealing that they used to be. (In particular, I *hate* when fictional characters decided to go it alone when they OBViOUSLY should be enlisting their allies in whatever it is they're up to.) There's also a recurring theme (theme might not be a strong enough word) about ... well, animal rights is an inadequate phrase, because there's a whole thing with these aliens who refer to all species, sentient or non-, as people.
Here's the thing that gets me, though -- several characters in varying contexts find different ways to make the point that sentient species, by virtue of sentience, aren't morally set apart from non-sentient species. And several characters in varying contexts also find ways to make the point that it's profoundly not OK for sentient species to consume other species (those who do are called gethes, or carrion-eaters, a term that seems to have connotations of being unclean).
But at the same time, it's evidently OK for non-sentient species to consume other species (it happens all the time, and no one bothers to comment about it one way or another). If sentient species are on the same level as non-sentient species, why the double standard? The level at which Traviss' characters discuss these topics (which recur over the course of four novels) suggests she has thought a lot about it, but she has yet to address this question.
Also, RM was watching a 1965 Charlton Heston movie tonight (I don't know the name, it was set after the American Civil War and had French-speaking people in Mexico), and I think I figured out where William Shatner picked up his technique of saying short, not-especially-meaningful lines with inappropriate intensity. But I still don't know how come it's so much *better* when Heston does it.
Here's the thing that gets me, though -- several characters in varying contexts find different ways to make the point that sentient species, by virtue of sentience, aren't morally set apart from non-sentient species. And several characters in varying contexts also find ways to make the point that it's profoundly not OK for sentient species to consume other species (those who do are called gethes, or carrion-eaters, a term that seems to have connotations of being unclean).
But at the same time, it's evidently OK for non-sentient species to consume other species (it happens all the time, and no one bothers to comment about it one way or another). If sentient species are on the same level as non-sentient species, why the double standard? The level at which Traviss' characters discuss these topics (which recur over the course of four novels) suggests she has thought a lot about it, but she has yet to address this question.
Also, RM was watching a 1965 Charlton Heston movie tonight (I don't know the name, it was set after the American Civil War and had French-speaking people in Mexico), and I think I figured out where William Shatner picked up his technique of saying short, not-especially-meaningful lines with inappropriate intensity. But I still don't know how come it's so much *better* when Heston does it.