Title: A Star Curiously Singing
Author: Kerry Neitz
Synopsis (Courtesy of Powell’s Books): “In a future ruled by sharia law, machines are managed by debuggers, who in turn are owned by masters. Sandfly is a level 12 debugger. He is sent into Earth orbit to repair a robot – a robot that went on an experimental flight into deep space… and tore itself apart. As Sandfly digs into the mystery aboard the space station, he discovers what the bot heard around that distant star. He discovers that the bot heard…singing. As Sandfly pieces together the clues, the masters spread the trap before his feet. Everyone is racing to the same conclusion, but only one side welcomes what the singing represents.”
Thoughts: This was another novel selected for the INSPY speculative fiction shortlist. Rather than focus the idea of eternal life, A Star Curiously Singing focuses on God’s message and doing what’s right versus eternal life, like in Eternity Falls or The Last Christian. Sandfly’s struggles to do what is right within his capabilities and without alerting the Abduls was fascinating. The debugger back story is quite intriguing and well-developed. One truly cares about Sandfly and his problems.
The issue is the implied message about the Abduls. They are the masters and can inflict pain on the debuggers any time they want. They control everything. Everyone must “believe” in Allah, and they have found a way to incorporate their belief system into everything they do, from greetings to inspirational quotes and other phrases. Prayer rugs are in corners in every room. Yet, they are quite simply the bad guys. They do everything to circumvent Sandfly’s ability to solve the mystery, and the constant threat they present to debuggers everywhere creates an insidious tension that never truly ends.
The tension adds to the story, but I absolutely have a problem with the idea that Muslims are the bad guys. I do not appreciate this same message when any religion is portrayed as better than any other and think the implications behind this message are extremely dangerous. To me, any religious faith should promote tolerance – of all people and of all religions. This is A Star Curiously Singing‘s biggest fault.
The message that the Muslim faith is not just wrong but evil truly detracts from a great story. Character development is strong, and the world created by Kerry Nietz is vivid. The mystery behind the malfunctioning robot is intense and intriguing. Sandfly’s curiosity and his caution are palpable. Unfortunately, the discussion on faith, both overt and hidden, left quite a bit to be desired. However, A Star Curiously Singing keeps one thinking – about science, about possibilities, about staying true to one’s self. It is one novel where my true feelings are hopelessly divided between admiration for a well-written story and disgust at some of the lessons to be learned.
Well… it's worth pointing out that Iran WOULD be (though it's a complex historical question) the home of the Aryan race. To equate the name, intrinsically, with racism would be the same as saying Deutschland is a nasty name for Germany solely because it means the land of the Deutsch people. Aryan people live in IRan – Aryan itself is not a dirty word, it's a simply a word that was nastily used by Hitler.
I think the problem with your historical argument is this: Hitler's entire platform was a cult of personality that had only the thinnest veil of actual ideological cohesivity to it (similarly, Stalin was only a 'socialist' in name). The 'ideology' was really just an excuse to do what Hitler wanted to do. Similarly, yes, there are Moslems who just comandeer Islam to justify what they want to do – but they don't want to be evil BECAUSE of Islam, they want to be evil because they're power greedy, or because they're hateful, or because theyare sadistic, or because they are hungry and ill educated, or whatever. They are evil for the blandest human reasons imaginable, not because of a war between the Gods or an inherently evil ideology.
My recent post Fear and a Handful of Dust
I see people sharing differing opinions, yes, but one thing to remember is that when someone flat out tells me I am wrong about my opinions, then this does become a personal attack. I have tried to stay quiet in the interest of promoting a dialogue, but things have progressed from a dialogue to "wrong v. right" debates. This was not my intent, nor do I really want it to continue. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and everyone will have their own reactions to books. I want this to be a positive discussion about those differences without devolving into any form of finger pointing. Should this trend continue, I will be forced to close the comments – something I believe takes away from the spirit of discussion.
I really don't see anyone attacking Michelle personally at all. I see people sharing differing opinions. Does that now qualify as an attack in your world?
That's the same as saying all Germans are Nazis.
My recent post Decisions and Goals and New Things
Thanks, Pam!
Thanks, Jenn!
Thanks for your support, Jen!
Yet the name remains unchanged.
As does the anti-Semitism.
Agreed. Michelle- I think you gave a valid & honest review of this book. Your opinion is yours and you are entitled to it. The comments above honestly frighten me. As "Christians" is this how you want to be portrayed? You are tearing apart the words of a woman who is simply promoting and professing love of all, no matter their religious beliefs.
My recent post Review- Harry Potter-Film Wizardry by Brian Sibley
HA! historical? I know that the country was named Persia and the name was changed and the reason, BUT, just because one guy sympathized doesn't mean you can compare a whole religion and a whole group of peoples to Hitler. It is a ridiculous and laughable statement.
Actually, Pam, there are historical ties between the two. One obvious example, Iran. Until 1935 that country was named "Persia", but the name was changed to reflect the views of the anti-Semitic and Nazi-sympathizing leader of that time. "Iran" literally means "land of the Aryans."
Surely you are not comparing Islam to Hitler….
MS Quixote,
I am just wondering why you are so pressed to say others are wrong. People from different cultures have different religions and while they may not be tolerant to you, doesn't your bible say to turn the other cheek and be nice to them?
There are loads of religions in America alone: different sects of Christianity (if you are a Methodist do you think the Adventists have it wrong?), agnostic, Jewish, Atheist. People who just have no religion, the latter in your opinion maybe be going to hell but just because it is your opinion doesn't mean you get to shove it down others throats.
I was raised in a very strict Southern Baptist home, surrounded by a church full of people who were unable to be tolerant, who spoke much like you do. They are the reason I am an Atheist, the constant worry of going to hell if I chewed my gum too loud became too much to bear.
If you push to hard people will frown away, just something to think about.
My recent post Advent Day – my holiday spirit is gone-
I think what "Star" wants to illuminate is the desire deep within the human heart to throw off any repressive political/religious system. We do not want to have dictated to us what we must think or believe. And beyond that, we want the right to pursue the great quest that has inspired minds since the dawn of time – for even a glimpse of the magnificent power that could conjure a universe! Surely that is wild and grand force that cannot be roped down by rigid ideas of its creation!
You say that all religious faith should promote tolerance, of all people and all faiths. That is a noble sentiment in a "should" world. But let us say you saw a new Hitler rising in your own town or State – "should" you be tolerant of him? Or should you shout from the rooftops that he is a threat to all good people, and to tolerance itself? Certainly, no one wants to be the appeaser to a new Hitler who would murder millions – simply because everyone wanted to remain tolerant?
In my opinion, Mr. Nietz has simply extrapolated a deeply worrisome, misogynistic, ultra-violent faux-Islam, and projected it into the future. Indeed, he refrains from making harsh judgments, and handles his projection with restraint. George Orwell might have given us a much more urgent call to action against a future run by those who hate our own society, and all the freedoms for which we stand.
"I firmly believe that this judging of religions, ruling one as good and another as bad, is the single biggest threat to peace in our world and has been to date."
Hey Michelle,
Thanks for the even and accepting tone 🙂
In your reply highlighted above, you are doing the exact thing you're saying we should not do…
Food for thought. Thanks again.
I appreciate your comments. One main thought based on everything you said – who are we to judge what is a "good" religion versus a "bad" one? Every religion will think itself superior over others, and this ranking of religions, judging one against the other has caused numerous conflicts and oppression throughout the ages. I firmly believe that this judging of religions, ruling one as good and another as bad, is the single biggest threat to peace in our world and has been to date. Christians are no better than Muslims, Muslims are no better than Buddhists, Buddhists are no better than Hindus. We need to stop this pitting one against another if we ever hope to truly stop war and strife.
Lois, I am not certain A Star Curiously Singing is "brilliant" fiction, in my opinion, but I can respect those who think so. I do think it does generate a debate, which is always a good thing.
VERY, very well-written, Jason! This is exactly what I was trying to say in my review but failed, I think. Compassion and charity and acceptance will go a long way to ridding the world of the hatred, mastery and submission we tend to have right now towards others of opposing religions, cultures, economies, and the like.
Thanks for stopping and commenting, Jeff. I do, obviously, disagree with your thoughts on this. As for women's rights, in all honesty, if I were to truly follow a religion that best protected women, I would be come a Wiccan. Christianity has never been kind to women either.
The contradictory nature of this claim should be evident. You're asserting a metaphysical proposition loaded with moral values aimed at other people and all religions that claims no metaphysical statements ought to be made with moral values against other people and all religions.
Furthermore, and unfortunately, the most cursory survey of history, and even modern day, reveals that plenty of religions, metaphysical pursuits, moral value constructions, etc., are simply not tolerant. Hence, there are ready-made illustrations of the logical dilemma that arises at the very center of your proposition. Would you really be willing to claim that any good religion should be tolerant of the Charles Manson cult, a Mezo-American human sacrifice religion, or a host of other examples?
Debate is not my forte–I think of brilliant things I should have said–in the middle of the night. However, isn't good fiction good fiction, whatever it says? ASCS is brilliant fiction. (And controversy feeds interest and sales, may it ever be!)
With all due respect (and I promise, with avoiding the classic yur stoopid flamewarrior tactics that usually surround religious debate), I have to disagree with Mr. Gerke. One can certainly quote passages from the Koran that suggest what Mr. Gerke implies, and there are certainly examples in the world today where Islam has been used to this end. The problem is, there are similar passages in the bible (St. Paul is a horrible misogynist, for instance, to my modern ear). And in the Torah. I have less familiarity with some of the ancient books of, say, the hindu faith, but I would not be surprised to hear some unpleasant quotes from the Bhagavad Ghita or the Upanishads either. Or from some of the writings of the Buddhist sages. There is certainly things that make me squeamish in the writings of the ancient Greek religion, and the ancient Roman religion. Etcetera.
The point is that religions, whether or not they are true (a debate that I certainly won't begin here), are generally sociological used as reflections of their cultures – to an extent, the scriptorians of the time use the existing canon to fulfill their own ends.
The classical counterargument would be the Crusades, of course, and I won't argue against that. I'd point out the rules of the Puritans in the American colonies as well. But, I think a more poignant, and perhaps revealing argument to me, is in the French Revolution. The leaders of the French Revolution fought in the name of an idea that we now think of as the most civilizing, liberating, essentially good ideas that exist in our modern culture: democracy. There driving principles came from that tradition, from the tradition of the ancient Greek philosophers, of John Locke, of Thomas Paine, etc. But, the problem is that the people oppressed, miserable, hungry, and angry. So, the tenets of democratic republicanism became an excuse for fanaticism, and the nation devolved into the terrors, the guillotine, and eventually, ironically, into an autocratic empire (understanding of course that I'm vastly oversimplifying history here, but the point stands).
The problem with ideas is that the greatest ideas are inherently malleable and broad. This means they can be twisted to the point where they are used to justify actions that seem opposite to their original intentions. The trick is to understand this is not necessarily because of the idea itself, but rather because of the conditions that encourage people to trust in in human perversions of that idea. So it is with Islam. There is always some core fanatics, around ANY belief (take, say, the John Birch society around mid-century American republicanism, or the Westboro Baptist Church around Christianity, or the Bolsheviks around socialism). In a sense, these people are not wrong. Takena s a purely academic exercise, it is eas easy to justify holding a sign outside miltiary funerals that says 'God Hates Fags' as it is to justify travelling to Haiti to help Earthquake victims. I don't think this is because Christianity is evil. And I don't think the fact that you can use islam as an excuse to bomb a synagogue is proof that Islam is evil. The problem is that people are in a situation in much of the Islamic world now, ironically more due to the dregs of colonialism and the immense political power of the west than to any internal problems, where they are so poor, hopeless, and oppressed that, like the republicans of France, they are easy to convince – make a man miserable and you may buy his soul on the cheap. The solution to this, a solution I ironically learned in church before I stopped believing in it, is compassion, not fear, charity, not 'righteous anger'. If we had spent money years and years ago, for instance, workign for the rights of women and for the economic improvement of conditions in Afghanistan, it would never have become a hiding place for Al Qaida. If we hadn't spent 50 years treating the Israeli Palestinian conflict as a chess piece in our war against communism, and instead had worked to find a fair, unbiased solution, perhaps there would be no dnager from groups like Hezbollah. If the emperor of Rome, thousands of years ago, had found ways to extend religious suffrage to Christians, then there would have been less religious strife in Ancient Rome. If the The English hadn't used the Irish as agricultural slave labor and treated them as subhuman specimens of the evil Popish faith for hundreds of years, perhaps there would have been fewer bombings in Northern Ireland. Love, understanding, generosity, these are the things that end conflicts. You cannot love and understand someone if you quietly believe that what gives them comfort and peace is no more than diablery in disguise.
My recent post Fear and a Handful of Dust
If Islam were to take over, as we see in the novel under review, I believe it would very nicely thank those who welcomed it and helped it gain power, and then promptly strip away their rights and freedoms. The role of women under sharia law is something I think you may want to study.
I know this is not how you believe, and I respect that. I am prepared to receive the scorn of those who disagree with what I've said here. But I believe it is incumbant upon me to warn people that Islam is not going to be tolerant of us. And I see that Jesus was "intolerant" with all those who blocked access to His Father.
Thank you for allowing me to respond to your review, Michelle.