“Any other summer, a sunset like this would have been beautiful. But nothing had been beautiful since Peris turned pretty” (p. [3]).The perfect opening line to a dissatisfied world; a world I think we constantly find ourselves in. How often do you think of something else you want or need to buy? Did you think of something today or last night? How often do you think of making yourself look better—getting tan for the summer, lasering off some of that hair, buying new clothes for the season, “I’m running out of mascara,” blah blah blah. How often do we focus on buying things that will make our lives easier and happier—trying to be more satisfied with ourselves and life in general? (I’m serious—ask your group these questions!)
Let’s say you just bought a mattress for your bed. It wasn’t the best mattress out there, but it was in your budget and it seemed comfortable enough. After a week, you start thinking about the next bed you’re going to buy. It’s gotta be softer/firmer. Maybe you’ll save more money and buy that really nice, new one next year. Sound familiar? (Maybe use your own example for the group.)
It’s like as soon as the new technology is out there, whatever you have just isn’t good enough. No matter how pretty you are, if you’re not as pretty as you could be with the new technology, you’re just not pretty enough. Ask for examples from the group where/when they’ve felt this way.
Inspiration for Uglies
Scott Westerfeld got his inspiration for this series from a short story by Ted Chiang titled Liking What You See: A Documentary. (It’s found in a collection of his short stories titled, Stories of Your Life and Others.) I highly recommend that you read this short story before you begin a group discussion. Perhaps have everyone read it, if possible (just make sure to follow copyright procedures). It’s a story (made-up, of course) about a new technology called calliagnosia or calli for short. This technology is something placed in the brain that blocks the neural pathways that create an aesthetic reaction to facial features. In other words, it prevents your brain from recognizing one face as prettier or more pleasing than the next.
It’s called a documentary because you read the point of views of various people, scientists, college students, and Tamera who went to a private high school that required all students to be calliagnostic. Maria deSouza, third-year student at a university, President of the Students for Equality Everywhere (SEE) says in her little interview: “For decades people’ve been willing to talk about racism and sexism, but they’re still reluctant to talk about lookism. Yet this prejudice against unattractive people is incredibly pervasive” (p. 282). She says, “Think of calliagnosia as a kind of assisted maturity. It lets you do what you know you should: ignore the surface, so you can look deeper.” Another thing she says that is very true is, “People [treat others based on their looks] without even being taught by anyone, which is bad enough, but instead of combating this tendency, modern society actively reinforces it” (italics added). So true, huh?
Some people in the interviews think calli takes away their rights and Tamera says that she felt at times like her parents were keeping her from “the real world” (p. 285). (It is a very interesting short story and there are some ideas that quite obviously were implemented by Westerfeld into Uglies. One very obvious comparison is p. 283-84 in the Documentary to p. 3 and 42 in Uglies, where are discussions about smooth skin and symmetrical features.)
What do you think about this calliagnosia? Chiang presents a world where people may be immune to beauty; Westerfeld creates a world where beauty may be available to everyone. Which world is better?
Why?
Why why why are the emotions to compare ourselves to others so strong? Why is the desire to be beautiful so overwhelming?
“At school, they often explained how it affected you. It didn’t matter if you knew about evolution or not—it worked anyway. On everyone” (p. [3]).
Even the Bible displays this problem. For example, remember Jacob and his wives?
Genesis 29
16 And Laban had two daughters: the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel.
17 Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.
18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.
What it means to be tender-eyed, I’m not sure, “but” Rachel was beautiful—that “but” sticking out like a sore thumb, to emphasize the fact that being beautiful was better. Was she well favored because of her beauty or was she just a good person? And remember Esther?
Esther 2
7 And he brought up Esther, his uncle’s daughter: for she had neither father nor mother, and the maid was fair and beautiful; whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were dead, took for his own daughter.
It’s like as soon as the new technology is out there, whatever you have just isn’t good enough. No matter how pretty you are, if you’re not as pretty as you could be with the new technology, you’re just not pretty enough. Ask for examples from the group where/when they’ve felt this way.
Inspiration for Uglies
Scott Westerfeld got his inspiration for this series from a short story by Ted Chiang titled Liking What You See: A Documentary. (It’s found in a collection of his short stories titled, Stories of Your Life and Others.) I highly recommend that you read this short story before you begin a group discussion. Perhaps have everyone read it, if possible (just make sure to follow copyright procedures). It’s a story (made-up, of course) about a new technology called calliagnosia or calli for short. This technology is something placed in the brain that blocks the neural pathways that create an aesthetic reaction to facial features. In other words, it prevents your brain from recognizing one face as prettier or more pleasing than the next.
It’s called a documentary because you read the point of views of various people, scientists, college students, and Tamera who went to a private high school that required all students to be calliagnostic. Maria deSouza, third-year student at a university, President of the Students for Equality Everywhere (SEE) says in her little interview: “For decades people’ve been willing to talk about racism and sexism, but they’re still reluctant to talk about lookism. Yet this prejudice against unattractive people is incredibly pervasive” (p. 282). She says, “Think of calliagnosia as a kind of assisted maturity. It lets you do what you know you should: ignore the surface, so you can look deeper.” Another thing she says that is very true is, “People [treat others based on their looks] without even being taught by anyone, which is bad enough, but instead of combating this tendency, modern society actively reinforces it” (italics added). So true, huh?
Some people in the interviews think calli takes away their rights and Tamera says that she felt at times like her parents were keeping her from “the real world” (p. 285). (It is a very interesting short story and there are some ideas that quite obviously were implemented by Westerfeld into Uglies. One very obvious comparison is p. 283-84 in the Documentary to p. 3 and 42 in Uglies, where are discussions about smooth skin and symmetrical features.)
What do you think about this calliagnosia? Chiang presents a world where people may be immune to beauty; Westerfeld creates a world where beauty may be available to everyone. Which world is better?
Why?
Why why why are the emotions to compare ourselves to others so strong? Why is the desire to be beautiful so overwhelming?
“At school, they often explained how it affected you. It didn’t matter if you knew about evolution or not—it worked anyway. On everyone” (p. [3]).
Even the Bible displays this problem. For example, remember Jacob and his wives?
Genesis 29
16 And Laban had two daughters: the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel.
17 Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.
18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.
What it means to be tender-eyed, I’m not sure, “but” Rachel was beautiful—that “but” sticking out like a sore thumb, to emphasize the fact that being beautiful was better. Was she well favored because of her beauty or was she just a good person? And remember Esther?
Esther 2
7 And he brought up Esther, his uncle’s daughter: for she had neither father nor mother, and the maid was fair and beautiful; whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were dead, took for his own daughter.
Yikes, she was fair and beautiful! What must that be like, huh?
17 And the king loved Esther above all the women, and she obtained grace and favour in his sight more than all the virgins; so that he set the royal crown upon her head, and made her queen instead of Vashti.
Is this to say that good things happen to beautiful people? ;) Esther was probably beautiful because God had a mission for her and being beautiful was the only way it could happen. But seriously, has human nature changed very much?
So, what examples do you see around you that prove (1) it’s human nature to recognize the difference between attractive people and unattractive people and (2) that good things happen more often to attractive people?
[Shay] “Yeah, yeah, I know. Everyone judged everyone else based on their appearance. People who were taller got better jobs, and people even voted for some politicians just because they weren’t quite as ugly as everybody else. Blah, blah, blah” (p. 42).
[Tally] “You’re still yourself on the inside, Shay. But when you’re pretty, people pay more attention.”
[Shay] “Not everyone thinks that way.”
[Tally] “Are you sure about that? That you can beat evolution by being smart or interesting?” (p. 92).
What happens later in the book, when David comes into the picture? (See if group can find this and other paragraphs):
“Then Tally trembled inside, realizing what the feeling was. It was that same warmth she’d felt talking to Peris after his operation... It was not a feeling she’d ever gotten from an ugly before. Without large, perfectly shaped eyes, their faces couldn’t make you feel that way. But the moonlight and the setting, or maybe just the words he was saying, had somehow turned David into a pretty. Just for a moment" (p. 249).
If you have read the third book, Specials, you’ll remember a conversation near the end of the book.
[David] peered into her eyes for a long moment, then sighed and shook his head. “You just look like Tally to me.”
[Tally] looked down, her vision blurring.[David] “What’s the matter?"
[Tally] “Nothing, David.” She shook her head. “You just took on five million years of evolution again” (p. 366).
Is this to say that good things happen to beautiful people? ;) Esther was probably beautiful because God had a mission for her and being beautiful was the only way it could happen. But seriously, has human nature changed very much?
So, what examples do you see around you that prove (1) it’s human nature to recognize the difference between attractive people and unattractive people and (2) that good things happen more often to attractive people?
[Shay] “Yeah, yeah, I know. Everyone judged everyone else based on their appearance. People who were taller got better jobs, and people even voted for some politicians just because they weren’t quite as ugly as everybody else. Blah, blah, blah” (p. 42).
[Tally] “You’re still yourself on the inside, Shay. But when you’re pretty, people pay more attention.”
[Shay] “Not everyone thinks that way.”
[Tally] “Are you sure about that? That you can beat evolution by being smart or interesting?” (p. 92).
What happens later in the book, when David comes into the picture? (See if group can find this and other paragraphs):
“Then Tally trembled inside, realizing what the feeling was. It was that same warmth she’d felt talking to Peris after his operation... It was not a feeling she’d ever gotten from an ugly before. Without large, perfectly shaped eyes, their faces couldn’t make you feel that way. But the moonlight and the setting, or maybe just the words he was saying, had somehow turned David into a pretty. Just for a moment" (p. 249).
If you have read the third book, Specials, you’ll remember a conversation near the end of the book.
[David] peered into her eyes for a long moment, then sighed and shook his head. “You just look like Tally to me.”
[Tally] looked down, her vision blurring.[David] “What’s the matter?"
[Tally] “Nothing, David.” She shook her head. “You just took on five million years of evolution again” (p. 366).
Is Westerfeld saying that we can beat evolution? Ted Chiang has some comments at the back of his Stories of Your Life collection of short stories. For Liking What You See, he says, “I expect physical beauty will be around for as long as we have bodies and eyes. But if calliagnosia ever becomes available, I for one will give it a try” (p. 331).
So how do we beat evolution?
I think it helps to first realize something about ourselves.
Genesis 1:26
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.
Genesis 5:1-2
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Romans 8:16
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.
Do we honestly believe that a perfect and perfectly loving God would create some children beautiful and others not? Is beauty even in his vocabulary? (Ask those questions.) What does he say about his creations when he finished the creation of the earth, including Adam and Eve? (Seriously—what did he say?)When God created the earth, He didn’t say that it was beautiful. He did not use that distinction. He said that “it was good” and “it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). This probably meant that it was whole, complete, lacking nothing. Do we compare nature to itself, placing one part above the other—can you say that a rain forest is more beautiful than a wide, desert expanse, or that a snow-cap mountain range is more beautiful than a meadow covered in wild flowers? They are all beautiful, just in different ways. Perhaps beauty isn’t even the right word—but wondrous, miraculous, whole, complete, breathtaking, etc.
"The physical beauty of the Smoke also cleared her mind of worries. Every day seemed to change the mountain, the sky, and the surrounding valleys, making them spectacular in a completely new way. Nature, at least, didn’t need an operation to be beautiful. It just was" (p. 230).
Can’t you say the same things about yourself? If you can’t, maybe you should try.
Let’s take a look at what Isaiah said of Christ before He came:
Isaiah 53
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (bold added)
When you see paintings of Christ, do you think, “Man, he was a hottie!” or “He was so good looking.” No! You just don’t think of Him in that way at all—it’s so weird to think of Him in such a mortal way. He’s so above that. He is the Savior of the world, the Redeemer of all mankind—how can we attempt to describe him in such a limiting, unworthy fashion? And what of ourselves? Does Christ view us the same way as the world views us—as we view ourselves? I say no. He knows us too well to limit us by physical appearance and He knows our potential too clearly to.
If we do not know for ourselves that our worth comes from being a child of God, then we as mortals automatically look for other ways to define our worth. And what are those other ways? (Ask.) Outward appearance. (Ask why?) How many people do you know who base their worth on appearance?
Choice
One of the underlying themes throughout the Uglies series is Tally's ability to live up to her own words, "You’re still yourself on the inside, Shay" (p. 92).
Tally finds herself thrown into situations that she never wanted for herself.
[Dr. Cable] “So, Tally. You’ve reconsidered.”
[Tally] “Yes.”
[Dr. Cable] “And you’ll answer all our questions now? Honestly and of your own free will?”
Tally snorted. “You’re not giving me a choice.”
Dr. Cable smiled. “We always have choices, Tally. You’ve made yours” (p. [129]).
[Dr. Cable] “I’m glad you decided to help us.”
[Tally] “Like I had a choice?”
[Dr. Cable] “You always had a choice, Tally” (p. 307).
We cannot always choose the consequences of our actions.
"And it was all Tally's fault. She'd come to the Smoke, and had brought the Specials, leaving Shay an empty-headed pretty, and Az dead" (p. 414).
And many things cannot be undone, but there is always the future, and better choices to be made in the future. The other books, Pretties and Specials, deal more with this idea. When I get around to it, I'll post those discussions for book club. ;)
Other things to think about
A.
Were you disappointed that after all this discussion of ugly v. pretty that the main character is going to turn pretty? I was kind-of upset about it at first, but I guess it's one way to continue the story. At least someone stays ugly--David.
B.
P. 198-99 is kind-of fun to read through. It's when Shay and Tally are looking through old magazines. Maybe you can talk about media a little bit and its role. You can always refer to that dove commercial or that reality show, TrueBeauty (or any other show, for that matter).
C.
When people turn pretty, they become different because of their lesions. How different would everyone be without the lesions—would everyone change just as much because they’re all-of-the-sudden extremely attractive?
Tally wanted to see Peris to see if he was the same—if they were still friends. But how did he react when they met? (read p. 16-17 “Peris sighed” to “kid still.”) How was he different? It could have been due to the lesions, but maybe not...
P. 266 Tally finds out about the lesions.
What’s the difference between Peris’s confidence and David’s? (Read p. 189 “He was an ugly” to “awkward age.”)
So how do we beat evolution?
I think it helps to first realize something about ourselves.
Genesis 1:26
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.
Genesis 5:1-2
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Romans 8:16
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.
Do we honestly believe that a perfect and perfectly loving God would create some children beautiful and others not? Is beauty even in his vocabulary? (Ask those questions.) What does he say about his creations when he finished the creation of the earth, including Adam and Eve? (Seriously—what did he say?)When God created the earth, He didn’t say that it was beautiful. He did not use that distinction. He said that “it was good” and “it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). This probably meant that it was whole, complete, lacking nothing. Do we compare nature to itself, placing one part above the other—can you say that a rain forest is more beautiful than a wide, desert expanse, or that a snow-cap mountain range is more beautiful than a meadow covered in wild flowers? They are all beautiful, just in different ways. Perhaps beauty isn’t even the right word—but wondrous, miraculous, whole, complete, breathtaking, etc.
"The physical beauty of the Smoke also cleared her mind of worries. Every day seemed to change the mountain, the sky, and the surrounding valleys, making them spectacular in a completely new way. Nature, at least, didn’t need an operation to be beautiful. It just was" (p. 230).
Can’t you say the same things about yourself? If you can’t, maybe you should try.
Let’s take a look at what Isaiah said of Christ before He came:
Isaiah 53
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (bold added)
When you see paintings of Christ, do you think, “Man, he was a hottie!” or “He was so good looking.” No! You just don’t think of Him in that way at all—it’s so weird to think of Him in such a mortal way. He’s so above that. He is the Savior of the world, the Redeemer of all mankind—how can we attempt to describe him in such a limiting, unworthy fashion? And what of ourselves? Does Christ view us the same way as the world views us—as we view ourselves? I say no. He knows us too well to limit us by physical appearance and He knows our potential too clearly to.
If we do not know for ourselves that our worth comes from being a child of God, then we as mortals automatically look for other ways to define our worth. And what are those other ways? (Ask.) Outward appearance. (Ask why?) How many people do you know who base their worth on appearance?
Choice
One of the underlying themes throughout the Uglies series is Tally's ability to live up to her own words, "You’re still yourself on the inside, Shay" (p. 92).
Tally finds herself thrown into situations that she never wanted for herself.
[Dr. Cable] “So, Tally. You’ve reconsidered.”
[Tally] “Yes.”
[Dr. Cable] “And you’ll answer all our questions now? Honestly and of your own free will?”
Tally snorted. “You’re not giving me a choice.”
Dr. Cable smiled. “We always have choices, Tally. You’ve made yours” (p. [129]).
[Dr. Cable] “I’m glad you decided to help us.”
[Tally] “Like I had a choice?”
[Dr. Cable] “You always had a choice, Tally” (p. 307).
We cannot always choose the consequences of our actions.
"And it was all Tally's fault. She'd come to the Smoke, and had brought the Specials, leaving Shay an empty-headed pretty, and Az dead" (p. 414).
And many things cannot be undone, but there is always the future, and better choices to be made in the future. The other books, Pretties and Specials, deal more with this idea. When I get around to it, I'll post those discussions for book club. ;)
Other things to think about
A.
Were you disappointed that after all this discussion of ugly v. pretty that the main character is going to turn pretty? I was kind-of upset about it at first, but I guess it's one way to continue the story. At least someone stays ugly--David.
B.
P. 198-99 is kind-of fun to read through. It's when Shay and Tally are looking through old magazines. Maybe you can talk about media a little bit and its role. You can always refer to that dove commercial or that reality show, TrueBeauty (or any other show, for that matter).
C.
When people turn pretty, they become different because of their lesions. How different would everyone be without the lesions—would everyone change just as much because they’re all-of-the-sudden extremely attractive?
Tally wanted to see Peris to see if he was the same—if they were still friends. But how did he react when they met? (read p. 16-17 “Peris sighed” to “kid still.”) How was he different? It could have been due to the lesions, but maybe not...
P. 266 Tally finds out about the lesions.
What’s the difference between Peris’s confidence and David’s? (Read p. 189 “He was an ugly” to “awkward age.”)
No comments:
Post a Comment