Do
you totally understand your own moral compass? Does anyone? Why do we
all see morality differently? I certainly think about morals and try
constantly to evaluate my beliefs. While I do try to stick by my
beliefs and back them up with faith and facts I also have very close
friends who feel that my compass is “off” so to speak. They
believe that their brand of morality is better, cleaner, or more
Christian than mine. Obviously I don't believe them but I also know
that as I have aged I have changed my compass somewhat and probably
will again, but so might they.
Mason
Ambrose is a Darwinian ethicist who has read about, studied,
researched, and grappled with morality and written a book intended to
be his doctoral thesis. When he fails to complete that process he
takes a job on a remote island for a reclusive millionairess, Edwina
Sabacthani. He is hired to tutor Sabathani's teenage daughter who
apparently has amnesia to the pint of being a tabula rasa or blank
slate. His job is to develop in her psyche a moral compass. Soon
Ambrose discovers that Sabacthani and her assistant Vincent Charnock
have been experimenting with genetically engineering plants, animals,
and humans. They have created by artificial means three “daughters”
for Edwina who is herself terminally ill. The girls were created by
inserting DNA into donor eggs. The fetuses were then aged in a
special vat or ontogenerator which speedily advanced them to the
desired age after which each child's brain was advanced with the use
of programing from a “dunce cap.” Donya is chronologically aged
to five, Yolly to eleven, and Londa is 15.
Taking
note of the following quotation as a bit of foreshadoing, it was
clear early on to me that the daughters Sabathani would not end up
well:
In recent years I'd seen Max Crippen's sculpture of the Crucifixion rendered entirely in LEGOs, Valerio Caparelli's Norman Rockwell-style painting of God inseminating the Virgin Mary on their first date, and Leonard Steele's rock opera set in the Vatican's luxury suite for retired pedophile priests, but what Edwina and Charnock had achieved was sacrilege of a wholly different order, blasphemy beyond the meaning of the word. (pp.87-8 of the paperback)
Upon
Edwina's death the girls are assigned guardians and trust funds.
Ambrose heads off to begin his own life. Londa and Yolly create an
empire for helping women including a multi-million dollar complex
housing lawyers, medical consultants, and activists of all kinds
working on women's social issues. Ambrose and his wife, Natalie face
serious health issues leading them to choose abortion over
endangering Natalie's life. Ultra religious fanatics join forces to
destroy the Sabacthani empire. Vincent Charnock becomes depressed and
reclusive from guilt about what he has done with the Sabacthanis and
sells his creation machine to the religious fanatics. Soon populating
this book are aging creatures made from aborted fetuses, animatronic
non-humans, and “created” people called immaculoids who are
programmed to accomplish specific tasks.
This book pretty much satirizes everything, religion, atheism, pro-choice, pro-life, capitalism, socialism you name it. Actually, I think that is the point. All philosophies, even those based on goodness or philanthropy, if allowed to reach the fevered pitch of radicalism, become not only ineffective but harmful. The
plot is complicated, the characters are colorful, and one must pay
attention to detail. But I must say I really liked The Philosopher's
Apprentice very much. We discussed it last evening at the Jay County
Public Library book group and I did not hear anyone say they did not
like it. Many said it was a hard read but worth it. It behooves me to
say I did have to look up references to mythology, philosophy, vocabulary, and some people referred to. Not as smart as I thought I
was apparently.
No comments:
Post a Comment