Brothers in Arms by Lois McMaster Bujold

[lightreads]

I was completely incapable of settling on anything to read this week, so I picked this up for a second read. It’s from the middle of her Miles Vorkosigan science fiction series, when said protagonist is in his manic, paranoid, splintered, brilliant mid-twenties. Miles ends up on Earth for complicated reasons, and trouble ensues when the identities of Lieutenant Lord Miles Vorkosigan, loyal barrayaran Imperial officer, and Admiral Miles Naismith, free mercenary, begin trying to co-exist in very close quarters, spatially and in Miles’s head. It’s a rollicking but thoughtful adventure in the good old style, though with foresight you can definitely see the stress fractures beginning to show as Bujold prepares to drop the world on Miles’s head in the next few books.

This is an odd book. It’s a story about identity and politics and identity politics, played out like shadow puppets against the backdrop of the Komarr problem (the strategically vital planet socially Medieval Barrayar took over thirty years ago, with attendant atrocities, and with which it is now trying to integrate). The book weaves threads of personal destiny and determinism with the future of the greater social problem, and it comes out rather . . . strangely.


“You are what you do. Choose again, and change,” Miles says to Mark, which is a damn funny thing for Bujold to have put in the mouth of her protagonist, considering how many times she has said “biology is destiny.” Not to mention the way Miles argues out of both sides of his mouth to Mark – on the one hand Mark is free to choose his life and his purpose and he has to in order to be a person in his own right, and on the other Mark already has a destiny just by existing, by being blood of Miles’s blood and DNA of his DNA. He has a name ready and waiting for him, encoded with the deepest traditions of Barrayar, and there’s nothing he can do about it, whether he ever chooses to meet his parents or not.

Galeni and his father are the other familial pair of significance, and their relationship is of course a microcosm of Komarr’s internal social change. It’s a nice little parable, actually, about how being a victim can force you to be a perpetrator, or alternately let you choose to walk away from vengeance and work for a better future (a choice Miles has made, too). Galeni has chosen again, and he has changed. And though the familial ties yank hard at them both, this bit of biology wasn’t destiny, and never the twain shall meet again.

And then there’s Barrayar and Komarr, and Aral Vorkosigan’s integration scheme. Because as Galeni says, it’s better for everyone if there’s no war at all, and so you do what you can with what you’ve got. Or as Aral puts it through Miles, “between justice and genocide there is, in the long run, no middle ground.” It’s this whole “people over principles” argument, the idea that saving lives and working for a better future should trump ideology, though in my mind that can be simplified to “the principle of people.” And on the one hand the integration scheme is brilliant, just right, pretty much the only thing that could work, because biology might be destiny for some, but demography is destiny for all. But on the other, it seems wildly unlikely to actually work. Can anyone name for me a pair of geographically non-contiguous states in history who shared an imperial, not colonial, relationship that actually lasted, let alone peacefully? Nope, thought not. The non-contiguity seems to be the sticking point, because it limits the effectiveness of these exact integration schemes. And wormhole neighbors or not, you don’t get much more non-contiguous than two different planets. Now whether this historical trend would bare out when the imperial power in question is actually socially and technologically behind the curve as compared to the subject power, I don’t know. I suspect that’s the angle Bujold is going for, because I think she’s far too astute a student of history to have missed the facts. Komarr is Barrayar’s gateway onto the rest of the nexus in more than just astrography, and the relationship is an unprecedented dynamic.

Anyway. The dialogue about personal destiny and the dialogue about Komarr’s destiny don’t quite meet at the edges in this book, and it ends up feeling a bit inconclusive and scrambled. I suspect Bujold hadn’t worked out a lot of the kinks in her own mind – she gets a much more coherent shot at analogizing personal identity with Komarr’s troubled past in Komarr. The clearest message I can come away with is that there are some things which just will be -- DNA is one of them, and the fact that Barrayar simply cannot let go of Komarr and be secure is another. That’s destiny, but its up to each person to decide who he is when it finds him.

Comments

[fuzzyboo03.livejournal.com]

One of my favorite series! This is pretty clearly an early Bujold and I agree, I don't think she's quite figured out Komarr's backstory at this point. At the same time, it's a book I return to over and over when I'm tired and don't want to concentrate too hard, but want some quality dialogue and a good laugh. Miles on fast penta is priceless.

[lightreads.livejournal.com]

Miles on fast penta is priceless.


It is. Also, the whole ending sequence with the Cetagandans and Barrayarans and local constables and stunner tag could not be funnier.

"Here now, what's all this?"

Hee!

[fuzzyboo03.livejournal.com]

Yes!!! And they're running around running into people and stunning eachother leaving no one standing. That's the point where I giggle madly into my pillow.

[moria923.livejournal.com]

I'm just now making my way through the Vorkosigan series for the first time, and I finished BOA a couple of weeks ago. It's one of my favorites so far: the dialogue is witty and somewhat thought-provoking, and the character of Duv Galeni is compelling. (Please tell me: does he ever show up again?) And that fast-penta scene is laugh-out-loud funny.

To me, the persons-vs.-principles dichotomy seems, ultimately, false. The best principles exist to guide us in how to treat persons; when we violate one of our principles because it would result in injustice or unkindness, we can usually examine our beliefs and find some other principle that superseded the one we violated. (A mentor of my husband's liked to stress that everybody *has* a philosophy, even if they don't realize they have one).

As for the tension between circumstances and choice, *there's* a tangle It seems the theme here is that we can never escape what we've inherited through family, biology, ethnicity, etc.; we can only choose how we react when these things come knocking on our door. I'm gald there was no pat answer here, since most of us spend most of our lives trying to work this one out.

mess!

[lightreads.livejournal.com]

Oh, Galeni does most definitely pop again, never fear. He's one of my favorites, too.

I'm gald there was no pat answer here, since
most of us spend most of our lives trying to work this one out.



Oh so painfully true. This book rather gave the impression of trying to get an answer and failing, rather than of working through to the nebulous conclusion of no conclusion. The first is realistic but makes for somewhat awkward literature.

[castiron.livejournal.com]

Neat insights! BoA has always been one of my favorites, as it was the first Bujold I ever read.

[rabidfangurl.livejournal.com]

...where does Bujold say that biology is destiny? I've never got that vibe from her, and it seems a lot of the Vorkosigan books are about overcoming biology in favor of something greater. Of course, they are also about overcoming what society assumes you are and wants you to be, but that's a different issue.

[lightreads.livejournal.com]

Now that I'm thinking about it, I think the precise quote is extracanonical, and part of the confusion comes from her working out her ideas throughout the course of the series. One of the most clearly expressed thoughts on the subject is Aral's, who says "all true wealth is biological." Which is not quite the same thing, but very close when you work it through -- the real things of value are the things we inherit despite ourselves.

It's a delicate balance she runs with Miles her champion of mind over matter -- or more accurately mind over society. But she has a healthy respect for the power of biology in our lives, including how we think and feel, which is something a lot of people are in denial about. In A Civil Campaign Count Vorbretton asks Miles if biology is still destiny, and Miles says "not anymore." The whole thing suggests a fine gradation of meaning -- there is destiny in the personal term, in the sense of what your life will be, and there is destiny in the contextual form, this is the context on which this life can play out. The ultimate message, as expressed at the end of my post and better by a commenter above, seems to be that our freedom lies in how we choose to meet the things we cannot change, our destinies biological and otherwise. Which is close, but not quite the same thing as a simple “biology is not destiny.”
Now that I'm thinking about it, I think the precise quote is extracanonical, and part of the confusion comes from her working out her ideas throughout the course of the series. One of the most clearly expressed thoughts on the subject is Aral's, who says "all true wealth is biological." Which is not quite the same thing, but very close when you work it through -- the real things of value are the things we inherit despite ourselves.

It's a delicate balance she runs with Miles her champion of mind over matter -- or more accurately mind over society. But she has a healthy respect for the power of biology in our lives, including how we think and feel, which is something a lot of people are in denial about. In A Civil Campaign Count Vorbretton asks Miles if biology is still destiny, and Miles says "not anymore." The whole thing suggests a fine gradation of meaning -- there is destiny in the personal term, in the sense of what your life will be, and there is destiny in the contextual form, this is the context on which this life can play out. The ultimate message, as expressed at the end of my post and better by a commenter above, seems to be that our freedom lies in how we choose to meet the things we cannot change, our destinies biological and otherwise. Which is close, but not quite the same thing as a simple “biology is not destiny.”

[feuervogel]

I haven't read ACC recently, but I vaguely recall that Vorbretton was implying something regarding muties. Now, I could be completely making this up, but given Barrayar's history of mutie-loathing and all, it's possible that, while Lois may have intended something else, I interpreted it that way.

Also, we know that Barrayar is very not feminist-inclined, and it could be that sort of biology (XY/XX) -- though even that's fungible with top surgeons on Beta Colony.

It's definitely been too long since I read that. The context of that conversation eludes me.

[lightreads.livejournal.com]

I think it's overtly in reference to the Dono/a subplot in that book. But the subtext is more universal, as one comes to expect from Bujold -- well, Vorbretton means it specifically and Miles responds universally, in that way he does.

I haven't reread it either -- really should do that.

[charlie-ego.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. Although I really like your analysis, I'm going to quibble about one thing.

I don't think saying "All true wealth is biological" is actually very close at all to "biology is destiny." I would say that it is a related but ultimately orthogonal sentiment: that of value expressed as both your genetic (destined, or somewhat) and non-genetic (what you've done with your life) heritage passed on in other living beings. The sentiment, to me, expresses that you can have monetary wealth, wealth in political clout, wealth in lots of tangible ways-- but that's not important in the long run. Miles and Mark (and Elena and Simon and...) are Aral's true wealth. He might equally have said, "All true wealth is sentient," which to me is the point here, but that just doesn't sound as good, does it?

That said, I do think you're spot on with her overall message about destiny in the personal and contextual.

[lightreads.livejournal.com]

The sentiment, to me, expresses that you can have monetary wealth, wealth in political clout, wealth in lots of tangible ways--
but that's not important in the long run. Miles and Mark (and Elena and Simon and...) are Aral's true wealth. He might equally have said, "All true wealth
is sentient," which to me is the point here, but that just doesn't sound as good, does it?



*nodding*. Going straight up the middle, it might be fair to say that it's simply a reaffirmation of the importance of these things, of what we inherit for who and what we will be. And as expressed elsewhere, passing this along is one of the most important things a person can do (a sentiment I'm less apt to agree with, actually, though luckily she doesn't simply limit it to the transmition of DNA).

[scimon.livejournal.com]

There is a line along the lines of "biology isn't destiny?" which Miles agrees with strongly in one of the later books. I'm re-reading them all again at the moment (finished Brothers in Arms a couple of days ago, then read a new book and am now about to get to the splattery bit in Mirror Dance) so when I get to it I'll post it.
But my mind tends to wander so I may be wrong.

[lightreads.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's in Civil Campaign. See the thread above for short discussion.

Biology

[kikibug13.livejournal.com]

I also don't think Bujold has really insisted that biology is destiny.

She has claimed many a time that "all true wealth is biological.

Which is not quite the same thing.

I do admit that biology, genetics especially, plays a big role in our lives. But it's not destiny; I don't believe in destiny (I do believe in carma, somewhat, though - there's a difference).

I like Mark, although his character in BoA is just... unformed yet. But then, he puts on an appearance, and that's a start, and he chooses... freedom, which is also a good thing. I don't know how he never got the better of Galen earlier, but then, he never knew he had a choice of a different future, earlier.

Re: Biology

[lightreads.livejournal.com]

See the thread above for elaboration and discussion of this point -- I think the problem lies not in disagreement over what the text is d doing, but over the meaning of "destiny." At face value it looks like what you are is what you will be, whereas in practice it seems to be destiny in a sort of directional sense -- what you are is what you can be. With all the implications of choice that go with the word.