Talk:Survivor (Octavia Butler novel)

Latest comment: 17 years ago by TheronJ in topic "Native" nations vs. "human" nations

"Native" nations vs. "human" nations edit

Nareek, thanks for the edits. I don't feel too strongly about using "native" versus "non-human" to describe the Kohn, but lean slightly towards "native." Although the Kohn have fur, camoflage abilities, and claws, it's kind of a close case whether they're human.

  1. Obviously, they are cross-fertile with humans, and there is no reason to believe that the mixed Missionary-Kohn children are sterile.
  2. Alanna herself ultimately concludes that the Kohn are "human", but she may be speaking metaphorically.

The Kohn might be just an extraordinarily divergent expression of an otherwise human genetic structure, which would explain the cross-fertility, or Butler may intend for them to be non-human, there's no way to tell. TheronJ 20:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

If the word "human" is debated in the novel, then we shouldn't use it either way. "Extraterrestrial" seems to work.
I just added an edit to note that Survivor is the only one of Butler's novel's not brought back into print--which I know because it's the only one I haven't read. Nareek 03:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
It's good - probably not worth the $200+ you would have to pay to get it on Ebay, but certainly worth an interlibrary loan request. TheronJ 15:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply