Cooperative Apocalypse1447901/... · 2020-06-26 · Cooperative Apocalypse: Hostile Geological...
Transcript of Cooperative Apocalypse1447901/... · 2020-06-26 · Cooperative Apocalypse: Hostile Geological...
Cooperative Apocalypse:
Hostile Geological Forces in N. K. Jemisin’s The
Broken Earth Trilogy
Master’s Thesis
Author: Felicia Stenberg
Supervisor: Johan Höglund
Examiner: Niklas Salmose
Term: Spring Semester 2020
Subject: English Literature
Level: Advanced, 30 credits
Course code: 5EN01E
Abstract
In this thesis I explore the place of the human in the Anthropocene, and our relationship to
the Earth through an analysis of N. K. Jemisin’s The Broken Earth trilogy. As the trilogy
depicts an apocalyptic landscape where the Earth has sentience and humanity is divided into
three subspecies, this work of speculative fiction lends itself well to be interrogated and
examined as an allegory for our current climate crisis. The analysis is anchored in
posthumanism and employs a variety of concepts, such as Bruno Latour’s work on agency
and deanimation, Donna Haraway’s Chthulucene, and Amitav Ghosh’s work on speculative
fiction among others. I argue that The Broken Earth trilogy illustrates that the Earth is an
agentive network that can no longer be ignored and contend that the trilogy complicates
both anthropocentrism and individualism by depicting amplified versions of human beings,
and in doing so highlights the arbitrary boundaries between both nature and society, and
human and nonhuman. Thus, The Broken Earth trilogy can be read as a warning call for a
future to be avoided at all costs, while concurrently be used to make sense of the
incomprehensibility of our contemporary era.
Key words
The Broken Earth trilogy, N. K. Jemisin, Bruno Latour, Agency, ANT, Geostory, Donna
Haraway, Chthulucene, Sympoeisis, Become-with, Response-Ability, Anthropocene,
Anthropocentrism, Posthumanism, Climate Fiction, Collectivism, Gaia Theory, Amitav
Ghosh.
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
2.State of the Art: The Broken Earth Trilogy ............................................................................... 4
3. Posthuman Theory in The Anthropocene ................................................................................. 9
3.1 Gaia Theory According to Margulis and Lovelock ......................................................... 10
3.2 Latourian Moderns and (Non)humans, Divided.............................................................. 11
3.3 Agency of the Nonhuman and Geostories ....................................................................... 13
3.4 (De)Animation ............................................................................................................... 14
3.5 Donna Haraway’s Chthulucene ..................................................................................... 16
3.6 What Stories Tell Stories—The Potential of Speculative Literature ................................. 19
4. “Let’s Start with the End of The World”—an Introduction to The Broken Earth................ 21
4.1 Nonhuman Agents—Earth as a Broken Synergistic Network in Need .............................. 26
4.2 Embracing The Subhuman—Orogenes in Need of Sympoiesis in The Anthropocene ....... 34
4.3 Failed Posthumans—Stone Eaters and Orogenes in Relation to Each Other................... 46
4.4 The Issue With Living and Temporarily Dying on a Broken Earth .................................. 51
5.Reanimation—What Speculative Literature Can Do .............................................................. 56
6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 60
Works Cited ................................................................................................................................ 64
Stenberg 1
1. Introduction
The times we live in now are, as they say, interesting. Whether it is viruses that threaten the
lives of millions while politicians worry about economic collapse or the constant threat of the
destruction of an environment that humans are both part of and dependent on, it is clear that
the world and its inhabitants are in a constant state of vulnerability. Humanity’s role as the
centre of importance in the world is now more than ever put into question, as the
anthropocentric worldview that has reigned for centuries has been shown as harmful in the
current epoch, today sometimes referred to by scholars as the Anthropocene. Thus, change is
of the essence, and time is clearly running out.
People have always turned to stories to make sense of the present moment, while
literature often reflect that present in turn.1Today, this includes climate change, and the view
of humanity as a geological force. Consequently, the instability of our place on this planet is
something that permeates much of recent speculative fiction. In this thesis, I analyse one such
work, The Broken Earth trilogy by N. K. Jemisin, which comprises; The Fifth Season (TFS),
published in 2015; The Obelisk Gate (TOG), published in 2016; and The Stone Sky (TSS),
published in 2017. All three instalments won the Hugo Award for best novel the year after
their publication, making it not only the first trilogy in which all parts have received this
honour, but also made author N. K. Jemisin the first African American woman to win in that
category.
The Broken Earth trilogy begins with the Earth literally breaking apart, via an
earthquake that splits the continent known as the Stillness in half. Taking place thousands of
1An interesting historical example to note here is that Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein in the Summer of what is
known as The Year Without Summer, allegedly caused by a volcanic eruption filling the atmosphere with ash in
1816 (“1816, The Year Without a Summer”). Whether this truly was the inspiration for Shelley remains in
doubt, however, but the way history has put the two together is nevertheless of significance here.
Stenberg 2
years into the future, the Earth in the trilogy—referred to as “Father Earth”—is one constantly
plagued with earthquakes that cause “Fifth Seasons,” extended “winters” in which ash fills the
atmosphere. These Seasons often last hundreds of years, nearly eradicating humanity every
time they occur. Furthermore, it is revealed that the Earth has sentience, and is hellbent on
vengeance against humanity. Therefore, the dystopian world presented in the novels exists in
a constant state of environmental crisis, and perpetual peri-apocalypse.
The metaphorical and allegorical parallels that can be drawn to our current
environmental crisis are evident. A current example is that during the lockdown surrounding
the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020, pollution levels quickly decreased, clearly
illustrating the correlation between humanity and the climate crisis. However, despite these
measures, reduction of worldwide emission of greenhouse gases might not reach the goal
scientists say is needed to stop global temperatures from rising too much, painting a dark
picture of just how much we affect the Earth (Storrow). Interestingly, and of importance to
this thesis, is that in April 2020 it was reported that due to the lockdown, so-called ambient
seismic activity has decreased, showing that humanity is affecting the Earth’s vibration as
well (Kaur). The thought of humanity literally affecting the Earth’s movement, then, is not as
farfetched as previously believed.
This concept of humanity as a geological force that is affecting the Earth is brought to
the extreme in The Broken Earth trilogy. In the novels, humanity has through millennia been
separated into three species with different abilities, who all live in a contentious and unstable
state in relation to one another. Besides stills—the closest to humans as we know them
today—there are those known as orogenes, people that can both cause and stop earthquakes.
The third subspecies, the elusive stone eaters, look like stone statues and can travel through
the Earth. Thus, the trilogy introduces people who are connected to the Earth in several
different ways, both metaphorical and literal.
Stenberg 3
The story in the trilogy is a complex one, and as such it is difficult to define with
regards to genre. Jemisin’s works have, for instance, been labelled as both fantasy and science
fiction as the trilogy moves freely and unapologetically between both genres. Additionally,
The Broken Earth trilogy has also been labelled as both climate fiction—that is, fiction that in
some way deal with climate change—and as belonging to the Afrofuturist tradition. In
Afrofuturism: The World of Black Sci-Fi and Fantasy Culture, Ytasha Womack argues that at
its core, Afrofuturism is about the power of imagination to envision possible futures “through
a black cultural lens” (loc 140) and “to reinvigorate culture and transcend social limitations”
(loc 350). Womack writes that “Afrofuturism combines elements of science fiction, historical
fiction, speculative fiction, fantasy, Afrocentricity, and magic realism with non-Western
beliefs” (loc 140). Accordingly, Jemisin writes within a tradition that lays claim to the
possibility of literature to transcend obstacles and create change. Of note, however, is that in
the trilogy, while the protagonists are people of colour, it is in a futuristic form, with features
that often have no equivalent in our reality. Jemisin therefore complicates the notion of race
by both highlighting and subverting it in the narrative. 2
The Broken Earth trilogy shows an Earth that has taken back its agency and is actively
considering humankind to be its adversary. In this thesis I use a combination of different
scholars’ works to examine how the narrative can force us to face the incomprehensible that is
the climate crisis. Basing my research in posthumanism and Gaia theory, I employ Bruno
Latour, Donna Haraway, and Amitav Ghosh to explore humanity’s role and place in the
occurrence of being on the continuous brink of ecological extinction. My thesis explores the
effect of this forcible decentring of humanity’s importance and what happens when the Earth
seeks vengeance in a world where apocalypse has become quotidian. The concept of Fifth
2 It is further important to note here that Jemisin is outspoken about the fact that The Broken Earth trilogy was
inspired by responses to oppression such as the Ferguson Riots in 2014 and the Black Lives Matter Movement
(Hanifin). She emphasises, however, that she does not write about movements as such, but about individuals first
and foremost (Hurley).
Stenberg 4
Seasons becomes an allegory for humanity’s powerlessness in the face of what James
Lovelock described in The Revenge of Gaia as a vengeful Earth that is now fighting back. I
argue that on this Earth, by this Earth, the absurdity inherent in the belief that humanity has
ever truly been in charge of anything is made evident, thus illustrating the fallibility of an
anthropocentric and individualistic worldview, as humanity cannot be and has never been
separate from nature. Consequently, Jemisin’s trilogy depicts not only the folly of an
essentialist mindset in a world where what constitutes humanity is constantly in flux, but that
in doing so, questions the very notion of humanity as a category in itself. I further contend
that by giving the Earth sentience, the trilogy reanimates the deanimated Earth, and by
literally blurring the lines between what is Earth and what is life shows the inseparability of
human and nature.
The structure of this thesis is as follows: First, I account for the previous scholarship
on The Broken Earth trilogy. Then, I present my theoretical framework, focused on the
agency of the nonhuman, and humanity’s place in existence. This is followed by the analysis,
which is initially divided into four sections, all focusing on the Earth to different extents.
Diverting slightly, the fifth and final analysis section discusses not the narrative of The
Broken Earth trilogy, but its function as a device in restoring symbiosis with the Earth, and
the importance of these types of stories.
2. State of the Art: The Broken Earth Trilogy
Since the trilogy is recently published, the scholarly work is not plentiful. The trilogy is filled
with such diversity that study has been done in areas including, but not limited to: race,
gender, and class, often through an ecocritical lens. To situate my own claims, what follows in
this section therefore accounts for the most important scholarship on the trilogy to date.
In “‘Ourworld’: A Feminist Approach to Global Constitutionalism,” Ruth Houghton
and Aoife O’Donoghue use Jemisin’s trilogy among other works to problematize the notion of
Stenberg 5
global constitutionalism, that is, “the process of constitutionalising international law and
governance” (2). By asking who it would benefit—as global constitutionalism is “inherently
gendered” (3)—Houghton and O’Donoghue argue that feminist science fiction can help
reimagine what global constitutionalism could be, as it “provides feminists with a testing
ground” akin to Thomas More’s fictional island Utopia (3). They state that the trilogy
demonstrates that before any sort of solution can be possible “intersectional questions of race,
of social status, of economic power, of religion, of abuse all must be tackled, to be fought”
(10). They also raise the issue of how Jemisin complicates the idea of motherhood, something
that can arguably be extended, as I will show in this thesis, to parenthood overall in the
trilogy, both in the literal and metaphorical sense.
MaryKate Eileen Messimer, in her doctoral dissertation “Gender in Apocalyptic
California: The Ecological Frontier,” argues instead that Jemisin’s work depicts and moves
beyond the gender binaries that often plague ecofeminism even while purportedly criticizing
them. Messimer writes that binary categories are “central to upholding individualism” (13), a
belief which permeates this analysis as well. She claims that with the power of orogeneity, the
trilogy expands “human empathy into nonliving matter” as Jemisin imagines “extreme
empathy as a solution to the American isolationism that has caused social inequality and
environmental destruction” (20). I will expand on this idea of upending binaries in the trilogy,
while incorporating symbiosis and agency.
Moving away from foregrounding gender in analysing Jemisin’s work, Misha Grifka-
Wander and Kathleen Murphey both highlight Jemisin’s depiction of oppression as an
allegory to slavery, but in different ways. In “Moving Forward: Gender, Genre, and Why
There’s No Hard Fantasy,” Grifka-Wander uses Jemisin’s works, among others’, to argue
Stenberg 6
against Darko Suvin’s now famous dismissal of fantasy literature in favour of science fiction.3
She contends that both “hard science fiction” and “high fantasy” have a gendered bias, as
scholarly work has historically associated these genres with masculinity: science fiction with
forward gazing and progress on the one hand; fantasy with a conservative and traditionalist
outlook on the other, missing the diverse possibilities of fantasy as a genre in the process (65).
Grifka-Wander therefore proposes a new definition, “forward fantasy.” To Grifka-Wander,
“forward fantasy” avoids the backwards gaze common to the genre in “high fantasy” and
therefore achieves the same “rigorous realism, the political relevance” (65) that is usually
attributed to science fiction alone, albeit not in the same way. The way “forward fantasy”
achieves this contemporary relevance—and this is of utmost importance to this thesis—is
through rigorous worldbuilding, as such worldbuilding “must reflect the real world enough
to make the linkages clear, while also changing the world enough to estrange it” (76). Realism
itself having an air of instability and what this means for literature is something that is
explicated on in the final part of the theory section.
Grifka-Wander acknowledges the climate change parallels evident in the trilogy, but
focuses her argument on the orogenes and shows how the trilogy draws parallels between the
treatment of orogenes and historical American slavery. She states that Jemisin complicates the
issue of enslavement and “troubles the readers’ conception of freedom,” as the orogenes are
capable of lethal force (78). According to Grifka-Wander, The Broken Earth “directly
responds to the contemporary moment . . . A simple metaphor is no longer sufficiently
estranging or radical, and so Jemisin pushes farther, providing new subjectivities (that of the
orogenes and their oppressors) for the reader to inhabit and learn from” (78). Grifka-Wander’s
3 In Metamorphoses of Science Fiction, published in 1979, Darko Suvin famously argued that science fiction as a
genre is a cognitive exercise that often causes its readers to engage and draw parallels to their real life, while
fantasy is mere wish fulfilment and escapism.
Stenberg 7
analysis heavily informs this thesis, and will be built upon and expanded to climate change in
this analysis.
Kathleen Murphey takes a different approach in her analysis of how Jemisin depicts
slavery in “Science Fiction/Fantasy Takes on Slavery: NK Jemisin and Tomi Adeyemi," as
she claims that slavery in the trilogy is not based on race. She writes that “[l]ight and dark
skinned people are enslavers and enslaved, so racism falls away from the dynamic or rationale
for the enslavers [sic] treatment of the enslaved, highlighting its inhumanity even further”
(110). That is to say, Jemisin shows the elaborate machinery at work to deem some humans as
lesser than others. This is part of the fabric of the trilogy’s worldbuilding and will be analysed
thoroughly in this thesis.
Homing in on research that is more clearly aligned with this thesis’ own, scholars such
as Marvin John Walter, Alastair Iles and Moritz Ingwersen all focus on issues relating to
anthropocentrism and the environment in the trilogy. Walter argues in “The Human and its
Others: A Posthumanist Reading of Tomi Adeyemi’s Children of Blood and Bone and N.K.
Jemisin’s The Fifth Season,” that the first instalment in the trilogy “manages partly to break
with anthropocentrism by de-centring the human from its allocated place of uniqueness” (3).
Interestingly, he also discusses binaries to press the instability of humanity, something that I
will return to in the analysis and expand to the rest of the trilogy.
In “Repairing the Broken Earth: NK Jemisin on Race and Environment in
Transitions,” Alastair Iles uses Jemisin’s work as a foundation and draws on several ideas
mentioned above to question the role that racial and social subordination play in destroying
the environment. Just as this thesis, Iles uses the term Anthropocene and focuses on the Earth
as an agent. While he claims that “Earth must be an equal partner” he does so while stating
that “Earth can be unbroken” (19). My argument, however, hinges on the assertion that the
Stenberg 8
idea of an unbroken Earth as it relates to the real Earth is too generous a view of our present
moment.
Continuing with previous research done with regards to issues relating to the
Anthropocene, one final example is Moritz Ingwersen’s article “Geological Insurrections:
Politics of Planetary Weirding from China Miéville to N. K. Jemisin,” in which he discusses
the New Weird and how closely it relates to the Anthropocene.4 He argues that in The Broken
Earth trilogy, “Jemisin’s metabolization of the Anthropocene” resonates because it
foregrounds the history of imperialism as having been ending worlds since its conception, and
that therefore, “these histories are inextricably interwoven with the onset of resource
capitalism” (75). He makes use of Donna Haraway’s Chthulucene, and writes that the trilogy
literalizes her concept of becoming-with, something this thesis will delve deeper into and
build on.
This survey shows the many lenses that the trilogy can be viewed through. The
scholarship reviewed all have an anti-individualistic approach when analysing the source
material. Important to mention, however, is that a majority of these articles analyse The
Broken Earth as only one example among others. Therefore, in this thesis I will both draw
from them and add to the field. While many previous studies focus on topics that are very
relevant to my own research, they do not look into the role of the Earth as an actor and its
relationship with life in the trilogy to any great extent, which this thesis has as its main focal
point. The concepts of gender and slavery have been broached and problematized thoroughly
with regards to the trilogy already, and in this thesis, I therefore focus more on the
human/nonhuman divide not elaborated on so far in the previous scholarship.
4 In The New Weird, Ann and Jeff VanderMeer define this genre as works that subvert the romanticized ideas
about fantasy, often mixing science fiction with fantasy, while trying to unsettle the reader as opposed to genres
such as horror.
Stenberg 9
3. Posthuman Theory in The Anthropocene
This section delineates the theoretical framework used in my analysis. To situate my thesis, I
begin with a discussion of the concepts the Anthropocene and posthuman theory. To that
foundation, I add first Gaia theory as defined by Lovelock and Margulis, and then Bruno
Latour’s work on agency, nonhumanity and deanimation. As supplement, Donna Haraway’s
Chthulucene is explored, which includes her ideas of becoming-with, sympoiesis, and
response-ability. I conclude the theory section by tying all these theorists’ concepts together
in a discussion of what speculative fiction can do, further informed by Adam Trexler and
Amitav Ghosh.
In an Anthropocentric worldview, simply put, humans are at the centre, and thus the
most important creature in existence. Anthropocentrism is the belief that humans are superior
in value to everything else, and therefore everything that exists, exists to be used by
humankind. This belief permeates much of historical thought, whether it is scientific or
religious. Many scholars believe, and in ecocriticism especially, that this view of humanity is
one of the main causes to the climate issues now raging the globe. The theorists employed in
this analysis are all opposed to this mindset of the human at the centre of importance, and all
go beyond merely rejecting it. Of the essence, therefore, are definitions of two concepts that
are part of the groundwork on which the theoretical framework builds, namely, the
Anthropocene and critical posthumanism.
In a 2000 newsletter, Paul Crutzen and Eugene F. Stoermer introduced the term
Anthropocene as a new name for the epoch in which we currently live, as climate research
now shows that humanity’s use and abuse of the Earth are having clear ecological
consequences (17). They proclaim that without any outside forces such as a major ecological
Stenberg 10
event or a pandemic,5 “mankind will remain a major geological force for many millennia,
maybe millions of years, to come” (18). It is on this notion, I argue, that The Broken Earth
trilogy builds.
The introduction of humanity as a geological force shows the necessity of rethinking
the human as a fixed category, at the centre of importance. According to Pramod K. Nayar,
critical posthumanism “is the radical decentering of the traditional sovereign” (2). In other
words, humanity as the central subject is forced into the side-lines. Critical posthumanism,
therefore, posits that there is no such thing as an inherent human essence, and that what makes
up humans is a jumbled mixture which have always co-evolved with other species (8). Hence,
posthumanism—for the purpose of this thesis—is defined as refusing any sort of essentialism
with regards to the human, and by extension, any sort of higher value than any other entity.
To add to these concepts, below I outline Gaia theory, that is, the view of the Earth as a
symbiotic system.
3.1 Gaia Theory According to Margulis and Lovelock
Gaia theory, or the Gaia Hypothesis, was developed in the 1970s by James E. Lovelock and
Lynn Margulis. Named after the goddess and personification of Earth in Greek mythology,
Gaia is the mother of all life. In Symbiotic Planet, Lynn Margulis explains Gaia theory as a
concept that “postulates that the Earth is alive” (3). The Gaia hypothesis is defined as a
process in which the planet and the life on it (and in it) co-evolve (Lovelock 29). Margulis
describes Gaia as, “the physiologically regulated Earth” (142), while simultaneously rejecting
the oft-repeated claim that the Gaia hypothesis states that the Earth is a single organism. Gaia
transcends the notion of a single organism as it emerges from a multitude of living species
that makes up the system which “form[s] its incessantly active body” (149). Put differently,
5 I note the timely irony of their usage of this word, in the spring of 2020, but presume that they were thinking of
a scenario in which the death toll would include a greater part of humanity. As of this writing, this has
fortunately not yet come to pass.
Stenberg 11
Gaia is not a single organism because it is a system created by interaction among a multitude
of organisms and species. Hence, what defines Gaia is “a physiology that we recognize as
environmental regulation,” as Gaia is not an organism among many, but a sum of all the parts
on and in it (149). This is a crucial thought that permeates this thesis, and, I argue, the trilogy
as well.
Margulis further speaks of the ridiculous idea that humanity has any power, or any
say, with regards to the Earth. She writes that “the human move to take responsibility for the
living Earth is laughable – the rhetoric of the powerless. The planet takes care of us, not we of
it” (143). This arguably has certain sinister connotations, in the current climate—both literally
and metaphorically in this case—and especially when read with Jemisin’s trilogy in mind.
Both Margulis and Lovelock argue that there is a sense of self-regulating when it comes to the
Earth (Lovelock 29; Margulis 147). Through the Gaia Hypothesis, the biosphere is viewed “as
an active, adaptive control system able to maintain the Earth in homeostasis” (Lovelock 29).
That is, the Earth keeps itself stable. This stability, however, is referred to as “‘metastable,’
stable in its reactive instability” (Margulis 153). In other words, all that is living on the planet
affect the planet just as the planet affects all that is living on it, meaning that Gaia is not only
a synergistic network, but also that it should be regarded as alive. With this foundational
scientific perspective of symbiosis and inherent blurred binaries in mind, I now move on to
discuss Bruno Latour’s work regarding nonhumans and agency.
3.2 Latourian Moderns and (Non)humans, Divided
In his seminal work We Have Never Been Modern, Latour speaks of a false dichotomy
between society and nature that modernity created.6 This dualism between Nature/Society, or
what Latour calls Nature/Culture, assumes that humanity is not an inherent part of nature, but
6 Bruno Latour does not use the term Anthropocene in this work, as it was published in 1991, 9 years before it
was proposed by Crutzen and Stoermer, and our timeline is unfortunately linear in this regard.
Stenberg 12
separated because of certain qualities that defines humans as apart from nonhumans.
Therefore, one of his central concepts is that of “moderns,” as a word for how we view
ourselves in the current era. According to Latour, this designates a perspective that alters how
we see history, because “[w]hen the word ‘modern’, ‘modernization’, or ‘modernity’ appears,
we are defining, by contrast, an archaic and stable past” (Modern loc 254). With modernity,
then, came the categorization of what constitutes a person, and any being on the wrong side
was automatically—and scientifically—considered lesser than human. As modernity defined
itself in relation to the nonmodern, it overlooked this creation of what Latour calls
“nonhumanity.” Nonhumanity is defined as “things, or objects, or beasts” (Modern loc 303).
Ergo, inherent in defining something as modern is creating a power balance between what is
human and what (is considered) not. For the moderns, only humankind can have agency, and
be free agents (Modern loc 341).
Latour therefore sees the human/nonhuman dichotomy as a parallel to the
Nature/Culture divide. He explains this by exemplifying two thoughts that cannot, and should
not, be considered separately, as that makes them both incomprehensible: that on the one
hand, Nature has always existed; and on the other, human beings are the only beings that
construct society (Modern loc 649). Latour argues that “[i]f Nature is not made by or for
human beings, then it remains foreign, forever remote and hostile. Nature’s very
transcendence overwhelms us, or renders it inaccessible.” By the same token, society, if
considered symmetrically, “is made only by and for humans . . . Its very immanence destroys
it at once in the war of every man against every man” (Modern loc 660). In other words, it is
only humanity that divides Nature and (human) Society into separate opposing concepts, as to
other lifeforms on Earth, Society and Nature already exists in symbiosis. Therefore, the two
must be considered complementary to each other as they “were created together. They
reinforce each other” otherwise, “the first assure[s] the nonhumanity of Nature and the second
Stenberg 13
the humanity of the social sphere” (Modern loc 660). In short: humans and society are not
separate from nature, nor have they ever been. To further explicate what this means and how
it relates to this thesis, Latour’s examination of nonhuman agency and his concept of geostory
will now be explored and defined.
3.3 Agency of the Nonhuman and Geostories
It is important here to note that Latour is one of the founding scholars on Actor Network
Theory (ANT). Simplified, ANT is a theory which is against determinism and which proposes
that actions and agency are not limited to inter-human relations but include nonhuman actants
as well. While humans act on objects, objects also act on humans in return and ANT treats the
acts as equal. All actants—human or nonhuman alike—are simultaneously a part of a
network, that is, a sum total of all actants in a specific “thing,” while simultaneously being
networks within themselves (Law 5). This reflects the concept of Gaia as a synergistic system
and permeates all of Latour’s thought.
In his later work “Agency at the Time of the Anthropocene,” Latour argues that the
Earth is now being recognized as an actant in the Anthropocene, and refers to it is an agent of
history, or what he calls geostory (“Agency” 3). Geostories, to Latour, literally means stories
of the Earth, and that history needs to include all of the planet. He claims that “the Earth has
now taken back all the characteristics of a full-fledged actor” (“Agency” 3). This, in turn,
leads to the only hope left being an attempt to protect us against the Lovelockian concept of
“‘the revenge of Gaia’” as truce is no longer an option (5). In other words, that the planet is
now fighting back against humanity is something we have to make peace with. Latour writes
that “Gaia is another subject altogether—maybe also a different sovereign” (6). This arguably
brings the posthumanist notion which decentres the human as the natural sovereign of Earth to
its apex, by inverting it completely. In other words, the thought that the Earth is not
inanimate, inactive, or nonacting, and may therefore have power that has gone
Stenberg 14
unacknowledged, which in the context of this thesis is highly relevant, as the Earth in the
trilogy is life giver, or taker, and deity, simultaneously. Latour quotes Michel Serres as
proclaiming that the Earth now, “depends so much on us that it is shaking and that we too are
worried by this deviation from expected equilibria. We are disturbing the Earth and making it
quake! Now it has a subject once again. (Serres qtd. in “Agency” 4). That is, by considering
the Earth as something stable and without agency, and in doing so removing humanity from
the equation, humanity as a geological force in the Anthropocene went undetected. Latour
writes that this bifurcation between subject and object is incongruous in a reality where the
Earth cannot remain an inanimate object as “it cannot be . . . emptied of all Its humans” (5).
This reflects Margulis’ concept of Gaia as a system made up by the interactive organisms
within it, which combined with Latour shows how symbiotic all actants in the network that is
Gaia truly are. The intertwining of life is ever-present, and the lines between
human/nonhuman as well as Nature/Culture is not only already blurred, but needs to be
blurred. To explain how this came about, I now turn to Latour’s concept of deanimation.
3.4 (De)Animation
Latour further complicates the notion of “moderns” refusing to see the agency inherent in
Nature by exploring how the Earth has been what he terms “deanimated” by humanity. In
modernity, the world sans humans was considered to offer “a solid ground for a sort of
undisputed jus naturalism—if not for religion and morality, at least for science and law”
(“Agency” 5). Simply put, the incorrect belief that the foundation on which both science and
law based their reasoning was stable led to false conclusions. According to Latour, this belief
in the stability of the foundation from which science and law emerge only reaches its
“objective” conclusions because of all the subjective work that has taken place “behind the
force” of scientific fact (“Agency” 7). As mentioned, people have always turned to stories,
beliefs and myths to make sense of their present reality, and according to Latour, science is
Stenberg 15
not exempt from this practice. The praxis, then, of first animating the world with its inherent
narrativity, that is, the immanent existence of stories in nature, or geostory, to only deanimate
it when the desired results have been achieved, shows the flaws in the logic of assumed
stability in viewing the Earth and other nonhuman actants as lacking agency in themselves
Latour writes that:
animation is the essential phenomenon; deanimation a superficial, ancillary,
polemical, and more often than not vindicatory one. One of the main puzzles of
Western history is not that ‘there are people who still believe in animism,’ but the
rather naive belief that many still have in a deanimated world of mere stuff; just at the
moment when they themselves multiply the agencies with which they are more deeply
entangled every day. The more we move in geostory, the more this belief seems
difficult to understand (“Agency” 7).
In other words, it is because of humanity’s deanimation of the Earth into an object that we fail
to see the effects we have had upon it, and the agency it is reclaiming now. An inanimate
object has no agency, but a deanimated object has falsely had its agency removed, or
bypassed. By essentially ignoring the animation and agency within actants that is inherent
within Nature, the whole story, as it were, does not get told.
Latour later expands on this concept of deanimation in Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures
on the New Climate Regime, in which he argues that “the idea of a deanimated world is only a
way of linking animations as if nothing were happening there. But agency is always there,
whatever we may do” (Facing Gaia 68). This means that deanimating an actant does not
mean its agency is removed, only wrongfully concealed. Therefore, the idea of having clear
distinctions between Nature/Culture or human/nonhuman “is nothing like a great
philosophical concept, a profound ontology; it is a secondary stylistic effect” used to simplify
the notion of agency by prescribing some beings as animate and others as inanimate. This
Stenberg 16
divide, however, succeeds only in deanimating certain subjects into objects “called ‘material,’
by depriving them of their activity, and in overanimating certain others, called ‘human,’ by
crediting them with admirable capacities for action – freedom, consciousness, reflexivity, a
moral sense, and so on” (68). Humanity’s practice of under- and overanimating things, and in
doing so reducing actants to mere matter, is of utmost importance to this thesis, as the nature
of the narrative also extends this to certain types of humans as well.
Latour argues that the point of living in the Anthropocene is to not fall back on the old
ways of doing things and of viewing the world and its agents: “[f]ar from trying to ‘reconcile’
or ‘combine’ nature and society, the task . . . is on the contrary to distribute agency as far and
in as differentiated a way as possible—until, that is, we have thoroughly lost any relation
between those two concepts of object and subject” (“Agency” 15). In other words, the
solution between the Nature/Society divide is not to attempt to combine the two, but to realize
that all actants have agency, and that to view them through the archaic lens of object and
subject is impossible. The concept of blurred binaries is present here as well. Ergo, it is
crucial not to deanimate the Earth, but instead to reanimate it and realize that humanity is only
one actor among many.
3.5 Donna Haraway’s Chthulucene
Donna Haraway builds on Latour’s thought in many ways, but takes issue with the term
Anthropocene, preferring her own coined Chthulucene. In Staying with the Trouble: Making
Kin in the Chthulucene, Haraway claims the Anthropocene lends itself too easily “to
cynicism, defeatism, and self-certain and self-fulfilling predictions” (56). For Haraway, an
alternative to the Anthropocene is the Chthulucene, an interwoven symbiotic mode of living
together with all species—human and nonhuman alike. Haraway suggests that “the
Chthulucene is made up of ongoing multispecies stories and practices of becoming-with in
times that remain at stake, in precarious times, in which the world is not finished and the sky
Stenberg 17
has not fallen—yet. We are at stake to each other … The order is reknitted: human beings are
with and of the earth” (55). Put differently, we are entangled with the Earth, no matter how
we look at it, and its future is therefore also ours. The Chthulucene is thus in many ways a
remedy from the individualistic thought process that is suggested by a term such as the
Anthropocene. In Haraway’s Chthulucene, then, mankind is not the pro and/or antagonist of
the Earth, but simply one of the players among many others, which relates to Latour’s
argument that all entities are actants with their own agency. This thinking with regards to
existence is paramount when analysing both Earth and humanity in the trilogy.
An important note here is that both Latour and Haraway are considered posthumanist
scholars and important names within New Materialism. As it rejects dualism, New
Materialism is inherently posthumanist and postanthropocentric (Fox & Alldred 2). It is a
term used to describe many different fields’ “theoretical and practical ‘turn to matter’. This
turn emphasizes the materiality of the world and everything – social and natural – within it”
(1). This ties in further with Latour’s ANT, as well. However, in a 2006 interview, Haraway
distanced herself from the term posthumanism, as she thought that it was too easily
appropriated by those who seek techno enhancement often associated with transhumanism,
and she considers posthumanism as “way too restrictive” (Gane 140). Haraway, instead,
humorously points out that in the Chthulucene “we are all compost, not posthuman” because
of the symbiotic nature of existence in and with Nature (Haraway 55). Hence, death is simply
a process of becoming-with for Haraway.
“Becoming-with” is central to Haraway’s argument. In the Chtuhulucene, the focus is
not on the cause to the current crisis, but instead on how to exist in symbiosis and “become-
with” because “[o]ntologically heterogeneous partners become who and what they are in
relational material-semiotic worlding. Natures, cultures, subjects, and objects do not preexist
their intertwined worldings” (12-13). In other words, no human is an island, nor is any other
Stenberg 18
actor, and everything has agency. This echoes ANT as well, in that if nothing pre-exists its
entanglement with other actants, then everything is part of a whole, and in that whole,
everything acts on everything else.
Haraway further references Isabelle Stengers’ work on an updated version of the Gaia
hypothesis. Haraway writes that “Earth/Gaia is maker and destroyer, not resource to be
exploited or ward to be protected or nursing mother promising nourishment. Gaia is not a
person but complex systemic phenomena that compose a living planet” (43). Consequently,
the agency of the Earth is made clear, and the need for symbiosis is evident. For Haraway,
then, humanity needs to “stay with the trouble,” by which she means, “living and dying in
response-ability on a damaged earth” (2). Response-ability, to Haraway, “is about both
absence and presence, killing and nurturing, living and dying—and remembering who lives
and who dies” (28). She expands on her definition in an interview, saying that response-
ability is “that cultivation through which we render each other capable, that cultivation of the
capacity to respond . . . response-ability [is] irreducibly collective and to-be-made. In some
really deep ways, that which is not yet, but may yet be. It is a kind of luring, desiring, making-
with” (Kenney 256-57). In other words, response-ability is not solely about taking
responsibility, but about bettering humanity’s capacity of seeing our place in the system, and
not the leaders of it.
Sympoiesis, for Haraway, further signifies this notion of togetherness. As opposed to
autopoesis—self-making—sympoiesis shows that the world humanity creates is not one they
create alone. Just as humans become-with the rest of the Earth, sympoiesis signifies that we
are also made-with the Earth. Haraway argues that if the concept of independent organisms in
environments is no longer supported by either biology or philosophy, “then sympoiesis is the
name of the game in spades. Bounded (or neoliberal) individualism amended by autopoiesis is
not good enough figurally or scientifically; it misleads us down deadly paths” (33). After all,
Stenberg 19
to be any living thing is to be made-with and “to become-with bacteria” (65). This idea of
nonindependent organisms ring true in the trilogy for both humanity and Earth alike.
3.6 What Stories Tell Stories—The Potential of Speculative Literature
To situate this theoretical framework and tie all concepts presented here together, I press on
the importance of literature as a tool, and will now discuss what fiction can be capable of.
Latour argues that one way of understanding the incomprehensible situation we now face, is
through literature. He writes that “[g]reat novels disseminate the sources of actions in a way
that the official philosophy available at their time is unable to follow” (“Agency” 8). This is
because the “moderns” are blinded by the need to attribute objectivity or subjectivity in a
reality in which this categorization is not so simple, as traits of both are often intertwined.
Latour proclaims that “existence and meaning are synonymous. As long as they act, agents
have meaning” (“Agency” 12). In other words, acting in itself means that agents have
meaning. This meaning can also evolve and change, which means that “[s]torytelling is not
just a property of human language, but one of the many consequences of being thrown in a
world that is, by itself, fully articulated and active” (13). Put differently, if we admit that the
planet is animate and has agency, the “geostory” that can be told will not run the risk of
deanimating Earth.
What literature can do, then—and I argue not only “great” novels—is to deal with this
complexity, this simultaneity, by presenting a fictional reality that mirrors our own while
being safely “distant.” This allows for problematizing the present, and reanimate what has
been deanimated. As the moderns by Latour’s definition are unable to handle or face the
threats they have themselves caused, fiction can bridge this gap, and help make sense of the
incomprehensible—in this case, the threat of human extinction in an allegory for climate
change.
Stenberg 20
In Anthropocene Fictions: The Novel in a Time of Climate Change, Adam Trexler
examines how things such as climate change and the Anthropocene age alter and affect the
possibilities of art and our cultural narrative. He claims that “[t]he Anthropocene challenges
science fiction’s technological optimism, general antipathy toward life sciences, and patriotic
individualism” (14). Climate fiction novels, he argues, have a diverse ability within their
narratives, which makes them “a privileged form to explore what it means to live in the
Anthropocene moment” (27). In other words, climate fiction can interrogate our present
moment through its intrinsic worldbuilding.
Furthermore, Amitav Ghosh points out in The Great Derangement: Climate Change
and the Unthinkable, that climate change as a subject has rarely been broached in so-called
serious literature, instead relegated to genres such as science fiction and fantasy. Ghosh writes
that “[i]t is as though in the literary imagination climate change were somehow akin to
extraterrestrials or interplanetary travel” (loc 79). That is, including the concept of climate
change in a work of fiction would instantly relegate the work to the “lower” genres such as
science fiction, fantasy and horror that make up speculative fiction. It could be argued, then,
that speculative fiction is now the place where the reality of climate change is explored and
highlighted, and becomes in a circumvent way the most realist of fictions.
Ghosh claims that this has occurred because climate change has an air of the uncanny,
but not the uncanny of old. The uncanny of climate change is instead that of “non-human
forces and beings” (loc 438). This leads to literature having a troubled relationship to what
constitutes Nature, as it is now “too powerful, too grotesque, too dangerous, and too
accusatory to be written about in a lyrical, or elegiac, or romantic vein.” Instead, climate
change events “are instances, rather, of the uncanny intimacy of our relationship with the non-
human” (loc 447). Ghosh argues that one of the uncanny effects of climate change is that of
inanimate things suddenly coming alive, and writes that this shows “renewed awareness of the
Stenberg 21
elements of agency and consciousness that humans share with many other beings, and even
perhaps the planet itself” (loc 888; emphasis added). Consequently, what speculative fiction
can do, and what I contend in this thesis that The Broken Earth trilogy does, is reanimate what
has been deanimated.
Of further relevance here is that Haraway uses the acronym SF to emphasise the
notion of inseparability. For her, SF means “science fiction, speculative fabulation, string
figures, speculative feminism, science fact, so far,” concurrently and inseparably (2). What is
one, goes into the others, and so on. She further argues that at heart of the myriad but
symbiotic definitions of SF, is sympoiesis, making-with. Hence, Haraway stakes her claim on
the need for symbiotic thinking with regards to matters of almost everything. As I will show,
Jemisin’s trilogy takes the concepts detailed above to the extreme both by giving the Earth
itself personhood, awareness and goals, and personifying this geological force in the
subspecies of humans that can control and manipulate the Earth’s energy.
4. “Let’s Start with the End of The World”—an Introduction to The Broken Earth
In the introduction to this thesis I mentioned that The Broken Earth trilogy arguably falls
within the definition of climate fiction. In Climate Fiction and Cultural Analysis: A New
Perspective on Life in the Anthropocene, Gregers Andersen narrowly defines cli-fi as fiction
that “use[s] the scientific paradigm of anthropogenic global warming in their world-making”
(5). This criterion certainly fit the trilogy, as it heavily relies on allegories to our present time,
and puts a lot of emphasis on the vulnerable state that the Earth and life on it is in.
Of consequence to note, therefore, is that geological aspects permeate the narrative,
and are used literally, metaphorically and allegorically throughout. The trilogy itself is
therefore deeply connected to matters of the geological Earth. A lot of information regarding
the worldbuilding is told through several small pieces of writing. These range from
stonelore—archaic rules about how to live on the Stillness, a continent where earthquakes are
Stenberg 22
commonplace—to scientific historical reports regarding everything from orogenes and stone
eaters, to obelisks, which are large stone pillars that are sources of tremendous energy which
hover and drift high up in the sky.
As stated, the trilogy introduces different subspecies of humans on the Stillness. The
first, stills, humans without extraordinary powers, are officially in charge. The second,
orogenes, are closely connected to the Earth and can manipulate the Earth’s energy to various
effects. They are feared and officially considered nonhuman, and are enslaved in every way
but name. The third, mythical creatures known as stone eaters, look and act like statues, that
is, they “are slow aboveground, except when they aren’t” (TFS loc 78). They are immortal,
and equally a part of the Earth and apart from it.
The trilogy also introduces a sentient, vengeful Earth, able to communicate with
orogenes and stone eaters. It is revealed that all the myths that permeate the novels
surrounding “Father Earth” being alive are not only true, but extremely literal. Legend has it
that he did not originally hate life, but that his hate was born when the orogenes destroyed his
only child. This child, as it turns out, is the moon, which was flung out of orbit thousands of
years ago, by the ancestors to the orogenes. As punishment, they were turned into the stone
eaters by the Earth. Thus, humanity became the Earth’s “little enemies,” in the Earth’s own
words (TSS loc 4337). Acting in hubris, the humanity of old was attempting to enslave the
Earth—and using slaves to do it, no less—by tapping into its core as an energy source. This
energy is known as “magic” and “silver” interchangeably in the trilogy, and it permeates
everything on the planet. In large enough amounts the magic causes sentient life to occur.
The narrative structure of The Broken Earth breaks from traditional storytelling in how
it is structured. The narrative is complex and layered, containing first, second, and third
person narration, as well as the mentioned historical excerpts ranging from semi-religious
doctrine to scientific reports. The prologue introduces a yet unnamed narrator speaking in the
Stenberg 23
second person directly to one of the protagonists, Essun, a middle-aged woman and orogene.
This has the effect, according to Walter, of making Essun be perceived as the reader’s own
self, leading to categorizing “Essun, and subsequently all orogenes, as human” (13). At the
close of the first novel, it is revealed that the narrator is a stone eater named Hoa. As
Ingwersen notes, the narrative is “a type of frame tale through which Hoa recounts the
world’s events to Essun” (86). As such, the trilogy is actively mythmaking while
simultaneously telling the myths of this Earth.
The trilogy also plays fast and loose with the timeline, as The Fifth Season introduces
two other protagonists who are orogenes as well. Both, however, are actually Essun at earlier
points in her life, thus telling Essun’s backstory in a slightly unconventional way, as they are
told in third person, but not in the past tense. The first is Damaya, Essun as a young girl.
Damaya is shunned by her family after her orogeneity is revealed. In the blink of an eye,
Damaya becomes something subhuman forced to live in a shed without shelter awaiting a
pick-up from a Guardian, the people in charge of orogenes. Guardians have the power to
negate orogeneity, as they get a corestone implanted at the base of their skulls in their
childhood. A corestone is a piece of iron, that is, a literal piece of the Earth, which in turn
means that Guardians are themselves of the Earth, at least mentally, as they do its bidding.
Damaya is taken to the Fulcrum, which is school, home, prison, and ghetto to the orogenes—
by her Guardian Schaffa.7 He points out that Guardians are often too late, as “by the time a
Guardian arrives a mob has carried the child off and beaten her to death” (TFS loc 463).
Schaffa tells her to not be angry with her family, as they did the right thing in reporting her, as
she is dangerous. Damaya remains furious, nevertheless.
The second is Syenite, Essun as a “successful” orogene in her twenties, still filled with
rage but living in and working for the Fulcrum. She is instructed to breed with another
7 In an interview Jemisin describes the Fulcrum as “a kind of evil Hogwarts” because the orogenes “can't leave
until they're fully trained and then they are let out only to do quick missions” (Paulson).
Stenberg 24
orogene, Alabaster, that she has never met, with the caveat that she will not have to raise or
have anything to do with the eventual spawn. Syenite and Alabaster eventually manage to
escape their servitude for a few years into an island comm (the name for community in the
trilogy). Once Alabaster and Syenite are physically removed from the Stillness, the unnatural
state of their previous lives is juxtaposed with that of the people on the Island Meov, where
orogenes are in charge and appreciated for their powers. They are eventually caught with
disastrous results. Syenite kills their son in an attempt to save him from a life of servitude not
worth living, and Alabaster is kidnapped and dragged through the Earth by a stone eater.
13 years later, Alabaster harnesses the energy in the obelisks and causes the largest
and final Fifth Season, killing millions in a first step to bring the moon back into Earth’s orbit,
get the Stillness to stabilize, and to find a truce between humanity and the Earth. Meanwhile,
as the earthquake rips the Stillness in two, Essun has just found her young son murdered by
her husband in a racially motivated act after he found out that the boy was an orogene. She
sets out to find her husband as he also kidnapped their daughter and kill him before the
apocalypse gets a chance to. On her travels she encounters Hoa, in the shape of a strange
looking human boy seemingly being born out of the Earth itself. Essun and Hoa eventually
comes to join a comm during the Season, which openly accepts orogenes.
In addition, the first two instalments include several interludes that interrupt the
narrative in which Hoa appear to speak directly to the reader. For instance, in the first
interlude, Hoa says that “[t]here are things you should be noticing, here. Things that are
missing, and conspicuous by their absence” (TFS loc 1922). This is followed by examples of
the characters’ behaviour that the reader, but not Essun, would find odd. The narrative, then,
plays with storytelling conventions by not adhering to any straightforward way of telling it,
while also highlighting that this is what the novels are doing. This self-reflexivity makes the
story have a distinct postmodern slant to it.
Stenberg 25
In the second instalment, The Obelisk Gate, Essun’s preteen daughter Nassun is added
to the roster of protagonists. Nassun becomes more and more isolated from society, as her
powers grow. The parallels between Nassun and Essun’s own childhood are heighten and
exacerbated when Nassun meet Schaffa, the Guardian who also guarded Essun as a child.
Essun, meanwhile, is reunited with a dying Alabaster, and starts to re-learn how to be a part of
something larger in a community and what it means to belong and fight for something greater
than yourself, and how futile rage is when it has no outlet. Nassun’s rage festers and grows in
her relative solitude, as she only has Schaffa to rely on.
In the third instalment, The Stone Sky, Hoa tells Essun his backstory, and how he was
the one who threw the moon out of orbit as an act of resistance. Alabaster dies, and it falls to
Essun to complete the mission of returning the moon to its orbit. Meanwhile, Nassun decides
to use the same power in the obelisks to turn every type of human into stone eaters, to save
Schaffa’s life, despite knowing that this will kill her and most of the life on Earth. In the end,
Essun sacrifices herself by giving up the fight in order to save her daughter, and in doing so,
Nassun realises that truce is the only alternative, and restores the moon. In the trilogy’s coda,
Essun awakes as a stone eater, determined to make the world better.
The analysis is divided into five sections, informed by the theoretical framework of
Latour and Haraway, as well as Margulis and Ghosh. In the first section, I analyse the Earth
as a network and all that that entails applying the Gaia Hypothesis, ANT, and sympoiesis. In
the second, I analyse the orogenes and their displacement in society, as officially nonhuman,
and their relationship with the Earth through Haraway’s becoming-with. In the third, I
examine the stone eaters, and their mythic existence and what being human means. In the
fourth, I problematize the trilogy’s depiction of living and dying on and with a broken Earth.
Stenberg 26
4.1 Nonhuman Agents—Earth as a Broken Synergistic Network in Need
In the trilogy, the line between what is life and what is Earth, or Nature, is constantly
blurred and put into question. As many of the lifeforms have capabilities that lets them
manipulate and alter the fabric of the Earth, the interconnectedness of actants is heightened in
the narrative. As mentioned, according to Lovelock’s and Margulis’ the Gaia Hypothesis, the
Earth is a synergistic network, and should be regarded as alive. In the trilogy, there is no
question of the latter, but the former is in flux. Latour, in turn, argues that the Earth cannot be
seen as apart from humanity, and according to ANT that all actants act on each other. As the
Earth is a network, nothing in that network can be viewed as an isolated object, as everything
is irrevocably entangled. In this section, therefore, I examine the Earth as a shattered network,
further complicated by the sentience and agency made explicit in the trilogy. The Broken
Earth trilogy shows the Earth as a network in which all actants are refusing to agree to be part
of that network despite the impossibility of existing outside of it.
The trilogy introduces not only a sentient Earth, but one capable of communication,
and thus, interrogation. Margulis notes that Gaia, or Earth, is a system created by the
interaction within it (149). In the trilogy, this is shown in a literal form in the trilogy, as
sentience is achieved when something has enough of Earth’s energy, also known as magic,
within it. For instance, at one point a Guardian becomes seemingly possessed and starts
speaking in another voice. There are multiple references to “It,” and the Guardian warns that:
It’s angry … Angry and… afraid. I hear both gathering, growing, the anger and the
fear. Readying, for the time of return … It did what it had to do, last time … It seeped
through the walls and tainted their pure creation, exploited them before they could
exploit it. When the arcane connections were made, it changed those who would
control it. Chained them, fate to fate … It made them a part of it … It hoped for
Stenberg 27
communion. Compromise. Instead, the battle… escalated … It speaks only to warn,
now … There will be no compromise next time— (TFS loc 4194)
What is actually speaking here is the Guardian’s corestone. It alludes in its speech to not only
the Earth’s wrath and the creation of the stone eaters, but also to the notion that the Earth is
now seeking retribution, where there was once a chance to find a middle ground, so to speak.
Introduced and literalized here is the epitome of what Lovelock and Latour call a vengeful
Gaia, and it shows the dissonance and divide between the necessity of sympoiesis and the
reluctance to adhere to it.
It is necessary to note here, however, that this communicative, vengeful Earth is not
introduced until almost halfway through the trilogy. In this display, humanity being Earth’s
“little enemies” is illustrated for the first time. When Essun attempts to remove a corestone
that has burrowed into a person’s flesh, Essun accidentally speaks to the Earth. Interestingly,
it answers as if it just noticed she is listening to it, and Essun quickly realizes her mistake:
Oh
No
there is hate and
we all do what we have to do
there is anger and
ah; hello, little enemy (TOG loc 2986)
By being Earth’s designated little enemies, all of humanity is in a perpetual battle with the
Earth, who has a perverse sense of enjoyment in its own suffering and the suffering it can
cause in return. Ergo, humanity and Earth are forces to be reckoned with, fighting not for
unknown glory, but mutual destruction. The Earth knows, then, that humanity can hear it, and
is listening.
Stenberg 28
It is through rigorous worldbuilding via the introduction of magic in the narrative that
the concept of the Earth as a network is made explicit. As the orogenes connect and align
themselves more and more to the Earth, it is revealed that all things in the trilogy are
sympoietic, as magic, or silver, courses through everything, animate or not: “you suddenly
begin to see in silver. Insects, leaf litter, a spiderweb, even the rocks—all of it now flickers in
wild, veined patterns, their cells and particulates etched out by the lattice that connects them”
(TSS loc 1517; emphasis added). Haraway’s notion of the Earth as “sympoietic,” as opposed
to “autopoietic,” that is, the idea that the Earth does “not make [itself]” (33), is therefore of
high relevance here. As Haraway points out, a sympoietic existence entails that nothing is
made on its own. In short, there are no such things as independent organisms in the narrative.
Moreover, the network that is Earth is, just like the planet itself, broken. Many of the
actants within the network are actively refusing to be part of and rejecting the idea of
symbiosis, and this includes the sentient Earth. Alabaster begs not to be buried underground
when he dies, as he knows that the Earth hoards souls at its core, thus rejecting the natural
state of letting organisms fully die. As a form of reparation for the abuse and theft of its
resources, the Earth “has dragged a million human remnants into its heart . . . and there within
itself, the Earth eats everything they were. This is only fair, it reasons—coldly, with an anger
that still shudders up from the depths to crack the world’s skin and touch off Season after
Season.” (TSS loc 3195). The Earth then, punishes humanity in death by becoming a literal
hell in itself. In doing so, the Earth rejects the sympoiesis, to its very core.
The notion of the Earth as one network, however, has been both ignored and forgotten
by humanity, and in the process, the Earth has been deanimated, in Latour’s sense of the
word. As such, humanity is not aware of the consciousness of the unfathomable enemy they
face. As they depend on the Earth for survival, it also means that it is impossible to fight it.
Part of the reason for this is shown throughout the trilogy in that Fulcrum trained orogenes are
Stenberg 29
hampered by their schooling, as they are taught incorrectly how to use their power. This is
exemplified by Essun’s daughter Nassun, when she gains the ability to see in silver much
earlier. As a non-Fulcrum trained orogene, Nassun has not been under-animated in Latourian
terms in her capability as an orogene. As Alabaster explains to Essun, “[t]he Fulcrum’s
methods are a kind of conditioning meant to steer you toward energy redistribution and away
from magic . . . that’s how they teach you to direct your awareness down to perform orogeny,
never up” (TOG loc 2637). Hence, while O’Donoghue and Houghton broach the topic that
Essun must unlearn, they do so in the context of unlearning only what she believes about
herself and society (28). The need for unlearning and relearning, however, can be extended to
all actants and the view of the Earth, including the Earth itself. When Essun realizes that
magic courses through all things, she is in awe: “what you suddenly understand is this: Magic
derives from life—that which is alive, or was alive, or even that which was alive so many
ages ago that it has turned into something else” (TOG loc 4655). Thus, imperative for truce is
remembering and relearning the symbiotic nature of existence.
The forgotten aspect of all actants being part of one network is further illustrated in
how humanity speaks of the Earth. Throughout the trilogy, geological terms are used as
curses, and the Earth is referred to as “evil.” This inherently shows that humanity considers
the Earth as separate from them, while subconsciously using language that makes the Earth
pervasive in all of life. Characters generally uses such phrases as “rusting Earth,” “fire-under-
Earth,” “Earth damn it,” “uncaring Earth” in an offhand way. Hence, in having considered
“Father Earth” as only lore and myth, humanity has been ignoring the truth that has been
staring them in the face all along, and in doing so, rejecting sympoiesis in turn.
Important to note, however, is that it is mostly humans that are in discord with Earth.
Quietly, almost in the background throughout the trilogy, the nonhuman animals are shown to
easily adapt to the Fifth Season. Animals known as khirkusas immediately go from habitual
Stenberg 30
domesticated pets to feral killing machines, while animals called boilbugs multiply
exuberantly. Hence, it is only humanity that worries about extinction. In their hubris, mankind
was so reluctant to naturally evolve that they instead took charge of their own progress by
splitting into different subspecies in an effort to master the Earth, subspecies which must now
evolve as best they can. Illustrated here, moreover, is also the connectedness to the Earth that
permeates the narrative, as these animals are truly becoming-with the Earth, adapting joyfully
to its new violent nature.
Additionally, the network of Earth is unstable by necessity, whether or not it is broken
or repaired. Millennia ago, when Hoa flung the moon away and caused what is called the
Shattering, he did it as punishment for those who had enslaved him and were going to “put a
leash on the rusting planet” (TSS loc 4032). He did not, however, actually destroy the world,
even by his own admission. He simply changed it. Hoa points out that when “we say that ‘the
world has ended,’ remember—it is usually a lie. The planet is just fine” (TSS loc 74), which is
an interesting word choice. Fine, in this instance, is relative. The Earth, as its inhabitants,
survive, but neither it nor life on it is in a good state. Fine, then, is an overstatement of epic
proportions, as the Earth is anything but. A Fifth Season is simultaneously something
unnatural on Earth—signified by the very name of them as additional to an established
ecosystem, yet they are made by natural means by both Earth and people. The Shattering is
not a destruction of the Earth, but a massive earthquake. Yet it is an earthquake, something
natural, nevertheless. As Hoa puts it, ending the Seasons “does not mean complete stability.
Plate tectonics will be plate tectonics” (TSS loc 5088). This emphasises the entangled network
that is the Earth, as well as the sympoietic nature of it. The instability of existence is
necessary if it is to exist at all, as the “ongoingness” Haraway highlights needs to include
becoming-with in its continual process. Literalized here, then, is the epitome of Lovelock’s
metastable Gaia, stable in its intrinsic instability.
Stenberg 31
Of importance to discuss, therefore, is the recurring motif of parasites in the narrative,
as humanity and Earth alike are referred to as parasites throughout the narrative. This is a
paradoxical state that few characters appear to realize in the trilogy, as no two beings can be
mutually parasitic. Humanity is neither a parasite on the Earth, nor is the Earth a parasite to
humans. Instead, the realization that the relationship is not commensal, but symbiotic, is a fact
neither side can handle very well. While the Earth sees humanity as the enemy and wishes to
kill them, it would also kill any chance of regaining the moon to its orbit in the process.
Interdependence is not something that comes naturally for humanity, or Earth, but it is the
situation that life finds itself in in the novels, no matter how it is viewed. As an allegory to our
present time, this thought is chilling, as our Earth does not seem to have an issue with
interdependence yet. But, as previously mentioned, time is running out.
This notion of refused interdependence is depicted clearly in the trilogy. There exists a
sort of mutualism that is continuously sabotaged, destroyed or ignored by all sides in the war.
The question then becomes not which side is the parasite, but how the sides will come to
realize and admit that the situation has moved far beyond a state where any actant can claim
superiority over any other, for better or worse. The Earth cannot get the moon back by
himself, after all. The cooperation in the trilogy does not only extend to between the human
subspecies, but to between Earth and life on it. the Earth is “fine,” as Hoa puts it, but it is not
happy or content. At the close, happiness would be an overstatement, but perhaps satisfaction
would apply.
Furthermore, it is shown through the geostory that permeates the narrative that there
was once a people living in symbiosis with the planet, but their wisdom was ignored in the
name of profit. Inverted here, is the concept of Latour’s moderns, as the trilogy takes place far
into the future the moderns are a thing of the past. they are the ones who tried to enslave the
Earth and its energy and in doing so created the stone eaters in their conceit. Their abuse of
Stenberg 32
the Earth is described as “parasitic” in their pursuit of harvesting magic (TSS loc 4313).
Depicted in the trilogy, then, is the aftermath of what the moderns have wrought. It becomes a
sombre allegory to what will be left if the Anthropocene is not challenged, or re-thought, as in
the case of Haraway’s Chthulucene. Thus, Latour’s notion that the moderns are incapable of
grasping this threat is brought to its extreme in the trilogy, as they committed suicide by
hubris. The mankind in the trilogy’s present day is not afforded the luxury of ignoring the
issue because they cannot grasp it, as the inevitability of their own demise is fast approaching.
It becomes, therefore, imperative that they realize the symbiosis necessary, and reach some
form of truce. This functions as an allegory to our present, in a very sinister sense.
That is to say, that when Iles argues for repairing the Earth, and that the we can
unbreak it (Iles 19), this is antithetical to what I claim the trilogy sets out to do. This idea of
unbreaking the planet or repairing it, ignores the fundamental symbiosis at the heart of
existence. In the trilogy, however, this does come to pass. This unbreaking is exemplified by
humankind getting the moon back to appease the Earth and stop the Seasons. Although
noticeably donut-shaped, the moon is returned, and balance is nonetheless restored. Ergo,
when Iles correlates the fictional “Father Earth” of the trilogy with its real counterpart and
claims that our Earth can be unbroken as well, I contend that this is a too hopeful message to
take away from the trilogy.
As life on Earth has always co-evolved with the Earth itself, and everything is part of
one network, the Earth cannot be unbroken, it can simply continue to change and evolve. To
unbreak something—to heal something—intrinsically gives more agency to certain actants
over others. Moving forward must involve looking forward as well. Consequently, it cannot
be a matter of undoing anything, as that very concept of reversing a broken Earth continues to
put humankind in the centre of responsibility and agency, and in doing so advocating
Stenberg 33
anthropocentrism, instead of finding a way to stay with the trouble, as Haraway puts it, and
cultivate response-ability.
Therefore, while The Broken Earth trilogy clearly heals the Earth, this is not a hopeful
message in itself, as it actually becomes an ominous message to our contemporary era. As it is
established that orogenes are the only creatures on Earth with the power of restoring the
moon, the Earth in the trilogy needs humanity. Orogeneity is seemingly a latent gene in
humans, and not strictly hereditary from parent to child. However, in its haste to win and gain
retribution, the Earth incorrectly saw humanity as a homogeneous mass, and named it enemy.
As Hoa explains, “[h]ere is some enemy psychology: The Earth sees no difference between
any of us . . . to it, humanity is humanity” (TSS loc 4326). Thus, where humanity has
deanimated the Earth, the Earth has in its blind rage created a false dichotomy between it and
humanity. It becomes imperative to remember, then, as Hoa is quick to point out “that the
Earth does not fully understand us” (TSS loc 4400). Haraway writes that the Anthropocene
could be viewed as an epoch that “is about the destruction of places and times of refuge for
people and other critters” (100). She points out that “[t]he edge of extinction is not just a
metaphor; system collapse is not a thriller. Ask any refugee of any species” (Haraway 102).
The threat is not an outside source, like an alien invasion, but part of what is necessary for all
life, the planet. The threat is so sinister, so vast that it is impossible to grasp, yet at the same
time it is completely entangled in survival and potential prosperity.
The trilogy, then, shows a planet were Earth is actually dependant in certain ways on
humanity, while our real world counterpart is very much not, as we arguably do not really
have anything to offer Gaia at this point, except more destruction. The Broken Earth trilogy,
instead acts as a warning call, letting us know that we are dependants on a system that can
survive without us, and not vice versa. All this is to say, that Iles’ reading of the trilogy as an
allegory to the potential healing power if only people work together is missing the point. The
Stenberg 34
best we can hope for is to stay with the trouble, and try not to make things worse. The Earth
as a network with all its inhabitants are in a constant state of becoming-with, and thus one that
will never be complete, both in the trilogy and in our time. On the subject of becoming-with, I
now turn to analyse the orogenes and their relationship to the Earth and themselves.
4.2 Embracing The Subhuman—Orogenes in Need of Sympoiesis in The Anthropocene
As established in the summary, the abuse and the separation between human and what society
officially considers nonhuman permeates the orogenes’ lives from the moment their
orogeneity manifests. The official belief is that orogenes are not human, but subhuman,
according to the “Declaration on the Rights of the Orogenically Afflicted” (TFS loc 2995).
This shows the discrepancy of the view of different people and how that works against a
symbiotic existence. This notion of their inferiority in value, together with their power, have
displaced them in the eyes of society, and as a result made them closer to Nature. This,
however, causes a dissonance within them and the network that is Earth that cannot be
resolved if it is not faced. All this is to say that in this section I apply Haraway’s becoming-
with to explore the orogenes in The Broken Earth trilogy, and their peculiar and singular
relationship to the Earth.
As mentioned, geology permeates the narrative, which has the effect of the Earth, and
geostory, always being entangled clearly with the narrative, and this is shown clearly in the
orogenes. Not only are orogene children born with the capacity to still earthquakes
instinctively, but orogeneity is described continuously as mentally “going into the earth” (TFS
loc 1025; 1621; 2367; TOG loc 1518; TSS loc 2083). Orogenes do this when threatened, in
self-defence, or simply to calm themselves. They are therefore inherently tied to the Earth,
intrinsically entwined with it, continually in a state of becoming-with it. Furthermore, as
mentioned, Guardians have the capability of “neutralizing” this power, and when it is done, it
hurts orogenes and makes them feel less than themselves, as Syenite muses, “[i]s this what it’s
Stenberg 35
like for stills? Is this all they feel? She has envied their normalcy her whole life, until now”
(TFS loc 3332). The orogenes are in a more symbiotic relationship with the Earth than
society, which has shunned them for the very ability that they abuse in them.
Consequently, in their connection with the Earth, orogenes are physically and
supernaturally tied to its stories. Ingwersen notes that “[t]he Anthropocene is a story, a
convenient narrative that comes with its own preconceptions, focalizations, and intertexts”
(79). This is also one of the main contentions that Haraway has against using the term to
“think with,” as it propagates a myth that “is a setup, and the stories end badly. More to the
point, they end in double death; they are not about ongoingness. It is hard to tell a good story
with such a bad actor” (Haraway 49). Actor here, of course, also refers to actant. She further
argues that species Man does not make History, and that the concept of History “must give
way to geostories, to Gaia stories” (49). Living and dying in sympoiesis with the planet is
more geostory, then, in Latour’s and Haraway’s meaning of the term, than History. Ergo, we
are all a part of the geostory, and the trilogy shows this metaphorically through the orogenes.
As an allegory for our present time, the motifs of shelter and the inability to hide from
the consequences permeate the narrative. In the trilogy, when Alabaster sets the largest Fifth
Season in motion, the little refuge that humanity has gets wiped out completely. This again
mirrors Haraway’s point in the previous section about how humanity is destroying its own
refuge in the Anthropocene. Humanity in the trilogy has lived for millennia knowing that
nothing is constant, as they live in and with impermanence, which means that they do not
build for longevity, but for the short-term. The comms on the Stillness all know that they can
be wiped out at any moment, and what little refuge their buildings offer is tenuous, yet it is
refuge all the same.
This notion of complete despair and lack of shelter that permeates life on the Stillness
is difficult to grasp, and there is a risk of falling back on traditional storytelling morals. In his
Stenberg 36
article, Iles claims that it is those who actively go against stonelore and do not focus on
guarding the gates in the trilogy who survives, writing that “humans can only strive to survive
fifth seasons through comm-building, rather than by competition and exploitation. Most of the
people who live are the ones who can adapt the most flexibly and who cooperate with each
other. They do not erect strong walls against each other” (7). This interpretation, however, is
not only overly generous, as the opposite, in fact, frequently occur in the narrative, but
erroneous, as stonelore never actually says anything about strong walls. Instead, what is
depicted in the trilogy is a fierce competitiveness for survival, where there are no villains
among people, only desperation. When Essun and Hoa joins a fairly secure comm that is
underground, a neighbouring comm try to take it over, as death aboveground is imminent.
Essun and other orogenes annihilate most of the people, in often very inhumane ways. Thus, I
argue, that Iles is looking for a moral in the story that is not to be found, as the
incomprehensibility of existence in an apocalypse cannot lend itself to a simple good/bad
dichotomy. What the trilogy does instead here, is why Grifka-Wander calls it forward fantasy.
As the trilogy refuses to offer any simple answers, rooting for the protagonists when the
antagonist has such just cause problematizes our place in the system. The actions of characters
acting in desperation shows the dissonance to and directly rejects what Haraway writes about
living and dying well in the Chthulucene, namely “to join forces to reconstitute refuges, to
make possible partial and robust biological-cultural-political-technological recuperation and
recomposition, which must include mourning irreversible losses” (Haraway 101). As
Haraway is speaking of interspecies relations, and therefore against anthropocentrism,
illustrated in the actions of orogenes is an ingrained anthropocentric worldview. Loss and
grief, however, rings true as it permeates the trilogy.
Grief intensifies the shattered existence that ties the orogenes even further to Earth.
The oft-repeated idiom of how “everything changes during a Season” (TFS loc 2365) in the
Stenberg 37
trilogy signals the mental state of humanity and Earth, as the Earth is not the only thing
broken in the trilogy. As life on it is an intrinsic part of Earth, the state of humanity and their
interrelationships with all other actants are as well. Interestingly, Haraway notes that just as
becoming-with involves living and dying, it is also necessary to grieve-with. She writes that
grief, “is a path to understanding entangled shared living and dying; human beings must
grieve with, because we are in and of this fabric of undoing. Without sustained remembrance,
we cannot learn to live with ghosts and so cannot think” (Haraway 39). Essun and the Earth
are both in mourning. They are both in a long-outdrawn period of grief and despair. Not
knowing what to do, but knowing that something must be done. Loss of children is paralleled
in the Earth and the main character of Essun, who has lost three children, two to death, and
one to circumstance. Essun must attempt to hide her children’s orogeneity to keep them safe,
as the risk of discovery is shown when her firstborn child—bred on order, but born in
freedom—is found and she kills him rather than let him be put into servitude, in doing so, she
does the more compassionate thing by killing her son. In killing him, she grants him the status
of person, and not tool to be abused.8 This, I contend, is echoed in the Earth and the moon, as
well as the relationship between Earth and all life that live upon it. However, Earth and Essun
are both going about dealing with grief the wrong way, by focusing on retribution, rather than
reconciliation. What Essun should be focusing on is not to exact vengeance on her husband,
but save and regain her daughter. Messimer points out that in the midst of all this death and
killing, “rather than simply giving in to the death that surrounds her in her own family as
everywhere in the Stillness, Essun must keep moving to find her daughter” (155). In other
words, Essun, and by extension orogenes in general and the Earth must persevere.
8 This is of course a reference both to Toni Morrison’s Beloved, in which the character Sethe kills her daughter
rather than let her be a slave. Beloved was in turn inspired by the real historical event where Margaret Garner
killed her child in 1856 for the same reason.
Stenberg 38
Grief is constant in all orogenes’ lives in the narrative, and highlights their plight as
well as the need for hope. Alabaster, too has experienced unfathomable loss, and is even
losing himself in sacrificing everything to restore the planet to a habitable place. When Essun
argues with him if humanity is worth saving, she says that the comm they lived in many years
ago “‘would’ve turned on us, too, one day. You know they would have.’” He replies by
simply half-heartedly agreeing but the adding, “‘[t]here was a chance they wouldn’t … Any
chance was worth trying’” (TOG loc 4120). This illustrates that hope is crucial for life to be
worth living, and that an imperative for any sort of peaceful resolution is therefore the return
of hope, both for orogenes and the Earth.
Grief in the trilogy, then, works as a unifier between actants, and hope is a key part of
that in a step towards Haraway’s sympoiesis. At one point, Essun is discussing if there was
any way they could have healed together after Essun killed their son, and Alabaster refuses
her. This causes her to muse that “[t]here is such a thing as too much loss. Too much has been
taken from you both—taken and taken and taken, until there’s nothing left but hope, and
you’ve given that up because it hurts too much. Until you would rather die, or kill, or avoid
attachments altogether, than lose one more thing” (TOG loc 1374). Essun is therefore in the
same state of mind as the Earth itself, that is, hellbent on revenge, for most of the first half of
the trilogy.
Much of the orogenes’ powers are tied to destruction. When Essun leaves her comm to
find her daughter, she does not go quietly. She tries, but is confronted because the comm
members have realised that she is an orogene. She kills many of the guards, including those
that she could have spared. The narrator says then that “[y]ou just can’t help acknowledging
the irony of the whole thing. Didn’t want to wait for death to come for you. Right. Stupid,
stupid woman. Death was always here. Death is you” (TFS loc 764). As Nature is volatile and
Stenberg 39
destructive for humanity during the Seasons, the orogenes calamitous capabilities are a sign of
their connection to the Earth, for better or worse.
Destruction is, therefore, an intrinsic part of orogenes, and parallels them to the Earth
as makers and destroyers. This is exemplified clearly when the Earth notices Nassun, and she
notices it right back: “Earth wants to kill her. But remember, too: Nassun wants it just as
dead” (TSS loc 3166). Vengeance as a strategy is not feasible, however, as it is not productive
in the narrative. As orogenes are part of the network, vengeance becomes synonymous with
self-destruction. Nassun is driven by an individualistic need for someone or something to pay
for the pain she has been through. Hence, despite being more connected and aware of the
network she is a part of, she cannot bring herself to admit the need for sympoiesis, much like
the Earth itself. This devastating parallel between orogenes and Earth is further shown in
stonelore. An arctic proverb reads, “Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall; Death is the fifth, and
master of all” (TFS loc 1920). That is, the cataclysm that is the Fifth Seasons is paralleled in
the power of the orogenes. As the narrative progresses and the inconsistency of stonelore is
revealed, however, this gets upended.
While the orogenes’ subhuman status is established officially, the degree of inhumane
treatment they are subjected to is kept from them. During the start of their mission, Alabaster
shows Syenite what the Fulcrum is capable of. He shows her the truth of the node
maintainers, which are orogenes that are stationed at certain intervals to keep areas stable. In
actuality, though, node maintainers are “lobotomized” children distilled only to their orogene
instinct, strapped to wire chairs for their entire lives, while their bodies atrophies and they live
in agony. This shows how the Stillness views orogenes, and the reason they are not all treated
this way is only because, as Alabaster puts it, “we’re more versatile, more useful, if we
control ourselves. But each of us is just another weapon, to them. Just a useful monster, just a
bit of new blood to add to the breeding lines. Just another fucking rogga” (TFS loc 1836).
Stenberg 40
Murphey points out that “it is the elaborate dehumanization of the enslaved by the enslavers”
that causes slavery to not only succeed, but exist in the first place (110). This elaborate
dehumanisation is also shown in Syenite’s reaction to the idea of essentially becoming a
broodmare for the Fulcrum. She convinces herself that it is worth it, as “this is what it means
to be civilized—doing what her betters say she should, for the ostensible good of all. And it’s
not like she gains no benefit from this . . . Better missions, longer leave, more say in her own
life. That’s worth it. Earthfire yes, it’s worth it” (TFS loc 971). Thus, the subhumanity of the
orogenes is both internalized and not, as it is justified as an act of survival.
Furthermore, for orogenes love is often tied together with abuse. Essun as a child
learns to love her abuser, Schaffa, something her daughter Nassun does too. While Schaffa
appears kind and loving, one of the first things he does is break Damaya’s hand. The abuse
she experiences at the hands of Schaffa creates conflict in her, as he is the only one alive who
loves her, despite her monstrosity: “[i]t isn’t right that she loves him, but many things in the
world are not right” (TFS loc 4268). This emphasises the unstable position of orogenes that
permeates their entire lives, as well as their nonhuman status in society. It is also eventually
revealed that Essun also abused Nassun, by doing to her what Schaffa did to Essun as a
child—break her hand. Thus, the cycle of abuse and the repetitiveness of it that chronicles
humankind's relationship with the Earth, is also present in inter-human relations. Nothing is
certain in the instability of life in the Stillness, as love as something positive is in part a luxury
not afforded when survival is constantly threatened, and all love is not something inherently
good, in the trilogy. This is shown when Schaffa makes clear that while he does love both
Essun and Nassun, he still hurts them. His reaction to watching Essun kill her own child
rather than let him be enslaved, for example, shows that love can be toxic and deranged, as he
references the child’s fate as a node maintainer: “Schaffa saw her hand on the child’s face,
covering mouth and nose, pressing. Incomprehensible. Did she not know that Schaffa would
Stenberg 41
love her son as he loved her? He would lay the boy down gently, so gently, in the wire chair”
(TOG loc 502). As the Earth in its vengeance has literally infected the minds of the
Guardians, it has corrupted what love is in the trilogy, and in extension disrupted what is
considered human.
While the divide between human and nonhuman becomes more and more blurred as
the narrative progresses, it is important to note that it is already blurred at the start of the
story. Everything changes during a Season; everything also gets twisted during a Season. For
instance, when the Season hits, certain social faux pas are discarded as everyone knows that
resorting to cannibalism is only a matter of time, and that it is a necessity, and therefore not
taboo. Consequently, the line between human and food, that is, nonhuman, is already
obliterated by not giving flesh any irreverent value in death. Surviving on a planet hellbent on
destroying mankind shows the perseverance of humanity in the stills and orogenes, yet also its
obtuseness, as mere survival has become the only goal, leading to humanity not searching for
a solution to their current situation, but always trying to catch up. Latour argues that the
meaning of “global warming” is that “through a surprising inversion of background and
foreground, it is human history that has become frozen and natural history that is taking on a
frenetic pace” (“Agency” 12). That is, humanity has become stagnant where nature is now
anything but. In the trilogy, this can be seen to a heightened extent in the orogenes’ constant
state of being reactive as opposed to active, or proactive, at the start of the trilogy. Hence, as
humanity’s refusal to adapt as of yet shows in the history of the world in the trilogy, they are
decentred and forced out of their own subjectivity, becoming only metaphorical vermin in the
eyes of the Earth. By ignoring the agency of everything else, and how humanity is part of a
network from which they cannot be extracted, they are in a state of ceaseless collapse. The
instability constant in the trilogy extends to socially twisted need for survival by showing that
Stenberg 42
only stories and memory have value, not flesh. While stonelore cautions, “[p]ut no price on
flesh” (TFS loc 4647), Essun knows that flesh becomes valuable during a Season.
It is also shown that stonelore is much more malleable than previously believed,
further showing the blurred instability of boundaries and rules in the trilogy. This instability
includes the past, as the recording of history has been corrupted. Stonelore is incomplete and
shrouded in mystery, controlled and manipulated by the Fulcrum. Because of the unstable
state in the trilogy, society ostensibly follows stonelore without hesitation. It is stonelore that
dictates the hierarchies of society, that literally sets in stone the belief that orogenes are evil.
Alabaster and Syenite have the following exchange about stonelore:
‘We could try letting orogenes run things.’
She almost laughs. ‘That would last for about ten minutes before every Guardian in
the Stillness shows up to lynch us, with half the continent in tow to watch and cheer.’
‘They kill us because they’ve got stonelore telling them at every turn that we’re born
evil—some kind of agents of Father Earth, monsters that barely qualify as human.’
‘Yes, but you can’t change stonelore.’
‘Stonelore changes all the time, Syenite.’ (TFS loc 1585)
Stonelore continually changes, and there are indications that it has been frequently altered to
fit whatever era and the beliefs of those in charge. Thus, the permutability of stone is present
in the stonelore tablets as well. This is, furthermore, something that previous scholars have
overlooked. O’Donoghue and Houghton, for instance, claim that the stonelore tablets and
therefore rules of society are “stratified, glorified, [and] calcified” (15), and that “the laws are
literally set in stone” (24). While this is certainly the belief at the outset of the narrative, the
fact that this turns out to be a lie is of utmost importance to understanding the power
structures in the trilogy. That something that is literally set in stone is not actually
unchangeable, shows the instability of the situation, and the uncertainty of what is true.
Stenberg 43
Throughout the trilogy, then, it is established that most characters go against stonelore
almost subconsciously, which becomes a stronger and more important motif as the events
unfold. It signifies that they instinctively know that stonelore is wrong, yet they do not realize
this for themselves. This creates a paradox within all characters, as they follow rules and
hierarchies that they believe in, yet not. The orogenes know they are not human, yet know that
they are human simultaneously.
Moving on from the theme of rules but staying on the topic of destruction, an additional
motif is that of parenthood, and all its failings. In Jemisin’s trilogy, humanity is poignantly
motherless. Further, they are not the apple of creations eye, but a thorn in its side. As the
moon is the child of the Earth, in The Broken Earth trilogy, humanity is markedly not. Life
itself, in the trilogy was mere “happenstance,” that the Earth “was pleased and fascinated by”
(TFS loc 4892). O’Donoghue and Houghton also write that Jemisin problematizes the
idealization of motherhood, as in the trilogy, “motherhood is part of the dystopian narrative”
(31). This notion, I argue, can be extended not only to parenthood overall, but also to the
concept of Earth as maker and destroyer.
When Alabaster tells Essun that the Earth is alive shortly after they have first met,
Essun replies and ponders:
‘’you’re speaking as if it, the planet, is real. Alive, I mean. Aware. All that stuff about
Father Earth, it’s just stories to explain what’s wrong with the world’ …
And the world is just shit. You understand this now, after two dead children and the
repeated destruction of your life. There’s no need to imagine the planet as some
malevolent force seeking vengeance. It’s a rock. This is just how life is supposed to
be: terrible and brief and ending in—if you’re lucky—oblivion (TOG loc 2150)
This shows again the forced passivity that the orogenes have internalized as to not know that
they too are a force to be reckoned with, and the complacency in the belief that life is just
Stenberg 44
suffering until it is over. It also shows the complicity of humanity in being taught to
deanimate the Earth without questioning it. This is referenced by O’Donoghue and Houghton
as well, as they state that Essun “must unlearn what she has been taught is inevitable about
herself and her society” (28). Thus, the agency and the reanimation that the Earth is regaining
is not clear from the start, but makes perfect sense in retrospect. In the Latourian sense then,
Earth is now a force to be reckoned with in a different way than previously believed.
The trilogy shows an inversion of Margulis’ notion that the Earth takes care of life on it,
as well as a confirmation to Stengers’ updated Gaia Hypothesis by making it literal that the
Earth is trying to kill humanity. In this, it shows that the rhetoric of parenthood is both
insufficient and paradoxical with a symbiotic lens in mind. This is, then, another binary set
that the trilogy disrupts. The parent/child relationship with which the relationship with the
planet is often viewed, is just another way of deferring blame, and responsibility, and is thus
anti-symbiotic. In Haraway’s response-ability and sympoiesis, all actants are wrapped up in
each other and together in a network. Response-ability is something that is cultivated and
inescapably collective. The Earth makes humanity, but humanity in turn also makes Earth. By
viewing Gaia as mother—or in this case the Earth as father—humanity ignores its own
agency and power, to detrimental results. Therefore, by being forcibly decentred by the life
giver that is Earth, humanity is faltering. Not only is it in an unstable state of survival, but it
lacks purpose and direction.
In the trilogy, orogenes are referred to as “tools,” “weapons,” and “monsters,”
signifying their subhuman status to most characters. If the characters are to remain agents of
their own lives, they need to find a way to simultaneously reject and embrace these notions, as
the lines are blurred. As Essun is turning bit by bit to stone, sacrificing more of herself, she
worries that she is beginning to feel less emotions and that this will lead to her “becoming
Stenberg 45
nothing but the weapon everyone keeps trying to make of [her]” (TSS loc 2885). Essun
turning to stone limb by limb shows that she is truly and literally becoming-with the Earth.
Becoming-with in the trilogy has multiple levels, as it is at times literal, at times
emotional, and other times metaphorical. At the beginning of The Obelisk Gate, Hoa muses
that he is telling the story wrong, because “a person is herself, and others. Relationships chisel
the final shape of one’s being. I am me, and you” (TOG loc 15). He goes on to explain that
not only are we the other people we encounter, but also the places and events that shape us.
This is pointed out by Ingerwersen as a literalized version of Haraway’s becoming-with, and
thus “a celebration of oddkinship among monstrous outcasts . . . uncontainable by myths of
bounded personhood” (Ingwersen 83). Literalized in this version of subjectivity is also the
antidote to individualism, as the boundaries are blurred between not only Nature/Society and
Human/Nonhuman but also object/subject. Ingwersen, however, continues to argue that Essun
and Nassun “learn that survival is contingent on collaboration, trust, and reciprocal response-
abilities” (83). I claim, instead, that for Essun, it is actually the opposite that she learns, as it is
not survival that is the ultimate becoming-with for her, but her decision to sacrifice herself for
her daughter, and in extension for something greater than herself.
It is therefore imperative for both orogenes and Earth to embrace that which makes
them apart and reviled by society, and come to some form of armistice. Agency is near
impossible, if all it means is to allow yourself to be used. This is what both Essun and Father
Earth has come to realise. An agent cannot be passive by its very definition. Thus, it is not a
question of allowing anything, but one of choosing to act. By embracing her own status as
nonhuman, Essun gains her own agency. To be apart from what categorizes the oppressors is
not something negative. The Earth is evil in the eyes of humanity, but this opinion goes both
ways, and it is evil for a good reason. In embracing its own power, the Earth is also great. By
showing the life that lives upon its surface its true power, it regained that power, and became
Stenberg 46
a force to be reckoned with. Thus, truce is central to progress in the narrative. The war,
Alabaster explains, has three sides. The first wants people dead, the second wants people
neutralized, that is, made into stone eaters. The third option, however, is to:
Give Father Earth back his lost child and perhaps his wrath will be appeased. That’s
the third faction, then: those who want a truce, people and Father Earth agreeing to
tolerate one another, even if it means creating the Rift and killing millions in the
process. Peaceful coexistence by any means necessary. (TOG loc 4335)
It is this notion of coexistence that becomes imperative, yet as noted by Essun, peace does not
mean there will be an end to suffering, nor that suffering is not an intrinsic aspect of peace in
the Stillness. Truce does not mean camaraderie, only the discontinuing of war. On the topic of
endless suffering and necessary coexistence, I now turn to analyse the stone eaters, and their
relationship to existence itself.
4.3 Failed Posthumans—Stone Eaters and Orogenes in Relation to Each Other
When it comes to the stone eaters, much of the references to geology that is metaphorical
even within the narrative becomes abruptly literal. For instance, where orogenes mentally “go
into the Earth,” for instance, stone eaters do so physically—and they can take people with
them, thus blurring the lines of what constitutes flesh. The permutability of stone mentioned
with regards to stonelore becomes physically manifested here as well. The stone eaters
therefore work as an extreme metaphor for showing the absurdity of binary boundaries
already introduced through the orogenes. Ingwersen notes that “[t]he permeability of this
boundary is indicative of the modes of kinship and transcorporeality that ultimately serve to
heal Jemisin’s wounded subjectivities. Characters are not stable but—like the planet— evolve
in a process of perpetual transformation” (83). Ingwersen’s point here is that the mere
existence of stone eaters in the trilogy shows the instability and uncertainty of the divide
between humanity and nature, as their flesh is permutable, that is, transcorporeal. By creating
Stenberg 47
the stone eaters, the Earth forced them to become-with the Earth itself. It is in this integral
instability that orogenes and stone eaters find not only strength, but a middle ground, as they
begin to see the symbiosis of a sympoietic existence with each other. Accordingly, in this
section I implement Latour’s work on agency and actant, as well as Haraway’s concepts that
form her Chthulucene to examine the stone eaters, in their relationship to both orogenes and
the Earth, and argue that they function as a metaphor for co-evolving while simultaneously
illustrating the how ingrained anthropocentrism is in the narrative.
The possibility in a more collective existence is shown clearly but subtly in all more-
than-human actants’ respective relationship between each other and to the other subspecies.
At the start of the trilogy, Alabaster feels a clear disgust at the sight of the stone eater
Antimony’s movement, as he “has grown used to it, but even so, he does not look at her. He
does not want revulsion to spoil the moment” (TFS loc 80). However, to cause the Season, he
has to align himself with the magic that permeates Earth. He has to become-with the Earth,
and the steep price for mixing orogeneity and magic is that he begins to turn to stone limb by
limb, stone which Antimony eats. Alabaster is slowly dying while being eaten alive. This,
paradoxically, alters his relationship Antimony for the better. In realising what they can do for
each other, and what they can gain from each other, Alabaster eventually finds solace in their
relationship, as she sings to him, and supports him both emotionally and physically:
“Antimony has moved fully into the nest with him these days, and you rarely see her in any
pose other than “living chair” for him—kneeling, legs spread, her hands braced on her thighs.
Alabaster rests against her” (TOG loc 4110). I claim that this shows that interspecies
sympoietic existence, if embraced, can lead to belonging of a new sort.
Compare, for instance, Essun’s evolving relationship with a stone eater, Hoa. While
she has had much less time to grow used to stone eaters than Alabaster has, she is quick to not
only accept the oddness of their existence, but also never shows revulsion towards them.
Stenberg 48
Alabaster has a contentious relationship Antimony based on her acts towards him, while
Essun has a compassionate one because of Hoa’s approach to her. When Hoa is in the shape
of a young boy, Essun notices that there is something off about him, as he does not breathe or
eat, but Essun has “a lot of experience with children who are secretly monsters” (TFS loc
2425). When Hoa returns to his actual form as an adult stone eater, Essun is unnerved by his
presence and the way he moves and looks, but quickly comes to terms with it because Hoa is
“watching you the way he always used to, all eyes and hope. Should it really matter that the
eyes are so strange now?” (TOG loc 3642). She also finds comfort with him, much like
Alabaster did with Antimony, even when the rest of the comm she is traveling with fear him
and he spends most of his time in the Earth:
It’s impossible not to notice the mountain lurking within the stone just behind you.
You don’t call him out because the other people of Castrima are leery of Hoa. He’s the
only stone eater still around, and they remember that stone eaters are not neutral,
harmless parties. You do reach back and pat the wall with your one hand, however.
The mountain stirs a little, and you feel something—a hard nudge—against the small
of your back. Message received and returned (TSS loc 3490)
Essun’s relationship with Hoa begins on a much more common ground than Alabaster’s and
Antimony’s does. Thus, Essun is in a much more promising position to both accept beings she
does not understand and show compassion towards them from the beginning. This shows
what Messimer calls “radical empathy” (154), and I argue that while Alabaster shows
empathy in spades, it does not have the time to reach the status of radical to the extent Essun’s
empathy does, as his relationship with stone eaters had a much more contentious beginning.
The different reactions to stone eaters that Essun and Alabaster has, and their feelings
towards them, highlights the fact that stone eaters are individuals just as orogenes are. When it
is revealed that there is a war waging with more than two sides, the heterogeneity of the stone
Stenberg 49
eaters becomes clear. The commleader tries to lump them and their goals together, to which
Hoa replies, “‘[n]ot ‘stone eaters.’ Not all of us want the same thing. Some like things as they
are. Some even want to make the world better… though not all agree on what that means.’
Instantly his posture changes—hands out, palms up, shoulders lifted in a What can you do?
gesture. ‘We’re people’” (TOG loc 3774). This shows not only the need for cooperation
between subspecies, but also the complexity and agency within every actant involved.
When Hoa transforms to his real actual stone eater body, it further foregrounds how
unstable the definition of human is in the narrative. Stone eaters were human once, and
according to Alabaster it is not what their flesh is made of that sets them apart from people,
but that being alive for thousands of years messes with the mind: “‘I think it’s that no one can
live that long and not become something entirely alien’” (TOG loc 2176). Essun then ponders,
“you can think of Hoa in that moment. Being fascinated by soap. Curling against you to sleep.
His sorrow, when you stopped treating him like a human being. He’d been trying so hard.
Doing his best. Failing in the end” (TOG loc 2176). Earlier, when Essun realizes that Hoa is
protecting her, and has been for some time, her compassion also comes through: “[s]o few
have ever tried to protect you, in your life. It’s impulse that makes you lift a hand and stroke it
over his weird white hair. He blinks. Something comes into his eyes that is anything but
inhuman” (TOG loc 481). This illustrates both that the boundaries are already blurred to what
makes a human, and that the notion of humanity as a category to belong to in itself is
arbitrary, in a posthuman sense. When Hoa finally shows his true nature as not an odd-looking
child, but an adult stone eater—albeit “racially nonsensical” (TOG loc 3628)—he and Essun
has the following exchange:
‘Ah, yes. Alabaster said all of you were human. Once, anyway.’
There is a moment of silence. ‘Are you human?’
At this, you cannot help but laugh once. ‘Officially? No.’
Stenberg 50
‘Never mind what others think. What do you feel yourself to be?’
‘Human.’
‘Then so am I.’
He stands steaming between the halves of a giant rock from which he just hatched.
‘Uh, not anymore.’
‘Should I take your word for that? Or listen to what I feel myself to be?’ (TOG loc
3639)
This conversation between the two highlights two seemingly unintentional paradoxical
notions. On the one hand, that the belief that humans are only human in the eye of the
beholder is oversimplifying the concept of humanity. Consequently, it is very important here
to note that Essun’s eventual reaction to all of this is to continue to treat Hoa as a person,
while not shying away from what makes him different: “[s]o you sigh and also let go of the
part of yourself that wants to treat him as something else, something frightening, something
other. He’s Hoa. He wants to eat you, and he tried to help you find your daughter even though
he failed. There’s an intimacy in these facts, however strange they are, that means something
to you” (TOG loc 3652). This shows that Essun is capable of co-evolving and living
symbiotically in much the same way as Alabaster was, albeit through a different journey. The
weary showing of compassion even for beings she does not understand is one of the reasons
that Essun manages to see the sympoiesis between species.
One the other hand, however, the exchange between Essun and Hoa shows the
erroneous view they both have of worth as it relates to the concept of human. It is in this
desire to be considered, and to consider themselves human, that both orogenes and stone
eaters fail to consider why this matters. It shows that society in the Stillness still adhere to an
anthropocentric worldview, as all subspecies of humanity desperately wants to be human
above all else, never stopping to consider that that line of thinking is the very reason for the
Stenberg 51
oppression in the first place. To truly change the status quo, orogenes and stone eaters should
instead embrace their nonhumanity, and look beyond such binary categories.
The transient properties of flesh that permeates the narrative is not just applicable to
life and death. When Essun begins to turn to stone whenever she uses her powers, she soon
accepts it, because her relationship with Hoa is not built on necessity, but mutual respect. The
reach across party lines and the collectivism that Essun learns to defend and fight for, is what
is necessary to succeed. This notion of the blurred lines between flesh and Earth act as another
steppingstone to the ultimate goal of embracing the sympoiesis of existence in the trilogy, of
being a part of a symbiotic system with Earth. Thus, it is through their shared more-than-
human yet not officially human status that they learn this, and through which they are capable
of seeing Earth as an equal actant, and by extension save humanity as a whole.
Highlighting the agency of all actants in the narrative further, Hoa confesses that he
was once one of the stone eaters seeking vengeance against the Earth for turning them into
stone eaters. He then explains, “but what it keeps coming back to is this: Life cannot exist
without the Earth. Yet there is a not-insubstantial chance that life will win its war, and
destroy the Earth. We’ve come close a few times. That can’t happen. We cannot be permitted
to win” (TOG loc 1003). This shows the destructive status quo, and the incentive for a
peaceful resolution, as well as the need for a realization of the symbiotic nature in the
relationship between human and nonhuman. Furthermore, the thought that we cannot be
permitted to win is chilling when seen as an allegory to our current real situation. On that
cheerful note, I move to discuss the issues surrounding dying in the trilogy.
4.4 The Issue With Living and Temporarily Dying on a Broken Earth
Throughout the trilogy, there is a recurrent theme of mercy, and to which actants it pertains,
and to which it does not. It is illustrated that the notion of being granted mercy needs to widen
significantly, for any sort of peace to have an iota of chance to succeed. Essun’s belief about
Stenberg 52
her nonhuman status is therefore deeply ingrained in her. When discussing what to do with
the node maintainers, abused in the name of keeping the Earth still, a person asks Essun if the
doctors watching them will mercy kill them, at which point Hoa points out that “[y]ou resist
the urge to say, Mercy is for people. That way of thinking needs to die, even if you’re thinking
it in bitterness” (TSS loc 3439). Essun is changing into a more cooperative person, but this
realization is hard-won.
In the end, by showing herself as an agent and actively surrendering, Essun embraces
the trouble of living and dying in and on a broken Earth. Furthermore, Essun does not die
reluctantly, but arguably the happiest she has ever been. Before she sets off on her final
journey, she even notes this herself: “[w]hen have you ever left a place this way—openly,
nonviolently, amid laughter? It feels … you don’t know how it feels. Good? You don’t know
what to do with that” (TSS loc 4492). This means that it is the strength of a community, of
realizing the need for working together and the strength and purpose this creates that is the
key for humanity’s survival. Essun’s strength is further illustrated when she travels through
the Earth on her way to restore the moon: “[y]ou keep [your eyes] open, though, as the world
goes dark and strange. You feel no fear. You are not alone” (TSS loc 4536). Hence, it is in
embracing the notion of collectivism that Essun is capable of seeing the bigger picture, of the
importance of not only living, but dying, in response-ability on Earth.
Therefore, when Essun realizes that the right choice is to stop fighting, in an effort to
save her daughter’s life, she also finally chooses death. She dies smiling, filled with love for
her daughter: “more than anything else, you want this last child of yours to live … and so you
make a choice. To keep fighting will kill you both. The only way to win, then, is not to fight
anymore.” (TSS loc 4984). Hence, when Essun accepts death, it is in a spirit of collectivism,
as she sacrifices herself in the hope that her daughter sees the bigger picture, and learns what
Stenberg 53
it means to show mercy as an active choice. Essun becomes-with death as her final show of
power.
Unfortunately, however, in the final moments of the trilogy, Essun’s sacrifice to save
life on Earth gets oddly negated, in two ways. First, Essun is transformed into a stone eater by
Hoa. Not only does this remove and repudiate her sacrifice, but in becoming immortal she
does not actually die in response-ability, in Haraway’s meaning of the term. Secondly, Essun
awakes not only as a stone eater, but with all her memories and identity retained, even in
complete physical overhaul.
Hence, when Essun is transformed into a stone eater, she remains herself, despite the
fact that this goes against what is established with regards to what becoming a stone eater
entails in the narrative. It usually takes millennia for a new formed stone eater to remember
who they once were, if they remember at all. The creation of the stone eaters was a
punishment by the Earth, after all. As a stone eater explains, “‘[u]ntil the Earth dies, I live,
Nassun. That was its punishment for us: We became a part of it, chained fate to fate” (TSS loc
3984-85). Thus, becoming a stone eater is gaining immortality, but usually a death of a
subjectivity all the same. This is made explicit in the narrative as Alabaster has gone through
this transformation already. Messimer notes that “[h]umanity must live with and inside its
environment, made intimate and no longer separate from humans” (140). This is shown in an
allegorical way by both Essun and Alabaster becoming stone eaters in death, and how
differently they take to it. When Essun glimpses what Alabaster has become now, he is not
Alabaster any longer: “its eyes are black . . . they watch you with only faint recognition, with
a puzzled flicker of something that might be (but should not be) memory” (TOG loc 4860).
Hoa later confirms this by saying, “‘[t]he lattice doesn’t always form perfectly, Essun,’ he
says. The tone is gentle. ‘Even when it does, there is always … loss of data … we are fragile
at the beginning, like all new creatures. It takes centuries for us, the who of us, to … cool’
Stenberg 54
(TSS loc 3639). Hence, Alabaster at least, it could be argued, is now reborn completely. That
is, he must rebuild himself from scratch, with no guarantee if he will ever truly remember
who he was. This lends some credence to the cost that the orogenes have symbolically had to
bear to unbreak the Earth, but the narrative does not offer Essun the same weight in her
journey, instead opting for a literal happily ever after.
Therefore, despite literally becoming of the Earth, Essun’s fate lacks sympoiesis.
While physically made-with, her fate metaphorically rejects the natural end needed to achieve
it fully. As Haraway states, “generative flourishing cannot grow from myths of immortality or
failure to become-with the dead and the extinct” (101). It does, however, erase the
human/nonhuman divide that society has already considered her to be a part of in her former
life as an orogene. When she finally dies, Hoa starts by saying that “YOU ARE DEAD. BUT
NOT you” (TSS loc 5012). Her body might have died, but flesh is transient and permutable, as
established by the very existence of stone eaters, who were once mortal but transformed, and
by the orogenes powers, which include turning people to crystals, as well as certain orogenes’
flesh turning to stone. Hoa realizes that Essun is still Essun when she proclaims that she wants
to make the world better: “I have never regretted more my inability to leap into the air and
whoop for joy …You look amused. It’s you. It’s truly you” (TSS loc 5138). What Hoa wants
in turn is only to be with Essun:
‘Because that is how one survives eternity,’ I say, ‘or even a few years. Friends.
Family. Moving with them. Moving forward.’
…
‘Friends, family,’ you say. ‘Which am I, to you?’
‘Both and more. We are beyond such things.’ (TSS loc 5138)
Essun’s ability to hold on to her former identity, illustrates that immortality is no longer a
punishment by the Earth, but an olive branch. For collectivism to work, it needs to not only
Stenberg 55
include all of humanity, or humanity and all other living “nonhuman” creatures on the Earth,
but the Earth itself—signified by the fact that she and Hoa are now beyond such things. Being
beyond such things further signify that they are beyond boundaries and binaries, becoming-
with each other, literally in their permutable state as stone eaters, and metaphorically in that
Essun was made by Hoa. As such, they are both themselves, each other, and Earth,
concurrently and inseparably.
Arguably, however, Hoa is selfish in his decision to remake Essun, and this decision
reinforces an odd individualistic outlook in the narrative. When the moon is restored, the
Earth also releases the souls it has hoarded at its core. Hoa points out that he does not know
what happens to souls after death, but that it must be better than the alternative. On an epic
scale, then, the symbiosis of the network is restored, while on a personal one, it remains
shattered. The Earth releases the souls it has accumulated in the name of peace, thus accepting
sympoiesis. However, as mentioned, Hoa fails to accept this, as he in his selfishness remakes
Essun completely. Instead, Hoa has condemned Essun to share his fate.
On a more positive note, by becoming a stone eater, Essun accepts and includes the
Earth in the community, and the Earth itself accepts all life on it as no longer its enemies, but
its allies. The network that is Earth is restored to its natural unstable equilibrium, and since
the obelisks are thrown in as “a surety of good faith” (TSS loc 5065), the communal thought
process at the core of the truce is clear. To borrow Lovelock’s phrase, the Earth in the trilogy
regains its “metastable” state. Peace was not found peacefully, but by humanity, here
represented by Essun and Nassun, who changes course based on her mother’s sacrifice,
realizing that there is a need for symbiosis, and that showing humility is not an act of
weakness, but agency in itself.
Stenberg 56
5. Reanimation—What Speculative Literature Can Do
I now return to the possibility inherent in literature as discussed in the theory section. The
“moderns,” by Latour’s definition, are not equipped to deal with events on such a vast scale as
climate change, as they lack the mental and emotional capacities needed to do so (“Agency”
1). Further, they separated humans from Nature to such an extent that it effectively
deanimated a planet into a mere object, when it is anything but. This separability affected all
part of society, and therefore naturally bled into literature as well. Thus, the Earth as
something inanimate became truth in fiction, and especially realist fiction, and the climate
crisis was deemed too incomprehensible to feature in it. Ghosh points out the irony of this
exclusion within realist fiction: “the very gestures with which it conjures up reality are
actually a concealment of the real” (loc 313). That is, if a realist novel would deal with
climate change, it would, “court eviction from the mansion in which serious fiction has long
been in residence” (loc 324). As previously mentioned, geostory is tied to storytelling as a
consequence of the Earth being “fully articulated and active” (“Agency” 13). To situate these
notions in relation to the trilogy, I analyse the concept of myth and worldbuilding, and how
these work in synchronicity to elicit comparisons to our present day.
It is through worldbuilding that the trilogy achieves political relevance, as the motif of
myth in the narrative is inherently allegorical. It is therefore not an accident that Hoa’s fall
from the sky back to Earth, while being turned into stone—after committing the original sin,
no less—is reminiscent of many legendary tales, not only the biblical fall of Lucifer, but also,
for instance, Icarus of Greek mythology. This adds to the trilogy’s epic scale, which taken
together with Ghosh’s point of realism shows the relevance of myth in the story. Ghosh points
out that any sort of epic scale is not welcome in serious literature: “no one will speak of how
the continents were created; nor will they refer to the passage of thousands of years:
connections and events on this scale appear not just unlikely but also absurd within the
Stenberg 57
delimited horizon of a novel” (loc 858). We live in interesting times, yes, but that currently
also means that our present times are historical, and thus epic, in a sense. Climate change is
paradoxically concurrently quotidian and monumental. Consequently, the epic myths retold in
the narrative has allegorical connotations aplenty.
The emphasis of myth in the narrative shows the closeness of geostory in our present
day. As Grifka-Wander points out, myth was something inherently associated with fantasy to
Suvin, and therefore negative because in meant it was antithetical to progress. For Suvin,
myth, and by association fantasy, was “culturally meaningful, perhaps, but containing little
political content and almost no propulsion toward future change. It [was] mostly irrelevant
to real life” (Grifka-Wander 71). This is, however, a very “modern” outlook on the concept of
stories. Myths are an intrinsic part of worldmaking, both in this narrative, and in real life.
Myths are therefore both history, or geostory, and highly political, as the past always
informs the present and the future. As shown, in the trilogy characters go from disregarding
the myths of their world in a flippant manner, to realizing and acknowledging the truth that is
being told through these stories. For instance, Walter points out that it is myth as it relates to
“Father Earth” in the narrative that causes the Earth to be treated similarly to a god: “self-
conscious, motivated and planning; an active agent in the story with some human traits, but
distinctly categorised as not-human by means of other, non-human traits” (Walter 16). This
illustrates that myth in the narrative as well as in our present is inescapable, as myth informs
much of our own reality as well.
It is therefore in this worldbuilding in the trilogy that the need for interrogation of our
place in the network that is Earth is made clear. Haraway calls the Anthropocene a time “of
unprecedented looking away” (35). In other words, in our reluctance to face the
incomprehensible, we instead chose to ignore it, to our own detriment. She urges, as an
antidote, the need for thinking, as the opposite of thinking is thoughtlessness, and in
Stenberg 58
thoughtlessness, nothing matters (36). Haraway points out that “it matters what stories we tell
to tell other stories with” (12). That is, it is not enough to simply state the facts, but the form
of delivery matters an equal amount. It becomes a matter of changing even the way we think
about things, as thinking is a factor, not just an element. This means that for sense making to
make sense of our current time, the medium in which the stories and issues are dealt with
matter. Thus, it is striking that genres such as cli-fi are continuing to grow. Of note here is
what Trexler claims: that climate fiction can interrogate what life entails in the Anthropocene
(27). As Ghosh’s argument makes clear, literature within the speculative genres is more adept
at confronting the absurd reality of the current climate crisis, and is therefore, in fact, more
realist than most so called realist novels today. He points to the notion of Nature now being
“too powerful” to not fear, and states that climate events are proof of the intrinsic and the
“uncanny intimacy” between human and nonhuman (loc 447).
It matters therefore, that Jemisin, through an allegory to real human oppression
manages to draw these parallels to the Earth and the treatment of it as well. Grifka-Wander
echoes this sentiment as well, when she writes that “fantasy stories are meaningful, and also
draw attention to how we make meaning” (76). This suitability is exemplified in both the
trilogy’s allegorical mode, and its speculative presentation. Because of the worldbuilding
inherent in the genre, thoughtlessness is impossible, while it simultaneously becomes possible
to face the inconceivable, as it is “fantasy,” first and foremost, in every sense of the word. It is
in thinking allegorically that thinking even becomes possible. Hence, I contend, that The
Broken Earth trilogy is exceptionally suited for telling these stories, both as it pertains to
genre, and subject matter.
Through using and adapting such well-trodden ground as the concept of “magic” and
basing it in the inherently natural, that is, energy, the trilogy shows not only that the Earth is
alive, but that it and all life on it is part of one system. When Grifka-Wander argues for
Stenberg 59
“forward fantasy,” she emphasizes the need for complex worldbuilding as a tool to cause the
reader to critically engage with their contemporary moment. Fantasy worldbuilding, she
writes, “through social construction, explanation of the cultures, geography, resources, and so
on, assumes the truth-quality of a hard science fiction story” (Grifka-Wander 74). She writes
that by complicating the depictions of slavery and racism, Jemisin directly responds to today’s
society “where racist forms of oppression persist even while most Americans agree that
racism is unforgiveable” (78). To accomplish this, Jemisin pushes farther and provides “new
subjectivities” (78) in the subspecies for the reader to learn from by muddling the ordinary
simple metaphor of good versus bad as it is “no longer sufficiently estranging or radical” (78).
I claim that these new subjectivities extend to nonhuman agents as well in the Earth.
Furthermore, the trilogy does not simply give the Earth sentience, but drives home the
inherent agency by making it emotional, and thus, highly subjective. When Latour writes that
it is not simply a case of combining or reconciling nature with society but that the role of
distributing agency until “we have thoroughly lost any relation between those two concepts of
object and subject” (“Agency” 15), this is shown in the emotive Earth in the trilogy.
Interestingly, Jemisin uses the word “heart” when describing the Earth’s core, depicting it as
the “wonder that is the world’s unfettered heart, it already blazes before her: a silver sun
underground, so bright that she must squint” (TSS loc 3145). This signifies not only the
Earth’s subjectivity, but its agency in that it too is ruled not by rationality, but by emotion,
and that this is not a bad thing, but in actuality, the only way towards progress. As mentioned,
Latour uses the term “collective” to designate the associations between human and nonhuman
actants (Modern loc 144). “Father Earth” is an actant needing communion, longing for a
collective, but believing it too late for any sort of cooperation to occur. The Earth needs life to
sustain itself. For better or worse, much of that life is derived from humanity. Because what is
at the heart of Earth is energy that turns to magic which in turn animates everything on the
Stenberg 60
planet, life is inescapable for “Father Earth.” He cannot abandon life, even if He wants to.
Life is thus intrinsically tied to the Earth’s purpose in the trilogy. Consequently, this is viewed
as a parasitic relationship from both sides, as mutual nemeses, needs to change, to be realized
as the symbiotic relationship it is, and act accordingly.
The Broken Earth trilogy, I proclaim, reanimates the Earth. Where realist literature can
be accused of deanimating Nature, as it sees Nature only as object, as backdrop to the
narrative, climate fiction does the opposite, by making Nature an actant in itself, and a force
to be reckoned with. The Broken Earth takes this to the extreme by fully giving the Earth
sentience, while still showing that it is not a single organism, but made up of all the life on—
and in—it. By introducing an alive Earth slowly through myth and stonelore, and by having
the main protagonists not believe in it, the trilogy shows the absurdity of ignoring the inherent
animism of the planet. The concept of “Father Earth” is present from the beginning of the
story, and grows from being a jarring sentiment for the reader—in that father has replaced
mother—to eventually being accepted as true within the narrative. By both calling attention to
this name for the Earth, and by using it to such an extent that it quickly becomes normalized,
the work of reanimating the Earth is done surreptitiously from the very start.
6. Conclusion
Through a close analysis of N. K. Jemisin’s The Broken Earth trilogy, my aim was to explore
how the Earth as a genuine communicative actor with sentience disrupts and questions
humanity’s place on the planet. With the events of the trilogy taking place during the
apocalypse, the vulnerable and unstable state of life is at the forefront of the narrative. This
means that everything is pushed to the extreme, as the choice to ignore what is occurring is
impossible for all involved. The trilogy and reality unfortunately differ, in this regard.
Grounding my analysis in posthumanism and Gaia theory, I utilized Bruno Latour’s
work on agency, nonhumanity and deanimation to examine displacement and vengeance in an
Stenberg 61
impossible situation. I argue for reading the trilogy as an explicit allegory that connects with
our present in several different ways. First—and most obvious—is that the relationship
between Earth and humanity is disrupted, and in desperate need of change. Secondly—and
most chillingly—that humanity cannot be allowed to win this fight of superiority against
Nature. If we win, we will die. Simply put: The Broken Earth trilogy shows a fictional version
of the apocalypse that might await us. The abuse of the Earth must cease if we are to have any
sort of future on it.
I also employed Donna Haraway’s Chthulucene, with its sympoietic becoming-with
and response-ability, to illustrate how the trilogy shows the necessity of realizing that
humanity is not apart from the Earth, and the need to show humility towards this fact. As
death is ever present, and certainty nowhere to be found, I contend that it is high time
humanity got used to the notion of our own mortality. As humans, we are all only future
mulch for the planet, and should act accordingly.
As an allegory for our present climate crisis, I contend that the trilogy shows Earth
concurrently as a system, and as actant seeking well deserved vengeance. In the first section, I
illustrated that the trilogy shows the Earth as a network and as a communicative agent of
geostory, literally becoming a manifestation of Lovelock’s vengeful Gaia. Furthermore, the
trilogy depicts the updated Gaia hypothesis of Earth as both maker and destroyer to an
unsettling degree. The Broken Earth trilogy illustrates not only the Earth as an agent, but that
this inherently includes its inhabitants as an agentive network, therefore showing that
humanity is not the protagonist of this geostory, but simply one actor—one actant—among
many. In showing the blurred lines between life and Nature, I contend that the trilogy
literalizes Haraway’s concept of sympoiesis. I further problematized viewing the healing of
the Earth that is present in the narrative as a hopeful allegory to what can be done in our
present, and emphasised the necessity of instability.
Stenberg 62
In the second section, I discussed the orogenes and argued for the concept of
embracing the subhuman status as active choice, thus showing agency where historically there
was only passivity. Through analysing their destructive capacities, and the grief inherent in
their position in society, I declared that they are closer to nature and therefore more capable of
sympoiesis. Where Fifth Seasons are apocalypses for the average human in the narrative, the
orogenes live their life constantly on the brink of annihilation, and are therefore,
unfortunately, more suited for a life in refuge, and more prone to survive.
In the third section, I illustrated how burgeoning collectivism is a necessity for a
sympoietic existence. In an analysis of the stone eaters, I examined the literalization of
blurred lines between human and nonhuman. I also problematized how stone eaters and
orogenes are stuck in an anthropocentric mindset, while still claiming that it is in their
nonhumanity that they can see the Earth as an equal actant.
As the lines between flesh and dirt are already blurred, the characters’ corporeal forms
are able to change and be changed. In the fourth section, I questioned the questionable ending
of the trilogy, by arguing that in the end, it fails to be truly sympoietic, as immortality is
antithetical to living and dying. However, I proclaim that the trilogy does succeed in moving
beyond binary boundaries in accepting the Earth as part of the collective whole, and as an
agent unto itself. This continuous blurring of binaries throughout the narrative becomes
emblematic for the absurdity of not only an anthropocentric worldview, but fixed categories
overall. Hence, I claim that the trilogy illustrates that being seen as human is of lesser
importance than the idea of realizing that all actants in the network are equal, whether or not
the characters themselves realize this.
In the final subsection, I argued that The Broken Earth trilogy reanimates the Earth.
By underscoring the importance of myth and worldbuilding, I wrote that the trilogy shows the
folly of Latourian moderns, while making the case for the importance of fantasy with the help
Stenberg 63
of Ghosh and Grifka-Wander. I therefore emphasised, by employing Haraway’s assertion of
the importance of what stories tell stories, that the allegorical qualities of the narrative have
more weight than what might be assumed. Thus, inherent in the power of literature of this
kind—and this trilogy specifically—is the realization and the growing conviction that the
Earth is so much more than mere object. Climate change in itself, as well as the current
corona virus pandemic, shows the agency of the nonhuman and the inseparability of all
actants. In so doing, the need for symbiosis and sympoiesis becomes evident.
Finally, by emphasising the importance of what literature can make possible, with a
focus on speculative fiction specifically, I contend that this genre—through climate fiction—
is a useful tool, as it changes how people view agency. I applied Ghosh work on the realism
of speculative fiction in conjunction with Latour’s concept of deanimation to analyse how The
Broken Earth trilogy shifts the relationship humanity has with Earth by reanimating it. In
making the Earth communicative, Jemisin’s trilogy depicts an attempt to reanimate the Earth,
and seeing its agency. In doing so, it restores a symbiotic relationship between Earth and life
itself. I argue that cooperation and peace always come with a price. The trilogy depicts a war
that has no winners. It is through sacrifice that humanity must admit that the relationship we
have with Earth is a sympoietic one, or we will die of extremely natural causes, caused by
ourselves, but deployed by nonhuman actants.
Stenberg 64
Works Cited:
Andersen, Gregers. Climate Fiction and Cultural Analysis: A New Perspective on Life in the
Anthropocene. Routledge, 2019.
Crutzen, Paul and Stoermer, Eugene. “The Anthropocene.” IGBP Newsletter 41, 2000.
www.igbp.net/download/18.316f18321323470177580001401/1376383088452/NL41.
pdf, Accessed 2 April 2020.
Fox, Nick J. and Alldred, Pam. (2019) “New materialism.” SAGE Research Methods
Foundations. London: Sage, 2019. methods.sagepub.com/foundations/new-
materialism. Accessed 5 May 2020.
Gane, Nicholas. “When we have never been human, what is to be done? Interview with
Donna Haraway.” Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 23, no. 7-8, 2006, pp. 135-158.
doi:10.1177/0263276406069228. Accessed 20 April 2020.
Ghosh, Amitav. The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable. Kindle ed.,
Penguin UK, 2018.
Grifka-Wander, Misha. “Moving Forward: Gender, Genre, and Why There’s No Hard
Fantasy.” The New Americanist, vol. 1, no. 3, 2019, pp. 61-82.
Hanifin, Laura. 2015. “Black Lives Matter Inspired This Chilling Fantasy Novel.” Wired
Magazine, 29 August 2015, www.wired.com/2015/08/geeks-guide-nk-jemisin/.
Accessed 15 May 2020.
Haraway, Donna J. Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University
Press, 2016.
Houghton, Ruth, and O’Donoghue, Aoife. “‘Ourworld’: A Feminist Approach to Global
Constitutionalism.” Global Constitutionalism, 2019, pp. 1-38.
doi:10.1017/S2045381719000273. Accessed 12 April 2020.
Hurley, Jessica, and N. K. Jemisin. “An Apocalypse is a Relative Thing: An Interview with
Stenberg 65
NK Jemisin.” ASAP/Journal, vol. 3, no. 3, 2018, pp. 467-477.
doi:10.1353/asa.2018.0035. Accessed 5 May 2020.
Iles, Alastair. “Repairing the Broken Earth: NK Jemisin on race and environment in
transitions.” Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, vol. 7, no. 26, 2019.
doi:10.1525/elementa.364. Accessed 12 May 2020.
Ingwersen, Moritz. “Geological Insurrections: Politics of Planetary Weirding from China
Miéville to N. K. Jemisin,” Spaces and Fictions of The Weird And The Fantastic.
Edited by Greve, Julius, and Florian Zappe. Palgrave Macmillan US, 2019, pp. 73-92.
doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-28116-8_6. Accessed 4 April 2020.
Jemisin, N.K. The Fifth Season. Kindle ed., Orbit, 2015.
---. The Obelisk Gate. Kindle ed., Orbit, 2016.
---. The Stone Sky. Kindle ed., Orbit, 2017.
Kaur, Harmeet. “The coronavirus pandemic is making Earth vibrate less.” CNN, 2 April 2020,
edition.cnn.com/2020/04/02/world/coronavirus-earth-seismic-noise-scn-
trnd/index.html. Accessed 25 April 2020.
Kenney, Martha. “Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Chthulhucene. Donna Haraway in
conversation with Martha Kenney.” Art in the Anthropocene: Encounters Among
Aesthetics, Politics, Environments and Epistemologies, 2015, pp. 255-269.
Latour, Bruno. We Have Never Been Modern. Kindle ed., Harvard University Press, 2012.
---. "Agency at the Time of the Anthropocene." New literary history, vol. 45, no. 1, 2014,
pp. 1-18. doi:10.1353/nlh.2014.0003. Accessed 5 May 2020.
---. Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime. John Wiley & Sons, 2017.
Law, John. “Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics.” version of 25th April 2007,
www. heterogeneities. net/publications/Law2007ANTandMaterialSemiotics.pdf.
Accessed 27 May 2020.
Stenberg 66
Lovelock, James. The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth is Fighting Back - and How We Can
Still Save Humanity. Penguin, 2007.
Margulis, Lynn. Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution. Phoenix, 2001.
Messimer, MaryKate Eileen. Gender in Apocalyptic California: The Ecological Frontier.
Diss. University of Arkansas, 2019.
Murphey, Kathleen. “Science Fiction/Fantasy Takes on Slavery: NK Jemisin and Tomi
Adeyemi.” Pennsylvania Literary Journal, vol. 10, no. 3, 2018, pp. 106-115.
Nayar, Pramod K. Posthumanism. Polity Press, 2014.
Suvin, Darko. Metamorphoses of Science Fiction: On the Poetics and History of a Literary
Genre. Yale University Press, 1979.
Paulson, Steve. “A Not So Distant Future in the 'Broken Earth' Trilogy.” To the Best of Our
Knowledge, 23 December 2017, www.ttbook.org/interview/not-so-distant-future-
broken-earth-trilogy. Accessed 15 May 2020.
Storrow, Benjamin. “Why CO2 Isn’t Falling More During A Global Lockdown.” Scientific
American, 24 April 2020, www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-co2-isnt-falling-
more-during-a-global-lockdown/. Accessed 15 May 2020.
Trexler, Adam. Anthropocene Fictions: The Novel in a Time of Climate Change. University
of Virginia Press, 2015.
VanderMeer, Ann, and VanderMeer, Jeff, eds. The New Weird. Tachyon Publications, 2008.
Walter, Marvin John. “The Human and its Others: A Posthumanist Reading of Tomi
Adeyemi’s Children of Blood and Bone and N.K. Jemisin’s The Fifth Season.” Gender
Forum Journal, no. 73, 2019, pp. 2-25.
Womack, Ytasha. Afrofuturism: The World of Black Sci-Fi and Fantasy Culture. Chicago
Review Press, 2013.
---. “1816, The Year Without a Summer.” In Our Time. BBC Radio 4, London. 21 April 2016.
Stenberg 67
Radio. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b077j4yv. Accessed 25 April 2020.