Skip to content

Espionage and Morality: The Arm of the Starfish

16
Share

Espionage and Morality: The Arm of the Starfish

Home / Espionage and Morality: The Arm of the Starfish
Featured Essays Madeleine L'Engle

Espionage and Morality: The Arm of the Starfish

By

Published on January 5, 2012

16
Share

After playing with coming of age stories, science fiction, and warm family tales for young adults, for her next book, The Arm of the Starfish, author Madeleine L’Engle decided to try a new type of story, a thriller combining espionage and some science fiction elements, featuring characters from her by then wildly successful A Wrinkle in Time. In yet another switch, her protagonist, instead of a misunderstood girl, is a misunderstanding boy.

As a standalone book, it almost works. Unfortunately, although it can be read alone, The Arm of the Starfish is not quite a standalone book, as it features two of the characters from A Wrinkle in Time and its direct sequel, A Wind in the Door. Starfish, however, appeared in 1965—three years after Wrinkle and eight years before Door. Although this decision to write books out of order gave L’Engle several creative opportunities, it would also restrict her in later books, and, as we’ve been chatting in comments, create havoc with the between-books timelines.

The basic plot first: Adam Eddington, a budding marine biologist has just gotten the summer job of his dreams: the chance to study and work with starfish on a small island off the coast of Portugal with one of the greatest scientists in the field, Dr. Calvin O’Keefe. While waiting to board his plane, he meets a beautiful young woman named Kali (the name would be a giveaway to anyone but Adam) and finds himself plunged into an international conspiracy of sorts, complete with priests without eyebrows, the U.S. Embassy, kidnapping, and starfish.

The starfish part contains the book’s sole venture into science fiction, and it’s also where L’Engle, for the first time, starts heading into questionable scientific territory. Not with the basic facts: starfish, as she correctly notes, are within a phylum, Echinodermata, relatively closely related to the phylum containing humans, Chordata. Going much more beyond that to imply that starfish and humans have a close genetic relationship is probably too much, but not too much for a science fiction text. Also, some (not all) starfish can regenerate arms, an ability probably evolved as an adaptation against predators: losing an arm to a fish is not as big of a problem if you can grow it back.

But it’s what the humans are doing with this ability that causes the problems. Dr. O’Keefe has somehow managed to transfer this regeneration ability from starfish to humans, using it to repair major injuries. So far, standard science fiction, but L’Engle goes a bit further. First, although Dr. O’Keefe is presented as an ethical scientist, he is conducting medical experiments with the regeneration technology on humans, without the assistance or knowledge of any other medical professionals. Most of his patients are the cheerful, more primitive, and—this is important—dirt poor peasants of the half-African/half-Portuguese island he and his family live on, and these experiments are done secretly and completely outside of a hospital setting. In any other book, Dr. O’Keefe would be presented as the villain, or at the very least as a decidedly grey figure playing with forces outside of his control.

I say this, because along with conducting medical experiments on impoverished villagers, Dr. O’Keefe is also assuring us that if this technology gets into the “wrong hands” (said hands mostly belonging to Soviets or Chinese) it could be extremely dangerous, on a level with the atom bomb. Just why is left fairly ambiguous, but a glimpse or two of deformed critters in the lab suggest that those evil Commies are planning to create armies of hideously deformed humans. Some vague statements about well intentioned drugs causing fetal abnormalities and miscarriages (something that really did happen) are also mentioned. Which therefore means that the technology must be kept ultra secret and kept from the Commies at all cost.

Long term readers of my posts will recognize the return of a sore point with me: the idea that knowledge of whatever has to be concealed because humanity, or certain parts of humanity, can’t handle it. And worse is what’s being concealed here. Dr. O’Keefe and Adam speak vaguely of the potential for misuse—but this is a treatment to regrow arms and legs, developed as the Vietnam War was ongoing and within living memory of World War II. And, if this is so dangerous, why on earth is the supposedly ethical Dr. O’Keefe working with this at all, much less experimenting on villagers?

(I’m also going to tiptoe past the book’s troubling suggestion that the deformed animals are the ones deliberately mutilated by humans, while the normal, healed animals are those accidentally injured, coupled as these observations are with the suggestion that the fat spider look of the chief villain was caused by his choices in life, and Canon Tallis lost his eyebrows after watching the torture of others.)

In any case, a conveniently evil millionaire, Typhon Cutter, is after the technology, which oddly enough he plans to sell to the Chinese instead of to, say, Pfizer, despite supposed financial motivations. Adam—possibly because he senses one or two of Dr. O’Keefe’s ethical issues here—has a hard time determining what is going on, and who he should support; these passages, dealing with ethics and choices, are among the better in the book, which also provides plenty of intrigue and even a few action scenes, rare in most of L’Engle’s work. And I did find that one or two sentences in the book filled me with a warm or longing nostalgia. (Including, sadly, Adam’s truthful comment that airline food at the time was actually edible, hard though that is to believe now.)

But as I noted, this is also the first book of a new four book series, and a sort of sequel to her previous novel. Granted that L’Engle did not have a new series in mind when she wrote it (or even an old series; she would not write the direct sequel to A Wrinkle in Time for several more years) and granted that the two characters from A Wrinkle in Time play only supporting roles, I am still unable to read this book outside that series, which brings me to the next problem.

Meg.

Meg Murry O’Keefe is a decidedly minor character in this book. Always called Mrs. O’Keefe, she is calm, reassuring, intent, focused on mothering her children, a near clone of Mrs. Austin in the Austin books, serene and capable.

And all wrong for Meg Murry.

Let’s start with the first problem: although Calvin and both of her parents have earned their doctorates (and we will later find that her twin brothers Sandy and Dennys earn advanced degrees), Meg has not, although she “sometimes assists” her husband with his mathematics. Now, let me be clear: I have no problems with a woman choosing family and mothering over a career in academia or elsewhere, and I can readily understand that someone like Meg, with her difficulties in high school, might not be eager to continue on for an advanced degree.

I can also understand that some people might want to embrace the ordinary after living the extraordinary, and that Meg, above all, wanted to fit in to her small town. And I am well aware of the institutional difficulties (discussed in the comments in the A Wrinkle in Time post) that faced women, and particularly married women, attempting to enter careers in the sciences in the 1960s. Even married women with advanced degrees were strongly encouraged to stay at home and focus on childrearing, or blocked from earning tenure or advanced positions because of their gender, and Meg Murry O’Keefe reflects these realities.

But it still feels all wrong. This is, after all, Meg, a certifiable math genius, whose problems in school stemmed from knowing far, far too much about math. (And although yes, marine biologists use math regularly, it’s rarely the sort of advanced math we’re told Meg revels in.) And this is Meg, who has travelled to various worlds and was willing to go back to Camazotz to rescue a brother. And far from fitting in to her small town, she and her husband have taken their children to various parts of the world, placing Meg in something between the ordinary life she may have craved and the extraordinary life she seemed to be heading for.

As I’ve noted, L’Engle had no difficulty creating, even in the 1940s and 1950s, portraits of talented, career oriented women. In Dr. Murry she even showed that woman combining a career with motherhood—single motherhood at that. But in this book, she seems to have retreated back to her depictions of the Austin books: a woman can have a career or motherhood, not both—this as she in her own life was combining both.

But the career issue is only a minor one. The real issue is, what happened to Meg? And by this I mean the angry, frustrated, impatient girl of both Wrinkle and Wind in the Door, softened only slightly in A Swiftly Tilting Planet? How has she shifted into this image of serenity and patience and acceptance? I grant that people can change as they grow from teenager to adult, but I see nothing of Meg in this woman. Indeed, in this book, the generally confident, competent Calvin is the one expressing doubts and showing occasional impatience. It’s particularly odd given that eight years after this book, L’Engle was able to recreate that angry Meg in A Wind in the Door.

If not for the names of her children—Charles, Sandy, Dennis, all named for her brothers—and the fact that a later book confirms that yes, she really is the Meg Murry from A Wrinkle in Time, and that her son Charles has apparently inherited some of the family’s abilities with ESP, I would almost assume that Calvin O’Keefe had married another woman in college.

Which brings me to the issue of Poly. (Who will later become Polly, but is Poly in this book.)

I’ll just go ahead and note that of L’Engle’s three major teenage heroines – Vicky, Meg, and Poly – Poly is hands down my least favorite. It’s not difficult to see why. Vicky, as annoying as she can be and often is, still has very real, understandable issues and doubts, about her intelligence and looks and place in the world. Meg, with her anger and impatience and fish out of water feelings, is also someone I can identify with. They are characters whose flaws and self-esteem issues make sense, who readers can identify with. Their worldviews correctly reflect their relatively sheltered backgrounds.

Not so much with Poly, who comes from a loving, supportive family, has travelled widely, speaks at least seven languages fluently, at the age of twelve is already competent enough to have spent years working in a major marine biology research lab and gain enough technical knowledge from this to be a worthy kidnap victim. This sort of character can be handled in a couple of ways. You can make her simply amazingly self-confident, competent and awesome (i.e. Sophy in Georgette Heyer’s eponymous novel, The Grand Sophy). You can show her as a person of many worlds, but never comfortable in any, with self-esteem problems stemming from an awareness of not really belonging.

Or, you can fail to do either, creating a character whose only flaws seem to be occasional tactlessness (more in later books) and a tendency to dissolve into tears, who somehow pretty much rarely manages to be useful or awesome.

As in this book, where Poly’s chief accomplishments include getting kidnapped, getting jealous for no particular reason, and flipping out when her father (finally!) decides to do something ethical. She does manage to provide Adam with a convenient syringe/knife filled with a strong narcotic, and her insistence that he carry it later proves useful enough to allow me to sort of avoid the nagging question of just how a 12 year old got a hold of this. It does not help that, as in A Wrinkle in Time, L’Engle uses infantilizing language to describe Poly and the older Kali, but not Adam or Charles.

And one final problem, alluded to in the comments of A Wrinkle in Time:

This book contains no hint that two of its major adult characters traveled through time and space.

This began L’Engle’s problematic pattern of frequently treating each book as if the previous one never happened. On the one hand, this does make it considerably easier to read each novel as a stand alone work, since no knowledge of previous books is ever necessary.But on the other hand, this seems to cheat her characters, particularly in the O’Keefe series, and that perhaps is why I am less fond of this series than the Austin and Murry books.


Mari Ness once had the unpleasant experience of spending several hours moving starfish to fresh tanks, which perhaps explains her lack of enthusiasm for echinoderms in general. She lives in central Florida.

About the Author

Mari Ness

Author

Mari Ness spent much of her life wandering the world and reading. This, naturally, trained her to do just one thing: write. Her short fiction and poetry have appeared in numerous print and online publications, including Clarkesworld Magazine, Apex Magazine, Daily Science Fiction, Strange Horizons and Fantasy Magazine.  She also has a weekly blog at Tor.com, where she chats about classic works of children’s fantasy and science fiction.  She lives in central Florida, with a scraggly rose garden, large trees harboring demented squirrels, and two adorable cats. She can be contacted at mari_ness at hotmail.com. Mari Ness spent much of her life wandering the world and reading. This, naturally, trained her to do just one thing: write. Her short fiction and poetry have appeared in numerous print and online publications, including Clarkesworld Magazine, Apex Magazine, Daily Science Fiction, Strange Horizons and Fantasy Magazine.  She also has a weekly blog at Tor.com, where she chats about classic works of children’s fantasy and science fiction.  She lives in central Florida, with a scraggly rose garden, large trees harboring demented squirrels, and two adorable cats. She can be contacted at mari_ness at hotmail.com.
Learn More About Mari
Subscribe
Notify of
Avatar


16 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Avatar
13 years ago

I found Adam very annoying- especially when compared to his more saintly characterization in Ring of Endless Light. If some attractive stranger came up to the 17-year old me in an airport, telling me a difficult-to-believe tale, why would I believe her, rather than my mentor of many years? (Clearly, Adam was thinking with a part of his anatomy not mentioned in many children’s books!)

Avatar
Tom Galloway
13 years ago

I agree completely that grown-up Meg is for all intents and purposes a pod person version of AWIT Meg, but consider that grown-up Calvin’s also a case of “He’s a what? now?”. Namely, AWIT very specifically made it clear that Calvin’s gift was communication, and that he was nothing special in math/science. And this leads to him becoming a worldclass marine biologist how exactly? As opposed to a teacher, diplomat, litagator, ad exec, etc. where his gift would actually be useful for the primary purpose of the profession (yeah, biologists have to communicate their work, but the work’s primary).

Avatar
Lsana
13 years ago

Arm of the Starfish was the last L’Engle book I read. I’d previously read Acceptable Time, assuming it was part of the Murray saga, without any clue that there were earlier books about Polly’s previous adventures. I thought Acceptable Time did a much better job of explaining why Meg had never tried to get her PhD in math, and though I was a bit disappointed about that, I accepted Mrs. Murray’s explanation that Meg didn’t owe it to me or anyone else. Because of that, actually seeing her here didn’t bother me all that much.

So this book didn’t really bother me, but it didn’t impress me either, certainly not enough to find the rest of the O’Keefe books. None of the characters did all that much for me, and the whole “it regenerates limbs but only on good things not on bad things like sharks” just made me roll my eyes.

Oh, and one more comment: don’t assume that Calvin wouldn’t need some serious upper level math in this research. Speaking as an algebraist/graph theorist who stumbled into biological research almost by accident, I suspect that Meg could find more than enough advanced math to keep her happy.

Avatar
between4walls
13 years ago

I thought that (despite the selling-to-China issue) the threat was less from a deformed communist army than from unethical use of the technology for monetary gain. Cutter wants to sell it for the money, the dilution of antibiotics for profit in Graham Greene’s “The Third Man” is metaphor through which the risk is explained to Adam, and the mutilations started when Calvin offered to pay for animal test subjects.

This book dovetails interestingly with the imo superior The Young Unicorns, in which the misuse of medical tech is motivated by megalomania rather than greed, and which features a less morally compromised but, by comparison, dangerously naive researcher.

Avatar
Lsana
13 years ago

Since my previous comment, it’s occurred to me that there is another good reason why Meg wouldn’t have gone on in academia. In addition to her issues with knowing too much, there’s also the fact that she refused to play the game. The game that says when your teacher is droning on and on about somethign you already know, you scribble diligently in your notebook, pretending to be taking notes when you’re actually doodling or writing a sci-fi story. The game that says when your teacher is full of BS, you plaster the “that is the most fascinating thing I’ve ever heard” expression on your face and and complain to your friends later. You be a good girl and do as your told.

That game doesn’t go away in grad school; in fact, it gets worse. You do what your advisor tells you, focus on putting out publications that people may or may not read, and make whatever changes to your thesis your committee wants whether or not they make sense. I can easily imagine Meg taking one look at all that and telling them to shove it.

@5,

There’s more abstract and higher mathematics in biology than you might think. I’m not talking statistics but rather graph theory, formal grammars, abstract algebra, and the like. Right now, the field of Mathematical and Computational Biology is growing incredibly quickly. Now, admittedly when this book was published the idea of mathematical biology barely existed, but also when this book was published, no one had actually figured out how to regenerate human limbs using starfish either. I can easily see that requiring knowledge of starfish DNA and RNA and the interactions of the genes and proteins responsible for the regeneration. The math behind that is incredibly complex and could be an interesting challenge for someone of Meg’s caliber.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

P.S. My sympathies on the Matlab. I hate Matlab.

Avatar
between4walls
13 years ago

@maricats- My comment was unclear. The animals didn’t regenerate differently based on being purchased, but the maiming of animals by humans began when Calvin offered to pay for test subjects, so people started mutilating animals in order to sell them to him. So Calvin wound up accidentally incentivizing cruelty by purchasing the test subjects.

Insofar as it’s a religious allegory and Adam Falls, I think L’Engle throughout the book is playing with all the usual options for what the original sin is. Greed, sex, knowledge (which leads to the knowledge-has-to-be-concealed motif you mentioned), and finally faithlessness or faith in the wrong things or people, which causes the catastrophe when Kali trusts her father and Adams trusts Kali.

The unscientific aspect of the regeneration technology can be read as part of the allegory, the fruit in the Garden of Eden able to grant eternal life or godlike knowledge or death and suffering. It’s annoyingly unrealistic, though, and not actually necessary to the story.

The fact that American businessman Typhoon Cutter has enough influence in fascist, NATO-member Portugal to get away with murder complicates the Cold War aspect.

Avatar
ErikaRS
13 years ago

The comments about Calvin got me thinking. On the one hand, I think the comment that he was a marine biologist more because of L’Engle’s interest in the subject than because it being fitting seems reasonable.

On the other hand, the reminder that his gift was communication got me thinking. Calvin is a good communicator, handsome, popular, and, for some reason unknown to Meg, falls for her warts and all. Especially if you’ve read _Two Part Invention_, this sounds a lot like Hugh Franklin, L’Engle’s husband. So maybe pushing Calvin away from a role where the use for his communication talents were more obviously useful was, in part, an attempt to make Calvin less like her husband.

Avatar
Drew Rieley
12 years ago

I have no idea what this fish or fishis are but the seem like good fish.

Avatar
Laura Moore
12 years ago

Mari,
If I remember correctly, Calvin experimented on only one human subject — the little girl who lost her finger (to a shark?) — and he only did it after much agonizing, and after consulting the tribal leader and Canon Tallis. Am I right on this?

It still may be ethically suspect, or even wrong, but he wasn’t experimenting on humans extensively, as your post suggests.

Avatar
ellid
6 years ago

I could not disagree more about this book.  I also agree about Calvin using the formula on the local village leader’s daughter (*at his own request*) being the only time I remember him using it on a human subject, which is why he’s so reluctant to use it on Kali.  He’s trying to BE ethical, for crying out loud, and avoid destroying a young woman’s life.

As for Meg…good God, *she’s not a teenager in this book,* which is set at least twenty or twenty-five years later.  She’s probably about forty, and sorry, the kind of bitter teenage angst that Meg shows in AWIT (which is already dissipating at the end of the book because of what she learned fighting IT) simply is not realistic in a woman of that age.  And yes, people *do* change and *do* switch careers and interests as they mature.  Short of a novel about Meg in college (which L’Engle never wrote), we don’t know why she didn’t go on to an advanced degree…or did she?  Please remember that her mother is a mathematician, but is routinely referred to as “Mrs. Murry.”  It was the convention in the 1960’s, and I didn’t find it at all indicative of anything but “Meg grew up, married Calvin, and took his surname.”  Then again, I read it in the early 1970’s, when calling a married woman “Mrs.” regardless of her professional life was still the norm.
 
I also have to point out that Canon Tallis simply didn’t see men tortured in Korea, he *was* tortured in Korea, which is why he lost his hair.  And all mocking aside, no, not everyone knew about the goddess Kali in the early 1960’s, so the odds that Adam would immediately twig to Kali Cutter being one of the bad guys are pretty low. 
 
As for the “why would Calvin balk at selling his formula or giving it to the Chinese,” this book was written less than twenty years after the revelations of the Nazi medical experiments (which were gruesome) and right about the time that the thalidomide scandal was becoming common knowledge.  Of course Calvin wouldn’t want to give or sell his research to anyone until it had been properly tested on humans (remember, he basically has to be begged to use it *once* on a human before Kali is attacked), let alone to a country that we were actively hostile to.  Good Lord, *it was the Cold War, not the 21st century,* so please stop projecting today’s attitudes onto a book that was written during the Johnson administration.
 
Finally…I’m sorry, but where is this praise for The Young Unicorns coming from?  It’s an enjoyable book, yes, but the so-called “gang” is so badly written it’s as if the closest Madeline L’Engle ever came to actual teenage criminals was watching West Side Story.  I mean, come on – a bunch of white boys called “The Alphabats”?  *In Morningside Heights in the late 1960’s?*  That was about the time the city was starting to crumble, and sorry, any actual gang in what was already becoming a tough, racially mixed neighborhood would have eaten the Alphabats alive in about thirty seconds, tops.   And the idea that Dave will be redeemed by getting religion (which he does, in L’Engle’s mediocre adult novel A Severed Wasp) is such a cliche that it should have been tossed decades ago.
 
 

 

Avatar
Rachel
6 years ago

Regarding Meg, as a child I found it first disappointing, then confusing, then oddly liberating that Meg did not have an advanced degree and a unique and influential career.  One of the elements of Madeline L’Engle’s writing which I appreciated as a youngster was that her characters make real as well as extraordinary choices throughout their lives.  Meg’s adult life as a mother struck me as quite in character.  In A Wrinkle In Time, she’s loving and protective of her family to the point that she’s unwilling to think rationally for much of the book.  I think her love of numbers isn’t a career-oriented sort of pursuit at all, it’s a part of her and her way of thinking.  And loving, empowering parenthood (one way of practicing the art of Naming?) may be the very highest calling in L’Engle’s stories, if you think about the themes of all her books.  Children carry the hopes and heritage as well as the spiritual strengths of their parents, but they fulfill their destinies in very ordinary human ways, generation after generation. 

Also, Calvin’s interest in Biology is present in all the books that feature him, although it’s subtle in A Wrinkle In Time.