Question on the Mount

What has bothered me the most about The Mount is figuring out what statement the novel is trying to make. Is the novel focusing on the master/slave relationship or the superior relationship humans have to animals? Or is it about something else entirely such as race or sex relations? It seems to me that the book touches on all these issues. Is there one issue, Ms. Emshwiller, that you really focused on the most or do you want the reader to decide for him/herself?

Mount Question

I was actually going to ask the question that Liz previosly asked, about Ms. Emshwiller's choice to have the first chapter come from a Hoot's point-of-view, and the rest of the story from Charley. I assume this is so the reader can relate to both sides, rather than just from the human perspective. I also noticed that there is no distinctly defined villian in the novel. Of course, the Hoots could be considered to be the "bad guys," but then again, they are not completely evil beings, as villians are usually depicted to be. I was wondering why you chose to write the novel in this way rather than have the aliens be a more evil force as they often are in other works.

Ashley

Question for Ms. Emshwiller

Could you explain why Charley is so emotionally attached to Little Master? I cannot remember any of the other mounts from the book feeling so attached to their Hoot masters. What makes Charley and Little Master's situation different? Even when given a chance to escape from Little Master's control when the two are in the wild, Charley chooses to stay with Little Master. If Charley is indeed a captive of Hoot society and culture and is unable to give up that way of life when given the opportunity, is Charley then a captive by choice or by force? This reminded me of the behavior of many victims of Stockholm Syndrome. Did you intentionally write the book this way, or was this behavior a byproduct of other compounding circumstances within the novel?

Thanks!
Meredith

Mount Question

Hello Ms. Emshwiller!
My question is about the point of view that your novel was written in. Why was the first chapter from the perspective of a Hoot and then the other chapters are all written from Charlie's perspective? Was there any reason for this other than you just wanting to write it that way?
-Liz

'Mount' Question

Hello!!!!
I was interested in what the 'Mount' might have to say about past or current master-slave (although slave isn't really the word I want but I'm having trouble thinking of the word I mean) relationships.
Throughout the story, the Hoots were constantly saying that they loved the Sams and Sues and everything that was done was done with the Sams and Sues in mind. They really were free to make their own choices and do as they pleased. But then the Hoots would punish them by putting them in prison or making them gaurds' mounts if they spoke or misbehaved, and they were kept in stalls like animals.
This just seemed to speak very loudly about past human relationships and the way we deal with one another. For instance, in the case of African American slaves before the Cival War. Is this what was intended, or was the intent more of a general exploration of human psychology during a master-slave interaction?
I was also wondering if maybe there was some hint into other areas of human psychology, like the way people behave because of how they are raised. For example, when Charlie is very resistant to go out into the woods because he enjoys the amenities and structure that his previous life provided. Most people would assume he would want freedom and to be with his family rather than to be ordered around by a child who rides on his shoulders, but he prefers this life. Is this an implication of the fact that we are creatures of habit, and gravitate towards what we have grow accustomed to? Or is there something deeper in his reactions to the new lifestyle??
Overall I really enjoyed this story because there were so many levels to it; so many different ways that it could be interpreted!!!
Amanda Schnee