Week 18: Finals Week
Post 82
In the novel, Neuromancer, on page 43, the following quote appears: "Home was BAMA, the Sprawl, the Boston-Atlanta Metropolitan Axis." I think that this type of city leads to interesting possibilities. As we talked about in class, it would be difficult to have a government when cities spanned several states. One person said that it would be hard to tax this type of city, but I think it would be difficult to do lots of things with this type of city. I think what makes this so interesting is that today, our states are very divided. Each is controlled under a national government, but we are also very much controlled by a state government as well. Many of the rules that we live under are state rules, and therefore each state differs. We find it odd to live and work in separate states today. Yet, imagine if our city spanned several states. Government would be difficult for these reasons in the terms that we think of government. For example, the areas of the city would be so different that its many sections would have to be taxed differently, and even things such as licenses would have to be different for separate areas of the city. Anyway, this leads us to understand better why there seems to be no government in this future world.
-Misty Dillow
Response to Post 73
Response to Post 73
I agree with Erik about what we do when we have a problem that we don't know how to fix. I think that people feel that have to kill the source of the problem instead of finding another way to fix it. I think this is why there is so much destruction and violence in the world. I also think that sometimes the only way to solve the problem is to kil it's source. To go along with the bug story, I do the same thing and that is because bugs are just a nusense to me and I want them out of the way. Maybe I am the wierd one.
--wendy walton
Post 83
"Now limbs and torso had merged,and Riviera shuddered. The head was there, the image complete. Molly's face,with smooth quicksilver drowning the eyes. Riviera and the Molly image began to couple with renewed intensity." This is a passage from Gibson's Neuromancer. This part of the book was interesting and confusing. What was confusing was how images could create other images of people and have them be so real. It amazes me to think that this sort of thing could happen in the future. The one thing that really confused me though was the way the whole thing was a show for some fancy restaurant. It scares me now to think that people can get alost anything off the internet now. What will happen in the future. Will people be able to make images like this? If this ever happened I think it would truely be scary.
--wendy walton
Response to Post 72
Post #72 raised very controversial and easily debatable issues in all society throughout the duration of time. First of all, there is no paradise. What we have is imperfect animals controlling other animals with less available power. Wether that be humans or not, the fact is the ruling is entirely out of egotistic thriving. Yet at the same time I don't feel that it would be entirely logical to have anarchy due to the fact that there would be a duration of time that would encompass extreme bloodshed. The insanity and brutality would only last until tribes were formed and the inner struggle for structure within the tribes was established. In overview I feel that a tribal society based off of an independent territorial survival process would be the most ideological means of happiness. --Jason Durbin
Post 84
The Dispossessed and the Art Market
"But all the pictures in the museum had price tickets attached to their frames. He stared at a skillfully painted nude. Her ticket read 4,000 IMU. 'That's a Fei Feite,' said a dark man appearing noiselessly at his elbow. 'We had five a week ago. Biggest thing on the art market before long. A Feite is a sure investment, sir."
'Four thousand units is the money it costs to keep two families alive for a year in this city,' Shevek said.
The man inspected him and said drawling, 'Yes, well you see, sir, that happens to be a work of art.'
'Art? A man makes art because he has to. Why was that made?'
'You're an artist, I take it,' the man said, now with open insolence.
'No, I am a man who knows shit when he sees it"' (Le Guin 209-210).
I know that I have been dealing with a lot of stuff that have dealt with art lately, but I think that as an art major I should be. I apologize for any of those out there who might think these discussions boring. I thought that this quote from The Dispossessed was really interesting, and it deals with a lot of issues that I myself have been dealing with in my own art work. Shevek is out raged to find out that art even costs anything in the first place, and he becomes even more hostile when he finds that one work of art cost as much as it would take to feed a family for a year. One can better understand why he feels this way if you read the section on pages 156-157. Here Le Guin explains that on Shevek's home planet art is taught to every one, and that it is considered an integral part of life. Also the very fact that Shevek is not accustomed to a capitalistic environment provides some basis of his misunderstanding. I also have problems with the artist just as a money maker. I agree with Shevek in some respects when he says that the artist should make art because he has too, and part of my own art work stems from that very notion that I have to make it. However I would also like to make a living at it. I mean who wouldn't like to be able to do what they love and make a decent living. I think that the best sort environment for an artist might be an Shevek's world where the artist would just make art and then put into store house and people could take it. I guess that would be ideal since money means nothing there. However I think that there is another side to it also. One needs money to survive, and to get more art materials there fore the artist must either get another job on the side or sell his or her art work. I think this distresses Shevek, but I think that I am only being pragmatic. I also liked Le Guin's discussion of art as a commodity. I guess you will never get rid of people who would like to make a buck off of an investment, but I believe that a person should buy artwork because they like it not because they think that they will get a good return on it. I guess there are instances when these two coincide, but I also think that it sad when a artist makes more money after their dead because then the art has become a rare commodity. I guess in all I can understand why Shevek got so pissed off, but I can also understand the artist as Andy Warhol did, as a business person. I guess its sort of sad, but the I think that in a way that is what Le Guin's point that money is a root for all sorts of evils. --Joshua Primm
Post 85
In the novel Neuromancer I have been constantly entertained and awed by the very creative means that Gibson describes the characters and their surroundings. I have also found it extremely lovely the way he describes the sense of light in certain situations- I think this is a very nice way to visualize scenes in the novel and come to an interesting interpretation and understanding. For example lets examine the very first line in the novel- "The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel ." This line is pure poetry at its finest. The visual interpretation I personally grasp from this carries an erie mood of being watched just like the television. But this gives the actual sky a sense of identity and more electronic or even more so human characteristics. This line could also suggest the complete encompassment of technology in the Neuromancer society and that in reality is dead for society. This becomes interesting that the narrator relates the most evidently common nature aspects like the sky- to that of electronic appliances. This just might be me personally, but this is great literature with certain areas flowing like high-tech urban prose.--
Jason Durbin
Post 86
I find it very interesting that in the future there are no laws against carrying weapons. People are allowed to carry about anything they want to and do not get into trouble. People can even rent guns or other weapons and bring them back to the store. Present day there is such a fight to get weapons off the street and out of the hands of regular citizens. Congress has been making bills to get automatic guns off the streets. In England the police do not even carry a gun, they just carry a stick. The crime rate from what I hear is very low over there too. I was wondering if the future is the way it is because weapons were allowed or if it is because of laws that were passed to get them off the streets. As crime increases more people want to buy a gun, no matter what the statistics say. Will the government be able to stop the use and selling of weapons?
--Michelle Snoke
Post 87
I do believe that the world created by William Gibson in the novel Neuromancer, maybe an semi-accurate take on were we as a society are currently moving towards. Corporate and technological take over. we live it everyday. " Cyberspace. A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators, in every nation, by
children being taught mathematical concepts...A graphic representation of data abstracted from the backs of every
computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the mind, clusters
and constellations of data. " William Gibson put it in these words but is it so fictional or disconnected from us now? Media is the best and most immediate example of the take over in our own society. Television has almost become essential for existence, try not watching television at all for six months? it has integrated itself into our daily living functions becoming almost as essential as eating, breathing. The Internet now is definetly on its way to becoming as powerful, and potent, if not more than the television. I then must ask who controls all of this Television, mass media broadcasting? not the public, and I think if we think the people control programming, we are nieve as a society. Corporations with there hundreds of conglomerate companies own all of media ranging from television to books, movies, magazines, and newspapers. We almost get the impression that millions of little diverse companies representing different aspects of people and culture make up the media "drugs" that we so instinctively consume. "Maze was the first thing he saw when he woke.
He'd go straight to the deck, not bothering to dress, and jack in.
He was cutting it. He was working. He lost track of the days.". It is all however filtered down and ends up being four or five giant companies having control of it all. With that statement, I see the world of Neuromancer slowly evolving. Increase in electronic communication, working at home, automated banking, increase in the use of credit, the Internet and its young commercial possibilities. It is all there in front of us now, the easy, efficient, relaxing life of the electronic world. I do believe it is currently controlling us as a society and will continue to increase in power in the years to come.--Tony Calzaretta
Response to Post 76
In response to post 76 about freedom, I think good points are made about the struggle for freedom. Summing it up by saying that ultimate freedom cannot be achieved without ultimate pain and struggle because of society and what it accepts. The only question raised from the post comes from a comment such as this "To me, it does not make sense to not give up something for freedom." I do think that, that statement is definetly easier said than done in our society. Or that we many times trick ourselves into believing in a false freedom, the easy freedom. Marches and group demonstrations were brought up in post 76 but what about the starting point, the individual. What if you did not have the support of twenty people, or better yet what if your family, your best friends didn't support it and would hate you if you had to live that life. Can anyone honestly say that they would give that up, that they would ultimately be alone, no one that understands, no one to turn to, isolation and rejection by everyone maybe the fear of all fears. Shevek before he had people on his side but a few, felt the impact on his family. Are people willing to sacrifice not only there lives and comfortability in society but also their children and companions lives? because people talk of freedom and being prepared to sacrifice this or that to stand behind in a large movement but how many people are willing to actually start from the bottom.---Tony Calzaretta
Response to Post 79
In response to Tony's post no. 79: Although I'm undoubtedly tap dancing on philosophical thin ice, I would respectfully assert that freedom in it's purest form is an unobtainable farce. The "freedom" of Annares prohibited ownership. The "freedom" of the United States is, in no small part, proportionate to how much money one has. In order to obtain one form of freedom, you invariably sacrifice another. One might suggest that true freedom would allow for indiscriminate murder and pillage. In this person's version of freedom, he would be free to violate the health and property of others - he would be FREE to do as he saw fit. In this reality, the poor sod that got bludgeoned and robbed by the other guy's version of freedom would, in turn, have his freedom violated. Freedom is a mighty broad term - at best, its relative only to one's individual definition. E. Hubbard
Response to Post 76
In post 76, Michelle Snoke discusses freedom and the fact that it is never safe, but worth the sacrifice. I agree with this conclusion, because without taking risks in order to obtain freedom we would not have the United States. All of us must believe that freedom involves risks. Anytime a student feels that he or she is being treated injustly by the University, they take a risk in making the complaint that they will be treated even worsely or simply ignored. Yet, in order to get your needs met, risks must be taken. Therefore, this principle can be applied to even smaller areas within the freedom category. It is also true, like she stated, that any interest group or minority is taking risk when they speak out about their views. Not only can these scenes become violent, but also these people run the risk of being ridiculed. This was also shown in the book in the several examples that she used. Therefore, I simply would like to reiterate the statement that Michelle made that indeed freedom must involved some risks.
Misty Dillow
Response to Post 76
In response to Jenny's post, I too agree that LeGuin was trying to make a point that things that are commonly looked on as perfect often have flaws too. In class we discussed the fact that LeGuin might have given this utopia some flaws to make it a more believable place, but I also believe that she was also trying to show that things that are often portrayed to be perfect have some flaws, even if they are hidden. The people of Anarres had no 'official' flaws in their way of life, but there were plenty of things that were hidden that were just as detrimental to thier society. For example, because there was no offical government the people of Anarres liked to believe that their world was above others that had governments, but the people of Anarres still had a hierarchy of power hidden in thier society.
Deidra Dame
Post 88
The world of Neuromancer is a world given up to computers. Yet, the computers don't seem to function all that well, or truly help the humans that much. On page 47, Case sees, "a sheet of newsprint went cartwheeling past the intersection. Freak winds on the East side; something to do with convection and an overlap in the domes." (Manhattan is covered with a weather dome). Artifical intelligence seems to be getting more and more power, taking over from their creators. Gibson seems to be extrapolating from our current reality. Don't get me wrong - I love computers. I'm on the Internet daily and I happily word-process, etc. However, some our dependence on computers frightens me. When the year 2000 comes along and confuses all of the computers, we may be in for some trouble simply because we've happily handed everything over to computers: our credit rating, our work, and our lives (experts believe that the year 2000 may see localized disruption of supplies, some wars break out, and unstable governments fall - and not because God came back). Sometimes, I think a case can be made that we are giving up some of what makes us human to computers - we talk to people over the computers, we turn in homework over the computer :), when it would be just as easy to do it in person. Case is addicted to computers, and I think it is easy to see that some of us are getting addicted as well.
Jennie Cisna
Response to Post 76
Michelle, I agree that freedom is worth the sacrifice; but is that because we are both Americans and we've been taught to spit that out on command? Our school system tells us to say that and we are taught to admire people who fought for freedom. Yet, is freedom really worth everything? The Civil Rights marches did help minorities - yet they still aren't equal to Whites. People don't just get humiliated, they get dead. The Russians believe that things were better under Communism, and they probably were.
Besides, how many ordinary people really believe in freedom? I've spent most of life conforming, even when I believe in something. I support my causes monetarily (through donations) but I want someone else to be the live body in the demonstrations. Freedom is a pretty word, but it isn't one that many of us will fight for.--Jenny Cisna
Post 89
I would like to open my last post up with this quote by William Gibson in relation to Neuromancer, it is directly related to the lifestyle that Case chooses to live.
"there is a tendency in our culture, in a broader sense the Western Civilization, to reject the body in favor of an idea of the spirit or the soul. [...] One could imagine a very ascetic sort of life growing out of this, where the body is ignored. This is something I've played around in my books, where people hate to be reminded sometimes that they have bodies, they find it very slow and tedious. But I've never presented that as a desirable state, always as something pathological growing out of this technology" This quote reminds me of the life an artist, or creative revolutionaries maybe. It appears to me now, that what Case does in the Matrix and the feeling he gets from it may not be so far removed from that of a Musician, or Painter. Throughout history artists in general seem to be on a path of self destruction of some sort. This self destruction may or may not be conscious to the artist because he/she may be so involved, so in love with the thing they do they cannot see what is happening to them clearly. Some common examples maybe, Charlie Parker (jazz Musician), Jimi Hendrix, Jack Keurac(writer), Jean-Michael Basquiat(Painter), or Jackson Pollock (Painter). Whether or not you want to decide if these people were plain drug/alcohol addicts and nothing more is you're decision. But just as Case could not handle the world outside the Matrix (without drugs), these artists might not have been able to handle the times when not creating, or not in a fury, not being able to handle the world outside their matrix. So is this a tragedy? on some levels most definetly, but there might also be a pay off for the art, for the creation, maybe the ones that didn't make it were just weak, or maybe they never had a choice when they got into the middle of their passions and lived them?--Tony Calzaretta
Post 90
Asimov and his The Gods Themselves plays some interesting games with his gender roles of the triads. You god the inteletuals, parentals, and the emotionals. Asimov labelled the intellectuals "he" and the emotionals "she" (pretty consistant with 1950s philosophy, even though this was published in 1972. But go with me on this one) but then he labels parentals "he" also. Interesting.
It sure does contradict the 1950s philosophy which would make the nurturing parentals "she", after all parentals are the ones who actually carry the child. But it does accomplish some things to have the gender assignments as they are. For one thing, it creates a devider between the emotionals and the rest of the triads. One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just don't belong, one of these things is not like the other, one of these things is wrong. Aww.. Sesame Street. But, The emotional is not like the others, and doesn't belong like the other two. Intelectuals have the life of learning, which is important, Parentals have the life of raising the kids, also important, but the emotionals just float around and gossip. Not much of a life at all.
Thus, Asimov has written his story. --Chris Wood
Response to Post 75
I agree with Misty. Dispossessed ends extremely well, in my opinion. Unlike, say, the handmaids tale, or Ender's Game, she brings us to the point in the story where we know everything will be finished, whether to the good or bad, but we suspect good, and doesn't over kill it, like Haidmaids, or drag it along to the point where it's a completely different story, like Ender's Game. But she also doesn't sell the ending short.
Way to go Ursula K. LeGuin. You are a super writer.--Chris Wood
Post 91
Throughout the semester, I have drawn historical parallels to science fiction. (Why stop now?)
After studying the 1800's for several days straight in preparation for a final exam, it has just occurred to me that the nineteenth century could be construed as a microcosm of science fiction themes of the twentieth century (If this doesn't work, I claim lack of sleep and/or high humidity). Nineteenth century sea travel between continents can be paralleled with space travel between planets: relatively long periods of travel time were involved, and the craft was isolated and in potential environmental peril while in transit. Without aid of the twentieth century assimilation of the "global community," the difference in cultures of the 1800's, like that between planetary cultures of SF, was more pronounced. Certainly, the theme of mistreating those who are different can be applied to the nineteenth century behavior of the British and their efforts to colonize the world, as R. Kipling's "White Man's Burden" illustrates the glib supposition of superiority the English asserted towards their conquered subjects while outlining their God-given duty to tame them (he left out the part about exploitation). As science fiction dreams up new technological concepts and ideas such as inter-stellar travel and the ansible, the Industrial Revolution gave rise to a multitude of innovations ranging from the machine gun to the railroad; innovations that, like their SF counterparts, greatly influenced the story lines of history. - E. Hubbard
Post 92
The Emphasis of the Library in Startide Rising
"Except for a few races, such as the Kanten and Ttmbrimi, the Galactic community as a whole seemed stuck in a kind of a mentality. The Library was their first and last recourse for every problem. The fact that the ancient records almost always contained something useful didn't make that approach any less repugnant to many of the wolflings of Earth, including Tom, Gillian, and their mentor, old Jacob Demwa.
Coming out of a tradition of bootstrap technology, Earth's leaders decided there were things to be gained from innovation, even this late in Galactic history. At lest it felt better to believe that. To a wolfling race, pride was an important thing." (99-100)
I thought that this quote was particularly interesting in the novelss context. Firstly I thought that it really reflected what was important to the author. As was pointed out in class the significance of the Library to the novel seems to be in tune with the fact that Brin finds knowledge and writing key. As an author and scientist himself I can't help, but feel this emphasis stems from his own bias.
What is also significant is that the Human race continues to do basic research for the Library even though it stems such a vast time already. This becomes key to the novel because if the Humans were not willing to do such research they would never have found out about Kithrups other species, the mummy or been so inventive as to rescue themselves from the Galactics. In spite of the other races simply looking at the Library as a source of information, the Humans look to expand it even further, Brin seems to suggest then that knowledge is an ever searching journey that will never be complete. In fact the entire novel focuses around this central theme, and the Niss computer asserts that it is this search for knowledge that will make these humans in particular the subject of legend that will bring universal upheaval in the future.
Brin also latter in the novel suggests that the Library is the post powerful weapon that the humans have. This is seen in the creation of the Psi-Bomb/Message. Again this seems to be in tune with Brin's interests as a writer and scientist. More over However I think that it can been also seen as relevant in the modern information age. As information becomes more and more the focus of a world wide commodity, I think that we will see more and more authors dealing with idea of information as never ending and precious. Brin has shown an interest in the world wide web in his other novels Earth come to mind particularly, and I see the emphasis of the Library in Startide Rising as a continuation of that same theme. I liked this notion, and I think that Brin does a fantastic job of incorporating this theme throughout the novel.
--Joshua Primm
Response to Post 14
Dear Erick,
In response to your post 14 on The God's Themselves, I think that you were right on. That quote that you pointed out on page 292 is essential. I agree that Asimov was doing what he felt was correct with the ending. The ending therefore wasn't really an ending. It was the point at which the crisis, that was introduced at the beginning of the novel, ended. I also agree that it was perhaps more realistic than an dramatic ending he could have included. One must acknowledge that because the ending didn't find any dramatic conclusion, that Asimov then suggests, as provided on page 292 that there will never be one ending. Even if the human universe in Asimov's novel did explode it would not the novel's end. This may be a more dramatic way in which to finish the novel, but it would still be merely a Acrisis point passed because the para-universe would still exist and thrive. If there were no humans left one might assert that a story could no longer be told, but that doesn't negate the notion that the time would not stop. Things or events would still happen, or even the lack of events happening as in Cage's music of the 50's could be seen as a sort of story. As long as there is anything or even nothing I feel that Asimov's idea of the passing of crisis works. The only way I can see that it wouldn't work is if there were always nothing, but this becomes non-point because Asimov's novel is about something. I don't know how much sense that made to you, but I assure you that I found you post made a lot of sense to me. I found it very insightful, Thanks. --Joshua Primm
[Index][Week1/5]
[Week6]
[Week7]
[Week8]
[Week9]
[Week10]
[Week11]
[Week12]
[Week13]
[Week14]
[Week15]
[Week16]
[Week17]
[Week18]
