The Dream

Due to the constantly shifting and contradicting world which succeeds the presumed death of Runciter, Joe Chip is driven to question whether he is really alive (and by extension what it means to be dead), which culminates in a struggle to reconcile man’s mortality with his will to go on.  Receiving mixed signals from the bathroom graffiti which reads “ALL OF YOU ARE DEAD.  I AM ALIVE,” and the television ad where Runciter states “Of course, I’m dead,” Joe is left to resolve how these two opposing statements could both possibly exist (129, 135). The only hypothesis that he can propose—which seemingly comes to him by divine inspiration—is that the ad was a mistake and that “Runciter had not died: They had died” (136).  Although he does settle the paradox with this theory, he also makes a certain assumption about his environment: he still holds onto the idea that the reality around him conforms to all principles of logic, even though this does not appear to be the case when examining the actualities within the aforementioned environment.  Perhaps like the absurd surroundings, Reason is regressing and losing its grip on the world.

If Joe is to accept his hypothesis as veracious, then he must also suffer its implications.  In recognizing himself as dead, Joe tries to endure the pain by splitting himself into two: the body and the soul.  Although he confesses that his body may be dead and withered like Wendy’s, he hopes his soul “out of the nest the bird, flown elsewhere” (139).  An optimistic yet tragic appeal, while this approach does fall in line with the formerly presented novum of half-life, it still produces the harsh truth that Joe’s present world is an inauthentic ruse.  Then, the question I pose is this: Why does Joe continue on if he has already accepted his death?  Is it to try and escape his current situation and return back to the familiar?  Is he trapped in a deceiving nightmare and forced to proceed?  Or is there something else at play?

Mind Games

        Seriously. What's up. These characters are stuck in a "going-out-of-existence" and "coming-into-existence," two terms that look like they've come straight out of Heidegger's Being and Time (112). Spanish talks about being "moved [...] into another world" and then "restored" to their "rightful universe" when Pat stunts her mental powers (60). Philip K Dick is the only science fiction writer I've encountered who has made me even more confused than I was at the beginning. I believe that it's too early in the game to make any calls about what's actually going on here. However, I do have a feeling that Pat's powers have something to do with this.

        On a more thematic note, both responsibility and aging have a significance in chapters 5-8. Before the incident, Runciter acknowledges the "irreversible burden on responsibility and age" which is another way of saying only two things are certain: death and taxes (63). After taking command of the squad, Joe suggests that they "blame [the incident] on Runciter" because he lead them to Luna and on page 96, it says that he feels angry at the fact that this may have been his own fault. Joe's lack of responsibility is evident in both this and his financial instability. Not once does he pay for himself throughout these four chapters. Joe also claims to be "a positive-thinking; powerful man" who "worked his way step by step to the top" (102). However, it is quite clear through his financial problems and inability to take responsibility that he is none of those things. He can talk the talk, but he can't walk the walk. He shows utter disrespect towards Runciter by claiming to be the heir of his business while being nothing more than lazy and irresponsible.

Human Cyborg

Hey guys I just saw this and thought it was interesting and also pertained to some discussions we've had in class.  Take a look if you're interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clIiP1H3Opw&spfreload=10

Femme Fatale

Sorry this is late.  I was sending important emails and eating brownies. Anyways, for those of you that read “We Can Remember It for You Wholesale," this story’s world feels very similar.  They use many of the same terms, like poscreds for their currency and Luna and Terra for Moon and Earth, respectively.  However, there is a major difference between the two stories so far that I think is worth noting: the presence of female characters.  Now, I’m not talking just about their fundamental existence, but their presence, as in how the reader feels about the way they are characterized.  Quail’s wife, an ordinary, naggy woman, is nothing special, and it doesn’t even upset him when she walks out on him; however, Pat, the female lead so far in Ubik, creates an atmosphere of haunting dominance with her beauty, intelligence, and ‘talent’.  There is a cold determination and confidence about her that is reminiscent of Rachel Rosen in Androids, and the male characters of Ubik are wary of the power they sense the women wield.

            In the scene in Joe’s apartment, Pat is in total control.  Dick writes that she “continued unperturbedly unbuttoning her blouse,” (32) and uses her attractiveness to get what she wants out of Joe.  I think the word ‘unperturbedly’ fits perfectly with Pat and her stone-cold dominating persona, and that’s what so far makes her feel so menacing to me.  She has tons of cash, a talent that is off the charts, and the looks to match.  All the makings of a femme fatale.

            So how do you all believe Pat’s role throughout the novel will play out?  Do you think she will use her unique powers for good or evil?  Is she a young, rebellious teen acting on impulse, or a mature adult ready to make her mark?

            “We Can Remember it for You Wholesale” chronicles a man’s experience with a company called “Rekal” that offers its clients the ability to have false memories of their fantasies put into their heads. In this story, PKD addresses many of science fictions most intriguing questions, and one theme that this story deals with a lot is a man’s search to find what is genuine, and what is artificial (similar to the theme addressed in PKD’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?). Much like what is seen in Electric Sheep, the reader really has no clues as to who or what to believe, and the proverbial rug is constantly pulled out from under you, as PKD loves to do so much. This technique brings a lot of skepticism to this science fiction world, which leads to a lot of uncertainty toward the trustworthiness of the technology in this world.

            One of the most interesting parts of this short story is when the main character, Douglas Quail goes to the psychiatrist who tells him about his deepest, most intense, subconscious desire so that this memory can be implanted in his brain. The dream that they find, is that as a young boy, a spacecraft lands so that it is seen by only him, and a group of very small alien creatures come out. They tell him that they have come to invade but they are so blown away by his kindness and mercy that they decide not to invade while he is still living, thus making him the only thing preventing the earth from destruction. This dream provides a lot of insight to human nature, namely how we want to be perceived, and this story seems to suggest that while are deepest desires are to protect the greater good, it comes from a place of narcissism and a desire for glory.

Here is a link to the trailer for the 1990 film Total Recall, which is based off this story. It's wildly entertaining and totally ridiculous. I especially like the part where Arnold Schwarzenegger takes a robotic old woman head off of his own head and then throws it at a group of people as it proceeds to explode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFMLGEHdIjE

Man or Machine?

William Gibson’s “Burning Chrome” details the story of two professional hackers who break in and steal money from a high profile criminal known as Chrome. The story presents some dystopian elements of future crime and ambition, but most importantly, blurs the distinction between the natural and virtual world. At the onset, Automatic Jack notes that he “knew every chip in Bobby’s simulator by heart” (179). This is the first instance of a dichotomy that runs throughout the course of the story, namely the tension between what is human and what is manufactured. The heart, one of the lasting symbols of love and passion, is used as a metaphor to describe a mechanic simulator. In fact, an overarching theme in this story focuses on the idea of love and loss. Both hackers allowed for emotion to enter their heist in the form of Rikki Wildside. Rikki motivates them to complete their goal, but after the mission is accomplished, she leaves and goes to Hollywood. For someone as mechanical as the character Bobby, his love and loss of Rikki proves to be genuinely painful for him, which further highlights the hazy division of humanity and technology.

Another universal theme in this work involves the consuming nature of technology. Besides the matrix, which serves as a virtual representation of the digital world, a practice known as “simstim” appears as a popular activity in this society. Rikki “spends hours jacked into unit” as she prefers to live the experiences of another person’s life before her own (195). Unlike the empathy box used to practice Mercerism in “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” which shows that humans need to embrace technology, this practice appears somewhat as an alarm that as technology advances, we must resist the desire to let it overtake the aspects of our lives that make us human. All in all, what do you think Gibson is trying to say about the growth of technology? Do we lose some aspects of ourselves on account of “cyberspace?” Is technology necessarily bad for humanity?

140 Characters or Less (x47)

What immediately strikes the reader about Jennifer Egan’s “Black Box” is her highly unusual style of writing.  Most notably, the story was released as a series of 47 tweets via the New Yorker’s Fiction Twitter feed.  This may seem an odd choice at first, but there is some significance to Egan’s use of Twitter here that works very well with her story.  In it, the unnamed central character is some sort of American intelligence agent tasked with gathering information on a violent man, her “Designated Mate,” who seemingly poses a threat to the U.S.  The way Egan presents her story through tweets goes along with the whole spy genre in a very interesting way.  The reader is given bits of information in packets of 140 characters or fewer that contain rather tense language, which makes the story resemble the type of communication one would expect from a spy.  Instead of simply writing “Black Box” in a more traditional style, this was a unique way for Egan to engage the reader while using the format of Twitter to her advantage in mirroring the spy theme of her story. 

Another noteworthy aspect of Egan’s writing style is her choice to use the 2^nd person voice coupled with hypothetical speech.  The way in which this played out was very interesting.  While the text was littered with words like “if,” “may,” and “should,” Egan nonetheless is able to construct a concrete narrative around her main character.  Though they are somewhat limited, there are a background story and a sense of emotion from the unnamed female character.  This, combined with the fact that the story is written like an instruction manual, makes for a very strange read.  I had trouble understanding why Egan wrote the story as a series of hypotheticals, so here is the question I will leave you with:  Is there any meaning to be found in Egan’s decision to tell “Black Box” this way?  Why not just write it straightforwardly using past tense and first or third person?

Here is an interesting article that offers an opinion on the use of Twitter to disseminate works of literature:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2012/may/25/twitter-feed-clunky-delivery

Would You Walk Away?

At first glance, the city of Omelas appears to be a sort of Utopian society.  Everyone appears to be happy and enjoying life, and they are repeatedly described as joyous throughout the story.  It strikes me as a very Utopian-socialist sort of society, with no real class system, no leaders, and very few rules or regulations.  LeGuin notes, however, that they are not naïve and simple, but “mature, intelligent, passionate adults whose lives were not wretched.”(147)  Then, slowly, this façade seems to unravel, concluding with the little child locked in the basement.  This beaten, broken down child is forced to bear fear, despair, and every other negative emotion so that all of the rest of the people of Omelas can be happy. 

And yet, most of the society refuses to really acknowledge or react to this oppression.  Rather, they convince themselves that, for this child, it is for the best to simply abandon it because it could never fit into their society.  Most of these people have just accepted that this is the way things will be, that this one child must take the fall for them all.  They have fallen into the trap of their “perfect” society and are afraid of change, simply accepting that nothing can be done. 

The people of Omelas represent most of humanity today.  They are willing to accept some horrible oppression in their society because it is easy.  In our world, there are thousands of people suffering from oppression just like the child in the story, including women and Christians in the Middle East, homosexuals, and others. Like the people of Omelas, we often choose to ignore this because it is easier than trying to fix it.  The ones that walk away are the only ones who take the harder path, refusing to conform to a society based on oppression.  They will likely live a hard life, but did they go far enough?  Rather than simply walking away and abandoning the society, should they have freed the poor abandoned child, or was it better that he suffer to spare the rest of society?  They have clearly done something, and refused to simply ignore the problem, but did they do enough to help solve it?

In Which Women are Likened to Rodents ...

              An opossum is considered by many to be nothing more than a dirty, scavenging rat. Ruth Parsons in Tiptree, Jr.'s The Women Men Don't See compares herself, and all women by extension, to this large rodent. Mrs. Parsons says that "What women do is survive. We live by ones and twos in the chinks of your world-machine." (271). This is a pretty clear statement on the condition of women and the roles they play in society, and while those roles may appear to have evolved over time, Mrs. Parsons feels that women are a "toothless world", able to drone on and on about "women's lib", but not really able to do anything to improve their condition. The Parsons are only two in number - Ruth and Althea - like the opossums Mrs. Parsons likens women to. There is no man in her life, and that seems to be preferable to her. She later implies that women have no brighter future to hope for - that they are merely present in a man's world, or "just part of the battlefield." Her view on the role of women leads her to express her desire to "go away".
             
             Convinced that the status quo will only change if men see fit to change it, she would rather just leave everything behind than try to make a difference. Mrs. Parsons has her wish granted in the end when she strikes a deal with a group of strange extraterrestrial beings. She and her daughter are, presumably, whisked away to live out the rest of their lives on some alien planet. We've seen this idea of leaving Earth in order to escape tragedy and find a fresh start on another planet come up before in some of Bradbury's stories. In one of them, Spender is so thoroughly disgusted with Earth that he'd rather live out the rest of his days on Mars. Is it worth trying to make significant changes in our lifetime or is the world such a hopeless place that it might be simpler to pack up and leave it all behind?

Martian Morphing

In Ray Bradbury’s “The Martian” we meet an elderly couple that’s moved to Mars “to enjoy [their] old age in peace” and to “forget [their deceased son Tom] and everything on Earth” (Bradbury 182). However, this objective soon becomes difficult to accomplish, as the couple comes across a Martian who takes on the appearance of Tom and assumes his role in the family. As we saw in “The Third Expedition,” people on Mars find it incredibly difficult to separate themselves from their existence on Earth. And yet again, this doesn't end well.

LaFarge and his wife effectively recreate their life on Earth using the Martian. Although LaFarge initially questions the Martian, he eventually accepts it and even appreciates its presence. The Martian dines with the family and joins them on a trip to town, effectively filling the void in their lives left by the loss of their son. However, it later becomes evident that the Martian has the same effect on all those it comes across: one family views him as Lavinia, their late daughter, and he’s seen as a criminal by another. When he becomes surrounded by nearly every townsmen, he eventually melts into a pile of wax with several body parts mimicking those of the people he was modeling.

It’s the people’s inabilities to distance themselves from their pasts and from life on Earth that leads to the death of the Martian. Overwhelmed by the amount of people surrounding him and the necessity to appear as a significant dead person to each, the Martian literally suffers a meltdown. And although the parallel is not as obvious as it was in “The Moon Be Still as Bright,” there is a comparison to be drawn between this occurrence and some instances in history. Our inability to move away from our own way of life ultimately proves destructive for whoever we come across. We project our own values on people of different cultures despite an obvious incompatibility, and grow frustrated when it doesn't succeed. A policy of assimilation or annihilation had often been the course of action during the days of colonization; however, assimilation was too difficult for many as deeply ingrained cultural traditions and different customs often prevented a simple transition. This more than often led to miserable lives for the indigenous people or their complete destruction. The Martian’s utter collapse at the end of the short story could serve as a prominent example of the difficulty one could have conforming to the societal expectations of a different people. So I think it's important to ask ourselves: does our desire for familiarity override our capacity for openness to the unknown? Could we somehow manage to integrate ourselves to something new while preserving both our own identity and that of novel?

Love Trumps Logic in All Places

            “Where are you going?”  We have all asked and been asked this harmless question at one point or another.  Nevertheless, when Edward Black asks his brother, John Black, “where are you going,” (62) the common and familiar phrase transforms into an extraordinary, alien, and quite scary inquest.  Through Edward’s question in the final scene, Ray Bradbury explores the themes of deception, discipline, and death in “The Third Expedition” while trying to understand what makes us human.

            Upon arriving on Mars, the entire crew is deceived by the Martians.  One man says the town on Mars “looks like home” (42) and by nightfall each member of the crew, including the captain himself, abandon the order to remain by the ship because they all recognize a deceased loved one. 

            The loved ones are really just disguised Martians.  But because the feeling of love trumps logic for humans even on extraterrestrial planets, as witnessed earlier in Interstellar and this short story, the men abandon their plan and have no clue where they are actually going.  Only is it too late that Captain Black logically thinks and recognizes the Martian plan.  Because of the free will that each man possesses and the love each feels, the Martians were able to defend their territory and kill off the humans. 

I think that fear, failure, impulsive actions, free will, and love are necessary traits that make us human.  Although not always ideal, these traits have been elements of human existence throughout time.  As the world changes and technology advances, do you think that we should modify or change some of these human characteristics?  If we need to keep these human traits, how can we resolve the many issues that humanity faces?  If we need change, how much is needed before we lose our humanness?