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?
With regard to Glen Runciter’s wife Ella, I do not believe it is accurate to make an overarching statement about female characters in Ubik (at least this early in the novel). Glen loved his wife very much, but it is the emptiness that comes as a result of the half-life state she was put in that revolts him. Although on the surface it might seem that Ella could have some of the traits of a femme fatale, considering how coldly she speaks to her husband, this is just an effect of the cryogenic state she is in—she is slowly drifting away from who she was. Glen reflects when visiting her that “he could communicate with her . . . but he would never again see her with eyes opened; nor would her mouth move. She would not smile at his arrival. When he departed she would not cry” (11). Even a little expression would make Glen happy, revealing how desperately he feels attached to the beloved wife which he believes he lost after death. So, while given that she can be intimidating in her half-life state, I would not classify Ella as a femme fatale.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Trostl’s assessment that Ella is not a femme fatale although I think that Paul was probably not trying to assert that. He just wanted to say that Pat’s characterization as a femme fatale was unique to this story when compared to “We can Remember it for You Wholesale.”
ReplyDeleteTo answer Paul’s questions, I think that Pat is definitely an important character. Her anti-talent puts her on the edge of two conflicting factions: Runciter Associates and Hollis’s organization. The psis seem to be oppressed in this society and I feel that how Hollis’s actions relate to this fact is integral to plot of the novel. Pat will probably be confronted with the opportunity to turn her back on Runciter Associates and join psis the process. It is hard to say what kind of choice she will make at that time. She seems indifferent toward the prospect of hunting down fellow psis when she states, “It bothers me that people will feel hostile toward me. But I guess you can’t live very long without arousing hostility.“ (Pg. 632) However, her attitude might change given the opportunity to see this society from the perspective of Hollis.
Beyond the fact that Pat’s character provides the opportunity for us to see both sides of this conflict. Her characters unique power provides her the opportunity to actually do something about it. It’s hard to say what she will do in the future given how little we know about her. The problem with her being femme fatale is that her persona is presumably a front, hiding her real thoughts and intentions most of the time. Runciter comments that she appears “Resentful of the day – in fact, of every day.” (Pg. 646) Maybe her ability to undo literally every bad thing that has ever happened to her has caused her to build up a skepticism towards people and the world around her.
Suffice to say, I find Pat and the novel as a whole to be extremely interesting. I look forward to seeing how it plays out in the days ahead.
Oh and in the sentence:
ReplyDeletePat will probably be confronted with the opportunity to turn her back on Runciter Associates and join psis the process.
It should be:
Pat will probably be confronted with the opportunity to turn her back on Runciter Associates and join Hollis in the process.
In the first four chapters of Ubik, PKD again begins blurring the lines between our concepts of reality and unreality. However, he does this in a different way than he did in Androids. Throughout Androids, PKD made us question our conception of what lives, but in the first few chapters of Ubik he makes us rethink our understanding of what living is. This is largely seen in Runciter’s interactions with dead wife Ella. Ella’s half-life (a concept referring to the time it takes a quantity to fall to half its original quality) allows for Runciter to still interact with her through a metaphysical dimension, despite it being separate from our own. Ella even seems to maintain many of her attributes in this separate dimension, as Runciter reflects that “[her] laugh, the unique and familiar warmth of it, made his spine tremble; he remembered that about her, even after so many years” (PKD 12)
ReplyDeleteThis comment reflects the human tendency to perpetuate the spirit of someone even after they’ve passed away, which we’ve discussed in prior classes. The ability of humanity in Ubik to interact with people after they’ve died reflects this typical desire of humans. We never feel like someone’s gone even after they’re no longer living. Their legacy is still celebrated, and we question our own behaviors and actions based on those of people who’ve gone before us. In that way, no one is every truly dead. Through people’s interactions with half-lifers, PKD leads us to question our concepts of life and death, since the half-lifers exist in a state directly in between our conventions of living and non-living.
Andreas, you note that a half-life refers to the amount of time it takes a quantity to fall to half its original quantity). This is an interesting concept which I did not previously consider. However, in Ubik, we are not considering the decay of an atomic isotope, but rather the decay of a human's consciousness. In the novel, people are put in this state of half-life due to, as you rightly point out, the feeling that "someone's [never] gone even after they're no longer living." We want someone to continue to live as long as possible, and such such, we put them in a half-life state. An inevitable question of morality arises here, which we began in class but I feel could be developed more.
ReplyDeleteWe could begin this discussion with two assumptions. The first is that taking a life which is not your own is principally wrong. The second is that engendering a life of suffering which did not previously exist is also wrong. It is especially important to capture the nuance of the second statement; the inability to do so could lead to one towards the vacuous conclusion that the acceptance of this statement is equivalent to the advocacy of baby murder. Under this deontological framework, the only question is whether the person in the state of half-life suffers or not (we are engendering life that would otherwise not exist, so we must ask whether that life will suffer). Textual evidence becomes crucial in synthesizing a conclusion. Dick writes, '"I remember." But she sounded remote. "Step up your ads on TV. Warn people. Tell them..."' Here, we can see that Ella's cognitive ability is slipping away, a terrible fate to endure. Furthermore, Jory seems lost and lonely, desperate for attention. From this we can draw that people in a state of half-life endure loneliness as they slowly slip into mental vegetation, a dreadful existence which surely merits the label of suffering. At this point we can call half-life morally wrong.