tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post5269220708330388923..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Revision 1: Humanity in NeuromancerAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-69496995602431420022014-02-15T13:05:51.559-05:002014-02-15T13:05:51.559-05:00"Gibson’s modification of character qualities..."Gibson’s modification of character qualities allows him to vary the types of people or objects he casts as characters, while still grounding them to a human base." -- but what is the base? <br /><br />Does Wintermute really have "human goals"? While I'm not totally sure that you're wrong, its primary goal of transcendental self-destruction isn't *obviously* human, either. "Because Wintermute’s actions make the AI seem human, and the AI lacks a physical form, Gibson is able to create a human character outside of the traditional form." -- I think there's some slippage here between the appearance of humanity and the actuality of it, and that there are questions here which actually need to be asked (and could be asked, again, through the metaphor of Theseus' ship, if you so choose).<br /><br />Neuromancer certainly seems *more* human than Wintermute. But you don't seem to be asking whether it displays any inhuman behavior which needs to be investigated (is the scene of the beach a human or inhuman scene, fundamentally - that's an example of the kind of question which could help us explore Neuromancer (in)humanity.<br /><br />Does the Dixie Flatline accept itself as human? I think your approach is ok, but maybe avoids engaging with any really difficult questions.<br /><br />One interesting question: are the electronic characters more human than Armitage? You could be pushing yourself a little harder, in some ways. You're showing how the novel includes human inhumans (e.g., Neuromancer) and inhuman humans (e.g., Armitage). But where does this leave us. With chaos/disintegration? With a greatly broadened idea of humanity? Or with an *altered* notion of humanity.<br /><br />Again, you could have pushed yourself a little farther using your research. You're moving in a good direction here: "The modifications of the human characters do not exclude them from humanity, but serve as the future blueprint for it." But if you're interested in a future blueprint of humanity, can you articulate what that future blueprint is? Does it include everything, or are there exclusions? For instance, are Armitage and Riviera part of this future blueprint, the same as Neuromancer and Molly? In other words, what is the blueprint?<br /><br />Overall: You deal adeptly with many characters and situations, with a clear notion of Gibson's interest in what I'll call "The Future of the Human." But it's hard for me to pin down what you're really saying. Are you interested in the elimination of all categories and barriers, a humanity including Armitage, Riviera, Wintermute, Molly, and the Dixie Flatline alike? What, then, is the "base" (your word from the first paragraph) that they all have in common? Humanity is broadening/changing, but what defines it? As a result of the fact that you don't really engage with this problem, in some ways the whole is less than the parts in this essay, because your overall vision remains unclear even as you have some interesting things to say about the particulars.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com