tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post5829213998571421570..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Prompt 2: Androids as MetaphorAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-68354342955550094712013-09-21T17:53:14.918-04:002013-09-21T17:53:14.918-04:00On both my kindle and my kindle app, I can get at ...On both my kindle and my kindle app, I can get at the page numbers of this book. There may be a hardware issue here, but I'd suggest double-checking.<br /><br />I've been giving people a hard time about similar arguments. Your variation has promise because you don't stay at a general level - you move immediately to Luba Luft, which is a good approach. <br /><br />Your discussion of Resch and Luft and the contrast between them shows some attention to the nuances of the text, and a disinclination to move immediately into big conclusions. Good and good. "Aside from Polokov, he hadn’t had a violent encounter with the androids; they had a more human respect for each other than Resch had for them. The androids even value their own lives, not wanting to be put out of service; Resch, however, almost seemed to accept his death if he’d tested positive for being an android": this section is quite good, and shows the strengths of this essay. While I agree, though, that the androids show respect for each other, this is a good spot for at least a little evidence to that effect - your discussion of Luft, in particular, was purely individual.<br /><br />"Additionally, there’s a major drawback to the test: it assumes that all humans are followers of Mercerism." It's always interesting to me (and illustrative of the need for literature classes) how few people think this far. Not many people pick up on the ways in which the novel is an ongoing critique of Deckard's values and assumptions. You handle that well. <br /><br />The passing note about Bladerunner is fine, and could be expanded upon. A better conclusion for your argument, though, would have been to explain in more detail that the questioning of Deckard and his values at the heart of the novel should be read as a critique of the Vietnam War and its ideological apparatus. You're well on the way, but justifying that leap, while enhancing everything else, would provide plenty of work for a revision.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com