tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post7263973570212523581..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Revision 1: Dick's construction of MankindAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-58528620184279354792013-10-05T12:01:30.343-04:002013-10-05T12:01:30.343-04:00There's a lot of good material in the first pa...There's a lot of good material in the first paragraph. For my part, I'd like to see you push more directly beyond Aldiss in a revision - using Aldiss to advance an idea, rather than simply responding to the prompt - but this shows promise.<br /><br />Your use of Sims' work is effective. I wonder if there isn't a way you could have reframed your introduction and thesis statement around it.<br /><br />Your discussion of Luba Luft is good, but I really feel the absence of Rachel here. In general, you seem to lean toward the beginning of the novel rather than the end - addressing the question of whether Rachel feels empathy for other androids, not to mention Pris/Irmgard/Roy feel empathy for each other, seem to be really central to what you're doing here. For my part, I'd argue that the claim that androids don't feel empathy has 100% collapsed by the end of the novel. I'm not saying that you need to agree - just that if your topic if the failure to separate androids from humans, you're not paying enough attention the end of the novel, regardless of what your interpretation of it is.<br /><br />I like your analysis of Deckard's apparent lack of empathy well - but again, we have the problem that you neglect the relevant parts of the end. His encounter were Mercer really needed to be integrated into this argument.<br /><br />Your discussion of Isidore leaves me with a big question. Are you really arguing that this society's concern with empathy is a charade, and that the only thing that really concerns it is integration (social? economic? reproductive?) into the society as a whole? If so, I think you're starting that argument in an effective way, but lots more remains to be done.<br /><br />Your last paragraph is kind of awesome. It's a clear, focused and interesting idea, asserting that we cannot understand what humanity is (or ought to be) through one or the other. I love it. However, it's really a new beginning more than an ending - I think you've arguably just discovered your real argument. Ideally, you would have realized this and reframed the paper around it, cutting and expanding as necessary in order to make it work. The most extreme version of this would be to use the final paragraph as the introduction of the new draft. Very likely this total rewrite would be correct. Through the essay you said lots of smart things, but your focus seemed to wander - the conclusion doesn't just pull everything together - it gives you the powerful insight into the novel that was previously lacking.<br /><br />Also, this idea of duality - of needing to be both Deckard and Isidore - could have repercussions elsewhere. Does this relate to the duality between the androids and humans as a whole, for instance? Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-33857103045965908562013-10-04T17:08:18.357-04:002013-10-04T17:08:18.357-04:00Sorry! Forgot to include this!
Works Cited:
Aldi...Sorry! Forgot to include this!<br /><br />Works Cited:<br /><br />Aldiss, Brian and David Wingrove. Trillion Year Spree: The History of Science Fiction. London: Victor-Gollancz Ltd., 1986. Page 26. <br /><br />Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? New York: Ballantine, 1996. Print.<br /><br />“Dick, Philip K.” The New Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Ed. James Gunn. 1988. Print.<br /><br />Sims, Christopher A. Tech Anxiety: Artificial Intelligence and Ontological Awakening in Four Science Fiction Novels. North Carolina: McFarland, 2013. Print.Nikki Moriellohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04104420778211874481noreply@blogger.com