Does religion limit the sci-fi to a religious audience?

Abstract:

This essay will explore the use of religion in Sci-fi texts. Specifically, it will explore if the religious aspects limit the audience of the genre; does it become a genre specifically for the religious? The essay will explore different interpretations of different texts to demonstrate how the use of religion opens up the genre to a wider audience by appealing to the non-religious and the religious. Each example will show how different interpretations of religious symbols can be seen as both positive and negative, thus appealing to everybody.

Ā 

Download (DOCX, 16KB)

Download (DOCX, 26KB)

Download (PPTX, 1.76MB)

We,re to stoopid too do thing with brian,

Here we are at the end of this book; anyone want to have a book burning ceremony? I was glad to see that endless assault on men had finally died down in the last couple of chapters, well except for chapter 15, but we’ll get to that in due time. Although, of course, Piercy has to insult the reader in some way, so it seems that her efforts were completely redirected to explaining the symbolism rather than man-bashing, thus suggesting we are too stupid to analyze the book.

As we are all aware there is a war going on in the background of the book that reader never gets much information about. Well, the reader is finally dropped onto the front lines of the war that is being fought in Luciente’s time. I was actually enjoying this chapter a bit, as the reader is shown Connie being dropped into battle the moment she’s going into surgery in her time. When this happened I finally saw a clear connection and message: Connie’s mind is depicted as a utopia, because it is not only the sole thing that she still has control over, but it is the only place in which she can be herself, and the small conflicts introduced were leading up to her ultimate fight for her free will. This is good stuff, even though it makes no sense that the war had not escalated to the point it has on chapter 17 when she was first operated on. I guess the death of Jackrabbit is meant to show how the first operation made her lose only a part of herself, but was overall still intact. Just having the reader constantly jump back and forth through timelines when the surgery/operation was happening was a great way to provide the reader with great imagery and make the reason for it obvious. Piercy, however, assumes that the reader is not intelligent enough to realize it. “She caught a clear glimpse of the enemy through the bubble glass: the thick glasses, aquiline nose, he satisfied twinkly blue gaze of Dr.Redding as briskly, efficiently, he shot off the jizer” (330), really? REALLY!?!? Piercy, you had gotten something right, and you completely undermined it by underestimating your reader. At this point I personally felt like her anti-men mind predicted that we would read this in an all male sci-fi class, and this her way of insulting all of us. It’s even more insulting considering that this “professional” writer couldn’t even get the last sentence of her book right: ” I am not sorry, she thought, her HEARD pounding terribly, and she sat on her bed, waiting (371).” Guys, if that was intentional and just part of some future speak that I don’t remember, please tell me. Additionally, by the end of chapter 17 Connie directly says she is at war (332), and SHE NEVER STOPS REMINDING THE READER THROUGH OUT THE REST OF THE BOOK.

Lets get back to the crazy feminism guys. At least the guy with the porn magazine in the previous part of the reading had something to analyze, but everything in chapter 15 is just a endless barrage of hatred. Where to start off? Well apparently women are like phones: you can just take sign a contract and lock them into being with you for a fixed amount of time (284). Gildina’s husband/society dictate that women should be locked into theirs homes 24/7 and have absolutely no friends (285). “… a bunch of men dressed in roman tunics began chasing a lot of women around and pulling their clothes off (288).” Yes, Piercy, you believe, that women are solely sexual objects to men, I GET IT! I mean as a man I can officially confirm this is a typical night for any man. Everyday all over the world we men get together and chase women around and rip their dresses off. Gildina has to get all dolled up to get her husband to take her out: it takes about two hours for Gildina to be proper for “display” (291). As a man I can also confirm that this is true. We men will not take a women outside of a house unless she is properly set up for “display”, in fact, this a law in our society, if women are not properly dressed for display they are sentenced to be stoned. Finally, as if being confined to their homes 24/7 was not enough, women are always monitored, because that’s what we men do: we lock women in homes and set up cameras. In case you didn’t get it, that was all sarcasm. I shouldn’t have to say that, but I feel like some people will actually take it the wrong way. It seems that in this class everyone avoids this obvious male hatred and it has been implied that some might see my posts as misogynistic or negative. You do realize that pointing out Piercy’s sexism does not make you a misogynist right? In fact, you are lesser for it. If you truly want to live in an equal society you would point out blind hatred towards both males and females, a concept that seems to be lost on people. Reverse-sexism much? Oh well, I guess I’m misogynist, derpy derp.

Moving on, the use of this third future in which Gildina lives brings up a some good points. Gildina’s symbolizes Connie’s beliefs: this future is a representation of what she believes will happen if she loses her war. She would end up in complete isolation and subjugation. Although reading through all the male hatred was annoying I do believe the use of this other future was well done.

The book ends with some brutal stuff, DON’T DRINK THE PUNCH! Very cult like.It was, however, bland an pointless. Yes for the war, yes Connie felt she had no other choice, yes she though this was the solution, so? The clinical report, however, adds a deeper layer to the book.The information presented in the report is very definitive, and it make the reader believe the other side of the story is the true one; however throughout the book we see that Connie is ignored completely and her recollection of things are different. If a reader reads the clinical report, and agrees with it they would be falling into the role that Piercy wants them to: to see things with no real perspective just observations that might be lacking the complete story. This is how Connie ended up in the ward to begin with, didn’t she hurt Geraldo out of fear? Yet this is something the report omits, a report passed down by doctors, doctors who never listened to her, but rather blindly diagnosed her. Piercy’s use of the future in the book is intended to make us see Connie as purely crazy so we can fall into the stereotypical roles that government officials play. Who doesn’t find comfort in their own psyche when no else will listen to them, when you are just a name in a system, or just another face in a crowd? Is she truly crazy or were we played into not only believing, but being absolutely convinced that she is crazy?

Inverted pentagrams and stuff. (Proposal)

For project 2 I plan to write about the use of religion in science fiction. Religion is a common theme among multiple sic-fi texts yet it’s not really talked about, so I want to explore it’s purpose and how it is used across different texts, as well as the use of religious symbolism and imagery. An example would be talking about the use of religion in Metropolis, The Machine Stops, and Blade Runner. Metropolis has a positive view on religion, The Machine stops has a negative view on it, and Blade Runner explores the concepts and flaws of religion. I will not use these texts, but rather they are just examples of how religion is used to achieve different goal in different texts. I will, however, use Metropolis as it is the only film I have seen that is simply religious propaganda; it’s message is very positive towards religion, which is rare in sci-fi.

The format I choose to use for my project will be a basic research paper. My research will involve basic google searches of texts that have a heavy use of religious themes, and maybe creator commentary on those themes if available. I have already been pointed in some good directions by the 4 pages that mention religion in the intro to sci-fi book.

 

 

Professor Belli,

Since this will be a research paper will the info I use have to strictly be confirmed as religious by the content creators? Or can I also have a bit of my own analysis? Ex: Say if I cant find information proving that Metropolis is intended to be positive towards religion, can I still use it given my analysis of the obvious symbolism shown in the movie?

Do not believe the propaganda! (Class Notes 4/23)

DO NOT BELIEVE THE LIES! I did not suggest presenting in front of the class; professor Belli’s words were an attempt to turn the masses against me!!!!!!!!! I hate any space that is within a 4 foot radius of the chalkboard (the front of the class).

āˆ—IMPORTANT INFORMATIONāˆ—

Your Ideas for project 2 are due by tomorrow and must be labeled as proposal. The information you provide Professor Belli should outline the initial stages of your project and it has to incorporate basic research (google and wikipedia are ok). Make sure to include what purpose your project serves and idea of what kind of research your project would require. Your proposals should be no less than 2 paragraphs. The topic you choose must be something you want to learn about. Professor Belli will provide specific guidelines depending on the kind of project you choose. Be aware that the final product will consist of four parts: a written portion, component, presentation, and a write up. If you want to be among the first presenters, tell professor Belli.

You can ignore anything beyond this point if you so choose.

Class began with a forced change: Professor Belli made everyone sit in a different location. Perhaps she wanted to show us what it feels like to be controlled, much like Connie in the novel. After all, in class the only thing we can control is where we sit, other than that what we read/discuss is up to the professor. Our only sense of control was taken just like Connie; I can now officially sympathize with the character.

After the seating controversy of 15′ Professor Belli paired the class off into pairs, because groups of three or more means someone isn’t talking. The pairs were given 7 topics to discuss: progress, freedom/individuality, cyborg, gender, controlā†’emotions, doubling, and alternate future. After discussing in pairs there was a class discussion about the topics we were assigned, and the following discussion (WHICH I PARAPHRASED….. A LOT) ensued………….

Joel– In the future society there are huts and farming yet their civilization is highly advance, especially their technology, compared to the present which has advanced architecture, but not technology.

Chris– Luciente’s progress Ā as a character can be seen in the way she deals that with the conflict between her and Bolivar. At the meeting with Parra, the two characters are forced to confront each other. Pg220

Belli– You would think that their are no problems, but in fact there are. When you change circumstances and environments people change. Are people inherently good or bad?

Carl– Connie is cuckoo for cocoa puffs. Madness is a coping mechanism; she connects with people and her delusions as an escape. There is a connection between Dolly on speed and Connie’s madness (273).

Belli– What does it mean to be cuckoo? There are connections to androids dream seen through the way that the sub-humans of those respective societies are treated. What is the proper response to “crappy circumstances”? Isn’t Connie actually responding in a sane way to these traumatic events? Are drugs good or bad?

Randy– Are Connie’s responses comparable to the flight, fight, or freeze response, that someone would have if they are about to be punched in the face?

Danny– Can’t the doctors also be seen as crazy?

Belli– Connie has no freedom; her only freedom is within her own mind, and now she is even going to lose that. Who gets to decide/control?

Leo (the man with the Metallica shirt \m/)– She feels imprisoned which is why she sees the future as a vacation (198). She needs to have some escape.

Eugene– Are we also question the reality of this world?

Carl– Connie wishes someone would help, but instead has to fall into female stereotypes (186)

Belli– Connie and the other inmates have to fall into gender stereotypes that the ward want them to. Future is meant to show what people could be if they had different opportunities.

Andrew– Limitations of what can be imagined.

Randy– The people of the future were born in test tubes; they were not birthed ina Ā natural way. So then couldn’t they be considered cyborgs?

Andrew– If everyone is birthed through machines despite lots of sexual activity, are the people of the future sterile?

Belli– Where did the motivation for ending female pregnancy come from? Females are held back by biological truths; therefore, it is an equalizing thing (97).

Randy– The word mother is still used; the concept is preserved.

Belli– The society wants to create a sense of equilibrium, but then why not make it so men have the ability to give birth?

Chris– No breasts, no ovaries.

Eugene– Why not get rid of gender overall?

Andrew– Sex is valued in the future society, and it provides a sense of enjoyment.

Belli– Project idea: how would you re-imagine genders, basically a utopia exercise.

Andrew– Third genders exist in some cultures.

Belli– What does consent mean?

The conversation ended there. Fun words mentioned…

Telos- A definitive end

Andros- Greek for man

Gyne/Gyno- Greek for woman

Quorum- You need a majority to vote.

Don’t forget to finish the novel guys, and rock the vote. The next blog will be the last one, from here on out the focus will be on project 2.

 

This is not blind hate/Everyone has their own interpretation

I am going to start off this post by talking about the ending as it finally makes you question the future. After Connie is given the operation that has left both Alice and Skip in a catatonic state, the chapter lacks any talk of the future. Now, to some this would seem like the proof needed to prove Connie’s madness; however, looking at this from outside the context of the book, it seems like Piercy is going for the age old misdirection. Piercy wants the reader to feel that Connie’s madness has been proven only to show us it was real all along. As of right now this is where I see the book going, but on to analysis rather than speculation.

Marge Piercy’s atrocious feminist writing continues to rear it’s ugly head, but let me talk about something positive first. The reader finally gets to see Connie as a strong female character. Throughout chapter twelve the reader is treated to Connie not only hatching an escape plan, but succeeding at it as well. Although this chapter is over saturated with characters like the others, this is one of the only chapters that has a strong focus on Connie. Finally the reader is shown her strength by demonstrating it rather than by being surrounded by evil men. Seeing Connie struggle to get away from the facility by enduring swollen feet, and hunger, all while showing off her intelligence by staying as by being cautious of cars depending on their speed and scouting out the diner she should eat it. All of that is just what the reader is shown at face value and it’s good stuff, but on to digging deeper and seeing the rule point of this chapter.

I realize that the time in which the book was written was a harder time for women, I really do. People, however, have to take into account that we live in a different society than people who were around in the 80’s; some books just age horribly, and Woman On The Edge Of Time is no exception. Women in our time are not treated as they were in the 70’s, so a book of this caliber is only destructive to our society. It simply enforces a perpetual blind hate that feminists have towards men. Men are not out to get women. Yes, misogyny still exists, but it is not valued in our society; furthermore, just as their are men that believe women have their place, there are women that believe the same of men. I know that was not digging into the text of the book but it had to be explained before I can get to the examples of the annoying feminist writing.

Shall we start on the chapter that Connie showed us her strength? So, how does Connie end up back at the ward after escaping? A man. Not only was it not good enough for Piercy to have Connie sent back to her ‘demise’ by a man, but a man looking at porn, AND not only was that man looking at porn, but it seems he was looking at BDSM PORN: “On the cover two naked women embraced while a man about eight feet tall dressed all in black leather cracked a whip around them (250).” Let’s dive into this and analyze what Piercy is oh so subtly trying to tell the reader: 1. Women are just sexual objects to men. 2. Women should be submissive men. 3. Men should control women through violent means. 4. Men will always tower over women; women have no power. Additionally, at the beginning of chapter 12 Connie talks about how people only pay attention to the way one dresses (232). The reason Connie chooses to take a dress, rather than something practical, when she escapes is because the only way she can be considered normal and blend in is by playing the role given to her by man.

The first character to go through the new round of treatment that the doctors were using was Alice. After the surgery Alice basically becomes a puppet of the male doctors; they can control her anger and make her obedient (196-197). Skip also goes through the same treatment, but his procedure was not shown, nor did it leave him catatonic as it did Alice. This is another way Piercy shows how men force women into obedience and their need to be able to control women. The male need to control women is also shown when Connie talks about how her sister Inez was given a placebo rather than birth control by a doctor (269). The doctor giving Inez a placebo is meant to symbolize how men believe women are suppose to fall into the stereotypical role of mother/housewife.

I could go on with more examples, but I won’t. I know my posts only focus on the feminist writing, but nothing is fully developed. For example, at one point Connie talks to Luciente about how the judicial system works in the future (201-202), but it only lasts a total of two pages; furthermore, when it is brought up it is completely out of nowhere, and it is never mentioned again, so the conversation was pointless. It is a absolute shame because the themes brought up are interesting and could have served as an interesting social commentary, but alas Piercy’s writing is incapable of taking these ideas any where. “What about rape and murder and beating somebody up? We’re trained in self-defense. We’re trained to respect eachother (201).” Really Piercy? Rape doesn’t exist because people were taught self-defense and respect? What a childish view. If this book is suppose to have an impact on society, why is the reader constantly shown a word that could never be seen as a reality? It is because of moments such as that one that I feel the book has no other value other than being a feminist book.

 

Because….. REASONS!

As the plot progresses, the reader is given more…. well…. plot. Piercy has absolutely nothing to say with the novel she has written. As I read I want to see something to analyze, I’ll take anything. Unfortunately the novel only provides story, the characters are just two dimensional, and serve no purpose. Any one of the characters could easily be replaced by a lamp and I wouldn’t notice. Additionally, the themes that the book covers also serve no purpose. There is just absolutely nothing to enjoy.

Have any of you see the movie Gattaca? Remember how well that movie handled the theme of selective/controlled breeding? All the dangers that come with the advancement of science? Great stuff, right? Well Piercy gives her readers this glimpse at the ultimate Utopia, but what is the purpose of it? Well guys, it’s to… well… ummmmmmm, to sound nice I guess? There are no consequences of the perfection of Piercy’s Utopia. It exacts simply because, the reader is given no idea of how it might have been a struggle to create such a perfect world or the drawbacks of a perfect world. That is just boring. It reminds me of the superman character: he is completely perfect with no reason for it. Maybe of Piercy would show us the back story of this utopia there would be something interesting to read, but she doesn’t. Imagine if Piercy had written the story so that every time Consuelo travels into the future she goes to a further away time. Each time showing the struggle of that society and the work being put into improving them, with Consuelo eventually seeing the result as a Utopia. That scenario saws something, it shows the difficulty of creating a Utopia, but makes the pay off worth it. In Piercy’s novel, since the reader is just teleported to a Utopia, it just makes the reader question why we haven’t done it if it’s that easy.

That obvious flaw aside another thing that pisses me off is that there is no questioning the reality of the Connie’s experience. I want to believe she is actually traveling to the future, but all the reader is shown is that the character is just a complete loon. Clearly such a perfect society could only be the product of the mental fantasies of a mentally challenged woman confined in a institution. There is nothing that makes me question whether these vision are real. Hell, she even runs into a girl that Ā looks exactly like Angelina. So, Piercy, is the reader just suppose to accept this as coincidence? Or is this suppose to hint to the reader that the utopia, and the characters that mirror people she knew, are just part of her delusion? Because to do that the reader would need reason to question her reality to begin with. Black swan is a great example, one moment the audience is grounded in reality convinced that the actions that have happened were real, the next you realize that it was all part of the characters delusion. Another great example is American Psycho.

All in all this book has not gotten any better and it is a complete drain to read it. I have to take a break from reading it about every five minutes. I’m not looking forward to talking about the book at all. Can we all talk about the overarching themes of the books we read before this one instead? Oh, also, in my previous post I mentioned how a character needs to be developed and interesting before diving into their back story; Piercy should take some notes from the Daredevil series.

Men are baadddd, M’kay/ There is a gross lack of Brad Pitt.

First off I want to say I wanted to use like a bunch of titles for this post. I thought about the lyrics to the Smallville theme because you know, SAVE ME, DON’T CARE HOW YOU DO IT!!!! And a bunch of other stuff, but let me get to the post. I feel like I need a moderator while I write this, like boy was this book just terrible (so far), and I don’t want a MOMA repeat. So, the book begins with things happening, women getting beaten, and absolutely no positive male characters. Here is where one of my other titles kicks in. I really wanted to make a Orange is the New Black reference. This is very common troupe in feminist writing. For some odd reason feminist writers feel that the only way to write a strong female character is by writing male characters in a very poor, mustache curling, villainous way. Do they not see the irony in this? You want to prove how strong women are yet the only way you can do this is by writing males with paper thin personalities? Okay feminist writers, makes sense.

Poor feminist logic aside, the other thing that makes the book unbearable is all the exposition and repetition. In the first chapter Piercy is constantly reminding the reader how much Geraldo screwed over Consuelo, like Christ, I get it, GERALDO IS EVILLLLL!!!!! Piercy really wants to emphasize how a man has destroyed this woman both physically and mentally. Even though Dolly’s naivety and idiocy plays a huge roll in why Connie is currently stuck in a mental institution, Piercy focuses on writing in a way that puts the blame on Geraldo and Connie’s brother Lewis. And that second chapter was just so pointless. I understadn it is meant to give us a bit of a background on connie, but that could have been accomplished in a few pages. Chapter 2 ends up consisting of Piercy going into an unnecessary amount of detail over every little thing, with the worst part being that it ends where chapter 1 pretty much begins. There was no point in making this the second chapter. This should be swapped with chapter one. I assume this was some sort of attempt to make the character interesting before elaborating on their past as some texts do, but the chapter doesn’t make Connie an interesting enough character to warrant wanting to know more about her. Even Orange is the New black was able to do that well (even if it was the only thing they did right).

Overall, this book is awful, at least for now it is. It might get better as it seems that the first four chapters are just exposition, but from what I’ve read in reviews the books has some really interesting themes. I’m just going to hope the book gets better as you get deeper into it, but based on Connie’s character I really do not have high hopes. Lastly if your curious about the mentioning Brad Pitt in my post, please, PLEASE, go watch 12 Monkeys, it is a great Sci-fi film, in which the main character also spends quite a bit of time in a mental institution through out the film.

Nuclear winter will come in due time.

What can I say about There Will Come Soft Rains? It’s quite interesting. My problem with it, however, is that it is only a four page text. That doesn’t leave much room for the expansion of ideas, but what it presented I did like. It reminded me of The Machine Stops, in both texts it is a machine that provide for the people of its society. What I loved about the machine in this text is that it showed us what it is like after we are gone. It almost feels like a sequel to The Machine stops had the machine rebooted itself just going on never even noticing that a grand change has taken place. But I think the the thing I liked the most about the short story, and its animated adaptation, is the subtlety in which it presented its themes of legacy, as well as technology and its destructive nature.

Bradbury tells the audience that the city in which the story takes place emits a radioactive glow and that it is in ruins(1). The fact that the city is in ruins and emits a radioactive glow is suggesting that there has been some sort of nuclear fallout. Not only does Bradbery subtly suggest that there has been some sort of nuclear fall out, but this was also published in 1950, only a couple of years after a certain important event in history: the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; therefore, it’s safe to assume that ruined state of the city in the short story is a result of an atomic bombing. Naturally this tragic event was still fresh in the minds of people who lived during the time it took place, so people quickly made a connection between the text and the bombings. After seeing the power that atomic bombs had, people feared their power. This text is obviously a commentary on the destructive nature of man through the means of technology.

The text also address the theme of legacy. In our society one of the reason people find the need to be creating new and grander things are to make a name for themselves; a name that can echo through time and never be forgotten. It seems that Bradbery conveys this same idea through the text; the machine in the short story has been programmed to announce the birthday and anniversary of different people(1). More specifically the author, Bradbery, also uses the wording “It repeated the date three times for memory’s sake”, this quote really emphasizes the word ‘memory'(1). This, to me, really shows the importance of this societies desire to be remembered in history.

I must say, I LOVED the animated film adaptationĀ of the text; I really enjoy dark, surreal imagery. It also connects to the poem and the atomic bombings in a much better way. The film goes full circle in it relation to the poem. The poem suggests that all things will come to an end with no evidence of their existence. The book ends with the machine repeating a phrase three times, just like it did in the beginning of the book(Bradbery, 4). In the animated film, however, it ended with the narrator reciting the poem, but right before that the machine gets destroyed in what seems to be an atomic explosion, after all there was a mushroom cloud(7:50, Dozhd, There Will Come Soft Rains). This directly connects to the the quote, “Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree/ If mankind perished utterly…”(9-10, Teasdale); not only has mankind completely perished, but the remnants of mankind as well. This shows not only how all things must come to an end, but how as humans we will probably bring about our own demise through technology, after all there was an atomic bomb in a home. Why was it there? Is it a social norm in this society for everyone to have a nuclear weapon in there home? Are humans that destructive?

Lastly I’d like to add a link to a short film about the bombings on Hiroshima. While I was watching,Ā There Will Come Soft Rains, it reminded me of the short film about Hiroshima. They both emphasize the normalcy of their current society, and how they are destroyed in a flash due to technology. Both films also use surreal imagery to get across their dark tones.

There Will Come Soft Rains, Budet Laskovyj Dozhd, 1987

Teasdale, Sara. “There Will Come Soft Rains’. 1920.

Bradbery, Ray. There Will Come Soft Rains. 1950.

An exercise in hypocrisy.

How do I go about writing this post? Hmmmm. Well, I can start off by saying this assignment is ridiculous and stupid. This exhibit had nothing to do with Blade Runner, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Metropolis, or The Machine Stops. But Surge, Metropolis was a giant city, and Do androids dream of electric sheep touches upon the theme of overpopulation in relation to limited resources. Yes yes, that is true, but they are just themes that are touched upon; they are not fully expanded ideas. If we had been assigned to watch Wall-E then, yea, I would say this exhibit is related to our assignments.

Overall this exhibit emphasizes the issues of over population, limited resources, class struggles, and solutions to all those problems. Typically, Sci-fi stories are meant to be used as cautionary tales, urging society to change to prevent a bleak outcome. So why is it that for a sci-fi class we would be required to go to a exhibit that explores city expansion as a solution to the serious problem of over crowding, seriously, why?

The only positive thing I can say about this exhibit is that it truly is a work of modern art that belongs in MOMA: it is pretentious, full of facts, and absent of anything the average person would consider art. It definitely took the concept of found art and raised it to a whole… nother…. level (if you understood the reference, thank you, lol).

The greatest strength of this exhibit is also it’s greatest weakness, for you see, again, it is truly a work of modern art. Not only does it present information as art, it present IMPORTANT INFORMATION as art that you must PAY to see. It’s not like the information presented here was the kind of information that everyone should have access to. After all, only those pretentious enough to constantly keep up with the MOMA’s exhibitions should be aware of our ever changing environment, and how the SERIOUS issue of overcrowding is going to effect us both now and in the future.

I guess, now that I’m thinking about it, there is a correlation between the texts we have analyzed and this stupid MOMA exhibit. Both simply present the idea of overcrowding, but fail to truly elaborate as to why it is an issue or propose any sort of legitimate solution to the problem.

This better have been the first and last time we ever have to take the time to do something this stupid. I mean seriously, I could have used the combined time I spent there and writing this, to jump in front of a truck or something. That would have been a much better use of my time.

That’s enough ranting for now; I have made my aversion to this assignment and modern art very clear at this point. All in all this was just a waste of time. The echibit only connects to or readings very loosely. Perhaps, a better assignment would have been to go down to that human body museum, at least there we could argue whether or not the subjects were real or not. After all they were once living, but are they still real considering how many chemicals were used to preserve the bodies. Hell, for all we know it’s a scam, and those bodies are just sculptures. See how it would have been a much better assignment than this?

Honestly, Blade Runner kinda sucks.

I had seen Blade Runner prior to reading the book, and I used to love every second of it, but honestly, the book makes the movie look like a joke. The book just has such rich powerful scenes, but the movie just consists of scenes that embody the themes of the book, but do not fully realize them. The movie just boils down to a love story between Deckard and Rachael. Luft, Resch, Iran, Buster Friendly, and other have been completely written out. There are, however, some really nice changes that I wish were in the book, because they connect really well to the question: what defines being human? Specifically, the changes that I enjoyed are: the crowded city, the confrontation of Roy Baty and Tyrell, and Rachael trying to prove her memories are real.

As we all know, in the book emptiness is a recurring theme. Isidore lives in s building with no other tenants, there is an overall lack of life. This, however, is not something that carries over to the film adaptation. As we have seen, in the film there are crowded alleys, what appear to be bazaars, strip clubs, and even public transportation. This is is anything but empty. I find this to be an interesting change. In the book the emptiness and lack of communication between humans is meant to symbolize the lack of empathy that the humans claim to have, and instead are very solitary creatures. But I prefer the film, because it is meant to show how easily an andy blends into society, further emphasizing how strange it is that they are persecuted, despite the lack of a difference from humans.

Another scene that really blurs the lines between real and fake is when Deckard is talking to Rachael in his apartment. Deckard harshly tries to convince Rachael that her memories are fake, but suddenly he stops when she has these innocent child like eyes that appear as if they are about to cry. I loved this scene because it now only shows how the andys are emotionally sensitive, but also how Deckard noticed it and did not want to hurt her. Having an emotional scene like this really shows how the andys are truly no different from the humans.

Finally, the last scene I loved from the movie that I need to see added into the book is Roy killing Tyrell. What is more human then the search for ones maker, whether it be science or god. This was also a nice way of incorporating religious undertones, instead of the way Dick incorporated religion in his book. Additionally, he had searched for his maker because he wanted to live, he obviously fears death. Why do humans turn to religion? Because they fear the unknown; they fear what comes after life, and they want to know that there is more, that there is no end. When Roy finds out there is nothing Tyrell(god) can do, he becomes angry enough to kill his maker.

I just love the emotion that the andys in the movie express, and I wish that someone would work some of these movie scenes into the book. In fact, I challenge someone to do this, incorporate these three scenes into the book, and cut out everything from chapter 20 and on. I believe doing those things would make the book a master piece.