Assignment NT5.5: Project Link

February 27, 2006 at 1:17 am | In assignments | Leave a Comment

The website for my project: clicky

Assignment NT 4.2

February 27, 2006 at 12:37 am | In assignments | 1 Comment

Narrative Structure of the Wizard of Oz:

  • Mean neighbor wants Toto to be euthanized
  • Dorothy and Toto run away – “Something Over the Rainbow” song
  • Dorothy and Toto get caught up in cyclone
  • Dorothy and Toto arrive in Oz
  • To get back home, Dorothy beings her journey to the Emerald City; traveling on the Yellow Brick Road
  • Along the way, she meets:
    • Scarecrow (needs a brain)
    • Tin Man (needs a heart)
    • Cowardly Lion (needs courage)
  • All hope that the Wizard of Oz will be able to give them what they want
  • On the journey they have run-ins in with the Wicked Witch of the West
  • In Emerald City, Toto exposes the Wizard to be a fake
  • Glenda, the Good Witch, tells Dorothy how to get home
  • Dorothy awakens to her family taking care of her

The Wizard of Oz is a movie, designed to tell a complete story. In that way, it’s unlike Oprah’s guests; media of that type usually focuses on the interesting, “people-grabbing” incidents rather than telling an entire story. TV focuses on what will up ratings numbers.

Autobiographies/biographies are more likely to fit into the narrative structure of The Wizard of Oz because they usually tell a more complete story than an hour long television show can. Although, when I consider memoirs I’ve read, most of the writers are not like the “good girl” character of Dorothy; they’re people that have suffered in their lives and overcome amazing problems. Readers generally like to read about someone interesting – not someone who’s always done the right thing. If everyone’s story were like Dorothy’s, where the good girl triumphs because she’s good, no one’s story would be out of the ordinary. We’d all be the same.

I do however think that the Yellow Brick Road is a good metaphor for modern life. The Yellow Brick Road is a magical road that leads to the Emerald City; somewhat akin to the “road of life” people mention (meant as a metaphorical road that’s defined by people’s life choices).

One of the most known things about The Wizard of Oz is the movie’s change from black-and-white to color when Dorothy awakens in Oz. I think this is telling the watcher that going to the land of Oz is like watching a TV show – the viewer should be able to immerse themselves in the show and enjoy themselves. However, the viewer must not forget that they have a life outside of the television show or movie, and be able to return to real life after the show is finished. In this situation, we are to be like good girl Dorothy, and not allow technology to keep us from our responsibilities. Additionally, if we do tend to our obligations, we will be able to find that place over the rainbow, where we can find success.

Interesting aside: I actually learned this week that it was written by Frank Baum to parody the 1896 Presidential election

Assignment NT5.5, Part 1

February 22, 2006 at 2:07 pm | In assignments | Leave a Comment

1) Compare the out-of-character narratives you wrote. In what ways does the real-life experience change?

My entire life has changed because of my out-of-character experience. Being in love with someone who I trust and depend on has changed my entire outlook on life. I now consider things that I never thought possible to be possible – such as marriage, employment at a big name company, working in a job I’ll truly enjoy, etc. I’m a person that has always had low self-esteem, yet Paul has helped me to see that I have no reason to be as critical of myself as I am, and that’s made a huge difference in my life. So, for me, an experience that began as something out-of-character has changed into an experience that’s become part of who I am.

2) In what ways does a published account have to be different from a letter?

Letters are designed to be directed to a specific person. They are an example of personal communication, usually not meant for anyone but the writer and intended recipient. There are examples throughout history of famous authors who gave instructions for their correspondence to be burned after their death, so that no one else could read it.

A published account, is, by design, written to be published. It generally isn’t as personal as a letter (unless the account is a memoir). Something written for publication is directed towards a large audience, versus the letter’s audience of one.

Additionally, letters are much less formal than a published account. Letters can take advantage of slang, word conventions, and private jokes between the writer and reader. An account doesn’t usually have this advantage, as it’s written for many people to read and must be understandable by all.

3) Does the “you” described in each differ?

In the letters and account (which stayed a letter), the “me” does not differ. I do not consider the letters to be super personal, and so don’t mind them being read as they are by others. I write this way most of the time, as I consider it the best way for me to write, because in the modern world, you never know who is going to end up reading what you write.

Class Notes, 02-21-06

February 21, 2006 at 1:27 pm | In class notes | Leave a Comment

How do different types of media lead us to reflect on our lives?

  • different mediums
  • quality of presentation (form, expression) . . . makes it hard to define a medium

Plays/Theatre:

  • audience is necessary to have a play, otherwise it’s just a rehearsal
  • performance is never the same
  • respect for audience/actors (dramatic theatre conventions)
  • “double” deception of plays – audience is supposed to watch the main action unfold, but can chose to view other characters on stage
  • why is a curtain call important? allows the audience to see the person behind the character
  • dvds and movies take away from audience participation
  • in film/tv, you can see the camera angle only; versus where in a theatre you can look at the entire stag

Books translated into movies:

  • I almost always hate when a book I love is translated into a movie, because I know the movie is going to be awful
  • Hard to make a book into a movie because in a book, characters aren’t fully fleshed out, and the reader creates a mental picture of the character by reading and analyzing the novel; this isn’t possible to do in a movie

New York Times article on how email has changed relationships between professors and students (clicky):

I have differing opinions on this article. Personally, I believe that I use email correctly to address professors – I try not to be overly familiar, while attempting to ask questions that can easily be answered in a quick reply. If there’s something I have a huge question on, I’ll generally try to email a prof to let them know that I’m planning on coming to their office hours, so that they can let me know if they’ll be there. I’ve found that profs don’t always stick to their office hours, so it’s a helpful way for me to make sure that they’ll be available then. If I continue to converse with a prof, our email exchanges usually will become less formal, but I try to follow the example I see, not start it.

However, I do think that most of the examples in the NYT article do show that some students don’t think before they send email and just fire off whatever they want. They feel that it’s easier to say something like “I wasn’t in class because I was drunk” in an email rather than in a face-to-face conversation; but they definitely shouldn’t be saying that to a professor. It shows a lack of respect for the professor. I think that if those students quoted actually thought about what they sent, and maybe waited a few hours to reread the email before sending, they’d realize that what they’re writing isn’t proper.

Blurb from “The Naked Sun”

February 4, 2006 at 10:28 pm | In snippets | 1 Comment

While reading Asimov’s The Naked Sun (sequel to Caves of Steel) I found this passage. I don’t know the page number since I was reading the ebook.

“On Earth, you should. Yes. Do you know robots started with a Frankenstein complex against them? They were suspect. Men distrusted and feared robots. Robotics was almost an undercover science as a result. The Three Laws were first built into robots in an effort to overcome distrust and even so Earth would never allow a robotic society to develop. One of the reasons the first pioneers left Earth to colonize the rest of the Galaxy was so that they might establish societies in which robots would be allowed to free men of poverty and toil. Even then, there remained a latent suspicion not far below, ready to pop up at any excuse.”

The words were spoken to Baley by a robot specialist on Solaria. The planet of Solaria has twenty million robots, and twenty thousand humans.

Assignment NT 2.2

February 4, 2006 at 3:40 pm | In assignments, caves of steel | Leave a Comment

“After finishing Isaac Asimov’s Caves of Steel, write three or four paragraphs considering the following. what we can tolerate in a robot? Are we threatened by robots? Can we accept them if they look like what they are — machines? If they look “human”, do we respond to them as if they are human? If so, why? What do we read as “human” in a machine — eyes? A mouth? Humor? I am thinking, too, of how we respond to those primates closest to us — chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas — don’t we find their behavior reminiscent of human behavior? Do we just end up anthropomorphizing1 them rather than responding to them as what they are, non-human animal relatives?”

“‘[Baley] My question is, why humanoid robots? […] Why should he look more or less like a man?’

‘[Dr. Gerrigel] You mean, why shouldn’t he be built functionally, like any other machine?’ […]

‘[Dr. Gerrigel] The decision was made on the basis of economics.’ […]

‘[Baley] But why the human form?’

‘[Dr. Gerrigel] Because the human form is the most successful generalized form in all nature. […] Besides that, our entire technology is based on the human form. […] It is easier to have robots imitate the human shape than to redesign radically the very philosophy of our tools.’ (171-172)”

In Caves of Steel Asimov creates a world where robots are simply tolerated. Robots are not necessary on a planet where there is an overpopulation problem – in fact, people are relegated to menial labor because of robot replacements. I don’t believe that Asimov mentions anywhere a job that only robots can do; they are just a technology that people don’t entirely accept.

I believe that we as well as the characters in Caves of Steel anthropomorphize robots. Robots are different from animals that can imitate human behavior, because robots were created specifically to duplicate human efficiency. As mentioned in the quote above, when Baley asks Dr. Gerrigel why robots are humanoid figures and not functional figures, he learns that it is because technology is based on human form. Human bodies aren’t geared toward certain specializations, but a robot can be designed to be. So, therefore, I believe we would anthropomorphize a robot because a robot is created in humankind’s image to do human work.

Part of Baley’s problem in accepting robots as just machines is because of their humanoid appearance, and that they’re replacing human workers; the reader also has this problem because we only see Baley’s personification of robots. While it’s possible to generalize an independent view of if a robot is or isn’t just a machine, it’s hard to hold that opinion while reading because we’re continually given Baley’s view. As Baley beings to see robots as more than just threatening human doppelgangers (especially after his talk with Dr. Fastolfe) the reader too is able to see robots as useful devices capable of things that humans aren’t.

If modern technology were capable of producing robots as sophisticated as R. Daneel Olivaw, I believe there would be protests against the creation of such a robot. Every day someone loses his or her job to another person who is willing to do that job for less money than the original worker. We see this phenomenon all too frequently – the outsourcing of jobs to cut costs. Asimov writes that robots were created as humanoid figures for economic reasons, so it’s natural to see robot workers as the next wave of replacement workers – only, this wave won’t need salary or healthcare. I see this as a very threatening prospect.

Are people possible of tolerating robots? I believe so, to a degree. Modern technology has produced robots capable of performing delicate surgery, with more precision than a human could replicate. There are also robots built to do work deep underwater, a place where the water pressure would crush a human. However, this area is also a grey area, because it would be easy to say “Oh, let’s replace worker X, since robot Y can do his work better,” which leads back into the very real possibility of jobs being outsourced to robots. I think it’s a very fine line on what humans will tolerate in a robot, and I believe that line will become very defined as robots become more mainstream and technologically advanced.

1 – to attribute human form or personality to
intransitive senses : to attribute human form or personality to things not human source

Assignment NT 1.2 (with added notes)

February 3, 2006 at 10:34 pm | In frankenstein, updated assigments | 2 Comments

“In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the monster is rejected by everyone and so hides away in a shed where he watches the Delaceys. His situation is almost like the passive viewer of a movie who sees the lives of others but cannot participate in them. By watching, he learns language, and then also to read and write. How do these technologies — movies, language, writing — affect his feelings? Do they make him more violent, and, if so, why?”

“I [the monster] looked upon them [the Delaceys] as superior beings who would be the arbiters of my future destiny. I formed in my imagination a thousand pictures of presenting myself to them, and their reception of me. I imagined that they would be disgusted, until, by my gentle demeanour and conciliating words, I should first win their favour and afterwards their love (95).”

I believe that the technologies the monster witnesses and learns about do indirectly lead him to become more violent. Human civilization considers a person to be civilized if they can read and write and speak (for the most part), and the monster sees that as he watches the Delaceys. He is led to believe that if he is gentle of voice and manner, he will be more likely to be accepted, as illustrated in the above quote. Yet, he also realizes that he is not a man, and is of a different nature than man. The monster says, “I cannot describe to you the agony that these reflections inflicted upon me; I tried to dispel them, but sorrow only increased with knowledge. Oh, that I had forever remained in my native wood, nor known nor felt beyond the sensations of hungry, thirst, and heat! 1 (101)” Here we see the monster regretting his knowledge, because it shows him just how different he is from those around him; and perhaps a realization that maybe he never will be accepted, expressed in his desire to return to the unlearned creature that he once was.

The monster also says in his narrative, “For a long time I could not conceive how one man could go forth to murder his fellow, or even why there were laws and government; but when I heard details of vice and bloodshed, my wonder ceased and I turned away with disgust and loathing (100).” The monster, in his beginning innocence, cannot understand why men do evil, yet he himself is driven to become one of the most evil of people – a murderer – in order to get sufficient revenge on his creator. What drives him to that point? His denial from the society of man. Whenever the monster tries to do something good – like when he saves the drowning girl and is shot – he learns that doing good will only hurt him. He blames his grotesque appearance for his reception by others, and thus blames Victor for making him something no man would ever accept. Yet, if he hadn’t become a learned monster, he probably never would have made the connection between his appearance and other peoples’ reaction to him.

I’m not exactly sure what Shelley is trying to tell her reader with this situation, but I believe it may be something like, “Even though man may be born a blank slate, and his experiences and education shape him, man must still be a figure of man – not a parody of parts stitched together – in order to fit into society.”2

1 – Is knowledge the monster’s ship, like the ship of the Greeks in the Golden Age? For it is when he gains knowledge that his idyllic period of innocence/unknowing is over; much like the Golden Age ended with the building of ships and the introduction of trade. We see him wish for that “blank slate”/innocent period to be back when he learns that he won’t ever be accepted.

2 Appearance is a factor. The monster believes knowledge – language, reading – will make him more accepted, but he is never given a chance to show his knowledge because of his appearance; so he is led to understand first-hand how men descend into evil because of being misunderstood. No matter how stupid you are, if you’re attractive, you’ll still have a place in society. Converse – the elephant man – very intelligent, but outcast because of appearance.

Assignment NT 2.1

February 3, 2006 at 12:18 am | In assignments, caves of steel | Leave a Comment

“In considering Isaac Asimov’s Caves of Steel, write three or four paragraphs considering some or all of the following questions. To what extent can we learn what it means to be human by examining our creation of and reactions to robots? What can we learn from Tank about what we need in human communication? For example, does Tank respond as a human being would? Do you add emotive “pictures” (e.g. “happy” face) when you are sending email messages? Can we as humans communicate without indications of emotion or intention? Could you work side by side with R. Daneel Olivaw?”

What can we learn from Tank about what we need in human communication?

Tank shows that for humans to want to communicate with robots, the robots need to be engaging. Tank has a history and a personality. He’s interesting. He’s very unlike Asimov’s R. Sammy. Sammy was created to do work, not to interact with people. The people that visit Tank ask for more than just information and Tank is able to answer some of their queries. Through Tank, we can see that humans need a personality to communicate with – a person opposite them that can respond as the situation calls for, not with a scripted response plucked out of a database. Humans need organic minds, not mechanical minds, to communicate.

Can we as humans communicate without indications of emotion or intention?

I don’t think that humans could communicate without emotion or intention. Emotion is what makes a human human. That’s why Baley and the other humans in Caves of Steel have such a problem with robots – they are emotionless. They do not understand the concepts of justice or creativity; instead such things are modules loaded into the robot.

As for intention, that humans and robots share, but differently. Robots are singularly concentrated on their programmed intention, and do not stray from those intentions. Humans are different – they are affected by their surroundings, situations, and experiences, just as Baley is throughout Caves of Steel. So robots are still unfamiliar to humans even though both species have intentions, because of the different ways each race interprets them.

Could you work side by side with R. Daneel Olivaw?

I could not work with the R. Daneel Olivaw who we see in the beginning of Asimov’s Caves of Steel. Revealed to the reader as Daneel is through Baley’s biased eye, it’s hard to feel anything for him but what Baley feels – disgust, fear, and uncertainty. Additionally, I also had in mind the replacement of Vince with R. Sammy, which kept the thought of Daneel replacing Baley in my mind. However, as the novel went on, and I saw how Daneel was somewhat loyal to Baley, I became more comfortable with him myself. I think Asimov’s talent as a science fiction author shows in the way he’s able to make a reader, especially a modern reader, uncomfortable with a robot.

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.