From: bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Computers or physical? (was Re: Is not! Is too! Is not! Is too!)
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:10:49 GMT
Reply-To: bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) says:

>In article <1aof4hINNc5m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey) writes:

>The replicants are flesh and blood creations constructed by humans, rather
>than being the product of reproduction.  While this is a concept that was 
>common in the literature, it seems that BR is about the only example where
>it has made it to film.  
>
>For example, see "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" by Phillip K. Dick.
>In the novel, the humans are referred to as androids, and are clearly flesh
>and blood--the only way to tell a dead android from a dead human was through
>a rather esoteric chmical test.  On the other hand, the animals, which were
>referred to as electronic, were also referred to as robots.

Also see TOWER OF GLASS by Robert Silverberg.  (don't just see it; read it! :)
The best novel I have ever read exploring these themes.  The definitive SF
treatment of androids and slavery.  Robert Silverberg's best novel (all IMO).

>>Roy *IS* human!

>In almost every way except for name.  This is crucial to the point of the film,
>and I don't think it is really lost on any one.

Unfortunately - maybe tragically - it is.  Less than an hour ago I read a post
from someone talking about Pris "short circuiting".    :-(


>>He (Roy) is a genetically engineered HUMAN slave.
>
>Not quite, see above.
>Also, consider the analogies between the replicant rebellion in BR, and the
>Nat Turner rebellion in Virginia.
>
>>YOU'VE MISSED THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MOVIE IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE!
>
>You've missed a few things too, but not the point of the film.

What have I missed?

>>Now back to our regularly scheduled "is he or isn't he" argument.  :-)
>>Sorry if I've come across as a prick, but I have *STRONG* feelings about
>>people (genetically engineered) being labeled as androids (which,
>>according to the OED, they are), turned into slaves, and sold to people
>                  ^^^
>Er, what does this stand for?
>
>>who think "android = robot."  Even if it IS just a movie...
>
>Indeed, I dislike this also.  Blame Star Trek for fostering this notion.

I blame Star Trek for a lot more than that :-)

The OED is the Oxford English Dictionary.  Its definition of "android" 
includes "humanoid robot".  You know that "chess playing automaton" pf the 
19th century, that had a chess playing midget sitting inside the thing?
That was called an "android" back in the 19th century...

I don't like it, I wish I could lump it, but I won't argue with the OED...

So it probably is good that the synthetic humans in BR were called
"replicants".  Because some folks seem to be trying to turn "android"
into a Newspeak word...


-- 
Whom first, whom later         No one is fool enough to choose war instead of
did you kill in battle,        peace - in peace sons bury fathers, but in war
Patroklos, when the gods       fathers bury sons.  It must have been heaven's
were calling deathward? HOMER  will that this should happen...      HERODOTUS