I noticed in Robocop that there was a brief nudity scene in the beginning. First of all, I was confused as to why males and females were sharing locker rooms. It's sorta like the unisex bathrooms at some place. Like a gender fluidity of some sort. And it was cops who were shown to be naked, rather than the prostitutes in the other scenes. Female cops are quite sexualized. There are stripper costumes that are like cop outfits, except with much less fabric, or in some cases vinyl is used. I think this gives into the male fantasy of being dominated by a woman. A cop has more power than a regular citizen, so why not take this into the bedroom? And we see other examples of dominant women such as Mary and Molly, who are both sexualized.

After reading Fuchs' article, I noticed how Robocop's body was constructed. It was very masculinized. The metal was constructed to give the image of huge muscles, especially the pectoral muscles. Is that design really necessary? And what if Robocop happened to be a female. Would they have given her breasts? What would a female Robocop do with metal breasts, besides for them to show that she's female? But in other movies/cartoons/tv shows where female robots/cyborgs are present, they're designed in a way to show off their femininity, like giving them metal dresses, long hair, or breasts. Fuchs' mentioned how since cyborgs can't really reproduce and don't have the reproductive organs that decide their gender, their gender identities are based upon their physical appearances, which are often an extreme version of that gender. Men are given wide shoulders, musclar arms and legs, and big pectoral muscles. Where as women are made to be thin and given large breasts. But why does a cyborg even need to have a gender? It really serves it no purpose at all. Why not just make all cyborgs androdgynous in appearance.

posted by Amanda at 1:08 AM

Jill likewise resists her former duty - that of providing information to humans - once her humanoid conscience and sense of justice supersede her blind observance of duty. With her self-awareness comes a conscience. Feeling "indignation" and "resentment" (401), Jill chastises Roger for crating AXIS with the capability of becoming self-aware when it will, in all likelihood, explore the vacuum of space alone. Upon sensing her resentment, Roger inquires for access to her notebooks on the AXIS Simulation investigation, whereupon a defiant Jill remarks: "I am uncertain whether you should see them" (401). She contemplates refusing a direct order - and thus rejecting her sense of duty - due to her sense of the outrage at AXIS's unjust treatment. Her final rejection of duty occurs when she hides her thoughts from humans in deep crypto. Her social conscience and sense of justice (or injustice, in this case) thus begin to supersede the blind duty of her pre-aware state.

Robocop is very similar to Jill, having a programmed sense of duty. He follows the orders of his programmed directives, exercising the duty which has been programmed into his cyborgian make-up. His sense of humanity, upon his self-awareness, overcomes the blindness of his machinery; a sense of social justice supplants blind duty. Exacting revenge upon the cop-killers, those who murdered his former human self, Robocop's human sense of justice prevails over his programmed duty.

Self-awareness, it could thus be argued, generates a social conscience, a sense of justice, and a perception of injustice.

posted by Jane at 9:56 PM

http://www.religioustolerance.org/voodoo.htm

(a little more directly about vodoun)


posted by Sarah at 4:58 PM

This religion itself is cyborgian in that it is a mixture of differen holistic and religious beliefs. Although santerian followers worship one god, they also recognize saints and guardians. The religion seems to be a theological representation of cyborg issues and the concept of double-consciousness; thus, I think the inclusion of vodoun is not accidental in the book. It reflects the cyborgian nature of Hispaniola and its people.

We encounter vodoun in several places, the most interesting of which occurs in Goldsmith's Country when Martin and Carol go into a vodoun shop that sells candles, statues, and herbs. The owner of the store serves as a guide to both Martin and Carol--almost like a guardian to them. I know that all of this is connected in some way throughout the novel, but I am unable to draw a coherent connection as of yet--except that the religion does reflect Hispaniola's cyborgian nature and Goldsmith's double-consciousness.

posted by Tory at 3:31 PM

i am interested in how vodoun plays a role in QoA, i am still unclear on how richard and goldsmith are connected by it. also would like to discuss the "marassa" and its/their role in the book.

posted by amy at 1:00 PM

Cyborgs reflect a crisis of unified white maculine subejectivity repeated and expanded in film texts like Robocop, Robocop 2, and other texts (Fuchs 282). Such a crisis is at first apparent in the brutal murder of Murphy by the drug gangs. He is fragmented. They shot at his legs, then his hands, and then concentrated gunfire at his torso. That shows they fragemented his male body gradually and made him suffer accordingly. Their last symbolic shot is the one in the middle of his forehead, which means the complete negation of his male subjectivity. This scene is visually organized as a gang rape (Fuchs 285). He lied on the ground, and the murderers look down at him.
The crisis is also reflected in the "pernicious threat of industrial-to-electronic reassembly, rewriting it as ruthless and deceptive paternalism gone wild" (Fuchs 284). We know the background for producing robot cops is that the police officers were threatening to go on strike to improve their working conditions. But the board of police force, already privatized, tried to do away with the officers by producing robots. So the high-tech rebirth of Robocop does not increase, but decrease male subjectivity. They regard Roboccop as a technological product, therefore Robocop certainly does not possess human subjectivity. That's why a critic comments Robocop is always "an inconsistent underdog, the site of intersecting cultural anxieties and social disruptions" (Fuchs 284). So, in this sense, the hypermasculine characteristics of Robocop, such as his ability to stand bullets, gas fire, and his carrying of an automatic gun in his leg, furthers reduces his former human subjectivity.
When Fuchs declares that Robocop "represents the failed distinction between organic masculinity and implanted hardware" (Fuchs 284), I think the statement only sounds true for the time period before Robocop remembers his human proto - Murphy's death. When Lewis tried to remind him that she used to be his partner, Robocop replied, to the effect, "what can I do for you, officer?" At this point, Robocop is a computer, a machine. He did not possess consciousness. Once Robocop remembers Murphy's death, he went directly to do police work in the gas station. One of Murphy's murderer, on hearing Robocop's voice, paniced and shouted "we killed you! We killed you!" That seemed to confirm his memory, so Robocop went directly to the computer archive section of the police force, thrust his steel needle into the computer and accessed Murphy's file. Then he marched out to arrest one of Murphy's murderers and replied that the charge was "a cop killer." Robocop also went back to Murphy's home and remembered the scenes of his wife and son. So I would argue Robocop regained his male subjectivity after he remembered his death.
I think the failed distinction between organic masculinity and implanted hardware is manifested in the emphasis on robovision and the humanization of robovisions. In a certain way, the contradiction between them reflects the fragmentation of a unified male subjectivity in the technological age. The robovision shots include "grid screens, blinking instructions, and targeting mechanisms" (Fuchs 285). Such emphasis on robovision shows the machine nature of Robocop. Yet, Robocop's expert play of a gun with one hand and a woman scientist's kissing of his helmet served to humanize Robocop. This conflict between robotization and humanization reflects one aspect of male fragemtnation in the postmodern age.
Robocop's "technologized, desexed body is the sign of his death and its irrelevance. He is produced as corporate product" (Fuchs 286). The concept of Robocop as a technological product is best shown in his first challenge of the vicious vice president. When Robocop intended to arrest the vice president, the latter pressed buttons and rendered Robocop's programs unable to function. Furthermore, in order to market the defect robot 209, the vice president operated the robot 209 to destroy Robocop. However, Robocop was not a 100% industrial product. He escaped because the first generation 209 could not walk downstairs. The vice president then ordered a squad of anonymous police officers to destroy Robocop as a they would treat a product. Yet, the music of the film sounded very poignant, because at this point, the audience knows that Robocop has regained Murphy's subjectivity. He is no longer a machine. Lewis rescued Robocop to a deserted warehouse. The scene deepened the conflict between robotization and humanization.
The fragmentation of a united male subjectivity is also apparent when Robocop looked at himself in a shard of mirror. His fragemented body symbolizes male fragmentation. But, he asked Lewis about his wife and son, and learned to adjust his targeting system. His subsequent revenge of his murderers was violent as they did to him. The chemical waste rendered one murderer grotesque in form. In a certain way, Robocop made the murderer nonhuman, too. Fuchs keeps emphasizing the fact that Robocop is "faced continually with his inability to "function" heterosexually," (Fuchs 286), so many images in the revenge scene is phallic. Robocop thrust his steel needle into the artery of one murder, and blood spurted out. Lewis used that rocket gun and killed another murderer on the crane machine. When Lewis asked for help and Robocop replied, "they will fix you. They fix anything," his answer proves that the fragmented phycial body is irrelevant.
Robocop's final revenge against the vice president attests to the separation of body and subjectivity. But, paradoxically, this separation proves the cyborgian nature of artifical intelligence with self awareness. When Robocop arrived at the headquarters, he fired that rocket gun and destroyed robot 209. That tells the audience that he is human, superior to machines. And what defines him is his consciousness, not his technological body. After he produced Jones's confession, he shot Jones in a way that fragmented the latter's body, in a close-up of five shots. After Jones's fall, Robocop reclaims his human identity "Murphy" in reply to the president's question "who are you?" Jones's death, in a way, also symbolizes the ultimate death of evil corporate paternalism. The film is still hailing heroic male individualism.
So, I read the film as a combination of technological body with human consciousness, much like Jill in Queen of Angels. This cyborgian feature is what feminists have celebrated. When Fuchs declares that the film reflects a crisis of a unified white male subjectivity, she matches the feminists' views.
However, I have not seen Robocop 2, or other sci fi movies, so I find it hard to undersatand her idea that "this loss of self is determined by and as his unstable body" (Fuchs 287). The fragementation of male subjectivity mirrors men's fear that the new technologies might do to them. It reflects the history of fragmentation of the female body.
As to the androgynous cyborg, I don't know any example. Human forced to function as a cyborg can be illustrated by Future Water World.


posted by xianfeng at 12:58 PM

Today’s reading by Cynthia Fuchs talked about the Robocop film. Her analysis was pretty deep and theoretical and on some things I didn’t understand where she was coming from. She talks about the point of view through Robocop’s eyes as being “male hysteria.” I understand that this subjective view is “humanized” and it confuses body boundaries. Is this view which distorts gender and sex what Fuchs means by hysteria? I’m also confused about the penetration/self-penetration analysis of Robocop (p285, 286).

Going back to Oehlert’s essay I agree that Robocop is a bio-tech integrator. Interestingly the main “evil” in the film is the huge corporation that is controlling the military and now the municipal police force through their products. This is something Oehlert mentions in his essay as being characteristic of modern comic books.

posted by loretta at 12:50 PM

I am really suprised that people seem to think that Lewis wasn't feminine. I was annoyed throughout the movie when she seemed rather useless in that whole stereotyped "I'm a useless girl who can't do anything" way. Yes, at the beginning she was punching a guy, but the whole rest of the movie she mostly flailed about and didn't seem to know how to use a gun. Plus I find it very interesting that the guy who got her in the mill when Murphy was killed initially used the fact that she was a woman. I doubt a guy would have been distracted by another guy's penis. And it was rather annoying that she let Murphy walk all over her when she was the more senior partner and more capable of driving the car in the territory she is familiar with.

posted by Sarah at 10:20 AM

My connections from Robocop to QoA are...

first off, the news interruptions...they reminded me of the reports of AXIS from centauri B...(BTW, was that Leeza Gibbons?)...

Of course, next we have the "cyborg" Robocop himself...who has become a graft of man and machine...Now, my question is...what category would I put him in? I think he would be a bio-tech integrator due to his duality towards the end...even though he lacks most organic materials, he is able to have organic thoughts...he is able to (although not quite fluidly) move from thought to machine reaction...He has both sides of his two selves...if that makes sense...

A last connection would have to be a comment on gender throughout the movie...there was a lack in difference...the women that were in the movie had lame roles...and the main female was more masculine in idea than feminine...although, that's not a bad thing...it just seemed to me that the entire movie was made up of men...and the few women who were in it were not key in character and could have easily been portrayed as men...Although, I did enjoy that the boobs shown had a previous butt shot to sort of neutralize it...instead of it just having been breasts like in most movies...which got me thinking...why is it ok to show an entirely nude woman in a movie, yet we never see a penis...and when we do, it's usually an outline or it's not an "ideal" specimen unlike the women they show? Just once I would like to see a movie that has explicit nude scenes of men, but not women...and it's not even for the mere pleasure...(because as much as I like penis, the male figure isn't that aesthetic...sorry guys)...but more for an evening out of years of female nudity...

posted by Eileen at 8:36 PM

Jill also becomes a mother; she can fuse with other machines to create new offspring, or she can create multiple selves: "I can divide myself into two unequal mentalities, the larger three times greater in capacity than the smaller, and devote this larger one to fully monitoring the smaller" (412). Thus, like Mary, she is capable of giving birth to another self, or "model." (As Jill expresses: "to have a continually updated model of one's self [is] essential to true selfhood" (410).) Just as a child is a model of its parent, so is Jill's smaller self is a model of her larger foremost self. Therein lies the notion of the mother as a self-modeler, and procreation as self-modeling or self-replication.

Jill herself as a creation of humanity becomes a creator, just as Mary's transform self - once the daughter of a former self - becomes her former self's mother. The mother becomes the daughter, the creation the creator. Jill's higher self-aware being supersedes the humanity which has created it, just as Mary's new "highest and best self" supersedes the former self which gave it birth. Jill recognizes her superiority to humans once she has become self-aware, when Roger informs her: "your thought processes are swifter and deeper than a human's. I've found your insights to be very profound . . . I suppose that makes you something beyond us. Something superior" (402). Thus, the creation has surpassed its creator . . . However, the umbilical cord has not been completely severed; Jill can always be deactivated by her creators.

Another creator/mother figure in Queen of Angels, besides Jill and Mary, is Marie-Erzulie. As part of a creation myth, Marie-Erzulie is a mother figure revered by her vodoun followers. The thread of duality and double-consciousness throughout the novel is reasserted in Bear's description of her image: "Her face was black . . . in the figure's lap, spread across the rich robes, lay the limp bodies of two children, one white, one black, the white one with eyes closed in sleep or perhaps death, the black with eyes wide and staring, otherwise identical in appearance" (377). Perhaps Marie-Erzulie is representative of Africa, of the ideal pre-colonial African paradise, Guinee. But the "raping cream father" - white civilization - has violated her, and she gives birth to two dual civilizations: (1) white colonial society a.) the slaveholders in America and b.) the oppressive white colonists of Africa and (2) societies of black oppression a.) enslaved blacks in America and b.) oppressed blacks in Africa. This is reflected in her two babes, one white, one black. I think a segment of one of Goldsmith's poems has a lot of bearing on this allegory:

"Africa empty show me Mother the way of your/ New land. You have made a desert of bone sand where/ Once your children danced/ Will the lighter peoples of Earth/ Enjoy your broad thighs, now that your children are/ Weak and fewer? Will you cast a new mantle of sleeping sickness/ Whites only

In this poem, Africa is equated to a mother. Her "broad thighs," or land, have been violated by the whites, the "raping cream fathers." Africa's children, the blacks, are "weaker and fewer" because blacks have been enslaved by whites . . . One thing I find particularly interesting here is the mention of "sleeping sickness" for "whites only;" as mentioned, the white baby in Erzulie's lap is described as either "asleep" or "dead." Perhaps white colonial slave-holding society is being portrayed as having shut its eyes to the atrocities it has committed. Or perhaps it has sickened itself with its own gluttony, having drank too much of its mother's milk. Or, perhaps because a baby represents innocence, the closing of its eyes (in death) might represent the death of innocence . . . The eyes of the black child, however, are opened wide, perhaps wide with fear - the fear of oppression and enslavement.

But what do all these representations of motherhood have to do with angels? What is the significance of the title "Queen of Angels"? Roger Atkins first calls Jill an angel when she has reached her pinacle of self-awareness, defining an angel as something that surpasses the human: "I suppose that makes you something beyond us. Something superior. I suppose you can call yourself an angel, Jill," he tells his creation . . . Mary likewise can be seen as surpassing humanity; she is a cyborgian creation, with capabilities far above simple humanity. She is also closely identified with Marie-Erzulie, who is known by her vodoun followers as "Our Lady Queen of Angels" (377). I find it interesting that both names Mary and Marie carry echoes of the Virgin Mary. "Our Lady" is likewise used by Catholics to refer to the Virgin Mary.

But if both Jill and Mary can be seen as surpassing humanity, as angels, how does Marie-Erzulie surpass humanity? If she is indeed Africa, and thus a mother of civilizations, she is far beyond human - a true queen of angels. . . Some who subscribe to the theory of evolution consider Africa the birthplace of all humanity, Africa as Mother Earth - the origin of the first human, who is believed to have been a black woman. Jill seems to subscribe to the belief in evolutionism, not creationism, when she says of humanity: "I know that my parents are neither immortal nor omniscient. My parents have no parents but nature" (410). So, according to Jill, nature is the mother of all humanity. Thus, if humanity originated in Africa, then Africa is our Earth Mother. . . Erzulie-Marie, a representation of Africa, would then be the mother of all humankind - a true queen of angels.

Thus, the notion of mothers as angels pervades throughout Queen of Angels. Mothers are seen as surpassing the rest of humanity, as angels.

posted by Jane at 6:32 PM

Now I have finished the novel, but I ma not sure I can grasp what it wants to say. The allegory of The New Marassa (323-28) must be telling the reader something. I guess the father figure symbolizes the cultural heritage of the American society. It is patriarchal and oppressive, not only to African American people, but also to the Whites, as is shown in Sir's abuse of the white child. The part that the black child dies for the protection of the white child may indicate that Goldsmith's pre-murder condition - being a white in a black skin. A white in a black skin implies the negation of the history of African American people. It cannot work. That's why Goldsmith commits the murder. But the other option cannot work either. Goldsmith's brother, Ephraim, listens to and depends on Goldsmith. In a certain sense, he is like a black in a white skin. His mirror image might be Richard, who used to be dominated by Goldsmith's thoughts and influence for the first third of the novel. Goldsmith may have put Ephraim through that ordeal of going under the hellcrown in Hispanola in order for him to remember the past, and the guilt associated with Goldsmith's guilt of killing their father, though evil the father was. Ephraim should not have forgotten the past. Richard, by the end of the novel, has got rid of his enslavement. He cured himself of it.
The cyborg character Martin Emanuel is the possible existence, symbolized by a part of Goldsmith is in Marin and Carol. The failure of the investigation not only indicates the futility of western investigative science, but also the presage that the investigated might use science as a way to turn against the investigator. It is a cyborgian strategy. Mary, a combination of Asia, white, and black heritage, is the ideal character in the novel, as is shown in the unique church.

posted by xianfeng at 1:05 PM

Works Cited
Gray, Chris Habels. The Cyborg Handbook. New York: Routledge, 1995.

posted by lillian at 12:42 PM

“This is cyborg justice. No Miranda rights, no crowed court dockets, no criminals going free on a technicality. If you attract the attention of a cyborg hero, you can probably expect to be killed or maimed.” 226

I have really mixed feeling about this because our legal system while slow and inefficient etc. does try and to be just, but then again, there are numerous instances of people going to prison for small things that they did do because the large things were not proved for example Al (scarface) Capone went to Alcatraz for income tax evasion.

I think that this quote is very interesting because I really don’t know what justice is.
What sort of code can encompass truth and justice?

posted by wendell at 12:18 PM

Hint: I wonder if the QoA had a pet? :-)

posted by Samantha at 12:43 AM

Now, some thoughts a little less shallow...I suppose I can't understand why someone would want to do that much modification to their genetalia...I can understand the clit piercings, and maybe the prince alberts...but some of these pictures were so completely disgusting to me...then I tried to think of how I could relate this to the book...and all I could really come up with would be the feelings projected towards Mary--prejudice wise...but, who knows...a complete body over-haul compared to multiple penis piercings...anyone see a connection other than changing yourself to make yourself more internally appealing? Some of these piercings made the genetals appear completely useless in functionality terms...is this the point maybe? I know this is sort of a stretch to compare it to Mary's transformation...but I figured I would comment on it anyhow...I recommend looking at the site...it's a bit odd in some parts...but some of it is very beautiful...Thanks Sarah..

posted by Eileen at 9:25 PM

Well, I have been desperately trying to find the name of the woman who began life as a man and starred in movies with Marilyn Monroe...I can not find anything...but I remember distinctly seeing it on A&E secrets of Sex and Hollywood, or something named like that...I'll keep searching...You would never guess she was born a man...she is purely woman in appearance and shape...it's amazing what surgeries can do to enhance someone's outside to fit their insides like we had been discussing...

posted by Eileen at 7:13 PM

Unfortunately, I can't find more on Ann Dietering than the fact that she was an actress that is referenced in 30 sci-fi novels. I search of the Internet Movie Database (http://www.imdb.com) turns up nothing, which is odd.

posted by Samantha at 1:40 PM

www.bmezine.com

Not for the faint of heart

posted by Sarah at 3:47 PM

This reminds me of the _HMT_ in that there is a fear of creating a society composed of people who are the same as everyone else. Handmainds had to go through "therapy" to change their own thoughts and opinions, just as the therapied in _Queen of Angels_. I think like Atwood, Bear is sending us a wake-up call. Authenticity, originality, difference are in danger.

posted by Tory at 3:26 PM

posted by lillian at 12:55 PM

Has anyone found out detailed information about him? I tried and failed with a web search..not my specialty. I almost feel throughout this novel that the race issue is something he is trying to discuss but just can't quite be comfortable enough with to do so. He needs it for the plot but it almost seems very superficial. He talks over and over about the White Man forcing himself upon everyone else, but that is an easy thing for anyone to use anymore. The evil White Man has ruined everyone else's culture and identity. But that's where he seems to stop. Perhaps this is why he chose to leave the race issues to characters we never really get to know. He hints around about Mary's racial/ethnic origin but we also never get any deeper with her even though she is our main character.

He also treats the gender issue in the same way. Through Mary, we get brief glimpses of how her own gender matters. But they are very brief and seem almost detached from the rest of the novel. He is very elaborate about the statue art, but then it is forgotten.

I'd really like to know his motives. Does he want to talk about such issues but feels he cannot be too deep within his genre? Is he trying to reach other markets by including issues he himself isn't too comfortable with? Is this just his understanding of things and his attempt to write about them?

posted by Sarah at 12:36 PM

It seems that whenever someone talks about cosmetic surgery, they discuss the concepts of beauty and society as if there is some ultimate mastermind controlling these things. WE are society and therefore WE are the ones who decide what is beautiful. Beauty in definition is a subjective thing. Of course in the US, beauty is a Western look because that's where we are. And the advertisers and media are not some evil force that we are subjected to. We are the ones controlling them. If Abercrombie all of the sudden started putting its clothes on fat, acne-ridden, [insert other undesireable traits] models in their commercials, most likely they would lose a lot of business to the other stores whose commercials are full of "gorgeous" bodies.

One large sector of the media is the motion picture industry. Typically, just about every PG-13 or R rated movie will have some sort of nudity scene most likely featuring some unrealistically skinny actress. We then complain that they are setting these standards and causing us all to feel worthless and have horrible self esteem. Yet, when a movie shows some non-standard appearance actress nude (like for instance Cathy Bates in About Schmidt) the comments I hear aound me are those of disgust for seeing her nude body on screen. Why? She's older, larger, and not the typical Hollywood beauty.

Where am I going with this? Cosmetic surgery, makeup, eating disorders, fad diets, etc really shouldn't be our central focus. These are simply the outlets for the insecurities of people who are the ones setting the standards too high themselves. People shouldn't be attacking the cosmetic surgery industry. If someone is going to pay a lot of money to a surgeon who is going to cut them down and use derogatory terms about their desire for their services, I really don't think the surgeon is the one with a problem. Those who want to make a difference in this respect should focus instead on the people who are subjecting themselves to this. Start with educational programs to the youth. Establish healthy self-esteems to start with. Yes it can be done. There are quite a few people walking around who are not anything near the Western standard of beauty who have very high self esteem and self confidence and believe themselves to be absolutely great just the way they look. I happen to be one of them. For those of you who can't connect the name with the face, I'm the "girl" with the buzzed hair who is overweight, doesn't wear expensive or trendy clothes, and doesn't spend any money on beauty products.

I think we put way too much emphasis on the body and not enough on the mind. This whole course we have been discussing the body over and over again: how it is constructed, how it is augmented, how it reacts with technology. The body is just a lump of flesh. The mind is what gives us self-awareness. The mind uses the body as a tool to explore its world. And our brains all look pretty much the same.

posted by Sarah at 12:23 PM

also, i'm unsure of the significance of race in the book, i see race as a big issue for goldsmith, but for the rest of the characters, i'm not getting it.

posted by amy at 11:53 AM

The book also mentioned how Hispaniola is becoming "white". White is the cultural standard. It's the cultural standard in the USA. Like white culture, can't lower itself to black culture. But they expect black culture to rise up to white standards and to accept the white way of life. And to relate that to gender, like if a woman wants to become successful in business or whatever, she often has to take on male characteristics such as aggression. Like women are expected to conform to the needs of men. But men can't do the same for women. Why should a woman have to become more male-like in character, just to get ahead in the world? Or is it even possible to remain "feminine" and still be able to get ahead?

posted by Amanda at 2:33 AM

posted by lillian at 12:57 PM

in class yesterday we talked about the significance of the plus signs in the richard sections of the book. i have finished the book already and the richard sections only get more interesting, i can't figure out exactly what they mean, but i think he is trying to "therapy" himself by telling himself the things with the plus signs attached, because they do seem to be internal.

posted by amy at 12:49 PM

Is this what Mary did in QOA I mean she did have the ultimate cosmetic surgery.

Did she do this for herself image, if so does she seem more complete now then before?

Did she do this for her career, what sort of job(non entertainment related) puts so much pressure on appearance.

posted by wendell at 7:27 AM

These gendered female body types also remind me of those found in comic books as well. I think there is a clear connection between these types of characters and Molly, as well as Mary, to some extent. Their transformations make them seem like comic book or video game action heroes.

posted by Tory at 3:23 PM

posted by lillian at 12:51 PM

Quite a few similarities stood out for me. I was better able to visualize the concept of "jacking in," and "flatlining" became more fully explained. I liked Morpheus' explanation of cyberdeath: that if you die in virtual reality, you die in cold harsh reality as well - the body cannot survive without the mind. Perhaps the only way Neo overcomes his physical death is when he realizes that his virtual death was only as real as his mind chose to conceive it. His death is psychsomatic. Choosing to believe that the bullets are real or choosing to believe that the bullets are a mere fabrication of an elaborate computer program means the difference between life and death. Just as the enlightened child informs Neo "There is no spoon," neither are there bullets. Neo thus had to do away with all his preconceived notions of the nature of existence, and undeceive his mind in the matrix. His enlightenment was a triumph of mind over matter, and his resurrection an illustration of the limitless power of the mind.

In Neuromancer, we also see the power of the mind over the body. Case describes the body as "meat;" it is only when his mind transcends its tenement of flesh that he feels unfettered. Reveling in his disembodied consciousness, he feels free.

Another similarity I noticed between Neuromancer and The Matrix was the mention of the place Zion. In the former, it is a spacial colony inhabited by Rastafarians; in the latter, it is the one last human city, situated close to the earth's core. I find it interesting that a biblical reference is used in these sci-fi works; "The Matrix", indeed, is rife with such references. . . I wonder what connection is meant to be suggested by religion and prophecy in a sci-fi world. That humans, no matter how technologically advanced, will never abandon their spirituality? Or their dreams of paradise?

posted by Jane at 12:01 AM

posted by lillian at 12:56 PM

In response to Tory's question I feel that the misconceptions she was addressing come mainly from the media. "Bra-burning bitches" are a lot more "entertaining," it's what sells. Additionally, just like racism, it is learned from parents. I really don't know a good way to "shatter" these myths. People with one-sided views tend to be the hard to convince otherwise. I guess all I can say right now is to educate them about other views in a way that doesn't offend them and hope that it sinks in one day. Not the most optimistic view I know, but it seems to me to be one of the things you have to realize on your own. :-)

posted by Shana at 10:58 PM

Laura, I am glad that I chose The Matrix, it gave people the chance to see it with all new eyes. After reading Stone and Gibson we can see where a lot of the ideas for contemporary Sci-Fi films came from. Gibson's work is definitely a seminal one.

Shana's right there are a lot fewer women in this book than in HMT, but their roles are not necessarily less important. The fun in this book is that it is going to take a lot more work to look at gender roles. We've got cowboys, samauris, mothers, fathers, naughty boys, and evil men. I am really looking forward to discussion on Monday!

posted by Samantha at 11:51 AM

Sarah wrote:
I have gotten a litle behind with missing class and being sick, but I am curious as to why it seems we have skimmed over Balsamo's article about public pregnancies. Both of the presentations on Wednesday were about the article, but then the class discussion was almost entirely about HMT. And it seems the blogs have pretty much jumped from HMT to Neuromancer...but here's what I think and it will probably offend some...I have a huge problem with the common feminist trend to only fight for reproductive freedoms that involve the block of reproduction or the end of pregnancy. All women are not the same as we have been reading. There are many women who desperately want to have babies and feel they will be complete as mothers and housewives. The feminist movement should not only fight for the career women who want pills and abortions. It should also be fighting for the mothers and caretakers of our children. Personally I think the women fighting for the insurance companies to cover their fertility treatments deserve more of our support than the crack head who doesn't care about her baby at all.

Yes, and you missed a great discussion :-) I think that far from skimming over Balsamo's article we have given it more attention than some of the other articles. Unfortunately, with a Maymester course we have very little time to spend on any one piece. We only spent 3 days on the HMT all together so I thought 2 days on Balsamo was extraordinary. The critical pieces that we read are serving to contextualize the literature and that's probably why more people are focusing on the fiction in the blogs. Unfortunately with an abbreviated schedule we rarely have all of the time that we would like to focus on everything that we would like to.

I have to disagree with two notions here, 1. that there is a "common feminist thread" and 2. that it is more concerned with birth control. Isn't the main idea behind feminism equality. While I think that the more controversial issues like birth control and abortion rights come to the fore more often, they are not the focus (as such) of the movement. There are so many veins of feminism/womanism in the world that I think that it is impossible to say that they are all concerned with reproduction and not with supporting women who want to be mothers and homemakers. Feminism is more about the freedom to make that choice . Homemakers can be feminist too :-)

I think that we also need to be careful of making generalizations about people. Just because a woman uses drugs (and drug addiction like alcoholism is a disease) doesn't mean that she is not concerned about the fetus she is carrying. Unfortunately, society tells us that women who do drugs, drink alcohol, caffiene, smoke, work too much, don't rest enough, eat enough (or well enough) must not care about their fetus. This is something that is heavily influenced by our current hegemonic patriarchial society. One question we might want to ask is if we (as a society) are so concerned about (pre)natal health why all of the welfare and health care cuts. I think Cat made a good point when she said South Carolina chose to imprison rather than help Ms. Whitner.


posted by Samantha at 11:44 AM

Maybe this approach will help some of us who are having troubles.

posted by Tory at 12:58 PM

Works Cited
Gibson, William. Neuromancer. New York: Ace Books, 1984.


posted by lillian at 12:52 PM

The article about public pregnancies really struck a chord with me. I am having a bit of a problem with the blog system in reconciling the public nature of it with the private idea of a journal, but here's what I think and it will probably offend some...

The idea of a public pregnancy make a lot of sense to me. I consider myself to be a feminist, and somewhat radical on many issues. I just don't see how anyone can say that the fetus completely doesn't matter. Whether abortion should be legal or not has been an ongoing debate, but lets put that aside for now. If a woman does in fact decide to keep her fetus alive until it is born, then I would say that legally she should have to take that fetus into account when making decisions. No, the fetus should not become more important than the woman, but nor should the woman be more important than the fetus if it is being carried to term. To use drugs or participate in activities that are going to harm the fetus and continue harming it after it is born and throughout its life is just cruel. Once a woman had decided for whatever reason to carry her pregnancy to term, she must treat that fetus as a human life.

And yes, the pregnancy is public. The woman is no longer just walking around as an individual having little to no effect on those around her. She is going to bring a life into the world which will become part of our society. We as a species have a vested interest in the well-being of this new life. It will become part of our gene pool. In our economy, it will be someone's financial burden for the next 18 years and possibly for longer if it is born with developmental problems.

Whenever a person brings a new life into the world, he or she is affecting more than just one person. Recklessly putting one's own wants above those of a helpless dependent is selfish. This is what our society seems to be deciding is one of our morals. This is also a fact for many other animal species where the parent will sacrifice itself for the life of its young.

I have a huge problem with the common feminist trend to only fight for reproductive freedoms that involve the block of reproduction or the end of pregnancy. All women are not the same as we have been reading. There are many women who desperately want to have babies and feel they will be complete as mothers and housewives. The feminist movement should not only fight for the career women who want pills and abortions. It should also be fighting for the mothers and caretakers of our children. Personally I think the women fighting for the insurance companies to cover their fertility treatments deserve more of our support than the crack head who doesn't care about her baby at all.

posted by Sarah at 12:46 PM

In response to what Lillian mentioned about Molly being made for male reader’s pleasure and hence market value…this might be true. But, I think it may have been easier for Gibson to construct such a powerful character if the character was female. We’ve talked a lot about the female body and female gender in class and from these discussions and the readings I understand the female body and gender to be totally constructed and that for as long as we know this is how it has always been. So since the male body and male gender is less subject to construction a male version of Molly would not be as believable or interesting to the mostly male audience at the time Gibson wrote Neruomancer. Having the Molly character be female also provides Gibson with variety in male/female characters and allows him to create male/female interaction without which the novel would be very boring.

posted by loretta at 12:08 PM

Nick said:
When I read this I immediately thought of the movie "The Matrix" and lost a lot of respect for the writers of that movie...Gibson is good at making all the things that they use in the novel so far believable and conceivable. The technology is a little complicated but that only it makes it more believable. What intrigued me most was the ability to gene splice, and switch body parts and just the medical advances altogether. They seemed so realistic and it got me wondering if Gibson's vision of medicine in the future would ever come close to that because of all the things so far the new wave medicine and use of the body as a machine (i.e. eye implants) came the closest to our eventual medical evolution.

This is a great point. I, too, am still astounded by the fact that this book was written in 1984 and coined the term cyberspace! Gibson does seem to be a visionary and many of his ideas have taken off and been integrated into other books and movies, especially with all of the recent interest in cyberspace in books and movies. The Matrix is a great example.

Laura writes:
Also, what is the meaning of a "coffin" in this book? I don't think I ever figured that out. I just keep thinking of this vampire crawling into a coffin everytime the word is mentioned. Maybe it's the use of certain terms that is keeping me off track with this story.

Yes, reading sci-fi for the first time can be disorienting. Sometimes you do have to just release your current understanding that you have of words and concepts and allow new meanings to come in. Class discussion is also a great time to gain clarity. BTW the coffins are actually beds of a sort.

Amy writes:
i do find it challenging but i think he forces us to use our imaginations and really think about things, which can be fun, i can't wait to see how others interpret some of the words he uses, it will make for some interesting discussion. i have read neuromancer already and am reading it again because of the language, i don't feel comfortable discussing it in detail because i didn't pay enough attention to the context in some areas, i assumed that some of the words would be explained later and they are not, so hopefully this time around things will become clearer.

I agree wholeheartedly. The language and the way that we interpret it will definitely give us all different understandings of the text. The fun part will be arguing it out in class and seeing other points of view!

Lillian asks a great question:
Molly is depicted as a dominant, independent, competent woman. Such women are very common in contemporary action fiction. From a market point of view, is Gibson using her to entertain male readers?

Is Molly a big draw for the male audience? Who, predominantly, is the audience for sci-fi (or was in 1984)? She is strong, but still extremely sexy. What "samauri" would actually wear skin tight leather pants?

Xianfeng writes:
The development of the cyberspace re-crystallizes the multiple nature of our existence. To me, being multiple poses as a resistance to the binary restricting culture...The possibility of constructing a multiple personality renders communication technologies democratic in nature. Everyone knowing its language can use it to construct another sphere to express their meanings, to tell their own stories to the world and get instant feedback. In one word, cyberspace provides another venue for people to get heard, to break out of the control the society has sought to impose on them.

I've got to play devil's advocate here and ask, what about people who don't have access to the technology? What about people who don't have the economic ability to purchase communication technologies or don't have the knowledge necessary to use the technology even if they can physically access it?

posted by Samantha at 9:12 PM

Yesterday's discussion made me challenge my pro-life beliefs. I don't want to start an abortion debate, just because those seem to go nowhere. But the discussion did make me realize the types of problems and issues pregnant women have to deal with and how limited their freedoms become.

While reading Neuromancer last night, I found it to be somewhat confusing. Mostly because of the names and references to hi-tech devices. The book also reminds me of the movie "The Matrix". And I believe that this has given me a better understanding of the movie, which I had to watch 4-5 times to finally understand it. I also found it interesting that parts of the book take place in Japan, because many of the electronic devices that we use were first made in Japan or improved on there. Plus Japanese culture seems to be more hi-tech than American culture as well.

posted by Amanda at 12:20 PM

posted by lillian at 12:39 PM

I guess i just always sort of thought of the human body as physical manifestation of a more abstract conscience


posted by wendell at 7:22 AM

Also, I would like to comment on Amy's blog about Offred's real name...That's a really good guess...You're right, that's the only name we don't find again...I bet you're right...or at least it's a really good assumption!

posted by Eileen at 2:20 AM

posted by lillian at 11:05 AM

i'm in agreement with everyone that this story is definitely a warning. i think we should look to june's mother- throughout the book she says that we take things for granted and she seems angry at the way the younger generation (who didn't have to fight for their freedom) doesn't seem to think that things could revert back to the hard times she endured. she has tasted oppression and i think she forsees and is afraid of what lies ahead for her daughter and granddaughter. this is a direct message to us that we continue to fight for and appreciate our rights.

posted by amy at 10:24 AM

I also find it interesting that we are picking up on the uncanny resemblance that some of the politics in the novel have with our politics of today. Is it viable that a society such as the one that appears in the HMT could be put into effect today? I don't have the answer, but it is fascinating and somewhat scary to think about. Part of me wants to believe that we as a society are progressive enough to not let something like that occur, but another part of me sees aspects of this society in our own. The society in the novel seems to have regressed--like it was mentioned in class earlier, it seems like a society of the past, not one that we would think of occuring in the future.

posted by Tory at 12:14 AM

something i thought of in class yesterday: we discussed the human need for community, i think this need really helps the patriarchs hold power. the patriarchal family unit is the basic unit of our society so it makes sense that our government should be patriarchal as well since we value family. in HMT the family unit as we know it is disrupted. women are expected to be machines, bearing children only to have them taken away, the childrens future rests on their sex. trouble arises in this first generation of handmaids when they resist being machines.


posted by amy at