A Path to the Dark Side: My Personal Decision

            A Jedi must always remain neutral when it comes to politics. They may provide safety or council but they cannot get involved in wars or political struggles. However, when the Sith are somehow involved in these political conflicts the Jedi have complete jurisdiction.

            As a judge, it was my duty to first remain neutral, much like the force itself. As good and evil was presented and exploited I could sway in a certain direction, lending the ways of the force to a certain team. Whichever team ended up presenting the best arguments and receiving the most points would have the force with them.

            Unlike Lucas’ epic saga, the negative team (or the Sith) won the debate, however, it was a close race as there were masters on both sides.

            The topic was whether or not Gertrude betrayed both her husband and son. The affirmative stuck to notions of what betrayal meant in terms of its affect on the play as a whole, while the negative spoke of tricks of the mind. They believed Hamlet only felt betrayed because of certain actions, but in fact was not, while the affirmative tried to argue the actions as a direct form of deception.

            Gertrude’s actions can be compared to those of Anakin Skywalker in Revenge of the Sith. He strangles Padme when he notices Obi-Wan aboard her ship and believes that he has betrayed her, however, just because he believes this does not make it true. The affirmative would argue that Padme’s actions were in fact a betrayal because of tense relationships and plot twists. The truth is clearly found within the first assumption.

            The affirmative tried to argue that Gertrude was selfish throughout the entire play, that she tricked hamlet and twisted the plot, but are those not properties of a Sith lord?            

             The Sith would not be what they are without their ability to manipulate, (and ultimately create Darth Vader through such manipulation), which was proven by the negative’s more elaborate arguments. If marriage during the time of Hamlet was not about love than Gertrude did not betray her husband through re-marriage, and she clearly cared for the mental health of hamlet. While the affirmative relied on their use of language and jokes (clearly Yoda was with them) the negative won every light saber battle, and enticed the judges to the dark side with a wonderful soliloquy.

            Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes, and the negative side of the force absolutely won.

A Sense of Sensibility: A Well Prepared Debate

By Stephanie Wilson

            On Friday, December 12^th, 2008, at approximately 8:30 AM several members of Mr. Murray’s Grade 12 English Class performed a well-prepared debate, complete with arguments upon arguments and piles of quotes. The affirmative team made up of Ilayda Williamson, Mary Collins and Michaela Blaser were equally matched by the opposing team of Jessica Barton, Melissa Watson and Kelsey Cambell, and were ultimately defeated thanks to the decision made by judges Nick Leblond, Jennifer Ross and Yanick Lee. Taking place in Mr. Murray’s English classroom, the group was assigned the task of debating whether or not Prince Hamlet was crazy, and the result was an explosion of possibilities.

            Both teams represented their opinion using quotes and points of view from a variety of fields (ex: medical, legal and psychological). The affirmative began by illustrating that all of Hamlet’s qualities pointed to a mental disorder. They brought into light Hamlet’s ramblings, his murders and all of his actions that endangered the other characters. The team appeared well prepared and confident.

            The negative team then presented points, in a slightly shaky manner. However, the deliverance did not take away any of the poignancy. The team made note of how all of Hamlet’s changes could be explained and categorized by the stages and methods of grieving.

            As the rebuttals began, each team seemed to remain cool, and presented well though-out ideas. They involved hasty generalizations, various definitions of insanity and the topic of hallucinations.

            During the free for all, some of the audience members ganged up on debaters (ex: Mary Collins) and that resulted in some anger and frustration, but overall the debate members stuck to their arguments.

            Overall, the students found the debate less interesting than expected, but those who listened were given great insight into the question at hand. Seeing as such a wide array of viewpoints was presented the audience gathered a clear understanding of both possibilities, which allowed them to arrive at their own conclusions. Despite the expectations of the audience, all that was presented on Friday was a well-prepared debate.

Thesis: Are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern really there as human entities?

Reason: Yes – It is clear that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are present as they are spoken to by many of the main characters of the play as they are old friends, or have at least visited the castle before.

Example: King gives orders to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (4.1.1-45)

-         “Friends both, go join you with some further aid.”

Example: Hamlet speaks with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (2.2.220-388)

-         ” We’ll wait upon you”

-         “No such matter. I will not sort you with the rest of my servants”

Reason: No- It is clear that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern must be spirits of some kind, as no one can tell them apart or identify them, as if they are not quite sure who and what they really are.

Example: The King and Queen refer to them by different names when addressing them. (2.2.33-34)

-         ” Thanks Rosencrantz and gentle Guildenstern”

-         ” Thanks Guildenstern and gentle Rosencrantz”

Example: Hamlet refers to both of them by either Rosencrantz or Guildenstern (2.2.225-230)

Reason: No- it is implicitly stated in the play that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, and no one takes notice.

Example: An ambassador tells Horatio that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are ‘dead’ (5.2.372)

-         “That Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead”

Example: Horatio then begins telling the story of Hamlet. (5.2. 375-387)

          While it may appear as though Hamlet is controlled by revenge, and that it is the motive behind his transformation, one must first consider the motives behind revenge. The purpose behind revenge is generally not that of justice, but is instead to put the victim through the same pain as they gave to others. Revenge can never just happen on it’s own and must be enticed by other actions. One could argue that Hamlet wished for revenge on the grounds that his father was murdered, and perhaps that his anger towards the murderer was amplified by the fact that his mother had married him. However, why would the marriage amplify it? It has nothing to do with murder itself. Thus, there must be an underlying cause for why he is angry to the extent that he is.

            Hamlet is so angry that his father was murdered because more was taken away from him then simply ‘his father’. Hamlet lost his biological connection to god, his perception of how a family should be structured and the love of 2 out of the 3 people that he loved. Thus, you could say that Hamlet’s motive, while it did lead to revenge, was a need to feel loved.

            When his father was a step below god, he was biologically closer to god, then when his uncle was in that position. Given that place, he would feel a stronger connection to god, and perhaps feel as though god loved him more. Clearly, he lost the love of his father, as his father died, but he also felt as though he lost the love of his mother, for his mother did not consider his feelings or situation and continued to side with the King throughout the play. Besides Ophelia’s love, which he later loses, Hamlet lost all of the love he felt in his life.

            Without a feeling of love and belonging, Hamlet deteriorated emotionally, and it was visible through his internal and external characteristics. Hamlet no longer felt love so he no longer spoke of love. This is evident through many of his soliloquies. He speaks of death, madness, etc. All that opposes love, for that is what he now feels inside. The majority of Hamlet’s mental ability remained for he was still cunning, intelligent and creative, but his ability to act appropriately in social situations was greatly affected for it was what he lost that made social situations positive for him. All that was left were the negative aspects of being sociable.

            His transformations are clearly convincing as his mother and other individuals point towards grieving and love as the cause of them. What they are not aware of is the extent to which it affects him (which they learn of later when he exacts his revenge) or how exactly or to whom exactly he is feeling these feelings. His mother assumes Hamlet is crazy with love for Ophelia, and that he is grieving for his father. While these things may be true he is also grieving over the loss of love from his father, mother and god. Ophelia relates very little to this situation and Gertrude is more involved than she thinks she is.

            Horatio seems to be the only individual within the whole play who somewhat understand Hamlet’s emotions. Gertrude, Claudius and Ophelia all assume the same thing (that Hamlet is crazy in love for Ophelia), and if they had spoken to Horatio, and received the information about the ghost and Hamlet’s thoughts on the ghost, perhaps they could have formulated the true response. Each character accepts a small segment of Hamlet’s motivations, but no one understands it in its entirety. Even after Hamlet’s death, not one other character completely understands the reasons behind both his transformation and actions.

        Maslow’s Hierarchy can be looked at in the shape of a pyramid, with the most primitive and important needs at the bottom on the pyramid, and those, which are more sophisticated and less important at the top. When considering a general overview of hamlet’s personal reality, it is clear that he is missing aspects of Maslow’s pyramid at each level.

1.Physiological: While hamlet appears physically healthy throughout the play it is evident that he is lacking the sexual relationship he was once involved in, as he stops seeing Ophelia.

2.Safety: Throughout the progression of the play Hamlet loses first his safety of family (as his father dies and his mother marries his uncle), then his safety of morality (as he plots to kill the King) and lastly his security of body (as he learns of the King’s plot to kill him).

3. Love/Belonging: By the end of the play Hamlet loses all three of the things in this category. He loses his family, as his father is killed (and his mother later on), he loses his friendship of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern when he discovers they tricked him and early on in the film his loses his sexual relationship with Ophelia.

4. Esteem: Hamlet loses his respect for many characters in the play including his mother, his uncle, Ophelia and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Others also lose respect for him, particularly Polonius and King Claudius.

5. Self-actualization: Hamlet has some difficulty accepting facts at times, but generally believes what he is told. However, he clearly loses his morality as he kills his uncle, the King.

When the progression of Hamlet’s personal reality throughout the play is considered, the Hierarchy would have to be reshaped all together.

            Hamlet’s personal reality would better fit a diagram in the shape of an hourglass, as he loses the needs closer to the middle of the triangle and keeps those near the top and bottom.

          Despite how the play may appear, depending on which type of reality is emphasized when analyzing the play, the reality of the society and the characters within it can appear quite normal. However, when considering the importance of the family unit within this society, one must first address the social constructionism represented. Such theories consider the development of certain social phenomena within a particular context. In the case of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, it is particularly relevant.

            In general, a social construct is a practice or conception that appears perfectly natural to those practicing it but is in fact simply a conception of that society alone. It is not particularly right or wrong but is accepted where it is used. The main focus of the study is to understand the ways by which individuals create their own realities, something that all of Hamlet’s players have done. In comparison to a truthful reality, a socially constructed reality would be an institutionalized tradition reproduced by the interpretations and knowledge of those using it. Does that not describe the role of family in the play?

            Taking this anti-realistic view into consideration, the role of family is so vital for the members of the play that by tampering with it, their entire world crumbles. During the time of the play, a family setting that did not consist of a father, mother and children was unheard of. It was part of the social artifact that the people believed made up reality in its completion. To further explain, on a subjective level, to individuals who have never heard of or considered living outside of the nuclear family construct a world without such a construct would not exist. Thus, when the known world is destroyed there is nothing. Their sense of reality is destroyed, and their lives fall.

            The individual situation of each character can prove that this usage of reality is used throughout the play. If each individual reality were considered to be phenomenological then the individual social constructs created by each character would not have to be shared by the other characters in order to be real. While something may not appear to be devastating to another individual if it was a social artifact created by a specific individual for himself the destruction of it would result in the destruction of his personal reality and ultimately, his own destruction.

Prince Hamlet

Yay: Hamlet lives in a world where the nuclear family rules all. While he does spend time at university, he is only capable of doing this because he is aware that his family is safe and sound at home. Hamlet is in a good position, and to him the levels his family members possess on the chain of being are vital to his reality. His biological father is next to god, making the man who gave him life highly important to him. His most important personal social constructs would be his family, and his biological fathers position on the thrown.

Boo: When his father is murdered both of his socials constructs are destroyed, as not only is his biological relation to god gone, but his ideal family is destroyed by his mother’s marriage to his uncle. Hamlet falls such a long way because he is falling down the chain of being. While his position is the same, his personal connection is missing, and his reality is altered. As a result, he goes mad, goes against his own morals to plot murder and executes it. Thus, he dies.

King Claudius

Yay: King Claudius’ picture of reality does not involve morals or family but instead position and appearance. To him, having a high-ranking position, both socially and along the chain of being, means a good life. He frequently hides his true feelings and dealings from both his wife and the public for his social construct is that of false love. This is why, he begins plotting and being secretive when the actions of certain individuals become unruly. A good appearance towards the public must be maintained at all times. His most important personal social constructs are that he has a high social position and that the public loves him.

Boo: A key moment in Claudius’ destruction is when Hamlet’s performs the play detailing his outlandish ways. When this is done a scarred public image of him is presented which negates the public love for him and could hinder his position as king. Without the respect of his subjects he cannot function. Hamlet acts out to others, as well as Ophelia, so his reality soon crumbles as people truly learn of what goes on at the palace. He is lead to plotting a murder that is to happen in public, going against his ways, as his reality falls, which leads to his death.

Queen Gertrude

Yay: The Queen’s world is a mixture of both her son and her new husband. Gertrude believes in a happy family (though it need not be structured traditionally). She is greatly affected by the woe of those around her, for her stature breaks down more and more as those in her family become unhappy. When her son, husband and potential daughter-in-law are unhappy she is unhappy. She believes in keeping her family stable above all else, which could provide a reason behind her quick remarriage. The family’s position was in trouble, and there was no longer a father figure for her son to look up to, so she attempted to solve the problem. Her most important social construct is joyous family life.

Boo: Gertrude’s downfall commences when she realizes that those around her are not as happy as she tried to make them. She assumes Hamlet is mad out of love because she does not want to consider that he is grieving. Even when she drinks the poison she is happy and smiling for Hamlet. As she watched the reality of her family’s sorrow come into light he clearly tried to mentally ignore the problem and pretend things were still along her planned path. This lead to her death.

Polonius

Yay: A well-balanced world for Polonius, surprisingly, has little to do with his own family. While he at times appears to care for his daughter, all of his advice for her is what would better aid the royal family at that time. His social construct is that same as that of Queen Gertrude, which is a happy royal family.

Boo: As Polonius is Claudius’ advisor he is the first to learn of the troubles between the king and his stepson. Hence, he is the first to die. It is because he learns that there is disruption in the royal family that he commences the spying that leads to the actions that cause his death.

Ophelia

Yay: Somewhat like King Claudius, Ophelia needs to be loved. Moments near the beginning of the play (or flashbacks) that show her with family members or Hamlet adoring her and giving her comfort, are some of the only moments that show her smiling. It is in these moments that she feels loved by those around her, and her reality is balanced. Her most important personal social construct is her love from others.

Boo: When Ophelia believes that Hamlet is angry and no longer loves her she begins to feel distressed and is never shown as being happy. This is because the reality that “those around her love her” is breaking down. The death of her father crosses the line, as he was constantly giving her advice and reassuring her. Without her brother present, no one was there to love her, and she went insane. Since the figured that provided her with the most love could no longer provide that for her, she killed herself.

Laertes

Yay: Laertes is less affected by the death of his father than that of his sister because he believes that his sister must always be safe and happy. When he is seen with his sister he is constantly showing his affection for her, and clearly cares deeply for her. Thus, his most important personal social construct is the happiness and safety of his sister.

Boo: While Laertes hardly reacted to the death of his father, when he saw his sister in her state of madness he was clearly distressed. He had always protected her and kept her happy, but he had failed. His greatest failure was in Ophelia’s suicide, which is what drove him to attempt to kill Hamlet. Without Ophelia he no longer had any need for morals. He died because Ophelia died and he could no longer keep her happy.

Prince Fortinbras

Boo: While it may appear as though the prince cared deeply for his father, which is the cause for his distaste of the Royal family, the reality of Fortinbras is that of honor. His father was defeated in battle and all of his conquered land was taken away, which to him, is quite shameful. Unlike, with the previous individuals, things begin poorly for Fortinbras, as he begins the play shamed.

Yay: Contrary to everyone else in the play Fortinbras ends the play on a happy note, as he has invaded Denmark, and because the royal family has died, takes the thrown. As such, he honor is restored, and his personal social construct returns to normal.

The Royal Family of Denmark:
The crises affecting this family provide the central themes of the play itself. Ultimately, they can be summed up as both betrayals, by a number of members, and a difference in family values.
King Claudius murders his bother and weds the newly widowed queen, which can be entitled betrayal by both participants. Claudius has clearly betrayed not only his brother and family but also the all-important chain of being, by killing the next in line after god. Arguably, Gertrude has also betrayed Old Hamlet, as she was very quick to wed after the death. Seeing as the situation greatly affects her son, it can be considered that she betrayed him as well.
Hamlet isn’t so innocent himself, as he later kills his stepfather, King Claudius. This is, again, a betrayal towards the chain of being, but can also be considered a betrayal against his mother, as she no doubt wished for her new family to live happily together. Hamlet destroyed that dream for her.
The central family copes using methods that can be described as both immoral and insane. Both Claudius and Hamlet plot murder against those who have ‘wronged’ them and succeed. Hamlet often results to rambling and spewing large bursts of emotion to purge him of the troubles affecting him. While Claudius and Gertrude tend to refrain from this, it is arguable that their position is the sole reason for it.

Polonius’ Family:
The family of the King’s advisor is faced with many problems caused by those faced by the royal family, as they are very involved in the workings of the royal family. For instance, Polonius is troubled by the struggle between Claudius and his stepson, and later the torment of his daughter by crazed Hamlet. Ophelia is in constant disarray because of Hamlet’s anger and then ‘crazed love for her’. Then she is then pushed over the edge by her father’s murder.
Laertes then faces the crisis is Ophelia’s death. While he is aware of Hamlet’s position within society he also believes that he is the cause of Ophelia’s assumed suicide. Thus, the struggles between Claudius and Hamlet that were mentioned earlier are used to gain leverage concerning his more recent crisis.
Ophelia copes with the destruction of both her lover and father by not coping. She goes mad, cries incessantly and eventually kills herself. Clearly, she has the worst coping methods out of her entire family. Laertes, like hamlet, plots revenge in order to ease his soul and though he dies in the process, ultimately succeeds in killing Hamlet.

The Royal Family of Norway:
While not much is discussed concerning the royal family of Norway it is clear that prince Fortinbras is greatly troubled by the defeat of his father and the loss of his conquered lands. As a warlord, this greatly shamed him, and thus was constantly devising a way to win back what he had lost and regain his father’s honor. The only real crisis affecting the uncle of Fortinbras is the actions taken by his son, which seem inappropriate to him and perhaps shame him.
In order to ease his mind Prince Fortinbras invades and conquers Denmark.

The Nuclear Family:
The typical nuclear family consists of descendants and their biological mother and father. It is known as the traditional family and does not include elements of one’s extended family such as grand parents. Traditionally, the nuclear family is viewed as a nurturing, low stress environment where the children are raised with love and stability. The family is generally in a stable economic position and much time is spent as a family, with the children.
The play expresses the destruction of the nuclear family. As can be seen from the family trees, each of the three families began as a proper, nuclear family but as certain catastrophic events began to affect them their representation as nuclear families began to crumble. Hamlet used to live in a love-filled and nurturing environment with his biological mother and father, but because of his father’s murder and his mother’s marriage to his uncle his family situation quickly becomes dysfunctional.
The father figured is killed in each situation, for Old Fortinbras is slain by Old Hamlet and Prince Hamlet murders Polonius. Without a biological father figure the nuclear family cannot exist, and when a family loses this position all of it’s other elements quickly fall out of place. The stress level elevates, there is a lack of emotional support and clearly there is a lack of love. The idea expressed is that without a father, there can be no nuclear family.

Shades of Red: Debaters Exhibit Throws of Emotion

By Stephanie Wilson

            On Thursday, December 11^th, 2008, at approximately 1:30 PM, several members of Mr. Murray’s grade 12 English class entered into a heated debate complete with logical fallacies, inappropriate jokes and malicious ridicule. The affirmative team, made up of Ben Cousins, Dawson Lybbert, and Justin Sweeney Cadieux, were brutally defeated by the opposing team of Stephanie Boucher, Stephanie MacDonald and Rebecca Ritchie and were crowned the losers of the debate by judges Seth Epps, Colton Bissonnette, and Logan Lubuk. Taking place in Mr. Murray’s English classroom the group was assigned the task of debating whether or not Miller’s definition of tragedy was appropriate to the modern age, and the result was many faces of various shades of red.

            Both teams began with strong, focused arguments. The affirmative presented how the likes of the audience had changed over time, and now preferred a more civilized performance. They argued that a story concerning the common man was more applicable to modern day society, and that it allowed for a better connection to the audience. While the team stumbled slightly during their delivery the points were clearly understood.

            The points then presented by the negative team were spoken very quickly, which took away from the poignancy of the arguments. The team made note of how Shakespearean tragedy fit into the multiple categories discussed in class, rather than one specific category and expanded upon the idea with a wide range of examples.

            Things quickly differed from formality, however, as appeals to flattery towards the judges arrived in the form of verbal compliments and hand made t-shirts. The group rebuttals soon became personal attacks and long, circling descriptions that lead nowhere. Stephanie Boucher, in particular became extremely angry and defensive as the discriminatory jokes from the affirmative team started flying.

            By the time the free for all section had arrived Boucher’s face was red with anger, MacDonald was red with embarrassment and Sweeney was red with shame. Murmurs of both agreement and disagreement began to rise from the audience and by the end of it, each individual clearly had decided upon their own, personal position on the argument.

            Overall, the heated debate, accentuated by the temperature of the room itself, gave many of the other students a good idea as to what to expect for their own debates and various ideas as to how they could improve upon their planning. Despite the cold weather outdoors, nothing seemed to affect the hot faces and shades of red experienced by the debaters of Thursday’s heated debate.

More than a Machine

            The synthetic fibers making up his skin are warm to the touch. The blinking lights in his eye sockets burn faster and brighter. As he tries to duplicate the sensations of the human in front of him, his gears make a whirring sound. The robot saddens the human, as it tries endlessly to replicate his emotions. The robot tries to be sad too. The human loves the robot. The robot returns a synthetic kind of love. Which emotions are the real ones?

            If a robot is programmed to think it is human, is an act of passion still synthetic? If a human makes cold, heartless decisions in a search for power, is he thinking robotically? Which one is more human?

            To be unsure of one’s response, in a world where one’s right to exist depends on it, is troubling to say the least. The mechanism in power will no doubt limit the capabilities of those beneath it, be they human or robotic. Philip K. Dick chooses to explore such a world, a society dominated by man-made technology, through his novels, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and The Man in the High Castle.

            He presents his story, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” as a linear plot line focusing upon the struggle for existence between humans and androids. He then explores the history, meaning, emotions and viewpoints from the novel, in his earlier classic The Man in the High Castle. That which is presented in Do Androids Dream in Electric Sheep is explored and glorified in The Man in the High Castle. The two, seemingly separate works are in fact two halves of the whole epic and thus, portray the exact same story; a future society completely computer-run, that no longer holds any distinction between man and machine. Simplistically stated, the biological and the mechanical are now but the same thing.

            Generally, the risk of facing a robot or human identity crisis is relatively low. However, it is not altogether impossible, as is evident through The Man in the High Castle. The personal reality of each character appears truthful through the majority of the novel, however, the true reality of their situation can be explained through the use of the simulation argument.

            While is it impossible to tell which type of simulation is experienced by the players, as their only connection to the audience is through their virtual selves, their presence in a simulated reality is evident.

            Philosopher Nick Bostrom investigated such a possibility through the simulation argument. Simplified, the arguments proceed as such:

1.      It is possible that a society could create computer simulations, containing individuals through the use of artificial intelligence.

2.      Such a society would likely run many simulations (ex: for research purposes).

3.      A simulated individual may not know that they are within a simulation, and would go about their days as if they were living within the ‘real world’.

            Bostrom’s argument utilizes the premise that given a society with sufficiently advanced technology, whole worlds or whole universes could be simulated. The simulated universe and all of its inhabitants could be stored in a quantum pocket of space on a computer. The citizens of the cyber world could be fully conscious and thus, just as human as their counterparts in the ‘real world’ (”Simulated Reality”).

           What is important to note about simulated inhabitants of a such a world is that certain individuals may recognize that their world is virtual reality, while others, perhaps by selection, will not. Not all of humanity will be oblivious in certain situations, such as that portrayed in The Man in the High Castle. No matter how technologically advanced or socially savvy the Germans and Japanese were, they could not have lied their way out of losing a war. This is evident to some individuals in the novel, though it is never explicitly stated. How then, could an entire population be led to believe the opposite to what truly occurred? Those in power, the Germans, clearly being more technologically advanced than the rest of the world, must have created a simulated reality for the inhabitants of the planet after the Second World War.

            While some deny the reality, others, who are not quite sure, try to fit the pieces together. All becomes clear, however, when the “Inner truth [is revealed and]…It means that the book is true…Germany and Japan lost the war” (”Man in the High Castle” Pg. 257).

            This implies that those in the novel, who appear to be fighting oppression and discrimination, are in actuality struggling to comprehend the truth of their computer-created environment. Even if the simulated consciousness of a being is representing a human is it not still but circuits and data? Is that not but the definition of a robotic consciousness?

           The novel does not at all touch upon the distinction between the Japanese and the American or the German and the Jewish, but rater tries to differentiate between the mechanical and the biological, the underlying struggle presented in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.

            The futuristic society of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is equally as run by technology. However, while the minds in The Man in the High Castle are but the synthetic consciousness of the dormant individuals, those in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep are the characters themselves, struggling with the same question, “Am I human or not?” The world illustrated in Dick’s later novel is as equally controlled by technology as the first, however it is represented differently.

           Yes, the society is simulated, but the connections between an individual and his reality are more evident. Such a malleable reality can be described as an intermingled simulation, and is similar to that explored in The Matrix. It presents a world inhabited not only by the virtual minds of those on the outside, but also visiting players. These players develop the ability to mould and shape their surroundings based solely on their knowledge and acceptance that it is, indeed a simulation (”Simulated Reality”).

           A prime example of this is seen in the case of John Isadore. Considered unfit for even a virtual life by the leading members of society, he causes the “final disorder of all forms, the absence which would win out” (”Do Androids Dream” Pg. 212), out of a state of depression. His emotions and mental fragility affect the virtual construction of the room.

           It is difficult to argue that a man who feels so strongly controlled by his electric sheep is not controlled by the technology. All aspects of a ‘human’s’ life in this advanced society are strongly connected to the mechanical. Dials control even their emotions, and a connection to a virtual ‘Empathy Box’ is require by many to even feel human. This, once again, brings up the question “Am I a human or am I a robot?” If what differentiates a human from a robot is human emotion, then isn’t emotion controlled by programming and circuitry, a robotic quality? If such, is the individual even human anymore?

           Thus, Dick chooses to present an identical simulated reality through two different viewpoints. He presents stock characters in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and explores the inner struggles they face subconsciously in The Man in the High Castle.

           Other parallels between the two novels quickly become evident. While each character battles an inner struggle they face society’s quarrels as well. One of the greatest similarities between the two novels is the maltreatment of the oppressed by those in power. In both cases, this leads to the same, ultimate realization of the truth, as explained in the premise above. While the characters are dealing with their identity crises, outwardly, the truth becomes evident to them through their oppression.

           Similar terms are used in both novels to describe an individual who is determining, and accepting the truth about their reality. In both works, most of the characters question the reality of their situations, but few become completely aware of it or accept the truth of their situations.

           Generally they are shunned, and ridiculed by the oblivious individuals around them, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the society has not yet clued-in to the working of their own world, or perhaps they themselves comprehend the truth of their reality, and are unwilling to accept it. The dynamic characters of the pieces explore both of these viewpoints.

           The Man in the High Castle chooses to refer to a “person who spins philosophy [as an]…egghead” (”Man in the High Castle” Pg. 89). Clearly, those who are openly questioning the value of their society are ridiculed.

           By comparison, the majority of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep’s society refers to questioning individuals such as John Isidore as “Chickenheads…[and] they don’t treat him very well either” (”Do Androids Dream” Pg. 164).

           Both Isidore and Juliana is the same individual, represented first as a ridiculed member of society who can shape his own reality without comprehending how or why. However, represented as Julianna, she has a firm grasp of her power over reality.

           Expanding on the idea, each story illustrates inequality on a larger scale, namely the treatment of the androids by the humans, the English by the Japanese and the Jewish by the Germans.

           Despite the fact that the Nazis and the Japanese lost the war, the accepted actions of society advocate otherwise. The Man in the High Castle at one point presents “[an] escapee from the Nazis, the cop [says]. “You know what that means?”" (”Man in the High Castle” Pg. 195). He is not given a proper trial and is sent back to Germany because of his origin. The cops hunted him like bounty hunters.

           The fright, experienced by Frank Fink as the German Policeman cuffed him was depicted by the actions of the androids, captured and killed by Rick Deckard. While pure emotion was felt by Fink, upon facing her death, Nexus-6 type Android, Luba Luft had a “spasm of frantic fear, twisted and spun away, dropping as she did so” (”Do Androids Dream” Pg. 134). While Luba was said to experience no fear and purely reacted, her subconscious reflected through Fink, felt plenty of fear, and like Luft, quickly realized what was going to happen.

           Being an android, Luba Luft, was ‘incapable of human emotion’. Yet, She reflected the underlying suggestion of the novel, through her actions as an android and emotions as a subconsciously Jewish man. If she was truly incapable of human emotion, than why did her subconscious not only take the form of a human, but also feel human emotion? The only rational explanation leads to the reality of a simulation, and the blurred distinction between man and machine. For it proven that in the case of Dick’s novels, they are exactly the same.

           The difference between cultures expressed in the novels presents another parallel, as well as how those looking in, view each race and culture. How a character would see themselves and how others would view them, was generally completely different; symbolizing the overall effect of the hidden reality.

           The Man is the High Castle consistently makes the use of categories to differentiate the members of the society based on position and race. This helps to emphasize the big question ” What defines one as human?” For instance, from the perspective of a Jewish man, the Germans were “[unaware] of what they do to others, the destruction they have caused and are causing” (”Man in the High Castle” Pg. 41). He considered them to “identify with gods power and believe they [were] godlike” (”Man in the High Castle” Pg. 42). Described in this way, is this category of humanity not the exact definition of the humanoid robot?

           Roy Baty, the greatest of the power hungry, “proposed [a] group escape attempt, underwriting it ideologically with a pretentious fiction as to the sacredness of so called android “life”" (”Do Androids Dream” Pg. 184). Upon achieving a role as leader he continued his quest for god-like ability by ” [experimenting] with mind-fusing drugs…to promote in androids a group experience similar to Mercerism” (”Do Androids Dream” Pg. 184).

           On the opposite side were the Japanese. The white man considered them to rule with “subtlety, ingenuity, [and] timeless cunning” (”Man in the High Castle” Pg. 182). The Americans were “Barbarians compared to them…no more than boobs against such pitiless reasoning” (”Man in the High Castle” Pg. 182).

           Grace and control, comparable only to Rachel Rosen, who an American man, could “watch for the rest of [his] life” (”Do Androids Dream” Pg. 183). Rachel seemed to fit the definition of ‘human’ better than the Germans. Good and evil, on both sides there were extremes in each case, represented in each novel. Once again, the parallels were evident and the distinction between the ticking and the breathing was blurred.

           Almost every character of The Man is the High Castle is connected to the truth of their reality if some way, as they are all affected by the fictional novel The Grasshopper lies heavy. The novel depicts a world where the Germans and the Japanese lost the war, which is the truth of their situation. In actuality, this novel is a re-titled version of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.

           Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep provides the backbone of the actions that really took place for the minds of The Man is the High Castle.  The fictional novel was perceived as a vivid description of action and events, much like how Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is written. The tale left out the emotions and deeper viewpoints of those involved in the plotline, which is the reality expressed by Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The events were presented, and it was revealed not only that the world was a simulated reality but also that each member of the society was having an identity crisis, unsure of their own humanity, This only helped to heighten the reality, that the world was a simulation. The inner feelings of some of the characters were not expressed in the fictional story, as the readers felt them, the subconscious implants of The Man in the High Castle.

           “Suddenly for the first time in his life, he had begun to wonder” (”Do Androids Dream” Pg. 144), as they all began to wonder after reading The Grasshopper lies heavy. The novel was difficult for the readers to accept because they knew what the underlying meaning was. After trying so hard to define and separate themselves from the other races, and believe that they were different from those they despised, that they were the true humans, the evidence was clear; none of them were. They are all androids, whose viewpoints and emotions were programmed into them, as data in a simulated reality. Nothing that they believed made them human was real. They were all exactly the same.

           Dick chooses to tell the reader a story in two parts, without ever giving all of the information needed to follow it in one section. The two must be read together, considered as one novel, to be completely comprehended, for as the characters of The Man in the High Castle and the hero of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep discover, all is the same. While, when read separately the two works may appear to tell two distinct stories with separate sets of issues, the pieces both describe the same simulated reality, the same individuals, and the same mind-bending question. If one can feel, dream and love, are they human? If one can strive for mad, godlike powers are they robotic? The answer Dick provides through the combined reading of both novels is that in the end, both the robot and the human are exactly the same.

Bibliography

Dick, Philip. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. New York: Del Ray Books, 1968.

Dick, Philip. The Man in the High Castle. New York: Vintage Books, 1962.

Flynt, Larry. “Simulated Reality.” Wikipedia. 2008. Wikimedia. 5 Dec 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality#Nick_Bostrom.27s_argument>.

God Has Eaten Man.

Second ISU – Rough Outline

Thesis:
Dick chooses to explore the consequences of an android controlled world through both his novels; “Do androids Dream of Electric Sheep” and “The Man in the High Castle”. The author uses “Do Androids…” as the backbone of the story, with the roles, characters and plotline clearly evident. However, “The Man…” provides the meaning behind the story, and portrays the emotions and views, which are assumed in “Do Androids…” but not outwardly expressed.

Reason:
- Parallels between treatment of war losers by war winners and androids by humans.
- The final realization of the truth.
- (The nazi’s actually lost the war, and the bounty hunter falls in love with an android)

Reason:
- Parallels between the appearance and culture of the races and the appearance and culture of the androids/humans.
- Ex: Germans described as having lack of knowledge about others, ignoring fats of reality and identifying with god’s power. The androids could be described much in the same way.

Reason:
- “Do Androids…” is in fact a re-titled and rewritten version of “The Grasshopper Lies Heavy”, a fictional novel read by the characters of ‘The Man…” that depicts the truth of their situation.
- They are androids perhaps…

Note: Please comment and give me suggestions! If you need clarification on any of the points, seeing as you may not have read these books, just ask. I’m looking for constructive criticism here.