One part of the novel that I have been paying attention to is the range of opinions the characters have about the new technology coming to their village. Many of the reactions reflect the fact that the characters are peasants in a setting where advanced technologies are secondary to more traditional methods of communication. For example, Teacher Shen has a very negative reaction when he sees Mae using the TV. He says that she has allowed “the sickness to take you over” (58). He goes on to talk about a “Hong Kong indulgence” that is sweeping the entire country. He depicts the technology disparagingly as something foreign that is creeping into their country infecting students so they skip their lessons.
Mr. Muhammad also illustrates suspicion toward Air. A devout Muslim, Mr. Muhammad suspects Air may be used to channel “godlessness.” He also warns that Air should not replace the Book (79). Like Mr. Shen, Mr. Muhammad sees a force coming to potentially corrupt the normal order of things in the village.
Mae’s consultations with women about their desired dresses appear to symbolize the reservations people have toward Air. Many of the women wanted nice, practical dresses that weren’t too fancy (85). Similarly, people might like the new technology and want to embrace it the way Mae is attempting to. At the same time, there are concerns that the technology is too distant from what people are used to and that it may negatively affect their society.
I agree that the Question Map in a way symbolizes people's reservations towards Air. It was also interesting how some women said that fashion was not their business because it was of no concern to simple peasant women. The women didn't want to voice their opinions about fashion because of "what's proper behavior." Similarly, they don't have much of an opinion about Air because they choose to pretend that it didn't happen. They choose to simply conform to the little that government is telling them. They didn't necessarily have negative feelings towards it when it was first presented to them as "The Test". After it was shut down and not spoken about they ignored the fact that it had ever happened. It's just an interesting how people's opinions in this book are so easily influenced by popularity and power.
this quote was made famous by the movie "Watchmen" however it has been used and referred to countless times, a notable example of which lies in Plato's "Republic."
we discussed in class this past wednesday about the possibility of AIR ever coming to fruition in our own world. I believe it was Kevin who adamantly argued on the side of AIR in the context that if everything works the way it should work out, then AIR would be a great thing. On that note I agree. But the real problem is, things never work out that way. The best example comes from dystopian literature where we find societies who aim for perfection, yet often have one or more fatal flaws in their design. So yes, theoretically speaking, if everything was to work the was it was intended to, then AIR would be a perfectly good thing with no flaws what so ever. But as we have seen in literature, and in history, that is never the case.
What reminded me of the quote above was when Alec was bringing up his own objections to AIR and what really stuck clear in my mind was when he asked how can we see what the person on the other end of the line is up to? Essentially, who is the man behind the curtain??? Sure intentions can mean well to begin with, but the human mind has an interesting way of swaying a person to either abuse or take advantage of the position they are in.
Many philosophers have taken a stab at trying to rid humanity of the allure of power. In "The Republic", Socrates is asked the question about who will guard the guardians. He responds saying that guardians will guard themselves. Furthermore, he argues that the guardians should be told a noble lie. This lie entails that they will told that they are better and superior to their peasant counterparts. As such, they are obligated to protect their fellow countrymen because they are incapable of doing so themselves. By doing so, Socrates argues that they will rule not because they desire power, but rather because they believe it is right to do. The argument relies on an optimistic view of morality and while the logic follows, in practice I do not really see this happening because leaders would need to be trained since birth to uphold this "better than thou" attitude. The education process as described by Plato would be highly impractical to apply in today's world with so much access to various mediums and so much knowledge. However, it should be noted that Plato sets very specific parameters for the education of guardians and philosopher-kings. If these guidelines could be followed then we could produce such people who are ingrained with the "noble lie" and who rule without the aim of power, but rather the aim of duty.
Yet with ever increasing networks of information available to nearly everyone such as the internet, it would become nearly impossible to keep the education of the guardians strictly only "music and gymnastics" as described by Plato.
When it all comes back to the question of AIR and who is pressing all the buttons it becomes a frightful notion since you pretty much have no idea. Especially in remote places such as Mae's village, where they were not aware that such a test was gonna take place until about a day before, it becomes hard to be able to sleep at night not knowing who is sitting there sending information. More importantly, it is nearly impossible to be able to tell if they are doing something they shouldn't be in the meantime (AKA having a hidden agenda). It is at this point where AIR goes from a tool of advancement to a tool of malice.
Mr. McLuhan expressed a very unusual world view in this essay, one I could not completely agree with. The first main point of disagreement was his identification of electric light as a medium of information. In saying this, he entirely separated electric light from sunlight and candlelight, making the former seem like a completely different phenomenon. Furthermore, he goes on to say that light in itself is information. Surely, light is helpful if we want to see something, and in a way it "transfers" that information, but it does not fall into the same category as belletristic, musical, or pictorial media, or even speech. If it is classified as a medium, then it should be below painting and speech, and be on the same level as sound, color, and the chemical and physical composition of paper and ink. Also, when he compares the work of IBM and AT&T with the work of General Electric, McLuhan makes a related error, because while IBM and AT&T do deal with information, much of it digital, General Electric simply provides a “ground for them to walk on.” Just as he emphasized not paper as a medium, but rather print, so he should emphasize not electric light, or light in general, but rather the things we see, such as the baseball game or the surgery. Light, just like paper, is useful for many various purposes, among them print, painting, and all other visual forms of communication and transfer of information.
When the author later talks about the movie, he returns to the idea of electric light being so key for the viewing of the film, and for the film to exist and function as it does. However, it is of profound indifference to the viewing of the film if it is viewed using electric light or some other form or light. Electric light is widely used and widely known because it is cheap and easy to make for our civilization. However, there are many ways to generate the generally-named electric light, including the classic Incandescent Light Bulb, the LED, the Fluorescent Light Bulb, and many others. The types are interchangeable, but are often consistently used for specific purposes and groups of purposes. One would not use the same form of light source to illuminate a baseball game as he would to illuminate a surgery, and both of these differ from the light used in art museums. One would not confuse the paper used in a sketchpad with the paper used in a student’s Mathematics notebook, because their form reflects their function. Neither would one group all things audible, such as a film score with a speech made by the President. If we look at these things as McLuhan does at light, then we WOULD have to group together the President’s speech with the film score simply because they are both featured on a radio channel, maybe even on the same frequency, played by the same radio player, and broadcast by one radio station. Such grouping seems silly because the film score and the speech have two completely different purposes, and the medium of hearing them, be it a radio, a headset, or an indoor loudspeaker system, absolutely does not affect their message.
However, the writer does have many good points in his paper as well. Using various “media of the higher level,” such as newspapers, movies, and books, one can transfer information, alter pre-existing information, and get people to agree with him. By carefully viewing and watching for patterns, one can see the general progression of thought in the newspapers and books that have been published, one can understand the politics and can, to some extent, predict the coming of near-future events. However, this is not because the words were printed on a particular type of paper and were viewed under a particular light, such context makes no difference to one who is concerned with the message. With the exception of a very small percentage of deliberate fakes deliberately made on different materials, such as some espionage materials used during the first half of the Twentieth Century, the material used in conveying the message does not affect its meaning. One should not confuse the two types of context: the cultural, political, and social context, and the purely physical context of light, sound, and matter.
Hans Moravec definitely presents a very interesting point of view in his essay "The Senses have no Future". He argues that in an informational world, human senses serve as a bottleneck in processing power. He gives the example of bypassing our vision and directly inserting messages into the brain. He also suggests that as human beings we are inertly bound to our sensory perceptions, which prevent us from existing in a state of "pure mind".
He also makes an argument based on the speed of hardware development that by 2030, it will be theoretically possible to have conscious robots with brain capacities that are equal to human beings. He claims that these robots will be able to go through a sort of Darwinian evolution at a far faster rate than natural human evolution, because of their modifiable nature and the independence of their "brains" from their "bodies". Based on these assumptions, he concludes that bodily presence and physical actions will increasingly be replaced by pure thought because of their added efficiency.
I cannot say that I fully agree with Moravec's claims. First of all, his discussions are extremely hypothetical. Although it is true that hardware computing power may eventually equal that of a human brain, it is debatable whether human beings will eventually understand the system of human thought and logic to duplicate it in a computer "brain". Second, and more important, I disagree with the basic assumption that he makes about the correlation between high brain processing power and the ability to create and improve. I believe that there is a supplementary relationship between our senses and the capability to perceive beauty and our ability to create and reason. Hardly ever is our creation, both material and intellectual, an act of pure reasoning. Often they begin with an act of observation. Over-reliance on simulated realities or pure logic confines us to our present knowledge. Without directly interacting with the world through our senses, we are unable to make new observations about the world that surrounds us. This binds us, in a logical sense, to a limited set of premises, from which only a finite amount of conclusions (and subsequent creations). Therefore, although it may be true that in the short run a state of "pure mind" and valuing thought over sensory perception may lead to more intellectual advancements, to do so is to place a limit on the amount total development that humans, or conscious robots, can reach.
Moravec writes "Since physical intuitions are probably not the best way to deal with most information, humans would still be at a disadvantage to optimized artificial intelligences". But isn't it true that some of the most important pieces of "information" comes from "physical intuition" and the ability to appreciate those intuitions, which these "optimized artificial intelligences" would lack?
Rolando and Giovanna: your posts point to gender playing a role not only in terms of the villagers' reactions to Air but also in terms of hierarchies of power and dominance within the community. Remember, during their Question Map rounds, Mae and An discover that the married women are less likely to speak freely in the presence of their husbands. Some of the strongest negative reactions to Air come from village men (Teacher Shen, Mr. Haseem, and Mr. Muhammed) who are threatened by its potential to redistribute power and influence.
Nima: Just wait until we get to the technodystopian reading! You are certainly right to voice suspicions and warnings regarding the promise of a technology like Air, and as of yet, because we share Mae's limited knowledge, we as readers still have very little idea of how Air developed, who developed it, and what checks and balances (if any) are in place to govern its deployment. As we will see, one of Mae's first moves after gaining some authority is to educate herself about exactly these things. Let's also keep this idea of "governance" in play as we keep discussing the role of technology in society throughout the semester.
Oleg: McLuhan wouldn't necessarily disagree with you about medium having no influence on content. After all, he doesn't care about content. His argument is that the form--the medium--produces its own effects (e.g. typography or print causes us to think more linearly, continuously). These effects occur regardless or whether or not it is Shakespeare or The National Enquirer being transmitted.
McLuhan also made a distinction between so-called "hot" media and "cool" media. Hot media are those that are high def, requiring very little user participation or contribution. Cool media are low def and demand much more user participation or "fill in." So, that movie you watched on Friday night in the theater was hot, hot, hot... and that comic book you read or that sketch you made in kindergarten of your Aunt Sally was cool, cool, cool. What about the Web?
I have noticed in the last eighty some odd pages that there has been a vary large focus on the difference between the ignorant and the knowledgeable. There are repeated references to innocence and how that is it can be correlated with ignorance, such as whenever she is in contact with Mr. Ken. The only thing that she can ever seem to think about him is the fact that he is so blissfully ignorant and almost childlike. Everything with him is so simple, even in reference to their love making. It seems as if she envies him and pities him at the same time, like she wants to slap some sense into him and then comfort him at the same time, as a mother would when her child first realizes that death is something that only takes and never gives.
Another example that is evident in nearly every circumstance is the ignorance of her people and how she is trying to help them. But it does not stop there. Even the people in Yeshibozkent are ignorant. They may think that they are ahead of everyone else, but they are not considering a vast wealth of things that come with these new technologies. How do these things work? What are the cultural implications of the new interconnectedness? Will everyone become haves? How can everyone be haves, when there is always something to be had? Are they killing culture? They do not reflect on these things and merely accept them with their daily lives as if they did not create some sort of change in the way they lived.
The big heads like Mr. Tunch are even ignorant. They may think that they have all the answers and feel as if they are only a few steps away from having all of the knowledge in the world, but they are severely mistaken. Mae laughs at the fact that they know not what they do. He tries to comfort people and make them feel like he has all the answers to their problems, but he does not even understand how Air works. The only person that is even remotely close to knowing how Air works is Mae because she is enveloped in it.
The main idea expressed through this comparison between the ignorant and the knowledgeable fools is the fact that people are extending beyond their reach. Reaching past the stars into other dimensions that they know relatively nothing about. Everyone seems to be taking on the role of explorer qua explorer. No one asks what may happen if they do something for they do not care. They could destroy an entire world, but it is perfectly fine as long as it is in the name of conquest and expansion.
Ryman might just being saying something as simple as "hey everyone, you wanna think about what you're doing one more time BEFORE you do it?"
Air is considered a “mundane” science fiction novel. While reading Air, I have noticed what makes this science fiction novel “mundane”. It has led me to question whether it is science fiction at all. The only aspect of Air that makes it a science fiction novel would be the innovation of Air and the power that would come with being able to go “on-line” through your mind. However, I find there are more references to the Bible and spirituality than scientific-established laws of nature. Consider the major event that occurred at the very beginning of the novel: Mrs. Tsung died but is living spiritually through Mae. This major event in the novel made the story much more supernatural than “mundane” science fictional. It is through this supernatural occurrence that Mae is completely changed into a person that is much more wiser, bolder, and daring. When I first read that Mae was able to see Mrs. Tsung’s memories I felt that the book started to lose it’s “science fiction” effect. This episode in the novel turns Air into a much less technological invent and more into a gateway to the supernatural world.
As Mae is living with Mrs. Tsung inside of her there is many more supernatural events that occur that make the novel less of a science fiction novel. Mae’s premonition of the “Flood” gives a biblical allusion to the Bible and the story of Noah. This biblical allusion takes away from the technological aspect of Air. It becomes much more difficult to comprehend Air as an extraordinary and highly unbelievable form of technology with the supernatural aspects of Mae’s premonitions. Compared to other science fiction novels, Air seems focused less on the ability of technology and more focused on the social aspects of the Mae and the village. In this case, Mae would be considered the “Noah” of the village. This portrays Mae as a “savior” or “prophet” instead of a “fashion consultant”.
The setting of Air also contributes to categorizing the novel as “mundane” science fiction. The setting is described as a feeble, old, and underdeveloped village in the country of Karzistan. The villagers all seem to be highly religious, traditional, and conservative. There is always a sense of morality and an urgency to be respected by others. Throughout the novel, there are always instances when Mae must always look her best or follow some sort of traditional values such as cooking lunch for her brother. All of these instances give the reader a sense of the cultural values in the village. These cultural values can be seen as an explanation for some of the explicit occurrences in the novel. For example, when Mae committed adultery with her beloved Mr. Ken she described having oral sex with him. In a village with such high standards for social behavior this action would be greatly looked down upon for it’s lack of morality. As a result, Mae became “pregnant” with a baby in her stomach. I felt that this part of the book was less about the effect of Air and more about the social aspects of a village and perhaps even the cultural bias of the author.
Air is a novel that brings to question the meaning of going “on-line”. However, the novel does not entirely focus on the technological impacts it would bring to the world but rather brings into question the social changes that could occur. Through reading Air, I can now distinguish between a “true” scientific novel and a “mundane” scientific novel. The religious biblical allusions and the cultural values of the village contribute to making Air a “mundane” science fiction novel and puts less emphasis on Air itself.
Nick: What an interesting way to look at the novel! I'd never considered this fine line between innocence and ignorance. At the same time, knowledge and education in Air don't seem to be as simply defined as we might think. Teacher Shen seems to represent one kind, Mae another, and Sezen yet another.
Quetzal: Who's to say that technology can't coexist with mysticism? Magical realism embraces the juxtaposition of perceived opposites. I really like your point, though, that Mae is a kind of prophet or savior figure. Isn't it curious that she is at the same time the quintessential "fallen woman"?
One part of the novel that I have been paying attention to is the range of opinions the characters have about the new technology coming to their village. Many of the reactions reflect the fact that the characters are peasants in a setting where advanced technologies are secondary to more traditional methods of communication. For example, Teacher Shen has a very negative reaction when he sees Mae using the TV. He says that she has allowed “the sickness to take you over” (58). He goes on to talk about a “Hong Kong indulgence” that is sweeping the entire country. He depicts the technology disparagingly as something foreign that is creeping into their country infecting students so they skip their lessons.
ReplyDeleteMr. Muhammad also illustrates suspicion toward Air. A devout Muslim, Mr. Muhammad suspects Air may be used to channel “godlessness.” He also warns that Air should not replace the Book (79). Like Mr. Shen, Mr. Muhammad sees a force coming to potentially corrupt the normal order of things in the village.
Mae’s consultations with women about their desired dresses appear to symbolize the reservations people have toward Air. Many of the women wanted nice, practical dresses that weren’t too fancy (85). Similarly, people might like the new technology and want to embrace it the way Mae is attempting to. At the same time, there are concerns that the technology is too distant from what people are used to and that it may negatively affect their society.
I agree that the Question Map in a way symbolizes people's reservations towards Air. It was also interesting how some women said that fashion was not their business because it was of no concern to simple peasant women. The women didn't want to voice their opinions about fashion because of "what's proper behavior." Similarly, they don't have much of an opinion about Air because they choose to pretend that it didn't happen. They choose to simply conform to the little that government is telling them. They didn't necessarily have negative feelings towards it when it was first presented to them as "The Test". After it was shut down and not spoken about they ignored the fact that it had ever happened. It's just an interesting how people's opinions in this book are so easily influenced by popularity and power.
ReplyDelete"But Who Watches the Watchmen?"
ReplyDeletethis quote was made famous by the movie "Watchmen" however it has been used and referred to countless times, a notable example of which lies in Plato's "Republic."
we discussed in class this past wednesday about the possibility of AIR ever coming to fruition in our own world. I believe it was Kevin who adamantly argued on the side of AIR in the context that if everything works the way it should work out, then AIR would be a great thing. On that note I agree. But the real problem is, things never work out that way. The best example comes from dystopian literature where we find societies who aim for perfection, yet often have one or more fatal flaws in their design. So yes, theoretically speaking, if everything was to work the was it was intended to, then AIR would be a perfectly good thing with no flaws what so ever. But as we have seen in literature, and in history, that is never the case.
What reminded me of the quote above was when Alec was bringing up his own objections to AIR and what really stuck clear in my mind was when he asked how can we see what the person on the other end of the line is up to? Essentially, who is the man behind the curtain??? Sure intentions can mean well to begin with, but the human mind has an interesting way of swaying a person to either abuse or take advantage of the position they are in.
Many philosophers have taken a stab at trying to rid humanity of the allure of power. In "The Republic", Socrates is asked the question about who will guard the guardians. He responds saying that guardians will guard themselves. Furthermore, he argues that the guardians should be told a noble lie. This lie entails that they will told that they are better and superior to their peasant counterparts. As such, they are obligated to protect their fellow countrymen because they are incapable of doing so themselves. By doing so, Socrates argues that they will rule not because they desire power, but rather because they believe it is right to do. The argument relies on an optimistic view of morality and while the logic follows, in practice I do not really see this happening because leaders would need to be trained since birth to uphold this "better than thou" attitude. The education process as described by Plato would be highly impractical to apply in today's world with so much access to various mediums and so much knowledge. However, it should be noted that Plato sets very specific parameters for the education of guardians and philosopher-kings. If these guidelines could be followed then we could produce such people who are ingrained with the "noble lie" and who rule without the aim of power, but rather the aim of duty.
Yet with ever increasing networks of information available to nearly everyone such as the internet, it would become nearly impossible to keep the education of the guardians strictly only "music and gymnastics" as described by Plato.
When it all comes back to the question of AIR and who is pressing all the buttons it becomes a frightful notion since you pretty much have no idea. Especially in remote places such as Mae's village, where they were not aware that such a test was gonna take place until about a day before, it becomes hard to be able to sleep at night not knowing who is sitting there sending information. More importantly, it is nearly impossible to be able to tell if they are doing something they shouldn't be in the meantime (AKA having a hidden agenda). It is at this point where AIR goes from a tool of advancement to a tool of malice.
So who watches the watchmen? I guess no one.
Mr. McLuhan expressed a very unusual world view in this essay, one I could not completely agree with. The first main point of disagreement was his identification of electric light as a medium of information. In saying this, he entirely separated electric light from sunlight and candlelight, making the former seem like a completely different phenomenon. Furthermore, he goes on to say that light in itself is information. Surely, light is helpful if we want to see something, and in a way it "transfers" that information, but it does not fall into the same category as belletristic, musical, or pictorial media, or even speech. If it is classified as a medium, then it should be below painting and speech, and be on the same level as sound, color, and the chemical and physical composition of paper and ink. Also, when he compares the work of IBM and AT&T with the work of General Electric, McLuhan makes a related error, because while IBM and AT&T do deal with information, much of it digital, General Electric simply provides a “ground for them to walk on.” Just as he emphasized not paper as a medium, but rather print, so he should emphasize not electric light, or light in general, but rather the things we see, such as the baseball game or the surgery. Light, just like paper, is useful for many various purposes, among them print, painting, and all other visual forms of communication and transfer of information.
ReplyDeleteWhen the author later talks about the movie, he returns to the idea of electric light being so key for the viewing of the film, and for the film to exist and function as it does. However, it is of profound indifference to the viewing of the film if it is viewed using electric light or some other form or light. Electric light is widely used and widely known because it is cheap and easy to make for our civilization. However, there are many ways to generate the generally-named electric light, including the classic Incandescent Light Bulb, the LED, the Fluorescent Light Bulb, and many others. The types are interchangeable, but are often consistently used for specific purposes and groups of purposes. One would not use the same form of light source to illuminate a baseball game as he would to illuminate a surgery, and both of these differ from the light used in art museums. One would not confuse the paper used in a sketchpad with the paper used in a student’s Mathematics notebook, because their form reflects their function. Neither would one group all things audible, such as a film score with a speech made by the President. If we look at these things as McLuhan does at light, then we WOULD have to group together the President’s speech with the film score simply because they are both featured on a radio channel, maybe even on the same frequency, played by the same radio player, and broadcast by one radio station. Such grouping seems silly because the film score and the speech have two completely different purposes, and the medium of hearing them, be it a radio, a headset, or an indoor loudspeaker system, absolutely does not affect their message.
However, the writer does have many good points in his paper as well. Using various “media of the higher level,” such as newspapers, movies, and books, one can transfer information, alter pre-existing information, and get people to agree with him. By carefully viewing and watching for patterns, one can see the general progression of thought in the newspapers and books that have been published, one can understand the politics and can, to some extent, predict the coming of near-future events. However, this is not because the words were printed on a particular type of paper and were viewed under a particular light, such context makes no difference to one who is concerned with the message. With the exception of a very small percentage of deliberate fakes deliberately made on different materials, such as some espionage materials used during the first half of the Twentieth Century, the material used in conveying the message does not affect its meaning. One should not confuse the two types of context: the cultural, political, and social context, and the purely physical context of light, sound, and matter.
ReplyDeleteResearcher (Oleg.)
Hans Moravec definitely presents a very interesting point of view in his essay "The Senses have no Future". He argues that in an informational world, human senses serve as a bottleneck in processing power. He gives the example of bypassing our vision and directly inserting messages into the brain. He also suggests that as human beings we are inertly bound to our sensory perceptions, which prevent us from existing in a state of "pure mind".
ReplyDeleteHe also makes an argument based on the speed of hardware development that by 2030, it will be theoretically possible to have conscious robots with brain capacities that are equal to human beings. He claims that these robots will be able to go through a sort of Darwinian evolution at a far faster rate than natural human evolution, because of their modifiable nature and the independence of their "brains" from their "bodies". Based on these assumptions, he concludes that bodily presence and physical actions will increasingly be replaced by pure thought because of their added efficiency.
I cannot say that I fully agree with Moravec's claims. First of all, his discussions are extremely hypothetical. Although it is true that hardware computing power may eventually equal that of a human brain, it is debatable whether human beings will eventually understand the system of human thought and logic to duplicate it in a computer "brain". Second, and more important, I disagree with the basic assumption that he makes about the correlation between high brain processing power and the ability to create and improve. I believe that there is a supplementary relationship between our senses and the capability to perceive beauty and our ability to create and reason. Hardly ever is our creation, both material and intellectual, an act of pure reasoning. Often they begin with an act of observation. Over-reliance on simulated realities or pure logic confines us to our present knowledge. Without directly interacting with the world through our senses, we are unable to make new observations about the world that surrounds us. This binds us, in a logical sense, to a limited set of premises, from which only a finite amount of conclusions (and subsequent creations). Therefore, although it may be true that in the short run a state of "pure mind" and valuing thought over sensory perception may lead to more intellectual advancements, to do so is to place a limit on the amount total development that humans, or conscious robots, can reach.
Moravec writes "Since physical intuitions are probably not the best way to deal with most information, humans would still be at a disadvantage to optimized artificial intelligences". But isn't it true that some of the most important pieces of "information" comes from "physical intuition" and the ability to appreciate those intuitions, which these "optimized artificial intelligences" would lack?
Some really great posts here, folks.
ReplyDeleteRolando and Giovanna: your posts point to gender playing a role not only in terms of the villagers' reactions to Air but also in terms of hierarchies of power and dominance within the community. Remember, during their Question Map rounds, Mae and An discover that the married women are less likely to speak freely in the presence of their husbands. Some of the strongest negative reactions to Air come from village men (Teacher Shen, Mr. Haseem, and Mr. Muhammed) who are threatened by its potential to redistribute power and influence.
Nima: Just wait until we get to the technodystopian reading! You are certainly right to voice suspicions and warnings regarding the promise of a technology like Air, and as of yet, because we share Mae's limited knowledge, we as readers still have very little idea of how Air developed, who developed it, and what checks and balances (if any) are in place to govern its deployment. As we will see, one of Mae's first moves after gaining some authority is to educate herself about exactly these things. Let's also keep this idea of "governance" in play as we keep discussing the role of technology in society throughout the semester.
Oleg: McLuhan wouldn't necessarily disagree with you about medium having no influence on content. After all, he doesn't care about content. His argument is that the form--the medium--produces its own effects (e.g. typography or print causes us to think more linearly, continuously). These effects occur regardless or whether or not it is Shakespeare or The National Enquirer being transmitted.
ReplyDeleteMcLuhan also made a distinction between so-called "hot" media and "cool" media. Hot media are those that are high def, requiring very little user participation or contribution. Cool media are low def and demand much more user participation or "fill in." So, that movie you watched on Friday night in the theater was hot, hot, hot... and that comic book you read or that sketch you made in kindergarten of your Aunt Sally was cool, cool, cool. What about the Web?
I have noticed in the last eighty some odd pages that there has been a vary large focus on the difference between the ignorant and the knowledgeable. There are repeated references to innocence and how that is it can be correlated with ignorance, such as whenever she is in contact with Mr. Ken. The only thing that she can ever seem to think about him is the fact that he is so blissfully ignorant and almost childlike. Everything with him is so simple, even in reference to their love making. It seems as if she envies him and pities him at the same time, like she wants to slap some sense into him and then comfort him at the same time, as a mother would when her child first realizes that death is something that only takes and never gives.
ReplyDeleteAnother example that is evident in nearly every circumstance is the ignorance of her people and how she is trying to help them. But it does not stop there. Even the people in Yeshibozkent are ignorant. They may think that they are ahead of everyone else, but they are not considering a vast wealth of things that come with these new technologies. How do these things work? What are the cultural implications of the new interconnectedness? Will everyone become haves? How can everyone be haves, when there is always something to be had? Are they killing culture? They do not reflect on these things and merely accept them with their daily lives as if they did not create some sort of change in the way they lived.
The big heads like Mr. Tunch are even ignorant. They may think that they have all the answers and feel as if they are only a few steps away from having all of the knowledge in the world, but they are severely mistaken. Mae laughs at the fact that they know not what they do. He tries to comfort people and make them feel like he has all the answers to their problems, but he does not even understand how Air works. The only person that is even remotely close to knowing how Air works is Mae because she is enveloped in it.
The main idea expressed through this comparison between the ignorant and the knowledgeable fools is the fact that people are extending beyond their reach. Reaching past the stars into other dimensions that they know relatively nothing about. Everyone seems to be taking on the role of explorer qua explorer. No one asks what may happen if they do something for they do not care. They could destroy an entire world, but it is perfectly fine as long as it is in the name of conquest and expansion.
Ryman might just being saying something as simple as "hey everyone, you wanna think about what you're doing one more time BEFORE you do it?"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAir is considered a “mundane” science fiction novel. While reading Air, I have noticed what makes this science fiction novel “mundane”. It has led me to question whether it is science fiction at all. The only aspect of Air that makes it a science fiction novel would be the innovation of Air and the power that would come with being able to go “on-line” through your mind. However, I find there are more references to the Bible and spirituality than scientific-established laws of nature. Consider the major event that occurred at the very beginning of the novel: Mrs. Tsung died but is living spiritually through Mae. This major event in the novel made the story much more supernatural than “mundane” science fictional. It is through this supernatural occurrence that Mae is completely changed into a person that is much more wiser, bolder, and daring. When I first read that Mae was able to see Mrs. Tsung’s memories I felt that the book started to lose it’s “science fiction” effect. This episode in the novel turns Air into a much less technological invent and more into a gateway to the supernatural world.
ReplyDeleteAs Mae is living with Mrs. Tsung inside of her there is many more supernatural events that occur that make the novel less of a science fiction novel. Mae’s premonition of the “Flood” gives a biblical allusion to the Bible and the story of Noah. This biblical allusion takes away from the technological aspect of Air. It becomes much more difficult to comprehend Air as an extraordinary and highly unbelievable form of technology with the supernatural aspects of Mae’s premonitions. Compared to other science fiction novels, Air seems focused less on the ability of technology and more focused on the social aspects of the Mae and the village. In this case, Mae would be considered the “Noah” of the village. This portrays Mae as a “savior” or “prophet” instead of a “fashion consultant”.
The setting of Air also contributes to categorizing the novel as “mundane” science fiction. The setting is described as a feeble, old, and underdeveloped village in the country of Karzistan. The villagers all seem to be highly religious, traditional, and conservative. There is always a sense of morality and an urgency to be respected by others. Throughout the novel, there are always instances when Mae must always look her best or follow some sort of traditional values such as cooking lunch for her brother. All of these instances give the reader a sense of the cultural values in the village. These cultural values can be seen as an explanation for some of the explicit occurrences in the novel. For example, when Mae committed adultery with her beloved Mr. Ken she described having oral sex with him. In a village with such high standards for social behavior this action would be greatly looked down upon for it’s lack of morality. As a result, Mae became “pregnant” with a baby in her stomach. I felt that this part of the book was less about the effect of Air and more about the social aspects of a village and perhaps even the cultural bias of the author.
Air is a novel that brings to question the meaning of going “on-line”. However, the novel does not entirely focus on the technological impacts it would bring to the world but rather brings into question the social changes that could occur. Through reading Air, I can now distinguish between a “true” scientific novel and a “mundane” scientific novel. The religious biblical allusions and the cultural values of the village contribute to making Air a “mundane” science fiction novel and puts less emphasis on Air itself.
Nick: What an interesting way to look at the novel! I'd never considered this fine line between innocence and ignorance. At the same time, knowledge and education in Air don't seem to be as simply defined as we might think. Teacher Shen seems to represent one kind, Mae another, and Sezen yet another.
ReplyDeleteQuetzal: Who's to say that technology can't coexist with mysticism? Magical realism embraces the juxtaposition of perceived opposites. I really like your point, though, that Mae is a kind of prophet or savior figure. Isn't it curious that she is at the same time the quintessential "fallen woman"?