Back to my Star Trek reference. After further review, the main reason Data was ruled a "sentient" being was because of his ability to self-program. Picard also brought up the idea of creating thousands of copies for labor was exactly the same as slave labor. Beings threated as property... sounds right. Piercy avoids this debate all together, there is no discussion with any of this. Yet, like mentioned in class nothing of this nature is aroused by the existence of Gimel. I see parallels to this with today's society. Gimel is piratically the same as an autistic person. Do we threat autism as a trait that makes someone sub-human? Not legally, but there are people in society that believe this. Personally, I think this is wrong and reinforces my disdain for society today.
In another sense, Yod is similar to someone in a vegetative coma. Not mentally, but psychically. Yod needs someone to repair his mechanic parts, similar to the machines being kept on a person in a coma. But his mind is just like any human, but greater. I know the two are different, but conceptually they are similar, the person in a coma relies on the machines to live while Yod himself is a machine.
I'll also bring up the human form as a major player as to the "is Yod human" debate. The house is not seen as a human. Perhaps what should be discussed is the sentience of Yod, Gimel and robots. Can something non organic be sentient? Sounds like a Star Trek episode to me. What is this social construct of sentience? You can debate that animals are sentient beings because they are somewhat self-aware.
I again will repeat that I hate the characters, and I dislike current society being just as, if not more, revolved around sex as the book.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hold on - I'm with you until that last line. Revolved around sex? I certainly take issue with that. Sex is an important motif in the novel, but the world of novel does not revolve around it. It's incredibly significant that Yod actually cares to make her orgasm as opposed to her sex with Josh. It's a matter of women's empowerment and being able to enjoy sex - an ancient taboo.
"Since Gadi, her sexual response had been measured at best cold, defective, sputtering. She had considered herself rather cold. Gadi had been the exception, and that was so long ago..." p.170
This is incredibly important from a feminist perspective, as is the entire motif of sex in the novel. Y-S, with all its stuffiness and patriarchy, deadened sex to Shira as it had deadened all sensations for her. Tikva shows the alternative of women's sexual empowerment in Malkah and Shira.
Post a Comment