{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/30/2013 5:23:59 AM
2
I can't accept that that was his intention with a story like that. The story is designed to make you deeply uncomfortable and disturbed. While some people do see that as entertainment, his intentionally making the hell he wrote a consequence of human action belies the notion that that's all that is.
[quote]
Inwardly: alone. Here. Living under the land, under the sea, in
the belly of AM, whom we created because our time was badly spent and we must
have known unconsciously that he could do it better.
[/quote]
That is a statement. That is a value judgment of our actions.
English
-
Modificato da die wily: 6/30/2013 6:24:13 AMYes, but I'm not connecting this back to your claim that the author's some kind of Luddite. AM arose out of war and his nature is static, aggressive, and ultimately fruitless. He has no way to grow because he is inherently divided and loathful and bound-to-Earth. It's more of a commentary of war's effect on the human race than on technology being evil.
-
I don't know, like I said, it might just be an issue with me. That said, the negative tone used to refer to AM's technology, combined with the fact that it made them immortal (which is, in fact, the opposite of what war does) tells [I]me[/I] it's more a damnation of technology. War and slaughter is presented as the solution (escape) in this story. To me, it looks more like this issue is presented as being that we delegated war to AM, not that war exists.
-
[quote]I don't know, like I said, it might just be an issue with me. That said, the negative tone used to refer to AM's technology, combined with the fact that it made them immortal (which is, in fact, the opposite of what war does) tells me it's more a damnation of technology. War and slaughter is presented as the solution (escape) in this story. To me, it looks more like this issue is presented as being that we delegated war to AM, not that war exists.[/quote]I find it far more likely that he was using the paranoia and fear of a doomsday scenario in the midst of the cold war (1967) to drive the point of horror home, than the acclaimed science fiction author was making cheap shots against computorz with speculative fiction.
-
Modificato da die wily: 6/30/2013 6:58:19 AM[quote]made them immortal (which is, in fact, the opposite of what war does)[/quote]I'm reminded of Orwell's 1984, in which human society willingly creates for itself a warlike, self-perpetuating global state in order to achieve societal stability. The "immortality" is a changeless festering pit of rage that improves nothing, and those traits are commonly applied to war. And no, war is not the "solution," rather, *death* is *peace*, and humanity, by creating AM, has perfected war and hate and created a reality where all is inescapable torment. Ted remains conflicted over whether giving the others death was in fact just. Why? Because the story is a no-win situation. Humans have irrevocably stunted their ability to grow and now life is utterly joyless and fruitless.
-
Well, yes, AM's driving idea is that humanity is a flawed and monstrous creation, but that doesn't mean there's a moral or anything. It's about a robot who torments people, and a guy who kills his friends and gets turned into a blob. What the -blam!- kind of moral can come from that? AM needed an origin and a reason to hate, so the author decided humanity made it. If anything, keep in mind all five of them are quite insane, as is AM itself. Anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt.
-
Modificato da Lord Keksworth: 6/30/2013 5:36:22 AMAw -blam!-, I replied to myself. :c
