Categories
Glossary

Archetype

An archetype is the perfect example or model of something. It would be something that serves as a model or example for future copies of that thing.  An example of an archetype used in our unit is from Oryx and Crake. Although archetype is sort of the ideal that is copied, in Oryx and Crake, Crake attempted to create the archetype of what he thought humans ought to be. By creating what he felt was the perfect human he was attempting to create the human archetype. He created them in as many ways having an ideal as much as possible. For example, he felt ideally, that people should not be racist or even notice differences of color between each other. In order to fit that into his archetype, he makes the Crakers different colors and programs them to not notice the color differences amongst themselves. He could have easily made them all the same color and still made them not care for color. Or he could have made them all different colors and notice each other differences but still programmed to not care. Either or these options would have the same effect. But for Crake’s ideals, humans come in different colors and there isn’t one color that ought to be the archetype, therefore the Crakers should have different colors. Another example is how they are all programmed to die at age 30. In order for the Crakers to always be the archetype, he cannot have elderly ones, because then they would not be ideal as they age. Rather they are always ideal and then they die. The last example is how they all have green eyes. We learn in the book that Crake’s personal preference of what he felt was the ideal eye color was green. He found it to be the most appealing eye color, therefore his archetype people should all express this ideal look. Although archetype usually refers to something that serves as a “classic” example that is then copied, in Oryx and Crake an archetype is being created backward in which the ideal is taken from bits and pieces from everyone and then put together to create an archetype.

 

“Archetype – Dictionary Definition.” Vocabulary.com, www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/archetype.

 

“Archetypes Revealed in Oryx & Crake – by Margaret Atwood.” Brooke’s Blog Diary, 26 Apr. 2017, fultonblogger.wordpress.com/2017/04/26/archetypes-revealed-in-oryx-crake-by-margaret-atwood/.

Categories
Glossary

Uncanny Valley

The “Uncanny Valley” is a term coined in 1970 by Masahiro Mori that describes our revolting reaction to something that seems very human but is not exactly. His research suggests that the more human something seems the more our affinity goes up for that thing until it seems a little too human. When something becomes too human, our affinity for it drops suddenly and we are disturbed by it.

We can see this effect happening in Frankenstein by Mary Shelly. In the book, Victor Frankenstein creates a creature that looks very human. He uses real human parts to make him. But when he becomes animated Frankenstein is horrified. It is something that looks very realistically human, but is not exactly. This is an exact example of the effect of the uncanny valley.

 

“Oh! No mortal could support the horror of that countenance. A mummy again endued with animation could not be so hideous as that wretch. I had gazed on him while unfinished; he was ugly then; but when those muscles and joints were rendered capable of motion, it became a thing such as even Dante could not have conceived.”

Frankenstein is describing the very concept of the uncanny valley in that passage. He said it was ugly when he was putting him together. Obviously, he still looks the same when animated, he is just moving around and seeming alive now. But it is when something that seems human becomes a little too human, in this case through animation, that it when the uncanny valley effect occurs.

 

Mori, Masahiro. “The Uncanny Valley: The Original Essay by Masahiro Mori.” IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News, IEEE Spectrum, 12 June 2012, spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/humanoids/the-uncanny-valley.

 

Schwarz, Rob. “10 Creepy Examples of the Uncanny Valley.” Stranger Dimensions, Stranger Dimensions, 14 Sept. 2017, www.strangerdimensions.com/2013/11/25/10-creepy-examples-uncanny-valley/.

 

 

 

 

Categories
In-class writing Notes

Notes 5/1

  • repetition of words “donor” and “carer” throughout, but not defined
    • indicates that it’s normal to her
      • normalization = dehuminization
      • ethics of normalization
    • audience = people who consider it normal too
      • creates distance/detachment for “real” readers
  • set in late 1990s, England
    • near past
    • what are the political things happening in England in the 1990s, 2005?
    • could it relate to pro-choice/pro-life debate? — use value of life
    • movie came out the same year as The Island starring Ewan MacGregor and Scarlett Johansson — coincidence
    • Dolly the Sheep 1996-2003
      • demonstrated the feasibility of cloning (even though it was born to a mother)
      • comparison to now — Barbara Streisand’s cloned dog
      • have our attitudes toward cloning changed significantly since 2005? maybe it’s just new — it will be normal someday. next generation might also think robots that look like people are normal
  • clones raise the question of what is a person?
  • we see cloning etc. as the emergent future
    • there’s no markers of the 1990s in the novel (except the Walkman) — feels out of time even though the time period is so specific — which makes it seem like it should be a commentary on current events — but it could also be a parallel present
  • in order for this to be normal, we must either be (a) ignorant, or (b) have defined “human” or “personhood” — people doing what they’re told, following the group, assuming that what we’re doing is right — abandoning morals for utility — next step is there’s no purpose for old people etc.
    • humanity is undefined
  • issues of responsibility — people would be careless with their own bodies if they can be replaced — lack of responsibility for the self
    • but there are organ donors now
  • are the clones human? they have thoughts and feelings, like the Creature in Frankenstein — part of purpose of life is survival, and they don’t have that — why don’t they fight to survive (the clones) the way, for example, Frankenstein does?
    • if you’re making an organ in a lab it’s just an object
    • we would as a group prefer a fresh (grown) organ to a second-hand organ
    • we’re also making lab-grown meat now
      • someday people will look back and wonder how we could eat meat
      • but wouldn’t other “natural” processes be different as well? — if people start living longer, then will humanity exist any longer — we would run out of resources
    • at the moment of donation body parts become objects
    • growing clones for use — certain animals are bred just for research — you can order them with particular ages etc. — sometimes you have to raise them — but often these are fruit flies — de-personification? negotiating line between anthropormoization and dehumanization
  • who would benefit from these donors?
  • why are they sending clones to school if they’re going to be killed?
    • appeasing a guilty conscience?
    • better for the organs?
      • literate kidneys
    • big emphasis on creativity and art
      • artwork represents inner self and what they’re feeling
        • control — we can predict the clone revolution if we know what they think
        • experiment- do they think like “normal” humans?
        • can interpret art, symbolism, judging the moods of the clones?
  • sad that they don’t fight back — but it’s normal, it goes without question