Talk:Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
Tasks you can do:
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Organic?
First of all, I loathe footnotes, so I'd much prefer the following material back in the article proper.
- It should be noted here that the term android is sometimes used when referring to artificial beings of a biological composition, though in most modern SF the term has come to refer to inorganic machines instead (cf. the Star Wars movies). Excessive debate on such finer details is likely to encounter deep complications; the very issues which Dick—and Isaac Asimov before him—explored along the human-mechanical boundary.
If the general consensus is that this material is too peripheral to flow nicely into the article text, oh well, I won't mind. (I'll just gripe to myself, very quietly. . . .)
My other comment is really a usage quibble. The term "organic" does not necessarily imply any connection with a living entity. In fact, one of chemistry's great moments was when Friedrich Woehler synthesized urea from nonliving constituents, demonstrating that "biological" matter needn't have an extra "vital force" to animate it. The common definition of "organic" now includes all compounds which contain carbon (except for some very simple molecules like carbon dioxide, meaning that organic molecules can be synthesized from inorganic ones). Organic matter can have entirely abiological origins, and it need not be arranged in such a fashion as to imitate the life process. A complex polymer—say, the raw ingredient of packing foam—is justifiably organic, on the merits of its elemental composition.
Most of SF's famous robots are metal in composition. Their brains are made of something like platinum-iridium alloy, and if there are any nonmetallic components, they're things like O-rings. However, take a character like R. Daneel Olivaw: he looks human, because his outer layers are made from polymers intended to fake human appearance. Daneel's body does not contain living cells, like Stephen Byerley or the Terminator, but a significant part of his anatomy is organic.
Consequently, "inorganic" is a poor word to describe artificial beings, when what we really mean is "non-biological".
—Anville 22:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually what struck me in this had been the expression human-mechanical. Doesn't mechanical particularly imply steel and gears and such? The boundary they explored was not that. I've changed the word to artificial. Conf 12:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Is the term bioroid used in this book? I think biorobotic and bioroid might be the term many of you are trying to define --BerserkerBen 17:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's not but it seems like a good "see also" link. - Diceman 12:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Empathy boxen
- It can be assumed that asking a suspected android to use an 'empathy box', as they are called in the novel, would be a simple way to determine if they are indeed an artificial human.
While androids lack empathy and are presumably incapable of fusing with Mercer, we never learn that any one particular empathy box user is precisely aware of another user's experience. All users share the same sensations, but we never see one "eavesdropping" upon the subjective details of another. Fusion with Mercer is not monitored for authenticity. Androids may be incapable of empathic fusion, but Roy Baty for one is probably smart enough to fake it. The whole point of the Voight-Kampff test is that it uses unfakeable indicators of emotional states which neither humans nor andys can control (or not well enough to fool the test).
Imagine if Asimov had put empathy boxes into "Evidence": Stephen Byerley refuses to fuse with Mercer, because it would prove (or disprove) his humanity. Then Susan Calvin persuades him to do so, which he does successfully—but then she reveals that he might just be putting a smile on his face and dabbing on fake blood.
—Anville 22:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Removed from Differences between the novel and film
Guys, I'm afraid it's of no use to debate what is more surreal, within the Wikipedia article. If there are some known persons having some opinion on that, they can be cited. Readers may get some idea from the factual list that is given. For my own part, I didn't experience the novel as being realistic.
I've also removed added information about movie title not coming from the book, because it's mentioned on the list, and a more in-depth explanation is in the movie article, where it belongs.
I've also removed the part of sentence which basically said that the novel re-editions had date changed to 2021 despite the differences between the novel and film, which are two facts not really connected.
- I am wondering about occurences of the term "Tannhauser's Gate" in the novel, as this was a mention in the film and had begun to appear in other SF films -- it may become pertinent to articulate in this article if Tannhauser's Gate was a battle mentioned in the story.
[edit] Four-year Limit
The film Blade Runner depicts the four-year lifespan as a safety feature, deliberately included so that the android beings could not grow into fuller humanity.
Actually, in the movie, cell degradation is the reason the replicants can't live past four years; there's a debate between a replicant and the creator near the end of the movie on whether this limitation could be overcome. Safety feature? If that issue is mentioned, it's only one of the reasons for the four-year limit.
- Well, isn't it rather that preventing androids from growing into fuller humanity is the reason for implementing a safety feature in the form of a time limit? Cell degradation is a technicality in this context. Conf 22:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- A dialogue excerpt from the film-
-
-
- Bryant: They were designed to copy human beings in every way except their emotions. The designers reckoned that after a few years they might develop their own emotional responses. You know, hate, love, fear, envy. So they built in a fail-safe device.
-
-
-
- Deckard: Which is what?
-
-
-
- Bryant: Four year life span.
-
-
- As you can see, cell degredation is not the reason for the four year lifespan in the film. It's merely the means which was implemented by the creators. Saftey was the actual reason behind the limited lifespan. Druff 20:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] .38 Magnum?
I don't think that a Cop, future or otherwise, would be carrying a .38 Magnum as is stated Deckard fires during his first tangle with Max. The gun would most likely be a .38, or a .357 Magnum.
- Well that's what it says... It's a sci-fi novel, so it doesn't really matter what you think, as it's fiction, and up to the writer to decide. You could also have said "I don't think that Deckard would have used a hovercar... as they don't exist". Troubleshooter 16:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pokemon reference?
Does anyone know for sure if the Pokemon Mareep, Flaaffy and Ampharos are based off this title? If so, that should probably go in the references section --AfroDwarf 01:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Style
Since accuracy is a goal, editors can cite your sources.
"External Links" -> "Further Reading", per MoS Further reading/external links. "Retrieved [date]", since on-line reference links can break (per Embedded links).
Just FYI, format used for books, citing from a periodical, and citing from Web sites and articles not from periodicals. --GoDot 05:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Differences between the novel and film - Whether Deckard is an Android or not
- The film leaves lingering the question of whether or not Deckard is an android. In the novel, Deckard is definitively not an android; he passes the Voight-Kampff test. (Although this is a questionable idea, as we never read about the actual test administration, nor is the test assuredly accurate, there is still some question regarding his humanity)
I believe that part to be somewhat misleading. Deckard never actually passes the Voight-Kampff test, and he is most certainly not "definitively not an android". There are only two mentions of Deckard coming into contact with the test. First when he's recollecting that he took the test as part of the SOP for being a bounty hunter (which for all intents and purposes could be a false memory implant), and the second one with Resch when he administers it on himself.
What should be noted here is that he only tests his emphatic response, and not the time lag between the question (which wasn't posed) and the response which is used to determine whether someone is or isn't an android. The part of the test which takes into account the lag difference between a real human and an android seems to be (as evidenced by the test administered on Rosen) crucial in determining whether or not someone is in fact an android. The purpose of the test he conducted on himself wasn't to test if he was or wasn't an android, it was to test if he did or did not have any empathy towards androids. He effectively is never vindicated not to have been an android in the novel, not by the test or any other reference.
I would have gone ahead and edited it myself from the page, but I thought it prudent to ask here first if that part should be changed to fit the facts. If I'm right, the part about him "definitively not an android; he passes the Voight-Kampff test." has to go. Quite a large of an omission. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlackDove (talk • contribs) 24 October 2006.
