Final Blog Post

I had read The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy a long time ago in middle school. A friend of mine had suggested it for me to read since he noticed that my exposure to good literature was limited (I didn't read at all). I recall on my first read through of this book being very confused about what was happening. I had never read anything quite like it before and at the time I had no concept of fantasy or science fiction. I believe I liked it, mostly being entertained by the idea of a sperm whale impacting a planet. The rest of the book, I felt I should like it, but didn't understand if I did or not.

Now, many years later, after listening to all twelve episodes of the radio broadcast it makes more sense. The story is much funnier and sillier than I imagined. I feel like there was a lot lost in book translation for me, especially with how much character each of the voices had. It really reminded me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I suppose when I first read the book, I didn't know it was suppose to be a funny story full of sarcasm, I feel I must have read it very matter-of-fact like (as text in a history book).

Sarcasm really seems to be difficult in text form. I suppose a lot of how sarcasm is communicated is naturally through intonation and inflections in the voice, which makes this very sarcastic and colorful story perfect for radio.

I thought that it was a very clever commentary society (destroying Earth so that the ultimate question of the universe could not be discovered because it would put the last doctors, being psychologists, out of business) and had some fun bits relating to human psychology.

Overall, I enjoyed it immensely and I think I actually want to listen to the whole performance again.

April 18th Class - Meetings and readings

This week I had read a bit of Angel Dust Apocalypse by Jeremy Robert Johnson. It was a very interesting concept, the idea of being able to genetically modify your body, almost at will, to gain fame. As I read it, it really creeped me out and made me uncomfortable. I hadn't read the whole thing and only just started so I don't know how deep the story is, but that kind of future seemed disturbing... where people idolize such.... arbitrary things.... I guess it's that I don't understand it and I suppose it could be seen as a form of self expression. I didn't enjoy the quality of writing or subject matter of it, but I feel the tone may have been appropriate to the story being told. I mean, the main character doesn't sound very self reflective or deep... just surface stuff, skin deep... ahaha I guess that really does fit. Nothing like how someone like Murakami would write with long clever descriptions of things or build ups.... I suppose that is apples and oranges though.

April 11th Class - Literary Speculation

Not quite sure what to say for this one without sounding redundant. Again, one of my favorite points to take away was the idea that science fiction is not just limited to one kind of science. As seen with the Omelas story, it can deal with more things like anthropology and psychology. Rachel and the Nanny stories were fun what-if scenarios as well...

I suppose what I took away was that some artists hate being called sci-fi writers and want to just be known as writers. Why is sci-fi looked down upon and not given the same amount of merit and value? I suppose it's like that in any arts. Music, painting, ect. I went to the David Houle presentation/movie screening of Burning Man and one cool idea was "it's special, at least people are making anything at all, creating." I just see those "labels" (sci-fi-horror-fantasy) as a way to find something easier. We tend to like to categorize, put things in boxes as well. I guess it makes things easier for us. Things have to have a name, have to have a category. Why we tend to do that, I don't know. More so, is it such a bad thing to be "organized" in that way or would we have a deeper appreciation for arts if we didn't.

Maybe it doesn't matter at all? I'm not sure.

April 4th Class - Diverse Position Science Fiction

A very important idea learned today, science-fiction does not just deal with the sciences like rocket science, engineering, men in lab coats. It deals with all the kinds of sciences, like anthropology, human society and other kinds of sciences that I don't even know exist. I had thought it must deal with some kind of technological piece of equipment, explaining how warp drives or future machines and robots would work, but that is not the case. (I had questioned the short story "Bloodchild" as being sci-fi or fantasy because it didn't really seem to have that tech aspect) At it's core, science fiction seems to deal with and question "What if?" Really, "Bloodchild" did have science, a different kind if science, dealing more with society and a "what if" these insectoid aliens had this strange symbiotic relationship with humans.  Diverse position sci-fi really seems to go far with the what ifs and takes on multiple... positions. The story is told from the alien side and the human side (or whatever parties are involved) to give a more holistic view of things. It really blurs the lines of good and bad, things just are. We also talked about what makes fiction good, how it's a cultural thing that slow paced things will likely have a lower chance of being successful in our society and possibly how nostaglia and what a reader experiences first as being good (or at least their first good experience with a thing changes their expectations). The globe was turned upside down... or was it right side up? What way does the earth face and spin anymore, does it even matter? I dunno, I'm hungry, so I'm gonna go eat some breafkast.

March 29th Class - CYBERPUNK

I'm actually digging Cyberpunk, a lot more than I thought I would. I had recently seen the director's cut of Bladerunner and thought it was amazing. It dealt with ideas of... I suppose it's called singularity and what is it to be human. On the surface it seems like it could just be some kind of edgy story that happens to take place in the future, but it really deals with much deeper ideas like what it means to actually be living, to be human and not machine. I also read a bit of Monalisa Overdrive and was really enjoying it. For now it feels like a small collection of short stories and kinda mentions ghosts in machines. In class we talked about Neuromancer and the quote, "The sky above the port was the color of television tuned to a dead channel." We talked about how cyberpunk dealt with worlds in the near future, desensitized society, saturated in technology and being ruled by companies. Scary stuff. The rest of class we had group projects where we reviewed what we had learned in the previous two sections of horror and fantasy literature. Also, the projector would stop working randomly due to "ghosts in the machine..."

March 21st Class - Narratives From the Multiverse

This was the first class really getting into Science Fiction. Steiling was announced to be out for the rest of the year and Dr. Van Cleave would take over. We had David Houle come in and talk to us about how science fiction is relevant to the world today. I have heard Mr. Houle talk before, multiples time actually. Every time I hear him talk, it raises so many topics and gets me thinking outside the box. It's crazy, but he says that's his job and dam is he good at it. I had approached him with questions of what is it to understand, how do you understand things, hearing things but not understanding, and eventually went off into some zen Buddhism. I could understand his apprehension towards fantasy, he says it doesn't progress his life like science fiction does. He mentioned "you can escape from life, or choose to participate in it with the rest of us." He believes, and that history has shown that science fiction eventually becomes science fact, that writers, funny enough, the longer they write the more they stop writing fiction. The video with Delaney was interesting as well, just ways of thinking about things. How something as simple as how big women's pockets are can spur on all kinds of questions. I tried to read Babel17, but for what ever reason I couldn't quite get hooked in, and I read another short story on the side, I can't remember the name, but it had a giant man who washed up on shore and was eventually taken apart by the local residents. It was alright, but nothing really happened. Aside from the David Houle talks, the literature themselves, I found not to be very appealing. Maybe I'm just biased and like hearing David talk.

Spiritual Education in Fantasy

I am confused this week and I don't think I understand exactly how spiritualism in fantasy works. What I remember from class is having a realization and becoming frustrated with the education system. I guess this spiritual kind of education is something that is sorely missing from public schooling. That's a topic for another time I suppose, I just get angry thinking about it.

It just seems like people look at things too much in objective terms. They see Harry Potter as just magic and wizards on flying brooms and whatnot, or even The City of Lost Children as just being a trippy, crazy kinda movie. It's annoying how these things... how arts are kinda thrown aside and neglected belittled. A lot of people see things only as good if it makes money. These stories really, literature, art, they do so much for the growth of individuals, about what the hell it is to be human and having the freedom to live. It's so much more, so deep that I don't understand it, but I know it's there.

It's like learning to un-see things in painting. Not being concerned with painting an apple or the details of a person's face. It's about the shapes, the tones of things. Like in these stories, it's not the magic or the creatures. It's about exploring deeper meaning and subjects through the use of these things.

I still have a lot of questions about this, I'm a bit scatter brained at the moment.