The Handmaid's Tale: A story of non-consensual female sacrifice and the "auto-cannabilism" of a society

      The Republic of Gilead is a dystopian society built on traditional Christian and patriarchal views of female sacrifice. While women are treated explicitly as"two-legged wombs" or "ambulatory chalices" as a result of this new structure, I still think it would be too simplistic to blame this treatment entirely on the totalitarian spreading of a thousands year old faith. Rather, I think this is the result of an attitude held by the powerful few, a shallow and flimsy belief in the morality of sacrifice in the name of the "greater good." In the face of a man-made ecological meltdown, the few powerful cling will to any ideology that supports their selfish wish to remain unscathed upon the sacrificed back of others. 

       In The Handmaid's Tale, the over arching conflict is the ubiquitous pollution that has taken over much of the United States. While the pollution is straight up killing people, the greatest risk to the United States is that it is rendering most of the population, men and women, sterile and very unfit to carry life should they conceive. While this is a disastrous setting, it is really not mentioned very much, it is mainly just the vehicle to prove a point about how readily corruption takes advantage of people's fear and weaknesses. Because of a multitude of different factors, a return to ultra-christian conservatism, xenophobia, and fear-mongering propaganda, a new order rises to full power under a violent regime nearly overnight. Under the justification of the biblical story of Bilah and Jacob, all fertile women of childbearing age are herded together and forced to bear children for the powerful Commanders who run the new order and their wives. 

    This book is decidedly feminist and unflinchingly shows the unceasing injustices the women face under the fully patriarchal society, such as revoking of property and money, sexual assault, domestic abuse, loss of control over their bodies, and objectification. This book still remains largely, in my eyes, a warning to all how willingly absolute power will oppress the "others" if they do not remain vigilant. In the pre-Gilead government, women are still "otherized." Very similar to our own Democratic American government, it is run almost entirely by white men, yet most women are so complacent in their liberties to really notice as they begin to be silently infringed upon. Offred, the main character and handmaid in this book, was one of these women. She was often irritated by her mother and her best friend who were strongly outspoken feminists, who participated in protests and the like. I guess she found their crusade to be a little ridiculous given their current standard of living as "modern" women. But that is Margaret Atwood's warning to women, even just people who the government or powerful men may want to use for their own selfish benefit;"Nolite te bastardes carborundorum" is the anthem of this novel. It means "don't let the bastards grind you down", it's a message to remain vigilant of those who would prefer that you don't have freedom or humanity for their benefit. When anyone's philosophy is that the greater good is not always better for everyone, you've found the wolf in sheep's clothing. 
           This is a wake up call for the modern western women to recognize their legacy of forced silence in the face of their oppression, and how easily the time can be turned back. Margaret Atwood makes the point of how easy it was for the new government to enforce themselves upon women. The credit card companies simply shut off their accounts, the property Act is quickly reversed, and women are outlawed from being able to work all in a matter of weeks. The visage that women have any support from the government or the mob is quickly destroyed. Young women are now the "sacrificial lamb" to solve the problem of low birth rate all. But is it really sacrifice? No, it is "auto-cannibalism" of a society. These women are given the complete responsibility to carry on a generation, while at the same time being punished if they do not conceive (Do you think Rachael ever asked Jacob if he was sterile?) These women do not have the liberty to speak their mind under the threat of death from "the eye," how can a sacrifice be a sacrifice if it is not willing; even god-willed sacrifice in the bible has the component of human choice. Auto-cannibalism is when a society eats itself whole by suppressing those who could be used as a commodity for their own greed. In the Handmaid's tale, the commanders use the bodies of their citizens in what ever way they want, they are the stone bricks of the power structures. They are used as disposable wombs, pollution clean up, soldiers, and sexual provocations. This is why the only true sacrifice in this story is by the Offred that lived in the house before the Offred that tells us the The Handmaid's Tale. She is the one who carved the word "Nolite te bastardes carborundorum" into the closet wall for our Offred to see them. Yes, she killed herself, but under the inevitable pretense that the government would kill her when it was decided she could no longer conceive. Not only does this act of resistance act as a symbol to Offred, but it also rocks the commander to his core and gives him that weakness of guilt that our Offred does the best to exploit in the name of the "Mayday" resistance.

Why Margaret Atwood's "A Handmaid's Tale" is more disturbing in ways the 'Blood Child' could never compare.

     While I am not incredibly far into A Handmaid's Tale, I still have a good idea of the themes within this book from public knowledge, and some internet articles. So far, what I am seeing is that the world that Offred lives in is just a condensed version of the many horrors that women have faced at the hand of an oppressive patriarchal society, both past in present. In fact, Margaret Atwood meant that to be the case. The Handmaid's tale is different from most other science fiction or speculative fiction novels, because everything within it is possible with our current state of humanity and technology. Bloodchild is disturbing in it's easy comparison to sexual assault and slavery, but it is more removed from our reality in comparison to The Handmaid's Tale in it's alien-ness. This novel is the horror story to the modern American women who enjoys her freedoms, but at the same time realizes their fragility and how easy the can be taken away, especially in a digital age where bank accounts can be erased, or in a time when legislation limiting women's reproductive freedom is far from universally contested.
          While Margaret Atwood, is definitely not a person who usually supports the men and how they treat women in and outside this novel, she is also wise to make the point that the oppression of equality for women can also be perpetuated by the female gender. As a women in this modern age, it can be so frustrating to see other women whole heatedly spiting each other, whether it be for religiosity, political gain in a man's world, or simple jealousy. In this story, Atwood shows us a societal system made by men to hinder women of all statues, largely by turning them against one another and separating them into conflicting castes; it is it historical tale as old as time. While there are different allowances for each type of women, even the women who let the power and jealousy go to their head, the one thing they all have in common is that their existence is on the terms of a man or many men.
         The themes, such as oppression, sexual assault, and slavery, are similar between the two stories. One deals in a more abstract, gory version of these themes, while the Handmaid's tale is hauntingly more relateable to the modern day woman.

Battle Star Galactica (Can you imagine if other sci-fi shows were as well funded up to this point?)

      If there's one thing I can say about Battle Star Galactica, it's that it finally proved to general audiences just how sophisticated motion picture Sci-Fi could be. In a time when Marvel movies, Star Wars, and other Interstellar craziness are some of the highest grossing films out there, there is certainly a lot to be thankful for (especially for those who had been watching low budget space operas from day 1). Without overly clunky CGI or hilarous special effects weighing down the production, Battle Star Galactica was free to tell it's intelligent and dramatic post-apocalyptic epic without any sniggering from the back (ok, and if there is some it's due to the cheesy relationship between Gaius and Cylon model number 6). With the freedom of post-production, we are able to easily show the expert maneuvering of Starbuck, the quick space hopping of the Battle Star Galactica, and the sinister gleam of the metal Cylons.
    Because I did read the wiki, I'm acquainted with the huge story arc of this show. I really think that due to the fact that this show was not limited to the ship's bridge, 2 or 3 other rooms, a cheap green screen, and the desert outside of L.A, the show is really able to go all out and pull out all of the stops. I love how this show does not focus on "world building" like many other sci-fi(s) (which would be pretty difficult anyways because the way this series started anyways); instead it focuses more on many anthropogenesises. It is really like getting to fully understand what it is to be human, by observing conflicts between the races and learning about their origins (through heavy action). I also think that it was a very wise move on the part of the show runner to make the pilot of the show be a 2 hour long special. If the story of the pilot was told in 3 or 4 episode, there would be a lot of filler in the effort to give each episode a conclusion, and as a result less excitment and empathy towards the new characters.
All in all, Battlestar Galactica is an intelligent and complicated sci-fi show that won't have you snoring through the credits.

Dumpy ships, Robinhood's Merry Band, and Fringe society - is it as glorious as it sounds?

      For a show that focuses so heavily on the libertarian ideals, of free will in political, monetary, and social spheres, it made a bit of a humbling criticism of renegade culture. Jayne the obvious stand out in this episode proves how the legend of the civilian hero, is more of a myth, an important myth at that, but based more on hope and expectations than reality.
    It's seems reasonable that an oppressed and destitute community, much like the serfs throughout much of medieval history, would be happy to believe in a "robin hood" character - a person who gives to the poor and takes from the rich based on nothing but integrity and morals, with little regard for personal safety or necessity. Firefly sheds and realistic light on this idealistic archetype, and shows that this person does not exist, want and greed are universal. Even though Jayne is essentially a fraud, the show uses a softer tone to show how, even just a story is enough to keep a hope going for a people in distress.
      Firefly doesn't completely trash on the Robinhood story, in fact it still very much fancies it. With it's use of a mostly provincial crew and run down ship it creates an endearing image of a mostly good crew of citizen heroes. Firefly likes the idea of a libertarian society, but also is willing to cater to the idea that even that would not be a utopia - people are still greedy and insecure, regardless of power structure.
    

Yo where the Nadias at!?.. and other issues with an over philosophized political climate in the face of critical issues.

    It's news to most people over the age of 7 (sadly) that the world has a lot of problems that we are forced to deal with, albeit many of them are conflated non-issues, but there are usually no easy solutions. In an era where many of our most impactful issues are attempted to be resolved through hypothetical debate and deliberation in order to find the "right" solution, "Nadias" are as rare as ever. "Nadias" don't spend too much time wondering what the easiest course of action is, they instead focus on finding and putting a solution into action.
    When a person is drowning, they don't usually think about designing a new Eco-friendly scuba device, usually they are focused on figuring out which way the bubbles are going; maybe afterwards they'll devise a sustainable and hardy flotation device. "Nadias" are just people who apply that basic logic to the real world, which is easier said then done. A "Nadias" true strength lies in their ability to look past extraneous details and instead evaluate a situation in realistic and modifiable terms.
      This does not go to say that we don't need earth shatter-ers like Arkady or legendary inspiring figures like John, just to say that a healthy balance will never be achieved for society if progress relies solely on a battle of ideologies. Nadia shows that work and progress can still be done during times of non-harmony - stalemate or even revolution.
     By focusing heavily on characterization, for characters such as Nadia, Robinson finely evaluates the underpinnings of human cultures and civilizations, as each character represents certain parts of a functioning (and non-functioning society). Robinson never admits to his fictional society becoming a Utopia, more that it is a society that is chronically striving to not be a dystopia. A society is a continuously adapting thing that requires maintenance from all sorts of people, "Nadias" included, and there is no piece of paper, no matter how well written, that will solve all future and current issues. They say a society is only as good as the people within it, if by good they mean full of integrity and well intentions, then by all means I agree.  

What is the important similarity between Captain Jean Picard, Christopher Columbus, and the BOOOOOORRRGGG??

      Hint: They're all pasty white guys!! (I'm only kind of kidding). After putting that thought aside, we can see that the obvious similarity is that the are all men of conquest, with that being the case, the real question is why do we generally have such extremely different impressions of each of them? What makes a "good" or "bad" conquistador?
     I think many people would be inclined to say how they treat the land and people on which they arrived, is the defining factor in deciding if they are moral or amoral. I rather, would suggest that it is actually the adventurers motive or mondus operandi, or at least the one that they proclaim, that shifts our perception of that person and possibly even turn a blind eye to their less humane actions. People live vicariously through stories of adventure and like to identify with the main character, so we like a story with a main character with a motive we can aspire to; "To go where no man has gone before", "To discover the New World", but "Resistance is Futile"?, not so much. Because of our bias, we would rather chalk up mortality at the hands of a conqueror we "like", or maybe just their carelessness as just symptom of adventure, than instead destroy our perfectillusion of grandeur, especially if that conqueror is from our direct history.
     In the case of Christopher Columbus many American people will put aside the genocide he committed in their mind as to not destroy the romantic vision of "the Discoverer" and effectively themselves, it's borderline narcissistic. I'm in no way saying that Picard has a similar moral compass to Columbus, just a similar motto. For the same reason that we look past Colombus's atrocities, we look past Picards shortcomings, even if they are partly due to some kind of Butterfly effect. He used his confidence to explore as a way to pick up alot of responsibility, that viewers sometimes let him shed when something goes wrong. For example, because of how Picard handles Q and the Borg, thousands of people die in battle. At the very least, Picard is not mindless, we are just apt to look over the messiness and dark side that inevitably come along with having the drastic influence of leading a civilization to new explorations.
             I think what is most distressing about the Borg, besides the fact that they kill entire species, is that they don't seem to have any heroic motive, at least not from the human perspective. They seem to have a mindless appetite for over consumption and destruction. It doesn't make sense to us, they seem like viruses; why would they even bother with conquest? How can we logically reason with or make sense of a race that's motive is not "self-improvement" or adventure. It is scary to think that a species could erase something so immense like an entire species with out any passion, even if it is nefarious, how do we as humans wrap our heads around it?

Why I love Octavia Butler's Writing style and how she conquers sensitive topic with it.....also a random thing about the femal victim role in sci fi.

    Octavia Butler is already so wildly celebrated and recognized, but that won't stop me from doing the same :). I found her writing to be refreshing and flowing; no info dumps, pretentious science explanations that sound like a 12 year old boy wrote it, just pure narrative from a fictional source that is actually experiencing whatever strange new world Octavia drops us into.

    Needless to say, Octavia Butler is into some WEIRD stuff, but in my eyes that's not exactly a deterrent. Her work turns things that could easily be considered campy or simply gross into something interesting and thought provoking, but that's because she digs DEEP and gives every detail of the story special attention and care - but really that's all you need to make any story worth reading.

I think that is what made the first story we read in class so sophisticated - I say while still being mindful of it's terribly disturbing aspects (it would be pretty hard for Butler to downplay those traits anyways). The truth is the weird sexual/farming slavery of humans by aliens is super interesting, and maybe just as plausible as one of the common alien invasion tropes. Besides, the characterization of all of the humans and aliens is incredible, the interpersonal social aspects of post invasion world is not something I had really considered before ( I kind of assumed we'd be mostly dead). I think this story also drew some strong real-life parallels of slavery, abuse, and Stockholm syndrome. Honestly, the way she wrote for the main alien almost made me understand it's side, ALMOST. (did I almost get Stockholm syndromes by Butler?). This story also made me think a lot about how we treat the animals we use for food, clothing, etc. Even in the case of the aliens being superior to humans (as many assume we are to animals), everything they do to the humans seem incredibly wrong; it's even more sickening when you think about how we violate animals in just as inhumane ways (Maybe we don't try to use them to grow our parasitic offspring, but we still do some terrible things that we try to justify.) Overall the power dynamic between the alien and her human is totally disconcerting, it would almost be easier to understand if she was just overtly physically abusive, and did not act as some kind of family member.
          And now for the last little bit that I kind of built up in the title. What I found completely interesting was how I perceived the protagonist, the stereotypical victim character to be female, even thought he was overtly defined as male. While I don't like the fact that I subconsciously assumed that, I think Butler may intentionally written the main character as a doted on, but raped and manipulated young person, in order to make the statement that we are biased to assume that a victim is female, for good or bad reason I'm not sure.

Are AIs and uncontained consciousness the next step for the human race?

     Neuromancer may have been the beginning of the new cyberpunk sub-genre, but the theme of escaping our physical existence in it's ending is pretty common through out the science fiction genre as a whole.
     According to many beliefs, or at least a lot of authors, the best alternative to our current existence is one without flesh. Think about it, in the Christian religion, and many other similar beliefs systems there is the idea that we could eventually be free from our bodies and live in eternal joy (i.e heaven). I don't want to step on any toes here, but it also makes a lot of sense to me that now that we have the distant possibility, with our current progress in technology, we are intrigued by the idea uploading our consciousness or neural makeup to some sort of digital "matrix.", in the same way people yearn for heaven. It makes sense that human's would be into that idea of being free of physical shells - freedom from discrimination, non-mental illnesses, aging, death, etc.
      For Case, when he is taken out of a virtual world where he is limitless, he falls into a path of self destruction and depression. Even at the end when he is given access to hack, he still gets his body back in shape for drug abuse (another type of escape from the physical world). Overall, Case is big in escapism. However his dream is eventually realized by the Necromancer (bringer of neural activity?), and he is allowed to live with Linda forever, as they are both uploaded to the Matrix.

90's Kid's toys + Medical 3-D printing = the scientific advancement we've all been waiting for.

    Have you ever thought to yourself that most band aids are kind of an eye-sore?.. Even the hello kitty kind? Besides, there's just got to be a more effective way to help the skin heal than just slapping a piece of sticky cloth to the skin, right?.... and fun, did we slap skinmention fun?  

   Well lucky you! You're thinking just like the engineers at the Aislinn Incorporated Labs! Here we believe in practicality, innovation, customizability, and style above all. Dreamed up by the same person who claimed thy "could make anything" with a 3-D printer and the genius behind Lisa Frank's marketing, we bring you Slap Skin!  Combining the amazing kinetic abilities of the classic slap on bracelet, and the cutting edge science of printing out tissue made of live human cells. With this amazing invention we promise a sterile and discreet healing of superficial scratches to 3rd degree burns. Just open up your packaged Slap Skin (covered with a sanitizing protectant), press the edge gently to the skin surrounding the wound (little force is necessary with our amazing new design), and wait for the skin adjusting technology to adapt to your healthy skin color, texture, and dimensions of your trauma for the ideal and efficient skin repair. We now offer a 20 pack of standard Slap Skins! for the low price of $50, which should last for about a year (since the individual strips have the ability to cell replicate, on strip should be sufficient for any size scathe)    

       Based off of this medical technology, Aislinn Incorporated has also created a cosmetic version called Slap Style! This is not for tissue repair, but rather harmless and painless body modification. With a quick slap onto the wrist this 2nd layer of skin will spread across the body and cover it with a variety of different colors, patterns, finishes, and or disguises of your choice. This is perfect for the daring fashionista or the undercover spy; either way this is only temporary, as it is absorbed by the bloodstream at the end of the week.  These are perfect for recreational purposes, but also great for corporate uniform (please place a custom order in bulk for us). 

     This is a new product, but we are sure that it's possibilities are endless. Please purchase the product off of our website within the next 24 hours for a 20% discount!

                                                                          

Synthesis between West World and the first 30 minutes of Blade Runner

         So, as the title suggests I've only watched a bit of blade runner, but given the fact I'm neck deep in the HBO show West World (The prospect of a 2nd season is the only thing that has kept my faith in humanity over the last year), I think I can provide at least a semi-intelligent opinion on the ethics of human like and possibly sentient androids.

To get straight to the point, the thing that is really interesting about the seemingly universally acknowledged fear of highly intelligent machines, is that our fear is not really of the machine like qualities, but rather their perceptibly human-like characteristics. Generally, the things we fear in machines are things like empathy, sentience, self-preservation, vengeance, and personal sovereignty. I have two theories that could explain why we have such a fundamental fear of man-like machines.  

Theory 1: To allow machines to posess these qualities would put humans in a state of moral murkiness or ambiguity based on the often inhumane treatment of these machines
      Evidence by how customers treat the hosts in West World. They purge their unacceptable behaviors because they believe, or at least want to believe, that hosts are non sentient which excuses those behaviors.

Theory 1b: A less forgiving addition to theory 1 is that the reason behind humans not wanting to infringe on humane rights of man-like machines because they fear that machines with superior abilities would then try to defend their humanity through violence.
     ie the entire plot of Blade Runner

Theory 2: Man made machines will never be identical to humans, but will instead be so incredibly similar that it would unsettling or creepy to humans. Humans avoid "creepy" things because they are an unknown quantity; should we fear or accept? - we just don't know. The biologically ingrained reaction to the unknown is fear; think Hal's macabre voice. 
     Think about the robot vs human test in Blade Runner; while it is 100% accurate at predicting the classification of the examined, if the only thing separating a man and an advanced robot a flash of non-empathy at a single image, is the difference between man and machine even significant? Who knows? .. eerie. 
  

The End of the X-Files Season 3 - The light at the end of the tunnel

      Towards the end of the X-Files season 3 I could really see the show morphing into the style it would be recognized for today. There was much more of a narrative on the individual character and their relationships, both with main characters and non-main characters. Episode 20 also really latched on to the theme of extra-terrestrial, and made the the main conflict of the show very clear. It was almost like the show finally focused and made a decision of what it wanted to be. Before, the show created show much confusion will all the different types of sci fi, there was a few episodes dealing with religion, ghosts, mutated disease, fortune tellers, and even horoscopes, it was a bit overwhelming.
    I haven't watched season 1 or 2, but I do know it was even more monster of the week and very well could have ended with Mulder's death at the the end. It seems like season 3 was literally and figuratively a Lazarus season. So I am impressed with how they eventually decided to direct the show.
    I read a few summaries and I can see how some of the seemingly unconnected aspects of the show connect, so maybe it's a matter of marathoning through the seasons. It was pretty clever how they make it so the men from that secret government society and the aliens that use the "black sludge" to sort of be working together but also not. It 's hard to place blame on either group because they both did very terrible things, the circumstances of the relations are also very reminiscent of the cold-war. Either way, Mulder did have the right to investigate and be suspicious, the way they were conducting this whole ordeal was pretty unethical.
   Also reading into Mulder's backstory I can understand why he almost intuitively knows if there is some paranormal or extraterrestrial happenings. His biggest flaw though is that he can let his emotions, bias, and paranoia get in the way of his reasoning. He can also be selective with what evidence he pays attention to, even if it confirms supernatural intervention, if it could change the perception of someone he cares about. Like when Skinner is accused of murder for example. I like to see vulnerability in characters, so I like this character development. 

X-files Season 3: mostly meh with a side of "that's kinda cool"

          I've watched most of Season 3 of the x-files and so far it has really challenged my idea of what I consider to be science fiction. Most of the cases go unsolved as far as how exactly the murders happen. They can usually find out who is guilty, except for the cases that seem like there is a large group conspiracy, but the means usually go unexplained. My idea of pure science fiction is that every thing, no matter how wild, has some sort of explanation or clue. This is my main issue with the show, the endings are so vague that I really have trouble coming up with a unique analysis or hypothesis. I really do like how Scully and Mulder act as each other's foil, they are both very intelligent, but show contrast each other well as one is a skeptic and the other is a believer of all things paranormal. I can also appreciate the originality of the show. It's possible that I find the show a little bland is that I have seen so many newer shows that have a similar, but improved style, but I guess I should owe that to the shows success.

        The one episode that I really did like, because it did leave alot of room for analysis and matched up with on of the over arching themes of the show was episode 20: From Outerspace. The plot is that there are 2 - 3 people that could possibly been abducted by aliens, but there is also an equal amount of evidence that it was government conspiracy or even a delusion aided by drugs or psychosis. The only thing you can say is that something spooky happened to everyone, Mulder and Scully included. The ending remark made by the honorary narrator was that we are all alone in our perception. This made me think of all of the other sci-fi we have read that had the same idea, The Frozen Journey stuck out most in my mind as being a dead ringer for this psychological sci-fi. Mulder, which from my perspective seemed to be a weaker less developed charcter in comparison to Scully, was described as being one step away from insanity. This was maybe why I perceived him as being weaker in comparison to Scully, he is very willing to believe and accept the unexplainable and often for emotional reasons. I wonder if this is due somewhat to his damaged childhood, perhaps the make - believe is easier for him to accept because it's less absolute and damning.

      Unfortunately we only had enough time to watch season 3, I will probably watch some other seasons, both earlier and later to see if the more complete character development will help me appreciate the more "monster of the week" episodes. Perhaps there was a story line in there that I was just totally missing due to lack of background info.

     
       

Why Star Trek didn't totally pigeonhole masculinity, and other thoughts ...

  I really enjoyed Star Trek. Not just because of the flashy costumes and the retro sets. While it's hard to compare to the diversity of characters we expect now a days, I would have to say they did a pretty great job ( plus lets not forget the lack of diversity we have in media today - a topic for another time).  While the show is scewed in favor of Kirk's personality, which can actually be fun because it's nice and familiar to see the classic hero win, they also include other forms of masculinity into their character base.
   First of all, Spock, definitely a winning character for viewers that might identify with a type of masculinity that isn't defined by physical strength and a leading confidence (that can edge on being too much). I like how they present spock as an intellectual bad ass rather than a pathetic nerd who didn;t deserve respect. It's refreshing when you consider an American show created him; America being a country that is well known for it's tendency to be anti-intellectualism. Of course they had to make him Alien, I mean who do you know who could calculate the exact number of tribble spawn in a few seconds? While he may be a hyperbole of the now super trendy nerd guy, I still say he's a very welcome character. Spock can be viewed be pretty distant from human emotion, which could stereotype intellectual people as unfeeling. In my opinion,  Spock isn't exactly without emotion, as he tries to surpress emotions that he find to be extraneous (vulcans are very good at managing their physical and mental processes). He still shows loyalty and companionship to his fellow crew members, it's just in his own way. Instead of throwing blows at the bar, he likes to drop crushing logic and knowledge.
 

Number 1 fav character is definitely Chekov. First of all he's a Russian on a space mission with mostly Americans, which is pretty funny and daring considering the then current space race and Cold War with the russians. But I also like how the show allowed Chekov to be his own individual. He's allowed to be his own person. He doesn't have to be a flag waving, stoic, red blooded American to be accepted by his crew. They make him into a young and quirky, but capable and respected navigator. I think it's very cool of the show to include a masculine figure that younger audiences could appreciate.

I was inspired

https://youtu.be/HU2ftCitvyQ

Lucid Dreaming and Anxiety - Frozen Journey

Have you ever gone to sleep after having a particularly emotional day? What about if you were expecting a particularly impactful tomorrow? Think about your dreams. Were they poignant and fixated on a single fear, exhilarant, or idea? If the dream became to much, you might try to wake up. But Imagine if it was a dream that for all intents and purposes could continue indefinitely. Wouldn't you prefer something a little more mundane?

It is understandable why the main character would choose to relive the same experience repeatedly for most of his trip, I'm sure that whole psychoanalysis thing was not comfortable. Most of us agree that at the end he actually does leave the ship, due to the fact that he we see his unusual actions from the perspective of his ex-wife, I think we were probably meant to think so.

For argument's sake let's say that the main character was still being fed the same manufactured "dream", even at the end. If the dream suddenly became more complex, diverse and suspiciously like reality from the main character's pov, should we assume he has woken up? Since this story showed how tricky and "mind bending" the concept of perception is, I think we could just as easily conclude that his mind had adapted to his state and fabricated a super convincing reality outside of the ship's control. I also want to bring the idea of lucid dreaming into this. Lucid dreaming seems to happen when a person is in a near meditative state. When a person, through practice, is able to let go of some of their anxieties or stressors during their dreams, they often report being able to change the dreams to their liking. Perhaps after years of the same "dream" he could become able to control it.

    I don't think Philip K. Dick was trying to make this point at the end, it was probably more along the lines of how the main characters mind was so conditioned to the "dreams". However, I just wanted to add something to the giant basket of things that makes the distinguished line between reality and false perception blurrier.

Hal's Motives

    

  Before I start writing about the subplot of Jupiter Mission, I'd like to state my position on the whole alien obelisk thing. I can't find any evidence in the movie to show that obelisks are for sure alien antennae devices or information messengers meant to advance humans; either way, it is pretty obvious that they are a) of mysterious alien origin and b) is highly involved in human advancement and discovery/ curiosity, whether that is in physical or metaphorical form. It also seems that the obelisk at least inspired or caused the evolution of modern day humans from the more animal-like prehistoric version. 
     Now to bring HAL into the equation, he is an AI that seems like the pinnacle of human advancement. Cerebrally speaking, he seems very similar to humans, in that he can reason, wonder, and feel. The few differences are that he can process even better than a human, but is still created to serve humans; although he eventually begins to question them. Because of this and the revelation at the end of his sentence, I have two theories behind Hal's odd lashing out towards the crew of Discovery One.
      Number 1: Hal seems to be far superior than humans as far as cognitive intelligence and likely figured out that aliens had something to do with thier motivation to explore farther into space from the top secret tape stored in his hard drive. While Hal may have been highly intelligence in other areas, he seemed to be immature as far as emotional or spiritual intelligence, which is possibly why he responded with fear and anger (both base emotions) at the unknown instead of the more human- like reactions of curiosity and risk taking. This is shown when Hal shows distrust towards the mission, a non-understanding of his emotions and reactions after trying to kill the crew members ("I am afraid, I am afraid"). This is the most distinct difference between humans and Hal, he does not show any interest in exploration; in his defense he had no choice but to venture into the unknown, which could understandably cause fear and frusturation (allthough, who's to say that man had any choice either) 
     Number 2: Similar to theory 1 in how Hal learns about the aliens. However in this theory, Hal's lashing out it caused by his vindictive personal interest. Perhaps, through Hal's superior database and intelligence, he figured that these alien obelisks had something to do with human advancment and feared that by venturing farther out humans would surpass machine once again in superiority. Maybe, Hal was so advanced that he experienced feelings of jealously and power hunger, and was planning all along to overthrow humans. (this theory is the most out there, but considering that Kubrick was probably on wicked acid, it's not as wierd as it could be)

The Martian Chronicles - "Man, I wished there were more about the Martians! ... but I guess that's the point?"

  "Wow, this is a whole lot less cool" I remember thinking as I started reading into the central chapters. I had really enjoyed reading about the Martian's culture, special abilities, and their environment. Plus it was pretty entertaining to watch the Martians intentionally and unintentionally foil the first few missions. The fact that what killed the Martians was chicken pox made the colonization of Mars pretty unearned and anti-climactic for the Americans. The beginning of the book seemed more like a fantasy adventure story and I guess after that the story was a little too close to home. In my opinion, Ray Bradbury did this specifically to juxtapose the two civilizations and show how one of them *cough cough* maybe didn't belong there.
   Not to say that the portion of the chronicle where the humans had colonized wasn't interesting; it was just a little humbling to see that even if we did change planets we would probably bring all of the stuff that made earth unlivable in the first place with us anyways. That was the point of  Spender's last hurrah, he knew that even if the first few colonists were harmless, eventually capital interests or violent interests would further destroy the memory of a civilization already ruined by disease.
  Something else interesting is how little the humans actually adapt to the new planet. There was an attempt to start planting earth seeds in martian soil to try to fix the oxygen problem; however, it was pretty poetic how the attempt seemed to be a magnificent success only to be completely ruined by the harsh martian sun and showing how unwelcome the humans were. Although the martians and the humans seem very similar and mars was almost habitable to humans, it's obvious that the humans were being carless when deciding that mars would be a good place to settle down.
  When the alien and the colonist meet in a road and literally cannot exist in the same reality, it really emphasizes the point of thier alien-ness to each other. Allthough they share similar desires, they cannot co-habitate, the whole "there can only be one" (courtesy of Highlander) argument is really strong here and eventually proves it's self to be true by the end of the book.

Why are metropolises so common in science fiction?

  What I find so interesting about science fiction is how the genre both congratulates and criticizes in equal parts. The attitude of the "looking forward" experiment seems to depend on whether the author accepts or fears technilogical advances at that particular time as is. In my opinion the attitude seems to be cyclical; when we are on the brink of new promising innovation the genral attitude seems to be positive, but when the technology is new and generally not well understood people are more weary and fears can inflate towards the ridiculous. This is what the archetype of the metropolis shows us.

  Metropolises are always giant hubs of activity set in the future and they are designed in nouveau styles of the time such as art deco or post modernism. They usually have a technological "wow" factor such as hoverboards or flying cars. The main idea that distinguishes between metropolises like Hill Valley in 2015 (Back to the Future II) or the original Metropolis is its connotation. In Back to the Future II the quality of life in 2015 in decidedly better than in 1985 (Although Marty's particular situation might not be that great). The once sleepy town is now bursting with fun activities, cool technologies, and interesting outfits, without any obvious detriment due to these installments of the future. However in the latter example technology is perverted in a way that is harmful to people; lusty robots, man eating machines that demand hours of rudimentary tasks, or an infustructure that is so weak that it completley falls apart at the slightest bit of incohesiveness.

  Another few societies that are popular in science fiction are the utopia and the dystopia. Instead of using an obscene amount of technology as a main trope to deliver an opproving or disapproving message. Sometimes the society is on subtly more futuristic technologically, but instead has more social differences. The social differences are usually exagerrated traits that the author wishes to focus on. For instance, in A Clockwork Orange, the only tech that is focused on is the hyper sexualized "bar maid" robots that serve drugs and the new methods for operant conditioning. The main focus in this dystopian London is the "ultra violence" perfomed by the main character Alex and "The Droogs", and other groups around the city. The city has turned into a terrible place to live; full of rape, burglary, and violence. The final message is a political one; the sociopathic Alex is allowed to live without psychological treatment on the one condition that he supports and participates in the main political party. On the other hand, Utopia by Thomas Moore focuses more on the socio-political details of a perfect and benevolent society. The main character Raphael, frusturated by the cruelty and poverty of Europe, leaves for the island where everyone shares thier goods and housing and no one has to fear one another. Freedom is described as an absence of private property and privacy. ( Yes, there are slaves, but this was written in 16th century England, so probably not that progressive in our terms)

  What I find the most interesting in this sub-genre of science fiction is how dystopian/ evil metropolis stories are so much more common now a days. With popular novels like The Hunger Games , The Handmaid's Tale, or Uglies popping up all over the place in the last 30 years, it would be interesting to study the reason behind this sudden popularity in the genre. Although, the genre really started to gain traction about 70 - 80 years ago, perhaps brought upon by the recent World Wars or the expansion of the Communist bloc, it's pretty interesting how in the last 10 years especially there has been a giant resurgence of faction like dystopias (often with female leads, which is a cool progression in science fiction.)

If you don't like strong women in your sci-fi......lol.