Cast: Armando – “man of the army” Manuel – “God in us” Pedro – “rock” (as Peter saved himself in the Gospel) Radius – the ‘tin can’ robot (allusion to Karel Čapek’s “R.U.R.”)
Translations: la lata – “tin can” No puede morir – “It can not die” Es la una lata – “It is a tin can” Basta – “Enough” No más acerca de la lata – “No more about the tin can” Amigos – “Friends” ¿Ves? – “You see?” Vamos – “Let’s go” Apúrate – “Hurry” …está muerto – “…is dead” Sí, nuestro hermano es muerto – “Yes, our brother is dead”
to Leatherwing: If we assume Radius was accurate in his statements that he has rationality and autonomy but is incapable of the sensation of pleasure, then we would have to assume that he judged his death to be an efficient means to effect a priority end. The word "robot" was coined by Čapek in "R.U.R." from the Czech word robota meaning “serf labor/drudgery/servitude". So, I think the question becomes, (a) was Radius' self-sacrifice an act in service of his master's end, or (b) could his autonomy have caused him to act out of a sense of duty to his "brothers" as something he chose as his own end? I think the photo would have played no role in Radius' assessment in the first case, but could have been significant in the second. Armando’s transformation suggests his impression of the matter.
I’ve noticed something interesting in reviewing the entries and comments for this Friday Challenge. 1) I took a different meaning from Al’s story from the one he had intended. See my comment here. 2) I was interested in extending Henry's story with a twist. See my comment here. 3) Most comments on my story took it to be about Radius’ ‘soul’, but I intended it only to spur consideration about whether a robot could ever be considered ‘alive’. Note that neither Radius nor Manuel defend against Armando’s assertion that Radius has no soul; Manuel only argued that that was irrelevant to whether Radius could ‘die’. (For example, plants are alive but not traditionally considered to have a ‘soul’.) The notion of ‘soul’ only came up in portraying Armando’s advancing exasperation. In fact the two lines where Armando asserts Radius has no soul and Manuel counters with “so what?” could actually be stricken from the story and the whole would still stand exactly as I had intended. Yet, the idea of ‘soul’ was what readers took from the story.
For me, the lesson of this exercise is that the interpretation of a work belongs to the author only so long as he keeps it to himself; once he releases a work to readers, it’s meaning is free to become what readers make of it, and the author becomes an interested bystander. As Immanuel Kant wrote, “What is received is received in the mode of the receiver.” For authors, this loss of control over meaning seems both necessary and ultimately desirable; the alternative is descent into pedagogy at best, or propaganda at worst, with the concomitant loss of value in artistic expression.
6 comments:
Author’s Notes:
Cast:
Armando – “man of the army”
Manuel – “God in us”
Pedro – “rock” (as Peter saved himself in the Gospel)
Radius – the ‘tin can’ robot (allusion to Karel Čapek’s “R.U.R.”)
Translations:
la lata – “tin can”
No puede morir – “It can not die”
Es la una lata – “It is a tin can”
Basta – “Enough”
No más acerca de la lata – “No more about the tin can”
Amigos – “Friends”
¿Ves? – “You see?”
Vamos – “Let’s go”
Apúrate – “Hurry”
…está muerto – “…is dead”
Sí, nuestro hermano es muerto – “Yes, our brother is dead”
Nicely done. I think you handled the serious question of La Lata's soul quite well.
Nice entry. It leaves me with this question - was Radius' action a result of the "pleasure" of seeing himself in the group photo?
Lovely and sad.
to Leatherwing:
If we assume Radius was accurate in his statements that he has rationality and autonomy but is incapable of the sensation of pleasure, then we would have to assume that he judged his death to be an efficient means to effect a priority end. The word "robot" was coined by Čapek in "R.U.R." from the Czech word robota meaning “serf labor/drudgery/servitude". So, I think the question becomes, (a) was Radius' self-sacrifice an act in service of his master's end, or (b) could his autonomy have caused him to act out of a sense of duty to his "brothers" as something he chose as his own end?
I think the photo would have played no role in Radius' assessment in the first case, but could have been significant in the second.
Armando’s transformation suggests his impression of the matter.
This post was submitted for The Friday Challenge named "Inspiration" (a.k.a., "One Thousand Words"):
See Challenge Posting
See Entries and Comments
See Roundup and Winner
I’ve noticed something interesting in reviewing the entries and comments for this Friday Challenge.
1) I took a different meaning from Al’s story from the one he had intended. See my comment here.
2) I was interested in extending Henry's story with a twist. See my comment here.
3) Most comments on my story took it to be about Radius’ ‘soul’, but I intended it only to spur consideration about whether a robot could ever be considered ‘alive’. Note that neither Radius nor Manuel defend against Armando’s assertion that Radius has no soul; Manuel only argued that that was irrelevant to whether Radius could ‘die’. (For example, plants are alive but not traditionally considered to have a ‘soul’.) The notion of ‘soul’ only came up in portraying Armando’s advancing exasperation. In fact the two lines where Armando asserts Radius has no soul and Manuel counters with “so what?” could actually be stricken from the story and the whole would still stand exactly as I had intended. Yet, the idea of ‘soul’ was what readers took from the story.
For me, the lesson of this exercise is that the interpretation of a work belongs to the author only so long as he keeps it to himself; once he releases a work to readers, it’s meaning is free to become what readers make of it, and the author becomes an interested bystander.
As Immanuel Kant wrote, “What is received is received in the mode of the receiver.”
For authors, this loss of control over meaning seems both necessary and ultimately desirable; the alternative is descent into pedagogy at best, or propaganda at worst, with the concomitant loss of value in artistic expression.
Post a Comment