JackLuis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Posts
- 21,881
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/02/15/rur_540x301.jpg
The first picture is almost steambotery.
Man Vs Machine, The Scorecard
- Thread starter JackLuis
- Start date
The first picture is almost steambotery.
voluptuary_manque
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Posts
- 30,841
Even though we are indebted to Capek for the word "robot", in the play the constructs are what we today would call androids, being artificial life rather than mechanicals.
3113
Hello Summer!
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Posts
- 13,823
Damn it, Luis, you gave away the ending!
JackLuis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Posts
- 21,881
I don't just make this shit up, you know.
It takes hours to find Things that will amuse.
I was reading this, "Buckles, last WWI doughboy, dies at 110 in W.Va."
But I thought the Robots were more cheerful.
It takes hours to find Things that will amuse.
I was reading this, "Buckles, last WWI doughboy, dies at 110 in W.Va."
But I thought the Robots were more cheerful.
Last edited:
3113
Hello Summer!
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Posts
- 13,823
Hey! I've read this play!
Hey, son-of-a-bitch. I looked up the play online, and darn if I didn't read the damn thing back in something like high school.
It's no Frankenstein, though that's what it wants to be. And goes for the typical moralizing of such stories (Metropolis included!). Man makes "robots," (as VM said, they're made of flesh and bone and can feel pain, they're not really robots). Robots destroy man, but, oops, only man can make more of 'em (moral: humans are special!). Last living scientist bemoans the fact that man went where he ought not have gone (moral: Science is bad), luckily a male and female pair of androids are in love, an Adam and Eve to repopulate the world. Scientist ends by quoting the Bible (moral: believe in superstition, not science).
It's an interesting play historically, but poorly written and just awful sci-fi.
Good thing for me that the very next year at that same High School I took a science fiction literature class from a teacher he knew his stuff and had us stories by the old masters (Asimov, Sturgeon, Clark)--no quoting the Bible or denigrating science by any of them. Just great stories exploring what real sort of futures and problems would come from possible technological and scientific advances.
And, with Asimov at least, robots that were robots
Hey, son-of-a-bitch. I looked up the play online, and darn if I didn't read the damn thing back in something like high school.
It's no Frankenstein, though that's what it wants to be. And goes for the typical moralizing of such stories (Metropolis included!). Man makes "robots," (as VM said, they're made of flesh and bone and can feel pain, they're not really robots). Robots destroy man, but, oops, only man can make more of 'em (moral: humans are special!). Last living scientist bemoans the fact that man went where he ought not have gone (moral: Science is bad), luckily a male and female pair of androids are in love, an Adam and Eve to repopulate the world. Scientist ends by quoting the Bible (moral: believe in superstition, not science).
It's an interesting play historically, but poorly written and just awful sci-fi.
Good thing for me that the very next year at that same High School I took a science fiction literature class from a teacher he knew his stuff and had us stories by the old masters (Asimov, Sturgeon, Clark)--no quoting the Bible or denigrating science by any of them. Just great stories exploring what real sort of futures and problems would come from possible technological and scientific advances.
And, with Asimov at least, robots that were robots
