In Phillip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (which is superior to Ridley Scott's admittedly ambitious Bladerunner), bounty hunter Rick Deckard has to administer a series of empathy tests against robots so lifelike they are indistinguishable from humans beings. The book doesn't overtly state why the androids pose such a threat that Deckard must kill them off, other than to suggest that their lack of empathy could lead them to violence against humans. Most of these androids, in fact, seem to be living fulfilling lives and only become violent once Deckard threatens them with extermination.

I found this book fascinating, more so than the movie, which doesn't do a good job of explaining why the androids need killing, thus flattening the plot into a secret-agent shoot-'em-up thriller. (I still like it; don't worry.)

The theory of singularity greatly interests me in fiction. Though I can see the benefits of technological advancements, and enjoy many of them, I mistrust humanity's current obsession with it to the exclusion of all else, and am fundamentally threatened by it.

I am threatened by the thought of cyberspace and smartphones making self-absorbed zombies out of the human race. I am threatened by soulless vocaloids like Hatsune Miiku rendering the worst of music even more shitty than it already is. I am threatened by computer programs that can compose music faster than any human being, and brace myself against the day they will churn out boilerplate novels guaranteed to hit all the right "feels."

No, don't pity me. All you computer programmers will be the first to get the axe when the machines can code faster than you, and develop a consciousness to the point where they don't need your supervision anymore. The only humans who may thrive are those who can make themselves useful to this new intelligence; those who have something the machines can't quite duplicate.

I am one who believes in a human soul that endures after our death. Because of this, I believe in the superiority of man over machine. No machine we make, however well it executes our arts, will ever make superior art or render our art meaningless. A true connoisseur will value the human creation, not for its technical precision and the speed of its execution, but for the indefinable spark of imagination it possesses that the machine's mathematical brain cannot emulate.

I was of course fascinated when Cleverbot hit the scene, eager to talk to it, then quickly disappointed at its stupidity. By now, of course, there are smarter bots out there that can hold a meaningful conversation, and even some programs developed by programmers for the purposes of study, as in this scenario: can a human chat with a bot and tell whether they're talking to a bot or to another human?

I was much more impressed with these models than with Cleverbot. But though they are convincing, I propose a test in the spirit of Androids/Bladerunner.

The trick is, you must think of a factoid that is simultaneously easy knowledge to research, and esoteric enough that the average person can't do a google search for the answer unless they have a vested interest in the subject and are actively looking into it.

With the aim of calling bullshit on the bot, I have developed the "Torshavn" test. :P It goes like this:

Me: What is Torshavn?
Bot: The capital of the Faroe Islands, I think.
Me: Good. What does it mean?
Bot: I don't know?
Me: What does Torshavn translate to in English?
Bot: I don't know, what?
Me: Thor's Harbor. Try to remember that, please.
Bot: I will try to remember that Torshavn means Thor's Harbor
Me: You know Thor, from Norse mythology. Vikings.
Bot: Yes. Thor is also a Marvel Superhero.

You will proceed discussing Marvel movies with the bot for the next five minutes or so, gradually wending away from the original topic. Five minutes later, I spring the question again:

Me: What is Torshavn?
Bot: The capital of the Faroe Islands.
Me: Very good. What does it mean?

Now, at this point, not enough time has elapsed. A human would be able to remember your conversation after you put such focus on it. A human would say, even if they couldn't remember, "Wait! You just told me...something to do with Thor, right?"

The bot cannot answer this question. It will flail, flounder, and crap out in the face of your victorious grin.

My sisters laughed at me and told me I'm Deckard from Bladerunner, hunting down the replicants. I'm sure, in time, the internet artificial intelligence will get smarter.

I will have to devise new ways to trap the robots in the event of an AI apocalypse. ;)

Apparently some Marvel fans are upset that there will be a female iteration of Thor.

Some of the things they've been saying: "Feminists ruin everything!" and "There is no evidence anywhere in the old literature that Thor was ever female."

While I personally would prefer a spinoff with a separate Norse goddess (I nominate Skadi if you want a warrior chick), I have one thing to say to the above criticisms:

Thor dressed up in a fucking WEDDING DRESS to get his hammer back from the Jotnar, you illiterate n00bs! >:( Word.

Sure, Thor wasn't comfortable dressing in drag for the duration of the adventure, couldn't act the part of a woman convincingly, and without "handmaiden" Loki to save his ass the ruse wouldn't have worked...

BUT

He was in a wedding dress, dammit.

I give up. I'm a total stick in the mud anyway because frankly (and I know this is going to piss off a lot of people) I don't like Marvel Thor. Or Marvel Loki or anything Marvel about the Norse universe and fandom.

I've read and loved this whole cycle of myths since childhood. It's hard for me to accept a puerile watered-down superhero franchise, replete with never-ending Hollywood sequels and innacurate fan art of the Aesir gods. ;)

Favorite authors whose collective works I have yet to finish reading:

1. Robin McKinley (really?!?)

2. Ursula K. Le Guin (REALLY???)

3. Peter S. Beagle (how do I always forget you?)

4. Ray Bradbury (this is just sad)

5. C.S. Lewis (even sadder)

6. Ann Downer (how long have I been reading you?)

7. Madeleine L'Engle (OMG I haven't even finished the Time Quintet what's wrong with me...)

8. J.R.R. Tolkien (you've written more than Middle Earth)

9. Sylvia Louise Engdahl (you're the Le Guin of YA SF and I don't say that lightly)

10. Juliet Marillier (one book to go!)

11. Sharon Shinn (good god...really?)

12. Lloyd Alexander (I have a feeling you peaked at Prydain but that's all I've read so I can't judge)

13. Philip K. Dick

14. Zylpha Keatley Snyder

15. Mercedes Lackey (you're way too much fun)

16. C.J. Cherryh (moar sci-fi!)

17. Frank Herbert

18. Patricia A. McKillip (I'm missing a couple uncollected short stories and it's KILLING me, dammit--publish those somewhere I can find them)

19. Andre Norton (you're a mountain I can't climb but I know you've got to have some more wonders in your oeuvre like Year of the Unicorn)

20. Tanith Lee (You know what? I refuse to take blame for you, I mean, look at your back catalogue...I'll be lucky if I finish before I die) ;)

The Lathe of Heaven--again.

I just watched the 1980 PBS version.

I know this is considered by many fans to be the definitive, Ursula-K.-Le-Guin-endorsed version. And I did enjoy it as much as the remake, which I watched first.

But I'm sorry to say I'm still waiting for a film that can do the book justice. Both films, IMO, suffer from an over-simplification of the script and an over-reliance on melodrama in some scenes which were definitely not present in the book. George Orr is a whiner. Dr. Haber is decidedly more villainous than Le guin's character. And this Heather Lelache also lacks attitude.

The same problems I encountered in the remake are all here. So why does everyone love this version?

Sigh...looks like I'm going to be the black sheep in SF yet again. At this point I like the remake better. Both films deviate from the book in similar respects anyway; why shouldn't I prefer the version with a more believable sense of place? But I actually love the Star Wars prequels, so this estrangement from cult nerd-dom is nothing new to me.

Speaking of Star Wars...Bruce Davison as George Orr.

Come on now. Tell me that blonde bob and that whiny voice don't remind you of Luke Skywalker. In the A&E remake, on the other hand, George Orr's sulky emo ass reminded me of Hayden Christensen.

There's got to be a middle ground between Luke and Anakin Skywalker. Somewhere. The filmmakers just didn't find it.

At least we have the turtle aliens in this one. By the way, I also chuckled when the alien called him Jor Jor because...no, okay, we won't go there. :P  

Just read The Lathe of Heaven for the first time.

That...was incredible. :D Thank you again, Ursula K. Le Guin, for reaffirming my love of reading. Whenever I read a crap YA fantasy/sci-fi, I turn to one of your books and all is right with the world.

Now I've got to watch the two movies based on this book, one of which is apparently a cult classic and the other a made-for-TV disaster. I anticipate Solaris levels of fangirl rage.

Also, is it just me or or does Dr. Haber remind anyone else of a Dostoevsky character? 

Update on one Lathe of Heaven film, the A&E production from 2001:

Dare I say it? This movie is unfairly maligned by Le Guin purists such as myself. ;)

Yes, the dialogue and script are considerably dumbed-down from the source material, and the requisite happy ending is neither deserved nor properly explained, which results in Solaris-remake levels of confusion. This is the skeleton of Le Guin's book, little more than a visual trailer for the novel stitched together with beautiful images and a tense, surprisingly thrilling score.

Fantasia 2001: Lathe of Heaven? I'll take it.

As an adaptation, it mostly fails. But it's better than both Earthsea movies combined.

(Yes, that includes Miyazaki Junior's disaster. I love both these movies in all their crappy glory, by the way. They belong on my movie shelf of shame. ^_^)

As a cerebral science fiction piece, Lathe of Heaven is effective in its own right. Particularly noteworthy for me were the beautiful costumes and set pieces, along with the aforementioned music by Angelo Badalementi. I'm of two minds on the acting. It's solid, but the characters' personalities don't match those of their literary counterparts, so I found the film jarring.

Lukas Haas as George Orr:

What can I say? Anemic hottie. But he plays the part like a depressed Yagami Light, and captures none of the nuance of George Orr's character in the book.

Lisa Bonet as Heather Lelache is likewise gorgeous, but lacks the strength and delightful attitude of Le Guin's character. Her soft-spoken portrayal didn't convince me that I'm watching the same character from the book.

   James Caan gives a riveting performance as psychiatrist Dr. Haber. Whatever problems I encountered were on a script level. He manages to stay in character even when the dialogue dips into the ludicrous or outright villainous. Well played, Mr. Caan. Well played.

David Strathairn is also solid as Mannie. Why the filmmakers decided to replace Le Guin's aliens with this minor character is beyond me, but in the context of this film, he fits the role of mentor to George Orr. 

That's right: this film has NO aliens. It's clear the filmmakers don't understand the material. Without the aliens we don't have a satisfying resolution to George's problem. We don't know why his dreams have the power to change reality or how he learns to control them. I'll just pretend Mannie's an alien. 

All in all, more appealing and rewarding to my other senses, because the average filmgoer doesn't need the intellect anyway,  right? (I jest, of course.) A visual and auditory delight, though I understand why Le Guin hates it. Onward to the 1980 production, which I've heard is superior to this adaptation.

  

You can buy the awesome book here. The movie adaptations can be obtained here and here. I wish the film soundtrack was available but it seems like I'm out of luck there. :P 

To all my favorite authors and musicians, I have THIS to say:

LOL and did he just say, "Chewbacca Chewbacca Chewbacca Chewbacca?" XD

Advertising yet another wonderful YA book that inspires me. Here's the summary of Gifts by Ursula K. Le Guin:

"When a young man in the Uplands blinds himself rather than use his gift of 'unmaking'--a violent talent shared by members of his family--he upsets the precarious balance of power among rival, feuding families, each of which has a strange and deadly talent of its own."

This summary doesn't quite do the book justice. Gifts is a dark, captivating coming-of-age story. The book explores a heartfelt father-son relationship set against a backdrop of tribalism fueled by superstition. Plenty of intrigue here, most of which takes place outdoors in a landscape resembling feudal Scotland, a refreshing change of pace from castle intrigue.

Anyone who is familiar with Le Guin's solid body of work should know that this is among her best Young Adult novels, right up there with The Earthsea Cycle. The third and last book of this series, Powers, is on par with this one in quality. A companion novel with a new cast of characters, it tackles the subject of slavery, and has the most "epic" feel of the series. I'm sorry to say the middle book, Voices, is not quite as good. I've read it twice now and each time I had the same opinion of it: good story, a little slow, definitely too didactic. This tends to happen to fantasy literature when you intentionally draw parallels to the current religious-political conflicts of the Middle East.

But I can't recommend Gifts and Powers highly enough. If you love intelligent YA fantasy, if you are looking for a non-white cast of characters, and perhaps a realistic male who is not a ridiculous sparkly vampire, these books are worth a read.

  

You can snag your own copy here. And here is Ursula K. Le Guin's website.