Roald Dahl & Dr. Seuss: Educating Through Nonsensical Conventions

Introduction

As a child I had a fascination with books. When I visited the local library, the children’s section was always a special place for my imagination to run wild. Dr. Seuss books were always very special to me. The illustrations, the wild creatures, and interesting stories were a delight. Another author that also had the same effect was Roald Dahl. Dahl once said;

I have a passion for teaching kids to become readers, to become comfortable with a book, not daunted. Books shouldn't be daunting, they should be funny, exciting and wonderful; and learning to be a reader gives a terrific advantage. (Dahl)

There are intrinsic emotions when I go back and reread these authors. Contemplating the connections between them and how they taught me to develop my understanding of the English language and the world around me, some questions come to fruition. How can they get children to gravitate towards their works in such distinctive ways?

Nonsense, a device employed by both authors, contributes to subliminal learning permeating a child’s mind. In looking at the works The Big Friendly Giant, by Roald Dahl and some selected works such as, The Cat in the Hat and Horton Hears a Who by Dr. Seuss, one can see how their nonsense language and stories are used for a child’s development, enrichment of the English language and the understanding of the world around them. In this essay, I propose that Dr. Seuss and Roald Dahl, through the utilization of Nonsense, construct nonsensical characters and worlds, not to confuse but to teach and enlighten both children and adults about the moral aspects and possibilities of life, language, and learning.

I. Nonsense as a Literary Genre

The term nonsense is a bit confusing. Literary nonsense is not non-sense at all really. However, true non-sense as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is “spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense.” (Oxford Dictionary of English) Furthermore, it is simply indiscriminate clamor; a tedious flow of information that holds no importance or meaning, like listening and watching static from a television channel containing no images. Dr. Seuss took literary nonsense to its apex. Dr. Seuss once said; 

I like nonsense; it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living It's a way of looking at life through the wrong end of a telescope. Which is what I do, And that enables you to laugh at life's realities. (Seuss).

 His stories, containing a visual and fantastical world becomes somewhat rational within his narratives. A sort of consistent madness is seen in his stories. Seuss never wavers from his creations. If he creates a three headed person living in his home, he stays within the contextual frame of his story, where there would be three of everything. While there may be no Cats with hats and no Whos, if you can defer your uncertainty about those things, the story of Cat in the Hat and Horton Hears a Who will appear as sound as any other tale. 

Roald Dahl employs similar characteristics pertaining to the literary nonsense genre. In his work The Big Friendly Giant, or BFG for short, he creates a whole list of nonsense words called Gobblefunk;

As he was writing The BFG in the early-1980s, author Roald Dahl set about creating a new vocabulary for the story's enormous protagonist — a 238-word language that he ultimately named, "Gobblefunk." Words that made the cut included, "humplecrimp," "swallomp," "crumpscoddle," and, most memorably, "snozzcumber." (Usher 2012)

The reasons Gobblefunk was created is because it is useful in supporting the characteristics of the nonsensical worlds Dahl constructs in his stories. For those unfamiliar with the story of The BFG, it is about a young girl named Sophie who gets snatched up by a giant (The BFG) and taken to his home in Giant Country. The reader finds out that the BFG is the only good and benevolent giant in the world. He collects good dreams, where he later redistributes to children. When he comes across a nightmare he destroys it or uses it to start fights with the other giants. The other giants are ravenous and occasionally enter the human world to eat up “human beans,” especially children. Because the BFG refuses to involve himself in this, he ends up being a vegetarian where he survives on snozzcumbers (inspired by cucumbers), a fizzy drink called frobscottle with bubbles that travel downwards, which incidentally causes the drinker to break wind instead of burp, where passing gas is referred to as Whizzpoppers;

A whizzpopper!” cried the BFG, beaming at her. “Us giants is making whizzpoppers all the time! Whizzpopping is a sign of happiness. It is music in our ears! You surely is not telling me that a little whizzpopping if forbidden among human beans? (Dahl)

Humorously written, The BFG also offers a darker subtext. Characteristically for Dahl, one of the themes of the work is fighting against a greater foe using one’s intelligence and development. Sophie who is in command because of her wits and courage, and the adult figure, the BFG, carries out her imaginative plans. The same pattern, the friendship and collaboration of an intelligent child and a kind and gentle adult is recurrent in several of Dahls’s works. 

The narrow-mindedness and utter stupidity of adults are considered from the perspective of a giant and a child, and the actions of adults are seen in a humorous way. The only good adult is the Queen of England, who efficiently organizes the mission to capture the man-eating giants, and turns out to be a wise and warm person. Dahl creates a strong contrast between children and adults, where it is usually the children who come out on top. In his books, children are repeatedly left on their own to survive in the malicious world of callous and insensitive adults.

Nonsense literature adds a favorable twist: it promotes children to reflect on the natural world not as it is, but as it possibly can be.  Nonsense educates children the constructive mental tendency of not ruling anything out. Once a child had accepted the idea of a talking cat in a hat, an elephant that firmly believes in the existence of a microscopic society, and where a big and friendly giant helps children receive good dreams, they have taken a short step towards steering away from the development of a narrowing mind as we all may undergo as we reach adulthood.

II. Lessons Conveyed in Literature

Shifting focus back on Dr. Seuss, one can take away the same type of moral lessons that The BFG conveys. In Horton Hears a Who!, for example, Horton is an elephant with a good heart and sensitive ears who discovers the microscopic people, the Whos, on a fleck of dust when the inhabitants call out for help. He chooses to help and guard the Whos, but is ostracized from his community because they think he is insane. One of the more well known phrases from this story is, “a person is a person no matter how small,” (Seuss) which sends a clearly defined moral point to children readers. The tale, even though taking place in a world full of chatting animals, is about intangible ideologies such as open-mindedness in believing in something that you cannot see with your eyes, duty in protecting your beliefs, unkindness and distrust by others in making fun of what one may believe in, are all very relatable. 

The Cat in the Hat, being one of the more popular and well known of Dr. Seuss’ tales, is a story that is full of moral ideals and political significance. Dr. Seuss wrote this story keeping a child in mind, even though there are some heavy elements embedded within. As The Cat in the Hat begins, the first thing the reader learns is that the children are home alone. With the knowledge of being by themselves they have the notion that they may do as they please;

I sat there with Sally.

We sat there, we two.

And I said, “How I wish we had something to do!?”

Too wet to go out

And too cold to play ball.

So we sat in the house.

We did nothing at all. (Seuss 121)

Pondering how two small children, left alone in on a rainy day with nothing to do, can make one realize the temptations that will soon confront them. One of the several good things about Dr. Seuss is his ability to make you aware of a social problem in an entertaining fashion. Hence walks in the cat in the hat promising fun and many good activities. As he puts it, “I will show them to you, your mother will not mind at all if I do.” (Seuss 124) Dr. Seuss uses a goldfish to open up the mind of the reader. There are many temptations out in the world waiting to show children several things that are not good for them. One wonders how many times the youth of today are startled when a parent is informed about something that they should not be engaged in. Certainly, the percentage is greater now than ever before concerning children engaging themselves in the wrong activity because of a lack of adult supervision. 

It is when the fish is introduced that the reader can start to understand the moral implications behind the cat in the hat. “No! No!. Make that cat go away!” (Seuss 125)  The fish exclaims. The reader instantly realizes the voice of reason is through a tiny fish that is almost always dismissed. All while the cat in the hat continues to tempt the children in doing the things he knows their mother would not approve. The goldfish in the background continues to shout, “No, tell him to stop.” (Seuss 127) It is a wonder how Dr. Seuss understands the temptations most kids face when alone. 

In the same way Dr. Seuss configures his Cat in the Hat lore to his readers, Dahl typically in his stories uses a recurring theme about fighting someone superior, usually an adult figure. However, it may be difficult to pick out in the same breath, the motive for educating moral lessons to children. The BFG acts as a highly entertaining piece of wit and humor. In a sense, it is a typical fairy-tale drawing a distinct and clearly defined line between good and evil, where the heroes are grounded in goodness and righteousness, and the villains are on the opposite pole. 

III. Illustrations to Maintain the Context and World of Nonsense

Viewing the illustrations of Dr. Seuss and Roald Dahl, one can get a sense of nonsense in a more visual way. The depictions of people and animals are nothing close to anatomical likeness of anything real in the world. Even though many of Dr. Seuss’ characters are soft, fluffy, and at times adorable looking, they seem to have no skeletal structure. His material items seem to have a somewhat shaky connection with their environment. Plates and fish bowls poise in fifteen foot tall heaps, each piece wobbling out of place, the whole construction waiting for it to fall and break to pieces. Yet within each story, this madness is rational and unswerving, and never deceives its fictional context. Real world applications and physics may not by the number one attributable quality in these tales, but the tenets of Seuss physics do not waver.

As with Seuss, Roald Dahl implements nonsensical illustrations to further his message and convince his audience of what he is trying to convey through his tales. The BFG is a giant illustrated with large ears to hear far away dreams in hopes of catching them. It is of presupposition that one might think a giant to be some sort of monster; however his countenance is that of innocence and niceness. The illustrations by both works of Dr. Seuss and Dahl are not the best in portraying aesthetic conventions of what an adult might look for, but rather go much deeper in supporting their contextual worlds. As stated earlier, the most important quality of these stories are to maintain believability in the reader. A child must believe in a world that might not make sense in their reality and in doing so might be able to open their mind up to a host of other possibilities.

IV. Final Thoughts

Dahl’s and Seuss’s tales give rise to their own ideas perpetuating in them a state of authentic belief. Children readers will begin to genuinely believe that worlds that inhabit a race of beings living on a speck of dust, a cat in a hat that has with him “Things” that wreak havoc and cause trouble, and a world of giants that feed on human beans. In actively believing such tales could exist, the moral implications are also believed. Instead of a dull and weary world that adult stories sometimes convey, nonsensical stories will open up the mind and possibilities of children readers. The popularity of Dr. Seuss and Roald Dahl is not so surprising in that they make the most impossible things possible. The capacity to think sensibly about nonsense can transform the way, not only children, but all of us identify with the world. 

Works Cited

Dahl, Roald. Good Reads. 2012. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/79884 (accessed 2012).

—. The BFG. London: Johnathan Cape, 1982.

Oxford. Oxford Dicctionary. 2012. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nonsense?region=us&q=nonsense.

Seuss, Dr. The Quotations Page. http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/32247.html (accessed 2012).

—. Your Favorite Seuss. Toronto: Random House, 2004.

Usher, Shaun. Lists of Note. February 2012. http://www.listsofnote.com/2012/02/gobblefunk.html (accessed 2012).

The Answer to Ivan's Rebellion

The Brothers Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoyevsky illustrates a grand scheme of characters embedded with careful development. Throughout the novel the reader is introduced to characters that inhabit specific roles that convey different experiences of human life. These experiences shed light on the deep psychological conceptions that are far reaching and can relate to almost all individuals living in this world. Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov is one such character embroiled with inner conflict. The second son of Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, Ivan possesses an intellectual and logical mind. Through the irrationalities of how the world seems to Ivan, he battles with religious constructs that contradicts his “Euclidian understanding” (Dostoyevsky 220) of existence. Ivan’s rebellion, against the confines of a world made from God, causes him to give back his “entrance ticket.” (221) Ivan says he accepts God, yet cannot live in a world without justice for the innocent victims of evil men. The innocent victims he exemplifies are children:

Listen! If all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony, what have children to do with it, tell me, please? It’s beyond all comprehension why they should suffer, and why they should pay for the harmony. (221)

The rationality of his argument that children should not suffer in a world full of adult sin because of their innate innocence, is a compelling one indeed. However, to confront a world with an attempt to rationalize horrific scenes, like a brutal murder of a small child, can send one into a depth of despair. As Ivan progresses throughout the novel, the reader sees a character full of doubt, guilt, belief, and disbelief. The question to which one agrees with Ivan’s worldview and the notion of “returning his ticket” is to be answered quite tragically.

            

The Grand Inquisitor prose poem is told by Ivan to illustrate a point to Alyosha. It also acts as a pivotal foreshadowing to Ivan’s character development. Furthermore, free will is an important aspect in reading this chapter. The Inquisitor explains to Christ that mankind should give up free will to be led to happiness:

They will understand themselves, at last, that freedom and bread enough for all are inconceivable together, for never, never will they be able to share between them! They will be convinced, too, that they can never be free, for they are weak, vicious, worthless, and rebellious. (229)

The Inquisitor explains further that man’s freedom will only lead to further despair and suffering. The message clearly stated is that men, with the heavy burden of free will, are much more harmful to their conscience than it is to be told what to believe and how to live one’s life. It seems fair to say that the Inquisitor has given up a central locus of Christianity’s message, spiritual free will. The temptations of mankind are too great to plunge into the freedom to believe or not to believe in God or to choose evil over good. Ivan, with the returning of his ticket, shares the same view as the Inquisitor.

            

 In comparing Ivan and the Inquisitor we see that they do not discard the belief in God outright; however they do reject the world God created that caused suffering of mankind. The Inquisitor is a figure that loves mankind so much that it exceeds his love for God. Ivan believes that only an unjust God will let children suffer thus undermining God’s will. Both make the conscious choice to suffer for what they believe to be true. Towards the end of the poem the Inquisitor awaits Christ’s response:

The old man longed for him to say something, however bitter and terrible. But he suddenly approached the old man in silence and softly kissed him on his bloodless aged lips. That was all his answer. The old man shuddered. (238)

There is no philosophical disagreement, just a soft kiss. The kiss is soon mimicked by Alyosha in response to Ivan’s argument. Both Christ and Alyosha give a response that counteracts the Inquisitor’s and Ivan’s rejection. Book VI, The Russion Monk, perhaps can give a clearer counter argument to Ivan’s Rebellion.

            

Where Ivan uses his logical reasoning to reject the constructs of Christianity, the parables of Zosima provides an appropriate contrast to his rejection. Perhaps the central message to the parables that the reader should focus on is the notion that, “everyone is responsible to all men for all men and for everything” (261), for that is the only true way to come to terms with the unjust suffering and free will of mankind. This passage comes from a subchapter entitled: 2. Notes of the Life of the Deceased Priest and Monk, the Elder Zosima, Taken from His Own Words by Alexey Fyodrovich Karamazov. In this subchapter Father Zosima’s brother, Markel is introduced. After a brief and close friendship with a “freethinking political exile” Markel began to reject his religion and God; “It was the beginning of Lent, and Markel would not fast, he was rude and laughed at it. “That’s all silly twaddle, and there is no God.”” (260). After Markel became seriously ill, his mother persuaded him to confess his sins and take sacrament. Shortly after, the reader sees a complete spiritual transformation in Markel. His love towards his family, servants, and neighbors grew enormously. No longer was he suffering, but triumphed in life even though he was gravely ill. The ideas of love and forgiveness for the spectrum of all mankind, both good and evil that Markel conveys during his short life is indeed an appropriate solution towards Ivan’s conflicted sense of God.

            

Further in the novel in Book XI, Chapter 9 entitled The Devil. Ivan’s Nightmare, the reader sees Ivan’s character come full circle into madness.  Ivan is confronted with the devil; a character conjured from his mind. The devil, in contrast with Christ in the Grand Inquisitor parable, is full of disorienting conversation and torments Ivan’s psyche, where Christ stood silent with a gentle smile. The appearance of the devil brings a question to fruition. Both the Grand Inquisitor and the devil spring up in Ivan’s mind. What is the significance of both figures inhabiting his psyche? An answer might be in Ivan’s wavering of belief and disbelief. The devil toys and torments Ivan, but in doing so has a motive; “As soon as you disbelieve in me completely, you’ll begin assuring me to my face that I am not a dream but a reality.” (600)  In throwing away belief and ushering in complete disbelief, the devil’s motive will be realized. That motive is creating a sense of hell on earth for Ivan.

           

The reader soon realizes that Ivan’s rebellion will be his downfall into a hell made real on earth. The devil’s torment is a careful approach into using Ivan’s intelligence and rationality against him; “My dear fellow, intelligence isn’t the only thing!” (596). The devil continues by saying, “For all their indisputable intelligence, men take this farce as something serious, and that is their tragedy. They suffer of course…but then they live, they live a real life, not a fantastic one, for suffering is life” (596). Ivan continues to denounce his belief in this apparition that appeared before him. Nearing the end, after the devil’s numerous anecdotes and stories he told Ivan, he concludes with one last statement; the statement being how mankind will eventually kill the belief in God ushering in a new phase of finite pleasures. Where there is no God and only darkness after life, “all things are lawful” (604). However, with all things lawful, and no sense for what is evil, true hell on earth will be realized.

           

Even though Ivan is plagued with the idea of how some suffer in this world unjustifiably, he cannot accept the old ways of thinking. He loses faith in God through not being able to forgive even though it contradicts rationality. He is unable to forgive even himself which perpetuates his disbelief and an actualization of hell. Conclusively, the more agreeable path to enriching one’s soul is to live a life that Father Zosima and Alyosha choose to live. Their leap of faith, although irrational and absurd in Ivan’s eyes, enriches them to find everlasting forgiveness and love. Love of all men is the ultimate answer to suffering and injustices that happen in this world. The belief of an afterlife like heaven seems to be a better approach in improving society and freeing individuals form a life of evil then disbelief because one cannot see justice before his own eyes. Ivan, the Inquisitor and those who choose suffering willingly on behalf of their own disbelief are catapulted into despair.

Works Cited

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. London: Dover, 2005.

The Mechanistic Being: A New Figure of the Post-Modern Era

The Mechanistic Being: A New Figure of the Post-Modern Era

 Speculative Fiction dystopias often reveal the anxieties humanity faces with the autonomous nature of scientific technologies. The clash and amalgamation of humanity and scientific technology is an ongoing discourse in fiction. Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner reveals the way in which humanity is confronted with the autonomous technology it created and has impressed conceptions of human consciousness. In analyzing the recurrences of one of the major themes, (implanted) memory, I will reveal an entity that humanity must concede as a particular human trait: human identity. In doing so, this essay will explore the ways in which machine and human becomes indiscernible, where an uncanny figure inhabiting characteristics from both comes to fruition.

Presently, artificial intelligence is a major autonomous technology. The advent of artificial intelligence has been fast approaching for years. In our society, the anxiety of a being other than human overcoming our intelligence is incomprehensible. In Blade Runner, Rick Deckard is responsible for the decommissioning of Nexus-6 replicants with enhanced features of physicality and intelligence. On the surface, the film portrays a dystopia where humanity is at odds with itself; however it also explores important philosophical questions concerning our post-modern consciousness and attitudes towards our own memories and identities. Memories are what shape us as individuals. As children we learn not to touch the stove because it is hot, we learn that an object falls to the ground if we let it go, but most of all we learn that our actions have consequences. Years of experience from the memories stored into our internal hard drives help us through making choices and discerning right from wrong. The replicants in Blade Runner, with memories implanted can be days old and still act and think of an adult mind. Rachel, a replicant with implanted memories, is introduced by Dr. Eldon Tyrell, of Tyrell Corp. as an experiment, and nothing more. Dr. Tyrell explains further;

We began to recognize in them, a strange obsession, after all they are emotionally inexperienced with only a few years in which to store up the experiences for which you and I take for granted. If we gift them with a past it creates a cushion to which we can control them better. (Scott 1982)

 Shortly after, Deckard is confronted by an anxious Rachel at his apartment. Rachel shows Deckard a picture, which in her eyes provides proof that she is not a replicant. Deckard reveals that she is in fact a replicant by recounting Rachel’s childhood memories, and telling her that they are implanted memories. He is shocked by Rachel’s emotional response, perhaps expecting a cold and barren reaction. Rachel’s implanted memories gave her the gift of feeling the ultimate experience of human life. Such an emotional response unique to humans begs the question; what makes an authentic human being?

 In contrast, Leon, a Nexus 6 replicant, where the audience is introduced to in the opening scene, is being tested by a Voight-Kampff empathy test. The test is engineered in such a way to provoke an emotional response in the subject. The final question the interviewer asks is about Leon’s mother, which in turn, Leon stands up and exclaims, “Let me tell you about my mother,” and shoots the interviewer in cold blood with a barren face, empty of any emotion. The emptiness in Leon can be viewed as a life without experience and memory; a life with no mother to think of. When we think of a murder in the context of our daily lives, separate from the film, we view them as monsters with no soul. The same idea is with Leon, except that he actually has no memory. Memory is an experience that can also shape our morals. Rachel saves Deckard’s life from Leon; where Leon, after seeing Deckard lay waste to one of the Nexus-6 replicants, Zhora, seeks immediate revenge. Primarily, the motivation that makes Leon such a ruthless individual can be one of the only emotions he holds; fear. As he is beating Deckard he exclaims, “Painful to live in fear isn’t it?” (Scott 1982)

 The replicants, as explained by Bryant, a police captain signing Deckard onto the assignment of taking care of the Nexus 6: “They were designed to copy human beings in every way, except their emotions. But the designers reckoned after a few years they might develop their own emotional responses: hate, love, fear, anger, envy.” (Scott 1982) A measure to defeat the emotional responses in being created to an exact likeness to humans, is a defect which gives the androids only 4 years of life. The response to non-human beings being able to feel and develop emotion is seen as dangerous. Rick Deckard, a somewhat unsympathetic character in the beginning of the film, is prompted to kill these replicants because of the danger they hold towards humanity. As the film progresses, the replicants are gifted with characteristics that hold them as tragic figures, seeking empathy from the audience. Concerning Roy Batty, the Nexus 6 who is the more capable at the end, is the most sympathized replicant in the film. The knowledge of his finite existence leads him on a frantic and mad path to live and cram as much living into his 4 year span as possible. With no “cushion” of implanted memory, Batty is faced with a looming death with no cause or purpose but is more than capable of every emotion. He has a strong desire to live. Towards the finale of the film, a bruised and beaten Deckard is faced by the last Nexus-6 he was commissioned to decommission, Roy Batty:

 I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die. (Scott 1982)

Batty’s last words are surrounded by beautiful music and imagery. Batty recounts his memories in a beautiful monologue. His tears are hidden from the drops of rain. Emotions plague this synthetic being; Emotions which stem from memories. But how can artificial intelligence have such an effect? It’s through Batty that the audience can see a possibility of new partialities. He is extremely intelligent, poetic, and callous. Roy is not a static character. Unlike Rachel, he delights himself as one without implanted memory. In Tyrell Corp, when confronting his maker, Tyrell tells him that his looming death is inevitable. Roy remarks that he has done “terrible things” through his search for prolonging his life, suggesting further, his knowledge of moral human behavior. Seeing Roy as a robot is entirely subjective at the end. The audience delights in his human-like character. Roy is a figure seen with the amalgamation of both the fear of death, and the triumph of life, particular human qualities.

 At several instances in the film the audience sees emotional outbursts from the replicants. From Leon, we see his fear of death when he is beating down Deckard. Pris and Roy are seen as lovers. Roy, much more than the other replicants, is shown to have the most possibility of humanistic characteristics. The connections he makes with the other replicants and human characters alike shape him to be much more than a barren and unfeeling figure. However this is not the only significant character in blending human/replicant consciousness.

 A poignant and uncanny moment in the film is the connection between Deckard and Rachel. There is something that is much more than physical attraction going on between the two characters. This is a significant revelation in eliminating anything that can be discernible between replicant and human. At the end of the film, after the battle with Roy, Deckard returns to Rachel. They both say that they love and trust each other. They have feelings, emotions, and memories which link them to each other. These memories could not be added by a program or a computer chip. Even though implanted memories are placed in Rachel, there is something much more going on within her than programming and circuitry. When Rachel and Deckard are both leaving, Deckard finds a unicorn origami made by Gaff. His dream sequence earlier in the film seems to suggest that Gaff knows about this hidden memory which reveals the question; is Deckard a replicant also? But it also adds some commentary. What are the important differences between a replicant and a human? If a replicant can have memories, feel emotions, and make attachments to other conscious and feeling beings, do the differences really matter? Does the question of Deckard’s love for Rachel act as a metaphor for humanity and technology? It could be so. The approach of technological advents through history shows us how it can shape mankind’s mind, culture, and society. In the film, it is finalized with the question concerning our own mechanized selves and our relationship towards scientific technologies.

 In dealing with the continual consolidation of replicant and human, it may be easy to get lost in distinguishing both. However there are some instances in the film that remind the audience that the replicants are still robots and not human. Their eyes glow in the dark, which is one of the only visual and physical distinguishable characteristics. When the frame shows the replicants in shadow, their eyes have an eerie glow to them, almost like seeing reflective mirrors within their skulls, that might suggest a mirror image of the human when viewing the replicants. When Deckard kills some of the replicants, their deaths provide further imagery that they are replicants. When Zhora is fleeing from Deckard, she is shot in the back several times. She begins to crash through displays containing lifeless mannequins. She soon joins the mannequins in the state of the display. Pris dresses up as one of J.F. Sebastian’s toy robots. When Deckard infiltrates Sebastian’s home his search ends up in a room full of toy robots and dolls, including Pris. Deckard finds it difficult to distinguish Pris at first, but then ends up being physically handled by her. Her death comes from gunshot wounds to the abdomen, which results in her shaking uncontrollably. Her violent shaking also gives the audience a picture of a non-humanistic death. The strength of the replicants is also a major discernible difference between replicant and human. Leon, Pris, Zhora, and Roy Batty all possess superhuman qualities. The importance of reminding the audience that the replicants are in fact machines, seems to give a message that the viewer might forget that they are watching artificial beings.

 Considering how the identities of each character start developing, a major cause for concern for the replicants; Roy Batty, Leon, Pris, and Zhora, is a great fear of death. The significance of life is shared by both the replicants and humans. Gaff’s message, “It’s too bad she won’t live! But then again, who does?” (Scott 1982) which reverberates through Deckard’s mind, is an important notion of how life is portrayed in the film. The commonly used term, “my whole life flashed before my eyes” concerning near death experiences, usually provides an individual insight about the significance of life. The knowledge of a finite end gives the replicants an overwhelming sense of self-preservation, which relates to what most humans feel when confronted with their own mortality. With Roy, Leon, Pris, and Zhora, we can assume that they did not have the “cushion” of implanted memories installed, but they still have a great need to keep living. Do memories really matter when it concerns the mortality of any being? Throughout this film where memories are such a central theme, it can be difficult to discern the differences between implanted and authentic memories. With replicants, having already the visual image of the human being, one thing would separate us from them; human emotion and identity.

The motive for technological progress is to lengthen our reach of our own mechanized selves. Machines, robots, androids, or replicants are the last frontier in achieving a form of technology that represents us. The debate over what is at stake is retiring our own special qualities that make us unique. Seeing replicants in Blade Runner inhabit the role of the human fills us with the anxiety of our retreat from the mystery of our consciousness and beckons an end of a specific frontier of technological achievement.

 Discoveries in science have continually, over the past few centuries, debunked the specialness of the human. Mankind has been gradually retreating from this specialness. Some landmarks of our retreat include acceptance of the facts that the Earth is no longer the center of the universe, humans and animals have common ancestors, DNA and the mechanism of life means humans and yeast are quite similar, logical human reasoning is the same as computation and fits on machines, biochemistry shows that we are a collection of tiny machines, and human flesh can be made subject by technological manipulation. What is at stake in giving up our specialness? 

Works Cited
Blade Runner: Final Cut. Directed by Ridley Scott. 1982.