Talk:Flesh Made Word

From SFTropes
Jump to: navigation, search

I have recently used the rich editor to post my comments into the wiki; however, I noticed after I save the page, large breaks are added between paragraphs and boxes outline the writing.  Why is this happening and how can I prevent it? -Ross

Yeah I can fix that all you have to do is backspace the lines before the box and the box will go away, but dont backspace twice or else you will delete the text


Still not sure what to do for the structure of the analysis. Should we edit alongside what someone else wrote? Should we add our own thoughts in a separate paragraph/section? Latter leads to a bit more disorganized analysis, though not sure what the prior would bring. Trying to figure stuff out... Tanner 17:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be best to add your analysis by editing the appropriate material already in the entry, adding new paragraphs only when you have an idea/argument that hasn't yet been added to the discussion. Afamiglietti 00:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
This style of contribution leaves all but the original posters pretty much silent. Is that intended? Once the original ideas have been laid down, those of us who might not be as quick with the trigger are left with editing and adding only minor details. It seems like this will hamper badge-requests later in the game.
Later posters should still be able to make significant draft contributions. Remember that we need evidence in support of our claims, and adding that evidence counts as drafting. In addition, everyone will have a unique reading of a story. Later posters should be able to find a unique angle to add, if they use a bit of creativity. Finally, remember that the drafting badge requires each student to make so many significant draft contributions over the course of the entire semester. Thus, as the semester wears on, and some of our "early bird" contributors draft a sufficient number of contributions to qualify for the gold level badge, I suspect we will see that many of them throttle back their contributions a bit, which will give others some more space to contribute. Afamiglietti 02:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
And, just to be clear, our primary goal on the wiki is to generate material for discussion and think through the texts. Thus, folks should feel free to err on the side of adding more ideas and drafting more content, even if it's a bit messy at first. We can always edit and delete later. Afamiglietti 02:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there perhaps a way to make the gratuitous walls of texts not so...wally? They are truly an obstacle when trying to read through them and I tend to lose my place repetitively.tannershirah
I'd like to support the above statement. There is just so much...text. Like there's A LOT of it. I would awesome venture to say there is too much analysis, if that could ever be the case. But there doesn't seem to be any kind of easy fix for great walls of text. More paragraphs may almost be as bad as less and it seems like the only way to shorten the material is to purge redundant information. But that runs into the same problem since to find redundant text you have to read and sift through the enormous amount of analysis already present.--Eric.Yu 03:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that indenting paragraphs would make the walls of text much more readable. Is there anyway to do this on the wiki? Also, I think we should split up the discussion a bit. Robert'); DROP TABLE Students;-- 13:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the indenting of the paragraphs. It would make the text look much more attractive and professional. I think the discussion is fine as long as its not to squished together.

I don't think that having a huge paragraph is very effective for this discussion. It does not appeal to anyone to read it. What do you think of rearranging it? Maybe create one or many paragraphs for each question or if we prefer to keep the format we've been using, maybe just read and edit the big paragraph into different one with separate ideas.

I agree with previous comment and suggestion. Looking messy at the front.

Edited these two comments to bring them out of the dashed-line box. It made them too visually jarring. Msmith312 22:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that we are through with all of our readings, I look back at Flesh made Word and really appreciate it. It was a really enjoyable plot and had a lot to do with our class themes even though it was a short story. It probably was one of my favorite readings. Anyone else think that the short stories have more meaning looking back post-readings? --Crossi7 01:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This was definitely a great read and very relevant to our topic. Also, I thought that this story in particular stood out from the rest because it clearly shows the effects of over dependence on technology. Although some of the other readings show the negatives of over dependence, I don't think any of them is at catastrophic-feeling as this story when I try putting myself in Russ' shoes. I don't know about everyone else, but I appreciated this story as a warning of things to come if we don't find a balanced amount of dependence on technology. -pthakore1

Out of all of our readings, behind Neuromancer, Flesh Made Word is one of my favorite readings in this class. Flesh Made Word was all about Wescott and his discussion, and his choice about who he wanted to love. He was so concerned that he was the cause of his wife's death, that he let it ruin his relationships with other women. The only way he could move on, was to see that sometimes people want to die. But through his experimetns, he never saw it, and it ruined him.

I also really enjoyed reading Flesh Made Word. As soon as I saw the title (rearranging of the Bible's Word Made Flesh) I knew it would be an interesting story. the classic theme of if AIs can show emotion was a definite constant throughout this book.

I agree with this statement. At first the readings were just readings to me. After I look back at all of the readings that we have done I am starting to pick up a lot of themes in the story.

I have to agree with you on this notion, especially when it is read again deeper in to the semester when we've discussed many more themes. It gives much more to search for and relate to on a second read through and many times you find things you never noticed the first time. -- Cwisdom3
I would also have to agree with you on this. Upon the first reading, the short stories seemed just like simple science fiction stories. However, after discussing the themes of this class the depth we have discussed them while reading the novels, I have begun to appreciate the themes in the stories much more than in my first read.--Punnava3 19:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I know for me, at least, revisiting this piece makes me think of our many in-class discussions where we've grappled with defining what makes a human human and why androids could or could not ever be accepted as "human". It is ironic that we spend so much time alienating other entities from the category of human when this text is practically screaming "What does it even mean to BE human?" It's hard to declare that androids are or are not human when we haven't even really defined what makes us distinctly human. Msmith312 22:21, 26 April 2011(UTC)
I agree that, in the beginning, none of the readings really meant all that much to me besides each reading's own individual merit.  Now, as the class is almost done, its very clear how all the readings connect to each other, to our class themes, and to the real world. - slui6
I remember initially finding this reading confusing, but now that we have read more in the class, I have come to enjoy this story. I especially like the subjectivistic stance one can take on this story. That is, that people make decisions on what things are, sometimes independent of the known nature of the thing in question. Just the way the Russ treats the two different personality simulations of his lovers gives this story a fascinating outlook.
I'm also amazed at how radically my views over all of these stories have evolved over time. I've gradually been able to pick up on new themes and ideas that I never would have picked up on before. Some things seem so obvious to me now, like the title, were things that absolutely confused me before. I never realized that the title was referring to a person (flesh) becoming a spoken reminder of himself or herself(word). It's somewhat strange.
I too have only now realized the broad connections that exist between all of our readings. I thought that the book's main connection would merely be the science fiction side of things, but there is a large theme of questioning humanity and confronting the possibility of something that is not inherently human being labelled as human. I feel like He, She and It solidified these themes, but in retrospect all of the novels had this theme. --Jmicali13 06:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


This page and our page on Hackers both experiment with using italics to convey different forms of meaning. This is an interesting, and potentially very effective, experiment with using this visual signal to supplement our text. However, neither of these novel use of italics conforms to any existing textual convention. That's fine, but we need to think about how we will let our readers know how to interpret italics in a given text, and to what extent we might want to set wiki-wide policies to standardize our use of textual effects. Afamiglietti 00:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Flesh Made Word was another favorite of mine. I feel like Russell played lost in the story to get rid of his girlfriend because he still wanted his wife but that isn't too true. He kept her around for companionship more than love. He loved his ex wife but he like his companion and girlfriend.

Personal tools