Academic essays on Richard Morgan's work?

P

paradoxical

Active Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
33
Sorry if I have put this in the wrong place. I didn't know where it would belong.

I'm looking for essays/academic articles/analysis of Richard Morgan's work, primarily the Takeshi Kovacs trilogy (Altered Carbon, Broken Angels and Woken Furies) and Black Man.

If anyone has come across something like this, please let me know. The only thing I have been able to dig up so far are reviews of his work, interviews and one article "Woken Carbon" which appears in Post Cyberpunk.

Thanks guys.
 
Two other articles I found on a quick search:

Romanticism and the Cortical Stack: Cyberpunk Subjectivity in the Takeshi Kovacs Novels of Richard K. Morgan, by John D. Schwetman in Pacific Coast Philology (published 2006, issue 41, ISSN 0078-7469)
Link: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25474204?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21100766109501

Also, Human Subjectivity and Technology in Richard Morgan's Altered Carbon, by Shahizah Ismail Hamdan, published in 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies (2011, issue 17, ISSN 0128-5157). Link: http://journalarticle.ukm.my/3050/

I'm actually considering using Market Forces in a paper I'm working on right now. Good luck with yours!
 
Wow, that was quick. Impressive. First, what search terms did you use and what engine?

I'd found the second one not long after I posed, but the first one Romanticism and the Cortical Stack, I hadn't seen despite having searched through Jstor. Odd.

What's your paper on? Also, undergrad or postgrad?
 
I used MLA International Bibliography database, and did searches for Richard Morgan/Richard K. Morgan, Altered Carbon, Takeshi Kovacs... not sure if I did any more. There was also an article on Altered States in Locus, but I suspect it's a review and not academic criticism.

My paper is an independent study. It's undergrad, but not exactly the kind of thing I'm doing in other classes. The paper is analyzing the way in which science fiction addresses corporations, looking at ideas of alienation and the other through a Lacanian literary theory lens. Part of it is looking at how society uses science fiction to deal with alienation, and part of it is using popular culture to help address Lacan's theories - the paper serves both purposes, although ostensibly it's focusing on the former. I'm currently focusing on Blade Runner, Gattaca, Ambient, and Space Merchants, and am considering Market Forces as well, although I'm not sure it will address anything that the combination of Ambient and Space Merchants doesn't already cover, and I don't want to bog down in unnecessary examples.
 
Snap. Bad article there. Guy makes a mistake on the first line of his abstract: Shelley's "Frankenstein" was (1818) not (1819).
 
Finnien said:
My paper is an independent study. It's undergrad, but not exactly the kind of thing I'm doing in other classes. The paper is analyzing the way in which science fiction addresses corporations, looking at ideas of alienation and the other through a Lacanian literary theory lens. Part of it is looking at how society uses science fiction to deal with alienation, and part of it is using popular culture to help address Lacan's theories - the paper serves both purposes, although ostensibly it's focusing on the former. I'm currently focusing on Blade Runner, Gattaca, Ambient, and Space Merchants, and am considering Market Forces as well, although I'm not sure it will address anything that the combination of Ambient and Space Merchants doesn't already cover, and I don't want to bog down in unnecessary examples.
Click to expand...

Hi Paradoxical, that sounds like a very interesting paper, but some of what you said went over my head. Any chance of you having the time to expand on it a fraction?

In particular, I looked up Lacan and found he was a controversial French psychologist.

Lacanian literary theory lens?

The whole bit about society using sf to deal with alienation intrigued me. Any more details you can share?
 
Montero, that's my paper, not Paradoxical's. ;)

Lacan was both a practicing psychoanalyst and a psychoanalytic theorist who considered himself essentially a disciple of Freud. In literary theory and criticism, there are schools of thought and ways of approaching texts, such as Marxism, feminism, new historicism, and deconstruction - psychoanalytic theory is one of these forms of criticism and theory. It traditionally deals with issues like childhood development, id/ego/superego (or variants thereof), alienation, the Other, repression, etc.

My paper is focusing on some of Lacan's ideas of psychological behavior - how alienation occurs in society, how a child accepts his role in society through the idea of the name-of-the-father (essentially accepting the rule of law and authority), and how the individual relates to the big Other (which, simlified, means society and its structures) and the little Other, which is anything alien to you, even parts of yourself. It addresses the Corporation in the role of the big Other, and analyzes how the individual both must work within the sphere of the corporation's rules, but also feels alienated by them. He identifies with something which the Corporate Other has declared taboo - Replicants in Blade Runner, his own genetic impurity in Gattaca, the poor mutants/deformed of Ambient, the conservationists of Space Merchants, etc - and that identification heightens his alienation within the Corporation. However, the individual recognizes the corporation cannot be ignored or destroyed, so he must find a way to work within it to achieve the desires - a relation to the Lacanian idea that all desire exists within the field of the Other. For Gattaca, it's space travel funded and operated by the company. For Blade Runner, it's Deckard Cain's love of a replicant (also, indirectly, his own identity, but that's neither here nor there). For Space Merchants, it's also space travel, colonization of mars. These are all objectives created by and still attached to the corporate other.

So, long story short, I use Lacan's psychoanalysis ideas to look at how an individual in science fiction relates to the corporation, in a way that's more complex than 'it is evil and must be destroyed.' It's essentially my way of using academic language to justify literary merit in something that academia doesn't usually recognize as having merit. I'm sure there's something Lacan and Freud would have to say about that, but I just have fun with the irony.
 
Yeah, I won't get into my paper :p Mine's a Ph.D that examines how speculative fiction implements transhuman theory and technoscientific progress in order to extrapolate as to the potential consequences of directed evolution.

Finnien - you read Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation?

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/theory/Baudrillard-Simulacra_and_Simulation.pdf

I'd read that before anything else. You might want to look into his other theories regarding society and commodities/consumer society etc.
 
 
Paradoxical, not yet, although I've heard it referenced before and have wanted to look into it. For the current project it's specifically focused on one theorist more as a way of delving into that theorist than as an actual attempt to make the strongest argument possible about science fiction and corporate alienation - essentially the sci-fi is the device with which I'm grappling with Lacan. That being said, it looks like that is worth reading on its own later, just for its own sake.

I like your paper topic though. The transhuman aspect can be a very interesting angle for sci-fi. I've read a few books that briefly toyed with the idea in interesting ways - I seem to remember several of C. S. Friedman's novels touching on it (This Alien Shore, maybe In Conquest Born or The Madness Season) in interesting ways, and Peter F. Hamilton's Dreaming Void/Pandora's Star stuff briefly touched on it, although not in a very deep or analytic way. A really interesting approach comes from Octavia Butler's Lilith's Brood series, which involves almost a kind of genetic rape to force humans to become something else. I'm sure there are more I've read, but it really is a fascinating idea, especially when you start to really play with what it means to be human, the possibility of alienating other branches of separate evolution or non-evolved aspects, etc. I get the feeling we're going to see more on the moral aspects of directed evolution in the future.

By the way, where are you studying?
 
OK sounds interesting, thanks for the explanation. Go it for winding up the current academic view on sf.


This is taking the thread off topic, so please feel free to say butt out. :)
I got slightly wound up by the concept of using a specific theory to examine something.
Me - I'm a chemist by training, latterly scientific software data sets - occasional interest in psychology such as reading a book on Emotional Intelligence. I know I don't "get" philosophy - a friend was once studying Plato and incredibly enthused - handed me a section to read and it made no sense whatsoever. :) (Wrong sort of brain.) The psychoanalysis theories sound close to philosophy so I suspect my brain is wired wrong for discussing them.
Now I can see using different theories to discuss something as an exercise in understanding the application of the theory.
Where I get wound up is this - I have a beef with politics, that an awful lot of the time a government doesn't look for the best solution, it looks for the best solution according to their political theory. So the concept of discussing a problem purely in the lights of one theory feels a bit like that to me. (I could see discussing a problem in terms of every theory being interesting - the feminists say this, the Freudians say that etc - and maybe pick the solution where you have the maximum overlap...)

Probably got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Edit - just in case I'm not clear - I am in no way disrespecting your work (hope it doesn't come across as that) - it is just large parts of it seem rather alien and I'd like to get a basic handle on it.
 
Last edited:
Montero, I understand exactly where you're coming from - the idea that someone looks at something with an agenda, and try to bend what they're looking at so it will say what they want it to, in order to advance a personal belief.

What I'm doing is, I think, slightly different. It's more like ... using Charlie Chaplin movies to explain Marxist economic theory or something. (Just an example off the top of my head.) I'm not arguing "This stuff means X." What I'm writing about is more like, "Lacan's psychoanalysis says X about how people's minds work. An example of that might be this guy in this movie, and this incident in this book." It's both a perspective for looking at the texts, and a way of understanding the theory.

In fact, a good example would be something like this: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1844676218/?tag=brite-21
My teacher pointed that out to me after I suggested the idea, and it goes off in a different direction than I did and didn't turn out to be very useful to me, but it at least shows the kind of idea and precedent.
 
Montero - don't worry, academics have thick skin. It's very hard to insult us. I understand where you're coming from but I think the major gap comes between various forms of discipline-based research. Empirical research is always going to be looking for one specific thing, and thus exploring every possible avenue. Philosophy, subjective or theoretical research, on the other hand, will use one specific thing as a springboard in order to jump into other areas of investigation. In my thesis, for example, I use the antihero, which allows me to look at morality, religion, ethics and a galaxy of other things. I do have to disagree with you about something though. I don't think governments use political theory - in fact, I think you'll find most political bodies (those in power, anyway) so far removed from political theory that they, more than likely, have never picked up a credible piece of political theory in their lives. Its policy that is the problem - something far more bound to economics.

On another note, Finnien and I more than likely have very different approaches to research as I find it difficult to form an argument or launch myself into an investigation without having first read absolutely everything that has been said on that topic, mainly because I fear covering old-ground, or proposing theories that are already disproved in some essay that I overlooked. In that, Finnien's work, as I understand it, is more exploratory, using one thing to examine another, rather than posing a definitive argument (correct me if I'm wrong here).

Finnien - yes, transhumanism is one hell of an interesting topic, especially when you start looking at the nitty-gritty of the moral issues involved and the potential consequences that might arise. I'm studying as UWA (the University of Western Australia) under the supervision of Prof/ Van Ikin. You can always find me at academia.com (like facebook for academics). Just search Michael Grantham. Where are you studying?
 
You're absolutely correct about what I'm doing - my paper is really just an extension of an attempt to understand a very complex theoritician since there isn't advanced lit theory study at the undergrad level available where I am. I have a *very* good professor (Patrick Fuery) who's working with me just to familiarize me with a deeper understanding of Lacan, and I just finished a paper on Foucault/Jane Eyre to get a more reasonable grasp on the New Historicism approach. I'm somewhat feeling out different approaches within lit theory, as opposed to trying to make specific arguments. Additionally, as this is one paper in one class that already involves six books by Lacan and four sci-fi texts, and it's undergrad, I'm very limited in the amount of time I can devote to the topic. If I were to try to go any farther afield, I'd run out of time and run over the scope of the project.

Ironically enough, I'm actually not a lit major - I'm studying creative writing at Chapman in southern California. James Blaylock, one of the fathers of steampunk, is a creative writing teacher there, and that's what drew me to the school (in addition to being near Irvine, where many of my friends live/work). I'm having a terrible time trying to graduate, because I'm studying creative writing, taking lit theory classes on the side, picked up a film studies minor (great film department), and also decided to start taking some game design/programming classes (the game design department works with Blizzard Entertainment to teach its classes). I think I'll be in school until I'm ninety, which is really fine by me.

I'll look into academia.com, it sounds like it could be interesting. If you're interested in a really emotionally and intellectually challenging read that's very marginally related to transhumanism, look up Octavia Butler's series that starts with the novel Dawn. It's alternatively called the Lilith's Brood series or the Xenogenesis triliogy, but it really is powerful stuff. It focuses primarily on gender, sexuality, and race, so it's not exactly in the same vein as what you're working on, but it's worth looking into down the road.

Edit: Coincidentally, the teacher I'm studying under for this paper (Patrick Fuery) is from somewhere in your neck of the woods - studied at Murdoch University, which I believe is in western Australia, although I have no idea how close that is. I fully subscribe to the American stereotype of barely knowing my own country's geography, much less anything else in the world that doesn't directly interest and/or involve me.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Paradoxical, thanks Finien, very interesting. Different world. :)

paradoxical said:
I do have to disagree with you about something though. I don't think governments use political theory - in fact, I think you'll find most political bodies (those in power, anyway) so far removed from political theory that they, more than likely, have never picked up a credible piece of political theory in their lives. Its policy that is the problem - something far more bound to economics.
Click to expand...

OK, I wasn't especially separating theory and policy - thought policy came at least in part from theory. My impression is probably mostly based on UK politics of a while back, when Labour was more socialist. :D.
There seemed to be a run of Labour in, Nationalise as much as you can, Conservatives in, privatise it, Labour back in etc, etc. (<SFX voice of Mother in Life of Brian> Will you lot stop mucking around or I'll bang your heads together) but as you say, that is economic. Though governments (semi-) control money so everything could be argued to be economic, sort-of.

Something that interests me for the future (and is once again veering a bit off-topic) is the whole study of emotional intelligence, ideally leading to far more rational, balanced people, hopefully the same for societies (and eventually you reach Bujold's Beta Colony - though they managed some irrational moments, based on a misconception). But that is me wanting a solution, rather than using a literary lens. :)
 
Snap. Murdoch is about... a 20 minute drive from the university which I attend, so yeah, definitely in my neck of the woods.

I know what you mean about it being hard to graduate when your interests and desires take you so out of the way from what you were (should) be doing. Believe it or not, I started life as a psych major, which somehow ended up becoming social psychology, then sociology, then philosophy and then, right in the end, I came out with a double degree in philosophy and cultural studies. I just don't think they had a clue how to quantify the range of stuff I'd done.

I love learning and, though sometimes I loath research, I love my topic, so at the end of the day, who cares when we get finished - apart from our parents of course :p.
 
One quote I love - a teacher I had attributed it to Joan Didion but I've seen it attributed other places - "I hate to write, but I love to have written." That pretty much sums up any form of writing for me. Another one that describes today, by Gene Fowler: “Writing is easy: All you do is sit staring at a blank sheet of paper until drops of blood form on your forehead.”

What I'm most interested in is game design, but that's neither a job you can apply for nor one I'm likely to ever put in the grunt-work lower-tier time necessary to obtain. I would also love to write urban fantasy novels, but that's something I'll work on but not plan a profession around. I'd love to write occasional essays on things like video games as art, the development of storytelling in video games, the rising social acceptance of sf&f in youth culture, etc., but I couldn't see myself as a journalist by any means. So I'm just going to stay in school and study everything that interests me for the next 2-5 years, and see what happens from there. ;)

For the paper I'm working on today (must...write...today), I'm trying a more personal, informal style of writing. It's not what teachers expect in class, but considering the nature of the project, the subject matter, and the purpose, I think it will be interesting to see how it works - a more narrative style that can pose rhetorical questions, make observations or asides, and not attempt to be 100% scientific, while exploring an idea, stressing above all readability. I may be rewriting it in a few days if it doesn't fly. ;)
 
Montero said:
Where I get wound up is this - I have a beef with politics, that an awful lot of the time a government doesn't look for the best solution, it looks for the best solution according to their political theory. So the concept of discussing a problem purely in the lights of one theory feels a bit like that to me. (I could see discussing a problem in terms of every theory being interesting - the feminists say this, the Freudians say that etc - and maybe pick the solution where you have the maximum overlap...)
Click to expand...
Hi Montero,
using the theory acknowledges that there is no "true meaning" of a text. So LitCrit is openly subjective. You apply the theory to the text and see where that takes you. For example (let's say you're interested in something as old-fashioned as feminism) if you want to find out about gender power structures in a text, you can use Marxism as a theoretical "lense". Or Psychoanalysis. Or both. The theories are the tools of the trade. In LitCrit you simply don't do wholesale meaning. You do facets and you are aware of it.
 
Anyway, if we could get back to the topic at hand, that would be good as this has gone a little too much of course for my liking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
T An Artificial Intelligence Published An Academic Paper About Itself Technology 16
R An academic journal devoted to Robert E Howard! Magazines 3
Vertigo Unseen Academicals by Terry Pratchett Reviews & Interviews 4
C Old sci-fi (pre-60's) brain implants [Academic Research Purposes] Book Search 23
Extollager Reading the Great Philosophers vs. Reading Academic Criticism Literary Fiction 12

Similar threads


Back
Top