Yeow, Mr Wheat has put a lot of thought into his writing, but I feel he may be overdoing it. If you try you can read what you want into most things.
A couple of examples:
1. The bathroom tiles.
Lets assume our space ship needs exhaust ports (it does - it must - no allegory there). Leonard says the hexagonal shape represents bathroom tiles, therefore excretion in the bathroom etc. Maybe.... But, what other shapes could Kubrik (or the model's designer have chosen)? Square - bathroom tiles, rectangular - bathroom tiles, circular - toilet bowl, triangular - starts with a T (toilet) and could be bathroom tiles too (I've seen triangular ones). Hmm, it's hard to escape the conclusion that whatever shape the excretory orifices were made, we could see bathroom tiles!
2. The final 8-step Bone allegory.
(1) ape picks up bone & uses it for a weapon, OK. (2) Bone, tossed into air morphs into nuclear bomb - a common cinematic artifice (conversion) and nuclear weapons were a key topic when the film was made. (3) Orbiting bomb morphs to phallic space ship - this elongated shape is VERY logical for a space ship, and coincidentally is similar to a phallus shape. (4) The ship penetrates the space station; coitus - what else would it do? It is logical for the ship to dock in the space station if the crew wish to enter it. (5) Sperm-like lander lands on bigger ovum shaped moon - Duh! it would be pretty silly if the lander was bigger than the moon, if the moon was not round and the lander was a long thin (phallus), with limited mechanical stability, unlike a more squat more circular shape, no?? (6) Hanger doors open allowing the lander to fertilize the moon - this seems like a sensible way for any lander to get into a hanger (7) The fetus gestates over 18 months, a god-like gestation period because God is twice as smart as us - please!!, God is generally credited with being more than twice as smart as humans. (8) The bony god is borne horizontally into a starry universe - same effect if he was borne vertically, silly if there were no stars in the universe, babies are bony..... this is not a strange thing tio show either.
I can't go on! A lot happens in the movie. Some of it may be symbolism, but Mr Wheat's determination to find symbols is bound to succeed because if one looks hard enough one can find symbols in many things.
Good response - your example of the Chinese simply not having a frame of reference with which to judge things outside that country is interesting and I think is pretty true (or variations of it are true) not just there, but in Pakistan which I used as an example & very widely indeed.
A couple of points, though.
1. I am actually originally English myself (although I have not lived there for some years and have travelled a lot since then) and while I would agree that many English and Americans view their respective countries in a different fundamental way than either can fully comprehend, I think your Englishman was going a bit heavy on the reliance people place on Queen & country as a provider of last resort!
2. Pakistan has the bomb despite being a very poor country, not because it is wealthy - as a result of the political tensions between them and India, more resources have flowed to bomb making than to the economy in general and that is just not sustainable in the long term (cf. the USSR's inability to sustain an arms race for 50 years without imploding, but it did keep producing top notch weapons because it put all its efforts into it). In addition, North Korea is suspected by some to be close to nuclear capability and that country really is very very poor and economically backward.
3. Don't underestimate the economic changes that have taken place in many nominally socialist countries over the recent past. Go to China (the large cities at least) or Vietnam, both nominally communist, and you will be struck with how entrepreneurial and driven many people there are and how free they are to pursue economic goals. I would say that communism as a pure economic system is practically extinct, but what is not extinct is the hold on power held by the old nomenklatura and more importantly their desire to hold onto power by any means, which leads them to try and control flows of information.
IMHO these countries contain many people with ambition and drive, but the reason these countries will have growing pains is that nepotism, corruption, lack of relevant education, lack of a well defined legal system, lack of infrastructure, etc is endemic in them, and that change takes time, not just access to technology or information.
While you are probably right that most countries without internet access are totalitarian in nature, I would be interested to see your list - it must be pretty short (North Korea, Afghanistan (maybe), Burma, Iraq, others?). In most countries access is limited by cost & infrastructure inadequacy, not by government edict. However, reading through what you have written, I do think that you contradict your own first point: The countries that are keeping the Internet out right now are countries keeping it out not so much because of the freedom of speech or information issue (though that is a factor)... because the ability to know that the US is such a neat place is totally about access to information, not just a "factor". Also, I suspect that the elites are not so much worried about people knowing that great inventions have been made by capitalist systems, but rather that people will know that there are alternatives and that having an entrenched elite in power is not necessary the best way to run a country. Finally, access to the internet and information is not everything in shaping people's perceptions. In Pakistan they have reasonable internet access (and a sizeable middle class that can afford to access it), some freedom of the local press, access to CNN, US soap operas, etc - in fact the level of general knowledge about world affairs is much higher in Pakistan than I have often encountered in the US. But guess what? Most people still seem prepared to believe that the US is an imperialist bully intent on world domination (although perversely most individual Pakistanis would love to get to the US to work - go figure!). They are more influenced by history, religion and culture than by access to the latest headlines, and the perceptions of a whole nation will take more to change than access to the internet.
I'm pretty sure most countries now have internet access - in the last couple of years I have gained access in countries as diverse as Bolivia, Peru, Laos, Cambodia, Tibet, Bhutan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgistan.
In no country did I encounted any attempt to monitor access to particular sites (you can read/. in all of the above) or to censor email I sent. For example, Emails I sent from Tibet containing some pointed comments about the Chinese occupation were delivered.
An observation would be that general internet access (ie to most people, not the elites or people working for multinationals or overseas organisations) is driven to some extent by the economics of providing travellers like me access to email & news. The major tourist centres all have well developed internet cafe set ups that locals without their own PCs can use - smaller towns and villages tend not to have general public access and private use is not common.
However, this relative freedom may alter. In many less developed countries computer literacy is a minority skill - the governments of those countries (mainly older folks without computer skils) do not fully understand what power access to the internet brings. There may be backlashes when they do begin to realize. For example, in Laos the government constantly changes its mind about who should be licenced to provide access to the internt, but the computer literate mainly ignore this at the moment (if you really need access you can always dial-in through ISPs in neighboring Thailand). But, the ability of a strong central government to shut down access is a very real threat.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeow, Mr Wheat has put a lot of thought into his writing, but I feel he may be overdoing it. If you try you can read what you want into most things.
A couple of examples:
1. The bathroom tiles.
Lets assume our space ship needs exhaust ports (it does - it must - no allegory there). Leonard says the hexagonal shape represents bathroom tiles, therefore excretion in the bathroom etc. Maybe.... But, what other shapes could Kubrik (or the model's designer have chosen)? Square - bathroom tiles, rectangular - bathroom tiles, circular - toilet bowl, triangular - starts with a T (toilet) and could be bathroom tiles too (I've seen triangular ones). Hmm, it's hard to escape the conclusion that whatever shape the excretory orifices were made, we could see bathroom tiles!
2. The final 8-step Bone allegory.
(1) ape picks up bone & uses it for a weapon, OK. (2) Bone, tossed into air morphs into nuclear bomb - a common cinematic artifice (conversion) and nuclear weapons were a key topic when the film was made. (3) Orbiting bomb morphs to phallic space ship - this elongated shape is VERY logical for a space ship, and coincidentally is similar to a phallus shape. (4) The ship penetrates the space station; coitus - what else would it do? It is logical for the ship to dock in the space station if the crew wish to enter it. (5) Sperm-like lander lands on bigger ovum shaped moon - Duh! it would be pretty silly if the lander was bigger than the moon, if the moon was not round and the lander was a long thin (phallus), with limited mechanical stability, unlike a more squat more circular shape, no?? (6) Hanger doors open allowing the lander to fertilize the moon - this seems like a sensible way for any lander to get into a hanger (7) The fetus gestates over 18 months, a god-like gestation period because God is twice as smart as us - please!!, God is generally credited with being more than twice as smart as humans. (8) The bony god is borne horizontally into a starry universe - same effect if he was borne vertically, silly if there were no stars in the universe, babies are bony..... this is not a strange thing tio show either.
I can't go on! A lot happens in the movie. Some of it may be symbolism, but Mr Wheat's determination to find symbols is bound to succeed because if one looks hard enough one can find symbols in many things.
I enjoyed the read, though.
This behaviour should not be a surprise coming from a site called "ARCA death o' me"
Small/less developed countries don't have big fibre optic pipes to feed all those servers, nor the geeks to maintain them & network them.
Good response - your example of the Chinese simply not having a frame of reference with which to judge things outside that country is interesting and I think is pretty true (or variations of it are true) not just there, but in Pakistan which I used as an example & very widely indeed.
A couple of points, though.
1. I am actually originally English myself (although I have not lived there for some years and have travelled a lot since then) and while I would agree that many English and Americans view their respective countries in a different fundamental way than either can fully comprehend, I think your Englishman was going a bit heavy on the reliance people place on Queen & country as a provider of last resort!
2. Pakistan has the bomb despite being a very poor country, not because it is wealthy - as a result of the political tensions between them and India, more resources have flowed to bomb making than to the economy in general and that is just not sustainable in the long term (cf. the USSR's inability to sustain an arms race for 50 years without imploding, but it did keep producing top notch weapons because it put all its efforts into it). In addition, North Korea is suspected by some to be close to nuclear capability and that country really is very very poor and economically backward.
3. Don't underestimate the economic changes that have taken place in many nominally socialist countries over the recent past. Go to China (the large cities at least) or Vietnam, both nominally communist, and you will be struck with how entrepreneurial and driven many people there are and how free they are to pursue economic goals. I would say that communism as a pure economic system is practically extinct, but what is not extinct is the hold on power held by the old nomenklatura and more importantly their desire to hold onto power by any means, which leads them to try and control flows of information.
IMHO these countries contain many people with ambition and drive, but the reason these countries will have growing pains is that nepotism, corruption, lack of relevant education, lack of a well defined legal system, lack of infrastructure, etc is endemic in them, and that change takes time, not just access to technology or information.
Galazi
While you are probably right that most countries without internet access are totalitarian in nature, I would be interested to see your list - it must be pretty short (North Korea, Afghanistan (maybe), Burma, Iraq, others?). In most countries access is limited by cost & infrastructure inadequacy, not by government edict. However, reading through what you have written, I do think that you contradict your own first point: The countries that are keeping the Internet out right now are countries keeping it out not so much because of the freedom of speech or information issue (though that is a factor)... because the ability to know that the US is such a neat place is totally about access to information, not just a "factor". Also, I suspect that the elites are not so much worried about people knowing that great inventions have been made by capitalist systems, but rather that people will know that there are alternatives and that having an entrenched elite in power is not necessary the best way to run a country. Finally, access to the internet and information is not everything in shaping people's perceptions. In Pakistan they have reasonable internet access (and a sizeable middle class that can afford to access it), some freedom of the local press, access to CNN, US soap operas, etc - in fact the level of general knowledge about world affairs is much higher in Pakistan than I have often encountered in the US. But guess what? Most people still seem prepared to believe that the US is an imperialist bully intent on world domination (although perversely most individual Pakistanis would love to get to the US to work - go figure!). They are more influenced by history, religion and culture than by access to the latest headlines, and the perceptions of a whole nation will take more to change than access to the internet.
I'm pretty sure most countries now have internet access - in the last couple of years I have gained access in countries as diverse as Bolivia, Peru, Laos, Cambodia, Tibet, Bhutan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgistan.
/. in all of the above) or to censor email I sent. For example, Emails I sent from Tibet containing some pointed comments about the Chinese occupation were delivered.
In no country did I encounted any attempt to monitor access to particular sites (you can read
An observation would be that general internet access (ie to most people, not the elites or people working for multinationals or overseas organisations) is driven to some extent by the economics of providing travellers like me access to email & news. The major tourist centres all have well developed internet cafe set ups that locals without their own PCs can use - smaller towns and villages tend not to have general public access and private use is not common.
However, this relative freedom may alter. In many less developed countries computer literacy is a minority skill - the governments of those countries (mainly older folks without computer skils) do not fully understand what power access to the internet brings. There may be backlashes when they do begin to realize. For example, in Laos the government constantly changes its mind about who should be licenced to provide access to the internt, but the computer literate mainly ignore this at the moment (if you really need access you can always dial-in through ISPs in neighboring Thailand). But, the ability of a strong central government to shut down access is a very real threat.