7 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2019
    1. docs the calf regard the bleating of the shee

      Well Mr. Sheridan, what would you say about a big crazy dogbear thing that screams like a woman?

      Seriously, Annihilation (the movie more than the book, but the book, too) is interested in the blending of species and how the human responds when the nice, neat categories of existence are muddied.

    1. Names, therefore, that stand for collections of ideas which the mind makes at pleasure must needs be of doubtful signification, when such collections are nowhere to be found constantly united in nature

      Significance of names again, which play a role in Annihilation

      When people/things are stripped of their names (aka "doubtful significations"), are they brought to more simple concepts? Are they more easily understood?

      Or are they the same complex concept, only now without a name?

      Or perhaps the loss of name illustrates the complexity of the concept, where a name might lull us into confidence, into thinking we have a handle on the concept...

  2. Jan 2019
    1. If “humans”refers to phenomena, not independent entities with inherent propertiesbut rather beings in their differential becoming, particular material(re)configurings of the world with shifting boundaries and properties thatstabilize and destabilize along with specific material changes in what itmeans to be human, then the notion of discursivity cannot be foundedon an inherent distinction between humans and nonhumans

      This has Annihilation written all over it. I basically understand the world through SF metaphors.

    1. refers to phenomena, not independent entities with inherent propertiesbut rather beings in their differential becoming, particular material(re)configurings of the world with shifting boundaries and properties thatstabilize and destabilize along with specific material changes in what itmeans to be human

      This has Annihilation written all over it. I basically understand the world through SF metaphors.

    1. strange reality.

      Going off the VonderMeer side note here, I have not read Annihilation, but have seen the adaptation that was released in 2018. So I could be wrong it could be like the Percy Jackson Movie that was nothing like the book. Maybe Spoiler Alert The ending has the biologist begins to accept that the Shimmer is not there to attack and destroy, but rather to create something new through containing all of the people that enter it. This ending works well with Le Guin idea that viewing fiction something as a container/bag can provide a more pleasant outcome than viewing fiction as a weapon which leads to an outcome that is apocalyptic.

    2. strange reality

      Following the VanderMeer reference, I see a lot of connections between this piece and Annihilation, especially the idea that "words hold things," and how le Guin draws our attention to "the bottle as hero ... a thing that holds something else." The novel is definitely a sewing-oats-and-gathering-things story over a bash-aliens-with-indispensable-whackers story.