FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4205124440> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4205124440 endingPage "414" @default.
• W4205124440 startingPage "412" @default.
• W4205124440 abstract "412 SCIENCE FICTION STUDIES, VOLUME 46 (2019) side after he defected to DC Comics in 1969, but a 2001 adaptation may have been a project Kirby wanted to take on anyway. This hypothesis makes sense since his ten-issue adaptation (1976-1977) is situated well after the initial release of the film and well before Clarke’s sequel 2010: Odyssey Two (1984). Jeffries provides a brief but poignant comparison between Kirby and his contributions to comics and Kubrick and his mark on cinema. Jeffries then reads Kirby’s adaptation as a way of better understanding his unique style. The film and the comics series could not be further apart in terms of their narrative, visuals, and themes; in Kirby’s hands, 2001 transforms into a superhero-style tale. Missing from Jeffries’s account, however, is a brief background on other relevant genres of comics history. For example, the early issues of Kirby’s 2001 rely heavily on jungle comics imagery and themes. I end with Jeffries’s chapter because it highlights a shortcoming of Fenwick’s volume: there are lots of things outside of the text and those things outside of the text keep 2001 relevant. Indeed, Fenwick’s collection does not quite reach its stated goal to assess and interpret “one of the most important and influential films in cinema history” (11). I am left wanting to know how it became important and who precisely it influenced. Discussions of topics such as its official and unofficial sequels, parodies, influence on future filmmakers, the technological shifts in distribution and exhibition (film to VHS to DVD to Blu-ray to digital …), promotion and marketing, reception in non-Western countries, reception post-1968 (many claim that 2001 is one of the greatest films ever made), its social and political context, and fandom are entirely absent from the collection. On the latter, while Ulvieri concludes his chronology with critics’ negative reviews of the film, he also notes that this did not stop people from lining up around the block to see it. 2001 is a key work of cult cinema, so detailing cinephiles’ reactions would have been welcomed. Nevertheless, Understanding Kubrick’s 2001 is rich with original analyses and information. The volume works best when its authors dive into the Archive or attend to the film’s philosophical stakes. Even 50 years later, there is more to uncover about 2001 and Stanley Kubrick.—Troy Michael Bordun, Concordia University/Trent University Let’s Discuss the Moral Status of Liminal Others. David J. Gunkel. Robot Rights. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2018. xiv+256 pp. $35 hc. The moral status of robots is a frequent theme in sf. In his latest book, David Gunkel undertakes a philosophical assessment of whether robots can and/or ought to have rights. He asks whether robots must remain toasters or whether they might become something more. While this is not sf, Gunkel acknowledges the intersections between sf and the philosophical, legal, and social responses that technology generates in the nonfictional world. And while this is a philosophical work that raises difficult questions, a crisp and sensible approach makes it a compelling read. Gunkel first considers terminology: first, what do we mean by “robots?” Second, what do we mean by “rights?” The former question proves a bit more 413 BOOKS IN REVIEW slippery than the latter. Most chatter about the future of AI and robot rights bypasses these preliminary questions. While one might expect terminology discussions to be tedious and uninteresting, Gunkel deftly considers various approaches in the literature. If we begin with the idea that a robot is a sophisticated tool, the rightsinquiry outcome is predetermined. Garden hoses or sprinkler systems, even very complicated ones, serve only human ends. Instrumentalities cannot—and should not—be invested with privileges that constrain human interests. Even the earliest sf accounts of robots question their rights-bearing capacities. It is well known that the word “robot” derives from the Czech robota meaning “forced labor,” coined by Karel Èapek’s play R.U.R. (1920). Thus, the idea of robots-as-slaves is “part and parcel of the robot’s origin story and etymology” (117). Some contemporary robot ethicists have flatly asserted that robots ought to..." @default.
• W4205124440 created "2022-01-25" @default.
• W4205124440 creator A5061802188 @default.
• W4205124440 date "2019-01-01" @default.
• W4205124440 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W4205124440 title "Robot Rights by David J. Gunkel" @default.
• W4205124440 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/sfs.2019.0036" @default.
• W4205124440 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W4205124440 type Work @default.
• W4205124440 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4205124440 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4205124440 hasAuthorship W4205124440A5061802188 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConcept C153349607 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConcept C199033989 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConcept C2776410375 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConcept C2776445246 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConcept C29595303 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConcept C519580073 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConcept C52119013 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConcept C529099274 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConceptScore W4205124440C124952713 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConceptScore W4205124440C142362112 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConceptScore W4205124440C144024400 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConceptScore W4205124440C153349607 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConceptScore W4205124440C166957645 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConceptScore W4205124440C199033989 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConceptScore W4205124440C2776410375 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConceptScore W4205124440C2776445246 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConceptScore W4205124440C29595303 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConceptScore W4205124440C519580073 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConceptScore W4205124440C52119013 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConceptScore W4205124440C529099274 @default.
• W4205124440 hasConceptScore W4205124440C95457728 @default.
• W4205124440 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W4205124440 hasLocation W42051244401 @default.
• W4205124440 hasOpenAccess W4205124440 @default.
• W4205124440 hasPrimaryLocation W42051244401 @default.
• W4205124440 hasRelatedWork W2060548144 @default.
• W4205124440 hasRelatedWork W2369037683 @default.
• W4205124440 hasRelatedWork W2369089222 @default.
• W4205124440 hasRelatedWork W2370917860 @default.
• W4205124440 hasRelatedWork W2382403407 @default.
• W4205124440 hasRelatedWork W2389102614 @default.
• W4205124440 hasRelatedWork W2389740002 @default.
• W4205124440 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W4205124440 hasRelatedWork W3015764098 @default.
• W4205124440 hasRelatedWork W3168465117 @default.
• W4205124440 hasVolume "46" @default.
• W4205124440 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4205124440 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4205124440 workType "article" @default.