13 replies to this topic

[Captain Sorzo]

A few hours ago, I finished reading George Orwell’s 1984, during much of which I found myself drawing rather intense comparisons to a certain Saturday Morning Cartoon. Major spoilers for the work will invariably follow, though I’ll try to be vague. If this is rather incoherent, I apologize; I spent the entire night reading and am exhausted, but want to get this off my chest before going to sleep, which will likely muddle my thoughts and quell any desire of even writing this.

Most fictional works I experience, classics or no, fail to elicit a strong emotional reaction from me, but 1984 was an exception. It was horrifying, due not so much to its bleak dystopic setting, which I doubt will reach any great semblance of realization within the foreseeable future, but to the utterly pessimistic conclusions it drew about human nature. The novel postulates that, given enough pain, any person can be so completely broken as to disavow reality, not just externally but to themselves, that one’s belief in truths so basic as two plus two equaling four can be altered to suit the whims of another. Even love, Orwell seems to argue, that most treasured of emotions, is not exempt. Except it’s not a forcible change at all; the ultimate, damning act of submission, of betrayal, comes from within. And it always occurs.

Almost as terrifying is the notion that such pain isn’t even required in most cases. Simple conditioning is enough to usually ensure complete obedience, in thought as well as action. People will be told to believe something they know to be wrong and they wholly accept it without hesitation, so that, save for in a fleeting, invisible objective sense, it becomes true.

The origins of the INGSOC society in which the novel occurs are never fully detailed (assuming that the book Winston read on the matter was indeed inaccurate), but there remains a sense throughout that it is inexorable, inevitable, both in its emergence and in its growth. I may be mistaken in the former point, if 1984 was indeed written as a warning against socialism (implying the possibility of prevention), but Orwell seemed to see the rise of such a society as unavoidable, or at least that the permanent loss of freedom for all people was a very real possibility.

I by no means entirely concur with Orwell on the matter; hours later, the emotions I experienced reading the novel have long since cooled, and I doubt I will consider the work life-changing in any meaningful sense. Yet the fact remains that, whether due to the quality of writing or my tired condition, I found myself gripped by the terrible hideousness of the novel’s final act, forced to confront these grim beliefs that, forged in the aftermath of the atrocities of the Second World War, are not easily dismissed as unfounded cynicism.

As I read the last third of 1984, my mind issued again and again an almost unconscious “NO!”, a rebuttal, grounded more in emotion and raw simple knowing than any coherent logic, that what O’Brien, what Orwell, was saying is untrue, that good can and will prevail, that there exists a part of the human soul that is unquenchable. Though this wellspring of bitter emotion was in part driven by my spiritual beliefs, it also stemmed from themes and concepts that I saw in other works and life in general, those few that are profound and beautiful enough to shape one’s identity.

As it happened, what thus personified this secular side to my insistence that Orwell’s bleak view of human nature was wrong was not the writings of some Greek philosopher, nor the message of a classic piece of literature. It was a young man and woman who dared stand against the monster that had enslaved their world…and won. It was Sonic and Sally.
It sounds ludicrous, I know. It likely is, using a children’s television program starring talking animals to mentally counter one of the most influential works of literature of the twentieth century. It isn’t as if SatAM’s this profound source of life-shaking philosophical wisdom, a source of inspiration that dwarfs all other works in my eyes. Yet I find beauty in it, have found myself pondering the show, its settings, its characters, its themes, a great deal ever since I was re-introduced to it last year. There’s something so.... compelling about them, that transcends those twenty-six episodes, a fair number of which I found mediocre or in a couple of cases flat-out terrible. When I began 1984, I was already looking forward to comparing the dystopian setting of the novel to Robotropolis, Big Brother’s indoctrination to the possible mental effects of roboticization.

And so, for whatever reason, SatAM was on my mind when I concluded 1984, watching with growing horror and eventual resignation as Winston’s soul was utterly violated, utterly destroyed, from without and ultimately within. The novel gave a great deal more understanding to one of the reasons I love SatAM:

It’s optimistic.

Though many dissimilarities between the two exist, the settings of SatAM and 1984 share a similar foundation: extremely controlled, ordered worlds governed by a ruthless and tyrannical figure, whether literal or figurative, whose inhabitants have been conditioned against any possible dissenting thought. Yet where Orwell believed escape from such a system to be ultimately impossible, Hurst and the other writers argued that it is possible for goodness and hope to exist amidst oppression and tyranny, that against all odds they can not only sustain people but, as illustrated through Uncle Chuck’s rescue, break through the webs of lies tyranny enthrones itself upon and even put an end to such evil (cliffhanger notwithstanding).

Sonic and Sally, though both flawed, are in a sense themselves embodiments of concepts that simply cannot exist in the Orwellian society once its noose has been tightened. Sonic is playful irreverence and unshakable self-confidence, a source of joy stemming from simply being, from living as oneself. Sally is selfless love and nurturing, a leader who does not seek power but places the weight of the world on her shoulders so that it will not have to be borne by those she cares for.

I suppose the ability of good to not simply exist but actually thrive in the face of evil is what makes SatAM so charming. Tails being read bedtime stories by his adoptive family; Sonic cracking a defiant one-liner toward Robotnik even as SwatBots close in; the playful bickering and banter amongst the Freedom Fighters; their taking pleasure in something as simple as the tree slide; the cheerful exclamation of “Let’s do it to it!”. All are elements that I find much more endearing, much more meaningful, than I normally would, due to the fact that they take place in the face of such hardship. To assert they even can take place in such a world is to reject the core of George Orwell’s 1984, to believe, as Samwise Gamgee mused, “that there’s some good in this world…and it’s worth fighting for.”
---

Well, that wound up being longer than anticipated, but I needed to get out of my system both some thoughts on how the novel related to SatAM and musings on the show in general. For those who have read 1984, would you agree that SatAM is fundamentally opposed to it thematically? What are your thoughts on why the series is so memorable and potentially thought-provoking?

[Uncle Ben]

this may be a little outta place dude

[RedAuthar]

No it's not.
It's comparing SatAM to a novel in the SatAM chat Thread. It's in the right place.

[Uncle Ben]

aha ok. it felt like it was outta place. But i never heard of 1984

[RedMenace]

Thank you, Sorzo. That was a very interesting read. I, myself, am a pretty big fan of the book. And I've gotta say, I agree with your analysis. SatAM is definitely the more hopeful side of that kind of conflict. The thought of roboticization acting as a sort of metaphor for forceful brainwashing never crossed my mind. But it fits.

But I feel Sonic and Sally's positions are fairly different from those of Winston and Julia, in that, while they do make their way through Robotropolis very often, Sonic and Sally have a much more secure haven in Knothole than Winston and Julia do in the antique shop's apartment. If they were in the same situation as Uncle Chuck, however, I'd say the parallel would be even closer.

[Captain Sorzo]

Glad you enjoyed my crazed ramblings!

I realize the parallel isn't perfect; this was more of a gut response dealing with broad themes than an in-depth dissection. I suppose that the closest analogue to the position of the Freedom Fighters would be the Proles, who had enough leeway to perhaps actually start some sort of resistance if they took the initiative. Still, Uncle Chuck was able to break free of Robotnik's control, even if it took a bit of help.

Roboticization's one of the more fascinating concepts seen in the show, especially since for all its potential symbolic weight the details are never explored outside of one or two comments from Uncle Chuck. Until I read 1984, I honestly hadn't considered the brainwashing/conditioning angle. I still also see it as a sort of commentary on the dangers of allowing ourselves to become too dependent on technology, a theme that seems to run throughout the show.

[Uncle Ben]

I wish they explain how roboticitzation worked so we could understand it better

[fishtheimpaler]

Ultimately as handled Roboticization is just a metaphor. "Robot" was originally a Polish neologism from a word for "worker." (I actually did a little googling on it just now, and it turns out that the word actually contains a connotation of forced labor. http://www.npr.org/2...-the-word-robot)

Stories like this in which people are turned into robots are rooted in a fear of actual ways in which humans are instrumentalized, turned into mere objects of production or value for someone else. Without trying to put too much of a specific political spin on it (as certainly everyone will try to adopt the metaphor as their own, just as "freedom" is about as ambivalent concept as you can imagine these days), Robotnik creates a world where people are reduced to nothing more than workers and the world is reduced to nothing but raw materials--all of which are used to create weapons which are used to reduce people to workers and the world to raw materials, ad infinitum.

Orwell was a committed socialist who had gotten to see the first major successful Marx-inspired uprisings get coopted by a poltical-capitalist class in Russia, which in turn (Orwell believed, iirc, though this is a subject of much left-wing acrimony and backbiting) sabotaged the anarchist revolt that triggered the Spanish Civil War to protect its own ends, all in the name of worker's freedom. There's a reason he was fascinated with language losing its ability to denote.

[Captain Sorzo]

I actually read R.U.R. last spring. Funny how the word originated from a play that seemed to portray the revolt of the workers in a negative light (after all, they exterminate the entire human race save for a single aged man), yet such conceptions of instrumentalization place us in the position of the workers, causing revolution (such as that caused by the Freedom Fighters in SatAM) to be desirable. Sadly, I'm far too ignorant to link this with the proper economic and political systems, to figure out which "-isms" are symbolized by what.

I agree with your analysis that roboticization is a means of depicting instrumentalization, but there's also a technological aspect to it that I feel is extremely significant. After all, it was a technological development intended to do good (helping people live longer) that "changed them, took away their free will", while Robotropolis is extremely advanced technologically and Robotnik himself is a cyborg. I'll try to do a write-up on this later on in the week - I've got to study some essays on similar concepts for an exam anyway.

I love it when genuinely entertaining works provide context to and encourage the discussion of concepts like these, which when presented simply as philosophical treatises are so abstract and lofty that they bore me to tears. We'll make a doctorate level thesis out of SatAM yet!

[fishtheimpaler]

I'd be interested in hearing anything you have to say on the relationship between technology and autonomy in StH, but I've never seen it as that complicated. Given the industry-versus-animals thing, I've always seen Robotnik's heavy polluting industry as a preoccupation with environmental concerns, and roboticization as nothing more than a sort of symbolic accompaniment of it.

Of course, dystopian sci-fi generally focuses on people's fear of science and the social changes that often accompany technological advances. The most interesting thing that pops up about roboticization is, as you note, that Charles Hedgehog discovered it through medical research. That does take the story out of the archetypal evil mad scientist plotline. Normally, when you're dealing with an evil mad scientist, the evil mad scientist is smarter than competing good, normal scientists. He comes up with technology that everyone else has to struggle to understand and defeat--fools, he'll show them all, etc. In addition to distrust and fear of science, I've always thought that reflected the knowledge that the 20th century explosion of industrialization of science was heavily driven by the military and in particular by World War II. The key 20th century advances in computing and medicine were all wartime discoveries, and you get a nuclear bomb before you get nuclear energy. The evil mad scientist plotline suspects that science is somehow inherently evil--the more evil you are, the better you are at it--and that the rest of us have to struggle to keep its advances from destroying us. That's not what we have here. Julian isn't necessarily smarter than Charles; he's just opportunistic.

There are other plots focusing on non-evil mad scientists, though, and Charles doesn't fit into either of those. The tragic mad scientist is smart but full of hubris, Tampers In God's Domain and, despite good intentions, brings a terrible nemesis. Again, this focuses on a notion that science is inherently dangerous, and that when you fuck with it too much you're asking for it. Charles doesn't fit this mold primarily because I just don't see how the cybernetic technology he was working on naturally invited loss of control of one's mind--the fact that there are robot characters with free will makes the whole mind-control effect seem entirely accidental and legitimately unanticipated. It's not like he was experimenting with preying mantis DNA to expand lifespans and created an army of mantis-men, all while screaming no! I can control it! This isn't supposed to happen! If Charles had been working on cybernetic implants to improve intelligence--a sort of singularity chaser--this would fit. But he wasn't. It would also work if Robotnik somehow controlled roboticized mobians by virtue of his control over some mechanized aspects of their bodies, rather than their brains--all robot slaves need to obey or lose their electricity.

The other model of the not-quite-evil mad scientist involves theft of technology, but Charles doesn't fit that either. In this model, the scientist works for a government or respectable, usually large corporation, and develops technology that's not evil or dangerous only because evil people aren't supposed to have it, and then all of a sudden they do. Think of every movie or video game where a previously-in-the-dark protagonist screams at Otacon or whatever about what they were doing here, and whether they really thought they could keep it a secret! This plot is much more politically oriented than science oriented--it's essentially about whether it makes sense or is just for powerful people or organizations can be trusted not to abuse that power. If Chuck had been working on cybernetic implants to, say, "reform criminals," this would fit. But he wasn't.

[Captain Sorzo]

It's going to be awhile before that write-up on technology is ready, but I haven't forgotten about it. I've already got several pages of notes based on just the show. I still need to reread a pair of relevant essays, draw whatever connections I can to SatAM, and organize my thoughts into a coherent argument.

I'll make another thread for it when finished.

[Lito290]

I read the entire paragraph and I will say, I do agree with you that 1984 and SatAM are closely related, and to tell the truth, that's what I loved about it in the first place. The difference was the positive kids message that attracted the parents as well. Although I need to say this, reading a report from a guy whose avatar is Robotnik in the tub with a crocodile draws my attention away from the article from time to time Regardless, great comparison.

[Captain Sorzo]

Well, my avatar was different at the time I wrote that....though I do revel in the irony of making serious, in-depth posts with this one. But thanks.

As for the write-up, I planned to compile it over Thanksgiving but ran into a mental wall of sorts when trying to analyze a certain area. The scope's expanded a bit beyond what I originally intended; I have around ten pages of handwritten notes and need to stop adding new elements and start organizing and supporting my thoughts.

I'll try to finish it over Christmas break. Failing that, I'll at least post my notes, as I think there's a fair amount of interesting material in them.

[Skuggs]

Yup this show did borrowed from Orwell's legendary sci-fi novel at times besides Star Wars.

This show is like a cross between He-Man/She-Ra, Star Wars, Aeon Flux (the MTV toon), Blade Runner and Thundercats all rolled into one.