Christmas is canceled.

How is it that no one warned me that Bicentennial Man is the saddest movie known to mankind? I mean... I should have figured it out for myself, given that the short story was pretty sad, and the lead actor was Robin Williams, but... I underestimated the extent. Lesson learned.

Everyone knows that movie posters are better auf Deutsch.

All right, so Plot.

Let's start with the obvious, shall we? In the short story, Andrew does not go gallivanting across the country in search of a companion. And also he does not get married, to a human, no less. That completely changes the theme, the way I see it, but I'll get into that later. The addition of Little Miss's wedding adds depth to the relationship between Andrew and Sir, as well. It shows that Sir's greatest fear is of everyone leaving him, and it justifies his later irrational anger at Andrew's desire for freedom. And in general, there is a bit more detail to the plot, because less time has to be spent on setting in a movie than in a short story, as the audience can clearly see the setting, whereas in the short story, one must rely on words. Another example of this is Andrew's creepy hovering at the dinner table when he first arrives at the family, and his getting pushed out the window, as well as his shattering of Little Miss's crystal horse; it adds dimension to the rocky start that the reader only suspects Andrew probably had.

As to point of view...

It wasn't one of those movies with a narrator built in. However, there was the addition of some subtitles saying things like "In the not so distant future...." and "Many years later...." Essentially, though, the point of view was the same. Since it was Andrew's story, we rarely if ever saw a scene without him as the central character. Therefore, the point of view was third-person omniscient. I also think it was slightly less limited than the short story could have been argued to be because it lacked the biased interludes of prose. We see Andrew's reactions, but we get no concrete words to describe them, so they are left open to interpretation, as are the reactions of all the other characters.

A lot of the plot differences contributed to the differences in characterization, as well.

For instance, when Little Miss gives him her stuffed animal named Woofy in return for the wooden horse figurine, it strengthens their bond as characters. It also makes the last moments of Little Miss' life much more *cringe* tender, because she was holding the little old horse figurine in her wrinkled, nearly-dead hands. It also tenderizes (seewhatIdidthere?) the moment when Andrew takes in the stray puppy, and later we find out he's named it Woofy after the stuffed animal Little Miss gave him. These are examples of indirect characterization, but direct characterization isn't something one sees in movies a lot. Speaking of referring to oneself as one, Andrew does that a lot in this film, but he stops when he is freed by Sir. This strengthens the development of both characters because it shows both Andrew's value for freedom and Sir's care-in-spite-of-anger/hurt/bitterness when he notices the change. And I loved how in the movie, Andrew is afraid of heights because of when the mean other Miss makes him jump out the window. Also, when Andrew runs off looking for other robots like him, it makes his character more sympathetic, as the audience begins to see the loneliness of his condition. Also also, it reminded me of this:

As for setting...

They are extremely similar. In both, the story begins in the somewhat foreseeable future--2005 in the movie, which is now the past-- and continues for exactly two hundred years into the future after that--ending in 2205, which is well beyond my estimated longevity. In both, the story takes place in some ambiguous portion of the United States of America. When Andrew goes about trying to find himself a friend, I have no idea where all he looked, and he might well have left the country a time or two, but there's no telling for certain, and it's not really important to the story. I don't believe the short story mentioned the Martins' living near the ocean. That adds to the romantic and sentimental element of the story, I suppose, although it seems annoyingly cliché. It does make sense for Andrew's woodcarving hobby to have begun thusly, however.

And at last... theme.

In the short story, the theme was more about the foolishness of bigotry and the values of freedom. In the movie adaptation, the theme was more about the importance of love and companionship to the human condition, and how time inevitably changes all that and leaves people brokenhearted until they die too, perpetuating the cycle. Ahem. I don't like when movies try to make that seem okay. In analyzing how this happened, I'm going to first point out the addition of the piano scenes with Andrew and Little Miss. It would seem that piano scenes conveying sentimentality are a pop cultural favorite in film adaptations. Check out this blatantly illegal recording someone did of the latest Harry Potter to see what I mean:

Also, Sir starts us on this path early with his "lessons" to teach Andrew what he hasn't been programmed to know, one or two of which included The Birds and the Bees, for sure. Also also, he... you know... marries Portia and dies holding her hand.

HEY. They made it look like he didn't even ever know that he was declared a man! Whaaat's theee deeaaal wiiiith thaaaaaat??? I suppose they were trying to make some kind of point. It doesn't matter what other people think. What matters is what you know in your heart. Blaaaah blaaah blaaaah it STILL would have made Andrew happy. Instead, he just died.

I'm going to assume the girl android with the dancing-->temper-->skin was just incorrect. I know she's a robot and all, but... Andrew knew. Otherwise, Christmas is canceled.

Dobby... is... freeeeeee!

Plot

"The Bicentennial Man" had some crazy... not... chronological... business going on. It begins with Andrew requesting that another robot perform a mysterious surgery on him. We don't find out until near the end, however, that the surgery is one that will complete his transformation from robot into man. It's also divided into chapters, which seem to pertain individually to specific phases of Andrew's life. For instance, in chapter two, which begins on page 247, Andrew begins his life with the Martin family, and his focus is primarily playing with Little Miss, for as she put it, she "order[ed him] to play with [them] and [he] must follow orders." Then, in chapter three, the next phase of Andrew's life begins, in which Andrew's goal becomes fulfilling his role as the unique robot with the skills: "Strange. Of course, we're attempting generalized pathways these days.... Really creative, you think?" - p. 250

Point of View

The narrator is third-person omniscient. The story is Andrew's, so the narrator chronicles his life more closely than anyone else's, but the narrator also knows everything about all of the characters. For instance, on page 250, "[Little Miss] never forgot that the very first piece of wood carving he had done had been for her." Little Miss never speaks these words aloud, but the audience learns it from the narrator. Also, it is in third-person because the words "you" and "I" are only used in direct quotes from the characters. Also also, the story isn't told from the perspective of one of the characters involved in the story, but rather from a third party who knows everything about them.

Characterization

The story was awash with a healthy mix of both direct and indirect characterization, I think. For instance, on p. 249, the narrator, drawing on Andrew's observations, says "[Merton Mansky] had drawn features and a lined forehead and looked as though he might be younger than he looked." The part about the drawn features and lined forehead are merely observations that lead the reader to conclude that he looks kind of old. The second part, however, is a subjective observation on which the reader can have no comment but to accept it; thus, it is direct characterization. Vital to the story is the progression of Andrew's character as he grows slowly more and more human. In the beginning of the story, Andrew's range of facial expression is almost nonexistent. By chapter fourteen, on page 276, we see Andrew exclaim "Paul!" and have it described as "in concern." Then, by page 22, Andrew smiles as he shakes hands with the President, who declares him "a Bicentennial Man."

Setting

Usually, when I think of setting, I think of place first, and then time as an unimportant secondary element. In "The Bicentennial Man," however, the more important thing to note is that the story is science fiction; it takes place in the somewhat foreseeable but still significantly distant future, when robot technology is taking a leap forward. As far as geographical location, I feel like the main point emphasized is that it did indeed take place on Earth. For instance, on page 256, at the end of chapter 7, it says "[The decision] was eventually upheld by the World Court." Also, the bit in chapter 5 when it describes how "Ma'am had joined an art colony somewhere in Europe, and Miss was a poet in New York" as well as the robot Andrew's emphasis on freedom indicate strongly that the story is set in the United States of America, but not in New York. That Little Miss went there and came back indicates to me that probably, the Martins lived somewhere northeast.

Theme

I think the major theme was that freedom is invaluable, and bigotry is a crime. One sentence that jumped out at me was on page 254: "Freedom is without a price, Sir," said Andrew. "Even the chance of freedom is worth the money." The Court doesn't want to give him freedom, though, because they want to maintain human superiority over robots. Then, when Andrew wants to become a human, they don't want to allow that either. This was because, as stated on page 288, "They cannot tolerate an immortal human being, since their own mortality is endurable only so long as it is universal."

Another item that jumped out at me as a possible minor theme was this: "With great power goes great responsibility." - p. 266

That probably only jumped out at me because either Isaac Asimov or Stan Lee is a plagiarist, but... yeah.

Andrew is freeeeee!

Plagiarism?

Let it snow...?

I, like others, would like to point out the humor in the South Park parallels to "Hunters in the Snow." I have actually never seen an episode of South Park--crazy, right? But even I have heard enough to appreciate the similarities when I hear about them.

[I was going to post a link to some South Park mash-ups here, but... having now seen more South Park than I ever have previously, I think... maybe not.]

I really do like how they end up obliviously going the wrong way at the end of the story, though. I felt really awkward throughout most of the reading of that story because the characters just kept being so open, and there was the guy freezing and bleeding and talking to himself in the back of the truck, and.... I suppose getting lost didn't help matters at all, but I still liked it better.

Also, our small group wondered why on earth Tub's parents chose to name him Tub. I mean, we know the author was being clever, but why did he rationalize that his parents would name him that? Or maybe it was a nickname? Whooo knows?

I need some kind of media in order to be content. Ummmm....

I really like Christmas. Also, it was cold in the story.

Mildly Cadaverousness

I'm not sure why anybody does anything in "Bartleby the Scrivener," to be honest, so I'm choosing to answer the question that's entirely opinion-based and personal.

14. Trace your emotional reaction to Bartleby as he is revealed in the story.

My initial reaction was that he was a hard worker and a lot less quirkily annoying than Turkey, Nippers and Ginger Nut. Also, his name was not as weird as theirs, even though it reminded me vaguely of Beedle the Bard and Rufus Scrimgeour combined.

Then when he started saying he would prefer not to do things, I was startled by the backbone this guy who seemed dead to the world was showing. I mean, on page 660 and at the end of paragraph 110, he is actually described as "mildly cadaverous." How is one "mildly cadaverous"? A cadaver is a dead body. Goodness.

Then he got increasingly creepy, and I stopped liking him altogether and started hoping that everybody else would just evacuate the premises or something and forget about him because he was scary scary scary, and he was probably just creepy enough to end up in my nightmares. I'll keep you posted.

Also, just so everyone knows, I read these things aloud to myself in order to ensure that I don't fall asleep while reading them because I always fall asleep when I read things because I am always sleepy, and I sound really grouchy and am sorry, and now I am hoarse because this story is VERY LONG, and I guess I just admitted that I hadn't read it yet in class today, which is embarrassing but I had read a third of it.... I like long sentences. Only writing them, though. Not reading them. Then I get mad.

Just gonna stand there and watch me burn.

4. Does the mother's refusal to let Dee have the quilts indicate a permanent or temporary change of character? Why has she never done anything like it before? Why does she do it now? What details in the story prepare for and foreshadow this refusal?

I got the impression that the refusal was a temporary change. She seems like a loving mother, in general, and I just don't think she could refuse her daughter forgiveness like that. She wouldn't have done anything like it before because Dee had been away from home for a while, and before she left, she wasn't quite so... pretentious. I use that word a lot. I think it's because anything that gets put under the heading "literature" has a tendency toward that, but that is a generalization, and oh well. Anyway, she did it when she did because she wouldn't stand for Dee/W-thing hurting Maggie, who was always well-mannered and never presumptuous like her older sister.

Some details foreshadowing the refusal include all the accounts by the narrator, who is the mother, of Maggie's more sympathy-inducing qualities. She envisions Maggie's awkwardness upon Dee's arrival and mentions Maggie's burns and her feelings of shame about them repeatedly. These accounts show the mother's protective nature, which wouldn't lend itself to allowing anyone to hurt Maggie, even if Maggie said she wouldn't mind.

Hufflepuffs are particularly good finders.

8. The final plot twist comes in the last two sentences of the story. here the narrator speaks directly to the reader, giving us information the characters don't know. How is this an appropriate conclusion to the story? What final statement does Wolff seem to be making here about his characters?

This is an appropriate conclusion to the story because it confirms what the reader probably already suspects. Although Frank and Kenny and Tub may seem to have changed, their respective epiphanies do not make them dynamic characters. Wolff seems to be telling the reader, "Don't worry. They are all still bumbling idiots. They just feel a lot more content about it now."

I really shouldn't say that about them, as I get lost nearly every time I endeavor to find a new place, but I know I'm a bumbling idiot when it comes to that, so it's okay. Not very Hufflepuff-ish at all. Therefore, what I draw from this story is as follows:

• Frank, Kenny and Tub will use their newfound insights into themselves to make an even greater mess of their lives than they have already made.
• If a friend points a gun at you, don't shoot. Just duck or something.
• Frank and Tub are definitely not Hufflepuffs.