TOTALLY New "Cyborg or Android" essay! Needs proofreaders!

[number18]

OMG SO EXCITED!

*ahem*

I mean, hi everyone. I've been working for days on redoing the Cyborg or Android essay for Lovely Cyborg (check signature). It's totally redone and includes all sorts of fun stuff like scans, translation of Japanese material, and seriously nerdy breakdowns of the definition of a cyborg.

I would greatly appreciate the help of any brave soul that would like to read over this thing. I'm mostly looking for proofreaders to catch grammatical/spelling mistakes, and also to see if the essay makes sense and flows well.

http://lovelycyborg.com/cyband.php

You'll also obviously be able to click around on the other redone sections of the site!

よろしくおねがいします！

[Great Saiyaman I]

As soon as I get on a computer and not an iTouch I'll look through this.

[Piccolo Daimao]

Very informative! I always knew #17 and #18 were cyborgs, and sometimes it gets on my nerves a little when they're referred to with the catch-all term "Android" (that's why I use "Artificial Human"). I only skimmed through this (I'll read it more thoroughly later), but this is really cool!

[nathantheguitarist]

This is awesome! Now I can stop avoiding the issue by calling them just by number and use "Cyborg" 18 and 17, but then "Android" for 8 and 19 etc. (Or Kaizouningen if I want to be real cool hehe)

It was nicely written, as far as I could tell... but I'm terrible at proof-reading on the internet. So...

Also, I had no idea that LovelyCyborg was down for 5 years. It seams like it's always been there to me. Idk. But the new version looks good so far.

[Bussani]

Interesting read. I didn't spot any grammatical errors or anything like that.

On the subject itself, something I always like to point out is that the first time the term "robot" was used was in a Czech play, and the robots were actually organic constructs built on an assembly line. The truth is that the terms robot, android and cyborg aren't really as strictly defined as most science fiction stories make them out to be. But most of us do agree that #17 and #18 are what most people would call cyborgs.

That said, I think Gero just labels all of his bipedal creations as Jinzo'ningen. As far as he's concerned, that's all they are: humanoid robots he built to do his bidding. It doesn't matter to him whether he used a human as parts or not. And if you're really loose with the definition of "robot", you can't necessarily say he's wrong.

This is awesome! Now I can stop avoiding the issue by calling them just by number and use "Cyborg" 18 and 17, but then "Android" for 8 and 19 etc.

But that implies there are at least 18 cyborgs in addition to 20 androids! You're confusing everyone! Ahhh!

[nathantheguitarist]

Uhm... no I'm not?

Here, when referring to any character's that are one of Gero's experiments, I'll use this scheme.

Android #8
Android #13
Android #14
Android #15
Android #16
Cyborg #17
Cyborg #18
Android #19
Cyborg #20

See? Not confusing at all... if you still don't get it... well, I'll give up and go back to using just numbers I guess.

[Jaruka]

Some people still believe they're Androids? What a sad world we live in...

It was a really good read though and I didn't pick up on any errors, thanks for sharing and writing this.

[Kaboom]

"Android" is just the most-commonly-used English equivalent for the Japanese "Jinzoningen" or "Artificial Human." It may be the most exact or specific way to describe a few of them, but as a broader term, it's just fine. If there's really ever a need for distinction, then I would just label 17 and 18 as "cyborg-type" or "human base-type" or what-not...

[Bussani]

Uhm... no I'm not?

Here, when referring to any character's that are one of Gero's experiments, I'll use this scheme.

Android #8
Android #13
Android #14
Android #15
Android #16
Cyborg #17
Cyborg #18
Android #19
Cyborg #20

See? Not confusing at all... if you still don't get it... well, I'll give up and go back to using just numbers I guess.

But where are Cyborgs #1-16 + 19?

I was just teasing, but that is how some people would take it.

[nathantheguitarist]

Stop reminding me of how insane our fandom can be. It's frustrating and sad at the same time.

[number18]

Yeah, the point in my rewriting the essay was mostly to point out Toriyama's own weirdness in using "jinzouningen", considering it actually is a word that excludes cyborgs in Japanese, even though that's what the twins are explicitly explained to be. There's a reason I went ahead and translated the Japanese wiki pages on jinzouningen and kaizouningen, along with all that Daizenshuu info on the twins. I just hope fans pick up on it (hoping for too much maybe?).

[Puto]

Well, if jinzôningen actually does exclude cyborgs, then I guess it's accurate to translate it as "Android"; you're basically just doing an accurate translation of Toriyama's mistake.

[Piccolo Daimao]

Now, I don't have a problem with people referring to Dr. Gero's creations as "Android". The majority of Gero's creations are androids anyway, and it would be weird to just swap out "Android" for "Cyborg" when talking about the few ones that are cyborgs.

[number18]

Yeah, I'm not trying to advocate we change the whole "artificial human" thing now. It's too entrenched, and in English fandom we've added our own meanings to it.

[Bussani]

Yeah, the point in my rewriting the essay was mostly to point out Toriyama's own weirdness in using "jinzouningen", considering it actually is a word that excludes cyborgs in Japanese, even though that's what the twins are explicitly explained to be. There's a reason I went ahead and translated the Japanese wiki pages on jinzouningen and kaizouningen, along with all that Daizenshuu info on the twins. I just hope fans pick up on it (hoping for too much maybe?).

I got the point of it all. It's a really interesting subject, actually. The funny thing is, like Puto mentioned, "Android" is a pretty fair translation of "Jinzoningen", so no one can really blame the English translation for botching something up. It's Toriyama/Gero's own odd usage, and we'd be losing that in the translation if we used something else!

I honestly think it makes sense from Gero's point of view, though. Like you say in your article, a cyborg is always a human being*, and a kaizoningen is a modified human being. But I don't think Gero looks at #17 and #18 and sees them as human beings. They're not modified versions of two runaway kids--they're his creations. Completely separate entities, which he created only to serve as programmable tools. Though strictly, mechanically speaking the term cyborg certainly applies, it's incidental to Gero.

An example from western cinema might be Robocop. Strictly speaking he's a cyborg, obviously. His friends also see him as Alex Murphy. But though OCP--the company that built him--acknowledges that he's a cyborg, mechanically speaking, they also don't see him as a person. He's property--not Alex Murphy, but something they built. A machine that utilizes pieces of Murphy's organic corpse.

It's all semantics in the end. And all that said, Gero has no problem calling himself a Jinzoningen, either; and Cell calls himself one, too!

Oh, yeah. I forgot to mention it last time, but the Daizenshuu entry for #8 also describes him as being built from a human base, just like #17 and #18. Just thought that would be interesting to mention.

*As an aside, even the term cyborg isn't as well defined as other terms. While the current definition of robot is open enough to mean more or less anything programmable--metal, organic, whatever--the term cyborg always means a mix of organic and mechanical. But to what extent? In your article, you mention that the T-800 Terminator is an android, but in Terminator itself they're always referred to as "cybernetic organisms" or simply "cyborgs". By the definition you used--cyborgs being human beings--this doesn't work; but by a different definition, where it's simply an entity composed of both organic and synthetic materials, it kind of does.

Some people disagree with this sort of definition. They argue that a Terminator doesn't need its skin to function, thus it isn't a cyborg. But where's the line? What if we had a human athlete who had mechanical legs? Would he be a cyborg, or would the fact that he could live without the legs mean that he wouldn't be? One might say that he needs the legs to be an athlete and that this has some bearing on it, but then someone else might argue that a Terminator needs its organic functions to function at its job, which, ironically, is not killing, but infiltrating and passing as a human.

[number18]

Yeah, I agree on the whole Dr. Gero viewing the twins as property. The way he talks about them, and the way they talk about themselves, as being programmed, and in other sort of removed/cold mechanical terms sort of says something about how they all view themselves.

As for #8, I also forgot to mention that he's lumped in with the twins on that Daizenshuu page that labels them as "biomechanical type" androids. There's definite plans to translate it word for word and see if there's similar words used to describe him in Japanese as there are the twins. But hell, he totally looks like Frankenstein, and I think we can guess something about him based on that appearance.

Anyway, back to definitions -- the one for cyborg is now start to have a shift, with less emphasis on the dichotomy of "man+machine" and more of an emphasis of "man+integration of outside feedback mechanism". Hairy stuff, right? As for the T-800, there's a great article someone just wrote concerning it: http://quietbabylon.com/2010/some-major ... -for-this/

[Bussani]

As for #8, I also forgot to mention that he's lumped in with the twins on that Daizenshuu page that labels them as "biomechanical type" androids. There's definite plans to translate it word for word and see if there's similar words used to describe him in Japanese as there are the twins. But hell, he totally looks like Frankenstein, and I think we can guess something about him based on that appearance.

Kanzentai has done their own translations of the character bios, which is where I got that from. I seem to remember people having the discussion before, and someone mentioned that the term used for #8 matches the terms used for #17 and #18. I'm sure you can check it for yourself, though.

Hairy stuff, right? As for the T-800, there's a great article someone just wrote concerning it: http://quietbabylon.com/2010/some-major ... -for-this/

I love the title of that article.

[Maphisto86]

Nice work on the new look for the site. A bit spartan but I like how you designed it and I look forward to any more updates still to come.

On to the essay! I remember the older version and I am glad you kept a lot of the great information contained from the original version such as the supplementary info and discussion of the japanese text which is a must. Yet I was impressed by the comparison to other cyber-characters and automoton themes in popular fiction. I don't recall that in the previous version of the article but then again I do remember you are a fan of cyborgs in fiction anyway so it was probably there. It just seems more prevalent in this version but not awkwardly so.

As for spelling or grammatical errors, I have not spotted any yet although if I am doing a paper for one of my classes I always need to print it off and read it that way in order to spot all the errors. Even then I don't get them all as I still make embarrassing typos and grammar heresies ("their" & "there" for instance ).