If you’re in group 2, you’re responsible for this week’s weekly roundup. Each student in the group will highlight one key moment from the previous week’s online and in-class discussions. To recall the syllabus:
Follow this formula for the highlights: describe the moment (provide the context and the facts about what you saw, read, or heard), interpret the meaning of the moment (what does it mean?), and evaluate its significance (in other words, why was the moment important?).
You can post your highlight in the comments below.
Throughout our entire discussion over the graphic novel WE3, there were countless moments that I considered key to a very interesting and in depth analysis of the meaning behind this gruesome, yet intriguing story. In our class discussion on Tuesday, February 22, I found it very astonishing to see how people connected differently to the story. One continuous concept that remained strong within our class discussion was the ways in which we as readers feel about the integrity of the animals. Clearly we can attest that not everyone is an animal lover, but in many ways we can understand that whether you like animals or not, it is not the animal’s true behavior to act in the extremely violent ways that they did. These robotic suits, these alien-like antenna’s, the need for these animals to take medication in order to keep their bodies in a constant state of human control, are the true weapons, not the animals themselves. This had to be one of the most gnarly and gruesome stories I have seen, but it was nonetheless highly action-packed and exciting, though most of the events tugged at my heart strings. The aspect I liked most about this novel was its “realness.” It felt like I was watching a movie as opposed to looking over/reading a graphic novel. I found it extremely interesting how many differing positions people held on WE3 and the great lengths people went to add new ideas to the discussion. While reading WE3 I noted its terror and overwhelming sense of “grossness,” but then I thought about the gore and terror of Nat Turner and why I reacted differently to WE3 as a more epic and intriguing novel. This might be because WE3 took on a storyline that was more cosmic and advanced in technological warfare, which is quite different from the other novels we have read so far. How would you compare the actions and emotions behind Nat Turner/other graphic novels we have read and compare it that of WE3?
Does a dog have cyborg nature? Mu!
This week in class, we talked about why we sympathize (or don’t) with the protagonists of We3. On the one hand, a lot of the class agreed that the We3 are recognizable as both victimized protagonists and abused animals. They’re pets that have been kidnapped and reprogrammed as cyber warriors. They are physically and psychologically warped into human/robot entities and forced into scenarios that are incomprehensible for animals. When the government becomes disinterested in them, they slated for decommissioning as if they were computer programs. It’s hard to not feel attached to the We3 because they are manipulated into something they aren’t and reminisce about _Homeward Bound_ as they make their way toward freedom and away from subjectivity.
On the other hand, as was pointed out on the blog and in class, we have to question whether there is enough character development (or animal empathy) to make us see We3 as more than guns gone rogue. Although they are shown as cuddly animals pre-We3, it’s hard to care about characters that go about mindless killing anything that stands in their way while muttering something about going home now and then. Even 1 (Bandit) comes off as artificial when he tries to be “gud,” and in a way that’s because animals have no sense of right and wrong. Although they sporadically show signs of agency (1 wanting to go home and take off his “coat”), perhaps Morrison himself is guilty of forcing the We3 to express characteristics that animals simply cannot convey.
In other news, we briefly discussed why pets were chosen for the We3 project. Does it build ethos for the protagonists? Is it a message against animal testing? And is it possible that the government is too lazy/stupid/under budgeted to buy and train their own animals (re: not bunnies)? Maybe we’ll never know. . .
Throughout our discussion in class and on the message boards I have been surprised at the number of people trying to figure out if they could relate to these animals. Some of us declared that we have pets and can easily feel for these animals as we can relate to their personalities. Some of us could not easily relate to the animals because we had never had a pet.
We also looked into whether these animals could be recognized as lovable pets or if they were killing machines who, because of the story, we could form no connection. This comes back to whether we could sympathize with the animals or not. Some could argue that because they had pets they could feel for these animals while some argued that the character development in the graphic novel was not good enough to have the animals as creatures who were lovable.
We also looked into possible metaphors or messages the story was trying to portray. Some saw it as a story about how technology can take over ones life therefore calling for a return to simplicity. Others saw it as a calling out of the government/ military and their secret programs. I will leave with this question: Was it possible to see these characters as heroes?
I’m glad you brought up the question of heroism — after all, that’s why I included We3 in this part of the syllabus, in the section devoted to heroes.
Also, We looked into the nature of the dog character as he reflects on himself. The constant questioning of his existence and nature allowed the readers to sympathize with the dog.