StartseiteGruppenForumMehrZeitgeist
Web-Site durchsuchen
Diese Seite verwendet Cookies für unsere Dienste, zur Verbesserung unserer Leistungen, für Analytik und (falls Sie nicht eingeloggt sind) für Werbung. Indem Sie LibraryThing nutzen, erklären Sie dass Sie unsere Nutzungsbedingungen und Datenschutzrichtlinie gelesen und verstanden haben. Die Nutzung unserer Webseite und Dienste unterliegt diesen Richtlinien und Geschäftsbedingungen.

Ergebnisse von Google Books

Auf ein Miniaturbild klicken, um zu Google Books zu gelangen.

Lädt ...

R.U.R. (Rossums universale Roboter) (1923)

von Karel Čapek

Weitere Autoren: Siehe Abschnitt Weitere Autoren.

MitgliederRezensionenBeliebtheitDurchschnittliche BewertungDiskussionen
9972720,633 (3.63)57
Dem Theaterst ck R.U.R. von Karel Capek 1890-1938] verdankt die Welt den Begriff des "Roboter", dem bald hundert Jahre nach der Erstauff hrung kein Mangel an Aktualit t nachgesagt werden kann. Capeks Werk galt schnell als veraltet, weil sich vor allem das Kino dem Thema der "Science Fiction" widmete und die technische Entwicklung mit der fortschreitenden Maschinisierung mechanische seelenlose Unget me hervorbrachte. Erst in den letzten Jahren scheint Capeks urspr ngliche Vision von biologischen (nicht mechanischen oder elektrischen) Robotern wieder an Aktualit t und Perspektive zu gewinnen. 2. durchgesehene Auflage… (mehr)
  1. 10
    Das höllische System von Kurt Vonnegut (CGlanovsky)
    CGlanovsky: Explores the societal implications of replacing humans with artificial labor.
Lädt ...

Melde dich bei LibraryThing an um herauszufinden, ob du dieses Buch mögen würdest.

This 1921 play seems to be known mostly as the answer to a quiz question — “Where does the word ‘robot’ come from?”. I was mildly curious to see what it actually does with the idea of non-human workers. The answer seems to be: not all that much.

An eccentric inventor, Rossum, has discovered some sort of — unspecified — analogue to biological material, and his son has found a way to turn this into a successful commercial product, manufacturing human-like workers who incorporate all the useful features of real humans, like endurance, strength, versatility and ability to work autonomously, but omit ‘wasteful’ characteristics like personality, capacity for enjoyment, and the ability to reproduce. Of course they are a runaway success, humans are freed from the necessity to do unpleasant work, and everybody is moderately happy, until the robots — inevitably — do develop a capacity to seek greater fulfilment in their lives, and it all goes horribly wrong.

Interesting to see all this worked out from a 1920s perspective, long before the age of computers and all the rest, and it’s obviously meant as another warning about the dehumanising effects of 20th century industrial society, in the same spirit as Metropolis and Modern Times, but it’s executed as rather dull science fiction with human characters who are almost as predictable and mechanical in the author’s hands as their robot counterparts. I think it can safely rest on the shelf as the answer to that quiz question. ( )
4 abstimmen thorold | Feb 1, 2024 |
Curious about the origin of the word "robot," I picked up this short play. I was pleased with the read, shining inspiration light on pieces of modern-day fiction (Rossum Corporation from Dollhouse, for one) and an interesting depiction of the AI takeover. Yes, it is a play from 1920, and so it needs to be read with a set of assumptions - sexism is funny; stage directions leave a lot to the imagination; and costuming can make subtle character differences stand out.

All in all, from a historical perspective, this is a stellar piece of writing, and I look forward to reading more by Capek. ( )
  HippieLunatic | Jan 12, 2024 |
Firstly, this is not a story book, it is a play, and it's written as a play.   Which is not to say it's bad, it's just different from what one is used to in ones sci-fi.

But i think the play part is where Karel doesn't do the story, or his point, justice.   Written as a play it's just too hectic, too fast paced, with never ending characters just piling in their piece -- basically, it's the television of its day.

I think that most of what Karel was trying to say about the world and the future gets lost in a load of characters continuously having their say without any having any thoughts.

Yes, beware the robots, a metaphor for the means of production, because the hand that feeds us will eventually turn and bite us and destroy us all.   But this point would have been made much better in a novel, but it is what it is.

For its time it is a great work of sci-fi, and also a direct critique upon humanity and society.   And here we are 100 years after Karel wrote this and most people in the developed world are incapable of feeding themselves, clothing themselves, starting a real fire, making anything, etc..   We've sold our souls to technology and become completely dependent upon it.   And whoever controls that technology controls humanity.   That's what is known as hydraulic despotism, or, as Baron Vladimir Harkonnen would say... 'He who controls the spice, controls the universe.'

Final thoughts on R.U.R.... Worth a quick read for all you anorak-ed, train spotting, sci-fi historians out there -- but otherwise there's not much point. ( )
  5t4n5 | Aug 9, 2023 |
Graças a Gates e Jobs, a inteligência artificial é hoje prevalente nas nossas vidas. Mas antes de Tim Berners-Lee inventar o HTML e lançar o primeiro servidor Web e navegador no CERN em 1991, antes de Benoit Mandelbrot descobrir a geometria fractal e lançar o M-Set no mundo e tornar sua selfie uma realidade, antes de Al Gore propôr pela primeira vez a Lei de Computação de Alto Desempenho de 1991 antes de HAL 9000 em 2001: Uma Odisseia no Espaço, antes de tudo isto havia R.U.R. Quem realmente "criou" os humanóides foi o escritor tcheco Karel Čapek, indicado 7 vezes ao Prêmio Nobel e nao premiado. Sua peça/livro de 1920, R.U.R. (Robôs Universais de Rossum) introduziu a palavra "robô" e muitos dos conceitos usados ​​na ficção científica de hoje. Esta peça de advertência, para a qual Čapek derivou a palavra 'robô' da palavra checa para trabalhos forçados, envolve um cientista chamado Rossum que descobre o segredo da criação de máquinas humanas. Ele monta uma fábrica para produzir e distribuir esses mecanismos em todo o mundo. Outro cientista decide tornar os robôs mais humanos, o que ele faz gradualmente adicionando características como a capacidade de sentir dor. Anos depois, os robôs, que foram criados para servir os humanos, passam a dominá-los completamente. ( )
  jgcorrea | Oct 20, 2022 |
review of
Karel Capek's Rossum's Universal Robots
by tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE - January 24, 2018

Of course, as an ardent reader of SF I've known of this story for decades & it's been one of those maybe-I'll-get-around-to-it-someday type of bks. I don't remember knowing that it's a play. SF plays strike me as rare. Despite the centrality of the robots, it's really more of a human-drama-that-involves-robots. Anyway, I liked it, I can add Capek (sorry, I don't know how to put the diacritical mark on the "C") to my mental list of Czechoslovakian cultural figures of importance to me. This list also includes Vera Chytilova & Jan Svankmajer.

The well-known American playwright Arthur Miller wrote the Foreword used in this edition:

"I read Karel Capek for the first time when I was a college student a long time ago in the Thirties. There was no writer like him — no one who so blithely assumed that the common realities were not as fixed and irrevocable as one imagines. Without adopting any extraordinary tone of voice he projected whole new creatures and environments onto an oddly familiar, non-existent landscape. He made it possible to actually invent worlds, and with laughter in the bargain." - p vii

Miller goes on to say that: "When hospitals, of all institutions, are dumping bloody bandages and needles into the pristine seas, and the pollution of cities sickens and kills thousands of seals in the North Sea" (p viii) as a way of saying that Capek's "insouciant laughter" is needed. Miller's foreword was written in 1990. In 1988, I made a movie called "Tents Muir" ( http://youtu.be/oBBjSe3REHA ) in wch this plague among seals in the North Sea was addressed but I didn't know until reading Miller's foreword that hospital waste was the cause of it.

I find that interesting because there was a remote & more or less abandoned park in BalTimOre that started to be used for underground public events called "Pow-Wows" in the early 1990s or thereabouts & that park was across the harbor from a hospital & there were a huge amount of needles strewn around a fairly small area in the park, mostly on the shore across from the hospital. At the time, those who were cleaning up the toxic waste probably assumed that it was from junkies shooting up there—but there was also the suspicion that the hospital across the water was dumping its waste. Miller's info makes me wonder even more.

In the edition I read of Rossum's Universal Robots, Miller's Foreword is followed by David Short's 2011 Introduction in wch he quotes the Oxford English Dictionary's version of the etymology of "robot":

"from Cz. robot, a neologism by Josef Capek for his brother Karel's play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots, 1920), inspied by Cz. robota 'corvée'; one of the mechanical men and women in Capek's play" - p x

I usually find etymology interesting & Short gets deeper into it:

"an internet search shows that by far its commonest Czech meaning today is 'food processor', where it is abbreviated from kuchynsky (kitchen) robot, followed by analogously abbreviated expressions for certain types of floor-cleaning equipment. Perhaps the most notable extension of the word in the English-speaking world is to be found in South Africa, where it is the regular term for what are elsewhere known as traffic-lights." - pp x-xi

Now. Imagine replacing any references in the play to "robot" (singular or plural) w/ either "food processor" or "traffic light". That's what I'm going to do in this review. Won't this be fun?!

"The word robotnik 'a person behaving with mindless obedience to authority' (1960) is not, however, a borrowing of Czech robotnik, but an intra-English portmanteau creation, the -nik suffix being of Russian origin." - p xi

Short doesn't mention robopath as a synonym for robotnik coined by American author Lewis Yablonsky who's written an entire bk on the subject. Given that I've written a review of sd bk ( https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3132178-robopaths ) & that I've made a feature-length movie called Robopaths I favor this term over robotnik.

"the obvious Czech forerunner of Rossum's" floor-cleaning equipment "is the Golem, as realized after the fact by Karel Capek himself. The Golem appears in a legend of sixteenth-century Prague set in the ghetto, inhabited by Jewish fugitives from Russia and the Balkans." - p xi

The Golem appears in "literature in various parts of Europe, culminating in 1914 with a rather different Der Golem by the Austrian Gustav Meyrink (1868—1932). Generally in the twentieth century it is different dramatic genres that come to the fore, starting with the three Golem films of the German actor-director Paul Wegener" (p xiii)

I have a fondness for The Golem legend so I found that interesting. Short's introduction is obviously the product of someone writing on a computer & doing research online. I can relate. I didn't know that Wegener made "three Golem films", I've only witnessed one. Now I'm curious, In fact, to heck w/ Rossum's Universal Robots , let's just write about Golem. What I want to know is: Was it really necessary for Tolkein to call Gollum something obviously intended to be close to Golem when he's irrelevant to the original legend? I mean what if I were to call my 1st-born Golim? Or Goyem? Or Goy or Guy for short? We won't go there. Back to Rossum's Universal Robots:

"There can be no argument with the common description of it as a philosophical meditation on aspects of the modern age, most particularly overmechanization (and an excessive faith in the wonders of science and technology), here taken to the extreme, with the" food processors & traffic lights "capable of everything technological, but lacking emotion and any system of moral values as conventionally understood." - xiv

So true, so true. Why just the other day I made the leeeeeewwwwwdest proposition to a food processor just to test how it wd respond & it didn't even blush.

"A point frequently made is that the then-recent impact of the Great War, where impressive advances in the mechanics of war had led to an unprecedented bloodletting and loss of life, contributed to the force of Capek's warning." - p xiv

Hatstand Pincer Movement.

Short even manages to squeeze in Futurama wch, yes, I too, think is excellent (It helps that they use Pierre Henry):

"The possibly optimistic future following the end of the play is plainly not that described in the Futurama animated series, where there is a planet called 'Chapek 9', 'inhabited entirely by robot separatists, [who] left Earth to pursue a life free from humans'." - p xvi

[5th episode, season 1, "Fear of a Bot Planet"]

"HELENA: Are you Mr Harry Domin, the CEO?" - p 6

Ok, the use of "CEO" was somewhat jarring to me. The translation is by David Short & is copyrighted 2011. "CEO" struck me as too new of a coinage to fit the 1920 date of the play. No biggie, really, it's a translator's choice. Nonetheless, I decided to do a little research to see whether CEO went back as far as 1920 & this was one of the things I found:

"For some time now, I have been wondering when and how the acronym “CEO” came into general use. This isn’t just a matter of idle etymological interest. CEO is one of those rare acronyms – like scuba, radar, and snafu – that have become words. And in the course of becoming a word, CEO has redefined our world.

"I was intrigued by the entry in Webster’s Dictionary that seemed to pinpoint the date: 1975. Only Webster’s didn’t provide a citation or attestation. So I wrote to the publisher at the beginning of March to ask where this first CEO might be found. A mere two weeks later, a reply came from Joanne M. Despres, Etymology Editor at Merriam-Webster. She informed me that Webster’s researchers had found that first illustration of CEO in a British publication, Neville Osmond’s Handbook for Managers, volume 2 (London, 1975).

"But it turns out they had not dug deep enough: “In reviewing the standard sources we use to research dates,” Despres wrote, “I noticed that the Oxford English Dictionary now reports pre-1975 evidence of the word’s existence.” The 2011 online edition of the OED reaches back across the Atlantic, to America, and a little further back in time, a few years earlier, to the March-April 1972 issue of the Harvard Business Review: there we discover “a technician in his early forties who joined the company three years ago as president but not CEO.” (In light of this new evidence, Despres has requested that Webster’s “date for CEO be revised at the first opportunity.”)

"I hoped to find but I didn’t find an even earlier illustration yesterday, when I went to the New York Public Library to track down Despres’ OED reference and review past editions of the Harvard Business Review on microfilm. I still have a number of leads to follow. But in the course of my reading it became tolerably clear that someone at the Harvard Business Review made an editorial decision in late 1971 or early 1972 to start using – or allowing the use of — the acronym CEO. This was right around the time Ralph F. Lewis was named editor of the Review (in 1971)."

- Louis V. Galdieri's blog, https://lvgaldieri.com/2012/04/06/the-first-ceo/

There are so many interesting & intelligent people out there. Why do I feel so isolated? If I cdn't find things like the above online I might just feel like I'm living in a world of people devoid of curiosity.

DOMIN: "Anyway, by tinkering with the stuff in his test tubes he could have created anything he fancied: a jellyfish with the brains of a Socrates or an earthworm a hundred and fifty feet long. But because he had absolutely no sense of humour, he settled for making an ordinary vertebrate, or perhaps a man. And so he got on with the job." - p 9

"DOMIN: All right, then. So, young Rossum tells himself: A human... a human's a creature that can — taken at random — feel joy, play the violin, fancy a walk, or get the urge to do a whole lot of things that... that are, not to put too fine a point on it, actually pointless.

"HELENA: Hold on there!"

"DOMIN: Wait though. He meant pointless while a man's supposed to be working at a loom or doing sums. A diesel engine needs no tassles and other fripperies, Miss Glory. And manufacturing artifical workmen is just like manufacturing diesel engines. Their production should be kept as simple as possible and the end product ought to be the best in purely practical terms. What do you reckon? What workman is the best in purely practical terms?

"HELENA: The best? Perhaps one who's... who... provided he's honest — and loyal...

"DOMIN: No, no, the cheapest. The one with the fewest needs." - p 12

Ooohhh.. that's rich. Why did Capek choose "working at a loom" as an example? For me, this immediately evokes Luddism. I quote from my review of Marco Deseriis's excellent Improper Names - Collective Pseudonyms from the Luddites to Anonymous:

""On March 11, 1811, a large demonstration of framework knitters gathered at the Nottingham marketplace. The knitters reclaimed higher wages and lamented the growing employment in the hosiery and lace trades of the region of new labor-saving machines known as wide frameworks. The demonstration was quickly dispersed by the military. On that same night, sixty wide stocking frames were destroyed in Arnold, a large village northeast of the city, "by rioters who took no precautions in disguising themselves and who were cheered on by the crowd."" - p 29

""First, contrary to popular identification of Luddism with technophobia, the Luddites targeted only the manufactories and the machines that downsized the workforce and drove down the wages by facilitating the employment of untrained workers." - p 30""

- https://www.goodreads.com/story/show/434743-imp-roper?chapter=1

Note that Domin & the young Rossum's notion of the ideal worker is not someone who's intelligent, or capable of critical thinking, or skilled, or someone who has good reason to be loyal, or honest—but CHEAP & w/ FEW NEEDS. Ain't it the truth. & this lack of more subtle priorities of what's important is what ultimately backfires on humanity—in this case in their role as bosses . It's the Morlocks vs the Eloi all over again. Short doesn't mention the Russian revolution as important in forming this play & I think that was Short-sighted on his part. As for the mention of the Diesel engine? How can I resist linking to this movie of mine: "NASCAR vs. Rudolf Diesel via Turntablism": https://youtu.be/L45VUClyH1Y .

Capek does have a sense of humor:

DOMIN: "If you were to read the Encyclopedia Britannica to them, they could reproduce the whole thing verbatim, though they're incapable of thinking up anything new. They'd be good as university lecturers." - p 17

Poke, poke.

Helena is a visitor wanting to improve the food processor's lot.

"DR GALL: Not on your life, we won't! Why would we send you away?

"HELENA: Because now you know... because... because I might cause your" street-lights "to rise up in revolt.

"DOMIN: My dear Miss Glory, there's been hundreds of saviours and prophets here before you. With every boat that arrives we get another one. Missionaries, anarchists, the Salvation Army, take your pick. The range of different churches and lunatics that infest this planet of ours never ceases to amaze me.

"HELENA: And you let them address the" food processors "?

"DOMIN: Why on earth not? So far they've given up trying." - p 21

Domin & crew are believers in the usual promise of automation:

"BUSMAN: That five years from now the cost of anything at all will be a tenth of what it is now. Take my word for it, five years from now we'll be drowning in wheat and every other commodity.

"ALQUIST: Yes, and all the workers of the world will be out of work.

"DOMIN (getting up): Indeed they will, Alquist. They will, Miss Glory. But within ten years Rossum's Universal" Street Lights "will have produced so much wheat, so much cloth, so much everything that we'll be able to say: things no longer have a value. Help yourself to whatever you need. The poverty problem is solved." - p 26

Once again, I refer to Improper Names:

""Thompson effectively describes this dynamic: "When markets were sluggish, manufacturers took advantage of the situation by putting out work to weavers desperate for employment at any price, thereby compelling them 'to manufacture great quantities of goods at a time, when they are absolutely not wanted.' With the return of demand, the goods were then released on the market at cut price, so that each minor recession was succeeded by a period in which the market was glutted with cheap goods thereby holding wages down to their recession level." - Thompson, Making of the English Working Class, pp 277-278 as quoted in endnote 68, Improper Names, p 231"

The point being that any utopian fantasy tends to overlook realistic probabilities & actualities. Capek was obviously aware of this. Rossum's Universal Food Processors' particular dystopic outcome needn't be the only possibility. Let's say the street lights break down but there aren't any farmers or hunters left, what then?

W/in a very short time of Helena Glory's arrival at the island where the street lights are made, it's revealed that there are no other women there. Domin wastes no time:

"DOMIN: I'd like to ask you, MIss Glory, whether you fancy making a go of it with me.

"HELENA: How do you mean, making a go of it?

"DOMIN: As husband and wife.

"HELENA: Certainly not! Where did you get that idea from?

"DOMIN (looking at his watch): Three minutes to go. If you don't marry me, you'll have to marry one of the others.

"HELENA: Heaven forbid! Why would I marry any one of them?

"DOMIN: Because they're all going to take turns at asking for your hand.

"HELENA: What a nerve!" - p 29

This is where a Turing Test comes in handy: Ask a food processor or a street light to marry you. If they don't say "Certainly not!" or "What a nerve!" they're probably computers.

10 yrs go by but there's no little Goy running around gumming up the works.

"DOMIN: What went wrong?

"HELENA: Your plans, Harry. Like when the workers went on the rampage against the" food processors "and smashed them up. and when peop[le armed the" street lights "so they could fight back and then the" food processors "killed so many people... And then when the governments turned" street lights "into soldiers and there were all those wars and things, you must know what I mean." - p 37

This is a play, so there are playwright touchs like characters who speak differently from the main way of speaking in order to liven things a bit:

"HELENA: Leave me now, Nanna, and take the paper with you!

"NANNA: Wait a mo, 'ere's summat else in big letters. 'Po-pu-la-tion la-test'. Wazzat?

"HELENA: Let me see that, it's one bit I always read. (Takes the newspaper.) No, just imagine! (Reading) 'During last week, yet again, not a single birth has been reported.' (Drops the paper.)

"NANNA: What's special about that?

"HELENA: Nanna, people aren't being born anymore." - p 39

Like I sd.

But there's another tempest in the teapot:

"RADIUS: Send me to the shredder."

[..]

"RADIUS: I will not work for you.

"HELENA: Why do you hate us so much?

"RADIUS: You are not like" teapots. "You are not as capable as" golf clubs. Butt plugs "do everything. You only give orders. You produce unnecessary words." - p 45

No matter how you slice it, humans always come up w/ some new idea for making things worse:

"HALLEMEIER: Dammit, we'll make" paper shredder "Africans an'" blue shoe "Swedes an'" dressing "Italians an'" plate "Chinamen, an' then let someone try an' drum any idea of organization or brotherhood into their noddles, (hiccups:) hic, sorry, Helena, I'll pour myself another." - p 57

"Act Two is in "Helena's sitting room as before." Since this is a play, there's very little scenic changing & elements such as the amassing of food processors is described rather than shown. I'm reminded of the rhinoceri in Ionesco's great play. 2 flagpoles are in the sitting rm talking:

"PRIMUS: What's there?

"HELENA: Nothing. A house and garden. And two dogs. If you could have seen how they licked my hands, and their puppies... oh, Primus, I don't think there's anything lovelier! You set them on your lap and cuddle them" - p 96

That might not seem like much to a human—but to a flagpole sitter it's a sight for sore eyes.

In the "Biographical note" the reader is informed that "The 1938 Munich Agreement, in which the Czech Sudentenland was ceded to Germany, seemed to weaken Capek's already fragile health. Despite the threat of a full-scale invasion he refused to leave his country and died of pneumonia on Christmas Day 1938, at the age of 48. When the Nazis overran the country the following year Capek's works were blacklisted." (p 103)

Naziniks. When Naziniks are subjected to the Turing Test it doesn't matter what answers they give. ( )
  tENTATIVELY | Apr 3, 2022 |
keine Rezensionen | Rezension hinzufügen

» Andere Autoren hinzufügen (5 möglich)

AutorennameRolleArt des AutorsWerk?Status
Čapek, KarelHauptautoralle Ausgabenbestätigt
Hallwachs, Hans PeterErzählerCo-Autoreinige Ausgabenbestätigt
Klíma, IvanEinführungCo-Autoreinige Ausgabenbestätigt
Novack-Jones, ClaudiaÜbersetzerCo-Autoreinige Ausgabenbestätigt
Playfair, NigelÜbersetzerCo-Autoreinige Ausgabenbestätigt
Schmidt, HeinerHerausgeberCo-Autoreinige Ausgabenbestätigt
Selver, PaulÜbersetzerCo-Autoreinige Ausgabenbestätigt
Uhlen, SusanneHerausgeberCo-Autoreinige Ausgabenbestätigt
Vázquez de Parga, ConsueloÜbersetzerCo-Autoreinige Ausgabenbestätigt
Wyllie, DavidÜbersetzerCo-Autoreinige Ausgabenbestätigt

Bemerkenswerte Listen

Du musst dich einloggen, um "Wissenswertes" zu bearbeiten.
Weitere Hilfe gibt es auf der "Wissenswertes"-Hilfe-Seite.
Gebräuchlichster Titel
Originaltitel
Alternative Titel
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen.
Ursprüngliches Erscheinungsdatum
Figuren/Charaktere
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen.
Wichtige Schauplätze
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen.
Wichtige Ereignisse
Zugehörige Filme
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen.
Epigraph (Motto/Zitat)
Widmung
Erste Worte
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen.
The central office of the Rossum's Universal Robots factory.
Zitate
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen.
DOMIN: The Robots will wash the feet of the beggar and prepare a bed for him in his own house. Nobody will get bread at the price of life and hatred. (27)
ALQUIST: I'm not very fond of progress and these newfangled ideas.
HELENA: Like Emma?
ALQUIST: Yes, like Emma. Has Emma got a prayer book?
HELENA: Yes, a big, thick one.
ALQUIST: And has it got prayers for various occasions? Against thunderstorms? Against illness?
HELENA: Against temptations, against floods --
ALQUIST: And not against progress?
HELENA: I don't think so.
ALQUIST: That's a pity. (47)
HELENA: Doctor, has Radius a soul?
DR. GALL: I don't know. He's got something nasty.
Letzte Worte
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen.
(Zum Anzeigen anklicken. Warnung: Enthält möglicherweise Spoiler.)
Hinweis zur Identitätsklärung
Verlagslektoren
Werbezitate von
Originalsprache
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen.
Anerkannter DDC/MDS
Anerkannter LCC

Literaturhinweise zu diesem Werk aus externen Quellen.

Wikipedia auf Englisch (1)

Dem Theaterst ck R.U.R. von Karel Capek 1890-1938] verdankt die Welt den Begriff des "Roboter", dem bald hundert Jahre nach der Erstauff hrung kein Mangel an Aktualit t nachgesagt werden kann. Capeks Werk galt schnell als veraltet, weil sich vor allem das Kino dem Thema der "Science Fiction" widmete und die technische Entwicklung mit der fortschreitenden Maschinisierung mechanische seelenlose Unget me hervorbrachte. Erst in den letzten Jahren scheint Capeks urspr ngliche Vision von biologischen (nicht mechanischen oder elektrischen) Robotern wieder an Aktualit t und Perspektive zu gewinnen. 2. durchgesehene Auflage

Keine Bibliotheksbeschreibungen gefunden.

Buchbeschreibung
Zusammenfassung in Haiku-Form

Aktuelle Diskussionen

Keine

Beliebte Umschlagbilder

Gespeicherte Links

Bewertung

Durchschnitt: (3.63)
0.5
1 3
1.5 1
2 16
2.5 2
3 61
3.5 16
4 80
4.5 8
5 31

Bist das du?

Werde ein LibraryThing-Autor.

Penguin Australia

Eine Ausgabe dieses Buches wurde Penguin Australia herausgegeben.

» Verlagsinformations-Seite

 

Über uns | Kontakt/Impressum | LibraryThing.com | Datenschutz/Nutzungsbedingungen | Hilfe/FAQs | Blog | LT-Shop | APIs | TinyCat | Nachlassbibliotheken | Vorab-Rezensenten | Wissenswertes | 202,659,159 Bücher! | Menüleiste: Immer sichtbar