R.U.R.

Everyone knows this is the book where robots were invented (do they? at least, that's the thing people know about it when they know anything). But I don't know that enough people have actually read it. Go ahead, read it. Or read it again. It hits differently during different eras, in moments; not in the conclusion it decides on necessarily but the questions it raises.

"And that's not what your RUR shareholders dream of, either. They dream of dividends. And their dividends are the ruin of mankind."

I cannot prove this was the intent, nor can I rule it out but this little absurdist 1920's sci fi play struck me as equal parts H G Wells and Marx Brothers. (The fact that this was originally conceived as a play is enough to blow my mind.) Famous for coining the term "robot", it has also served as a template for robot themed story arcs up to the present. Not just that robots in one form or another (see AI) will ultimately seek to take over, but also the anthropomorphic application of human traits upon robots (Star Wars, Star Wars, Star Wars, etc.). In fact, spoiler alert, making the robots more human is what dooms mankind. Is our fear of robots just projection--if robots created mankind (and who says they didn't) wouldn't we seek to show more take over? Gets a little wonky and dated in the last third but still deals with important themes-responsibility, dignity and capitalism. The image of one character attempting to buy his freedom from the robots ("for half a billion I'll be safe") only to be killed by a human engineered booby trap--delicious. show less

After enjoying [THE GARDENER'S YEAR], I turned to R.U.R to explore Karel Capek's legendary reputation.

It delivers a frightening tale of the outcome when men create humanoid robots which only want to kill humans
and to learn from the last remaining human how to reproduce from the original R.U.R formula.

As the robots wait to attack those who created them, the humans feel "It's monstrous to be besieged by silence."

Despite this signaling the end of human civilization, the creators still argue about whether they should have done it,
while the author may mystify readers with: "Do you think that the soul first shows itself by a gnashing of teeth?"

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 show more 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. show less

R.U.R. ["Rossum's Universal Robots"] is more social satire than sci-fi / horror adventure tale, using a critique of industrial capitalism as the springboard for examining moral choice and its repercussions. There is a nice overlap in subject matter with Smith's [Theory of Moral Sentiments].

Evidently some critics find fault with Act IV's break with the preceding material, arguing it's vapid or lazy in seeking out some unfounded faith in humanity. I found it a deliberate effort to create a formal structure (return to the beginning) and thereby explore political philosophy.

The resonance with (if not outright influence upon) such works as [Metropolis] and other dystopic sci-fi tales is evident.

NOTES FROM SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL (Harry show more Shefter)
'Robot' is derived from the Czech 'robota' meaning "drudgery, servitude, or forced labor".
Similarly, 'Rossum' translates to "Mr. Brain" or "Mr. Intellectual".
Shefter makes the claim that the overall metaphor in R.U.R. is that robots are really men whom technology has dehumanized, thereby justifying the ending. show less

A play about a factory that makes artificial people. As others have said this is actually the origin of the word robot.
It's really amazing that this was written in 1920. It contains so many modern ideas about the creation of artificial life which are reused today by writers and film makers.
Despite a little sexism which is to be expected from the 1920's, this is an astonishing piece of work and deserves to be remembered as a pivotal piece of science fiction.
I listened to this on LibraVox as i read along, which was great as it wasn't a simple reading but had a full cast.

"Do you think the soul first shows itself by a gnashing of teeth?"

"Nobody can hate men more than men. Turn stones into men and they'd stone us."

Capek's R.U.R. is credited with the invention of the term "robot," but it really shouldn't be; the term as used in the play isn't what we've come to define it as. It derives from the Czech robota, "servitude," and then from the Hebrew golem, "embryo" (I see you there, Michael Chabon), and Capek's robots should be seen as sortof an intermediary hybrid of the robots of Isaac Asimov and the creation of Dr. Frankenstein.

There's another nod to Mary Shelley, too, in Alquist's repeated description of himself as the last man. So the first three acts of R.U.R. represent a fusion of Shelley's two novels show more to create a storyline: Man's invention gets away from him and rises up (Frankenstein), and destroys him (Last Man). It's a great idea, and one that's been ripped off in basically every science fiction movie you've ever seen.

The really weird part doesn't come until Act IV. For more or less the only time ever, Man more or less...succeeds. Dr. Gall has, with Helena's prompting, created a viable post-human. Primus and Robotress Helena are human - maybe better than human! - and the play ends on an optimistic note. Sure, humans are destroyed, but progress moves on. I love this. I often get an unsettled feeling about apocalyptic stories like...I keep thinking of the recent pulp novel Robopocalypse here. It's always assumed that if humans ever invent themselves out of usefulness, that's a bad thing - but as Domain says, he doesn't regret it, "Not even today, the last day of civilization. It was a great adventure." (73) Why not lose? Why shouldn't we be megatherium? That's what Capek seems to suggest in his epilogue, and it's an interesting place to go. show less