I have a proposition:
(1) Ninjas are sweet.
(2) Robots are sweet.
(3) Yet a robot ninja would not be sweet.
I say a proposition because I take the first two statements to be generally accepted and without need of justification on my part. It is only the third that I take to be at all controversial—after all, a robot monkey would be sweet.
My primary reason for believing that a robot ninja would not be sweet is that, while it might be impressive from a technical standpoint to create a robot that could perform the feats of the ninja, that which makes the ninja himself worthy of admiration inheres in his being human and, therefore, subject to uncertainty, slipping, etc. The sweetness of the ninja is a reminder of the fact that the condition of man's spirit being found at best is its being flesh-bound, though úncúmberèd through shéer will. When we catch sight of a ninja going about his day-to-day business—say, in his riding of a rolling steady underneath him level grappling hook—our hearts in hiding stir for the dude: the achieve of, the mastery of the ninja dwells in his execution, in his ordinary life, of the extraordinary. Even when he fails, he fails of necessity in a great attempt, which, if not praiseworthy, at least contains poignancy and pathos; when a robo-ninja falls and galls itself, gashing green circuit boards, there's only the grandeur of shook aluminum.
The condition of the robo-ninja is disenchantment.
I would say... robo-monkey: not so cool. Too many moving parts necessary for a prehensile tail. That would require a lot of oil, or a lot of squeaking. Plus, you can buy a monkey for $4000. I'd like to see you get a robomonkey for that cheap. Now robocop? That's cool.
Posted by: tweedledopey | April 07, 2005 at 11:06 AM
Im sorry man, although I think your premice is correct, I think you have failed to understand the sweetness of the ninja. The ninja is "sweet" to us because of what he represents symbolically, that is the supra-human, the almost total abnegation of weakness and error and emotion. A ninja's mind rules his body, he is the warrior monk, the embodiment of his purpose without human limitations of weakness or fear or compassion. In short, an ideal ninja, approaches that of the machine, a man that transcended the human, which is why we are fascinated with the "ninja". To a point the robot does the same, kill without weakeness and emotion, so a robot-ninja is then just a robot with high speed and flexibility, it makes little sense to use the "ninja" qualifier anymore. And so there is nothing impressive about a robot being a ninja, as the robot is already supra human. Which, is the reason why I agree with your origional proposition.
Posted by: George W. | April 07, 2005 at 11:07 AM
What about cyborg ninja? A ninja so dedicated to his craft and art that he sacrifices that which makes him human?
Posted by: Chopper | April 07, 2005 at 01:13 PM
I think that's a vexed case, Chopper. The incredible dedication of the cyborg is surely sweet and to be admired, but I can't help but feel that the cyborg ninja, qua cyborg, is not sweet.
It's certainly a fruitful field of inquiry.
Posted by: ben wolfson | April 07, 2005 at 01:48 PM
And a robot *pirate* monkey is the sweetest of all.
Posted by: bitchphd | April 07, 2005 at 02:32 PM
Nah, that's just gauche.
Posted by: ben wolfson | April 07, 2005 at 02:34 PM
Alright, what about a ninja with just, like, a robot arm? With like a bit that shoots a grappling hook, and maybe has blades that pop out of the knuckles, and possibly, just possibly, a secret compartment where he keeps his cyanide capsules?
I submit that this is a thing of badassitude. And badassitude is surely a subset of sweetness.
Posted by: Chopper | April 07, 2005 at 03:46 PM
I suggest that categories which as a holloween costumes would require you to explain the costume to every adult on the street are not sweet.
thus,
(1) Ninjas are sweet.
(2) Robots are sweet.
(3) Robot ninjas are not sweet.
and,
(4) Superman is sweet.
(5) Batman is sweet.
(6) Green lantern is not sweet.
I learned (6) the hard way.
Posted by: joe o | April 07, 2005 at 05:47 PM
You do not get to diss my aim icon that way. Keep it up, and there will be strong language, ending in tears.
Posted by: bitchphd | April 07, 2005 at 06:00 PM
Sweetness is not derived from popular acceptance. Sweetness is derived from looking the hard cold reality of death right in the eye from behind a mask of black silk. With, possibly, robotic accoutrements.
And maybe a monkey.
Posted by: Chopper | April 07, 2005 at 07:10 PM
And a robot *pirate* monkey is the sweetest of all.
No, robot monkey butler. In a little tuxedo. That's the sweet stuff.
Posted by: apostropher | April 07, 2005 at 07:15 PM
Only if you're lazy.
Posted by: bitchphd | April 07, 2005 at 08:04 PM
I am very, very lazy.
Posted by: apostropher | April 07, 2005 at 08:53 PM
Then your monkey can wait on you until either the monkeys form a union, or the revolution comes, whichever happens first.
Meantime, my monkey and I will be wandering the high seas, plundering.
Posted by: bitchphd | April 07, 2005 at 09:33 PM
What if you only find out that it's a robot at the end of the movie when its beloved betrays it and stabs into the black-clad belly, only to spill some variant of transaxle fluid all over the tatami?
Posted by: dave zacuto | April 07, 2005 at 09:38 PM
p.s. Sweetnesse?
Posted by: dave zacuto | April 07, 2005 at 09:39 PM
Yeah, it's mostly used in poetry. Wolfson, considering how many people he's corrected, couldn't really live down a spelling error in his post title. Unlike some people.
Posted by: washerdreyer | April 07, 2005 at 10:38 PM
Well, it isn't the first time his predilection for obsolescence has gotten the better of him, I suppose.
Posted by: dave zacuto | April 07, 2005 at 11:14 PM
joe o, #4 is empirically false, thus invalidating your premise.
Apostropher, I have to say a robot monkey butler would creep me out. Actually, a robot monkey in any capacity would creep me out. I would forever be on edge waiting for his LED eyes to turn red and for him to fling his poo-grenade at me. No, I want a real monkey butler, and will accept no substitutes.
Posted by: Michael | April 08, 2005 at 12:01 AM
re "sweetnesse": I've started reading The Faerie Queene.
Posted by: ben wolfson | April 08, 2005 at 07:25 AM
I've started reading The Faerie Queene.
Nice euphemism, BW. Much more refined than "I've been hanging out at The Mineshaft."
Posted by: apostropher | April 08, 2005 at 10:13 AM
Mine is a transgressive reading.
Posted by: ben wolfson | April 08, 2005 at 10:40 AM
The Fairie Queene is a good thing to read.
Posted by: dave zacuto | April 08, 2005 at 12:12 PM
"He in great passion all this while did dwell,
More busying his quicke eyes, her face to view,
Then his dull eares, to heare what she did tell"—who among us can't relate to that?
Posted by: ben wolfson | April 08, 2005 at 12:15 PM
Those reading The Fairie Queene in braille, perhaps.
Posted by: apostropher | April 08, 2005 at 12:30 PM
I might as well just stop talking to you, Ben.
Posted by: tammy | April 08, 2005 at 12:46 PM
Michael,
I'd much rather have a robot monkey scat grenade thrown at me than a real monkey turd. I mean, think of the mess that would make. Ergo, no real monkey butler. A real monkey panhandler helper though? I'm in.
B,
A robot monkey pirate? That's kinda what I envisioned the monkey in Pirates of the Carribean as when he was a skeleton. Kinda freaky. I like that.
Posted by: tweedledopey | April 08, 2005 at 12:54 PM
Are you blogging at work?
Posted by: dave zacuto | April 08, 2005 at 01:14 PM
Of course not!
Posted by: ben wolfson | April 08, 2005 at 01:14 PM
Your exclamation point finger twitches when you lie.
Posted by: dave zacuto | April 08, 2005 at 03:08 PM
TweedleD,
My simian butler will be trained to only fling feculence at ill-favored guests.
It will also be a trained bartender.
Posted by: Michael | April 08, 2005 at 10:07 PM
The skeletal pirate monkey in PoC!!! Yes, loved that. Of course.
Posted by: bitchphd | April 09, 2005 at 12:18 PM