Ted Chiang and Science Fiction

So after the first work of the class, how well has everyone's definitions of science fiction held up against the Ted Chiang stories? I know that a lot of them reference technology, which doesn't directly play into "Tower of Babylon" or "Division By Zero." Does this make you reconsider your original definition? Or would you say that some of the stories aren't what you consider to be science fiction? Or have you found another way of making the two match up that makes sense to you?

I said that science fiction made things happen in a universe different from ours with the intention of making us look at humanity differently, but "Division by Zero" doesn't seem to be in a universe all that different from ours, but I think it may take place in a very similar alternate universe where the only difference is that arithmetic doesn't work.

Has anyone else had moments like this?

The question of reducing humans within 'Liking What You See'

I didn't get a chance to mention it in discussion today, but I was wondering what everyone else thought about the existence of calli and the implied future creation of other possible neural blocks to perform similar tasks (blocking out tones within voices and blocking out the recognition of facial expressions).

My viewpoint on the theoretical creation of these blocks is that it would take away what truly makes us human. For example, by blocking out facial expressions there would no longer be any unspoken conversation. By blocking out tones within voices, emotions would be lost as would sarcasm and persuasion.

These agnosias are justified against advertising and political speeches after the discovery of modification during the last speech given against calli, but would have wide uses across the board.

However, by turning off the perception of beauty, the ability to read facial expressions, and the ability to discern the meaning behind varying tones of voice, wouldn't humans descend to the level of reality of robots (I, Robot kind of robots) where there is only formal thought and cognition? Robots within I, Robot are humanized and tried to be taught choices and emotions, as well as body language and tonal differences, in order to be more human.

I just think the implication of possible neural blocks would take less away from humanity than the positive uses of the agnosias.

Did anyone else have a similar (or opposing) thought?

Magic vs the Force

I would define sci-fi as any work of entertainment that deals in the universe as it could be through different technology or physics. This, clearly is too broad a definition - but I guess that's because there are so many distinctly different works of science fiction. If 1984 is Sci-fi and Star Trek is Sci-fi and Hell is the Absence of God is also Sci-fi, it starts to become clear that we're dealing with a big slice of entertainment.

After all, if we're going to count Star Wars, for instance, then a work like Harry Potter can't be excluded - for even if it feels like fantasy and not sci-fi, how is magic any different than the Force? If the force is fair game in the realm of science-fiction, so too must be magic.

When I was a really young kid, my mom explained it to me like this: "Fiction is a work that's not true. Non-fiction is a work that is true. Science fiction is a work that isn't true, but it could be in our universe or another."

That's not a perfect definition either, but it's no worse than any other I've heard.

The Problem with Defining Science Fiction

Since I just transferred into this class also, this post is only based on my interaction with science fiction so far, which is honestly very limited. The first movies and television shows that came to mind immediately when I signed up for this class were movies such as War of the Worlds, Transformers, Inception, and Star Wars. However, when I searched for science fiction movies online, the first five that came up were Alien, Blade Runner, Aliens, The Matrix, and Avatar. Out of these five films, I have only watched one from start to finish. Then I realized that the definition for a genre as broad as this one will undoubtedly be different for everyone based on his or her past experiences and preferences. Still, I started thinking about what kind of themes these films have in common. All of the previous films mentioned attempt to explore unknown aspects of human life in terms and examples that the average person can relate to. I understand that the majority of science fiction deals with time travel and futuristic technology, but I do not think that these are set in stone criteria for the genre. Some of the more recent stories deal with presenting problems with the government and society as a whole, and inform the audience of an impending danger (Hunger Games, The Purge, etc.). I am much more familiar with these kind of films, and the realistic nature they present.

Unlike some of the previous posts, I do not agree that science fiction is a type of fantasy or vise versa. Fantasy presents mystical elements such as magic and creatures that we, as the audience, simply accept, including those in the worlds of Lord of the Rings or Narnia. Fantasy and the whimsical aspects within them are simply part of a larger story, not the story themselves. Science fiction aims to explain why certain things happen or possibly prove that they can happen in the future. I do not think that everything must be described scientifically, but there is definitely more logical based reasoning involved than there is in fantasy. I wish I had been in class the first day to get an introduction to the material, and I understand that my restrained views are much more narrow and one sided than the majority of my classmates. Nonetheless, I am both anxious and excited to become more familiar with the genre as the semester progresses.

Science Fiction

             Having just transferred into this class, I am attempting to define science fiction without the class discussion from last Wednesday and therefore defining it solely on my previous encounters in novels and movies. At first thought, I would define science fiction as a futuristic genre, focused on technology and science from the future, exemplified through the new movie, Elysium. With more thought, however, science fiction does not have to fit into a futurist category.
            Science fiction may be futuristic, but I think a better way of defining it is to say that it explores parallel universes as well as the unknown. After all, if it was not unknown and therefore was a truth it would not be fiction. A few examples of science fiction described in this way would be the movies Avatar, Star Trek, and Aliens. All three of these movies deal with separate universes or creatures that come from a separate universe. What is interesting in all of these films is the interaction between our universe and the universe where these creatures are derived from. Could it be possible that these creatures really exist in a parallel universe and we have just not had the chance to interact with them? I think that is what defines science fiction as a genre. It gives the audience a chance to think about the unknown and the possibility of something occurring right in front of us, not just in the future.

Science Fiction Defined

Science fiction to me can be defined as an exploration of how humanity adapts to technological advancements and the problems that come about because of those advancements. That aptly describes the various movies, books, and comic books I've read or heard of. The Terminator franchise, The Matrix trilogy, I, Robot by Isaac Asimov, 1984 by George Orwell, to name a few, all relate back to my definition. I really love robots and oppressive governments.

I do recognized though that my definition is far from perfect. The X-Men franchise, not to mention most superhero comics, do not fit at all. They live in a universe not too dissimilar from our own with technology perhaps slightly further ahead. They have special powers explained by science and work to define their humanity through various deeds.

Others take the technology in stride and it really does not effect their story other than the fact that they use awesome weapons, such as Star Wars and Star Trek. They are much more interested in the adventure, not the ethical dilemmas that their space pioneering creates.

Science Fiction defined (kinda)

     I was pretty skeptical about this course when I learned that the primary topic was science fiction not fantasy. Traditionally, fantasy has been more intriguing to myself than sci-fi. I grew up reading and loving the Harry Potter series, but still found series like Star Wars appealing.
     According to Google, the definition of science fiction is "fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets."
     This defintion is obviously quite broad and can be further dissected. Science fiction involves some sort of advanced technology. As discussed in class Wednesday, a technology is device or object that everyone can operate and use. My favorite book series, Harry Potter, therefore would not fall under the category of science fiction, considering not all people in Harry Potter can use magic. The technology used in any science fiction story should also not be explained by science, at least not entirely. Shows such as Star Wars contain a few technological advances that are explained by science now, but the broad concept of space travel is still extremely perplexing. Other technological advances such as droids and light sabers are not found in other genres of reading either. A common theme in science fiction is major social or environmental changes; however, I do not believe this is a criteria of a science fiction story. On the contrary, major advances in technology would cause social and environmental changes by themselves. The main criteria for science fiction would be major technological advances that are unexplained by science.
     I also agree a common theme in science fiction is time or space travel, but I do not agree that is a criteria. I guess this may sound a bit contradicting since unexplainable technologies obviously do not exist, but the technologies could be brought to our planet in the modern age. Movies like Independence Day would fall under science fiction considering unexplained technologies are brought to Earth, even though it is set in present day.
     In lamest terms, science fiction is fiction involving scientifically unexplainable technologies, commonly involving space or time travel.

Science Fiction Defined, hopefully

I, too, was nervous upon learning this course would be focusing primarily on science fiction for the semester. I'm not terribly familiar with the genre (for example, I watched the original Star Wars trilogy for the first time about three weeks ago).

Originally, I would have said that science fiction is a story that deals with space or robots. After our discussion last week, I know this is not always the case.  I read an article that suggested it is the "literature of ideas." This is intriguing because it represents a theme I feel is common throughout sci-fi: innovation vs. mankind (though mankind may also be alien-kind or robot-kind in some cases). A lot of stories deal with the after effects of a great innovation, usually technological, and how society or people have changed because of it. Though the technology may not always be the focus, the stories take place in an altered world, where the differences between our society and that of the characters are explained via scientific or rational reasoning. This allows stories of the human condition to be told through a more fantastic lens, often giving greater scope to the conflict while still keeping it grounded in a context the audience can relate to.

I know this definition may still not apply to every work in the genre, as stories can be as varied as people themselves. Hopefully it's a definition I can more deliberately relate as the semester continues. Typically when I think of the science fiction, I think of Firefly, The X-Files, Dollhouse, Fahrenheit 451, Star Trek, Pacific Rim, The War of the Worlds, and The Hunger Games.

Defining Science Fiction/The Problem of Doing So

Defining Science Fiction, or any sub-genre of literature for that matter, can be problematic. For almost any definition generated there are exceptions. In this way defining science fiction is very similar to learning a language as they are more defined by exceptions to the rules than the rules themselves. Simply put, for a definition to work it must be very specific or extremely broad (though even then there will be acceptable exceptions).

This notion of very specific sub-genres of science fiction is what first comes to mind when I think of science fiction as a whole. To clarify, I will see a specific type of science fiction such as Star Trek (I call it talky/ techy sci-fi thanks to a YouTube video) but will instantly think of another work that falls in the science fiction category but differs from Star Trek. Example: I see Star Trek but think of Cowboy Bebop. They share space and … spaceships but what else? Cowboy Bebop falls more under the sub-genre of Space Western (with a noir influence?) but is still Science Fiction. In one (Star Trek) the technology is futuristic and fantastical, it’s shiny and new. Everything in Bebop is old, rundown, and blatantly post-apocalyptic for the episodes that take place on Earth. Another sub-genre, though I have much less experience with it than I’d like, is Cyberpunk. The best example of this is Blade Runner. It is similar in appearance to Space Westerns (at least the ones I’ve seen) but is thematically different. Introducing all these sub-genres and showing their similarities and differences helps me arrive at my definition of Science Fiction.

Science Fiction is an umbrella term for a collection of similar yet vastly different sub-genres of fiction; these sub-genres have more in common with each other thematically and stylistically than other sub-genres of fiction and thus are grouped together. Even though this is my definition I don’t love it. I prefer defining works on a case by case basis while keeping mind of the enormity of all the literature out there.

A Stab at Defining Science Fiction

To me, science fiction is speculative, often with scientific or technological elements. Many of the realities presented in science fiction works are worlds that might be or could have been which differentiates science fiction from fantasy. The fantastic elements such as futuristic weapons or time machines are explained rationally through science and technology—concepts which are familiar to us and which we can observe, which makes science fiction seemingly more plausible than fantasy. For example, the Doctor’s TARDIS is ‘bigger on the inside’ not because of an undetectable extension charm as in Harry Potter, but due to Time Lord technology—the inside is, in fact, another dimension.

Within science fiction itself, there is much variability. Some science fiction works are commentaries on governments and societies: dystopias and utopias—for example, Orwell’s 1984, Huxley’s Brave New World, and Lowry’s The Giver. Others depict intelligent extraterrestrial life (or intelligent life on Earth—mice, who have actually been performing experiments on humans since the world was created—in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy), space travel, galactic empires, and alternate universes. Within science fiction itself, there is much variability.

Although I don’t consider science fiction to be a direct subset of fantasy, they are closely related. Both genres share quite a few similar elements, the glorification of youth, quests to vanquish evil and discover strength within, and fantastic elements that require a suspension of disbelief. What differentiates the two, then, lies in the plausibility of the universes created. It’s more likely that time travel is possible, since we have been travelling forward in time since we were born, than say, that goblins or dwarves or elves exist.

The science fiction of defining science fiction

As soon as I found out this class was science fiction based instead of fantasy based, my immediate thought was "crap, I know absolutely nothing about sci-fi." I realized I haven't read any of the novels that most people consider science fiction when we were discussing it within class, and my classification of science fiction landed in the realm of aliens and space travel. My definition has changed since our first class meeting, and especially since starting the readings. Looking within most science fiction books and movies, there is one prevalent theme of something versus society. For example, superhero storylines are usually considered a form of science fiction, and The Watchmen comics/movie/world illustrates my main point. The characters within the storyline, Rorschach specifically, have to deal with a world, similar to our reality but with an added impossibility (AKA Doctor Manhattan, Ozymandias, and the destruction of the world), and how it changes around them to solve the problem and eventually return to a somewhat normal state.

Other stories (mostly movies) that apply to this include War of the Worlds, basically any comic book based storyline, Jurassic Park, I Robot, Sunshine, Fahrenheit 451, 1982 (in my opinion), Minority Report, Resident Evil, Cabin in the Woods, Alien, etc.

The main difference I discern between the very similar sci-fi and fantasy genres would have to be how science fiction generally employs a use of advanced technology - within the time period for the story - as opposed to supernatural reasons that have no explanation for actions. Science fiction offers the hint of possibility that sometime in the future, technology may become so advanced that problems as seen in science fiction may occur, as opposed to fantasy which have less probability of actually occurring than science fiction. For example, it's more probable to believe that genetic mutation due to a drug would result in zombies than the idea that vampires just exist.

The shortened, non-rambling definition: Protagonists in a pseudo-reality containing technological impossibilities struggle to return to a semi-normal world despite technology glitches.

Science Fiction is just a subset of fantasy

When asked to name science fiction books, tv shows, and movies on our first day of class, my mind went completely blank. "I don't know what he considers sci-fi," I thought. "Isn't he supposed to be telling us?" But then, of course, the standard pop culture icons came to mind: the Doctor, Tony Stark, Darth Vader, Spock, Batman, Superman. Then I asked myself what unified all of these characters, and pretty quickly got stuck.

So I thought about it. I think that science fiction simply takes fantasy scenarios and tropes and attempts to explain away some of the magical aspects of fantasy in terms that are almost plausible (and if they don't seem plausible it's because humanity isn't advanced enough to understand). Let's take Star Fox 64 as an example. If you're not familiar, Star Fox 64 is an N64 game in which Fox McCloud, an anthropomorphic fox who pilots various vehicles around his solar system, attempts to defeat Andross, an evil scientist who sets his robots and henchmen to kill Fox and his team (also anthropomorphic animals). Now Star Fox could just as easily have been developed as Magic Fox and Andross could just as easily have been made an evil wizard. In this respect, I find science fiction to be very closely linked to fantasy. How is Fox a talking fox? We assume that he either evolved that way or was developed in a lab, not magic. How is he flying from planet to planet? Well he's the pilot of an Arwing, a sophisticated aircraft. How is he fighting his enemies? Lasers, not spells.

So it's my belief that science fiction simply takes a story which is almost definitely not plausible in our world and attempts to explain the impossible parts in scientific terms which the consumer is familiar with to make it seem plausible. It doesn't just use magic as a trump card do create a world where there are no rules and characters can essentially do whatever they want. In fantasy if something is impossible, that's ok. It's magic. In science fiction if something is impossible the writer has to at least come up with some sort of explanation using the scientific laws of our world.

That's it for me. Science fiction is fantasy with restrictions.

A Quick and Dirty Definition of Sci-fi

To me, science fiction and fantasy are the modern versions of the ancient myths, where authors use fantastic elements and scenarios to show how the world could, or should work. What separates science fiction from fantasy is that authors insist there is some rational explanation for the existence of these marvels, whether the logic can hold up in reality, or not. For instance, in science fiction, zombies exist due to a mutation or virus (like in Mira Grant's Feed series), but in fantasy, zombies exist due to a necromancer's spell. The evolution of zombies in reality is debatable, but many authors argue that it could happen, even if they aren't exactly certain how this would take place. The same thing happens with time travel, in science fiction this requires the use of machines, like the TARDIS, and a pseudo-scientific jargon is all that's necessary to explain its existence. This definition even applies to superheroes like Spiderman. Superhero stories allow their creators to demonstrate people's capacity to harm, and to help, on a massive scale, and their characters' ability to fight evil often comes from science. Radioactive spider bites probably won't allow you to swing from webs like Spiderman, but the author still tries to justify a development as rational. On the other hand, superheroes (and villains) can also use "magical" artifacts or powers that exist simply because the author says that's how it is, like the character of Mina Harker in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen who is a vampire.

In general, science fiction is a genre that requires the reader to accept a reality (or the possibility of a reality) that often contradicts our own, but seeks to aid the reader by accounting for this as the result of future scientific developments. While it is impossible to use this as a universal explanation (there are always exceptions), and it cannot adequately describe the variety involved in the genre, I believe that it does provide a very basic way to classify a work.

Science Fiction...?

I have always thought stories of science fiction were answers to a question. So, my definition of science fiction:

Taking current technology and/or science, society, and what we know about the human race, asking what if __? and then exploring how society/the individual reacts to the changes in technology and/or science brought on by the “what if ?” scenario in this new ‘world’ that has been created.

Examples: What if we lived in space?

     What if time travel existed?

     What if genes could be altered or are altered naturally?

  What if the human race was on the brink of extinction?

     What if a supercomputer, or aliens, or self aware robots existed?

What if technology went away?

What if some people became highly intelligent beings?

The “What if ?” question opens a plethora of possibilities within the realms science and technology. The main element that would be portrayed within the answer of the question is how a society would change or react to these occurrences. Also, the events that happen in the stories are all explained, to the best of the author’s ability, in some scientific manner.

When I think of Science Fiction I think of stories such as Firefly, X-Men, Fringe, Resident Evil, Halo, War of the Worlds, Terminator, Hunger Games, Back to the Future, Heroes, Quantum Leap, Dead Zone, and Island of Doctor Moreau.

My definition and understanding of Science Fiction may be wrong, but I do have a whole semester to try to grasp the concepts surrounding Science Fiction, so there is hope for me yet. 

- Jocelyn Rozanski

How we divvied up the Chiang collection

According to my notes, the volunteers who will start us talking about the various Ted Chiang stories at our next class meeting (some more voluntarily than others) are:

• Asher Elbein, "Tower of Babylon"
• Evan Alvarez, "Understand"
• Holly Morris, "Division by Zero"
• Emily Liang, "Story of Your Life"
• Trey Reed, "Seventy-Two Letters"
• Michael Vine, "The Evolution of Human Science"
• Ashley Austin, "Hell Is the Absence of God"
• Maddison Britt, "Liking What You See: A Documentary"

Let me know if I err, and keep in mind that you needn't wait until Wednesday's class: You can start the discussion on the blog, too. Please make it a separate post, however, from your definition-of-science-fiction post -- which is due by noon Saturday, remember. Thanks, all.

Science Fiction as Commentary on Humanity

When asked what my definition of science fiction is, my immediate reaction is, "Well, I do find myself in a class being taught by a computer screen showing the face of someone a thousand miles away. Maybe this is science fiction."

But that seemed too easy.

So what I think really defines science fiction is the ability to show humanity and what it really means to be human in a different, unfamiliar context. To unpack that a bit, think about the new Star Trek movies, or really any other kind of space-based story; I've just seen those movies more recently. You watch Star Trek and you have a core cast that's mostly human. A wide variety of humans, keep in mind. You have Kirk, a white American male; Uhura, a black woman; Sulu, who was legitimately created for the purpose of being a of non-descript Asian background; Chekov, who is Russian; the list goes on. The end product is a collection of people who are meant to represent the entirety of humanity, surpassing all notions of nationality or any other divisive factor.

And then there's Spock.

Spock is half-human and half-Vulcan. Vulcans are a race defined by their objectivity and logical thinking, as well as a deliberate attempt to quell all emotions. He serves partly as a foil to the at-times hot-headed Captain Kirk, but really, his job is to show something that humans are not. Humans are enterprising and passionate, unlike a Vulcan.

Even if Spock is a weak example, Star Trek gives numerous more. Klingons are war-like and aggressive; humans aren't like that. The Borg form a hivemind with no sense of individuality; humans aren't like that. Alien races serve the purpose of being a juxtaposition to humanity. By looking at aliens and seeing what humans are not, we can chisel away and determine what they are.

There are plenty of other non-space examples. On a less existential note, The Walking Dead was another example someone mentioned in class. I haven't watched terribly much of it, but from what I have seen, it says a lot about people by taking away routines, comforts, technology, and familiarity, stripping humanity down to its more primal components.

The X-Men pulls a 180 with this by making the main characters decidedly NOT human, but rather being just half a tick to the left of human. The characters are generally relatable and deal with the same or similar issues that we have in our own lives. The viewer has to stop and think about why they aren't human, when they really seem to be so by all of things that we value as humanity.

That's my definition of what science fiction is. I apologize that it's so long. I started typing about Star Trek and looked up to see that half of a page had magically written itself. Also, I really hope this is posted in the right place.

Syllabus, class policies and schedule

UH 300-001

Strange New Worlds: 21^st-Century Science Fiction

Fall 2013

3-5:30 p.m. Wednesdays, 280 Nott Hall

Teacher: Andy Duncan

All students in this class must be enrolled in the Honors College.

Texts:

• Paolo Bacigalupi, The Windup Girl (2009; Night Shade Books, 2010)
• Ted Chiang, Stories of Your Life and Others (2002; Small Beer Press, 2010)
• Ted Chiang, “What’s Expected of Us” (2005; at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7047/full/436150a.html)
• Ted Chiang, The Merchant and the Alchemist’s Gate (Subterranean, 2007; out of print in paper, but available as a Kindle or Kindle-for-PC e-book)
• Ted Chiang, “Exhalation” (2008; at NightShadeBooks.com)
• Ted Chiang, The Lifecycle of Software Objects (Subterranean, 2010; at http://subterraneanpress.com/magazine/fall_2010/fiction_the_lifecycle_of_software_objects_by_ted_chiang)
• Cory Doctorow, Homeland (Tor Teen, 2013; also a free Creative Commons download here: http://craphound.com/homeland/download/)
• Cory Doctorow, Little Brother (2008; Tor Teen, 2010; also a free Creative Commons download here)
• Doctor Who, “The Girl in the Fireplace,” written by Steven Moffat, directed by Euros Lyn (2006; Doctor Who: The Complete Second Series, BBC Video, 2007)
• Doctor Who, “Blink,” written by Steven Moffat, directed by Hettie MacDonald (2007; Doctor Who: The Complete Third Series, BBC Video, 2007)
• Gardner Dozois, ed., The Year’s Best Science Fiction: 30^th Annual Collection (St. Martin’s, 2013)
• Cherie Priest, Boneshaker (Tor, 2009)
• Cherie Priest, Dreadnought (Tor, 2010)
• Handouts, online materials or reserve-room materials as announced.

Course Description: Many of the tropes of science fiction -- computers, space travel, cloning, genetic engineering, cyberspace -- have become commonplaces of daily discourse and daily life. Yet science fiction persists and thrives as a literary genre, a sociological movement, a marketing category, an extrapolative and speculative way of thinking. This interdisciplinary seminar is designed to deepen your understanding of 21st-century science fiction in all its modes. Writing proficiency within this discipline is required for a passing grade in this course.

Course Objectives: By semester’s end, students will be more sophisticated consumers of science fiction wherever they encounter it, from the aisles of Barnes & Noble to the headlines on CNN. They will be better able to speak and write about it with depth and insight and to understand how science fiction engages with the world, and vice versa. No prior obsession with science fiction is required.

A Technology Note:  Your teacher lives in the mountains of western Maryland and interacts with the class in real time via Skype with the exception of one in-person visit per semester.  Student conferences during the rest of the semester are encouraged; they will take place via phone, e-mail, or Facebook, as the student prefers.

Attendance Policy:  Attendance and class participation (in class and online) are required.  After two absences, your final grade will be lowered one letter for each subsequent absence.  After five absences, you will receive an F for this course.  Arriving late or leaving early counts as half an absence.  In case of illness, injury or crisis, let your teacher know as soon as possible.  Don’t just vanish.

Papers:  You will write two non-fiction papers, each at least 2,000 words long, on topics of your choosing that are approved in advance by your teacher.  Papers should specifically illuminate one or more of the texts being discussed in this class, but they may extend their focus beyond those texts as well.  More detailed paper guidelines, including evaluation criteria, will be provided later in the semester.  You will lead a five-to-10-minute class discussion of each topic as you are working on it.  Papers handed in late will be docked one letter grade for each day they’re late.  Papers more than a week late will not be accepted and will receive a zero.  The first paper will be graded and returned, with comments, before midterm.  Format Requirements:  Both your papers will be handed in electronically.  E-mail them as PC-compatible Word attachments.  Papers must be in 12-point Times New Roman, double-spaced, with ragged right margins and page numbers in the upper-right corners.  Papers that don’t fit this format will be returned unread for correction. Writing Requirements: Coherent, logical, and carefully edited prose is required.  Students should demonstrate higher-level critical thinking skills, such as analysis and synthesis. A student who does not write with the skill normally required of an upper division student in the discipline will not be given a passing grade, no matter how well the student performs other course requirements.

Blog:  Each of you will receive (and accept) an invitation to join Blogger and the class blog (http://strangenewworlds2013.blogspot.com/). Here our class discussions will continue beyond Wednesday class meetings.  Participating on the blog – through original posts and replies to others’ posts – is an important part of your semester grade, so get in the habit of visiting daily and contributing frequently.  The minimum class requirement is three posts per week per student, at least one of which must start a new topic or thread, and at least one of which must be a response to a classmate’s post.  More frequent posts are highly encouraged.  Also chiming in from time to time may be invited guests from the world of science fiction publishing (as opposed to the science fiction world, which we all inhabit).

Other Assignments and Expectations:  You will keep up with all the reading and will participate in all class discussions, orally and online.  You will lead at least one class discussion of a text that has been assigned you.

Grade Formula:

• Two 2,000-word papers @ 20% each: 40%
• Two 5-to-10-minute informal presentations on paper topics @ 10% each: 20%
• Blog posts: 30%
• In-class participation: 10%

We will follow the UA guidelines for plus-minus grading.

Disabilities:  In accordance with the federal Americans With Disabilities Act, your teacher, the University Honors Program and the university are committed to providing appropriate support for students with disabilities, including learning disabilities.  Any student who wants to request disability accommodations need only contact UA’s office of disability services at 348-4285 and get the paperwork to me.

Academic Misconduct:  Academic misconduct includes all acts of academic dishonesty and any knowing attempt to help another student commit academic dishonesty.  Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to:  (1) Cheating – using or attempting to use unauthorized materials, information or study aids.  (2) Plagiarism – representing words, data, works or ideas as one’s own when they are not.  (3) Fabrication – presenting as genuine any invented or falsified evidence.  (4) Misrepresentation – falsifying, altering or misstating the contents of academic documents such as schedules, prerequisites and transcripts.  Cases of academic misconduct will be turned over to the University Honors Program for disciplinary action that could be as severe as suspension from the university.

Schedule of class meetings, reading assignments and due dates.  All texts will be discussed on the days listed.  This is a living document, subject to change.  Any changes will be announced in class and via the class blog.

Aug. 21: First class meeting. Getting acquainted.

Aug. 28: Chiang, Part 1: Stories of Your Life and Others. Last day to drop without a W grade.

Sept. 4: Chiang, Part 2: “What’s Expected of Us,” The Merchant and the Alchemist’s Gate, “Exhalation,” The Lifecycle of Software Objects.

Sept. 11: Doctorow, Little Brother.

Sept. 18: Doctorow, Homeland. (Appropriately, as Constitution Day is Sept. 17.)

Sept. 25: Dozois, Part 1: “Weep for Day” (Das), “The Man” (McAuley), “The Stars Do Not Lie” (Lake), “The Memcordist” (Tidhar), “The Girl-Thing Who Went Out for Sushi” (Cadigan), “Holmes Sherlock” (Arnason), “Nightfall on the Peak of Eternal Light” (Lovett and Gleason).

Oct. 2: Dozois, Part 2: “Close Encounters” (Duncan), “The Finite Canvas” (Mandelo), “Steamgothic” (McMullen), “In the House of Aryaman, a Lonely Signal Burns” (Bear), “Macy Minnot’s Last Christmas on Dione” (McAuley), “Twenty Lights to ‘The Land of Snow’” (Bishop).

Oct. 19: Paper-topic discussion.

Oct. 16: Doctor Who, “The Girl in the Fireplace” and “Blink.” First paper due by midnight.

Oct. 23: Dozois, Part 3: “Astrophilia” (Vaughn), “What Did Tessimond Tell You?” (Roberts), “Old Paint” (Lindholm), “Chitai Heiki Koronbin” (Moles), “Katabasis” (Reed), “The Water Thief” (Reynolds), “Nightside on Callisto” (Nagata), “Under the Eaves” (Tidhar), “Sudden, Broken, and Unexpected” (Popkes).

Oct. 30: No class. Last day to withdraw with a W. Fall break starts Oct. 31.

Nov. 6: Dozois, Part 4: “Fireborn” (Wilson), “Ruminations in an Alien Tongue” (Singh), “Tyche and the Ants” (Rajaniemi), “The Wreck of the ‘Charles Dexter Ward’” (Monette and Bear), “Invisible Men” (Barzak), “Ship’s Brother” (de Bodard), “Eater-of-Bone” (Reed).

Nov. 13: Bacigalupi, The Windup Girl.

Nov. 20: Priest: Boneshaker and Dreadnought.

Nov. 27: No class meeting. Happy Thanksgiving.

Dec. 6: Last class meeting. Paper-topic discussion. Course wrap-up.

No final exam.  Second paper due 9:30 p.m., Tuesday, Dec. 10 – at the end of the period when our final would have been held, had this been one of those classes.

About your teacher:  I received my M.F.A. in fiction writing from the University of Alabama in 2000 and was one of the first instructors recruited for the Honors College by founding Dean Bob Halli, who claims not to regret it. My first published science fiction/fantasy story, “Liza and the Crazy Water Man,” hit the shelves my first semester in the M.F.A. program, in the World Fantasy Award-winning anthology Starlight 1, edited by Patrick Nielsen Hayden (Tor, 1996). Since then, my fiction has received two World Fantasy Awards, a Theodore Sturgeon Memorial Award for best science fiction story of the year, and, most recently, a Nebula Award, for my 2012 story “Close Encounters,” which also has been selected for five year’s-best volumes. Upcoming are the novella “Wakulla Springs,” co-written with Ellen Klages, at Tor.com in October 2013, and a third collection, An Agent of Utopia: New and Selected Stories, from Small Beer Press in fall 2014. I am an alumnus of the Clarion West writers’ workshop (1994) and have taught both Clarion (2004, 2013) and Clarion West (2005). I am on the permanent Sturgeon Award jury, and I am an active member of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America and the Horror Writers Association. By day, I am a tenured associate professor in the Department of English at Frostburg State University in Frostburg, Md.