Back from Two Week Trip to UC-Riverside and the Eaton Science Fiction Collection

February 20, 2012

From February 5 to 18, I researched in the Eaton Science Fiction Fiction and Fantasy Collection the University of California, Riverside‘s Tomas Rivera Library. As I mentioned last year, I was very appreciative to have won an R. D. Mullen Fellowship to fund my travel and accommodations for the research-oriented trip.

Professor Rob Latham administers the fellowship and the science fiction work at UC-Riverside, which includes an annual SF symposium and the biannual Eaton Conference co-hosted with the library’s special collections. He is a gracious host, and I enjoyed our conversations while I was in Riverside.

UC-Riverside is building a strong constellation in science fiction studies. Besides Latham at the helm, the university recently hired the science fiction writer Nalo Hopkinson into the creative writing program. Now, the university is conducting a new hire for a science fiction media studies person (I applied, but alas, I didn’t make the short list). I suspect more the university will continue to grow in this direction–at least, I hope that it does, because it can grow the SF program around the significant holdings of the library.

The Eaton Collection is located on the fourth floor of the Thomas Rivera Library and its hours of operation are from 9:00am to 5:00pm Monday through Friday. I planned my trip so that I would have two full weeks to work in the special collections to conduct research for my dissertation chapter on Philip K. Dick, his 2-3-74 visions, and his health problems. In the event that I found as much material related to Dick’s work as possible, I also planned a contengency set of materials on the following chapter on William Gibson’s work.

I am very happy to report that I achieved both goals and went a bit beyond my original set of documents thanks to cross referenced connections as well as new leads produced by my readings. Additionally, Reference Library Gwido Zlatkes turned me onto the two boxes of Philip K. Dick archival materials, which included some very cool autographed materials along with a full run of the Philip K. Dick Society Newsletter and other rare magazines and fanzines (including the November 6, 1975 Rolling Stone article).

I began my research by reading the full thirty issue run of The Philip K. Dick Society Newsletter, which includes a double issue (#9/10) on cassette tape—one side being an interview conducted by Paul Williams with Dick and the other side Dick recording writing notes. The experience of fast-forwarding Dick’s posthumous canonization yielded more primary sources than I could have hoped for in letters and interviews. Interviews with Dick’s friends and former spouses also provide important corroboration and clarification of Dick’s sometimes-unreliable personal narratives.

References in the Newsletter, combined with other research done before my visit to Riverside, led me to other interviews, notes, and reviews in fanzines including: The Alien Critic (later Science Fiction Review), Algol (later Starship), and The Patchin Review, and magazines including: Locus, Vertex, Science Fiction Eye, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, and Analog.

After exhausting my leads in the collection related to Dick’s later fictions and personal life, I spent the last three days collecting research for the William Gibson chapter of my dissertation. I focused on the Locus reporting of Gibson’s success following the publication of Neuromancer in 1984 and later interviews with the writer in 1991 and 2003. I was pleased to find a fanzine co-edited by Gibson titled Genre Plat, but Gibson’s essay, “Blues for Horselover Fat” in the fanzine Wing Window provides the strongest evidence that I can use to bridge my chapters on Dick and Gibson.

To fill out the time that I was in the library, I also found photographs and reports of past Science Fiction Research Association meetings, including the one hosted at Kent State University in the mid-1980s where Samuel R. Delany was honored with the Pilgrim Award.

My UC-Riverside visit was punctuated with a weekend visit to see Patrick and Sharon Sharp in Los Angeles. They played hosts and guides to my first visit to the strange world of LA–a place that actually felt like another country to me. We visited the Little Tokyo area for lunch and snacks and then strolled through the Museum of Contemporary Art’s (MOCA) Naked Hollywood: Weegee in Los Angeles photography exhibition (Weegee was doing amazing stuff with photography!). We also enjoyed the sunset from the top of the Westin Bonaventure Hotel (a fascinating hotel with interesting designs and spaces, but is it really postmodern? I think that a better case could be made for Riverside’s Mission Inn in that respect). I also got to meet their very friendly cat, Tonks.

I believe that the research trip (and my first trip to California for that matter) was a smashing success! I have many materials that I have notes on and many other materials that I need to review again. I also got to reconnect with friends and colleagues there: Pawel Frelik, Mark Biswas, and William Sun.

You can see my photos from around Riverside and Los Angeles on Flickr here.


The Williamsburg Circle of International Arts and Letters

February 2, 2012

Carter Kaplan, who recently joined the Williamsburg Circle of International Arts and Letters, circulated the group’s first press release, which you can find here or quoted below. I mentioned these new connections previously on dynamicsubspace.net here.

As Carter says on his website, good things should come of the collaboration between the Williamsburg Circle and International Authors. I wholeheartedly agree.

THE WILLIAMSBURG CIRCLE OF INTERNATIONAL ARTS AND LETTERS

For Immediate Release

February 1, 2012

In January 2012 the WAH Center created a new program called the Williamsburg Circle of International Arts and Letters. It is composed of twelve outstanding scholars, publishers, collectors, artists and innovators (see complete member list).

We believe that a strong education in the classical humanities is a fundamental prerequisite for good citizenship in every country in the world today. What is Classical Humanities? It is nothing less than the spiritual, ethical and intellectual foundation for Western culture. Classics is a vibrant, interdisciplinary field that lies at the heart of the liberal arts. It is the lack of a common heritage and common values that gives rise to basic conflicts among peoples. A broad education in the classical humanities can bring about a common understanding and a common set of values.

As many of you know, the WAH Center’s motto is “Peace, Harmony and Unity,” as Yuko Nii, the Founder, has written in the Bridge Concept upon which she founded the institution.

Invitation: We also welcome you to the very first of Our Events on April 14th, 2012 where you can meet our chairman Dr. Robert J. Wickenheiser, 19th President of St. Bonaventure University, and learn more about our goals and projects.

If you would like to contribute to our worthy goals, we would very much appreciate your support at our inception. If you are a scholar or artist and contribute $50 yearly as a supporting member, we will list your name with your discipline and contact information (and web-site, if you have one) on a special supporting member page. Click here for benefits.

We would very much like to get your feedback on our project!

Terrance Lindall and Yuko Nii
Williamsburg Art and Historical Center, Brooklyn, New York

 


Charlatans and Experts in The Wall Street Journal on Climate Change, Thoughts on This by Isaac Asimov and Me

February 1, 2012

The Wall Street Journal recently published two letters regarding global climate change.

The first letter, Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming, argues that the clarion call that human beings play a significant part in the warming of the Earth is a conspiracy fueled by money-grubbing alarmists. It is signed by sixteen engineers and scientists–none of whom are scientists who research Earth’s climate.

The second letter, Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate, challenges the first on three grounds: 1) listen to people who are experts (e.g., do you want your dentist working on your heart), 2) non-experts shouldn’t misquote experts (the first letter takes a quote out of context of the second letter’s primary author to support the first letter writers’ claims), and 3) “Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused.”

I strongly side with Isaac Asimov’s position on this kind of debate–where non-specialists feel self-important enough to pontificate in an expert manner on something that they might know the generalities about but obviously do not know as well as the experts. Asimov writes in his essay, “The Literature of Ideas,” republished in Today and Tomorrow and . . . :

To be sure, when a scientist ventures outside his field and pontificates elsewhere, he is as likely to speak nonsense as anyone else. (309)

I am confident that the signers of the first letter, all sixteen of them, are likely very good at what they do. However, their expertise in their businesses or fields of study do not make them good climate experts. To rephrase Asimov: By going outside their field and pontificating elsewhere, they are as likely to speak nonsense as anyone else.

This is one of the running punch lines of the television show The Big Bang Theory–Dr. Sheldon Cooper is a theoretical physicist and he believes that he knows everything about everything else. Unfortunately for him, this is not the case. His character knows a lot about quantum mechanics and m-theory, but he doesn’t know Radiohead. Sheldon’s attempts at being a know-it-all often backfire and reveal how little he actually knows outside his own specific domains of knowledge.

Similarly, I am earning my PhD in 20th century American literature with specializations in science fiction, new media, and neuroscientific topics. With these fields, I am carving out a very small niche for myself where I am creating new knowledge based on my research in a very small space. When I am done, I will know more about my specific focus of study than anyone else. However, I will not know more about neuroscience than my outside reader, Dr. Eric Mintz. I will be good at talking about neuroscience and integrating neuroscientific findings into my writing, but I will not a neuroscientist and you would certainly not want me working on your brain.

Thus, the experts should be the ones doing the expert work and informing the rest of us about what their findings suggest. The rest of us should consider their findings and discuss how their findings should inform our social and political decisions. Those are things that we all take part in. However, experts in other fields should not muddy the waters of public discourse by acting the part of experts while attempting to undercut the importance of an entire field of study based on hard science by real experts. There is another word that comes to mind about the behavior of the so-concerned sixteen so-called experts in the first letter: charlatans.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers